^^^^^Smi^f^-^ 
 
 
THE TRUTH DEFENDED, 
 
 OR 
 
 A Reply to Eider D. H. Bays' 
 Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism. 
 
 BY ELDER HEMAN C. SMITH, 
 Church Historian. 
 
 <k^'%>«*M''WS.<^V/<WW*^ 
 
 LAMONI, lOWAt 
 PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION OP THE REOR- 
 GANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 
 OP LATTER DAY SAINTS. 
 1901. 
 
Copyrighted by the BOARD OP PUBLICATION of the Reor- 
 ganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Publish- 
 ers and Proprietors, in the year 1901, in the oflBce of the 
 Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
 BEBALD PUBLISHIKO HOUSBt 
 LAMONI, IOWA. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 *'The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined 
 and Refuted" is the title of a book written by one "Elder 
 Davis H. Bays," and published by the "St. Louis Christian 
 Publishing Company 1897." 
 
 The Publishing Company in a recent catalogue has given 
 this work the following indorsement: 
 
 The subject is given a thorough treatment by one well versed 
 in Mormonism. The author's knowledge of the teachings, doc- 
 trines and dogmas of the Mormon Church was obtained by a 
 close relationship with all the prominent leaders of that faith. 
 It is certainly a book of reference, accurate and reliable. 
 Every important question pertaining to the peculiarities of 
 the Mormons is discussed and answered from a Biblical and 
 philosophical standpoint. The author does not use ridicule or 
 burlesque to supply the place of logic and argument. He 
 meets every question with painstaking arguments, showing 
 great familiarity with the fundamental principles relied on 
 by Mormons to sustain their doctrines. A careful study of 
 this work will convince the reader that the author has com- 
 pletely examined and refuted the Doctrines and Dogmas of 
 Mormonism. 
 
 The indorsement given the book by a respectable pub- 
 lishing house, rather than the book itself, furnishes the 
 ^apology, if one is needed, for the consideration given it in 
 this treatise. 
 
 The anxiety of the publishers to recommend everything 
 opposed to "Mormonism" is apparent, however, for the 
 same page of the catalogue where the above indorsement 
 is found contains the following concerning the work of 
 Elder Clark Braden in the Braden and Kelley debate: 
 
 A thorough expose of the real orgin of the Book of Mormon 
 and Mormonism. 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 It is well known that Mr. Braden's theory of the origin 
 
 of the Book of Mormon is the Spalding Romance, while 
 
 Elder Bays says: 
 
 The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon 
 it — it will let you down. The entire theory connecting Sidney 
 Rigdon and the Spaulding Romance with Joseph Smith in origi- 
 nating the Bool< of Mormon must be abandoned. — Doctrines 
 and Dogmas of Mormonism, p. 25. 
 
 The inconsistency of a publishing house recommending 
 two theories diametrically opposite is too apparent to need 
 comment, and is only cited here to show the prejudice 
 prompting the indorsement. 
 
 Again; the "Christian Church" in indorsing Elder Bays, 
 
 and his theory, has made a humiliating concession that we 
 
 here present in the language of Elder Charles Derry, as 
 
 follows: > 
 
 The elder strikes a deathblow at the long cherished theory 
 of the "Christians" and other opponents of the Book of Mor- 
 mon in showing that Sidney Rigdon had no connection 
 whatever with the Book of Mormon until the latter had been 
 published to the world. 
 
 As Elder Bays in the work under consideration presents 
 himself not only as an advocate but as a witness in the 
 case against "Mormonism," it is proper that the reader 
 should know something of the witness. 
 
 In presenting a brief statement of the career of Elder 
 Bays we disclaim any desire to do him an injury, our only 
 object being to inform the public who it is that testifies. 
 
 Elder Davis H. Bays was born in Colorado county, 
 Texas, March 5, 1839; but later his parents resided in 
 Montgomery county, Texas; where in the year 18-48 they 
 first heard the principles of the gospel as taught by the 
 Latter Day Saints, through Elders John Hawley and Joel 
 Miles, who were then connected with the colony in western 
 Texas under Lyman Wight. They soon removed to the 
 headquarters, and cast their lot with the colony, and were 
 identified with them for some time. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 5 
 
 Subsequently they became dissatisfied and emigrated to 
 Beaver Island, in Lake Michigan, where James J. Strang 
 was located, and were associated with the Strangite move- 
 ment until the death of Strang in 1856. 
 
 Later the Bays family emigrated westward, and on May 
 27, 1861, Davis H. Bays united with the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at Council 
 Bluffs, Iowa, being baptized by Elder Charles Derry. On 
 the 14th of June following h%was ordained an elder at the 
 same place by Elders W. W. Blair and Edmund C. Briggs. 
 After this but little was heard of him for a few years, but 
 subsequently he became quite active as a minister, and did 
 considerable missionary work in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, 
 Missouri, and Texas. On September 14, 1878, he was 
 ordained a seventy by Elder J. R. Lambert and others, 
 at Galland's Grove, Iowa. His ministerial career was not 
 without its trials, and he was on one or more instances 
 silenced or released from appointment subject to inquiry, 
 but so far as we know nothing of a serious character was 
 developed against him on investigation until about 1880. 
 
 At the election of that year he was candidate for 
 assessor in Grove township, Shelby county, Iowa, and 
 took quite an active part in the campaign, during which 
 considerable feeling was engendered between him and some 
 of his brethren in the church who were opposed to him 
 politically, resulting in a heated political quarrel between 
 him and Elder John B. Hunt on election day. Personal 
 reflections were indulged in, in consequence of which Elder 
 Bays preferred charges against Elder Hunt, setting forth 
 that Elder Hunt had without just cause accused Elder 
 Bays of being religiously and politically dishonest, and of 
 accusing Elder Bays of stealing. A court of investigation 
 was summoned, composed of five elders, before whom the 
 case was heard. The court in presenting its findings, after 
 summing up the evidence, said: 
 
6 ' INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Therefore the chargre for declarincr that the defendant J. B.. 
 Hunt believed plaintiff (D. H. Bays) to be religiously dishonest 
 without just ground is not sustained. 
 
 That of political dishonesty cannot be proven or disproven by 
 any evidence before us. 
 
 As to the charge of stealing we cannot say more or less than 
 has been said, that in the attempt of the defendant to rebut the 
 charge developments were made that we consider hurtful to 
 the reputation of the plaintifl" (D. H. Bays). 
 
 Three of the court signed these findings, the other two 
 dissenting. The findings were dated March 27, 1881. 
 
 Elder Bays appealed this case to the district conference. 
 The conference appointed a court consisting of three elders, 
 who on July 24, 1881, presented their findings, confirming 
 the decision of the lower court in the first and second 
 counts, but declaring that 
 
 The evidence does not show that the plaintiff (D. H. Bays)' 
 did or would steal property. 
 
 Therefore deciding the charge against Hunt sustained so 
 far as it related to accusing Bays of stealing. 
 
 About the same time of instituting proceedings in the 
 courts of the church. Elder Bays instituted proceedings 
 against Elder Hunt in the Shelby County Circuit Court, 
 for slander, claiming damages in the sum of ten thousand 
 dollars. This case was filed March 22, 1881, and after 
 some delays was decided in favor of defendant. Elder Bays 
 failing to secure judgment. He then appealed to the 
 Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, and the Supreme 
 Court at its September term for 1882 confirmed the 
 decision of the lower court. 
 
 This ended litigation. Anyone curious to know more of 
 this case and of the evidence produced therein is referred 
 to the Supreme Court Documents in the case of Bays vs. 
 Hunt. 
 
 After this Elder Bays resumed his ministerial labors, 
 but his efforts were feeble, and he failed to regain the 
 prestige that he had before enjoyed. The next ten years 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 7 
 
 he attracted but little attention, making one or two short 
 missionary trips, but not continuing in the work long at a 
 time. In 1892 he presented his resignation as a minister 
 to the General Conference which convened at Independ- 
 ence, Missouri, April 6. 
 
 The following are extracts from said resignation which 
 will disclose the condition of Elder Bays' mind at the time: 
 
 Kalamazoo, Mich., April 1, 1892. 
 To the President and Brethren in Conference Assembled: 
 Dear Brethren. 
 
 As circumstances over which I have no control seemingly 
 preclude the possibility of my being present at the coming 
 annual session of the General Conference, I take this method of 
 reporting to your honorable body, the condition in which I find 
 myself both respecting my faith and the performance of minis- 
 terial duties. 
 
 For several years I have found myself doubting matters and 
 things which my colaborers and the church at large expect 
 me to indorse. 
 
 When these difficulties first began to appear, I sought, 
 through a more thorough examination of, and comparison 
 between, the standard works of the church to remove them. 
 But instead of accomplishing the task imposed, I found the 
 situation to become more grave and complicated. 
 
 I have sought light upon the vexed questions from every 
 available source, but without avail. It was with feelings of 
 profound regret that I discovered myself gradually, but cer- 
 tainly, drifting away from the church and people-with whom I 
 had spent the best days of my young, as well as my mature, 
 manhood. And I pursue this course today, not from choice, 
 not because it affords me pleasure to do so, but, rather, out of a, 
 deep sense of duty, not only to myself, but to you and to the 
 church whose servants and ministers you are. 
 
 As I find myself so out of harmonj^ with the body that I can- 
 not indorse without mental reservation its fundamental doc- 
 trines and tenets, there remains but one course for me 
 honorably to pursue, and that is to resign my ministerial office. 
 In view of these facts, I hereby tender my resignation as a min- 
 ister, in the First Quorum of Seventy, of the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 
 Without a doubt you will expect me to give my reasons for 
 this rather unusual course. 
 
 My reasons are briefly as follows: 
 
 1. lilt Book of Doctrine and Covenants. 
 
 After years of careful investigation of the facts, as well as the 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 circumstances under which the book was written, I have 
 arrived at the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing to be 
 offered in support of its claim to divine inspiration. As a min- 
 ister of the church I would be expected to defend its claim to 
 be divinely inspired, and acknowledge its authority, neither of 
 which can I do with a clear conscience. To act honestly both 
 with myself and the church, I feel it my duty to resign. 
 
 2. The Book of Mormon. 
 
 As to the ethical status of this book, I think no unfavorable 
 comment can reasonably be made. Its moral precepts are 
 unquestionably good. They are all that its friends claim for it, 
 and, indeed, superior in some respects to those of the Bible. 
 
 But the mere fact that its moral precepts may be regarded as 
 faultless, cannot serve to prove it to be of divine origin. 
 
 The principal point of strength in favor of the Book of Mor- 
 mon is to be found in the fact of the profound mystery sur- 
 rounding its origin. I^o living man knows anything whatever of 
 the facts of its true origin. To say the least, its inspiration and 
 authojnty are extremely doubtful. 
 
 3. The Bible. 
 
 Ministers of the gospel are expected to believe and teach the 
 inspiration of the Bible. During the later years of my ministry 
 I made this a question of special inquiry, and, quite contrary 
 to the generally received opinion, I found nothing to sustain 
 the belief that the Old and New Testaments, or any particular 
 book in either, were written by divine inspiration. Hence I 
 have been led to reject the dogma of "The Divine Inspiration 
 of the Bible." as wholly untenable. 
 
 4. Not only do I find that the writers of the several books of 
 the Bible, whoever they may be, do not claim to have written 
 the books attributed to them by inspiration, but I find a 
 marked, and irreconcilable disagreement between them, on 
 questions of vital importance; thereby destroying the last 
 vestige of any ground upon which to base an argument in 
 support of the dogma of Plenary Inspiration. 
 
 The remaining part of the letter consists of argument in 
 support of the foregoing and of objections to the Inspired 
 Translation of the Bible. 
 
 We have given the foregoing items of history not to 
 prejudice the case against Elder Bays, but as he assumes 
 to be a witness against "Mormonism" to place his conclu- 
 sion, and the causes leading up to the conclusion, before 
 the reader that he may form his own estimate regarding 
 the testimony of this willing and self-appointed witness. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 9 
 
 Since severing his affiliation with the Saints he united 
 with the Baptist Church with which he remained but a 
 short time, and then transferred his allegiance to the* 
 * 'Christian Church" with which he now stands identified. 
 
 In preparing this treatise I have been placed under 
 obligations to Elder Charles Derry, who kindly extended 
 valuable aid by placing at my disposal his manuscript 
 written on the subject. Others have given suggestions 
 and furnished documentary material which have been of 
 great benefit, among whom are Brn. Joseph Smith, J. R. 
 Lambert, J. W. Wight, I. N. White, M. H. Forscutt, 
 T. W. Williams, C. E. Butterworth, D. F. Lambert, 
 R. Etzenhouser, J. C. Clapp, F. M. Sheehy, H. O. 
 Smith, R. S. Salyards, and John Pett. 
 
 With a prayer that this little volume may lead to a 
 closer investigation of the subjects treated upon, I sub- 
 mit it to the judgment of a discerning public. 
 
 The Author. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Misquotations— Historical Mistakes — Oliver Cowdery — Book of 
 Mormon — Lineage; liow Determined — Missions of Bays — 
 Miraculous Power — Strang's Organization — Endowment — J. 
 W. Briggs — Charles Derry — Martin Harris — Three Witnesses 
 ^Facsimile of Characters — Bays Misrepresents — Laying on 
 of Hands — Bays Wrong on his own History — Wrong on Hig- 
 bees — Moral Status of Bays. . . 13 
 
 CHAPTER 2. 
 
 ays' Claim to Superior Advantage— Condemns Spalding Story 
 — Foundation — Sam — Spiritual Gifts— Cases of Healing — The 
 Commission— Joseph Smith Healed— Medicine— Questions. 38 
 
 CHAPTER 3. 
 
 Corruption— Church Organization— Patriarch — Office of Apos- 
 tle — Bays Differs from Peter — Apostle an Ambassador — ■ 
 Apostolic Qualifications— Rule of Succession — First Presi- 
 dency—Patriarch—The Church 58 
 
 CHAPTER 4. 
 
 Apostles— Foundation of the Church— The Teeter Board— Call- 
 ing of Ministers— Ordination— Priesthood— Choosing Apostles 
 —Jesus in Solemn Assembly 79 
 
 CHAPTER 5. 
 
 Book of Mormon —Revelation — Present Conditions — Land 
 Shadowing With Wings — Languages of Plates — Isaiah 
 Twenty-Ninth Chapter— Palestine Past and Present. . 98 
 
 CHAPTER 6. 
 
 Book of Mormon— Harris' Visit to New York— Anthon Wrong 
 —Bays Writes to Linguists— Angell's Letter— Davis' Letter— 
 Moldenke's Letter— Anthon's Letter— Testimony Compared 
 — Archeology — Moldenke's Embarrassment — Records — 
 Materials Written on — Anthon's Theory — Testimony of 
 
 Witnesses 115 
 
 li 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 7. 
 
 Doctrine — Faith — Repentance — Baptism — Laying on of 
 Hands— Resurrection and Eternal Judgment. . . 143 
 
 CHAPTER 8. 
 
 Polj'gamy — Conflicting Statements — General Assembly — 
 Conference Resolution — Bays' Summary — Marriage — Ben- 
 nett's Testimony — Certificates — Bennett's Perfidy— Nauvoo 
 Expositor — Hiram Brown — Richard Hewitt— Statement of 
 Emily D. P. Young— Of Lovina Walker— Of Emma Smith — 
 Of Southard— Of Mrs. Thompson — Of Joseph Smith— Of Mr. 
 Soby— Of Mr. Fullmer— Of Mr. Grover— Of Brigham Young— 
 Of Mrs. Bidamon— Of William Marks— Factions on Polygamy 
 — Statement of Robinsons 152 
 
 CHAPTER 9. 
 
 The Gathering— Zion's Camp, Purpose of— Committees Negoti- 
 ate—Statement of Joseph Smith— Of Lyman Wight— Of H. 
 C. Kimball— Of P. P. Pratt— Garbling— Statement of Gillium 
 —Propositions of Mormons — More Garbling — Mistakes 
 Possible 192 
 
 CHAPTER 10. 
 
 Prophecy on Rebellion — Bays' Conclusions — Conclusions 
 Examined— Letter to N. E. Seaton— Affidavit of N. D. Earl- 
 Statement of John Hyde — Letter to Calhoun— Nation's Woe 
 — Saints' Loyalty — Missouri's Disgrace — Quincy Argus — 
 Democratic Association — Westej^n Messenger — General Ewing's 
 Order— Cause of "Injured Innocence"— Petition to President 
 Hayes— Patriot— Revelation of 1832— Evidence of Fulfillment 
 — Conclusion 203 
 
Reply To D. H. Bays, 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Misquotations— Historical Mistakes— Oliver Cowdery— Book of 
 Mormon — Lineage; how Determined— Missions of Bays — 
 Miraculous Power— Strang's Organization— Endowment— J. 
 W. Briggs — Charles Derry — Martin Harris— Three Witnesses 
 — Facsimile of Characters— Bays Misrepresents — Laying on 
 of Hands— Bays Wrong on his own History — Wrong on Hig- 
 bees— Moral Status of Bays. 
 
 In the examination of the ''Doctrines and Dogmas of 
 Mormonism" we shall not invite attention to all the errors 
 in the book, for this would require more time and space 
 than the subject demands. Some of them will answer our 
 purpose in showing the utter unreliability of the work. 
 The writer has been surprised at some of these, as he had 
 reason to believe that Elder Bays knew better than to 
 make some statements that he has made. However, we 
 must meet the statements of Elder Bays just as we find 
 them, though we might wish for his sake that he had con- 
 fined himself to the truth. One of the most painful 
 features, as will appear as we proceed, is his garbling of 
 quotations, while his assumed fairness leads him to claim 
 to state the position of the Saints in their own language. 
 We are met with one instance of this right in the outset of 
 our task. On page 19 Elder Bays quotes from Joseph 
 Smith as follows: 
 
 I was answered that I should join none of them, for they were 
 all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all 
 their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and that the 
 professors were all corrupt. 
 
 The correct reading of the passage is as follows: 
 I was answered that I should join none of them, for they 
 were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that 
 all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those 
 professors were all corrupt. 
 
 13 
 
U REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 It will be seen that Elder Bays has inserted the word 
 und and substituted the word the for those. This separated 
 from the context might seem to be a slight error, but 
 when we consider the context we learn that Joseph went 
 there to inquire regarding the teaching of certain men in 
 his neighborhood, of whom he says: 
 
 A scene of bad feeling: ensued; priest agrainst priest; convert 
 against convert; so that all of the good feeling entertained, one 
 for another, was entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest 
 of opinions. 
 
 The word those in the original evidently referred to those 
 parties under consideration regarding whom the inquiry 
 was made, but Elder Bays has made the passage to read 
 so as to include all professors. 
 
 And that this was his design is evident from his com- 
 ment following this garbled quotation. He says: 
 
 This shows the light in which the founder of Mormonism 
 viewed all other churches and creeds. The churches were all 
 wrong, their creeds an abomination, and their teachers and 
 professors all corrupt. 
 
 This is repeated on pages 33 and 76. Men may by mis- 
 take misquote, but when they base a conclusion upon their 
 interpolations it is impossible to excuse them from a 
 design to misrepresent. 
 
 We here place in parallel columns quotations from Bays' 
 book with original passages, italicizing words that are 
 different. We do not exhaust this list, for this would 
 require too much space, as his quotations are in a majority 
 of instances garbled. We do not say that this was always 
 done through design; but whether done willfully or care- 
 lessly, the book is unreliable as a book of reference. The 
 following specimens will illustrate the correctness of our 
 statement: 
 
 "After having made diligent After having made diligent 
 
 search among all the societies search among all of the so- 
 and organizations extant, with cieties and organizations ex- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 15 
 
 your guide [the Bible] in 
 hand, where do you find 
 amidst them all, my friend 
 and reader, an institution in 
 exact accord with the pat- 
 tern of Christ's Church? Ah, 
 echo answers, Where? 
 
 Yet one established accord- 
 ing to this plan is all that 
 God has ever deigned to ac- 
 knowledge as his. What will 
 you do? Throw away your 
 guide, and join the daughters 
 of the old mother, or some in- 
 stitution of men?" — Doctrines 
 and Dogmas of Mormonism, 
 p. 32. 
 
 •'(1) Faith in God. (2) Faith 
 in Jesus Christ. (B) In the 
 Holy Ghost. (4) Belief in the 
 doctrine of repentance. (5) In 
 baptism. (G) In the laying on 
 of hands. (7) In the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. (8) Eternal 
 judgment. (9) The Lord's 
 Supper. (10) The washing of 
 feet. These, together with 
 .. . . the endowment of the 
 Holy Ghost as realized and 
 enjoyed in the testimony oj 
 Jesus, — such as faith, wisdom, 
 knowledge, dreams, prophe- 
 cies, tongues, interpretation of 
 tongues, visions, healings," etc. 
 — Doctrines and Dogmas, pp. 
 33, 34. 
 
 ** 'One day, when I arose 
 from the table, I walked di- 
 rectly to the door and began 
 vomiting most profusely. I 
 raised large quantities of blood 
 and poisonous matter, and so 
 great were the contortions of 
 my muscular system, that my 
 jaw was dislocated in a few 
 
 tant, with your guide in your 
 hand, where do you find 
 amidst them all, my friend 
 and reader, an institution in 
 exact accord with the pattern 
 given of Christ's church? Ah, 
 echo answers, — where? Yet 
 one established according to 
 this plan is all that God has 
 ever deigned to acknowledge 
 as his. What will you do? 
 Throw away your guide, and 
 join a daughter of the old 
 mother, or some institution of 
 men ? —Presidency and Priest- 
 hood, pp. 188, 189. 
 
 (1.) Faith in God. (2.) Faith 
 in Jesus Christ. (3.) In the 
 Holy Ghost. (4.) Belief in the 
 doctrine of repentance. (5.) 
 In baptism. (0.) In the laying 
 on of hands. (7) In the res- 
 urrection of the dead; and 
 (8.) Eternal judgment. (9.) 
 The Lord's supper. (10.) The 
 washing of feet. These, to- 
 gether with an humble and 
 godly icalk. including all the ex- 
 cellences set out in the moral code, 
 with the endowment of the 
 Holy Ghost as realized and 
 enjoyed in the testimony of 
 Jesus, — such as faith, wisdom, 
 knowledge, dreams, prophe- 
 cies, tongues, interpretatio7is, 
 visions, healings, etc. — Presi- 
 dency and Priesthood, pp. 83, 
 84. 
 
 One day, when I arose from 
 the dinner table, I walked 
 directly to the door and 
 commenced vomiting most 
 profusely. I raised large 
 quantities of blood and poison- 
 ous matter, and so great were 
 the contortions of my muscu- 
 lar system, that my jaw was 
 
16 
 
 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 moments. This I succeeded 
 in replacincf with my own 
 hands, and I then made my 
 way to Brother Whitney (who 
 was on his bed) as speedily as 
 possible. He laid his hands 
 on me, and administered to me 
 in the name of the Lord, and 
 I was healed in an instant, al- 
 though the effect of the poison 
 had been so powerful as to 
 cause much of the hair to 
 become loosened from my 
 head.' " (Tullidge's History, 
 pages 141, 142.) — Doctrines 
 and Dogmas, p. 63. 
 
 "In the New Testament 
 there is a history given of the 
 foundation of the Church of 
 Christ in the times of the apos- 
 tles. It sets forth the class of 
 officers belonging thereto, and 
 defines their duties." (Presi- 
 dency and Priesthood, page 
 49). — Doctrines and Dogmas, 
 p. 77. 
 
 "In the light of the above 
 facts, can any organization, 
 however proud and haughty 
 in its claims or large its mem- 
 bers, not having these God-sent 
 and heaven-inspiredofficers. be 
 theChurch of Christ?" (Ibid, 
 page 45). — Doctrines and Dog- 
 mas, p. 78. 
 
 "It is not expedient in me 
 that the Quorum of the Presi- 
 dency and the Quorum of the 
 Twelve Apostlesshall be filled, 
 for reasons which will be seen 
 and known unto you in due 
 time." — Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants, sec. 122, par. 4, page 
 353. 
 
 When it is noted that Elder Bays in connection with the 
 last quotation is striving to show that the Reorganized 
 
 dislocated in a few moments. 
 This I succeeded in replacing 
 with my own hands, and I 
 then made my way to brother 
 Whitney (who was on his bed), 
 as speedily as possible. He 
 laid his hands on me, and ad- 
 ministered in the name of the 
 Lord, and I was healed in an 
 instant, although the effect of 
 the poison had been so power- 
 ful as to cause much of the 
 hair to become loosened from 
 my head.— Tullidge's History, 
 pp. 141, 142. 
 
 In the New Testament there 
 is a history given of i\\e forma- 
 tion of the church of Christ, 
 etc. — Presidency and Priest- 
 hood, p. 49. 
 
 In the light of the above 
 facts, can any organization, 
 however proud and haughty 
 in its claims, or large its mini' 
 hers, etc. — Presidency and 
 Priesthood, p. 45. 
 
 It is not yet expedient in me, 
 etc. — Doctrine and Covenants, 
 sec. 122, par. 4. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 17 
 
 Church has practically abandoned the form of organization 
 formerly adopted, the leaving out of the word yet raises a 
 suspicion of design to misrepresent. 
 
 •'Now therefore are ye no 
 more foreigners and strangers, 
 but fellow-citizens with the 
 saints, and are built upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and 
 propiiets, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner-stone." 
 — Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 
 124. 
 
 "Some have supposed that 
 they received two ordinations; 
 one under the hands of Peter, 
 James and John, and one by 
 each other; but . . . there is 
 no historical evidence of such 
 an event." (Ibid, page 64).— 
 Doctrines and Dogmas, p. 134. 
 
 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 Ciirist himself 
 being the chief corner stone. 
 — Eph. 2:19, 20. 
 
 Some have supposed that 
 they received two ordinations; 
 one under the hands of Peter, 
 James, and John, and one by 
 each other; but it is scarcely 
 supposahle that they icouldfail to 
 mention so important an item. 
 There is no historical evi- 
 dence of such an event.— 
 Church History, vol. 1, p. G4. 
 
 Though Elder Bays here indicates the ellipsis, he uses 
 the conjunction hut to connect what in the original is a 
 separate sentence, thus making it to appear in different 
 connection from that in which it appears in the original. 
 This abuse of the ellipsis is quite frequent in "Doctrines 
 and Dogmas of Mormonism," and we here caution the 
 reader that where he finds the ellipsis indicated in said 
 work it would be well to look up the original before using 
 the quotation, or he may find hiaiself in an embarrassing 
 position. As instances we cite the reader to pages 33, 272, 
 273, 394, 398, 399, 401, 402, 411. Again, you will find 
 places frequently where an actual ellipsis occurs that is 
 not indicated. See pages 155, 319, 402. 
 
 Resuming quotations, we record the following: 
 
 "God has committed the The admission that God has 
 
 priesthood as a means of at any time committed the 
 authorizing men to minister." priesthood as a means of 
 
18 
 
 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 (Page 3.)— Doctrines and Dog- 
 mas, p. 145. 
 
 "The Gospel is administered 
 by the authority of the Mel- 
 chizedek priesthood. "(Pafre 5.) 
 
 But Mr. Kelley does not in- 
 form us where he finds au- 
 thority for this remarkable 
 statement." — Doctrines and 
 Dogmas, p. 146. 
 
 "Behold, there shall be a 
 record kept among you, and 
 in it thou shalt be called a 
 seer, a translator, a prophet, 
 an apostle of Jesus Christ, an 
 elder of the church through 
 the will of God the Father, 
 and the grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Wherefore, 
 meaning the church, thou 
 shalt give heed to all his icords, 
 and comman-dments, which 
 he shall give unto you, as he 
 receiveth them, walking in 
 all holiness before me; for his 
 icord ye shall receive, as if from 
 mine own mouth, in all patience 
 andjaith.'' (Doc. and Cov.. sec. 
 10, par. 1. '^ pasre 10:.'. > Doc- 
 trines and Dogmas, pp. 319, 
 3:^0. 
 
 authorizing men to adminis- 
 ter before him acceptably, 
 must be taken as positive 
 evidence of its necessity. — 
 Presidency and Priesthood, 
 p. 3. 
 
 ''l' he royal law.'" the ''perfect 
 laic of liberty,'' the gospel, is 
 administered by the authority 
 of the Melchisedec priesthood. 
 — Presidency and Priesthood, 
 p. 5. 
 
 Behold, there shall be a 
 record kept among you, and 
 in it thou shalt be called a 
 seer, a translator, a prophet, 
 an apostle of Jesus Christ, an 
 elder of the church through 
 the will of God the Father, 
 and the grace of your Lord 
 Jesus Christ; being inspired of 
 the Holy Ghost to lay the founda- 
 tion thereof, and to build it up 
 unto the most holy faith; tohich 
 church teas organized and estab- 
 lished, in the year of your Lord 
 eighteen hundred, and thirty, in 
 the fourth month, and on the 
 sixth day of the month, ichich is 
 called April. 
 
 Wherefore, meaning the 
 church, thou shalt give heed 
 unto all his words, and com- 
 mandments, w^hich he shall 
 give unto you, as he receiveth 
 them, walking in all holiness 
 before me; for his word ye 
 shall receive, as if from mine 
 own mouth, in all patience 
 and faith. — Doctrine and 
 Covenants 19: 1, 2. 
 
 These instances will serve as examples of the kind of 
 work Elder Bays has done in the book in which he claims 
 *'the writer has endeavored to fairly state each proposition 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 19 
 
 discussed, and treat them with that degree of candor due 
 to the sincerity of thousands who honestly believe them 
 divine." Nor are the above instances exceptions to the 
 general rule. Elder Bays has either through design or 
 intent garbled a majority of the quotations made, and the 
 above are given to direct the reader's attention to the 
 matter that he may examine for himself. 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 When we consider the opportunities of Elder Bays to 
 know, the following mistakes in history are not easily 
 excused. 
 
 On page 25 Bays says: 
 
 All Mormon history and biography agree in connecting 
 Oliver Cowdery, a man the equal of Sidney Rigdon in point 
 of scholastic attainments and personal polish, directly with 
 Joseph Smith in every stage of the development of Mormonism. 
 
 Now "Mormon history and biography "agree" to no such 
 thing. The history is as follows: 
 
 It was early in the spring of 1820 that Joseph Smith saw 
 his first vision that led to the final movement to organize 
 the church. 
 
 In September,' 1823, he saw the second vision, when he 
 was informed of the existence of the plates and promised 
 the possession of the same on condition of faithfulness. 
 
 The plates were obtained according to promise, on Sep- 
 tember 22, 1827, and sometime in the month of February 
 following Martin Harris started with copies of the charac- 
 ters to New York, where he showed them to Dr. Mitchill 
 and Prof. Anthon. 
 
 April 12, 1828, Joseph Smith began the translation of 
 the plates with Martin Harris as scribe. 
 
 A year later (April, 1829) Joseph Smith and Oliver Cow- 
 dery met for the first time; and to this "all Mormon his- 
 tory and biography agree." 
 
 Not for nine years after its inception did Cowdery know 
 
20 ' REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 anything about this work, and during these nine years 
 Joseph Smith received his visions and revelations directing 
 him to do the work he afterwards did do, received the 
 plates, sent copies of the characters to linguists, and 
 began the translation, and yet Elder Bays says that all 
 Mormon history and biography agree in connecting Cow- 
 dery with Joseph Smith in every stage of the development 
 of Mormonism. It might be added that Cowdery was not 
 directly connected with Joseph Smith after 1838, though 
 Joseph Smith lived six years longer. If Bays does not 
 know these facts he has not improved upon his opportuni- 
 ties to know, and is not a competent historian. 
 
 In speaking of the Book of Mormon Elder Bays says: 
 
 It describes the, wanderings of the little "band througli the 
 wilderness on foot till they reached the borders of theiLled Sea, 
 and their sojourn upon the banks of a large stream, which 
 flows into the Red Sea. From this point they traveled in a 
 south-southeasterl'V direction, till finally they came to the sea 
 called "Ireanlum." — Page 27. 
 
 He thus represents the Book of Mormon as saying that 
 the course of the colony was not changed until it reached 
 the sea of Irreantum. 
 
 On page 42 of the Book of Mormon (I use the Palmyra 
 edition, as that is the one used by Bays) we find the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in 
 the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward, from that 
 time forth. 
 
 It may be that Bays overlooked this, and we do not refer 
 to it as an evidence of dishonesty, but it becomes neces- 
 sary to refer to some things of this nature because Bays 
 claims to be, and is recognized by many to be, thoroughly 
 acquainted with the subject he writes upon. We only 
 wish that it were possible to admit, what we admit in this 
 case, regarding all his blunders, namely, that through 
 ignorance he did it. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 21 
 
 Again, Bays says: 
 
 But you may ask, How is it possible at this late day to deter- 
 mine this dirticult question of Aaronic lineage? 
 
 To ordinary mortals this would, I confess, prove an insur- 
 mountable barrier; but Joseph was a man of resources, and this 
 matter of lineal descent was a trifling affair. You must bear in 
 mind the fact that Joseph was in possession of that magical 
 ^'Urir/i and 27iumniim," by means of which he had access to the 
 fountains of all knowledge. Appealing to this, the question 
 was soon settled. A Patriarch must be appointed whose duty 
 and privilege it shall be to determine the lineage, not only of 
 the man whose privilege it is to "hold the kej^s of this priest- 
 hood," but of any and every man who may be curious to know 
 from just which of the twelve patriarchs of old he might be 
 descended. — Page 30. 
 
 The law of the church places this duty upon the First 
 Presidency and not upon the Patriarch, as the following 
 will show: 
 
 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this 
 priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn 
 of Aaron; but as a high priest of the Melchisedec priesthood 
 has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate 
 in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can 
 be found; provided, he is called and set apart, and ordained 
 unto this power under the hands of the first presidency of the 
 Melchisedec priesthood. And a literal descendant of Aaron, 
 also, must be designated by this presidency, and found worthy, 
 €tc.— Doctrine and Covenants 68:2. 
 
 Nor is this the only mistake in the above passage. 
 There never has been a claim made by the church or by 
 Joseph Smith that the above question was settled by an 
 appeal to the Un'm and Thummiin. We would like to 
 excuse Mr. Bays in this case, but there is no excuse for 
 such glaring misrepresentations. 
 
 Bays testifies as follows: 
 
 While in charge of the Southwestern Mission, including 
 Texas, western Louisiana, Arizona and New Mexico, I kept a 
 record of all administrations to the sick, noting time, place, 
 the name of patient, the nature of the malady, by whom 
 assisted, and the results. At the close of the year I found 
 myself unable to report a single instance of healing in the 
 entire mission. This was in 1878-9. — Page 66. 
 
22 REPLY TO 1). H. BAYS. 
 
 An examination of the record shows that Elder Bays wai 
 not at the time mentioned in charore of all the territory 
 claimed, nor have we found any record that he was at an] 
 other time in charge of, or ever labored in, Arizona oi 
 New Mexico. 
 
 At that time there were two General Conferences hek 
 each year, called the Annual and Semiannual. At th( 
 Annual Conference of 1878 the appointment read ai 
 follows: 
 
 D. H. liays and Ralph Jenkins, to Texas and Indian Terri 
 tory. — Saints'' Herald, vol. 25, page 141. 
 
 The minutes of the Semiannual Conference for the sami 
 
 year contain the followinof: 
 
 D. H. Bays was sustained in the Texas Mission, and W. T 
 Bozartli was associated with him; also Ralph Jenkins and J. W 
 Bryan continued in the same. — Ibid., p. 295. 
 
 The minutes of the annual conference for 1879 disclose 
 the following: 
 
 D. H. Bays, Texas Mission.— Ibid., vol. 26, p. 141. 
 
 The minutes of the Semiannual Conference for 1879 hav< 
 this entry: 
 
 Davis H. Bays, released, subject to inquiry by First Presi 
 dency.— Ibid., p. 333. 
 
 Is this a lapse of memory or a willful misrepresentation 
 In either case it makes him an unreliable witness. 
 
 While still on the subject of miraculous power, Elde: 
 
 Bays says: 
 
 With forty years of acquaintance with Mormonism in it 
 various phases, common honesty impels me to say I have neve 
 known a single instance of miraculous power. I have wit 
 nessicd, it is true, what I was at the time willing to call a mira 
 cle, because, like all others who believe in such things, 
 wished to have it so; but never have I witnessed anythiuj 
 which would bear the test of intelligent scrutiny, or be con 
 firmed by candid, sober second thought. — Page 74. 
 
 In this connection it might be well to refresh Eldei 
 
 Bays' memory with the following testimonies from his owi 
 
 pen: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 23 
 
 We then repaired to the water. A deep feeling of solemnity 
 pervaded the assembly while nine precious souls were b^-^ied 
 with our precious Lord in baptism. The invitation w«« 
 extended to others, when Bro. Thompson stepped ^nvard Tnd 
 addressed the audience in a solemn and impressive manner 
 fp^i' h . 7^' T''"^' ^^ ^^" generally teach a 'form o^' ^odH-' 
 ness but deny the 'power thereof,' and I have been preaching 
 the 'power' without the 'form.' But now, thank God we 
 have presented to us both the form and the power; and I fe'elit 
 to be m3' duty to walk in the li^ht as I now behold it and to 
 put on the whole armor of God." Then he came forth and was 
 baptized. Almost the entire audience, which was larte was 
 in tears^ Even people who had not obeyed the -ospel message 
 received c^-eat confirmation, some of 'them t.stifvin^ boldly 
 tha they saw a glorious and heavenly light at the'close of the 
 baptismal service. It was certainly a remarkable display of 
 God s power: praise his -reat and holv namo' ^ ^ 
 
 Ijext day, Tuesday 25th, we met under the arbor a-ain at 11 
 o clock a m. for preaching and confirmation services, i^i which 
 the bpirit was present in a remarkable deo-ree of power esoe 
 cially ,n the confirmation ceremonies. -Extract from a letter 
 written Irom Stockdale, Wilson county Tevas June^ MO i^7« 
 and^ published in the Saints^ Herald fo'r J^i;^lo^T the' same 
 
 ^ It might be interesting to hear Elder Bays put this to 
 'intelligent scrutiny" "confirmed by candid, sober second 
 thought." 
 
 When he has disposed of that let him try the following: 
 In all my life I have never known the truth to be put to a t'^st 
 at once so trying and fiery as the one just referred to But I 
 kneic the Lord would give us the victory, so we awaited 
 patiently till the ordeal was past, when his mercy -tnp^a ed 
 The discussion terminated favorably to the cause'of ' ^uth - 
 F^vtiact from a letter written from Stockdale. Texas. Julv 10 
 sam; year^ '" ' ^'''''''^ ^'""^'^ ^"^^ September 1 of the 
 
 This was written concerning a discussion Mr. Bays had 
 ]ust closed with a Mr. Washburn, of the Baptist Church 
 In the absence of revelation from God, how did Elder Bays 
 know what the Lord was going to do regarding this dis- 
 cussion? He could not have known anything about it. If 
 we are to believe his testimony now, will Mr. Bays please 
 arise and explain why he testified falsely on July 10. 1878? 
 
26 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 work" in connection with the Reorganization, or that he 
 "renounced his own revelation." Mr. Bays therefore 
 stands convicted of willful misrepresentation. 
 
 On the very next page he proceeds to misrepresent 
 another of the church's early defenders as follows: 
 
 Elder Charles Derry did not long- remain in the "Quorum of 
 Twelve." He resigned his apostleship soon after his return 
 from the Enjrlish Mission, for the reason, as he told the writer 
 short!}' afterwards, that he had no evidence that God had ever 
 called him to be an apostle. He was too honest to retain a 
 place of honor to which he felt assured God had never called 
 him. He* called on me a few daj's ao^o, and on departinof left 
 his benediction. He baptized me into the lleorg-anized Church 
 nearly thirty-six years a.go. I would that all men were like 
 him in honor and integrity, and may his soul find rest and 
 peace in the paradise of God. 
 
 Elder Derry left home on his English mission December 
 6, 1862, and landed in Liverpool, England, February 4, 
 1863. Returning, he reached home September 6, 1864. In 
 April, 1865, he was ordained an apostle, which office he 
 held until April, 1870. Mr. Bays has him resigning soon 
 after he returned from his English mission, which would 
 have been before his ordination. "Accurate and reliable,'^ 
 bah! 
 
 However, Elder Derry still lives and resides at Wood- 
 bine, Iowa. From a long and intimate acquaintance with 
 Elder Derry we can heartily agree with Elder Bays in the 
 wish "that all men were like him in honor and integrity." 
 Bearing in mind the character of the witness, let us hear 
 from him on the question of fact raised by Bays. When 
 contemplating writing this review we wrote him regarding 
 Bays' statement and he answered as follows: 
 
 "Woodbine, .lanuary 10. 1001. 
 Elder Heman C. Smith:— Your favor of yestevdiiy is before 
 me. callinsr for information respectinsr my purported statement 
 to 1). H. Bays about my resignation of my membership in the 
 Quorum of "the Twelve. Soon after Rays published his book I 
 borrowed a copy, and after a close examination of it, I wrote 
 several hundred pages, in reply. . . . 
 
REPLY TO D. H. HAYS. 27 
 
 I now copy from my reply to Bays on that question as follows, 
 which you are at liberty to use. 
 
 "While dwelling on the question of apostleship I will crave 
 pardon of the reader for referring to a personal matter, and 
 especially as that person is the writer of this review. Mr. Bays 
 mentions the fact of my being called to the apostleship. I will 
 here remark that the same order was carried out in this case as 
 had been from the beginning, it being the duty of the commit- 
 tee on selection to seek the guidance of the Almighty, as .lesus 
 sought it in the choosing of the Twelve in his day. In due 
 time my name was presented in connection witl) that of Brother 
 Ells, and it was duly considered by the conference, and I was 
 chosen by the voice of the body. 1 can only say for myself that 
 my heart was set to do the will of God, and I had given myself 
 up to God's ministry many years before, and that, too, without 
 knowing then that my mother had dedicated me to the service 
 of God, in my infancy, as Hannah of old had dedicated little 
 Samuel. On the Sth of April, 18(i5, I accepted the call to the 
 apostleship, believing that the call was from God. I served in 
 that capacity about five years, but doubts of the divinity of my 
 calling to that particular office crept into my mind; it seemed 
 to me I was not fitted for so responsible a duty, and I only 
 wanted to occupy according to my talents. I was blessed in my 
 ministry, but I had always been blessed in preaching the gospel 
 of Christ, and the fear kept pressing itself into my heart that 
 the duty of the apostleship was greater than I could faithfully 
 and effectually i^erform, and while it was my life's determina- 
 tion to continue in the gospel ministry, I determined to resign 
 my position in the Quorum of the Twelve, and if it was God's 
 will, I would occupy a humbler position in his church. I 
 resigned, but not as Mr. Hays says, 'soon after his return from 
 the English Mission.' I had not been called into that Quorum 
 until some time after I returned from the English mission, and 
 as above stated, I remained in that Quorum about five 3'ears. It 
 is very likely I told Mr. Hays (though I do not remember the 
 interview) that I had no evidence that God had called me ta 
 that office. I told all my brethren so when I resigned, but 
 I never told Mr. Buys, nor any other being, that I kiieic Hod had 
 not called me to it. One thing I did realize, and realize it 
 today, that God had called me to preach his gospel, as preached 
 by Christ, and as restored again in these last days, and I know 
 that in all of my labors and travels by land and sea, God has 
 been with me. and used me as an instrument, in his hands, in 
 blessing my fellow man: and with that my soul is satisfied. I 
 have always been satisfied that the church as a body and the 
 brethren individually, acted in good faith. The church has 
 never claimed infallibility for itself or any of its officers. God, 
 Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the word of God are the only beings 
 
28 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 for whom, as a church, we claim infallibilit3^ If I erred in 
 resigning my place in the Quorum of the Twelve, it was done 
 in the integrity of my heart, and I am in the hands of a just 
 Judge." 
 
 With respect to my visit to Bays in Persia. At his request I 
 visited liim. We had a friendly talk, as old-time friends. Doc- 
 trine was not mentioned by either of us. An outsider would 
 have thought from his friendly reference to the brethren of the 
 church that he was still with us. I, however, knew he was not, 
 in spirit, whatever might be his bland, outward appearance, 
 but I had no hatred against the man, and why should I refrain 
 from wishing him well. I still wish him well, and that he may 
 live long enough to repent of his errors, and come out as a true 
 man for Christ and the true gospel. 
 
 Chahles Derry. 
 
 Between Elder Bays and this man of "honor and integ- 
 rity" we leave the reader to judge. 
 
 On page 234, while examining the testimony concerning 
 the visit of Martin Harris to Professor Anthon, Mr. Bays 
 says: 
 
 The best evidence, and, in fact, the only evidence, of which 
 this case is susceptible, would be the solemn affirmation, or 
 what would be still better, perhaps, the sworn statement of Mr. 
 Harris. But no such statement or affirmation was ever obtained 
 from him. Not ^ scrap of anything Martin Harris ever wrote — 
 if he ever wrote anything on the subject— can be adduced in 
 support of this claim concerning his interview with Prof. 
 Anthon. 
 
 In the Church History, volume 1, pages 50 and 51, which 
 Elder Bays doubtless had before him when he wrote, as he 
 quotes from it frequently, the following quotation from a 
 letter written by Martin Harris appears: 
 
 Smithfield, Utah, Nov. 23. 1870. 
 
 Mr. Emerson; Sir:— I received your favor. In reply I will say 
 concerning the plates: I do say that the angel did show to me 
 the plates containing the Book of Mormon. Further, the trans- 
 lation that I carried to Prof. Anthon was copied from these 
 same plates; also, that the Professor did testify to it being a 
 correct translation. . . . 
 
 How Mr. Bays could make the statement he did above 
 with this before him we will leave him and his indorsers 
 to explain. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 29 
 
 In the following: extracts from Bays' book, page 219, he 
 exaggerates the facts, as the evidence plainly shows: 
 
 It is impossible to believe that those witnesses, and especially 
 Oliver Cowdery, knowinff that tlie church orjranized by Joseph 
 and Oliver, if their testinnony is true, must be the only Church 
 of Christ on earth, would deliberately withdraw from it, and 
 live and die without its protecting fold? And yet this is 
 exactly what they did. 
 
 If I had seen an angel; if I had heard the voice of God; if I 
 had bowed by Joseph's Smith's side and felt the touch of an.o-el 
 hands in ordination, and heard the declaration that he was a 
 prophet of the livinjr God, all the combined powers of earth and 
 hell could never have induced me to forsake him. And yet 
 this is exactly what Oliver Cowdery did. 
 
 It is true that some of these witnesses did withdraw 
 from fellowship with the church on account of disagree- 
 ment with others on church policy, but this only shows 
 that they were men who acted upon their convictions and 
 were not under the dictation of Joseph Smith or anyone 
 else. 
 
 This act, in the absence of any proof against their char- 
 acter, only shows them to be the more reliable as wit- 
 nesses. If Mr. Bays had been actuated by a sense of 
 fairness he would have stated, what he seemingly desires 
 to conceal; viz., that the faith of these men was never 
 impaired in the principles they had espoused, notwith- 
 standing this disagreement and consequent separation. At 
 a special conference ht4d at Council Bluffs, Iowa, in Octo- 
 ber, 1848, Oliver Cowdery said: 
 
 Not because I was better than the rest of mankind was I 
 called: but, to fulfill the purposes of God, he called me to a 
 hiirh and holy calliiisr. I wrote, wiiri my own pen, the entirfe 
 Book of Mormon (save -a few pages), as it fell from the lips of 
 the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and 
 power of God. by the means of the Unm and Thummim, or, as 
 it is called by that book, 'holy interpreters.' I beheld with my 
 eyeM and handled, anth my Jtandfi the gold "platen from ichich it was 
 translated. I also saw with my eyes and liandled with ray hands 
 the 'holy interpreters.' Tiiar, book is true. Sidney Riydon did 
 not write it. Mr. Spalding did not write it. I wrote it myself 
 
30 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 as it fell from tlie lips of the Prophet. — Church History, vol. 1, 
 p. 50. 
 
 la a communication written by Martin Harris from 
 
 Smithfield, Utah, January, 1871, to H. Emerson in answer 
 
 to the question, "Did you go to England to lecture against 
 
 Mormonism?" he said: 
 
 I answer emphaticall3^ No, I did not;— no man ever heard me 
 in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the admin- 
 istration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the 
 organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith, Jr., the 
 prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the 
 latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. . . . — 
 Church History, vol. 1, p. 5L 
 
 In a proclamation published in 1881, David Whitmer said: 
 
 To the end, therefore, . . . that the world may know the 
 truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of 
 life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public 
 statement: 
 
 That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any 
 part thereof, which has so long since been published with that 
 book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, 
 well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And 
 that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in 
 regard to the same, I do again affirm the trutji of all of m}' 
 statements, as tlien made and published. — Church History, vol. 
 1, p. 55. 
 
 Comment is unnecessary. The reader will readily see 
 that the statements' of Elder Bays as quoted above are 
 misleading, regarding the attitude of these men. Though 
 his statements are partially true, he states only a part of 
 the truth and gives to it a false coloring, which is one of 
 the most deceptive ways of writing that has ever been 
 resorted to. 
 
 This is certainly inexcusable in one who has had the 
 opportunities to know the truth that Elder Bays has had. 
 
 But Mr. Bays continues: 
 
 I am glad to be able to state that I, too, visited David Whit- 
 mer and talked with him on the same subject many years 
 before either of the above named gentlemen had seen him. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 31 
 
 Durinor the intorviow I made special irKjuir}' concernin<^ Oliver 
 Oowdory, as I had been informed that he died an infidel. This 
 he informed me was incorrect. — Page 249. 
 
 Elder Bays published at the time an account of the visit 
 above referred to, which we give in his own words, with- 
 out comment: 
 
 Monday, liUh. I visited Richmond, the county seat of Ray, 
 where, to my surprise. I found Bro. David Whitmer, one of the 
 "three witnesses." He is now 64 years old and somewhat 
 broken. He entertains some ideas of minor importance, which 
 could not be considered orthodox; but so far as his faith in the 
 Latter Day Work is concerned, he remains as firm as the ever- 
 lastinof hills. — From a letter written to Elder M. H. Forscutt 
 from Lafayette. Kansas, September 17, 1869, and published in 
 the S((ints' Herald for November 1, 1869. 
 
 On page 267 of his book Mr. Bays says when speaking of 
 Joseph SiTiith and the three witnesses; viz., Oliver Cow- 
 dery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris: 
 
 These witnesses say that the plates contained "Egyptian, 
 Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic" characters. 
 
 This is a misrepresentation, as not one of the witnesses 
 ever claimed to know of what language the characters 
 were. Martin Harris quotes Professor Anthon as saying 
 that the facsimile presented to the Professor contained 
 such characters, but he nowhere claims to know anything 
 about it from his own knowledge of characters. 
 
 When Mr. Bays wrote as he says he did to certain lin- 
 guists the following, he misrepresented the facts: 
 
 "Dear Sir: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fac- 
 simile of the characters found upon the gold plates from which 
 it IS claimed the Book of Mormon was translated. The advo- 
 cates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 'Egyp- 
 tian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic' "—Page 261. 
 
 "The advocates of Mormonism" have maintained nothing 
 of the kind. 
 
 All there is to it is that Martin Harris has been quoted 
 as saying that Professor Anthon so determined and 
 informed him. 
 
33 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 On page 310, when discussing the ordinance of the laying 
 on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit, Mr. Bays 
 denies that the Book of Mormon teaches this doctrine, and 
 adds: 
 
 Perhaps some of their wise men may explain why a book 
 which contains "the fullness of the everlasting Gospel" is as 
 silent as the grave upon a subject of such grave importance. 
 Why did neither Jesus nor his disciples teach it? and why was 
 it never performed as an ordinance of the Gospel to follow bap- 
 tism? Echo answers, Why? 
 
 In answer to this it is only necessary to quote one pas- 
 sage from the Book of Mormon as follows: 
 
 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the 
 twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them. 
 And he called them by name, saying, Ye shall call on the 
 Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after that ye have 
 done this, ye shall have power that on him on whom ye shall lay 
 your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost: and in my name shall 
 ye give it: for thus do mine apostles. Now Christ spake these 
 words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the 
 multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as 
 many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost.— Book of 
 Moroni, chapter 2. 
 
 Is this not surprising for a man who has the opportunity 
 to be informed that Mr. Bays has had? Mr. Bays through- 
 out his whole treatise cries, Fraud, fraud! and yet is 
 guilty of such flagrant misrepresentations as this. And 
 the Christian Publishing House says he is 'accurate and 
 reliable." 
 
 Strange to say, however, that after Mr. Bays makes the 
 above statement he quotes the above pas.saoe from the 
 Book of Mormon, and states that it "is the only passage 
 in the Book of Mormon that in any way relates to the lay- 
 ing on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit." If this 
 is true (which it is not), then his statement that the 
 book "is as silent as the grave" on the subject is false. 
 
 When it is convenient for Mr. Bays to tutn witness he 
 does not hesitate to do so, and where other testimony is 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 33 
 
 lacking he comes to the rescue and supplies the want. 
 Here is a specimen: 
 
 The writer has had ample opportunity to observe the prac- 
 tical workings of the system under the auspices of two different 
 and widely separated Mormon churches, namely, Lyman 
 Wight, in Texas, in 1847, and James J. Strang, of Beaver 
 Island, Mich., in 1854.— Page 818. 
 
 This testimony was given with reference to the system 
 of polygamy. Davis H. Bays was born on the 5th day of 
 March, 1839, and hence was eight years old in 1847. It is 
 not necessary to comment on the "ample opportunity" of 
 a lad of eight years to observe the system of polygamy. 
 Elder Bays, however, is mistaken. He could have given 
 himself the advantage of one more year, and at the same 
 time have saved his credit as a witness, for he never saw 
 Lyman Wight nor any of his associates in 1847. He 
 arrived, with his father's family, at a place called Zodiac, 
 near Fredericksburg, Texas, where the Lyman Wight 
 colony was located, May 9, 1848. So Elder Bays was iiine 
 years old, and of course a boy nine years old would have 
 ample opportunities thrown in his way, and would be 
 amply competent to investigate a system clandestinely 
 practiced by neighbors! 
 
 Smart boy, that! 
 
 On page 335, in an attempt to set aside a statement 
 
 made by Bishop George Miller and others to the effect that 
 
 polygamy was not known in Nauvoo in 1842, Mr. Bays 
 
 says: 
 
 Several of the men whose names appear in the list of wit- 
 nesses became noted advocates of polygamy. George Miller, 
 also a general in the Nauvoo Legion, and the second man on 
 the list, was a polygamist with tico wives, when first I knew 
 him in 1847, but five years after his testimony was made public, 
 and only three years after the death of the prophet. 
 
 Bishop George Miller arrived at Zodiac on the 2d of 
 February, 1848, and Henry Bays and his precocious son 
 Davis arrived at the same place on May 9 following. This 
 
34 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 is the first time he ever saw Bishop Miller. So Bays did 
 not know Bishop Miller "first in 1847"; it was not "but five 
 years after his testimony was made public"; and it was not 
 "only three years after the death of the prophet." Now, 
 in all candor, is such a witness reliable? Bays was a 
 smart boy, that is conceded, but would any boy nine years 
 old be likely to know about the two wives, and yet forget 
 the date of the events? If this is thought possible, there 
 is another question which is pertinent here. Would a wit- 
 ness who had forgotten the date positively testify to a 
 date? 
 
 Further, as against the testimony that George Miller had 
 two wives in 1847, or 1848, we submit a letter now in our 
 possession, written by George Miller and Richard Hewett 
 from Bastrop, Texas, June 14, 1849, to J. J. Strang, in 
 which occurs the following in the handwriting of Hewett: 
 
 I want to know what your mind is about men having the 
 priesthood having more wives than one. The principle is 
 taught amongst all that I have been with. Some have from 
 two to ten, or twenty, and some have none. If it is consistent I 
 want you to let me know when you write to me, and I want you 
 to write as soon as you get this, so Bro. Miller and myself may 
 know what to do. You must excuse me for asking so much, 
 but you must bear with me, as I confess I am ignorant. Bro. 
 Miller says their whoring will send them all to hell. 
 
 Bishop Miller writes a letter on the same sheet of paper 
 and they both speak of those with whom they had asso- 
 ciated after the death of Joseph Smith, and after relating 
 their practices as in the above extract they want to know 
 about this principle, that they may know what to do, car- 
 rying the plain inference that if this doctrine was sup- 
 ported by Strang they would not go there. As seen above 
 Bishop Miller condemns it in language more forcible than 
 elegant, and Mr. Hewett continues by saying: 
 
 I don't find such things in the Book of Covenants, nor in the 
 Book of Mormon, nor in the writings of the apostles. 
 
 Mr. Strang at this time was not advocating polygamy 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 35 
 
 and probably wrote these men to that effect, and this will 
 explain why Bishop Miller went to Strang. Now we do 
 not know whether Bishop Miller had more than one wife 
 at this or any other time; but shall we condemn him upon 
 the testimony of a man who says that when he was eight 
 years old he knew Miller, and knew that he had two wives, 
 when it is positively known that the said boy never saw 
 Miller until after he was nine years old? Besides, kind 
 reader, what is your estimate of the boy as a witness, 
 when he testifies of other things? 
 
 On page 368, after speaking of the disaffection of the 
 Laws and Higbees and others in 1844, Bays states: 
 
 The reader will perhaps remember that the Laws and Higr- 
 bees figured in the certificate concerning Dr. Bennett's "secret 
 •wife system," published some two years previously. 
 
 In this the ignorance of Bays is very apparent to those 
 who are acquainted with church history. Elias Higbee, 
 the only man of the Higbees who signed the certificate of 
 1842, referred to, died June 8, 1843, and consequently was 
 not connected with the disaffection of 1844. The Higbees 
 who figured in 1844 were Francis M. and Chauncey M., 
 neither of whom signed the certificate of 1842. Sometimes 
 Bays talks learnedly on law, but when he tries to impeach 
 the testimony of one man by quoting the statements of 
 another, we are inclined to doubt the reliability of his legal 
 learning, notwithstanding the Christian Publishing House 
 says his book is "accurate and reliable." 
 
 In conclusion upon this point it becomes our painful 
 duty to call attention to the moral status of this man as a 
 witness as revealed through himself. On page 343, in 
 Bays' attempt to make Joseph Smith responsible for the 
 doctrine and practice of polygamy, he says: 
 
 A "thus saith the Lord" from the prophet would have put an 
 eternal quietus on the question of polygamy. But it never 
 came; and so Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith only, must be 
 held responsible for the prevalence of the most abominable sys- 
 tem that ever cursed and degraded a free people. 
 
36 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 This means, if it means anything, that Joseph Smith 
 should have used a "thus saith the Lord" when he wished 
 to accomplish a desired end, and that, too, without refer- 
 ence to whether the Lord instructed him thus to speak or 
 not, and in case he did not he is to be held personally 
 responsible for it. 
 
 If this is or was Bays' idea of the duty, prerogatives, and 
 privileges of a prophet he is not nor has he ever been in 
 harmony with the church, for the church has always held 
 that the prophet was only authorized to speak as he was 
 instructed by the Lord to speak when he uses the name of 
 the Lord, and if he is presumptuous enough to speak in the 
 name of the Lord when the Lord has not commanded him, 
 he does so at his peril, as the Lord will not tolerate such 
 an imposition upon his people. (Deut. 18: 20.) 
 
 Recent developments however disclose the fact that 
 
 Bays years ago ignorantly or viciously pursued that 
 
 policy, as the following affidavit will show 
 
 Territory of Oklahoma, } 
 Kingfisher County, f 
 
 AFFIDAVIT. 
 
 In the spring of 1870 or '71 I was associated with Elder T). H. 
 Bays in the ministry for about three months in Eastern Kansas 
 and Western Missouri. While attending a prayer meeting 
 where now exists the Fanning, Kansas, branch, Elder Bays 
 arose to speak and delivered a prophecy which was intended to 
 adjust difliculties then existing there. It so worked upon the 
 mind of one Br. Davis who was involved in the trouble that he 
 did not sleep any that night, so it was said. Elder D. H. Bays 
 said to me the next morning. You see, Bro. Butler, that I came 
 out with the word of the Lord on that matter last night. 
 
 (Signed) Stephen Butler. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me October 25, 1898. 
 
 William S. Whirlow, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 If this was Bays' standard of honor and right it will be 
 no surprise to Latter Day Saints and those that' know our 
 views on such matters that he found the Spirit of the lat- 
 ter-day work incompatible to his proclivities. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 37 
 
 This exhibition of shocking moral paralysis betrayed 
 here is supplemented by the inconsistency of Elder Bays 
 in his accusing Joseph Smith of manufacturing revelations 
 to suit his convenience at times and then finding fault with 
 him because he did not, and holding him responsible for 
 the existence of crime because he did not manufacture a 
 revelation expressly forbidding it. This is made worse 
 when we consider that the allegation is false, for there 
 were revelations coming through Joseph Smith expressly 
 forbidding polygamy. This Bays well knows, and hence 
 willfully misrepresents. The Book of Mormon translated 
 by Joseph Smith says: 
 
 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word 
 of the Lord: for there shall not any man among you have save 
 it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the 
 Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women.— Jacob 2:6. 
 
 A revelation given through Joseph Smith in February, 
 1831, says: 
 
 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave 
 unto her and none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to 
 lust after her, shall deny the faith, and shall not have the 
 Spirit; and if he repents not, he shall be cast out.— Doctrine 
 and Covenants 42: 7. 
 
 We have shown these misquotations and historical 
 errors to present the utter unreliability of the book and 
 its author in as brief a manner as possible. To thus 
 expose, and to be driven to the conviction ourself, that a 
 former associate has resorted to such contemptible work 
 has been a painful duty to us, but the interest of truth 
 has demanded it and we have responded. We will now go 
 back and examine such portions of this book consecutively 
 as may be demanded. 
 
CHAPTER 2. 
 
 Bays' Claim to Superior Advantaore— Condemns Spaldincr Story 
 — Foundation — Sam — Spiritual Gifts — Cases of Healino: — The 
 Commission— Joseph Smith Healed — Medicine— Questions. 
 
 It may be well to note right here that Elder Bays claims 
 superior advantage over others who have essayed to write 
 against what he is please^ to call "Mormonism," because 
 of his experience on the inside. He says: 
 
 Reared in the faith of the Saints from early childhood, and 
 having: been, for twenty-seven years, a zealous advocate and 
 defender of its peculiarities, the writer has had rare opportuni- 
 ties for studyinp: Mormonism from the inside. 
 
 The line of argument usually emplo ed by writers and 
 speakers to refute the Mormon dofjma is of such a character as 
 to render success almost impossible. — Preface. 
 
 It will be pertinent to inquire, What possible advantage 
 can this be to him? If it were a secret system, unknown 
 to any but those on the inside, then there might be some 
 force in the claim that he had the advantage over his less 
 fortunate competitors in this field, but this Mr. Bays has* 
 not claimed, but assumes throughout to meet public ques- 
 tions as publicly taught by the representatives of "Mor- 
 monism." Then, if he can succeed where others who had 
 access to the same information failed, it is a reflection upon 
 their intelligence, and a concession that all the efforts 
 heretofore made by his brethren and others against "Mor- 
 monism" are failures. So there is but one thing in the 
 field against us, and that is the "Doctrines and Dogmas 
 of Mormonism." By the unqualified indorsement of this 
 book the Christian Publishing House concedes that former 
 efforts against us have been failures. For this concession 
 
 we thank them. 
 38 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 39 
 
 No wonder that after their repeated failures they 
 received this would-be champion with open arms, and in 
 the language of Elder A. M. Haggard, of Iowa, said: "I 
 believe the man and his book are children of Providence." 
 
 Again when Elder Bays and his illustrious indorsers 
 concede that Providence provided for them in the hour of 
 their defeat and peril, and that in that provision a man 
 was sent who utilized only such information as was at 
 their disposal, they concede that a man schooled in "Mor- 
 monism," possesses superior qualifications to those who 
 have not had such schooling. 
 
 But in all this, one of the vital points at issue between 
 us is conceded; viz., that men are sometimes specially 
 called of God for the accomplishment of certain purposes. 
 Again we thank you. 
 
 Bays says: 
 
 The usual debater undertakes to trace the Book of Mormon 
 to the Spaulding romance through Sidney Rigdon. 
 
 Nothing can be more erroneous, and it will lead to almost 
 certain defeat. The well-informed advocate of Mormonism 
 wants no better amusement than to vanquish an opponent in 
 discussion who takes this ground. The facts are all opposed to 
 this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the 
 facts well in hand. I speak from experience. — Page 22. 
 
 Now will our friends of the Christian Church hear these 
 ''children of Providence," and thereby concede that for the 
 last half century and more they have been wrong and 
 that their whole theory of the Book of Mormon is a mis- 
 take. Surely there is hope for the Christian Church, and 
 we feel like singing: 
 
 While the lamp holds out to burn, 
 The vilest sinner may return. 
 
 Bays' theory that it was Oliver Cowdery and not Sidney 
 Rigdon that helped Joseph Smith in concocting ''Mormon- 
 ism," we have already exploded by showing that the work 
 was already in progress before Cowdery appeared. 
 
 Now that the Spalding Romance Story is abandoned, 
 
40 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 and Bays' theory is wei(?bed in the balances and found 
 wanting, we suggest that it is tinae for the birth of more 
 ''children of Providence." 
 
 On page 26 Elder Bays mif^states the case under the 
 head of "The Foundation," as follows: 
 
 That the whole Mormon superstructure is founded upon the 
 Book of Mormon, no one will perhaps attempt to deny. 
 
 When Elder Bays penned that he well knew that we did 
 and do deny that proposition. He knew and does know 
 that we claim that the superstructure which he vulgarly 
 calls "Mormonism'' is founded upon the eternal truth of 
 Heaven, and that the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is 
 but confirmatory testimony of that truth. 
 
 That truth would have been the same had the Bible nor 
 the Book of Mormon never been written. It existed before 
 them and can exist without them. On page 27 Mr. Bays 
 again shows his ignorance when under the head of "The 
 Purport of the Book of Mormon," he says: 
 
 Dissension finally arises, and Nephi, with his two younger 
 brothers, Jacob and Joseph, separated from their elder breth- 
 ren, Laman, Lemuel and Sam. Henceforth they were two 
 separate peoples, known as "Nephites" and "Laman ites." 
 
 No possible advantage could accrue to Mr. Bays in mak- 
 ing this false statement. We therefore conclude that he 
 must have done it through ignorance. The Book of Mor- 
 mon in speaking of this division places Sam with Nephi. 
 It reads as follows: 
 
 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my 
 family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder 
 brother, and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger 
 brethren, and also my sisters, and all they which would go with 
 me. — Page 7L 
 
 ♦ In chapter 3, after several pages of high sounding plati- 
 tudes regarding the spiritual house erected by the Saints 
 and the deceptive character of the same without a word of 
 proof, he asserts on pages 38, 39: 
 
REPLY TO i). H. BAYS. 41 
 
 It is the boast of Latter Day Saints that no man livin^ can 
 possibly chnprove or in any way invalidate their claim upon this 
 point. In the first place the burden of proof lies with them They 
 afhrm the perpetuity of these miraculous powers, while we sim- 
 ply deny. The man who aflirms must ;;/vu'^ what he affirms It 
 IS entirely suHicient to meet an affirmative proposition with a 
 bare denial. When affirmative evidence has been introduced 
 the negative may offer such evidence in rebuttal as may be 
 deemed necessary. Thus it will be seen that we are under no 
 obligation to disprove any affirmative proposition. 
 
 In this issue Mormonism has affirmed something, and has 
 offered testimony to prove it-is in fact the plaintiff in an 
 action before the civilized world, and asks for judcrment on the 
 ground that the testimony of its witnesses sustains the alle^ra- 
 tion iheir petition sets up a claim that certain jewels— spir- 
 itual gifts— at one time in the possession of a woman of great 
 lailuiff''"" Church of Christ-rightfully belong to said 
 
 All right, we introduce as sufficient evidence in this case 
 the testimony of Jesus Christ as follows: 
 
 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he 
 that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall fol- 
 ]ow theni that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; 
 they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; 
 fi? V, n"^^ "^"u^'' ^"^' '^'^^'^'^' ^'^'"^' 't shall riot hurt them; 
 
 Ir ^N^i^ iJ^i' ^'^"^^ °" ^^® ^'^'^'' ^"^ they shall recover.— 
 JxiarR J.D. 10— lo. 
 
 According to rules of law we have now presented prima 
 facie evidence sufficient to establish our case unless 
 rebutted. A mere denial will no longer answer the pur- 
 pose of our opponents. 
 
 They must impeach the witness or raise a demurrer, in 
 which case they muse sustain that demurrer by showing 
 that the testimony is incompetent, irrelevant, or imma- 
 terial. By this it will be seen that Mr. Bays, with all his 
 legal acumen, misunderstands the case. If he contents 
 himself with a simple denial he will fail to defeat us. If he 
 raises a demurrer he is not required to prove a negative, 
 but to introduce evidence to sustain his contention. The 
 moment he takes advantage of this privilege the burden of 
 proof rests on him, and if he fails to sustain his demurrer, 
 
42 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and we 
 will be awarded possession of the gifts claimed. When 
 Bays attempts a rebuttal under the supposition that he is 
 proving a negative he betrays his ignorance as a lawyer. 
 
 We make no claim to the understanding of law, but we 
 know just enough to smile when we hear a man like Bays 
 suppose a case at issue before a court of justice or equity. 
 
 It might be well, however, to state here that Mr. Bays* 
 client — the Christian Church — has no case in court, as they 
 make no claim to the property in question. Mr. Bays mis- 
 states the case again when he says that we are the "plain- 
 tiff in an action before the civilized world," and ask for 
 judgment there. We have pled the jurisdiction of the 
 court, and asked for a hearing before the Supreme Court 
 of heaven; the case has been entertained, and the jewels 
 awarded, as the following evidence will show. 
 
 On pages 72 and 73 of his book Elder Bays himself 
 quotes one of many recorded cases of healing as follows: 
 "healing of one born blind. 
 
 . . "So the mother took another of her daughters and put 
 her upon his l<nee [that of an unbeliever], and said, 'Sir, is that 
 child blind?' And after he had examined her eyes, he said, 
 ^Sheis.'' 'Well,' said the mother, 'she was bo)'fi blind: and she 
 is now four years old, and I am g-oing to take her to the elders 
 of our church for them to anoint her eyes with oil and lay their 
 hands upon her; and you can call again when you have time, 
 and see her with her eyes open [opened. — H. C. S.].' . . 
 'Well,' said he, 'if she does ever see. it will be a great proof.' 
 
 "Accordinfirly, the mother broujrht the child to the elders, 
 and Elder John Hack well anointed her eyes, and laid his hands 
 upon her, only once: and the Lord heard his prayer, so that the 
 child can now see with both of her eyes as well as any other 
 person. For which we [all.— H. C. S.J feel thankful to our 
 heavenly Father, and are willinsr to bear testimony of it to all 
 the world. Yours in the Kingdom of God, 
 
 "Gp:okge Halliday. 
 
 "P. S. — We, the father and mother of the child, do here sigQ 
 our names to the above, as being true. 
 
 "William Rounsell. 
 "Elizabeth HotJNSELL. 
 
 ••No. 12 Bread Street, Bristol, England, Nov. 25, 1849." 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 43 
 
 e, with over a score of other similar cases, covering 
 if ailments, including leprosy, are recorded in the 
 which this is taken. (See (). Pratt's works, Divine 
 ty of the Book of Mormon. No. 5, pasre 71.) 
 ; was at the time an apostle of the Viiih Church and 
 f the Engrlish mission, and the parties to the alleged 
 re members of the same church. 
 
 believe that a people who did not hesitate for a 
 violate every commandment of the Decalogue could 
 
 blessed with such marvelous power, while at the 
 they are denied to the peace-loving and virtuous? 
 3laim is a burlesque on Christianity, and is alike 
 ) man and dishonoring to God. It cannot be true. 
 
 e of this testimony is by Mr. Bays set aside by 
 epresentation of the truth. No claim has been 
 pt by Mr. Bays and others of like views that the 
 ig and virtuous are denied. It is and has ever 
 ontention that the peace-loving and virtuous are 
 . The above argument we can call by no softer 
 contemptible pettifoggery. 
 
 he charge that the people testifying "did not 
 r a moment to violate every commandment of 
 Dgue," we will quote from the manuscript of 
 rles Derry, who was a minister among them, and 
 good character Mr. Bays has testified. (See 
 
 ing Bays he says: 
 
 srence to the work of the church in Salt Lake, mani- 
 vant of candor. You know the miracles you men- 
 lot wrought in Utah, but in England; nor were the 
 administered in those cases men who had ever been 
 ir had the abomination of polygamy been accepted 
 taught to them. That abomination was not pub- 
 1852, and the above manifestations of the healing- 
 jrding to your own showing, which is for once in 
 1 the facts, was in November, 1849. These people 
 ,nd obeyed the gospel, had sought unto God for the 
 1 obtained it. And while the work in England was 
 the Brighamite rule, these people had accepted the 
 purity, as taught by .Joseph Smith, and knew noth- 
 postasy that had taken place. 
 
44 RIPPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Elder Bays continues: 
 
 If to be found anywhere within the domain of Mormonism, 
 these "spiritual ^nfts" mi^ht, with a orreater sliow of reason, be 
 expected among the people of the Reorganized Church, whose 
 membership, I am glad to say, are as a rule honest and law- 
 abiding people, and the purity of whose lives no man may 
 truthfully question. I speak of this as the merest matter of 
 justice to the membership of that church. But do they pos- 
 sess supernatural powers? 
 
 With forty years of acquaintance with Mormonism in its 
 various phases, common honesty impels me to say I have never 
 known a single instance of miraculous power. I have wit- 
 nessed, it is true, what I was at the time willing to call a 
 miracle, because, like all others who believe in such things, I 
 •wished to have it so; but never have I witnessed anything 
 which would bear the test of intelligent scrutiny, or be con- 
 firmed by candid, sober second thought.— Pages 73, 74. 
 
 We agree with Elder Bays that the spiritual gifts might 
 with reason be expected among the people of the Reor- 
 ganized Church, and we thank him for his tribute to the 
 character of the members. We here present the evidence 
 of a remarkable case of healing in the Reorganization. 
 
 A CASE OF HEALING. 
 
 Dear Herald: — I forward you the facts of a most remarkable 
 case of healing. On Saturday morning. October 13, 1877, while 
 Bro. D. Chambers, Jun., who lives on Spring Creek, Harrison 
 county, Iowa, was caring for one of his colts he received a 
 severe kick over his right eye, and in his breast, from both feet 
 of the animal. The force of the kick raised him from the 
 ground and sent him headlong outside of the stable, several 
 feet from where the colt stood, where he lay in a helpless con- 
 dition, with a fearful gash over his right eye and some of the 
 breast bones broken. He made an effort to rise but failed. His 
 wife was soon by his side, and she called to her assistance a Mr. 
 Draper who happened to be on the premises with his thresher. 
 They succeeded in helping him to the house, but just before 
 reaching there his sight grew dim and he felt as if death was 
 upon him, and he felt an ardent desire to speak to his wife once 
 more, after they got him in the house and seated on a chair, 
 but he was only able to faintly articulate the words "Good-bye, 
 Mary." Mr. Draper suggested to Sister Chambers to dispatch 
 some one for medical aid with all possible speed, not that 
 he considered it possible that anything could be done, {think- 
 ing he was too far gone.) which Sister Chambers did not do, 
 but sent for Bro. W. Chambers, living within half a mile, and 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 45 
 
 in the meantime she applied oil and prayed for her, to all human 
 appearance, dying husband, as best she could under the dis- 
 tressing and exciting circumstances. 
 
 On the arrival of Bro. W. Chambers a terrible sight met his 
 gaze, his brother lying with a yawning gash over his eye ren- 
 dering the skull bone visible, his head resting upon his chin 
 and but little or no signs of consciousness. Wishing to get him 
 into an adjoining room that peradventure they might lay him 
 on a sofa, he suggested it to Mr. Draper. An attempt was'made 
 to raise him from the chair by placing their hands under his 
 arms, but his cries forced them to desist, but raising the chair 
 they conveyed him to another room, propping him up as best 
 they could, and proceeded to anoint him with oil. By this 
 time his breast was much swollen and turning black, yet 
 though swollen, there was quite an unnatural hollow or sunken 
 place therein, and the slightest touch of the shoulders, arms, 
 head, face, or breast, would cause the most acute pain,' while 
 the least move of the head or arms would produce sounds like 
 the grating of broken bones. His chin still resting upon his 
 breast, and signs of blood accumulated in his throat, causing 
 apprehension of his choking. Bro. W. Chambers called upon 
 his father to assist in laying on hands. But little benefit was 
 received by the sufferer, except a partial restoration to con- 
 sciousness. They administered a second time with but little 
 better result. The injured man then spoke, and asked them if 
 they had not faith to rebuke the pain. Whereupon Bro. W. 
 Chambers administered the third time, rebuking the pain and 
 commanding him to arise, which he did and walked into the 
 room from which he had been so recently carried as one almost 
 dead, and sat down and ate a hearty breakfast. 
 
 Mr. Draper, who had assisted in carrying him to the house, 
 while the brethren were praying, went out; but mark his sur- 
 prise on returning, with three or four other non-members of the 
 church, at seeing him whom they supposed was, or soon would 
 be dead, seated at the table eating and drinking. They stood 
 and gazed with astonishment, yet glad to see the change, 
 as evidenced by the fact of each one of them shaking han'^ds 
 with him as if he was an intimate friend who had just returned 
 from a long journey. This beinsr done Bro. D. Chambers bore 
 testimony of God's power by which he had been saved from 
 death and made whole. 
 
 I shall not attempt to describe the joy of his wife, his brother 
 and Wife, and father, all of whom we're present, at seeing one so 
 dear to them so marvelously saved from the jaws of death; all 
 can imagine it. 
 
 The following being Sunday, he was in the house of prayer, 
 telling the Saints of the Spring Creek branch how wondrously 
 the Lord had wrought with him, which moved others to prayer- 
 
46 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 and praise, by which they enjoyed a time long to be remem- 
 bered. 
 
 About two hours passed from the time of the terrible accident 
 to his being seated at the table. The gash over his eyes was 
 drawn tojrether and some sticking plaster applied, and it 
 healed without the least matteration; and, at this date, the 
 scar is only visible by close inspection. He experienced weak- 
 ness but for a few days, after which he turned his attention to 
 his labor, and" has been as healthy and robust as ever. 
 
 James Caffall. 
 
 Wm. Chambers, 
 
 Louisa M. Chambers, 
 
 Mary N. Chambers, ( „t., 
 John Chambers, ' Witnesses. 
 
 David Cluimbers, Sen, 
 Jonathan McKee, 
 Unionbtjrg, Towa. Dec 11, 1877. 
 
 With some if not all of these witnesses Elder Bays v^^as 
 well acquainted, and he will not put himself on record as 
 against their reputation for veracity. He may try to 
 explain it away, but he can make no explanation that will 
 not apply with equal force against the record concerning 
 the jewels when "in the possession of a woman of great 
 distinction — the Church of Christ." 
 
 I submit that the testimony of such witnesses cannot be 
 set aside by the testimony of Bays that he never saw any- 
 thing of the kind. 
 
 The presumption of the man is astounding. No miracles 
 were wrought among the Latter Day Saints while he was 
 with them because he never witnessed them. Now he goes 
 over to the Christian Church and coolly informs its mem- 
 bers that their efforts at fighting Mormons were futile 
 until he came on the scene. 
 
 In regard to the existence of other manifestations of. 
 power, though we might fill a volume with the evidence of 
 such cases, we content ourselves with referring for the 
 present to the testimony of Elder Bays, as found on page 
 23 of this work, where he testifies to a wonderful manifes- 
 tation of God's power, and to his having known results 
 before their happening. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 47 
 
 Mr. Bays then attempts to analyze the commission 
 recorded in Mark sixteenth chapter, and reasons that the 
 promise made in connection therewith was limited to the 
 lifetime of the apostles, because it was not possible for 
 the disciples spoken to, to go into all the world, and hence 
 the promise would only apply to those to whom they 
 preached. He concludes his argument as follows: 
 
 Here is a promise; but to whom does it extend? Are there 
 no limitations? Let us see. "And these si^ns shall follow ^A^wi 
 that believe/' Follow them that believe what? Why, the Gos- 
 pel, to be sure. "And these sicrns shall follow them that believe 
 the Gospel?" Preached by whom? Why, by the disciples, of 
 course, for none others were authorized. Analyzed, the propo- 
 sition stands thus: "And these signs shall follow them that 
 believe the Gospel preached by the disciples." Just that, and 
 nothing more, is atlirmed. 
 
 This analysis shows most conclusively that the promise of 
 miraculous powers was limited to the lifetime of the first dis- 
 ciples—the eleven, and those upon whom they had laid their 
 hands.— Page 40. 
 
 It will be seen that in order to limit the promise he 
 limits the commission, claiming that no others were 
 a^uthorized by the commission except the disciples 
 addressed. On the previous page this is even more 
 plainly brought out when he says: 
 
 "Go ye into all the world." Who go into all the world? The 
 disciples, the eleven. No one else is addressed, and hence, no one 
 else is included. This seems conclusive. 
 
 Mr. Bays is consistent in this, for it is impossible to 
 limit the promise without limiting the commission. But 
 imagine our surprise when on the very next page he states 
 an opposite conclusion. Hear him: 
 
 While the Great Commission to preach the Gospel and admin- 
 ister Its ordinances was general, extending, under proper con- 
 ditions, to every age and every nation under the heavens, the 
 "signs," or miraculous gifts of ihe Holy Spirit, were confined, as 
 we have already shown, to the times of the apostles. While 
 these miraculous powers were limited to the apostolic ajre, the 
 obligation to "preach the Gospel to every creature," along with 
 
48 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 the "conditions upon which sinners are accepted under the 
 Gospel," as provided in the commission, was made perpetual. 
 
 How he can come to a conclusion that the commission 
 "Was general, extending to every age and every nation and 
 yet that none but the eleven were authorized by it, is a 
 problem that perhaps none but these "children of Provi- 
 dence" can explain. It is not necessary to occupy space in 
 discussing the point. Every one who reads the words of the 
 Master: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. And 
 these signs shall follow them that believe;" knows that the 
 promise of the signs is just as general in its application as 
 is this conditional promise of salvation, and to preach the 
 one while you deny the other is a travesty on common 
 sense. No rule of language will permit the making of one 
 general in its application while the other is limited. 
 
 While it was not practicable for the apostles to visit 
 every spot on the globe, their commission was not limited 
 by geographical lines. They had the authority to go any- 
 where on the earth, and more, their authority was in force 
 whether present or not. A message from them, whether 
 by tongue or pen, was and is in force wherever heard. 
 Would Bays have us to understand that authority is some- 
 thing that floats around a man as he moves? If so will he 
 please give us the cubic dimensions of the space it 
 occupies? We think that it is coextensive with the power 
 behind it. Are we right? Whether the commission was 
 to the eleven alone matters not, wherever it was in force 
 it carried with it the promises connected with it. Should 
 God call others who were not directly included in the com- 
 mission the same conditions would apply or his ways are 
 not unchangeable. If Bays is right and the signs were 
 only to follow those who heard the eleven and received the 
 gospel through their ministrations, then those wha 
 received it under the preaching of Matthias or Paul were- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 49 
 
 excluded. Read Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, 
 twelfth, and following chapters, and your minds will be 
 freed from this bungling fallacy. 
 
 Mr. Bays enters upon a long dissertation on the gifts, in 
 which he depends almost entirely upon what he does not 
 know. Bays did not see — Bays did not hear, hence there 
 was nothing to see or hear! To reply to such sophistry 
 would be an insult to our readers. 
 
 Elder Bays assumes, without proof, that the prime 
 object for which the gift of speaking in unknown tongues 
 was given, was to preach the gospel to men of different 
 languages, and hence confines its necessity to the days of 
 ignorance when the ambassadors of Christ were not 
 acquainted with the language and dialects of those to 
 whom it was necessary to preach. This argument is quite 
 plausible, but are the premises correct? 
 
 Elder Bays quotes as evidence Acts 2:8: "And how 
 hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were 
 born?" It is true that on this occasion representatives of 
 different nations heard the gospel, each in his own tongue; 
 but this does not prove that the prime purpose was the 
 preaching of the gospel in different languages. We have 
 no evidence that when this gift was first exercised at the 
 time referred to there was anyone present but the disci- 
 ples, who were all Galileans. The record says: 
 
 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all 
 with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a 
 sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled 
 all the house where the^' were sitting. And there appeared 
 unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
 of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
 began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
 utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, 
 devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when 
 this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and 
 were confounded, because that every man heard them speak 
 in his own language. 
 
 It will be seen that they began speaking in tongues 
 
50 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 before the multitude gathered, and the report of this is 
 what caused the multitude to come together. They were 
 then speaking to each other, but when the multitude came 
 they did not cease. It was not then exercised for the pur- 
 pose of preaching to the public, but the people came 
 during the service and incidentally heard in their own 
 tongue. 
 
 In connection with this please to read Paul's instruction 
 to the Corinthians as follows: 
 
 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray 
 that he may interpret. — 1 Cor. 14:13. 
 
 Why should he interpret if he was speaking to men in 
 
 their own tongue? 
 
 If therefore the whole church be come together into one 
 place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that 
 are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are 
 mad?— 1 Cor. 14:23. 
 
 Why say that they were mad if they were talking to 
 
 them in their own tongue? Again, 
 
 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or 
 at the m.ost by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 
 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the 
 church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. — 1 Cor. 14: 
 
 27, 28. 
 
 Where is the demand for an interpreter if you speak to a 
 man in his own language? 
 
 It would seem from this that Bays is again wrong, but 
 even if he were right and the preaching of the gospel in 
 other tongues was the prime object, it does not follow 
 that there were not other purposes for which this wonder- 
 ful gift was given. Nor does it appear that the time has 
 passed that it could be used to advantage in the preaching 
 of the word. Instances are on record where men have 
 spoken in the tongue of others who were present, but 
 whether the Latter Day Saints have enjoyed these gifts or 
 not, is not the question. The question is, Has God pro- 
 vided that the faithful shall enjoy them? If so, those who 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 51 
 
 <3o not avail themselves of this privilege are lacking, 
 whether they be Saints or Christians. 
 
 It has always seemed strange to us that men will call on 
 the Latter Day Saints to demonstrate practically that 
 Christ's promise is true. Our idea is that God is true if 
 every Latter Day Saint on earth should fdil to occupy upon 
 his privilege. The challenge of Bays and others of like 
 views that a sign be shown is virtually a challenge to God 
 that if he will demonstrate through these Latter Day 
 Saints that he told the truth they will believe him. He 
 may accommodate you sometime, but we do not know, as 
 we are not sufficiently acquainted with his purposes to tell; 
 but one thing is certain, it will depend upon him to deter- 
 mine whether your challenge will be met or not. While 
 you are awaiting on him we respectfully suggest the con- 
 sideration of the statement of Christ to Thomas: 
 
 Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are 
 they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 
 
 On page 56 and following pages Mr. Bays attempts an 
 -exegesis of 1 Corinthians, 12th chapter. He admits that 
 the "gifts of the Holy Spirit were intended to continue 
 with the church at Corinth till they had reached mature 
 manhood in Christ." He then bases an argument on the 
 words: "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew 
 I unto you a more excellent way"; to show that this more 
 excellent way was to entirely supersede the gifts unto 
 their abandonment. This places Paul in the attitude of 
 exhorting the saints at Corinth to covet earnestly the 
 least excellent way and that, too, after they were shown 
 the "more excellent way." This is neither good philosophy 
 nor good theology, nor is it the work of a wise master 
 builder such as we have esteemed Paul to be. We cannot 
 therefore accept of this conclusion without further inquiry. 
 We ask, Would the exercise of the spiritual gifts hinder 
 the exercise of charity? If not, why do away with them 
 
52 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 in the getting of charity? It seems to us that the idea of 
 Paul is that gifts without charity would be least excellent, 
 and therefore he urges that they should not covet the 
 spiritual gifts alone, but should seek charity in addition to 
 the gifts. He says: 
 
 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and 
 have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling 
 cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and under- 
 stand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all 
 faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, 
 I am nothing. 
 
 There is no intimation here that these things could not 
 exist with charity. The contrast is drawn here between 
 the gifts without charity and the gifts with charity. The 
 Corinthians are exhorted to covet the best gifts because 
 they are good, but told that to have charity is more excel- 
 lent than to have the gifts without it. Bays, however, 
 hits the right idea when he says in his summing up, "In 
 charity, or love, we have the sum of them all." 
 
 Would the sum of them all remain if we subtract the 
 parts? 
 
 But Elder Bays quotes what he calls positive evidence 
 
 that the spiritual gifts were to cease as follows: 
 
 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they 
 shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether 
 there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. — 1 Cor. 13:8. 
 
 This is evidently to be understood in the same light as 
 
 that going before, where the contrast is made between a 
 
 part and the whole, and this is made clear by the context, 
 
 for Paul includes knowledge with the things which were to 
 
 vanish away, and yet in speaking of the consummation of 
 
 this transformation says, "Then shall I know even as also I 
 
 am known.''' If knowledge in the absolute sense shall have 
 
 passed away it will be impossible for the consummation 
 
 spoken of by Paul to obtain. Nor can you make the doing 
 
 away of tongues and prophecy absolute without applying 
 
 the same rule to knowledge. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 53 
 
 . On page 58 Mr. Bays makes this astounding statement: 
 
 Of the nine spiritual ^ifts named in the twelfth chapter, but 
 one was permanent — faith. All others were to vanish — pass 
 away. 
 
 It is only necessary to invite attention to these nine to 
 show the reader the foolishness of this position, as knowl- 
 edge and wisdom are of the nine. We submit that with- 
 out knowledge or wisdom intelligent faith would be 
 impossible. 
 
 Bays continues: 
 
 All men are required to become godly; that is, become like 
 God. 
 
 Permit us to ask how a man can become like God with- 
 out wisdom or knowledge? 
 
 In Mr. Bays' chapter 5, commencing on page 62, in 
 speaking of deadly things he criticises a statement of 
 Joseph Smith's that at a certain time and place he was 
 sick and vomited up poisonous matter, and subsequently 
 was healed by the laying on of hands. He thinks that 
 there should have been evidence produced that poison was 
 administered, and then it should have been analyzed to 
 show the presence of poison. 
 
 To ordinary mortals if the first proposition was proven 
 it would obviate the necessity of proving the second, but 
 he makes a case where there is none, and then demands 
 unreasonable evidence to support it. Mr. Smith was 
 making no effort to sustain a case against anybody for 
 poisoning him, he was not trying to make a case to sustain 
 the truth of the promise of the Savior. Nor has anybody 
 to our knowledge ever presented it in evidence. He 
 simply relates an experience, as anyone else would do 
 under similar circumstances, without seeking to prove 
 anything by it. Had he intended to have prosecuted the 
 parties he would have probably secured evidence to sus- 
 tain his case. We think, however, that even in that case 
 
56 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 skill in the world. And until it can be shown directly and 
 positively from the word of God, that the gift of healing with 
 every other blessing promised by .lesus Christ was to be limited 
 to the apostolic age, we shall continue to believe in, and teach 
 the continued verity of, the promise, "These signs shall follow 
 them that believe." 
 
 Bays again comes to the rescue here with the testimony 
 of what he has not seen. We need not inform our readers 
 that this is entirely incompetent evidence. Again Mr. 
 Bays demands a sign and concludes with the following 
 challenge: 
 
 When any latter-day apostle shall duplicate these miracles, 
 then, and not till then, shall he be able to maintain the claim 
 of Mormonism to miraculous powers.— -Page 69. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary for us to remind the reader that 
 "Mormonism" claims no miraculous power. We claim that 
 all power is in God and in his Son Jesus Christ, and that 
 they are the same yesterday, today, and forever; hence 
 the power exercised by them beforetime may be expected 
 now. 
 
 We will again allow Elder Derry to answer upon this 
 point. He says: 
 
 Mr. Bays, about thirty-seven years ago I administered the 
 ordinance of baptism to you, and I believe assisted in your 
 confirmation. For twenty-seven years you acted as a minister 
 of the gospel in the Reorganized Church and claim to have 
 been a zealous defender of its doctrines during that period. 
 Did you, during that membership and ministry, ever know an 
 approved minister of the church to teach you or any of its 
 membership or ministry, that you or they might, must, or 
 should try to imitate any of the gifts of the gospel in order to 
 make the people believe that the gifts were in Hie church, or 
 for any other purpose? Did you ever know any of the approved 
 ministry of the church to countenance what they believed to 
 be false gifts in any capacity whatever, if such were mani- 
 fested? If not, where is your warrant for pronouncing these 
 gifts a fraud, and the ministry and membership who claim to 
 possess them impostors? Y^ou have failed to show that God or 
 Christ had repealed his gracious promise, "These signs shall 
 follow them that believe" (Mark 16). 
 
 When men undertake to deceive their fellow men, there must 
 be some advantage to be gained, either in worldly honors, or 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 57 
 
 wealth, or some prospect of advancement in the temporalities 
 of life. They can have no hope of a reward for deception in 
 the life to come. And ri^ht here we ask, what worldly fame, 
 honor, or wealth can the Latter Day Saint, whether minister or 
 lay member, possibly expect to receive for believinfr and teach- 
 ing a doctrine that all the world, professing Christian or non- 
 professor, are so diametrically opposed to? What has been 
 their reward hitherto? It has been the blackest calumny that 
 hell could vomit forth, and that from the lips of men who pro- 
 fess to be the followers of the pure and lowly Nazarene. It has 
 been persecution of every kind, imprisonment, mobbings, burn- 
 ings of homes, desolation of farms, slaying of men, women, and 
 children: and at last the cruel, cold-blooded murder of their 
 Prophet and Patriarch. . . . This is the history of the church 
 for the first fourteen years of its existence; and while the mob- 
 bings, burnings, imprisonment, and murder have ceased, the 
 vile calumny is still vomited forth both from press and pulpit, 
 and we are accounted as the oti'scouring of the earth. Verily, 
 impostors would have wilted long ago under such treatment; 
 but these people "stand like the beaten anvil to the stroke." 
 They still insist the message they have received and bear to the 
 world is eternal truth and God is its author. They ask for no 
 earthl.y reward. They sacrifice the comforts of home, and the 
 society of all that is dear to them; yea, they give their own 
 lives a sacrifice in order to bless and enlighten an ungrateful 
 world — to lead it into the narrow way of eternal life. No! 
 Mr. Bays, you cannot prove to me that this church is a fraud. 
 I have tasted of the good word of God, and have drank at the 
 fountain of eternal life; and your opposition only strengthens 
 the children of God in the way of righteousness; for we realize 
 that "No weapon that is formed against it shall prosper; and 
 every tongue that shall rise against it in judgment shall be con- 
 demned," for God hath spoken it. 
 
CHAPTER 3. 
 
 Corruption— Church Organization — Patriarch— Office of Apos- 
 tle — Bays Differs from Peter — Apostle an Ambassador — 
 Apostolic Qualifications — Rule of Succession — First Presi- 
 dency — Patriarch — The Church. 
 
 On page 76 Bays repeats his false charge referred to 
 on page 14 of this book, that we charge all professors with 
 being corrupt, only here he attributes it to Moroni. Then 
 proceeding upon this false assumption he says: 
 
 Corruption, indeed! Where, under the broad canopy of 
 heaven, did there ever exist a people calline- themselves 
 Christian, who were more intolerably corrupt than the peo- 
 ple who composed the different factions which grew up out 
 of the wreck of the first Mormon Church after the death of 
 the Smiths at Carthage, 111., in 1844? Let those who live in 
 glass houses beware how they cast stones. — Page 77. 
 
 Let us suppose that there has been more corruption 
 among the factions of the church since the death of the 
 Smiths than is usually found among other people. What 
 does this suggest? Compare this alleged fact with the 
 following scripture: 
 
 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh 
 through dry places, seeking rest: and finding none, he saith, I 
 will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he 
 Cometh, he findeth it swept and .garnished. Then goeth he, 
 and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than him- 
 self, and they enter in, and dwell tiiere: and the last state of 
 that man is worse than the first. — Luke 11:24-26. 
 
 If Mr, Bays is right about the "intolerable corruption" 
 of the people composing these factions, does it not suggest 
 in the light of this scripture that they have sometime been 
 cleansed by the evil spirit going out of them and their cor- 
 ruption is the result of their entertaining that evil spirit 
 
 again with his seven companions? We think there can be 
 58 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 59* 
 
 but little virtue in a church that a man can leave and 
 retain all his goodness and purity. Such a church will do 
 no man any good. The quicker out of it the better. We 
 have often observed that no man can leave the fellowship 
 of the Saints and disregard the teaching of the church 
 with impunity; while on the other hand some of our best 
 and truest men have come from other churches, and have 
 developed in moral excellency and spiritual power. We 
 are sorry for those who have become "intolerably cor- 
 rupt," but we are warned by their experience to prove 
 true to the truth as we have received it, for neither Mr. 
 Bays nor any other man can show where anyone has 
 become corrupt by adhering strictly to the doctrine taught 
 in the standard books of the church. And here let it be 
 understood that these books contain the only law known 
 to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints. Any man, no matter what his standing, who does 
 not teach according to them is not representing, but mis- 
 representing, the church. We are not responsible for the 
 teaching or practice of Brigham Young, D. H. Bays, or 
 any other man who departs from the faith as recorded in 
 the books that we have accepted as containing the word of 
 God. The church in former times was troubled with men 
 who "crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained 
 to this condemnation, ungodly men," etc. (Jude 4.) But 
 John says: 
 
 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they 
 had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; 
 but they went out, that they miglit be made manifest that they 
 were not all of us. — 1 John 2: 19. 
 
 We rejoice that our experience is similar. 
 
 Mr. Bays on page 78 gives the list of officers that should 
 be found in the church as given by Elder W. H. Kelley on 
 page 226 of his work entitled "Presidency and Priest- 
 hood," commenting as follows: 
 
60 REPLY TO I). H. BAYS. 
 
 Here we have the whole ihinsr in a nutshell. No church, 
 except organized accordinsr to Mr. KelJey's "pattern," can by 
 any possible means be the Church of Christ. 
 
 The antithesis of tiiis proposition would be that any church 
 org'ani/ed accordino' to this pattern must be the Church of 
 Christ. Under this view of the case, will Mr. Kelley inform us 
 just which of the seven or eiorht Mormon churches having; such 
 organization is the genuine church? There are the Brighamite 
 Church, the Josephites, the Strangites, the Rigdonites, the 
 Whitmerites. the Brewsterites, and the Hedrickites, to say 
 nothing of the half-dozen defunct organizations, among which 
 ■was that led by William B. Smith, brother of the prophet. 
 
 This is bad logic and a gross misrepresentation of Elder 
 Kelley's position. The antithesis of Mr. Kelley's proposi- 
 tion is not that "any church organized according to this 
 pattern must be the Church of Christ." The antithesis is 
 this: That any church not having this organization can- 
 not be the church of Christ, but there is nothing in the 
 writings of Elder Kelley here referred to, nor can there be 
 a logical deduction made from his argument to the effect 
 that the only thing requisite in the church of Christ is to 
 have the proper form of organization. The conclusion of 
 Mr. Bays is wholly unwarranted by the premises, and thg 
 questions he propounds uncalled for. Nor is his assertion 
 true as regards the factions named. 
 
 It will be seen that he here includes the Strangites as 
 having such organization, while on page 73 he declares 
 that Strang made some changes in the organization. Mr. 
 Bays may not know, but if he does not he ought to learn, 
 that neither the Rigdonites, the Whitmerites, the Brew- 
 sterites, nor the Hedrickites have such an organization as 
 is described by Elder Kelley. If any have, it is not simply 
 a question of organization. Though this is very important, 
 doctrine, faith, authority, and practice must be taken into 
 the consideration. Mr. Bays has been in a position to 
 know that this statement of his is a very gross misrepre- 
 sentation of both Elder Kelley and the church. The 
 remainder of the chapter in which the above is found is 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 61 
 
 based upon this false assumption and misrepresentation 
 and therefore requires no refutation. 
 On pages 83 and 84 Mr. Bays states: 
 
 Two remarkable deficiencies have ever existed in the Reor- 
 ganized Churcii, which may, with propriety', be mentioned in 
 this connection, namely: 
 
 1. While the church has existed nearly fort3'-seven years, yet 
 it has never had a full "quorum" of Twelve Apostles— the num- 
 ber usually being from seven to ten. 
 
 2. It has never had, in all these years, a Patriarch; and as the 
 duty of that official is "to confer blessings" upon the members 
 of the church, their loss can never be estimated. 
 
 These defects in the organic structure of the church cause 
 more or less uneasiness and comment upon the part of some of 
 the leading men, and their fears were not removed till April 15, 
 1894, when President Joseph Smith received the following reve- 
 lation, in which the Lord is represented as saying: 
 
 "It is not expedient in me that the Quorum of the Presidency 
 and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shall be filled, for 
 reasons which will be seen and known unto you in due time." — 
 Doctrines and Covenants, sec. 122, par. 4, page 353. 
 
 Concerning the appointment and consecration of a Patriarchy 
 the revelation continues: 
 
 "For the same reasons in me that it is not expedient to fill the 
 quorums of the First Presidency and the Twelve, who are apos- 
 tles and high priests, it is not expedient that a Patriarch for the 
 church should be indicated and appointed." 
 
 It is true that for many years these quorums were not 
 full, and the people were more or less anxious that they 
 should be filled, but there was no uneasiness occasioned by 
 the fear that the form of organization had been abandoned 
 or that it would not in the due time of the Lord be com- 
 pleted. Mr. Bays either intentionally or carelessly con- 
 veys the idea that the church had drifted from the original 
 plan of organization, and the suspicion that this was his 
 intention grows stronger when we notice that he leaves 
 out the little word yet from the quotation. Instead of 
 quoting it as it is: "It is not yet expedient," etc., he 
 quotes, "It is not expedient," thus leaving it to be 
 inferred that the deficiency was to be permanent. We 
 would think nothing of a slight omission like this if the 
 
«2 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 whole tenor of the argument were not in harmony with 
 the changed reading. 
 
 On page 85, in speaking of the office of patriarch, Bays 
 says: 
 
 The position was a lucrative one, the Patriarch receiving, it 
 is said, one dollar for each "blessing sealed upon the head" of 
 the faithful. 
 
 By whom is this said? The church has made no such 
 provision. The Patriarch has not been authorized to make 
 a charge of any kind. 
 
 He receives no salary, but like other ministers he would 
 no doubt receive donations from those with whom he min- 
 isters who wish to contribute to his support. 
 
 On page 85 and following pages Mr. Bays invites atten- 
 tion to the fact that Latter Day Saints cite 1 Corinthians 
 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11-14 as proof that the officers 
 named therein should continue in the church, and then 
 expresses his conclusion as follows: 
 
 1. While 1 Cor. 12:28 aftirms that "God set some in the 
 church," and names apostles and prophets, among others, it 
 does not intimate that such officers are a necessary part of the 
 church organization; in fact, it does not even call them 
 "officers" of the church, nor does any other Scripture so 
 declare. Nothing is here, then, to show that apostles and 
 prophets were a part of the official and organic structure of the 
 church. 
 
 2. Ephesians 4:11-14 declares that Christ gave "gifts" unto 
 men, and among other things he gave some apostles and proph- 
 ets, but there is not one word about the office of apostle and 
 prophet, much less a provision to continue such "offices" in all 
 •ages of the world. 
 
 If apostles were in the church, as here affirmed, they 
 must have been a part of the church, and if not a neces- 
 sary part of the church organization then they must have 
 been an unnecessary part. Further, if they were a super- 
 fluous part to the church, the one placing them there is 
 responsible for this work of supererogation, and that per- 
 son is God. This sophistry is hardly worthy a notice. But 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 63 
 
 we might inquire, If this addition is not necessary, what 
 other addition to the church organic is necessary? Bays 
 reasons elsewhere that apostles are not necessary because 
 elders may perform all the ofiScial functions belonging to 
 the apostle. Should we admit this to be true, then why 
 give the elder the preference? Why not say that the elder 
 is not needed because the apostle may perform all the 
 necessary functions belonging to the eider? It is our 
 opinion that God does nothing that is unnecessary, and 
 therefore he having placed both apostles and elders in the 
 church, they are both necessary. 
 
 It would appear from the above that Bays does not 
 believe that there is such a thing as the apostolic office. 
 
 So far as this controversy is concerned it makes no dif- 
 ference whether there is or not. Whether you call the 
 position an office or not does not enter into the considera- 
 tion as to whether the apostle should be in the church. 
 We think, however, that Mr. Bays is mistaken, and that 
 the apostle's position is an office in the church. 
 
 He says no scripture does so declare. Let us see. 
 Peter in speaking of Judas says "his bishopric let another 
 take." — Acts 1:20. Paul says; "If a man desire the 
 office of a hishop, he desireth a good work." Putting 
 these together, Judas the apostle held a bishopric, and 
 the position of a bishop is an office. Judas' successor was 
 to take a bishopric or an office. The several different 
 English translations of the Bible that we have examined on 
 this point practically agree in calling the position spoken 
 of in Acts 1:20 an office, or bishopric. King James', the 
 Inspired, and the Douay translations each render it, "his 
 bishopric let another take." The Campbell, McKnight, 
 and Doddridge; the American Bible Union, and the 
 Kevised Version agree in making it still plainer, each 
 rendering it, "His office let another take." The word in 
 the passage in Psalms from which Peter here quotes is in 
 
64 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 the Douay translation rendered hishopric, and in the 
 Inspired, Kin^ James', and Revised translations it is 
 rendered office. These authorities all agree that the 
 position of 'apostle transferred from Judas to Matthias 
 was an office. 
 Paul also says regarding his position: 
 
 As I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office. — 
 Rom. 11: 13. 
 
 Yet Bays says that his position was not that of an office, 
 and the Christian Publishing House says that Bays is 
 "accurate and reliable." 
 
 Other authorities consider the position of an apostle an 
 office. 
 
 Webster defines the word office in its scriptural sense ta 
 mean: 
 
 A charge or trust, of a sacred nature, conferred by God him- 
 self; as, tiie office of a priest under the old dispensation, and 
 that of the apostles in the new. 
 
 Alexander Campbell said: 
 
 They were all co-elders, co-bishops, co-apostles, as respected 
 each other; and as respected all other officers the apostles were 
 first. — Campbell and Purcell Debate, page 14. 
 
 .But last of all comes Elder Bays himself and contradicts 
 his own theory. On page 90 of the book now under con- 
 sideration in speaking of apostles and others Mr. Bays 
 says: 
 
 1. No such "offices" as those mentioned were ever "created," 
 and hence never received "occupants" for the ''f/uidance q( the 
 churches." 
 
 2. Such offices never having been created could not have 
 been, and in fact were not, established in the Church of Christ. 
 
 On the very next page he says: 
 
 The twelve apostles wore, in their official character, embassa' 
 dors; and were representalivi^ rather than exe'cut ive or judicial, 
 officers, and as such were not a part of the internal organism of 
 the body spiritual. 
 
' REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 65 
 
 They were not officers, but they had an official character. 
 Well, well! What next? Here it is: 
 
 If the office of the apostles was ambassadorial, it will doubt- 
 less readily be granted that they are at once removed from the 
 domain of the executive and judicial, except in a manner 
 purely ex officio. — Page 92. 
 
 Ex officio according to Webster means: "From office; 
 by virtue of, or as a consequence, of an office; officially.'' 
 So the apostles held no office in the church, no such office 
 having been created; yet they acted in "the domain of the 
 executive and judicial" by "virtue of their office." 
 
 Wonderful "children of Providence," these! 
 
 In regard to the provision to continue the office of apos- 
 tle, after declaring that there is no such provision, he 
 admits that there was one precedent in the example of the 
 apostles at Jerusalem in the choosing of Matthias. But 
 Bays is not balked by such trifles as this. He can take 
 issue with an ancient apostle as easily as he can with a 
 modern one if it suits his purpose. Hear what he says: 
 
 The action of the eleven, in forming what is deemed by some 
 as a precedent, was doubtless prompted by an exegesis of what 
 they seemed to think was a prophecy relating directly to the 
 question they were then considering. This fact, and not that 
 they were governed by any law then in existence, was their 
 only authority for this remarkable transaction. 
 
 There is not even an intimation that they were directed by 
 the Holy Spirit in the matter. As a matter of fact, the Spirit 
 had not yet been given by which it had been promised they 
 should be guided into "all truth." Hence, it is by no means cer- 
 tain that the choosingof Matthias by "lot" was ever accepted and 
 approved of God, but the circumstances tend rather to support 
 the opposite view of the case. Matthias sank as utterly from 
 view as did the individual whom he had, by accident, been 
 chosen to succeed. 
 
 It may be unpopular to say so, but the writer does not 
 believe the Scriptures referred to bj' Peter, who seems to have 
 presented the matter to the meeting, has any reference what- 
 ever to Judas Iscariotor the betrayal of Christ. — Pages 96, 97. 
 
 Bays' illustrious predecessor, Alexander Campbell, is 
 against him in this. He says: 
 
66 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 The Apostles taught the churches to do all the Lord 
 commanded. Whatever, then, the churches did by the 
 appointment or concurrence of the Apostles, they did by the 
 commandment of Jesus Christ.— Christian System, pages 311, 
 
 ol/4. 
 
 Mr. Campbell also sustains the contention of the Saints 
 in this: That there could be no officer without an office. 
 He says: 
 
 We have emphatically stated, that the first point is to establish 
 the office. If there is no office, there can be no officer. — Camp- 
 bell and Purcell, pages 98 and 99. 
 
 So Mr. Bays in his anxiety to antagonize the position of 
 the Saints takes issue with Peter and the action of the 
 church at Jerusalem, and runs counter to the learned Mr. 
 Campbell, whose work he claims to be perpetuating. His 
 presumption grows more and more apparent as we pro- 
 ceed. Among the Latter Day Saints no one witnessed 
 what Bays did not see or hear! Among the Christians no 
 one fought Mormonism successfully who did not fight it on 
 Bays' lines; even the honorable Alexander Campbell must 
 stand corrected when Bays speaks! The church at Jerusa- 
 lem under the instruction of the eleven apostles was wrong 
 when doing what Bays does not approve! 
 
 He gives as a reason for believing that God did not 
 approve of the selection of Matthias that he "sank as 
 utterly from view as did the individual whom he had, by 
 accident, been chosen to succeed." This reason would 
 throw discredit upon the calling of the majority of the 
 apostles chosen by the Christ. What is there on record 
 after this time concerning Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, 
 Thomas, Lebbeus, Simon, or one of the Jameses? 
 
 Again he says that "there is not even an intimation that 
 they were directed by the Holy Spirit in the matter." 
 We are told that "they prayed, and said. Thou, Lord, 
 which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of 
 these two thou hast chosen." This seems to be an intima- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 67 
 
 tion that they expected to be directed by the Lord in some 
 way. Mr. Bays assumes that Latter Day Saints teach 
 ''that the apostles and prophets are a necessary safeguard 
 against every form of fraud and deception." — Page 86. 
 Then presuming upon this assumption he asks: 
 
 If apostles and prophets were designed as a means of protec- 
 tion against fraud— to prevent the possibility of being "carried 
 about with every wind of doctrine," then how does it come that 
 the Mormon Church has developed a greater amount of fraud, 
 and its membership have been "tossed to and fro," and carried 
 about with "winds of doctrine" such as have never disturbed 
 any other church or people? Will somebody answer?— Page 87. 
 
 In the first place, Latter Day Saints teach no such 
 thing. They have never affirmed that the presence of 
 apostles or prophets would be a safeguard against decep- 
 tion and fraud; but they have claimed, and do claim, that 
 to keep strictly within the law of God is a safeguard, and 
 that this will include the form of organization. But the 
 form of organization is not the only thing necessary. To 
 be entirely safe, all, including apostles and prophets, as 
 well as the membership, should be in harmony with the 
 revealed will of God in all things. As we have before 
 said, neither Elder Bays nor any other man can show that 
 any of the things that he refers to as fraudulent have been 
 the result of obedience to the teachings of the standard 
 works of the church. Until he can do this all his 
 sophistry based upon the assumption that the Saints 
 teach what they do not teach is the merest twaddle. 
 
 In chapter 9, commencing on page 91, Mr. Bays con- 
 tends that an apostle was simply an ambassador, and his 
 functions being ambassadorial he is not needed as an 
 officer of the home government. 
 
 He spends some time and space in argument, and 
 quotes largely from scripture to prove that the apostles 
 v/ere Christ's ambassadors, as though this would settle 
 the whole question. We concede, yes urge, that they 
 
68 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 were ambassadors of Christ; but we fail to see that they 
 may not have possessed other functions. 
 
 The following scriptures show that they had official 
 duties to perform in the home government — the church: 
 
 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon 
 me daily, the care of all the churches. — 2 Cor. 11: 28. 
 
 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be 
 read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye like- 
 wise read the epistle from Laodicea. — Col. 4: 16. 
 
 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,. 
 "What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven 
 churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unio Smyrna, 
 and unto Pergamos, and ujnto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and 
 unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. — Rev. 1: 11. 
 
 And in connection with these it will be well to note that 
 Paul addresses his epistle to the Romans, the two epistles 
 to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the 
 Philippians, the Colossians, and the two epistles to the 
 Thessalonians, to the churches, the saints, the brethren^ 
 etc. And in defining the duties of apostles, prophets, 
 evangelists, pastors, and teachers, he speaks of three dif- 
 ferent lines of duty belonging to them; viz., "perfecting of 
 the saints," "work of the ministry," "edifying of the body 
 of Christ." Two of the three, it will be seen, are espe- 
 cially to the church. 
 
 One at least of Peter's two epistles is addressed to 
 believers. 
 
 These evidences might be many times multiplied, but 
 this is sufficient. 
 
 But from Mr. Bays' standpoint, what would be the logi- 
 cal deduction regarding the relation of God's kingdom to 
 the kingdoms of the world? 
 
 He states: 
 
 This point, then, may be regarded as authoritatively settled. 
 The apofstles of Christ were his ambassadors. 
 
 The question now arises as to whether an ambassador is 
 necessary either to the existence of a government or to its per- 
 petuation. No one possessing ordinary intelligence would 
 think of asserting that an ambassador is necessary to the exist- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 69 
 
 ence of any form of government, however desirable such a 
 dignitary might be regarded. 
 
 As well may we argue that the presence of our ambassador at 
 the court of St. James is necessary to the existence of the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, as to declare the presence of 
 apostles— ambassadors— in the Church of Christ is necessary to 
 its existence. This government could recall every ambassador 
 now representing the American people at foreign courts with- 
 out interfering in the least with the constitutional form of its 
 government. What is true of an earthly government, in this 
 regard, may also be affirmed of the Church of Christ. Hence, 
 the removal of the apostles from the church could in no possible 
 manner interfere with, or change, the constitutional form of its 
 government. 
 
 Viewing the question from this standpoint, it becomes clear 
 that neither apostles nor prophets are in the least necessary to 
 the existence and perpetuity of the Church of Christ, and may 
 be dispensed with, therefore, without interfering with its 
 utility.— Pages 93, 94. 
 
 Yes, if Mr. Bays is right that the apostles possess 
 ambassadorial functions only, and they are the accredited 
 ambassadors, the church might continue without them, 
 but it would be in an exclusive sense only. When a 
 government withdraws its ambassadors from foreign 
 courts all friendly relations and negotiations cease, and 
 as a rule hostilities follow. 
 
 So if Mr. Bays would have a church without accredited 
 ambassadors, he must abandon the missionary work, and 
 sever all friendly relations with the world. 
 
 Or if his idea is that the apostles were ambassadors 
 from the court of heaven to the earth, then the con- 
 clusion must be that with the withdrawal of heaven's 
 ambassadors, God has severed all communication with 
 the earth, and there are no friendly relations existing 
 between heaven and earth— a total apostasy. He must 
 admit further, that if God ever renews friendly relations 
 with the world he will again send ambassadors— apostles 
 to the courts of the earth, through whom we may negotiate 
 with the government of God in heaven. Such are the 
 logical deductions from his own premises. 
 
70 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 On page 98 Mr. Bays has this to say regarding the 
 
 qualifications of an apostle. 
 
 To be an apostle of Christ, then, these eleven understood that 
 the folloNvin^ (lualifications were absolute]\^ necessary: 
 
 1. Tiiat the individual must have seen Christ. "Am I not an 
 apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?'' (1 Cor. 9:1. 
 See also Luke 1 : 2; Acts 10: 41 ; 1 Cor 15: 5-8; 2 Pet. 2: 10). 
 
 2. That he must have been with Christ from the ''beginning.''* 
 Paul's apostleship was questioned on this ground. Instead of 
 bein.fif a witness he had been a persecutor from the beg^inning. 
 and hence was not acknowledged as an apostle of Christ until 
 he was able to produce the "seal of his apostleship;" his 
 miracles were unquestionable. 
 
 3. He must have been a "witness of his resurrection." 
 
 Strange that Mr. Bays would at one time declare that 
 there was no evidence that the action of the eleven was 
 approved of God and then quote their understanding upon 
 other points. 
 
 Under paragraph 1 he cites, as seen above, several 
 passages to prove what the eleven understood. A careful 
 examination of these references will not disclose the most 
 remote connection with the understanding of the eleven, 
 nor is there a statement in any of these passages to the 
 effect that seeing Christ is an indispensable qualification 
 for being an apostle. These are simply historical refer- 
 ences to events in which apostles and others saw Christ, 
 but not a word regarding it being necessary to see him in 
 order to be an apostle. 
 
 When we think seriously about this, and ask what 
 advantage would it be to an apostle as such to see Christ, 
 there is no answer. Those who saw him in the flesh were 
 no better or wiser because of this seeing. The majority 
 who saw him remained his enemies still; while those who 
 were his disciples were not so simply because they had 
 seen him. They knew he was the Christ, not by the see- 
 ing of the eye nor the hearing of the ear, but by the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit, as the following passages 
 plainly indicate: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 71 
 
 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he 
 asked his disciples, saving', Whom do men say that I, the Son 
 of man, am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the 
 Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the 
 prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 
 And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the 
 Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him. 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not 
 revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
 I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven.— Matt. 16:13-19. 
 
 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon you: and .ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, 
 and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth. — Acts 1:8. 
 
 Wherefore I give j'ou to understand, that no man speaking 
 by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man 
 can sav that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. — 
 1 Cor. 12:3. 
 
 These passages prove conclusively that it is only by the 
 revelation of God that a man can know the Christ, and 
 hence wherever the Holy Spirit reveals the fact that 
 Jesus is the Christ men are eligible to selection as 
 witnesses; while simply seeing him leaves a man as 
 poorly qualified as before seeing him, because the seeing 
 fails to reveal him as the Christ. In the absence, then, 
 of any statement in the word of God that seeing Christ 
 is an indispensable apostolic qualification we see no 
 strength in this defining of qualifications by Mr. Bays. 
 If seeing Christ would constitute one man an apos- 
 tle it would so constitute every other man who saw 
 him. Again, if because some apostles saw him we con- 
 clude that no one can be an apostle without seeing 
 him, then to be consistent we should conclude that as 
 five hundred brethren saw him, no one could be one of 
 the brethren without seeing him. (1 Cor. 15: 6.) 
 
 There is no more evidence that the seeing of Christ was 
 
73 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 a qualification for an apostle than there is that it should 
 be a qualification for being a brother. 
 
 Bays' second qualification which he without sufficient 
 warrant attributes to the eleven, is that an apostle should 
 have been with Christ from the beginning. This he bases 
 solely upon the fact that from those who had been with 
 the apostles from the beginning, Judas' successor was to 
 have been chosen. It does not follow that every apostle 
 was to have been with them from the beginning because 
 such an one was chosen at that time. 
 
 Mr. Bays immediately proceeds to defeat his own point 
 by stating that Paul did not possess this qualification, and 
 yet there was evidence produced to establish Paul's title 
 to the apostleship. 
 
 His third qualification is as faulty as the others; viz., 
 that an apostle must be a witness of Christ's resurrection. 
 Paul did not witness that resurrection. The only way he 
 could be said to have been a witness was that he saw him 
 after the resurrection. But we submit that he might be 
 deceived if he depended on the natural sight only; and a 
 better thought is the one Paul himself expresses; viz., 
 ''that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 Mr. Bays is very solicitous for a rule of succession in the 
 apostolic office. There is no specific and detailed rule of 
 succession for apostles, bishops, elders, evangelists, 
 pastors, teachers, or deacons. It is just as consistent to 
 demand this specific rule in the one case as in the other. 
 The rule is simply this: 
 
 Ye have not chosen me. but I have chosen 3'ou, and ordained 
 you, that ye should go and bring forth frnit. and that 3'our 
 fruit should remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father 
 in my name, he may give it you. — John 15: 16. 
 
 God has reserved in his own power to choose whom he 
 will, and when he chooses the iAuthority is sufficient. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 73 
 
 As in timfco past he gave these offices to the church for 
 the "perfecting of the saints," the "work of the ministry," 
 and "the edifying of the body of Christ," it seems quite 
 clear to us that until these purposes are accomplished 
 he will continue the same means. We think he was not 
 experimenting, but knowing -full well the end from the 
 beginning he chose the best means for the accomplishment 
 of the desired purpose; and hence will continue the means 
 until the consummation of the purpose sought. 
 
 We have discussed this question regarding the apostle 
 with only incidental reference to the prophet, because the 
 prophet does not seem to be a specific office, but a man 
 holding any other office may possess prophetic gifts. 
 The First Presidency according to recent revealments 
 are apostles. They are the chief or presiding apostles. 
 
 But says Mr. Bays: 
 
 Will some of those sticklers for "the law and the testimony" 
 tell us where the New Testament describes the process of 
 calling and setting apart a few of the officers of the Mormon 
 Church? 
 
 For instance, where does it say anything about the "First 
 Presidency," consisting of "a chief apostle and high priest, 
 with two associate counselors?" 
 
 It will be interesting to Ivnow something about when Jesus 
 called the "Patriarch" and "set" him in the church; and a 
 short biographical sketch of that dignitary would be very 
 interesting reading. Who will volunteer the information? 
 
 Will some zealous defender of the Mormon theoloiry tell us 
 ■when and for what purpose Christ placed "Hieh Priests" in 
 his church? It might be well at the same time to give us 3, 
 little information concerning the consecration of "Patriarchs" 
 and "High Priests." 
 
 It will be interesting to know when the Savior "created" the 
 office of "priest" and "established" it in his church, and for 
 what purpose. What is the duty of a priest? — Pages 101, 102. 
 
 So far as the process of calling is concerned, it should 
 
 always be done by revelation. See John 15: 16; Acts 
 
 13: 2; Acts 20: 28; Hebrews 5: 4. The setting apart should 
 
 be done by the laying on of the hands of those in authority. 
 
 See Acts 13: 3; 1 Timothy 4: 14; 2 Timothy 1: 6. 
 
•74 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS 
 
 As for the duty of officers we do not claim that the Bible 
 contains specific instruction regarding the duties of each, 
 the Lord having provided that they are collectively and 
 individually under his immediate supervision; he directs 
 them as duty is required, but always consistently with 
 what is on record, as he changes not. 
 
 Regarding "a chief apostle and high priest, with two 
 associate counselors," we have this to say: When Paul 
 went up to Jerusalem he found three who seemed to hold 
 the chief authority. He says: 
 
 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be 
 pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave 
 to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we 
 should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 
 —Gal. 2:9. 
 
 The church was admonished through Paul as was Moses^ 
 to "make all things according to the pattern," which was 
 said to be "the example and shadow of heavenly things." 
 (Hebrews 8: 5.) 
 
 Some insight is had into the future kingdom of God 
 through the following incident: 
 
 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her 
 sons, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. 
 And he said unto her. What wilt thou? She saith unto him. 
 Grant that these m}'' two sons may sit, the one on th}' right 
 hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus 
 answered and said. Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to 
 drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with 
 the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him. We 
 are able. And he saith unto them. Ye shall drink indeed of 
 my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized 
 with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine 
 to erive, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of 
 my Father.— Matthew 20:20-23. 
 
 Here the Savior expressly declares that the places at his 
 right hand and his left, "shall be given to them for whom 
 it is prepared of my Father." This gives prominence to 
 three persons, and if the church is to be according to the 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 7& 
 
 pattern of heavenly things there must be the quorum of 
 three holding the chief authority on earth. 
 
 As to the patriarch, he is, as the meaning of the word 
 implies, a father; and the patriarch of the church was pro- 
 vided chiefly, no doubt, that the fatherless might have 
 some one to whom they could look for fatherly advice and 
 care. The Latter Day Saints are not peculiar in this. 
 The Christian Church which Mr. Bays represents has had 
 this officer in the church, and it should be remembered 
 that they claim to "speak where the Bible speaks," and to 
 be "silent where the Bible is silent." The Christian Evan- 
 gelist for December 6, 1900, contains an address by J. S. 
 Lamar, "delivered before the Georgia State Convention, 
 at Augusta, Nov. 20, 1900, on the Jubilee anniversary of 
 the introduction of the Reformation in that state." In 
 this address he said of Alexander Campbell: 
 
 Venerable patriarch of the clean heart and the silver tonofue! 
 Faithful servant of God, and apostle of .Tesus Christ! The 
 world did not know him. The churches whom he lived and 
 labored to bless did not know him. Nor will the}' know him 
 until, by the g'race of God, they meet him before the throne, 
 clothed in white raiment and with palms in his hands. 
 
 But right here our Christian friends may object to the 
 application and say that Elder Lamar used the word in its 
 general sense and not as applying to a special office. But 
 how is it with the following from the "Early History of the 
 Disciples in the Western Reserve," by A. S. Hayden, page 
 253? 
 
 Here I should speak more particularly of Father Ryder's 
 relations to the church, especially with reference to one point. 
 As he was an influential citizen at the time of his conversion, 
 he was justly regarded as an important acquisition to the cause. 
 He took from the beginning, the leading position. The breth- 
 ren were few in number, and poor in goods. He served the 
 church, as was his duty, with little or no reward. The more 
 the church grew, the more il seemed to need him. He was 
 first the eldest brother, then the father, finally the patriarch. 
 
76 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Father Eyder was, then, the patriarch of the church, 
 was he not? 
 
 It is useless to treat in detail of the several offices of the 
 church as demanded by Elder Bays. Let it be distinctly 
 understood that we make no claim that every detail of 
 official duty is delineated in the Bible. It should be 
 remembered that all the things that Jesus and the apos- 
 tles said and did are not recorded. John says on this 
 point: 
 
 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the 
 which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even 
 the world itself could not contain the books that should be 
 written. Amen. — John 21: 25. 
 
 Doubtless enough was then given to guide the church, 
 but it has not all been transmitted to us, and God does 
 not expect us to obey what we do not know, nor does he 
 intend to save us on any other terms than those upon 
 which he has saved others. He has therefore provided 
 that the same avenues of light should be opened to us that 
 we may be instructed by divine communion and revelation. 
 What may be obscure in the written word he is willing to 
 make plain. 
 
 Before leaving this point we will again quote from Elder 
 
 Derry as follows: 
 
 Paul in defining the nature and formation of that church 
 compares it to the body of a man. The body of a man would 
 be incomplete without a head. But we are told that "Christ is 
 the head of the church;" this we rejoice to know. But Paul 
 also speaks of the church as a bride, and John speaks of the 
 church as "the bride," "the Lamb's wife." The bride is 
 always a distinct existence from the bridegroom, and as perfect 
 in her organization as he. Woman is not without a head any 
 more than man: and when Paul says "The husband is the head 
 of the wife" (Eph. 5:23), he also recognizes the fact that she 
 has a head of her own; and when he further says, "I would 
 have you know that the hi'ad of every man is Christ; and the 
 head of the woman is the man, and ihe Head of Christ is God" 
 (1 Cor. 11: H), he does not ignore the fact that each has his 
 individual head. In fact, as the head is the seal of intelligence 
 in every being, and because of that intelligence God holds every 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 77 
 
 being responsible to him, it follows that without the head there 
 could be no intelligence, hence no responsibility. I^ut Christ 
 does hold the church responsible to him as he is responsible to 
 his Father. Hence, she must have an immediate head in order 
 to be able to receive communications from the great Head, her 
 Husband, Christ. Thus it is evident that when Paul com- 
 pared the church to the body of man and spoke of her relation 
 to Christ as the wife to her husband, he made no mistake; nor 
 was there any mistake made when Christ again organized his 
 church in these last days, with a living head here upon 
 earth, subject to the great Head, Christ, as Christ is subject to 
 the Father. And through this wise provision the wife, the 
 church, is enabled to hold communion with her husband, and 
 learn how to deport herself so as to be acceptable to him — "a 
 glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; 
 but that it should be holy and without blemish." 
 
 It is not enough to say that the New Testament does not 
 mention an earthly head, under Christ. The New Testament 
 as we have shown does not give every detail, but it does dis- 
 tinctly show that the church has its own immediate head, as 
 the wife has her own head. Paul says, "God set in the church, 
 first apostles," and during Christ's life we find there were three 
 of these apostles that enjoyed a closer communion with him 
 than the others, not, of course, that he loved them more, but 
 very probably they were to be prepared for greater responsibili- 
 ties. These three, Peter, James, and John were privileged to 
 be with him on the mount of transfiguration, "and were eye-wit- 
 nesses of his majesty." (Matt. 17; '2 Peter 1: 16.) These three 
 were permitted to accompany him into Gethsemane, during the 
 hour of his great atrony. (Matt. 26:37.) To one of these he 
 said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." 
 (Matt. 16:19.) And again, "Feed m}^ lambs;" "Feed my 
 sheep." (John 21:15, 17.) In the writer's opinion this indi- 
 cated the watchcare of the flock, and Bays will please take 
 notice that the number of those thus privileged were three: 
 and to one of these three he gives the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven, and commands him, "Feed my sheep." We have no 
 further comments to make on this, onl}' to call attention to the 
 close similarity between Christ's action then in calling these 
 three apart from the rest and making them eye-witnesses of his 
 majesty and of his Gethsemane, in connection with the giving 
 of the keys, and the setting apart of three in the last days and 
 committing unto one of these three especially, the keys of the 
 kingdom. And I would remark that we understand these "keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven," as the means of communication 
 between the church and the great Head of the church, who had 
 ascended into heaven, and also the power to open the door of 
 the kingdom by the preaching of the gospel to all mankind. 
 
78 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Mr. Bays argues that only necessary offices should be 
 retained in the church, and therefore apostles can be dis- 
 carded with impunity as all functions belonging to them 
 can be discharged by elders. Mr. Bays assumes without 
 warrant that elders can discharge all functions of the 
 apostle. The Bible does not justify this assumption, as 
 elders were ordained in the local churches, while the 
 apostle's duty is general, as Paul puts it, having care of 
 all the churches. 
 
 Again, if apostles are unnecessary and can be discarded 
 with impunity, they should not have been placed there. 
 Mr, Bays reflects upon the wisdom of placing them in the 
 church, though it is said that God set them in the church. 
 
CHAPTER 4. 
 
 Apostles— Foundation of the Church— The Teeter Board— Call- 
 infr of Ministers — Ordination— Priesthood— Choosing Apostles 
 — Jesus in Solemn Assembly. 
 
 In his eleventh chapter, commencing on page 106, the 
 weakness of Bays is very apparent. In regard to his 
 premises little needs to be said except to allow him to 
 state it in his own language: 
 
 "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time 
 the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth unto 
 it." (Luke 16: 16). 
 
 Here we have it plainly stated that the "kingdom of God" 
 had its inception with John. If the terms "Kingdom of God" 
 and "Church of Christ" are synonymous, then the Church of 
 Christ had existed from the beginning of John's ministry to the 
 calling of the twelve, without either apostles or prophets. 
 
 Since the church existed from the beginning of John's minis- 
 try to the calling of the twelve without either apostles or 
 prophets, it follows as a necessary sequence that neither was an 
 essential part of its official membership. 
 
 This, however, is ancient history, and may be questioned by 
 our Mormon friends, and so we shall come down to a period of 
 later date for a little history relative to this matter, the authen- 
 ticity of which no Latter Day Saint will care to deny. 
 
 "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," was 
 organized with six members, "at Fayette, Seneca Co., N. Y., 
 Tuesday, the 6th day of April, 1830.'' (See Tullidge's History, 
 page 75). 
 
 This church, Mr. Kelley informs us, was "regularly organ- 
 ized," at the above time and place. Query — How many 
 apostles were included in tMs organization with six members? 
 At the time this organization was effected, another important 
 event occurred, namely, the ordination of Joseph Smith and 
 Oliver Cowdery to the "Melchizedek priesthood." The prophet 
 himself, concerning the ordination, says 
 
 "I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery and ordained 
 him an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 
 after which he ordained me also to the office of an elder of said 
 church." (Ibid, page 75). 
 
 79 
 
80 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the highest officer in the church at 
 the time of its organization was an elder. These two elders- 
 Joseph and Oliver — at the time of organizing the church, "con- 
 firmed," by the laying on of hands, all persons who had pre- 
 viously been baptized, aa the history of the event shows. 
 Under the ministry of persons holding the office of an elder, 
 and nothing higher, the Mormon Church flourished and con- 
 tinued to grow till Feb. 14th, 1835, when the twelve apostles were 
 chosen. 
 
 If the church could exist and flourish from April 6, 1830, ta 
 Feb. 14, 1835, without apostles, why could it not continue to 
 exist, and flourish, and grow, from 1830 to 1897?— and if that 
 length of time, why not forever? Why cumber the church 
 with apostles, when the elders may perform the work assigned 
 to an apostle? 
 
 But, on the other hand, if apostles, prophets, high priest and 
 sevent}' are really necessary to its proper organization, then 
 the church constituted April Gth. 1830, with elders only, could not 
 have been the Church of Christ, and its members, including 
 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, were still "foreigners and 
 strangers to the commonwealth of Israel." 
 
 Which horn of the dilemma will our Mormon friends take? 
 Either is fatal to their cause. Viewed from this standpoint it 
 appears conclusive that apostles and prophets are superfluous 
 and unnecessary. — Pages 106-108. 
 
 To destroy the church of the Saints, he strikes a blow 
 that would affect the church of New Testament times as 
 adversely as it would the object of his attack. This is 
 virtually a concession that they are so nearly alike that 
 what hurts one hurts the other. To make this plain let 
 us ask the same questions about the church of former 
 times that he does regarding the modern one. If the 
 church could exist and flourish without apostles from the 
 date of John's ministry until the calling of the Twelve by 
 Christ, why could it not continue to exist and flourish and 
 grow from that time on forever without them? Why 
 cumber the church with apostles? On the other hand, if 
 apostles, etc., were really necessary to its proper organi- 
 zation, then the church as constituted in the days of the 
 Baptist could not have been the church of Christ, and its 
 members, including John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Peter,, 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 81 
 
 and others, were still "foreigners and strangers to the 
 commonwealth of Israel." 
 
 Which horn of the dilemma will our friends take? 
 Either is fatal to their cause. The assumption of Elder 
 Bays still increases. We have already seen that he 
 assumes that he was the most reliable witness among 
 Latter Day Saints, and that he is the most able among 
 his Christian brethren in combatting Mormonism. Now 
 he boldly proclaims the act of Christ in adding apostles 
 and prophets to the official membership of the church a 
 nonessential act. 
 
 Passing over several pages of sophistry too apparently 
 absurd for notice we refer to his chapter twelve, regard- 
 ing the foundation of the church. Mr. Bays occupies two 
 chapters of his book in discussing the question of church 
 foundation, basing his argument on Matthew 16: 18, "Upon 
 this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it." 
 
 After much ado on what Joseph Smith, T. W. Smith, 
 and others are supposed to have said, he reaches the con- 
 clusion that the Bible (Authorized Version), the Inspired 
 Translation, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants 
 all agree on this point, and that they are all right because 
 they approve of Bays' opinion. What is he finding fault 
 with, then, if our standard books are all on the right side? 
 
 We might leave it here, and would but for the fact that 
 there are some remarks in his argument, which, if not 
 explained, would be misleading. Bays knows full well that 
 the statements of Joseph Smith or those of any other man 
 are not accepted as law to the church, and if contrary ta 
 the books we teach that they should be rejected. Hence 
 if Joseph Smith is on one side, as Bays affirms, and the 
 books on the other, we are committed to the side of the 
 books, and Bays has made no point against the church. 
 
 However, the assertion of Bays that Joseph Smith and 
 
82 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 the books are in conflict should not be accepted without 
 painstaking investigation. 
 
 On page 112 he states several opinions based upon his 
 text, and among others this: 
 
 Another class of theologians— the Latter Day Saints — take 
 unique j^round upon this question and aflfirni that ''revelation'' 
 is the rock. They seem to derive this view from what Christ 
 said to Peter, namely: 
 
 *'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath 
 r\oi revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." 
 (V. 18.) 
 
 This revelation, they tell us, is the rock upon which Jesus 
 declares he will build his church. — Pages 112, 113. 
 
 After here stating that the revelation quoted is the one 
 accepted by the church as the rock, he finds it convenient 
 on page 118 to state our position syllogistically as follows: 
 
 Revelation is the foundation of the church. 
 The Book of Mormon is a revelation.. 
 
 Therefore the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the 
 church. 
 
 Thus representing that we accept one revelation as the 
 rock on which Jesus Christ will build his church, and then 
 representing that we accept another revelation as the 
 foundation of the church. 
 
 Does he in one case or the other, or in both, misrepre- 
 sent us? Or does he admit that the foundation of the 
 church and the rock upon which the foundation rests are 
 two distinct and separate things? If the latter is his 
 intention, we hope he will not forget it in the further 
 consideration of this question. We take it for granted 
 that Bays is consistent, in this, and that he accepts the 
 conclusion that the rock upon which the church is built 
 is not the foundation, but the solid substance upon which 
 the foundation rests. This is a distinction which Bays 
 ignores in his affirmative argument while he recognizes 
 it in negativing our position. With this distinction clear 
 in our minds, and conceded by Elder Bays, we are pre- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 83 
 
 pared to examine some of his proof-texts. It must be 
 also remembered that there is a difference in the work of 
 Christ and that of men. Christ establishes himself firmly 
 upon an immctvable basis; and what could be more 
 enduring and impregnable than the word of God? Christ 
 thus established becomes the sure foundation, the chief 
 corner stone upon which men may build; and well might 
 Paul say: 
 
 Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
 Jesus Christ. — 1 Corinthians 3: 11. 
 
 He can thus be said to be the sure foundation upon 
 which we build, notwithstanding there is beneath and 
 supporting him a basis as firm as eternity— the word, or 
 revelation of God. Take this view of the matter and you 
 are in harmony with every passage quoted by Elder Bays, 
 and Joseph Smith was in harmony therewith in saying 
 the rock upon which Christ was to build his church was 
 revelation. 
 
 Elder Bays is right in his contention that Christ is the 
 sure foundation and the chief corner stone, and he can 
 make a strong case with much scripture to support it when 
 he confines himself to this point; but he lacks discrimina- 
 tion when he confounds the character of Christ's work 
 with the work of man, under Christ's direction. Christ is 
 also sometimes called a rock figuratively, because of his 
 firmness, solidity, and immovability; but the word roch as 
 used in scripture does not always mean Christ. The word 
 may properly be used to represent anything solid and 
 firm. But Elder Bays says: 
 
 While the word rock does sometimes mean Christ, it never 
 means revelation. 
 
 Elder Bays here assumes the very point at issue, and 
 grossly violates a rule of logic in so doing. He certainly 
 knew that some claim that in Matthew 16:18, the very 
 passage in question, the word roch means revelation. A 
 
84 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 party to a question can always settle an issue in that way; 
 but he should not complain if his opponents refuse to 
 accept of the settlement. 
 Again Bays says: « 
 
 I rejsrard it as a truth not to be questioned that nowhere in 
 the Bible — from Genesis to Revelation— is there an instance 
 where the word "rock" can be substituted by the word "reve- 
 lation" without doing violence to the obvious meanincr of the 
 passajsre. But the noun "Christ" may be used as synonymous 
 with the word rock without such results, as may be seen by the 
 following examples: 
 
 "Upon this Christ I will build my church." "To Avhom 
 coming as unto the living Christ." "They all drank of that 
 spiritual Christ," etc., — Page 123. 
 
 In the very passages he quotes, the word revelation can 
 be substituted for rock without destroying the obvious 
 meaning. "Upon this revelation I will build my church" 
 conveys the meaning exactly, as we think; for he had just 
 been speaking of a revelation to Peter wherein God had 
 revealed the fact that Jesus was the Christ. This is cer- 
 tainly better and more reasonable than to assume that 
 Christ intended to say "Upon this Christ [that is, upon 
 this me] I will build my church." To read, "They all 
 drank of that spiritual reveJation would not destroy the 
 obvious meaning; for though Christ may have been 
 referred to in this passage he was a spiritual revelation 
 to the world. 
 
 Which would be the better to say, "He brought me up 
 also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my 
 feet upon a revelation, and established my goings;" or to 
 say, "And set my feet upon a Christ''? (Psalms 40: 2.) 
 
 We might multiply these passages, but these are cer- 
 tainly sufficient. The following answer of Elder Derry we 
 recommend to a careful reading: 
 
 He tells of the terrible struggle he claims to have had in 
 discovering and proclaiming that which he claims to be the 
 truth. It must have been terrible, for we never heard of the 
 "Hornet's nest," nor of any persecution until we read of it in 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 85 
 
 his book. This is the first time in my ministr}' of over fifty 
 years in the church that I ever heard that the church did not 
 recognize Jesus Christ as the foundation of his church. We 
 have proclaimed that doctrine all these years, and have never 
 yet been called in question either by church authorities, 
 ministry, or membership. We have always heard it preached 
 by the entire ministry and strono^ly advocated by all as the 
 basis of our faith and hope. It is plainly set forth^n the Book 
 of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Holy Scriptures: and 
 we as a church firmly believe with Paul that, "Other founda- 
 tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
 And with Peter, that Christ is "the chief cornerstone." F^ut 
 the question before us is. Did Christ refer to himself as the 
 rock mentioned in Matthew 10:18? The word rock is used by 
 Christ in Matthew 7: 24, 25, also in Luke 6: 48, as referrins; to 
 or meaning the sayings of Christ. "Whosoever heareth these 
 sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise 
 man, which built his house upon a rock." Here the word rock 
 was intended to be understood as the sayings of Christ, showing 
 their immutability and their immovability, as we are told in 
 
 other scripture, "The word of the Lord endureth forever." 
 
 1 Peter 1:25; Isa. 40:8. Since Christ used the word rock in the 
 before mentioned scriptures, are we not warranted in applying 
 it to the word and testimony revealed to Peter by the Father 
 when he made known to him that Jesus was "the Christ, the 
 Son of the living God"? It is evident that Jesus so applied it. 
 Hence we are warranted in teaching that the revelation given 
 to Peter was the rock upon which Christ said, "I will build my 
 church." ... 
 
 The word of God is an emanation from his infinite mind. 
 God and Christ might exist from eternity to eternity, and yet if 
 they had never been revealed, nor their will made known, man- 
 kind could have known nothing of their existence, character, 
 will, or purpose, nor of their relation to creation, nor vet the 
 relationship and responsibility of man to God and Christ. 
 (Matthew 11: 27.) The terms evil and good could have no mean- 
 ing to us so far as the one being in harmony with his will and 
 the other in opposition to the same, and hence we should be in 
 midnight darkness. Faith and obedience would be unmeaning 
 terms. ... 
 
 Further, the peculiarities of Christ's birth render£d it impos- 
 sible for any man to conceive that he was the Son of God. On 
 this rock not only Mr. Bays was wrecked, but millions have 
 questioned the immaculateness of Christ's birth. Even the 
 virgin herself could not have understood by what process she 
 had conceived Him, only as God made known the fact unto her; 
 nor would the revelation of the fact unto Mary be sufficient to 
 convince the rest of mankind. Even her betrothed husband 
 
86 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 was "minded to put her away," so contrary was it to all human 
 experience for a vir«rin to conceive, never having? known man. 
 And Paul was rig-hi when he said. '"No man can say that Jesus 
 is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." But when God revealed 
 himself to man he laid the foundation for man's faith in him, 
 and paved the vvay for the coming of liis Son: but after all this, 
 if the fact that the child of the virgin was indeed "the Son of 
 God," the "Anointed One," "the Christ," the "Redeemer of 
 the world," had not been revealed, salvation could not have 
 come unto man, for that is dependent upon our faith in him as- 
 the Son of God, and without this revelation there could be 
 no faith, and so far as our salvation was concerned Christ 
 would have lived and died in vain. Hence this revealed truth 
 is the rock, and may be truly termed the foundation of the 
 Church of Christ; for without it there could be no church, and 
 this revelation must come unto all men, for "This is life eter- 
 nal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) It was this 
 revealed truth in connection with every other truth that God 
 has revealed, or shall reveal, that is the foundation of all our 
 faith, all our hope, all our love, all our righteousness, and upon 
 which Christ is building his church. 
 
 We cannot dismiss this point without referring to the 
 following from Mr. Bays on page 118: 
 
 The founder of Mormonism declares, as we have seen, that 
 the "rock" upon which his church is based is "revelation." 
 The Book of Mormon is declared by every class and shade of 
 the Mormon priesthood to be the greatest revelation of the ages. 
 Being the greatest, from the Mormon standpoint, and so 
 directly connected with the birth of Mormonism, it may very 
 justly be termed the foundation of the Mormon Church. 
 Syllogistically presented, the proposition would stand thus: 
 
 Revelation is the foundation of the church. 
 
 The Book of Mormon is a revelation. 
 
 Therefore the Book of Mormon is the foundation of the 
 church. 
 
 This declaration we never heard nor read until we read 
 it in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism." We chal- 
 lenge the proof that every "class and shade of the Mormon 
 priesthood" has so declared. 
 
 Now a word regarding Elder Bays' syllogism. It is 
 lame for the reason that the first term of the syllogism is 
 distributive, including all revelation, while the second 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 87 
 
 term indicates only a portion of the whole. A parallel to 
 this would be: 
 
 Fundamental principles are the foundation of mathe- 
 matics. 
 
 Addition is a fundamental principle. 
 
 Therefore addition is the foundation of mathematics. 
 
 Or: 
 
 Letters are the foundation of the English language. 
 
 J. is a letter. 
 
 Therefore A is the foundation of the English language. 
 
 These examples will serve to show the contemptible 
 weakness of this attempted syllogistic argument. While 
 addition is a fundamental principle of mathematics, other 
 principles are included in mathematics. While J. is a 
 letter of the alphabet, it requires the addition of other 
 letters to compose the English language. So with the 
 Book of Mormon. While it contains a revelation of God's 
 will, the Church of Christ is founded upon the principle of 
 revelation and should live "by every word that proceeds 
 out of the mouth of God." 
 
 That this has ever been our position Elder Bays well 
 knew. 
 
 In summing up. Elder Bays presents the following 
 amusing illustration: 
 
 It may readily be seen that our Latter Day Saint friends have 
 the long end of the teeter-board, which may be the funny end, 
 but it is also the dangerous one. My good brother Mormon, 
 how do you like the long end of the plank V Does the altitude 
 make you dizzy? Don't you have some misgivings about ever 
 being able to set your foot on solid earth again? 
 
 Come down from your sriddy perch, even if, catlike, you have 
 to climb backwards down the plank. Indulge no longer in 
 theories of speculative theology. Never stop until you feel 
 the solid earth beneath your feet, then dig down through all 
 the superficial rubbish of modern revelation, and build your 
 house upon the solid Rock, CimiST. Kuilt upon this Rock, the 
 winds may blow and the storm beat upon your house, but it 
 cannot fall, "for it is founded upon a rock" — the Rock of 
 eternal ages.— Page 130. 
 
88 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Yes, the long end is the funny end, but the short end is 
 the serious and dangerous end. No, we are not dizzy, nor 
 have we any misgivings about being able to set foot on 
 solid earth. Elder Hays, has it been so long since you 
 were on a teeter- board that you have forgotten that the 
 long end has the advantage in coming to the ground? If 
 you have the short end. Elder Bays, it is you who, cat- 
 like, will have to climb backwards down the plank from 
 your giddy perch, and cease to indulge in theories of 
 speculative theology. Come down, Davis! Come down! 
 
 On page 132 Elder Bays misrepresents us in the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 All ministers not called by a direct revelation from God 
 through a prophet "like unto Moses," are utterly and absolutely 
 without authority to minister in divine things. 
 
 While we insist that ministers to be authorized to admin- 
 ister should be called of God, we have never said that each 
 minister should be called "through a prophet 'like unto 
 Moses.'" We have not presumed to prescribe through 
 whom God should speak, but when satisfied that the call is 
 from God we feel authorized to proceed. 
 
 Elder Bays thinks "the manner in which 'the priest- 
 hood' was 'conferred' upon Joseph and Oliver is enough to 
 condemn the entire system, and brand it as a fraud." But 
 he gives no reason for this remarkable conclusion, hence 
 we will content ourselves by saying: We do not think so. 
 
 After making some general observations upon the ordi- 
 nations in question. Elder Bays states: 
 
 As John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver to the 
 Aaronic priesthood, so Peter, James andJohn ordained them to 
 the Melchizedek priesthood. For the first time in the history 
 of the denomination this is now called in question by President 
 Joseph Smith of the Reorganized Church. President Smith 
 enters into a somewhat elaborate argument to show that said 
 ordination should be regarded in the light of an "appoint- 
 ment," and the actual and only ordination ever performed by 
 the laying on of hands was when Joseph and Oliver ordained 
 «ach other, at the time the church was organized.— Page 1B4. 
 
 U 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 89 
 
 In this Elder Bays misutiderstands the languao^e he 
 attributes to President Smith. There is no elaborate 
 argument presented in the history from which Mr. Bays 
 quotes to show that the only ordination performed in the 
 cases of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery was by each 
 other. No opinion is expressed as to whether the literal 
 hands of Peter, James, and John were laid on these men's 
 heads in ordination or not. The explanation was made as 
 a reason why the writers as historians could not take a 
 positive position, whatever their individual opinions might 
 be. Historians may have opinions as to what was done 
 but not recorded, but are not justified in stating some- 
 thing as a positive fact for which they find no record. 
 Elder Bays says: 
 
 In Mormon parlance and practice, how is priesthood con- 
 ferred? By the laying on of hands, and never in any other 
 way. 
 
 This is correct, and the history makes no effort to con- 
 ceal that fact. The only question was: Did Peter, James, 
 and John lay their own hands upon the heads of these men, 
 or did they ordain by directing that other hands should be 
 laid upon them. 
 
 Elder Bays first assumes that President Smith denies 
 the actual and personal ordination by Peter, James, and 
 John; second he makes a protracted effort to prove that 
 President Smith's position is wrong; third, having sue-* 
 ceeded to his own satisfaction he forms his own con- 
 clusion; and fourth, assails his own conclusion with a 
 ruthless hand as follows: 
 
 And it is thus rendered reasonably clear that both Joseph and 
 Oliver were not only favored with numerous visits by heavenly 
 messengers, but that they were actually ordained to the Gospel 
 ministry by the incomparable touch of angelic hands. O, for 
 the depravity of fallen human nature and the depravity of the 
 human hearti What presumptioni What an unmitigated and 
 heaven-daring fraud! What an unholy farce! How dare these 
 men make such preposterous and unprecedented claims? — • 
 Pages 138, 139. 
 
90 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Why did not Elder Bays meet the question as he under- 
 stood President Smith to state it, instead of instructing 
 President Smith as to what our position is and then hold- 
 ing up his hands in holy horror at the man of straw that 
 he has himself created. What wonderful "children of 
 Providence" this man and his production are. For 
 stupidity in logic this surpasses any production we have 
 examined anywhere. After thus stating our position for 
 us, Elder Bays flauntingly demands: 
 
 Let the advocates of this heretical dogma step to the front 
 and defend their position if they are intelligently honest in 
 what tliey profess to believe; and we shall not limit them to the 
 Bible for proof, as we mio^ht very properly do, but they may 
 have access to the Book of Mormon, also, which, as the Saints 
 claim, contains the ''fullness of the gospel." — Pages 139, 140. 
 
 Bosh! 
 
 Mr. Bays thinks there was no Melchisedec priest after 
 Melchisedec himself until Christ, and there has been none 
 since Christ. He thinks to become a priest a man must 
 first be a king. He bases this upon the fact that Melchise- 
 dec and Christ were kings, and concludes therefore that to 
 be eligible to the priest's office one must possess this 
 qualification or prerequisite. He puts this proposition as 
 follows: 
 
 Two things are especially necessary in order to constitute a 
 Melchizedek priest: 
 
 First. The '\n<l\x\6.wji\ must be a king. 
 
 Second. Being a king, hf may become a priest. 
 
 Hence, a priest of the Melchi/edek order is at once a king and 
 a priest — a king-priest. — Page 141. 
 
 As well may we say that as Matthew was a publican 
 (tax-gatherer) before he was an apostle, a man cannot 
 become an apostle unless he has first been a publican. The 
 proposition would then stand: 
 
 Two things are especially necessary in order to consti- 
 tute an apostle: 
 
 First, the individual must he a tax-g«therer. 
 
PwEPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 91 
 
 Second, being a tax-gatherer he may become an apostle. 
 
 Hence, an apostle is at once a tax-gatherer and an 
 apostle, a publican-apostle. 
 
 On the subject of high priests, we wish to invite atten- 
 tion to the reasoning of Elder Derry: 
 
 Brother Bays not gnly objects to an earthly head— the presi- 
 dency; but he objects to a patriarch, high priests, and priests. 
 Paul speaks of helps and governments. Can he show from the 
 New Testament that the presidency and patriarch are not 
 meant by the name "governments." and that high priests and 
 priests were not included in the "helps" there mentioned, 
 acting as pastors and watchmen over different portions of the 
 Hock? We have shown that the New Testament is silent upon 
 many thinsrs pertaining to church government, and the divided 
 state of "Christendom" on this matter proves the necessity for 
 more revelation from ^God, that it may be known how and by 
 what means the church militant may be governed, that there 
 may be no confusion in the church. . . . 
 
 Paul says, "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- 
 fession, Christ Jesus."— Heb. 3:1. Again, he is called the 
 "great high priest."— Heb. 4: 14. This word great would have 
 no meaning if not used in a comparative sense: hence it implies 
 the existence of lesser high priests. Paul further says, "Every 
 high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in 
 things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sac- 
 rifices for sins." . . . 
 
 There will be "priests unto God" when Christ shall reign 
 upon the earth. (Revelation 5:9, 10.) The Levites are to 
 offer an offering in righteousness when Christ comes. (Malachi 
 3.) It IS a settled fact that Jesus was a high priest when in the 
 flesh, made so of his Father, and he says in his ever memorable, 
 prayer for his apostles, "as thou hast sent me into the world, 
 even so have I also sent them into the world." "And the glory 
 which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be 
 one, even as we are one."- John 17:18, 22. If this does not 
 mean the same power and authority, then words have no 
 meaning: hence there were high priests in the Christian 
 church, and will be wherever it is found in a perfect form, 
 because God changes not. 
 
 Mr. Bays' fifteenth chapter is on priesthood, but it is 
 chiefly composed of assertion, in which misrepresentation 
 and sophistry are the chief elements. 
 
 There is but one point in* the chapter that requires 
 attention. On page U9, after quoting extracts from a 
 
93 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 revelation on priesthood re^ardinor the transmission of 
 the priesthood from one to another, he presents the fol- 
 lowing table: 
 
 1. While it is possible that Jethro might have been ordained 
 under the hand of Caleb— both being contemporary with 
 Moses— it is simply impossible that the latter could have 
 been ordained by Elihu, as may be seefi by a glance at the 
 following table; and the same is true of all the persons named: 
 
 NAME. WHEN LIVING, DIFFERENCE IN SCRIPTUKAL 
 
 B. G. TIME. REFERENCE. 
 
 1. 
 
 J Caleb. 1452. Num 26:65. 
 
 1 Elihu. IITI. 281. 1 Sam. 1:1. 
 
 2. 
 
 J Elihu. 1171. 
 
 1 Jeremy. 629. 443. Jer. 31:15; 
 
 Matt. 2 : 17. 
 
 3. 
 
 j Jeremy. 629. 1120. 
 
 i Gad. 1749. Gen. 30 : 11. 
 
 4. 
 
 j Gad. 1749. 
 
 i Esaias. 760. 989. Isa. 1:1; 
 
 Acts 8 : 28. 
 
 This as will be seen is based upon the supposition that 
 the party mentioned in each of the passages referred to is 
 the only man who ever bore the name; a very absurd sup- 
 position, even though no other one had been mentioned. 
 It is very improbable that the name of every man living at 
 the time is given in the Bible. 
 
 The names he has used in this table are, with the possi- 
 ble exception of one, used several times in the Bible as 
 applying to different men. There are at least three Calebs 
 spoken of; the son of Jephunneh (Num. 13:6), the son of 
 Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18), the son of Hur (1 Chron. 2:50). 
 We also find at least five Elihus mentioned: There was 
 the great-grandfather of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 1: 1), 
 a Manassehite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12: 
 20), another party by that name is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 
 26:7, the brother of David (1 Chron. 27: 18), and one of the 
 friends of Job, often mentioned in the book of Job. Jeremy 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 9? 
 
 is but another form of the name Jeremiah, as can be seen 
 by comparison of Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:17. 
 There are at least eight persons by that name mentioned 
 in the Bible. See 2 Kings 23:31, 1 Chronicles 5:24, 1 
 Chronicles 12:4,1 Chronicles 12:10, 1 Chronicles 12:13, 
 Nehemiah 10: 2, Jeremiah 35: 3. Then there is the Prophet 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 There were at least two G-ads. Gad the son of Jacob 
 (Gen. 30: 11), and Gad the prophet (1 Sam. 22: 5.) 
 
 It would be absurd, too, to say that all the men bearing 
 these names are mentioned in the Bible. Beiog common 
 names it is quite probable that men bearing these names 
 could have been found in Israel at any time in its history. 
 It will also be seen that Elder Bays' mathematics is at 
 fault. In computing the difference in the time of Elihu 
 and Jeremy he makes an error of one hundred years. He 
 might as well have had the benefit of that one hundred 
 years, as in doing so he would have scored a point in favor 
 of his indorsers, the Christian Publishing House, that he 
 was "accurate and reliable." In the light of these consid- 
 erations Elder Bays' effort on this point seems childish 
 and silly. 
 
 Elder Bays' sixteenth and seventeenth chapters are 
 regarding the calling and qualifying of apostles. He seeks 
 to show a contrast between the manner of calling in Bible 
 times and the choosing of apostles in 1835 and subse- 
 quently. He claims that while the call of former apostles 
 was personal and direct the later ones were chosen by 
 committees. In a sense this is true. Christ once minis- 
 tered in person, but when his earth life closed his work did 
 not close with it, but by accredited ministers Christ was 
 represented on earth, the gospel preached, and ordinances 
 administered by those holding delegated authority from 
 him. When the first vacancy after his death occurred in 
 the quorum of twelve apostles, his accredited ministers 
 
94 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 selected the successor. In doing so they followed his 
 example. He had sought divine guidance as the following 
 indicates: 
 
 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a 
 mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 
 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of 
 them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles. — Luke 6: 
 12, 13. 
 
 So when it became the duty of his disciples to choose, 
 
 they prayed: 
 
 Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show 
 whether of these two thou hast chosen. — Acts 1: 24. 
 
 In 1S35 when men had been designated by revelation to 
 choose the Twelve, they also sought the Lord in prayer as 
 the following will show: 
 
 President Joseph Smith, Jr., after making many remarks on 
 the subject of choosing the Twelve, wanted an ex-prnssion from 
 the brethren, if they would be satisfied to have the Spirit of 
 the Lord dictate in the choice of the elders to be apostles; 
 whereupon all the elders present expressed their anxious desire 
 to have it so. 
 
 A hymn was then sung. "Hark, listen to the trumpeters," 
 etc. President Hyrum Smith prayed, and meeting was dis- 
 missed for one hour. 
 
 Assembled pursuant to adjournment, and commenced with 
 prayer. 
 
 President Joseph Smith, Jr., said that the first business of the 
 meetinsr was, for the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, to 
 pray, each one, and then proceed to choose twelve men from 
 the church, as apostles, to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, 
 and people. 
 
 The three witnesses; vi/., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, 
 and Martin Harris, united in prayer. — Cliurch History, vol. 1, 
 p. 541. 
 
 Oliver Cowdery in delivering his charge to the Twelve 
 
 said: 
 
 yyie Lo?'d guve us a revelation that in process of time, there 
 should be ttrclrc men chosen to preach his gospel to Jew and 
 Gentile Our minds have been on a constant stretch, to find 
 who these twelve were: when the time should come we could 
 not tell; but we sought the Lord by fa,sting and prayer, to have 
 •our lives prolonged to see this day, to see you, and to take a 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 95 
 
 retrospect of the difficulties through which we have passed; 
 but. havinfj seen the day, it becomes my duty to deliver to you 
 a charge: and first, a fe\v remarks respecting your ministry.— 
 Church History, vol. 1, pp. 542, 543. 
 
 This seeking divine guidance has been the rule of prac- 
 tice ever since, when selections have been made. 
 
 We have already called attention to some of the his- 
 torical mistakes made by Elder Bays in these chapters. 
 We will now point out some more of his blunders. 
 
 He denies that Jesus ever ordained his apdstles by 
 laying on of hands, but as this is simply his unsup- 
 ported opinion we need not notice it further. 
 
 In seeking to contrast the two methods, Elder Bays 
 
 asks: 
 
 Reader, do you observe one single mark of similarity between 
 the methods employed in calling the apostles of Jesus Christ, 
 and those adopted by Joseph Smith in calling his twelve?— 
 Page 150. 
 
 We answer. Yes, in the most important mark of all. 
 Divine guidance was sought in each case. Bays states: 
 
 In the former case the disciples were not even Jcnoicn per- 
 sonally to the Saviour, much less to be his followers. (See John 
 1:40.1 
 
 Not so with Joseph Smith. His twelve were chosen from his 
 tried followers.— Page 150. 
 
 That this is a mistake will be seen by reference to Luke 
 6: 13, where it is affirmed that the Savior "called unto him 
 his disciples: and of them he chose twelve." Elder Bays 
 continues: 
 
 To his twelve Jesus simply said, "Follow me." But Joseph 
 said: "The first business of the meeting was for the three wit- 
 nesses to choose the twelve apostles," and they chose them.— 
 Page 150. 
 
 He here confounds the invitation to follow Christ with 
 the call to the apostleship, which were distinct and sepa- 
 rate events. 
 
96 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Compare Matthew 4 : 18-22; 9 : 9; Mark 1 : 16-20; 2 : 14; 
 Luke 5: 10, 27, 28, and John 1:35-49, with Matthew 10:1; 
 Mark 3: 13, 14; and Luke 6: 13. 
 
 After an examination of these passages the stupidity of 
 
 Elder Bays in confounding these two separate events will 
 
 be painfully apparent. But Elder Bays continues: 
 
 The apostles of Christ were chosen before the establishment 
 of the church, while the apostles of Joseph were an after- 
 thoufjht, and were called five years after the establishment of 
 his church. — Pages 15G, 157. 
 
 When Elder Bays penned this he probably had forgotten 
 that he had previously written the following: 
 
 "The law and the prophets were until J^hn: since that time 
 the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth unto 
 it." (Lukel6:l(i). 
 
 Here we have it plainly stated that the "kingdom of God" 
 had its inception with John. If the terms "Kingdom of God" 
 and "Church of Christ" are synonymous, then the Church of 
 Christ had existed from the beginning of John's ministry to 
 the calling of the twelve, without either apostles or prophets. 
 
 Since the church existed from the beginning of John's 
 ministry to the calling of the twelve without either apostles 
 or prophets, it follows as a necessary sequence that neither was 
 an essential part of its official membership. — Page 106. 
 
 He makes still another mistake in saying, "The apostles 
 of Joseph were an after-thought." The revelation pro- 
 viding for apostles was given June, 1829, nearly a year 
 before the organization of the church, April 6, 1830, but 
 like the former apostles they were not chosen until after 
 the organization had commenced. To witness such stupid 
 blunders in a man whom we have heard declare the gospel 
 of Christ in power is painful in the extreme. 
 
 Elder Bays on page 158 invites attention to a statement 
 by Joseph Smith to the effect that the Lord would be seen 
 in the solemn assembly. He then gives extracts from the 
 account of the dedication of Kirtland Temple and con- 
 cludes by saying: 
 
 Jesus did not appear at the endowment as Joseph said he 
 would do - nulhing but angels. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 97 
 
 It will be observed that Joseph did not say that he 
 would appear at the endowment, but in the solemn assem- 
 bly. At a meeting held in the Temple, April 3, 1836, this 
 teas fulfilled, according to the testimony of Joseph Smith. 
 He states: 
 
 The vail was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our 
 understandins: were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon 
 the breastworl< of the pulpit before us, and under his feet was 
 a paved work of pure gold in color like amber.— Church His- 
 tory, vol. 2, p. 46. 
 
CHAPTER 5. 
 
 Book of Mormon — Revelation — Present Conditions — Land 
 Siiadovving With Wings — Languages of Plates — Isaiah 
 Twenty-Ninth Chapter — Palestine Past and Present. 
 
 Elder Bays entitles his eighteenth chapter, "The Book 
 of Mormon — What is it?" but devotes his attention princi- 
 pally to the question of continued revelation. There is 
 nothing in the chapter that requires special notice, as his 
 points are already covered, incidentally or directly, in our 
 answer. 
 
 Elder Bays, however, closes this chapter as usual with 
 some high-sounding phrases in which occurs a very amus- 
 ing expression. It may be a typographical error; but if 
 so it is one of those rare mistakes that represent the 
 situation better than the writer intended: 
 
 If ministers can be called only by divine revelation, through 
 what particular channel must such revelation come? "O," 
 says one, "it must come through the prophet, the President of 
 the church." Very well, but through which one of all the 
 dozen or more presidents of as many different Mormon 
 churches, must this revelation come? When some advocate 
 of the Mormon heresy answers the above impertinent questions 
 to the satisfaction of reasonable people, then, and not till then, 
 need they expect to mislead thinking people by such modes of 
 reasoning.— Pages 170, 171. 
 
 We suppose he intended to say pertinent. 
 
 In his nineteenth chapter he comes directly to the 
 question and asks, **Is a new revelation necessary?" He 
 proceeds to argue that apostasy does not annul existing 
 authority. 
 
 He cites the great apostasy of the Jewish nation at the 
 time of Christ's ministry on earth, and assumes that not- 
 withstanding this apostasy Christ recognized existing 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 99 
 
 authority. His final conclusions are sunamed up as 
 follows: 
 
 The foregoinor historical facts prove, 
 
 1. That the apostasy of the masses does not, cannot, abrogate 
 existing authority. 
 
 2. That authority once delegated can only be annulled by 
 individual transgression. 
 
 3. That so long as there remains a righteous man on the 
 earth, just so long does the authority remain to minister in 
 divine things; and 
 
 4. That any man holding authority to minister before God, 
 may confer that authority upon others. — Page 174. 
 
 With the first conclusion we agree with this explanation; 
 provided all holding authority are not aft'ected by the 
 apostasy. To the second we suggest that if individual 
 transgression annuls individual authority, when trans- 
 gression becomes universal, then the apostasy becomes 
 universal. With the third we agree provided that the 
 righteous man has ever received delegated authority. To 
 the fourth we say, Yes, provided he is directed by the 
 Lord to confer authority; but it is not reasonable that 
 God can be left out of the account, and man can confer the 
 authority to act for God on whom he may choose. 
 
 Elder Bays as usual is lame in philosophy here. His 
 second and fourth conclusions indicate that authority is 
 something that is delegated by one person to another. His 
 third supposes that a man possesses authority by virtue of 
 his being righteous. If he does possess it by virtue of 
 being righteous, he does not need that another confer it 
 upon him. If he does not possess it by virtue of being 
 righteous, but by virtue of its being conferred by another, 
 then it follows that unless there is a regular line of 
 authority from the apostles down, the chain is broken, and 
 authority does not exist on earth until men are again 
 directly commissioned from a divine source. Hence addi- 
 tional revelation is necessary, and our contention is sus- 
 tained, from his own premises. 
 
100 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 After spending several pages in argument, reasoning 
 that if apostasy abrogated all authority then if the church 
 organized by Joseph Smith apostatized all authority was 
 abrogated, and hence there was none left with those who 
 reorganized the church, but if apostasy does not abrogate 
 all existing authority, then there was no demand for a 
 reorganization, he gracefully concedes that neither conclu- 
 sion is the correct one, as follows: 
 
 But the warmest advocate of the "rejection" dogma will 
 hardly be willing to accept the inevitable conclusion to which 
 his reasoning leads. He will probablj' argue that although the 
 church became so corrupt that God would no longer acknowl- 
 edge it as his, yet there were righteous individuals whose 
 authority was not revoked, and who therefore were still author- 
 ized to officiate and confer authority upon others. 
 
 Very well, if this view be accepted as the correct one — and to 
 which we shall not object — the rule, when applied to the case 
 of the first Christians, will prove beyond question or doubt that 
 the authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel 
 remained with the church, and remaining, its ordinances could be 
 administered and the church perpetuated. — Pages 179, 180. 
 
 In receding from the point he had sought to make 
 he seeks to save another by applying the rule to the 
 primitive church. Very well; if the Lord had directed 
 some of the righteous individuals holding authority and 
 remaining after the great apostasy to reorganize the 
 church according to the primitive pattern it would have 
 been a parallel case, and would have been all right; but 
 we have no account of his doing so while any of these 
 righteous men "whose authority was not revoked" were 
 living. 
 
 Thus in the economy of God no reorganization of the 
 primitive church was provided for; but instead he author- 
 ized the restoration in the time he had before provided. 
 We accept it. 
 
 As a specimen of Elder Bays' logic we present the 
 following: 
 
 How is it today? Perhaps at no period of her history has the 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 101 
 
 Church of Christ been characterized by such unquestionable 
 deeds of charity and undoubted personal purity as at the 
 present time. 
 
 The claim, then, that all authority conferred by Christ and 
 the apostles was lost, and that no man possessed it until Joseph 
 Smith received it back from heaven, is too absurd to be seri- 
 ously considered for a sin.srle moment. 
 
 The idea that Christ built his church upon a "sure founda- 
 tion" and promised that "the ^ates of hell should not prevail 
 against it," and yet leave it without the means of self-perpetua- 
 tion and self-purification is altogether unbecoming the char- 
 acter and dignity and wisdom of the great Architect and 
 Master-builder. —Page 180. 
 
 He here makes an unsupported assertion based upon a 
 ■"perhaps," and taking this doubtful assertion as a basis 
 forms a far-reaching conclusion, and vauntingly parades 
 such conclusion as established. 
 
 In ansvs^er to this assertion regarding the present con- 
 dition, and Bays' query about the apostasy and the gates 
 of hell, we will again ask for a careful reading of the reply 
 of Elder Derry. He says: 
 
 Mr. Bays asks, What becomes of the declaration of Christ, 
 "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it?" We answer. It is evident from 
 the teachings of Christ and his apostles that this declaration 
 was not intended to convey the idea that the enemy would not 
 be permitted to obtain any temporary' advantage over the 
 church, or that there could not possibly be any departure of 
 the church from the way of truth; because the scriptures in 
 other places teach that such departure or apostasy would take 
 'place. The church of Christ is composed of finite beinirs, weak 
 and fallible, hence Christ taught his disciples to "Watch ye 
 and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." He made every 
 preparation and provided every necessary means to strengthen 
 them against temptation, inasmuch as they would resist it, 
 but he did not promise them infallibility, but he did 
 promise strensrth to overcome, if they would put their trust 
 in him. Individual moral agency is the birthright of all 
 mankind. God has never curtailed it, and he holds every one 
 responsible for it. Communities may fail as well as indi- 
 viduals. The mass of mankind is not more infallible than the 
 individual; the mass is composed of the individuals, and as 
 «ach individual is weak the mass cannot be omnipotent; hence 
 if there is danger of the individual falling there is correspond- 
 
102 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 \ng danger of the whole mass fallinof. But if the individual is 
 faithful to his trust, strentrth will be given to enable him to 
 overcome, and so with the church as a mass. This is the con- 
 dition under which .lesus said, "The gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it." That Christ and the apostles were correct 
 vi^hen they predicted the terrible apostasy, the history of the 
 world for over seventeen hundred years affords ample proof. 
 The Roman church proclaims the apostasy of the Protestant 
 churches, and they in return denounce her as the "Whore of 
 all the earth," "The mother of harlots:" forgetting their own 
 maternity. One of her eldest daughters, the Church of 
 England, in its "Book of Homilies on Perils of Idolatry," pagfr 
 2(31, says: 
 
 "Both laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, 
 and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christen- 
 dom . . . have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, 
 of all other vices most detested of God and damnable to man, 
 and that by the space of eight hundred years and more." 
 
 Spurgeon, the late great Baptist preacher of London, says: 
 "The Church of England seems to be eaten through and 
 through with sacramentarianism; but non-conformity appears 
 to be as badly riddled with philosophical infidelity. Those 
 of whom we thought better things are turning aside one by 
 one from the fundamentals of the faith. Through and 
 through I believe the very heart of England is honeycombed 
 with a damnable infidelity which dares to go into the pulpit 
 and call itself Christian." — Great Controversy, by E. G. White. 
 
 The Christian Leader, a Disciple paper, speaking of the 
 mother of harlots, asks, "Who are the daughters?" It 
 answers: "The Protestant sects." Is Bays capable of suc- 
 cessfully "repelling the unholy charge"? In the language of 
 Brother Bays we ask, "If it be true that 'a corrupt tree 
 cannot bring forth good fruit,' or that 'a bitter fountain 
 cannot send forth sweet water,' then, what must be said of 
 the tree that has yielded such an abundant harvest of corrupt 
 fruit, or of the fountain from which has flowed the bitter 
 waters of vice and corruption," as those coming from the 
 mother of harlots and her daughters? "Dost thou like the 
 picture?" 
 
 But Bays in his burning desire to curry favor with the 
 daughters of Babylon says: "Perhaps at no period of her 
 history has the Church of Christ been characterized by such 
 unquestionable deeds of charity and undoubted personal purity 
 as at the present time." — Paire 180. While a noted author of 
 the Campbellite sect says. "There are more sects now than in 
 any other age of the world. Still there is more unbelief, more 
 sin, more rebellion against God. Surely the legs of the lame are- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 103 
 
 not equal." -The Great Controversy, by Ashley S. Johnson, 
 LL. U , p. 131. 
 
 Verily, if "the legs of the lame" had been "equal," these two 
 noted authors would have agreed, but they are far apart. 
 
 It is far from pleasant to point out the follies of men; but 
 when their many contradictions are so glaring, while they 
 claim to be teaching the same truths, it is necessary that their 
 eyes should be opened to their many inconsistencies. Is all 
 this mass of corruption, as the above writers confess, accepta- 
 ble to God? And yet Mr. Bays affects holy horror at the state- 
 ment of Christ to -loseph Smith. 
 
 We will present one more testimony from his own sect in 
 addition to what we gave from its founder in our first chapter. 
 On pao-e ISH of "The Great Controversy," published by the 
 press of Ogden Brothers & Co., Knoxville, Tennessee, Ashley 
 S. Johnson, LL. D., declares "Methodism is not the gospel;" 
 "Baptist doctrine is not the gospel;" "Presbyterianism is not 
 the gospel;" "Universalism is not the gospel;" "The same 
 argument may be applied to many of the religious orders in 
 Christendom with the same results in every particular." 
 
 In addition to the above we invite attention to the 
 following from Alexander Campbell: 
 
 If Christians were and may be the happiest people that ever 
 lived, it is because they live under the most gracious institu- 
 tion ever bestowed on men. The meaning of this institution 
 has been buried under the rubbish of human traditions for hun- 
 dreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages, and has never 
 been, till recently, disinterred. Various efforts have been 
 made, and considerable progress attended them; but since the 
 Grand Apostasy was completed, till the present generation, the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in its 
 original plainness, simplicity, and majesty. A veil in reading 
 the New Institution has been on the hearts of Christians, as 
 Paul declares it was upon the hearts of the Jews in reading the 
 Old Institution towards the close of that economy.— The Chris- 
 tian System, p. 180. 
 
 A. Campbell thinks the apostasy was complete, Bays 
 thinks not. Who represents our Christian friends, Camp- 
 bell or Bays? 
 
 Elder Bays' twentieth chapter purports to be a state- 
 ment of our position regarding the Book of Mormon. He 
 quotes largely from Elders W. W. Blair and W. H. Kelley, 
 and puts his own construction upon their statements. It 
 will, we think, be entirely unnecessary to follow him through 
 
104 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 his wanderings. We will simply ask the reader to read 
 carefully the statements of Elders Blair and Kelley, allow* 
 in^ them to speak for themselves without considering 
 Elder Bays' interpretation of their meaning. 
 
 His twenty-first chapter is devoted mostly to the inter- 
 pretation of Isaiah 18: 1, 2. He attempts to refute the 
 position taken by some of the elders that the land 
 "shadowing with wings" is America; and concludes as 
 follows: 
 
 If the country described in Isaiah 18: 1, as "the land shadow- 
 ing with wings," be America, and if the 29th chapter relates to 
 events that were to transpire on this continent, and which, as a 
 matter of fact, did take place as predicted, then all candid peo- 
 ple will readilj' concede the fact that the Book of Mormon is 
 probably true. 
 
 But if the "land shadowing with wings" is shown to be 7iot 
 the land of America, but some other land, and if it shall tran- 
 spire that the events described in the 29th chapter of Isaiah 
 relate not to the people of ancient America, but to the people of 
 Israel, then the Book of Mormon cannot be true, and Latter 
 Day Saints should frankly admit the fact, confess their error, 
 ii,nd openly renounce the heresy. — Pages 191, 192. 
 
 This is a far-fetched conclusion. The Book of Mormon 
 does not stand or fall upon any interpretation of these 
 prophecies. Some of the advocates of the Book of Mor- 
 mon thought they discovered in these passages predictions 
 foretelling the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and 
 have so interpreted and used them in presenting the Book 
 of Mormon, not as a basis upon which the book rests, but 
 as corroborative proof of the truth of its claims. Should 
 he prove that this exegesis is incorrect he will of course 
 destroy the effect of this evidence, but he has by no means 
 proven the Book of Mormon false. The claims of the book 
 itself remain to be disposed of, whether we are right in 
 applying certain prophecies to it and the land of America 
 or not. Elder Bays, however, does not state the case 
 correctly when he says: 
 
 The Book of Mormon, it must be borne in mind, professes to 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 105 
 
 contain the "written history" of this new Ariel. The 
 "Nephites" were a people "terrible from their beginning 
 hitherto" (Isa. 18:2), but were exterminated by their more 
 wicked brethren, the "Lamanites," about a. d. 420. — Page 191. 
 
 The Book of Mormon makes no such claim regarding 
 Isaiah 18:2, nor have we ever heard any representative 
 of the church so present it. 
 
 Elder Bays states on page 192, that the "rivers of 
 Ethiopia" referred to in the passage "are the rivers of 
 Africa, the Nile and its tributaries." But his final con- 
 clusions are: 
 
 It is thus shown to be simply impossible that America can 
 be "the land shadowing with wings," for the very cogent 
 reason that the land thus described lies south of Palestine, 
 while America, as every schoolboy knows, is directly west. 
 
 No amount of sophistry or special pleading can change the 
 facts of geography involved in this question, and so all this fine- 
 spun theory, together with the fabric reared upon it, falls to 
 the ground a hopeless mass of ruin, never again to be recon- 
 structed.— Page 193. 
 
 Both of these statements are wrong. Ethiopia is not 
 directly south nor is America directly west. Parts of 
 Ethiopia may have been directly south, and part of 
 America is directly west. Starting from Palestine to cross 
 the "rivers of Ethiopia," conceded by Bays to be the Nile 
 and its tributaries, you would go neither directly west nor 
 directly south. To cross the Nile you must go southwest. 
 This would of course place you in Africa; but starting at 
 Jerusalem and crossing at a point near Cairo and continu- 
 ing in direct course you would land in South America in a 
 direct line between Jerusalem and where the Nephites 
 landed. If, then, both Africa and America were "beyond 
 the rivers of Ethiopia," the question would not be settled 
 by appeal to the "facts of geography." As this is the only 
 point raised by Elder Bays against the theories of some on 
 this passage, he has not only failed to make his point 
 against this interpretation, but he is as far from the real 
 
106 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 issue as he would be from the River Nile were he to travel 
 due south from Jerusalem. 
 
 It is impossible to determine what the boundaries of 
 Ethiopia were, as various regions at different times were 
 known by that name as all authorities will attest; but the 
 original signification of the word was very broad, as the 
 following definitions will show: 
 
 Ethiopia, the Biblical Kush. Originally, all the nations 
 inhabiting the southern part of the globe, as known to the 
 ancients; or rather all men of dark-brown or black color, were 
 called Ethiopians. — Chambers's En.cyclopaedia. 
 
 Ethiopia, ... a name given by ancient geographers to the 
 regions situated S. of Egypt and Libya. The name Ethiopians 
 was originally applied by the Greeks to all the peoples who 
 lived in the southern parts of the known world, including the 
 dark-colored natives of India.— Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia. 
 
 Probably in the days of Isaiah this broad meaning was 
 
 attached to the word, hence "beyond the rivers of 
 
 Ethiopia" would suggest a land beyond the southern parts 
 
 of the known world, so America is at once suggested to the 
 
 mind. There is another interpretation of which this 
 
 passage is susceptible from a scriptural standpoint. In 
 
 Revelation 17: 1 John speaks of a character "that sitteth 
 
 upon many waters." The angel interprets this vision and 
 
 in the fifteenth verse says: 
 
 The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are 
 peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 
 
 Applying the angel's interpretation to this passage, the 
 rivers of water would mean peoples, multitudes, nations, 
 and tongues. A land, then, beyond the "rivers of 
 Ethiopia" would be beyond the peoples, multitudes, 
 nations, and tongues of the then known southern part 
 of the world. Again the mind is carried across the 
 Atlantic or Pacific to America. It makes no difference, 
 then, whether we interpret the rivers of Ethiopia to be 
 literal rivers, or whether in harmony with the angel's 
 interpretation we interpret them to mean peoples, multi- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 107 
 
 tudes, nations, and tongues, Elder Bays is wrong, and 
 either interpretation points to America as the "land 
 beyond the rivers of Ethiopia." 
 
 His twenty-second chapter is devoted to a consideration 
 of Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter, in connection with the 
 claims made for the Book of Mormon by its advocates. 
 As usual he commences by misrepresenting the case under 
 consideration. He states: 
 
 If these "plates" were written in Ecryptian, Arabic, Assyrian 
 and Aramaic, and were translated by a man wholly io:norant of 
 these languages, it would amount to an argument absolutely 
 unanswerable; and this is exactly what it is claimed has been 
 done. 
 
 Upon the truthfulness of this claim depend the veracity of 
 the Book of Mormon and the prophetic character of Joseph 
 Smith, its pretended translator. — Page 195. 
 
 This assertion is without foundation in truth. No claim 
 
 has been made by the advocates of the book that it was 
 
 written in the languages mentioned, and so his conclusion 
 
 based upon the claim is worthless. In speaking of Isaiah 
 
 twenty-ninth chapter he says: 
 
 The Saints believe that the "coming forth of the Book of 
 Mormon." as they term it, completely and most perfectly 
 fulfills this prophecy in every minute particular. If it does, 
 then the Saints are right, and the Book of Mormon is true; but 
 if they are wrong in their exegesis, the book cannot be a revela- 
 tion from God.— Page 198. 
 
 This is another gross misrepresentation. The Saints do 
 not believe that this chapter was completely and perfectly- 
 fulfilled in every minute particular in the coming forth of 
 the Book of Mormon. We see much more in it. We do 
 think that a book read by an unlearned man is referred to, 
 and that the Book of Mormon and the circumstances 
 connected with it harmonize with the prediction. But the 
 idea that if we are wrong in our exegesis "the book cannot 
 be a revelation from God" is decidedly silly. The position 
 that any book or principle depends upon the correctness 
 of the exegesis of its supporters is not logic, it is trash. 
 
108 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Elder Bays in this connection proceeds to give his 
 exegesis of this chapter, and claims that "every line of 
 this wonderful prophecy had its complete accomplish- 
 ment" in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Shall we say that if Bays is wrong in his exegesis Nebu- 
 chadnezzar could not have destroyed Jerusalem? If Elder 
 Bays' philosophy is right, then the moment a man takes 
 an untenable position in defense of the Bible it proves that 
 the Bible cannot be a revelation from God. 
 
 That Elder Bays is wrong in the following conclusion 
 will need no argument. He states: 
 
 From the foregoing summary of the principal points of this 
 prophecy, it is shown most conclusively that the prediction of 
 every event is made of Jerusalem and her people, otherwise the 
 "Inspired Translation" is s, failure and a fraud. As lovers of 
 truth, and as fair and unbiased students of prophecy and 
 Biblical history, we are forced to the undeniable conclusion 
 that every line of this wonderful prophecy had its complete 
 accomplishment in the subsequent history of the Israelitish 
 people in the utter destruction of their beloved city by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, king of Babylon, some 588 years before our era, 
 and 124 years after the prediction was made. — Pages 202, 203. 
 
 Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter contains the following pre- 
 diction: 
 
 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned 
 into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as 
 a forest? — Verse 17. 
 
 Elder Bays in summing up the events predicted in this 
 chapter as he does on pages 199 and 200, leaves this out. 
 He will hardly claim that Lebanon was turned into a fruit- 
 ful field when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 But in the latter times such has been the case. Though 
 authors differ in regard to the former fertility of the land, 
 all agree that the country was desolate for many years, 
 whether from the lack of rain or because of want of care. 
 The following is from Palestina for June, 1897, a Jewish 
 paper published in London, England, and is an extract 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 109 
 
 from a sermon preached in Birmingham, England, May 29, 
 1897, by Rev. G. J. Emanuel: 
 
 Six hundred and thirty years ago, Nachmanides, a name 
 illustrious in Jewish literature, went to the Holy Land at the 
 age of seventy years, and this is how he describes Palestine and 
 Jerusalem: "Great is the solitude and great the wastes, and to 
 characterize it in short, the more sacred the places, the greater 
 their desolation. Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of 
 the country. In all the city there is but one resident inhabit- 
 ant, a poor dyer, persecuted, oppressed, and despised. At his 
 house gather great and small, when they can get the Ten Men 
 (Minyan). They are wretched folk without occupation and 
 trade, pilgrims and beggars, though the fruit of the land is still 
 magnificent and the harvests rich. It indeed is still a blessed 
 country, flowing with milk and honey. Oh! I am the man who 
 has seen affliction (Lamentations 3, 1). I am banished from my 
 table, far removed from friend and kinsman, and too long is the 
 distance to meet again. I have left my family, I have forsaken 
 my house. There, with my sons and daughters, and with the 
 sweet and dear grandchildren, whom I have brought up on my 
 knees, I left also my soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell 
 with them forever. But the loss of all these is compensated by 
 having now the joy of being a day in thy courts, O Jerusalem! 
 visiting the ruins of thy temple and crying over thy ruined 
 sanctuary. There I caress thy stones, I fondle thy dust, I weep 
 over thy ruins. May He who has permitted us to see Jerusalem 
 in her desertion bless us to behold her again built up and 
 restored when the glory of the Lord shall return to her." 
 
 So spake Nachmanides in the year 5027. We are now in the 
 year 5657. How different is the sight which now greets the eye 
 in Jerusalem! Nachmanides found but one of our race per- 
 manently residing there. There are this day many thousands. 
 In the house of that one man public prayers were said when 
 the Ten could be got together. Now synagogues great and 
 small abound. Shall we then not believe that Zion will be 
 rebuilt in the sense that the land of our fathers shall be our 
 land again. . . . 
 
 If we want our faith stimulated, if we would see actual steps 
 taken towards the restoration of our people to their old home, 
 we must go away from the holy cities — Jerusalem, Hebron, 
 Safed, Tiberias. We must leave the cities and go to the land. 
 There is vitality there, and work and hope. There can be seen 
 schools, industries, colonies. A mile outside the Jaffa gate at 
 Jerusalem is the school presided over by Nissim Behar. The 
 boys learn languages, but also carpentering, cabinet-making, 
 metal work, coach-making. There they make or repair all 
 manner of machines, pumps, coffee and flour mills, sewing and 
 
110 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 weighincr machines, and to show you that civilization is making 
 way in Palestine, bicycles too. The pupils of this school find 
 employment all over the East. Near the city of Jaffa is an 
 agricultural school "Mikveh Israel" (the Hope of Israel), founded 
 by Charles Netter twenty-seven years ago. There, besides 
 languages, mathematics, and chemistry, the lads learn agricul- 
 ture, they grow oranges, vines, fruits, corn. They make their 
 own wine, most excellent, and make their own barrels. Fifty 
 of the past pupils are officers in various colonies; fifty are 
 proprietors of their own lands. On the colonies of Baron 
 Rothschild and those recently established by the Chovevi Zion 
 Associations many hundreds, I shall not exaggerate if I say 
 thousands, are working, growing corn and all fruits, making 
 wine in large quantities, cultivating mulberry trees, rearing 
 silkworms, and spinning silk, manufacturing perfumes. In 
 addition to these large colonies actually established, tracts of 
 land are held by Baron Rothschild which gradually will be 
 brought under cultivation. Shall we then not hope and 
 believe? 
 
 When solitary pilgrims traveled there, to kiss the stones, to 
 embrace the dust and to die, our people living then, if living it 
 could be called, in hourly danger of death, believed that Pales- 
 tine would again be peopled by the race of Israel! Shall we 
 then doubt, we who live in freedom, respected, prosperous, 
 able at our ease to go, as pleasure-seekers, and see for ourselves, 
 and to behold with rejoicing the work of restoration well 
 begun, and waiting only our united help to increase it and make 
 it "more successful. O brethren ! the thoughtful and the religious 
 of all nations believe that the land of Israel is destined to be 
 Israel's again. Are we only to doubt, and question, and deny? 
 We all spend so much on ourselves, we all waste so much, shall 
 we not spare something for this good work? If the tens of 
 thousands of our race, all the world over, who enjoy every 
 luxury, if the hundreds of thousands who are self-supporting 
 and have something to spare would combine, it would not be 
 long before the land of Israel would be giving sustenance to 
 thousands of Jewish agriculturalists, living as in times of yore, 
 each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree. Understand 
 me. With the united help of Israelites, Palestine will in time 
 be filled with flourishing communities of our people, no longer 
 massed in cities, no longer recipients of charitable gifts, but 
 spread over the land, a brave, sturdy body of peasant agricul- 
 turalists, feeding their flocks, cultivating their fields, tending 
 their vineyards, gathering in their fruits, and prosperous, 
 contented, happy. This will be. God has said it. "The land 
 is not sold in perpetuity. The land is mine, and I have given 
 it to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." 
 
 Though this writer Nachmanides differs from other 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. Ill 
 
 authors regarding the richness of the harvests, he agrees 
 that desolation had come to the land, which he attributes 
 to desertion. But how different the situation now as 
 described by the Rev. Mr. Emanuel. 
 
 The Palestina for September, 1897, in describing the 
 "Judaeo-Palestinian Exhibition at Hamburg," says: 
 
 The exhibition was opened with much solemnity on the 29th 
 of June, amidst the concourse of a number of distinguished 
 guests, including representatives of the general exhibition, the 
 promoters of the enterprise, the leaders of the Jewish congre- 
 gation, as also representatives of the local press. The visitors, 
 who minutely inspected the exhibits, were conducted over the 
 place by the members of the committee, Mr. Glucksmann, late 
 a pupil' of the agricultural school at Jaffa, supplying the neces- 
 sary explanations. Every guest received a copy of Mr. Barn- 
 bus's interesting pamphlet on "the rise and present condition 
 of the Jewish villages in Palestine." 
 
 The exhibition was opened to the public at one o'clock, and 
 the whole afternoon and evening streams of visitors poured in. 
 
 The exhibition presents a splendid view. The entrance to the 
 building forms the representation of a colonist's cottage. On 
 passing, the visitor is surprised by the view of a diorama, show- 
 ing in the foreground a street of one of the colonies, in the 
 background a portion of Jerusalem; palm trees, olive trees, 
 orange trees, almond trees, and pomegranates appear in full 
 bloom. The space to the right is occupied by an exhibition of 
 cotton textures, manufactured by the pupils of the agricultural 
 school at Jaffa; by silkworm-cocoons, silks, carpets, and a 
 splendid array of carvings in olive and cedarwood. The left is 
 reserved for the exhibition of all sorts of field produce, as 
 wheat, barley, sesame, durrah, lupines, peas, beans, lentils, and 
 several varieties of excellent potatoes. Lower down, there are 
 samples of oranges, honey, olive oil, eau-de-cologne, various 
 sorts of wine, grapes, liquors, jams, etc. It was impossible to 
 exhibit young vines, for reason, that there exists, as yet, no 
 convention with Turkey in regard to precautionary measures 
 against phyloxera. The growth of asparagus was, in the Jew- 
 ish colonies, only commenced four years ago; yet, the samples 
 prove a careful treatment, and promise good results for the 
 future. 
 
 Most interesting are the above-mentioned large trees. Mr. 
 Gluckmann, on leaving Jaffa on the 16th of May, took with him 
 twenty-four trees from the Jewish villages of Rishon L'Zion 
 ind Ekron. On being shipped, a splendid olive tree unfortu- 
 nately fell into the sea. The trees were first transported to 
 .Alexandria, where they had to remain for some time, till they 
 
112 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 were despatched to Hamburg by the steamer Rhodos. When 
 they were still in Alexandria, a large concourse of people 
 assembled at the harbor every day for the purpose of admiring 
 them. They sutfered, of course, somewhat during their transit 
 from the colonies to the coast, the shipping at Jaffa, and the 
 re-shipping at Alexandria, as also from sea-water. But Mr. 
 Gluckmann's precautions and constant care triumphed over all 
 difficulties. The pomegranate, ethrog (citron), and pineapple 
 trees are in full bloom, the olive, jucca, orange, and palm trees 
 show a beautiful and fresh green foliage. The local press is 
 profuse in their praisesof this side show, by which, they say, the 
 horticultural exhibition has gained a most interesting feature. 
 
 Surely Lebanon is becoming a fruitful field. This part 
 of the prediction is surely being fulfilled today; and yet 
 Elder Bays without a word of proof would have us believe 
 that every line of the prediction was fulfilled 588 years 
 before Christ. That he is mistaken will also appear from 
 the following words of Christ to the Jews of his time in 
 which he quotes the language found in Isaiah twenty-ninth 
 chapter: 
 
 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This 
 people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth 
 me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But irl 
 vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men.— Matt. 15: 7-9. 
 
 If the Master was right in applying this prophecy to the 
 people of his time, then it was not fulfilled 588 years 
 before, and Bays is again wrong. That a part of the 
 prediction may apply to the destruction of Jerusalem by 
 Nebuchadnezzar we will not deny. It seems to have a 
 general application to the Jews and their history for a 
 long period of time, reaching down to this latter restora- 
 tion of the Jews to their home and country. Their 
 spiritual vision is represented as being dark, and the 
 multitude of all the nations that fight against Zion are 
 to share in the darkness, likened unto the words of a book 
 that is sealed, of which it is said in positive language, "is 
 delivered to him that is not learned." 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 113 
 
 Iq connection with the return of Israel to her pronaised 
 
 inheritance, a great spiritual revival was to take place, 
 
 graphically described by Isaiah as follows: 
 
 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are 
 drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong 
 drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of 
 deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your 
 rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is 
 become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which 
 men deliver to one that is learned, saying. Read this, I pray 
 thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is 
 delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray 
 thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord 
 said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, 
 and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart 
 far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept 
 of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous 
 work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: 
 for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the under- 
 standing of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them 
 that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their 
 works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who 
 knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall 
 be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him 
 that made ii. He made me not? or shall the thing framed say 
 of him that framed it. He had no understanding? Is it not yet 
 a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful 
 field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? And 
 in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the 
 eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of dark- 
 ness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and 
 the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 
 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is 
 consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that 
 make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him 
 that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing 
 of nought. Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed 
 Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now 
 be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he 
 seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of 
 him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One 
 of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. They also that 
 erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that 
 murmured shall learn doctrine. — Isaiah 29:9-24. 
 
 In connection with this marvelous work the book was to 
 appear, as will be seen by reference to the above. The 
 
114 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Book of Mormon was given to the world in connection 
 with the transpiring of these events, and hence the elders 
 have concluded that this is the book referred to. 
 
 His twenty-third chapter has nothing in it not already 
 answered. It consists in showing some points of harmony 
 between the predictions in Isaiah twenty-ninth chapter 
 and the subsequent history of the Jews, and then the 
 conclusion that the whole chapter was fulfilled. The 
 illogical and unfair method of substituting the part for 
 the whole will be readily seen by the reader. 
 
CHAPTER 6. 
 
 Book of Mormon— Harris' Visit to New York — Anthon Wrong 
 — Baj's Writes to Linguists — Angell's Letter— Davis' Letter — 
 Moldenke's Letter— Antlion's Letter — Testimony Compared 
 — Archaeolog}' — Moldenke's Embarrassment — Records — 
 Materials Written on — Anthon's Theory — Testimony of 
 Witnesses. 
 
 The twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty- 
 seventh, and twenty-eighth chapters of Elder Bays' book 
 we prefer to examine collectively, as they practically 
 relate to the same subject, partaking of the nature of 
 negative argument, and evidence in rebuttal against the 
 claims made for the Book of Mormon. Elder Bays first 
 tries to throw discredit upon Joseph Smith's account of 
 Martin Harris' visit to New York, which is as follows: 
 
 The persecution however became so intolerable that I was 
 under the necessity of leaving Manchester, and going with my 
 wife to Susquehannah county in the state of Pennsylvania: 
 while preparing to start (being very poor and the persecution 
 so heavy upon us that there was no probability that we would 
 ever be otherwise), in the midst of our afflictions we found a 
 friend in a gentleman by the name of Martin Harris, who came 
 to us and gave me iifty dollars to assist us in our afflictions. 
 Mr. Harris was a resident of Palmyra township Wayne county, 
 in the state of New York, and a farmer of respectability; by 
 this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destina- 
 tion in Pennsylvania, and immediately after my arrival there I 
 commenced copying the characters of the plates. I copied a 
 considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and 
 Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the 
 time I arrived at the house of my wife's father in the month of 
 December, and the February following. Sometime in this 
 month of February the aforementioned, Mr. Martin Harris 
 <;ame to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off 
 the plates and started with them to the city of New York. 
 For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer 
 to his own account of the circumstances as he related them to 
 me after his return which was as follows: "I went to the city 
 
 115 
 
116 REPLY TO D. H, BAYS. 
 
 of New York and'presented the characters which had been- 
 translated, with the translation thereof to Profess,or Anthon, a 
 gentleman celebrated for his literar}^ attainments; — Professor 
 Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than 
 any he had before seen translated from the Eg^-ptian. I then 
 showed him those which were not j'et translated, and he said 
 that thej' were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic, and 
 he said that thej' were the true characters. He jsrave me a cer- 
 tificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true 
 characters, and that the translation of such of them as had 
 been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put 
 it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. 
 Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man 
 found out that there were gold plates in the place where he 
 found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it 
 unto him. 
 
 "He then said to me, let me see that certificate, I accordingly 
 took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it 
 and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as- 
 ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to 
 him, he would translate them. I informed him that part of 
 the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them, 
 he replied 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went 
 to Dr. Mitchill who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said 
 respecting both the characters and the translation." — Tm^* 
 and Seasons, vol. 3, pp. 773, 773. 
 
 It will be seen by the above that Martin Harris took ''a 
 considerable number" of the characters with him, and 
 "some of them" were translated. He first presented to 
 Professor Anthon those which were translated, and the 
 Professor declared them to be Egyptian and the transla- 
 tion more correct than any he had seen. He next pre- 
 sented those not translated, and these were pronounced 
 by the Professor to be "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, 
 and Arabic," and to be true characters. 
 
 It was after this that the Professor proposed to trans- 
 late the plates if they were brought to him, and was told 
 that a part of the plates was sealed, and Mr. Harris was 
 forbidden to bring them; and in this connection the 
 Professor said, "I cannot read a sealed book." 
 
 We are thus particular in presenting this matter clearly 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 117 
 
 because of the bungling, confused, and misleading manner 
 in which Elder Bays presents the narrative. 
 
 In this connection Elder Bays grossly misrepresents the 
 defenders of the claims of the Book of Mormon; and to do 
 so he puts into the mouth of Elder. W. H. Kelley words he 
 did not use, as the following quotations will show: 
 
 Every writer who has made any attempt to defend the claims 
 of the Book of Mormon on this ground has urged as an argu- 
 ment full of potency, that the learned professor could not 
 decipher the characters submitted to him. Upon this point 
 Elder Wm. H. Kelley says: 
 
 "Both he [Prof. Anthon] and Dr. Mitchell were waited upon 
 by Mr. Harris with a copy of the characters, and they examined 
 them, just as affirmed by Mr. Harris, and as predicted in the 
 twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, and eleventh verse, would be 
 done, which is the main point in the investigation, and that 
 neither of them was able to decipher them." (Presidency and 
 Priesthood, p. 205.) 
 
 Here we have the affirmation of Mr. Kelley, (and he is con- 
 sidered good authority,) that the "characters" were presented 
 to the Professor, and that neither he nor Dr. Mitchell was able 
 to decipher them,. and that their failure to do so is "the main 
 point in the investigation." In this declaration Mr. Kelley but 
 repeats the position, and reflects the sentiment of all the lead- 
 ing minds of the denomination from its rise to the present day. 
 With this view of the case firmly fixed in the mind, let us 
 recall the witness, Martin Harris, for re-direct examination. — 
 Page 224. 
 
 Compare this with what Elder Kelley really did say: 
 
 The reader will bear in mind that Professor Anthon made 
 his statement a number of years after he was visited by Mr. 
 Harris. He endeavors to treat lightly and cast discredit upon 
 the claims made concerning the revealment and translation of 
 the book by Mr. Smith (having taken sides with the popular 
 current, not believing in the visitation of angels), but he con- 
 fesses, nevertheless, that both he and Dr. Mitchell were waited 
 upon b}' Mr. Harris with a copy of the characters, and that 
 they examined them, just as is affirmed by Mr. Harris, and as 
 is predicted in the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, and the 
 eleventh verse, would be done, which is the main point in this 
 investigation, and that neither of them were able to decipher 
 them. Indeed, there is nothing in the prediction of Isaiah to 
 indicate that the learned to whom the "words of the book" 
 would be submitted would believe anything in the transaction^ 
 but rather the reverse. — Presidency and Priesthood, p. 205. 
 
118 REPLY TO D. H. HAYS. 
 
 It will be seen by the above that what Elder Kelley said 
 Mr. Anthon had confessed, Elder Bays presents as an 
 affirmation of Elder Kelley. It will also be readily seen by 
 examination of the connection in which the words are used 
 that Elder Kelley did not at^rm that the failure of these 
 learned men to decipher the characters was the main point 
 in the investigation, but that the presentation and exami- 
 nation was the main point in the investigation. Words 
 are too weak to express the contempt we feel for such a 
 course as the above discloses upon the part of Elder Bays. 
 
 On pages 226 and 227 Elder Bays continues as follows: 
 
 Did it ever occur to you that this document, so much relied 
 upon to support tiiis claim for the Boot; of Mormon, is actually 
 self-contradictory? And yet such is the case. 
 
 That part of the statement just quoted, says, in substance, 
 that Prof. Anthon could, and in fact did, "read" the words or 
 characters submitted to him by Martin Harris, while the latter 
 part of the statement represents Mr. Anthon as saying, "I can- 
 not read a sealed book." 
 
 If Prof. Anthon really examined the characters and declared 
 them to have been "correctly translated," then it is clear to the 
 most casual observer that he must have been able to decipher 
 the characters in which the "sealed book" was said to have 
 been written. 
 
 If by his ffreat learning- this distintruished professor of lan- 
 guages could translate the characters in which it is claimed the 
 Book of Mormon was written, then it is absurd in the extreme 
 to urge that Joseph Smith, or any other man, should be divinely 
 inspired in order to their translation. 
 
 If Mr. Anthon did not decipher the characters presented to 
 him, then his alleged statement or certificate, that said charac- 
 ters had been correctly translated, is absolutely worthless, and 
 amounts to nothing by way of proving what is claimed for the 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 If he did decipher them -which he must have done in order 
 to render the alletred certificate of any value — then it does not 
 come within the range of Isaiah's prophecy, for he declares that 
 ■when the "words" were presented, the "learned man" should 
 say, "I cannot read them." 
 
 The sophistry of this is so apparent that but little com- 
 ment is needed. Reading the characters and reading the 
 sealed book were two separate and distinct things, and 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 119 
 
 the words were used in different connections, and under 
 different circumstances. Mr. Bays in order to make his 
 case misquotes Isaiah. The passage does not read: "I 
 cannot read them," but "I cannot; for it is sealed." 
 
 Concerning the testimony of Professor Anthon and Mr. 
 Harris, Elder Bays truthfully observes: "It will doubt- 
 less be observed that these statements differ materially as 
 to what occurred on that occasion." Then he asks, 
 "Which of these statements are we to believe?" We 
 certainly cannot believe Professor Anthon's. He says: 
 
 This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all 
 kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had 
 evidentl}^ been prepared by some person who had before him 
 at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and 
 Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted 
 or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, 
 and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided 
 into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, 
 and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by 
 Humboldt. — History of Mormonism by E. D. Howe, pp. 
 271, 272. 
 
 An examination of the accompanying photographic cut 
 of the original paper, will show Professor Anthon to be 
 wrong. These characters are not arranged in perpen- 
 dicular columns, nor do they end "in a rude delineation of 
 a circle divided into various compartments, decked with 
 various strange marks." 
 
 Mr. Bays cannot deny the genuineness of this cut, as he 
 has himself presented it to several scholars for, examina- 
 tion, and, as will be seen, bases his rebuttal largely on 
 their opinions regarding it. Professor Anthon's state- 
 ment is therefore proven untrue. 
 
 Elder Bays here questions whether Martin Harris ever 
 made this statement, and expresses the suspicion that 
 Joseph Smith manufactured the testimony. This has 
 already been refuted. See pages 28, 30 of this book. 
 
 On pages 232 and 233 Elder Bays says: 
 
120 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 I wish again to call attention to the fact that the statement 
 attributed to Martin Harris concernintr his interview with 
 Prof. Anthon never saw the light of day, so far as the public 
 is concerned, till May 2, 1842, fourteen years after the event is 
 said to have taken place: and it was then made public, not by 
 Martin Harris, but by Joseph Smith, the very man, above all 
 others on earth, the most directly interested. 
 
 In answer to this we quote from a letter written by 
 W. W. Phelps (before he was a member of the church) to 
 E. D. Howe, of Painesville, Ohio, from Canandaigua, New 
 York, January 15, 1831, and published in 1840, in "History 
 of Mormonism," by E. D. Howe, page 273: 
 
 When the plates were said to have been found, a copy of one 
 or two lines of the characters, were taken by Mr. Harris to 
 TJtica, Albany and New York; at New York, they were shown 
 to Dr. Mitchell, and he referred to Professor Anthon who 
 translated and declared them to be the ancient shorthand 
 Egyptian. So much is true. The family of Smiths is poor, 
 and generally ignorant in common learning. 
 
 This shows that the purported interview was made 
 public as early as January, 1831. Mr. Anthon in his 
 letter of February 17, 1834, and published in the same 
 work, also refers to the claim made by Harris concerning 
 the visit of Harris in New York. 
 
 After a protracted effort to show that the witnesses to 
 the Book of Mormon might have testified falsely, which we 
 will not occupy space to follow. Elder Bays proceeds to the 
 direct evidence. He represents himself as follows: 
 
 Unwilling to trust to the accuracy of a transcript made in the 
 ordinary way, I cut the plate out of a copy of Mr. Kelley's 
 book, and submitted it to a few of the best Egytologists of the 
 present time, with a request for each to pass his professional 
 opinion upon the unique document. Each of the gentlemen 
 addressed returned a prompt answer, neither of them knowing 
 ■what the other had said; or, to be more accurate, neither knew 
 that anybody else was to answer the questions, and hence there 
 could be no possibility that the statement of one could be influ- 
 enced by that of another. 
 
 In this manner each depended entirely upon his own knowl- 
 edge of the question to be considered, and was, therefore, 
 entirely free from any bias that might arise from having 
 
"MEXICAN CALENDAR IN RELIEF ON BASALT." 
 
 Photographed from page 276 of "Humboldt's Researches n 
 America." 
 
 By comparing this with the accompanying plate, it will be seei 
 that Professor Anthon errs when he states that the character 
 presented to him by Martin Harris were "evidently copied afte 
 the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt." See pages 11! 
 and 124, 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 121 
 
 previously read the opinions^ of another, thus securing the 
 independent opinion of some of the finest scholars in the 
 Oriental languages that our country affords. 
 
 The accompanying plate, an exact reproduction of Mr. 
 Kelley's photographic copy, will give the reader an opportu- 
 nity to make a more extended examination should he desire 
 to do so. 
 
 To each of the gentlemen whose testimony is submitted 
 herewith, was addressed a letter of explanation and inquiry, 
 substantially as follows: 
 
 "Dear Sir: I herewith inclose what purports to be a fac- 
 simile of the characters found upon the gold plates from which 
 it is claimed the Rook of Mormon was translated. The 
 advocates of Mormonism maintain that these characters are 
 'Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic' 
 
 "So far as I am informed, these characters have never been 
 submitted to scholars of eminence for examination; and as the 
 languages named fall within your province, including Egyp- 
 tology and Archeology, your professional opinion as to their 
 genuineness will be of great value to the general reader, in 
 determining the exact truth with respect to this remarkable 
 claigfi. I would also like your opinion upon the following ques- 
 tions, namely: 
 
 "1. Did Hebrew scholars at any time, either before or since 
 Christ, keep their records on tablets, or plates of brass? 
 
 "2. If so, did they ever write in the Egyptian language? 
 
 "3. Is there any evidence to show that the Pentateuch was 
 ever w^ritten upon such plates of brass? 
 
 "4. Is there any proof that the law of Moses, or even the 
 Decalogue, was ever written in the Egyptian language?" — 
 Pages 260-263. 
 
 In the first place Mr, Bays misrepresents "the advocates 
 of Mormonism" and misleads the learned gentlemen to 
 whom he writes when he says: "The advocates of Mor- 
 monism maintain that these characters are 'E^^yptian, 
 Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic' " We have before shown 
 that no such claim had been made by us. In makinor this 
 statement Elder Bays also contradicts his own statements 
 as follows: 
 
 There can be no question, then, that the language of the 
 plates was Egyptian. Not the slightest intimation that any 
 other language was ever employed in keeping these records, 
 and hence no other letters, signs or characters could possibly 
 have been used. — Page 257. 
 
122 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Again: 
 
 All Mormon authority unites in declaring that the plates of 
 the Book of Mormon were written in Egyptian. — Paj^e 269. 
 
 For the sake of the comparison we will here quote the 
 several answers to the above communication as received 
 by Elder Bays and published in his book, and also the 
 coram unication of Professor Anthon as published by Howe 
 in 1840: 
 
 "Rev. I). H. Bays, Bear Sir: I have submitted your letter 
 and inclosure to our Professor of Oriental lanoruacres, who is 
 more familiar with the subjects raised by your questions than 
 I am. He is a man of laro^e learning in Semitic languages and 
 archeology. The substance of what he has to say is: 
 
 ""I. Tlie document which \'ou enclose raises a wora^ rather 
 than a linguistic problem. A few letters or signs are noticeable 
 which correspond more or less closely to the Aramaic, some- 
 times called Chaldee language; for example, s, h, g, t, 1, b, n. 
 There are no Assyrian characters in it, and the impression 
 made is that tJie document i.s fraudulent. 
 
 " '2. There is no evidence that the Hebrews kept their 
 records upon plates or tablets of brass; but the Assyrians, in 
 the eighth century before C'hrist, did. 
 
 " "H. There is no evidence whatever to show that the Penta- 
 teuch was ever written on such plates of brass.' 
 
 "Yours Truly, 
 
 "James B. Angell.' 
 
 Ann Arbor, Mich. (Italics are mine). — Pages 2G3, 264. 
 
 "Rev. D. H. Bays, Dear Sir: I am familiar with Egyptian, 
 Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic, and have considerable acquaint- 
 ance with all of the Oriental languages, and 1 can positireli/ 
 asxcrt that there is not a letter to be found in the fac-simile 
 submitted that can be found in the alphabet of any Oriental 
 language, particularly of those you refer to— namely, Egyptian, 
 Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic. 
 
 "A careful study of the fac-simile shows that they are 
 characters put down at random by an ignorant person — with 
 no resemblance to anj^thing, not even shorthand. 
 
 "No record has ever shown that the Hebrews, or any other 
 Eastern nation, kept their records upon plates or tablets of 
 brass, but thousands upon thousands of tablets of baked clay 
 have been brought to light, antedating two or three thousands 
 years, before the time of Moses, wlille libraries of these baked 
 clay tablets have been found, like those at Tell el Amara. At 
 the time the Old Testament was written paper made from 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 123 
 
 papyrus was in use, and as documents have been found in 
 Egypt of the times of Moses, written on papyri, it is not 
 unreasonable to suppose that we may find yet portions of the 
 Old Testament. , . ^ • 
 
 "The treasures of Esrypt and Palestine are only just being 
 brought to light. Remarkable discoveries are yet to be made. 
 "Respectfully, Chas. H. S. Davis." 
 
 •^Paffes 2G4 ''65 
 
 ' " "Jerusalem [Palestine], Dec. 27, 1896. 
 
 '•Rev. D. H. Bays, Dear Sir and Brother: Your letter dated 
 Nov. 23rd i have just received. I will try to answer your ques- 
 tions as far as I am able. I believe the plates of the Book of 
 Mormon to be a fraud. 
 
 "In the first place it is impossible to find in any old inscrip- 
 tion, 'Ecryptian, Arabic, Chaldaic and Assyrian,' characters 
 mixed together. The simple idea of finding Egyptian and 
 Arabic side by side is ridiculous and impossible. 
 
 "In the second place, though some signs remind one of those 
 on the Mesa Inscription, yet none bear a resemblance to 
 Egyptian or Assyrian. , tt ,. , . 
 
 > "As far as I know there is no evidence that the Hebrews kept 
 records on plates of brass, or ever wrote on such plates. About 
 the prophecv contained in Isa. 29:1-14, I can venture no 
 opinion, as "l am not a Biblical scholar, and only concern 
 myself about Egyptology. Very truly yours, 
 
 "Charles E. Moldenke." 
 
 —Page 266. 
 
 The letter of Professor Anthon is as follows: 
 
 New York, Feb. 17, 1834. 
 
 Dear Sir— I received this morning youir favor of the 9th 
 instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story 
 about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 
 "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some 
 years a^^o, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, 
 called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now 
 deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which 
 the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had 
 been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in 
 question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, 
 perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, 
 how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now 
 recollect, the following account: A "gold book," consisting of 
 a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a 
 book bv wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the north- 
 ern part of the state of New Y^ork, and along with the book an 
 enormous pair of ''(/old spectacles''! These spectacles were so 
 large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two 
 
124 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, 
 the spectacles in question bein<r altogether too large for the 
 breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates 
 through the spectacles, was enabled not only io read them, but 
 fully to utidcrstand their meaning. All this knowledge, how- 
 ever, was confined at that tincie to a young man, who had the 
 trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. 
 This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a 
 farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the 
 spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the 
 glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having 
 committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind 
 the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, 
 however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by 
 the gift of God." Every thing, in this way, was effected by the 
 large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been 
 requested to contribute a sum of monej' towards the publica- 
 tion of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he 
 had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and 
 save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that 
 he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount 
 received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last 
 precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New 
 York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning 
 of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been 
 given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no 
 translation had been furnished at the time by the young man 
 with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my 
 opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer 
 as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a 
 scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated 
 my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He 
 requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I 
 declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper 
 with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It con- 
 sisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, 
 and had evidently been prepared by some person who had 
 before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. 
 Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters 
 inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular 
 columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle 
 divided into various compartments, decked with various 
 strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calen- 
 dar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to 
 betra}' the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular 
 as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently 
 conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite 
 excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 125^ 
 
 anything: else but "Egyptian HierocjlypMcfi."' Some time after, 
 the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brouglu. with him 
 ihe golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I 
 declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the 
 book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, 
 although his manner was stransrely urgent. I adverted once 
 more to the roii-uery which had been in my opinion practiced 
 upon him. and asked him what had become of the gold plates. 
 He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair 
 of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have 
 the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come 
 upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to 
 pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that 
 he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" 
 upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest 
 willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, pro- 
 vided 1 could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He 
 then left me. 
 
 I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know 
 respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you. as a 
 personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you 
 find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics. 
 
 Y'ours respectfully, Chas. Anthon. 
 
 E. B. ILnce. E.^q. PainesviUe, Ohio. 
 
 —History of Mormonism, by E. D. Howe, pp. 270-272. 
 
 It ma}^ be thought presumptuous to criticise these 
 learned men, but of all productions of mortal man, the 
 productions of scholars ought to stand criticism, and if 
 they will not, no excuse can be made. 
 
 Compare the following: (Some of the following italics 
 are muie.) 
 
 A few letters or signs are noticeable which correspond more or 
 less closely io the Aramaic, sometimes called Chaldee language; 
 for example, s, h, g, t, 1, b, n.-Anorell. 
 
 I can positively assert that there is not a letter to be found in 
 the fac-simile submitted that can be found in the alphabet of 
 any Oriental language, particularly of those you refer to — 
 namely. Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic. A careful 
 study of the fac-simile shows that they are characters put 
 down at random by an ignorant person — icith no resemblance to 
 anything, not even shortliand. — Davis. 
 
 In the second place, though some signs remind one of those on 
 the Mesa Inscription, yet none bear a resemblance to Egyptiaa 
 or Assyrian. — Moldenke. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 reek and Ilehreic letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters 
 
 rTted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular 
 
 imns, etc. — Anthon. 
 
 here is no evidence that the Hebrews kept their records 
 
 n plates or tablets of brass; hut the Assyrians, in the eighth 
 
 tury before Christ, did.— AngeU. 
 
 o record has ever shown that the Hebrews, or any other 
 
 tern nation, kept their records upon plates or tablets of 
 
 5S. — Davis. 
 
 'his is the contradictory mass that Mr. Bays relies on 
 evidence in rebuttal. Mr. Angell finds signs on the 
 simile more or less closely resembling Chaldee; Mr. 
 Ldenke finds signs that remind one of those on the 
 sa Inscription; and Mr. Anthon finds Greek, Hebrew, 
 [ Roman letters; while Mr. Davis finds no resemblance to 
 thing. 
 
 Lgain, Mr. Angell thinks that the Assyrians kept their 
 ords on brass; but Mr. Davis says "no record has ever 
 wn that the Hebrews, or any other eastern nation," 
 . However, Messrs. Anthon, Davis, and Moldenke all 
 ee that there are no Egyptian characters on the 
 simile, while Mr. Angell says nothing on this point. 
 Ve would not expect linguists to recognize Egyptian 
 .racters on the plates readily, as the Book of Mormon 
 lares: 
 
 .nd now behold, we have written this record according to 
 knowledge in the characters, which are called among us 
 reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, 
 ording to our manner of speech. And if our plates had 
 n sufficiently large, w^e should have written in the Hebrew; 
 , the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could 
 'e written in the Hebrew, behold, ye would have had none 
 Derfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things 
 ich we have written, and also that none other people 
 )weth our language; and because that none other people 
 )weth our language, therefore he hath prepared means 
 the interpretation thereof.— Page 538, Palmyra edition. 
 
 By this it will be seen that the failure of these scholars 
 read, and the confusion of their statements, but confirm 
 > statement of the book that, "None other people know- 
 
 ^* 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 12*? 
 
 eth our language." Yet there are some characters on the 
 plates closely resembling the Egyptian, as anyone can 
 determine by comparing Egyptian characters with the 
 facsimile. 
 
 There is competent evidence that the prehistoric Ameri- 
 cans were influenced by Egyptian civilization. When we 
 consider the account given in the Book of Mormon; viz., 
 that though this country was peopled by Jews, yet they 
 were a people acquainted with the customs of Egypt, the 
 following is quite significant: 
 
 No claim has been advanced, we believe, which advocates an 
 actual Egyptian colonization of the new world, but strong 
 arguments have been used to show that the architecture and 
 sculpture of Central America and Mexico have been influenced 
 from Egypt, if not attributable directly to Egyptian artisans. 
 These arguments are based on the resemblance between the 
 gigantic pyramids, the sculptured obelisks, and the numerous 
 idols of these prehistoric countries and those of Egypt. It 
 requires no practiced eye to trace a resemblance in general 
 features, though it must be said that the details of American 
 architecture and sculpture, are peculiarly original in design. 
 The principal advocate of the theory, Delafield, has furnished 
 many comparisons, but we think no argument has been pre- 
 sented sufficiently supported by facts to prove that American 
 architecture and sculpture had any other than an indigenous 
 origin.— Short, The North Americans of Antiquity, p. 147. 
 
 Just what might be expected from the Book of Mormon 
 theory. Their architecture and sculpture were not of 
 Egyptian origin but bearing Egyptian resemblance. 
 
 That the language of ancient Americans also bore a 
 
 resemblance to the Egyptian is well established. The 
 
 following is evidence in point: 
 
 It is scarcely necessary for us to remark that the seeming 
 analogies between the Maya (Central American) sculpture and 
 that of Egypt have often been noted. Juarros, in speaking of 
 Palenque art. says: "The hieroglyphics, symbols and emblems 
 which have been discovered in the temples, bear so strong a 
 resemblance to those of tlie Egyptians, as to encourage the sup- 
 position that a colony of that nation may have founded the 
 city of Palenque or Culhuacan." Giordan found, as he 
 •thought, the most striking analogies between the Central 
 
128 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 American remains, as well as those of Mexico, and those of the 
 Egyptians. Tlie idols and monuments he considers of the same 
 fol-m in both countries, while the hieroglyphics of Palenque do 
 not differ from those of ancient Thebes. Senor Melgar, in a 
 communication to the Mexican Geographical Society, has 
 called attention to the frequent occurrence of the (T) tC''^ at 
 Palenque, and has more studiously advocated the early rela- 
 tionship of the Palenqueans to Egypt than any other reliable 
 writer. He cites Dupaix's Third Ex'pedition, page 77 and plates 
 26 and 27, where in the first figure is a goddess with a necklace 
 supporting a taM like medallion to which the explorer adds the 
 remark that such is "the symbol in Egypt of reproduction or 
 abundance." In the second plate he finds an altar dedicated 
 expressly to the tau. He considers that the cultus of this, the 
 symbol of the active principle in nature, prevailed in Mexico 
 in many places. Senor Melgar also refers to two idols found 
 south of the city of Mexico, "in one of which two symbols were 
 united, namely, the Cosmogonic eg^r^ symbolical of creation, 
 and two faces, symbols of the generative principle. The other 
 symbolized creation in the bursting forth of an egg. These 
 symbols are not found in the Aztec mythology, but belong to 
 the Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Persian, Japanese and other 
 cosmogonies." This, the Senor considers proof that these peo- 
 ples were the primitive colonists of that region, and seeks to 
 sustain his views by references to the Dharma Sastra of Manou 
 and the Zend Avesta. The reader has no doubt been surprised 
 at the frequent occurrence of the T-shaped niches in the 
 Palenque palace, and has observed the same symbol employed 
 on some of the hieroglyphics of the Tablet of the Cross. The 
 Egyptian tau, one of' the members of the Crux ansata, is cer- 
 tainly present at Palenque, but whether it was derived from 
 any one of the Mediterranean peoples who employed it, cannot 
 be ascertained. Among the Egyptians it signified "life," as is 
 shown by the best Egyptologists.— The North Americans of 
 Antiquity, pp. 415-417. 
 
 Resemblances have been found between the calendar systems 
 of Egypt and America, based chiefly upon the length and 
 division of the year, and the number of intercalary and com- 
 plementary days. — Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific 
 States, vol. 5, p. 62. 
 
 But at Lexington [Kentucky], the traits are too notorious to 
 allow them to be other than pure Egyptian, in full possession 
 of the strongest complexion of their national character, that of 
 embalming, which was connected with their religion. — Priest's 
 American Antiquities, p. 119. 
 
 One of the most interesting sources of comparison between 
 Mexico, Peru, and Egypt, is to be found in an investigation of 
 their hieroglyphic system. Each of these countries had a. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 129 
 
 peculiar mothod of recordino: events by means of hiero,»l3-phic 
 siirns, sculpturinfr them on monuments and buildings, and 
 portrajnng them on papyrus and maj?uey. — Delatield's Ameri- 
 can Antiquities, p. 42. 
 
 It is the opinion of the author that farther investigations 
 and discoveries in deciphering Mexican hieroglyphic paintings 
 will exhibit a close analogy to the Egyptian in the use of two 
 scriptural systems: the one for monumental inscription, the 
 other for the ordinary purposes of record and transmission of 
 information. We find the three species of hieroglyphics com- 
 mon to Mexico and Egypt. — Ibid., p. 46. 
 
 The ancient Maya hieratic alphabet, discovered by me, is as 
 near alike to the ancient hieratic alphabet of the Egyptians as 
 two alphabets can possibly be, forcing upon us the conclusion 
 that the Mayas and the Egyptians either learned the art of 
 writing from the same masters, or that the Egyptians learned 
 it from the Mayas. — Le Plongeon, Sacred Mysteries, p. 113. 
 
 In tracing, then, the ancestry of the Mexicans and Peruvians, 
 by analogy in their hieroglyphic system, where shall we take 
 them but to Egypt and to southern Asia? — Delafield's American 
 Antiquities, p. 47. 
 
 Of a comparison of the ''days of the Mexican calendar'* 
 with the "lunar houses of the Hindoos"; also with refer- 
 ence to "the analogy between the zodiac of the Mexicans 
 and that of the Mantchou Tartars," Delafield says: 
 
 These quotations we consider very positive evidence of an 
 early identity between the aboriginal race of America and 
 the southern Asiatic and Egyptian family. — American 
 Antiquities, p. 51. 
 
 As to the Mexicans, it would be superfluous to examine how 
 they attained this knowledge. Such a problem would not 
 be soon solved; but the fact of the intercalation of thirteen 
 days every cycle, that is, the use of a year of three hundred 
 and sixty-five days and a quarter, is a proof that it was 
 either borrowed from the Egyptians, or that they had a com- 
 mon origin. — Delafield's American Antiquities, p. 53. 
 
 Much more might be adduced upon these points but 
 space prevents. 
 
 The question as to whether the prehistoric Americans 
 were of Jewish origin has been discussed extensively, and 
 authorities differ upon it. On this Mr. Bancroft says: 
 
 The theory that the Americans are of Jewish descent has 
 been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any 
 
130 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made 
 original researches, are comparatively few; but the extent of 
 their investigations and the multitude of parallelisms they 
 adduce in support of their hypothesis, exceed by far anything 
 we have yet encountered.— Native Races, vol. 5, pp. 77, 78. 
 
 Mr. A. A. Bancroft, father of the historian, describes a 
 slab found in Ohio as follows: 
 
 About eight miles southeast of Newark there was formerly a 
 large mound composed of masses of free-stone, which had been 
 bro'ught from some distance and thrown into a heap without 
 much placing or care. In early days, stone being scarce in that 
 region, the settlers carried away the mound piece by piece to 
 use for building purposes, so that in a few years there was 
 little more than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining. 
 Some fifteen years ago, the county surveyor (I have forgotten 
 his name), who had for some time been searching ancient 
 works, turned his attention to this particular pile. He 
 employed a number of men and at once proceeded to open 
 it. Before long he was rewarded by finding in the center and 
 near the surface a bed of the tough clay generally known as 
 pipe-clay, which must have been brought from a distance of 
 some twelve miles. Imbedded in the clay was a coffin, dug out 
 of a burr-oak log, and in a pretty good state of preservation. 
 In the coffin was a skeleton, with quite a number of stone 
 ornaments and emblems, and some open brass rings, suitable 
 for bracelets or anklets. These being removed, they dug down 
 deeper, and soon discovered a stone dressed to an oblong shape, 
 about eighteen inches long and twelve wide, which proved to 
 be a casket, neatly fitted and completely watertight, containing 
 a slab of stone of hard and fine quality, an inch and a half 
 thick, eight inches long, four inclies and a half wide at one 
 end, and'tapering to three inches at the other. Upon the face 
 of the slab was the figure of a man, apparently a priest, with a 
 long flowing beard, and a robe reaching to his feet. Over his 
 head was a curved line of characters, and upon the edges and 
 back of the stone were closely and neatly carved letters. The 
 slab, which I saw myself, was shown to the episcopalian 
 clergyman of Newark, and he pronounced the writing to be 
 the "ten Commandments in ancient Hebrew.— Native Races, 
 vol. 5, pp. 94, 95. 
 
 Mr. G. R. Lederer, a converted Jew and editor of the 
 Israelite Indeed, wrote in May, 1861, as follows: 
 
 We suppose that many, if not most of our readers have seen, 
 in religious as well as secular papers, the accounts of some 
 relics which were found a few months ago in a mound near 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 131 
 
 Newark, Ohio. These relics consist of stones, in strange 
 shapes, bearinpr Hebrew inscriptions, which mal<es the case 
 particularly interesting to me, as a Hebrew. I have read, 
 therefore, with great interest, all that has been published con- 
 cerning them, and studied the opinions of different men of 
 science and learning, who have expressed themselves in public; 
 but I desired to see the objects themselves, to put my finger on 
 these relics, which bear inscriptions of the holy language, a 
 language which once was written with the finger of God upon 
 tables of stone; a language spoken and written by the prophets 
 of Israel, who predicted the main features, not only of the his- 
 tory of Israel, but also of the world at large. It is one of the 
 peculiar and national characteristics of the Jews, to feel a 
 sacred awe for that language, and even for "the square charac- 
 ters" in which it is written, so that every written or printed 
 Hebrew page is called "Shemos," by which the people mean to 
 say, a paper on which holy names are printed or written. A 
 pious .lew would never use any Hebrew book or paper for any 
 secular purpose whatever, and carefully picks up every bit and 
 burns it. Being now, by the grace of God, an "Israelite 
 Indeed," believing in Him concerning whom Moses and the 
 prophets did write, that sacred language has increased in its 
 charming influence upon my mind; this may explain my 
 anxiety to see those relics with the Hebrew inscriptions, with- 
 out, however, entertaining the least hope of ever having that 
 wish realized. This time, however, I was gladly disappointed; 
 for, in calling a few days ago on my friend, Mr. Theodore 
 Dwight, (the Recording Secretary of the "American Ethnologi- 
 cal Society," and my associate in the editorship of this 
 Magazine,) my eyes met with the very objects of my desire. 
 That I examined these antiquities carefully, none of our 
 readers will, I think, entertain any doubt. I recognized all the 
 letters except one, (the ayin,) though the forms of many of 
 them are different from those now in use. This, however, is 
 not the case with the stone found first, (viz., in July, I860,) 
 which has the form of an ancient jar, bearing Hebrew inscrip- 
 tions on its four sides, which are in perfectly such characters 
 as those generally in use now. I cannot form any opinion con- 
 cerning the use or meaning of this, which was found first, as 
 the inscriptions do not lead to any suggestions whatever. They 
 are as follows: 1. "Debar Jehovah," (meaning the word of 
 Jehovah.) 2. "Kodesh Kodeshim," (The Holy of Holies.) 3. 
 "Thorath Jehovah," (The Law of Jehovah.) and 4. "Melek 
 Aretz," (King of the Earth.) — Israelite Indeed, May, 1861, pp. 
 264, 265. 
 
 Much more evidence of this character might be pre- 
 sented, but we will close with an extract from the 
 
132 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 writings of Mr. George Catlin, giving reasons for believ- 
 ing that the American Indians were descendants from the 
 Jews: 
 
 "I believe, with many others, that the North American 
 Indians are a mixed people — that they have Jewish blood in 
 their veins, though I would not assert, as some have undertaken 
 to prove, 'that they are Jews,' or that they are 'the ten lost 
 tribes of Israel.' From the character and conformation of their 
 heads, I am compelled to look upon them as an amalgam race; 
 but still savages; and from many of their customs, which seem to 
 me to be peculiarly Jewish, as well as from the character of their 
 heads, I am forced to believe that some part of those ancient 
 tribes, who have been dispersed by Christians in so many ways, 
 and in so many different eras, have found their way to this 
 country, where they have entered amongst the native stock. . , . 
 I am induced to believe thus from the very many customs which 
 I have witnessed among them, that appear to be decidedly 
 Jewish, and many of them peculiarly so, that it would seem 
 almost impossible, or at all events, exceedingly improbable, 
 that two peoples in a state of nature should have hit upon them, 
 and practiced them exactly alike. . . . The first and most 
 striking fact amongst the North American Indians that refers 
 us to the Jews, is that of their worshiping, in all parts, the Great 
 Spirit, or Jehovah, as the Hebrews were ordered to do by divine 
 precept, instead of plurality of Gods, as ancient Pagans and 
 Heathens did, and the idols of their own formation." . . . 
 
 First, "The Jews had their sanctum sanctorums, and so it may 
 be said the Indians have, in their council or medicine houses, 
 which are always held as sacred places." Second, "As the 
 Jews had, they have their High Priests and their Prophets.'* 
 Third, "Amongst the Indians, as amongst the ancient Hebrews^ 
 the women are not allowed to worship with the men, and in 
 all cases also, they eat separately." Fourth, "The Indians, 
 everywhere, believe that they are the favorite people of the 
 Great Spirit, and they certainly are, like that ancient people, 
 persecuted, as every man's hand seems raised against them." 
 Fifth, "In their marriages, the Indians, as did the ancient 
 Jews, uniformly buy their wives by giving presents; and in 
 many tribes, very closely resemble them in other forms and 
 ceremonies of their marriages." Sixth, "In their preparations 
 for war, and in peacemaking, they are strikingly similar." 
 Seventh, "In their treatment of the sick, burial of the dead, 
 and mourning, they are also similar." Eighth, "In their 
 bathing and ablutions, at all seasons of the year, as a part of 
 their religious observances, having separate places for men 
 and women to perform these immersions, they resemble again." 
 Ninth, "And the custom, among the women, of absenting 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 133 
 
 themselves during the lunar influences, is exactly consonant 
 to the Mosaic Law." Tenth, "After this season of separation, 
 purification in running: water, and anointing, precisely in 
 accordance with the Jewish comn:iand, is required before she 
 can enter the family lodge." Eleventh, "Many of them have 
 a feast closely resembling the annual feast of the Jewish 
 Passover, and amongst others, an occasion much like the 
 Israelitish feast of the Tabernacles, which lasted eight days, 
 (when history tells us they carried willow boughs, and fasted 
 several days and nights.) making sacrifices of the first-fruits 
 and best of everything, closely resembling the sin offering 
 and peace offering of the Hebrews. (See vol. 1, pp. IHO- 
 170, of Religious Ceremonies of the Mandans.)" Twelfth, 
 "Amongst the list of their customs, however, we meet a 
 number which had their origin, it would seem, in the Jewish 
 ceremonial code, and which are so very peculiar in their 
 forms, that it would seem quite improbable, and almost impos- 
 sible, that two different peoples should ever have hit upon them 
 alike, without some knowledge of each other. These, I con- 
 sider, go farther than anything else as evidence, and carry 
 in my mind conclusive proof that these people are tinctured 
 with Jewish blood."- Catlin's North American Lidians, vol. 2, 
 pp. 231-234, as copied by Elder Mark H. Forscutt. 
 
 Here is evidence quite conclusive that our predecessors 
 
 in America understood sonaething of both Hebrew and 
 
 Egyptian learning, and is in perfect harmony with the 
 
 statement of Nephi: 
 
 I make a record in the language of my father, which con- 
 sists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the 
 Egyptians. — Book of Mormon, p. 5. 
 
 Mr. Davis' assertion that the characters do not even 
 resemble shorthand is simply ridiculous. Every principal 
 system of shorthand in use in England or America is 
 derived from Isaac Pitman's, and uses the same general 
 characters. His system was based upon the complete 
 circle, with straight, horizontal, perpendicular, and inter- 
 mediate angles struck through. So that every part of 
 the circle and every line is utilized. One can scaxely 
 make a stroke of the pen without imitating some cha'-acter 
 of shorthand. Anyone who is acquainted with shorthand 
 will find by examination of the facsimile, not only charac- 
 
134 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 ters resembling phonographic words, but he will find 
 
 phrases as well. 
 
 Mr. Moldenke has placed himself in an embarrassing 
 
 situation if Mr. Bays has quoted him correctly, by writing 
 
 another letter in which he contradicts his position in this 
 
 letter in one important particular as the following letter 
 
 will show: 
 
 Mount Vernon, January 13, 1898. 
 Mr. Frank M. Sheehy, 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your inquiry has not been answered by me sooner 
 on account of stress of work. I had occasion to answer a simi- 
 lar inquiry to yours while in Jerusalem last year. While some 
 of the characters bear a very slight resemblance to Old Hebrew 
 and Egyptian letters, still the whole page shows plainly the 
 work of the forger and ignoramus. In fact sentences lettered 
 in Arabic, Hebrew, Egyptian promiscuously would be sheer 
 nonsense. All the characters of this "Book of Mormon" are not 
 even a clever invention but a barefaced and idiotic scribble. 
 Returning to you the printed sheet I remain 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Charles E. Moldenke. 
 
 To Elder Bays he says: "None bear a resemblance ta 
 Egyptian," etc.; while to Elder Sheehy who presented him 
 a copy of the same he says: "Some of the characters bear 
 a very slight resemblance to Old Hebrew and Egyptian 
 letters." If Mr. Moldenke's opinion is of any value it will 
 serve to corroborate the statement previously quoted from 
 the Book of Mormon that they wrote in both Egyptian and 
 Hebrew, but had changed both, which would account for 
 the "very slight resemblance," and yet for his inability to 
 read them. And of course anything that Mr. Moldenke 
 cannot read is to him an "idiotic scribble." 
 
 Messrs. Angell and Davis are very positive that the 
 Hebrews never kept their records on brass. Mr. Moldenke 
 very properly qualifies the statement with the words, "as 
 far as I know." It would have been far safer if the other 
 two gentlemen had made some such qualification; but like 
 many other men blessed with a little learning, they 
 assume that what they do not know does not exist. 
 
REPLY TO U. H. BAYS. 13& 
 
 The occasion for this issue being raised is that the Book 
 of Mormon claims that Lehi and family brought with them 
 to this land plates of brass containing the genealogies of 
 their forefathers, and Mr. Bays seeks to prove that the 
 Hebrews never wrote on brass, in order to throw discredit 
 on this account. He succeeds in getting these two men to 
 say what he wanted them to say. To these he also adds 
 brief quotations from letters he claims to have received 
 from President Harper, of Chicago University, and 
 Professor Price, of the same institution. 
 
 Notwithstanding these opinions of these learned gentle- 
 men, there is evidence that the Hebrews wrote records on 
 brass, as the following quotations will show: 
 
 The materials generally used by the ancients for their books, 
 were liable to be easily destroyed by the damp, when hidden in 
 the earth; and in times of war, devastation, and rapacity, it was 
 necessarj' to bur^^ in the earth whatever they wished to preserve 
 from the attacks of fraud and violence. With this view, .Jeremiah 
 ordered the writings, which he delivered to Baruch. to be put 
 in an earthen vessel, Jer. 32. In the same manner, the ancient 
 Egyptians made use of earthen urns, or pots of a proper shape, 
 for containing whatever they wanted to inter in the earth, and 
 which, without such care, would have been soon destroyed. 
 We need not wonder then, that the prophet Jeremiah should 
 think it necessary to inclose those writings in an earthen pot, 
 which were to be buried in Judea, in some place where they 
 might be found without much difficulty on the return of the 
 Jews from captivity. Accordingly, two different writings, or 
 small rolls of writing, called books in the original Hebrew, 
 were designed to be inclosed in such an earthen vessel; but com- 
 mentators have been much embarrassed in giving any probable 
 account of the necessity of two writings, one sealed, the other 
 open; or, as the passage has been commonly understood, the 
 one sealed up, the other left oj)en for any one to read; more 
 especially, as both were to be alike buried in the earth and con- 
 cealed from every eye, and both were to be examined at the 
 return from the captivity. — Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- 
 edge, by Rev. B. B. Edwards, 1850, pp. 255, 256. 
 
 By the above we see that the claim made that the record 
 of the Nephites was buried in earth in a time of war, was 
 in harmony with Jewish custom, and also that the claim 
 
136 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 that a part of the record was sealed and a part unsealed 
 
 was in harmony with custom. This same authority 
 
 continues as follows: 
 
 If the ancient books were large, they were formed of a num- 
 ber of skins, of a number of pieces of linen and cotton cloth, or 
 of papyrus, or parchment, connected together. The leaves 
 were rarely written over on both sides, Ezek. 2:9, Zech. 5:1. 
 Books, when written upon very flexible materials, were, as 
 stated above, rolled round a stick; and, if they were very long, 
 round two, from the two extremities. The reader unrolled the 
 book to the place which he wanted, and rolled it up again, 
 when he had read it, Luke 4: 17-20; whence the name magelle, a 
 'i)olume, or thing rolled up, Psalm 40:7. Isaiah 34:4. Ezek. 2: 
 9. 2 Kings 19: 14. Ezra 6:2. The leaves thus rolled round the 
 stick, which has been mentioned, and bound with a string, 
 could be easily sealed, Isaiah 29:11. Dan. 12:4. Rev. 5: 1. 6:7. 
 Those books which were inscribed on tablets of wood, lead, 
 brass, or ivory, were connected together by rings at the back, 
 through which a rod was passed to carry them by. The 
 orientals appear to have taken pleasure in giving tropical or 
 enigmatical titles to their books. The titles prefixed to the 
 fifty-sixth, sixtieth, and eightieth psalms appear to be of this 
 description. And there can be no doubt that David's elegy 
 upon Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. 1: 18, is called in Hebrew ^Ae hoWy 
 in conformity with this peculiarity of taste. — Ibid., p. 257. 
 
 In this we discover two more points in harmony with 
 the account of the Book of Mormon: 
 
 1. Metallic plates were fastened together with rings at 
 the back, just as the plates of the Book of Mormon were 
 said to have been fastened. 
 
 2. Books were inscribed on tablets of different sub- 
 stances including hrass, the very material brought into 
 question by Elder Bays and his witnesses. 
 
 In his very popular work published in 1833, entitled, 
 ^^Introdiictlon to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
 Holy Scriptures^'' in footnote on page 47, volume 2, Thomas 
 H. Home, M. A., while discussing Hebrew manuscripts, 
 stated as follows: 
 
 See Mr. Thomas Yeates's "Collation of an Indian copy of 
 the Pentateuch, with preliminary remarks, containing an 
 exact description of the manuscript, and a notice o-f some 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 137 
 
 others, Hebrew and Syriac, collected by the Rev. C. Buchanan, 
 D. D. in the year "iSOO, and now deposited in the Public 
 Library, Cambridge. Also a collation and description of a 
 manuscript roll of the Book of Esther, and the Megillah of 
 Ahasuerus, from the Hebrew copy, originally extant in brazen 
 tablets at Goa; with an English Translation." pp. 2, 3, 6, 7. 
 Cambridge, 1812. 
 
 Here we have books written in Hebrew on brazen 
 tablets, a copy of which is now in the public library, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 The "Union Bible Dictionary" published by the "Ameri- 
 can Sunday School Union," 1842, under the article Book^ 
 states: 
 
 Book. (Ex. 17:14.) What we call books were unknown to 
 the ancient Jews, at least in their present convenient form. 
 Letters were engraved on stone, brick, metal, (as lead and 
 copper,) or wood, and also on cloth and skins, and at a later 
 period on parchment. (2 Tim. 4:13.) Tablets of lead and 
 brass or copper, of great antiquity, have been discovered in 
 modern times. 
 
 A summary of Biblical Antiquities by J. W. Nivens, 
 D. D., published by same firm as the dictionary, says: 
 
 Some refer the origin of writing to the time of Moses; others, 
 to that of Abraham; while a still different opinion throws it 
 back to the age of Adam himself. 
 
 It was long, however, before the art came to be used with 
 anything like that convenience and ease which are now known. 
 The materials and instruments with which it was performed, 
 were, in comparison with our pen, ink and paper, extremely 
 rude and unwieldy. One of the earliest methods was to cut out 
 the letters on a tablet of stone. Another, was to trace them on 
 unbaked tiles, or bricks, which were afterwards thoroughly 
 burned with fire. Tablets (that is, small, level surfaces or 
 plates) of lead or brass were sometimes employed. When the 
 writing was wanted to be most durable, the last was chosen. 
 Tablets of wood were more convenient. Such was the writing 
 table which Zacharias used. — Pages 158, 159. 
 
 Brass, then, was used where writings were desired to be 
 most durable. Genealogies are just what they would most 
 wish to preserve, and they would be likely to write them 
 on brass. This array of evidence will show that Messrs. 
 Angell, Davis, Harper, and Price were too hasty and too 
 
138 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 positive, and should have modestly said with Mr. Moldenke^ 
 "As far as I know," etc. 
 
 It will be observed that Professor Anthon admits that 
 the "singular scrawl" was so well executed as to make it 
 apparent that the person writing it "had before him at the 
 time a book containing various alphabets." This was 
 itself remarkable for a person as unlearned and unskillful 
 as Joseph Smith is reported to have been; and so clever 
 was the imitation, according to Professor Anthon, that 
 Dr. Mitchill did not detect the "hoax" or "fraud." The 
 plain, unvarnished statements of Joseph Smith regarding 
 his experience are more reasonable and consistent than the 
 illogical and conflicting theories resorted to to set aside his 
 testimony. 
 
 The theory of Professor Anthon is hardly a tenable one. 
 It is this, that a rogue had undertaken to deceive a simple 
 farmer by representing that he had found gold plates 
 containing ancient and valuable records, which if trans- 
 lated would save the world from destruction, and all this 
 for the purpose of getting money from the simple farmer. 
 Then this rogue who was such a clever imitator as to 
 deceive Dr. Mitchill placed the very means of detection in 
 the hands of the farmer by sending him with the fraudu- 
 lent characters to linguists. That would have been the 
 last thing that a rogue would have done, and the very 
 fact that Joseph Smith sent Harris there is strong pre- 
 sumptive evidence that Joseph Smith was sincere in the 
 belief that the plates in his possession were genuine. 
 
 These learned witnesses of Mr. Bays are quite positive 
 that the Hebrews never wrote in the Egyptian language. 
 It may be that no instance of the kind is known to them; 
 but it is not reasonable to suppose they were in captivity 
 in Egypt for over four hundred years, and never acquired 
 the art of writing the language. Considering their long 
 sojourn in Egypt, the claim of Nephi as recorded in the 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 13& 
 
 Book of Mormon, "I make a record in the language of my 
 father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the 
 language of the Egyptians," is not unreasonable. If true 
 that no instance of the Jews writing in the Egyptian 
 language is known to the scholarship of the time, and the 
 Book of Mormon was a fraud from its inception, the per- 
 petrators of the fraud would have carefully avoided 
 making a statement such as the one quoted from Nephi 
 above. 
 
 When the book makes a claim for which there is no 
 direct proof, and yet the claim is in perfect accord with 
 what might reasonably be expected, it is strong pre- 
 sumptive evidence that fraud was not attempted. We 
 have already shown that these scholarly men use language 
 that is too positive, and that when they say a thing is not 
 so they only mean to say that they do not know that it is 
 so. A moment's reflection will convince anyone that when 
 these scholars say they did not write on brass, they did 
 not write the Egyptian language, they are saying some- 
 thing they are not authorized to say. They do not, they 
 cannot know. Had they said, We have no knowledge that 
 such was the case, they probably would have told the 
 absolute truth. The reader will pardon us if we relate a 
 little incident that occurred a few years ago in the Indian 
 Territory, as it will illustrate our point. A minister had 
 delivered a discourse in which he strongly urged that the 
 Holy Spirit in its inspirational and wonder-working power 
 was not enjoyed in this age. He was approached by an 
 old colored man when the following conversation took 
 place: 
 
 "Massa, you said something that you oughtn't to have 
 said." 
 
 "What was that, uncle?" 
 
 "You said there wasn't any Holy Ghost in our time." 
 
 "Well, what ought I to have said?" 
 
140 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 "You ought to have said, Not that you knows of.'* 
 
 It appears to us that these eminent professors would 
 have acted the wiser part, if, according to the old gentle- 
 man's logic, they had answered Elder Bays by saying, 
 "Not that we knows of;" To say a thing never happened 
 is to say we know everything that did happen. 
 
 Elder Bays closes with the following: 
 
 The question now stands thus: 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THREE GREAT SCHOLARS, 
 
 VS. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE WITNESSES. 
 
 Reader, in the light of all the facts, whose word will you take 
 in this case? The whole question may be summed up in a sin- 
 gle proposition. If Mormonism is true, the plates must have 
 been icritten in Egyptian. The plates were not written in Egyp- 
 tian. Therefore Mormonism is not true. And if Mormonism is 
 not true, then the three witnesses were deceivers, Joseph Smith 
 was an impostor, and the Mormon Church a fraud. There is 
 no possible means of escape from this conclusion. "Choose ye 
 this day whom ye will s<erve." — Pages 275, 276. 
 
 No, Elder Bays, the case stands thus: The testimony 
 OF THREE GREAT SCHOLARS that they do not know, 
 
 vs. 
 The TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES that tliey do know. 
 
 In concluding this chapter we present the testimony of 
 the three witnesses, recommending their testimony to 
 careful and prayerful consideration: 
 
 Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, 
 unto whom this work shall come, that we, through the grace 
 of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the 
 plates which contain this record, which is a record of the 
 people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, his brethren, and 
 also of the people of Jared, which came from the tower of 
 which hath been spoken; and we also know that they have 
 been transhited by the gift and power of God, for his voice 
 hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety, that 
 the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the 
 engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 141 
 
 shewn unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we 
 declare with words of soberness, that an An^i^el of God came 
 down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, 
 that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; 
 and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these 
 things are true; and it is marvelous in our eyes: Nevertheless, 
 the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear 
 record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments 
 of God, we bear testimony of these things.— And we know that 
 if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the 
 blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment 
 seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the 
 heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and 
 to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. 
 
 Oliver Cowdery, 
 David Whitmer, 
 Martin Harris. 
 
 In connection with this testimony, consider that these 
 men had no promise of wealth or praise, and yet they 
 bore the testimony fearlessly, sending it to the world with 
 an unpopular publication in the hands of a persecuted and 
 despised man. They adhered to that testimony through 
 the most adverse circumstances during life, and each died 
 with the testimony upon his lips. Elder Bays and others 
 may hurl unsavory epithets at the memory of these men, 
 but when they state that they or any one of them ever 
 wavered in his testimony, they state that for which they 
 have no proof. In this connection also consider the follow- 
 ing testimony of#eight witnesses, of whose fidelity and 
 faithfulness all can be said that we have said of the three: 
 
 Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, 
 unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph Smith, Jr. the 
 Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the 
 plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance 
 of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has trans- 
 lated, we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the 
 engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient 
 work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record, 
 with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto 
 us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety, that the 
 said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And 
 
14! REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world 
 that which we have seen: and we lie not, God bearing witness 
 of it. Christian Whitmer, 
 
 Jacob Whitmer, 
 Peter Whitmer, Jr. 
 John Whitmer, 
 Hiram Page, 
 Joseph Smith, Sen. 
 Hyrum Smith, 
 Samuel H. Smith. 
 
CHAPTER 7. 
 
 Doctrine — Faith — Repentance — Baptism — Laying on of 
 Hands— Resurrection and Eternal Judgment. 
 
 Chapters twenty-nine, thirty, and thirty-one of Elder 
 Bays' book may properly be grouped together, as they 
 are devoted to the same purpose, namely, an attack upon 
 what he is pleased to call "The Doctrines of Mormonism." 
 He commences this review by another misrepresentation 
 of our position. He states: 
 
 The Saints believe that, in order to be received into the 
 "celestial glory," a man must obey that form of doctrine which 
 they teach. If he comes short of this, that is, if he does not 
 formally obey the Gospel as they teach it, he must be damned. 
 The logical conclusion is, that none but Latter Day Saints will 
 *'be saved in the celestial kingdom."— Page 277. 
 
 Our position is that celestial glory is contingent upon 
 obedience to the gospel as Jesus Christ taught it. We 
 believe, as Elder Bays well knows, that every man will be 
 judged, rewarded or punished, according to the good or 
 evil he shall have done. Our reward or punishment will 
 be in proportion to the light we have received, and the 
 practical righteousness we have obeyed. And what is 
 true of us is true of all other people. Believing firmly in 
 this principle of justice and equity, we have each indi- 
 vidually decided that we preferred to take our chances 
 with the Latter Day Saints and in the doctrines advocated 
 by them. In doing this we do not deny the right of choice 
 to anyone else. If Elder Bays decides that his chances 
 are better with the Christian people it is his privilege to 
 go there, and the judgment is not to be rendered by either 
 Elder Bays, ourselves, or any other in mortality, but by 
 
144 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Him whose judgment is just, and whose wisdom is 
 supreme. Elder Bays quotes as follows: 
 
 "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of 
 Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of 
 Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9.) 
 
 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, 
 let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation 
 oi repentance from dead works, and oi faith towards God, of the 
 doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resur- 
 rection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.'' (Heb. 6: 1, 3.) — 
 Pages 277, 278. 
 
 Of these texts he remarks: 
 
 From a doctrinal point of view this is the citadel of the 
 Saints, and is regrarded as a veritable Gibraltar, and absolutely 
 impregnable.— Page 279. 
 
 Elder Bays then lays down his premise as follows: 
 
 First: Nowhere in all the teachings of Christ, as they are 
 recorded in the Scriptures— not even in the "Inspired Transla- 
 tion"— do we find that he either taught ov practiced that form of 
 doctrine urged by the Saints as being necessary to salvation. 
 
 Second: Paul does not even hint that the six propositions 
 named in the two verses quoted are to be observed as a means of 
 salvation. 
 
 Third: The apostle does not declare these six propositions to 
 be ''principles of the doctrine of Christ." This is only the con- 
 struction put upon the passage by the Saints, Paul's allusion to 
 them being purely incidental. 
 
 Fourth: The six propositions named are propositions of the 
 Mosaic law, and not "principles of the doctrine of Christ." — 
 Pages 279, 280. 
 
 The first three propositions of his premise we think it 
 unnecessary to discuss. We simply invite the reader to 
 examine the texts with their contexts and weigh Mr. Bays' 
 conclusions in the light of facts and common sense. 
 
 Nor does his fourth proposition require very much 
 thought. The absurdity of the declaration that "faith 
 towards God" and "repentance from dead works" are "not 
 principles of the doctrine of Christ" will at once be recog- 
 nized. Principles of the old law they may have been; but 
 while the law as such was abrogated, the principles of 
 truth it contained remained. Truth is indestructible. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 145 
 
 In Mr. Bays' effort to sustain this proposition he 
 
 attempts to show that there is a difference between ''faith 
 
 towards God," and "faith in Christ." In doing this he 
 
 overlooks the following passages: "Ye believe in God, 
 
 believe also in me" (John 14: 1), showing that to believe in 
 
 one is to believe in the other. 
 
 And when he had broup^ht them into his house, he set meat 
 before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. 
 —Acts 16:34. 
 
 Elder Bays would say that the jailer did not believe in 
 
 the gospel, but in the Mosaic law, because it is said he 
 
 believed in God instead of saying he believed in Christ. 
 
 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou 
 affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might 
 be careful to maintain good works. — Titus 3: 8. 
 
 According to Mr. Bays the apostle instructed Titus to 
 
 affirm constantly the works of the old Mosaic law — belief 
 
 in God. Paul in his treatise on faith said: 
 
 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that 
 Cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder 
 of them that diligently seek him. — Heb. 11: 6, 
 
 Here faith in God is enjoined, and as in Hebrews 6: 2, 
 
 faith in Christ is omitted. Shall we, then, say, with Elder 
 
 Bays, that the faith enjoined by Paul was of the old 
 
 Mosaic law? 
 
 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in 
 Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to 
 God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any- 
 thing.-! Thess. 1:8. 
 
 Was the faith of the Thessalonian saints "to God- ward" 
 
 of the Mosaic law? The Apostle Peter taught that it was 
 
 through the "precious blood of Christ" and the raising him 
 
 from the grave, and giving him glory that our faith is in 
 
 God. Hear him: 
 
 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without 
 blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before 
 the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last 
 
146 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him 
 up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and 
 hope might be in God.— 1 Peter 1: 19-21. 
 
 In addition to these passages observe the admonition of 
 the Christ to his disciples: 
 
 Have faith in God.— Mark 11:22. 
 
 Was Jesus exhorting his disciples to turn back to the 
 Mosaic law? 
 
 To continue the argument on this point is useless. 
 Elder Bays is certainly wrong when he says that "faith 
 toward God" is not a principle "of the doctrine of Christ." 
 
 Elder Bays assumes that "repentance from dead works" 
 had reference to the dead works of the law. We think it 
 had a broader meaning; but suppose we admit Mr. Bays' 
 conclusion, what then? The works of the law were not 
 dead while they were in force. It was by the substitution 
 of the gospel that the works of the law became dead. 
 Hence it was under the gospel economy that men were 
 required to repent "from dead works." It will thus be 
 seen that "repentance from dead works" is a principle "of 
 the doctrine of Christ," and Bays is again wrong. 
 
 Then taking up baptisms as spoken of in Hebrews 6: 2, 
 
 he assumes as a premise the point at issue. He says: 
 
 Since the apostle is writing of the law and not of the Gospel, 
 the "baptisms" here mentioned are the baptisms, or divers 
 washings, imposed by law, they can, therefore, have no possi- 
 ble reference to Christian baptism. Nowhere do the Scriptures 
 mention two Christian baptisms. — Page 287. 
 
 As well might we say: Since the apostle is writing of 
 the gospel and not of the law, the "baptisms" here men- 
 tioned are Christian baptisms. If a man be permitted 
 to assume the point at issue as a premise, he can 
 easily make a logical deduction favorable to his conclu- 
 sion; but such controversy is not admissible and will be 
 strongly condemned by logicians. But says Elder Bays: 
 
 Nowhere do the Scriptures mention two Christian baptisms. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 147 
 
 Not so fast, Elder Bays, or you may get into another 
 
 difficulty. 
 
 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that 
 Cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not 
 worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and 
 with fire. -Matt. 3: 11. 
 
 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize 
 you with the Holy Ghost. — Mark 1:8. 
 
 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you 
 with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of 
 whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost and with fire.— Lul<e 3:16. 
 
 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with 
 water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the 
 Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which 
 baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. — John 1:33. 
 
 Here are two separate and distinct baptisms, and Elder 
 Bays will not say that the water baptism is not Christian; 
 while the Spirit baptism was to be administered by Christ 
 himself — hence is eminently Christian. 
 
 On the subject of the laying on of hands for the recex)- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit, Mr. Bays makes a prolonged 
 effort to show that it is not now, and that it was never 
 essential. He admits that it was practiced at Samaria by- 
 Peter and John, and at Ephesus by Paul; but affirms that 
 "not only in the two cases" "do the writers fail to name 
 the purpose of this ceremony, but nowhere in all the New 
 Testament is the object stated." If this is true there was 
 either an unstated object, or the apostles practiced this 
 ceremony with no object in view. The latter possibility is 
 not reasonable. The Lord Jesus had sent them out to 
 build up his kingdom, and it is reasonable to suppose that 
 they had some definite object in view in all the acts of 
 their ministry. He says of these two cases: 
 
 To pray for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy 
 Spirit seems to have been the prime object of the visit of the 
 apostles to Samaria, while the laying on of hands was purely 
 incidental, and the object of it is not mentioned. Just why 
 the apostles laid their hands upon these new converts does not 
 
148 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 appear; but that the reception of the Holy Spirit followed 
 there can be no question. — Pajre 29(i. 
 
 A similar incident occurred at Ephesus, under the ministry 
 of St. Paul. Like the Samaritans, these Gentile converts had 
 been idolaters, and did not receive the Holy Spirit till after 
 Paul had laid his hands upon them (see Acts 19:1-6.) But as 
 in the case of the Samaritans, there is not the slightest intima- 
 tion g'iven as to wh}' the ceremony was performed. — Page 297. 
 
 However, in both these instances Elder Bays admits 
 
 that the reception of the Spirit followed the laying on of 
 
 hands, but does not wish to admit that the one had any 
 
 connection with the other. Upon this point he says: 
 
 It is true that when the people of Samaria had received the 
 word of God under the preaching of Philip, they did not 
 receive the Holy Spirit until after the apostles, Peter and John, 
 had laid their hands upon them. But this by no means proves 
 that this was the law through which they were to receive it. 
 There is nothing in this circumstance to warrant the belief 
 ihat the Samaritans could not and would not have received the 
 Spirit without the performance of such a ceremony. — Page 295. 
 
 Then he makes one of those peculiar flops that few men 
 can make without blushing, and admits all he has con- 
 tended against in order to save another point. He says: 
 
 That the apostles on this particular occasion gave the Holy 
 Spirit, as did also the apostle Paul at Ephesus, by the laying on 
 of hands, even the unregenerate Simon could plainly see, and 
 which, therefore, we may not question. But to say that it was 
 therefore an ordinance of the Church of Christ to be handed 
 down side by side with Christian baptism is wholly gratuitous, 
 having not the shadow of support in the Word of God. — 
 Pages" 297, 298. 
 
 Here he makes the admission that the receiving of the 
 Holy Ghost was the immediate result of the laying on of 
 hands, a thing he had previously denied, but insists that 
 it was not "an ordinance of the Church of Christ to be 
 handed down side by side with Christian baptism." 
 
 Why not? Because, says Bays, it has "not the shadow 
 of support in the Word of God." Will Elder Bays please 
 point out the passage where it is said specifically that 
 Christian baptism is to be handed down as an ordinance 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 149 
 
 of the Church of Christ? Elder Bays would argue, and 
 very correctly, too, that as baptism was taught and 
 practiced by the early church it should be observed by 
 Christians now. Then why can he not apply the same 
 logic to the laying on of hands and reason that as the 
 Holy Spirit was given "by the laying on of hands" that it 
 should be observed for that purpose by Christians yet? 
 But says Elder Bays, though they practiced it they did 
 not teach it. Then they practiced what they did not 
 teach, did they? If so, why? Let Bays answer: 
 
 The layino: on of hands being of Jewish origin, the Hebrew 
 Christians were very tenacious of its observance. Having 
 been accustomed to it all their lives, it was, like any other 
 habit or tradition, very difficult, indeed, for them to break 
 away from it. With characteristic tenacity, they clung to 
 the traditions of their fathers so closely that Jesus often 
 rebuked them very sharply. To their teachers he at one time 
 said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by 
 your traditions?" (Matt. 15:3.) 
 
 And at another: 
 
 "Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines 
 the commandments of men. . . . Full well ye reject the com- 
 mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.'* 
 (Mark 7:7, 9.)— Page 299. 
 
 Then the apostles were following an old Jewish custom, 
 and yet it resulted in the giving of the Holy Spirit to 
 baptized converts. Elder Bays has the Lord rebuking 
 them for their traditions at one time, but this time he has 
 him blessing them with the Holy Spirit for the same thing. 
 
 Bays is mistaken again, however. "Hebrew Christians" 
 are not referred to in the citations he makes. In 
 Matthew 15:3 he is addressing the scribes and Pharisees, 
 and in Mark 7:7, 9, the same circumstance is related. 
 
 But let us go back to the question, Do the scriptures 
 
 teach the laying on of hands? In connection with the 
 
 event before related at Samaria we read: 
 
 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles* 
 hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 
 saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay 
 
150 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 hands, he ma,y receive the Holy Gliost. But Peter said unto 
 him. 'I'liy nionpy pcrisli with ihef. bf-caiise lliou hast thought 
 tliat till- ^it't of God may be purciiased with monej'. — Acts 
 8: 18-:iU. 
 
 Here Simon offers to pui'chase, not the Holy Ghost as 
 some suppose, but the "power, that on whoaisoever I lay 
 hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." Peter rebukes 
 him for having "thought that the gift of God may be pur- 
 chased with money." We have too much confidence in 
 Peter to believe that he would declare that the power to 
 lay on hands for the giving of the Holy Ghost was a gift of 
 God if he had not received it from God. Numerous other 
 passages might be cited, but this is sufficient. 
 
 Elder Bays says: 
 
 It is incredible to believe that if this so-called ordinance had 
 been intended as an ordinance to be perpetuated in the church, 
 Peter would have failed to declare it on Pentecost while filled 
 with the Spirit to proclaim the saving truths of the Gospel at 
 the very opening of the new dispensation. That he made no 
 reference to the laying on of hands when answering the ques- 
 tions of inquiring penitents may be regarded as proof that 
 Peter did not consider it to be a matter that in any way related 
 to their salvation. — Page 294. 
 
 How does Elder Bays know that he did not so teach on 
 Pentecost? We have a few things Peter said on Pentecost 
 recorded, and then we have this brief summary: "And 
 with many other words did he testify and exhort." Here, 
 then, were both testimony and exhortation that are not 
 given. When he afterwards declares that the power to 
 lay on hands was a "gift of God," we reasonably infer that 
 this was one of the other things taught on Pentecost. 
 These proofs in connection with the positive declaration 
 that the laying on of hands with other things were princi- 
 ples of the doctrine of Christ, is surely enough. 
 
 Elder Bays then enters into an exhaustive examination 
 to show that the Book of Mormon does not teach the laying 
 on of hands, but we have already exposed his error in this. 
 He cites instances in church history where men received 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 151 
 
 the Holy Ghost though there is no record of their having 
 hands laid upon them, and jumps at the conclusion that 
 therefore hands were not laid upon them. As well might 
 he argue that Peter and the rest of the apostles were not 
 baptized because there is no specific record of it. 
 
 Then coming to the principles of the resurrection of the 
 dead and eternal judgment, Elder Bays states: 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND ETERNAL JUDGMENT. 
 
 These two principles were taught in the law and the prophets 
 as being in prospect— something to be revealed in the dim, 
 distant future; but now the apostle wishes to assure these 
 Hebrew Christians that the resurrection of the dead has been 
 demonstrated in the resurrection of Christ, and must, there- 
 fore, be regarded as an established fact of the Gospel.— 
 Page 315. 
 
 When Elder Bays started out to prove that *'the six 
 propositions named [faith, repentance, baptisms, laying 
 on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judg- 
 ment] are propositions of the Mosaic law, and not 
 'principles of the doctrine of Christ,'" and then after 
 over a forty-page effort he arrives at the conclusion 
 that the resurrection of the dead is "an established fact 
 of the Gospel," he has arrived at a climax of absurdity 
 that is too ridiculous to be even amusing. 
 
 Elder Bays thinks that "these two principles were 
 taught in the law and the prophets as being in prospect- 
 something to be revealed in the dim, distant future." 
 
 They are still in prospect, and in the dim, distant 
 future with us, are they not? With us they are not 
 demonstrated facts. We await their consummation, and 
 to us they are glorious principles of the gospel. We 
 look forward to their ultimate realization with joy and 
 hope, and without them the gospel would have no charm, 
 nor incentive to duty. 
 
 We are then confirmed in our conclusion that these six 
 propositions are fundamental principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ. The "citadel of the Saints" remains intact. 
 
CHAPTER 8. 
 
 Polj'gamy — Conflictingr Statements — General Assembly — 
 Conference Resolution — Bays' Summary— Marriage — Ben- 
 nett's Testimony — Certificates — Bennett's Perfidy— Nauvoo 
 Expositor — Hiram Brown — Richard Hewitt — Statement of 
 Emily D. P. Younor— Of Lovina Walker— Of Emma Smith — 
 Of Southard— Of Mrs. Thompson- Of Joseph Smith— Of Mr. 
 gobv— Of Mr. Fullmer -Of Mr. Grover — Of Brigham Younor — 
 Of Mrs. Bidamon— Of William Marks— Factions on Polygamy 
 — Statement of Robinsons. 
 
 Elder Bays writes his thirty-second chapter under the 
 head of "Mormon Polygamy — Was Joseph Smith its 
 Author?" 
 
 As in almost every instance, he introduces the propo- 
 sition by misrepresentation. In order to make plausible 
 his theory that Joseph Smith had the people so completely 
 under his influence that he could with impunity lead them 
 into wrongdoing he, as we have before shown, misquotes 
 with the evident intention to misapply a revelation given 
 on April 6, 1830. (See page 18.) He then relates the 
 action of a "General Assembly" held at Kirtland, Ohio, 
 August, 1835, in accepting the Book of Doctrine and 
 Covenants, and follows with this comment: 
 
 At a semi-annual General Conference of the Reorganized 
 Church, held at Galland's Grove, Iowa, Sept. 20, 1877, similar 
 action was had. By the actions of these assemblies every 
 member is bound to accept Joseph Smith's word as the word 
 of God. To question what he says with a "thus saith the 
 Lord" attached to it, is to question the word of the Lord, and 
 few Latter Day Saints have the moral courage to do this. 
 Hence the servility of the Saints to the mandates of the 
 prophet.— Page 321. 
 
 These charges of moral cowardice, and of "servility" to 
 the "mandates of the prophet" are, as Elder Bays well 
 knows, false. We speak advisedly when we say Mr. Bays 
 152 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 153 
 
 knew he was not speaking the truth. Fortunately we 
 have hi«i on record on this point. On June 10, 1885, 
 Elder Bays wrote from Pratt, Kansas, as follows: 
 
 I desire to express my approbation of the action of General 
 Conference at its session at Independence, in April last, 
 respecting those mooted questions. I am truly glad the 
 church would not allow herself to be driven to the formal 
 declaration of a creed, nor the promulgation of any dogma. 
 Such a course, in my opinion, would have been damaging to 
 the work in its progress. It would have forced many free, 
 independent, reasoning minds from the church. Of all the 
 religious bodies in the world, our church is one of the most 
 liberal -allowing a broader field of thought— while at the same 
 time it is one of the most rigid in the enforcement of its 
 discipline against offenders against the moral code. For over 
 half a century the church has flourished and grown under her 
 present rule, without the formulation of a written creed, 
 except as to matters of saving faith, and why should we be 
 disturbed at this late day? I concur in the action of the body 
 declaring the three books to contain the law of the church, and 
 to be the standard in every case where differences arise between 
 members of the body. 
 
 This was published in the Saints' Herald, June 27, 1885. 
 
 There is absolutely no excuse for Elder Bays making 
 those conflicting statements. The subject is not one of 
 exegesis, wherein a man may honestly change his opinion, 
 but it is a question of historical fact, and he cannot plead 
 want of information. He was in a position to know, and 
 did know. 
 
 Nor does the action of the General Assembly 'in 1835 nor 
 the action of General Conference in 1877 (1878) admit of the 
 construction placed upon them by Mr. Bays. The minutes 
 of the General Assembly show that the book containing 
 the revelations was first carefully considered and adopted 
 by each quorum separately; and then it was taken to the 
 General Assembly, where it was considered by the quorums 
 collectively and again subjected to vote of the assembly. 
 A committee was appointed by a General Assembly held 
 September 24, 1834, consisting of Joseph .Smith, Oliver 
 
154 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, to compile 
 the book. At the assembly in question, August 17, 1835, 
 this committee reported. In the forenoon the assembly 
 was organized. The minutes of the afternoon session read 
 as follows: 
 
 Afternoon. — After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery 
 arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants 
 of the Church of the Latter Day Saints," in behalf of the 
 committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who 
 exphiiiied the manner by which they intended to obtain the 
 voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two 
 committee, named above, were absent. According to said 
 arranjrement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book 
 presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whit- 
 mer also arose and testified that it was true. Elder John 
 Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore 
 record that the revelations in said book were true, and that 
 tlie lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were 
 profitable for doctrine; whereupon the high council of Kirtland 
 accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants- 
 of their faith, by a unanimous vote. Elder Levi Jackman, 
 taking the lead of the high council of the church in Missouri, 
 bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and 
 the said high council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged 
 them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unani- 
 mous vote. 
 
 President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of 
 the twelve, as follows: "The testimony of the witnesses 
 to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to 
 his church through Joseph Smith. Jr., who was appointed by 
 the voice of the church for this purpose: . We therefore feel 
 willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every 
 cre-iuiire upon the face of all the earth, and upon the islands 
 of th" sea. that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through 
 the Holy Gliost. shed forth upon us. that these commandments 
 were given by ins[)i ration of God, and are profitable for all men, 
 and are verily true. We give this testimony unto the world, 
 the Lord being our helper: and it is through the grace of God, 
 tiie Fatlier, aiKl his Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to 
 have tills privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, 
 in the which we rejoice exceedin<rly, praying the Lord always 
 that ihe children of men may be profited thereby." Elder 
 Leonard Rich bore record of the trutli of the book and the 
 council of the seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the 
 doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. 
 Bishop N, K. Whitney bore record of the truth of the book, 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 155 
 
 and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it as the 
 doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. 
 
 Acting bishop, John Corrill, bore record of the truth of the 
 book, and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it 
 as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous 
 vote. 
 
 Acting president, John Gould, gave his testimony in favor ot 
 the book, and with the traveling elders, accepted and acknowl- 
 edged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a 
 unanimous vote. 
 
 Ira Ames, acting president of the priests, gave his testimony 
 in favor of the book, and with the priests, accepted and 
 acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by 
 a unanimous vote, 
 
 Erastus Babbitt, acting president of the teachers, gave his 
 testimony in favor of the book, and they accepted and ackowl- 
 edged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a 
 unanimous vote. 
 
 William Burgess, acting president of the deacons, bore record 
 of the truth of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged 
 it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous 
 vote. 
 
 The venerable assistant president, Thomas Gates, then bore 
 record of the truth of the book, and with his five silver-headed 
 assistants, and the whole congregation, accepted and acknowl- 
 edged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a 
 unanimous vote. The several authorities, and the general 
 assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted of the labors of the 
 committee. 
 
 President W. W. Phelps then read an article on Marriage, 
 which was accepted and adopted, and ordered to be printed in 
 said book, by a unanimous vote. 
 
 President O. Cowdery then read an article on "Governments 
 and laws in general," which was accepted and adopted, and 
 ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote. 
 
 A hymn was then sung. President S. Rigdon returned 
 thanks, after which the assembly was blessed by the presi- 
 dency, with uplifted hands, and dismissed. 
 
 Oliver Cowdery, } presidents. 
 Sidney Rigdon, S 
 
 Thomas Burdick, 1 
 Warren Parrish, > Clerks. 
 Sylvester Smith, ) 
 
 The idea that the church accepted the revelations com- 
 ing through Joseph Smith without due deliberation and 
 independent action finds no support in the above. 
 
156 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 We find no action of the General Conference of 1877, 
 
 such as referred to by Mr. Bays, but we suppose that he 
 
 refers to a resolution passed by the General Conference of 
 
 September, 1878, held at the same place, which reads as 
 
 follows: 
 
 Resolved, That this body, representing the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, recognize the 
 Holy Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, the revelations of God 
 contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and all other 
 revelations which have been or shall be revealed through God's 
 appointed prophet, which have been or may be hereafter 
 accepted by the Church as the standard of authority on all 
 matters of church government and doctrine, and the final 
 standard of reference on appeal in all controversies arising, or 
 which may arise in this Church of Christ. — Saints' Herald, vol. 
 25, pp. 295, 296. 
 
 This is evidence clear and conclusive that it takes an 
 action of the body to make a revelation binding, and that 
 it is not received upon its presentation by Joseph Smith 
 until investigation and inquiry are had. 
 
 Mr. Bays says: 
 
 That Joseph Smith both taught and practiced polygamy was 
 never doubted, so far as I am aware, till it was questioned by 
 the people of the Reorganized Church, of which Joseph Smith, 
 son of the prophet, is the president. — Pages 321, 322. 
 
 It may be true that it was not doubted, so far as Elder 
 Bays was "aware," and yet it may have been and was 
 doubted by many. The reason that Elder Bays was not 
 aware of it is obvious, for prior to the time he became 
 acquainted with the Reorganized Church his association 
 was confined to those who advocated polygamy, and to 
 whose interest it was to make it to appear that Joseph 
 Smith taught it. 
 
 Elder Bays occupies about seventy-four pages of his 
 book including chapters thirty-two to thirty-six inclusive, 
 to establish Joseph Smith's complicity with polygamy. 
 We do not know whether Joseph Smith taught or 
 practiced polygamy or not, nor is it the province of the 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 157 
 
 church to declare what any man did, or did not do. We 
 do, however, most emphatically repudiate the doctrine, 
 and believe it to be false in theory and corrupt in prac- 
 tice. We take this position without reference to whether 
 Joseph Smith taught or practiced it. However, our 
 interest and confidence in the man impel us to hear tes- 
 timony regarding his guilt, and our honor would compel 
 us to admit it if proven. We insist, however, that the 
 principles of common law should apply in the examination 
 of testimony, and therefore contend that the benefit of 
 every reasonable doubt should be accorded to the accused, 
 and that he should be considered innocent until proven 
 guilty. 
 
 Mr. Bays should understand that an inference is not 
 sufficient to establish guilt; nor will circumstantial 
 evidence condemn unless in harmony with the known 
 facts in the case. We cheerfully consent to examine the 
 testimony presented against Mr. Smith by Mr. Bays, 
 and test it in harmony with these well-known rules. 
 Probably the best plan of investigation is to quote Mr. 
 Bays' summary, and then inquire upon what evidence his 
 conclusions are based. It is as follows: 
 
 The facts as we glean them from the circumstances of the 
 case, and the testimony of credible witnesses, may be stated 
 substantially as follows: 
 
 1. The conduct of the Mormon leaders at a time prior to 
 August, 1835, had been such as to give rise to the charge of 
 "fornication and polygamy." 
 
 2. That this belief on the part of those not connected with 
 the church, instead of diminishing, was only intensified with 
 the developments of the passinjr years. 
 
 .3. That a "secret wife system" was gradually developed 
 among the leaders, which came to light through the disclosures 
 of General John C. Bennett in 1842. 
 
 4. These revelations were followed by others of a more 
 startling character early in 1844. in strong charges of crime 
 made by William Law, of tlie "First Presidency," and Major- 
 General Wilson Law, of the IS'auvoo Legion, through the 
 columns of the Expositor. 
 
158 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 5. That from 1842 to 1844 polygamy had been preached in 
 various States by the elders of the church, thus showing it to 
 be general. 
 
 6.' Efforts were made by Joseph andHyrum Smith to suppress 
 the facts by making public denials -through the press— that 
 such things were taught or practiced by the leaders, thus 
 seeking to evade the charge that a "secret wife system," or 
 polygamy, existed in Nauvoo. 
 
 7. That in order to seemingly support this view, and enforce 
 it upon the public mind, several of these elders were "cut off," 
 or threatened with expulsion, for teaching "polygamy and 
 other false and corrupt doctrines." 
 
 8. That at the very time these notices and denials were 
 published in the Times and Seasons, by the authority of Joseph 
 and Hyrura Smith, they were both not only teaching the 
 doctrine, but were actually practicing polygamy — Joseph 
 having five and Hyrum having two wives, as now appears by 
 the testimony of the women themselves. 
 
 9. That the revelation on celestial marriage was presented to 
 the members of the High Council, convened for that purpose 
 by Joseph Smith, and was read by Hyrum Smith, in their 
 presence, Aug. 12, 1844. 
 
 10. A copy of this document was preserved by Brigham 
 Young, who had it publicly read by Orson Pratt in the 
 Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, August, 1852, and was published 
 in 2'he Deseret Neics in September of the same year.— Pages 
 388, 389. 
 
 We will take these conclusions up in their order and 
 examine the testimony produced by Mr. Bays, under the 
 respective numbers. 
 
 His first is based upon the following: He quotes the 
 article on marriage adopted by the General Assembly in 
 1835 which reads as follows: 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is 
 regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that 
 alF marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints 
 should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared 
 for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be per- 
 formed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or 
 priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to 
 get married, of being married by other authority. We believe 
 that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from 
 marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 159 
 
 do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our 
 Lord and Savior .Jesus Christ. 
 
 Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksoriving; 
 and at th^e solemnization, the persons to be married, standing 
 together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, 
 shall be addressed, by the person olhciating, as he shall be 
 directed bv the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, 
 he shall say, calling"'each by their names: "You both mutually 
 acree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observ- 
 ini; the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping 
 yo'urselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during 
 your lives." And when they have answered "Yes," he shall 
 pronounce them "husband and wife" in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and 
 authority vested in him: "May God add his blessings and keep 
 you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. 
 Amen." j * n 
 
 The clerk of every church should keep a record of all 
 marriages solemnized in his branch. 
 
 All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is bap- 
 tized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. 
 Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with 
 the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we 
 believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman 
 but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at 
 liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to 
 be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it 
 lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are 
 bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to 
 embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their par- 
 ents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We 
 believe that husbands, parents, and masters who exercise con- 
 trol over their wives, children, and servants, and prevent them 
 from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.— 
 Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 111. 
 
 He comments as follows: 
 
 At just what period this excrescence of Mormonism appeared 
 and became the dream of its leaders, may never be known; but 
 of one thing we are quite sure, and that is the Saints were at aa 
 early date reproached by their enemies, as they deemed the 
 people of all other churches, with "the crime of fornication 
 and polygamy." What gave rise to this reproach is very 
 largely a matter of conjecture; but it is probable that some- 
 thing either in their teachings or their conduct (probably the 
 latter) led people, who viewed things from the outside, to 
 believe that the lives of their leaders were not as pure as the 
 title, "Latter Day Saints,'' would lead one to suppose them to 
 
160 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 be. This feeling: was, no doubt, materially intensified by the 
 strong prejudices of the people generally, but that their 
 suspicions were wholly groundless, subsequent developments 
 forbid us to believe.— Page 324. 
 
 He presents nothing further upon this point. Summed 
 up his case is as follows: 
 
 1. The Saints were accused of fornication and polygamy 
 in 1835. 2. What gave rise to the reproach is largely a 
 matter of conjecture, intensified by strong prejudice. 3. 
 Probably it was something in their teachings or conduct. 
 4. A further probability is that it was their conduct; 
 therefore, "The conduct of the Mormon leaders at a time 
 prior to August, 1835, had been such as to give rise to the 
 charge of 'fornication and polygamy.' " 
 
 He has produced not one item of testimony upon which 
 to base his second conclusion until 1842. This will properly 
 be considered under his number three. In support of num- 
 ber three he presents the following: 
 
 As early as October, 1842, the existence of what was called 
 the "secret wife system," was made public at Nauvoo, 111., 
 through the apostasy of Gen. John C. Bennett, who was about 
 that time expelled from the church. General Bennett was a 
 man of prominence in the church, and a personal friend of 
 Joseph Smith's up to within a short time before the trouble 
 originated which separated them. Just what caused the 
 difficulty I have never been able to learn, but that it was of a 
 very grave character may be seen from the history of those 
 times.— Pages 328, 329. 
 
 He quotes the following from the Times and Seasons, the 
 church organ, published in Nauvoo, Illinois, during the 
 difficulty with J. C. Bennett: 
 
 *'The note of the editor (Joseph Smith) reads thus: 
 
 •' 'We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one 
 practiced in the church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's secret 
 wife system is a matter of his own manufacture; and further, 
 to disabuse the public ear, and to show that the said Bennett 
 and his misanthropic friend, Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating 
 a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need 
 but be known to be hated and despised.' 
 
 "In support of this position we present the following certifi- 
 cates. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. ICI 
 
 •"We, the undersigned, members of the Church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter Day Saints, and residents of the city of Nau- 
 voo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare that we 
 know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one pub- 
 lished from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give 
 this certificate to show that Dr. John C. Bennett's secret wife 
 system is a creature of his own make, as ice knoio of no such 
 society in this place, nor never did, 
 
 S. Bennett. N. K. Whitney. 
 
 George Miller. Albert Perry. 
 
 Alpheus Cutler. Elias Higbee. 
 
 Reynolds Cahoon. John Taylor. 
 
 Wilson Law. E. Robinson. 
 
 Wilford Woodruff. Aaron Johnson.* 
 
 "I also give the following: 
 
 "We, the undersigned, members of the Ladies' Relief 
 Society, and married females, do certify and declare, that we 
 know of no system of marriage being practiced in the Church 
 of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, save the one contained in 
 the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and we give this certifi- 
 cate to the public, to show that J. C. Bennett's secret wife system 
 is a disclosure of his own make. 
 
 Emma Smith, President. 
 
 Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counselor. 
 
 Sarah M. Cleveland. Counselor. 
 
 Eliza R. Snow, Secretary. 
 
 Mary C. Miller. Catherine Petty. 
 
 Lois Cutler. Sarah Higbee. 
 
 Thyrsa Cahoon. Phebe Woodruflf. 
 
 Ann Hunter. Leonora Taylor. 
 
 Jane Law. Sarah Hillman. 
 
 Sophia R. Marks. Rosannah Marks. 
 
 Polly Z. Johnson. Angeline Robinson. 
 
 Abigail Works."— fibid. pages 5 and 6, as quoted from Times 
 and Reasons, Vol. 3, page 939, for Oct. 1, 1842.)— Pages 332, 333. 
 
 Mr. Bays comments upon these statements as follows: 
 
 From the foregoing it will be seen that General Bennett, 
 having left the church, was the first to make a "disclosure" 
 of the "secret wife system," which is said to have existed 
 since 1840. The statement of Dr. John C. Bennett, and others, 
 was made under oath, and sets forth the fact that a "society" 
 existed at Nauvoo, in which this "secret wife system" was 
 practiced by the church leaders. 
 
 To counteract the effect produced upon the public mind by 
 these aftK'ivits. Joseph Smith published the entire article on 
 marriage in the Times and Seasons, the official organ of the 
 church, together with the certificates of twelve men and nineteen 
 
162 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 women. This array of witnesses would, under proper con- 
 ditions, be quite sufficient to impeach Gen. John C, Bennett, 
 et al, but which, under the circumstances, is of no legal value 
 whatever. Three serious objections to the testimony of these 
 witnesses may be urged, as follows: 
 
 1. The witnesses were not under oath when they made their 
 statements, and they were not sworn to afterwards, and hence 
 are incompetent to impeach witnesses who have made a state- 
 ment of alleged facts under oath. 
 
 2. Neither set of witnesses have shown themselves competent 
 to testify upon the questions in issue. 
 
 3. The witnesses do not contradict the material facts set 
 forth in the allegation of the affiants. — Pages 333, 334. 
 
 Here is a simple statement that J. G. Bennett and 
 others made oath to something. The affidavits are not 
 given. We are only told that it was a " 'disclosure' of 
 the 'secret wife system,' " and yet we are coolly told that 
 the witnesses who gave testimony against Bennett were 
 not sworn, had not proven themselves competent wit- 
 nesses, and that they did not "contradict the material 
 facts set forth in the allegation." Elder Bays should 
 have givea us the sworn statements of Mr. Bennett, and 
 others, and set forth what the material facts were, before 
 he questioned the competency of the testimony in rebuttal. 
 We have before us a copy of Bennett's "History of the 
 Saints; or, an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism," 
 published in 1842. We have looked it through with some 
 care. If there is a sworn statement in it from him 
 regarding "a secret wife system" it has escaped our 
 notice. Will Elder Bays or some one else please furnish 
 us with the sworn statement of J. C. Bennett disclosing 
 "a secret wife system," at Nauvoo? When the state- 
 ment of Mr. Bennett is produced it will be in order to 
 inquire into the competency of the testimony in rebuttal. 
 
 However, it is in order here to state that the signers of 
 the statements published in Times and Seasons were com- 
 petent witnesses for the reason that they stood in such 
 relation to the church as to have made it practicably 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 1C3 
 
 impossible for such a system to obtain without their knowl- 
 edge. They were married persons themselves, and if it 
 was alleged that a different ceremony had been adopted 
 than the one given in the law, wlio could know better 
 what kind of a ceremony was used than they who were 
 married? Among them were witnesses from the Quorum 
 of Twelve, the Presiding Bishop, High Priests, and others, 
 the wives of some of these high officials, including the wife 
 of Joseph Smith. But says Bays, They were not sworn. 
 No; but whether sworn or not, they either told the truth 
 or told a lie. 
 
 If Mr. Bays insists that a statement of a witness is not 
 to be taken unless he is under oath it will be well to 
 remember that Elder Bays himself was not sworn when he 
 made his many statements concerning his personal experi- 
 ence and observations while in the church. If it is his 
 idea that a man cannot tell the truth except when sworn, 
 it may account for some of his own peculiar statements as 
 recorded in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism;" and 
 what makes Bays look all the more ridiculous is that he on 
 page 369 quotes what one of these same signers, Ebenezer 
 Pvobinson, said to him in 1865 when he was not sworn, nor 
 was Bays sworn when he related it to us. If Mr. Robin- 
 son could not tell the truth without being sworn in 1842, 
 then we think he could not do so in 1865. 
 
 Before leaving this point, a word about Mr. John C. 
 Bennett. To show his hypocrisy, perfidy, and utter 
 unreliability, we have only to quote his own words as 
 found in the book referred to: 
 
 I find that it is almost universally the opinion of those who 
 have heard of me in the Eastern part of the United States, that 
 I united myself to the Mormons from a conviction of the truth 
 of their doctrines, and that I was, at least for some time, a con- 
 vert to their pretended religion. This, however, is a very 
 gross error. I never believed in them or their doctrines. This is, 
 and indeed was, from the first, well known to my friends and 
 acquaintances in the western country, who were well aware of 
 
164 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 my reasons for connecting myself with the Prophet; which 
 reasons I will now proceed to state. . . . 
 
 It at length occurred to me that the surest and speediest way 
 to overthrow the Impostor, and expose his iniquity to the 
 world, would be to profess myself a convert to his doctrines, 
 and join him at the seat of his dominion. I felt confident that 
 from my standing in society, and the offices I held under the- 
 state of Illinois, I should be received by the Mormons with 
 open arms; and that the course I was resolved to pursue would 
 enable me to get behind the curtain, and behold, at my leisure, 
 the secret wires of the fabric, and likewise those who moved 
 them. . . . 
 
 The fact that in joining the Mormons I was obliged to make 
 a pretence of belief in their religion does not alter the case. 
 That pretence was unavoidable in the part I was acting, and it 
 should not be condemned like hypocrisy towards a Christian 
 church. For so absurd are the doctrines of the Mormons that 
 I regard them with no more reverence than I would the 
 worship of Manitou or the Great Spirit of the Indians, and feel 
 no more compunction at joining in the former than in the 
 latter, to serve the same useful purpose. — An Expose of Joe 
 Smith and Mormonism, by John C. Bennett, 1842, pp. 5, 6, 7, 9. 
 
 A man whc^ will confess to such hypocrisy and double 
 dealing is worthy only to appear as a conspicuous figure 
 in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism," and even the 
 author of that work was ashamed to quote Bennett. Ta 
 cap the climax after all this confessed pretense, acknowl- 
 edged hypocrisy, and renunciation, Bennett again appears 
 in 1846 and 1847 with James J. Strang, acknowledging 
 that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and claiming 
 that Joseph Smith had intrusted to him certain documents 
 to be held in trust until after Joseph's death. He was 
 expelled from the St^angite organization, October 8, 1847. 
 (Church History, vol. 3, page 44.) Regarding the "oth- 
 ers" that Bays refers to in connection with Bennett, 
 we suppose he has reference to those whose statements 
 and affidavits are published in Bennett's Expose, A 
 careful examination of these statements will disclose an 
 indiscriminate mass of contradictory assertions regarding 
 attempted criminality, but no claim is made in any of 
 them that the authors knew of any "secret wife system.'^ 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 165 
 
 In support of his fourth conclusion he introduces not one 
 word of testimony. He simply asserts that William and 
 Wilson Law, the Higbees, Fosters, and others who had 
 been expelled from the church, sought through the columns 
 of a paper called the Nauvoo Expositor to expose Joseph 
 Smith and the church; but not one sentence from the 
 Expositor or elsewhere is produced to show what the 
 allegations were. The Nauvoo Exiwsltor was published 
 June 7, 18.ti. There was but one issue, as the plant was 
 demolished as a nuisance by order of the city council. It 
 contained many vile and slanderous statements against 
 many of the leading gentlemen and ladies of the city; 
 which aggravated the city council to adopt what seems to 
 us to be extreme measures. We do not indorse the action, 
 believing it to have been rash, impolitic, and unjust, but 
 before we accept the testimonies of the publishers of the 
 Expositor we should consider that the leading men among 
 them had affiliated with the church, some of them for many 
 years, without a protest, until they had been tried and 
 expelled for crime, which was done in April prior to the 
 publication of the Expositor. 
 
 If criminality had existed before, as they alleged, why 
 did they keep quiet until they were expelled from the 
 church? If their testimony is true, they were equally 
 guilty with the rest. 
 
 However, if Elder Bays introduces these witnesses, it is 
 
 in harmony with rules of law that he should be bound 
 
 by their testimony, and we insist that he accept it all, or 
 
 consent to strike it from the record. In the preamble 
 
 adopted by them preceding a series of resolutions, we 
 
 find the following: 
 
 As for our acquaintance with the Church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter Day Saints, we Icnow, no man or set of men can be more 
 thoroughly acquainted with its rise, its organization, and its 
 history, than we have every reason to believe we are. We all 
 verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the 
 
166 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 religion of the Latter Day Saints, as orisinally taught by Joseph 
 Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, 
 Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and 
 that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the 
 immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a 
 languajre which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep 
 into the heart of every honest man. Its precepts are invigorat- 
 ing, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble 
 man's conceptions of God and his attributes. It speaks a lan- 
 guage which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in 
 the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the 
 incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; 
 yet to those who will not see. it is dark, mysterious, and secret 
 as the grave. — Expositor, page 1. 
 
 If Elder Bays will accept the testimony of his own wit- 
 nesses, this settles the main point at issue. The personal 
 character of Joseph Smith, or of any other man, is of 
 minor consideration compared with the character of the 
 principles promulged. If Elder Bays will not accept this 
 testimony upon the main issue, we object to the witnesses 
 being heard upon minor points at issue. What say you? 
 Shall we excuse the witnesses and strike their testimony 
 from the record, or shall we let it appear in its entirety? 
 
 His fifth conclusion is overstated. He has not proved 
 "that from 1842 to 1841 polygamy had been preaciied in 
 various States by the elders of the church." He has only 
 proved that it was preached by 07ie elder in one county in 
 Michigan, and by some elders in one neighborhood in 
 Hancock county, Illinois, and each of these was in 1844. 
 Does this show it to have been general? Each of these 
 cases was promptly dealt with, as Mr. Bays well knows. 
 The following quotations will show how these cases were 
 disposed of: 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of 
 the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name 
 of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygam3% and other 
 false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of 
 Michigan. 
 
 This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 161 
 
 been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is 
 further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 
 eth of April next, to make answer to these charges. 
 
 Joseph Smith, 
 Hyrum Smith, 
 Presidents of said Church. 
 — Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423. 
 
 Nauvoo, March 15, 1844. 
 To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday 
 Saints living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:— 
 Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to 
 know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached 
 in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, 
 that a man haring a certain priesthood, may have as many wives 
 as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you 
 that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such 
 doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced 
 here. And any man that is found teaching privately or pub- 
 licly anv such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance 
 to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license 
 and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he 
 is about. Hyrum Smith. 
 
 — Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474. 
 
 His sixth and seventh conclusions contain nothing but 
 assertion, hence no rebuttal is called for. We will only- 
 invite attention here to the fact that Elder Bays has 
 entered a realm in these two conclusions of which he can 
 know nothing. We may determine from evidence what 
 men have done, but we cannot determine by evidence why 
 they did it. This is simply a field for conjecture. When 
 Elder Bays declares that he has proved why these men did 
 as they did, it is too absurd to be even childish— it is 
 foolish. 
 
 In support of his eighth conclusion he has presented 
 some sworn statements which we will briefly examine. 
 Regarding the alleged five wives of Joseph Smith, Elder 
 Bays presents the following: 
 
 affidavit of EMILY D. P. YOUNG. 
 
 "Territory of Utah, { ^^ 
 
 County of Salt Lake. \ 
 "Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A. D. 1869, 
 personally appeared before- me, Elias Smith, Judge of Probate 
 
168 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 for said county, Emily Dow Patridofe Young, who was by me 
 sworn in due form of law. and upon her oath, saith that on the 
 eleventh day of May, A. D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo, county 
 of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to 
 Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter Day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said church, 
 according to the law of the same regulating marriage. In the 
 presence of Emma (Hale) Smith and Eliza Maria Partridge 
 (Lyman.) Emily D. P. Young." 
 
 "Subscribed and sworn to by the said Emily D. P. Young, 
 the day and year first above written. 
 
 "E. Smith, Probate Judge." 
 
 —Page 377. 
 
 CERTIFICATE OP LOYINA WALKER. 
 
 "I, Lovina Walker, hereby certify that while I was living 
 with Aunt Emma Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton County, 
 Illinois, in the year 1849, she told me that she, Emma Smith, 
 was present, and witnessed the marriage or sealing of Eliza 
 Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah 
 Lawrence to her husband Joseph Smith, and that she gave her 
 consent thereto. Lovina Walker." 
 
 "We hereby witness that Lovina Walker made and signed 
 the above statement on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1869, of her 
 own free will and accord. 
 
 "Hyrum Walker. 
 *'Sarah E. Smith. 
 •'Jos. F. Smith." 
 —Page 370. 
 
 According to Bays* own rule we would have to throw 
 out the testimony of Lovina Walker, because she was not 
 sworn. We are willing to consider her statement, and 
 accept it for what it is worth, but we do think it a little 
 inconsistent for Bays to object to statements not sworn 
 to, and then introduce the same character of statements 
 himself. Her testimony, however, is only hearsay testi- 
 mony, and according to rules of evidence the testimony of 
 Emma Smith is better than what some one else says she 
 said. 
 
 The testimony of Emily D. P. Young is written in the 
 third person and shows on the face of it that it was 
 framed by some other person for her, and she in some 
 way induced to subscribe to it. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 169 
 
 On March 16, 1892, Mrs. Emily D. P. Young was 
 examined at Salt Lake City, Utah, in the famous Temple 
 Lot suit. Under cross-examination she made the following 
 
 record: 
 
 I was married to Briffham Young in November I think, 1844. 
 I was not married in the Temple because the Temple was not 
 built at that time; it was in process of erection, but it was not 
 finished, so that we could be married in it. At the time 1 
 married Brigham Young, in November, 1844, I was at the same 
 time sealed to Joseph Smith, sealed to him for eternity; 1 \^as 
 sealed to Brigham Young for time, and to Joseph Smith tor 
 eternity. The manner that I was married to Brigham \oung 
 is what is known as marriage by proxy; that is what I con- 
 sidered it meant; that is, I was sealed to Brigham \oung that 
 day during mv natural life, and in eternity I was to be the 
 wife of Joseph Smith. I was not married to Joseph Smith 
 under the revelation on sealing, but I was married to him 
 under the revelation on plural marriage. I was married 
 March, 1843; on the 11th day of March, I think it was. I know 
 I was married to him under the revelation of plural marriage. 
 I was married to him on the 11th day of May, 1843. 
 
 Q —Now, I would like for you to explain how you were 
 married to Joseph Smith under the plural marriage revelation 
 when the church you belong to claims that revelation was not 
 given until July, 1843; just tell how you could be married 
 under a revelation in March that was not given until July. 
 
 A.— Well, I do not know anything about that.— Plaintiff • 
 Abstract, p. 364. 
 
 It was an easy matter for this witness to sign a state- 
 ment fixed up for her by some one else, which partook of 
 the nature of a defense of the system she was at the time 
 practicing, but when on the witness stand under cross- 
 examination, and depending upon her own resources she 
 breaks completely down, as will be seen by the above. 
 
 As both Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Young speak of Mrs. 
 Emma Smith being present and witnessing the sealing of 
 other women to her husband, it will be proper to hear 
 Mrs. Smith on that point. In an interview with her son 
 Joseph, in February, 1879, she states as follows: 
 Q. Did he not have other wives than yourself? 
 A. He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowl- 
 edge ever have. 
 
170 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Q. Did he not hold marital relation with women other than 
 yourself? 
 
 A. He did not have improper relations with any woman 
 that ever came to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you 
 recollect? 
 
 A. At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I 
 had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or any- 
 thing of the kind: and assured me that if I had, that they were 
 •without foundation: that there was no such doctrine, and 
 never should be with his knowledge, or consent. 1 know that 
 he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either 
 spiritual or otherwise. — Samts' Herald, vol. 26, p. 289. 
 
 Here Mrs. Smith directly contradicts the testimony of 
 these women, and hence their testimony is not sustained 
 by the very party to whom they refer. 
 
 Mr. Bays certifies to the good character of Emma Smith 
 
 as follows: 
 
 Mrs. Smith was a lady of more than ordinary mental endow- 
 ments, and possessed a reputation for honor and integrity that 
 won the respect and esteem of those who knew her best. It is 
 but fair to presume, therefore, that she stated the facts as siie 
 understood and recollected them, but having attained her 
 seventy-fifth year, and her health having been poor for several 
 years before her death, it is but natural to conclude that her 
 memory would be somewhat defective. — Page o(j2. 
 
 It is conceded, then, that Emma Smith's state ments are 
 true to the best of her recollection. We ask the reader to 
 consider if it is "natural to conclude" that a w( man would 
 ever forget while reason remained that she was present 
 and witnessed four other women married to her husband? 
 It is impossible! 
 
 However, we here submit the following sworn statement 
 to show that when she was much younger her memory was 
 the same as in her later life: 
 
 Territory of Oklahoma, / ^^ 
 County of Noble, )' ' 
 
 Before me a Notary Public in and for the county and terri- 
 tory afore said, personally appeared R. W. Soathard, who first 
 being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that dur- 
 ing the years of 185(3 and 1857 he was personally acquainted 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 171 
 
 with Mrs. Emma Smith, the widow of Joseph Smith, and thai 
 during the year of 1857 he had several conversations with her, 
 and that upon different occasions she averred to iiim that her 
 husband, Joseph Smith, was not a polygram ist, that he never 
 had any wife but herself, tiiat he never advocated the doctrine 
 of plurality of marriages, and that he was a man of very- 
 exemplary habits. 
 
 That at the time of such conversations, he considered her 
 free from any bias or prejudice in the matter and that she was 
 in possession of her full mental faculties. 
 
 R. W. Southard, M. D. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of January^ 
 1901. W. E. Merry, Notary Public. 
 
 Concerning the allegations that Hyrum Smith had twa 
 wives, Elder Bays subnaits the following: 
 
 TESTIMONY OF MERCY R. THOMPSON. 
 
 "Salt Lake City, January 31, 1886. 
 **A. M. MussER, 
 
 "Dear Brother:— Having noticed in the Deseret News an 
 inquiry for testimony concerning the revelation on plural mar- 
 riage, and having read the testimony of Brother Grover, it 
 came to my mind that perhaps it would be right for me to add 
 my testimony to his on the subject of Brother Hyrum reading- 
 it in the High Council. I well remember the circumstance. I 
 remember he told me he had read it to the brethren in his 
 oftice. He put it into my hands and left it with me for several 
 days. I had been sealed to him by Brother Joseph a few weeks 
 previously, and was well acquainted with almost every mem- 
 ber of the High Council, and know Brother Grover's testimony 
 to be correct. Now if this testimony would be of any use to 
 such as are weak in the faith or tempted to doubt, I should be 
 very thankful. Please make use of this in any way you 
 think best, as well as the copy of the letter addressed to Joseph. 
 Smith at Lamoni. Your Sister in the Gospel, 
 
 "Mercy R. Thompson." 
 
 testimony as to her MARRIAGE TO HYRUM SMITH. 
 
 "Salt Lake City, Sept. 5, 1886. 
 "Mr. Joseph Smith, Lamoni, 111. [Iowa], 
 
 "Dear Sir: — After having asked my Father in heaven to help 
 me, I sit down to write a few lines as dictated by the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 "After reading the correspondence between you and L. O. 
 Littlefield, I concluded it was the duty of some one to bear a 
 testimony which could not be disputed. Finding from your 
 letters to Littlefield that no one of your father's friends had 
 
172 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 performed this duty while 3'ou were here, now I will begin at 
 once and tell you my experience. 
 
 "My beloved husband, R. B. Thompson, your father's private 
 secretary to the end of his mortal life, died August 27, 1841. (I 
 presume you will remember him.) Nearly tiro yearn after his 
 death your father told me that my husband had appeared to him 
 several times, telling him that he did not wish me to request your 
 uncle Hyrum to have me sealed to him for time. Hyrum communi- 
 cated this to his wife (my sister), who by request opened the 
 subject to me, when every thing within me rose in opposition 
 to such a step; but when your father called and explained the 
 subject to me I dared not refuse to obey the counsel, lest per- 
 adventure I should be found fighting against God, and especially 
 when he told me the last time my husband appeared to him he 
 came with such power that it made him tremble. 
 
 "He then inquired of the Lord what he should do; the 
 answer was. 'Go and do as my servant hath required.' He 
 then took all opportunity to communicate this to your uncle 
 Hyrum, who told me that the Holy Spirit rested upon him 
 from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. The time 
 was appointed, with the consent of all parties, and your father 
 sealed me to your uncle Hyrum for time, in my sister's room. 
 with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resur- 
 rection to Robert Blaskell Thompson with whatever offspring 
 should be the result of the union, at the same time counseling 
 your uncle to build a room for me and move me over as soon 
 as convenient, which he did, and I remained there as a wife 
 the same as my sister to the day of his death. All this I am 
 ready to testify to in the presence of God, angels and men. 
 
 "Now I assure you I have not been prompted or dictated by 
 any mortal being in writing to you; neither does a living soul 
 know it but my invalid daughter. 
 
 "God bless you, is the sincere prayer of your true friend. 
 
 "Mercy R. Thompson. 
 
 ««p^ g, — If you feel disposed to ask me any questions. I will 
 be pleased to answer concerning blessings which I received 
 under the hands of your late mother, by the direction of your 
 father.— M. R. T. in Deseret Neics.'' (Littlefield's Celestial 
 Marriage, pages 1 and 2.)-Pages 382-384. 
 
 Joseph Smith, of Lamoni, makes this statement regard- 
 ing the letter above quoted: 
 
 Lamoni, Iowa, March 13, 1900. 
 
 To the reader of this book. 
 
 I received a letter from Mrs. Thompson in 1883, but received 
 none in 1886. 
 
 In the letter I received from her there is no such statement 
 as the one made in the four lines in second paragraph, page 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 173 
 
 383, beginning with the word "nearly," ending with the word 
 *'time." Joseph Smith. 
 
 We have emphasized the interpolated words. 
 
 It will be observed that this witness says that the reve- 
 lation authorizing polygamy was placed in her hands and 
 left there "for several days." She then had a good oppor- 
 tunity to examine it. Subsequently to her writing ta 
 Joseph Smith, her readiness to testify "in the presence of 
 God, angels and men" was partly gratified, and she was 
 permitted to testify in the presence of men in the Temple 
 Lot suit, March 16, 1892, when she said: 
 
 I saw that revelation on polygamy, and had it in my hands, 
 saw what kind of paper it was written on. It was written on 
 foolscap paper. I do not know exactly how many pages 
 there were of it, think there was not more than one whole 
 sheet, and I am as certain of that as I am of anything I have 
 testified to, that there was not more than one whole sheet of 
 foolscap, that would be four pages. If there had been more 
 than one full sheet, I should have known it. It did not require 
 any pins in the paper to pin it together, because when it was 
 opened up it was all on one sheet. — Plaintiff's Abstract, p. 347. 
 
 If this witness gives a correct description of the revela- 
 tion, then it is not the one published by Elder Bays in his 
 thirty-fourth chapter. That covers over thirteen pages of 
 printed matter. We wish the reader to remember this 
 point, for we will have occasion to compare this testimony 
 with that of another of Bays' witnesses on another point. 
 
 It will be seen further that this witness says that 
 
 Hyrum Smith told her that he had read the revelation 
 
 "to the brethren in his office," and that this was a "/etc? 
 
 weeks'' subsequent to her being sealed to him. This 
 
 reading to the High Council, according to testimony 
 
 introduced by Bays, as will be seen hereafter, took place 
 
 on or about August 12, 1843. In Mrs. Thompson's 
 
 testimony given in the Temple Lot case she says: 
 
 This was in August, 1843. that I was sealed to him, and it 
 was almost a year after that time before he was martyred, — 
 that was in June, 1844. — Plaintiff's Abstract, p. 34G. 
 
174 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Now there are not a "/eio weeks' in August prior to the 
 twelfth day. 
 
 This witness, according to her testimony, lost her first 
 husband in August, 1841. Two years later she was sealed 
 to Hyrum Smith and lived with him until his death, June 
 27, 1844. In the same year, or the year following, she 
 married John Taylor and lived with him but a short time. 
 In September, 1847, she accepted a divorce from John 
 Taylor granted by Brigham Young, at a time when Young 
 was not a judge of any court, and hence had no legal right 
 to grant divorces; and before the close of the year 1847, 
 married James Lawson. (See her testimony in case before 
 cited.) Now Bays brings her forward as a witness, and 
 presents in evidence a statement written by her pro- 
 fessedly "as dictated by the Holy Spirit." Bays ought 
 to have noticed, too, that she was not sworn. Upon the 
 testimony of this woman, who makes a statement 
 calculated in its nature to bolster up an institution of 
 impurity in which she was an active participant, he 
 wishes us to believe that Hyrum Smith had two wives 
 at the same time. We think this testimony is not suffi- 
 cient to convict. 
 
 His ninth conclusion is based upon the following state- 
 ments: 
 
 "State of New Jersey, ) ^^ 
 
 County of Burlington, i" 
 
 "Be it remembered that on this fourteenth day of November, 
 A. D. 1888, personally appeared before me, J. W. Roberts, a 
 Justice of the Peace, county and State aforesaid, Leonard 
 Soby, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon oath 
 saith, that on or about the 12th day of Auofust, 1843, in the city 
 of Nauvoo, in the Slate of Illinois, in the county of Hancock, 
 before the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter Day Saints, nf which body and council aforesaid he was a 
 member, personally appeared one Hyrum Smith, of the first 
 presidency of said churcii. and brother to Joseph Smith, the 
 president and prophet of the same, and presented to said coun- 
 cil the Revelation on Polygamy, enjoining its observance and 
 declaring it came from God; unto which a large majority of 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 175 
 
 the council agreed and assented, believing it to be of a celestial 
 order, though no vote was taken upon it, for the reason that the 
 voice'of the' prophet, in such matters, was understood by us to 
 be the voice of God to the church, and that said revelation was 
 presented to said council, as before stated, as coming from 
 Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Lord, and was received by us 
 as other revelations had been. The said Leonard Soby further 
 saith that Elder Austin A. Cowles, a member of the High Coun- 
 cil aforesaid, did, subsequently to the 12th day of August, 1843. 
 openly declare against the said revelation on polygamy, and 
 the doctrines therein contained. Leonard Soby." 
 
 "Subscribed and sworn to by the said Leonard Soby, the day 
 and year first above written. Joshua W. Roberts, 
 
 "Justice of the Peace." 
 
 —Pages 378, 379. 
 
 "Territory of Utah, ) ^^ 
 County of Salt Lake. S ' 
 
 "Be it remembered on this fifteenth day of June, A, D., 1869, 
 personally appeared before me, James Jack, a Notary Public in 
 and for said county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn in due 
 form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on or about the twelfth 
 day of August, A. D , 1843, while in meeting with the High 
 Council, (he being a member thereof), in Hyrum Smith's brick 
 office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of 
 Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject 
 of a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting 
 it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, 
 and he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith 
 stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned, 
 bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial mar- 
 riage, given to Joseph Smith. July 12, A. D., 1843, and read the 
 same to the High Council, and bore testimony of its truth. The 
 said David Fullmer further said that to the best of his memory 
 and belief, the following named persons were present: Wm. 
 Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. Harris, Dun- 
 bar Wilson, Wm. Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson, 
 Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James All red, 
 and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith 
 that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were the 
 only persons present who did not receive the testimony of 
 Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the 
 teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith. And 
 further, that the copy of said Revelation on Celestial Marriage, 
 published in the Deseret Weirs extra of September fourteenth. A. 
 D.. 1852, is a true copy of the same. David Fullmer." 
 
 "Subscribed and sworn to by the said David Fullmer the day 
 and year first above written. James Jack, Notary Public." 
 
176 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THOMAS GBOVER's LETTER. 
 
 "The High Council, of Nauvoo, was called together by thff 
 Prophet Joseph Smith, to know whether they would accept 
 the revelation on celestial marriage or not. 
 
 "The presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks, Father Coles and 
 the late Apostle Charles C. Rich, were there present. The 
 following are the names of the High Council that were 
 present, in their order, viz.: Samuel Bent, William Hunting- 
 ton, Alpheus Cutler, Thomas Grover, Lewis D. Wilson, David 
 Fullmer. Aaron Johnson, Newel Knight, Leonard Soby, Isaac 
 Allred, Henry G. Sherwood and, I think, Samuel Smith. 
 
 "Brother Hyrum Smith was called upon to read the revela- 
 tion. He did so, and after reading it said: 'Now, you that 
 believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall 
 be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned.' 
 
 "We saw this prediction verified in less than one week. Of 
 the Presidency of the Stake, William Marks and Father Coles 
 rejected the revelation; of the Council that were present, 
 Leonard Soby rejected it. From that time forward there was 
 a very strong division in the High Council. These three men 
 greatly diminished in spirit day after day, so that there was a 
 great difference in the line of their conduct, which was per- 
 ceivable to every member that kept the faith. 
 
 "From that time forward we often received instructions from 
 the Prophet as to what was the will of the Lord and how to 
 proceed."— Pages 374-376. 
 
 These three statements agree that Hyrum Smith did 
 read the revelation on polygamy to the High Council. 
 One locates the place as being in Hyrum Smith's office, 
 the other two do not say where. Two practically agree 
 as to date; the other is silent on date. One has it that 
 the matter of plurality of wives came up incidentally upon 
 inquiry of Dunbar Wilson, and that Hyrum Smith went 
 out and got the revelation and read it. Another has it 
 that the council was called for the purpose of considering 
 the revelation; while the third says "no vote was taken 
 upon it, for the reason that the voice of the prophet, in 
 such matters, was understood by us to be the voice of God 
 to the church." One gives the names of the council who 
 were present, thirteen names in all, another gives fourteen 
 names certain, and he thinks the fifteenth. This dis- 
 crepancy might easily occur from lapse of memory, but 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 177 
 
 there is a further difficulty; viz., these men do not agree 
 as to who their associate counselors were at the time. 
 Mr. Fullmer names among his thirteen the following who 
 were not named by Mr. Grover: George W. Harris, Levi 
 Jackman, Phineas Richards, James Allred, Dunbar Wilson; 
 while Mr. Grover has among his fourteen the following not 
 found in Mr. Fullmer's thirteen: C. C. Rich, Alpheus 
 Cutler, Lewis D. Wilson, Newel Knight, Isaac Allred, 
 and H. G. Sherwood. Lewis D. Wilson and Dunbar 
 Wilson may possibly be the same person, but the other 
 discrepancies we see no possibility of harmonizing. Mr. 
 Soby does not give names. Messrs. Fullmer and Grover 
 say that Marks, Cowles, and Soby rejected the revelation, 
 but Mr. Soby says: "It was received by us as other 
 revelations had been." The pronoun us would certainly 
 include himself, and this would agree with a letter he 
 wrote to Mr. Brooks, of San Bernardino, California, 
 which is as follows: 
 
 Beverly, N. J., Feb. 26, 1886. 
 James S. Brooks: 
 
 Dear Sir— Yours of 12th at hand, and would state the facts 
 given in the [Ogden] Herald in regard to myself and Mr. 
 Gurley are true. I was present at the High Council in Nauvoo 
 when that revelation was read, and know it to be true, and I 
 hope the Lord will bless you to see the truth as I do. 
 Respectfully, your humble servant, 
 
 Leonard Soby (a witness). 
 
 Mr. Soby represents himself as accepting the revelation 
 in 1843, and in 1886 still declares it to be true; while 
 Messrs. Fullmer and Grover declare that he opposed it in 
 1843 in their presence, and Mr. Grover goes so far as to 
 have Mr. Soby damned for rejecting it. Mr. Fullmer 
 identifies the revelation read August 12, 1843, as being the 
 original from which the Deseret News extra of September 
 14, 1852, published a copy. This is practically the same, 
 excepting some inaccuracies in Bays' copy, that is pub- 
 lished in "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism," occupying 
 
178 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 over thirteen pages of printed matter, and yet one of Mr. 
 Bays' witnesses, Mrs. Thompson, says the document was 
 in her hands for some time and did not cover more than 
 one sheet of foolscap. These are the witnesses relied upon 
 by Mr. Bays to prove that this document was presented to 
 a High Council "convened for the purpose by Joseph 
 Smith," August 12, 1843. 
 
 His tenth conclusion is based upon the testimony of 
 Brigham Young only. Here is what Mr. Bays presents on 
 this point: 
 
 We now wish to offer a little evidence produced from another 
 quarter. Relative to the revelation in question, Brigham 
 Youncf, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake 
 City, Aug. 29th, J852, among other things said: 
 
 "You heard Brother Pratt state this morning that a revela- 
 tion would be read this afternoon, which was given previous to 
 Joseph's death. . . . The original copy of this revelation was 
 burnt up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from 
 the mouth of the prophet. In the meantime it was in Bishop 
 Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, 
 which Brother .Joseph granted. Sister Emma biLrnt the original. 
 The reason I mention this is because the people who did not 
 know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence. The 
 revelation will be read to you. . . . This revelation has been in 
 my possession many years; and who has known it? I keep a 
 patent lock on my desk, and there does not anything leak out 
 that should not." — Page 364. 
 
 This is all Mr. Bays presents on this point, and yet he 
 concludes that he has proved that "a copy of this docu- 
 ment was preserved by Brigham Young." 
 
 Since he has introduced Brigham Young as a witness, 
 
 we will examine his testimony. The reader will observe 
 
 that Mr. Bays indicates omissions in two places. There is 
 
 nothing material in the last one; but had he supplied the 
 
 first ellipsis he would have spoiled his whole case. Here 
 
 are Young's words omitted by Bays: 
 
 It contains a doctrine a small portion of the world is opposed 
 to; but I can deliver a prophecy upon it. Though that doc- 
 trine has not been practiced by the Elders, this people have 
 believed in it for years. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 179 
 
 Elder Young here on August 29, 1852, declares the doc- 
 trine of polygamy had not been practiced by the elders. If 
 Mr. Young tells the truth, Joseph Smith and other elders did 
 not practice this doctrine, and Mr. Bays loses his whole 
 case. If Mr. Bays proves that polygamy was practiced by 
 the elders before August 29, 1852, he impeaches the wit- 
 ness upon whose testimony he solely relies to prove that a 
 copy of the document was preserved. If the document 
 was not preserved we do not know what, if anything, was 
 read by Hyrum Smith to the High Council, August 12, 
 1843. If the testimony upon which its preservation is 
 based is reliable, then the elders never practiced the doc- 
 trine of polygamy before August 29, 1852. Will Mr. Bays 
 explain why he left out this material point in the testimony 
 of his own witness? 
 
 We might let it rest here, but we will introduce a few 
 more points. It will be observed that Elder Young said, 
 and Elder Bays emphasized: ^^ Sister Emma burnt the 
 original.'' What has Sister Emma, who Bays says "was a 
 lady of more than ordinary mental endowments, and 
 possessed a reputation for honor and integrity that won 
 the respect and esteem of those who knew her best," to 
 say about this? The following account of an interview 
 with her by Elder J. W. Briggs in April, 1867, will ba 
 pertinent in this connection: 
 
 J. W. Bkiggs.— Mrs. Bidamon,* have you seen the revelatioa 
 on polygamy, published by Orson Pratt, in The Seer, in 1852? 
 
 Mrs. B. — I have. 
 
 J. W. B.— Have you read it? 
 
 Mrs. B. — I have read it, and heard it read. 
 
 J. W. B.— Did you ever see the document in manuscript, 
 previous to its publication, by Pratt? 
 
 Mrs. B. — I never did. 
 
 J. W. B. — Did you ever see any document of that kind, 
 purporting to be a revelation, to authorize polygamy? 
 
 *Mrs. Bidamon was the widow of Joseph Smith, she having subse- 
 quently married Mr. Bidamon. 
 
180 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Mrs. B. — No. I never did. 
 
 J. W. B.— Did Joseph Smith ever teach j'ou the principles of 
 polygamy, as being revealed to him, or as a correct and right- 
 eous principle? 
 
 Mrs. B. He never did. 
 
 J. W. B.— What about that statement of Brigham Young, 
 that you burnt the original manuscript of that revelation? 
 
 Mrs. B.— It is false in all its parts, made out of icJiole cloth, 
 without any foundation in truth. — T/^e Messenger, vol. 1, p. 23. 
 
 Elder Bays, this certainly impeaches your witness, and 
 the only one you have to prove that the document alleged 
 to have been read on August 12, 1843, was preserved. 
 
 Each of Mr. Bays' ten conclusions is shown to be based 
 upon faulty and unreliable testimony, and he has not 
 established one reliable fact tending to prove that Joseph 
 Smith was the author of polygamy. There are, however, 
 some incidental matters brought out in the examination 
 of this subject which we will briefly notice. The state- 
 ment of Elder William Marks is quoted, and we are told 
 that "although a faithful member of the Reorganized 
 Church, his testimony is never alluded to by any of its 
 leading writers or speakers." This is certainly a mistake. 
 Our experience and observation have been quite to the 
 contrary. Our acquaintance has been, to say the least, 
 as great as that of Elder Bays with the leading writers 
 and speakers of the church, and we have heard this testi- 
 mony of Elder Marks quoted quite as frequently as any 
 other statement on record. In fact, we have nothing to 
 fear from it. It is as .follows: 
 
 About the first of June, 1844, (situated as I was at that time, 
 being the Presiding Elder of the Stake at Nauvoo. and by 
 appointment the Presiding Officer of the High Council) I had 
 a very good opportunity to know the affairs of the Church, and 
 my convictions at that time were, that the Church in a great 
 measure had departed from the pure principles and doctrines 
 of .Tesus Christ. I felt much troubled in mind about the condi- 
 tion of the Church. I prayed earnestly to my Heavenly Father 
 to show me something in regard to it, when I was wrapt in 
 vision, and it was shown me by the Spirit, that the top or 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 181 
 
 branches had overcome the root, in sin and wickedness, and the 
 only way to cleanse and purify it was, to disoro'anize it, and in 
 due time, the Lord would reorganize it again. There were 
 many other things suggested to my mind, but the lapse of time 
 has erased them from my memory. A few days after this 
 occurrence, I met with Brother Joseph. He said that he 
 wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the Church, and 
 we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for 
 they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had 
 desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of 
 polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of 
 the Church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United 
 States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied 
 that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every 
 exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before 
 the congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into 
 the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in 
 transgression, and I must sever them from the Church, unless 
 they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but 
 this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about 
 Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done 
 concerning it. After the Prophet's death, I made mention of 
 this conversation to several, hoping and believing that it would 
 have a good effect, but to my great disappointment, it was soon 
 rumored about that Brother Marks was about to apostatize, and 
 that all that he said about the conversation with the Prophet 
 was a tissue of lies. From that time I was satisfied that the 
 Church would be disorganized, and the death of the Prophet 
 andlPatriarch, tended to confirm me in that opinion. From 
 that time I was looking for a re-organization of the Church and 
 Kingdom of God. I feel thankful that I have lived to again 
 behold the day, when the basis of the Church is the revelations 
 of Jesus Christ, which is the only sure foundation to build 
 upon. I feel to invite all my brethren to become identified 
 with us, for the Lord is truly in our midst. 
 
 William Marks. 
 Shabbonas, De Kalb Co., 111., Oct. 23rd, 1859. 
 
 — The Saints' Herald, vol. 1. pp. 25, 26. 
 
 That some were privately teaching polygamy we have 
 never denied. Some had been expelled for it, but yet 
 there were others left, and this testimony shows that 
 Joseph Smith was determined to proceed against them. 
 The purport of this testimony is: 
 1. That Joseph Smith declared it to be 
 doctrine." 
 
182 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 2. That he would proclaim against it in the public 
 congregation. 
 
 3. That he would prefer charges against those in 
 transgression. 
 
 4. He instructed the President of the High Council to 
 **sever them from the Church, unless they made ample 
 satisfaction." 
 
 All this is commendable and a credit to Joseph and the 
 church. 
 
 It is not very probable, either, that Joseph Smith would 
 publicly proclaim against a doctrine, and prefer charges 
 against those practicing it, when he himself was practic- 
 ing it, and it was known to those against whom he was 
 proceeding. The testimony of Elder Marks is not shunned 
 by us. We want it to appear here, and everywhere, where 
 this subject is discussed. And let it be remembered that 
 Elder Bays said of Elder Marks: 
 
 He was a man whose veracity was not to be questioned.— 
 Page 3(33. 
 
 Mr. Bays occupies nearly one whole chapter with* the 
 revelation on polygamy, and declares it to be the source 
 of nearly all the corrupt practices that have later devel- 
 oped in Salt Lake and elsewhere. We agree with Elder 
 Bays in this, believing the document to be among the 
 most corrupt and soul-destroying, and its moral status as 
 low as anything that ever purported to be from God in 
 any land or in any age. But is it not a little inconsistent 
 in Elder Bays to go among the advocates and supporters 
 of this immoral philosophy for witnesses to sustain his 
 conclusions, while he rejects the testimony of such men 
 as William Marks, "whose veracity," he says, "was not to 
 be questioned;" and such women as Emma Smith, the wife 
 of the prophet, who he acknowledges "was a lady of 
 more than ordinary mental endowments, and possessed a 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 183 
 
 reputation for honor and integrity that won the respect 
 and esteem of those who knew her best"? 
 
 Thoughtful men now and in the future will ask, Why 
 did Bays give full and unreserved credence ta the testi- 
 mony of men and women who gave support to a degrading 
 and debasing system of moral philosophy, while he rejects 
 with disdain the testimony of men and women of the 
 Reorganization, many of whom had as good opportunity 
 to know what was done in the church as the other class, 
 and who Bays says, ''are as a rule honest and law-abiding 
 people, and the purity of whose lives no man may truth- 
 fully question"? (Pages 73, 74.) 
 
 Again it will be asked. Why does Bays accept as 
 conclusive the unsupported testimony of Brigham Young, 
 who, if not the author, was the leading advocate and 
 supporter of this debasing system; while he scorns the 
 testimony of one of whom he says: 
 
 Prom a lonj? personal acquaintance with President Smith I 
 take great pleasure in saying I regard him as a most excellent 
 and sincere Christian gentleman, and worthy of tiie respect and 
 esteem of all good people. If he believed his father to have 
 been the author of the infamous revelation on polygamy, he 
 possesses both moral courage and Christian manhood to 
 denounce it in the roundest terms, and would neither by word 
 nor deed seek to justify even his father, whose memory he 
 holds sacred, in the introduction of a doctrine alike soul- 
 destroying to men and dishonoring to God.— Page 322. 
 
 Will Bays or any of his supporters be able to answer? 
 
 Bays charges: 
 
 The spirit of this "celestial law"— polygamy and eternal 
 hatred of the Gentiles— permeated every branch and faction 
 of the Mormon Church which sprang up immediately after 
 the death of the prophet.— Pages 359, 360. 
 
 That this charge is false will appear from the following, 
 which we have before published in tract form: 
 
 SIDNEY RIGDOX. 
 
 The organization under Sidney Rigdon, who was one of the 
 counselors of Joseph Smith, expressed itself in the following 
 
184 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 vigorous lan^ruage, in the Messenger and Advocate, published by 
 Sidney Rigdon at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, March 15, 1845: 
 
 "PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS, OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 "Whereas, the connection which has heretofore existed 
 between ourselves and the people calling themselves the 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints renders it neces- 
 sary that we publish to the world a succinct statement of facta 
 relating to the position we now sustain to God and our fellow 
 men: and 
 
 "Whereas, in consequence of the rejection by that people, of 
 ■what we undoubtedly deem to be the order of the church and 
 kingdom of God, and the introduction of doctrines and prac- 
 tices clearly inimical to the law of God, and altogether 
 subversive of the laws of the land, abrogating the marriage 
 contract, and substituting under the professed sanction of 
 Heaven, a system of extreme licentiousness, uprooting every 
 legal restraint, and eminently calculated in its very nature to 
 produce the entire destruction of every virtuous tie, and pour- 
 ing contempt upon every holy principle contained in the 
 revelations of God to his creature man, and must inevitably 
 entail upon that people abject wretchedness and woe, subject- 
 ing them to the righteous condemnation of every virtuous 
 intelligence, whether in heaven or on earth; and 
 
 "Whereas, the better to conceal the justly odious system of 
 polygamy, duplicity, hypocrisy, and falsehood are inculcated 
 as virtues, the most sacred obligations constantly violated, and 
 families and individuals plunged into irrevocable ruin and 
 despair; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, that we hold no fellowship with the people calling 
 themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 
 and can have no communion with them, unless they repent and 
 obey the principles of righteousness and truth. 
 
 "Resolved, that we maintain the truth and the truth only, at 
 all hazards, renouncing at once and forever, the unsanctifying 
 dogma that it is sometimes lawful to lie. 
 
 "Resolved, that our subjection to the law of God impels us to 
 yield implicit obedience to the law of the land. 
 
 "Resolved, that we maintain and do earnestly contend for 
 the faith which was once, and is again, delivered to the saints, 
 contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Book of Cove- 
 nants. 
 
 "Resolved, that we feel it a solemn and imperative obligation 
 we owe to God and our fellow men to disseminate to the extent 
 of our ability, correct information regarding certain pernicious 
 doctrines and practices which are secretly taught by the leaders 
 and many of the members of the society called the Church 
 of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; verily believing them 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 185 
 
 demoralizing and destructive, combining all the worst features 
 of barbarism, and containing all the elements of the wildest 
 anarchy, and would if unchecked by the power of truth, ulti- 
 mately extinguish the sipec\es/'—Meiise7iger and Advocate, vol. 1, 
 p. 176. 
 
 JAMES J. STRANG. 
 
 Though Mr. Strang did teach and practice polygamy years 
 afterward, it is evident that he did not so do before 1848. 
 
 It was not claimed by him, nor is it claimed by his adherents, 
 that he received this doctrine from Joseph Smith or from the 
 church at Nauvoo; but from the Book of the Law which Mr. 
 Strang claimed to have translated from plates by himself found 
 in the earth. This also appears from the following quotations, 
 all of which are taken from publications issued by authority 
 of Mr. Strang and his organization. 
 
 At a conference held by them at Kirtland, Ohio, August 7-lU, 
 1846, they adopted the following: 
 
 "Resolved unanimously. That we utterly disclaim the 
 whole system of polygamy known as the spiriti^al wife system 
 lately set up in Nauvoo, by the apostates who claim the 
 authority there, and will neither practice such things nor hold 
 any fellowship with those that teach or practice such things. 
 — Voree Herald, September, 1846. 
 
 This was confirmed at a General Conference held at Toree, 
 Wisconsin, October 6-19, as the following will show: 
 
 "The proceedings of the special conference, at Kirtland, of 
 August 6, 7, 8, and 9, were presented by President Strang. 
 
 "On motion of General Bennett, resolved unanimously, that 
 this General Conference cordially approve of the reorganization 
 of the stake of Kirtland, and of the proceedings of its special 
 conference." — Voree Herald, October, 1846. 
 
 In Zion's Reveille for Julv 22, 1847, is an article from the pen 
 of the editor, James J. Strang, entitled, "Polygamy not Possi- 
 ble in a Free Government." 
 
 In the same publication for August 5, 1847. there is an article 
 from the pen of John E. Page, one of the Twelve Apostles at 
 the time of Joseph Smith's death, from which we extract the 
 following: 
 
 "To The Saints; Greeting: 
 
 "Our eyes and ears are sometimes saluted with communi- 
 cations from abroad that there are persons who profess to be 
 adherents to President J. J. Strang, who are privately teaching 
 and some practicing what is called the 'western camp doctrine, 
 or, in other words, 'spiritual wifery' or polygamy. We also 
 hear that there are some persons who do President Strang the 
 injustice to say that he justifies the principle above stated. 
 
 "This is to say emphatically, and we mean just what we say, 
 
186 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 and if our course in the future does not prove us true in this 
 matter then let that execration rest on us that is due to such a 
 course of conduct, that we believe ourself to be as much 
 ingratiated into the confidence of President Strang as any 
 other man. (This we say without egotism, merely to discharge 
 a moral duty.) ^ 
 
 "We have talked hours, yea, even days with President 
 Strang on the subject of the temporal and moral condition and 
 character of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 
 and we find to our utmost satisfaction that he does not believe 
 in or cherish the doctrine of polygamy in any manner, shape, 
 or form imaginable whatever."— Vol. 2, p. 83. 
 
 The same publication for August 12, 1847, contains a card 
 from James J. Strang relating to the above, reading as follows: 
 
 "Elder John E. Page has referred me to an article in No. 20 
 addressed 'To the Saints; Greeting.' In the remarks he has 
 there made he has justly and truly represented my sentiments. 
 I am onlv astonished that it should be necessary to state them 
 at all. Within three years I have, in the work of the ministry, 
 traveled over ^sixteen thousand miles, visited all the States 
 north of the Carolinas but three, most of them several times, 
 preached to large congregations in all the principal cities and 
 in most of the large branches in the country. And I have 
 uniformly and most distinctly discarded and declared heretical 
 the so-called 'spiritual wife system' and everything connected 
 therewith. It is a well-known fact that several men of talent 
 and influence have separated from me and from the Church of 
 God, merely because I would not in any manner countenance 
 such a doctrine. One of them, Reuben Miller, has, in a 
 pamphlet extensively circulated, given as a reason for sepa- 
 rating from the church and becoming a Brighamite that I did 
 not believe in the 'spiritual wife system.' I have recently 
 refused to ordain a man to a high and responsible office, 
 although a warm personal friend, and after he had been 
 sustained by the unanimous vote of a General Conference, for 
 no other reason than that it was discovered that he believed in 
 'spiritual wifery.' I now say distinctly, and I defy contradic- 
 tion, that the man or woman does not exist on earth or under 
 the earth who ever heard' me say one word, or saw me do one 
 act, savoring in the least of spiritual icifery, or any of the 
 attending abominations. My opinions on this subject are 
 unchanged, and I regard them as unchangeable. They are 
 established on a full consideration of all the Scriptures, both 
 ancient and modern, and the discipline of the church shall 
 conform thereto. But I do not profess to be omniscient, and if 
 any are found in this fault, not in my presence, it is necessary 
 that those who know the facts present them to the proper 
 council and attend to it. If, like many I know of, when a. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. KAYS. 187 
 
 brother finds others in this sin he renounces the prophet and 
 denies the faith, or like others stands still, HIS damnation is 
 sure. I know little difference between the herosy in the one 
 case or the other. James J. Strang, 
 
 "President of the Church. 
 "VoREE. August 6, 1847." 
 
 -Vol. 2, p. 88. 
 
 The October conference minutes for 1847 contain the follow- 
 ing' entries: 
 
 "James M. Adams, apostle, excommunicated for apostasy and 
 believiner the spiritual wife system. Delivered over to the 
 bufTetiiijjs oi Saian till he repent. And the whole congregation 
 lifted their hands against him. 
 
 "Benjamin C. Ellsworth, excommunicated for teaching and 
 practicing the spiritual wife system. Delivered over to the 
 i3utfetiMgs of Satan till the day of the Lord. And the whole 
 congregation lifted their hands against him." — Oospel Herald^ 
 Oct. 14, 1847, vol. 2, p. 122. 
 
 On December 23. 1847, J. W. Crane was tried before the First 
 Presidency, J. J. Stransr being present, and convicted under 
 niuH counts, the third being: 
 
 "Heresy; teaching that it is right to plunder unbelievers; 
 three witnesses. Teaching that saints may have other women 
 tiian one wife; five witnesses." — Qosp el Herald, vol. 2, p. 192. 
 
 These extracts show conclusively that whatever Strang may 
 have subsequently taught on this subject, he did not receive 
 the doctrine until more than three and a half years after the 
 Lieain of Joseph Smith. 
 
 In addition to the above we quote from a letter of Charles J. 
 Straiiii. son of J. J. Strang, under date of Jul}^ 18, 1882: 
 
 ••111 lS4(i, at Yoree, Strang pronounced a curse upon certain 
 ministers, a portion of which I here quote: 'As for those who, 
 Ls L'-ospi'l ministers, have assumed to teach ^uch damning, soul- 
 ilest roving doctrines (that deceit, fraud, lying, perjury, 
 plundering unbelievers, polygamy, fornication, and adultery 
 are required by the command of God in the upbuilding of his 
 kingdom) in the name of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, may 
 their bones rot in the living tomb of their flesh; may their flesh 
 generate from its own corruptions a loathsome life for others; 
 may their blood swarm a leprous life of motelike ghastly cor- 
 ruption, feeding on flowing life, generating chilling agues and 
 burning fevers. . . . And I prayed unto God, saying, Oh, God, 
 curse them not, and let me not raise my voice against my fel- 
 lows! But he said. Curse, curse, curse! I will altogether curse, 
 until they return to me, for they have perverted my law and 
 deceived my servants; unto the Destroyer shalt thou deliver 
 them, for their prayer is sin.' " 
 
188 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 CHARLES B. THOMPSON. 
 
 Charles B. Thompson claimed to be the Baneemy spoken of 
 in Doctrine and Covenants 102:8. He located at Preparation, 
 Monona county, Iowa. He placed himself upon record, by 
 presenting the following as revelation from God to him: 
 
 "And, behold, polygamy, or a plurality of wives, is an abomi- 
 nation before me, and is forever forbidden, in this my Holy 
 Presbytery of Zion, saith the Lord Jehovah." — The Law and 
 Covenants of Israel, pp. 184, 185. 
 
 J. C. BREWSTER. 
 
 The organization under Hazen Aldrich and J. C. Brewster, 
 usually called Brewsterites, which operated at Kirtland, Ohio, 
 and Springfield, Illinois, from 1848 and after, and some of 
 whom emigrated in 1850 to New Mexico or California, were 
 equally emphatic on this point. 
 
 In an article against polygamy by J. Goodale, one of their 
 Presidency, on July 29, 1849, occurs the following: 
 
 "The above is sufficient to silence every one that would dare 
 to teach the doctrine of polygamy and at the same time pretend 
 to believe in the Book of Mormon. And I believe that there is 
 not one of the different and conflicting parties into which the 
 church is divided, that teach or believe the doctrine of 
 polygamy, except that which has gone west under the 
 guidance of Brigham Young; and yet they are accusing all 
 of being apostates that cannot and will not follow their 
 teaching in all things." — Oli'De Branch, vol. 2, p. 20. 
 
 WILLIAM BICKERTON. 
 
 The declaration of the company or organization under 
 William Bickerton was no less emphatic upon this point. 
 Here is their declaration found in their articles of faith 
 published in a pamphlet issued by them called the Ensign, 
 page 20: 
 
 "We believe that a man shall have but one wife, and concu- 
 bines he shall have none: for I, the Lord God, delighteth in the 
 chastity of women, and whoredoms are an abomination before 
 me: thus saith the Lord of hosts. Again in the second chapter 
 of Malachi, verse 15: 'And did he not make one? Yet had he 
 the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might 
 seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let 
 none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.' " 
 
 So far as we have learned, polygamy and spiritual wifery 
 were confined for at least three j-ears after the death of Joseph 
 Smith unto such organizations as were controlled or influenced 
 by members of the Quorum of Twelve. The logical inference 
 therefore is that if there existed a common school where these 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 189 
 
 theories were inculcated, that school must have been in the 
 Quorum of the Twelve over which Briffham Younsr presided. 
 
 This inference too is made stronger when we consider a 
 statement made b\' Brigham Young, on June 21, 1874, as 
 reported in his organ, the Deseret News of July 1 of that year. 
 While speaking on this doctrine he said: 
 
 "While we were in England (in 1839 and 40), I think, the 
 Lord manifested to me by vision and his Spirit things that I 
 did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone 
 concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo; Joseph had 
 never mentioned this; there had never been a thought of it in 
 the church that I ever knew anything about at that time; but 
 I had this for myself, and I kept it to myself." — The Messenger, 
 vol. 1, p. 29. 
 
 It is only necessary to say in conclusion that when Elder 
 Young in August, 1852, desired the church to approve of the 
 revelation authorizing polygamy, he gave it a date nine years 
 previous to its presentation, and connected Joseph Smith's 
 name with it. He well knew that the name of Joseph Smith 
 was revered and honored by the people, and anything presented 
 in his name would be more likely to be approved than if com- 
 ing in his own name. 
 
 It is also quite significant that the witnesses by which Joseph 
 Smith's complicity with the doctrine is sought to be estab- 
 lished, have in a large majority of instances been themselves 
 Implicated in the practice before testifying. 
 
 Bays must have been ignorant of all this or he would 
 have refrained from saying that polygamy had "permeated 
 every branch and faction of the Mormon Church which 
 sprang up immediately after the death of the prophet." 
 The reverse is true; those who did adopt it with the 
 exception of the one under B. Young, adopted it later, and 
 not immediately after the death of the prophet. Some, and 
 a large majority of the factions, never did adopt it. 
 
 The following sworn statements are produced by Bays: 
 
 "To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 
 
 "We, Ebenezer Robinson and Angeline Robinson, husband 
 and wife, hereby certify that in the fall of 184H Hyrum Smith, 
 brother of Joseph Smith, came to our house at Nauvoo, Illinois, 
 and taught us the doctrine of polygamy. And I, the said 
 Ebenezer Robinson, hereby further state that he gave me 
 special instructions how I could manage the matter so as not to 
 have it known to the public. He also told us that while.he had 
 
190 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 heretofore opposed the doctrine, he was wrong and his brother 
 Joseph was right; referring to his teaching it. 
 
 'Ebenezer Robinson. 
 "Angeline E. Robinson. 
 "Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of Decem- 
 ber, 1873. [l. s.] J. M. Sallee, Notary Public." 
 
 "To AVHOM IT MAT concern: 
 
 "This is to certify that in the latter part of November, or in 
 December, 184.3, Hyrum Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, 
 President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) 
 came to my house in Nauvoo, Illinois, and taught me the 
 doctrine of spiritual wives, or polygamj'. 
 
 "He said he heard the voice of the Lord give the revelation 
 on spiritual wifery (polygamy) to his brother Joseph, and that 
 while he had heretofore opposed the doctrine, he was wrong, 
 and his brother Joseph was right all the time. 
 
 "He told me to make a selection of some young woman and 
 he would send her to me, and take her to my home, and if she 
 should have an heir, to give out word that she had a husband 
 who had gone on a mission to a foreign country. He seemed 
 disappointed when I declined to do so. E. Robinson. 
 
 ''Dams City, loioa, October S3, 1S85. 
 
 "Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and 
 for Decatur County, Iowa, this 24th day of October, A. D. 1885. 
 
 [l. s.] "Z. H. Gurley, Notarv Public." 
 
 —Pages 369-371. 
 
 These statements, if true, implicate no one but Hyrum 
 Smith; but their credibility is rendered doubtful by the 
 fact that these parties were associated with the Reorgani- 
 zation for many years, right at the time when representa- 
 tives of the church from pulpit and press were demanding 
 evidence that polygamy was taught by Joseph and Hyrum 
 Smith, and they were as silent as the tomb, until they 
 became disaffected, and in various ways tried to destroy 
 the fair fame of the church and its founders. Had they 
 known what they afterwards testified to, it would have 
 been the part of honesty and fairness to have said. 
 Brethren, you are wrong; for our experience is to the 
 contrary. But no, there was no protest, no correction of 
 error. On the contrary, Elder Robinson, on January 22, 
 1869, wrote of his experience in the Reorganization as 
 follows: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 191 
 
 For 3'ears I longed for the time to come when the same peace- 
 ful and pure Spirit would be poured out upon the church, 
 which was received and enjoyed at the beginning of the work 
 of the last days; behold here I find it, and why should I not 
 rejoice? 
 
 My lot, as you are aware, is to mingle almost constantly with 
 the business men of the world, and much of the time com- 
 paratively with strangers, and then to have the privilege of 
 sitting quietly in a brother's parlor and read of the dealings of 
 our heavenly Father with His children in different countries 
 and in different lands, furnishes such a happy contrast that I 
 am at a loss to find language to express my gratitude. — The 
 Saints' Herald, vol. 15, p. 121. 
 
 It will also be observed that these witnesses claim that 
 this interview with Hyrum Smith took place in the fall of 
 1843 — November or December — and that he then said "he 
 had heretofore opposed the doctrine;" while three of 
 Bays' witnesses; viz., Mrs. Thompson (p. 171), Leonard 
 Soby (p. 174), and David Fullmer (p. 175), declare that 
 Hyrum Smith read the revelation and indorsed the 
 doctrine on the 12th of August before. Bays should 
 notice that his witnesses condemn each other. 
 
 We think it unjust and improper to condemn Hyrum 
 Smith on this character of testimony. We might present 
 much more in refutation of Bays' allegation that Joseph 
 Smith was the author of polygamy, but having entirely 
 demolished the case of the prosecution, we rest here. 
 
CHAPTER 9. 
 
 The Gathering— Zion's Camp, Purpose of— Committees Negoti- 
 ate—Statement of Joseph Smith — Of Lyman Wight — Of H. 
 C. Kimball— Of P. P. Pratt— Garbling— Statement of Gillium 
 — Propositions of Mormons — More Garbling — Mistakes 
 Possible. 
 
 Elder Bays' next chapter is on the subject of "The 
 Gathering." Starting out as usual upon a false basis, he 
 arrives at some damaging conclusions. He assumes that 
 the revelation of February, 1834, provides for forcible and 
 literal subjugation; and that the Camp of Zlon which went 
 up to Missouri in 1834 went with the intention of opening 
 hostilities, forcibly taking possession of the land, and of 
 breaking down the walls, throwing down the tower, and 
 scattering the enemy by force of arms. From this stand- 
 point he deduces failure. We grant that some may have 
 so understood the situation, and that even some of the 
 participants may have been imbued with the war spirit; 
 but that this was not the understanding of the leaders is 
 evident. To establish this we have only to quote the 
 opinions of some as expressed at the time. While he and 
 others were east raising men and means for the expedition, 
 Joseph Smith explained the object to a meeting assembled 
 at Mr. Alvah Beman's in Livingston county, New York, 
 March 17, 1834. He states: 
 
 I stated that the object of the conference was to obtain young 
 men and middle aged to go and assist in the redemption of 
 Zion, according to the commandment; and for the church to 
 gather up their riches, and send them to purchase lands accord- 
 ing to the commandment of the Lord; also to devise means, or 
 obtain money for the relief of the brethren in Kirtland. say 
 two thousand dollars, which sum would deliver the church in 
 Kirtland from debt; and also determine the course which the 
 192 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 193 
 
 several companies shall pursue, or the manner they shall jour- 
 ney when they shall leave this place. — Church Historv, vol. 1, 
 p. 442. 
 
 It will be seen by this that his purpose was to gather 
 money and purchase the lands, and he claimed that this 
 was "according to the commandment of the Lord." Just 
 at that time negotiations were pending between the church 
 in Missouri and citizens of Jackson county, Missouri, for 
 one party or the other to purchase the interests of the 
 other. 
 
 At a meeting held at Liberty, Missouri, June 16, 1834, 
 a proposition was made by a committee from Jackson 
 county, Missouri, composed of Messrs. Samuel C. Owens, 
 Richard Fristoe, and Thomas Hayton, Sr. After making 
 certain propositions to buy out the Mormons, they say: 
 
 They further propose, that the people of Jackson will sell all 
 their lands, and improvements on public lands, in Jackson 
 County, to the Mormons,— the valuation to be obtained in the 
 same manner, — the same per cent, in addition to be paid, and 
 the time the money is to be paid is the same, as the above set 
 forth in our propositions to buy, the Mormons to give good 
 security for the payment of the money, and the undersigned 
 will give security that the land will be conveyed to the Mor- 
 mons. —Church History, vol. 1, p. 495. 
 
 On June 23, the following reply was made: 
 
 We the undersigned committee, having full power and 
 authority to settle and adjust all matters and differences 
 existing between our people or society and the inhabitants of 
 Jackson County, upon honorable and constitutional principles, 
 therefore, if the said inhabitants of Jackson County will not let 
 us return to our lands in peace, we are willing to propose, 
 firstly; that twelve disinterested men, six to be chosen by our 
 people, and six by the inhabitants of Jackson County; and 
 these twelve men shall say what the lands of those men are 
 worth in that county who cannot consent to live with us, and 
 they shall receive their money for the same in one year from 
 the time the treaty is made, and none of our people shall enter 
 the county to reside till the money is paid. The said twelve 
 men shall have power also to say what the damages shall be for 
 the injuries we have sustained in the destruction of property 
 
194 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 and in beingr driven from our possessions, which amount of 
 damajsres shall be deducted from the amount for their lands. 
 Our object is peace, and an early answer will be expected. 
 (Signed) W. W. Phelps. 
 
 Edward Partridgb. 
 
 Isaac Morley. 
 
 John Corrill. 
 
 John Whitmer. 
 
 A. S. Gilbert. 
 —Church History, vol. 1, p. 499. 
 
 By these extracts it will be seen that the church in Mis- 
 souri were negotiating for the purchase of the lands, at 
 the very time that their brethren in the east were coming 
 to their relief with means to relieve their suffering, and 
 assist them in purchasing lands. A part of the company 
 left Kirtland, Ohio, May 1, 1834, and Joseph Smith with 
 the remainder of the company started on the 5th. So they 
 were on their way when these notes were exchanged 
 between the two committees in Missouri. Had the church 
 in Missouri been expecting an army of conquest, they 
 would not have made propositions to buy. Joseph Smith 
 in his history, under date of May 5, 1834, says: 
 
 Having gathered and prepared clothing and other necessaries 
 to carry to our brethren and sisters who had been robbed and 
 plundered of nearly all their effects; and having provided for 
 ourselves horses and wagons, and firearms, and all sorts of 
 munitions of war of the most portable kind for self-defense, as 
 our enemies were thick on every hand, I started with the 
 remainder of the company, from Kirtland, for Missouri, and on 
 the (jth we arrived, and joined our brethren who had gone 
 before, at New Portage, about fifty miles distance. — Church 
 History, vol. 1, pp. 454, 455. 
 
 From this it appears that their purpose was to supply 
 the wants of their brethren, and the "munitions of war" 
 were simply to be used in "self-defense," and not aggres- 
 sively. 
 
 The following from the private journal of Lyman Wight, 
 one of the active participants, under date of April 13, 
 1834, agrees substantially with the foregoing: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 195 
 
 Preached to a large confrrecration (in Kirtland) upon the sub- 
 ject of having been driven fronn Jackson County, of our 
 extreme sufferings, and of the great necessity of being obedi- 
 ent to the commandments; and also the necessity of those of 
 like faith sympathizing with their brothers and sisters. This 
 discourse appeared to have a good effect; about seventy volun- 
 teered to fiy to their relief even if death should be the 
 consequence thereof. Many donated largely of their substance 
 to supplj'- the wants of the needy. I spent the night with Bro. 
 Joseph, and had much conversation with him concerning our 
 peculiar circumstances. — Church History, vol. 1, p. 443. 
 
 The follov^ing, from the pen of H. C. Kimball, also a 
 leading participant, will be in point: 
 
 At this time also our brethren were suffering great persecu- 
 tion in Jackson County, Missouri; about twelve hundred were 
 driven, plundered, and robbed; and their houses burned and 
 some were killed. The whole country seemed to be in arms 
 ■Jigainst us, ready to destroy us. Brother .loseph received a 
 lenirthy revelation concerning the redemption of Zion, which, 
 remains to be fulfilled in a great measure. But he thought it 
 best to gather together as many of the brethren as he con- 
 veniently could, with what means they could spare, and go up 
 to Zion to render all the assistance that we could to our 
 «.fflicted brethren. We gathered clothing and other necessaries 
 to carry up to our brethren and sisters who had been stripped; 
 and putting our horses to the wagons, and taking our firelocks 
 and ammunition, we started on our journey; leaving only 
 Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and the workmen who were 
 engaged at the temple; so that there were very few men left in 
 Kirtland. Our wagons were about full with baggage, etc., 
 consequently we had to travel on foot. We started on the 5th 
 of May, and truly this was a solemn morning to me. I took 
 leave of my wife and children and friends, not expecting ever 
 to see them again, as myself and brethren were threatened 
 both in that country and in Missouri by the enemies, that they 
 would destroy us and exterminate us from the land. — Church 
 History, vol. 1, p. 456. 
 
 To this we add the statement of P. P. Pratt, who also 
 took an active part in the expedition: 
 
 It was now the first of May, 1834, and our mission had 
 resulted in the assembling of about two hundred men at 
 Ivirtland, with teams, baggage, provisions, arms, etc., for a 
 march of one thousand miles, for the purpose of carrying some 
 supplies to the afflicted and persecuted saints in Missouri, and 
 t) reinforce and strengthen them; and, if possible, to influence 
 
196 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 the Governor of the State to call out sufficient additional force 
 to cooperate in restoring them to their rights. This little army 
 was led by President Joseph Smith in person. It commenced 
 its march about the first of May. Passing through Ohio, 
 Indiana, and Illinois, it entered Missouri sometime in June. — 
 Church History, vol. 1, pp. 456, 457. 
 
 These witnesses and circumstances agree as to the pur- 
 pose of the expedition, and show that the purpose was not 
 aggressive warfare. This is in harmony with instruction 
 previously given, and with which the Saints were well 
 acquainted. In a revelation given in August, 1831, occurs 
 the following: 
 
 I, the Lord, willeth, that you should purchase the lands, that 
 you may have advantage of the world, that you may have claim 
 on the world, that they may not be stirred up unto anger; for 
 Satan putteth it into their hearts to anger against you, and to 
 the shedding of blood; wherefore the land of Zion shall not be 
 obtained but by purchase, or by blood, otherwise there is none 
 inheritance for you. And if by purchase, behold, you are 
 blessed; and if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, 
 your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city 
 to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall 
 stand to receive an inheritance. — Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 
 63, par. 8. 
 
 By this they were given to understand that they would 
 not have power over their enemies in a resort to arms, but 
 would be scourged from city to city; hence when the reve- 
 lation of February, 1834, was given containing some 
 strong language which might have been construed into a 
 hostile declaration, they very sensibly interpreted it in 
 harmony with former instruction, and made preparation 
 to buy the land. Nor can the revelation in question be 
 legitimately interpreted to justify a resort to arms only in 
 defense. Here it becomes our painful duty to again expose 
 Bays' trickery in quoting the passage so as to leave out 
 the main point concerning the command to purchase the 
 land, thus revealing an unmistakable design to deceive- 
 Here is the passage as Bays quotes it: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 197 
 
 ♦'Therefore let my servant Baurak Ale say unto the strength of 
 -my house, my middle aared. traiher yourselves to^rether unto the 
 landofZion; . . . and inasmuch as mine enemies come against 
 yuu to drive you from my goodly land, . . . ye shall curse them; 
 and whomsoever ye curse I will curse; and ye shall avenge me 
 of mine enemies; and my presence shall be with you, even in 
 avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth gen- 
 eration of them that hate me."— Page 401. 
 
 The following is the same passage as it occurs in the 
 book : 
 
 Ttierefore, let my servant Baurak Ale say unto the strength 
 ■of my house, my young men and the middle aged. Gather your- 
 selves too-ether unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I 
 have bought with moneys that have been consecrated unto me; 
 and let all the churches send up wise men, with their moneys, 
 and purchase lands even as I have commanded them; and inas- 
 much as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my 
 goodlv land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion; 
 f^ven "^from vour own lands after these testimonies, which ye 
 have brought before me, against them, ye shall curse them; 
 and whomsoever ye curse, I will curse: and ye shall avenge me 
 of mine enemies; and my presence shall be with you, even in 
 avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth gen- 
 eration of them that hate me.— Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 
 100, par. 5. 
 
 This is but a fair specimen of Bays' garbling in the 
 quotations he has made upon this subject. 
 
 As further evidence that the intention was not hostility 
 towards Missouri, we invite attention to their act in send- 
 ing a delegation to the governor of Missouri soon after 
 entering the state to acquaint him with their purpose. 
 The following is from the autobiography of P. P. Pratt: 
 
 Arriving in the Allred settlement, near Salt River, Missouri, 
 -where there was a large branch of the church, the camp rested 
 a little, and dispatched Elder Orson Hyde and myself to Jeffer- 
 son City, to request of His Excellency, Governor Daniel 
 Dunklin, a sufficient military force, with orders to reinstate 
 ihe exiles, and protect them in the possession of their homes 
 in Jackson County. —Church History, vol. 1, p. 471. 
 
 June 22, 1834, Cornelius Gillium, sheriff of Clay county, 
 
 Missouri, visited the camp of the Saints, and subsequently 
 
 made the following statement: 
 
198 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 "Beini? a citizen of Claj' county, and knowing that there i» 
 considerable excitement amon<rsl tlie people thereof; and also 
 knowing tliat different reports are arriving almost hourly: and 
 being requested by the Hon. J. F. Ryland, to meet the Mor- 
 mons under arms, and obtain from the leaders thereof the 
 correctness of the various reports in circulation — the true 
 intent and meaning of their present movements, and their 
 views generally regarding the difficulties existing between 
 them and Jackson county— I did, in company with other 
 gentlemen, call upon the said leaders of the Mormons, at their 
 camp, in Clay county; and now give to the people of Clay 
 county their written statement, containing the substance of 
 what passed between us. (Signed) 
 
 "Cornelius Gillium." 
 
 propositions, &c. of the "mormons." 
 
 "Being called upon by the above named gentlemen, at our 
 camp, in Clay county, to ascertain from the leaders of our 
 men, our intentions, views, and designs, in approaching this 
 county in the manner that we have: we therefore, the more 
 cheerfully comply with their request, because we are called 
 upon by gentlemen of good feelings, and who are disposed for 
 peace and an amicable adjustment of the difficulties existing 
 between us and the people of Jackson county. The reports of 
 our intentions are various, and have gone abroad in a light 
 calculated to arouse the feelings of almost every man. — For 
 instance, one report is, that we intend to demolish the printing 
 office in Liberty; another report is, that we intend crossing the 
 Missouri River on Sunday next, and falling upon women and 
 children, and slaying them; another is, that our men were 
 employed to perform this expedition, being taken from 
 manufacturing establishments in the East -that had closed 
 business; also, that we carried a flag bearing peace on one 
 side and war or blood on the other; and various others too 
 numerous to mention. All of which, a plain declaration of our 
 intentions, from under our own hands, will show are not 
 correct. In the first place, it is not our intention to commit 
 hostilities against any man or set of men. It is not our 
 intention to injure any man's person or propert3% except in 
 defending ourselves. Our flag has been exhibited to the above 
 gentlemen, who will be able to describe it. Our men were not 
 taken from any manufacturing establishment. It is our 
 intention to go back upon our lands in Jackson county, by 
 order of the Executive of the State, if possible. We have 
 brought our arms with us for the purpose of self-defense, as 
 it is well known to almost every man of the State that we 
 have every reason to put ourselves in an attitude of defense, 
 considering the abuse we have suffered in Jackson county.. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 199 
 
 We are anxious for a settlement of the difficulties existing^ 
 between us. upon honorable and constitutional principles. 
 We are willing for twelve disinterested men, six to be chosen 
 by each party, and tliese men shall say what the possessions 
 of those men are worth who cannot live with us in the county; 
 and they shall have their money in one year; and none of the 
 Mormons shall enter that county to reside until the money is 
 paid. The damages that we have sustained in consequence of 
 beins driven away, shall also be left to the above twelve men. 
 Or ihey may all live in the county, if they choose, and we will 
 never molest them if they will let us alone and permit us to 
 enioy our ricrhts. We want to live in peace with all men, 
 and equal rights is all we ask. We wish to become 
 permanent citizens of this State, and wish to bear our pro- 
 portion in support of the Government, and to be protected by 
 its laws. If the above proposals are complied with, we are 
 willing to give security on our part; and we shall want the 
 same of the people of Jackson county for the performance of 
 this a.crreement. We do not wish to settle down in a body, 
 except where we can purchase the lands with money: for to 
 take possession by conquest or the sheddincr of blood, is entirely 
 foreign to our fee"lings. The shedding of blood we shall not be 
 guiltv of, until all just and honorable means among men prove 
 insufficient to restore Tpe&ce/'—JSvening and Morning Star, vol. 
 2, p. 351. 
 
 The above document was signed by the following^ per- 
 sons: Joseph Smith, Jun., F. G. Williams, Lyman Wight, 
 Eoger Orton, Orson Hyde, and J. S. Carter. 
 
 The premises of Elder Bays being thus completely 
 demolished, it will be unnecessary to follow him to his^ 
 conclusions. 
 
 It is quite possible that had the churches in the east 
 responded as it was in their power to do, the rights of the 
 chief mobocrats in Jackson county could have been pur- 
 chased, and thus the walls of the enemy broken, their 
 tower thrown down, and their watchmen scattered. They 
 were promised success only upon conditions of obedience. 
 Here it will be necessary to record another instance of 
 Bays' duplicity. In order to form a conclusion of a failure 
 in the revelation, he gives a garbled quotation, leaving out 
 the conditions upon which the Saints were to prevail, ar.d 
 
200 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 making it to re id as though it were an unconditional 
 promise. As Bays quotes it: 
 
 Behold they shall, for I have decreed it,, begin to prevail 
 against mine enemies /ro/n this very hour, . . . and they shall 
 7iever cease to prevail until the kingdoms of the world [the 
 United States with the rest] are subdued under my feet. — 
 Page 402. 
 
 As it is: 
 
 Behold, they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail 
 against mine enemies from this very hour, and by hearkening 
 to observe all the words which I, the Lord their God. shall 
 speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the 
 kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet; and the 
 earth is given unto the saints, to possess it forever and ever. — 
 Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 100, par. 2. 
 
 The instances given in this chapter ought to warn the 
 reader that it is unsafe to believe anything Bays says, or 
 to accept any quotation he makes without further investi- 
 gation. The quotation given above continues by giving 
 the consequences of failure to keep the commandments of 
 God. It reads as follows: 
 
 But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and 
 hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the 
 world shall prevail against them, for they were set to be a light 
 unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; and inasmuch as 
 they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its 
 savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out 
 and trodden under foot of men. 
 
 The Fishing River revelation was consistent, then, in the 
 following: 
 
 Verily I say unto you, who have assembled yourselves 
 together that you may learn my will concerning the redemp- 
 tion of mine afflicted people: — 
 
 Behold, 1 say unto you, Were it not for the transgressions of 
 my people, speaking concerning the church and not indi- 
 viduals, they might have been redeemed even now; but, 
 behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things 
 which I require at their hands, but are full of all manner of 
 evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, 
 to the poor and afflicted among them, and are not united 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 201 
 
 nccording to the union required by the law of the celestial 
 kingdom; and Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the prin- 
 ciples of the law of the celestial kingdom, otherwise I cannot 
 receive her unto, myself; and my people must needs be 
 chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by 
 the thing:s which they suffer. 
 
 I speak not concerning those who are appointed to lead my 
 people, who are the first elders of my church, for they are not 
 all under this condemnation; but I speak concerning my 
 churches abroad; there are many who will say. Where is their 
 God? Behold, he will deliver in time of trouble; otherwise we 
 will not go up unto Zion, and will keep our moneys. There- 
 fore, in consequence of the transgression of my people, it is 
 expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season 
 for the redemption of Zion, that they themselves may be pre- 
 pared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and 
 have experience, and know more perfectly, concerning their 
 duty, and the things which 1 require at their hands; and this 
 cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with 
 power from on high; for, behold, I have prepared a great 
 endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch 
 as they are faithful, and continue in humility before me; 
 therefore, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait 
 for a little season, for the redemption of Zion; for, behold, I do 
 not require at their hands to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I 
 said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfill, I will 
 fight your battles. — Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 102, pars. 1-3. 
 
 Bays goes on with his account of the Missouri troubles 
 until the expulsion of the Saints in 1839. It is only neces- 
 sary to say that he continues his policy of misstating facts 
 and garbling quotations. Certainly the reader has seen 
 examples enough to render it useless to follow him further. 
 We are willing to carefully examine any honest criticism 
 of the faith we advocate, but we confess to indignant 
 disgust at such trickery as is found in these — Haggard's 
 "children of Providence." 
 
 That there may have been mistakes made by Joseph 
 Smith and others connected with him we do not deny. 
 None of them ever claimed to be infallible, but the work 
 as a whole is evidence that a divine mind was leading in 
 the fundamental principles and policies. Without it they 
 could not have accomplished what they did. Their work 
 
202 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 today needs no apology. It only needs to be understood. 
 That there are defects we concede, but it is wonderful to 
 us that there are no more. We think it possible that the 
 Saints in Missouri retaliated in some instances upon their 
 persecutors, which from a Christian standpoint was 
 wrong; but when we read of the indignities heaped upon 
 them, though far removed from the scenes our blood boils 
 with indignation, and we wonder how they stood it as well 
 as they did. We think it possible, under the extreme 
 provocation, that some of Zion's Camp were ready to take 
 summary vengeance, but were overruled. Surely there 
 was a restraining hand wiser anci more powerful than that 
 governed by human feeling and human impulse. 
 
CHAPTER 10. 
 
 Prophecy on Rebellion — Bays' Conclusions — Conclusions 
 Examined-Letter to N. E. Seaton— Affidavit of N. D. Earl- 
 Statement of John Hyde-Letter to Calhoun-Nation's Woe 
 — Saints' Loyalty — Missouri's Diso:race — Quincy Argus -- 
 Democratic AssociSition— Western 3Iessenger—Gener-^\ Ewin^'s 
 Order— Cause of "Injured Innocence"— Petition to President 
 Hayes— Patriot— Revelation of 1832— Evidence of Fulfillment 
 — Conclusion. 
 
 Bays next writes under the caption of ''Prophecies of 
 Joseph Smith— Were they Fulfilled?" He begins by an 
 examination of the following revelation: 
 
 "Verily thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will 
 shortly come to pass, beginninoj at the rebellion of South 
 Carolina, which will eventually terminate in tiie death and 
 misery of many souls. The days will come that war will be 
 poured out upon all nations, beginning at that place; for 
 behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the North- 
 ern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, 
 even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall 
 also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves 
 a«-ainst other nations; and thus war shall be poured out upon 
 all nations. And it shall come to pass after many days, slaves 
 shall rise up against their Masters, who shall be marshalled and 
 disciplined for war: And it shall come to pass also, that the 
 remnants who are left of the land will marshall themselves, and 
 shall become exceeding angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with 
 a sore vexation; and thus, with the sword, and by bloodshed, 
 the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and 
 plague, and earthquakes, and the thunder of Heaven, and the 
 fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the 
 earth be made to feel the wrath, and indiffnation and chasten- 
 ino-hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed, 
 ha'th made a full end of all nations; that the cry of the Saints; 
 and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the 
 ears of the Lord of Sabbaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of 
 their enemies. Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not 
 moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh 
 quicklv, saith the Lord. Amen.'' — Fearl of Great Frice^ 
 page 35. ^03 
 
204 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Mr. Bays thinks that this revelation was prompted by 
 the then existing trouble in South Carolina, consequent 
 upon "the threatened dissolution of the American Union 
 by the famous nullification act of the legislature of South 
 Carolina, in November, 1832;" and hence as it had not its 
 fulfillment during that trouble it was a failure. To a cer- 
 tain extent this trouble may have been the remote cause 
 that produced the revelation. The mind of the prophet 
 may have been exercised by the unrest and trouble in the 
 country consequent upon the attitude of South Carolina, 
 and in this condition of anxiety he may have made inquiry 
 as to final results. In answer to this inquiry he may have 
 received the above communication. To those acquainted 
 with the situation it will not be necessary for us to state 
 that the trouble in South Carolina from 1828-1833 was not 
 settled until the conclusion of the Civil War. The Com- 
 promise Tariff Act of Henry Clay, adopted in 1833, averted 
 hostilities for a time; but the same issue denominated, 
 ^^ States Rig?tts,'' existed until it culminated in the War of 
 the Rebellion. Johnson's Cyclopedia, article Nullification, 
 expresses the condition. It is as follows: 
 
 Gen. Jackson's measures, his proclamation, just described, 
 and his special message to congress of Jan., 1833, on the same 
 subject, turned the tide so far in favor of his views of con- 
 stitutional law that the other Southern States, as well as the 
 Northern, decidedly approved of his course. South Carolina, 
 propitiated by a modification of the tariff — Mr. Clay's Com- 
 promise, so called — abandoned the ordinance of nullification, 
 and the heresy slept awhile to awake again, revived and more 
 intense, after a generation. 
 
 It may be possible, as Mr. Bays suggests, that some of 
 the indorsers of the revelation, expecting a more speedy 
 consummation, despaired, and thought the prediction a 
 failure. This would be but natural, but the wonderful 
 part of it is that the leading features of this revelation 
 were subsequently fulfilled, notwithstanding the scoffs of 
 its enemies and the fears of its friends. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 205 
 
 This revelation was published before its fulfillment. We 
 quote it from a publication now before us, called ^^The 
 Pearl of Great Price,'' published by F. D. Richards, in 
 Liverpool, England, 1851. 
 
 From this revelation Elder Bays deduces the following 
 ten propositions: 
 
 1. South Carolina should rebel, (had rebelled, in fact) and 
 war between the States should follow. 
 
 2. The Southern States should call upon Great Britain for 
 assistance. 
 
 3. Great Britain should call upon other nations, in order to 
 defend herself against other nations, and thus become seriously 
 involved in war. 
 
 4. This action should result in the formation of alliances, 
 both offensive and defensive, between all the great powers of 
 earth. 
 
 5. And wars should thus be poured out upon all nations^ 
 beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina. 
 
 6. "And it shall come to pass after many days that slaves 
 shall rise up against their masters, who should be marshaled 
 and disciplined for war." 
 
 7. "The remnants who are left of the land," were to become 
 "exceeding angry and vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." 
 
 8. During these perilous times the Saints should stand in 
 holy places, — that is, in Zion (Independence) and her "stakes," 
 (other places of safety— See Doc. and Cov., pages 153 and 266) 
 and should not he moved. 
 
 9. "And thus with the sword and by bloodshed, the inhabit- 
 ants of the earth shall mourn;" and famine, pleague and earth- 
 quakes, and the thunder of heaven, and fierce and vivid 
 lightning should never cease "until the consumption decreed" 
 of God had made a '■'■full end of all nations.'' 
 
 10. The final consummation of all things was at hand, when 
 Christ should "come quickly," in power and great glory.— 
 Page 428. 
 
 One who will compare these deductions with the docu- 
 ment will discover that they are not all legitimate. 
 
 Taking them up in their order we will briefly consider 
 them: 
 
 Proposition 1 is correct except the parenthetical state- 
 ment. South Carolina had not rebelled, but had only 
 threatened to do so. That she did subsequently rebel is 
 
206 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 admitted by E^der Bays. This was not until twenty-eight 
 years after the prediction was made, and nine years after 
 the publication was issued from which we quote. 
 
 Proposition 2 is a proper deduction, and was exactly 
 fulfilled by the Southern Confederacy during the War of 
 the Rebellion, as Mr. Bays admits. 
 
 Proposition 3 is unwarranted. The antecedent of the 
 pronoun tluy in the clause "they shall also call upon other 
 rations," cannot be Great Britain. Great Britain is not 
 they, but she or it. To make out this deduction he changes 
 the number of the pronoun, and where the document says, 
 "In order to defend themselves,'' he says "in order to defend 
 herself.'" Evidently the pronoun they has for its antecedent 
 the "other nations" upon whom the Southern States would 
 call, and not Great Britain alone. 
 
 The following will show conclusively that the Southern 
 States did call upon other nations: 
 
 The public questions arising out of our foreign relations were 
 too important to be overlooked. At the end of the first year of the 
 war the Confederate States had been recognized by the leading 
 governments of Europe as a belligerent power. This continued 
 unchanged to the close. Mr. Mason became our representative 
 in London, Mr. Slidell in Paris, Mr. Rost in Spain, and Mr. 
 Mann in Belgium. They performed with energy and skill the 
 positions, but were unsuccessful in obtaining our recognition 
 as an independent power. . . . 
 
 But, when a portion of the States withdrew from the com- 
 pact and formed a new one under the name of the Confederate 
 States, they had made such organic changes in their Constitu- 
 tion as to require official notice in compliance with the usages 
 of nations. 
 
 For this purpose the Provisional Government took early 
 measures for sending to Europe Commissioners charged with 
 the duty of visiting the capitals of the different powers and 
 making arrangements for the opening of more formal diplo- 
 matic intercourse. Prior, however, to the arrival abroad of 
 these Commissioners, the Government of the United States had 
 addressed communications to the different Cabinets of Europe, 
 in which it assumed the attitude of being sovereign over the 
 Confederate Slates, and alleged that these independent States 
 ■were in rebellion against the remaining States of the Union, 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 207 
 
 ■and threatened Europe with manifestations of its displeasure if 
 it should treat the Confederate States as havinjr an independent 
 existence It soon became known that these pretensions were 
 not considered abroad to be as absurd as they were known to be 
 at home; nor had Europe vet learned what reliance was to be 
 placed in the official statements of the Cabinet at Washington 
 The delegation of power granted by the States to the General 
 Government to represent them in foreign intercourse had led 
 European nations into the grave error of supposing that their 
 separate sovereignty and independence had been merged into 
 one common sovereignty, and had ceased to have a distinct 
 existence. Under the influence of this error, which all appeals 
 to reason and historical fact were vainly used to dispel, our 
 •Commissioners were met by the declaration that foreign Gov- 
 ernments could not assume to judge between the conflicting 
 representations of the two parties as to the true nature of their 
 previous relations. The Governments of Great Britain and 
 France accordingly signified their determination to confine 
 themselves to recognizing the self-evident fact of the existence 
 of a war, and to maintain a strict neutrality during its 
 procuress. Some of the other powers of Europe pursued the 
 sam'e course of policy, and it became apparent that by some 
 understanding, express or tacit. Europe had decided to leave 
 the initiative'in all action touching the contest on this conti- 
 nent to the two powers just named, who were recognized to 
 have the largest interests involved, both by reason of proximity 
 to and of the extent of intimacy of their commercial relations 
 with the States engaged in war.— The Rise and Fall of the Con- 
 federate Government, by Jefferson Davis, vol. 2, pp. 367-db9. 
 
 The expression, "And they shall also call upon other 
 nations, in order to defend themselves against other 
 nations," does not necessarily connect their doing so with 
 the war between the states, but is simply a declaration 
 that sometime in the future other nations would adopt the 
 policy adopted by the Southern States in calling upon other 
 nations in order to defend themselves, and thus, or by the 
 adoption of this policy, "War shall be poured out upon all 
 nations." 
 
 That such a policy has in a measure been adopted, and 
 may be more extensively adopted in the future, none can 
 deny. There is nothing in the document by which we may 
 ■infer that the war poured out upon all nations would be 
 
208 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 the direct result of the war between the states. Many of 
 the nations have been involved in war since, and the spirit 
 of war is just now quite prevalent, and also the policy of 
 nations acting in concert against other nations is quite 
 popular. 
 
 His fourth proposition has not the shadow of a basis in 
 the document, and hence we pass it without further 
 comment. 
 
 Strike out the word tJms from his fifth proposition, and 
 the deduction would be legitimate; but in the connection 
 in which he uses it this word is misleading. 
 
 Proposition six is a correct statement, and had a literal 
 fulfillment. At the beginning of the war the slaves were 
 not employed in active service, but "after many days" 
 they rose up against their masters, and were marshalled 
 and disciplined for war. Mr. Bays raises a technical point 
 here and says: 
 
 Latter Day Saints claim, however, that the proposition which 
 says ''slaves shall rise up against their masters," was also ful- 
 filled. But this is not true. The negroes of the South did not 
 rebel against their masters; neither were they marshaled and 
 disciplined for war, as the prophecy declares. After the 
 famous emancipation proclamation of Abraham Lincoln there 
 were no more "slaves" in the South— they were all now freed 
 men. These freed men rushed to the support of the govern- 
 ment, and were enlisted into the Union army. But no slave 
 ever rose against his master, and no slave was marshaled and 
 disciplined for war. — Page 429. 
 
 This is simply a quibble, and a manifest disposition to 
 resort to trifling technicalities. He is not technically 
 right, however. Men were held in bondage after the 
 Emancipation Proclamation. It did not make them free. 
 It was a war measure proclaimed by the Commander-in- 
 Chief of the army to meet a military emergency. It raised 
 an issue that was not settled until the close of the war. 
 Had the fortunes of war decided in favor of the other side, 
 they would have continued to be slaves. From the stand- 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 209 
 
 point of civil law they were legally slaves, for the law 
 permitted it. When the military emergency, for which 
 the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, had passed, 
 they could have been legally held in bondage, had not 
 measures been taken to enact the principle contained in 
 the Proclamation into law. This was admitted by the 
 advocates of freedom, as evidenced by the recognized 
 necessity for the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment 
 to the Constitution of the United States, which was pro- 
 claimed to be in force December 18, 1865. There is 
 another consideration which has perhaps escaped Elder 
 Bays' attention; viz., that the effect of the Emancipation 
 Proclamation was not general, but confined to states and 
 parts of states in actual rebellion against the United 
 States. The Proclamation in itself in defining where it 
 was to be in force names the following: 
 
 Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Ber- 
 nard. Plaquemities, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, 
 Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, 
 St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), 
 Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Georgia, South Carolina, North 
 Carolina, and Virfrinia (except the forty-eight counties desig- 
 nated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, 
 Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, 
 and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), 
 and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as 
 if this proclamation were not issued. 
 
 It will be seen that parts of Louisiana and Virginia are 
 expressly excluded from the effects of this Proclamation, 
 while the slave states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, 
 Tennessee, and Kentucky, are not included. 
 
 Generally speaking, we say the slaves were freed'by the 
 Emancipation Proclamation, because it was the cause 
 leading up to this result, but when we accommodate Bays 
 by resorting to technicalities, he is as usual wrong. So 
 long as the war lasted, the slaves were not actually free, 
 but in that struggle they fought against their masters 
 
210 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 when their own freedom was an issue that was trembling 
 in the balance. 
 
 Mr. John S. C. Abbott, one of the leading historians of 
 the day, in his "History of the Civil War in America," in 
 describing the battle of Milliken's Bend, says: 
 
 Here the slaves and their masters were brought face to face 
 in the death-gripe, and the masters bit the dust.— Vol. 2, p. 291. 
 
 So this part of the prediction was literally fulfilled, and 
 Bays' quibble is only evidence of the weakness of his 
 position. 
 
 Proposition 7 is correctly stated. We submit that the 
 words, "the remnants who are left of the land," could be 
 more properly applied to the American Indians, the 
 remnants left of the original inhabitants, than to any one 
 else. That they did on many occasions since then become 
 "exceeding angry, and vex the Gentiles with a sore vexa- 
 tion," none can deny. 
 
 On this point we present the evidence and argument 
 presented by Elder W. W. Blair in his answer to William 
 Sheldon in 1889, as follows: 
 
 And "the remnants who are left of the land, [the Indians], 
 will marshal themselves, and shall become exceeding angry, 
 and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." This is pre- 
 cisely what has been done. The Indians did "marshal 
 themselves" against the whites as early as in August 1862, and 
 they have been waging war against them from time to time 
 until the present. The massacre in Minnesota, which took 
 place August, 1862, was a terribly cruel and heart-rending 
 affair. Two thousand persons were barbarously slaughtered in 
 a few hours. Nameless outrages were perpetrated; and the 
 losses sustained, pecuniarily, by the government and by 
 individuals, amounted to over $25,000,000. A writer has 
 graphically said: 
 
 "From the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers on the rock-bound 
 coast of New England, in the winter of 1620, until their 
 descendants had passed the center of the continent, and 
 reached the lovely plains of Minnesota, no exhibition of Indian 
 character had so atflicted and appalled the soul of humanity, 
 as the fearful and deliberate massacre perpetrated by them in 
 August, 1862. . . . The blow fell like a storm of thunderbolts 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 211 
 
 from the clear, bri-ht heavens. The storm of fierce, savage 
 murder, in its most horrid and friorhtful forms, rolled on. Day 
 passed and ni^ht came, until the sad catalogue reached the 
 fearful number of two thovsand human victims, from the gray- 
 haired sire to the helpless infant of a day, who lay wangled and 
 dead on the ensanguined field. ... In two days the whole 
 work of murder was done, with here and there exceptional 
 cases in different settlements. And, during these two days a 
 population of thirty thousand, scattered over some *V-^^,^^^^' 
 ties, on the western borders of the State, on foot, on horseback 
 with teams of oxen and horses, under the "?o""«"^^.°;^„^^^^^'l^ 
 panic thus created, were rushing wildly and frantically over 
 the prairies to places of safety. "-/nfZ^•«^^ Massacres 
 
 The Indians "marshaled themselves" as foreshown in the 
 prophecy,-no whites having a hand in that matter. The bad 
 Latmeni which they had received from the ^J^^^es-the 
 Indian agents and traders in particular-nad much to do in 
 causing these outrages,-it made them "exceeding ^ngry - 
 yet as said before, the whites had nothing to do in marshaling 
 them, or directing them in their sanguinary work. 
 
 These Indian wars are costly as well as cruel; and hence, in 
 more ways than one, are they "a sore vexation to our tax- 
 burdened nation. It has been reported that for every Indian 
 captured and killed during some of the Indian wars since_1862, 
 it has cost the whites the lives of nine white men, and $o,000,- 
 000 in money. This may be a slight exaggeration, yet it is 
 probably not'far from the truth. The enormous expense, with 
 the loss of human life, and the various perplexities connected 
 with these wars, and the whole Indian question are sources of 
 "sore vexation" to the whites, and from which there are no 
 prospects of speedy and permanent rehef.-Joseph the beer, 
 pp. 187, 188. 
 
 Proposition 8 is a misstatement of the case. The reve- 
 lation does not say, "During these perilous times the 
 Saints should stand in holy places." It says, "Wherefore, 
 stand ye in holy places," partaking of the nature of a com- 
 mand and not of a prediction. Whether the Saints did or 
 did not obey that command will not affect the prophetic 
 features of the document. 
 
 Proposition 9 is quite fairly stated, but a clearer under- 
 standing can be had by quoting the language of the revela- 
 tion itself, which is as follows: 
 
 With the sword, and by bloodshed, the inhabitants of the 
 «arth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earth- 
 
212 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 quakes, and the thunder of Heaven, and the fierce and vivid 
 lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to 
 feel the wrath, and indignation and chastening hand of an 
 Almighty God, until the consumption decreed, hath made a 
 full end of all nations; that the cry of the Saints, and of the 
 blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the 
 Lord of Sabbaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their 
 enemies. — Pearl of Great Price, p. 35. 
 
 One peculiar feature of this prophecy is that at its date 
 the blood of the Saints of this generation had not been 
 shed. Though there had been some persecution, there 
 was no possible means whereby Joseph Smith by his 
 unaided foresight could have determined that many, 
 including himself, would seal their testimony with their 
 lives, and yet such was the case. In about one year 
 afterward, violent persecution began in Jackson county, 
 Missouri, and the Saints were robbed, plundered, and 
 driven from their homes. Fleeing from their persecutors 
 there, they had a short season of comparative peace; but 
 in 1837 persecution again stretched forth her relentless 
 and bloody hands, resulting in 1838 in the expulsion of the 
 Saints from the state after having suffered more than 
 tongue or pen can describe, and many being slain. So 
 great and so manifest was the injustice with which they 
 were treated, that even Bays, notwithstanding his bitter- 
 ness, condemns it as follows: 
 
 While the Mormons, and more especially the leaders, were 
 doubtless responsible for li liberal sliare of these troubles, yet 
 for this flagrant outrage upon the rights and liberties of free 
 American citizens, there cannot be ottered even the shadow of 
 excuse. The plea that the Mormons had violated the laws of 
 the State cannot be offered in jastitication of so grave an 
 offense against the cause of humanity, and the peace and 
 dignity of the State of Missouri. If the Mormons had violated 
 the laws of the State, as tiieir enemies charged, why not try 
 -them for their offenses, and if found guilty, punish them 
 according to the provisions of the law they are charged with 
 having violated? To say they could not be convicted, if guilty, 
 cannot be entered as a plea in abatement of the offense, for cer- 
 tainly if the State had the power to expel the entire Mormon. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 213 
 
 citizenship from the State, it must have possessed the power to 
 enforce its laws against the individual transgressor. 
 
 It matters not what their peculiarities, or how absurd may 
 appear the tenets of their religion, they were American citizens, 
 amenable to the laws of the country, and as such should have 
 been protected in their rights of citizenship. A great nation, a 
 sovereign State and a large-minded, liberty-loving people can 
 well afford to deal justly, even with "Mormons." The scenes 
 of Independence and Carthage can never again be repeated in 
 the United States, and well for the honor of a great nation that 
 it is so.— Pages 896, 397. 
 
 The massacre of Haun's Mill was one of the most bar- 
 barous acts ever known in history. Of this Bancroft 
 says : 
 
 While the men were at their work out of doors, the women in 
 the house, and the children playing about the yards, the crack 
 of a hundred rifles was heard, and before the firing ceased, 
 eighteen of these unoffending people were stretched dead upon 
 the ground, while many more were wounded. I will not enter 
 upon the sickening details, which are copious and fully proven; 
 suffice it to say, that never in savage or other warfare was there 
 perpetrated an act more dastardly and brutal. Indeed, it was 
 openly avowed by the men of Missouri that it was no worse to 
 shoot a Mormon than to shoot an Indian, and killing Indians 
 was no worse than killing wild beasts. — Bancroft's History of 
 Utah, p. 128. 
 
 Nor did the bloody work end here. A few years later in 
 
 Illinois, whither the Saints had fled from Missouri, they 
 
 were again hunted like wild beasts, much trouble ensued, 
 
 many lives were lost, including those of Joseph and Hyrum 
 
 Smith, who were murdered in cold blood by a brutal mob, 
 
 not in Carthage jail, as is generally supposed, but while 
 
 waiting for trial in the sheriff's parlor. The perpetrators 
 
 of this crime, or of the many crimes committed against 
 
 the Saints, were never brought to justice. Of the trial of 
 
 the assassins of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Governor Ford 
 
 writes as follows: 
 
 During the progress of these trials, the judge was compelled 
 to permit the court-house to be filled and surrounded by armed 
 bands, who attended court to browbeat and overawe the admin- 
 istration of justice. The judge himself was in a duress, and 
 
214 REPLY TO T). H. BAYS. 
 
 informed me that he did not consider his life secure an,y part 
 of the time. The consequence was. that the crowd had every- 
 thin^r tlieir own way; the lawyers for the defence defended 
 their clients by a long and elaborate attack on the governor; 
 the armed mob stamped with their feet and yelled their appro- 
 bation at every sarcastic and smart thing that was said; and 
 the judge was not only forced to hear it, but to lend it a kind 
 of approval. Josiah Lamborne was attorney for the prosecu- 
 tion; and O. H. Browning, O. C. Skinner, Calvin A. Warren, 
 and William A. Richardson, were for the defence. — Ford's 
 History of Illinois, p. 3G8. 
 
 Surely the blood of the Saints cried unto the Lord for 
 vengeance, and when justice can be found now^here else, 
 will he not avenge? 
 
 Proposition 10 is overdrawn. The language of the 
 revelation is simply this: "Wherefore, stand ye in holy 
 places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; 
 for behold it cometh quickly, saith ,the Lord. Amen." 
 Elder Bays' comment is as follows: 
 
 The final consummation of all things does not appear immi- 
 nent, and the Lord has not appeared to take vengeance upon 
 the ungodly; and things move along about as of yore, and thus 
 we record failure No. 8. — Pages 430, 431. 
 
 There is nothing in the prophecy that justifies this con- 
 clusion. The language is no stronger with regard to the 
 near approach of Christ than was used over seventeen hun- 
 dred years before by John the Revelator. In closing the 
 book of his prophecies he said: "He which testifieth these 
 things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Even so, 
 come. Lord Jesus." If the statement of Joseph Smith is 
 to be pronounced a failure because it predicts the near 
 approach of the Christ, then to be consistent we should 
 write failure opposite the name of John who wrote the 
 same over seventeen hundred years before. 
 
 On January 4, 1833, Joseph Smith wrote to Mr. N. K 
 Seaton, editor of a newspaper in Rochester, New York, as 
 follows: 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 215 
 
 And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus 
 Christ, that not many years shall pass away, before the United 
 States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a 
 parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, 
 and earthquakes will sweep the wicked of this generation from 
 off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the 
 return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The 
 people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requisi- 
 tions of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering- 
 together to Zion, which is in the State of Missouri; therefore I 
 declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded 
 me to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes 
 of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable 
 for everj"^ word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow men 
 than their eternal salvation; therefore "fear God and give glory 
 to him for the hour of his judgment is come." — Repent ye, 
 repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to 
 Zion before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are 
 those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed 
 in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, 
 fulfilled. Remember these things; call upon the Lord while he 
 is near, and seek him while he may be found, is the exhortation 
 of your unworthy servant, Joseph Smith, Jr. 
 
 — Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 707. 
 
 (Those who care to notice further the garbling propensi- 
 ties of Bays will find his purported quotation of the. above 
 on page 432 of his book.) 
 
 Though the difficulty in South Carolina was not settled 
 at the date of this letter, it will be seen that the author 
 was not expecting an immediate fulfillment. He says: 
 "Not many years shall pass away, before the United 
 States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a 
 parallel in the history of our nation." The fulfillment of 
 this is so complete and well known that we need to cite no 
 evidence in confirmation. 
 
 The following affidavit shows that Joseph Smith con- 
 tinued, after the temporary settlement of the South Caro- 
 lina difficulty, to assert that such a war would occur: 
 
 I, N. D. Earl, of the County of Decatur, and State of Iowa, 
 being first duly sworn, depose and say: 
 
 That in the year 1833 or 1834, I cannot remember which, but 
 think it was in 1834, I heard Joseph Smith, the then President 
 
216 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, while jour- 
 neyinjr from Kirtland, Ohio, to Far West, Missouri, and 
 somewhere between Indianapolis and Newton, Indiana, foretell 
 and preach the rebellion, and that the slaves would be set at 
 liberty, and armed and equipped for war and so on. I cannot 
 give fust his words, but I give the substance of them. Also that 
 I went with a number of youngsters to Newton, or Frankfort, 
 south-east of Layfayette, Indiana, shortly after the time above 
 referred to, and there I heard a certain lawyer question Joseph 
 Smith above referred to about the rebellion, and he, Joseph 
 Smith, preached the same things again. I think the name of 
 the lawyer above referred was Gregory, but as to that I am not 
 certain. 
 
 I further state that I am not now and never have been, a 
 member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 
 nor any other. N. D. Earl. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to by N. D. Earl before me at Lamoni, 
 Iowa, on this the 26th day of February, 1884. 
 
 [L. S.] Asa S. Cochran, Notary Public. 
 
 Elder Smith repeated in brief his statement found in the 
 revelation of December 25, 1832, as late as April 6, 1843. 
 
 John Hyde, Jun., who published a work against the 
 church in 1857, relates a statement made by Joseph 
 Smith, April 6, 1843, as follows: 
 
 I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, that the commence- 
 ment of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed, 
 previous to the coming of the Son of Man, will be in South 
 Carolina (it probably may arise through the slave question); 
 this a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on 
 the subject, December 25th, 1832.— Mormonism, by Elder Hyde, 
 p. 174. ' 
 
 Joseph would of course be praying very earnestly on the 
 subject about that time in consequence of the agitated 
 condition of the public mind regarding the disturbance in 
 South Carolina, and the Lord revealed to him that "not 
 many years" hence there would be a scene of bloodshed 
 unparallelled in the history of our country, and that South 
 Carolina would lead in the trouble. This was true, as 
 many thousands of mourning households can attest. 
 
 Mr. Bays next quotes an extract from a letter by Joseph 
 Smith to John C. Calhoun, under date of January 2, 1844. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 217 
 
 The occasion of the correspondence was this: Mr. Calhoun 
 was understood to be an aspirant for the office of President 
 of the United States. Joseph Smith wrote him to know 
 what his rule of action would be relative to the Saints who 
 had been plundered and robbed of their rights and 
 property in the state of Missouri, to which Mr. Calhoun 
 replied: 
 
 Candour compels me to repeat, what I said to you at Wash- 
 ington; that according to my views the case does not come 
 within the jurisdiction of the federal government, which is 
 one of limited and specific powers. 
 
 To this Joseph Smith made the reply which is the 
 subject of this controversy. It was in part as follows: 
 
 If the general government has no power to reinstate expelled 
 citizens to their rights, there is a monstrous hypocrite fed and 
 lostered from the hard earnings of the people! A real 'bull 
 bet'gar' upheld by sycophants; and, although you may wink to 
 the priests to stigmatize;— wheedle the drunkards to swear, 
 and raise the hue^ and cry of imposter false prophet, . . .yet 
 remember, if the Latter Day Saints are not restored to all their 
 rights, and paid for all their losses, according to the known 
 rules of justice and judgment, reciprocation and common 
 honestv among men, tiiat God will come out of his hiding 
 place and vex this nation with a sore vexation— yea, the 
 consuming wrath of an offended God shall smoke through the 
 nation, with as much distress and woe, as independence has 
 blazed through with pleasure and delight. Where is the 
 strength of <;overnment? Where is the patriotism of a Wash- 
 ing-ton, a Warren, and Adams? and where is a spark from the 
 watch fire of '7(3, by which one candle might be lit, that would 
 glimmer upon the confines of democracy? Well may it be said 
 that one man is not a state; nor one state the nation. In the 
 days of General Jackson, when France refused the first instal- 
 ment for spoliations, there was power, force, and honor enough 
 to resent iniustice and insult, and the money came: and shall 
 Missouri, filled with negro drivers, and white men stealers, go 
 'unwhipped of justice,' for ten fold greater sins than France? 
 No! verily no!- While I have powers of body and mind; while 
 water runs and grass grows; while virtue is lovely, and vice 
 hateful; and while a stone points out a sacred spot where a 
 fragment of American liberty once was; I or my posterity will 
 plead the cause of injured innocence, until Missouri makes 
 atonement for all hersins-or sinks disgraced, degraded and 
 
218 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 damned to hell— 'where the worm dieth not and the fire is not 
 quenched.' — Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 395. 
 
 Bays comments as follows: 
 
 The fulfillment of this remarkable prophecy is made con- 
 tingent upon the action of the General Government. If the 
 United States should take the matter in hand, and reinstate the 
 expelled Latter Day Saints to their possessions in Missouri, 
 the nation should escape the pending calamity. But if the 
 Federal Government failed to do this, then "the consuming 
 wrath of an offended God" should smoke through the nation with 
 as much distress and woe as "independence had ever blazed 
 through with pleasure and delight." 
 
 The government did not even attempt to restore the Saints, 
 and yet the consuming wrath of God failed to smoke through 
 the nation. The old flag still floats to the breezes of every 
 clime, and the nation has not j'et been "consumed." But 
 instead, she stands today as one of the greatest powers on the 
 earth. 
 
 So much, then, for this great flourish of trumpets by the 
 Modern Seer. 
 
 Besides this national woe — this consuming wrath — there was 
 also to be a special dispensation of divine wrath visited upon 
 the State of Missouri. This great State, "filled with negro 
 drivers and white men stealers," should not go "unwhipped of 
 justice" for her great sin in thrusting the Saints from their 
 homes. "No! verily no!" She, too, must sutt'er for her indi- 
 vidual transgressions. She must make atonement for driving 
 an innocent people from their homes. Either Joseph or his 
 posterity should continue to plead the cause of an injured peo- 
 ple till Missouri had made ample restitution, or till she should 
 sink "disgraced, degraded, and damned to hell." 
 
 In the following June Joseph was killed by a mob in Carthage 
 jail, and could, therefore, no longer plead the cause of his peo- 
 ple. Thus sixteen years passed away, and no voice was heard 
 to plead the cause of the exiled Saints. At the end of that time, 
 however, or in 1860, the eldest son of the murdered Seer took 
 his father's place at the head of the Reorganized Church, but 
 still no pleading voice was heard. And up to this date the son 
 has never been known to petition either the State of Missouri 
 or the General Government to restore the Mormon people to 
 their lost inheritances in Zion. 
 
 It is likewise a well-known fact that neither the State 
 of Missouri nor the Federal Government has ever put forth 
 the slightest effort to make the restitution this vengeful 
 revelation demands, and yet they both stand as living witnesses 
 of the vanit}' and presumption of the prophet, and the absolute 
 unreliability of his prophetic utterances. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 219 
 
 The United States of America stands today as the peer of the 
 most advanced nation on the jrlobe, while Missouri takes hijjh 
 rank amonfr the sisterhood of States, and has been neither dis- 
 graced, dejjraded, nor "damned to hell," as the vindictive 
 prophet declared she should be, but. in her imperial majesty, 
 she stands erect to pronounce the prophecy a failure, and its 
 author a fraud.— Pages 435-437. 
 
 Whatever may be said regarding this remarkable 
 prophecy being contingent upon the action of the 
 General Government, it is true that it had a most 
 remarkable fulfillment. Government did fail to reinstate 
 the expelled Latter Day Saints, and there was in a very 
 few years as much distress and woe smoking through the 
 land as independence had blazed through with pleasure 
 and delight. For years the very life of our nation 
 trembled in the balance, and the struggle for life was a 
 desperate and bitter one. Yes, Elder Bays, the govern- 
 ment still exists, and the flag still floats, but there is 
 nothing in the prediction to the contrary, and your inti- 
 mation that the fulfillment of the prediction requires the 
 overthrow of the government is purely voluntary. There 
 is no intimation of the kind. 
 
 The sacred books of the church teach that this govern- 
 ment was founded by the direct inspiration of God, and 
 hence, though God may chasten it for transgression, he 
 will preserve the government until full opportunity is 
 given it to accomplish its possibilities. In a revelation 
 given through Joseph Smith in December, 1833, occurs 
 the following: 
 
 And again I say unto you. Those who have been scattered by 
 their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to impor- 
 tune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who 
 are placed as rulers, and are in authority over you, according^ 
 to the laws and Constitution of the people which I have 
 suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the 
 rights and protection of all tlesh, according to just and holy 
 principles, that every man may act in doctrine, and principle 
 pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I 
 have given unto them, that every man may be accountable for 
 
220 REPLY TO I). H. BAYS. 
 
 his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right 
 that any man should be in bondaore one to another. And for 
 this purpose have I established the Constitution of tliis land, 
 by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very 
 purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. — 
 Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 98, par. 10. 
 
 Nor does the prediction intimate that Missouri should 
 lose her identity as a state, as Mr. Bays intimates. That 
 the state was disgraced by her treatment of the Saints is, 
 however, a reality. The Quincy, Illinois, Argus, for 
 March 16, 1839, stated among other things the following: 
 
 We give in to-day's paper the details of the recent bloody 
 tragedy acted in Missouri — the details of a scene of terror and 
 blood unparalleled in the annals of modern, and under the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, in ancient history— a tragedy (»f so 
 deep and fearful, and absorbing interest, that the very life- 
 blood of the heart is chilled at the simple contemplation. We 
 are prompted to ask ourselves if it be really true, that we are 
 living in an enlightened, a humane and civilized age— in an age 
 and quarter of the world boasting of its progress in every thing 
 good, and great, and honorable, and virtuous, and high-minded 
 -in a country of which, as American citizens, we could be 
 proud— whether we are living under a Constitution and Laws, 
 or have not rather returned to the ruthless times of the stern 
 Atilla—io the times of the fiery Hun, when the sword and flame 
 ravaged the fair fields of Italy and Europe, and the darkest 
 passions held full revel in all the revolting scenes of unchecked 
 brutality and unbridled desire? 
 
 We have no language sufficiently strong for the expression of 
 our indignation and shame at the recent transaction in a sister 
 State— and that State Missouri — a State of which we had long 
 been proud, alike for her men and history, but now so fallen 
 that we could wish her star stricken out from the bright con- 
 stellation of the Union. We say we know of no language 
 sufficiently strong for the expression of our shame and abhor- 
 rence of her recent conduct. She has written her own character 
 in letters of blood- and stained it by acts of merciless cruelty and 
 brutality that the waters of ages cannot efface. — Persecution of 
 the Saints, pp. 178-180. 
 
 The Democratic Association, of Quincy, Illinois, on 
 February 28, 1839, after inviting other citizens to meet 
 with it, adopted the following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That we regard the rights of conscience as natural 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 221 
 
 and inalienable, and the nnost sacred guaranteed by the consti- 
 tution of our free ofovernnient. 
 
 Resolved, That we regard the acts of all mobs as flagrant 
 violations of law, and those who compose them, individually 
 responsible, both to the laws of God or man for every depreda- 
 tion committed upon the property, rights, or life of any citizen. 
 
 Resolved, That the inhabitants upon the Western Frontier of 
 the State of Missouri in their late persecutions of the class of 
 people denominated Mormons, have violated the sacred rights 
 of conscience, and every law of justice and humanity. 
 
 Resolved, That the Gov. of Missouri in refusing protection to 
 this class of people when pressed upon by an heartless mob, 
 and turning upon them a band of unprincipled Militia, with 
 orders encouraging their extermination, has brought a lasting 
 disgrace upon the State over which he presides. — Persecution 
 of the Saints, pp. 190, 191. 
 
 The Western Messenger, of Cincinnati, Ohio, about Novem- 
 ber or December, 1840, contained the following: 
 
 Reader! Let not the word Mormon repel you! Think not 
 that you have no interest in the cruelties perpetrated on this 
 poor people! Read, we pray you, the history of this persecuted 
 community; examine the detailed facts of these attrocities; 
 reflect upon the hallowed principles and usages trampled under 
 foot by ruffians; bring before your mind the violations of all 
 law, human and divine, of all right, natural and civil, of all 
 ties of society and humanity, of all duties of justice, honor, 
 honesty, and mercy, committed by so called freemen and 
 Christians— and then speak out, speak out for prostrate law, 
 for liberty disgraced, for outraged man, for heaven insulted; 
 
 *'Loud as a summer thunderbolt shall waken 
 A People's voice." 
 
 We speak strongly, for we feel strongly; and we wish to 
 attract attention to a tragedy of almost unequalled horror, 
 which has been unblushingly enacted in a state of this Union. 
 Its history should be trumpeted abroad until the indignant 
 rebuke of the whole land compels the authors, abettors and 
 tolerators of these wrongs, to make the small return now in 
 their power, for their aggravated injustice. Life cannot be 
 restored to the murdered, nor health to the broken down in 
 body and soul, nor peace to the bereaved; but the spoils on 
 which robbers are now fattening, can be repaid; the loss of the 
 destitute can be made up; the captive can be freed, and. until 
 by legislative acts she makes redress— l/mowrz ts disgraced! 
 
 It seems like some horrid dream, that these enormities, which 
 Nicholas would have shrunk from inflicting on the Poles, have 
 been deliberately committed in an age of peace, in a land of 
 
^22 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 laws and freedom, upon our own brethren.* Is it actually 
 true,' that citizens, peaceable, industrious, temperate, orderly 
 citizens, have been driven from their property, their houses 
 burned, the furniture broken and scattered, their crops laid 
 waste, their stores plundered, their cattle killed, their horses 
 stolen, their clothes stripped from them, and themselves 
 expelled under threats of instant death? Is it true that men 
 have been t-arred and feathered, whipt till they were raw from 
 head to foot, till their bowels ^rushed out, that their skulls have 
 been knocked in, and brains scattered with musket-buts, that 
 they have been shot down while crying for quarter, shot down 
 unarmed and defenceless like hogs in a pen? Is it true that 
 sick women have been driven from burning houses at midnight, 
 on the snowy prairies, where they have given birth to children 
 on the frozen ground, that they'^have forded rivers with' help- 
 less infants in their arms, fleeing from heartless pursuers, that 
 they have been insulted when their natural protectors were hid 
 from the murderers, that they have been violated by the guards 
 appointed for their defence? And were the guilty instigators 
 and executioners of these massacres, arsons and rapes, really 
 men of standing, ministers of the gospel, judges, senators, mili- 
 tarv officers, and the Governor of the state? Were not the evi- 
 dence on which the narrative of each one of these cruelties rests 
 incontrovertible, no one could conceive that such fiend-like acts 
 had actually been wrought by beings in human shape. Would, 
 that, for the honor of our nature, they could be discredited. 
 Our statement is strictly, unexaggeratedly true. It is only too 
 
 MEAGER, TOO FEEBLE. ... 
 
 These, it may be said, were the acts of unauthorized mobs, 
 against whom the militia of the state had been called out. 
 True! But when after months, we may say years, of suffering 
 from similar outrages, harrassed by anxieties, goaded by 
 wrongs, and under the advice of authorities, civil and military, 
 these poor fellows deserted by the militia guard, unprotected 
 by the state, did at last defend their houses from pillage, their 
 children and wives from abuse, themselves from murder—then 
 was the cry of "Mormon War" raised; and Gov. Boggs, to 
 his lasting infamy, sent out his order for exterminating these 
 citizens of Missouri, whom it was his duty U7ider oath to save. 
 In his order of Oct. 27, he says: 
 
 ^'The, Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must he extermi- 
 nated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good." 
 
 The Mormons had only defended themselves against infuri- 
 ated and lawless rioters: so soon as Gen. Lucas arrived and 
 presented the Governor's orders, they submitted to the authori- 
 
 *This was not a Mormon paper, and the word brethren was not used 
 in the sense of church fellowship. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 223 
 
 ties of the state. They gave up their arms, and were made 
 prisoners. . . . 
 
 And thus, during the greatest cold of the last winter, were 
 men women and children, aged, sick and helpless, driven out 
 from' shelter, and, half clothed, unfed, robbed of teams and 
 horses even, forced to make their way as they could to other 
 states One more picture we must present in order to give a 
 ehmpseof the horrors thus permitted by a State Executive — 
 thus authorized and commanded by the highest power of 
 Missouri We take the account given under oath by Lyman 
 Wiffht, of "a few facts concerning his family. (While he was 
 in jail.") 
 
 ''His wife was confined on the 3rd of November, whilst 
 Cornelius C. Gilliam, with one hundred painted men sur- 
 rounded the house, screeching and hallooing in the attitude 
 of Uealware Indians; and it was with the utmost difficulty that 
 the militia officers could keep them out of the house. In this 
 situation the family remained, threatened day by day that they 
 must leave the country or be exterminated. Accordingly, 
 when her babe was eight days old, she was informed she could 
 stay no lono-er, that she must not only leave the county but the 
 state; that she need not flatter herself that she would ever see 
 her husband a^ain, for if they could not find law to kill him, 
 they would kill him without law. She was stripped of her bed 
 and beddinir, and of her household furniture, then placed in an 
 open wac^go^n with six helpless children, to make the best shift 
 she could to get out of the state. The last news received from 
 her she was on the banks of the Mississippi river in a tent, 
 depending on the charity of the people for her support. Ihis 
 is the fifth time that I and my family have been unlawfully 
 driven from house and home." 
 
 Now Let every one on reading this tale of horror, speak out 
 fully fearlessly. Had the Mormons been pirates, blood-stained, 
 had they been Indians, girdled with scalps, they would have 
 deserved better treatment. Let the unsupported accusations 
 brought against them be true, and yet the conduct of their 
 plunderers and murderers was utterly without a palliation or 
 excuse. Before the face of heaven, and in the sight of men, 
 such acts are devilish. 
 
 What, in a word, were the causes of the madness ot these 
 mobs'' 'The Mormons were deluded, obstinate, zealous, exclu- 
 sive in their faith. They used the vague, prophetic denuncia- 
 tions of an enthusiastic sect. They retaliated the reproaches 
 heaped upon them by religious opponents. This, we believe, 
 was the great exciting cause. Their first persecutions were 
 attacks on their opinions, and ridicule of their absurdity. 
 
 At'ain, there were suspicions against, the sincerity of their 
 leading men.— They were thought to be speculators on the 
 
224 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 credulity of the ignorant. Blind prejudice multiplied evil 
 suspicions, enmity misconstrued natural acts, slander swelled 
 trilies into monstrous wrongs, idle curiosity, greedy of alarm, 
 and eager to gossip, circulated rumors. Now add that they 
 were a larger and growing community, allied together both by 
 necessity and choice, and withal prospei-ous, and we have an 
 explanation of the fear, jealousy, envy and hatred felt against 
 them; an explanation, but no justification. The same elements 
 were active and fierce in these Missouri outrages, which have 
 kindled the faggot, and bared the sword, and opened the 
 dungeon in all times. These elements were bigotry, ignorance, 
 DMiiic. And when we talk of living in an age of enlightenment 
 liberty, and law, let us recollect with shame the bi>rning of the 
 convent at Charlestown, the absurd humbug of Maria Monk, 
 and the countless wrongs which other mobs, for as slight pre- 
 texts, have wrought in almost every State in the Union. The 
 blaze of these other disgraceful proceedings, is lost, however, 
 in the hot glare of this infernal outbreak. — Times and Seasons, 
 vol. 2, pp. 235-238. 
 
 The punishment of Missouri was indeed severe during 
 the war. Not only did the contention of hostile armies on 
 her soil devastate her, but the lawless desperado upon 
 either side, who used the issues of war simply as a pretext 
 for crime, robbed, plundered, and murdered, until some of 
 the very counties in which the Saints had been wronged, 
 were a scene of carnage and ruin. So great was the trou- 
 ble and so intricate the complications in Jackson and some 
 of the bordering counties, that in the opinion of General 
 Ewing it became necessary to expel all citizens from cer- 
 tain localities. The following is an extract from his 
 famous "General Order No. 11": 
 
 Headquarters District op the Border, ) 
 Kansas City, Mo., August 25, 18G3. f 
 (General Order No. 11.) 
 
 First. — All persons living in Cass, Jackson and Bates 
 Counties. Missouri, and in that part of Vernon included in 
 this district, except, those living within one mile of the limits 
 of Independence, Hickman's Mills, Pleasant Hill and Harrison- 
 ville, and except those in that part of Kaw Township, Jackson 
 County, north of Brush Creek and west of the Big Blue, 
 embracing Kansas City and Westport, are hereby ordered to 
 remove from their present places of residence within fifteea 
 days from the date hereof. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 225 
 
 Those who, within that time, establish their loyalty to the 
 satisfaction of the commanding oflioer of the military station 
 nearest their present place of residence, will receive from him 
 certificates stating the fact of their loyalty, and the names of 
 the witnesses by whom it can be shown. All who receive such 
 certificate will be permitted to remove to any military station 
 in this district, or to any part of the State of Kansas, except 
 the counties on the eastern borders of the State. All others 
 shall remove out of this district. Officers commanding 
 companies and detachments serving in the counties named, 
 will see that this paragraph is promptly obeyed. 
 
 Second. — All grain and hay in the field, or under shelter, in 
 the district from which the inhabitants are required to remove 
 -within reach of military stations, after the 9th day of Septem- 
 ber next, will be taken to such stations and turned over to the 
 proper ofificer there, and report of the amount so turned over 
 made to district headquarters, specifying the names of all loyal 
 owners and the amount of such produce taken from them. 
 All grain and hay found in such district after the 9th day of 
 September next, not convenient to such stations, will be 
 destroyed. — History of Caldwell and Livingston Counties, 
 Missouri, 1886, p. 51. 
 
 Thus it seems that citizens had to flee from their homes, 
 
 and suffer the destruction of their property in some of the 
 
 very localities from whence the Saints had been driven 
 
 about thirty- three years before. Even Bays says: 
 
 The scenes of Independence and Carthage can never again be 
 repeated in the United States, and it is well for the honor of a 
 great nation that it is so. 
 
 Then the scenes of Independence and Carthage were dis- 
 honorable, and what is more disgraceful than dishonor? 
 
 Mr. Bays finds fault because the son of Joseph Smith 
 has not petitioned the state of Missouri or the General 
 Government to restore the Saints to their inheritances, 
 and argues that therefore he has not plead the cause of 
 injured innocence. The cause for which these people 
 suffered has been plead by Joseph Smith and his associates 
 in the Reorganization, until it is honored and respected 
 wherever known. Even in Missouri the cause is repre- 
 sented, and the waste places are being rebuilt, while the 
 tongue that advocated the measures and policies of those 
 
226 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 who despoiled the homes of our fathers has long since been 
 hushed in death, and none dare to defend. The following 
 is very significant as showing that the idea that God's 
 judgments were specially visiting this nation has 
 impressed itself upon the minds of many. 
 
 "Philadelphia, September 16. [1878.] 
 *'To His Excellency the President of the United States: The 
 conviciion grows deeper with thoughtful men that 'the Lord 
 has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land.' On the 
 very threshhold, as we had flattered ourselves, of returning 
 prosperity, we find the whole country plunged into mourning, 
 and the wished for revival of business seriously delayed by the 
 alarming pestilence which ravages our southern borders. This 
 is but the last in a long series of calamities which reaches back 
 10 the very beginning of our civil war. That these facts attest 
 the displeasure of the Supreme Ruler of the world against this 
 nation we are profoundly convinced, and also that our only 
 hope of escape from still sorer retributions lies in a diligent 
 inquiry into the causes of God's anger, and in speedy and 
 heartfelt repentance and reformation. That the mind of the 
 people may be turned to these momentous considerations, and 
 that united prayer for the grace of repentance and for the 
 removal of his heavy judgments may ascend to the Father of 
 Mercies through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we, citizens 
 ■of Philadelphia and vicinity, respectfully ask you to appoint, in 
 your wisdom, an early and convenient day to be observed by 
 the whole nation as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer. 
 
 John Y. Dobbins, President M. E. Preachers' 
 Meeting. 
 
 Nathan B. Durell, Secretary of the Preach- 
 ers' Meeting. 
 
 R. Johns, Moderator Presbyterian Ministerial 
 Association. 
 
 Charles Brown, Secretary Presbyterian 
 Ministerial Association. 
 
 R. G. Moses, President Baptist Ministerial 
 Conference. 
 
 J. Newton Ritner, Secretary Baptist Minis- 
 terial Conference. 
 
 John Alexander, Chairman Executive Com- 
 mittee Sabbath Alliance. 
 
 James Pollock, Supt. U. S. Mint. 
 
 O. C. Bosbyshell, Coiner U. S. Mint. 
 
 J. C. Booth, Melter and Refiner, U. S. Mint. 
 
 Wm. E. Dubois, Assayer U. S. Mint. 
 
 George H. Stuart. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 227 
 
 Joshua L. Baily. 
 Amos R. Little, and many others. 
 ^Saints' Herald, vol. 25, p. 345. 
 
 Whejiher the treatment received by Latter Day Saints is 
 the sole cause of God's displeasure we cannot say. Cer- 
 tainly God was displeased with such cruel and lawless 
 proceedings, whether he had other causes for displeasure 
 or not. One thing is certain, the nation has been sorely 
 vexed, and the events predicted by Joseph Smith have 
 followed. We do not rejoice in this; for we have been 
 taught in the domestic circle, and in the church of our 
 choice—the Latter Day Saint— to revere this government 
 as based on the grandest and best principles that an 
 earthly government ever knew; but the true patriot is 
 not he who blindly applauds every administrative act. 
 He who loves his country, while he rejoices in her pros- 
 perity and success, mourns over her failures and follies. 
 The best friends any government ever had, were not those 
 who gave unquestioned approval, but those who pointed 
 out the dangers and mistakes of her administrators. 
 When Bays by implication seeks to convict Joseph Smith 
 and the Latter Day Saints of disloyalty because they have 
 pointed out the dire consequences of certain legislative 
 and executive acts, he may impress the rabble who cheer 
 at the sight of "Old Glory," recognizing nothing greater 
 than the emblem that floats proudly over us; but he will 
 not move the thoughtful and patriotic, that while they 
 love the old flag, look beyond the emblem to the sacred 
 principles that have sanctified and made it honorable. 
 ' In connection with the prophecies cited by Elder Bays, 
 and which we have considered in the foregoing pages, we 
 will present one more, delivered by Joseph Smith, Decem- 
 ber 27, 1832: 
 
 And after your testinnony, cometh wrath and indigrnation 
 upon the people; for after your testimony cometh the testi- 
 mony of earthquakes, that shall cause groanlngs in the midst 
 
228 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 of her, and men shall fall upon the ground, and shall not be 
 able to stand. And also cometh the testimony of the voice of 
 thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of 
 tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea, heavinj? 
 themselves beyond their bounds. And all things ^all be 
 in commotion; and surely men's hearts shall fail them; for 
 fear shall come upon all people; and angels shall fly through 
 the midst of heaven, crying with a loud voice, sounding the 
 trump of God, saying, Prepare ye, prepare ye, O inhabitants 
 of the earth, for the judgment of our God is- come: behold, 
 and lo, the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him. 
 —Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 85, par. 25. 
 
 Earthquakes were known occasionally in very remote 
 times, but the alarming increase of this phenomenon is 
 appalling. We herewith submit a table prepared by Mr. 
 Mallet and published in a work called ''Facts for the Times,'' 
 page 137: 
 
 No. 
 
 No. of years. Average. 
 
 Those recorded before a. d. 1 58. 
 
 1700. 
 
 1 in 29 years. 
 
 Thence to the end of 9th century, 197. 
 
 900. 
 
 1 in 4 years. 
 
 15th " 532. 
 
 600. 
 
 1 in 1 year. 
 
 «• ♦♦ 18t.h '* 2804. 
 
 300. 
 
 9 in 1 '♦ 
 
 to 1850 3240. 
 
 50. 
 
 64 in 1 •* 
 
 1868 5000. 
 
 18. 
 
 277 in 1 •' 
 
 Of destructive earthquakes, such as have overthrown cities 
 and destroyed many lives, the number registered is about as 
 
 follows: — 
 
 No. No. of years. Average. 
 
 From B. c. 1700 to a. d. 96, (1796) 16. 1 in 112 years. 
 
 From A. D. 96 to 18.50, (1754) 204. 1 in 8 " 
 
 From 1850 to 1865, (15) 15. 1 in 1 year. 
 
 From 1865 to 1868, (3) 15. 5 in 1 " 
 
 Space will not permit us to speak of these in detail. We 
 are all familiar with the accounts of fearful destruction 
 caused by them of late years. Nor have we space to 
 mention the fearful devastation wrought by the cyclone, 
 which, prior to 1832, was rarely if ever known. A special 
 mention is made in this prediction of the "voice of the 
 waves of the sea, heaving themselves beyond their 
 bounds." This phenomenon was not known to any 
 remarkable extent until since this prediction in 1832. 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 229 
 
 "We will here append a few of the many extracts at hand 
 regarding this, and ask the reader to note what is said of 
 the "voice of the waves": 
 
 Burnett, in his "Theory of the Earth," remarks;— 
 
 ♦'Let us then proceed in our explication of this sign, the 
 roaring sea and waves, applying it to the end of the world. I 
 do not look upon this ominous noise of the sea as the effect of a 
 tempest; for then it would not strike such terror into the 
 inhabitants of the earth, nor make them apprehensive of some 
 preat evil coming upon the world, as this will do. What 
 proceeds from visible causes, and such as may happen in a 
 common course of nature, does not so much amaze or atfright 
 us. . . . And such a troubled state of the waters as does not 
 only make the sea unmanageable, but also strikes terror into 
 all the maritime inhabitants that live within the view or sound 
 of it." 
 
 Harper's Magazine for 1869 says: — 
 
 "That most horrible phenomena, the tidal wave, how many 
 struggling mortals has it swept back into the deep! What 
 countless ships has it crushed against the shores! What 
 mighty cities has it plundered of life and wealth, strewing 
 their streets with the ocean sand, and peopling their palaces 
 with sea monsters!" 
 
 *'I saw the whole surface of the sea rise as if a mountain 
 side, actually standing up. Another shock with ^fearful roar 
 now took place. I called to my companions to run for their 
 lives on to the pampa. Too late; with a horrible crush the 
 sea was on us, and at one sweep dashed what was Iquique on 
 to the pampa. I lost my companions, and in an instant was 
 fighting with the dark waters. The mighty leaves surged, and 
 roared, and leaped. The cries of human beings and animals 
 ■were frightful." 
 
 At Arica, the British vice-consul was an eye-witness. He 
 exclaims: — 
 
 "Gracious God, what a sight! I saw all the vessels in the bay 
 carried out irresistibly to sea; anchors and chains were as pack 
 thread. In a few minutes the great outward current stopped, 
 stemmed by a mighty rising wave, I should judge about fifty 
 feet high, which cam'e in with an aicful rush, carrying every- 
 thing before it, in its terrible majesty, bringing the shipping 
 with' it, sometimes turning in circles, as if striving to elude 
 their fate." 
 
 The New York Tribune of Nov. 12, 1868, says:— 
 
 "The tidal disturbances are the most remarkable and exten- 
 sive of which there is any record. It is said their velocity was 
 about a; thousand 7niks an hour. Both the great ocean waters of 
 the Atlantic and Pacific have been agitated in their whole 
 
230 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 extent. We mention in particular the tidal waves at St> 
 Thomas, and all the neighboring islands, which were fvll fifty 
 feet in height. ... It is said by those who have witnessed these- 
 waves tiiat the ocean's roai- is exceedingly frightful.'" 
 
 The N. Y. Tribune o( Nov. 12, 1869, says: — 
 
 "Later and fuller details are every day increasing the inter- 
 est with wiiich scientific observers regard the recent earth- 
 quakes and tidal disturbances, and confirming our first 
 impression that these convulsions of nature would prove to be 
 among the most remarkable and extensive of which there is any 
 written record. ' ' 
 
 The New York Mercantile Journal for November, 1868, thus 
 soberly describes our times: — 
 
 "Old mother earth has been indulging in some old [odd] 
 caprices within the last ten years, the variety and frequency of 
 her antics having especially increased during her last three 
 annual revolutions. Tornadoes, water-spouts by land as well as 
 at sea, freshets, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes have 
 become of almost daily occurrence, and of continually 
 augmenting intensity. Moreover, they embrace a larger and 
 larger area of territory at each recurrence. 'The last shock, 
 which so fearfully devastated South America, was felt over one^ 
 third of the earth's surface. These portentous phenomena are 
 seriously engaging the attention of the scientific world. The 
 remark that they only seem to us more frequent, because our 
 means of communication are more complete and rapid, and 
 that we now hear from all parts of the globe simultaneously, 
 will not explain the matter, since the late commotions have been 
 attended by disturbances of both land and sea in parts of the 
 earth which have been constantly accessible for centuries, that 
 were totally unparalleled in previous history. The change of 
 the gulf-stream from its course, and the alteration of climates, 
 have been some of these increased marvels." — "Facts for the 
 Times," pp. 147-149. 
 
 The Chicago Tribune for November 15, 1871, contained 
 the following summary of calamities for that year: 
 
 The year 1871 wmII hardly be considered in history a year of 
 grace. In point of fatality to human life, and destruction to 
 material values by extraordinary natural causes, no year in the 
 history of the world can equal it. Overwhelmed as we are by 
 our own disaster, we have given little attention to what has 
 been transpiring abroad, and have almost come to consider 
 ourselves the only sufferers. The retrospect, however, is a 
 terrible one. War, famine, pestilence, fire, wind and water,. 
 and ice, have been let loose and done their worst, and with 
 such appalling results, and with such remarkable phenomena 
 accompanying them, that it is not to be wondered at, men have 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 231 
 
 sometimes thought the end of the world had come. We have 
 seen our own fair city hiid in ashes, throughout almost its 
 entire business limits, and seventy thousand people ett home- 
 less On that same night, the conflagration swept through 
 Northern Wisconsin and Michigan, sweeping village after 
 village with horrible loss of life, and ruining thousands of 
 acres of timber, the cutting and milling of which formed the 
 main industry of that region. Illinois, Minnesota Indiana, 
 New York, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Missouri, and California, 
 fhe Alleghenies, the Sierras, and the Rocky Mountains have 
 been ravaged by fire, destroying immense amounts of property 
 and entailing wide-spread suffering. Chicago is not the only 
 city whtch has suffered. Peshtigo, Manistee, Cacheyille and 
 Valleio Cal., Urbana, Darmstadt, and Geneva, under the Alps, 
 have all been visited by terrible fires; ^^^ ^^^e torch of the 
 incendiarv has been applied successively to Louisville, St. 
 Louis Toronto, Montreal and Syracuse. 
 
 The pestilence has walked at noonday. The cholera has 
 steadily travelled from Asia west-ward through Europe, and 
 our despatches of yesterday announced its arriva at New 
 York Quarantine. One of the most appalling plagues of 
 modern times, arising from yellow fever has swept over 
 portions of south America, and in Buenos Ayres alone, 28,000 
 bodies were buried in one cemetery. Persia has been almost 
 depopulated by the plague, which has been rendered all the 
 more terrible by the added horrors of famine; and now, in our 
 ^wn country, small-pox has appeared as an epidemic in nearly 
 everv large city. 
 
 Storms, in their various manifestations, have never been so 
 destructive before. In one night, a river in India suddenly 
 rises, swollen by a storm, and sweeps away an entire city 
 destrovinff 3.000 houses, and utterly prostrating the crops, ihe 
 little French seaport town of Pornic has ^^en almost utterly 
 destroyed by a tidal wave. The icebergs of he Arctic have 
 eau-ht and imprisoned within their impassable walls thirty- 
 three whalers, inflicting a loss of a million and a half of dollars 
 upon the city of New Bedford, and seriously crippling an 
 important branch of industry. St. Thomas has been devastated 
 by a hurricane which left 6,000 people homeless and strewed it^ 
 coasts with wrecks. A typhoon, of terrible power has swept 
 along the Chinese coast, destroying everything in its course,- 
 towns shipping, and life. A hurricane at Halifax has inflicted 
 a seve're blow upon English shipping. The storms on the Eng- 
 lish coast have never been so severe before, nor so fruit ul in 
 maritime disasters. A tidal wave at Galveston svyept oft all the 
 shippino- i„ port. A tornado has swept through Canada, doing 
 serh^us damage in Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec. The island 
 of Formosa has been nearly destroyed by an earthquake. 
 
232 REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 
 
 Add to these the unusual crop of murders and suicides in this 
 country, the alarming increase of railroad and steamboat 
 disasters, the monstrous villainies which have been brought to 
 light in public offices and private corporations, the Franco- 
 German war with its attendant horrors, and the statement of 
 the astronomers that there has been an explosion in the sun, 
 and that two or three comets are just now in danger of losing 
 their tails by their proximity to that orb,— and we may be 
 justified in assuming that the year 1871 will be known in future 
 calendars as the Black Yea.r.— Saints' Herald, vol. 18, p. 736. 
 
 What an alarming list of casualties is this, and yet the 
 expectation of the Tribune that 1871 would "be known in 
 future calendars as the black year," has not been realized; 
 for compared with subsequent years it has not been 
 remarkable. Storms, tempests, earthquakes, and devour- 
 ing fires have swept the earth with the "besom of 
 destruction," ever since. 
 
 The awful character of the recent disaster at Galveston, 
 Texas, defies all description, nor could we in a volume 
 mention the numerous other catastrophes almost as 
 destructive. That this young man foresaw, or at least 
 foretold all this accurately is wonderful, and can be 
 accounted for only upon the theory of divine direction. 
 
 We might continue indefinitely instances of marvelous 
 fulfillment of his predictions, but we must forbear. In 
 every department of this little volume we have had an 
 earnest desire to present more of the many affirmative 
 evidences at hand and accumulating, but have been con- 
 stantly admonished by the thought that to make it too 
 voluminous would defeat the object of its publication, as 
 it would make it too expensive for general distribution. 
 We have therefore confined ourselves principally to a 
 refutation of Elder Bays' theories. We trust that wher- 
 ever this little volume is read it will incite the reader to a 
 fuller and more complete investigation of the glorious 
 principles that we could but mention in this treatise. If 
 any one has entertained the delusive thought that Elder 
 
REPLY TO D. H. BAYS. 235 
 
 Bays possesses any advantage in fighting this Great 
 Latter-Day Work in consequence of his former connec- 
 tion with it, we think a perusal of this little book will 
 disabuse his mind. 
 
 The Lord has certainly dealt wondrously in these latter 
 times, and it is marvelous in our eyes. 
 
 Elder Bays' closing chapter purports to be a copy of a 
 letter written to "Elder T. E. L.," but as it is a rehash of 
 what has already been considered, we will not take space 
 to examine it. 
 
 We now send forth this work realizing its weakness and 
 incompleteness, but trusting that in the blessing of God it 
 will serve to enlighten the mind of the true seeker for 
 truth, and shield the uninformed against the seductive 
 wiles of the adversary of souls, who, having allured one 
 soul from the way of truth, seeks to use him to compass 
 the destruction of others. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbot, John S. C, on slaves and 
 masters, 210. 
 
 A church without ambassadors, 
 69. 
 
 Action of 1835 and 1878 not illib- 
 eral, 153-156. 
 
 Affidavit of N. D. Earl, 215, 216. 
 
 Alexander Campbell a patriarch, 
 75. 
 
 An apostle must be a witness of 
 Christ's resurrection, answered, 
 72. 
 
 An apostle, qualifications of, 70. 
 
 "And they shall also call upon 
 other nations," defined. 207. 
 
 Angell's statement on Book of 
 Mormon characters, 122. 
 
 Answer to teeter-board illustra- 
 tion, 88. 
 
 Anthon, Professor, Martin Har- 
 ris visits, 115. 116; statement 
 of, shown to be false, 119; on 
 Book of Mormon characters, 
 123-125; theory of, not tena- 
 ble, 138. 
 
 Apostles, work of, affirmed to 
 be ambassadorial. 64. 65; work 
 of, other than ambassadorial, 
 68; how called in ancient and 
 modern times. 93-97; visit of, 
 to Samaria. 147, 148. 
 
 Apostolic office, the rule of suc- 
 cession. 72, 73. 
 
 Architecture of Central America, 
 Short, 127. 
 
 Argument, against Reorganiza- 
 tion, answered, 61, 62; against 
 apostles, answered. 62-64. 80, 81 ; 
 on foundation, answered. 82-87. 
 
 Argus. Quincy, Illinois, on exo- 
 dus from Missouri. 220. 
 
 Bancroft, A. A., statement of, 
 concerning slab in Ohio, 130. 
 
 Bancroft on Haun's Mill massa- 
 cre, 213. 
 
 Baptisms, are there two Chris- 
 tian, 146, 147. 
 
 Baptisms in Hebrews 6 said to re- 
 fer to washings, 146. 
 
 Bays, D. H., his book indorsed, 3; 
 his birth, 4; his family hear the 
 gospel, 4; remove to Beaver Is- 
 land and join Strang. 5; he 
 joins the Reorganization, 5; 
 ordained an elder, 5; his mis- 
 sionary work. 5; ordained a 
 seventy, 5; his ministerial 
 trials, 5; his political career 
 and the Bays-Hunt contro- 
 versy, 5, 6; his further minis- 
 terial labors, 6. 7; his resigna- 
 tion, 7, 8; unites with the 
 Baptist Church. 9; unites with, 
 the Christian Church, 9; gar- 
 bles quotations, 13; misquotes, 
 13-18; misreprpsents history 
 touching O. Cowdery and J. 
 Smith, 19; misrepresents Book 
 of Mormon. 20; misrepresents 
 duties of patriarch, 21 ; his tes- 
 timony as to healings, 21 ; mis- 
 represents his field of -labor, 21, 
 22; his former statement touch- 
 ing miraculous power. 23; mis- 
 statement in regard to Strang's 
 organization, 24; misstatement 
 in regard to Kirtland endow- 
 ment, 24; misstatement in re- 
 gard to the Twelve, 25; mis- 
 statement concerning J. W. 
 Briggs, 25; concerning Charles 
 Derry, 26-28; concerning the 
 statement of M. Harris, 28; 
 misrepresents Book of Mormon 
 witnesses. 29; denies that the 
 Book of Mormon teaches lay- 
 ing on of hands, 32; misrepre- 
 sents his personal experiences, 
 33; concerning George Miller, 
 33; misrepresents Higbees, 35; 
 
 235 
 
236 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 moral status as a witness, 35, 36 ; 
 misrepresents Joseph and the 
 church. 35-37; claims superi- 
 ority, 38; he and his book 
 children of Providence, 39; 
 Spalding Romance abandoned, 
 39 ; misrepresents foundation 
 of the churchy 40; misrepre- 
 sents statement concerning 
 Sam and Nephi, 40; argument 
 on spiritual gifts, 41 ; treat- 
 ment upon miracles, 42, 43; 
 charges as to character an- 
 swered by Derry, 43, 44; testi- 
 fies of the good character of 
 the Reorganized Church, 44; 
 his astounding presumption, 
 46; the commission analyzed, 
 47, 48; on the gifts, 49-57; on 
 sickness of J. Smith, 53, 54; on 
 physicians, 54-56; his chal- 
 lenge, 56; repeats false charge, 
 58; on corruption, 58; gives list 
 of oflBcers, 59; misrepresents 
 Elder Kelley, 60; argument on 
 apostles, 62; contradicts his 
 own theory, 64; takes issue 
 with Peter and others, 65, 66; 
 on safeguard, 67; on ambassa- 
 dors, 68, 69 ; on qualifications of 
 apostles, 70; wants rule of suc- 
 cession, 72; on necessary of- 
 fices, 78; on organization, 79; 
 argument of, on revelation and 
 foundation, answered, 82-87 ; 
 on Melchisedec priest, 90; on 
 priesthood, 91, 92; on calling 
 apostles, 93; contradicts him- 
 self, 96; misrepresents J. 
 Smith, 96, 97; on impertinent 
 questions, 98 ; final conclusions 
 of, on authority, 99; on rejec- 
 tion of the church, 100; on the 
 Book of Mormon, 103; misrep- 
 resents defenders of Book of 
 Mormon, 117; misrepresents 
 and contradicts himself, 121, 
 122; sums up the case, 140; four 
 propositions of, 144; contradic- 
 tory positions of , 148 ; charges 
 falsely, 152; not aware that 
 polygamy was doubted, 156; 
 treatise of, on marriage arti- 
 cle, summed up, 160; omits 
 from Brigham Young's testi- 
 
 mony, 178; ten conclusions of, 
 faulty, 180; inconsistency of, 
 in gathering testimony, 182, 
 183; testimony of, to the good 
 character of Joseph Smith, of 
 Lamoni, 183; false basis of, 
 concerning gathering, 192; 
 trickery of, in misquoting, 196, 
 197; misquotes section 100. 200; 
 unsafe to accept anything 
 from, without investigation, 
 200; continued misrepresenta- 
 tions of, 201; ten propositions 
 of, on Rebellion revelation, 205 ; 
 technical point of, in regard to 
 slaves, 208; admits injustice of 
 Saints' treatment, 212, 213; 
 comments of, on Rebellion 
 prophecy. 218, 219; confesses 
 scenes of Independence and 
 Carthage can never be re- 
 peated, 225 ; will not move the 
 thoughtful and patriotic, 227; 
 has no advantage by reason of 
 previous membership, 232, 5:33. 
 
 Bennett, John C. and polygamy, 
 160; exposed, 163, 164. 
 
 Bible names. 92, 93. 
 
 Bickerton, William, faction of, 
 opposed to polygamy, 188. 
 
 Blair, W. W., on the remnants, 
 210, 211. 
 
 Blood of the Saints, the prophecy 
 concerning, fulfilled, 212-214. 
 
 Book of Mormon, misrepresented, 
 20; how written, 126; charac- 
 ters and shorthand, 133, 134; 
 and laying on of hands, 150, 151. 
 
 Books inscribed on tablets of dif- 
 ferent substances, 136. 
 
 Braden, Clark, his work in ex- 
 posing Mormonism indorsed, 3. 
 
 Brass, Hebrew writing on, 135. 
 
 Brewster, J. C, faction of, op- 
 posed to polygamy, 188. 
 
 Briggs, J. W., misrepresented, 25. 
 
 Burnett on waves of the sea, 229. 
 
 Calhoun to Joseph Smith, 217. 
 Calling of apostles in ancient and 
 
 modern times, 93-97. 
 Campbell, A., against Bays on 
 
 the calling of Matthias, 65, 66; 
 
 a patriarch, 75; versus Bays, 
 
 103. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 237 
 
 Catlin, George, on Jews and 
 American Indians, 132, 133. 
 
 Cause of the Saints has been 
 plead. 225, 226. 
 
 Central AmoricEin hieroglyphics, 
 Short, 127, 128; Bancroft, 128; 
 Priest, 128: Delafield, 128, 129; 
 LePlongeon, 129. 
 
 Challenge to Mormons, 56. 
 
 Character of Reorganization, 
 Bays' estimate of, 44. 
 
 Charges made known to be false, 
 152, 153. 
 
 Christian Church, humiliating 
 confession of, 4. 
 
 Christian Publishing House's 
 inconsistency, 4 ; concession of, 
 38. 
 
 Church and Joseph Smith mis- 
 represented, 35, 36. 
 
 Church organized anciently and 
 in modern times without apos- 
 tles, 79, 80. 
 
 Church, the, its true foundation, 
 40; a, without ambassadors, 69. 
 
 Citizens of Philadelphia, petition 
 of, 226, 227. 
 
 Comments of Bays on Rebellion 
 prophecy, 218, 219. 
 
 Commission, analyzed by Bays, 
 47; Bays' position concerning, 
 answered, 47-51. 
 
 Concession of Christian Publish- 
 ing House, 38. 
 
 Contradictions of Egyptologists, 
 125. 126. 
 
 Corinthians first, twelfth chap- 
 ter. Bays on, 51. 
 
 Corruption among the factions, 
 58. 
 
 Criticism of Bays on poisoning of 
 Joseph Smith, answered, 53, 54. 
 
 Davis, Chas. H. S., on Book of 
 
 Mormon characters, 122, 123. 
 Deficiencies, two remarkable 
 
 ones in the Reorganized 
 
 Church, 61. 
 Democratic Association of 
 
 Quincy, Illinois, resolutions 
 
 of, 220, 221. 
 Denial that Patriarch's position 
 
 is a salaried one, 62. 
 Derry, Charles, misrepresented, 
 
 26-28 ; answers challenge as to 
 
 miracles. 56. .57; on the nature 
 and formation of the church, 
 76, 77; on high priests, 91; on 
 apostasy and gates of hell, 101- 
 103. 
 
 Doctrines misrepresented, 143. 
 
 Duties of apostles other than am- 
 bassadorial, 68. 
 
 Earl, N. D., affidavit of, 215, 216. 
 
 Earthquakes, list of, from a. d. 1 
 to 1868, 228. 
 
 Egyptologists, consulted by Bays, 
 120, 121; on Book of Mormon 
 characters, answered, 125-140. 
 
 Elder Derry answers challenge as 
 to miracles, 56, 57. 
 
 Elders not to do the work of apos- 
 tles, 78. 
 
 Emancipation ProclamatioB, 
 
 scope and effect of, 208, 309. 
 
 Emanuel, Reverend G. J., on 
 Palestine, 109, 110. 
 
 Errors, only a part of, exposed, 
 13. 
 
 Ethiopia, where located, 105-107. 
 
 Ewing, General, his order of ex- 
 pulsion of 1863, 224, 225. 
 
 Expositor, the Nauvoo, 165; tes- 
 timony of, in favor of the 
 church, 165, 166. 
 
 Factions, corruption among, 58. 
 
 "Facts for the Times," on earth- 
 quakes, 228. 
 
 Failure to obey God, consequences 
 of, 200, 201. 
 
 Faith, the only abiding gift, Bays' 
 position, 53; different kinds 
 discussed, 145. 
 
 False logic, about corrupt fac- 
 tions, answered, 58, 59; as to 
 organization, answered. 60. 
 
 Far-fetched conclusion, 104. 
 
 Final conclusions of Bays an- 
 swered, 99. 
 
 First Presidency, 74. 
 
 Fishing River revelation consist- 
 ent, 200, 201. 
 
 Force, possession by, not contem- 
 plated, 192-202. 
 
 Ford, Governor, on treatment of 
 the Saints, 213, 214. 
 
 Foundation of the church mis- 
 represented, 40. 
 
238 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Four propositions of Bays an- 
 swered, 144-147. 
 
 Fullmer, David, testimony of, on 
 polygamous revelation, 175. 
 
 Galveston, recent disaster at, 232. 
 
 General E wing's order of expul- 
 sion of 1863, 224. 225. 
 
 Gifts, faith the only abiding one, 
 answered, 53. 
 
 Gillium, Cornelius, sheriff, state- 
 ment of, concerning Zion's 
 camp, 197, 198. 
 
 Grover, Thomas, letter of, on 
 polygamous revelation, 176. 
 
 Harper's Magazine on tidal 
 waves, 229. 
 
 Harris, Martin, statement of, 
 misrepresented, 28; visit of, to 
 Professor Anthon, 115. 
 
 Haun's Mill, the massacre of, 213. 
 
 Healing, remarkable case of, 44- 
 46; necessity for, past, 54; ne- 
 cessity for, still continues, 54, 
 55. 
 
 Hebrews wrote on brass, 135-137. 
 
 Higbees misrepresented, 35. 
 
 Holy Ghost, how given, 147-151. 
 
 Home, Thomas H., on brass tab- 
 lets among Jews, .136, 137. 
 
 Hostility not the intention of 
 Zion's camp, 197, 198. 
 
 Hyde, John, on a statement of 
 Joseph Smith, in 1843, 216. 
 
 Illinois, treatment of the Saints 
 in, 213, 214. 
 
 Inferences do not establish guilt, 
 157. 
 
 Inspiration, United States Gov- 
 ernment founded by, 219, 220. 
 
 Isaiah 18:1. 2, 104. 
 
 Isaiah 29, 107-114; covers a long 
 period of time, 112. 
 
 Jailer, case of, considered, 145. 
 Jethro and Caleb, ordinations of, 
 
 93. 
 Jewish origin of prehistoric 
 
 Americans. 129-131. 
 Joseph and Oliver, ordination of, 
 
 88. 89. 
 Joseph Smith's statements not 
 
 law to the church, 81. 
 
 Journal, Mercantile, on caprices 
 
 of the earth, 230. 
 Judgment and resurrection, 151. 
 
 Kelley, W. H., misrepresented, 
 
 117, 118. 
 Kimball, H. C, on the object of 
 
 Zion's camp, 195. 
 King-priest argument answered, 
 
 90, 91. 
 Kirtland endowment misreppe- 
 
 sented, 24. 
 
 Land of Zion must be purchased, 
 196. 
 
 Land "shadowing with wings," 
 104. 
 
 Language of learned men, 139. 
 
 Laying on of hands, 147-151 ; 
 Bays denies Book of Mormon 
 teaches, 32; was it to be 
 handed down, 148, 149; and 
 Book of Mormon, 150, 151. 
 
 Lebanon to be a fruitful field, 108. 
 
 Lederer, G. R., converted Jew, 
 statement of, 130, 131. 
 
 Legal case concerning spiritual 
 gifts answered, 41, 42. 
 
 Letter to Calhoun by Joseph 
 Smith, 217, 218. 
 
 Liberality, Bays on record touch- 
 ing, 153. 
 
 Liberty, Missouri, meeting of 
 June 16, 1834, and reply thereto, 
 193, 194. 
 
 Man of straw, 90. 
 
 Marks, William, testimony of, 
 about polygamy, 180, 181 ; pur- 
 port of his testimony, 181, 182; 
 Bays admits veracity of, 182. 
 
 Marriage article. Bays on, 159, 
 160. 
 
 Matthias, case of, considered by 
 Bays, 65. 
 
 Messenger, Western, of Cincin- 
 nati, Ohio, on Mormon perse- 
 cutions, 221-224. 
 
 Miller, George, relation of, to po- 
 lygamy, 33, 34. 
 
 Ministers not always called 
 through a prophet, 88. 
 
 Miracles, Bays' treatment of, 43,. 
 43; in the Reorganization^ 
 
INDEX. 
 
 231> 
 
 Bavs' statement concerning, 
 44-46. 
 Miraculous power, Bays' state- 
 ment concerning, 22; Bays' for- 
 mer statements of, 33 ; contin- 
 ued, 47-51. 
 Misquotations, from Joseph 
 Smith, 13, 14; from W. H. 
 Kelley. 15. 16, 18; Tullidge's His- 
 tory, 16; Doctrine and Cove- 
 nants 16, 18; New Testament, 
 17; Church History, 17; section 
 100, Book of Covenants, 196, 
 197. 
 'Misrepresentations touching 
 apostles and prophets, an- 
 swered, 67, 68. 
 Missouri, not to lose identity, 
 220 ; punishment of, severe, 224. 
 Misstatement of the case by 
 
 Bays, 211. 
 Mistakes may have been made, 
 
 201. 
 Moldenke, Charles E., on Book of 
 Mormon characters, 123, 134; 
 contradicts himself, 134. 
 Moral status of D. H. Bays, 35, 36. 
 Mormons, challenge to, answered, 
 56. 
 
 Names of the Bible, 92, 93. 
 
 Nations, "And they shall also 
 call upon other," defined, 207. 
 
 New Testament, description of 
 ordinations called for, and an- 
 swered, 73, 74; record not full, 
 76. 
 
 Nivens, J. W., on Jewish writ- 
 ings, 137. 
 
 Nullification, troubles not settled 
 till conclusion of civil war, 204; 
 Johnson's Cyclopaedia on, 204. 
 
 Ordination, of officers, 73; of Jo- 
 seph and Oliver, 88, 89. 
 
 Palestina, June. 1897, 108-110; 
 September, 1897, 111, 112. 
 
 Patriarch, 75, 76; duties of, mis- 
 stated, 21 ; receives no salary, 
 62. 
 
 Patriot, the true, 227. 
 
 Paul and Peter on faith. 145. 
 
 Pentecost, Peter's sermon on, 150. 
 
 Phelps, W. W., on Harris' testi- 
 mony. 120. 
 Philadelphia citizens, petition of, 
 
 226, 227. 
 Plates fastened with rings, a Jew- 
 ish custom, 136. 
 Poisoning, the case of Joseph 
 
 Smith, 53. 
 Polygamous cases, how dealt 
 
 with, 166, 167. 
 Polygamy, 152; forbidden, 37; 
 Bays' summary on, 157; evi- 
 dence examined, 157-182; testi- 
 mony on, from Times and Sea- 
 sons, 161 ; validity of testimony 
 on, examined, 162, 163; some 
 privately taught, 181 ; in every 
 faction, asserted and denied, 
 183, 189. 
 Position, that apostles are am- 
 bassadors only, answered, 65; 
 of the church correctly stated,. 
 143. 
 Pratt, P. P., on the purpose of 
 
 Zion's camp, 195, 196. 
 Prehistoric Americans of Jewish 
 
 origin, 129-133. 
 Presumption of Bays, 46, 66, 67. 
 Priesthood conferred by laying 
 
 on of hands, 89. 
 Priest must be a king, 90. 
 Prophecy of December 27, 1832, 
 
 227, 228. 
 Propositions presented by leaders 
 
 of Zion's camp, 198, 199. 
 Proposition ten on Rebellion reve- 
 lation answered, 214. 
 Providence, Bays and his book, 
 children of, 39. 
 
 Qualifications of an apostle, 70. 
 
 Rebellion, revelation on, 203 ; fuK 
 filled, 219. 
 
 Remarkable case of healing, 44- 
 46. 
 
 Remnants, who are they, 210; 
 revelation fulfilled in regard to, 
 210. 
 
 Reorganized Church, two re- 
 markable deficiencies in, 61. 
 
 Repentance from dead works, 146. 
 
 Resolutions of Democratic Asso- 
 ciation, of Quincy, Illinois, 220,. 
 221. 
 
240 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Resurrection and judgment, 151. 
 
 Return of Israel described by- 
 Isaiah, 113. 
 
 Revelation, the foundation. 82; 
 on polygamy, its size, 173; on 
 the Rebellion, 203 ; on the Re- 
 bellion published before fulfill- 
 ment, 205. 
 
 Rigdon, Sidney, faction of, op- 
 posed to polygamy, 188-185. 
 
 Rise and Fall of Confederate Gov- 
 ernment quoted, 206, 207. 
 
 Robinson, Ebenezer and Ange- 
 lina, testimony of, 189, 190. 
 
 Robinson, Ebenezer, experience 
 of, in the Reorganization told 
 by himself, 191. 
 
 Ryder a patriarch, 75. 
 
 Scriptures, the, do they teach the 
 laying on of hands, 149, 150. 
 
 Seaton, Joseph Smith's letter to, 
 214, 215. 
 
 Seeing Christ not essential to 
 apostleship, 70, 71. 
 
 Short on the architecture of 
 Central America, 127. 
 
 Simon's case, 150. 
 
 Slavery, Bays' quibble concern- 
 ing, 208. 
 
 Smith, Emma, testimony of, con- 
 cerning polygamy, 169, 170; 
 Bays' testimony of charac- 
 ter of, 170; statements of, in 
 1856 and 1857, 170, 171; testi- 
 mony of, on polygamous reve- 
 lation, 179, 180. 
 
 Smith, Hyrum, alleged two 
 wives of, 171, 172. 
 
 Smith, Joseph, word of, said to 
 be law, 152; connection of, 
 with polygamy, 156, 157; 
 alleged five wives of. 167, 
 168; on the object of the ex- 
 pedition to Missouri, 192, 198; 
 on the equipment of Zion's 
 camp, 194; to Editor Seaton, 
 214, 215; prophesies of Rebellion 
 in 1843, 216; to Calhoun, 217, 
 218. 
 
 Soby, Leonard, testimony of, on 
 polygamous revelation, 174, 175. 
 
 Spalding Romance abandoned. 89. 
 
 Specimen of Bays' logic, 100, 101. 
 
 Spiritual gifts, Bays' argument 
 
 on. 41 ; stated as a legal case, 
 41 ; and charity. Bays' position 
 on, answered, 51, 52. 
 
 States, Southern, called upon 
 other nations, 206. 207. 
 
 Statements, of Egyptologists 
 quoted, 122-125; of Joseph 
 Smith not law to the church, 
 81. 
 
 Story of an old colored man, 139. 
 
 Strang, organization of, misrep- 
 resented, 24 ; faction of, at first 
 opposed to polygamy, 185-187. 
 
 Straw man, 90. 
 
 Superiority claimed by Bays, 38. 
 
 Syllogism answered, 86, 87. 
 
 Teeter-board illustration, 87. 
 
 Ten propositions by Bays on Re- 
 bellion revelation, 205; re- 
 viewed, 205-232. 
 
 Testimony, of the eight witnesses, 
 141, 142; on polygamy from 
 Times and Seasons, 161; in re- 
 gard to Joseph Smith's five 
 wives, 167, 168; of Martin 
 Harris not contradictory, 118, 
 119. 
 
 Thompson, Charles B., faction of, 
 opposed to polygamy, 188. 
 
 Thompson, Mercy R., testimony 
 of, on polygamy, 171, 172; testi- 
 mony of, on polygamy, criti- 
 cised, 173, 174. 
 
 Trash, not logic, 107. 
 
 Tribune, Chicago, on year 1871, 
 230-232. 
 
 Tribune, N. Y., on tidal disturb- 
 ances, 229, 230. 
 
 True foundation of the church, 
 40. 
 
 Twelve misrepresented, 25. 
 
 Twenty-ninth of Isaiah fulfilled 
 today, 112. 
 
 Two separate baptisms, 147. 
 
 Union Bible Dictionary on Jew- 
 ish writings, 187. 
 
 United States Government 
 founded by inspiration, 319, 
 220. 
 
 Untruthful assertions, 107. 
 
 Validity of testimony on po- 
 lygamy examined, 162, 163. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 241 
 
 Walker, Lovina, testimony of, 
 hearsay, 168. 
 
 Waves heaving themselves be- 
 yond bounds. 229-232. 
 
 Western Messenger, Cincinnati, 
 Ohio, on Mormon persecutions, 
 221-224. 
 
 Wight, Lyman, on Zion and obe- 
 dience, 194, 195. 
 
 Witnesses to Book of Mormon, 
 misrepresented, 29, 30; true 
 testimony of, 29, 30. 
 
 Witnesses, sworn and not sworn, 
 163; on polygamous revelation 
 do not agree, 176-178. 
 
 Wives, the alleged five, of Joseph 
 
 Smith, 167. 168; the alleged two, 
 of Hyrum Smith, 171, 172. 
 Work needs no apology, 201, 203. 
 
 Young, Brigham, testimony of, 
 on polygamous revelation, 178. 
 
 Young. Emily D. P., testimony 
 of, 167, 168 ; cross-examined, 169. 
 
 Zion's camp, did not contemplate 
 forcible possession, 192; H. C. 
 Kimball on, 195; P. P. Pratt on 
 purpose of, 195, 196; hostility 
 not intention of, 196, 197; 
 propositions of the leaders of,. 
 198, 199. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 ■ ' •■• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^^>^m^^ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ^mm'^mm'm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mmffmm^ 
 
 t" 
 
 
 
 "^^K^^^^^^^^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A.