University of California Berkeley 
 

 
 
 
 
PUBLIC DISCUSSION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ISSUES BETWEEN 
 
 The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 
 
 AND 
 
 The Church of Christ [Disciples] 
 
 HELD IN KIRTLAND, OHIO 
 Beginning February 12, and Closing March 8, 1884 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 E. L. KELLEY, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 
 
 AND 
 
 CLARK BRADEN, of The Church of Christ 
 
 MODERATORS 
 
 E. B. BOND, of Kiitland, Ohio, - - . Chairman. 
 
 W. H. KELLEY. of Coldwater, Mch.,- . . For Mr. Kelley. 
 
 A. B. DEMING, of Kirtland, Ohio, . . For Mr. Braden. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS 
 
 I. Is the Book of Mormon of divine origin, and are its tcchin s entitled to the respect and belief of all Chris- 
 tian people? MR. KELLEY, Affirmed. 
 
 II. Is the Church of which I, Clark Braden am a member, the Church of Christ, and identical in faith, organ- 
 ization, ordinances, worship t nd practice, with the Church of Christ as it was left perfected by the Apostles of 
 Christ? MR. BRADEN, Affirmed. 
 
 in. Is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in fact, the Church of God, and accepted 
 with h:m? MR. KELLEY, Affirmed. 
 
 Published by 
 
 THE HERALD PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
 
 Lamoni, - Iowa 
 
 1913 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is not necessary to detail all that led to the debate in Kirtland, Ohio. Suffice it to 
 Bay that it was held by mutual agreement between Mr. Kelly of the H. C. of J. C. of Latter 
 Day Saints; and Mr. Braden of the Church of Christ, known as Disciples in the East and 
 North, and as Christians in the West and South. The following were the Rules of 
 Discussion between Clark Braden and E. L. Kelley. 
 
 1. The discussion shall be held at Kirtland, Lake County, Ohio, commencing 1 
 February 12, 1884, and shall continue for the time of sixteen sessions of two hours each to 
 be held each day as the parties shall determine. 
 
 2. Each session shall be occupied by two speeches each, bv the disputants, of one 
 half hour each. The affirmative shall open and the negative shall close the debate on 
 each proposition, but in the closing speeches no new matter shall be introduced without 
 mutual consent. 
 
 3. Each party shall choose a moderator, and they too shall choose a third if necessary 
 the duties of whom shall be the usual duties of moderators of such assemblies. 
 
 4. Eight sessions of two hours each shall be given to the first proposition, and four 
 sessions of two hours each shall be given to each of the others. 
 
 5. Each session shall be opened and closed by prayer, by the parties alternately, or by 
 selection. 
 
 6. The parties shall be governed by Hedge's Rules of Logic in this discussion as 
 follows : 
 
 Rule 1st. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise 
 point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there can be no misunderstanding 
 respecting them. 
 
 Rule 2d. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing 
 of equality in respect to the subject in debate, each should regard the other as possessing 
 equal talents, knowledge and desire for truth, with himself and that it is possible 
 therefore that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right. 
 
 Rule 3d. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect, in regard to the 
 subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as 
 unmeaning which contributes nothing to the proof of the question, such as desultory 
 remarks, and declamatory expressions, all technical ambiguities and equivocal expressions. 
 
 Itule 4th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged in. 
 Whatever his private character, his follies are not to be named, nor alluded to iu 
 controversy. Personal reflections are not only destiiute of effect in respect to the 
 question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil. 
 
 Rule 5th. No one has a right to accuse his adversary with indirect motives. 
 
 Rule 6th. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him whp 
 maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 
 
 Rule 7th. As truth and not victory is the professed object of controversy, whatever 
 proofs may be on either side should be examined with fairness and candor, and any 
 attempt to ensnare an adversary by arts or sophistry, or to lessen the force of hie 
 reasoning by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules or honorable controversy. 
 
 The Following are the Propositions agreed upon by Disputants, and their Order 
 
 1 Is the Book of Mormon of divine origin, and are its teachings entitled to the 
 respect and belief of all Christian people? 
 
 KELLEY, AFF. 
 
 2. Is the church of which I, Clark Braden, am a member, the church of Christ, and 
 idenHcal in faith, organization, teaching, ordinances, worship and practice with the 
 church of Christ as it was left perfected by the Apostles? 
 
 BRADEN, AFF. 
 
 3. Is the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ, of L. D. S. in fact the Church of God, 
 and accepted with him? 
 
 KELLEY, AFF. 
 
 In the discussion of the questions the Bible is to be the standard of evidence, but 
 either party has the privilege Of also using whatever proofs tie may bring from 
 Historical, Ethnological, Scientific or other works. 
 
 (Signed.) CLARK^BRADEN. 
 
 E. L. KELLEY. 
 
 By mutual consent the time to the first proposition was extended two evenings and 
 hence the entire discussion was 18 instead of 1H sessions as provided by the foregoing rules. 
 Nearly all of tho matter presented in debate was read from manuscript on both sides, 
 hence the matter in tho Book is almost vc,rb<ithn, as it was presented in the debate. 
 
 With the hope and prayer that the book may aid in leading all readers to a 
 knowledge of the truth, it is submitted to the reader by the authors. 
 
 CLARK BRADEN, 
 E. L. KELLEY. 
 
nn n/ 'i i 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE, 
 
 FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 Js the Book of Mormon of divine origin 
 
 and it& teachings entitled to the respect 
 
 and belief of ail Christian people t 
 REPORT. 
 
 The parties met according to appointment 
 on the 12th day of February, 1884, at seven 
 o'clock p. m. in the Town Hall, Kirtland, 
 Ohio. 
 
 MODERATORS. 
 
 Messrs. Ezra Bond, Wm. H. Kelley and 
 A. B. Deming. 
 
 The meeting having been called to order, 
 the chairman moderator, Mr. Bond, had 
 read the rules of the debate as agreed upon 
 by the parties, and the propositions agreed 
 upon for discussion. 
 
 Mr. Kelley then opened the debate as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: It is with some degree of 
 pleasure that I appear before you this 
 evening to enter upon an invet tigation 
 of the question which kas just been 
 read in your hearing. And I say this, 
 notwithstanding the fact of which I 
 am already aware, that to undertake 
 such a task requires on the part of any 
 disputant a work of constant and contin- 
 uous labor ; and when one is called upon in 
 Buch investigation to also contend with an 
 experienced and persistent debater the un- 
 dertaking will necessarily be with propor- 
 tionate difficulties. 
 
 But I am happy in this step toward a 
 critical examination of the proposition for 
 the reason that I believe there is a merit, 
 deep and lasting, attached to the subject- 
 matter that few realize, and that should be 
 attained by all mankind, and a fair and 
 candid investigation will enable you to 
 judge for yourselves of this, and decide as 
 11 thinking men and women should as to 
 the merits or demerits, and let the decision 
 be whichever way it may, it will to a cer- 
 tain extent not only affect you here but in a 
 manner in all time that is to come. I say 
 this, not for the purpose of stating to you 
 anything that is calculated to terrify one in 
 any respect with regard to the investigation 
 of the question at issue, for I not only be- 
 lieve it is so with regard to the subject-mat- 
 ter in dispute here, but it is so also of any 
 truth, any rule of action or fact that has 
 emanated from the divine being, or that has 
 been in this sphere elicited by mankind ; it 
 being better that the people should be 
 brought in Contact with and that they 
 should accept that which is true, rather 
 than that they should not come in contact 
 
 with it, or that they should reject it after 
 having in vestiga ted. 
 
 This is not only true in religion but also 
 in other matters. It is a fact as to the 
 affairs of government ; in science and the 
 arts of man, and in fact through all the 
 broad dominion of knowledge and exper- 
 ience. It is far better that the faith and 
 impulses of the race be founded in truth 
 than error, let that truth spring from 
 whatever source it may ; and believing also 
 that mankind in the matter of religion may 
 in the fullest sense become better while 
 here in this life, and thus be better fitted to 
 enjoy and inherit the life to be made mani- 
 fest, by conforming to-that which is true, 
 that system of religion which is in fact a 
 revealed science from above, must contain 
 truths, which if believed and followed, will 
 affect the life and character here and so re- 
 late to us in the great hereafter, to a greater 
 extent than can principles started or evolved 
 by the wise of this little world of ours. 
 
 Taking up the subject-matter under dis- 
 cussion, I refer you directly to the question : 
 The Book of Mormon ! Is it of divine 
 origin ? and are its teachings of such a 
 character as to entitle them to the re- 
 spect and belief of all Christian people? 
 These are questions that you ought to be 
 able to answer correctly and intelligently, 
 as you are called upon to pass judgment 
 upon them from time to time, and also to 
 pass upon the society, so far as reflecting 
 your views are concerned, which believes 
 the work is of divine origin and that its 
 teachings are calculated of their very nature 
 to elevate the human family and to make 
 men better here and thereby prepared for 
 better promises the reali/ation of which is 
 to come. Do not overlook the gist of this 
 proposition ; it not only contains teachings 
 of value, but those of as high a nature as 
 can be found in any work written in any 
 age so far as furnished us in the history of 
 the race. That we are bound as enlighten- 
 ed people to give to the claim by this work 
 of being of " divine origin," a candid and 
 careful consideration, will certainly follow 
 if the work is brought under such circum- 
 stances and in that way as to present in its 
 behalf a prima facie case touching its mer- 
 its arid its origin. And while it may be 
 true Ladies and Gentlemen, that you are 
 not required to examine everything that is 
 thrown upon the world in order to fulfill 
 the purposes and designs of creation, it is a 
 fact which relates to the human family as 
 absolutely as that, truth is more to be desir- 
 ed than error in its development, that 
 whenever a fair and proper case is made 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 upon the very outset of a matter, claiming 
 to be the truth, or a thing of divine source, 
 it is incumbent upon all to hear and make 
 a fair and candid examination of the same ; 
 and when persons go so far as to judge 
 a matter before hearing it, or to pass a case 
 fairly presented without the trouble even of 
 giving it a hearing, they violate the prime 
 law by which truth is made attainable in 
 the wo; Id and progress possible, and thus 
 far must forever stand condemned by Him 
 who ordained the law for a wise purpose 
 and gave to the creature thereunder intelli- 
 gence and liberty of action. 
 
 The injunction to "Prove all things and 
 holdfast that which is good," is certainly 
 taken in the light of human reason a good 
 one ; and I go so far as to say, that neither 
 you nor any other people should be called 
 upon to accept as truth a matter or princi- 
 ple relating directly to them, except upon a 
 due examination of the evidences favoring 
 the same, or so much as may be necessary 
 to support the principle ; and in the progres's 
 of this discussion I shall only call upon 
 you to accept as truth the work referred to 
 in the proposition after you shall have had 
 some of the evidences relating thereto. 
 
 The Book of Morman comes to the people 
 in such a shape as to fairly demand of 
 them a candid and impartial examination. 
 Whatever may be said as to the work other- 
 wise, in the presentation of it at least there 
 is madeout a clear, concise, and prima facia 
 case, containing every essential feature 
 that would be requisite to a bona fide mes- 
 sage or work absolutely emanating from 
 the creator of the race and the dispenser of 
 the system of religion as reflected in the 
 Bible, the admitted standard of truth in 
 this controversy. 
 
 This is made apparant from the follow- 
 ing facts set forth on the face of the work : 
 
 1. It makes claim to have originated 
 from the proper source. It does not claim 
 to have originated with man. It does not 
 claim to be the doctrines of any false god 
 that has invaded this world ; or of any god 
 made with men's hands. It claims to have 
 had its origin in the work of Him who de- 
 livered a like record to a people on the 
 Eastern continent of the world. And 
 since the claim of its origin is from the 
 same source from which we claim to have 
 received the Bible, the first position of the 
 prima facia case is clear, and thus far 
 makes the work entitled to the respect and 
 careful consideration of all. 
 
 2. It claims to contain a proper message. 
 A communication from Jehovah to any part 
 of the race would contain a message evi- 
 dently for the highest good of the people to 
 whom it was made ; and in this book there 
 is what claimes to be a record of the " Ever- 
 lasting Gospel" as it was delivered to a 
 people other than those of the tribe of 
 Judah, together with a history of the works 
 and worship of that same people. The 
 second position to a proper case is made 
 then in that, the message it claims to bear 
 is a good and proper one. 
 
 3. The object in delivering the work to 
 the world as borne out upon its face is a 
 right and proper one. To show this object 
 I will read from the book itself. I have in 
 my hands a reprint of the third American 
 edition. Would read from the original copy 
 of the book which I also present to you, but 
 this edition which I have used I am more 
 accustomed to and hence use it for the sake 
 of rapidity in my work. The two editions 
 are emphatically the same however, except 
 as to a few typographical and gramatical 
 errors that evidently crept in, in the copy ing 
 and printing of the work and from which 
 I might say, no book is exempt. It is some- 
 times given out that there have been 
 changes made in the work since its first 
 publication. This I deny as to anything 
 material whatever. The only thing 'claim- 
 ed as a material change by any candid 
 critic is in the inscription page, the first 
 copy reading, "Joseph Smith, Author and 
 Proprietor," whereas in subsequent editions 
 he is simply the " translator." By examin- 
 ing the first page of the original,' however, 
 I find that he is set out there as the " trans- 
 lator," and in the preface to the original he 
 is clearly and emphatically set forth as the 
 translator only, so far as his work in the 
 matter is concerned, and hence it was not 
 possible to have misled any reader by the 
 words "Author and Proprietor," as they 
 there appeared. But it will be brought out 
 more fully as we proceed as to how this 
 came to be placed on the inscription and for 
 the present I leave the matter The object 
 of the book. I read from the title page: 
 
 "Wherefore it Is an abridgment of the record of 
 'the people of Nephi, and also of the i.aminites; 
 ' * * * An abridgment taken from the Hook 
 'of Ether: also, which is a record of ihe people of 
 'Jared; who were scattered tttthe time the Lord eon- 
 'founded the language of the people, when they were 
 1 building a tower to get to heaven: Which In to show 
 'nnto the remnant of the house of Israel what great 
 'things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that 
 'they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they 
 'are not cast off forever; and also t the convincing of 
 'the Jew and Gentile that Jesns is the Christ, the I- ter- 
 'nal God, nvmifesting himself unto all nations." 
 'And now if there are faults, they are the mistake" of 
 'men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, 
 'that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat 
 'of Christ." 
 
 And also in the body of the work page 
 !90, one of the writers states as follows: 
 
 And this is thecommandment which I haverecelv- 
 'ed; and behold they shall come forth according to 
 'the commandment of the Lord, when he -hall see 
 'fit, in his wisdom. And behold they shall go unto 
 'the unbelieving of the Jews; ai.d for this intent 
 'shall they go; that they may be persuaded that 
 'Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God ; that 
 ' i he Father may bring about, through hK most belov- 
 'ed, his great and eternal purpose-, in restoring the 
 'Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their 
 'inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given 
 'them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant, and nlso 
 'that the seed of this poople may more fully believe 
 'his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the 
 'Gentiles; for this peop'e shall be scattered, and 
 'shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome peo- 
 'pie, beyond the dcsciiption of that which ever hath 
 'been amongst us." 
 
 The object of the work then and the in- 
 troduction of it is in the highest sense a 
 proper one and thus the third fact entering 
 to made up the prime facia case is com- 
 plete. 
 
THE BE, ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 4. In the array of its witnesses the work 
 Is shown to be fully entitled to a thorough 
 and unprejudiced examination. 
 
 First, the testimony of a single witness ; 
 begining with the statement of the boy 
 when but fourteen years of age, and consis- 
 tently maintained by him afterwards, until 
 when in his thirty-ninth year he gave the 
 highest assurance of its correctness by reso- 
 lutely standing in the gate of deatn itself 
 for the truth of it. His full statement I 
 shall introduce in another part of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Srrond, The testimony of three witnesses. 
 
 And in presenting to you their statement 
 I call your attention to the fact that 
 the character of their lives were such sub- 
 sequently as to fully attest the truth of the 
 original testimony. They not only accepted 
 this knowledge as a part of their lives re- 
 ligously, but also taught it to their children, 
 and to their children's children. Two of 
 them having borne the same testimony till 
 their voices were sealed in death, and the 
 survivor, now under the lilies of nearly 
 eighty winters, still points all enquirers to 
 this his testimony as a circumstance in his 
 life's work which was, and is, the happiest 
 of all, and his has been a well spent life. 
 
 This testimony they left upon record not 
 only to have its effect upon present things 
 and associations, but also to extend to 
 future generations, being the declared act 
 and knowledge of the three with reference 
 to this work under discussion, when unin- 
 fluenced by any conceivable sinister motive, 
 or any inducement or hope of reward what- 
 ever, except the reward of well doing, which 
 they expected only to receive when they 
 should come into the presence of Him who 
 is cognizant of all the secret motives that 
 move men to action. 
 
 The following is their testimony : 
 
 "Be it known unto all nations, kindr ds, tongues, 
 "and people, unto whom this work shall come, tha, 
 "W". through ihe grace of God the Father, and our 
 " Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the platen which con- 
 "tuin tiiis record, wh i-h is a record of the people ol 
 "Nephi. and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, 
 'and also of the people of Jared, \\lio came from the 
 'tower of which hath been sp..ken; and we aiso know 
 'thfltthey have been translated by the gift and power 
 'of God for his voice hath dec are'd it unto us; where- 
 'fore we know of a surety, that the work is true. 
 ' And we a so testify that we have seen the engravings 
 'which are upon the plates'; and they have been 
 'shown unto ns by the power of God. aiid not of man. 
 'And we declare with words of soberness, that an 
 ' aii'.'el of God came down trom heaven and he brought 
 1 and laid before our eyes, that u e 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 bare record 
 'that the.,e things are true; and it is marvel* us in our 
 'eyes, nevertheless, the voice of t e Lord commanded 
 'us that we slv>ul . b< ar record of it; Wherefore, to be 
 'obedient unto the cominan ments of (J.id, wo bear 
 'testimony of these things. And we know that if we 
 are fa thful in Chri.-t, we shall rid our garments of 
 'the i lood of nil men. and be found spoil ss befor-- the 
 'judgment seat of Chi ist, and sln.ll dwell with him 
 'eternally In the heavens. And ihe honor lie to :he 
 'Father, and Sou, and the Holy Ghost, which is oue 
 ' " 
 
 Ameii. 
 
 "OLIVER COWDFRY,* 
 " DAVID WHITMER." 
 "MARTIN HAI:K:S." 
 
 Third, The testimony of eight witnesses. 
 
 Like the three before referred to, thes*e 
 
 were men who confessed there belief in the 
 
 authenticity of the work, by afterwards 
 making it a part of their faith, and trans- 
 mitting their testimony unimpaired to their 
 posterity. It is as follows : 
 
 "Be it known unto all nations kindreds, tongues, and 
 "people, unto whom this work shall come, that Joseph 
 "Smith, Jr., the translator of this woik, has shown 
 "unto ns the plates of which hath been spoken, which 
 "have the appearance of gold; and ns mmy of the 
 "leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle 
 "with our hands; and we al-o saw the engravi:isrs 
 "thereon, all of which has the appearance f ancient 
 "work, and of curious workmanship And this we 
 "bear record with words of soberness, that the said 
 'Smith ha shown unto us, (or w hav seen and 
 'hefted, and know of a surety, that the said Smith has 
 'got the plates of which we have spoken. And we 
 'give onr names unto the worl I to witness unto the 
 'wo'ld that which we hav seen; and we lie not. God 
 'bearing witn ssodt." Signed. 
 
 "Christian Wh tmer, "Hiram Page, 
 
 "Jacob Whitmer, Joseph -mith, Senior. 
 
 4 Pet-T \Vh : tmer, Junior, Hyrnm Smi'h, 
 "John Whitmer.- Samuel H. Smith. 
 
 To support the element relating to the 
 manner in which the work comes to us I 
 have now introduced the positive declara- 
 tions of twelve witnesses, a sufficient num- 
 ber to maintain any c u<e to be contested 
 before courts of justice; and in things re- 
 lating to the divine being and religion it 
 cannot be said truthfully that the rule 
 would require more. In the introduction 
 of the religion of Christ in the first centuiy 
 of what is termed the Christian era, a sin- 
 gle witness first made known the proclama- 
 tion ; and the people to whom the witness 
 was sent were required to properly con- 
 sider and examine the message, although 
 the witness himself by reason of different 
 habits and a different life to that approved 
 by many of the people, was considered 
 possessed with an evil Spirit. Yet it is 
 said of him in the first chapter of John: 
 "There was a man sent from God, whose 
 "name was John. The same came for a 
 "witness, to bear witness of the Light, that 
 "all men through him might believe." 
 This was the only witness in fact of the 
 great mission of Jesus until the time when 
 God gave a revelation to Peter, and yet 
 Jesus says of John's work: "But the 
 "Pharisees and lawyers rejected the council 
 "of God against themselves, being iiot 
 "baptized of him." Luke 7 : 30. 
 
 The twelve witnesses whose testimony I 
 have now introduced in their work are 
 similiar to those raised up to bear testimony 
 of the things declared and done in the first 
 century ; and so far as it is possible to com- 
 pare testimonies it comes with equal weight 
 of that which has supported any divine 
 message in any time or age. The apostle 
 Peter says with reference to the testimony 
 to the work in his ministry : "And we are 
 "witnesses of all things which he did both 
 "in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem ; 
 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 
 "Him God raised up the third day, and 
 "showed him openly; Not to all the peo- 
 "ple, but unto witnesses chosen before of 
 "God, even to us, who did eat and drink 
 "with him after he rose from the dead." 
 Acts, 10: 39, 41. 
 
 It is sometimes objected that the plates 
 which are said to have been preserved by 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 the immediate power of God, kept that 
 they might not be destroyed but yet fill a 
 purpose in the world of instructing it in 
 things pertaining to the divine life, were 
 not shown to all people. The same objec- 
 tion has been made time and again with 
 reference totheNew Testaments foundation 
 evidence. That Jesus did not show him- 
 self to the people after his resurection in 
 order to make them believe, but to a few 
 "chosen witnesses." 
 
 The objection is a futile one in the mind 
 of any person who understands anything of 
 the essence and faith peculiar to the Chris- 
 tian religion, and the means adopted by 
 Jesus himself of establishing it among the 
 people. 
 
 But I am not left to the twelve witnesses; 
 the thousands who have since attested the 
 divine character of the work upon the inde- 
 pendent knowledge they themselves have 
 attained to, may be brought and marshalled 
 as a living host testifying to the truthful- 
 ness of the claim. 
 
 All of these, however, I have referred to 
 simply to substantiate my claim that in 
 the presentation of the Book of Mormon to 
 the world a prima facie case of its divine 
 authenticity is in every respect complete. 
 It claims to have come from the right 
 source ; the message it claims to bear is a 
 proper one ; the object of the message and 
 the object of its introduction are proper ; 
 and now the array of witnesses to that 
 message is found all that can reasonably be 
 asked. 
 
 It is truly entitled to an investigation 
 then, and with your attention, I at once 
 proceed to unfold the evidences relating to 
 its divine character, by which you and all 
 thinking people must determine for your- 
 selves. 
 
 There is an avenue of knowledge open to 
 this work that is peculiar to it, and the 
 doctrine taught by Christ in the New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures only. In the 7th chapter 
 and 16th and 17th verses of John's gospel it 
 is recorded: "Jesus answered them, and 
 "said, My doctrine is not mine, but his 
 41 that sent me. If any man will do his will, 
 11 he shall know of the doctrine, whether it 
 " be of God or whether I speak of myself." 
 
 In this record which I hold in my hand 
 (the Book of Mormon) occurs a sentiment 
 very much the same as found in this in- 
 struction of Jesus ; and. singular as it may 
 seem, these are the only two works pub- 
 lished to the world that have boldly claim- 
 ed that the truth or falsity of their state- 
 ments might be known by each person who 
 would go to the Creator of all and do his 
 will. I read from page 544 : 
 
 "And when ye shall receive these thing's," (con- 
 "tallied in the book under di&cnsiinn), I would exhort 
 "you ihat ye would ask God. ihe eternal Father, in 
 "the name of (Jhrist, if these things are nut true; and 
 "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, 
 "hiiving faith in Christ, he will mnnifi-si the truth of 
 "it iiiito you, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and t>y 
 "the p wt-r of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth 
 "of all tiling*. And whatsoever t hi: K 1* Rood, IK just 
 "and tiue: wherefore, nothing that is pood deuieth 
 "the Christ but acknowledged that he is." 
 
 JRemember, my friends, you are not asked 
 
 to first accept the book as true, nor to do 
 those things commanded in the book but 
 the will of God ; if you are in doubt, sim- 
 ply go aside and pray, with a sincere heart 
 and honest purpose, and the statement is 
 made fearlessly, and without regard to the 
 fact that if it was a deception upon the 
 people it might be at once detected by the 
 first honest enquirer who should go before 
 the Lord, for it says : " If ye shall ask 
 "with a sincere heart, with real intent, 
 "having faith in Christ, he will manifest 
 " the truth of it unto you, by the power of 
 " the Holy Ghost." The statement is not 
 that of a cunning deceiver, but certainly of 
 a person who has absolute confidence in the 
 cause which he represented. 
 
 I am a believer in the Bible. I am ready 
 at all times to come forward and stand in 
 defense of the divine authenticity of its 
 claim. But, while I am a believer in the 
 Bible, I am at the same time equally a be- 
 liever in the divine authenticity of the 
 record that was given to the people who 
 lived upon this continent. And I believe 
 that its truth can be proven to the world, 
 whether attacked by a professor of religion, 
 theologian of whatever rank, or the most 
 gifted skeptic. 
 
 Believing this, and that the evidences of 
 such proof are susceptible of demonstra- 
 tion, I may truly say that I stand up in the 
 effort to defend it to-night, as a work that 
 has been committed to man by Jehovah 
 himself, and that my reward for so doing 
 will be the reward of all those who shall 
 " have kept the word of God." Taking up 
 the record as it has been presented to the 
 world and examining it, I find that in hold- 
 ing forth its truths to 'the world, I make no 
 attack, either directly or by implication, 
 upon the Christian religion. I make no at- 
 tack upon the Bible. I make no attack 
 upon anything that people should believe 
 in, and that they do believe in and accept, 
 if they believe in and accept the sacred 
 scriptures. But I hold forth a work con- 
 firmative of the truths revealed in the Bi- 
 ble, and containing a record also in its com- 
 pleteness of the gospel set forth in the Bi- 
 ble, and evidently prepared of the Lord as 
 a means in his hand to stay the tide of infi- 
 delity which he must have foreknown would 
 come rolling in like a flood to destroy his 
 work. And this record not only being sus- 
 ceptible of clear proof from the Bible, but 
 also from the scientific developments of the 
 age and discoveries in archeology made 
 since the publication of the book, it is, as I 
 firmly believe, notwithstanding the warfare 
 against it since the first communication of 
 the light to the boy in 1823, destined to yet 
 become one of the most important factors 
 in the evangelization of the human race. 
 
 If the work is a good one its teachings 
 and principles will be good : 
 
 "For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of 
 "tho-ns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush 
 "gather they grapes. A good man out of tne good 
 "treasure of his heart bringeih loith that which is 
 "good : and an evil man out of the evil tr -asure of his 
 "Wart biingfth forth that which is evil: for of the 
 "abundance of the heart his mouth spt-aketh " Luke 
 6: 44 and 45. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 So it must prove of this work whether 
 written by men, or indicted by the Holy 
 Spirit through them from time to time. To 
 show you what its teachings are I will read 
 a few specimen paragraphs, which I claim 
 are in perfect keeping with all the teach- 
 ings of the book ; and if they are not I shall 
 expect my opponent during the discussion 
 to point out and read to you others of a con- 
 trary character. And if any of the audi- 
 ence think they can find something con- 
 trary to the teachings that I shall read, I 
 want you to buy a book and make the ex- 
 amination for yourselves as a couple of gen- 
 tlemen did to-day, who were not afraid to 
 examine. Page 99. 
 
 "And, again, the Lord God hath commanded that 
 "men should not mu'der; that they should not lie; 
 "that they should not steal ; that they should not lake 
 "the name of ihe Lord th ir God inviiin; that they 
 "should not envy ; that ihey should not have malice ; 
 "that they should not contend one with another; that 
 "they should not commit whoredoms; tnd that they 
 "should do none of these t ings ; for whoso doeth them, 
 "shall perish; for m-ne of these iniquities come of the 
 "Lord ; for he doeth that which is good among the 
 "children of men ; and he doeth nothing save it be 
 "plain unto the children of me ; and he In viteth them 
 "alto come unto him and partake of his goodness; 
 "and he <le lieth none that come unto him, black and 
 "white, bo d and free, male and female; and he re- 
 "membereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, 
 "both Jew and Gentile." 
 
 Page 242, of the same record. 
 
 "And now my brethren, T wish from the Inmost part 
 "of my heart, yea, with great anxiety, even unto pain, 
 "that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off 
 "your sins, arid not procriMinate the day of your 
 "repentance; but that ye would humble yourselves 
 "before the Lord, and '-all on his holy name, and watch 
 "and pray continually, that ye may not be tempted 
 "above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the 
 "Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive, 
 "patient, full of love and all long suffering; having 
 "hiith in the Lord; having a hope that ye shall re- 
 "ceive eternal life; ha\ing the love of God always in 
 "your hearts, that ye maybe lifted np at the last'day, 
 "and enter into his rest; and may the Lord grant unto 
 "you repentance that ye may not bring down his 
 "wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by 
 "the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the becoud 
 "death." 
 
 Also, paragraph 8, page 249. 
 
 "Kow those priests who did go forth among the 
 "people, did preach against nil lying, and deneivings, 
 "and envyings, and strifes, a. id malice and revilings, 
 "and stealing, robbing, plundering, murdering, com- 
 "milling adultery, and all manner of la*civiousness, 
 "cryng that these things ought not so to be; hold -ng 
 "forth things which must shortly come; yea holding 
 
 "f >rth the coming of the Pon of God, his suffering and 
 "death, and also the resurrection of the dead." 
 
 Again from the instruction on page 224, 
 paragraph 4. 
 
 " And now my beloved brethren, I have said these 
 "thii.gs unto you, that I might H waken yon to a sense 
 "of your duty to <iod, that ye may walk blameless 
 " before him ; that ye may walk after the holy order of 
 " God. af er which ye have been received. AIM now I 
 "'v onld that ye shou'd be hum le. and be submissive, 
 'and gentle; easy to be entreated ; full of p "ienreund 
 ' long suffering ; being temperate in all things ; being 
 'diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all 
 ' times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in 
 'need, botli spiritual and temporal; always returning 
 thanks unto God for whatsoever thi 'gs ye do receive, 
 'and see that ye have faith, hope and charity, and 
 'then ye will always abound in good works; and may 
 'the Lord bless you, and keep y ur garments spotless, 
 'that ye may at last be brought to sit down with 
 'Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, and the holy prophe'8 
 'who have been ever since the world began, having 
 ' your garments spotless, even as th' ir garments are 
 'spotless in the kingdom of heaven, to go no more out." 
 
 Such are the teachings of the book that 
 claims to have been written by good men 
 and prophets as directed of the F,ord, to 
 show unto future generations the dealings 
 of our heavenly Father with peoples other 
 than the tribe ofJudah. And here I pro- 
 pound a question for my opponent and each 
 one of you to answer. Why is it, that 
 since the object of the work and the char- 
 acter of its teachings are in perfect accord 
 with the object and teachings of the Old 
 and New Testament Scriptures, and that 
 no person can be a believer in the Book of 
 Mormon unless he also believes the Bible, 
 that persons who claim to believe in the 
 Bible and are called Christians, and many 
 who are Christians too, have been found 
 fighting against this same book? Why is 
 it they fight against it since Jesus himself 
 has said : "An evil tree can not bring forth 
 good fruit?" I wish the negative of the 
 proposition under discussion to answer 
 these questions ; and to candidly and care- 
 fully peruse the work and point out every 
 evil thing, or any evil thing, or principle 
 taught therein to this audience so that you 
 may judge for yourselves of the fact, wheth- 
 er a man cannot accept the Book of Mormon 
 as of divine origin, endorse its teachings, 
 and at the same time be a Christian man iii 
 the truest and highest sense of that term. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S OPENING SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, LATHES AND 
 GENTLKMKN: To render such a discussion 
 as this necessary, there must be a difference 
 of views between the parties. There is such 
 difference between my opponent and myself. 
 He and his people teach, I. That mankind 
 needed new revelations, in addition to 
 those in the Bible, when Joseph Smith 
 pretended, in the book of Mormon and other 
 pretended revelations, to give new revela- 
 tions to the world. II. That in the book of 
 Mormon and other pretended revelations, 
 Joseph Smith did give to the world new 
 revelations, in addition to those in the 
 Bible. III. That Joseph Smith was a true 
 prophet of God. I believe, I. That in the 
 New Testament, God perfected and com- 
 pleted his work of revelation in a system 
 of universal and eternal truths, a law of 
 universally applicable principles in the 
 Gospel of Christ. That man needs no addi- 
 tional revelations, and never will need any. 
 for he cannot outgrow the universal and 
 eternally applicable principles of the Gos- 
 pel. II. That all of the pretended reve- 
 lations of Joe Smith are base frauds and 
 puerile fabrications. III. That Joe Smith 
 was an infamous and villainous deceiver 
 and scoundrel. To render discussion profit- 
 able and conclusive in determining what is 
 the truth in regard to the issues, there 
 must be a common standard of authority 
 that is accepted as conclusive authority by 
 both parties. There is such a standard in 
 this discussion. The Israelite Sacred Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament, and the Christ- 
 tian Sacred Scriptures of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The book of Mormon cannot be appealed to 
 as authority in this discussion, for the issue 
 is, "Is the book of Mormon worthy to be used 
 as authority?" Even if it be found, in this 
 discussion, that it is worthy to be used as 
 authority, because it is of divine origin, 
 that would not enable my opponent to use 
 it in this discussion, in determining the 
 issues in this debate. All appeal to the 
 book of Mormon, as a standard in this 
 debate, will be a begging of the question, 
 or an impudent assumption of the very 
 issue in debate. It fs the work of each 
 disputant in a discussion, to show that his 
 position, clearly and honestly defined, har- 
 monizes with a correct interpretation of this 
 commonly accepted standard, and that the 
 position of his opponent, clearly and hon- 
 estly defined, does not harmonize with a 
 correct interpretation and use of this stand- 
 ard. It is the work of my opponent in this 
 discussion to clearly and honestly define 
 his affirmative, concealing and evading 
 nothing, using no equivocation or pettifpg- 
 
 fiug, and then to show that his position 
 hus defined, harmonizes with a fair inter- 
 
 pretation and use of the Scriptures. It \9 
 my work, if my opponent does not define 
 his affirmative clearly and honestly if he 
 attempts to conceal or evade the real teach- 
 ing of his system, by equivocation, or pet- 
 tifogging, to expose such chicanery and to 
 show what are the real teachings of his 
 system, and then to show that the teach- 
 ings of his system, fairly and clearly stated, 
 do not harmonize with a correct interpre- 
 tation of the Scriptures. 
 
 There are three questions to be settled. 
 I. What are the teachings of my opponent's 
 system, when clearly and honestly stated, 
 without concealment or equivocation. II. 
 What do the Scriptures, when correctly 
 interpreted, teach in regard to the doctrine 
 of his system. III. Do the Scriptures, 
 when clearly and fairly interpreted, har- 
 monize with a clear and honest statement 
 of the doctrines of the system of my oppo- 
 nent. There is no sense in our spending 
 time in talking about what we both accept. 
 Nor in caviling over what is not in dispute. 
 Let us then determine, as far as may be, in 
 what do we agree; concerning what do we 
 disagree; what conclusions should we draw 
 from those things in which we agree, con- 
 cerning those things in which we disagree. 
 Whether the position of my opponent in 
 regard to the things in which we agree is 
 in harmony with his position in regard to 
 those things in which we disagree. Let us 
 make the issues as few, as brief and as clear 
 as possible. I. My opponent and myself 
 both believe that the Israelite Sacred Scrip- 
 tures, of the Old Testament and the Christ- 
 ian Sacred Scriptures, of the New Testa- 
 ment, were given by inspiration of God, 
 and that they are therefore of divine origin, 
 and authority a revelation from God to 
 man. We differ "concerning "The Book of 
 Mormon." My opponent believes that it 
 also was given by inspiration of God and 
 that it is also of divine origin and authority 
 a revelation from God to man, containing 
 "the fullness of the Gospel," and that it 
 stands related to the New Testament, as 
 that does to the Old-andis as much superior 
 to it. I believe that the Book of Mormon is 
 a base, puerile fabrication, and a wicked 
 fraud. 
 
 II. We both believe that God has made 
 revelations to man, through men inspired 
 by the Holy Spirit through angelic mes- 
 sengers and through his Son Jesus the 
 Christ. My opponent believes that he has 
 spoken to men through Joseph Smith, and 
 men who have accepted him as a prophet 
 of God, and that God has through such 
 persons, given revelations to men. I belive 
 that Joseph Smith was a wicked, contemp- 
 tible impostor, and that all who have pre- 
 tended to speak by inspiration, in this age 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE 
 
 are either hypocritical impostors or self- 
 deluded visionaries. III. We both believe 
 that, in the apostolic age, God spoke to 
 men through the apostles of Christ, and 
 through persons to whom the apostles 
 imparted supernatural gifts, by the impo- 
 sition of their hands. My opponent believes, 
 that, in the apostolic age, others than those 
 to whom the apostles imparted superna- 
 tural gifts by the imposition of their hands, 
 enjoyed those gifts. He believes also that 
 those gifts were an all important element 
 of the religion of Christ, and that they 
 were to continue, until the end of time, in 
 the church. That those gifts can be enjoyed 
 now. That they should be enjoyed now. 
 That the condition of the church where 
 those gifts are not enjoyed is that of apos- 
 tasy a dead church. * He believes that 
 those gifts can be imparted now by the 
 imposition of hands, of persons now living. 
 That they are so imparted and enjoyed in 
 his organization. That all believers who 
 do not enjoy those gifts are in. an apostate 
 condition. 
 
 I believe that those gifts were to exist 
 O]TTy~3uilng the apostolic age. That it was 
 the will of God that they should cease, 
 when the word of God was completed in 
 the New Testament, and that, as it was his 
 will that they should cease then, they did 
 cease. That in the apostolic age, those 
 gifts were never enjoyed by any, except 
 those to whom an apostle imparted them 
 by the Imposition of his hands. That no 
 one but an apostle could, or ever did impart 
 those gifts. That they never descended to 
 a third person." TJiat the power to impart 
 those gifts was the " sigh of apostleship." 
 Tji.a_t .when the last person, to whom an 
 apostle imparted those gifts, died, they 
 ceased from earth. That such was God's 
 will and law. Also that the condition of 
 the church, when the best of those gifts 
 were enjoyed, was the formative, the child- 
 like condition of the church. That the 
 condition of the church, under the control 
 of i( the perfect law of liberty," "of that 
 which is perfect," the completed word of 
 God, is as much superior to the condition 
 of the church, when the best of these gifts 
 were enjoyed, as the condition of the world, 
 when God ceased from creation after crea- 
 ting man, is superior to the period, when 
 l>y miracles of creation, he was preparing 
 for man. Or as the condition of the full 
 grown man is superior to that of the unde- 
 veloped child. Or as the condition of our 
 country under our completed constitution, 
 and government in accordance with it, is 
 superior to the condition of our nation, 
 while the constitutional convention was in 
 session, framing the constitution. 
 
 I am careful to define and elaborate these 
 differences, because this is the key note to 
 the whole discussion. This is the crucial 
 issue in this debate. My opponent bases 
 his claim that Joseph Smith was a 
 true prophet of God; that the Book of 
 Mormon was given by inspiration of God. 
 that it " contains the fulness of the Gospel " 
 that the Book of Mormon and other pre- 
 
 tended revelations stand related to the 
 New Testament, as the New Testament 
 stands related to the Old Testament, that 
 his people possesses these miraculous pow- 
 ers and spiritual gifts, on a claim that the 
 promises of Joel and other prophets, of 
 John the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter and 
 the apostles, concerning spiritual gifts, 
 were to be enjoyed by the church in all 
 ages. If my position, that these promises 
 refer only to the apostolic age, and were 
 enjoyed only in the apostolic age, and that 
 they were to remain only until the Word 
 of God was completed in the New Testa- 
 ment. that in the New Testament, God 
 completed this miraculous work, and the 
 exercise of spiritual gifts, in a perfect re- 
 velation of a complete system of universally 
 applicable and eternal truths and princi- 
 ples be true, it utterly demolishes the claim 
 of my opponent, by showing that revela- 
 tions, in addition to those in the Bible, are 
 needless, and contrary to the teachings of 
 God's Word, and therefore his Book of 
 Mormon and pretended revelations are base 
 frauds, and Joe Smith a vile impostor. 
 
 We both believe that all followers of 
 Christ, should be united ai.d stand on the 
 divine platform, laid down for such 
 union, in Ephesians. IV. (A.) One God 
 the Father. I shall, in the right place, 
 prove that the teachings of the system of 
 my opponent, in regard to the one God, 
 are gross materialism and idolatry. (B.) 
 One Lord ; Jesus of Nazareth ; the Christ, 
 the only begotten Son of God the only 
 Divine Propnet, or source of all teaching 
 in religion the only Divine Priest, or sac- 
 rifice and atonement for the sins of all men 
 the only mediator between God and man 
 the only Divine King, the only source of 
 all law in religion, and the only one whose 
 commands we are to obey, in religion. I 
 shall, in the right place, expose the gross 
 sensualism of my opponent's system in re- 
 gard to the origin and character of the 
 Son of God. My opponent claims that 
 Joe Smith was a prophet of God, whose 
 teachings are to be obeyed, accepted as 
 " the fullness of the gospel," and as much 
 superior to those of Jesus, as the teachings 
 of Jesus, are superior to those of the proph- 
 ets of the Old Testament ; and whose com- 
 mands are as much superior to the New 
 Testament, as the New Testament is to the 
 Old Testament. I believe that Joe Smith 
 was a base imposter, a wicked deceiver, 
 whose silly fabrications should be despised 
 as contemptible frauds. (C.) One Holy 
 Spirit, who inspired the men whose in- 
 spired acts and utterances are recorded in 
 the Bible. My opponent believes that the 
 Holy Spirit inspired Joe Smith, and others 
 who have accepted him as a true prophet 
 of God, and that he inspires men now, I 
 believe that all inspiration and miraculous 
 powers ceased in the apostolic age, having 
 accomplished their purpose, in giving to 
 mankind, a completed revelation of genera] 
 and universally applicable truths ; Mid 
 that the Holy Spirit now influences ir MI, 
 in the only way in which one iutellig* v 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 can exert a moral influence over another, 
 that is through the truth contained in his 
 utterances recorded in the Scriptures, and 
 through the teaching that 'is in accordance 
 with the truths revealed by the Holy 
 Spirit, in the Scriptures. 
 
 (D.) The one faith the faith the teach- 
 ing the Word of God, the scriptures 
 " the faith once delivered to the Saints." 
 My opponent would add to this " one faith " 
 delivered to the Saints to God's Word, 
 the Book of Mormon, and other pretended 
 revelations of Joe Smith, and of others 
 who accept Joe Smith as a prophet of 
 God. I reject all of these as base fabrica.- 
 tions of imposters, or as silly vagaries 
 of fanatical visionaries. (E.) One baptism 
 immersion into water in the name of the 
 Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the re- 
 mission of sins. My opponent teaches 
 these errors in regard to baptism. I. Bap- 
 tism for the miraculous gift of the Holy 
 Spirit. II. That baptism in the Holy 
 Spirit was universal in the church, in the 
 apostolic age, and that it can be enjoyed 
 now, and exists in his organization. III. 
 The farce of baptizing the living as proxies 
 for the dead. I believe that in the days of 
 the apostles only those of the baptized re- 
 ceived the miraculous gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit, to whom an apostle imparted them 
 by the imposition of his hands. I believe 
 also that there were never but two occasions 
 of baptism in the Holy Spirit, one on the 
 day of Pentecost in Jerusalem the other at 
 the house of Cornelius in Csesarea that 
 both were miraculous direct miracles from 
 Heaven, and never were, and never will be 
 repented. The baptism for the dead I re- 
 gard as a farce resulting from a blunder in 
 regard to an obscure passage of Scripture. 
 
 (F.) One hope remission of sins to the 
 penitent believer, who is baptized into 
 Christ union with God and his Holy 
 Spirit, so long as the Christian, in a holy 
 life, makes his body a fit temple for such 
 union and such a guest; and eternal life if 
 men are faithful unto death. My opponent 
 includes in this hope, miraculous spiritual 
 gifts, in this life, and he debases the eter- 
 nal hope into a materialistic sensual 
 reigniug of Mormons over Gentiles, in a 
 materialistic sensual state, like the Para- 
 dise of tne Mahommedan. (G.) One 
 body "The church of God" or "The 
 church of Christ." Christ is the head 
 of the body, and all believers are living 
 stones, members in this body, this tem- 
 ple. In this church are Evanglists who 
 proclaim the good news ; Overseers who 
 take care of the flock Servants who min- 
 ister unto the church ; and members who 
 are not called to such work. My opponent 
 adds to this simple statement of the New 
 Testament presidents,.councillors, apostles, 
 twelve apostles, three seventies of apos- 
 tles, traveling bishops, presiding elders, 
 quorums, patriarchs, seers, prophets, pas- 
 tors, teachers, translators, revelators, un- 
 til not even an inspired Mormon knows 
 how many more, and about one-third of the 
 men are officers of some sort. He asserts 
 
 that all of these should exercise miraculous 
 powers, and divides them into the Mel- 
 chisedec priesthood, and the Aaronic priest- 
 hood, and tells us that the Aaronic priest 
 must be a literal descendant of Aaron." 
 That caps the climax of absurdity. 
 
 (H.) One name "Christian" for all 
 individuals who are followers of Christ ; 
 and "Church of God" or "Church of 
 Christ " for the one body composed of these 
 followers of Christ or Christians. My op- 
 ponent calls his people " Latter Day Saints 
 of Jesus Christ." Shades of the apostles 
 what an Ashdodish lingo! He calls his 
 'organization " The Reorganized Church of 
 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Where 
 in the World of God does he find such a 
 rigmarole as that? He may find such a 
 jargon in the Book of Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants, or Joe Smith's Book of Abraham, 
 but not in the Scriptures. Such an Ash- 
 dodish Babel is not found in the pure 
 speech of Canaan, in God's word. Such is 
 a fair statement of the points concerning 
 which we agree, and also those concern- 
 ing which we disagree. My opponent 
 summarizes his teachings in his proposi- 
 tion : " The Book of Mormon is of divine 
 origin and entitled to the confidence of all 
 Christian people" 
 
 My first and cardinal objection to my op- 
 ponent's position is that the Bible teaches 
 that the work of inspiration ; miracles and 
 revelation, was completed in the revela- 
 tions of the Son of God, that he give in 
 person, and through his apostles, in tho 
 New Testament, in which there is given to 
 mankind, a system of eternal truths, uni- 
 versally applicable principles, which man 
 can not outgrow, for which there can be no 
 substitute, and to which there can be no 
 additions. That as inspiration and miracle 
 had accomplished their work in completing 
 revelation, they ceased when the last person 
 died to whom an apostle had imparted 
 spiritual gifts, by the imposition of his 
 hands. If this position be true, the Scrip- 
 tures teach that such a claim as my oppo- 
 nent makes for his Book of Mormon, is 
 absolutely impossible. It was not given, 
 or translated by inspiration, for the Bible 
 teaches that inspiration and miraculous 
 power ceased nearly 1,800 years before it 
 appeared. This is the crucial question, the 
 vital issue of this discussion. If my posi- 
 tion be Scripturally true, my opponent's 
 affirmatives are utterly unscriptural and 
 utterly untrue, according to what is the 
 standard of truth in this debate. We in- 
 tend to hold our opponent right to the 
 work on this point. If he does not meet 
 and overturn my position, his claim for the 
 Book of Mormon is " as baseless as the 
 fabric of a dream." 
 
 The first vital query then is " What do 
 the Scriptures teach in regard to inspira- 
 tion, miracles and revelations in regard to 
 when they first appeared their purpose 
 their history and development now long 
 they were to continue ? What was their pur- 
 pose, and how long did that purpose make 
 it necessary for them to continue ? What 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 11 
 
 do the Scriptures teach in regard to the 
 continuance ol' inspiration, miracle and 
 revelation? And their completion and 
 cessation? The Scriptures teach that the 
 Father has spoken, in the hearing of man, 
 only three times. At the baptism of Jesus, 
 Mathew, III. 17. At the transfiguration. 
 Mathew, XVlI, 5. When Jesus prayed 
 and the multitude heard the answer. John, 
 XII, 28. On all other occasions, the Father 
 has spoken through representatives, the 
 Word the Christ the Holy Spirit angels 
 Inspired men. The Word spoke to men 
 through angels, or through men inspired 
 by the Holy Spirit. The Word was the 
 God of the Old Testament, John, I. Col- 
 assians, I. Hebrew, I. The Word the 
 God of the Old Testament spoke through 
 angels, Acts, VII, " Ye received the word 
 through the ministry of angels." Gal. III. 
 " The law was ordained through angels, by 
 the hand of a mediator" (Mose's). While on 
 earth Christ, spoke to men. Angels spoke 
 to men as representatives of Jehovah, the 
 Word, and of Christ, after his ascension. 
 Rev. I. " The revelation of Jesus, the 
 Christ, which God gave to him, to show to 
 his servants, the things which must short- 
 ly come to pass, and he sent his angels to 
 his servant John, and made them known 
 unto John, and John bear witness of the 
 word of God." In Exodus, III, we read in- 
 terchangeably, "Jehovah said," and "the 
 angels said," showing that Jehovah spoke 
 through his angels that represented him. 
 In several places Jehovah says, to Moses 
 through his angel that represented him. 
 " I send my angel before you. I have put 
 my word in his mouth. Hear him," etc. 
 Isaiah, LXI, we read that the Mosaic dispen- 
 sation was givon by " an angel of the face 
 of Jehovah " pi a messenger from his pres- 
 ence. We might illustrate this idea by 
 many other passages, but these will suffice, 
 for probably our only dispute will be over 
 the work of tho Holy Spirit. 
 
 Both parties agree that the Holy Spirit 
 inspired all : me n who acted, spoke, or wrote 
 under inspirat on, from Adam to Malachi; 
 that he inspirsdall who acted, spoke, or 
 wrote under Inspiration from Zachariah, 
 the father of ."ohn the Baptist, until the 
 last person di M! to whom an apostle im- 
 parted spirituf 1 gifts, by the inposition of 
 his hands. My opponent claims that the 
 Scriptures teach that these spiritual gifts 
 were to remain in the church until the end 
 of time, that it is the law of God that they 
 should now e::ist, that they do now exist 
 in his organization, that as a result of 
 euch existence of these gifts Joseph Smith 
 was inspired, was a true prophet of God. 
 and therefore the " Book of Mormon," 
 that he gave (o the world, is a revelation 
 from God. I claim that the Scriptures 
 teach that these miraculous powers of 
 the Holy Spirit were given for a specific 
 purpose, the levelation of a plan of re- 
 demption thai they were to exist until 
 that purpose was accomplished in complet- 
 ing the New Testament that they ceased 
 \fnen choy accomplished this purpose, in 
 
 completing this revelation, in the New 
 Testament. I claim that the law of God 
 ordains that they were to exist for a certain 
 purpose, the revelation of the scheme of re- 
 redemption,- and they were to continue 
 until that object was accomplished. The 
 purpose for which God ordained their ex- 
 istence and continuance, has been accom- 
 plished, in completing the New Testament; 
 and they have ceased, having accomplished 
 their object, and being no longer necessary. 
 
 The issue is not one of power, but of 
 fact and law. Not whether God can im- 
 part gifts now, but whether it is his law 
 that they should exist now. Or is it his 
 law that they should cease with the apos- 
 tolic age, having accomplished their ob- 
 jects. As a question of fact, did Joseph 
 Smith possess these powers ? Do his fol- 
 lowers now possess them? Proving that 
 they can be exercised now, would not prove 
 that Joseph Smith possessed them, nor 
 that his followers do possess them. A 
 man may be able to practice law, but that 
 does not prove that he does so. The fact 
 that God can impart such powers now, does 
 not prove that he does so. God can have 
 apples grow as tubers on the roots of trees, 
 but that does not prove that he does. The 
 question of fact remains, " How do apples 
 grow ? " The fact that God imparted these 
 powers to persons in former ages, does not 
 prove that he does so now. God once 
 brought animals and plants into existence 
 by miracle of direct creation. That does 
 not prove that he does so now. As a mat- 
 ter of factj we know that he does not, but 
 that he brings them into existence through 
 operation of natural law. 
 
 Let me here expose the vital error of my 
 opponent's position, by an illustration. 
 God exerted his miraculous power in crea- 
 tion, to prepare the way for natural law, 
 the law of reproduction, and the world is 
 in a higher and more perfect condition 
 under the operation of natural law, than 
 when God exerted miraculous power, in 
 bringing animals and plants into being, by 
 creation. Miraculous power, in creation, 
 was only temporary, and provisional, and 
 exerted only to prepare the way for the 
 higher and more perfect, natural law. In 
 like manner, God exerted his miraculous 
 power in connection with revelation, only 
 to prepare the way for the higher and per- 
 manent, a completed system of divine rev- 
 ealed truth, in the completed word of God, 
 in the completed New Testament. Mirac- 
 culous power in revelation, ceased when 
 that purpose was accomplished ; just as 
 miraculous power, in creation ceased when 
 it had prepared for, and introduced the 
 higher and the permanent, the opera- 
 tion of natural law. Miraculous power in 
 connection with revelation, was inferior to 
 the work of the completed word of God, 
 just as miraculous power, in creation, was 
 inferior to the operation of natural law. 
 God is in the operation of his completed 
 word of truth, in a higher and more perfect 
 manner, than he ever was in the highest 
 exercise of miraculous power, just as he is 
 
12 
 
 THE BE ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 In the operation of natural law. in a higher 
 and more perfect sense, than he ever was 
 in the exercise of miraculous power in 
 creation. In each case the method em- 
 ployed at first, was provisional and tem- 
 porary, and was employed only to intro- 
 duce the higher and permanent, for which 
 it prepared the way. There is no evad- 
 ing the conclusion that the operation of 
 natural law and the influence of the re- 
 vealed truths of God's completed word, 
 are superior to the highest exercise of 
 miraculous power, either in creation or 
 revelation. 
 
 We do not remove God out of nature, or 
 his word ; but we show that, in each case, 
 he acts in a higher and more perfect man- 
 ner. We do not remove a single thing God 
 created, nor a single truth of revelation. 
 Miraculous power was not a part of the 
 things created, but the means of creating 
 them, and ceased when that was done, and 
 gave way to the operation of a higher and 
 more perfect means of accomplishing the 
 same end. Miraculous power was not a part 
 of the truths revealed, but the means of re- 
 vealing divine truth, and ceased when that 
 work was done, and gave way to a higher and 
 more perfect work, and presence ot'God, in the 
 moral influenceof the divine truths revealed. 
 The idea of my opponent, that the posses- 
 sion of miraculous power is the thing to be 
 desired above everything else, and that the 
 condition of the church, when it was exer- 
 cised, was the highest condition of the 
 church, and far superior to its condition 
 now, when it does not exist, and the church 
 exerts only moral power resident in perfect 
 truth, is a contradiction of the Scriptures, 
 of reason, and of fact. Such a state of the 
 church was the childhood of the church. 
 The exercise of such gifts was necessary, be- 
 causeitwasin its childhood. They were aids 
 to childhood, that ceased when the church 
 "laid aside such childish tilings " The 
 church is now in its manhood, and governed 
 by "the perfect law of liberty" the com- 
 pleted Word of God. The moral power of 
 divine truth, appealing to reason and con- 
 science of men as rational beings, is far 
 superior to miracles, appealing to the child- 
 ish wonder of children. 
 
 A vital query is suggested here. How can 
 one intelligence influence another? How 
 can one spirit, the Holy Spirit, influence 
 another spirit the spirit of man? Man can 
 influence his fellow man in two ways. I. 
 By utterances or acis that convey ideas to 
 the minds of the persons addressed. This 
 is the only moral power or influence that 
 one spirit can exert on another. II. An 
 abnormal psychological influence, called 
 mesmerism or psychology. This is not a 
 moral influence for it leaves the mind influ- 
 enced no wiser, no better In like manner 
 the Holy Spirit has exerted two influences 
 over the spirit of men. I. A miraculous 
 influence, psychologizing the spirits of men, 
 BO that they uttered the words he wanted 
 them to utter ; or performed the acts that 
 he wanted them to perform. II. The ordi- 
 nary influence, that he has exerted on. the 
 
 minds of those who heard or read the utter- 
 ances of those he psychologized, or saw 01 
 read the acts they performed. In the mirac- 
 ulous work of the Holy Spirit he has always 
 exerted two influences. I. The miraculous 
 psychological influence exerted on thehearts 
 of those inspired by which he caused them 
 to do or say what he wanted to reveal to 
 others. II. The ordinary and moral influ- 
 ence that he exerted on the minds of those 
 who heard or read their revelations. 
 
 We desire now to emphasize a thought 
 that we do not want to be lost sight of for 
 one moment, in the discussion ot the issues 
 before us. "The miraculous influence of 
 the Holy Spirit never, in a single instance, 
 exerted one particle of moral power, on the 
 spirit of the person influenced by it ; never 
 in a single instance produced one particle 
 of moral change, in the person influenced 
 by it." The cases of Baulam, Saul King of 
 Israel, Jonah and Caiaphas show that the 
 person influenced, often uttered what was 
 entirely opposed to his own wishes. That 
 he did not know what he would say before 
 he was influenced. Nor what he was saying 
 when the influence was upon him. When 
 the influence left him he knew no more 
 about the meaning of what he had uttered 
 <han any other person, and had to study it 
 the same as any other person. Peter says, 
 "The Prophets, who prophesied of the good 
 that should come unto you, sought and 
 searched dilligently, what manner ol 
 time, and what things, the Spirit of 
 Christ, that was in them did signify, when 
 he testified beforehand of the sufferings of 
 Christ and the glory that should follow." 
 The character of Baalam, Saul, Caiaphas 
 and Jonah show that this influence of the 
 spirit was impacted, sometimes, regardless 
 of character to vile, rebellious persons. That 
 it left vile men just as it found them. It 
 did not change them morally, one particle. 
 We wish our readers to remember these 
 facts, while weighing the question, whether 
 this influence was to remain in the church. 
 As it was not a moral influence, it was not 
 to be desired, on an account of its moral 
 benefits to the person influenced. As it 
 produced no moral influence, except through 
 the truth it revealed, it ceased, when it had 
 perfected that work. There can he no rea- 
 son why it should exist in the church when 
 revelation was completed- There is no 
 work that the church does now, or is re- 
 quired, by the Word of God to perform, 
 that can be accomplished by this miracu- 
 lous influence, nor that it can aid one par- 
 ticle. 
 
 Let us now trace the miraculous influence 
 of the spirit in the Gospel Dispensation. 
 Joel and other prophets promised a miracu- 
 lous outpouring of the spirit in the last 
 days of the Mosaic dispensation. Peter 
 declared, on the day of Pentecost, that the 
 baptism in the Holy Spirit, received by him 
 and his brethren was a partial fulfillment 
 of Joel's promise. "This," the baptism 
 in the Holy Spirit, that he and his brethren 
 had received, "is that which was spoken 
 by the prophet Joel." That it included the. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 13 
 
 miraculous powers that others enjoyed in 
 the apostolic age. Peter's language has 
 not the slightest reference to the ordinary 
 influence of the spirit on the Christian, 
 when he says : "Ye shall receive the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit" the Holy Spirit as a 
 
 5ift "for 'the promise." What promise? 
 oel's promise of the miraculous influence 
 of the spirit, "is to you and your children, 
 and to those that are afar off'." It was, 
 for Joel's promise was "to all flesh, even 
 as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 Call how? By the imposition of an apos- 
 tle's hands as we shall show. John the 
 Baptist and our Saviour promised the bap- 
 tism in the Holy Spirit. It was fulfilled on 
 the day of Pentecost and at the house of 
 Cornelius. Our Saviour promised that his 
 apostles should be inspired, when before 
 persecuting magistrates. They were and 
 the Bible records, no other instances. Our 
 Saviour declares: "that out of those who 
 believe on his name shall flow inspiration 
 like rivers of water." This included the 
 Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit that existed in the apos- 
 tolic church. These had not yet been 
 given. 
 
 In his last lecture to his apostles, and to 
 no others, as recorded in John, XIII to 
 XVI, delivered just before crucifixion, our 
 Saviour told his apostles that he would 
 leave them the apostles that he would 
 send to them the apostles the Comforter 
 to take his place with them the apostles 
 that the Comforter would reveal to their 
 minds the minds of the apostles what he 
 had said to them the apostles that the 
 Comforter would guide them the apostles 
 into all truth show them the apostles 
 things to come, and would take the things 
 of the Father and show them to them the 
 apostles. These promises have not the 
 slightest reference to the ordinary influence 
 of the Holy Spirit on the Christians, for 
 his work was all miraculous. These prom- 
 ises apply to the apostles, and to no others. 
 Our Saviour's address was a closing charge 
 to his apostles, and has no application to 
 any other persons. It was a promise that 
 they the apostles, should be qualified for 
 the work that he committed to their care 
 committed to the apostles, and none others. 
 After his resurrection he renewed this 
 promise, when he promised that his apos- 
 tles should be endowed with power from 
 on high. That they should be baptized in 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Let us now dispose forever of the promise 
 of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was 
 a promise. Not a command. Was received. 
 Not obeyed. Christ was the administrator. 
 Not man. Was poured out from heaven. 
 Not performed on earth by man, on another 
 man. It was promised as a miraculous 
 power. Not commanded as an ordinance. 
 It was a miracle. Was always attended 
 with miracles. It always conferred miracu- 
 lous power. It was not in any name. It 
 was not a memorial, a monument, a sym- 
 bol, a type, a likeness, a form, an object 
 lesson, setting forth any fact or truth. It 
 was perhaps the most extraordinary and 
 miraculous event in the Gospel Dispejjsa- 
 tion. Did not and could not become a per- 
 manent element in the church. 
 
 There is only one baptism in the church, 
 Eph., IV, 4. It is a command. Men are to 
 administer it to others. Men are to obev i t. 
 It is in the name of the Father, Son"and 
 Holy Spirit. It is in water. It is a monu- 
 ment of Christ's burial and resurrection- 
 monument of the great facts of the Gospel, 
 a memorial, a type, a likeness, a symbol, a 
 form, an object lesson setting forth Christ's 
 burial and resurrection also the sinner's 
 burial to his past sinful life, and his resur- 
 rection to a new life in Christ. It is for the 
 remission of sins. It is a permanent ordi- 
 nance in thechurch. The Scriptures desig- 
 nate but two occurrences as Baptism in the 
 Holy Spirit. Peter declares, Acts, XI. "As 
 I began to speak to the household Corne- 
 lius, the Holy Spirit fell on them as he did 
 on us at the beginning, (on the day of Pen- 
 tecost). Then remembered I the words of 
 the Lord, how that he said : " John indeed 
 baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized 
 in the Holy Spirit." God bestowed the same 
 gift the Holy Spirit as a gift on them as 
 on us." Peter declares that these two oc- 
 casions when the Holy Spirit fell on the 
 apostles and brethren, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, at Jerusalem and on the house of 
 Cornelius in Caesarea were baptisms in the 
 Holy Spirit. The Bible knows no other. 
 This disposes forever of all talk of Baptism 
 in the Holy Spirit now, or on any other oc- 
 casion, than the two mentioned by the 
 Scriptures. Persons might as well claim 
 the power to create a world, as to claim 
 Baptism in the Holy Spirit. All such un- 
 scriptural visionary ideas that leave an 
 open door for fanaticism and folly and have 
 cursed the world with the most infamous 
 delusions and crimes, should be abandoned. 
 
14 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 , SECOND SPEECH OF MR. KELLEY. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, "LADIES AXL> 
 GENTLEMKN: I call the attention of the au- 
 dience to the fact that instead of the nega- 
 tive following and trying to answer the 
 affirmative, he has seen fit to try to prove 
 some ofcher thing true, in the hope that 
 thereby he might prove that what I have 
 stated 'is not true. It is customary in dis- 
 cussions for the negative to follow and an- 
 swer the arguments of the affirmative, 
 unless he is willing to admit that he can- 
 not move them. If that is the position of 
 the negative on this question, and he is 
 willing to admit that he cannot move my 
 position, but claims that there is something 
 else true that he can prove outside of the 
 line of the affirmative, and which may be 
 termed an alibi, that will show that the 
 position of the affirmative cannot be true 
 because there is a contrary truth to such, 
 then he has the right I suppose and the 
 option to do so. But he cannot play upon 
 both positions and keep within the law or 
 rule of evidence or argument. If he has an 
 alibi let him make the proper admission or 
 plea, admitting my positions and setting up 
 his claim, and then I can follow him in his 
 lead, as he will thus place himself fairly 
 in the affirmative and I can answer accord- 
 ing to the rule, and the debate will go on 
 orderly. 
 
 Will you do this? But I will first notice 
 one or two of his positions, in order to show 
 their fallacyto the audience, and then pro- 
 ceed with my affirmative arguments, as I 
 shall not be drawn away from the main 
 question under consideration to discuss 
 side issues. I am here for the purpose of 
 showing you the divine origin of this book, 
 and shall show it before the eighth evening 
 returns, I promise you that. It is said that 
 the views and belief of the people who be- 
 lieve in this book are erroneous. 
 
 Now, suppose that I was discussing with 
 an infidel friend at this time with regard 
 to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, and 
 when I should take my position in order to 
 show that the scriptures as delivered to 
 the human family were of divine origin, 
 my infidel oponent would arise and say, 
 yes, your positions are all right; I cannot 
 move those. But then your people have 
 not been doing right. The people who be- 
 lieve in the Holy Scriptures are not in ac- 
 cordance with them in faith and doctrine. 
 Would that interfere in the least or be ap- 
 plicable to the question of whether the 
 Scriptures are true or not ? And so it is with 
 the question under discussion. The ques- 
 tion is, as to the divine authenticity of this 
 book, in regard to the teachings of this 
 book ; but he has sought to answer here 
 and to throw 'into the minds of the audience 
 the assertion that the people who believe 
 in this book are not doing right, has called 
 
 in question the character of some of the 
 persons who have believed in it. by his lan- 
 guage and a few set phrases. In the first 
 place, this is no argument nor can it have 
 a particle of weight, so far as that is con- 
 cerned, towards impeaching the divinity of 
 the record that is before us. I might ask 
 him if he believes in the Proverbs and 
 Ecclesiastes, written and compiled by Solo- 
 mon ? Yet after Solomon had written these 
 books he bowed down to wood and stone; 
 gods made with men's hands. And yet I 
 could hurl in his face that these books 
 that were the compilation of the wise 
 king ought not to be tolerated, because, 
 forsooth, Solomon afterwards turned from 
 the things therein and did evil in the 
 sight of the Lord. He believes in the 
 Psalms. Yet David had his hundreds 
 of wives and concubines ; and not only 
 had many wives and concubines, but 
 took a poor soldier's wife when he was in 
 the front of war, battling for his country, 
 and then afterwards had the soldier put 
 in the front of the battle and murdered in 
 order that he might carry out his designs. 
 But because of this shall I say that the 
 divinity of the Scriptures is at all called in 
 question? Such fallacy of reasoning as 
 this ought to be patent to any man that 
 has come here for the purpose of investigat- 
 ing truth. I place the matter in the shape 
 of a separate and distinct proposition. How 
 shall we canvass this subject? How shall 
 we go to work in order to canvass this book, 
 and arrive at a correct conclusion as to its 
 merits? There are many ways in which 
 you may fail to do it. There were many 
 ways in which the people in the first age 
 of Christianity undertook to canvass the 
 claims with regard to whether Jesus was 
 what he claimed to be or not. And there 
 were true ways to canvass it then, and 
 there were false ways to canvass it. And 
 remember that the majority of the people 
 undertook to canvass it upon the false 
 issues and in the false ways. Why, I have 
 only to open my Bible here and show you 
 the conflict in this regard by turning to the 
 7th chapter of John. And it was a conflict 
 not unlike the conflict that is presented 
 here. In the 7th chapter of John and the 
 12th verse I read this : "And there was 
 'much murmuring among the people con- 
 'cerning him : for some said, He is a good 
 'man : others said, Nay ; but he deceiveth 
 'the people. Howbeit no man spake open- 
 'ly of him for fear of the Jews." Now here 
 was a question in regard to deciding upon 
 the divine claim of that man, and therfr 
 was a right way to proceed, and there was 
 a wrong one. Some, instead of investigat- 
 ing the principles that he brought, and the 
 truths that he presented, said standing 
 behind the cloak of the persons that had 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 15 
 
 told the stories around about Jerusalem 
 with reerard to him, he is "a deceiver ;" and 
 not only a deceiver, but "a gluttonous 
 man;" *"a wine bibber ;" and he is palm- 
 ing upon the people something for truth 
 that is not truth. Was there any argument 
 in that? Is there any argument in the bare 
 assertion that Joseph Smith was a false 
 teacher, or that he was a deceiver? And I 
 call my friend's attention to the fact that 
 he has made him out a false prophet and a 
 false teacner by his language before the 
 audience, before he has offered even a scrap 
 of evidence to you to prove him such. Is it 
 
 E roper, in the consideration of the question 
 ere, to call a man false before he is proven 
 false? I wish to have him present the 
 argument here, if he wishes to take up that 
 line, and show that he is a deceiver, a false 
 prophet, and a very wicked man. Then 
 after he shall have done that, if I am not 
 able to meet him and show to the contrary, 
 it may possibly be proper for him to use 
 the language with regard to him that he has 
 used. I have not said anything in regard 
 to the point of order raised by the chairman 
 which was certainly proper, because if 
 my opponent in this' discussion wishes to 
 make a poor use of his time and thus throw 
 it away in regard to the question at issue, 
 I propose to let him do that, so far as I am 
 concerned. But I shall not be drawn from 
 the main subject under consideration my- 
 self. 
 
 Then how shall we canvass this question ? 
 By an examination into the history and 
 character, supposed faith and failings of the 
 ones presenting it? Do you think that a 
 fair examination could be made in such a 
 way ? This, as I said before, was the man- 
 ner of those who sought or tried in a certain 
 way to destroy the divine mission and 
 character of Jesus. Why, you cannot palm 
 that man off on us for the Messiah ! "For 
 is he not the carpenter's son ? Is not his 
 mother Mary, and are not Joses and James 
 and Simon and Judas his brothers ? " Such 
 a rule of investigation adopted as that, was 
 calculated to deceive the people, and to 
 keep all those deceived who engaged in 
 it, rather than to bring light to them. 
 Afterwards when the apostles went out to 
 preach to the world, there was a rule laid 
 down whereby men might come to a correct 
 conclusion with regard to the things that 
 were presented by the apostles. And cer- 
 tain individuals saw fit, instead of following 
 the true rule, to make war upon the char- 
 acter of the apostles. But was that a true 
 way to examine into their faith ? I ask my 
 opponent in this discussion to answer a 
 question with regard to that Does he ap- 
 prove the course of the Jews in testing the 
 truth and divinity of the message presented 
 by John and Jesus in searching for stories 
 as to their characters ? Tracing out their 
 father and mother, and their brethren, etc. ; 
 instead of investigating from the stand- 
 point of the message that was brought, and 
 chat was shown forth in the claim itself? 
 After he has answered these, then I ask 
 him to state to this audience whether he 
 
 approves the act of the wicked Jews In in- 
 vestigating the claims and the teachings of 
 the apostles themselves as they went forth 
 to the world to carry that message, by in- 
 quiring into the character of Paul and of 
 Peter, and by listening to the stories tint 
 were being told all around about them in 
 Jerusalem and elseAvhere instead of coming 
 up like fair men and weighing and canvas- 
 sing the words that they presented and 
 comparing them with the Scriptures that 
 they claimed to believe in ? It seems to me_^ 
 that if we are to canvass the question under" 
 consideration, there is some proper way by 
 which we must do it. How shall it be 
 done ? Is there any rule laid down ? I be- 
 lieve that the Bible is the standard in 
 controversy, as stated by my opponent. 
 He stated many things to you that were 
 true, and many things with regard to my 
 belief that were untrue, and so many of 
 them are not true, that the only answer 
 that I will make to them at this time, is the 
 answer that General Ro-secrans telegraphed 
 back to Washington on the occasion of the 
 re-union of the soldiers at Cincinnati last 
 Fall in reference to a statement made in the 
 newspapers at Washington of a purported 
 interview. He said, "there is so "much 
 falsehood mixed in with the little truth in 
 the publication, that I send back a telegram 
 that the whole is false." Now, I do not use 
 the term falsehood in a deliberate sense in 
 regard to my opponent, but certainly he 
 has misconceived the positions that I take 
 and that my people take with reference to 
 our belief in the scriptures and in the reve- 
 lations. And on many other things that he 
 stated before you he is as ignorant, if he 
 has stated what he really believes, as the 
 majority, no doubt, of this audience. But 
 it is my place to enlighten him, and I will 
 try to do so before this discussion closes. 
 When Jesus had been examined under a 
 wrong rule by the wicked Jews in his time, 
 he gave the apostles a correct rule by 
 which they mignt try men. and that cor- 
 rect rule is stated in direct language when 
 he refers them to the teaching of Moses and 
 the prophets. He says to them, "If ye be- 
 lieved in Moses and the prophets, ye would 
 believe in me, for Moses wrote of me." 
 And again, as you will find recorded in the 
 8th chapter and 46th verse of John : "Which 
 of you couvinceth me of sin ? And if I say 
 the truth, why do ye not believe me?" 
 Now, the Jews were standing there, some 
 saying that he was the son of Joseph, some 
 saying that he was the son of Mary and that 
 these men around here were his brethren, 
 and that he was a deceiver and a wine 
 bibber and a gluttonous man. But Jesus 
 says to them, "If I say the truth, why do 
 you not believe me?" That was the 
 proper ground upon which to decide wheth- 
 er he was an impostor or not, or whether 
 his message came from heaven or not. 
 Afterwards he lays down a distinct and 
 positive rule for his disciples to go by. My 
 friend claims to be a Disciple. Will he go 
 by it, and will he answer to this audience 
 whether it is a true rule or not? He says, 
 
16 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 "Which of you convinceth me of sin ? And 
 if I say the truth, why do ye not believe 
 me?" "He that is of God 'heareth God's 
 words : Ye therefore hear them not because 
 ye are not of God." John 8:46,47. 
 
 Again, a further exposition of this rule 
 by one of his apostles afterwards. You will 
 find it recorded by John in his second epis- 
 tle, 9th verse, wherein he states that "who- 
 soever transgresseth, and abideth not in 
 the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." 
 That is the way to try men. I have pre- 
 sented you my case this evening 1 , and told 
 you that I believed in the doctrine of 
 Christ, and that so far as the revelation on 
 the other continent was concerned, I was 
 in agreement with it. I take up the reve- 
 lation made on the other continent, and it 
 says, "He that abideth in the doctrine of 
 Christ, he hath both the Father and the 
 Son." And what am I answered with? 
 " Oh, they are deceivers ! They are fanat- 
 ics ! He is a false prophet." 
 
 There was one position that was taken by 
 the negative in his argument that I will 
 examine in due time, but I will not leave 
 the subject at this time to do so. That with 
 reference to the cessation of miraculous gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit, or inspiration, or the 
 confining of them to the first century. If I 
 cannot snow that they were not confined to 
 the first century, why, certainly I ought to 
 be able to, if this is true in this book, m one 
 sense. But then this book might be true in 
 a certain sense, too, and still they be con- 
 fined, so far as the people on the eastern 
 continent are concerned, to the first cen- 
 tury. 
 
 However, I will examine that when the 
 time comes, and will make it explicit and 
 clear to the audience. We have the rule as 
 stated by the Apostle John, in accordance 
 with the rule laid down by the Master him- 
 self: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abi- 
 deth 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." Now, will you investigate my char- 
 acter in order to know whether lam teach- 
 ing the right kind of doctrine or not this 
 evening ? Or would such a course be perti- 
 nent to the question ? So with any other 
 character. If that was the test, I could 
 overthrow, by taking the testimony of ene- 
 mies and the testimony of friends, every 
 writer that is contained in the Bible, and 
 sink them so low that no man could ever 
 resurrect them. But, I repeat, it is no test. 
 
 In the next verse to the rule already quo- 
 ted the apostle says : " If there come any 
 unto vpu and bring not this doctrine, re- 
 ceive him not into your house, neither bid 
 him God speed." But, instead of examin- 
 ing the question in regard to the presenta- 
 tion of the book under investigation, in that 
 line, he sees fit to go back and ask in regard 
 to the character of the people, what their 
 enemies said about them preferring the stor- 
 ies of their enemies, to the truth. But I 
 leave the matter thus far with you, and pro- 
 ceed with my main affirmative argument. 
 
 Having generally introduced the subject 
 
 under discussion, I shall proceed at once to 
 marshall the testimony found in the Bible 
 that is fairly applicable to my positions. 
 
 It may be properly arranged under the 
 following general divisions : 
 
 1. That of a general nature, showing that 
 it is in harmony with the general law rela- 
 ting to the race of man, that God makes 
 known his will to him wherever and when- 
 ever man will put himself in condition to 
 receive instruction ; regardless of caste or na- 
 tionality, and making it possible and proba- 
 ble, that nations other than the Jews of 
 Palestine, have received instruction from 
 Him. 
 
 2. Such testimony as is contained in the 
 Scriptures which specifically refers to the 
 fact of a people settling the American con- 
 tinent from the orient ; definitely setting 
 forth who they were ; the reason arid object 
 of their coming ; the results of the migra- 
 tion, and the character and nature of the 
 revelations God from time to time made to 
 them. 
 
 3. The prophetic writings contained in the 
 Bible which refer to the decadence of the 
 people who came here, the bringing to light 
 of their history and Record, and the im- 
 portant part that Record is to fill in the 
 purposes of the Almighty as an ensign to 
 the people, and a means of leading rnen and 
 women to the knowledge of the true God. 
 
 Under the first of these divisions the 
 statement of the Apostle Paul is directly in 
 support. Acts 17: 26 and 27 : "And [God] 
 hath made of one blood all nations of men 
 for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and 
 hath determined the times before appointed, 
 and the bounds of their habitation : That 
 they should seek the Lord, if happily they 
 might feel after him, and find him, though 
 he be not far from every one of us." 
 
 Whatever may be our views and precon- 
 ceived notions with regard to the dealings 
 of the divine hand with the human family, 
 it was made clear to the gifted mind of the 
 apostle, that God did have something to do 
 in fixing the bounds of the human habita- 
 tion, and that He did it for the purpose that 
 they might seek Him ; not only this, but 
 that they might also "find him," which 
 finding is to be brought into such relation- 
 ship with him as to actually know him, to 
 have a knowledge of their acceptance from 
 him of their work and hence a communica- 
 tion of his will. . The testimony of the apos- 
 tle Peter is in perfect agreement with the 
 thought, acts 10: 34 and 35, when he de- 
 clares : 
 
 " Of a truth I perceive that God is no re- 
 spector of persons : But in every nation he 
 that fearetn him, and worketh righteous- 
 ness is accepted with him." It had been 
 with the Jews up to Peter's time as with 
 the great mass of the people denominated 
 Christians to-day, an idea that God would 
 have nothing to do with any people except 
 the few who congregated aoout Jerusalem 
 so far as communicating his will or accept- 
 ance to them was concerned, and that all 
 had been said by him to the world through 
 them that was necessary, or that he had to 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 17 
 
 communicate : But when the light of truth 
 was sent from on high and dawned upon 
 Peter's mind, he woke up to the grand fact 
 that with our common Father and Creator 
 there was no partiality, that his will and 
 desire extended everywhere to aid and bless 
 the creature, the same that was subjected 
 in hope. His acceptance ou this occasion 
 was the same as made all along through the 
 history. That same comforter which was 
 shed forth at the acceptance of Jesus, when 
 He said, "This is my beloved Son," and 
 of which Jesus had said, " If I go away I 
 will send him," was shed forth ; and fall- 
 ing upon those of the uncircumcisiou, 
 " They heard them speak with tongues and 
 magnify God." And the apostle and those 
 who were with him from the manifestation 
 of God to the people recognized that there 
 was an acceptance. 
 
 Jesus is the next witness I offer upon the 
 point of the existence of another people, 
 than the Jews, who had been in communi- 
 cation with the father at the date he per- 
 sonally presented the gospel to the people: 
 John 10, 14 and 16 : " I aru the good shep- 
 "' herd, and know my sheep, (people), and 
 ' am knowu of mine. As the Father kuow- 
 1 eth me even so know I the Father : and I 
 ' lay down my life for the sheep. And other 
 'sheep, (people), I have, which are not of 
 'this fold: (the fold of Jerusalem), them 
 'al3O I must bring, and they shall hear my 
 ' voice ; and there shall be one fold and one 
 ' shepherd." 
 
 To have been sheep, the people referred 
 to by Jesus in this scripture, mast have at 
 some time had the will of God made known 
 to them and also believed the same, or else 
 have been of Israel, made so by reason of 
 the promises. Otherwise, they could not 
 have been sheep ; for says Jesus : " My 
 sheep hear my voice, and 1 know them and 
 they follow me." They like Abraham of 
 old had heard and recognized the inspired 
 voice as had also the Jews when he led 
 them along through the difficulties of life 
 and who had hearkened in a manner to his 
 precepts; and although at that time far 
 separated from the fold from whence they 
 had been led, (Jerusalem), yet, they, as the 
 Jews to whom the address was then made, 
 were to hear the voice of that same shep- 
 herd. These citations establish the fact 
 certainly of the first proposition, that there 
 were at the time Jesus was ministering 
 upon the earth, another people than those 
 at the fold of Jerusalem who were, or had 
 been acceptable in their worship with God. 
 But this is but one fact established ; the 
 second, pointing out the people referred to, 
 must be shown, ero we can apply with un- 
 derstanding to the particular people, the 
 Master's declaration. Turning to Math. 10, 
 6, 6, we find a descriptive statement of the 
 kind or class of people who were termed by 
 Jesus, sheep: "These twelve Jesus sent 
 1 forth and commanded them, saying, Go 
 ' not in to the way of the Gentiles, and into 
 ' any city o? tbo Samaritans enter ye not. 
 ' But go TAtb fi to the lost sheep of the 
 'house of If /ael." Here then is another 
 
 mark of distinction by which the sheep of 
 whom he spoke may be known. 
 
 In addition to being a people who have 
 hearkened to his teachings, they were of 
 the house of Israel ; of the tribes of which 
 Judah was but one, that had under the 
 promises sprung from Jacob, (Israel), and 
 hence of the house of Israel. The prophet 
 Ezekiel in speaking of those in the 34th 
 chapter of that book gives us instruction as 
 to where we might expect to look for this 
 house of Israel: "My sheep wandered 
 "through all the mountains, and upon ev- 
 "ery high hill ; yea, my flock was scattered 
 "upon all the face of the earth, and nono 
 "did search or seek after them." And 
 again, verse 11. "For thus saith the Lord 
 "God: Behold I, even I, will both search 
 "my sheep and seek them out." 
 
 It is clear then that in our search to find 
 the people denominated sheep of whom Je- 
 sus spoke, and that he was to search after, 
 we are not necessarily bound to confine our- 
 selves to any particular part of God's heri- 
 tage; for, "they were scattered upon all 
 the face of the earth;" and although men 
 who have termed themselves the wise and 
 learned of the world, may have thought 
 that the little country of Palestine is the 
 only one wherein Jesus' voice had been 
 heard, inspiration unmistakably points to 
 the contrary, and no person should be sur- 
 prised to find that in the faithful examina- 
 tion of these things the inspired writings, 
 shall have been found correct. Taking up 
 the Record forming the basis of this discus- 
 sion, I read on page 451, of a claim made 
 that the language of Jesus made at Jerusa- 
 lem was with the understanding that ho 
 knew of these on this continent, as also 
 others in a different part of the earth : 
 
 "And behold, (says Jesus to these), "this is the land 
 'of your inheritance ; and the Father hath given it 
 'unto you. And not at any lime liath the Father 
 'given me commandment that I should tell ittoynur 
 'brethren at Jerusalem; neither at any time hath the 
 'Father given me commandment that I should tell it 
 'unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of 
 'Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the 
 'land. This much did the Father command me, that 
 'I should tell unto them, that, other sheep I have, 
 'which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring, 
 'and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one 
 'fold and one shep erd. And now because of stiff- 
 'neckedness and unbelief, they understood not my 
 'word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of 
 'the Father concerning this unto them. But, verily, I 
 'say unto you, that the Father hath commanded me, 
 'and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated f <>m 
 'among them because of their iniquity ; therefore it is 
 'because of their iniquity that they know not of you. 
 'And verily. I say unto you again, tht the other tribes 
 'bath the Father separated from them; and it is be- 
 'cause of their iniquity, that they know not of them. 
 'And verily, I say unto you, that ye are they of whom 
 'I said, other sheep I have which are not of this fold ; 
 'them also I mnst bring, and they shall hear my 
 'voice: and there shall be one fold and one shep- 
 herd." 
 
 But, says the objector, what evidence is 
 that, that these were the people referred to? 
 Only this ; in the singularity of the state- 
 ment which the record makes, and the new 
 fact brought to light, if it shall upon inves- 
 tigation be found to be a fact, at a time in 
 the world's history when it was supposed 
 by scriptorians everywhere that Jesus re- 
 ferred to another thing, and which view is 
 
13 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 found to have been erroneous when exam- 
 ined closely from a Bible standpoint in the 
 light that is newly thrown upon the world 
 by this record. And further it bears evi- 
 dence in this, being a circumstance in the 
 chain of evidence which unites to form a 
 complete connection with this people and 
 that at Jerusalem. And it is of value pro- 
 viding, the other links in the chain accord 
 therewith, and harmonize, and thus indeed 
 form a chain, the which, no other reasona- 
 ble view is adverse. 
 
 Do not understand me, or misrepresent 
 me as jumping at the conclusion that be- 
 cause of the expression of Jesus on the 
 other continent, found in John's gospel, 
 therefore the book of Mormon is true ; nor 
 because the language is contained in the 
 book from which I have read, therefore, it 
 is true. I think I understand and compre- 
 hend the rules of logic as well as those of 
 evidence too we.l to make any such blun- 
 dering, or startling leap, at conclusions as 
 that ; and wi^h you to take only things for 
 evidence after they shall have fairly been 
 shown to be such. 
 
 Whether I believed in the words read 
 from the Record I have before me or not, 
 there would hang to mind the singularity 
 of the statement of Jesus at Jerusalem, ta- 
 ken in connection with the other fact that 
 it seemed to have been so wholly ignored 
 and misunderstood by those to whom it was 
 'addressed. No one even to ask, Lord to 
 whom do you refer? Indeed it is singular 
 knowing as we do, that the Gentiles are not 
 and never were reckoned as sheep. The 
 same stolid indifference still manifest by 
 that people and that seems to have hung by 
 them so long before and after, that to 
 them nothing was of worth or interest out- 
 side of Judah and the little country on the 
 east of the great sea. 
 
 Returning to the line of evidence, I take 
 up the testimony of the scriptures which 
 relate to the establishment of a people in 
 the land as claimed in this record : 
 
 Genesis, 49, 22, Jacob, ( Israel), the head of 
 the tribes in his last blessing upon the 
 twelve sons whose children should figure 
 so wonderfully in the history of the world, 
 says, in his blessing of Joseph : 
 
 " Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough 
 "by a weil; whose branches run over the wall:" 
 
 "The archers have sorely grieved him and shot at 
 "him, and hated him: But his bow abode in strength 
 "ami the arms of his hands were made strong by the 
 "handsof the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the 
 "Bh< pherd the s.one of Israel): 
 
 "Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee 
 "and by the Almighty, who shall bless theu with bless- 
 ings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that 
 "lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the 
 
 'womb: the blessings of thy father have prevailed! 
 'above the blessings of my progenitors unto the ut- 
 'most bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on 
 'the head of Jo eph, and on the crown of the head of 
 'him that was separate from his brethren." 
 
 Whatever may, or may not have been 
 the former entertained or expressed views 
 of the meaning and application of this 
 prophetic blessing, one thing must be ad- 
 mitted by all the intelligent, and that is, 
 that the prediction clearly shows a change 
 of place of residence and habitation at some 
 period of time, of the posterity of Joseph. 
 Also their settlement and inheritence of a 
 country far greater in extent, and more 
 wonderful for richness and desirableness 
 than the country of Palestine, or that ad- 
 jacent. 
 
 The prophecy reveals what is to be the 
 history of the descendents : "Whose 
 'branches run over the wall." "The 
 ' blessings of thy father have prevailed 
 1 above the blessings of my progenitors 
 'unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting 
 1 hills." The blessing of Jacob's progeni- 
 tors, Isaac and Abraham, consisted in the 
 promise of the country east and south of the 
 great sea (Mediterranean), from the River 
 of Egypt to the Euphrates, including the 
 whole of Canaan. This is clearly establish- 
 ed by the following references : Gen. 12:7 - 
 1 : 8 ; 15 : 7 & 18 ; 26 : 3 & 4 ; 28 : 4, and 48 : 4. 
 
 But in the prophetic blessing of Joseph 
 the statement is emphatic that the branch- 
 es (daughters, children, posterity), of Jo- 
 seph were to extend above this, beyond 
 Canaan and the country of the Mediterra- 
 nean, even "unto the utmost bound of the 
 everlasting hills." Far from the country 
 of Palestine, to a land teaming with the 
 first things of earth, honored with the 
 choicest of blessings and one to be desired 
 above that of Canaan. 
 
 I invite you to candidly and fairly enter 
 upon the search for this "promised" land, 
 and to be only as confident in the same as 
 the history and prophetic writings shall 
 fully and fairly warrant. Turning to Deut. 
 33 : 13 to 18, we find a further account and 
 description of this same country, and also 
 a prediction with reference to this same 
 branch of the human family. It is the lan- 
 guage of Moses, the great civil and eccle- 
 siastical lawgiver of ancient times, and "the 
 prophet." to whom even reference is made 
 in pointing out a likeness of the great char- 
 acter of Jesus. 
 
 Upon these words we may rely if we are 
 to place implicit confidence in any state- 
 ments of the divine record. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 19 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: We return now to the rest of 
 Joel's promise, and what was also included 
 in the Saviour's promises. Joel's promise 
 was to all flesh, without exception. It in- 
 cluded every human being. Our Saviour in 
 his last great commission to Iris apostles lim- 
 ited Joel's promise to "as many as should 
 believe " on him through the preaching 
 of the apostles. His language includes all 
 believers, without exception. But as our 
 Saviour limits the promise of the Holy 
 Spirit in Joel, so the Holy Spirit in Peter 
 on the day of Pentecost, limits our Saviour's 
 promise to "as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call." There is no conflict, but merely 
 a gradual development, by the Holy Spirit, 
 in successive revelations, of the law of spir- 
 itual gifts. Joel's promise was limited by 
 our Saviour to believers ; and the Holy 
 Spirit, in Peter, limits the promise of Joel 
 and Jesus to those among believers " whom 
 the Lord our God should call." Only those 
 whom the Lord our God should call were 
 to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift, or were 
 to receive miraculous power through the 
 Holy Spirit. When God ceased calling 
 persons to the exercise of these gifts, they 
 were to cease. The all-important question 
 then is : " How did God call men to the en- 
 joyment of the gift of the Holy Spirit, to the 
 exercise of these miraculous powers, con- 
 ferred by the Holy Spirit, called spiritual 
 gifts ? How long did he continue to call 
 men to the exercise of these gifts ? When 
 did he cease to call men to the exercise of 
 these miraculous powers ?" 
 
 I claim that he called them to the exer- 
 cise of spiritual gifts, in every instance, ex- 
 cept tne Baptism of the Holy Spirit by 
 the imposition of an apostle's hands in 
 that way alone. None but an apostle could 
 call men to the exercise of these gifts. This 
 power to bestow these gifts was " the sign 
 of apostleship." When the apostles ceased 
 to call men, God ceased to call men, to the 
 exercise of these gifts, for his appointed 
 and only means of calling men to these 
 spiritual gifts ceased. Then as many, out 
 of all flesh, out of believers, as God called 
 by his only appointed means, the imposi- 
 tion of an apostle's hands to the exercise 
 of these spiritual gifts, and no others re- 
 ceived them. Outside of the Baptism in the 
 Holy Spirit no one ever enjoyed these Drifts, 
 except those on whom an apostle laid his 
 hands, to impart them. Acts, VIII. Philip, 
 who exercised wonderfui spiritual powers, 
 could not impart spiritual gifts. " Now 
 when the apostles, who were at Jerusalem, 
 heard that the Samaritans had received the 
 word of God, they sent unto them Peter and 
 John, who when they were come down 
 prayed for them, that they might receive 
 the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not fallen 
 
 on any of them, only they had been baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus." My op- 
 ponent's claim that baptism is for tne re- 
 ceiving of the Holy Spirit, is at fault here. 
 These persons had been baptized, and had 
 not, and could not receive the Holy Spirit 
 until an apostle had laid hands on them, 
 for the account proceeds : " Then they laid 
 their hands on them and they received the 
 Holy Spirit. Simon saw that the Holy 
 Spirit was given through the laying on of 
 the apostle's hands." Here it is declared, 
 as clearly as human speech can make it,, 
 that the Holy Spirit was received through 
 the laying on of an apostle's hands. That 
 he was imparted in that way alone, for the 
 apostles had to come down from Jerusalem, 
 and lay their hands on them, before they 
 could receive him, although tb.ey bad been 
 baptized, and Philip the mighty wonder- 
 worker, who was full of the miraculous 
 power of the Holy Spirit, was with them. 
 If Philip could not bestow the Holy Spirit, 
 no one outside of an apostle could. 
 
 Acts, IX. Saul's case is supposed to be 
 an exception. He was in Damascus, hun- 
 dreds of miles from any apostle. As 
 prophets, who were not Levites, sometimes 
 offered sacrifices as prophets, when TJO Le- 
 vite was present to officiate, so here, God 
 called and miraculously commissioned and 
 appointed Ananias to act as special apostle, 
 in this case, to confer on Saul tho HoJy 
 Spirit. He declares: "The Lord Jes-iS 
 sent me to you, that you may receive the 
 Holy Spirit." This case no more sets to 
 one side our law than the act of Elijah in 
 offering sacrifices as prophet, when there 
 r/as no priest to officiate^ sets to one side 
 God's positive law that no one but a Levite 
 could offer sacrifices. Acts, XIX. Paul 
 baptized the twelve disciples of John, at 
 Ephesus. " Then he laid hands on them 
 and they received the Holy Spirit, and 
 spoke with tongues and prophesied. Tim. 
 1-6." "Stir up the gift of God that is in 
 you, through the laying on of my hands." 
 These are all of the instances of the imparta- 
 tion of spiritual gifts, in the Scriptures, out- 
 side of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 
 The Holy Spirit was imparted, in every 
 instance, by the imposition of an apostle's 
 hands. These Scriptures prove beyond 
 cavil that no one but an apostle could con- 
 fer these gifts, and that they were con- 
 ferred in that way alone. None but an 
 apostie could call to the exercise of these 
 gifts. These gifts never descended to a 
 third person. I challenge an instance 
 where they descended to a third person. 
 That any one ever exercised spiritual gifts 
 but one called by the imposition of an apos- 
 tle's hand. When the last person to whom 
 an apostle had imparted these gifts, by the 
 imposition of his hands, died these gift* 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ceased from earth. God ceased calling men 
 to the exercise of these gifts when his only 
 appointed means of calling them ceased. 
 Thus wo utterly demolish every claim of 
 inspiration for Joe Smith or any of his fol- 
 lowers ; every shadow of claim of inspira- 
 tion for the Book of Mormon ; all claim 
 that it is of divine origin. 
 
 The Scriptures clearly teach that these 
 miraculous powers were exercised to give 
 to man a completed revelation of a scheme of 
 salvation from sin, and that when that ob- 
 ject was accomplished, they ceased. We 
 nave already used the illustration of crea- 
 tion. God brought animals and plants into 
 existence by miracle of direct creation. But 
 when that was done he ceased miracles of 
 creation, and now operates in a higher and 
 more perfect manner, by natural law. So 
 he gave rsve^ ion by means of inspiration 
 until he had completed a perfect system of 
 revelation universally applicable, and 
 eternal truths. Then he ceased revelation 
 and miracle, and operates now through a 
 higher and more perfect law, the moral 
 power of these divine truths, thus revealed 
 and completed. The Bible speaks of the 
 unfolding of the scheme of redemption as 
 being similar to the growth of each person, 
 from infancy to manhood. As the child 
 lays to one side the discipline of the school 
 and the parent, and enters on the duties of 
 life, in which he uses what parents and 
 teachers have taught him, so the Bible 
 teaches that mankind have laid to one side 
 the instrumentalities employed in child- 
 hood and youth, and now, as men, use the 
 truths God has imparted and perfected. 
 
 There was a time when the settlers of 
 America had no government. Then they 
 obtained from home government colonial 
 governments. This was followed by the 
 revolutionary government. Then came gov- 
 ernment under the Articles of Confedera- 
 tion. Under these a constitutional conven- 
 tion was held, and a constitution offered to 
 the people. They adopted it and estab- 
 lished a complete government under it. 
 All constitutional convention work then 
 ceased. The Antediluvian Dispensation, 
 from Adam to the flood, might be com- 
 pared to the settlers before they had 
 a regular government. The Patriarchal 
 Dispensation, from the flood to the law of 
 Sinaij might be regarded as the period of 
 colonies and governments under the parent 
 government. The Mosaic Dispensation 
 might be compared to our revolutionary 
 government. The preparatory work of 
 John and our Saviour to government under 
 the articles of confederation, when the con- 
 stitutional convention was established and 
 did its work. The apostles and the work 
 under them might be compared to the work 
 of the constitutional convention, and the 
 organization of our government in accord- 
 ance with the constitution. The apostles 
 were appointed by our Saviour to give to 
 the church its constitution the New Testa- 
 ment, just as the people chose delegates to 
 the constitutional convention, through their 
 representatives, and empowered them to 
 
 frame the constitution. Now mankind 
 adopt the New Testament, form churches 
 under it, and live in accordance with its 
 principles, just as our people accept our 
 constitution, form states under it, and live 
 in accordance with the general laws and 
 principles of the constitution. Just as the 
 constitutional convention ceased it work, 
 when it had framed the constitution, so the 
 apostles and revelation ceased their work, 
 when the New Testament was completed. 
 Togo back under direct revelations would 
 be as absurd as to go back under aconstitu- 
 tional convention. Direct revelations were 
 as much inferior to the operation of the 
 completed word of God, as the constitu- 
 tional convention was to government under 
 the constitution. In all of the former dis- 
 pensations, when miraculous powers were 
 exercised, the condition of mankind was 
 as inferior to our condition now, under a 
 completed revelation, as all former condi- 
 tion* of our people were inferior to our 
 present condition. Not only so but revela- 
 tion in all dispensations speaks of the 
 dispensations, when miraculous powers 
 existed, as imperfect provisional, and pre- 
 paratory to something higher and better. 
 They speak of the work of Christ and his 
 apostles as that which is perfect and com- 
 plete. They never speak of anything that 
 is to succeed it, of anything that is to be 
 better than the Gospel. John speaks of the 
 work of Jesus as perfect. The apostle 
 speaks of this work as the perfection of the 
 work of revelation, as that which is per- 
 fect. That which is to have no successor. 
 They speak of what the Gospel will do, but 
 not what something higher and better, that 
 is to replace it, will do. The Scriptures 
 teach clearly and positively, not that these 
 miraculous gifts were to remain as a con- 
 stituent and perpetual element in the Gos- 
 pel, the church and their workings, but 
 that they w T ere the means of revealing the 
 Gospel, the New Testament, and when that 
 was done they were to cease. These n. lacu- 
 lous powers were no more a part of the 
 Gospel than the exercise of miraculous 
 powers exercised in creation was a part of 
 things created. Just as miraculous power 
 in creation was only the means, and ceased 
 when it had accomplished its work, so 
 miraculous power in revelation, was the 
 means of revealing the word of God, and 
 not a part of that word and ceased when 
 revelation was completed, and did not re- 
 main a part of what it had introduced and 
 completed. Constitution making is only a 
 im aus of making the constitution, and not 
 ti part of it. It ceased when it had done 
 its work in giving the constitution It does 
 not remain as part of what it has made. 
 My opponents position is as absurd as it 
 would be to claim that God must now bring 
 animals and plants into being by miracle 
 of creation or that a constitutional conven- 
 tion must set forever, and be forever mak- 
 ing constitutions. 
 
 The teachings of the New Testament 
 harmonize exactly with our position and 
 illustrations. Eph., IV: "Christ gave 
 
THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 miraculous gifts to men. He grave some to 
 be apostles, some to be prophets, some to 
 be evangelists, some to be shepherds and 
 some to be teachers." These apostles and 
 prophets, were extraordinary powers in the 
 church. Their work was necessarily one 
 accomplished by inspiration, miraculous 
 power from the Holy Spirit. The evange- 
 lists, shepherds and teachers were endowed 
 with miraculous powers (hen, for such power 
 was essential to their work, in the condition 
 in which the church then was. All these 
 had miraculous powers, spiritual gifts. How 
 long were they to continue? For what pur- 
 pose were these miraculous powers given ? 
 .Paul answers: "For the perfecting of 
 the saints, unto the work of the ministry, 
 for the building (the work of the ministry 
 in building) of the body of Christ" or com- 
 pleting the organization of the church 
 ''until we all come in to the unity of the faith 
 ind of the knowledge of the Son of God" 
 or until ''the faith" the word of God the 
 New Testament is completed. This pas- 
 jage of Scripture explains, definitely and 
 ilearly, for what purpose these gifts were 
 jiven, and how long the}' were to continue. 
 They were given to furnish the saints for 
 the work of the minisfry in building up the 
 organization of the church, and were to re- 
 main until that work was done, or until all 
 attained to the unity of the faith, and the 
 faith is perfected. Then they ceased, hav- 
 ing accomplished their purpose. There can 
 be but one answer to this. My opponent 
 must show that the "until" refers to some- 
 thing else than the completion of the organ- 
 ization of the church, and the completion 
 of the word of God the New Testament, 
 and show that the work of these gifts was 
 not accomplished iu these works, and that 
 it is needt-d now. 
 
 My position is still more fully taught in 
 I. Cor, XII, XII, XIV. The apostle in XII, 
 8, 9, 10, and 28, 29, 30, enumerates the gifts 
 that the Holy Spirit bestowed on persons in 
 the church: I. Word of wisdom. II. 
 Word of knowledge. III. The faith the 
 word of God. IV. Gifts of healing. V. 
 Working of powers. VI. Prophecy. VII. 
 Discerning of spirits. VIII. Speaking in 
 different tongues. IX. Power to interpret 
 different tongues. These miraculous gifts 
 made persons : I. Apostles. II. Prophets. 
 III. Teachers. IV. Miraculous powers. 
 V. Gifts of healing. VI. Helps. VIE. 
 Wise counsellors. VIII. Speaking in diff- 
 erent tongues. IX. In te-pretation of diff- 
 erent tongues. He then says: "Desire 
 earnestly the best of these spiritual gifts" 
 while it is the order in the church to exer- 
 cise these gifts "but nevertheless I show 
 unto you a more excellent way" than the ex- 
 ercise of the best of these spiritual gifts. Ob- 
 serve carefully that Paul, after exhorting his 
 brethren to desire the best of these spiritual 
 gifts while it is the order of the church to 
 exercise spiritual gifts, declares positively 
 that there is a more excellent way than the 
 exercise of the very best of these spiritual 
 gifts. In this he flatly contradicts the 
 central idea of Mornaonism, which teaches 
 
 that the highest condition of the church is 
 the exercise of these spiritual gifts, and 
 that the state of the church, when they are 
 not exercised is, not as Paul declares " the 
 more excellent way," but an apostate con- 
 dition. 
 
 Paul proceeds to unfold this more excel- 
 lent way in what is the XIII, chapter in our 
 English Bible this way that is more excel- 
 lent than the exercise of the very best of 
 these spiritual gifts, which my opponent 
 makes the all iu all in Christianity. He 
 declares that Christian love, Christian 
 character and spirit, are the great purpose 
 of the religion of Christ. All things the 
 highest and best spiritual gifts, are woi 1 1- 
 less unless they aid iu producing Christian 
 love, Christian spirit and character; and 
 are valuable only as they aid in producing 
 such results. He then unfolds a way of 
 producing Christian love, Christian spirit 
 and character, that is better than the exer- 
 cise of the highest and best of these spirit- 
 ual gifts, that my opponent regards as the 
 alpha and omega of Christianity. He de- 
 clares that Christian love, Christian charac- 
 ter and spirit, shall remain forever, for they 
 are the gr^at object of the religion of Christ. 
 "But prophesy ing'' all utterances by inspir- 
 ation ''shall cease" "speaking in different 
 tongues, shall ce;ise" that is all miraculous 
 powers that are mere siirns, of the presence 
 of superhuman power shall cease. "Knowl- 
 edge" all knowledge by inspiration "shall 
 cease," or in other words, when that more 
 excellent way than the exercise of tiie best 
 of these spiritual gifts obtains, all miracu- 
 lous powers shall cease. 
 
 Paul then gives the reason why they 
 shall cease, and tells when they shall cease- 
 We come now to a passage of scripture that 
 is more frequently perverted and worse 
 perverted than almost any other in the 
 word of God. Paul is discussing the condi- 
 tion of the church, and if the ordinary in- 
 terpretation be true, he leaves the church 
 entirely, and goes up into heaven, in his 
 discussion, and contrasts, not two different 
 states of the church, as common sense de- 
 mands, but the church and heaven. Outside 
 of the Bible, such an idea would be regard- 
 ed as preposterous nonsense. But men 
 seem to lay one side all sense, when study- 
 ing the Bible. It is not to be understood as 
 any other book ; but is to be made as unnat- 
 ural and fantastic as possible. No conceit 
 is too farfetched, too unnatural to be inject- 
 ed into Bibical interpretation. I insist that 
 Paul is contrasting two conditions of the 
 church. One when spiritual gifts are exer- 
 cised, the other when they are not exercised. 
 Both states are states of the church, and of 
 course here on earth and before Christ 
 gives up his Messiahship, and the church 
 ceases to exist as an institution, on earth, 
 for the salvation of man from sin. The 
 passages following have not the slightest 
 reference to heaven, or to anything but a 
 condition of the church on earth. 
 
 The apostle declares: "For now" that \ 
 during the exercise of these spiritual gifts, 
 the present state of the church "we know 
 
22 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 in part" that is the knowledge imparted 
 by these spiritual gifts is but partial but a 
 fragment of revelation each time they are 
 exercised "and prophesy in part" that is 
 speaking by inspiration, gives but a frag- 
 ment of revelation each time it is exercised 
 ' b it when that which is perfect is come" 
 when the ''-perfect law of liberty" of James 
 when that which makes perfect the man 
 of God, the scriptures, are completed in the 
 New Testament "then that which is in 
 part" the exercise of these spiritual gifts 
 these partial revelations through them 
 "shall be done away." The apostle then re- 
 turns to the figure used in the XII chapter, 
 where he compared the church to the human 
 body, and personifies the church by his own 
 body, and its development by his own 
 growth. He declares that just as he "per- 
 ceived as a child, felt as a child, spoke as a 
 child, when he was a child," so the church, 
 during the exercise of these spiritual gifts, 
 "perceives as a child, speaks as a child, "for 
 for all revelations under such circum- 
 stances must be fragmentary and broken. 
 But as he "put away childish things when 
 he became a man" so the church will put 
 away these childish things, the exercise of 
 these spiritual gifts when it passes out into 
 the condition of manhood, when it is under 
 "the perfect law of liberty" the completed 
 Testament a law of universal truths, suit- 
 ed to the liberty of manhood. 
 
 This agrees exactly with the apostle's 
 teaching in Eph. IV, ?>s we have already 
 seen. The apostle continues: "Now" that 
 is during the exercise of these spiritual gifts 
 "we" that is all believers "see as in a 
 mirror dimly" these partial revelations, 
 through the exercise of these spiritual gifts, 
 give imperfect knowledge "but then" 
 that is when the word of God is completed 
 in the New Testament "we shall see face 
 to face." As James declares : "the perfect 
 law of liberty," the New Testament is a 
 is a mirror, arid if a man looks into it and is 
 a doer of what it requires he is blessed. 
 "Now," continues the apostle that is dur- 
 ing the exercise of these spiritual gifts "I 
 know in part" that is the fragmentary re- 
 velations, given through the exercise of 
 spiritual gifts, imparts out partial knowl- 
 edge "I prophesy in part" that is inspir- 
 ed speaking through these spiritual gifis is 
 partial and fragmentary "but then" that 
 is when the word of God is completed in the 
 New Testament "I shall know even as I 
 am known" that is the church shall know 
 what it ought to be, just as the Holy Spirit 
 knows what it ought to be, for the Holy 
 Spirit will then have made a perfect revela- 
 tion of the matter. The apostle closes by 
 declaring that "faith," the faith, God's 
 perfected word "hope" God's perfected 
 promises "love"christian spirit and char- 
 acter, that are the object of revelation, 
 "shall remain forever, but the greater of 
 these is love, Christian spirii and charac- 
 ter" the great aim and purpose of all 
 religion. I have been careful to unfold this 
 important revelation, because it cuts up by 
 the roots, all claim of inspiration for Joe 
 
 Smith, and all claim that the Book of Mor- 
 mon is of divine origin. I might rest my 
 case here. 
 
 We will clinch the matter however by 
 putting Mormonism to the test it challenges. 
 Has Mormonism revealed a single new idea, 
 not contained in the Bible? Has it given a 
 better expression to a single idea revealed 
 in the Bible, than is given by the Bible? 
 Man is constitutionally a religious being. 
 Without any revelation his religious nature 
 would have, and ever has had its expression 
 in religious ideas and system of religion. 
 Into these systems of religion man has 
 wrought certain catholic religious ideas of 
 his religious nature. Religions differ in 
 the number of these ideas that they contain, 
 and in their expression of them. All human 
 systems of religion are faulty in these par- 
 ticulars. I. They do not contain all of the 
 catholic ideas of man's nature. II. They 
 do not express these ideas perfectly. III. 
 They do not expand them into universally 
 applicable principles. All human religions 
 are national or race religions. They are not 
 religions for all mankind. IV. They do 
 not unite these ideas into a harmonious 
 system. V. They do not expand the sys- 
 tem into a universal and absolute religion. 
 VI. They corrupt these ideas with error 
 and evil. VII. They incorporate error and 
 evil into the system as cardinal ideas. We 
 claim for Christianity I. It contains every 
 catholic religious idea of mail's religious 
 nature. II. It expresses each and every 
 idea perfectly. III. It expands each and 
 every idea into an eternal truth, a univer- 
 sally applicable principle. IV. It unites 
 all of these ideas into a harmonious system. 
 V. It strips these ideas and the sys'tem of 
 all error and imperfection, with which 
 human systems has polluted them. VI. 
 It expands the system into an absolute 
 religion, a religion for humanity. 
 
 If this position be true, then a man can 
 not outgrow Christianity. It is the work of 
 all study to reach universally applicable 
 principles, such as the law of gravitation, 
 or theCoperuican law of the universe. When 
 research has attained to such principles, it 
 has reached the ultimate in that direction. 
 It can never outgrow such a principle. It 
 will never need anything in its stead. It 
 can only learn more of the scope and grasp, 
 the ramifications of these universal truths, 
 throughout the infinite universe, but it can 
 never outgrow them. It will never need 
 anything in their stead. In Christianity, 
 we have a system composed of such eternal 
 truths, such universally applicable prin- 
 ciples. Man can never outgrow them not 
 even a "Re-organized Mormon." He will 
 never need new truths, new revelations in 
 addition to them, nor in their stead. If 
 man progresses throughout eternity, he 
 may be able to understand the scope and 
 grasp of these eternal truths, the^e univer- 
 sally applicable principles better, but he 
 will never outgrow them, nor will he need 
 something in their stead, no more than he 
 will outgrow the law of gravitation, and 
 need something in its stead. This forever 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 23 
 
 silences and renders absurd the claim- of 
 Mormon revelations. 
 
 .The catholic ideas of man's religious nature 
 are these, I. The self-existent, independent, 
 self-sustaining, eternal and absolute Being, 
 the origin of all derived existences, and the 
 cause of all phenomena, is Absolute iSpirit, 
 or God. Has Mormonism any idea to take 
 the place of this? Does it give a better rev- 
 elation of it than is given in the Bible? 
 II.. This Absolute Spirit created, controls 
 and sustains all things in the boundless 
 universe. Has Mormonism a revelation to 
 take the place of this truth ? Does it gi ve a 
 better revelation of this truth than is given 
 in the Bible ? III. Spirit existence. God 
 who is absolute spirit; Christ who is a 
 divine spirit; the Holy spirit, a divine 
 spirit; angels; spirit in man. Has Mormo- 
 nism any ideas to take the place of the 
 teachings of the Bible on this subject? 
 Does it give a better revelation of them than 
 we find in the Bible? IV. The immortality 
 of man's spirit and all spirits. Has Mormon- 
 ism given us any new ideas on this topic? 
 Does it reveal any truth not in the Bible, or 
 better than it is expressed in the Bible? V. 
 Freedom of volition in all acts of the spirit. 
 Has Mormonism any new revelations on this 
 topic, not in the Bible? Or does it express 
 the truth better than the Bible? VI. The 
 division of all things into good or evil j nil 
 ideas into true or false; all acts into right 
 or wrong; all characters into righteous or 
 wicked. What new revelations has Mormon- 
 ism given us on these matters, that better ex- 
 press this truth? VII. Clear, simple, in- 
 fallible standard for deciding what i.s right 
 and wrong, trueand false. Has Mormon ism 
 given us a single new idea in regard r,o this 
 matter? VIII. Responsibility to God? 
 Has Mormonism added a single thought in 
 regard to this ? IX. Accountability to God? 
 What light have we from Mormonism, on 
 this topic, not in the Bible? X. Retribu- 
 tion here and hereafter. Has Mprmonism 
 given us a single new idea on this important 
 topic? XI. God's providence, as our Fath- 
 er in heaven. Has Mormonism added a 
 ghost of an idea to our knowledge on that 
 subject? XII. Prayer and answer to pray- 
 er. What new revelations has Mormonism 
 given us on that question ? XIII. Revela- 
 tions from God, of truth man unaided could 
 not attain. What new idea in regard to 
 revelation does Mormoni&m give to man ? 
 XIV. Inspiration of chosen men as medi- 
 ums of revelation. What new light have 
 we from Mormonism on this topic? XV. 
 Miracles as proof of inspiration and revela- 
 tion. What new truth has Mormonism in 
 regard to miracles? XVI. Prophecy. 
 What new ideas in regard to prophecy has 
 Mormonism given to the world? XVII. 
 Sacrifice for sin. What light have the pre- 
 tended Mormon revelations thrown on this 
 topic? XVIII. The expiation or, atone- 
 ment that Christ made for mankind. Have 
 Mormon pretended revelations given us one 
 new thought on this central idea of Christian- 
 ity? XIX. The mediatorship of Christ. Has 
 Mormonism given to the world one particle 
 
 of light on that topic, not in the Bible? 
 
 XX. A leader in religion and redemption. 
 What light from MIT non revelations here? 
 
 XXI. A perfect embodiment of teaching, 
 and example in life. Has Mormonism Driven, 
 us a ray of additional lijfht on the subji-ct? 
 
 XXII. An object of faith devotion and love? 
 What light does Mormonism add to the 
 teachings of the Bible.' XXIII. Incarna- 
 tion of Jesus as divine sacrifice, md : i<>r, 
 and object of lov and devotion. I> Mor- 
 monism add a single thought on tlii - : ,>io ? 
 XXIV. iSin as a fact in man's life a >d ex- 
 perience. Its nature, its results. ior- 
 monism thrown one particle of aUiiiuonal 
 light over this dark theme? XXV. Regen- 
 eration of life, spirit and character. Have 
 we any additional light on this glorious 
 idea of Christianity, from the jack-o-lantern 
 of Mormonism? XXVI. Forgiveness of sin 
 on repentance and reformation. What new 
 revelations on this cheering truth, have w 
 from Mormonism? XXVII. A life of right- 
 eousness moulded and directed by religion. 
 Does Mormonism give us new revelations 
 here? XXVIII. The life of each individ- 
 ual, the family, s ciety in all relations, 
 nations, mankind, are to be regenerated by 
 the pure religion of Christ. Do we owe any- 
 thing to Mormon revelations on this subject? 
 
 XXIX. The regulation of all thought, 
 action, and life, in every relation of life, 
 and sphere of action, by this religion. What 
 new ideas does Mormonism give us here? 
 
 XXX. Each person elevates himself in love 
 and righteousness, by giving himself in 
 loving self-sacrifice for others. Does Mor- 
 luonisin give a new revelation on this 
 thought? XXXI. Man is to be a co-worker 
 with Mod in the great work of redemption. 
 What new revelatin have we from Mormon- 
 ism on this topic? XXXII. Man in the 
 mental and moral likeness of God. What 
 new revelations here? We ask Mormonism. 
 XXIII. Endless growth, development and 
 progress of all intelligences, i towards the 
 absolute perfection of their Creator. What 
 new revelations have we here? We ask the 
 Mormon. XXXIV. The resurrection and 
 glorification of man's nature. What new 
 revelations on this theme have we from 
 Mormonism? XXXV. The universal l-a- 
 therhood of God. What new light does 
 Morrnonism give us in regard to this topic? 
 XXXVI. The universal brotherhood of 
 man. What new revelations on t! is i lu-nie 
 has Mormonism given us? XXXVII. A. 
 system of truth to be believed, of worship 
 to be performed, of rules of life to be lived. 
 Has Mormonism in its pretended revelations 
 added the ghost of an idea to what is in t he 
 Bible? XXXVIII. The church of Christ as 
 a perfect organization, for the maintainanco 
 of this religion, and man's culture in it. 
 What new truth has Mormonism given us 
 here? Will our opponent answer these ques- 
 tions? 
 
 He dare not contradict common sense and 
 Gods word, in claiming that all of the pre- 
 tended revelations of Mormonism, have sug- 
 gested a ghost of a new truth, in regard to 
 one of these great ideas revealed in the 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Bible. There is left for him one refuge. He 
 may say that he does not claim that revela- 
 tions are needed to add to the truths re- 
 vealed in the Bible, or to express them bet- 
 ter, but the spiritual gifts are needed to 
 enable man to do the work that the religion 
 of Christ and the revelations of the Bible 
 demand of him. That inspiration and new 
 revelations are needed to aid man in such 
 work, and to enable him to do it. That 
 human wisdom is not always sufficient to the 
 task of developing and applying the univers- 
 ally appiicabe truths of revelation. Nor 
 to the task of deciding what should be done 
 in applying them. That revelations, inspir- 
 ation, spiritual gifts, are needed to supply 
 this want of human weakness. Also to 
 authenticate and establish th divine origin 
 of Christianity. That as spiritual gifts were 
 needed as helps and a sign of the divinity 
 of the rel'gion of Christ anciently, so they 
 
 are needed now. This Is the only refuge 
 left him. Should he attempt refuge there, 
 we will soon drive him out of that last hid- 
 ing place. 
 
 Now will our opponent meet these two po- 
 sitions. I. The Scriptures te^ch that inspir- 
 ation revelation and miraculous power ex- 
 isted for a definite purpose, the revelation 
 of a perfect system of truth. That system 
 of truth was completed in the New Testa- 
 ment. Inspiration revelation and miracle 
 ceased having accomplished Iheir purpose. 
 Therefore all claims of later revelations is 
 absurd and unscriptural. II. Cb.ristianily 
 contains all religious ideas and expresses 
 them perfectly. Further revelation is need- 
 less. Will he grapple with these positions 
 like a man and cease his jingling interpreta- 
 tion of prophecies that have not more refer- 
 ence to Mormonism than the frauds of a 
 gang of counterfietera. 
 
TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 25 
 
 THIRD SPEECH OF MR. KELLEY. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : When my time was called 
 upon last evening I was citing proofs from 
 the scriptures, relative to the establishment 
 and occupancy of a people upon the Ameri- 
 can continent. 
 
 I turn and read again from Deuteronomy 
 83 : 13-18 : 
 
 "And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his 
 "laud, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, 
 "and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and lor the 
 "precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the 
 "precious things put forth by the moon, and for the 
 "chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the 
 "precious things of the lasting hills, and for the pre- 
 "cious things of the earth and fullness thereof, and for 
 "the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush: let the 
 " blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the 
 "top of the head of him that was separated from his 
 "beihren. His glory is like the flrstlingof his bullock, 
 "and his horns a: e like the horns of unicorns: with them 
 **he shall push the people together to the ends of the 
 "earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, 
 "and they are the thousands of Mauasseh " 
 
 Here we have such a full and definite 
 description of Joseph's land where the 
 branches posterity of Joseph were to pass 
 to, and inherit, that it is hardly possible to 
 make a mistake in applying it to the 
 country, unless we shall while trying to do 
 so be determined in our minds at all risks 
 to preserve to our souls some cherished and 
 petted theory or selfish institution, rather 
 than to approach fairly and openly the 
 light. It is a land of broad fields and ex- 
 tended territory. Of great diversities of 
 soil, climate and temperature. It must ex- 
 tend through and occupy in the different 
 zones. Here are the products of the earth 
 set out in their fulness. Celebrated for its 
 fruits and luxurious vegetation, " put forth 
 by the sun and moon." A land of the chief 
 minerals, " chief things of the ancient 
 mountains;" for the wealth and products 
 of its lakes and rivers, "the deep that 
 coucheth beneath ; " and for the blessings 
 of heaven, the revelations of God verse 16, 
 'i For the good will of him that dwelt in the 
 bush ; " and then it was far away from 
 Canaan, " to the utmost bounds of the ever- 
 lasting hills." 
 
 Associate this description now, with the 
 promised blessing upon the children of 
 Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48: 
 15-20, where the land is located in the midst 
 of the earth ; which, when we remember 
 that the patriarch stood in the country 
 lying on the Mediterranean and near to 
 Canaan, could not with any sense of justice 
 or fitness to the statement be made to apply 
 to that land, and it will be possible to in- 
 telligently point it out. 
 
 The children also were to " grow into a 
 multitude." Wherever the land is, a mul- 
 titude of people will doubtless be found 
 who are the descendants of Joseph of 
 Egypt. " And he blessed them that day, 
 Baying, " In thee shall Israel bless, saying, 
 
 God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh." 
 This accords with the description of the 
 blessing of Joseph's land by Moses. It is 
 one greatly to be desired ; choice above 
 every other land, as was the blessing of the 
 lads : so much so that it would be the high- 
 est thing to bless others as was the blessing 
 of these children. The other sous of Jacob 
 had their blessing and inheritance in Can- 
 aan, and how could it ever be truly said, 
 "God bless thee as Ephraim and Manas- 
 seh," if theirs was thus confined to 
 Canaan also? 
 
 Pursuing the examination however, in 
 search of this promised land and the hue of 
 Joseph, I next refer you to the prediction 
 with reference to the departure from Jeru- 
 salem of the people who evidently were led 
 to the land spoken of by these inspired meu 
 and the manner and time of their coming. 
 Jeremiah 48 : 32, " O vine of Sibmah, I will 
 " weep for thee with the weeping of Jazer : 
 11 Thy plants are gone over tlte sea, they 
 " reach even to the sea of Jazer : the spoiler 
 "is fallen upon thy summer fruits, and 
 " upon thy vintage." Here is introduced 
 under the figure of a choice vine the dis- 
 persion of the line of Israel's beloved, and 
 an introduction of the fact that they should 
 pass from the then inheritance to the sea, 
 and over the sea ; as is also more specifically 
 set forth by the prophet Isaiah 1G : 8, where 
 it is evident the same event is referred to 
 of which Jeremiah has given evidence, lit 
 says : " For the fields of Heshbon languish, 
 "and the vine of Sibmah : the lords of the 
 " heathen have broken down the principal 
 " plants thereof, they are come even unto 
 " Jazer, they wandered through the wilder- 
 " ness : her branches are stretched out, they 
 " are gone over the sea." 
 
 Now pass in your mind over the sea, from 
 the old country of Jazer on the east of the- 
 Mediterranean, in either direction ( so as to 
 puss over the sea), and tell me what land 
 you shall find and the only one you can lind 
 that answers the description of Joseph's 
 land as foretold by Israel and Moses . 
 
 The phrase, "vine of Sibmah," may be 
 understood by comparing it with the saying 
 of the Lord in the second chapter, 20uii and 
 21st verses, of Jeremiah : " For of old time 
 "I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy 
 " bands ; and thou saidest, thou wilt not 
 "transgress; when upon every high hill 
 "and every green tree thou wanderest 
 "playing the harlot. Yet I had planted 
 " thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed : 
 "How then art thou turned into the dege- 
 " nerate plant of a strange vine unto me '/ " 
 Sibmah refers to that to be desired, pleas- 
 ant, choice. And the "-vine of Sibmah," 
 is properly interpreted, "a noble vine," "a 
 right seed," which was true of Ephraim ) 
 and Mauusseh. 
 
26 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Turning again to the evidences upon the 
 main thread of our search, I refer you to the 
 49th of Jeremiah, 30th to 33rd verses inclu- 
 sive ; where he gives the excited and hur- 
 ried warning which God had commanded 
 him to deliver, just a short time before the 
 king of Babylon brings desolation upon the 
 country of Jerusalem. The language of the 
 prophet fully discloses the troublous scenes 
 which suddenly followed : " Flee, get you 
 far uif, dwell deep," (that is go unobserved, 
 secret), 
 
 "O ye inhabitants of Razor, saith the Lord : for Ne- 
 bucnadnezzar king of Babylon hath taken counsel 
 'a ainst you, and hath conceived a purpose against 
 'you Arise, pet you up unto the wealthy na- 
 'tion that dweljeth" without care, saith the Lord, 
 'which have neither pa es nor bars, which dwell 
 alone. Ami their camels shall be a booty, and the 
 'nuiltitii''e of their cattle a spoil: and 1 will scatter 
 'into all winds them that are in the utmost corners ; 
 'and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof, 
 'saith the Lord. And Ilazor shall be a dwelling for 
 'drapi'iis. and a desolation forever: there siiall no 
 'man abide there, nor any son of inttn dwell in it." 
 
 The warning to these people was to get 
 out of the reach of the King of Babylon 
 who at that time held complete sway in the 
 countries of the east, and they were prom- 
 ised that if they would obey the voice and 
 hearken unto the Lord, they should be led 
 to a wealthy nation, a land descriptive of 
 Joseph's land, and which, had been afore- 
 time inhabited and whose inhabitants 
 dwelt without bars ; with nothing to pre- 
 vent persons who should go thereof taking 
 possession, showing that the cattle and 
 camels would be a prey to be had for the 
 taking. 
 
 Such a country as this existed at some 
 
 Rlace upon the earth at the time of the de- 
 vering of the warning prophecy and of the 
 captivity referred to, unless the prophecy 
 is false. Where was it? The Book of Mor- 
 mon comes in with the new light reflected 
 in 1829, and shows that at the time, such a 
 country existed upon the American con- 
 tinent. 
 
 It had to that date been inhabited by a 
 people who were led here from the plains 
 of Shinar at the time of the confounding of 
 the languages ; and who had been greatly 
 blessed and enriched and had builded cities 
 and towns and earthworks, and had been 
 rich 111 cattle and camels and all kinds of 
 animals, and in mines and mining. But 
 had l>een at this time hurriedly gathered 
 together by their leaders from every part 
 of the land", leaving their cities unkept, the 
 ores in process of removal in the mines, 
 their herds and their flocks free to wander, 
 while they engaged in mortal combat, stir- 
 red to the most desperate frenzy by animo- 
 sity and revenge, until the country had 
 become desolate of inhabitants. 
 
 Ah ! but says my opponent, this comes 
 from the Book of Mormon, it is notevidence. 
 But I shall not leave the testimony here. 
 I refer to it to show you that so early as 
 1829, when the book went into the hands of 
 the publisher, this work cast the new light 
 upon the nation and peoples of the world, 
 when all were in ignorance and darkness; 
 not only with regard to the former habita- 
 
 tion of the continent, but also the interpre- 
 tation of these prophecies. For my proofs, 
 I shall bring before you the corroborative 
 testimonies which have come to light 
 through the explorations and archaeological 
 discoveries of the continent, as set forth 
 and published in the first scientific and 
 historical works of the times, and which 
 could not have been known to the author 
 of the Book of Mormon if it is claimed to be 
 the work of man only. 
 
 Upon last evening it was repeatedly chal- 
 lenged, to point to a new thing whicb 
 reflected light to the people from the work. 
 I had nevertheless just referred him to the 
 new light thrown upon the prophecy of the 
 Master at Jerusalem. Here is another that 
 stands out boldly and sublime as though 
 flashed by the inspired shaft from the 
 heavenly realms ; and were it material to 
 the maintenance of the authenticity of the 
 work, I could gather from its brilliant pages 
 ten thousand reflections of its rays, which 
 are for the elevation of man, the encourage- 
 ment, consolation and spiritual growth of 
 the Christian as he wrestles with the evils 
 of life, and which are not attained by the 
 reading of any other work. But suppose I 
 could not show a single new truth. How 
 could it affect the argument as to whether 
 God revealed himself to the people -upon 
 this jaontinent, and that the result of such 
 revealment were not teachings, "entitled 
 to the respect and belief" of all the people 
 who believe in the partial record that is 
 left to us of the will of heaven as <riven to 
 the people on the other continent,/ Will 
 he answer the question for you? His rin- 
 ging of changes on the word Mormon and 
 "Mormonism," will hardly answer him as 
 argument even with half thinking people. 
 If this record is what it purports to be, all 
 of it except about 75 pages, was in existence 
 as a matter of history, prior to the time 
 the revelator was at Patmos, and the 
 greater part, long prior to the dawning of 
 the Christian era. The people by whom 
 much of it was written were also to a degree 
 in customs, manners, and education, com- 
 parable with those who wrote much of the 
 Bible. Should it be thought wonderful 
 then that we can find often in its pages a 
 similarity of thought and style? 
 
 I know the position has been assumed by 
 my opponent, that he has a right to set up 
 and affirm what he thinks the principles of 
 my faith are, or of the body I represent in 
 this discussion, and then to make a grand 
 lunge at these supposed views as though 
 he were battling down my arguments. 
 
 But he will find out before the close of 
 the sixteen sessions that I lead in my own af- 
 firmatives, and have a different source from 
 which to gather and elucidate my faith, 
 than the brazen works of falsehood of Howe, 
 Hyde, Tucker, Beadle, Stenhouse, Bennett, 
 Ford, et al, by the score, who by garbling. 
 falsifying, inuendo and deceit, have sought 
 to make the faith of the Saints, (which is 
 righteousness and peace and joy in theHoiy 
 Ghost, as was the kingdom of God with 
 the apostles), to be a coarse and "sensual 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 27 
 
 system." And by way of a reminder 
 I will tell him here and now, that it will 
 avail nothing for his side to set up imagin- 
 ary men of chaff and straw at which to 
 make a show of fight. I claim to be found- 
 ed upon the rock, the which, neither fog, 
 bluster, dust nor ashes will startle or move, 
 and against which slanderous stories, cal- 
 umny, abuse and vilifying can make no 
 impression. Returning, however, to my 
 affirmative argument, I invite your con- 
 sideration to a thought that may. arise in 
 the minds of some as to whether or not at 
 the time of these last prophecies, there lived 
 at, or in the country of Jerusalem, any of the 
 posterity of Joseph of Egypt, it was not 
 as may have been imagined by some that 
 these tribes had their respective bound- 
 cries and there was no intermingling in 
 their living and their marriages. It was- 
 common for persons of different tribes to 
 inhabit in the territory of other tribes. In 
 1 Chron. 9:3 it is stated: "And in Jerusalem 
 dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the 
 children of Benjamin, and of the children. 
 of Ephraim and Manasseh." 
 
 For further evidence on this point I cite 
 you to 1 Chron. 7:28; 2 Chron. 15:8,9; 17:2; 
 and 30:18. It will not do then to take the 
 position that the prophet's warning was to 
 be heeded by some of the tribe of Judah on- 
 ly, and that it was thus fulfilled in passing 
 out of the land, and that none of the oth- 
 ers of Israel improved the opportunity. 
 
 The other prophecies relating to subse- 
 quent events are in conflict with such an 
 idea or interpretation. There were in the 
 city and country of Jerusalem at this time, 
 those of other tribes, and particularly 
 Ephraim and Manassen. 
 
 Here, I call to your mind a summary of the 
 proofs I have made so far in this line, not one 
 of which the negative has even noticed to 
 this time. He has been waxing strong else- 
 where, trying to draw comfort from the use 
 of a few choice phrases applied in a derisive 
 manner to the church and people I repre- 
 sent, tind to prove to you that God could not 
 reveal himself to the people ofthis conti- 
 nent, because by the action of a few persons 
 who lived a few hundred years after the 
 death of the apostles, and who got togeth- 
 er, collected as many copies of the manu- 
 script of the apostles as they could find, and 
 after assorting them according to their judg- 
 ment, made a book and called it the Book, 
 or "The Bible;" and thus forever shut 
 Deity out. Don't fail to gather the idea! 
 they shut off the means of communication 
 before they had heard whether Deity ac- 
 cepted their work as containing all the 
 word of God. And now my opponent oc- 
 cupies the ridiculous position of stating 
 that this compilation and collation con- 
 tains all that God ever did, or ever will 
 give for the instruction of men. It is a 
 terribly false and superstitious belief, and 
 has been the means of making more infidels 
 than any other one thing. But I shall par- 
 ticularly notice this hereafter, and pass now 
 to the proposed summary. 
 
 I have so far shown: 
 
 1. That it is according to the expressed 
 will of heaven to make known to man in 
 every nation His will, and that all should- 
 seek after and find Him. 
 
 2. That other nations than the Jews 
 have sought after and found Him, and we 
 have not their record in the Bible. 
 
 3. That in the days of the Patriarchs, 
 and of Moses, and of the Prophets, there 
 were express predictions to the effect that 
 a line or remnant. of the seed of Joseph 
 should change their inheritance from Pal- 
 estine, to a country that far exceeded it in 
 all that is calculated to make a land desira- 
 ble; and that the new country was far from 
 Canaan. 
 
 4. That such a people did leave the 
 country of Palestine in the time of the 
 reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, and 
 started for a land of this description, pass- 
 ing covertly to and over the sea, to a land 
 beyond the borders of Africa. 
 
 I shall now enter upon a'nother line of 
 proofs and show that the people did not 
 only thus leave Palestine, but also show 
 more particularly where they went to, and 
 what was said they should do after they 
 arrived upon the (to them), ' promised 
 land." Referring to the prophecy of Eze- 
 kiel, 37:15-28, we find a clear and explicit 
 statement made with regard to an event to 
 take place in the earth, and one particular 
 thing which was to precede this notable 
 event : 
 
 "The word of the Lord came again unto me saying, 
 'moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick and 
 | write upon it for Judah, and for the c'nildren of Is- 
 ' rael his companions; then take another stick, and 
 ' write upon it for Joseph, the stick of Ephiahn, and 
 ' for all the house of Israel his companions : And join 
 'themoueto another into one *tic,k : and they shall 
 'become one in thy had. And when the children of 
 'thy people shall speak unto th"^ saving-, wilt thou 
 ' not shew us what thou meanest by these? say unto 
 'tliem, Thus saith the "Lord God; BchoM, I will take 
 'the stick of Joseph which is in the hnnd f Kphraim, 
 'and the tribes of Isiael his fellows, and will put ihem 
 'with him, even with the stick of Judah nud niuke 
 'them one stick and they shall be one in mine hand. 
 ' And the s'icks whereon thou writest sha'l be in thine 
 'hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus 
 'saith the Lord God ; Behold, I will t'ike the children 
 'of Israel f-om among the heathen, whither they be 
 'gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring 
 ' them into their own land." 
 
 If in this prophecy it shall be concluded 
 that the particular sticks, can have no inter- 
 est or signification, certainly the writing 
 upon them must. The writing upon one of 
 these sticks was for Judah, to represent the 
 line, evidently, through which it came, and 
 may be fairly and truly interpreted to mean 
 the scriptures which came through that 
 line. The writing upon the other was for 
 Joseph, and complimentary by reason of 
 the blessing upon his sons long prior, called 
 the stick of Ephraim ; and may fairly bo 
 interpreted to refer to some like writing 
 which should come through the line of 
 Joseph. Verse 19 shows, that the Lord 
 should at some time in the divine economy 
 use these together for the accomplish- 
 ment of his purposes ; and verses 22 and 
 23, show what these purposes are, and 
 at what time the sticks or writings were to 
 *" 'oiiied together, i. e., at the time de- 
 
28 
 
 THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 clared by the prophet when, " the envy of 
 Ephraim shall depart and the adversaries 
 of Judah shall be cut off." "Ephraim shall 
 not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex 
 Ephraim." Isaiah 11:13; and more par- 
 ticularly with regard to the time and event 
 seethe instruction in verse 12 : "And he 
 shall set up an ensign for the nations, and 
 shall assemble the outcasts Of Israel and 
 gather together the dispersed of Judah from, 
 the four corners of the earth." 
 
 Turning to the 18th of Isaiah, the paral- 
 lel text with this, we find the p'ace of the 
 setting up of the ensign and a further con- 
 firmation of the time when it was to take 
 place. See the entire chapter. The proph- 
 et calls attention to the land shadowing 
 with wings as the place, which is beyond 
 the rivers of Ethiopia far west of Jerusa- 
 lem. Verse 3. calls especial attention to 
 the ensign to be lifted up and the sonnd 
 that shall go forth as ofa trumpet; the 
 thought in this is that a call is to be made 
 upon the people by the God of heaven. 
 Verse 5, fixes the time as being just afore 
 the harvest of the world; the same time in 
 which the event is placed by Jesus as set 
 forth in Matthew 13:39, and in the same 
 time referred to by John the revelator, 
 14: 6, where he says: "And I saw another 
 'angel fly in the midst of heaven, having 
 'the everlasting gospel to preach to them 
 'that dwell on the earth, and to every na- 
 'tion, and kindred, and tongue and people, 
 'saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and 
 'give glory to Him; for the hour of his judg- 
 'ment is come: and worship him that made 
 'heaven and earth, and the sea, and the 
 'fountains of the waters." 
 
 This again, brings the gospel by an angel 
 to the earth after the apostle's time and 
 just at the time before the harvest, when 
 the judgments should go forth, and with 
 a call to the people like to the blowing of a 
 trumpet. "Hear ye! "and, "worship Him 
 who made the heaven and the earth;" and 
 this call is, and since 1830 has been made, 
 whether my opponent would, confine all 
 angels, and gospel that came in power and 
 the Holy Ghost, to the apostles' age or not. 
 Turning now to the 29th chapter of Isaiah, 
 I find clearly and definitely set out the 
 nature and character of the ensign that was 
 to be lifted up. The gifted prophet beholds 
 it in the form ofa book containing the "ev- 
 erlasting gospel;" the same which Jesus 
 preached; a gospel of power and salvation 
 from sin; the same as the revelator saw. 
 This chapter is clearly definitive also of 
 what is termed "The stick of Joseph," re- 
 ferred to in the 37th of Ezekiel's proph- 
 ecy. I wil proceed and examine it partic- 
 ularly. 
 
 The first six verses of the chapter In 
 Isaiah portray the degradation, distress 
 and punishment of Jerusalem, and the ruin 
 of their city; after which, "all nations," 
 that have occasioned this distress and ruin, 
 are represented in the condition of one in a 
 dream; verses 7-11. 
 
 These nations are under the influence of 
 the spirit of deep sleep; they are slumber- 
 
 ing as to hearing the voice of God, with 
 eyes closed, without prophets or seers. 
 Then verse II, "The vision of all is become 
 unto you as the words of a book that is seal- 
 ed." (A book descriptive of a people Miafc 
 had wandered from God, so that they had 
 wrought evil and felt not after him aright, 
 and for their iniquities had been over- 
 thrown.) "Which (words) 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 (not the words 
 "only), is delivered to him that is not 
 " learned, saying, Read this I pray thee : 
 " And he saith, I am not learned. " 
 
 Then the Lord says, that he will pro- 
 ceed to do his own work, "Even a marvel- 
 ous work and a wonder," (Not by the 
 wisdom of the world; for no learned man 
 after the wisdom of the world was to be able 
 to do his work); "for the wisdom of their 
 wise men ahall perish, and theunderstand- 
 ing of their prudent men shall be hid." 
 Then the book, the work referred to else- 
 where as the "ensign," is to be translated 
 and read by the means God has prepared. 
 He will do His own work. 
 
 This work is to be wrought among the 
 people at the time He sets His hand to re- 
 deem Jacob and establish Israel. To brinor 
 peace to those trodden down and scattered 
 upon every mountain. It was not the work 
 of Jesus in his time; for then was the be- 
 ginning of the scattering, so far as Judah 
 was concerned, or rather the beginning of 
 the completion of the scattering of Israel. 
 
 Lebanon, the country of Jerusalem, 
 then began to dry up and become barren, 
 but this work is to be done at the time Leb- 
 anon was to be redeemed from the barren- 
 ness, and to become "a fruitful field, and 
 the fruitful field esteemed as a forest." 
 All of the things referred to here, every es- 
 sential feature, of people, of time, of place, 
 of the day in which the book should come 
 forth, of the words which the book should 
 contain, of the power of God to be mani- 
 fested in the reading of the book, and the 
 bringing to nought the wisdom of the wise 
 (after the world and not after God) ; is 
 fulfilled in the coming forth and publish- 
 ing to the world of the Book of Mormon. 
 Don't forget that I take a positive and 
 confident stand with regard to the fulfill- 
 ment of the prophecy. And yet, my wise 
 opponent stands, darkening counsel with 
 words without knowledge, never even at- 
 temptiug to give you an adverse explana- 
 tion and application of the prophecy, such 
 that he is willing to s f .and by, saying, 
 "Where does it say that the Book of Mor- 
 mon is meant?" 
 
 Where does it say in Genesis that the 
 Shiloh is Christ? Yet we can see the rela- 
 tion of the prophecy Again: 
 
 "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter 
 and as a sheep dumb before his shearers, 
 so he opened not his mouth." How did 
 Philip find out this was Christ? Is the 
 name mentioned? Does it say "Jesus of 
 Na/areth" is he who is mentioned? Not 
 at all. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 29 
 
 What are the rules of evidence which 
 should govern in this controversy? I call 
 attention to the fact that the same rule 
 which has governed in the reception or re- 
 jection of divine messages in every age or 
 time of trying things or men, claiming a di- 
 vine origin, or call from heaven, must be 
 the governing rule in this case of the trial 
 of the Book of Mormon being of Divine ori- 
 gin. 
 
 This rule I have sought to abide, saying; 
 if you believe in Moses and the prophets, 
 you will believe in this also; for they wrote 
 of this. And again, "To believe for the 
 very work's sake." What works? The 
 gospel that is preached, and the everlast- 
 ing gospel that it contains. 
 
 From that sure rule of examination, " He 
 that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he 
 hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John, 
 9th verse. The reason is evident and all suffi- 
 cient ; by Jesus' words, not miracles, not 
 what is said about character, not the stories 
 told on people, are we to be judged at the 
 last day ; and if we have stood by the word 
 we will be right there and then; and wheth- 
 er it come from the high or low, rich or 
 poor, from the mean city of Nazareth or the 
 city of the kings; whether he "who brings 
 it is abstemious neither eating nor drinking, 
 or whether he shall both eat bread and 
 drink wine, it matters not ; the lesson is 
 taught us that we must not expect perfec- 
 tion in men, because God speaks to them; 
 but perfection in the work so far as it comes 
 from the hand of the Creator. God to my 
 mind selects the best fitted persons he can 
 find to do his work here, and no doubt he 
 woald, save in the instance of Jesus only, 
 have preferred a more appropriate man 
 than he found for the conduct of his work 
 in every age in the past : but he works by 
 unchangeable laws. Rules of discipline 
 and development. He fits and prepares 
 men by tsuch laws, only in proportion as 
 they will conform to the same, and hence 
 in his selections, makes choice from the 
 material he has, and thus through the 
 established means been able to prepare. 
 Ami it is not for me to say he is not true, 
 and that the lavf ordained for this prepara- 
 tion is not the best possible order. It was 
 by this just rule ihat the compilers of the 
 New Testament di-i their work. They had 
 a mass of books claiming to be of divine 
 origin. Some were acknowledged to be 
 such. They tried the others by these. The 
 correspondence in teaching, character of 
 works, &c., receiving some and throwing 
 out others. Do you der^y it sir? So far as 
 tracing the writings back to the original, 
 cr first writers, they couid not do it in any 
 instance positively. The rule followed by 
 them, however, was a good one, and the 
 same is true now, and I am willing to 
 abide it. 
 
 But to return to the direct line of argu- 
 ment ! I have now further located the land 
 to which the descendants of Joseph were to 
 come, as lying over the sea from Canaan, 
 west of that country beyond the rivers of 
 Ethiopia, far away to the utmost bounds of 
 
 the everlasting hills ; to a " land shad* wing 
 with," ( lying widely stretched out in the 
 form of) "wings;" located as these pro- 
 phecies claim, with a record containing the 
 " everlasting gospel ; " revealed as predict- 
 ed, by an angel from the courts of heaven, 
 and "just afore the harvest," in the hour 
 of the judgment. 
 
 This land is the continent upon which 
 you and I live. Do not these proofs make 
 my claim from the Bible stand point com- 
 plete? Which link has he succeeded in 
 breaking? One thing, however, I shall 
 Show in this connection, that is,' the fact of 
 a race of people of Israelitish origin or ex- 
 traction, having come to this continent in 
 ages past, and who well occupied and in- 
 habited here, from the certain proofs obtain- 
 ed through archaeological research and dis- 
 covery brought to light since the publica- 
 tion of the Book of Mormon to the world. 
 
 Not only this, but prior to their habita- 
 tion, there had been upon and inhabited 
 the continent another people and race 
 which was not of the Jewish extraction, 
 but highly civilized, and whose work of 
 art in the ruins of the continent is readily 
 distinguishable, from that of the people 
 who succeeded them. These answer to. 
 and are in fact the complete prototype and 
 primeval race whose history is set out in 
 the Book of Mormon as the Jaredites, who 
 came here as they were led from the plain 
 of Shinar. But just now I will take up and 
 examine some objections, pretended or real, 
 made by the negath e. 
 
 1. He says, That in the New Testament 
 God perfected and completed his work of 
 revelation in a system of universal truths, 
 &c. 
 
 To the unthinking listener there may ap- 
 pear a degree of force in this proposition. 
 But is there in fact? In the first place 
 the statement is at fault in that, it as- 
 sumes the truth of a thing he is trying to 
 prove, to wit: That in the New Testament 
 is contained all that God has ever revealed 
 to the world. For neither of us will deny 
 that whatever he has revealed is perfect. 
 
 In what way is it perfected and complet- 
 ed? As my opponent would have you be- 
 lieve, so that God could not, and would not. 
 outside of this, reveal HIMSKLK to any part 
 of mankind? Certainly not. No one can, 
 maintain the proposition that in the New 
 Testament is contained all tha tour Heav- 
 enly Father has revealed for the instruction 
 of man, or that he desires that they should 
 know concerning him. The New Testament 
 is but a compilation of many of the things 
 revealed for the good of the human family, 
 and not all. St. Luke in the first four 
 verses of his record, sets forth the true idea 
 of the record of the gospel. Then he pro- 
 ceeds to give his account of the things said 
 and done by Jesus. The account is true, 
 and in a sense complete in itself, and the 
 truths are universally applicable to the 
 race; but would that justify me in asserting 
 that this book of Luke's writing, or this in 
 connection with the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, which he wrote, contains all the re- 
 
30 
 
 THE BKADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 vealed will of God, and all necessary 
 truth? Such a conclusion would be most 
 ridiculous and absurd. But not more so 
 than the conclusion arrived at by my oppo- 
 nent, that the New Testament compilers, 
 who were not inspired men, succeeded a few 
 centuries after the evangelist Luke wrote, in 
 bundling up all truth, which God had 
 or would reveal in order to guide his chil- 
 dren. 
 
 While man is not expected to outgrow the 
 universal and eternal principles of the gos- 
 pel that w-ere delivered by Jesus himself, 
 yet in the dissemination and acceptance of 
 these principles in their true sense there ia 
 as necessarily instruction to be given by 
 -revelation in this age of the world, as there 
 was after the personal ministry of Jesus 
 had ceas.sd and his instructions given, and 
 when Peter, Paul and John did their work. 
 
 While we are quite ready to allow that 
 truths which God has given for the good of 
 universal man are universally applicable, 
 and these in a sense perfect and complete, 
 
 it does not follow from this that man should 
 be limited to the simple reading of these, 
 neither that it is not absolutely necessary 
 that the act of revelation itself be contin- 
 ued in order that these very universal 
 truths may be properly carried out in one's 
 life. 
 
 This continuance of revelation is in fact a 
 part of the revealment, and essential to 
 growth in that already given ; hence the 
 apostle declares : " Wherefore I also after 
 I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus" 
 " after that ye heard the word of truth, the 
 gospel of your salvation " (that already 
 revealed)j "Cease not to give thanks for 
 you, making mention of you in my prayers, 
 that the Father of glory may give unto you 
 the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in 'the 
 knowledge of him." My position is, that 
 the negative, in his method of jumping at 
 such a conclusion of no more reveintion 
 assails that which he professes at the aame 
 time to accept. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 31 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : A man who was engaged in 
 an altercation with a trifling character that 
 was annoying him was asked why he did 
 not kick him. "I will," replied he, "if 
 some one will fold him up into about a 
 dozen thicknesses so that there will be 
 something to kick." I have waited till now, 
 befc :e answering my opponent, so that I 
 could double his talk up into at least a 
 dozen thicknesses So as to have some- 
 thing to review. My opponent can prove 
 that the Book of Mormon is of divine 
 origin in two ways : I.. He can prove its 
 divine origin, as we establish the divine 
 origin of the Bible. We appeal to the fact 
 that the best living intellects accept the 
 Bible as of divine origin ; that the best 
 intellects of former generations accepted 
 the Bible, as of divine origin, until we IW.Q 
 it back into the age in which it- had it* ori- 
 gin, and we show that th .jest intellects, 
 and characters of the people among whom 
 it had its origin accepted it * f Ii"ine 
 origin. We trace i&ach book of the Bible 
 back in this way into the age, and unto 
 people among whom it had its origin. We 
 can begin with the oldest books and 
 trace out the frame-work of corroborative 
 history, geography, literature, customs, 
 etc., in which it had its origin, and- into 
 which it dovetails and interlocks at every 
 point, fitting such frame-work, as the holes 
 in the fuller's web fit on to the tenter-hooks 
 on which it has been stretched. We 
 prove that its actors authors and writers 
 and speakers, acted spoke and wrote as the 
 Bible declares they did. Having estab- 
 lished its authenticity, genuineness and 
 truthfulness, we prove that its speakers, 
 actors and writers, were inspired when the 
 Bible declares they were inspired, for we 
 have proved the truthfulness of the Bible. 
 1 1. We then examine its contents and prove 
 by prophecy that has been fulfilled by 
 i) iincles that are authenticated by monu- 
 mental institutions by truths that are 
 above man's power and must have been 
 revealed and by its exact accordance in its 
 teachings and in its results with the claim 
 of inspiration that it is inspired and of 
 divine origin. 
 
 My opponent cannot appeal to one parti- 
 cle of the first line of proof. He can trace 
 his book no farther back than to Iniposter 
 Joe Smith. It has not one particle of frame 
 work of corroborating history, geography 
 literature and customs into which it inter- 
 locks. It stands on the naked assumption 
 that Imposter Joe was inspired and on that 
 alone. If he was inspired, then we should 
 believe that he translated the Book of Mor- 
 mon by inspiration, and of course it is true, 
 and of divine origin. The Book itself has 
 not one iota of interlocking corroborating, 
 
 or collateral evidence. It steps out into 
 human life from the hand of Imposter Joe 
 as the Goddess Minerva burst from the 
 head of Jupiter. He claims that he re- 
 ceived it from an angel by miracle and that 
 he translated it by inspiration. Therefore 
 it is of divine origin and mankind should 
 accept it. There are no monumental insti- 
 tutions no literature based on it. It has 
 had no career in the life of our race of which 
 we have one particle of knowledge or proof 
 except the assertions of the book itself. If 
 my opponent appeals to the Bible, as Jesus 
 appealed to the Old Testament, he must 
 show that the Bible, in its history, narrates 
 the same events as are found in the Book 
 of Mormon. It does not hint one of them, 
 except what the book of Mormon steals 
 from the Bible. Or that the Bible foretells 
 the events recorded in the Book of Mormon. 
 He has attempted this, and oh how weak 
 an attempt.. I can prove that the Bible 
 foretells the Koran or Swedenborg's writ- 
 ings just as clearly. The false prophets 
 and false Messiahs of Israel furnished far 
 mor proof from prophecy than he has pro- 
 duced. Even if the Bible foretold the 
 events nanated in the Book of Mormon, 
 that would not prove that the Book of Mor- 
 mon is of divine origin. The Bible foretells 
 events narrated in Assyrian and Egyptian 
 history. That does not prove that the 
 books recording what the Bible foretells 
 are of divine origin. Do the prophecies he 
 quotes, even if we admit his fanciful appli- 
 cation, prove that the Book *f Mormon ia 
 of divine origin, one -particle more than 
 prophecies in the Bible of events recorded 
 in Egyptian history, proves that the Egyp- 
 tian books were of divine origin? Where 
 does the Bible prophesy in such a way as 
 to prove that the Book of Mormon is of 
 divine origin. 
 
 The only proof of the divine origin of the 
 Book of Mormon is the pretended inspi- 
 ration of Imposter Joe Smith. If im- 
 poster Joe was inspired, then of course 
 he translated the Book of Mormon by in- 
 spiration, as he claimed, and we can believe 
 his story that he received it from an angel 
 by miracle, and that the angel told him 
 that the Book of Mormon is what it pre- 
 tends to be, and true. If he was not in- 
 spired, we have not a shadow of proof of 
 the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. 
 My opponent can establish that Imposter 
 Joe was inspired by proving that he 
 wrought miracles, as nearly all of the in- 
 spired men of the Bible did ; or that he 
 foretold future events, as Noah, John the 
 Baptist and others did, who wrought no 
 signs, or that he had superhuman wisdom, 
 and revealed what man could not know IMS 
 the inspired men of the Bible did, or that 
 his character was such that he would not 
 
82 
 
 THE BRADEN AND K-ELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 claim to be inspired, if it were not so, as we 
 show in the case of Christ. If he appeals 
 to the Bible as Jesus and the apostles ap- 
 pealed to the Bible, let him produce from 
 the Bible the proof they did. Let him 
 prove that the Bible prophesies directly 
 and clearly of Imposter Joe, his work and 
 his book. Let him show that the work of 
 Imposter Joe and the Book of Mormon are 
 a clear fulfillment of Bible prophecies. 
 The appeals to prophecy, made by Christ 
 and his apostleSj were clear direct positive 
 and overwhelming. They were not such 
 far fetched fanciful distortions and perver- 
 sio^s cf the Bible, as we hear from Mor- 
 monism. He seems to be afraid to affirm 
 and defend the inspiration of Imposter Joe. 
 If he abandons that, he abandons the sole 
 basis of his claim for his book. The only 
 basis for the claim for the divine origin of 
 the Book of Mormon is two assertions. I. 
 An angel revealed to Imposter Joe the ex- 
 istence of certain plates and gave them to 
 him and told him that the contems were 
 true. II. That Imposter Joe translated 
 these plates, and we have in the Book of 
 Mormon the contents of the plates. Prove 
 that you establish the divine origin of the 
 Book of Mormon. Fail in that and you 
 utterly fail to establish such claim. 
 
 My opponent attempted to prove the di- 
 vine origin of his book by appealing to these 
 facts : I. It claims to come from the right 
 source. So does the Koran. II. It claims 
 to be a proper message to mankind. So do 
 the Shasters of India. III. Its object is 
 good, the salvation of mankind. The same 
 can be said of the revelations of Anni Lee. 
 IV. Its teachings are good. So were the 
 sermons of Stephens Burrows, the greatest 
 scoundrel that eve/ lived. He, a vile ini- 
 poster. stole and uttered the teachings of 
 the Bible. So did Job Smi h and the Book 
 of Mormon. If j.mpostto" Joe was inspired, 
 and his book a revelation Burrows was 
 also inspired ana his sermons* revelations, 
 on precisely the same ground. My oppo- 
 nent asserts that I should follow him in 
 argument. That depends on where and 
 how he leads. If he presents the issue 
 clearly and fully, and any proof of his po- 
 sition, I will follow him. If he does not, I 
 will present the issues myself, and refute 
 his system, whether he presents it or not. 
 I am surprised that one who claims to be a 
 lawyer, as does my opponent, should be 
 ignorant of the rules of debate, that the 
 negative is free to pursue two courses. I. 
 Reply to the attempted arguments of the 
 affirmative. II. Or by an independent line 
 of argument prove that his affirmative is 
 untrue. If he pursues the latter course, he 
 completely overturns the affirmative's po- 
 sition, if he never notices one of his pre- 
 tended arguments. 
 
 My opponent's feelings seem to be very 
 badly hurt by my calling Smith an im- 
 postor, a deceiver, a scoundrel. If I prove 
 that he pretended to be inspired and was 
 not, that his book was a fraud, I prove him 
 to be an imposter, a scoundrel of the black- 
 est dye. A woman once declared, " I don't 
 
 like Mr. Brown. He called my husband a 
 liar. And that was not the worst of it. 
 He proved it." Mormons will have the 
 same reasons to dislike Mr. Braden. I have 
 called Joe Smith an imposter, a scoundrel 
 and I will prove it. My opponent reminds 
 me that the Jews called Jesus a drunkard, 
 a glutton, a lover of harlots and vile per- 
 sons. Will he answer one question ? If 
 the charges of the Jews had been true, 
 would it not have proved that Jesus was an 
 imposter? That he was neither inspired 
 nor divine. If I prove that Joe Smith was a 
 vile character, will it not prove that he was 
 not inspired ? Now answer if you dare. 
 The fallacy of the Jews, was not in using 
 the wrong argument, but in making a false 
 accusation. Jesus admitted that if their 
 charges had been true, it would utterly de- 
 stroy his claim to be sent of God and divine, 
 when he challenged them "Who of you 
 have convicted me of any wickedness?" 
 In that question, Jesus flatly contradicts 
 the nonsense my opponent uttered last 
 night. He appeals to the errors and sins 
 of men that the bible says were inspired. 
 When he proves that they were ever in- 
 spired while living in such sin, while 
 committing or practising it, we will notice 
 his argument. What portion of the Biblo 
 was uttered or written by a man, while 
 committing these vile sins ? What inspired 
 act or utterance of David, Solomon, Moses 
 or Paul, have we that was acted or uttered 
 while they were committing vile sins? 
 
 He admits that he who transgresses the 
 teachings of Christ is not of God. That ad- 
 mission overturns all his special pleadings, 
 in appealing to the sins of Bible characters. 
 While in transgressions, they were not of 
 God, not inspired, nor were their acts or 
 utterances revelations. Then comes the 
 one everlasting text of Mormonism "He 
 that hath the teaching of the Christ hath 
 both the Father and the Son." He assum- 
 es that if they have the Father and the 
 Son, they are of God. True but that does 
 not prove that they are inspired, nor that 
 what they say or write is a revelation. 
 Even if Joe Smith had been a good man, it 
 would not prove that he was inspired, or 
 that his book was a revelation, any more 
 than the fact that Wesley was a good man, 
 proves that he was inspired, and his ser- 
 mons revelations. "But Joseph Smith 
 claimed to be inspired. If a good man 
 makes such a claim it must be true." No, 
 a good man may be deceived. Hundreds 
 of good men have been deceived in believing 
 that they were inspired and that the stuif 
 they uttered were revelations. 
 
 The gross absurdity of the use that Mor- 
 mons make of that passage will be seen 
 if my opponent will answer question. How 
 must a man have the teaching of Christ in 
 order to have the Father and the Son? In 
 mere preaching alone? Or in living them 
 out in life? When the scoundrel Burrows 
 had the doctrine of Christ in his sermons, 
 did he have the Father and the Son? 
 Would not the fact that he was a hypocrite, 
 an imposter and a scoundrel, prove thai- ue 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 did not have the Father and the Son, no 
 matter what he preached? Does the fact 
 tnat Joe Smith stole and put the teachings 
 of the Bible into the Book of Mormon, prove 
 that he had the Father and the Son, that 
 he was a good man, that he was inspired, 
 that his book was a revelation? When the 
 devil quoted the words of God to our Savi- 
 our, .did it prove that he had the Father and 
 the Son? That he was inspired and that 
 his utterances were revelation ? Even if 
 the moral and religious sentiments of the 
 Rook of Mormon, that are stolen from the 
 Bible, are good, 'it does not prove that its 
 statements "of pretended facts are true, and 
 much less does it prove that the book is a 
 revelation, that Joe Smith was inspired, or 
 even a good man. Language can hardly ex- 
 press the idiocy of this pet argument of 
 Mormonim. It would prove that when 
 the devil transforms himself into an angel 
 of light, and utters, hypocritically and to 
 deceive, good sentiments, he is good, in- 
 spired, and his utterances revelations, just 
 as clearly as it proves that Jmposter Joe 
 had the F'ather and the Son, was a good 
 man, inspired and his book a revelation, 
 oecause he stole good teaching from the 
 Bible, and hypocritically gave it to the 
 worla, in the Book of Mormon, lying and 
 claiming that his fraud was a revelation. 
 
 The quotation from Acts 17, no more 
 proves or hints the divine origin of the book 
 of Mormon than a repetition of the multi- 
 plication table. Neither does the quotation 
 from Acts 10. The quotation from John 
 10; 14-16. teaches the opposite to what he 
 claims it teaches. In Gen. 17, 15, we read: 
 " The uncircumcised person shall be cut off 
 from my people. He has broken my coven- 
 ant." Circumcision was the mark of the 
 flock. If the Nephites were circumcised, 
 they were of the same flock as those Jesus 
 was addressing. If they were not circum- 
 cised, they had ceased to be Israelites, and 
 not a prophecy that my opponent quotes 
 can have any reference to them. Neither 
 the Bible, nor the Israelites, nor Jesus ever 
 speak of Israelites outside of Palestine, as 
 belonging to a fold separate and different 
 from those in Palestine. If the Nephites of 
 the Book of Mormon were circumcised Is- 
 raelites, they were as much members of the 
 fold Jesus was addressing, as the Israelites 
 in Egypt or Palestine. The sheep that 
 werf not of that fold of which Jesus was 
 speaking, were not circumcised Israelites 
 in Egypt or America or any other place, for 
 all circumcised Israelites were one fold. 
 The other sheep that were not of that fold, 
 that was made up entirely of circumcised 
 Israelites, were Gentiles. The language 
 has reference to the breaking down of a 
 wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, 
 and making Jews and Gentiles one fold in 
 Christ. 
 
 The quotation from Ezekiel 84, " My 
 sheep were scattered upon all the face of 
 the earth" proves nothing for in such 
 phraseology, often the Bible means no 
 more than that they were widely scattered, 
 and it never refers to more than the old 
 
 continent which was all that the Israelites 
 knew anything about. The quotation from 
 the highly poetical figurative language of 
 Jacob's blessing on Joseph, with its bold 
 hyperbole, proves nothing. The Mormon 
 interpretation is an unnatural one, foreign 
 to the subject, and forced on to the language 
 to sustain a theory. There is nothing in 
 the language that was not fulfilled in Pa- 
 lestine, as much as the hyperbole of many 
 other prophetic promises, that all admit 
 did not extend beyond the land of Palestine. 
 Even if it did extend beyond the land of 
 Palestine, it need include no more than 
 the old continent. It need not extend be- 
 yond the Josephites in Europe, Asia and 
 Africa. My opponent reverses the order of 
 the line of argument. He must prove that 
 the Josephites migrated beyond the old 
 world, to America, before he can extend the 
 language of the prophecy to America. Ho 
 absurdly assumes that the language must 
 extend beyond the old world to America, 
 in order to prove that the Josephites 
 came to America. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. 
 
 I propose now to refute the claim made 
 by my opponent that the Book of Mormon 
 is of divine origin, by proving that it 
 had a very base human origin, about sev- 
 enty year's ago. If I can show that it was 
 gotten up by three men, in the first half of 
 the present century, through base motives, 
 and for purpose of fraud, and gain by fraud 
 and deception, I utterly explode all claim 
 to divine origin. I propose now to trace 
 out such origin, for the Book of Mormon, as 
 clearly as a chain of title to a piece of land. 
 Let us first state what the Book of Mormon 
 professes to be. It purports to be a history 
 of America from the time its first inhabi- 
 tants entered it, just after the confusion of 
 tongues at the tower of Babel, till about A . 
 D. 400, a period probably of nearly 4000 
 years. It assert? that this continent was 
 peopled by thi-ee different families. 1. 
 The family of J 9 red, who emigrated from 
 the Tower of Babel, over 3000 years before 
 the birth of Christ, and whose 'descendants 
 were exterminated, one portion of the book 
 declares about; 600 years before Christ; 
 another portion of the book declares about 
 250 years before Christ. 11. The family 
 of Lehi, a Manassehite,who emigrated 
 from Jerusalem, 600 years before Christ, 
 early in the reign of Zedekiah king 
 of Judah. His descendents divided in- 
 to two nations, the Nephites, the righ- 
 teous portion ; and the Lamanites, the 
 wicked portion ; III. The people of Zar- 
 ahemla, Judahites who left Jerusalem 
 about eleven years after Lehl. The de- 
 scendants of these Judahites were de- 
 stroyed in war or absorbed by the Neph- 
 ites. In war, the Nephites were extermi- 
 nated by the Lamanites, about A. D. 384. 
 The Lamanites remained sole possessors of 
 of the continent, and are the American In- 
 dians. J wish the reader to notice that, ac- 
 cording to the Book of Mormon, not an 
 Ephraimite, ever came to America. How 
 then can the prophecies in regard to Ephra- 
 
34 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEB A TE. 
 
 1m apply to the aboriginies of America, 
 even if the history in the Book of Mormon 
 be true? According 1 to the Book of Mor- 
 mon the deeds of this people were, by di- 
 vine direction, engraved l>y their prophets, 
 on plates of gold, brass, and ore (what ev- 
 er that nondescript substance may mean). 
 These plates were religiously preserved by 
 divine direction. The Book of Mormon 
 tells us, on almost every page, with painful 
 iteration and reiteration, of plates, of how 
 they were prepared, preserved and revised, 
 handed down from generation to genera- 
 tion how careful the Lord was to see that 
 this was done, until they fell into the hands 
 of one Mormon, who about A. D. 384 made 
 an abridgement and buried the originals, 
 together with certain relics, in a hill which 
 is now near Manchester Ontario Co., New 
 York. He handed this abridgment "these 
 few plates" to his son Moroni, providently 
 leaving a few pages for him to use in finish- 
 ing the abridgement. Moroni finishes, by en- 
 graving on the few pages left by his father, 
 what happened after his father revised his 
 record. Then he writes, and on nothing, for 
 he tells us that his plates are full, and he 
 had nothing to make plates of and is alone, 
 an abridgment of the history of the Jarad- 
 ites. Moroni then boxes up these few plates 
 containing the abridgment made by his 
 father, and his appendix to it, written on 
 the few pages his father left him for that 
 purpose, and buries them in a hill, Cumo- 
 rah, that was in what is now Manchester. 
 N. Y. He buried only "these few plates," 
 and nothing with them for Mormon had bur- 
 ied everything else years before, in an in- 
 tirely different locality. 
 
 'ifThese few plates" remained in this box, 
 till September, 22, 1823, when Moroni, then 
 an angel appeared to Joe Smith, and re- 
 vealed to him the existence of these plates, 
 their place of burial, and a summary of 
 their contents. September, 22, 1827, Moro- 
 ni delivered the plates to Joe Smith, who 
 by means of a peep st^ne that he had stolen 
 from the children of Willard Chase, trans- 
 lated them, and gave their contents to the 
 world, in the Book of Mormon. 
 
 The Book of Mormon mentions a perfect 
 museum of relics that are "hid up" some- 
 where near Palmyra, New York. We give 
 the list that our readers may see how care- 
 ful the Lord was to have the records and 
 relics preserved. We cite the pages of the 
 Book of Mormon, English edition, where 
 they are mentioned. It shows with what 
 iteration and reiteration "plates" are men- 
 tioned, and how much pains the authors 
 take to convince the sceptical, that these 
 records were so carefully preserved, there 
 can be no doubt about the accuracy of the 
 Book of Mormon. I. Plates of Laban. 
 pp 9 11 144 145. II. Brass genealogical 
 plates, p 11. III. Brass plates of Lehi, 
 afterwards abridged by Nephi, pp 3 44 
 62. IV. Brass plates of Nephi containing 
 "the more part of the history" (shades of 
 Murray what English) pp, 16 -138. V. 
 Brass plates of Nephi containing "the more 
 part of the ministry" (shades of Addison, 
 
 forgive the English of the fullnes of Mor- 
 mon inspiration) pp, 16 144. VI. Ore 
 (what nondescript substance is that?) plates 
 of Nephi "containing mine own prophecies" 
 p 44. VII. Plates of Zarahemla containing 
 genealogy, p, 140. VIII. Plates of Mor- 
 mon, containing an abridgment of Nephi's 
 plates that contained "the more part of the 
 ministry," p, 141. IX. Plates containing a 
 record from priest Ja.^ob to king Benjamin, 
 p 141. X. Plates containing; record ofZe- 
 niff, p 161. XI. Golden plates of Ether, 
 pp, 161, 312 516. XII. Plates containing 
 Alma's account of "his afflictions," p, 196. 
 XIII. Plates Jared "brought across the great 
 deep," p, 530.. XIV. Copies of Scriptures 
 "out of which the sons of Mosuah studied 
 14 years," pp, 255 271. XV. Many records 
 kept by people "who went north-west," pp, 
 394395. XVI. Twelve epistles by different 
 prophets on different themes. The Book of 
 Mormon gives us only an abridgment of 
 these. The originals are "hid up." XVII. 
 The liahona the sacred brass globe called 
 the brass compass or brass director-of Lehi. 
 pp, 38314. XVIII. The record of Laban, 
 pp, 145 143 145. XIX. The engraved 
 stone of Coriantumer p, 140. XX. The six- 
 teen stones that God touched with his fin- 
 gers, p, 20. XXI. The two stone interpre- 
 ters of Moroni, pp, 162204. XXII. The 
 two stone interpreters of Jared's brother, 
 pp, 522-523. XXIII. A white stone Gaxelme. 
 p, 212. XXIV. A brass breastplate found 
 with Ether's plates, p, 161, Besides all 
 these Smith and other Mormons describe- 
 articles different from these enough to in- 
 crease the number indefinitely. Mor- 
 mon tells us p 492, - that he hides all 
 of these relics, and hands only "these 
 few plates" containing his abridgment to 
 his son Moroni. They are "hid up" no one 
 knows where. The reader will observe we 
 have piles of plates, a score of them, men- 
 tioned scores of times. No one dare deny 
 the accuracy of records kept on metalic 
 plates, imperishable material, with such 
 constant care, and by divine direction, aud 
 inspiration. 
 
 It is our purpose to prove that the Book 
 of Mormon originated with Solomou 
 Spaulding, was revamped by Sydney Rig- 
 don, and given to the world by Impostor 
 Joe Smith. We shall give first a sketch oi 
 Spaulding, and his work until he came in 
 contact with Rigdon. Then a sketch of 
 Rigdon and of his work, until he confeder- 
 ated with Impostor Joe, to give his stolen 
 fabrication to the world, by means of his 
 stolen peepstone. Solomon Spaulding was 
 born in Ashford Conneticut in 1761. He 
 graduated at Dartmouth College in 1785, 
 with the degree of A. B. He studi- 
 ed theology and graduated in theology in 
 1787, and received the degree of A. M. He 
 preached until after 1800. On account .of 
 failing health he went into business in 
 Cherry Valley, New York. He failed in 
 merchandizing and moved to Conneaut, 
 Ohio, in 1807 or 8. Here he went into the 
 foundery business and failed again. There 
 were in the township of Conueaut a great 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 85 
 
 many mounds and other relics of an ex- 
 tinct race of people. Mr. Spaulding be- 
 came very much interested in these anti- 
 quities. In 1809 he began a romance, in 
 which he assumed that the ancestors of the 
 Indians were Romans. After writing 
 forty or fifty pages, he abandoned this idea, 
 because as he said, the Romans were too 
 near tne time in which he was writing. 
 This MS was the only one Philastus Hurl- 
 but said he found in the trunk, supposed 
 to contain all of Spaulding's MS'S, when 
 they examined the trunk at Mr. Clark's 
 house, In 1834. This MS we will designate 
 as Roman MS or MS No 1. 
 
 Ever since the European missionaries be- 
 gan to labor among the Indians, as early as 
 the year k00, Spanish, French, English 
 and Portugese Missionaries had observed 
 certain things among the Indians, that led 
 some of th&ea to believe that the Indians 
 were of Israelite origin, descendants of the 
 Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Such ideas can 
 be found in the writings of Spanish Port- 
 ugese, and French Monks, and in the writ- 
 ings of Elliott, Cotton Mather and scores 
 of American writers, before the commence- 
 ment of the present century. Mr. Spauld- 
 ing was a firm believer and earnest advo- 
 cate of this theory. He began to write a 
 romance, in which he assumed, that the 
 aborigines of America, and the authors of 
 its mounds and other antiquities were Is- 
 raelites. He commenced writing this MS 
 as early as 1809. His brother, J. Spauld- 
 ing, certifies that he visited his brother 
 Solomon in 1810, and found him writing a 
 book which he called, "The Manuscript 
 Found," which he intended to publish, 
 and hoped by the sales to pay his debts. 
 He described it as follows: 
 
 ' It was a historical romance of the first settlers of 
 America, and endeavored to show that the American 
 Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the Ten 
 Lost Tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journ- 
 ey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, until they arrived 
 in America, under the command of Lehi and Nephi. 
 They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and 
 separated into two distinct nations, one of which he 
 denon,in>ited Nephites, the other Lamanites. Cruel 
 and bloody wars ensued, in, which great multitudes 
 were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps 
 which caused the mounds, so common in this country. 
 Their arts, sciences and civilization were all brought 
 into view, in order to account for all the curious antiqui- 
 ties found in various parts of Northern and Southern 
 America I well remember that he wrote in the old 
 Btyle, and commenced almost every sentence with, 
 "And it came to pass," or "Now it came to pass." 
 
 I will leave it to the reader, if the aver- 
 age Mormon can give a better synopsis of 
 the historical part of the Nephite portion 
 of the Book of Mormon, then John Spauld- 
 ing gives in describing his brother's ro- 
 mance the "Manuscript Found." 
 
 Martha Spaulding, wife of John Spauld- 
 ing, and sister-in-law of Solomon Spauld- 
 ing, testifies: 
 
 "1 was at the house of Solomon Spaulding shortly 
 before he left ConeHUt. He was then writing a his- 
 torical novel founded on the first settlers of America. 
 He represented them as an enlightened and warlike 
 people. He had for many years contended that the ab- 
 origines of America were the descendants of some of 
 the Lost Tribi s of Israel; and this idea he carried out 
 in the book in question. The mpse of time which has 
 Intervened prevents my recollecting but few of the 
 leading incidents of his writings; but the names Lehi 
 
 and Nephi are yet fresh in my memory as being the 
 prin'-ipal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the 
 company which first came off from Jerusalem. He 
 gave a particular account of their journey by landand 
 by sea, till they arrived in America, after which dis- 
 putes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to 
 separate into bands, one of which was called Laman- 
 ites the other Nephites. Between these there were re- 
 counted tremendous battles, which frequently cover- 
 ed the ground with slain and these being buried in 
 large heaps, was the cause of the many mounds in the 
 country. Some of these people he represents as be- 
 ing very large." 
 
 Again, I ask the reader if an average Mor- 
 mon could give a better outline of the his- 
 torical part of the Nephite portion of the 
 Book of Mormon than Mrs. Spaulding 
 gives in describing the "Manuscript 
 Found" of her brother-in-law Solomon 
 Spaulding. 
 
 Henry Lake, Solomon Spaulding's busi- 
 ness partner testifies: 
 
 Solomon Spauldin g frequently read to me from a man- 
 uscript which he was writing, which he entitled the 
 "Manuscript Found,," and which he represented as- 
 being found in this town. I spent many hours in hear- 
 ing him rea_d said writings, and became well acquaint- 
 ed with their contents. The Book represened the Amer- 
 ican Indians as being the descendants of the Lost 
 Tribes of Israel, and gave an account of their having 
 left Jerusalem, and of theircontentions and wars, which 
 were many and great. I remember telling Mr. Spauld- 
 ing that so frequent use of the words: "And it came to 
 pass, ' ' Now it came to pass," rendered the book ridic- 
 ulous." 
 Aaron Wright testifies: 
 
 "One day when I was at the house of Solomon 
 Spaulding, he showed and road to me a history he was 
 writing ot the Lost Tribes of Israel, purporting that 
 they were the first settlers of America and thnt the 
 Indians were their descendants. He traced their journ- 
 ey from Jerusalem to America. He told me his object 
 was to account for the fortifications etc. that were to be 
 found in this country, and said that in time, it would 
 be fully believed by all except learned men and 
 historians " 
 
 Oliver Smith testifies: 
 
 'So^mon Ppaulding boarded at my house six 
 months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writ- 
 ing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers 
 Of this country. He said he intended to trace their 
 Journey, from Jerusalem by land and sea till their ar- 
 rival in America, and give an account of their arts, 
 sciences, civilization laws and contentions. In this 
 way he would give a satisfactory account of all of the 
 old mounds, so common in this country. Nephi and 
 Lehi, were by him, represented as the leading charac- 
 ters, when they first darted for America. Their wain 
 object was to escape the judgements which they sup- 
 posed were coming on the old world." 
 
 Nahum Howard testifies: 
 
 "In conreisation with Solomon Spauldfng I express- 
 ed my surprise that we had no account of the people 
 once in this country, who erected the old forts mounds 
 etc. He told me he was writing a history of that peo- 
 ple." 
 
 Artemus Cunningham testifies: 
 
 "Solomon Spaulding described to me his book. He 
 said that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the 
 first inhabitants of this country, and it purported ^o be 
 a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave. He 
 had adopted the ancient or Scriptural style of wriiing. 
 He then read from his manuscript I remember the 
 name of Nephi, who appeared to be the principal hero 
 of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase 
 "1 Nephi" I remember distinctly as though it were yes- 
 terday. Heattempied to account for the numerous 
 antiquities which are found upon the continent." 
 
 John N. Miller who was a member of 
 Solomon SpauJ ding's household for many 
 months testifies: 
 
 "I perust d Spaulding's manuscripts as I had leisure 
 more particularly the one he called his "Manuscript 
 Found." It purported to be a history of the first set- 
 tlers o America. He brought them off from Jerusa- 
 lem, under their leaders detailing their travels by 
 land and by sea." 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 Gr;NTT,KMEN MODEUATOKS, LADIES AND 
 
 GKNTI,KMKN : By way of reminding- you of 
 the fact that sometimes a man gets frighten- 
 ed at his own evil surmisings I call attention 
 to the statement of my friend, "That he was 
 not going to he scared down." Tliis was cer- 
 tainly uncalled for. Who has tried to scare 
 him down ? Have I, or has a single person 
 in this audience? Now, I take this as the 
 simple upbraidings of his own conscience. 
 It reminds me of the story of the boy that 
 got terribly scared upon a certain occasion. 
 His hair began to stand up right lively, and 
 the cold chills coursed down his hack. Fin- 
 ally he gathered up a little courage and 
 edged up a Httle toward the object of his 
 fright and after straightening up, he stam- 
 mered out, "Who's afraid?" It turned out 
 that the boy had only been stuffed with a 
 few ghost stories and was frightened at 
 nothing. And it seems to me this is the 
 true condition of my opponent. There is no 
 necessity of being afraid here. I hope my 
 friend is not afraid. I can say truly to you 
 that I am not. What is he afraid of? I 
 want him in this discussion to bring the 
 strongest evidence he can. To do his worst, 
 as well as best. Only let him state facts? 
 He makes a statement with reference to 
 the prophecy of Jacob in the 49th chapter 
 of Genesis where in blessing Joseph, he tells 
 him his " branches," (daughters), " should 
 run over the wall," and says that men have 
 read it for thousands of years and never 
 thought of applying it as I have in this dis- 
 cussion. Is that an argument against the 
 force of my position? On the contrary it 
 occurs to me to be an argument in favor of 
 it. When men have read it, scanned it, for 
 thousands of years, and no one conceived 
 the idea of applying it to its proper place 
 until it was made known as we claim by the 
 revelation of God, it argues in favor of the 
 divine knowledge. It is something that was 
 not likely to be spontaneous in the heart of 
 man, but let down from heaven as were 
 many other things that I will be able to 
 show you dui ing this discussion. And yet 
 will he deny that the Book of Mormon has 
 given a single new truth to the world? 
 Another thing he has refer red to as an argu- 
 ment, is the sermons of the "notorious 
 Stephen Burrows," using his language. He 
 seems to have been a faithful student of 
 Burrows. Now, his sermons may be good, 
 as he claims from his or the Disciples' 
 ( Carnpbellites) standpoint of judging ; but 
 I wi;l state to this audience fairly and can- 
 didly that no such man as he says he was, 
 could preach good sermons from the stand- 
 point of the Latter Day Saints, nor the 
 standpoint of the Bible; and they are not 
 good sermons. I invite him to produce the 
 sermons now, and I will examine them be- 
 fore you and show that they are not good. 
 
 Another thing. He said that he could show 
 that the prophecies of the Bible which I 
 have quoted refer as much to the Koran as 
 the Book of Mormon. Why does he not do 
 it then? What is he here for but to show 
 what they apply to? Let him doit. I deny 
 that he can select a single one that has a 
 like or similar application, and demand the 
 proof. When h<? names one, I will show it 
 does not, nor cannot be made to apply to 
 the Koran as obviously as the Book of Mor- 
 mon. He has so far failed, or refused, to 
 follow me and notice my arguments, al- 
 though he is in the negaiive of the proposi- 
 tion. I shall not be so kind with him, but 
 will both set forth my affirmative proofs, 
 and expose the fallacies in his positions. 
 In his desperation to make out a case against 
 the Book of Mormon he does not hesitate to 
 ignore as applicable to man after the Apost- 
 les' time, all that is assuring and comforting 
 to the Christian. 
 
 The beautiful promises, "Seek and ye 
 shall find," " Knock and it shall be opened 
 unto you," " Ask and it shall be given unto 
 you," Matt. 7:7; "If any of you lack wis- 
 dom, let him ask of God that giveth to all 
 men liberally and upbraideth not; and it 
 shall be given him," James 2:5; "How 
 much more shall your Father which is in 
 heaven give good things to them that ask 
 him," Matt. 7:11; and many other like as- 
 suring and comforting promises, are all 
 things of the past with him. Confined to 
 the apostles' age. Jesus' says, "He that 
 hath my commandments and keepeth them, 
 he it is that loveth me ; and he that loveth 
 me shall be loved of my Father, and I will 
 love him and will manifest myself to him." 
 Again, "My Father will love him, and we 
 will come unto him and make our abode 
 with him." John 14:21, 23. But according 
 to my friend's theory, all of these promises 
 are limited to the apostles, and those upon 
 whom they laid their hands. His theory 
 limits pretty much all of the New Testament 
 to the apostolic times ; especially does it, all 
 giving assurance that the Christian may 
 have a knowledge of God. Christ said, "I 
 will pray the Father and he shall give you 
 another comforter that he may abide with 
 you forever; even the Spirit of Truth." 
 John 14:16, 17. "Where two or three are 
 met together in my name there I am in the 
 midst." But my opponent makes this lim- 
 ited to the olden time. What is the use 
 praying then, if God cannot give, and Jesus 
 cannot be in the midst. Again, "The Spirit 
 itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
 we are the children of God." " But if the 
 Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
 dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
 from the dead shall also quicken your m >r- 
 tal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in 
 you." Rom. 8: 11-10. This is also limited 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 37 
 
 by the theory of the negative. Yet, it is 
 cfear from the texts themselves, that these 
 promises and experiences were, and are, for 
 the doers of the word, the faithful in Christ 
 in every age. 
 
 John said, " I indeed baptize you with 
 water unto repentance ; but he that conieth 
 after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
 I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize 
 vou with the Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 Matt. 3:11. And Jesus in keeping with 
 this says, " Except a man be born of water 
 and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 Kingdom of God." John 3: 5. These texts 
 prove that the influence and power of the 
 Spirit was to follow the baptism by water. 
 But my opponent limits the baptism of the 
 Spirit, and holds on to the water. But 
 u pon what authority ? A vain assumption 
 evidently thought necessary to bolster up 
 his Campbellite theory. His arguments 
 prohibit salvation to the race after the 
 apostolic age. Jesus taught, "Except a 
 man be born of water and the Spirit he can- 
 not enter into the Kingdom of God." Yet, 
 Mr. Braderi says, there is no birth or bap- 
 tism of the Spirit now. There would be 
 more consistency in abandoning both bap- 
 tisms as they are both taught by the same 
 persons and at the same time. In his mad- 
 ness he not only wars against the claims of 
 the Book of Mormon and the Latter Day 
 SainfcSj but all Christians who hold to a 
 ChrioUan experience under the divine ener- 
 gies oi the Holy Ghost. Every Catholic, 
 Episcopalian, Presbyterian. 'Methodist, 
 Friend, Independent, or what not, \vho has 
 testified of tasting the heavenly gift the 
 joy of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in the 
 heart, in any age or time since the Apos- 
 tles, -has witnessed falsely. Their expe- 
 riences are but vain things and they, de- 
 ceivers of themselves. There is no Spirit- 
 ual communion, so Mr. Braden claims, 
 except through the medium of the word. 
 His is but a first step in Atheism. It de- 
 stroys or removes God out of the world, if 
 not out of the universe. Inspiration is not 
 only confined to the early church, but God, 
 and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are barred 
 out; limited and confined to the Apostles 
 alone and can no longer move upon the 
 Christian's heart. But thank God, we are 
 assured of better things : Says Paul, "And 
 hope maketh not ashamed ; because the 
 love of God is shed abroad in the heart." 
 How ia the love of God shed abroad in the 
 heart? "By the Holy Ghost which is 
 given unto us." Rom*. 5:5. "Who hath 
 also sealed us, and given the earnest 'of the 
 Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. 1 :22. "And 
 because you are son 8. God hath sent forth 
 the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, cry- 
 ing, Abba Father." " Iii whom ye also 
 trusted after that ye heard the word of 
 truth the gospel of your salvation, in whom 
 also after that ye believed ye were sealed 
 with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is 
 the earnest of our inheritance until the re- 
 demption of the purchased possession, unto 
 the praise of his glory." Eph. 1 : 13. This 
 was not attained through the medium of 
 
 the word as my opponent would have you 
 believe, for the Apostle says, verse 13, 
 "After ye heard the word of truth, after 
 that ye believed, ye were sealed with that 
 Holy Spirit of promise." The Holy Ghost 
 is the Spirit of promise the same which 
 Jesus said, " When he is come he will tes- 
 tify of me." This promise of the Spirit to 
 burn in the heart of the Christian in fact, 
 was to continue until the redemption of the 
 purchased possession, and is the evidence 
 of the right of possession. But Braden's 
 theory confines all this to the apostles' 
 time/ and all the experience, and knowl- 
 edge, that men can have of God now, is 
 through the written word. Jesus says, 
 "Go ye into all the world and preach the 
 gospel to every creature. He that believ- 
 eth and is baptized shall be saved and he 
 that believeth not shall be damned ; and 
 these signs shall follow them that believe. 
 In my name they shall cast out devils. 
 They shall speak with new tongues," etc. 
 Mark lf>. This message included the entire 
 world of believers. The promise is, "He 
 that believeth and is baptixed shall be 
 saved," and "These signs shall follow them 
 that Wlieve." Wherever the message was 
 to be obeyed, the signs were to follow. 
 Where the signs are limited, the duties en- 
 joined by the message are limited. This 
 proves too much for my opponent's theory 
 and faith, for he professes great faith in the 
 water part of the message. But if he con- 
 fines the result of obedience to the &ge of 
 the apostles, he must confine the obligation 
 to obey the ordinance of baptism to that 
 age, and per consequence the duties prece- 
 ding it, faith and repentance, which are 
 necessary to prepare one to obey the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. Thus he not only limits 
 the Holy Ghost to the age of the, apostles, 
 but faith, repentance and baptism also. 
 Hence he has God and Christ and the Holy 
 Ghost out of the world, and so far away 
 that neither can commune with Christians, 
 and the essential feature of the gospel itself 
 is confined to the apostolic times and peo- 
 ple. But Peter held to a better faith. Said 
 he, " For the promise is unto you, and to 
 your children, and to all that are afar olf, 
 even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." This promise was to be realized 
 when they accepted the gospel message as 
 is shown in verse 38. of Acts, second chap- 
 ter. " Repent and be baptized every one 
 of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost." Nothing is more 
 certain than that the obedient doer of the 
 word was to receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost wherever the gospel message WHS 
 sent, as is clearly shown by these texts. 
 It is not limited to Pentecost day, nor to 
 that age. Whenever, and wherever, the 
 remission of sins took place in all the world, 
 in every ae, "ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost." Hence Paul says, " Ky 
 one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or gentiles, whether 
 we be bond or free ; and have been all made 
 to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13. 
 
38 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 This body to which he refers, is the church, 
 the body'of Christ, so termed. Those who 
 joined in this relation became " fit temples 
 for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost." 
 If these powers and blessings were limited 
 to the early apostles' time, then the body 
 of Christ, the church of God on earth was 
 limited to that age. 
 
 Paul foreseeing that such a theory 
 would be foisted upon the world in the fu- 
 ture from his day. raised a warning voice 
 to the people, declaring, "that in the last 
 days perilous times shall come," by men, 
 "having a form of godliness, but denying 
 the power thereof." The advice that fol- 
 lows this announcement is most striking 
 and cheering: "From such turn away." 
 2 Tim. 3:5. The apostle Peter also, as if on 
 purpose to put the question beyond cavil- 
 ing, and at rest, says, "The promise is un- 
 to you, and to your children, and to all 
 that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our God shall call." To all who are called 
 to repentance and salvation, and not to 
 miraculous power, as has been stated; but 
 called to Christ Jesus. God thus calls all 
 men in every age. "In every nation he 
 that feareth God and worketh rightonsness 
 is accepted with him." "Come unto me, all 
 ye ends of the earth," says God, "And be 
 ye saved." But my opponent says, Christ 
 limited Joel's prophecy made to all flesh, to 
 Pentecost day, and that Peter meant when 
 he said, "Even as many as the Lord our 
 God should call," "That all should receive 
 the Holy Ghost on whom the apostles laid 
 their hands." 
 
 This is evidently a subterfuge, and false 
 rendering, for there is not a statement in 
 the Bible anywhere to the effect that none 
 were to receive the Holy Ghost but those on 
 whom the apostles should lay their hands. 
 This is gotten up out of whole cloth and 
 added to the word of God in order to sup- 
 port a weak theory. But my opponent 
 Beems to be driven to the last ditch here. 
 He assumes to turn Jesus against his pro- 
 phets. Bays he, "Christ limits Joel's pro- 
 phecy to those on whom the apostles should 
 lay their hands." Why does he want Joel 
 limited? Ah I Joel speaks too loud for his 
 theory. Let me read it : "And it shall 
 come to pass afterward." (after the time of 
 the re-gathering of Israel when they shall 
 never again be ashamed ), "That I will 
 pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your 
 sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
 your old men shall dream dreams, your 
 young men shall see visions: And also 
 upon the servants, and upon the handmaids 
 in those days I will pour out my Spirit. 
 And I will show wonders in the heavens 
 and the earth, blood and lire, and pillars of 
 smoke." Joel 2:28-30. When shall this be? 
 In the "last days," when God shall have set 
 his hand a second time to gather his people. 
 "When Jacob's (Israel's) face shall no 
 longer wax pale;" "afterwards." All the 
 prophets agree as to the time Not on Pente- 
 cost day ; nor at the time when the apostles 
 laid on hands during their ministry. Not 
 on a few on Pentecost day, and those upon 
 
 whom the apostles should lay their hands ; 
 but "upon all flesh." In the period of the 
 world's history when God should "show 
 wonders in heaven above, and signs in the 
 earth beneath ; blood and fire and pillars of 
 smoke." When, "The sun shall be turned 
 into darkness, and the moon into blood be- 
 fore the great and notable day of the Lord 
 comes." This prophecy was not fulfilled on 
 Pentecost day. Nor does the apostle so 
 state. He says, referring to the Holy Ghost 
 that had then rested upon and imbued the 
 disciples, "This is that which was spoken 
 by the prophet Joel," the Spirit that Joel 
 referred to which should be poured out in 
 the last days, by which men should see 
 visions, dream dreams and prophesy. Not 
 the accomplishment of what Joel said would 
 take place, but the presence of the Spirit 
 the agency by which it would be accom- 
 plished. Joel prophesied of certain things 
 to take place in the "last days." My oppon- 
 ent's position is that Christ corrected him 
 and says, no prophesying in the "last days;" 
 this is to be confined to Pentecost and those 
 on whom the apostles shall lay their hands. 
 Who is right? Joel or my opponent? He 
 gays again, that no one received the Holy 
 Ghost save under the apostles' hands. But 
 Ananias, who was not an apostle, laid his 
 hands upon Saul that he "might receive the 
 Holy Ghost," and be healed. This shows 
 that the authority to lay on hands for the 
 healing of the sick and the bestowing of the 
 Spirit, was vested in the same class of offi- 
 cers. Jesus says, "They shall lay hands on 
 the sick and they shall recover." Mark 16. 
 James also tells us who shall lay hands on 
 the sick, showing the practice under the 
 Savior's instruction: "Is there any ^sick 
 among you? Let him call for the elders of 
 the church, "&c. James 5: 14. Hence, Paul 
 addresses Timothy, "Neglect not the gift 
 that is in thee, which was given thee by 
 prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
 of the presbytery." 1 Tim. 4 : 14. Here the 
 presbytery, body of elders, officiated in lay- 
 ing hands upon Timothy, and a gift was 
 manifest by prophecy through the ordin- 
 ance. But the negative in his ramblings 
 goes from bad to worse. He says that the 
 Christian Institution under Christ and the 
 apostles was a little boy, playing with toys, 
 compared \vith the excellency, perfect! on t 
 and power that followed after. How won- 
 derful! Then they had apostles, prophets, 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost, communion with 
 God, and the visitation of angels, thehealing 
 of the sick and the love of God shed abroad 
 in the heart by the Holy Ghost which they 
 received; yet he stands before you and 
 claims that this is nothing to be compared 
 with the condition of the church that fol- 
 lowed in after ages and is now ex ant 
 almost universally, and from which all of 
 this heavenly clothing and adornment has 
 been stripped, as the woman going into the 
 wilderness was shorn of her beauty and 
 heavenly power. 
 
 One is inclined to think he is joking 
 here, rather than talking in earnest; the 
 absurdity is so palpable. The Church of 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Christ was to be "a habitation of God 
 through the Spirit." This new theory 
 leads fco the conclusion that the world is 
 better off and religion more excellent not 
 to have God in either. When God talks 
 with men. and the Holy Ghost fills their 
 souls, and they have the testimony of Je- 
 sus and certainty in religion, it is a dark 
 and trying time; "a boy with his toys;" 
 but when neither God nor Christ, nor the 
 Holy Ghost, nor the prophets nor apostles 
 are known in the church, or in the world; 
 and division, and discord and contention, 
 distraction and uncertainty everywhere 
 reigns, the full grown man appears, with 
 all his captivating influences and enticing 
 graces. The gifts having passed away, he 
 says, we have love, joy, peace, etc. But did 
 not they have all this and God, and Cirist 
 besides in the "toy day," that he refers to? 
 To support this hallucination he refers to 
 1 Cor. 13, and endeavors to show that there 
 is a "more excellent way," than to have 
 communion with Gotf, th'rough the Holy 
 Spirit, and the realization of the gifts in 
 the church. "Charity never faileth." 
 Right; but it is found in and enjoyed most 
 by those exercising the gifts of the gospel. 
 Charity is love, the pure love of God. It 
 is for the saints here, and in the future 
 world, when they shall reign with God. 
 <( But whether there be prophecies they 
 shall fail; whether there be tongues they 
 hall cease; whether there be knowledge it 
 shall vanish away." When shall these 
 things cease? My opponent says, in the age 
 of the apostles, i. e. t when the apostles 
 died and there was no one to lay on 
 hands; and thus from sheer necessity. But 
 this proves too much for him. If it was 
 because the apostles died, it could not have 
 been because, "that which is perfect is 
 come;" unless the killing of the apostles 
 brought perfection. Knowledge, prophe- 
 cies, and tongues are classed together, and 
 if he takes it that these are to cease with- 
 out reference to the "part" exercise of 
 them as explained by the apostle himself, 
 all are mustered out together, and become 
 things of the past at the same time. It 
 would scarcely do for me to tell such a 
 towering light as rny opponent; that knowl- 
 edge ceased in the apostolic age; tha,t was 
 the age ;f boys, the "tcy age." But his 
 theory forces him to do so. If iu is said that 
 this reieis to miraculous knowledge, I ask 
 what kind is that? Certaimy it does not 
 come under that classed as learning "erudi- 
 tion, scholarship. &c. Nor "cognition, no- 
 tice," &c. It must be then of "apprehen- 
 sion, comprehension, understanding, dis- 
 cernment, judgment." Will he take the 
 position that this kind of knowledge has 
 ceased from the church? No wonder things 
 looked dark to Mr. Wesley. Let us permit 
 the apostle to be his own* interpreter here. 
 Verses 9 and 10, " For we know in part, and 
 prophesy in part, but when that which is 
 perfect is come, chen that which is in part 
 shall be done away." What shall be done 
 away? Doing in part. Knowledge in part 
 prophesying m part ; speaking in Jamrtuures 
 
 only in part. When shall it be done away? 
 Answer: "When that wniek is perfect is 
 come: " and this is when part prophesying 
 and knowing in part will cease. My oppo- 
 nent says, Paul is contrasting two states of 
 the church : One under the spiritual gifts, 
 the other under a " perfected" state without 
 spiritual gifts, or communion with God 
 except as may be received through the writ- 
 ten word : that is from reading the Bible. 
 This is another of his fallacies. Paul is con- 
 trasting the state of the church and saints 
 here with the condition that is to be attained 
 in the future world, at the coming of Jesus 
 the second time. "Now, (in this life this 
 side of a time of perfection,) I see through a 
 glass darkly; but then shall I know, even 
 as I am known." When this perfect time 
 shall come then Paul will know as he is 
 known ; until that time he sees through a 
 a glass darkly walking by the light of pro- 
 phesying in part, and knowing only in part. 
 There is nothing more clear, than if Paul 
 with his spiritual vision, knowledge and 
 prophecy, could know only in part, there 
 has been no state of the church since his 
 day when man attained to a more perfect 
 knowledge And more especially must 
 this be conceded by my opponent, when he 
 and his Campbellite Church, assumes that 
 all that men can know of God, and religion 
 now, is by reading the Bible written in part 
 by Paul himself, and wholly, so far as its 
 divinity is concerned, when men were blest 
 with the spiritual gifts and had communion 
 with God. The facts are these : The light 
 of God only comes to earth in part. The 
 Saints of old knew in part and prophesied 
 in part ; but they looked forward to the 
 future when the knowledge in part should 
 be a thing of the past, and they would know 
 as they were known. My opponent says, 
 this was after the apostles passed away and 
 the church became a full-grown man. But 
 who can believe him when he further says 
 that the Christians, or the world, knows 
 more of duty and the light of heaven, and 
 are in a higher, more advanced and perfect 
 state than when the spiritual gifts, were 
 extant and there was communion with God? 
 The gifts were to continue until the day of 
 perfect knowledge should come. " The day 
 of Christ." 2 Thess. 2 : 2. Paul says in the 
 Ephesian letter, fourth chapter- " And he 
 gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets 
 and some, evangelists; and some pastors 
 and teachers." What for? "For the per- 
 fecting of the Saints the work of the minis- 
 try, for the edifying of the body of Christ," 
 or the church. How long was this inspired 
 ministry to continue? The apostle answers 
 in the next sentence. " Till Ve all come in 
 the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge 
 of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto 
 the measure of the statum of the fulness of 
 Christ." And all this for the purpose: 
 
 " That we henceforth be uo more children tossed to 
 ' and fro, and carried about with every wind of doc- 
 ' trine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, 
 'whereby they lie in wait u- deceive; but -peakirnj the 
 'truth in love, m y grow up unto him in all things, 
 which is .the head, even Christ. From whom the 
 'whole body iitly joined together and compacted by 
 'that which every joint supplicth. according to the 
 
40 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 "effectual working in the measure of every part, mak- 
 "eth increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in 
 "in love." 11 to 16 verses. 
 
 This scripture confirms the opinion that 
 the apostles and prophets were designed to 
 continue in the church, that the people 
 might be "no more children tossed to and 
 fro and carried about with every wind of 
 doctrine." 
 
 But Mr. Braden reverses it, and says the 
 apostles and gifts ceased that we might be 
 no more children, but full grown men. 
 That was "the children or toy day" of the 
 church. However the apostle further tells 
 us, that they were to continue till we all 
 come to, "the knowledg-e of the Son of God, 
 unto a perfect man, unto the measure of 
 the stature of the fullness of Christ." 
 Again, "God hath set some in th-e 
 church, first apostles, secondly proph- 
 ets, thirdly teachers, after that mir- 
 acles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
 ments, diversities of tongues," 1 Cor. 12:28. 
 "God has set the members every one in the 
 body as it hath pleased him." This body 
 in which he placed thes members is his 
 church ; and he placed them in the body, 
 the church, to edify the same and to contin- 
 ue therein, until "we all come to the knowl- 
 edge of the Son of God;" -but now we are 
 gravely told that they are not necessary or 
 essential to the proper growth ot the body, 
 and that they are not to continue "till we 
 come to the knowledge of the Son of God." 
 But since it is by this same Holy Spirit that 
 wa manifest on Pentecost day, and by 
 which the signs followed the believer, and 
 which God gave by gift to the ministry, 
 and poured out upon all the believers, that 
 we may at all attain to the knowledge of 
 Christ, will he now be so kind as to tell us 
 whether he expects by banishing the means 
 of knowledge, to ha've the people become 
 enlightened? "No man can say that Jesus 
 is the Lord." [come to the knowledge of 
 him], "but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 
 12:3. 
 
 He says again, the "Mormons baptize for 
 miraculous gifts." But he also told you, 
 they got their baptism through a Campbel- 
 lite preacher, Sidney Bigdon. Do THEY 
 baptize for miraculous gifts? The Saints do 
 not now, nor never did baptize for miracu- 
 lous gifts. That is out of whole cloth. 
 
 They baptize "for the remission of sins," 
 and then say as the apostles taught, that 
 the obedient doer or' the word is entitled to, 
 the Holy Ghost by reason of the "promise." 
 
 Again, he claims that, the Book of Mor- 
 mon is an addition to the Bible. This is in- 
 correct. The Book of Mormon stands alone, 
 as a work or as a revelation from Deity and 
 is complete of itself; as the Bible 'stands 
 alone and is complete, (so far as the book is 
 concerned and a record of God's will as re- 
 vealed upon the Eastern continent), so is 
 the Book of Mormon of a like history and of 
 that same will, as revealed, upon the Wes- 
 tern continent. The Book of M i :mon is? in 
 no true sense an addition to the Bible : no 
 such claim is, or has ever been, made for it, 
 by the book itself, or its friends. But it con- 
 
 firms the Bible in its testimony, and this is 
 answer enough if we had no other as to the 
 good of the work. The Bible is a record of 
 the Jews and their religion. The Book of 
 Mormon is a record of the people who came 
 to and lived upon the Western continent 
 and their religion. It is not true as assert- 
 ed, that the Latter Day Saints hold the 
 revelations in the Book of Mormon in high- 
 er veneration than they do the revelations 
 of the Bible With them a revelation from 
 God, given to the world in Palestine, is just as 
 worthy of consideration and respect, as one 
 given in America ; and one from a similar 
 source in America, just as good as one given 
 in Palestine. Neither is age a consequence 
 as to the truth or applicability of it. God 
 over all is rich, and none can limit His pow- 
 er of giving and revealing. If a church that 
 denies to its members the light and gift of 
 the Holy Spirit, of communion with God, 
 through the Comforter, and an approach to 
 the life of the church of the First Born, and 
 Jesus the Mediator, is not a Jack o'lantern 
 light to the world, then there is no faint 
 and dim glimmering anywhere. Now I 
 wish to refer hurriedly to what he stated 
 last evening by way of an illustration, using 
 the American government, or the compact 
 of the Constitution and the framers, in a 
 comparison, to the apostles and their work, 
 or to those whom he says gave us the Bible. 
 The trouble with his illustration is, that it 
 is not a parallel case as used by him. The 
 framers of the American Constitution were 
 selected by the American people, and au- 
 thorized by them to meet and in their own 
 wisdom frame a constitution which should, 
 if ratified, be the ^roveming or fundamental 
 law. In the word of God, as committed to 
 the world, the apostles are not the framers, 
 or makers, neither the ones to ratify as well 
 as devise or institute. They could approve 
 or reject as they chose, but this action could 
 not affect the law, only themselves, as wit- 
 ness the act 'f Judas. 'They were the means 
 simply of communicating that knowledge 
 to the world that was framed and devised 
 by Deity himself. And when my opponent 
 seeks by his illustration to reason apostles 
 out of the world, he makes the blunder of 
 placing the apostles in the position occupied 
 by Deity himself, to the New Testament, 
 and his illustration legitimately, instead of 
 showing that apostles were to cease, puts 
 God out of the Universe and out of the 
 church, instead of the apostles. This is 
 why I object to his theory. It is but on n 
 par with his other argument, wherein ho 
 has sought to shut the Holy Ghost, the lifo 
 and power of the gospel out of the church. 
 God gave the covenant or constitution ot the 
 'Christian Church, and it was not the work 
 of the apostles. The apostles were the 
 means of teaching this constitution to the 
 world; "ambassadors" to publish the glad 
 news. The publication of the constitution 
 of the United States, was not by the fram 
 era, but by means of another's agency, tho 
 press, and public, criers selected for that 
 purpose. The framers of the constitution 
 so far as their work was concerned, would 
 
THE Bit A DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 41 
 
 bear a likeness to De/ty, who framed and 
 gave the gospel law. Says Jesus in his de- 
 livery of the law ; "The Father which sent 
 me, he gave me a commandment, what I 
 should say, and what I should speak." 
 John 12:49. The apostles are, in the com- 
 parison, in fact but the publishers, ambass- 
 adors, preachers. For God to give direction 
 how he would have these laws carried out, 
 would not necessarily either, be making 
 "new constitution every day ;" any more than 
 he was making new constitution every day 
 in the time of Paul and John. Who will 
 say that because we have a constitution or 
 first basis in our government, we shall have 
 no more laws. The only restriction is, that 
 the laws shall not conflict with the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The next objection I shall take up and 
 examine, is that profound and doubtless 
 scholarly argument, based upon the mirac- 
 ulous in the creation of the world. That 
 since God created the earth by miraculous 
 power, therefore he says, I would have him 
 continue to keep a miracle going all the 
 time, in order that we might have miracu- 
 lous things or new animals and plants. 
 But he forgets that when God created the 
 earth by miraculous power, if he wishes to 
 call it miraculous, he at the same time 
 established in the same miraculous manner, 
 for aught my opponent can tell, a law by 
 which those things which were created, 
 that he calls miraculous, were to be repro- 
 duced. And we have the miraculous plants 
 aud animals now' by virtue of .that law. 
 Just the same as he ordained in the first 
 age of Christianity by the law of the Holy 
 Spirit that apostles should continue if men 
 kept the faith, and if they kept not the 
 faith, then they should not continue; and 
 if we have not the fruits by the ordination 
 of the law of the Holy Spirit, it is because 
 the law has not been kept, for God has not 
 changed. 
 
 Will my opponent now stop to tell us 
 whether the law by which the natural cre- 
 ation is now continued is not the same by 
 which God originally wrought when it first 
 germinated? When did Deity change, or 
 at what time did the new law take the 
 place of the old? Make the comparison, 
 and follow it to its conclusion and you will 
 see that instead of supporting his theory 
 
 it destroys it. God in the creation of 
 the world brought forth certain things, 
 and ordained a means by which they 
 should continue and they continue as at 
 the first by that means, and as the law 
 provided, to the just and unjust alike. In 
 the establishment of his church he did 
 many things which showed the proper 
 fruits of his law, by means of the Holy 
 Spirit. He ordained that they should con- 
 tinue by means of the same agency and 
 power, to the, believer, the doer of the word, 
 for this law was limited to such, and not 
 as the other, made alike to the just and the 
 unjust. Do they continue? Has God 
 changed ? The law governing should as in 
 the order of creation cause the same effect, 
 and bring to the believer, knowledge, wis- 
 dom, faith, prophecies, tongues and heal- 
 ings. These are the legitimate fruits of 
 the law of the Holy Spirit to the believer. 
 But my opponent says no. Why? The 
 simple reason is his people do not have 
 the fruits, and the application will show 
 that they are not " doers of the word." 
 
 Now I call your attention to the real im- 
 port of the story he related, which certainly 
 displayed his ingenuity in taking an eco- 
 nomical way of meeting my arguments. I 
 have several times called your attention to 
 the fact that he was not debating properly 
 this question, and that he had abandoned 
 any defense, so far as meeting my argu- 
 ments is concerned ; and now, he comes in 
 and admits it in his story of the boy, that 
 he says was only waiting for something 
 sufficient to roll up so that he could have 
 something to kick at. He is waiting for 
 my arguments to roll up. 
 
 This reminds me of another boy. He saw 
 an object in the path and at first sight he 
 concluded he would kick it out. As he 
 neared it, the object looked a little firmer 
 than at first, but he thought he would kick 
 at it any way. Finally he drew quite close 
 and the object looked as if it was bundled 
 up so tightly, that if he kicked he might 
 get his toes hurt, and so he did not kick at 
 all ; and this seems to me to be the true 
 reason why he has not foot-balled my argu- 
 ment. 
 
 (Laughter and applause.) (Time ex- 
 pired.) 
 
42 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS. LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: Mrs. Matilda Spaulding, 
 Solomon Spaulding'8 wife testifies, after 
 stating that Mr. Spaulding was very much 
 interested in the antiquities found around 
 Conneaut : 
 
 "Mr. Ppaulding conceived the Idea of writing a his- 
 tory of the long lost race that produced these antiqui- 
 ties. Their extreme antiquity lead him to write in the 
 most ancient style, and as the Old Testament was the 
 oldest book in the world, he imitated its style, as much 
 as possible. As he progressed in his narrative, the 
 neighbors would come in from time to time, to hear 
 portions read, and a great interest in the work was ex- 
 cited among them. It claimed to have been written by 
 one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered from 
 the earth. The neighbors would often ask how Mr. 
 Spaulding progressed in deciphering the manuscript, 
 and when he had a sufficient portion prepared, he 
 would inform them, and they would assemble to hear 
 it read. He was enabled, from his acquaintance with 
 the classics and ancient history to introduce many sin- 
 gular names, which were particularly notified by the 
 people, and could easily be recognized by them." 
 
 Let us say in passing that " Mormon " is 
 one of those names. It is from the Greek 
 and means literally a " bug-bear, a hobgob- 
 lin." 
 
 Miss Martha Spaulding, now Mrs. Kins- 
 try, Spaulding's daughter testifies : " My 
 Father read the manuscript I had seen him 
 writing to the neighbors and to a clergy- 
 man a friend of his who came to visit him. 
 Some of the names he mentioned while 
 reading to the people I have never for- 
 gotten. They are as fresh in my memory 
 as though I had heard them but yester- 
 day. They are Mormon, Moroni, Lamanite 
 and Nephi, etc., etc." 
 
 Joseph Miller of Amity, Pa., who was in- 
 timate with Spaulding while he lived in 
 Amity, nursed him in his last illness, and 
 heard him read much from his manuscript, 
 says : 
 
 "Mr. Spaulding seemed to take great delight in read- 
 Ing from his manuscript written on foolscap. I heard 
 him read most if not all of it; and had frequent con- 
 ve sations with him about it. Some time ago I heard 
 most of the Book of Mormon read. On hearing read 
 the account of the battle between the Amlicites (Book 
 of Alma, chapter II. ), in which the soldiers of one 
 army placed a red mark on their foreheads, to distin- 
 guish them from their enemies, it seemed to reproduce 
 in my mind not only the narrative but the very words, 
 as they had been imprinted on my mind by reading 
 Spaulding's manuscript." 
 
 Ruddick McKee of Washington D. C. tes- 
 tifies : 
 
 "I was a boarder at Spaulding's tavern in Amity, 
 Pa., in the fall of 1814. I recollect quite well Mr. 
 Spaulding spending much time in writing on sheets of 
 paper torn from an old book, what purported to be a 
 veritable history of the nations or tribes that inhabited 
 Canaan. He called it 'Lost Manuscript' or some such 
 name. I was struck with the minuteness of its details 
 and apparent sincerity and truthfulness of the author 
 1 have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred 
 to by Mr. Miller, about the Amlicites making a cross 
 with red paint in their foreheads to distinguish them 
 from their enemies in the confusion of battle." 
 
 Mr. Abner Jackson of Canton Ohio who 
 heard Spaulding read the MS. to his father 
 in Conneaut, just before his removal to 
 Fittsburg, testifies : 
 
 "Spaulding frequently read his MS. to the neighbors 
 and commented on it as he progressed. He wrote 
 it in Bible style, 'And it came to pass' occurred so ofte. 
 that some called him ' Old come to pass.' The names. 
 Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Nephite, Laman, Lamanite, 
 etc., were in it. The closing scene was at Cumorah, 
 where all the righteous were slain." 
 
 We propose now to introduce Sidney Rig- 
 don himself. Rev. John Winter, M. D. waa 
 teaching school in Pittsburg, and was a 
 member of the First Baptist church wheu 
 Rigdon was its pastor and was intimate 
 with Rigdon. He testifies that 
 
 "In 1822 or 3 Rigdon took out of his desk In his study 
 a large MS. stating that it was a Bible romance pur- 
 porting to be a history of the American Indians. That 
 it was written by one Spaulding a Presbyterian preach- 
 er whose health had failed and who had taken it to 
 the printers to see if it would pay to publish it. And 
 that he (Rigdon) had borrowed it from the printer as a 
 curiosity." 
 
 James Jeffries, an old and highly respect- 
 ed citizen of Churchville Hartford Co. Ma- 
 ryland, testifies, in a statement he dictated 
 to Rev. Calvin D. Wilson, Jan. 20th 1884, in 
 the presence of his wife and J. M. Finney, 
 M. D. ; and attested by Dr. Finney, Rev 
 Wilson and Mrs. James Jeffries : 
 
 "Forty rears ago I was in business in St. Louis. The 
 Mormons then had their temple in Nauvoo Illinois. I 
 had business transactions with them I knew Sidney 
 Rigdon. He acted as general manager of the business 
 of the Mormons (with me) Rigdon told me several 
 times, in his conversation with me, that there was in 
 the printing office with which he was connected in 
 Ohio, a MS. of the Rev Spaulding, tracing the origin of 
 the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This MS. 
 was in the office several years. He was tamiliar with 
 it. Spaulding wanted it published but had not the 
 means to pay for printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith 
 used to look over the MS. and read it on Sundays. Rig- 
 don said Smith took the MS. and said 'I'll print it,' and 
 went off to Palmyra New York." 
 
 " Forty years ago " would be the fall of 
 1844, just after Rigdon had been driven out 
 of Nauvoo. The Times and Seasons assailed 
 him bitterly, that fall and winter, for ex- 
 posing Morinonism. On his way from Nau- 
 voo to Pittsburg, he called on his old ac- 
 quaintance, Mr. Jeffries, in St. Louis, and, 
 in his anger at the Mormons, he let out the 
 secrets of Mormonism, just as he told the 
 Mormons he would, if they did not make 
 him their leader. 
 
 George Clark, son of Jerome Clark of 
 Harwicke, N. Y., testifies that Mrs David- 
 son left the trunk containing her first hus- 
 band's MSS. at his fathers, before she went 
 to Munson Mass, to live with her daughter. 
 He says : 
 
 "Shortly before Hurlbut got the M3. from fathers, 
 during a visit to fathers, Mrs Davidst n gave to my wife 
 to read, a MS. written by her first bus baud, Spaulding; 
 remarking as she handed her the MS. : 'The Mormon 
 Bible is almost a literal copy of this MS.' " 
 
 It was this MS. Hurlbut obtained from 
 Jerome Clark, and which he never deliv- 
 ered to Howe. He retained it and gave to 
 Howe a few leaves, the beginning of an 
 entirely different MS. 
 
 Scores of witnesses who would have cor- 
 roborated the above could have found 
 
TJUS BRADEN AND KEI/LEY DEBATE.* 
 
 wnere the Book of Mormon appeared, but 
 these are enough certainly. 
 
 We wish now to call the attention of the 
 reader to these facts. 1. We have proved 
 by sixteen witnesses of the highest char- 
 acter, one Solomon Spaulding's brother, 
 another his sister-in-law, another his wife, 
 another his daughter, another his business 
 
 Eartner, another one who was an inmate of 
 is family for many months, another one 
 with whom Spaulding boarded for months, 
 and the others intimate acquaintances, that 
 between the years 1809 and 1816 Solomon 
 Spaulding spent much of his time in pre- 
 paring manuscripts for a book he intended 
 to publish called the "Manuscript Found." 
 II. That from reading it and hearing him 
 rend it they became more or less familiar 
 with the contents of his manuscript. III. 
 Their description of his manuscript is as ac- 
 curate an outline of the historic portion of 
 the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon, 
 in the plot of the story, the starting point 
 of the history, its leading incidents, jour- 
 neys, wars etc., the names of the principal 
 chaiacters, as any average Mormon can 
 give. IV. They mention only the Nephite 
 portion of the book of Mormon, with one 
 exception which we will soon give. V. 
 They all declare that there was no religious 
 matler in his manuscript. VI. Oliver 
 Smith testifies that Spaulding told him just 
 before going to Pittsburg, that he would 
 prepare the manuscript for press while 
 there, living a retired life for that purpose. 
 VII J. N. Miller testifies, that in explain- 
 ing his book to him, SpauJding told him 
 that he lauded the people at the Isthmus of 
 Darien which he called Zarahemla. 
 
 From all these facts we gather these 
 conclusions. That Spaulding wrote, at 
 first only tlie historic part of the Nephite 
 portion of the Book of Mormon. This 
 was his second manuscript which we will 
 call manuscript No II. or Mormon manu- 
 script No. I. It was this small manuscript 
 that Mrs. Martha Spaulding his daughter 
 saw in the trunk at W. H. Sabins her 
 uncles in Onadago, Valley. N. Y. about 
 the year 1823. From the amount of writing 
 Spaulding did during the seven years, and 
 from Miller's description, it is evident that 
 he prepared a more complete manuscript 
 adding the Zarahemla emigration. This 
 we wilt call manuscript No. III. Mormon 
 m -nuscript No. 2. In 1812 Spaulding mov- 
 ed to Pittsburg, for the purpose of publish- 
 ing his book, intending, as he told Oliver 
 Smith to lead a retired life and rewrite it 
 for the press. He showed it, his daughter 
 testifies to Mr. Patterson, a publisher in 
 Pittsburg who told him to rewrite it for the 
 press and he would publish it. He did so 
 and added the Jaredite emigration. Mrs. 
 Spaulding, his wife, and Miss Spaulding 
 his daughter, testify, that he sent the 
 manscript to Patterson's publishing house. 
 'Mr. Miller, Mr. McKee and Dr. Dodd of 
 Amity, Pa., testify that Spaulding told 
 them he had done so. In 1814 Spaulding 
 then in very poor health went to Amity, 
 Washington Qo., Pa. His wife kept tuveru 
 
 and supported the family. Spanldinsf 
 continued to write on his manuscript and 
 read it to all who would listen to him un- 
 til his death Oct. 20th 1816. 
 
 His wife and daughter put his manu- 
 script and papers that they found, into a 
 trunk and took it with them to the resi- 
 dence of a brother of Mrs. Spaulding W. 
 H. Sabiu, Onandago, Valley, Onandago 
 county, N. Y. lii 1820 Mrs. Spaulding 
 went to Pomfret Conn. Sometime after- 
 wards she married a Mr. Davidson of Hart- 
 wicke, Otsego, county N. Y.and went there 
 to live. She left her daughter Miss Mar- 
 tha Spaulding with her uncle Mr. Sabin, 
 and left the trunk containing the manu- 
 scripts in her care. M BS Spaulding testi- 
 fies that she read one of die manuscripts, a 
 small one, either Spaulding's first draft of 
 the story, or his Mormon manuscript No. 
 1. the one he wrote in 1809-10. She also 
 testifies that while she was at her uncles, 
 Joseph Smith worked as teamster for her 
 uncle, and learned of the existence of the 
 manuscript. Impostor Joe places his first 
 vision concerning the plates, Sept. 1823. As 
 this is his way of dressing up his first 
 knowledge of the manuscript he worked for 
 Sabin in September, 1823, and learned of 
 the existence of the manuscript then. 
 Sometime after her moving to Hartwicke, 
 and after Sept. 1823, Mrs. Davidson sent for 
 tlie trunk and it was sent from Onandago, 
 Valley, to the house of Mr. Davidson in 
 Hartwicke. In 1828 Miss Martha Spaulding 
 married Dr. McKinstry and went to Mun- 
 son Mass, to live. 1830 Mrs. Davidson left 
 Hartwicke and went to Munson to live with 
 her daughter Mrs. McKinstry. She left 
 the trunk containing the manuscript and 
 papers that is all she and her daughter 
 found after Spaulding's death, in care of 
 her brother-in-law Jerome Clark, in Hart- 
 wicke. Here it stayed until it was opened 
 by Philastus Hurlbut and Jerome Clark in 
 1834. Hurlbut had visited Mrs. Davidson, 
 and Mrs. McKinstry in Munson, and ob- 
 tained an order from them authorizing him 
 to open the trunk, and examine its contents. 
 
 We are ready now to introduce the per- 
 son who was instrumental in giving to the 
 world the " Book of Mormon." Sidney Rig- 
 don was born 
 St. Clatr township, 
 February 19, 
 
 his father until the death of the latter in 
 1810; when Sidney was 17 years old. All 
 the education .he obtained he got in a log 
 school-house near his home. After hia 
 father's death he still made his home at his 
 mother's pretending to work on the farm and 
 to farm the land part of the time, but was, 
 bib neighbors say, too lazy or too proud to 
 worfc. A dispute has arisen over the ques- 
 tion whether he was in Pittsburg before he 
 went there in 1822, to take charge of the 
 first Baptist church. His friends assert 
 that he did not life' In Pittsburg till that 
 time. A dispute arises over the question 
 whether he learned the printers' art in 
 early life. Also whether he worked in the 
 oil ice of Patterson, when Spauldiug's mauu 
 
 .BOOK or Mormon." eianey Jttig- 
 rn near the village of Library in 
 wnship, Allegany county, Pa., 
 ), 1793. He lived on the farm of 
 
44 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 script was taken there to be published. 
 His friends deny this, and persons employ- 
 ed in Patterson's office before and after that 
 time, say they remember no such employee 
 of the office, and Rigdon denied it most em- 
 phatically. Mr. Patterson remembers noth- 
 ing of him. On the other hand Mrs. 
 Davidson, Spaulding's wife, declares posi- 
 tively that he was connected with the office. 
 Mr. Miller of Amity, Mr. McKee, and Dr. 
 Dodd testify that Mr. Spaulding so inform- 
 ed them. There must have been some 
 foundation for such positive impressions on 
 the part of Mr. and Mrs. Spaulding, and 
 many others. 
 
 I think Mrs. Eichbaum who was clerk in 
 the post office, in Pittsburg, from 1812 to 
 1816, gives the key to the matter. A young 
 man by the name of Lambdin was in Mr. 
 Patterson's employ and became his partner 
 in 1818. She states thatRigdon and Lamb- 
 din were very intimate and that Mr. Engle 
 foreman of Patterson's printing office com- 
 plained thatRigdon was loafing around the 
 office all the time; that Rigdon was work- 
 ing in a tannery at the time. The explana- 
 tion then is that Rigdon was intimate with 
 J^ambdin one of the leading employees of 
 Patterson, while he was working in a 
 tannery in Pittsburg, and from this intim- 
 acy, persons supposed that he was in 
 Patterson's employ; especially when he 
 was around the office so much. Rigdon was 
 then a young man, noted for his gift of gab, 
 and fondness for discussion, especially on 
 religious topics. We are now ready to 
 prove that Rigdon came in contact with the 
 Spaulding manuscript. Joseph Miller of 
 Amity. Pa., who took care of Spaulding in 
 his last illness, testifies : " My recollection 
 is that Spaulding left a transcript of the 
 manuscript with Patterson for publication. 
 The publication was delayed until Spaul- 
 ding could write a preface. In the mean 
 time the manuscript was spirited away, and 
 could not be found. Spaulding told me 
 that Sidney Rigdon had taken it or 
 was suspected of taking it. I recol- 
 lect distinctly that Rigdon's name was 
 mentioned in connection with it." Mr. 
 McKee says that Rigdon was mentioned to 
 him by Spaulding as the employee of Pat- 
 terson. Dr. Dodd who took care oi Spaul- 
 ding in his last illness declared that 
 Spaulding's manuscript had been trans- 
 formed into the Book of Mormon, and that 
 Rigdon was the one who did it. He made 
 this statement years before Howe's book 
 appeared, the first public statement of such 
 a theory. He did it on account of what he 
 had heard of the Spaulding manuscript, and 
 what Spaulding had told him. Mrs. Spaul- 
 ding positively declares that Rigdon was 
 connected with Patterson's office, when the 
 manuscript was there, and that he copied 
 it. That the manuscript was a subject of 
 much curiosity and interest in the office. 
 That it was well known that he had a copy 
 of it. 
 
 We can now collate the evidence. Rig- 
 don was intimate with J.ambdin a prom- 
 inent employee in the office. He Inafed 
 
 about the office so much that Mr. Engle 
 the foreman complained of it. His fond- 
 ness for religious discussion and love of the 
 strange and marvelous, caused him to take 
 a deep interest in the Spaulding manu- 
 script. It was just what would interest such 
 a cast of mind as his. The manuscript was 
 missed. He was blamed with spiriting it 
 away. Mrs. Spauldmg thinks he copied it. 
 She, in the course of her husband's last ill- 
 ness did not learn all the facts, or did not 
 remember clearly. She was mistaken in 
 regard to his copying it and that it was re- 
 turned, as Miller, McKee and Dr. Dodds 
 statements, in regard to Spauldings own 
 statements show. We have now traced the 
 manuscript that Spaulding prepared for 
 publication into Rigdon's hands. The 
 statement of his friends that he staid on 
 the farm till he went to Pittsburg, in 1822, 
 they contradict themselves. It does not 
 harmonize with Rigdon's character. Mrs, 
 Eichbaum's statement is confirmed by the 
 fact that Rigdon went to work in a tannery, 
 when he quit preaching in 1824. He had 
 learned the trade in 1812 to 1816. That Rig- 
 don was in Pittsburg, when Spaulding, 
 manuscript was in Patterson's office learn- 
 ing the tanner's trade. He was intimate 
 with Lambdin, an employee of Patterson. 
 He was about the office so much that En- 
 gles complained that he was always hang- 
 ing about. He was just such a person as 
 would be excited over Spaulding's manu- 
 script. He took great interest in it. That 
 was what made him hang around the office. 
 The manuscript was stolen, and Spaulding 
 said that Rigdon was suspected of taking it. 
 
 Rigdon joined the Baptist church on 
 Piney Fork of Peters creek May 31, 1817. 
 He studied theology during the years 1818- 
 19 with a Mr. Clark a Baptist Preacher of 
 Beaver, county, Pa. He was licensed to 
 preach by the Connequessing Baptist 
 church in 1819. He went to Warren Trum- 
 bull county Ohio, where his uncle was a 
 prominent member of the Baptist church 
 and joined that church, March, 4th, 1820. 
 He was ordained to preach as a regular 
 Baptist Preacher by that church, April, 1st, 
 1820. He preached for that church and other 
 churches in that vicinity during the years 
 1820 and 21. He married Phebe Brooks in 
 Warren, in 1820. In January 1822 he moved 
 to Pittsburg and was made Pastor of the 
 Fir&t Baptist church Jan. 28th 1822. He 
 embraced many of the teachings of Camp- 
 bell and Scott. His church and Scott's 
 often met together in worship. He was ar- 
 raigned for such doctrinal errors and ex- 
 cluded Oct. 11, 1823. He preached for his 
 adherents in the court house till in the sum- 
 mer of 1824. Then for two years did no 
 regular preaching. He says he studied the 
 Biole and worked in a tannery. 
 
 We will now prove that he had the 
 Spaulding manuscript in his possession at 
 this time. Rev. John Winter M. D. who 
 was a member of Rigdon's congregation 
 when he was pastor of the First Baptist 
 church, and very intimate with him testi- 
 fies; that Kigdon in his presence in hU 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 45 
 
 house took out of a desk a manuscript and 
 remarked that a "Presbyterian minister 
 Spaulding whose health had failed brought 
 this to a printer to see if it would pay to 
 publish it. It is a romance of the Bible 
 and he got it from the printer to read as a 
 curiosity." Here we have clear proof that 
 Rigdon had Spauldinf's manuscript in kis 
 possession in 1823. In the winter of 1826 
 Rigdon moved to Bainbridge, Geauga, coun- 
 ty Ohio. Soon after he was visited by his 
 niece now Mrs. A. Dunlap of Warren, Ohio. 
 She testifies : 
 
 "That in her presence her uncle went Into his bed- 
 room and took from a trunk which he kept carefully 
 locked, a manuscript and come back seated himself by 
 the fire and be^an to read. His wife came into the 
 room and exclaimed: "What you area studying that 
 thing again? I mean to burn tht paper.'' Rigdon 
 replied : " No indeed you will not. This will be a great 
 thine: someday." When he was reading this manu- 
 script he was so completely occupied that he seemed 
 entirely unconscious of anything around him." 
 
 We have now proved that Rigdon had 
 the Spaulding manuscript in his possession , 
 and that he expected to make some great 
 thing out of it and spent much time over 
 it. 
 
 In June 1826 Rigdon was invited to preach 
 the funeral sermon of Warner Goodall of 
 Mentor Ohio, and so pleased the congrega- 
 tion, that they chose him their preacher, 
 and he became a Disciple Preacher. He was 
 now 33 years old. He had barely what was 
 a common school education of those days, 
 and was never a student or reader, except 
 of the visionary and mysterious. He had 
 a wonderful command of language, an ex- 
 travagant imagination and a marvelous 
 power of word painting. He excelled in 
 declamation and in a kind of pulpit power, 
 that arouses revival excitement. He never 
 was regarded as a reasoner, or a man of 
 profound thonght. He was relied on as a 
 revivalist rather than as a regular preacher. 
 His favorite theme was the millennium, on 
 which he was fond of declaiming, and 
 entertained the ideas now found in 
 the Book of Mormon. He was always 
 talking of some great time, coming, some 
 great thing going to happen. He brought 
 with him many of his Baptist ideas, and 
 never accepted all Disciple teaching. His 
 power in revivals and his love of revival 
 excitement, inclined him to the idea then 
 popular in all churches, except the Disciples 
 of direct and immediate or miraculous 
 power of the Holy Ghost. His extrava- 
 gancies and eccentricities gave constant 
 annoyance to the Disciples, who overlooked 
 them on account of his power as a revivalist. 
 They would often say: " Oh well it is 
 Rigdon. It is one of Rigdon's oddities." 
 His imagination and love of the marvelous 
 lead him constantly into exaggerations, that 
 often were absolute falsehoods. Those who 
 who watched him closely were soon con- 
 vinced, that he lacked logical mental power 
 and moral stamina, and was unreliable in 
 his statements, and wanting in moral prin- 
 ciple. He was a vain showy pulpit orator 
 but never was a trusted preacher axrong 
 the Disciples. 
 We propose now to show that Rigdon knew 
 
 of the appearance of the Book of Mormon 
 before it appeared, and knew of and de- 
 scribed its contents. Adamson Bently 
 Rigdon's brother-in-law and one of the 
 most reliable men that Ohio has ever 
 known, declares in the Millennial Har- 
 binger of 1844, page 39 : "I know that Sid- 
 ney Ki/rdon told me as much as two years 
 before the Mormon Book made its appear- 
 ance, or had been heard of by me, that 
 there was a book coming out, the manuscript 
 of which was engraved on gold plates." 
 Alexander Campbell whose word not even 
 sectarian hatred ever dared to impeach, 
 clinches the matter by adding his testi- 
 mony: 
 
 "The conversation alluded to In Brother Bontly's 
 letter, was in my presence, as well as his. My recol- 
 lection of it led me, some two or thiee years ago, 10 
 interrogate Bro. Bently concerning his recoiled ions of 
 it. They accorded with mine in every particular, ex- 
 cept in regard to the yBiir in which it occurred. He 
 placed it in the surnnx;r of 1K27. I placed it in the 
 summer of 1826. Rigdon, at the sarco time, observed 
 that on the plates dug UD in New York, there was an 
 account, not only of the aborigines of this continent, 
 but it was stated also that the Christian religion had 
 been preached on this continent, during the first cen- 
 tury just as we were then preaching it on the Western 
 Reserve." 
 
 That clinches the matter. 
 
 We will now introduce Darwin At water 
 of Mantua, who testifies : 
 
 "Sidney Rigdon preached for us when the Mormoa 
 defection eai he on us. and notwithstanding his extra- 
 ordinary wild freaks he was held in high repute by 
 many. For a few months before his pretended conver- 
 sion to Mormonism, it was noted that his wild extrav- 
 agant propensities had been more marked. That he 
 knewbef jrehandof the coming of the Book of Mormon, 
 is tome certain, from what lie had said during the first 
 of his visits to my father's some years before (in 182''), 
 He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and 
 other antiquities found in some parts of America, and 
 said that they must have been made by the aborigines. 
 He said there was a book to be published containing 
 an account of these things. He spoke of them in his 
 eloquent enthusiastic style as being a thing most ex- 
 trHordin.-iry. Though a youth 1 took him to task for 
 expending so much enthusiasm on srch a subject in- 
 stead of the things of the gospel. In all my intercourse 
 with him wfterwards he i ever spoke of the antiquities 
 or of the wonderful book that should give an account 
 of them till the Book of Mormon was real'y published. 
 He must have thought that I was not the man to reveal 
 to." 
 
 That is true. Darwin Atwater was no*, 
 Parley P. Pratt was. He was the right man 
 for Rigdon's schemes. 
 
 Rigdon made a convert of Pratt then 
 teaching school in Lorairi county Ohio. 
 Pratt began to preach for the Discipleg. 
 Rigdon let him into his scheme and Pratt 
 entered heartily into it. We will now prova 
 that Rigdon was away from home, engaged 
 in getting out his manuscript, that he told 
 his wife would be a great thing some day. 
 Zebulon Rudolpho Mrs Garfield's father tes- 
 tifies : 
 
 " During the winter previous to the appearance of the 
 Book ot Mormon, Rigdon was In the habit of spei ding 
 weeks away 'rom houie, going no one knew whither. 
 He often appeared preoccupied and he would indulge 
 in dreamy visionary talks, which puzzled those who 
 listened. When the Book of olormon appeared and 
 Rigdon joined in the advocacy of the new religion the 
 suspicion was at once aroused that he was one of th 
 framers of the new doctHne, and that probably he was 
 not ignorant of the authorship of the Book of Mor- 
 mon." 
 
 John Rudolph, brother to Z. Rudolph 
 says: 
 "For two years before the Book of Mormon &p- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 peared, Rigdon's sermons were full of declarations and 
 prophecies that the age of miracles would be restored, 
 and more complete revelations, than those in the Bible, 
 would be given. When the Book of Mormon appeared, 
 all who heard him were satisfied that he referred to it. 1 ' 
 
 Alrnon B. Green, well known in Northern 
 Ohio, says : 
 
 "In the Annual Meeting of the Mahonlng Associa- 
 tion held in Austimown in August, 1830, about two 
 months before Sidney Rigdon's professed conversion 
 to Mormonism, Rigdon preached Saturday afternoon. 
 He had much to say about a full and complete restora- 
 tion of the ancient gospel. He spoke in his glowing 
 style of what the Disciples had accomplished but con- 
 tended that we had not accomplished a complete resto- 
 ration of Apostolic Christianity. He contended such 
 restoration must include community of goods holding 
 all in common stock, and a restoration of the spiritual 
 gifts of the apostolic age. He promised that although 
 we had not come up to the apostolic plan in fall yet as 
 we were Improving God would soon give us a new and 
 fuller revelation of his will. After the Book of Mormon 
 had been read by many who heard Rigdon on that oc- 
 casion they were perfectly satisfied that Rigdon knew 
 al! about that book when he preached that discourse. 
 Rigdon's sermon was most thoroughly refuted by Bro. 
 Campbell, which very much offended Rigdoii." 
 
 Scores of others who were present have 
 made similar statements hundreds of times. 
 Eri M. Dille testifies : 
 
 "In the autumn of 1830 Sidney lUgdon held a meet- 
 ing in the Baptist meeting-house on Euclid Creek. I 
 was sick and did not attend the meeting, but my father 
 repeatedly remarked while it was in progress that he 
 was afraid that Rigdon was about to leave the Disci- 
 ples for he was continually telling of what marvelous 
 things he had seen in the heavens and of wonderful 
 things about to happen and his talks indicated that he 
 would leave the Disciples. 
 
 We will now prove that Rigdon came in 
 contact with Smith in 1827-28-29. while 
 Smith was getting out the Book of Mormon, 
 Pomeroy Tucker, a native of Palmyra, New 
 York, an intimate acquaintance of Impos- 
 tor Joe, who read much of the proofs of the 
 Book of Mormon says : 
 
 " A mysterious stranger now appears at Smith's and 
 holds intercourse with the famed money digger For 
 a considerable time no Intimation of the name or pur- 
 pose of this stranger transpired to the public, not even 
 to Smith's nearest neighbors. It was observed by some 
 that his visits were frequently repeated. The sequel 
 of the intimacies of this stranger and the money dig- 
 ger, will sufficiently appear hereafter. There was 
 great consternation when the 118 pages of manuscript 
 were stolen from Harris for it seems to have been im- 
 possible, for some unaccountable reason, to retranslate 
 the stolen portion. The reappearance of this myste- 
 rijus stranger at Smith's at this juncture was again the 
 subject of inquiry and conjecture by observers, from 
 whom was withheld all explanation* of his identity 
 and purpose. When the Book of Mormon appeared 
 Rigdon was an early convert Up totLls time he had 
 played his part In the back-ground and his occasional 
 visits to Smith's had been observed by the inhabitants 
 as those of the mysterious stranger. It had been his 
 policy to remain in concealment until all things were 
 in readiness for blowing the trumpet of the new gospel. 
 He now came to the front as the first regular preacher 
 in Palmyra." 
 
 Mrs. Eaton, wife of Horace Eaton D. D. 
 for thirty-two years a resident of Palmyra 
 says: 
 
 "Early In the summer of 1827 a mysterious stranger 
 seeks admission to Joe Smith's cabin. The conferences 
 of the two are most private. This person whose coming 
 immediately precede') a new departure in the faith was 
 Sidney Rigdon a backslidden clergyman, then a Camp- 
 bellite preacher In Mentor, Ohio. 
 
 J. H. McCauley, in his history of Franklin 
 County, Pennsylvania, slates : 
 
 "As a matter too well known to need argument that 
 Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and Sidney 
 Rigdon were acquaintances for a considerable time 
 before Mormonism was first heard of." 
 
 Abel Chase, a near neighbor of the 
 Sniith'e, testifies ; 
 
 I saw Ris-don at Smith's at different times with con- 
 siderable intervals between thorn." 
 
 This disproves the statement that Rigdon 
 never was at Smith's but once and that 
 after the hook appeared. He was there 
 several times and some visits must have 
 been before the book appeared. 
 
 Lorenzo Saunders, another near neighbor, 
 testifies : 
 
 "I saw Rigdon at Smith's several times, and the first 
 visit was more than two years before the Book ap- 
 peared." 
 
 We have now brought Rigdon the second 
 character in the origination of the Book of 
 Mormon, in contact with the Imposter Joe 
 Smith the third and last character in orig- 
 inating the fraud. This acquaintance could 
 have been brought about in two ways. Parly 
 Pratt the school teacher in Lorain county 
 Ohio, that Rigdon converted, had been a 
 peddler in Central New York, and was ac- 
 quainted with every noted character in it. 
 When Rigdon let him into the secret of his 
 scheme, he could have suggested to Rigdon 
 that the seer and famous money seeker of 
 Manchester.with his wonderful peep-stone, 
 would be the very person to introduce his 
 fraud to the world, as a revelation by mira- 
 cle. Or it could have occurred in another 
 way. The work of Smith and his gang in 
 digging over a large scope of country in 
 southern New York, and northern Penn- 
 sylvania, had been extensively commented 
 on by the press. Rigdon could have learned 
 of this wonderful seeker after treasure, and 
 his wonderful peep-stone through the press, 
 and it occurred to him that here was the 
 one to give his stolen manuscript to the 
 world as a new revelation, by miracle, trans- 
 lating pretended plates with his peep-stone. 
 We are now ready for a sketch of Imposter 
 Joe. 
 
 Imposter Joe was born Dec. 23, 1805, in 
 Sharon, Windsor county Vermont. The 
 minister employed by the Home Missionary 
 Society, to labor in Vermont 1809-10-11-12-13 
 says, in his autobiography, that in 1812 a 
 religious imposter created an excitement in 
 the neighborhood of the Smith's. He taught 
 that miraculous spiritual gifts could and 
 should be enjoyed now, and claimed to ex- 
 ercise them. He claimed to be a prophet, 
 and then a Messiah, Christ in his second 
 advent. Among the most active of his fol- 
 lowers was Impostet Joe's father and 
 mother, especially his mother. She proph- 
 esied, at the time, that Joe, then seven 
 years old, would be a prophet, and give to 
 the world a new religion. Joe was raised 
 with this idea before him. All the family 
 were taught and believed it. Joe's father 
 used to speak of Joe as the " genus," as he 
 termed it, of the family. This accounts for 
 Joe's peculiar gravity when but a child, 
 and as a youth. He was to be a prophet, 
 and he must not act as other children and 
 boys did. In 1815 the Smiths moved to 
 Palmyra N. Y. and in 1813 they squatted 
 on an unoccupied piece of land, belonging 
 to minors and lived there until they went 
 to Ohio in 1830. Soon after coming to Pal- 
 myra, in a revival excitement, Joe showed 
 
THE BKADEN AND KELLER DEBATE. 
 
 47 
 
 some interest In religious matters, and 
 joined the class of probationers on proba- 
 tion, and was soon left off " on suspicion" 
 as the Yankee expressed a similar experi- 
 ence of his own. This is all there is of 'he 
 long story that Imposter Joe wrote in 1843, 
 twenty three years afterwards, of his 
 wonderful vision, of his going to the Meth- 
 odist preacher with queries, that would be 
 in character, had the querist been a person 
 of mature mind, well versed in the contro- 
 versies of the age, but were utterly out of 
 character in the mouth of an ignorant 
 illiterate boy of fifteen, that was remark- 
 able chiefly for his power of exaggeration 
 and falsehood, and not for thought. The 
 ideas that he said he had then, he never 
 dreamed of -until he learned them from 
 Sidney Rigdon, years afterwards. 
 
 In Sep. 1822, while digging a well for 
 Willard Chase, Imposter Joe's father found 
 a singularly shaped stone of cloudy quartz, 
 strangely resembling a child's foot. Impos- 
 ter Joe, who was loafing around was very 
 much interested in the stone and finally stole 
 it from Mr. Chase's children. This stone is 
 the Urim and Thummim of Mormonism. 
 Rigdon had stolen the "Book of Mormon." 
 Now Imposter Joe steals the Urim and 
 Thummim, with which he pretended to 
 
 translate Ridgons stolen manuscript. In 
 Sept. 1823 Imposter Joe worked for W. H. 
 Sabin, in Onandago Valley N. Y. Here he 
 learned of the existence of the Spaulding 
 manuscript then at Mr. Sabins in the care 
 of Martha Spaulding, Solomon Spauld'ng's 
 daughter. During the year 1823-24-25-26- 
 27, Imposter Joe was engaged in loafing 
 around, strolling over the country, pretend- 
 ing to find water by witching fur it with a 
 witch-hazle rod, and pretending to find lost 
 property, buried treasurers, and minerals, 
 by means of the stone he had stolen from 
 Mr. Chase's children. He had, a part of the 
 time, with him, a gang of idle superstitious 
 men, who dug holes over a large scope of 
 country, in several counties in southern New 
 York, and northern Pennsylvania. His 
 knavish tricks, and frauds, had attracted to 
 him great notoriety. His proceedings with 
 a gang of dupes were published and com- 
 mented on in several of the papers of New 
 York and Pennsylvania. By this means 
 Rigdon who was still looking around for 
 some means to publish his stolen manu- 
 script heard of the Seer of Manchester, and 
 his wonderful peep-stone. It occurred to 
 him that here was the means of getting his 
 new revelation his "Golden Bible" before 
 the world. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : This evening I shall intro- 
 duce first, some of the unmistakable corrob- 
 orative evidences of the truth of the Book 
 of Mormon as found contained in the re- 
 ports and records of eminent travelers, 
 explorers, scientists, historians and archae- 
 olegists, of the world. 
 
 The Spaulding Romance no doubt will 
 still b& the means of entertaining you upon 
 the part of the negative, as it seems to be 
 a much easier task for him to spin out that 
 yarn, than to attempt to answer the argu- 
 ments of the affirmative. I will promise 
 you one thing however, that is, that the 
 Spaulding tale shall not go unanswered, if 
 the arguments of the affirmative are. I 
 will show you before the close of the dis- 
 cussion of this question, if the negative 
 holds put the time agreed upon, that, that 
 thing is so rotten and deceitful in concep- 
 tion, so false and malicious in publication, 
 BO absurd and ridiculous in belief, that you 
 shall in your hearts feel ashamed that you 
 ever entertained the thought, that there 
 m!g-hfc be something in it. In the mean- 
 time carefully follow him- he is a good 
 rc.wder and hns the story well rehearsed. 
 
 But to the facts : In 1827 and 1828, when 
 the greater part of tJ e Book of Mormon 
 was translated and put, in manuscript, and 
 in the year, 1829, whe.i it was put in the 
 hands of the printer, very little was known 
 as to the peoples, ancient races and civili- 
 zation, of the American continent. Taken 
 in the light of what is known of these an- 
 cient peoples to-day with the later devel- 
 opments, there was comparatively nothing 
 known at that time. There were then spec- 
 ulations and theories afloat as to the prob- 
 abilities of an older people than the Indians 
 in a few cases, brought out by the finding 
 of a few relics of rude implements and or- 
 naments together with some bones, &e.> 
 unaccounted for, and in a few instances 
 speculation as to the cause of certain 
 mounds of earth, whether such showed 
 higher state of civilization and was the re- 
 mains of an older people than was then to 
 be found among the savages of the forest. 
 But there wr.s no one who for a moment 
 thought that the country had been inhab- 
 ited by a people whose state of civilization 
 and enlightenment had equalled, if not 
 surpassed, that of Europe itself. IP the 
 arts and the sciences ; in agriculture and 
 
4S 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 mining; In masonry and architecture; In 
 painting arid sculpture; in engineering and 
 mecnanical skill , in physics and medicine 
 and in mathematics and astronomy. Not 
 only this, but to that time no one specula- 
 ted in all the domain of history, science or 
 literature, that the continent had been suc- 
 cessively inhabited by different peoples of 
 a high state of civilization, who in turn had 
 become extinct or dwindled into barbarism. 
 It was also at that tvme a speculative be- 
 lief that the continent was settled from the 
 north, the people gradually making fo the 
 south when it was settled, and that proba- 
 bly some of the rude tribes which inhab- 
 ited northeast Asia had at some period 
 wandered across Behring's strait and grad- 
 ually made their way southward upon the 
 continent. It was a.^o speculated that 
 perhaps at some time some of the daring 
 and hardy seamen of maritime Europe had 
 discovered the country and formed small 
 settlements which were afterwards de- 
 stroyed by the more powerful nations, for 
 the relics discovered up to 1829, were only 
 in certain places, which would only indi- 
 cate the landing of a ship's crew at the 
 point ; and again, that the Chinese had 
 been cast upon its shores in some accidental 
 manner and the Indians were descended 
 from them ; and later by some, that the 
 "Ten tribes of Israel," that were carried 
 away captive from Samaria by Shalman- 
 esar, King of Assyria^ may have made 
 their way to the continent and after a 
 time fallen into idolatry and a state of 
 savagery. But in turn every one of these 
 theories have given way as the light of 
 discovery and research has been thrown 
 upon them, and now none find a support 
 as demonstrable facts. At the time be- 
 fore referred to however, there was pub- 
 lished to the world by a young man in 
 the State of New York, a record claiming 
 to give a positive and correct account of the 
 peoples who had formerly inhabited this 
 continent. The places from whence they 
 came ; the different times of their coming ; 
 the countries of first settlement ; the varied 
 states of civilization ; their knowledge of 
 the arts, sciences, agriculture, languages 
 and literature. The manner of settlement, 
 leading from south to north. The extent 
 of settlement and the magnitude of the 
 population. Giving^ a general account of 
 their hundreds of cities and the glory and 
 grandeur of them ; of the industries, pur- 
 suits and character of the people, ana their 
 final overthrow. And singular as it may 
 seem, every statement with reference to 
 these matters is in harmony with the facts 
 which have been developed by the later 
 researches of science. And upon nearly 
 every one of its marvelous revelations as 
 to these people, the result of the work of 
 the archaeologist has been to furnish cor- 
 roborative evidence of their truthfulness. 
 Notwithstanding the fairness and candor 
 in which the statements of this record have 
 been published to the world, from the day 
 it met the public eye, self-constituted lead- 
 ers, theologians, and paltry politicians have 
 
 taken it upon themselves to Inform the 
 public mind of their views of its teachings, 
 always careful, however, to, if possible, 
 keep the record itself in the background 
 Ifest it reveal their perversions, until at this 
 time, I think I may safely assert and keep 
 vithin the bounds of truth, that there is 
 not published in America, a single Ency- 
 clopedia, Gazetteer, Geography, History, 
 History of the Religious Denominations, 
 Review 01 Expose which has spoken of the 
 work and undertaken to give its state- 
 ments, unless such publication was mado 
 by the friends of this record, that does not 
 contain a false, garbled and perverted ac- 
 count of what it contains and teaches. I 
 ask in the broad world of books every- 
 where, for one. Why is this my audience? 
 If the book is a bad one will it not be suffi- 
 cient to prove it so by giving its statements 
 without perversion? Has it come to this! 
 That men are compelled to resort to false- 
 hood and trickery in order to overcome a ud 
 put down an evil thing? In the apostle**' 
 time the injunction was, " to be not over- 
 come of evil, and overcome evil with good." 
 But perhaps this with the other good things 
 of the New Testament was confined to the 
 apostles, and "to those upon whom they 
 laid their hands." The truth is my friends 
 that there is method in this madness. 
 SomeDody is just afraid that if the light is 
 turned on they may be discovered to be 
 sitting in darkness. It may be said as of 
 olden time: "Every one that doeth evil 
 hateth the light, neither cometh to the 
 light, lest his deeds should be reproved." 
 ''But he that doeth truth cometh to the 
 light that his deeds may be made manifest 
 that they are wrought in God." 
 
 It was stated by my opponent last night 
 that Sidney Rigdon said in 1823, that a book 
 would be published someday, "and be a 
 big thing, "And, "says he, "it is a big 
 thing." 
 
 Well it seems to me he makes Rigdon out 
 a prophet, and a true one too, rather early 
 in the career. According to this Rigdon 
 was a prophet while he belonged to the 
 Baptists, and after he was with the Disci- 
 pies ; and I make my guess right here that 
 if he had not found out they were not in 
 accordance with the Bible and left them he 
 would be accounted such with them to this 
 day ; yes, and the grandest and ablest of 
 them all ; making no exception to Camp- 
 bell, or Scott or Barton W. Stone. It is 
 much like the case of Saul of Tarsus, wno 
 while he was a Pharisee was hail fellow 
 well met. But when he became converted 
 to the full light of the gospel, and after- 
 wards preached good to the people and told 
 them how many bad things he did when a 
 Pharisee. "They cried out, Away with 
 such a fellow, he ought not to be permitted 
 to live upon the earth." 
 
 But to return to the " big thing." This 
 work my friends will prove to be a big 
 thing to this age yet ; not to the destruction 
 of Christianity, but to its full establishment. 
 Why ! do you not know that I can go side 
 by side with the scientist and the skep- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 49 
 
 tic into the National Museum of our country 
 and corroborate that work by the collec- 
 tions, from the rude arrow-head of the In- 
 dian to the cities of the clitf-dwellers which 
 are there set out in full representation, 
 simply by turning 1 to the wonderful history 
 in this book ? And not only in these but in 
 the fossil and other collections from the 
 time you strike the bones of the mastodon 
 till you come to those of the common do- 
 mestic animals. It is truly an ensign set 
 up bearing the most indisputable tidings 
 that Jesus was the .Son of God and that God 
 is, who created the heavens and the earth 
 and revealed himself to man upon this as 
 upon the other continent; and this fact 
 alone ought to be a sufficient answer to the 
 question, "Of what use is the book?" 
 Since it is brought to light in an age of the 
 world when whole multitudes disbelieve in 
 the existence of God, and millions whose 
 fear toward him are taught by the precepts 
 of men, believe in him only as a God of the 
 past, but not now having any especial 
 thing to do with the human family, the 
 use of it is as apparent as any known thing 
 in the universe. Opening this record (the 
 Book of Mormon), I hurriedly cite some of 
 its pages upon the civilization of the con- 
 tinent. 
 
 First of the civilization which came out 
 from Babel four thousand years ago. Page 
 620 of the record : 
 
 "And the whole face of the land northward, [that Is 
 from the straits, from what we terra the Isthmus of 
 Panama northward], was covered with inhabitants; 
 and they were exceeding industrious, and they did 
 buy and sell and traffic one with another that they 
 might get gain. And they did work in all manner of 
 ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and 
 brass, und all manner of metals; and they did dig It 
 out of the earth: wherefore they did cast up mighty 
 heaps of earth to get ore, of gold and of silver, and of 
 iron and of copper. And they did work all manner of 
 fine work. And they did have silks, and fine twined 
 linen; and they did work all manner of cloth that they 
 might clothe themselves. And they did make all 
 manner of tools to till the earth, both to plough and to 
 sow, and to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash. And 
 they did make 11 manner of tools with which thoy did 
 work their beasts. And they did make all manner cf 
 weapons of war. And they did work all manner of 
 work <if exceeding curious workmanship. And never 
 could be a people more blest than they, and more pros- 
 pered by the hand of the Lord." 
 
 Then I refer you to page 517 for another 
 description : 
 
 "And in the space of sixty and two years," (that is 
 from the time that Emer one of their kings began to 
 reign), "they had become exceeding strong, insomuch 
 that they become exceeding rich, having all manner 
 of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, 
 and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and 
 also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of 
 hheep. and of swine, and of goats, and also many other 
 kinds of animals which were useful for ihr food of 
 man; and they also had horses, and asses, and there 
 were elephants, and cnreloms, andcumoms, all of 
 which were useful unto man, and more especially the 
 elephants, and cureloms, andcumoms." 
 
 Citing you now to page 43, I refer you to 
 the situation of the country as it appeared 
 and was found to exist when the second 
 people came to the continent Those who 
 came out from the land of Jerusalem six 
 hundred years before the birth of the 
 Savior : 
 
 "And it came to pass that we did find upon the land 
 of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that 
 there were beasts In the forests of every kind, both the 
 
 cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse and the 
 goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild ani- 
 mals which were for the use of men. And we did find 
 all manner of ore. both of gold, and of silver, and of 
 copper." 
 
 On page 394 we have a further descrip- 
 tion, and also of the habits of the people: 
 
 "And behold, there was all mannerof gold in both these 
 lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind; 
 and there were also curious workmen, who did work 
 all kinds of ore, and did refine it; and thus they did 
 become rich. They d.d raise grain in abundance, 
 both in the north and in the south. And they did 
 flourish exceedingly both in the north and in the 
 south. And they did multiply and wax exceeding 
 strong in the land. And they did raise many flocks 
 and herds, yen, many fallings. Behold, their women 
 did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of 
 fine twined linen and cloth of every kind." 
 
 Leaving the description of the country 
 and the people as set out in the book, I 
 next refer you to their society and moral 
 and religious instruction. The book shows 
 that the people were taught by Jesus when 
 he manifested himself to many upon this 
 continent. Jesus said unto them page 456 : 
 
 "And as I have prayed among you, even so shall ye 
 pray in my church, among my people who do repent, 
 and are baptized in my name. Behold I am the light; 
 I have set an example for you." 
 
 "Pray In your families unto the Father, always in my 
 name, that your wives and children may be blessed. 
 And behold, ye shall meet together oft, and ye shall 
 not forbid any man from coming unto you when ve 
 shall meet together, but suffer them that they irm. 
 come unto you, and forbid them not; but ye shall pray 
 for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be 
 that they come unto you oft, ye shall pray for them 
 unto the Father, in my name; therefore hold up your 
 light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am 
 the light which ye shall hold up that which ye have 
 seen me do. Behold ye see that 1 have prayed unto 
 the Father, and ye all have witnessed; and ye see 
 that I have commanded that none of you should go 
 away, but rather have commanded that ye should 
 come unto me, that ye may feel and see ; even so shall 
 ye do unto the world ; arid whosoever breaketh this 
 'commandment, suff'ereth himself to be led into temp- 
 tation." 
 
 I might cite its pages to show you with 
 regard to the hundreds of cities that it re- 
 fers to, and magnificent ones too, located 
 upon different parts of the continent ; and 
 especially upon the part of the continent 
 known as Central America, and of which I 
 shall refer hereafter ; and also that part of 
 the continent known now as Peru and Bo- 
 livia. But will proceed at the present upon 
 another line. 
 
 Having given you a glance into the his- 
 tory as published in the years 1829 and 1830, 
 I will briefly enumerate some of the prom- 
 inent things mentioned in the work which 
 have since been verified, and then intro- 
 duce the evidences from Archaeologists. 
 
 1. The book states that three civilizations 
 have existed, flourished and decayed, upon 
 parts of the continent, and one on nearly 
 every part. 
 
 2. One of these, first settled north of the 
 Isthmus, or " narrow neck of land " as de- 
 scribed by them, and inhabited first what 
 is now called Central America, and after- 
 wards the more northern parts of the con- 
 tinent. 
 
 3. The second settled on the east coast of 
 South America and first inhabited that 
 country occupying the territory that is now 
 known as Peru and Bolivia, and from thence 
 spread over the whole continent. 
 
60 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 4. The third landed on or near the coast 
 of what is now called Yucatan in Central 
 America. 
 
 5. The last two of these civilizations were 
 cotemporaneous, and that the/ after a time 
 united and were known as one people. 
 
 6. That the habitation of each began 
 about 590 ^ears before the Christian Era, 
 and the joint habitation ceased about four 
 centuries after, except as to the estranged 
 tribes. 
 
 7. That the occupancy of the first or origi- 
 nal inhabitants ceased at least a thousand 
 years before these. 
 
 8. That the last prophets understood the 
 Egyptian language in part and wrote in a 
 brief and phonetic system of their language. 
 
 9. That they also wrote in other lan- 
 guages as did also the earliest of the peo- 
 ples. That the civilization so far as to the 
 occupancy of the country were in each in- 
 stance from south to north originally. 
 
 10. That they builded many great and 
 fine cities in the northern parts of South 
 America ; also, on and near the narrow neck 
 of land, and north in the country of Cen- 
 tral America, wnere the cities were the 
 finest, largest, and most numerous. They 
 also builded farther north upon all parts 
 of the continent. 
 
 11. That the ancestry of the last two peo- 
 ples was Israelitish, but not the lost "Ten 
 Tribes." 
 
 12. That there was early brought to the 
 continent by the first people, the common 
 domestic animals and many others. (Here 
 I will also state that the fossil remains of 
 many of these were not discovered or known 
 to the world to have existed upon this con- 
 tinent till a very late date, some as late as 
 the year 1860.) 
 
 13. That many of their cities were walled 
 with solid masonry and made immense 
 fortresses and that they had engines of war, 
 and the battle ax, the cimeter, the sword 
 and many other kinds of instruments of 
 war. 
 
 14. That classes had fortified cities in the 
 mountains far up, so much so that it was 
 impossible to dislodge them, and they re- 
 tired and lived there, except to sally forth 
 and prey upon the people in the land or the 
 agricultural portions. 
 
 15. That the structure and manner of 
 building of their temples was upon a grand 
 and magnificent plan and they were decor- 
 ated with much expense and many curious 
 and unique ornaments. 
 
 16. The enlightened and civilized part of 
 the people were peaceably inclined and not. 
 warlike, and highly cultivated in morals 
 and religion. This is the history as given 
 in the Book of Mormon. 
 
 I will now turn to my evidences with re- 
 gard to this, as ascertained and published 
 by explorers since the publication of the 
 Book of Mormon, citing you the first vol- 
 ume of John L. Stephen's explorations in 
 Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, 
 page 131. Mr. Stephens here sets forth the 
 first reference made to the distinguished 
 city of Copan. as being made by Francisco de 
 
 Fuentes in 1700; but he only mentions it 
 casually, and in his description he repre- 
 sented it as containing figures of men like- 
 wise represented in Spanish habits, with 
 hose, and rufHe around the neck, sword, 
 cap and short cloak. .But that history ha 
 never been published in the English lan- 
 guage. And little known of it in any part 
 of the world, and it contained no true or 
 full description of this ancient city. 
 
 "From this time," says the author, "there is no ac- 
 count of these ruins until the visit of Col. Galindo in 
 1836, before referred to, who examined them under i 
 commission from the Central American Government, 
 and whose communications on the subject were i ub- 
 Hshed in the proceedings ot the Royal Geographical 
 Society of Pans, and in the Literary Gazette of Lon- 
 don." This was in the year 1834. 
 
 I might remark here that there is in the 
 books reference made to, a Spanish gentle- 
 man, and also an explorer, who examined 
 some of these ruins, and left his manuscript 
 in the hands of the government, and which 
 was published in London in the year 1822. 
 But the publication in English of that man- 
 uscript was confined to such narrow limits 
 that at the time Stephens wrote this work, 
 (1841), he had never himself seen the work, 
 and such a journal as the London Literary 
 Gazette had never heard of it in 1834. Mr. 
 Stephens continues with reference to the 
 first published account by Col. Galindo in 
 1834, as follows: 
 
 "Not being an artist his account Is necessarily un- 
 satisfactory and imperfect, but it is not exaggerated. 
 Indeed it falls short of the marvelous account given 
 by Fuentes one hundred and thirty five years before, 
 and makes no mention of the movable stone hammock, 
 with the sitting figures which were our great induce- 
 ment to visit the ruins. No plans or drawings have 
 ever been published, nor anything that can five e^en 
 an idea of that valley of romance and wonder, where 
 as has been remarked, the genii who attended on King 
 Solomon seem to have been the artists." 
 
 I cite you next to the account on page 142 
 of the same work, where the author in de- 
 scribing some of the sculptured art of this 
 ancient people says : 
 
 "Between the two princ Ipal personages is a remark- 
 able cartoiu-he, containing two hieroglyphics well pre- 
 served, which reminded us strongly of the Egypdnn 
 method of givingthe names of the kings or heroes in 
 whose honor monuments were erected. The head- 
 dresses are remarkable for their curious and compli- 
 cated form; the figures have all breastplntes and one 
 of the two principal characters holds in his hand an 
 Instrument, which may, perhaps, be considered a scep- 
 ter; each of the others holds an obje_ct which can only 
 be a subject for speculation and conjecture. It may be 
 a weapon of war, and if so, it is the only thing of the 
 kin i found represented In Copan. In other countries, 
 battle-scenes, warriors, and weapons of war are nmong 
 the most prominent subjects of sculpture ; and from 
 the entire absence of them here there is no reason to 
 believe that ihe people were not warlike, but peaceable 
 ane easily subdued." 
 
 Do not forget the fact in the examination 
 that the only account pretended to have 
 been given prior to 1834 of this city, that of 
 Fuentes in 1700. represented these relics as 
 adorned in Spanish dress and costume, and 
 which would have really misled a reader 
 of the true character of the ruins. 
 
 On page 155 of the same work we have 
 another concise description of their sculp- 
 ture: 
 
 " The monument, unhappily, Is fallen and broken. 
 In sculpture it is the same with the beautiful half- 
 buried monument before given, and I repeat It, In 
 equal to the best remains of Egyptian 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 61 
 
 rt The fallen part was completely bound to the earth 
 by vines and creepers, and before it could be drawn it 
 was necessary to unlace them, and te >r the fibres out 
 of the crevices. The paint is very perfect, and ha* 
 preserved the stone, which makes it more to be re- 
 gretted that it is broken. The altar is buried with the 
 top barely visible, which, by examination we made 
 out to represent the back of a tortoise." 
 
 Before Mr. Stephens visited Central 
 America and in a manner he was under 
 the auspices of the government of the Uni- 
 ted States he had visited all of the distin- 
 guished countries of the Eastern continent, 
 and examined their cities, and had written 
 or given partial accounts of them He was 
 a man well calculated to look closely into 
 these cities of Ancient America and give a 
 reliable account and description of them. 
 
 I next refer you to page 310 of his second 
 volume. In his description of the temple 
 of Palenque another ruin city of Central 
 America he says : 
 
 "It stands on an artificial elevation of an oblong 
 form, forty feet high, three hundred and ten feet in 
 front and rear, and two hundred and sixty feet on each 
 fide. This elevation was formerly faced with stone, 
 which has been thrown down by the growth of trees, 
 and its form is hardly disiinguishable. The building 
 stands with its face 10 the east, and measures two hun- 
 dred and twenty-eight feet front by one hundred and 
 eighty feet deep. Its height is not more than twenty 
 five feet, and all around it had a broad projecting cor- 
 nice of stone. The front contained fourteen doorways, 
 about nine feet wide each, and the intervening piers 
 are between six and seven feet wide. On the left (in 
 approaching the palace), eight of the piers have fallen 
 down, as has also the corner on the right, and the ter- 
 race underneath is cumbered with the ruins. But six 
 piers remain entire, and the rest of the front is open. 
 The building was constructed of stone, with a mortar 
 of lime and sand, and the whole front was covered 
 with stucco and painted. The piers were ornamented 
 with spirited figures in bas-relief." 
 
 On page 346 we have this further descrip- 
 tion : 
 
 "The principal subject of this tablet," that is one 
 of the sculptured figures that was found there, called 
 'the tablet of the cross,' "is the cross H is sur- 
 rounded with a strange bird, and loaded with inde- 
 scribable ornaments. The two figures are evidently 
 those of important personages. They are well drawn 
 and in symmetry of proportion are perhaps equal to 
 many thai are carved on the walls of the ruined tem- 
 ples in Egypt. Their costume is in a style different 
 from any hereto ore given, and the folds would seem 
 to indicate that they were of a soft and pliable texture 
 like cotton. Both are looking toward the cross, and 
 one seems in the act of making an offering, perhaps of 
 a child; all speculations on the subject are of course 
 entitled to littlo regard, but perhaps it would not be 
 wrong to ascribe to these personages a sacerdotal 
 character. Tin- hieroglyphics doubtless explain all. 
 Near them arc other hieroglyphics, which reminded 
 us of the Egyptian mode for the recording the name, 
 history, office or character of the persons represented. 
 This tablet of the cross has given rise to more learned 
 peculations than perhaps any others found at Palen- 
 que." 
 
 On page 356 we have this statement of 
 
 the author in the conclusion of his descrip- 
 tion of the fallen city : 
 
 "Here were the remains of a cultivated, polished, 
 and peculiar people, who had passed through all the 
 stages incident to the rise and tall of nations; reached 
 their golden age, and perished entirely unknown." 
 
 I refer you next to the late work of Mr. 
 John T. Short, entitled, The North Ameri- 
 cans of Antiquity. On page 387, he says of 
 Palenque : 
 
 "The accompanying cut shows Waldeck's drawing 
 (employed by Mr. Bancroft). Four hundred yards 
 south of the palace stands the ruins of a pyramid and 
 temple, which at the time of Dupaix's and of Waideck'a 
 visits were in a good state of preservation, but quite 
 dilapidated when seen by Charny. The temple faces 
 the east, and on the western wall of its inner apart- 
 ment, it~e_lf facing the eastern light, is found, (or rather 
 was. for it has now entirely disappeared), the most 
 beautiful specimen of stucco relief in America. Mr. 
 Waldeck, with the critical insight of an experienced 
 artist declares it 'worthy to be compared to the most 
 beautiful works of the age of Augustus.' He therefore 
 named the temple Beau Relief. The above cut is a re- 
 duction from Waldeck's drawing used in Mr. Bancroft's 
 work, and is very accurate. However, the peculiar 
 beauty of Waldeck's drawing is such that it must be 
 seen in order to be fully appreciated. It is scarcely 
 necessary for us to call the reader's attention to the 
 details of this picture, in which correctness of design 
 and greceful outlines predominate to such an extent 
 that we may safely pronounce the beautiful youth who 
 sits enthroned on his elaborate and artistic throne, the 
 American Apollo. In the or ginal drawing the gra e 
 of the arms and wrists is truly mHtchless, and the 
 muscles are displayed in the most perfect manner." 
 
 I hope the audience will not overlook the 
 fact of the high order of art here set out. 
 This is the latest work on American anti- 
 . quities, bearing the date of 1882. Fifty 
 three years after the Book of Mormon was 
 in the publisher's hands, and yet every 
 line of these grand descriptions are in per- 
 fect keeping with the high attainments of 
 the people set out in that book most full 
 and complete. 
 
 On page 392 of the same works he says : 
 
 "The stuccoed roofs and piers of both the temples 
 Cross and Sun rm\y be truly pronounced works of art 
 of ahigh order. On the former Stephens observed busts 
 and heads approaching the Greek models in symmetry 
 of contour and perfectness of proportion. Mr. Waldeck 
 has preserved in his magnificent drawings some of 
 these figures, which are certainly sufficient to prove 
 beyond coniroversy that the ancient Palenqueans were 
 a cultivated and artistic people. In passing to Uxmal 
 the transition is from delineations of the human figure, 
 to the elegant and superabundant exterior ornamenta- 
 tion of edifices, and from stucco to sione as the material 
 employed. The human figure, however, when it is 
 represented, is in statuary of a high order, 
 
 The elegant square panels of grecqnes and frets 
 which compose the cornice of trteCasa *el Gobernador 
 delineated in the worlrs of Stephens. Baldwin and Ban- 
 crott, are a marvel of beauty which must excite the 
 admiration of the most indifferent itudeut of the 
 subject." 
 
 (Time expired). 
 
52 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, LADTES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: A stock argument of Mormons 
 in proof of the inspiration of Imposter Joe, 
 and that the Book of Mormon is true and a 
 revelation, is stated, "The Book of Mormon 
 based on the idea that the aborigines of is 
 America were Israelites Such an idea was 
 not thought of or advocated, until years 
 after the Book of Mormon appeared. Some 
 years after its appearance, scientific research 
 demonstrated the truth of the basic idea of 
 the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was 
 an unlearned man He could have ob- 
 tained such an idea by revelation, and in 
 that way alone." Young men who were as 
 great readers as Joseph Smith was, have 
 originated as startling ideas, without inspir- 
 ation. But we will now utterly explode this 
 impudent falsehood I have here two books. 
 One is " The Wonders of Nature and Provi- 
 dence," written by Josiah Priest, and copy- 
 righted by him June 2d. 1824, in the office 
 of R R.Lansing, Clerk of the District of 
 Northern New York, and printed m Roch- 
 ester in 1824 The other is the 'Book of Mor- 
 mon," copyrighted by Josepti Smith in the 
 office of the same R R. Lansing, Cierk of tne 
 same district, June 10th 18^9 printed in PaL- 
 nayra, twenty miles from Rochester, in 1830 
 
 On the 297th page of "The Wonders of 
 Nature and Providence," begins an article 
 by Mr. Priest, the author, in which he ar- 
 
 ues at, great length, that the Indians are 
 escendants of the Israelites. Not only so, 
 but, he quotes from Oavigero. a Catholic 
 Missionary, who advocated the same idea in 
 the seventeenth century. From Wm. Pnnn, 
 who advocated it in 1788. From a work 
 published by Mr. Adair of New Jersey who 
 advocated this theory in 1774. From a ser- 
 mon of Dr Jarvis preached before the 
 American Historical Society in I81i. Jarv-.s 
 quotes from books of Sewali, Willard and 
 several New England historians. Priest 
 quotes further from Menasses Ben Israel, 
 from Dr. Boudinot, from Dr Edwards, 
 from Charlevoix, Du Pratz's History of 
 Louisiana, from Lock and Escarootus Dr 
 Williams, Governor Hutchison, Dr Beatty 
 McKenssie, Maraez, Col. Smith's History of 
 New Jersey, and many others. Priest 
 quotes in all from over forty writers, of 
 whom over twenty were Americans, wno 
 advocated the idea that the aborigines o* 
 America were Israelites. Most of tnese 
 lived and wrote before Smith was born 
 He proves that it was the almost universal 
 opinion of the ministers of New England 
 and the Middle States. That it nad been, 
 from the time of Elliott until Priest's own 
 day. Not only is this true, but Priest, in his 
 argument, quotes nearly all of the passages 
 of scripture quoted by Mormons to prove the 
 theory. It was from Priest's book that Rig- 
 don and the Pratts stole their arguments. 
 
 We show then that a book copyrighted in 
 the same office as the Book of Mormon, 
 published within twenty miles of Smith, 
 circulated all over New York, Western 
 Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, years be- 
 fore the Book of Mormon appeared, advo- 
 cated the idea upon which it is based, 
 and urged the same arguments in favor of 
 the theory that Mormons use That ends 
 all ciaim that Joe Smith must have ob- 
 tained the idea by revelation It shows 
 that not only did Rigdon steal the book, 
 and Joe steal the peep stone to translate it, 
 but Mormons stole their arguments to sus- 
 tain it from Priest. 
 
 We will now take up my opponent's long 
 array of prophecies. I might let them pass 
 untouched, for he did not make an applica- 
 tion of them, to the aborigines of America, 
 that was worthy of notice There was pub- 
 lished in London, a few years ago. a work 
 by a Mohammedan quoting and applying 
 most of the same prophecies to tne Ishmael- 
 ites to the Arabs and to the Koran. I 
 have before me an argument, applying the 
 same prophecies to the Anglo-Saxon race. 
 Tne stick of Ephraim is England, of Judah. 
 America There 13 an organization, with 
 many societies, that publishes a paper, ad- 
 vocating this idea. Scores of publications 
 have been published, and they make a much 
 better argument than Kelley has made. 
 This shows the absurdity of such farfetchel 
 perversions of the poetic language of proph- 
 ecy If we admit that the prophecies ex- 
 tend beyond Palestine. I defy my opponent 
 to quote one prophecy that is not met by 
 tne dispersion of Israelites over the old con- 
 tinent. Israelites were scattered into Spam, 
 Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean, 
 in to Morocco. Congo, in west Africa, and over 
 northern Africa into Egypt and Ethiopia. 
 Also into China, India, and over cent' a) and 
 southern and western Asia .1 defy my op- 
 ponent to name one prophecy that extends 
 beyond these countries to America Now- 
 here is a fair challenge and test Until ne 
 meets this hie prophecies arc worthless. 
 Isaiah. XVI 8 refers tc the dispersion of 
 Moao has not the least reference tt israei. 
 Jeremian XX XXI refers to dispersion in 
 Assyrian Empire Has no reference r-o 
 America. So of every quotation from Jere- 
 miah 
 
 Isaiah xi 11 The 16 verse reads "There 
 shall be a highway for the remnant of his 
 people, which shall be left, from Assyria 
 like it was to Israel in the day he came up 
 out of Egypt." This snows that it refers 
 to Israelites in the Assyrian Empire, and 
 has no reference to America. We now come 
 to the pet passage of Mormonism. Kzok. 
 xxxvii the sticks of Ephraim and Judah. 
 The Book of Mormon declares in several 
 places the Nepmtes were Mauassehitea. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 53 
 
 and the people of ZarahemlaJudahites. The 
 stick of Ephraim can have no reference 
 to them. Stick does noc mean a book. The 
 stick of Judah is not tne Bible. The stick 
 of Ephraim is not a book. Numbers, xvii. 
 Aaron is told to take twelve rods or sticks 
 and write on them jusc as Ezekiel is told to 
 take two sticks and write on them. Aaron 
 wrote the name ot a tribe on a stick, writ- 
 ing twelve names, using twelve sticks 
 Ezekicl wrote the name of a tribe or a na- 
 tion on a stick for Juaah represented the 
 southern kingdom and Ephraim the north- 
 ern kingdom using two sticks Gen xhx 
 the rod. staff, sticK or scepter of Judah is 
 mentioned We read of the rod, staff or 
 fetick cf Aaroc That budded, that Moses 
 used Then stick is a symbol of power 
 Wnat the prophet's act meant was that the 
 northern kingdom or Ephraim, and the 
 eouthern kingdom or Judah should be 
 united again, after the captivity, as they 
 were before the rebellion of Jereboam In 
 verse 23 the prophet declares these Israel- 
 ite? were scattered in captivity fo: s:n 
 Lehi and Nepm were taken by the Lord from 
 Jerusalem because they were so good to 
 save inem The prophecy cannot refer to 
 the Nephites Verses 26-2~ declares the 
 Lord wiii bring Israel or Judah from tneir 
 enemies lands "not from Amer.ca, into their 
 own iand and leave none in tneii enemies 
 lands We m;gnt examine every passage 
 ana show that they have no reference to 
 America car, have none That the context 
 confines the prophecy tc Asia, North Africa, 
 and tnat it refers to the return, under 
 Ezra and Nehemiah , but this is sufficient. 
 Isaiah xxix In the first verse the prophecy 
 Is against the city where David dwelt, Je- 
 rusalem In the seventh verse the pro- 
 phecy is confined to Jerusalem It has no 
 reference to America. It speaks of the ig- 
 norance of the people of Judah, their fail- 
 ure to understand the prophets. It ha not 
 a gnost ol reierence to America We have 
 tlr^wc that the prophecies need no*; extend 
 beycn-1 tne old world. We defy our oppo- 
 nent 10 name one tnat need extend beyond 
 tne old world. We have proved oy the con- 
 text that in every instance tney refer to the 
 eid world and usually to the immediate 
 neighborhood of Palestine. 
 
 We are now ready for our opponent s 
 Holy Ghost speech, a speech that the audi- 
 ence will hear a dozen times before w are 
 oone. My opponent charge? the Disciplea 
 w-tn denying tne power of godliness, the 
 power ol God, tne power of the Spirit cf 
 God. The Bible declares that God has ac- 
 complished all things i\y his Spint and by 
 his word, in these is all power that God 
 has exerted in the Universe. There are 
 four different exercises ot power by the 
 Holy Spirit mentioned in the Bible I. 
 The miraculous power, as seen in inspira- 
 tion, and in spiritual gilts, including all 
 miraculous power mentioned in the Bible. 
 This the world, sinners, cannot receive. 
 John XIV: Ib-i7. "The Father will give 
 you (the apostles) the Comforter, whom the 
 world can not receive." This is not con- 
 
 verting or sanctifying power, for the sinner 
 can not receive it to convert him It is not 
 sanctifying power, for it was to theapostles 
 alone, and was to endow them with mirac- 
 ulous power for their mission, and not to 
 sanctify them. It did not descend on the 
 apostles at Pentecost, nor was it imparted 
 to the Samaritans nor to John's disciples 
 at Ephesus to convert them, for all these 
 had been converted before. II. Convert- 
 ing power. Roman 11.16: "The Gospel is 
 the power of God into salvation to all who 
 believe." John IV. 36. "The words which 
 I speak untc you, they are spirit and life." 
 Peter 1.5- "We are kept by the power of 
 God through faith unto salvation ready to 
 be revealed in the last time." Ill Indwel- 
 ling power Gal. IV 6 : "Because ye are 
 sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his 
 Son into your hearts." Because by the 
 converting power, the Gospel, you have 
 been made sons. God has sent the indwel- 
 ling power into youi hearts. Eph 1:13- 
 "Having believed in Christ, you were 
 sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise 
 that i? the earnest of ycur inheritance " 
 John XIV :23 ' Jesus said 'If a man love 
 me he will keep my words and my Father 
 will love him and we will come unto him. 
 and make our abode with him ' '' Eph. 
 111:15-17; "I pray thai you be strength- 
 ened with might in the inner man. that 
 Christ may dwell in your hearts through 
 faith." 1 John II 24. "If that which 
 you have heard from the beginning abide 
 in you you shall continue in the Sou 
 and the Father." John III.: 23-24 "This 
 is the commandment of God, that we 
 should believe ou the name of his Son 
 Jesus Christ, aud love one another, atd.he 
 that keepetc hi? commandments, dwelleth, 
 in God, and God m him' 1 IV.. 15-16: 
 " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the 
 Son of God, God dwelletb in him, and he 
 in God! God is Jove. He that dwelleth in 
 love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." 
 Col III.: 16. ''Let the word of Christ 
 dwell in you richly in all wisdom." 
 
 IV. Resurrecting power Romans viii 
 " If the Spirit of him that raised up Christ 
 from the dead, dwell in you. He that raised 
 up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken 
 yout mortal bodies, by fhe Spirit of Christ 
 that dwells in you '' When? I Thess. 14- 
 15-16 ' ll we believe that Jesus died and 
 rose again even so those also who sleep in 
 Jesud w.r God bring witn him. For the 
 Lord himsell shall descend from heaven, 
 wnn a shout, and witn the voice of the 
 archangel, and with the trump of God, and 
 the dead in Christ shall rise first." So also 
 I Cor. xv. 51-52 We have proved that there 
 are four manifestations of power of the Holy 
 Spirit 1 The miraculous. This is not 
 converting power, tor the sinner cannot re- 
 ceive it to convert him. The apostles and 
 others who received it were already con- 
 Virted. II. Converting power. This is the 
 Gospel, the word of God, which begets, 
 makes alive, converts. III. Indwelling 
 
 Sjwer. This is not miraculous power. If 
 by and through faith, belief, by the wort 
 
54 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE, 
 
 of God. God and his Spirit dwells in us, 
 when his word dwells in us, and we live it 
 out in life. IV. Resurrecting power at the 
 general judgment. My opponent, with the 
 Book of Mormon and all of Joe Smith's rev- 
 elations, and with the inspiration of a Mor- 
 mon Elder, and with all his miraculous illu- 
 mination, is so grossly ignorant as to quote 
 and jumble together passages in which these 
 four manifestations aremeritioned; and is as 
 ignorant as a dead man of these palpable 
 distinctions. The miraculous power has 
 ceased. The resurrecting power is to come. 
 The converting and indwelling power that 
 are exerted through the truth remain, 
 and we believe in them as God's word 
 teaches, and not as Mormon ignorance and 
 delusion teach. That is the difference be- 
 tween us. The miraculous power was not a 
 moral influence. It was given to wicked 
 men, and even to animals, to Baalam's ass. 
 It was given regardless of character. It 
 made men no wiser or better, when it had 
 passed away from them, as the cases of Baa- 
 lam, his ass, Saul, Jonah and Caiaphasshow. 
 It converted no one, unless it be Baalam's 
 ass, and if Mormons belong to that class, 
 they may be converted by it, as the other 
 ass was ; but men nover we're converted 
 by it. 
 
 We will now take up the miraculous pow- 
 er of the Holy Spirit. We showed that 
 there is one baptism in the church, in \va- 
 ter, into the name of Father, Son and Spirit, 
 it is a memorial and symbolical institution. 
 There can be no other baptism, and baptism 
 in the Spirit which was a miracle, ceased. 
 My opponent can not touch this. We said 
 ih&t Joel's promise was to all flesh. That 
 Christ's was to believers alone. That 
 Peter's was only to believers that God should 
 call. That is just what the Bible says. We 
 said an apostle had to lay hands on believ- 
 ers, before they could receive the miracu- 
 lous power of the Holy Spirit. That is 
 just what the VIII chapter of Acts declares. 
 We said that this power never descended to 
 a third person. He has not found a case. 
 We said that there is a more excellent way 
 than the exercise of the best of these mi- 
 raculous powers. That is just what Paul 
 says. I said that prophecying, or speaking 
 by inspiration, miraculous knowledge or 
 revelations, speaking with tongues or mir- 
 acles, signs were to cease. That is just 
 w hat Paul says. Kelley asks who believes 
 It? All who believe the word of God believe 
 it. I said that the partial was the inspira- 
 tion, the revelation imparted by this mirac- 
 ulous power. It was but a fragment of the 
 truth, only that could be uttered at a time. 
 The whole, that which is perfect, is the 
 complete word of God. So says common 
 sense. So says the word of God. The word is 
 perfect, makes Christians perfect. I said 
 that as one of the members of the compar- 
 son, the imperfectwasastateofthechurch 
 the state when these gifts, these fragment- 
 ary revelations were given ; the other mem- 
 ber is a state of the church, when the word of 
 God is completed, and these gifts; these frag- 
 
 ments of revelation do not exist. So say 
 Paul and common sense. He quotes "ask." 
 I inquire how? "Seek " task how? "Knock." 
 I ask how? In accordance with God's law 
 and word. If weask for miraculous power, 
 we ask contrary to God's law. "If any man 
 lack wisdom let him ask." How? In ac- 
 cordance with God's word. If he asks for 
 miraculous power, heasks contrary to God'a 
 law. "We will manifest ourselves to him." 
 How? Not in miraculous power, for tor that 
 is contrary to God's word. "We will abide 
 in him." How? In miraculous power? No, 
 for that has ceased. "If two or three are 
 gathered I will be in the midst." How? In 
 miraculous power? No, for that has ceased. 
 "Witness of Spirit." "The Spirit witnes- 
 ses." How? In miracles? No, for he can- 
 not utter teaching in that way. In his 
 word, the word of truth, the only way one 
 intelligence can testify to another "Born of 
 Spirit." How? By miraculous power? No, 
 "He that believes is born of God." "Chris- 
 tian experience." Must it include miracu- 
 lous power? No, for that has ceased. "Son 
 of God will dwell in our hearts." How? 
 By miracle? No, for it can not be done in 
 that way. We love him because he loved 
 us. By learning his love for us. "Holy 
 Spirit in Christian." How? In miraculous 
 power? No, for that has ceased. When 
 his word dwells in us richly. 
 
 "By one Spirit are we baptized." Yes, 
 in obedience to command of one Spirit, just 
 we are begotten of Christ in obeying his 
 word. My opponent does not know enough 
 to know that there is a difference between 
 being baptized in the Spirit, and being bap- 
 tized in obedience to the command of the 
 Spirit. He says I deny the power of the 
 Spirit. No. I do not confound the four 
 powers of the Spirit as he does. I separate 
 them as the word of God does, and believe 
 that the miraculous power has ceased, as 
 the word of God teaches. I remove God 
 from men and religion now, he says. No. I 
 believe that as God is not in the work of 
 bringing animals and plants into being by 
 creation now, but in the operation of nat- 
 ural law, so he is not in men and religion 
 now, in miracle, but in the operation of his 
 word. I no more remove God from religiou 
 than I remove him from nature. I believe 
 he is present in a higher sense, r.ud in a 
 higher way. That miracle in each c^so was 
 only preparatory to this higher operation 
 of divine power. My opponent assumes 
 that the only power of God in both cases 
 must be miraculous. 
 
 How are apostles and prophets ana ihe 
 Holy Spirit in the church now? Just as 
 Christ is present in the church. ]Te is not 
 present in person, OB earth. He is in hea- 
 ven. He is present in his word smd law. 
 The apostles are present in their words. 
 The Holy Spirit in his '.vord. lie blunders 
 over the illustration 01' the constitutional 
 convention. The people vio< "ot Ui the 
 convention iu person, yet jho c"isMrution 
 says: " We, the people, cr-'ain uuis r-jusMtu 
 tion." How did they ordvu** Tnrough 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 their appointed delegates. God in person 
 never spoke to men but three times. He 
 speaks through his representatives. God 
 organized the church, gave its constitution, 
 the New Testament, through the apostles, 
 just as the people ordained the constitution 
 and government through their representa- 
 tives. The apostle says "in Christ's stead- 
 God in us through us." They teach that 
 they were God's representatives. His blun- 
 dering in comparing apostles to trees is 
 ridiculous. Miraculous power created the 
 first trees, but miraculous power was no 
 part of the things created. The apostles 
 gave the constitution, the New Testament, 
 and organized the church under it ; but 
 were no more a part of the church that 
 they organized than delegates that framed 
 our constitution are a part of the govern- 
 ment they organized for us. Can my oppo- 
 nent understand that ? 
 
 We want to call our opponent's attention 
 to a defect in his stock argument on Mark 
 XVI Let us read it : 
 
 "Afterwards Jesus appeared unto the eleven as they 
 (the eleven) sat at meat, and upbraided them (the 
 el'-ven) becanse they (the eleven) believed not. He 
 Bid unto them (the eleven), 'Go yp (tne eleven) into all 
 the world, and preach, etc. He that believeth and is 
 baptised shall be saved. He that believeth not shall 
 be condemned. These signs shall follow them (the 
 eleven again) who shall believe,' After the Lord had 
 spoken unto them (the eleven) he was rereived into 
 heaven, and they (the eleven) went forth preaching the 
 word, the Lord working with them (the eleven) con- 
 firming the word (of the eleven) with signs following." 
 
 The language itself extends no farther 
 than the eleven. They were the ones who 
 were to preach. Those of them who be- 
 lieved and went forth and preached should 
 have these signs. They believed, went 
 forth and the signs followed their preach- 
 ing. The promise does not necessarily or 
 logically include a single human being ex- 
 cept the eleven who were upbraided with 
 unbelief, and who were to preach, and were 
 told that if they believed and preached the 
 signs would follow, for the conclusion says 
 they (the eleven) went and preached, and 
 the signs followed, the Lord working with 
 them (the eleven). We will now resume 
 our history of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Rigdon visited Smith in the spring of 
 1827. The two concocted their scheme. 
 Smith was to pretend to have a "Golden 
 Bible," a book made of plates' of gold, and 
 pretend to translate it with his stolen peep 
 stone. Spaulding had intended to pretend 
 that his fabrication had been found in a 
 mound, or in a cave, in MS. He intended 
 to call his fraud "The Manuscript Found." 
 From 1818 to 1827 there had been published 
 accounts of finding glyphs or metallic plates, 
 with strange characters on them, in mounds 
 and old ruins in America. This suggested 
 to Rigdon to claim that his fraud had been 
 found in that way. A hoax started in 1827, 
 that a pile of such plates, called ' The Gold- 
 en Bible," had been found in Canada, sug- 
 gested the name. Rigdon always spoke of 
 his fraud, when prophesying of its appear- 
 ance, as a " Golden Bible." Smith, how- 
 ever, in publishing it, changed the name to 
 
 the " Book of Mormon." But from the time 
 the Smiths began to talk of Impostor Joe's 
 wonderful revelations, they spoke of it as a 
 " Golden Bible," and did so until about the 
 time it was published. 
 
 In their conferences Imposter Joe told 
 Rigdon of the existence of the other Spaul- 
 ding manuscripts, then atHartwicke, New 
 York, in the house of Mrs. Davidson, for- 
 mally Spaulding's wife and widow. The 
 two concocted a scheme to steal them a.nd 
 thus destroy all likelihood of detection of 
 the theft of the Spaulding manuscript, and 
 exposure of the fraud. Smith was loafing 
 in Hartwicke, in the summer and early fall 
 of 1827, superintending a gang of men, who 
 were trying to find a silver mine, on the 
 farm of Mr. Stowell. He dug some wells 
 in the town also, one for Stowell. Septem- 
 ber 21-22, 1827, Smith succeeded in stealing 
 some of the Mormon manuscripts of Solo- 
 mon Spaulding, perhaps Mormon manu- 
 script No 1, the one Miss Martha Spaulding 
 had read a few years before at her uncles 
 when the trunk was in her care, and the 
 first one Spaulding wrote, the one he read 
 to most of the witnesses who lived in 
 Conneaut, also Mormon manuscript No. 2, 
 the one he told Smith he was writing 
 before he left Conneaut, the one of which 
 he read a portion to J. N. Miller the one 
 to which he added the Zarahemla portion. 
 This theft of the manuscripts is the true 
 interpretation of Smith's wonderful visions 
 of September 21-22, 1827. Smith's neigh- 
 Dors say that he never mentioned his vis- 
 ions of 1820 and 1823 while in the state of 
 New York, and his visions of September 
 1827. as first told, have no resemblance to his 
 final version. The version quoted by Mor- 
 mons was written in 1843 or 1844. In it he 
 fabricated the first vision. He dressed up 
 his hearing of the existence of the Spauld- 
 ing manuscripts into his second vision of 
 September 1823. He dressed up his theft of 
 the manuscripts from Mr. Davidson's house 
 into his third vision of September 1827. 
 
 Having in possession they supposed all 
 means of exposing their fraud the confed- 
 erates now went to work. Smith sat behind 
 a blanket, pretending to look through his 
 ptolen peep stone, which was placed in his 
 hat. He claimed that God, by miracle, 
 caused one word at a time to appear before 
 his vision. He announced this to a scribe 
 who sat on the other side of the blanket, 
 who wrote it, and then it disappeared, and 
 another appeared. Some old Mormons say 
 he handed out sheets of manuscript to the 
 scribe who copied them. What he actually 
 did, was to read from Rigdon'a manuscript 
 which was a remodeling of Spaulding's 
 Manuscript No. Ill, which he had concealed 
 behind the curtain. He may have handed 
 out leaves of this manuscript at times. 
 Martin Harris was his first chief scribe. It 
 is said his wife and his brother-in-law wrote 
 a little each. After 118 pages had been, 
 copied by Harris and others, Imposter Joe 
 gave Harris the leaves to take home with 
 him, to use in making converts, dupes or 
 
66 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 confederates, in the scheme. Mrs. Harris 
 took the manuscript and burned it, one 
 night while her husband was asleep. There 
 was dire consternation, and Rigdou appears 
 on the stage. I want to call the reader's 
 attention to a singular coincidence here. 
 Mr. Lake, Spaulding's partner testifies that 
 when Spaulding read to him his romance, 
 Mormon Manuscript No. 1, he pointed out 
 an inconsistency in the story o^Laban which 
 Spaulding promised to correct, butthesame 
 blunder is in tho TRoo lr * Murinon. That 
 
 can be explained. Spaulding no doubt did 
 correct it in the manuscript prepared for the 
 press, but when Mrs. Harris destroyed the 
 118 pages, Rigdon had to restore the stolen 
 portion from an older manuscript, in which 
 the blunder had not been corrected, hence 
 we have it in the Book of Mormon. It took 
 Rigdon soine months to remodel another 
 manuscript to replace the stolen portion, 
 and translation did not begin till the next 
 June or the three I'd. Joseph says it began 
 in March. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : While I am on the subject of 
 American antiquities, I shall refer you to 
 one or two statements made by my oppo- 
 nent with reference to my argument of last 
 evening, and at another time take up and 
 answer them more particularly. 
 
 The first statement, or misstatement ra- 
 ther, was that Mormons continually claimed 
 that it was in favor of their book because 
 nobody ever claimed that the aborigines of 
 this continent were of Israelitish origin be- 
 fore its publication. I had just stated to 
 you, however, in my argument that such 
 claims were made long before. Now, why 
 he will make such a statement as that be- 
 fore you when I had stated to the contrary, 
 is a question for this audience to answer. 
 Is that the way to argue questions to get 
 up and state something as the claims of an 
 opponent's people which they do not nor 
 never did believe, and say that that is their 
 faith or position, and attack it? I stated to 
 you in the beginningof this part of my argu- 
 ment, fairly and fully, thatone of the theories 
 and speculations long prior to the year 1830, 
 with regard to the settlement of the Ameri- 
 can continent was. that the "lost ten 
 tribes," as they are termed, came to the 
 continent; and that is what is referred to in 
 Mr. Priest's work ; but it is not what 
 the Book of Mormon refers to, or teaches. 
 There is where these would-be critics and 
 story tellers are mistaken, and have been 
 all the time. 
 
 Pursuing now my argument from the po- 
 sition of the scientific discoveries as left 
 when my time was called, I cite the work 
 of J. D. Baldwin, page 156, entitled, "An- 
 cient America." He says : 
 
 " The evidence of repeated reconstructions in some of 
 the cities before they were deserted has been pointed 
 out by explorers. 
 
 At Palenque as at Mitla, the oldest work is the most 
 artistic and admirable. Over this feature of the monu- 
 ments and the manifest signs of their difference in 
 age, the attention of the investigators has lingered in 
 speculation. They find in them a significance which 
 
 is stated as follows by Brasseur deBourbourg: 'Among 
 the edifices forgotten by time in the forests of Mexico 
 and Central America, we find architectural character- 
 istics so different from each other. tha< it is as impos- 
 sible to attribute them all to the same people as to 
 believe they were all built at the same epoch. " 
 
 Here are the two different civilizations, 
 both of a high order and cultivation. That 
 fact was never known or published to the 
 world until years and years after the 
 publication of the Book of Mormon, and 
 you cannot find it in any work or record 
 prior to the publication of that book. If 
 you can, bring your record here and read it 
 to the audience, any time. I come here 
 claiming to be armed with facts, and will 
 be only too glad to have them weighed and 
 sifted to the bottom. But Mr. Baldwin 
 proceeds : 
 
 "In this view, the substructions of Mayapan, some, 
 of those at Tulha. and a reat part of those at Pa- 
 lenque. are among the older remains. These are not 
 the oldest cities whose remains are still visible, but 
 they may have been built, in part, upon the founda- 
 tions ol cities much more ancient" 
 
 Remember that these are highly civilized 
 nations that he is writing of, not a barbar- 
 ous nation coming upon and occupying the 
 land where a civilized nation had dwelt, 
 but one highly cultivated and enlightened 
 nation following and inhabiting upon the 
 the ruins of another. He says: 
 
 " No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid 
 the conclusion that most of them are very ancient, and. 
 that to find the origin of the civilization they repre- 
 sent, we must go far back into the ' deeps of antiquity.' 
 On all the fields of desolation where they exist, every, 
 thing perishable has disappeared. Wooden lintels are 
 mentioned, but these can hardly be regarded as con- 
 stituting an exception when the character of the wood, 
 and the circumstances that contributed to their pre- 
 servation are considered. Moreover, wooden lintels 
 oeemtohave been peculiar to Yucatan, where many 
 of the great edifices were constructed In the later 
 times, and some of them of perishable materials. Ev- 
 erywhere in the older ruins, nothing remniiis but the 
 artificial mounds and foundations of ea r th. the stone, 
 the cement the stucco hard as marble, a other imper- 
 ishable materials used by the builders.' 
 
 Next in this investigation I introduce the 
 work entitled, American antiquities, by 
 Josiah Priest. The book that I have was 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 published in 1833, and the earliest publica- 
 tion that I have ever seen of the work was 
 made in the year 1831. If Mr. Braden has 
 an earlier copy than that, as he claimed be- 
 fore this audience, I will examine his copy 
 and see what it contains, and if there is 
 anything in it of these marvelous works, 
 which the Book of Mormon describes, I will 
 give due credit to it on to-morrow evening. 
 But I state here without fear of contradic- 
 tion that it does not contain the remarkable 
 things that the Book of Mrmon sets out, 
 neither as to the habitation, extent of civ- 
 ilization, or anything else. Neither does 
 the book I have before me, which was 
 published in 1833. But there is an account 
 of a few interesting things in this. Turn to 
 page 170, an account and description of ar- 
 ticles obtained from a mound in the state of 
 Ohio. 
 
 One, "The handle either of a small sword or large 
 
 " knife, made of an elk's horn ; around the end where 
 
 " the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver, 
 
 " which, though black, was not injured by tinu-; though 
 
 "the handle showed the hole where the blade had 
 
 " been inserted, yet no iron was found, but an oxide 
 
 " or rust remained, of similiarshapeand size " "About 
 
 "twenty feet to the north of it was another skel- 
 
 " eton, with which was found a large mirror, about 
 
 "throe feet in length, about one foot and a half in 
 
 "width, and one inch and a half in thickness; this 
 
 " was of isinglass, (mica membranacea). On this minor 
 
 " was a plute of iron, which had become an oxide ; 
 
 "but before it was disturbed by tru- spade, resembled 
 
 " a plate of cast iron. The mirror answered the pur- 
 
 ' pose very well for which it was intended." "The 
 
 ' knife or sword handle was sent toPeale's museum, 
 
 'Philadelphia.'' "On the south side of this tumulus, 
 
 ' and not fur from it, was a semicircular fosse, or dilch, 
 
 ' six feet deep ; which, when examined at the bottom, 
 
 'was found to contain a great quantity of human 
 
 ' bones, which ii is believed, were the remains of 
 
 ' those who had b> en slain in some great and dcstruc- 
 
 ' live battle ; because they belonged to persons invar- 
 
 ' iably who had attained their full size, while those 
 
 'found in the mound adjoining, were of nil sizes, 
 
 ' great and small, but laid in good order, while those 
 
 4 in the ditch were in the utmost confusion." 
 
 "The mirror was a monstrous piece of isinglnss.alucid 
 
 "mineral, larger than we recollect to have ever heard 
 
 " of before, and used among the rich of the anoieuts, 
 
 "for lights and mirrors. A mirror of any k nd in 
 
 " whicn men may be enabled to contemplate their own 
 
 "form, is evidence of a con-iderable degree ofad- 
 
 " vancement in the arts, if not even luxury itself." 
 
 Passing from this important discovery as 
 published by Mr. Priest, I call your atten- 
 tion to the work of Mr. Stephens, vol. 
 1, page 105. Speaking of the remains which 
 he had examined in his explorations of 
 these peoples' cities he says : "Architect- 
 ure, sculpture, and painting, all the arts 
 which embellish life, had flourished in this 
 overgrown forest ; orators, warriors, and 
 statesmen, beauty ambition, and glory, had 
 lived and passed away, and none knew that 
 such things had been or could tell of their 
 past existence." 
 
 Now I will call your attention to some 
 authorities touching the nativity of this 
 last people who inhabited Ancient America, 
 showing their common origin with the Asi- 
 atic race known as Hebrews. First, the 
 work of Mr. George Catlin, published by H. 
 G Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 
 London, in the year 1857, and entitled : 
 "North American Indians, vol. 2, page 231: 
 
 "The North American In.dians and all 
 the inhabitants of the South S;% Islands. 
 speaking some two o; throe huudj <.,! d' ier- 
 
 ent languages entirely dissimilar, may 
 have all sprung from one people." 
 
 "ISRAELJTISH EXTRACTION.'' 
 
 He proceeds with the following thoughts: 
 
 "I believe with many others that the North Ameri- 
 ' can 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 composition of their 
 ' heads, I am compelled to look upon them as an nmal- 
 1 gam race, but still savages, and from many of their 
 ' customs, which seem to me 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 among the 
 'native stock." 
 
 " I am led to believe this from the very many customs 
 'which I have witnessed among tiiem'that appear to 
 ' be decidedly Jewish, and many of ifiem so peculiarly 
 'so that it would ,-eem almost impossible, or at all 
 ' events exceedingly improbable, that two peoples in a 
 ' state of nature should have hit upon them and prac- 
 ' ticed them exactly alike." 
 
 " The first and most striking fact among the North 
 ' American Indians that refers us to the Jews is that 
 1 of their wor>hiping in all parts, the 'Great Spirit,' 
 ' or Jehovah, as the Jews were ordered to do by divine 
 ' precept, instead of a plurality of gods as ancient 
 ' pagans and heathens did, and the idols of their own 
 ''formation." Ibid., page 232 
 
 Mr. Catlin then offers "TWELVE REA- 
 SONS" why he accepted the idea that the 
 American Indians are descendants from the 
 Israelites in some way, and, as his investi- 
 gations contain many facts which enter into 
 this discussion, I offer them for your consid- 
 eration. 
 
 1. "The Jews had their Sanctum Sancto- 
 rum, and so it may be said the Indians have, 
 in their council, or medicine houses, which 
 are alwnys held as sacred places." 
 
 2. "As the Jews had, they have their 
 High Priests and their Prophets." 
 
 3. " Among the Indians as among the an- 
 cient Hebrews, the women are not allowed 
 to worship with the men, and in all cases 
 also, they eat separately." 
 
 . 4. "The Indians everywhere believe that 
 they are certainly like those ancient people, 
 persecuted, as every man's hand seems 
 raised against them." 
 
 5. " 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." 
 
 6. "In their preparation for war, and in 
 peacemaking, they are strikingly similar." 
 
 7. " In their treatment of the sick, burial 
 of the dead and mourning, they are also 
 similar." 
 
 8. " In their bathing and ablutions, at all 
 seasons of the year, as a part of their r lig- 
 ious observances having seiaiale | hu-<.-s 
 for men and women to perform these inr- 
 mersions they resemble again." 
 
 9. "The custom among the women of ab- 
 senting themselves during the lunar infiu- 
 ces, is exactly consonant to the Mosaic 
 law." 
 
 Id. "After this season of separation, pu- 
 rification in running water and anointing, 
 precisely in accordance with the Jewish 
 command, is required before she can enter 
 the family lodge." 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 11. "Many of them have a feast closely 
 resembling the annual leasts of the Jewish 
 Passover, and amongst others, an occasion 
 much like the Israelitish feast of the Tab- 
 ernacle, which lasted eight days (when his- 
 tory tells us they carried bundles of willow 
 bows and fasted several days and nights), 
 making sacrfices of the first fruits and best; 
 of everything, closely resembling the sin 
 offering and peace offering of the Hebrews 
 (See this history in vol. 1. pp. 159. 170 of 
 '.Religious ceremonies of the Mandarins. 1 )" 
 
 12. "Amongst the list of their customs, 
 however, we meet a number which bad their 
 origin, it would seem, in the Jewish ceremo- 
 nial code, and which are so verv peculiar in 
 their forms that it would Pf-em o,ujte im- 
 probable, and almos< impossible that two 
 different peoples should have hn upon them 
 fllike, without some knowleder of each 
 other. These I consider go further than 
 anything else as evidence, and carry in my 
 mind, ronciusive proof that these people 
 are tinctured with Jewisn blood." Jiid., 
 vol. 2, pp 232 to 235. 
 
 In keeping with these facts and ded'ic- 
 tions of Mr. Catlin, are other authorities 
 equally positive Mr. Bradford, in his rn- 
 *-earche? into the origin or the Red race, 
 adopts the following conclusions with re- 
 gard to the ancient occupants* 01 mi? conti- 
 nent: 
 
 1 "That they were of the sam origin, 
 '^riches of the game race, and possessed 
 of Milar customs and institutions." 
 
 2 'That they were populous aud occu- 
 p^u a great extent of territory." 
 
 3. "That they had arrived at a consider- 
 able degree of civilization were associated 
 in large communities, and lived hi exten- 
 sive cities." 
 
 4. " That they possessed a use of many 
 of the metals, such as lead, copper, gold, 
 silver, and probably the art of working in 
 them." 
 
 5. "That they sculptured in stone, and 
 sometimes used that material in the con- 
 struction of their edifices." 
 
 6. " That they had the knowledge of the 
 arch, of receding steps ; and the art of pot- 
 tery producing urns and utensils formed 
 with taste, and constructed upon the prin- 
 ciples of chemical composition ; and of the 
 art of brickmaking." 
 
 7. "That they worked the salt springs, 
 and manufactured that substance." 
 
 8. "That they were an agricultural peo- 
 ple, living under the influence of regular 
 forms of government." 
 
 9. " That they possessed a decided system 
 of religion, and a my thology connected with 
 Astronomy, which with its sister science, 
 Geometry, was in the hands of the priest- 
 hood." ' 
 
 10. " That they were skilled in the art of 
 fortification." 
 
 11. "That the epoch of their original set- 
 tlement, in the United States is of great 
 antiquity," and lastly, 
 
 "That the only indications of their ori- 
 gin to bo gathered from the locality of their 
 -uined monuments, point toward Mexico." 
 
 Thus far I have read copiously from these 
 celebrated authors, and yet their pages are 
 filled with unnoticed and untouched corrob- 
 orative proofs of what I have stated to you 
 of the greatness and grandeur of the an- 
 cient civilizations of this continent I hav* 
 also gathered in running through the works 
 of various authors upon these things brie? 
 statements which will aid you in determin- 
 ing to some extent the certainty of the ap- 
 plications of my arguments to these ancient 
 peoples as reflected in their own history, as 
 F claim, set ou, in tne Book of Mormon. 
 They are as follows: 
 
 1.*' They had a ptandard or measure- 
 ment and had a means 01 determining an- 
 gles. " Baldwin p U4. 
 
 2 ''Thes*- turns w*r>i nor bull' *>y the 
 Egyptians." (Stephens, vol 2, p 441 
 
 . Yel of * figure in Palenque Mr Short, 
 in his work p .'tf)2. dales ' Th* head .Iresa 
 has teeu pronounced Egyptian r>v au wno 
 havt> seen it 
 
 4 They had Priests ." S-tepneas vol. 
 C p 447 
 
 i Divmers and Priests. 1 loid. vol. I. 
 
 r 175 
 
 t> Tnev w?r<j agriculturists oud also 
 engage'! in *pimuug aiiu weaving '' Bald- 
 Wiii | p *O 41 
 
 i " Mad use jf astronomical instru- 
 ments ' It'.d. 42 
 
 & -'Used military machines in war" 
 Slephen-*, r p 177 ITS 
 
 ft ' Beiifvod in iue flood, an<1 had traces 
 Of th> towei \>t Bat,el Bhort kW. 
 
 10. "Possessed a knowledge o< % the tr.i- 
 ences, and nieials* aucf u.-sed tools 01 por- 
 phyry." Baldwin, pp tt) <Jo. 
 
 11. ' A phonetic system of writing was 
 had among them.' ibid. 137 
 
 These evidences :tre clear and satisfactory . 
 I hopa my opponent Will tak-jthem up one. 
 by one, and examine them But during 
 the remainder of my timo this evening. I 
 shall examine another matter LOOK alter 
 his tirade upon character, el e 
 
 Th? statement mado by him on last, even- 
 ing, that the Bible was'believea in t>y the 
 best minds of every age, and so the mes- 
 sages of the prophets, is not true, if he 
 means by this what the worl 1 called best 
 in their time. What (he worl 1 called the 
 best minds, did not accept God's messages 
 through the prophets when brought, in any 
 age. Scarcely a household received the 
 message sent by Noah, and doubtless there 
 were many plausible reasons hatched up, 
 and set afloat, by the cunning craftiness 
 and deception of malicious men, and ren- 
 dered plausible, in order to feed the vain 
 and foolish minds of the lovers of false- 
 hood; and thus they were 16d along iu 
 blindness and darkness to destruction. 
 Under the vile array of slander and fdUc- 
 hood, the masses were marshaled against 
 Elijah the Prophet, and they sought his 
 life, and he was compelled to flee his coun- 
 try for safety ; and in the wilderness, he 
 was fed by a .bird of the forest. Moses was 
 derided and falsely accused in the very 
 camp of Israel, and it was necessary that 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 God open the earth and swallow up his ma- 
 ligners Isaiah was sawn asunder. Some- 
 thing was hatched up by the enemies of the 
 truth, and made the basis of an accusation, 
 which inflamed and encouraged this vile 
 attack, or it never could have beeu made. 
 Jeremiah was accused as a traitor to. his 
 country, was imprisoned, and put in a pit 
 of mire and filth, and left to die; aud only 
 escaped &r> by :t miracle. Indeed, o uni- 
 versally liad iho prophets been opposed, 
 slandered, misrepresented, and lied about, 
 lrorr <h days of Adam to Christ, that it 
 was state'! by him aud seems" 1o havo 
 ptnvri into a proverb "A prophet is not 
 without honor, save 111 his own country.'' 
 Why not? Because of tho misrepresenta- 
 tions and slanderous accusations, invented 
 and hawked about by the enemies of tho 
 message which he brings. Not being able 
 tc tnswpr the message upon the ground of 
 truth and fairness, they xesort to untau- 
 I.-PSS falsehood, and stories hatched up and 
 inyemously circulated in order to break 
 d.iwti th- prophet's character, to blind the 
 people and prejudice them against the me?- 
 payn, Ihis was the devil's system >f war- 
 far? from Adam to Christ,- When Jesus 
 Christ came with a message from God, the> 
 aiuli-deceiver appeared upon tho field of 
 J.-aftli armed with the old weapons of slau 
 Jff and misrepresentation. The accuser 
 always feigned great piety and love and 
 reverence tor all past prophets and hea- 
 venly messages. Ho did this in order to 
 more readily gull the pious. Among their 
 tir*l moves, they camo to Phrist and said : 
 ' Master, we would see a Mgu from tlieu.'' 
 But he replied, "A 1 evil a.:d adulterous 
 generation seeketh aftei a .sign." Indicat- 
 ing that honest meu beheva the truth from 
 other evidences, 
 
 They were soon in counsel seeking to in- 
 vent a scheme by which to destroy him, 
 Matt. 12:14. They sent a committee to 
 catch him in his words, and failing iu this 
 they assailed his character and filled Jeru- 
 selem with slanderous etories. When ho 
 dM a good deed it was in their view, by the 
 inspiration of the devil, "Beelzebub." 
 They accused him of being born of fornica- 
 tion, of low parentage and of coming from 
 a low city. Called him a "glutton and a 
 wine bibber, 1 ' and accused him of being a 
 friend of publicans and sinners ; he was BO 
 defamed, black mailed, slandered, and lied 
 about by certain >f the people, that the 
 masses were blinded and marshaled against 
 him, aud demanded his life; all from the 
 etories of lying lips. This, too, while they 
 were making great pretensions to piety and 
 reverence for the ways of God and the 
 prophets of the past. 
 
 Jesus discovering their hypocrisy, re- 
 torts : 
 
 "Woe onto you Scribes and rharisees. hypocrites! 
 'because ye build the tombs of 'he prophets, and gar 
 'nish the sepulchres of the riuhteous and say. If we 
 'had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have 
 'been partakers with them of the blood of the proph- 
 'ets. Wherefore ye be witnesses yourselves that ye 
 'are the children of them that killed thi prophets. 
 'Fill ye up the meHsure of your fathers. Ye serpents, 
 "ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the dam- 
 
 "nation of hell. Behold, I send unto you prophets and 
 "wise men and scribes, and & me of them ye shall 
 "kill and crucify and some of them shall ye scourge 
 "in your synagogues and persecute from city to city," 
 etc 
 
 Their great pretensions to the love of the 
 cause of God was feigned, that they might 
 more easily blind and influence the multi- 
 tude against Christ. Did they assail his 
 doctrine f oh no ; that was too hard tor 
 tbetu. Moving in the dark, among the 
 masses, peddling hatched up stories was the 
 effectual way of procedure This ungodly 
 method oi warfare against the grandest 
 being thai ever lived was carried oi> until 
 Jerusalem was moved to join hands aud de- 
 mand the life of the Christ, and failnij. to 
 make out a just case, they falsely accused 
 him, aud suborned witnesses to testify 
 against him, and he was condemned tod th 
 and crucified "Many bore false witness 
 against him ' Mark 14 . 66. The death of 
 Christ did not relieve him from the false 
 charges of his enemies While his body lay 
 in Joseph's new tomb, then went they to 
 Pilate saying. ' Sir we remember that that 
 deceiver said, while b* was yet alive, after 
 thre- days I wti rise again. Command 
 therefore that the sepulcher be mads sure 
 until tru tni rd day, lest bis disciples come 
 by night an<1 steal him away, and say unto 
 thr people H- H risen from the dead, so 
 th^ last error shall bv worse than the first." 
 Matt- 27 . 83. 64. All this took place while 
 thrt witnesses of Je^us were in the midst of 
 the people, ready t> vindicate hi* character, 
 but they had no ears to hear them. They 
 loved stone?, and inventions and what 
 tnco'rf neighbors said, rat-hei than truth. 
 Finally, whom Jesus bad arisen from the 
 dead according to his word.it did not fo 1 ' 
 th persistency of hie ememies. or assuape 
 their malice or hate , PO they circulated the 
 story, " His diciples came ty night, and 
 stole him away while we 6lept;''aud, they 
 ave tho soldier? large sums of mouey to 
 circulate this story, with the promise, that 
 if it came to tho "Governor's ears, we will 
 persuade him and secure you " Matt. 28 12, 
 13, 14. But the misrepresentations, cu rung 
 inventions, and slanders against the cause 
 of Christ, did not stop here; they followed 
 the apostles wherever they went, and called 
 them "blasphemers," "pestilent," "and 
 movers of sedition among the Jews through- 
 out the world." Acts 25 : 5. This was so 
 widely circulated that it was said, "As 
 concerning this sect, we knoiu that it is 
 everywhere spoken against." Acts 28 : 22. 
 
 Later, in the time of the grandson of St. 
 Luke, this same unjust course was followed, 
 and they were published and vilified every- 
 where. But, says my opponent, they were 
 false stories. Who said they were false? 
 Their enemies or their friends ? Why, the 
 descendants of the enemies to this very 
 day maintain that the stories were true, 
 and that the Christians were deceivers. 
 And in the narative of such a learned his- 
 torian as Gibbon, we have an account that 
 in 'the time of these grandsons, before re- 
 ferred to, the Emperor of Rome sent a com- 
 mittee to interrogate them and spy out the 
 

 
 THE BRADEX AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 probable damage they might likely be able 
 to iuflict upon his kingdom, if Jet live, and 
 the messenger returned the answer, that 
 they were men who were settled on a little 
 spot of ground, and had hard, rough nands 
 from working as slaves for a livelihood, and 
 not worth noticing Before this, a like in- 
 terview had been had with the apostle Paul 
 by one of the most noted scholars of the 
 age-, and he returned the answer to his 
 Emperor that, "Paul entertained no opin- 
 ions that were calculated tointerestor bene- 
 fit men of attainments and culture." Great 
 <3ocl ! I couid reproduce such stories which 
 Veie affirmed to be true tor hundreds of 
 years after Jesus' time against the early 
 Christians, until I might arouse theindisr- 
 nation if this au-.Iience against them, were 
 I disposed to stoop to gathering garbage 
 for weapons. The books are so laden, that 
 when Gibbon had gone through them, 
 although before a devoted Christian, it 
 nauseated his hope in Christ, and he turn- 
 ed from worship, saying it seems to me 
 that if the great things told of in the 
 scriptures are true tj;ey aught to be had by 
 the people now as then, and I " find by run- 
 ning through the history of the world, that 
 mankind have been more ready to accept 
 the history as correct of what'occured in 
 their forefather's time, than to believe the 
 evidences of their own senses." He there- 
 fore came to the conclusion that no miracles 
 were ever performed as claimed by Jesus 
 and the apostles. The quotation is made 
 from memory, but I am su'-e if not the 
 exact wording, the t;ue thought and idea 
 is carefully preserved and presented. 
 
 Volumes might be adduced to show that 
 the work of scandalizing, has been the 
 method pursued by the enemies of truth 
 and progress in every age ; not only to meet 
 prophets and religious truth, but scientific 
 truth as well ; and the battle has been 
 waged almost in every instance when a new 
 message has been sent to man, or a new 
 truth revealed. With such a history before 
 the world, is it not strikingly strange that 
 in the blaze of the light of the nineteenth 
 century, that men professing as profound a 
 reverence for Jesus and the apostles, as the 
 Jews did for Moses and the prophets, will 
 accept this method of warfare, and scour 
 the universe to hunt stories and gossip, to 
 meet the claims and argument of a people, 
 rather than accept the gage of fair and 
 honorable warfare, and investigate their 
 claims in the light of the facts presented. 
 Strange as it may appear, this is all the 
 kind of warfare that has ever in the least 
 succeeded against the message brought by 
 the Hook of Mormon, and believed by the 
 Saints. It is much easier to call Joseph 
 Smith an "infamous scoundrel," and a 
 
 "fraud," than to prove his message false. 
 It is easier to assert that Sidney Rigdon 
 was "fanatical" and "lazy," than to prove 
 the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints 
 untrue. 
 
 It is far more suitable to perverted tastes 
 to drink a little satisfaction from a misuse 
 of the words, Mormon, Mormonism, and "it 
 came to pass," than to accept the word of 
 God. 
 
 Stories, slander, the traducing of charac- 
 ter is the method adopted by my opponent. 
 This is not new, but an "old system of 
 attack ; but the only one that ever did 
 succeed even momentarily against the 
 truth. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, did you ever 
 listen for so long a time, to such a dark and 
 misty web as was spun by my opponent 
 last night? The whole material of which 
 was gathered from the ebony cloud of 
 goss?p, tattle and scandal. Somebody said 
 that one Spaulding wrote a romance. Some 
 one els'e said that they had heard it read. 
 It would seem from one of the stories, that 
 Spuuiding made a business of going around 
 and reading it to his neighbors. In process 
 of time it was left with a printer. It was 
 not seen afterwards. Sidney Rigdon was 
 in the tanning business in that city; he 
 was awful lazy, however; and of course he 
 must have stolen it. The printer Patter- 
 son, said no such manuscript was ever 
 there, but that is nothing, the story runs 
 on just as glibly. Then there were some 
 old trunks, over in Pennsylvania and York 
 States, left in back-rooms and by-places, 
 etc., etc. One Rigdon reads a book on one 
 occasion and wou'd not let his niece see it. 
 This was in Ohio. P^inal'-y a stranger is 
 seen in Palmyra, N. Y. No one knows 
 indeed who, and there is no evidence in 
 fact that there was one there. Finally the 
 Book of Mormon was published in March, 
 1830, and in the fall of the same year Sidney 
 Rigdon came in contact with the latter Day 
 Saints, believed their message, and, there- 
 fore he is the author of the Book of Mormon 
 and Joseph Smith is the cat's paw by which 
 it is to be foisted upon the world under the 
 inspiration of a peep stone which is stolen 
 from one of his neighbor's children. Won- 
 derful indeed ! He did not tell us whether 
 Joseph could really see anything extraor- 
 dinary in the stone or not. If so, there 
 might be something in the seeing business 
 after all. If not what inducement was 
 there for Joseph to steal one in order to 
 perpetrate a fraud, when he had but to 
 stoop down to pick one up and run no risks. 
 It matters not however, which horn <>f the 
 dilemma my opponent takes, his story will 
 run on just the 
 
 (Time expired). 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 61 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: Mr. Kelley started out with 
 the assertion that at the time the Book of 
 Mormon appeared, no one had thought of 
 certain facts in archaeology, ethnology, phi- 
 lology and antiquities of America, that are 
 assumed and stated as facts in that book. 
 Therefore if scientific research has demon- 
 strated, since the Book appeared, that these 
 statements and assumptions are true, the 
 Book must be true. It is either a revelation 
 of such truths, for it stated them before they 
 were learned by any human means ot learn- 
 ing, or an actual history of them He claims 
 that it is an actual history given to Joe 
 Smith, by revelation, and translated by 
 him by inspiration. The Book of Mormon 
 may be divided into two portions : I. Cer- 
 tain assumptions and statement in archaeol- 
 ogy, ethnology, philology and the antiqui- 
 ties of America. II. Certain historical 
 statements based on these assumptions, in- 
 archaeology, ethnology, philology and the 
 antiquities of America, that assume to ac- 
 account for the antiquities of America, and 
 to explain its archaeology, ethnology and 
 philology. My opponent's argument has 
 been an attempt to establish the truth of 
 the first >v art. He has never touched the 
 second. ..*' we prove that all of the first 
 part was well known long before the Book 
 of Mormon appeared we refute his proof. 
 
 I have before me a work entitled "At- 
 lantis," by I. B. Donnelly. In it he traces 
 certain legends such as the Deluge, and 
 certain stories all over America, and shows 
 that they are found in Europe, in Asia, and 
 Africa. He traces resemblances between 
 the arts and antiquities of the O'd World 
 and the New. He traces resemblances in 
 philology or languages, between peoples 
 of America and peoples of Asia, Africa and 
 Europe. He traces ethnological affinities 
 between the tribes of America and the 
 Celts, the Scandinavians, Basques, Iber- 
 ians and other Europeans the Egyptians, 
 ancient Africans, and the Negroes, the 
 Chinese, Hindoos, Persians and Malays. 
 He traces resemblances in arts, civilization, 
 sciences, literature, customs between the 
 peoples of America and peoples of P^urope, 
 Asia and Africa. A larger portion of the 
 authorities he quotes were written before 
 the Book of Mormon appeared. It has been 
 known from the conquest of Mexico by Cor- 
 tez, that there were three civilizations in 
 Mexico, three immigrations into that coun- 
 try, the Toltecs, the Chicemas and the Az- 
 tecs, and that the first Mere very highly 
 civilized. It has been known since the con- 
 quest of Peru by Pizarro that there had 
 been three or more civilizations there, that of 
 the Incas being the last. It had been known 
 for more than one hundred years before the 
 Book of 'Mormon appeared, that mounds, 
 fortifications, ruins, antiquities and relics 
 
 had been found all over North America. It 
 had been decided that they had been the 
 work of races that were in America before 
 the Indians, if this is denied we will give 
 the names of the authors. It had been 
 a prevalent idea that the Indians were of 
 Israelite origin. Affinities of some tribes to 
 the Scandinavian, Welsh, Tartars, Hindoos. 
 Chinese, Persians. Israelites and Egyptians, 
 had been observed and published 
 
 My opponent makes mucn of tne cities of 
 Central America. Cabrina and others had 
 published descriptions of these long before 
 the Book of Mormon appeared. It was such 
 books and not the Book of Mormon that 
 caused Stephens Squiers and others to ex- 
 plore Central America. Not only so biu 
 Cortez in his conquest of America conquered 
 Central America, then a part of the Aztec 
 Empire, and conquered these very cities, 
 and his companions who wrote of his con- 
 quests describe them. They were inhabited 
 when Balboa, another Spanish adventurer, 
 explored the Isthmus and countries around 
 it. So declare Herrer - and other Spanish 
 writers quoted by Wilson Prescott and 
 other American writers. 
 
 Baron Humboldt visited Central America 
 and described these ruins and his book was 
 published in England and America in 1806. 
 Spaulding was familiar with it. The Book 
 of Mormon agrees literally with Humboldt. 
 Where he is right, it is right. Where late 
 research proves that he is in error, it is in 
 error. That is all we need to say in regard 
 to his long lingo in regard to antiquities. 
 
 We have proved that Solomon Spaulding 
 was an enthusiast in American antiquities, 
 believed that the Indians were descendants 
 of the Israelites. As an earnest advocate of 
 such theories, and as an enthusiast in 
 American antiquities, he was well versed 
 in the literature of the subject. Seventeen 
 witnesses of rhe highest character testify 
 that he wrote his "Manuscript Found" 
 assuming all these facts and theories, pre- 
 tending to give a history of the people who 
 were the authors of these ruins and anti- 
 quities several years before the Book of 
 Mormon appeared. That Rigdon stole hia 
 manuscript and interpolated the religious 
 matter. I challenge my opponent to name 
 one theory or assumption in the Book of 
 Mormon that research has sustained, that 
 I cannot prove to have been weli known 
 before the Book appeared. This overturns 
 his entire argument. Let him prove that 
 the Jaredites, Nephites and Zarahemlites 
 came to America and had such a history as 
 recorded in the Book of Mormon. All that 
 he quotes from the Book of Mormon was 
 well known before it appeared. If he will 
 
 Krove the truth of its historic statements 
 e will sustain his book. Proving that 
 certain asssumptions are true, no more 
 prove that his book is true, than proving 
 
62 
 
 THE BHADEN AND KELLEY DEB VTE. 
 
 thai; similar assumptions in Scott's novels 
 are true, proves that those novels are teal. 
 
 I will agree to take Scott's novels and 
 prove that a far greater portion of Waverly 
 or Ivanhoe is true in archaeology, antiqui- 
 ties, etc., than my opponent can prove to be 
 true in the Book of Mormon. Not only so, 
 but I will prove that its characters were 
 real persons in a majority of instances, its 
 places real, its battles real, and yet they 
 are novels. He can not prove that a per- 
 son, a place, or a battle of the Book of 
 Mormon is real. I can offer ten fold as 
 much proof of the very kind he offers, to 
 prove the truth of the Book of Mormon, for 
 Ivannoe, and of the same kind. His line 
 of proof is absurd to idiocy. He takes the 
 romance written by Spaulding, in which 
 he assumed certain things well known, as 
 the basis, and claims it is alJ true, because 
 these facts so assumed as the basis are true. 
 I will prove Robinson Crusoe to be true 
 and of divine origin in the same way. 
 
 We will now resume our history of the 
 Book of Mormon. We have come down to 
 the time of publication. 
 
 In the fall of 1829 Martin Harris, one of 
 the gang, mortgaged his farm, and E. B. 
 Grandin of Palmyra, began the publication 
 of the Book. The manuscript was carried 
 by several of the gang, a small portion each 
 morning, and removed at night, for weeks. 
 At last they were less careful. Mr. Gilbert 
 says that the Imposter was very particular 
 to insist that the manuscript be set up ex- 
 actly as written. The translation had been 
 done by inspiration, and it would be blas- 
 phemy to alter one iota. But as there was 
 no punctuation, but little use of capitals, 
 and as it abounded in mispelled words, and 
 the most outrageous grammatical blunders, 
 the printer absolutely refused to allow such 
 an atrocious affair to go forth with his im- 
 print on it. The printer was allowed to 
 correct some blunders in the manuscript. 
 When one reads the book, and sees the 
 thousands of blunders in it, after all the 
 printer's care, the query arises " What must 
 the manuscript have been?" What a pity 
 the printer interfered with inspiration, in 
 the way he did. If the manuscript had 
 been printed exactly as it carne from the 
 inspired lips of Joe, and as it was penned 
 by the inspired Oliver, who had special di- 
 vine commission and unction to do his work, 
 no doubt the world would have been con- 
 verted long ago by such sublime evidences 
 of inspiration. That printer robbed the 
 w6rld of " the more part " of the inspiration 
 of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 In the meantime Rigdon was preaching 
 and working constantly to prepare the way 
 for his scheme. He preached extravagant 
 ideas of the millenium, such as are in the 
 Book of Mormon community of goods 
 restoration of miraculous gifts new revela- 
 tions and that something wonderful was 
 going to happen. In private he approached 
 persons as he did D. Atwater. A portion 
 of the Kirtland Church of Disciples that 
 was organized by him and made up Krgely 
 of his converts formed a common stock com- 
 
 ! rouniry and practiced feet-washing, another 
 Mormon peculiarity at the beginning. They 
 did this under the direction of Rigdon and 
 Titus Billings, who became a Mormon with 
 Rigdon. In June, 1830, Rigdon attended the 
 Annual Meeting of the Mahoning Associa- 
 tion in Austintown. In an address he pre- 
 sented his hobbies in regard to return to 
 community of goods, and restoration of 
 spiritual gifts, a restoration of everything 
 in the apostolic churches. He was signally 
 defeated, in discussion by Campbell. He 
 left the Association soured and disap- 
 pointed, declaring that he ''had done as 
 much for the Restoration as Campbell 
 and Scott, yet they got all the honors." 
 Tradition tells us that, by advice of Camp- 
 bell, Rigdon was put up to preach on Lord's 
 Day, as a plaster to his wounded egotism. 
 He discoursed on "Envy," and took the 
 conduct of Haman towards Mordecai as an 
 illustration of the meanness of envy. All 
 understood what he meant. Campbell and 
 Scott were the Hamans, who, although 
 mounted on the King's horse of public 
 honor, were envious of Rigdon, the Morde- 
 cai sitting in the gate. When he came to a 
 description of Haman's triumphal pioces- 
 sion on the King's horse, the horse ran. 
 away with Sidney. He mounted that horse 
 and cavorted miraculously for someminutes. 
 He turned him into a veritable Pegasus, 
 and, like Bellerophon, he cleft the skies, and 
 soared among the stars. As he was sky- 
 scraping in his description of King Ahasue- 
 rus' horse, Walter Scott took aim at him, 
 and brought him down from among the 
 stars by roaring out in his broad Scotch, 
 "Glory to King Ahasuerus' horse!" Rig- 
 don had gone up like a rocket; Scott 
 brought him down like a stick. 
 
 Rigdon returned home to Mentor. He 
 sent for Pratt who came through Mentor in 
 August, and went from Rigdon straight to 
 Manchester, in the wilds of New York, 
 thirty miles from any public thoroughfare, 
 and Imposter Joe's mother says he arrived 
 Saturday night, all worn out after an ex- 
 cessive day's journey, and was converted 
 that night'and made a preacher of the New 
 Dispensation the next day, doubtless, "ac- 
 cording to previous appointment," as the 
 preachers say. Pratt visited his brother 
 Orson and enlisted him in tne scheme. 
 Then he and Cowdry and Whitmer returned 
 to Mentor. After weakly pretending to be 
 ignorant of the scheme, and to oppose it, 
 Rigdon is miraculously converted, by a vis- 
 ion, embraces Mormonism, goes to New 
 York, he and Imposter Joe have a revela- 
 tion, that Joe is the Moses, Sidney the 
 Aaron of the movement, and that Kirtland 
 is to be possessed by the saints forever, and 
 Smith and his adherents, made up chiefly of 
 confederates in his money-digging frauds 
 and schemes, and confederates in the new 
 fraud, the Book of Mormon, move to Ohio 
 Rigdon takes his new brethren around to tha 
 congregations for which he had preached, 
 and which he had industriously prepared 
 for his move, and the Rigdonites in these 
 churches embrace Mormonism and tho frud 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 was fully inaugurated in Kirtland, Ohio, in 
 1831. 
 
 We have thus traced the origin of the 
 Book of Mormon. We have proved that 
 JSolomon Spaulding was the author of the 
 historic portion. Sidney Rigdon the author 
 of the religious portion, and that Impostor 
 Joe gave it to the world by means of his 
 stolen peep-stone. It was begotten by 
 Spaulding in sin, conceived by Rigdon in 
 iniquity, and brought forth by Impostor 
 Joe in depravity and pollution. It has 
 spoken lies from its birth, and has lived on 
 fraud and fanaticism, and has resulled in 
 delusion and ruin to thousands. It has 
 gone to seed in Utah, in pollution that 
 would disgust Priapus himself, and horrify 
 a satyr. Priapus Young and He-goat 
 Kim ball are the ripened fruit of the infamy. 
 We will now take up the detection of the 
 fraud. In an article published in the Bos- 
 ton Journal, May 13, 1829, Mrs. Matilda 
 Davidson, formerly Solomon Spaulding's 
 wife and widow, testifies : 
 
 "In 1834, a Mormon preacher. In a meeting In Con- 
 neaut, Ohio, read copious extracts from the Book of 
 Mormon. The historical part was immediately recog- 
 nized, by all the older inhabitants, as the identical 
 work of Mr. SpMUlding, in which they had been so 
 deeply interested years before. John Spaulding was 
 present, and recognized perfectly the work of his 
 brother. He was annoyed and afflicted, that it should 
 have perverted to so wicked a purpose. His grief 
 found vent in ' a flood of tears, and he arose on the 
 spot and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and re- 
 gret that the writings of his deceased brother, should 
 he used for a purpose so vile and shocking. The ex- 
 citement in Conneant, became so great that the inhabi- 
 tants held a meeting, and deputised Dr. Phila.nus 
 llurlbut, one of their number, to repair to tnis place 
 and obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr, 
 Simulcling. for the purpose of comparinu it with the 
 Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds, and to 
 prevent the friends from embracing an error so delu- 
 sive." 
 
 We wish to call the reader's attention to 
 this statement, that narrates an occurrence 
 th.it attracted great attention at the time. 
 Ic was published in the papers of the West- 
 ern Reserve, and all over the United States. 
 The citizens of Conneaut, in 1834, assembled 
 to hear for the first time a Mormon preach- 
 er. They hear the first words of the Book 
 of Mormon that any of them ever heard. 
 Scores of them, and among the number 
 Solomon Spaulding's brother, his sister-in- 
 law, his business partner, one who had 
 boarded in his family many months, one 
 who had boarded him many months, and 
 other acquaintances, without any expecta- 
 tion or previous concert of action on their 
 part recognized in the Book of Mormon, 
 the historical romance of Solomon Spauld- 
 ing with which they were so familiar from 
 21 to 25 years before. Now let us hear some 
 of their testimony. John Spaulding testifies: 
 "I have read the Book of Mormon, and to 
 my great surprise I find nearly the same his- 
 torical matter, names, etc., as were in my 
 brother's writings. I well remember that 
 he wrote in the old style, and commenced, 
 nearly every sentence: 'And it came to 
 pass ' or 'Now it came to pass' the same 
 .s in the Book of Mormon. To the best of 
 my recollection the book of Mormon is the 
 same as what my brother, Solomon Spauld- 
 
 ing wrote except the religious matter." Mar- 
 tha Spaulding, wife of John, and sister-in- 
 law of Solomon, testifies: " I have read the 
 Book of Mormon, which brought fresh to 
 my recollection the writings of Solomon 
 Spaulding. I have no manner of doubt 
 that the historical part of the book of Mor- 
 mon is the same that I have read and heard 
 read more than 20 years ago. The old obso- 
 lete style and the expressions: 'Arid now 
 it came to pass, 'etc., are the same." Henry 
 Lake, Solomon Spaulding's business part- 
 ner, testifies: 
 
 "When my wife read to me from the Book of Mormon, 
 she had read but a few minutes before 1 was aston- 
 ished to find the same passnges in it that Solomon 
 Spaulding had read to me more than 20 yenrs before 
 from his Manuscript Foun I. I have examined the 
 Book of Mormon and have no hesitation in saying 
 that the historical part of it is principally if' not 
 wholly taken from the Manuscript Found. I well 
 recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that so frequent use of 
 the words: 'And it came to pass.' 'Now it came to 
 pass,' rendered the book ridiculous. One time when 
 he was readme: to me the tragic account of Laban I 
 pointed out to him wht I considered an inconsistency 
 which he promised to correct, but on examining the 
 Book of Mormon, to my surprise I find it stands just 
 as he read it to me. He left here in 1813, for Pitts- 
 burg, to get his book published, but I heard no more 
 of his writings till I saw them in the Book of Mormon. 
 Mrs. David-on remarked to Mrs. George ('lark, when 
 she handed her the manuscript of Spanlding's Manu- 
 script Found to read: The Mormon Bible is almost 
 a literal copy of that manuscript." 
 
 J. N. Miller, who boarded months in 
 Spaulding's family, testifies: " I have ex- 
 amined the Book of Mormon, and I find in 
 it the writings of Solomon Spaulding from 
 beginning to end, but mixed up with Scrip- 
 ture and other religious matter, which I 
 did not meet in the " Manuscript Found." 
 Many passages in the Mormon book are 
 verbatim from Spaulding, others in part. 
 The names Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, and in 
 fact all the principal names are brought 
 fresh to my recollection by the "Golden 
 Bible." Aaron Wright testifies: " Spauld- 
 ing traced the journey of the first settlers 
 of America from Jerusalem to America, as 
 it is given in the Book of Mormon, except 
 the religious matter. The historical part 
 of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the 
 same as I read and heard read from the writ- 
 ings of Solomon Spaulding, more than 
 twenty years ago, the names especially are 
 the same without alteration. In conclu- 
 sion I will say that the names and most of 
 the historical part of the Book of Mormon, 
 were as familiar to me, before I read it as 
 most modern history." Oliver Smith tes- 
 tifies : " When I heard the historical part of 
 the Book of Mormon, I at once said it was 
 the writing of Solomon Spaulding. Soon 
 after I obtained and read the book, on read- 
 ing it found much of it the same as Spauld- 
 ing had written twenty years before." Na- 
 than Howard testifies: "I have read the 
 Book of Mormon and believe it to be the 
 same as Spaulding wrote, except the relig- 
 ious part." Artemus Cunningham testi- 
 fies: "I have examined the Mormon Bible 
 and am fully of the opinion that iSoIomon 
 Spaulding had written its outlines before 
 leaving Conneaut." Joseph Miller of Am- 
 ity, Pa.., who took care of Spaulding in his 
 last sickness, and familiar with his maim- 
 
64 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 script says: "The longer I live the more 
 firmly 1 am convinced that Spaulding's 
 manuscript was appropriated and largely 
 used in getting up the Book of Mormon. I 
 believe that, leaving out of the book, the 
 portions easily recognized as the work ol 
 Joe Smith and his accomplices, Solomon 
 Spaulding may be truly said to have been 
 its author. I have no doubt of it." Rud- 
 dick McGee, who boarded with the Spauld- 
 ings and became familiar with Spaulding's 
 manuscript, says that "the Book of Mor- 
 mon was founded on and largely copied 
 from the romance of Solomon Spaulding." 
 Dr. Dodd who attended Spaulding in his 
 last illness, declared years before Howe's 
 book appeared, that "Spaulding's manu- 
 script had been transferred into the Book 
 of Mormon, and that Sydney Rigdon had 
 done it. This declaration was based on 
 his knowledge of the manuscript, and what 
 Spaulding had told him about Rigdon's 
 stealing his manuscript. Rev. Abner 
 Jackson declares : "The Book of Mormon 
 follows Spaulding's Manuscript too closely 
 to be a stranger to it. In both many pas- 
 sages appear, having the same names, found 
 nowhere else. Such as Moroni, Mormon, 
 Nephite, Laman, Lamanite, Nephi, etc. 
 In the second romance called the Book of 
 Mormon, we are told the same story of the 
 same people traveling from the same place 
 in the same way, having the same difficul- 
 ties and destination with the same wars, 
 same battles and same leaders and same 
 results, such as the Mormon account of the 
 battle of Comorah in which all the right- 
 eous are slain. How much this resembles 
 the closing scene in "Manuscript Found." 
 Mr. Jackson, who was in the meeting at Con- 
 neaut, when the Mormon preacher read the 
 Book of Mormon, says that Squire Wright 
 shouted out, "Old-come-to-pass has come to 
 life again." Mrs. McKinstry, Spaulding's 
 daughter, declares that the Book of Mor- 
 mon is largely her father's Manuscript 
 Found. His wife declares that it is a wicked 
 remodeling of her husband's work. 
 
 We might add scores of names who heard 
 the Spaulding manuscript and recognized 
 it in the Book of Mormon. The testimony of 
 these seventeen witnesses, who were famil- 
 iar with Spaulding's Manuscript Found" 
 prove that the historical portion of the 
 Book of Mormon what we charge Rigdon 
 with stealing, is an almost verbatim repro- 
 duction of that "Manuscript Found." If 
 my opponent were on trial for his life, one 
 quarter of his testimony would hang him 
 higher than Hainan. He must do one of 
 three things : [. Prove that these witnesses 
 never so testified. II. Impeach them. III. 
 Or disprove their evidence by rebutting 
 testimony. Or lose his case. There has 
 been some controversy over Spaulding's 
 motives and object in writing his Manu- 
 script Found. His wife and daughter stren- 
 uously insist that he wrote it merely to 
 while away his time in declining health. 
 That ho had no intention of publishing it. 
 That he refused to have it published, when 
 Mr. Patterson offeied to publish it. It is 
 
 Erobable that he so told his wife. He may 
 ave had two reasons for it. He had failed 
 in business continually. His wile sup- 
 ported the family and he might have feared 
 that she would oppose the idea of publica- 
 tion as one of his visionary projects. For 
 the preservation of peace and that he might 
 pursue his purpose unopposed, he doubt- 
 less told her what she says he did. Again 
 she seems to have been a "woman of decided 
 moral convictions, and he may have feared 
 that she would regard such a scheme as 
 very questionable if not a downright fraud. 
 But there can be no doubt about his inten- 
 tions to publish it. His brother says he 
 wrote it for that very purpose, hoping to 
 make money by it. So say Lake, Smith, 
 both the Millers, McKee, John Spaulding, 
 his wife, and Cunningham. Joseph Miller 
 and McKee say he prepared a manuscript 
 for publication and took it to the publish- 
 ing house for that purpose. 
 
 There can be no doubt that he wrote it for 
 the sole purpose of publishing it and that 
 he expected to make money by publishing 
 it. There isnothing wrong al out this. But 
 that his motives, he knew, were some of 
 them wrong, is eviden t from the fact that he 
 kept them from his wife and daughter, and 
 also lied to them in regard to his object in 
 writing the manuscript. Some of his ex- 
 pressions show that his motives were 
 very questionable. He intended to assert 
 that his book was copied from a manuscript 
 dug out of the earth, or found in a cave. He 
 expected to deceive the world except the 
 learned few, and cause them to believe this 
 falsehood that he intended to palm oft' on 
 them; and also to induce all, but the learned 
 few, to believe his book to be veritable his- 
 tory as much so as any history. So he de- 
 clared to Miller of Conneaut, Wright, Cun- 
 ningham and others. No wonder he con- 
 cealed his purpose from his wife and 
 daughter. Howe says on page 289, of his 
 history, that he has a letter in his possession 
 that proves that Spaulding was sceptical 
 in his last days. If so we can understand his 
 caricaturing the Bible in the way he did, in 
 his romance. The Book of Mormon \v as in 
 its inception a deliberate fraud, conceived 
 by a backsliden preacher, who intended 
 to foist onto the world, the fraud by 
 falsehood, stolen by another renegade 
 preacher, who increased the blasphemy 
 of the fraud by plagiarising the Bible, 
 so as to deceive the world by it as 
 a revelation. Joe Smith, a money hunting, 
 fortune telling impostor and infidel, gave 
 it to the world by means of his' peep-stone 
 which he stole from Chase's children. We 
 repeat that the whole affair was begotten by 
 Spaulding in sin, conceived by Rigdon in 
 iniquity and brought forth by Impostor 
 Joe in depravity and corruption, and it has 
 thrived on ignorance, fanaticism and pol- 
 lution, and has culminated in Utah, iu. 
 infamy that would make devils blush. 
 
 Mrs. Davidson declares that Hurlbut 
 wrote to her from Hartwicke that he found 
 the Manuscript, and would return it to her. 
 when through with it. He came to Howe 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 65 
 
 with a lie and told him he only found a 
 portion of an entirely different manu- 
 script. He sold the manuscript to Rigdon 
 and Smith took the money and went to 
 Western Ohio and bought a farm, and Mrs. 
 Davidson and her daughter, Mrs. McKin- 
 stry, could never get a word of reply from 
 him although they sent several letters to 
 parties who wrote; they gave the letters to 
 Hurlbut. This answers the Mormon " Why 
 did not the Spaulding publish the Manu- 
 script Found?" Because Mormons had:ot- 
 ten it into their possession by bribing Hurl- 
 but. 
 
 This careful analysis of evidence enables 
 us to brush to one side the fog that Mor- 
 mons have^raised over Rigdon's copying the 
 manuscript. He did not, he stole it. Over 
 the size of the manuscript, Miss Spaulding 
 read at her uncles. She read only the 
 small manuscript, the first draft of the 
 book, her father made. Also the fog over 
 the fact that the manuscript brought by 
 Hurlbut was not what the one's sending 
 him to search the trunk expecting him to 
 bring. It explains how the 116 pages of stolen 
 manuscript, was replaced. They were re- 
 placed from another Spaulding manuscript, 
 probably Mormon manuscript No. II. This 
 accounts also for the length of time that 
 Spaulding spent in writing. He began 
 in 1809 and closed in 1816, a period of 
 time of seven years, and even after Rigdon 
 stole his last manuscript he wrote on till he 
 died. It accounts also for the differences 
 in the descriptions of the witnesses 
 Most of them heard read Mormon manu- 
 script No. I. Miller heard portions of Mor- 
 mon No. II. Writing different manuscripts, 
 and adding additional port'ons willaccount 
 for discrepancies and contradictions. Such 
 as Moroni saying his plates were full, 
 and then writing the Jaredite portion. 
 Spaulding added the Jaredite portion and 
 forgot that he had made Moroni close the 
 book with the destruction of the Nephites. 
 Also the contradiction, which places Ethers 
 plates in the hands of King Benjamin when 
 they did not come to the knowledge of the 
 Nephites until years after King Benjamin's 
 death. The gross contradiction . which 
 makes Coviantumu the last Jaredite, die 
 among the people of King Zarehemla about 
 200 years B. C., when the battle of which he 
 was sole survivor occurred more than 600 
 years B. C. Either he was over 400 years old 
 or the Jaredites were not exterminated until 
 200 B. C. instead of 600. 
 
 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE. 
 
 Let us now review the evidence we have 
 presented, and settle several questions. I. 
 Are the witnesses competent? II. Are 
 they worthy of belief? III. What is estab- 
 lished by their testimony? In determining 
 the first and second queries there are sev- 
 eral points to be weighed. I. Is the point 
 at issue one that can be settled by testi- 
 mony? No question is susceptible of clearer 
 proof. The facts to be determined are I. 
 Did Solomon Rpaulding write a certain MS. 
 II. What were its contents? II. Did they 
 have adequate means of knowing these 
 
 facts? No witnesses ever had better. 
 Mr. Spaulding was a preacher, in poor 
 health and out of employment, the very 
 man that would attract company, and have 
 much company, and of the highest charac- 
 ter and intelligence. There was much ex- 
 citement and curiosity over certain mounds 
 that had been opened. Spaulding had 
 taken great interest in the matter. He was 
 writing an unusual book concerning this 
 exciting topic. He was very fond of reading 
 his productions to all who would listen to 
 him. All this would secure him a ciicle of 
 intelligent hearers. The singularity of his 
 theme would cause his hearers to remember 
 what they heard. To such hearers Spauld- 
 ing read large portions of his MS. III. 
 Were they competent in inteliigenceV No 
 one can read their testimony and tail to see 
 that they were persons of unusual intelli- 
 gence the very class of persons that such a 
 man as Spaulding would attract around 
 him that would be interested in his 
 theme the very ones to whom he would 
 read his work and who would talk with 
 him. IV. Were they persons of good char- 
 ter for truth and veracity ? Their character 
 cannot be excelled. Compare them with the 
 gang of loafing, money-hunting knaves and 
 dupes, upon whose testimony the Book of 
 Mormon stands. Their intelligence is infi- 
 nitely above that srang of ignorant, super- 
 stitious, illiterate, ignoramuses. V. Were 
 they interested in the points at issue ? Tn 
 noway whatever. On the other hand me 
 witnesses to the Book of Mormon all ex- 
 pected to make money out of the fraud, 
 and had gotten it up for that purpose. 
 VI. Is there any collusion in their testi- 
 mony? There is absolutely none. Never 
 were witnesses more independent and in- 
 dividual in their testimony. Each tells his 
 story in his own way tells what he knows, 
 in his own way is careful to tell no more 
 is careful where not certain to say so. Had 
 they fabricated their testimony they would 
 have stated more than they did. Contrast 
 their evidence with that oif the eight wit- 
 nesses to the Book of Mormon. Those wit- 
 nesses do not testify separately, but s^n 
 a statement prepared for them by Impost - 
 Joe. They testified to what they did no 
 know, and could not know. There is ever) 
 evidence of collusion and perjury. The 
 three witnesses are worse, for they testify 
 to what an angel told them ; the charac- 
 ter of the entire twelve has been 5<n. 
 peached. They had every motive to in- 
 duce them to lie. They had concocted a 
 fraud to make money and lied to carry it 
 out. Our witnesses are absolutely free I'rotu 
 all such fatal defects as those that utterly 
 destroy the evidence of the witnesses to thp 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 What facts are established by the 
 testimony of the witnesses I. The plot 
 and matter of Spaulding's "Manuscript 
 Found." They describe it clearly and 
 definitely. It is precisely the plot and 
 matter of two Books and only two of all 
 books that have ever ten written. The 
 Manuscript Found and the Book of Mor- 
 
66 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 mon. II. That it purported to be a real 
 truthful history of the aborigines the first 
 settlers of America. To this testify Mrs. 
 Solomon Spaulding, Miss Martha Spauld- 
 ing, John Spaulding, Mrs. John Spauld- 
 ing, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith Wright, 
 Howard, Cunningham, Jas. Miller, McKee, 
 Dodd and Sidney Rigdon. III. An at- 
 tempt to account for the antiquities of 
 America by giving a real history of 
 their construction, Mrs. Solomon Spauld- 
 Jng, Miss Spaulding, John Spaulding, 
 Mrs. John Spaulding, Wright, Smith, How- 
 ard, and Cunningham. There never were 
 but two books that had this feature. The 
 "Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mor- 
 mon. IV. It assumed that the Israelites 
 were the aborigines of America. J. Spauld- 
 ing, Mrs, J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, J. 
 N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jackson. 
 There were never but two books that had 
 this feature, the Book of Mormon and the 
 Manuscript Found. V. That they left Jeru- 
 salem ; J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, 
 Luke, Milller, Wright, Smith, Jackson. 
 There never were but two books, the Book 
 of Mormon and the Manuscript Found, that 
 had this feature. VI. Journeyed by land 
 and by sea. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld- 
 ing, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, Jackson. 
 There never were but two books that had 
 this feature, the Manuscript Found and the 
 Book of Mormon. VII. Their leaders 
 were Nephiand Lehi. Miss Martha Spauld- 
 ing, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Smith, Quuning- 
 ham and Jackson. There, never were but 
 two books that had this feature, the Manu- 
 script Found and the Book of Mormon. 
 VIII. They quarreled arid divided into 
 two parties called Nephites and Lamanites. 
 J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Jackson. 
 There were never but two books that con- 
 tained this feature. The Book of Mormon 
 and the Manuscript Found. IX. There 
 were terrible wara between the Nephites 
 and Lamanites, and between parties into 
 which these nations divided. J. Spaulding, 
 Mrs. J. Spaulduig; Lake, Jackson. There 
 never but two books, the Book of Mormon 
 and the Manuscript Found, that contained 
 this feature. X. They buried their dead 
 after the awful slaughter in their wars 
 which were unprecedented, in great heaps, 
 which caused the mounds. J. Spaulding. 
 Mrs. J. Spaulding. There were never but 
 two books, the Book of Mormon and the 
 Manuscript Found, that contained this 
 feature. XT. The end of their wars in two 
 instances was the total annihilation, in 
 battle of all but one who escaped to make 
 the record of the catastrophe. Jackson. 
 There never were but two hooks, the Manu- 
 script Found and the Book of Mormon, that 
 contained tnis feature. XII. It gives a 
 historical account of the civilization, arts, 
 sciences, laws and customs of the aborigines 
 of America. J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, 
 Miller, Smith. There never were hue two 
 books, the Book of Mormon and the Manu- 
 script Found, that contained this feature. 
 XIII. These people were the ancestors of 
 our American Indians. J.Spauldiug, Mrs. 
 
 J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright. There never 
 were but two books, the Manuscript Found 
 and the Book of Mormon, that roiitained 
 this feature. XIV. The names Lehi, 
 Nephi, Lamanite, Nephite, Moroni, Mor- 
 mon, Zarahemla, Laban. Miss Martha 
 Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, 
 Lake, Smith, J. N. Miller, Wright, Cun- 
 ningham, Jackson. There never was but 
 two books, the Manuscript Found and the 
 Book of Mormon, that contained these fea- 
 tures. XV. These in every instance are 
 the names of the same persons or places 
 or things, and have the same character- 
 istics and history, etc. J. Spauldiug, Mrs. 
 J. Spaulding, Lake, Miller. Wright, Smith, 
 Cunningham, Jackson. There never were 
 but two books, the Manuscript Found and 
 the Book of Mormon, that had this feature. 
 Xyi. Written in scriptural style. Rigdon, 
 Winter, Spaulding, Mrs. S. Spaulding, 
 Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, 
 Smith, Cunningham, Jackson. There never 
 was but two books, the size of either of 
 these books, the Book of Mormon and the 
 Manuscript Found, thai had this feature. 
 Small articles have been so written for bur- 
 lesque but never such large books. XVII. 
 Absurd repetition of "And it came to 
 
 ass," " And now it came to pass." Mrs. 
 . Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld- 
 ing, Lake, Cunningham, Jas. Miller. There 
 never were but two books, the Book of Mor- 
 mon and the Manuscript Found, that had 
 were this feature. XVIII. One party lefl 
 Jerusalem to escape judgments about to 
 over take the Israelites. Smith. There never 
 were two books, the Manuscript Found and 
 the Book of Mormon, that contained this 
 feature. XIX. History was written and 1 , 
 buried by one of the lo"st people. Mrs. S. 
 Spaulding. There never were but two 
 books that contained this feature, the Book 
 of Mormon and the Manuscript Found. 
 XX. The book was obtained from thn 
 earth. Lake, Mrs. S. Spaulding, Cunning- 
 ham. There never were but two books 
 claiming to be translations of manuscript 
 dug out of the earth, the Book of Mormoi/ 
 and the Manuscript Found. XXI. One 
 party of emigrants landed near the Isth- 
 mus of Darien, which they called Zara- 
 hemla, and migrated across the continent 
 in a north-east direction. J. N. Miller. 
 There never were but two books that had 
 this feature, the Manuscript Found and the 
 Book of Mormon. XXII. In a battle the 
 Amlicites marked their foreheads with a 
 red cross so that they could distinguish 
 themselves from their enemies. Jas. Mil- 
 ler, McKee. There never were but two ' 
 books that had these features, the Manu- 
 script Found and the Book of Mormon. 
 XXIII. The hook could be, and as an addi- 
 tion to the Bible by an imposter, as an ad- 
 dition coming from America. There never 
 were but two books that had this feature, 
 the Manuscript Found and the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 We have now /mind that the Book of 
 Mormon and the Manuscript Found con 
 taiued twenty-three features, great feature* 
 
THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 67 
 
 exactly alike. Nothing but a miracle, 
 scarcely credible, could have caused this 
 agreement. One was stoleu from the other. 
 The Manuscript Found was iu existence 
 fifteen years before the Book of Mormon. 
 It is as certain that the Book of Mormon 
 was stolen from the Manuscript Found as 
 that a child is the offspring of its parents. 
 
 Nearly all of our witnesses are careful to 
 state that the religions portion of the Book 
 of Mormon was not in the Manuscript 
 Found. We will prove that Sidney Rtgdou 
 Interpolated that into the manuscript that 
 he stole. That will refute the objection 
 raised by the three. I'd Joseph , that a Pres- 
 byterian preacher would not write such 
 religious sentiments as those of the Book of 
 Mormon. Nearly all of the witnesses in 
 their descriptions mention only the historic 
 part of the Nephite portion of the Book of 
 Mormon. This shows ^tnat Spaulding had 
 written only that portion, in his first manu- 
 script. This meets a Mormon objection 
 that some portions of the Book of Mormon 
 were not mentioned by the witnesses. 
 
 We will now notice*some of the retorts of 
 Mormonism to this testimony. I. It is 
 "the Spaulding story" So Antideluvians 
 sneered at Noah about his "flood story," but 
 the flood overwhelmed them allthe same. 
 Such evidence, given by seventeen witnesses 
 can not be sneered down even by the 
 prophet, the three. Id Joseph, as., "the 
 Spaulding story," II. " It is all a pack of 
 lies." Why is it a pack of lies? Do they 
 
 attempt to impeach the witnesses? No. 
 Do they attempt to rebut the testimony? 
 No. They jabber the great Mormon argu- 
 ment. "It is a pack of lies." III. The 
 three Id Joseph says there is collusion in 
 the testimony. He knew he was penning a 
 falshood when he wrote that sentence. 
 There neverwereseventeen witnesses whose 
 testimony was more independent, and 
 marked with each one's personality than 
 these. Contrast the seventeen independent 
 statements, in which the individuality of 
 each person appears, with the witnesses to 
 the Book of Mormon. They sign a joint 
 statement written out by Imposter Joe. 
 
 IV. It is improbable that they would 
 know so much of the manuscript. We have 
 given the reasons why so many persons 
 heard so much of the Manuscript Found. 
 
 V. It is impossible that they would remem- 
 ber so much. The testimony shows that 
 they were persons of more than usual 
 mental power, with clear strong intellects. 
 The contents of the manuscript were so 
 peculiar that they would be remembered 
 and recognized, when heard again, as the 
 nick name old " Come to pass" and the ex- 
 clamation of Squire Wright "Old come to 
 pass, has come to life," show. VI. It is 
 religious persecution. There was no sug- 
 gestion of an attempt at religious persecu- 
 tion. Nor do the statements show any such 
 spirit. They are remarkably ctvlui and un- 
 sectariau iu toue. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GEXTT,EMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 G ENTLEMEN: Last evening I took consider- 
 able time in presenting to you some of the 
 evidences contained in the works of arch- 
 ueologists and explorers of the ancient ruins 
 and the remains of the extinct civilizations 
 of the American continent; showing that 
 the extent and greatness of them was equal 
 to that given in the history, of the three 
 civilizations which had existed here, two of 
 them contemporaneous, as represented in 
 the Book of Mormon. I was answered by my 
 opponent at the time with this: "That 
 those things were known to the world and 
 were accessible to Joseph Smith at the 
 time of the publication of the book;" and 
 for proof he cited to Josiah Priest's work, 
 which he said treated of these things and 
 which was published it was averred, prior 
 to the publicationof the Book of Mormon. 
 I did not state then that 1 did not believe it, 
 for I was taught by my mother not. t.n sav 
 
 a thing was not true until I had tested it ; 
 and I nave made no statement to this audi- 
 ence but what I believed to be as true as 
 that the sun has thisday been on his daily 
 course. Neither do I expect to state to this 
 audience anything but what I believe to be 
 true, and strictly true. But to his, Priest's 
 work: I asked for the book and examined 
 it. Instead of finding a work that treats 
 upon antiquities, or civilizations, such as I 
 have proven to nave existed, I found that 
 the book did not contain a single thing upon 
 these; neither speculations upon ruined 
 cities or a hiffh state of enlightenment, nor 
 a single mound referred to from which con- 
 clusio.is of a great civilization could be 
 drawn; not one single thing that tends to 
 disprove a single statement that I dweir i?p- 
 on lust evening: and yet, you are expected 
 to accept it as an answer to my argument. 
 The work does not treat upon antiquarian re- 
 searches eveu: but it is Mr. Priest's oornni- 
 
68 
 
 THE BRADEN- AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 lation of certain things, entitled the "Won- 
 ders of Heaven and Earth." I stated in my 
 opening remarks upon last evening- that it 
 was speculative, long 1 prior to the publica- 
 tion of the Book of Mormon, that the ten 
 lost tribes of Israel had been led to this 
 country, and that afterwards they had 
 dwindled into barbarism; and showed also 
 that the common theory was that when the 
 country was settled it was settled from 
 north to south, and that, that was one of the 
 main theories at the time of the publi- 
 cation of the Book of Mormon. I open this 
 book that treats of the wonders of earth and 
 heaven, and find an article referring to the 
 ten tribes coming to this continent, giving 
 the writer's speculations from what had 
 been ascertained by conversing with the na- 
 tives; and there is a longargument in it from 
 page 297 forward for the purpose of showing 
 that the people who inhabited this country, 
 and of whom the Indians were descendants, 
 were the lost tribes, as I had admitted in 
 my opening argument upon these antiquit- 
 ies, statin": that such were the speculations. 
 But there is not a single work or mound cit- 
 ed in this book to prove it, or that the peo- 
 ple attained a high state of civilization and 
 builded great cities, etc., here as was my ar- 
 gument. But, turning to the book, page 
 201, I find that the speculation is here set 
 out also, that they crossed at Behrings 
 Strait, as I had claimed upon last evening, 
 and afterward made their way southward. 
 Is T ot only that, buton turning further in this 
 book I find some excellent things to show 
 that the people upon this continent were of 
 Israelitish origin, one of which is plainly 
 and clearly set out, wherein it states 
 that they' formerly practiced circum- 
 cision on the continent. I call the 
 attention of my opponent to that, 
 because he challenged me to show 
 upon a former evening, that any such thing 
 as circumcision had been practiced upon 
 this continent. That is a proof from his 
 own work. Will he take his own witness? 
 I refer to this fact of the Saint's actual po- 
 sition upon this for the reason, that I do 
 not wish you to misunderstand my position 
 upon the point. While there were many 
 speculations in regard to whether the In- 
 dians were the first inhabitants of Amer- 
 ica, and how they came here, at the time of 
 the publication of this book, as I have be- 
 fore stated, there was no understanding 
 iind no knowledge extant in the world of 
 the grand civilization that had occupied 
 here, that outnumbered by thousands and 
 millions the present population of the coun- 
 try, if we are permitted to judge at all from 
 the ruins and the discoveries that have 
 been made since that time, and of the great 
 enlightenment of the people. I expected 
 to have collated to-day and presented 
 to you this evening a concise account by 
 the best authors of just when this knowl- 
 edge was first developed and published to 
 the world through explorers, and I shall 
 do so upon to-morrow or some future even- 
 ing ; showing that it was not known to the 
 world prior to 1834. There was one English 
 
 publication in 1822, but it was never known 
 in this part of the world, and not widely 
 in any ; and I doubt if there is a man in the 
 State of Ohio, well, there possibly has 
 been one in the State of Ohio, but certainly 
 not many more, who ever saw such a work 
 or such an author as that of Fuentes or Del 
 Rio. Mr. Stephens, whom I cited last 
 evening, and who wrote in 1841, a traveler 
 all over this globe, and a man that was 
 versed not only in the English language, 
 but in the Spanish also, in which Del Rio's 
 work was originally written, had never 
 heard of it at the time he first went to 
 Mexico in 1839. But suppose that they had 
 heard of the publication of the work, and 
 that it had been all over the country in 
 1822, and that it contained any thing of these 
 great cities : what would it benefit my op- 
 ponent in this argument? His claim is that 
 this " Romance" was written by one Solo- 
 mon Spaulding in 4811. Well, if it was 
 written in 1811, and the historical part of it 
 gotten up by Mr. Spaulding, could Mr. 
 Spaulding write correctly of these things 
 when he did not know about them unless 
 he was a prophet? Why not God inspire 
 Smith to write and antedate these discov- 
 eries as well as Spaulding? The argument 
 is, that neither Smith nor Spaulding could 
 get these things out, for the manuscript of 
 the Book of Mormon as they are described 
 therein as early as the year 1829, (or 1811). 
 and as they have since been found correct 
 by the best authors. Not only that, but I 
 read fully from the most authentic writers 
 in support of the statements of the Book of 
 Mormon, which was copyrighted and in 
 the hands of the printer as early as the 
 first part of the year 1829, on the question 
 of the high state of the ancient civilizations 
 of the continent ; the magnificence of their 
 cities, temples, palaces and works of art; 
 their high attainments in the sciences, me- 
 chanical skill and inventions ; and of the 
 fauna as presented in the later-discovered 
 fossils, etc. This however, was sneered at 
 as though everybody knew of that, long 
 before the Book of Mormon was printed, 
 and that Smith could easily have located 
 his Central American cities ; told of the 
 three different highly civilized peoples who 
 had lived there ; told what domestic ani- 
 mals they had, and what places on the con- 
 tinent these people first inhabited from 
 such general knowledge, and thus had 
 practiced a fraud upon the world. Now. 
 my friends, nearly sixty years have passed 
 since the book was published, with new 
 discoveries being continually brought to 
 light, and in an age when the means of 
 transmission of news and know ledge was 
 never so perfect it is thought ; aa gifted 
 men as the times have produced, have given 
 their attention and attainments to the re- 
 search and development of these things, 
 and the result is, they have gained no new 
 light upon this subject, that was not possi- 
 ble for a poor, unlettered boy in the back- 
 woods of New York State to gathe-r and 
 compile into a book in 1827 and 1828. 
 Friends, can you swallow ihat? If you 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 can, it is possible you may swallow down 
 and roll as a sweet morsel under the tongue 
 the Spaulding tale, "Old come to pass," 
 and all. What! says one, have not these 
 new authors who have been publishing for 
 the past fifty years unfolded something 
 oew as to the civilization that is not to be 
 rained by reading the Book of Mormon? 
 Nor anything either, that has been estab- 
 lished as a truth that is conflicting with, or 
 contrary to, that book ? I answer they 
 have not ; and the book is full and explicit 
 upon the civilizations. Will my opponent 
 please show the new light or the fact of the 
 difference or contradiction to the audience 
 if they have? One demonstrable fact thus 
 brought, which will show a statement in 
 the book false, will have more weight with 
 eny honest investigator, than tsn thous- 
 and Spaulding stories, all laid, brooded, 
 hatched, raised and palmed upon the world 
 years after the publication of the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 This is his position fairly stated : The 
 Book of Mormon was in press in 1829, and 
 sent out as a publication in 1830. A few 
 persons under the guidance and leadership 
 of one Philaster Hulburt, who, at the time 
 had been cut off from the church of the 
 Latter Day Saints for bad conduct, and who 
 had publicly confessed his crime and had 
 l>een taken back upon his profession of re- 
 pentance as I will show you by the church 
 publications at the time, and: was again 
 cut off; and a few others at Conneaut, 
 -Ohio, of a like stamp, got together in 1833, 
 with the Book of Mormon in their hands 
 and vengeance and hatred in their hearts, 
 and got up some affidavits as to a story 
 which it was surmised had been written 
 before by Solomon Spaulding, a broken 
 down clergyman of that place.- Afterwards 
 they found a confederate in Mr. Howe, of 
 Painsville,' Ohio, who was terribly mad and 
 jealous because his wife and sister had 
 joined the church here in Kirtland, and so 
 (between Hulburt and Howe and these 
 testifiers, they published their tale between 
 the years 1834 and 1841, years after the 
 publication of the Book of Mormon and 
 with that book in their hands from which 
 to make their garbled statemenis. There- 
 fore, he concludes the thieving Joseph 
 Smith who was always an honest and 
 honorable man. stole the Book of Mormon 
 from the Spaulding story and made of the 
 theft a Bible. This is logic for you with a 
 rush ! Who again will doubt that my op- 
 ponent is a profound logician? But I have 
 yet to give you the rich part of his tale. 
 A few of the best citizens of Ohio, at Con- 
 neaut, got together one night and appointed 
 one of their beloved number, to wit, the 
 said Dr. Hulburt, who had before been 
 ostracised from the Latter Day Saints for 
 an open insult to a young lady in Kirtland. 
 to go to New York, Pennsylvania, and 
 other places, to get statements from other 
 first citizens of the country (like to them- 
 selves), and .get up a story to beat the 
 Book of Mormon. Did you ever before hear 
 of so many of the first citizens of the 
 
 country living near by you, who were never 
 known outside of their neighborhood, ex- 
 cept by the work of evil they did by signing 
 false statements ? His idea of best'citizen is 
 from the standpoint of whether they are 
 on "our side ;" not from a single truth he 
 knows. But let me right here call your 
 attention to the fact that he has not even 
 presented the testimony of a single one of 
 these best citizens he refers to in full. Not 
 a single statement. Not even the poor 
 show of reading to you a written statement 
 in full of a single one of them. Not even 
 the offer to read you a single affidavit of 
 one of these "best citizens." I am here 
 to examine the evidence in this discussion, 
 and if he has any statements, or affidavits, 
 I want him to read them here, and give the 
 people a chance to judge and me a chance 
 to examine them. I deny, sir, that you can 
 produce affidavits or respectable statements 
 proving the statements and assertions you 
 read last night ; and demand the evidence. 
 Not a few lines from the witnesses but the 
 testimony. I call attention to the fact that 
 this opponent is the first I ever met who 
 would stand before an audience and tell 
 and rehearse what he says, somebody else 
 said, old mother Grundy said about what 
 somebody else said and did^ and then ask 
 his audience to take it for evidence. What 
 would you think of an attorney, who after 
 rehearsing his case to the jury or judge, 
 without ever offering to introduce a wit- 
 ness or read a record except in extracts, 
 would stand up and claim he had put his 
 evidence in, and ask for a verdict in his, fa- 
 vor? Can you not see, ladies and gentlemen, 
 he has not proven a single thing? What 
 evidence has he presented to you upon any 
 matter? Mention, any of you who can. 
 Oh, says one, he gave us Mr. Rudolph's 
 testimony. Did he ? I have not seen it or 
 heard it read. I heard what Braden said 
 Rudolph said Sidney Rigdon did ; -but what 
 do you know about it? Mr. Rudolph is 
 near here, if he knows anything, put him 
 on this stand : you claim him as one of your 
 own men, a Disciple Preacher. I want to 
 examine him if his name is to be used, 
 since he is near by and can be had. The 
 only request I will have in the matter is 
 that the evidence shall be taken on extra 
 time ; and that we do not take up the hour 
 named for discussion. I deny here that 
 Mr. Rudolph knows a single fact which can 
 in the remotest degree connect Sidney Rig- 
 don with Joseph Smith or the Book of 
 Mormon, prior to the time when Sidney 
 Rigdon was converted to the faith of the 
 Saints in the last part of the year 1830. 
 And I make this statement fearlessly, after 
 having had a conversation with Mr. Ru- 
 dolph on the subject of the book myself last 
 summer. 
 
 Another thing: I state fearlessly before 
 you that Mr. Howe of Painsville, who rlrst 
 published the Spaulding story and the affi- 
 davits which were gotten up to blacken the 
 character of Joseph Smith, f-idney Rigdon, 
 et al., and whose book is the key note from 
 which all subseauent works have taken 
 
70 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 their music, does not know one thing 1 , not a 
 single fact that can be made in the least to 
 connect that Spaulding story with the Book 
 of Mormon or show that Joseph Smith's 
 character was bad ; or that a single affida- 
 vit in his book is true. Will you put him 
 on the stand here for examination ? I will 
 bear the expense of bringing him here as 
 he is a little farther away than Mr. Rudolph. 
 I do not make these assertions for bluff', or 
 effect ; but for the reason that the world has 
 thought Mr. Howe knew something about 
 the matter, or he would not have published 
 the book which forms the basis of all other 
 lying works; and if he does know anything 
 now is the time to find it out. One other 
 thing. It has been asserted here that he 
 has a chain of evidence. A chain of evi- 
 dence! What is it to make a chain of 
 evidence? Can you use broken or pieces of 
 links? Has Mr*. Braden debated all his 
 life and has not yet found out that to form a 
 circumstance or truth, that the evidence of 
 such circumstance or truth must be com- 
 plete within itself and independent of anoth- 
 er fact or circumstance which he claims 
 to form another link? Each must be com- 
 plete of itself to be evidence and constitute 
 a chain. For illustration : It is said here 
 by him that at one time a niece of Sidney 
 Rigdon once saw him go to an old trunk, 
 take out a manuscript, go to the fire place 
 ami read it, and that he would not let her 
 f e i it. Suppose this is all true as the story 
 Oes ; what of it? Is it pertinent to the 
 issue until they in some manner connect 
 that same manuscript with the one claimed 
 by Spaulding? Why! Rigdon might have 
 had a hundred manuscripts and read them, 
 and taken them from an old trunk, and put 
 them back without first having given 
 them to his niece to read, and each and 
 eveiy one of them altogether different from 
 the Spaulding manuscript; and if any such 
 unconnected statement was offered as evi- 
 dence in any court to sustain the most 
 trivial case, it would instantly be ruled as 
 improper Before this can be made evidence 
 the parties must also show by some other 
 fact, or thing, that the rnanui-cript which he 
 is said to have read and would not let his 
 nie e we wax Ifir Span I ding Romance, and 
 then they may use it all as a link to show 
 that Iligdon 'did have an opportunity of 
 copying the Spaulding manuscript. Don't 
 you know that if Sidney Rigdon did 
 have the Spat Iding manuscript it is just 
 posii .e he had another besides: mother 
 Grundy's manuscript, a manuscript sermon, 
 or manuscript a-t'<.|r for publication, and 
 tha at the time his n'ce saw him he was 
 reading mot er Grundy or one of the other 
 manuscripts inau;i.u o. paulding? What 
 then would be the true position of my 
 opponent in this argument? Mr Braden 
 offering to show that Risrdon had the 
 Bpaulding manuscript by citing the time he 
 read mother Urundy's manuscript, and 
 offering ihe people a false thing as evidence 
 and asking them to accept it as true instead 
 of accepting the facts Take another one I 
 of his uroofs (?). Mr. Iludolph says, so 
 
 Braden says, that one time during the year 
 1827, Sidney Rigdou, who was their pastor 
 at Mentor, Ohio, went off some place and 
 was away two or three weeks and they did 
 not know where he went to. It might have 
 been over to Hiram, down to Mantua, to 
 Cleveland or Cincinnati ; but no difference 
 to him ; he will have it at this very time he 
 was in the wilds of Pennsylvania or New 
 York, concocting the Book of Mormon 
 with Joseph Smith. Where is his witnesses 
 showing where Rigdon was at this time, or 
 that he was in New York? There is none, 
 nor never has been. Now according to their 
 idea Smith has no rights that even a rogue 
 is bound to respect ; and soif they can show 
 that their pastor Rigdon was out on a spree. 
 Smith will have to bear the blame. My 
 friends, don't you know that it \vould sink 
 any man, prophet, priest, or king, to under- 
 take to make of him a scapegoat to carry 
 away the sins of many pastors of the 
 Campbellite Church. 
 
 But I have only been arguing the matter 
 in this suppositions form sifting it; when 
 I come to ask for the evidence, I find out 
 the whole thing is trumped up to defeat 
 Sidney Rigdon because he left their church. 
 I shall now present to you a supposable case 
 upon facts proven, arid ask you to compare 
 the two methods of argument. Upon the 
 part of the affirmative I have shown that 
 John the Revelator, in the 14th chapter and 
 6th verse oT his book, says: "And I saw 
 another angel fly in the midst of heaven 
 having the everlasting gospel to preach unto 
 them that dwell on the earth, and to every 
 nation, and kindred, and tongue, and peo- 
 ple, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, 
 and give glory to him ; for the hour of his 
 judgment is come: and worship him that 
 made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and 
 the fountains of waters." I use this to sup- 
 
 fort the truth of my claim. But how? 1. 
 show by it, the time that is referred to, 
 " The hour of God's judgment." 2. That it 
 was to be after John's time, or the year A. 
 D. 96, by turning to the preceding chapters. 
 Rev. 1 : 19, 4 : 1, and 22 : 6. 3. That the hour 
 of the judgment is the same as defined in. 
 Matt. 13 by Jesus. And it is "just afore 
 the harvest," the same time referred to in 
 Isaiah 18, when the ensign is lifted up ; and 
 that the ensign of God is the gospel of 
 Christ; this is what he calls men to look to, 
 saying, " Repent ye and believe the gos- 
 pel ;" and since it is the gospel and lifted 
 up at tne same time that John saw the angel 
 bringing it, I must conclude they are the 
 same in teaching at least, for there is but 
 one gospel. 4. Then, when I notice that the 
 same time arid event is spoken of in both, 
 as in Isaiah 29, and Ezekiel 37, where the 
 message and event is represented as a book 
 that should be brought to light which 
 should contain "doctrine," and (connected 
 with its publication), understanding at- 
 tained, and the power of God brought to 
 light, as was the gospel when it was in the 
 world in its fullness before, as Paul says: 
 "Our gospel came not unto you in word 
 only, but in power aud in the Holy Ghost, 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 71 
 
 and in much assurance;" (1 Thess 1:5), 
 and tliat tliis is the same work specifically 
 set forth as in the other texts, time, place 
 and conditions each being complete of them- 
 selves and agreeing in all their phases, and 
 that there is no reasonable interpretation or 
 application of the prophecies agreeing with 
 any other time, place, thing or event, I con- 
 clude that they all refer to the same thing, 
 and that that thing is the gospel which is 
 to be again committed to the eatth at the 
 time, "just afore the harvest;" in "the hour 
 of His judgment," and hence committed 
 again sometime after the apostles' time, and 
 which may be in our own time, and must 
 be in this or hereafter, for the harvest spo- 
 ken of has not yet come. Having made 
 such a connected chain as this, every link 
 beiiiir in itself complete, since they all refer 
 to a like, or the same thing, and that thing has 
 a complete likeness in the coming forth and 
 teaching of the Book of Mormon, and no 
 other book known to men will answer to the 
 fulfillment as this, and the time in the his- 
 tory of the world as predicted has arrived 
 for the fulfillment, I say it is logical to con- 
 clude, and the evidence irresistible as show- 
 ing that this is the prophetic work, not- 
 withstanding Satan's old cry of deceiver. 
 
 How about his Spaulding story as com- 
 pared with this logical deduction from ad- 
 mitted facts? In the argument of a propo- 
 sition or the trial of an issue, there is what 
 is termed an affirmative and a negative ; a 
 plaintiff and a defendant. One who affirms 
 the truth of a matter and who must bring 
 evidence to sustain this, and one who de- 
 nies the sufficiency or application of the 
 evidence, or else, admitting the statements 
 of the one who affirms to be correct, he denies 
 the conclusion, for the reason that some- 
 thing else is true which must destroy the 
 correctness of the plaintiff's conclusion. 
 This other tiling or averment is what is 
 termed an alibi, and may properly be made 
 the defense in certain cases. But in other 
 cases it cannot. For illustration : I set 
 forth my claim and title to a certain piece 
 of land, showing patent from the govern- 
 ment, all due and legal transfers by proper 
 conveyance ; show that this patent and all 
 transfers and steps of entry and possession 
 are strictly in harmony and keeping with the 
 law, it would hardly be worth while for 
 another to bring a suit to oust me under the 
 plea that, it is true, he is properly entitled 
 under the chain of title and I cannot break 
 that claim, but then John Doe had a correct 
 chain of title too, at one time, to a piece of 
 land, and it is defendant's belief that plain- 
 tiff ought to be kept out of possession for 
 the reason that John Doe now does not know 
 what kind of land his was nor where it is. 
 No judge would for a moment hesitate to 
 say that not even an issue had been formed 
 by such a plea. If my chain of title could 
 not be broken, no amount of alibi's would 
 help the matter in the case. That which is 
 conclusive to the proving of a fact, which 
 fact establishes the conclusion of a proposi- 
 tion, cannot be overcome by an attempt to 
 prove some other fact : for the reason that 
 
 it is a contradiction to suppose that two 
 facts exist and one the opposite of the other. 
 
 To defeat my title to the laud then, tha 
 defendant would be compelled to break the 
 chain, and this would form a direct contest. 
 In the discussion of the proposition before 
 this audience, as the one affirming, T had 
 the right to set out my claim ; chain of title; 
 make it full and complete urder the law; 
 and my opponent's right was to break this 
 chain, and under the law he must do so or 
 fail; for the conclusion of the law is, that 
 he who comes bringing this chain is true, 
 for no man can get hold of the chain unless 
 he is the true and accepted one. 
 
 God has set this seal upon it; man un- 
 derstands the things of man by the spirit 
 of man which is in him; "even so the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the 
 Spirit of God." I Cor. 2:11. For this 
 reason in determining who are of God and 
 who are not, you may safely rely upon the 
 rule, "He that abideth in the doctrine of 
 Christ, he hath both the Father and the 
 Son." 2 John, 9th verse. He has established 
 a law that man without the Spirit of God 
 cannot look into his truth which is from 
 above, and so select from it as to impose upon 
 the people and at the same time conform 
 to the truth. Jesus recognizes the rule as 
 being correct in the 28th chapter of Mat- 
 thew's gospel, wherein he tells his diciples, 
 if they teach all things whatsoever he has 
 commanded them he will be with them to 
 the end of the world. He did not even 
 promise to be with Peter, and James, and 
 John unless they proved their mission by 
 abiding in the doctrine Not a part of it, but 
 all of it, for this rule was to be given to his 
 people and the world to tebt the true from 
 the false ; true teachers from faise teachers ; 
 true prophets from false prophets. "If any 
 man think himself a prophet or spiritual," 
 says the apostle, 1 Cor. 14:37, "let him ac- 
 knowledge that the things that I write 
 unto you are the commandments of the 
 Lord." Not acknowledge by mouth through 
 dissimulation simply, but let his teachings 
 conform to the established test, and agree 
 in all things with that which rtiul had 
 written. " He that is of God hearetn God's 
 words;" and in all things. "Beware of 
 false prophets who come to you in sheep's 
 clothing; by their fruits you shall know 
 them." Not judging their public acts by 
 their doings in private life, nor by the lives 
 of their followers; for this would destroy 
 the entire list: Noah, Moses, Sam*on, 
 David, Solomon, Elijah, Peter and Paul ; 
 and judging simply by the fruits of tin fol- 
 lowers, it would also prove an false, .Ie-us 
 and the apostles ; for all, except the i i v'e 
 went back at one time ; Judas, OIH- <;i i use, 
 turned traitor and sold Je^us : another, 
 denied him and cursed and swore ; H ' re- 
 turned to their nets ; and Thomaf ao 
 far gone that he said he would not Ix-iieve, 
 unless "he should first thrust his hands 
 into his side," while some in the chisn-nfj 
 in a short timo were guilty of such H Domi- 
 nations as were not known, the a 
 Paul says, among: the Gentile*. ,->./. 
 
72 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 of those in Asia, Jesus signifies to his ser- 
 vant John, that some were so wicked and 
 corrupt, that unless they repented they 
 Bhould " be brought down to hell." To 
 fudge them then in this way would be 
 wrong; contrary to the word of God. I 
 will show you the way to judge men by 
 their fruits. If those principles they teach 
 are bad ; or men or women are bad who are 
 living "in accord with, and carrying out in 
 their lives the principles taught, then it 
 will prove the one bringing the message to 
 be bad, and at the same time prove themes- 
 sage bad. The argument is often made 
 that the Christian religion is bad because 
 those professing Christianity are bad. This 
 is not a correct premise. Before the conclu- 
 sion follows, it must be further shown that, 
 in bringing forth this bad fruit, they who 
 call themselves Christians did these bad 
 things by conforming to the principles and 
 teachings of the Christian religion. 
 
 Now, in this discussion, from the first, my 
 opponent has chosen to leave the arguments 
 of the affirmative and follow his own 
 course; and he has attempted to crush me 
 under the weight of the stories he had at 
 his command against the character of Mr. 
 Smith. What a ridiculous position ! If my 
 claim is true it is true, and no number of 
 alibi's could affect it gotten up on life or 
 character. 
 
 But by taking this course he virtually 
 admits the position of the affirmative 
 to be unmovable ; because if he could 
 move me what is the useof Ms alibi ? 
 I am * affirming and must make my 
 case. He simply denies ; he does not 
 in the proposition set up a counter case, 
 claim, or tii Jig. And yet he has chosen to 
 introduce the alibi of the old Spaulding 
 Romance ; (and romance it is), and to rely 
 upon that, either as a counter proof suffici- 
 ent, or as a means of prejudicing the people 
 against an investigation of the facts. What- 
 ever the object it matters not to me; but I 
 take it that by so doing he has admitted as 
 true the position of the plain tiff in the con- 
 test and now rests his case upon character, 
 and the " Spaulding Romance." 
 
 Does he not know that his very act in 
 doing this is in itself another evidence of 
 the truth of the Book of Mormon? and in 
 this- making certain the application of 
 
 another part of the prophecy in Isaiah, 29th 
 chapter, the conditions of which I claim 
 are complete in the Book of Mormon. The 
 book spoken of there to come forth is to be 
 fought in such a way. If the opposition 
 was from a different standpoint the predic- 
 tion would be incomplete. The prophecy 
 sets out sufficient to show that it might 
 have been properly tried under the rule, 
 for it is to contain the doctrine of Christ ; 
 no mistaking this; verse 24: "They also 
 that erred in spirit shall come to under- 
 standing, and they that murmured shall 
 learn doctrine." 
 
 But notwithstanding this, it is shown 
 conclusively in verses 15, 16, 20, and 21, 
 that those who opposed the book would do 
 so by turning things upside down ; revers- 
 ing the order of trying things under God's 
 law, and use works which were "in the 
 dark;" "scorn" the claims made by the 
 one bringing the book, and "watch for ini- 
 quity ;" try to find something against his 
 character ; "make a man an offender for a 
 word," "and lay a snare for him," for it 
 was to be a work reproving the people for 
 leaving the law ; and finally, they were 
 to " turn aside the just for a thing of 
 nought." Preferring to the great facts of 
 God's law and the justice exemplified there- 
 in, those things that are of little account, 
 a tissue and a refuge of lies as referred to 
 in the fifteenth verse of the 28th chapter, 
 or in other words the " Spaulding Story." 
 Now, singular as it is, I have never met a 
 man as yet, in the consideration of this 
 question, who has not tried the book from 
 this standpoint. It was said of Jesus that 
 "he was numbered with the transgressors," 
 to fulfill the prediction of the prophet, 
 made long before ; and if the certain ty of 
 agreement of prophecy and its fulfillment 
 is such, that he who was the upright and 
 true, the humble and meek, the forgiving 
 and pure of the city of Nazareth, must be 
 charged with disobedience to law, stirring 
 up of sedition, and treason to the State, 
 and suffer the final affliction of death be- 
 tween two thieves, why should I complain 
 to suffer to the contest of lies, and ways 
 that are dark, which the prophet speaks of 
 as being brought to oppose at some day the 
 "Lord's work. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADTKS AND 
 GENTLEMEN: We wish to call the attention 
 to a fact strangely overlooked by former 
 writers that Spaulding wrote several man- 
 uscripts. Our reasons for such a position 
 are: I. The length of time he spent in wri- 
 ting his book. He begun in 1809, and the 
 manuscript was taken to Patterson's office 
 in 1814. He spent five years on it. II. Mrs. 
 8. Spaulding, his wife, Miss Spaulding, his 
 daughter, and J. N. Miller, declare that he 
 had many manuscripts. III. The witness- 
 es in Coneaut, with one exception, describe 
 only the Nephite portion, showing that he 
 had only written that, when reading to 
 them. The Zarahemlite and Jaredite por- 
 tions were not written when he read to 
 them. IV. Spaulding stated to J. N. Mil- 
 ler that he would lead a retired life in Pitts- 
 burgh, and re-write his manuscript. Mil- 
 ler is the only one who describes the Zare- 
 hemlite per lion. He had added that to his 
 second Mormon manuscript. V. Patterson 
 told him to rewrite it and prepare it for 
 press. Jas. Miller says he did, and left this 
 copy with Patterson, and that it was this, or 
 his third Mormon manuscript, that Rigdon 
 slole VI. The manuscript that Miss 
 Spaulding read at the residence of her un- 
 cle, W. H Sabin, was not large enough to 
 constitute such a work as the publishers 
 would publish. It was his first draft on 
 hismanuscriptNo.il. Mormon I. VII. The 
 contradictions between these portions as we 
 will show, prove that they were written in 
 different installments, and added to each 
 other. VIII. When Mrs. Harris destroyed 
 118 pages Rigdon was sent for and he re- 
 placed them from another Spaulding man- 
 uscript, one of the ones stolen by Smith 
 from Mrs. Davidson's house in Hartwicke 
 in 1827. IX. Even after he failed to get his 
 manuscript published and the copy he pre- 
 pared had been stolen by Rigdon, he con- 
 tinued to write on to the last. X. Spauld- 
 ing's care in preserving his manuscript is 
 seen in the fact that even the few leaves of 
 his Roman manuscript were preserved, and 
 found in his trunk in 1834. 
 
 This removes the quibbling of Mormons 
 about Rigdon's copying so much manu- 
 script. He did not, he stole it. Spaulding 
 so declared in 1815-16. Rigdon showed the 
 manuscript to Win ters, and stated that it 
 was the manuscript that Spaulding wrote 
 that Spaulding had left it at Pattersons 
 that he borrowed it not copied it. Rigdon 
 told Jefries he took the manuscript from the 
 printing office. It settles also all quibbling 
 about size of the manuscript Miss Spauld- 
 ing read at her uncles. Rigdoii had 
 the one her father had prepared for press. 
 She read the first draft or manuscript No. 
 II Mormon manuscript No. I. it also 
 puts an end to the three Id Josephh's 
 talk that Soauldinff's heirs had the 
 
 manuscript Jn their care all the lime. 
 It puts an end to the challenge of Mormons 
 "Why did not the Spauldings bring out the 
 manuscript and prove the theft and pla- 
 giarism by publishing the original manu- 
 script?" Rigdon had stolen Mormon man- 
 uscript No. Ill that Spaulding had prepar- 
 ed for press, Smith, in 1827 had stolen other 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Did Rigdon steal Spaulding's manuscript? 
 We have proved that he was learning the 
 tanner's tradein Pittsburg, when the manu- 
 script was at Patterson's by Mrs. Echbaum. 
 That he was intimate with Lambdin and 
 was about the office so much that Englea 
 the foreman complained of it. That he was 
 much interested in the Spaulding manu- 
 script that was a great curiosity in the of- 
 fice, by Mrs. Spaulding. That the manu- 
 script was stolen and Spaulding blamed 
 Rigdou, by Jas. Miller, McKee and Dr. 
 Dodd. That Rigdon showed the manu- 
 script to Dr. Winters in 1823 declaring it 
 was Spaulding's manuscript, left with a 
 printer, that he borrowed it, and told what 
 it contained, by Dr. Winter. That he had 
 it in 1826, and declared it would be a great 
 thing some day, by his niece Mrs. Dunlap. 
 We have proved that he knew of the publi- 
 cation of the Book of Mormon, long before it 
 appeared, and described it, by D. Atwater, 
 A. Bently, Alexander Campbell, Green and 
 Dille. We have proved that he was often 
 absent from home while it was being pre- 
 pared for press, by Z. Randolph, and oth- 
 ers. That he was seen at Smith's while it 
 was being prepared for press, by Tucker, 
 Mrs. Eaton and McCauley, Chase and San- 
 ders. We have proved that he prepared 
 his congregation for the reception of the 
 book and his ideas, and that his adherants 
 went into Mormonism. We will, when we 
 come to analyze the Book of Mormon, prove 
 that there are Rigdonisms on nearly every 
 page, and several on many single pages. I 
 do not know how a stronger case can b 
 made. 
 
 The constant jabber of Mormons, calling 
 on persons to tell when and hi>w Rigdon 
 came in contact with and obtained posses- 
 sion of the Spaulding manuscript, and 
 when and how Rigdon and Smith came to- 
 gether, and concocted this scheme, and 
 brought out this book, is an insult to com- 
 mon sense and every principle of law. If a 
 man is arrested with stolen property in his 
 
 Possession, all the state has to do is to prove 
 . The rightful owner of the property. II. 
 That it has been feloneously taken out of 
 his possession. III. That it was found in 
 the possession of the accused. That is suf- 
 ficient to convict him of being a thief, or a 
 receiver of stolen goods, that the law holds 
 as guilty as the thiet. The state does not 
 have to prove that the accused stole the 
 property. Having convicted him of having 
 
74 
 
 THE ERADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 stolen property in his possession, he has to 
 prove that he came by it innocently, or be 
 committed as thief or receiver of stolen goods. 
 We have proved that Spaulding owned the 
 Manuscript Found, that it was found in pos- 
 session of Rigdon, that it was offered to the 
 public as his own property by Imposter 
 Joe. Unless Mormons can prove that Rig- 
 don and Smith came by it innocently, they 
 are convicted as thieves, or as receivers o'f 
 stolen goods. As lawyers the three Id Jo- 
 seph and his man Kelley ought to know 
 this. 
 
 But we have gone far beyond what is 
 necessary in order to convict Rigdon and 
 Smith. Let me illustrate our work. Sup- 
 pose that a man lives for years in Kirtland, 
 who has a museum of rare relics. There 
 are absolutely no duplicates of any of them. 
 He is a sort of monomaniac over his museum, 
 takes everybody to see it that he can in any 
 way induce to look at it, and is constantly 
 talking about it. and describing it. He 
 moves away, and some years afterwards a 
 couple of fellows come along and advertise 
 a wonderful museum, that they claim an 
 angel gave by miracle to one of them. 
 People of Kirtland flock out to see this 
 miraculous museum. No sooner do they 
 cast eyes on it, than a shout goes up, "why 
 this the collection of 'Old-come-to-pass,''" 
 a nick-name they had given to their former 
 neighbor. The two fellows are arrested 
 for theft. The heirs of the old neighbor 
 are looked up. They say the collection is 
 in a certain trunk. When the trunk is ex- 
 amined it is found that not a single article 
 of the collection is in it. The trial comes 
 on. The former neighbors of the original 
 owner come in and testify, describing the 
 articles in the collection of their old neigh- 
 bor, and describe nearly all the leading 
 articles in the museum. The museum is 
 placed before them. They pick out all the 
 leading articles, but reject some, saying, 
 "he did not have these." The thieves 
 would go to the penetentiary, unless they 
 could show that they came by them 
 honestly. 
 
 But suppose the state proceeds to prove 
 that the owner took his collection to a 
 certain place to be prepared for exhibition. 
 That one of the thieves was constantly 
 around there, took great interest in them. 
 That just before the owner's death, these 
 relics disappeared, and that the owner and 
 others blamed this fellow with stealing 
 them. That a few years afterwards he 
 showed them to persons saying that they 
 were the deceased man's relics, that he had 
 left to be prepared for exhibition, and that 
 he had borrowed them from the one who 
 was to prepare them for exhibition, in 
 order to examine them. That he was seen 
 with them in his possession and examining 
 them years afterwards, declaring, "they 
 would be a big thing some day." That 
 soon afterwards he began to exhibit certain 
 peculiar articles of his own manufacture, 
 and to prophesy that an angel would give to 
 the world a museum, with certain articles 
 in it. describing- the articles of the deceased 
 
 man . That he was seen in company with his 
 confederate. That the confederate began to 
 tell that an angel had given to him a 
 museum of such articles, and in a short 
 time the two began to exhibit the museum 
 containing the relics of the deceased, and 
 the articles the first fellow had been ex- 
 hibiting. The case would be made out as 
 clearly as if a thousand men swore that 
 they saw the theft. 
 
 We have proven that Solomon Spaulding 
 exhibited for years, in Conneaut, and in oth- 
 er places, a cabinet of curiosities, that were 
 absolutely nowhere else except in his Man- 
 uscript Found. That he was a sort of mo- 
 nomaniac over his Manuscript Found, forc- 
 ing it on all he could get hold of, holding 
 them like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner. 
 That his mania had caused persons to nick- 
 name him, "Old come to pass." We have 
 proved that when the Book of Mormon was 
 exhibited in Conneaut, that those who had, 
 through Spalding's mania, been made fa- 
 miliar with his Manuscript Found, recog- 
 nized the Manuscript Found in the Book of 
 Mormon. Squire Wright shouting out, 
 " Old come to pass has come to life." His 
 brother arose and denounced the theft and 
 fraud on the spot. His old neighbors sent 
 a messenger to his widow, who sent them 
 to the trunk, where the manuscript was 
 supposed to be, and it was not in the trunk. 
 It had been stolen. We have introduced 
 the clear positive testimony of seventeen 
 witnesses, who, in describing the Manu- 
 script Found, give a better description of 
 the Book of Mormon the historic part 
 than the average Mormon preacher can 
 give from memory. We have presented 
 them the book of Mormon and they unite 
 in picking out the historic portions as part 
 of the Manuscript Found and in rejecting 
 others as not in the Manuscript Found. 
 We have proved that one of the accused, 
 Rigdon, was around the place where the 
 manuscript Spaulding had prepared for the 
 press was last seen. That he took a deep 
 interest in it. That Spaulding told James 
 Miller and McKee and Dr. Dodd that his 
 manuscript had been stolen and Rigdon 
 was suspected of the theft. We have 
 proved that Rigdon in 1822 or 3 showed the 
 manuscript to Dr. Winters, stating that 
 it was a manuscript that Spaulding a 
 Presbyterian preacher had left with a 
 printer, for publication, and that he had 
 borrowed it from the printer to read as a 
 curiosity. It was a Bible romance, pur- 
 porting to be a history of the American In- 
 dians. That he told Jeffries he took it from 
 the printing office and gave it to Smith to 
 publish. That he spent so much time over 
 it in 1826. as to cause his wife to threaten 
 to burn it, to which he replied, "that it 
 would be a great thing some day." We 
 proved by Alexander Campbell, A.Bently, 
 and D. Atwater that Rigdon years before 
 the Book of Mormon appeared stated that 
 such a book would appear, it was dug out 
 of the ground, was engraved on gold plates, 
 contained a history of the aborigines of 
 this continent, gave the history of the peo- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 75 
 
 pie who construed the antiquities of 
 America, that it taught that the gospel was 
 preached in America, in the first centuries 
 of our era, as the Disciples were then preach- 
 ing it on the Reserve. We have proved that 
 Rigdon preached the religious portions, the 
 part that our witnesses did not recognize 
 as Spaulding's. We have proved that Rig- 
 don was away from home during the time 
 that Smith was working on his pretended 
 plates. That he was seen with Smith. 
 That right after he began to visit Smith 
 the latter began to tell about finding the 
 plates and began his pretended translation 
 of them. We have made our case. 
 
 MORMON CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 1761 Solomon Spaulding was born in Ash- 
 ford, Connecticut. 
 
 1785 Solomon Spaulding graduated with 
 the degree of A. B. at Dartmouth Col- 
 lege. 
 
 1787 Solomon Spaulding graduated in Di- 
 vinity. He received the degree of A. 
 M. from Dartmouth College. 
 
 178( Solomon Spaulding preaches as Con- 
 gregational preacher till compelled to 
 stop by ill health, in 1800. 
 
 1793 Sidney Rigdon was born Feb., 19th 
 near the village of Library, St. Clair 
 townshio, Alleghany county, Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 1796 Joseph Smith, 8en., and Lucy Mack 
 married in Tun bridge, Vermont. 
 
 1800 Solomon Spaulding moves to Cherry 
 Valley, New York, and engages in 
 merchandizing till 1805, and marries 
 MatildaSabin. 
 
 1805 Imposter Joe Smith born Dec. 23, in 
 Sharon, Windsor county, Vermont. 
 
 1807 Solomon Spaulding having failed in 
 business moves to Coneaut, Ohio, and 
 engages in business. 
 
 1808 He becomes very much interested in 
 the mounds around Coneaut, and has 
 several opened. He begins a histor- 
 ical romance, assuming that their 
 builders were the descendants of ship- 
 wrecked Romans. His Manuscript 
 No. 1. His Roman Manuscript. 
 
 1809 He abandons this idea as too near his 
 own time and begins his Manuscript 
 No. II. Mormon Manuscript No. I. 
 He assumes that the aborigines of 
 America were Israelites from Jerusa- 
 lem. He fails in business and an- 
 nounces to his creditors, his purpose to 
 pub ish his romance, as " Manuscript 
 Found," and pay his debts. 
 
 1610-11-12 Spaulding continues to write 
 on his romance, and to read to all that 
 he can induce to listen to him. His 
 monomania causes his neighbors to 
 nick-name him " Old come to pass" 
 on account of the absurd frequency of 
 that expression in his manuscript. 
 He begins Manuscript No. Ill, Mor- 
 mon Manuscript No. II, adding the 
 Zarahemla portion. He moves to 
 Pittsburg to prepare his manuscript 
 for publication. 
 A religious impostor in Vermont. 
 
 creates much excitement in the neigh- 
 borhood of the Smiths. Mr*. Smith 
 is very active in the *citement, and 
 prophecies, that Joe, then a lad of 
 seven, will be a prophet, and found a 
 new religion. Joe is reared with that 
 idea constantly before him. The 
 family are all taught it. 
 
 1813-11 At the ad vice of Patterson, Spauld- 
 ing prepares for press his Manuscript 
 No. IV, Mormon Manuscript No. III. 
 It is carried to Patterson's office for 
 publication. 
 
 Sidney Rigdon is learning the tannors 
 trade in Pittsburg. He is very inti 
 mate with Lambdin a leading em 
 ployee of Patterson. He is around 
 the office so much, that Engles, the 
 foreman, complains of it. He takes 
 great interest in Spaulding's manu- 
 script. 
 
 Spaulding moves to Amity, Washing- 
 ton county, Pa., and his wife keeps 
 tavern. 
 
 1815 The Smith's move to Palmyra, New 
 York. 
 
 1816 Spauldinginforms Jas. Miller, McKee 
 and J r. Dodd, that his manuscript 
 has been stolen from Patterson's 
 office, and that Ripdon is blamed 
 with the theft. Spaulding died Octo- 
 ber 20th, 1818. His widow collects 
 his papers that she can find and takes 
 them with her, in a trunk, to the 
 residence of his brother, W. H. Sabin, 
 Onondajja county, New York. 
 
 1817 Sidney Rigdon joins the Baptist 
 Church on Piney Fork of Peters' 
 Creek, May 31st. 
 
 1819 The Smiths squat on a piece of land 
 belonging to minors in Ontario County, 
 New York. Rigdon studies theology 
 with Rev. Clark of the Regular Bap- 
 tist Church in Beaver County, Pa. 
 
 1819 Rigdon is licensed to preach by the 
 Connequessing Baptist Church. 
 
 1820 Rigdon goes to Warren, Trumbull 
 County, Ohio, where an uncle is 
 prominent member of the Baptist 
 Church. He joins that church March 
 4th. He is ordained to preach by that 
 church April 1st. Marries Phebe A. 
 Brooks. 
 Mrs. Spaulding, Spaulding's widow, 
 
 goes to Pomfret, Connecticut. 
 Rigdon preaches for the Baptist Church 
 in Warren, and for others in the vicin- 
 ity. 
 
 1821 Rigdon continues to preach for the 
 Baptists in Warren. In this year, or 
 in the year following, Mrs. Spaulding 
 marries Mr. Davidson of Hartwick, 
 Otsego County, New York, and goes 
 there to live. 
 
 1822 Rig don moves to Pittsburg. Is elected 
 pastor of the First Baptist Church 
 Jan. 28. 
 
 During this year or the year following, 
 he shows to Dr. Winter, a prominent 
 teacher in Pittsburg, a Baptist 
 preacher, and an intimate acquaint- 
 ance, Spaulding's Manuscript No. IV, 
 
76 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Mormon Manuscript No. III. He says: 
 " It is a Bible romance, purporting to 
 be a history of the American Indians, 
 that a Presbyterian preacher named 
 Spaulding wrote, and left with a 
 printer for publication. I borrowed 
 it to read through curiosity." 
 
 In digging a well for Willard Chase, 
 Joseph Smith, senior, the father of 
 Imposter Joe, found a stone of cloudy 
 quartz, that singularly resembled a 
 child's foot. Imposter Joe who was 
 loafing around, stole it from Chase's 
 children. This is the famous peep- 
 s tone of Imposter Joe, the Urhu and 
 Thummim of Mormonism. 
 
 Rigdon had stolen its Bible, now, Im- 
 poster Joe stole its Urim and Thum- 
 mim. 
 
 1823 Rigdon preaches for the Baptist 
 Church until Oct. llth when he is 
 excluded for doctrinal heresies. He 
 goes to the Court House and preaches 
 to his followers. 
 
 Imposter Joe begins his course as im- 
 poster. He pretends to witch for 
 water with a witch hazel rod, and to 
 find lost property and hidden treas- 
 ures and mines with his stolen peep- 
 stone by putting it into his hat and 
 holding his face into his hat. 
 
 In September, while working for W. H. 
 Sabin, where Miss Spaulding, Spauld- 
 in-j's daughter was living, with her 
 father's papers in her care, Joseph 
 Smith learns of the existence of the 
 Spaulding manuscripts. This is the 
 true interpretation of his wonderful 
 vision of Sept. 23, 1823, when Moroni, 
 now an angel, appears to him, and 
 reveals to him the existence of the 
 plates he Moroni had buried hun- 
 dreds of years before, and lets Joe 
 have a peep at them. 
 
 Joseph Smith manufactured that story 
 twenty years afterwards in 1843. He 
 told of no such vision then. The true 
 interpretation is he learned of the 
 Spaulding manuscript while working 
 for Sabin in Sept. 1823. 
 
 1824 Mrs. Davidson has the trunk contain- 
 ing her husband's papers sent to her 
 in Hartwicke, N. Y. 
 
 Rigdon preaches for his adherents until 
 in the summer, in the Court House. 
 He then quits preaching and works in 
 a tannery, and begins revising his 
 stolen manuscript. It was a period of 
 great religious excitement and new 
 parties were springing up continually. 
 The excitement of the movement of 
 the Campbells was beginning to be 
 the chief topic in Western Pennsylva- 
 nia. Rigdon had adopted some, but 
 not all of their ideas He saw he 
 could not be a leader, in competition 
 with them if he went into it. He con- 
 ceived the idea of remodeling the 
 Spaulding manuscript by interpolat- 
 ing portions of the Bible, and his own 
 peculiar religious ideas, pretending 
 that it was a record kept by the 
 
 Israelites, who came to America, just 
 as the Bible was kept by Israelites ir> 
 Asia, and was as much a revelation as 
 the Bible. 
 
 He intended by such fraud to start a 
 new religious movement with himself 
 as prophet, and his stolen manuscript 
 thus revised as its new revelation. 
 1825 Rigdon continues his revision of his 
 stolen manuscript and works in the 
 tannery. 
 
 Smith is in the height of his glory as 
 imposter, He has a gang of loa'fing 
 dupes and knaves digging through 
 southern New York and northern 
 Pennsylvania for buried treasures, 
 mines of precious metals that he pre- 
 tends to see through his stolen peep- 
 stone. He extends his operations to 
 Harmony, Pa. He makes the ac- 
 quaintance of Emma Hale. Asks her 
 hand in marriage. Is decidedly re- 
 fused by her father on account of his 
 bad character. 
 
 1826 In the latter part of winter Rigdon 
 moves to Bainbridge, Geauga county, 
 Ohio. He spent so much time on 
 his stolen manuscript that his wife 
 threatened to burn it. He replied; 
 " that the manuscript would be a 
 great thing some day." 
 Smith is in full blast as imposter. 
 He extends his operations until the 
 extreme parts are 150 miles apart. 
 The doings of Smith and his gang, 
 and the peep-stone of Smith are ex- 
 tensively commented on by the press 
 of the region. 
 
 In June Rigdon preaches the funeral 
 sermon of Warner Goodali in Mentor; 
 He pleases the church, and it selects 
 him as pastor and he becomes a Disci- 
 ple preacher. 
 
 1827 Smith goes to Harmony, Pa., in the 
 absence of Mr. Hale, runs oft' with 
 his daughter and marries her in South 
 Bainbridge, N Y. The ceremony is 
 performed by Tarbell, J. P., .Jan. 18th. 
 Rigdon tells Darwin Atwater that a 
 book will soon appear giving an ac- 
 count of the aborigines of this conti- 
 nent and the origin of American 
 antiquities. 
 
 He tells A. Bently that a book was 
 about to be published that was found 
 engraved on plates of gold. A. Camp- 
 bell testifies that he said also that it 
 was dug out of the earth in New York . 
 It contained an account of the abori- 
 gines of this continent. That it said 
 that the gospel had been preached in 
 America just as the disciples were 
 then preaching it on the Reserve, dur- 
 ing the first centuries of our era. 
 Rigdon preached during this and the 
 three succeeding year, the peculiar 
 ideas that are in the Book of Mormon. 
 He indoctrinated all of his hearers, 
 that he could, with these ideas, and 
 prepared for the coming of his new 
 revelation. 
 In the spring of 1827 a stranger was ob- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 77 
 
 served at Smith's house. Shortly after 
 he made his appearance, the Smiths 
 be:an to tell of the golden bible. 
 People of Mentor began to notice that 
 Rigdon was often absent from home 
 for days, and no one knew where. 
 Spaulding had in tended to assume that 
 his romance was a translation of a 
 manuscript found in the earth. From 
 1818 tc 1827, the papers contained ac- 
 counts of finding glyphs of metallic 
 plates, covered with unknown charac- 
 ters. In the spring of 1827, a story 
 was started that a book of such 
 glyphs had been found in Canada, 
 and that it was called a "Golden 
 Bible." 
 
 SJgdon adopted this idea, and the 
 scheme was concocted to pretend that 
 Smith had found a book of gold plates 
 called the "Golden Bible." Smith 
 was to pretend to translate it with 
 his peep stone, stolen from the Chases 
 children. He was in reality to use 
 Rig'don's revision of the manuscript 
 he had stolen from Spaulding, and 
 pretend that it was a translation of 
 the plates that he pretended that he 
 had found. 
 
 Smith informs Rigdon of the place 
 where the rest of the Spaulding 
 manuscripts could be found. The 
 confederates dare not publish their 
 fraud while they were in existence. 
 In September, 1827, Smith was loafing 
 around Mrs. Davidson's neighbor- 
 hood, superintending a gang, digging 
 for a silver mine, on the place of 
 Stowell, and also a well or two 
 were dug in the neighborhood. 
 September 22 he succeeded in stealing 
 some of the Spaulding manuscripts. 
 This is the true interpretation of his 
 wonderful vision of September 21-22, 
 1827. They had now, they supposed, 
 all the Spaulding's Mormon manu- 
 scripts in their possession, and they 
 supposed all means of detection were 
 destroyed. 
 
 Smith then began his pretended trans- 
 lation of his pretended plates. 
 In the fall Smith moved to Harmony, 
 Pennsylvania, to his father-in-law. 
 While on Cfie road his goods were 
 
 searched twice for stolen property. 
 
 His father's house was searched about 
 
 the same time. 
 1828 Martha Spaulding, Spaulding's 
 
 daughter, marries Dr. McKinstry and 
 
 moves to Munson, Massachusetts to 
 
 live. 
 Rigdon makes a convert of P. P. Pratt, 
 
 a teacher in Lorain county, Ohio, who 
 
 begins to preach for the Disciples. 
 
 He lets Pratt into his scheme, who 
 
 goes into it and eventually becomes 
 
 the Paul of Mormonism. 
 Smith begins to translate. Martin Har- 
 ris is his scribe. In July Smith let Harris 
 have 118 pages to take back to Manchester 
 to use in making dupes and enlisting con- 
 federates, in the fraud. Mrs. Harris who 
 was bitterly opposed to the fraud, burned 
 the 118 pages, without her husband's knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 Great consternation ensues. Rigdon comes 
 and gets the Spaulding manuscript that 
 Smith had stolen and reconstructs from 
 this the portion that had been burned. 
 
 Smith has a long revelation telling what 
 had been done by malicious persons telling 
 what no one had done or dreamed of doing. 
 Smith did not know what had been done, 
 and the Mormon God concocts a plan to cir- 
 cumvent a scheme that had never been even 
 dreamed of. 
 
 Smith returns to Waterloo, New York, in 
 the fall. The angels plow seven acres of 
 wheat and sow ten acres of plaster to 
 enable Whitmer to go and move Srait h. 
 
 (1S29). In March Oliver Cowdery is made 
 Smith's scribe. Rigdon comes and gives 
 Smith what he has revised of the Spaulding 
 manuscript, and translation proceeds. 
 
 May 5th, John the Baptist appears to 
 Joseph and Oliver, and gives to them the 
 keys of the first priesthood, etc. Smith has 
 a cave dug in which to hold levees with 
 angels. 
 
 Smith gives Harris a scrawl to take to 
 Anthon in New York City. Harris returns 
 and publishes a false statement about the 
 interview. 
 
 Early in June the translation is complet- 
 ed. In about two months Oliver Cowdery, 
 an inexperienced blacksmith, wrote out at 
 least two thousand foolscap pages, or an 
 average of over thirty pages per day. 
 
78 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LATHES AND 
 GKNTI,EMEN : I know you have been enter- 
 tained with the story and the gossip that 
 has been brought forward. The wonderful 
 amount of testimony, too, that you have 
 heard from those fourteen witnesses ! Have 
 you not heen anxiously waiting- here, and 
 listening, and watching to have something 
 read in the shape of evidence? Yet, you 
 have not heard one single affidavit read, 
 one single statement read, one single thing 
 read that could with any show of truth be 
 properly called evidence. It is the first 
 time I ever heard a man get up and state 
 what he had culled from statements, or pur- 
 ported affidavits, to an audience and ask 
 them to take it as evidence, without hear- 
 ing the entire statement of the party read, 
 or if it is printed giving the reader the 
 privilege of reading the entire evidence for 
 himself. I will pick it out and select just 
 what I want the audience to hear, and thus 
 in fact stand as judge for the audience. 
 That is the position of my friend before 
 you. I will say, however, with regard to 
 his story, (and he has made out his case he 
 says,) he is done now; just understand 
 that: that ifc is, with one exception, the 
 most singular thing that I ever saw or 
 heard. There is one gotten up that is a fair 
 parallel to it, however, one just like it. I 
 have it in a book in my house, and intended 
 to have brought it over to-night and exhib- 
 ited to you, but forgot it. It was published 
 by Alexander Smythe in Chicago in 1880. 
 Instead, however, of being against the 
 Latter Day Saints, it is against the early, or 
 former day saints. The author sets out by 
 making the apostle Paul the hero of the 
 Christian religion. He plays him as the 
 master mind of the whole scheme trans- 
 acted in Palestine. He concocted the plan 
 in order to establish a church and found a 
 new religion in the time in which he lived. 
 As a starting point and for the purpose of 
 awakening the people to the scheme, this 
 man says, that Paul procured a poor crazy 
 fanatic, called John the Baptist, and sent 
 him into the wilderness of Judea and had 
 him preach a while to tell them that one 
 who was then pending in their midst would 
 soon come, and h-> r ould be the Messiah 
 and restore all thing* to them. After a 
 while that one tha,* ..as to be the Messiah 
 is brought out to play his part, according 
 to the tale. He was a relative of John the 
 Baptist, he says. It happens, too, that the 
 party mixed in a grain of truth here in 
 order to deceive, as Christ was a relative. 
 Then the story proceeds to the effect, that, 
 ai'cer a while when the apostle Paul thought 
 that he had used John the Baptist all he 
 wanted to, he puts up a job on John and has 
 Herod behead him. Then he has Jesus play 
 the Messiah until the time that he thinks 
 things are about ripe for to spring some great 
 
 excitement in the world. All the time this 
 author cunningly represents the apostle as 
 playing behind the scenes, until Jesus has 
 made himself well known, then he foists 
 some horrid stories upon the ears of the 
 populace in Jerusalem against the Messiah, 
 and just at a time when he is approach- 
 ing the city, (Jesus not knowing anything 
 about Paul's perfidy,) and the excited peo- 
 ple rise and put him to death. The Apostle 
 Paul then steals his body and makes away 
 with it ; so the story goes. And after he 
 had done that he starts down to Damascus, 
 and all of a sudden the apostle gets con- 
 verted to the new religion by a great mira- 
 cle, and goes back in order to make a great 
 sensation in the world, telling his wonder- 
 ful experience; and from that time becomes 
 the " ringleader." You take that book, my 
 friends, and read it, published in the nine- 
 teenth century, in the year 1880, and ob- 
 serve the things that it takes from the 
 Bible, excerpting here and there, in order 
 to make a show of truth, and notice the in- 
 genuity with which the false statements 
 are thrown in between, and then compare 
 with his Spaulding story, and you will find 
 that it is a far more plausible story than he 
 has presented to you in trying to account 
 for the origin of the Book of Mormon. But 
 he has chosen in this discussion to rely upon 
 as a defense, as I was just saying before my 
 time was called, the Spaulding stori/^ and 
 character; either as a counter proof suffi- 
 cient or as a means of prejudicing the peo- 
 ple against an investigation of ihe facts. 
 But whatever the object it matters not to 
 me, for I shall canvass the story itself, and 
 see what truth if any there is in it. Prop- 
 erly it does not belong to this question ; as 
 foreign to it in fact as were the stories and 
 false charges of "deceiver," "gluttonous 
 man," "wine bibber," &c., to ascertaining 
 the truth of the mission of Jesus. Not- 
 withstanding this, some want it examined, 
 and I assure you it is but an easy task to 
 drag it to the bottom. 
 
 How bad indeed according to my oppo- 
 nent's arraignment was this Smith crowd. 
 The old man, the old lady, the boys and the 
 girls. One would gather from his talk that 
 they had been under the general espionage of 
 the secret service department all along down 
 the previous century. Yet, no crime was 
 ever even charged against one of them, ex- 
 cept in the old women's tales and gossip, 
 spun by the pious (?) of the neighborhood. 
 From before the time they left the State of 
 Vermont they were thought to be squeam- 
 ish. Yet, the old lady brought with her to 
 New York State, a certificate of good stand- 
 ing in the Presbyterian church. Were 
 Presbyterians, and especially those of the 
 old New England stock, in those times, 
 immoral, impious, and Sabbath breakers? 
 In New York, their sons Hyrum and Sam- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 79 
 
 uel and their daughter Sophronia also 
 Joined the Presbyterian church and were in 
 pood standing in that church during this 
 time ; yet they were awful bad folks. They 
 quietly remained members of this body, 
 which was considered one of the straightest 
 sects, up to theyear 1827, when they deliber- 
 ately withdrew from it themselves because 
 of their conversion, as they claimed, to the 
 restored gospel. Joseph, an attentive list- 
 ener at the Methodist church, and he is just 
 about to be taken in as a member, when he 
 happens to think that he will go and pray ; 
 ask God what he shall do; for he is 
 in a confusion of mind over what to do. 
 My friends, have any of you ever been in 
 such a state! and if so did you go to your 
 heavenly Father to ask his advice? 
 
 Now this is the sum total of the crime of 
 the fourteen-year-old boy at this time. He 
 went and asked God for wisdom, and said 
 the Lord spoke to him and told him what 
 to do. It would never have been of note in 
 the world about his asking, had he not 
 stated that at the time he received an 
 answer; and such an answer. What was 
 it? "That the churches were not right." 
 This was before Mr. Campbell ever left the 
 Baptist church, sir, and while Charles and 
 John Wesley were singing, 
 
 "Almighty God of love, 
 
 Set up the a t active sign. 
 And summon whom thou dost approre 
 
 For messengei s divine. 
 From Abram's favored seed, 
 
 The new apostles choose; 
 Go sprend throughout the earth around. 
 
 The dead reviving news." 
 
 Was it any worse for young Joseph Smith 
 to say these churches were wrong, and did 
 not meet in full the measure of the Alraigty 
 than others ? Ah ! but he said God told 
 him so, in answer to prayer. Well, did he 
 never tell my friend anything in answer to 
 prayer. 
 
 Answer me that, and do not forget it as 
 you did at Wilber ! ! If Jesus or his mes- 
 sengers, did not tell him this, where did he 
 get it? He was not the learned and schol- 
 arly man that you claim for Mr. Campbell; 
 nor in a part of the world where he could 
 gain from the wisdom of the Wesleys. Yet, 
 he is the first of the age to come out boldly 
 and frankly and say, "none of them are 
 right." Not that they were wrong in all 
 things, for he recognized that there was 
 some good in each and all of them. But 
 that none were all right acknowledged of 
 God. Sixty-three years have passed away 
 and now who says it among the religious 
 teachers ? Mr. Campbell soon did ; Walter 
 Scott, Sidney Rigdon, Henry Ward Beech- 
 er Dr. Thomas, Dr. Cheeney, Prof. Swing. 
 W. H. H. Murry, and a host of others. Ana 
 this, too, notwithstanding the great refor- 
 mation wrought under Campbell. His 
 might be termed the water reformation ! 
 Young Smith, as any young boy would 
 have done under such circumstances, with 
 confidence in his heart and faith in the 
 justice of his cause, goes directly with his 
 answer to his preacher, the pastor; states 
 tis case; and what would you have sup- 
 
 posed the reception under the circum- 
 stances, of a person of his age going to the 
 pastor with the story. "The Lord showed 
 me in the vision that'the churches were all 
 wrong." Now take the opposite view. 
 Suppose the answer to Smith had been, 
 You join the Methodist Church, (there was 
 no Campbellite Church in the world to this 
 time), as that is more acceptable to me than 
 the Baptist or Presbyterian. Do you think 
 the Methodist preacher would have called 
 the boy a liar, and said he had no such 
 vision ? No, you all know, he would have 
 put young Joseph at the head of the con- 
 verts, and had him testify every night. It 
 makes a big difference whose ox is gored 
 sometimes. 
 
 Why I remember well last winter reading 
 an account of a lady in the Methodist 
 church inColdwater, Michigan, who claim- 
 ed to be actually healed by the power of 
 faith in that church, and the church ac- 
 cepted it. While the Saints at the same 
 place for the last twenty years had been 
 affirming that God so wrought with them 
 and that they had had many instances of 
 such blessings, yet they were looked upon 
 as fanatical, unorthodox, superstitious, be- 
 cause of this belief. Is it because it did not 
 happen in our church that we are to say : 
 "Oh, it is all stuff; they are a set of fana- 
 tics." But there is another thing that 
 young Smith said the angel told him, that 
 is more remarkable, if made up, than the 
 other ; it was a prophecy : "That his name 
 should be both good and evil spoken of 
 among all nations, kindreds, tongues and 
 people." How did this young boy know 
 that his name should be spoken of among 
 all people, every nation ; by his friends as 
 being a good man and by his enemies as 
 being an evil man ? The prophecy is clear 
 and distinctj the fulfillment is complete 
 no one to gainsay it. The wonderful state- 
 ment made by the then boy and the sub- 
 sequent fulfillment should cause the most 
 incredulous to stop and think before he 
 condemns. How did he know this? Take 
 the greatest villain on the earth or the most 
 worthy man, are their names, even in this 
 later time of the easy transmission of news, 
 known among all nations, kindreds, tongues 
 and peoples. Strike the heart of Africa 
 and the Mohammetan country, and they 
 have all heard of Smith, and they hold him 
 in one relation or the other. But go to 
 the heart of these same countries and they 
 have not even heard of the terrible charac- 
 ter that struck down our President, who, Ml 
 seems, in his iniquity, would have been 
 known all over the world if any one pos- 
 sibly could by this means. And yet this 
 young boy stated early in 1823 that the 
 angel said to him that his "Name should 
 be both good and evil spoken of among all 
 nations, kindreds, tongues and people. 
 Can you point me to a prophecy in the 
 Bible that has been more literally fulfilled? 
 
 Now I propose to examine my opponent's- 
 alibi, as he has rested his whole case upon 
 that, and you watch and see if he is not 
 driven from his "SPAULDINO STORY" AND. 
 
80 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 CHARACTER!! I referred to the fact that 
 this old falsehood was met and vanquished 
 when it was first circulated in 1835 and 1836, 
 and later in 1839 and 1840 ; but he replies 
 that I must meet it here and not tell abcut 
 what has been done. Very well, my affirm- 
 ative arguments being in no way answered, 
 lean well afford to meet it here; so now 
 for the Spauidirtg story as a theory. Will 
 you reply to my arguments upon this? We 
 will see. 
 
 The following are the claims made for 
 that: 
 
 first, That one Solomon Spaulding, a 
 Presbyterian clergyman, about the year 
 ]811, lived at Conneaut, Ohio, and being in 
 poor health, for diversion in his invalid 
 state, wrote a story and left it in manuscript 
 form, which was like the present Book of 
 Mormon, except as to errors. 
 
 Second. That from Conneaut, Ohio, he 
 removed to Pittsburg, Pa., in 1812, and 
 while there handed the manuscript of this 
 tstory to a publisher by the name of Robert 
 Patterson for examination and publication. 
 
 Third, That the manuscript instead of 
 being published was returned to Mr. Spauld- 
 ing, and in the year 1814 he left Pittsburg 
 and went to Amity, Pa., where he died in 
 the year 1816, when his effects, including 
 the manuscript, fell into the hands of his 
 widow. 
 
 fourth. That at the time the manuscript 
 was in the office of publisher Patterson, one 
 Sidney Rigdon was engaged at, or in some 
 way connected with said printing office, 
 and in some way got the manuscript and 
 purloined the same. 
 
 fifth, That Sidney Rigdon at the time, 
 knew of Joseph Smith and had opportunity 
 to get this manuscript to him, and 
 
 Sixth, That Rigdon being a preacher at 
 the time did this in order to start a new 
 church and have a basis for his scheme. 
 
 Before, during this discussion, I showed 
 by the illustration of "a chain of title" to 
 property, if the chain was perfect in all its 
 parts it would stand the test, but if faulty 
 or disconnected by a single transfer it would 
 not. In the examination of one's title if 
 you are able to show that one link in the 
 chain is not a true one, forged, or obtained 
 through fraud, the whole thing is void. 
 But in this pretentious claim of the Spauld- 
 ing Manuscript, which he has set up, I am 
 not only able to prove that one link is at 
 fault, but that the entire chain is bad, and 
 every link at fault; from the inception by 
 Philaster Hulburt, who had been twice, as I 
 have before shown, excommunicated from 
 the Latter Day Saints for immoralities, to 
 the conclusion of it as published and eom- 
 
 gleted by Howe of Painsville, who had the 
 paulding manuscript destroyed while in 
 his hands. I enter upon the investiga- 
 tion with the hope that I shall have your 
 candid and unbiased judgment in the con- 
 sideration of the evidence. 
 
 First, did Spaulding ever write such a 
 manuscript? I claim that he did not; and 
 for proof of this refer you first to their own 
 witnesses. 
 
 1. The manuscript Spaulding is said to 
 have written was too meager a thing to in 
 any sense compare with a manuscript that 
 would make a book the size of the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 2. The character of the "Manuscript 
 Found," which is the oneall rely upon as 
 the romance, was entirely different to the 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 3. He was such an invalid at the time It 
 is alleged he wrote his manuscript, that it 
 would have been impossible for him consid- 
 ering his circumstances in life, together 
 with his broken constitution, to nave writ- 
 ten such a manuscript had it been possible 
 for any man of his own knowledge to write 
 such a one as the Book of Mormon, which I 
 deny. 
 
 Taking up the first reason it will at once 
 be clear to you that a manuscript written 
 in the English language, as they concede 
 Spaulding's was, to contain the amount of 
 matter that is included in the strictly his- 
 torical part of the Book of Mormon, would 
 cover at least fifteen hundred pages of fools- 
 cap paper. Was the "Manuscript Found" 
 such? The statements of those who claim 
 they saw the "Manuscript Found," place it 
 beyond doubt that it was no such. Mrs. 
 McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spauld- 
 ing in her evidence says, that she, "Read 
 the manuscript frequently when she was 
 about twelve years of age, and that it was 
 about one inch in thickness." She read it 
 frequently, so it could not have been very 
 large. Then their other trumped up wit- 
 nesses all, or nearly all, say they heard it 
 read. Henry Lake heard it read. John N. 
 Miller heard it read from beginning to end. 
 Aaron Wright heard Spaulding read it, etc. 
 Mrs. Matilda Spaulding, wife of Solomon 
 Spaulding, states in her testimony published 
 in the Illinois Quincy Whig, that it was about 
 a third as large as the Book of Mormon and 
 that her daughter (Mrs. McKinstry) read it 
 frequently. Hulburt who was commission- 
 ed by Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron 
 Wright, et al. (Bradeu's witnesses), to go 
 and get the Spaulding writing, went and 
 got it he says, and the only one in Spauld- 
 ing's hand writing which the widow had. 
 That he delivered it to E. D. Howe of Pains- 
 ville, who was writing the book to break 
 down the Mormons, and Howe says, page 
 288, of his book in describing it, that, "The 
 trunk referred to by the widow was subse- 
 quently examined and found to contain 
 only a single manuscript book in Spauld- 
 ing's hand writing, containing about one 
 quire of paper." 
 
 Then according to the description of the 
 manuscript itself by those who actually saw 
 it, it must have been a very small affair in 
 deed in comparison to the historical portion 
 of the Book of Mormon. In fact there was 
 no comparison of the one, to the other, what- 
 ever. 
 
 But Howe goes further with his descrip- 
 tion and shows the style, subject, matter, 
 history, and all different. This brings ua 
 to notice that the second proposition in my 
 statement is true. This agrees with Mrs. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 81 
 
 Spaulding's description of the "Manuscript 
 Found." In the letter to the Boston Re- 
 corder, she says: "He (Mr. Spaulding) was 
 enabled (while writing this manuscript) 
 from his acquaintance with the clappics and 
 uncient history, to introduce many singular 
 jiames which were particularly noticed by 
 people and could readily be recognized by 
 them." Page 43, Smucker against the 
 Mormons. 
 
 Then in the same letter she says: ''Mr. 
 Spaulding had a brother John Spaulding, 
 residing in the place at the time, who was 
 perfectly familiar with the work arid re- 
 pcatedly heard the whole of it read. 1 ' What 
 an easy thing my audience for a man to 
 read repeatedly, a manuscript of two thou- 
 sand pasres: besides it must have been the 
 most enticing novel ever written Just to 
 think of repeatedly reading such a manu- 
 script! Now I hope the friends won't be back- 
 ward again about giving me their names for 
 a copy of this enticing book, that can be had 
 for only one dollar and a quarter And 
 thrown in this letter is Braden's the- 
 ory that Mr Smith did all this copy- 
 ing, working, digging for money, travel- 
 ing, studying, planning, delving. what a 
 lazy boy ! in order to start a church. Ridicu- 
 lous! Did you ever hear of such a theory? For 
 men to work for years and years, and labor 
 and hire men, and dig holes, and mine and 
 sweat in order to get an excuse for starting 
 a new church ? Did not Mr. Campbell start 
 a new church without any such an excuse ? 
 Did not Mr. Smith and Mr. Rigdon have as 
 good a right to start a new church without 
 all this as Mr. Campbell or Mr. Wesley or 
 Mr. Luther or near a thousand others who 
 have started new churches since the time 
 of Christ? It seems tome that starting new 
 churches is not confined simply to a few 
 individuals; we have too many to admit of 
 such an idea. And look everywhere you 
 may and you cannot tell which* is right un- 
 less you accept the doctrine which is taught 
 in the New Testament, and abide by the 
 rule, "If any of you lack wisdom. let him 
 ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally 
 and upbraideth not, and it shall be givon 
 him." But my friend does not accept lliat 
 doctrine. 
 
 Then again, " the old neighbors were ena- 
 bled to identify it by reason of the names 
 taken from the classical authors and an- 
 cient history." Were enabled to identity 
 it by reason of these historical and classical 
 names ! Here you have set out by Mrs. 
 Spaulding herself how they were enabled 
 to identify the work. What name have 
 they got? Why he found one the other 
 night, I believe it was " Mormon." It was 
 a Greek word. Will you show me the word 
 'Mormon" in Greek as used in the Book 
 vf Mormon? 
 
 Mr. Braden : Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. Kelley: You say you will but you 
 will never do it. 
 
 Mr. Braden : That is to be seen. 
 
 Mr. Kelley: There is such a term as 
 Mormo that they think that the Greeks used 
 just the same as we use the word "Mor- 
 
 mon." But to any person who will think a 
 moment it is evident there is not and never 
 was the slightest connection. The word 
 Mormo was used to denote a hobgoblin, bug- 
 bear, object of fright, etc Mormon was 
 simply a man's name as used in the Book of 
 Mormon, the name of a place of pleasure, 
 etc., and in no sense as the Greek word 
 Mormo was used The similarity of sound 
 between the two when they are written in 
 English argues nothing I can show that 
 words of similar sound, so far as that is con- 
 cerned in different languages have no rela- 
 tion whatever either in derivation or mean- 
 ing, and are never used by the people to in- 
 dicate the same or similar things That 
 idea about the Greek word Mormo being the 
 root of the word Mormon as found in this 
 book is simply ridiculous. A thing gotten 
 up by certain persons and tried to apply to 
 the word as used in the Book of Mormon to 
 deceive the ignorant. But I will see when 
 Mr Braden brings it 
 
 But again : " Spaulding's manuscript 
 represented an idolatrous people," they say. 
 The Book of Mormon does not The Spauld- 
 ing "Manuscript Found" was delivered 
 into the hands of this Dr. P. Hulburt who 
 had got up all these lying affidavits, about 
 Smith and the Book of Mormon and he 
 takes it to Howe of Painsville, Ohio, the very 
 place where they are trying to destroy the 
 authenticity of the Book of Mormon Howe 
 because he was mad about his wife and sis- 
 ter joining the church, and Hulburt be- 
 cause he had been cut off from the church, 
 they take the manuscript under promise 
 to Mrs. Davidson that they would publish 
 and send her a copy and divide proceeds ; 
 and when she gets no returns she writes to 
 them about it and they answer her: "It 
 did not read like we expected and we did 
 not use it." How about the manuscript 
 now? Traced right into the hands of the 
 bitterest opposers of the Book of Mormon 
 by your own witnesses, and long after the 
 publication of the Book of Mormon This 
 is the manuscript story which they are 
 claiming was in the hand-writing of Solo- 
 mon Spaulding who died before the publi- 
 cation of the Book of Mormon and whose 
 hand writing could he identified by hia 
 manuscript sermons, as Mrs Spaulding and 
 Mrs McKinstry testified ; and from such a 
 manuscript as this ten words preserved in 
 Mr Solomon Spaulding's hand-writing 
 would have been sufficient to have identified 
 the two, if the Book of Mormon was> the 
 same, beyond all dispute whatever and 
 these opposers with their statements and 
 affidavits in their hands, deliberately de 
 stroythe "Manuscript Found," which they 
 got from Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) and 
 maliciously publish their statements Here 
 is "old come to pass," right in their own 
 hands in the year 1834. Now who is the 
 imposter ; the deceiver? But further, when 
 it is first published that Mrs. Spaulding 
 (Davidson) claimed the Book of Mormon 
 was a copy of the manuscript a gentleman 
 from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Harper, visits at 
 once Mrs (Spaulding) Davidson, Mrs. 
 
82 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 McKinstry, and Dr. Ely, in Massachusetts, 
 and interviews these persons, and writes 
 his account to the Quincy (111.) Whiff, 
 a bitter anti-Mormon journal , stating that 
 in the interview he asked and received 
 answers to the following questions, to 
 wit: 
 
 Q. "Have you read the Book of Mormon? 
 
 A. I have read some of it. 
 
 Q. Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and 
 the Book of Mormon agree? 
 
 A I think some of the names are alike. 
 
 Q. Does the manuscript describe an idola- 
 trous or a rergious people? 
 
 A An idolatrous people. 
 
 Q Where is the manuscript? 
 
 A. Dr. P Hulburt came here and took it, 
 said he would get It printed and let me 
 have one-half of the profits. 
 
 Q. Has Dr. Hulburt got the manuscript 
 printed? 
 
 A. I have received a letter stating that 
 it did not read as they expected and they 
 should not print it. 
 
 Q. How large was the manuscript ? 
 
 A. About one-third as large as the Book 
 of Mormon." 
 
 (To Mrs. McKinstry.) 
 
 Q. "How old were you when your father 
 wrote the manuscript? 
 
 A. About five years of age. 
 
 Q. Did you ever read the manuscript? 
 
 A When I was about twelve years of age 
 1 used to read it for a diversion. 
 
 Q. Did the manuscript describe an idola- 
 trous or a religious people ? 
 
 A. An idolatrous people. 
 
 Q Does the manuscript and Book of 
 Mormon agree? 
 
 A. I think some of the names agree. 
 
 Q. \re you certain that some of the 
 names agree? 
 
 A I am not. 
 
 Q Have you ever read the Book of Mor- 
 mon ? 
 
 A I have not." 
 
 Then the following interview with Mrs. 
 McKinstry on April 4th, 1882, in Washing- 
 ton City 
 
 Q. "Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Man- 
 uscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is 
 said to have written, in your possession? 
 
 A. I have not. 
 
 Q. What became of it? 
 
 A. My Mother delivered it up for pub- 
 lication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our 
 house in Mass, for it, bearing letters of in- 
 troduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a 
 Jawyer in New York State. 
 
 Q. Why do you not get the manuscript 
 again ? 
 
 A. I have sent for it but Hulburt claims 
 hedil not get any. 
 
 Q. Does Hulburt say he did not get any 
 manuscript from your mother? 
 
 A. That is what he claims now. 
 
 Q. How do you account for the fact Mrs. 
 McKinstry that your father, while being 
 such a good man and a minister, should 
 '" Hte such a bad book as the Buok of Mor- 
 mon ? 
 
 A. Well we never could account for that. 
 
 Q. Could you identify the manuscript 
 was it now produced ? 
 
 A I don't think I could. 
 
 Q. Have you any of the old writings and 
 manuscripts of Mr. Spaulding? 
 
 A. Yes. I have some leaves of his ser- 
 mons. 
 
 Q. And with these you think you could 
 not identify the manuscript? 
 
 A. No, sir, I think not. 
 (Mrs. Col. Seaton, who is present at the in- 
 view.) 
 
 Why yes, mother, if you have his writ- 
 ing you ousrht to identify it. 
 
 Mrs. McKinstry: Well, perhaps I could. 
 
 Q Was it written on common foolscap 
 paper or the clergymen note paper? 
 
 A. It must have been written on foolscap 
 as they had no clergymen note paper in 
 those days. 
 
 Q. How do you come to rememher any of 
 the names that were in that manuscript? 
 
 A. Well, I suppose I should not, but Mr. 
 Spaulding had a way of making a very 
 fancy capital letter at the beginning of a 
 chapter and I remembered the name Lehi, I 
 think it was, from its being written this 
 way." 
 
 That is the way she identified it on 
 account of the word Lehi beginning with a 
 very fancy capital letter. Suppose instead 
 of being Lehi the word had been Levi. 
 Would not the capital letter bave been just 
 the same and mignt there not have been the 
 same fancy about it? And still a different 
 thing altogether. Instead of being Levi, 
 suppose it had been Lincoln. There would 
 have been the same fancy capital letter. 
 But perhaps I ought to read the evidence 
 without comment, and make my comment 
 afterwards, so I return to that. The ques- 
 tion is asked : 
 
 Q. " When did you first think about the 
 names in the Book of Mormon and the man- 
 uscript agreeing? 
 
 A. My attention was first called to it by 
 some parties who asked me if I did not re- 
 member it, and then I remembered that 
 they were." 
 
 These parties were the old neighbors; 
 Aaron Wright, Miller, etc. 
 
 Did you ever have a case in court, my 
 friends? If so, did you ever know the man 
 on the other side to go to certain parties and 
 say, "Now, see here, you are a good friend 
 of mine and I am in a little trouble and I 
 guess you know something to help me out. 
 Don't you remember that a certain fellow 
 upon a certain day said a certain thing? 
 And I will tell you what it was now, and 
 see if you don't remember it?" Why! there 
 is so much evidence manufactured in this 
 country in that way that corruption is be- 
 ginning to rule insomuch that it is thought 
 that never in the history of the world De- 
 fore, did so much evil creep into courts of 
 justice, by reason of ihe manufacturing of 
 testimony and suborning oi witnesses. 
 I again call your attention to the thought: 
 After her attention was called toil by these 
 good, estimable, best citizens, etc.. then she 
 thought she remembered it. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE, 
 
 83 
 
 Q. "Was you acquainted with Joseph 
 Smith? 
 
 A. No. I never heard tell of him till I 
 heard of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Q,. Was Sidney Rigdon ever about your 
 father's house? 
 
 A. No, I never saw him." 
 
 August, 1883, is another important inter- 
 view. 
 
 I will give the evidence of Mr. Howe, but 
 not claim it as evidence if my friend upon 
 the other side of the question will put him 
 on the stand here for cross-examination. I 
 want you to listen to his examination. It 
 is as follows : 
 
 Q. "Mr. Howe, did Hulburt bring the 
 manuscript to you he got of Mrs. (Spauld- 
 ing) Davidson? 
 
 A. Yes, he brought one ; but it was not 
 the one we wanted ; it only told about some 
 tribes of Indians and their wars along the 
 lakes here and pretended to be the writing 
 of some shipwrecked crew. It was the wars 
 of the Winnebagoes, Chicagoes or Niagaries, 
 I believe. 
 
 Q,. Why did you not publish it? 
 
 A. Because it did not do us any good." 
 
 Now, who has got the stolen property 
 that he has made such a parade over? These 
 other parties who are seeking for evidence 
 in order to show that Mr. Smith has stolen 
 property in his possession go and get the 
 original manuscript the manuscript in the 
 handwriting of Solomon Spaulding in the 
 penmanship of Solomon Spaulding, and 
 they bring it here to Painsville, Ohio, and 
 it is traced into the hands of Mr. Howe and 
 Mr. Hulburt, the ones that are determined 
 to crush out the faith of the church : And 
 what do they do? Publish it? Keep it? 
 Preserve it? 'Oh, no ! "They did not use 
 it." Why did they not use it? The reason 
 is too evident to require naming. Ten words 
 preserved in Mr. Spaulding's handwriting 
 would have been sufficient to have identi- 
 fied the two if the Book of Mormon was the 
 same. And these opposers, both sworn ene- 
 mies of Mr. Smith and the Book of Mor- 
 mon with their affidavits in their hands, 
 
 deliberately destroyed the "Manuscript 
 Found," which they ?ot from Mrs. (Spauld- 
 ing) Davidson, and published their state- 
 ments and affidavits, instead of the manu- 
 script that they got. Mind you they got the 
 " Manuscript Found," and the only oneever 
 so called in fact, and 1 will show that they 
 did. I know that Mr. Howe tried to make 
 a dodge afterwards and say that Spaulding 
 had another manuscript called the "Roman 
 Manuscript," so my opponent says ; but Mr. 
 Howe last summer did not give it as the 
 Roman Manuscript, and I am prepared to 
 prove that he said it treated of some Indian 
 wars along the lakes here, too. And pre- 
 pared to prove it with such testimony as 
 will impeach him, so that if he will 'put 
 himself under oath, I can send him to the 
 penitentiary of Ohio for it. I have asked 
 you (Mr. Braden) to put him on the stand 
 here for examination and you dare not. I 
 make these statements fearlessly, because 
 I want the truth of this ; one witness that 
 heard him make such statement is upon the 
 stand here now. 
 
 Now, who is the imposter, the deceiver? 
 
 But I will continue with Mr. How e's state- 
 ment of last summer : "What do you know 
 personally about the Book of Mormon and 
 the Spaul ding story being the same? 
 
 A. I don't know anything. 
 
 Q. Why did you publish a work claiming 
 that the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding 
 Romance? 
 
 A. Because I could better believe that 
 Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw 
 an angel. 
 
 Q. Are those your grounds? 
 
 A. Yes, sir, they are ; and I want you to 
 understand that you can't cram the Book 
 of Mormon down me." 
 
 No, sir! Not down him. He is on Mr. 
 Braden's side. 
 
 Q. "Do you swallow the Bible? 
 
 A. That is my business. 
 
 Q. Have you not published a pamphlet 
 which does not endorse the Bible? 
 
 A. Yes, I hare" 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
84 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: It is pretended that the 
 plates were shown to three witnesses ear- 
 ly in June, and shortly after to eight more. 
 A contract is made with E. B. Grandin of 
 Palmyra, to publish the bookj Harris mort- 
 gages his farm to pay for printing, and in 
 return has a monopoly of the new revela- 
 tion, that is "the fullness of the gospel." 
 He intends "to make money out of it even 
 If it is a lie" he tells his wife. 
 
 The manuscript is carried to the printer 
 with a great deal of torn foolery. Smith has 
 two guards to protect his sacred person. 
 The manuscript is to be seen only by the 
 printer, and the elect. It is all to be taken 
 out of the office each night by the elect. 
 
 Rigdon preaches more wildly than ever. 
 Is absent from home much of his time. Some 
 of his adherents in Kirtland adopt his com- 
 munity of goods* and organize a communi- 
 ty, wash feet, etc. 
 
 1830 The Book of Mormon comes from the 
 press in the latter part of the winter, 
 with the name of Joseph Bmith on it 
 as "Auther and Proprietor." April 
 6th the first Mormon church is organ- 
 ized at Smith's in Manchester, N. Y. 
 In June the first Mormon conference 
 is held in Fayette, N. Y. 
 Rigdon attends for the last time the 
 Disciple Association of Mahoning, 
 held in Austintown. Here he makes 
 his last effort to engraft his hobbies 
 on to the movement of the Disciples. 
 Campbell exposes their extravagant 
 unscriptural character. Rigdon 
 preaches his famous sermon on "King 
 A hasuerus' horse" and leaves the Dis- 
 ciples forever, utterly soured and dis- 
 appointed. He remarks to Mr. Aus- 
 tin of Warren : "I have done as 
 much for tbe Reformation as Camp- 
 bell or Scott, yet they get all the 
 glory." 
 
 He goes back to Mentor, and sends for 
 Pratt, who comes through Mentor in 
 August, and goes from Rirdon straight 
 to Smith, thirty miles off all public 
 thoroughfares, travels a great dis- 
 tance, and reaches Smith's Saturday 
 night, just as meeting begins, is con- 
 verted, on the spot, and made a 
 preacher of Mormonism the next day. 
 In October, Pratt, Cowdry and Whitmer 
 come to Mentor. Rigdon pretends to 
 be ignorant of the whole affair, and to 
 oppose it for a day of so, then is 
 miraculously converted by a silly 
 vision. In December he goes to 
 Smith in New York, preaches the 
 first and only Mormon sermon ever 
 preached in Palmyra. Is recognized 
 as the "mysterious stranger" who has 
 been visiting Smith during the last 
 two years. 
 
 Mrs. Davidson, Spaulding's wife and 
 widow, goes to Munson, Massachu- 
 setts, to live with her daughter, Mrs. 
 McKinstry. She left the trunk that 
 contained her husband's papers, all 
 that she had of them, in her posses- 
 sion, in the care of her brother-in- 
 Nw, Jerome Clark, of Hartwicke, 
 New York. 
 
 1831 Joseph and Sidney get a revelation that 
 the Mormons should move to Kirtlaed, 
 Ohio, which is to be theirs forever. 
 May 17th the Elders were sent out by 
 twos June 7th the first endowment 
 given. The Rigdonites all over 
 the Western Reserve fall in with Mor- 
 monism, and the imposture is in full 
 blast. 
 
 June 17th, in obedience to direct revela- 
 tion, Joseph Smith and a party start 
 for Western Missouri to locate "Zion." 
 August 3rd Joseph locates the corner 
 of the Temple of Zion, three hundred 
 yards west of the Court House in 
 Independence, Missouri. Floods of 
 revelations are poured out. A city with 
 golden streets, a Temple that never 
 had been equalled, and other wonders 
 were to spring up in that generation. 
 
 1832 February 16th, Rigdon and Smith 
 have a sky-scraping revelation. Rig- 
 don mounts "King Ahaauerus' horse" 
 and cavorts miraculously and gener- 
 ally all over the universe. March 22, 
 Rigdou and Smith are tarred and 
 feathered in Hirom, Portage county, 
 by persons that have been swindled 
 by their lies and for Smith's amours. 
 Joseph Smith visits Missouri. It is 
 high time. By their threats and 
 boasts, the Mormons had aroused the 
 Missourians. They were also in a 
 general row among themselves, over 
 Rigdon's pet idea community of 
 goods. 
 
 1833 March 8th. In order-to keep Sidney 
 quiet, who finds that Joseph Smith, 
 whom he expected to use as his tool, 
 has gobbled all the results of their 
 fraud, Rigdon is made councillor with 
 root and herb quack, F. G. Wil- 
 liams, and the first Presidency is 
 organized. July 23, Joseph Smith 
 lays the foundation of Kjrtland 
 Temple. Citizens of Missouri extort 
 a promise from Mormons that half of 
 them will leave before January 1st, 
 1834, the rest before April 1. Octo- 
 ber 30th Missourians destroy ten 
 Mormon houses. Mormons kill two 
 Missourians and shed the first blood 
 in the war. 
 
 1834 Feb. 20th. Joseph Smith starts on a 
 fool's crusade, with a band of men to 
 Missouri. They find a skeleton in a 
 mound in Pike county, Ills. Joseph 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 85 
 
 Smith has a grand old time reye- 
 lating over it. This crusade which 
 began and was carried on amid a flood 
 of revelations so-called, and had 
 been attended with suffering, sick- 
 nessand death, ends in a fizzle in cen- 
 tral Missouri. The fools that were not 
 dead begged their way home. 
 
 Joseph Smith, whose head had been 
 made giddy by his elevation from a 
 loafing money hunter to that of a pro- 
 phet, began to talk about the saints 
 conquering the world, spoiling their 
 enemies, ruling over the Gentiles, and 
 announced that he would be the Mo- 
 hammed of the century. 
 
 July 29th. Joseph Smith returns to 
 Kirtland and finds the saints in a mis- 
 cellaneous row. Sidney had just 
 smashed things in his absence. He 
 wanted the saints to build him as fine 
 a house as the prophet had, and to 
 give him a gold watch, and rig him 
 up generally as fine as they had the 
 prophet. 
 
 During this year a Mormon preacher 
 had preached in Conueaut, Ohio, and 
 read from the Book of Mormon. Sol- 
 omon Spaulding's old acquaintances 
 recognized his Manuscript Found. 
 Squire Wright shouted out: "Old 
 come to pass has come to life." There 
 was great excitement over the discov- 
 ery of the theft. D P. Hurl but who 
 was getting up an expose of Mormon- 
 ism, was sent by the citizens of Con- 
 neaut to Mrs. Davidson, to get the 
 manuscript of her former husband, 
 Solomon Spaulding. She gave Hurl- 
 but an order authorizing him to go to 
 Clark's, in Hartwicke, N. Y., where 
 she left the trunk with her husband's 
 papers, and get them. 
 
 Hurlbut gets a manuscript of the Man- 
 uscript Found, writes to Mrs. David- 
 son that he got it. He gives to those 
 who sent him an entirely different 
 manuscript. Liesand says that is all 
 he obtained. He sells the manuscript 
 of Manuscript Found to Mormons kr 
 $400 and goes to western Ohio and 
 buys a farm. Never answers the let- 
 lers of Mrs. Davidson and her daugh- 
 ter in regard to the manuscript he 
 obtained. 
 
 1835 Feb. 14. The first quorum of apostles 
 were ordained in Kirtland, and Young 
 and Kimball were among the holy 
 number. Classes of instruction and 
 schools of prophets were established. 
 Orson Pratt invents a new celestial 
 alphabet for the saints. Why did he 
 not adopt the reformed Egyptian from 
 Smith's plates? Mormons have a 
 craze of studying Hebrew. What 
 need was there for that among people 
 who had the gift of tongues? Rigdon 
 delivers six lectures on faith. All 
 their sense and the scriptural ideas 
 in them are what he heard among the 
 Disciples. They are about the only 
 sensible thing iu Mor monism that 
 
 is after Rigdon 's Mormon stuff had 
 been thrown out. Mormons have 
 tried to rob Rigdon of the credit of 
 being author of these lectures, and 
 give it to Joseph Smith. Rigdon did 
 the lion's work in bringing down the 
 game and Joseph took the lion's share, 
 and scarcely left to Rigdon the borie* 
 that the lion leaves for the jackal. 
 1836 Kirtland Temple finished at a cost of 
 $40,000, dedicated March 29. Smith 
 pretends that he sees the house full 
 of angels that a pillar of fire was seen 
 on the temple that outsiders heard a 
 great noise that caused them to flock 
 
 - to the Temple. That the Mormons 
 spoke with tongues. That Jesus. 
 Moses, Elias, who was he, and 
 Elijah appeared to him, gave him 
 keys of priesthood, which had been 
 promisea years before. 
 
 June 29. The Mormons in Clay county, 
 Missouri, are requested to move to 
 Davis, Jackson, and Caldwell counties, 
 because they had been impudent, dom- 
 ineering, and had encroached on the 
 rights of the rest of the citizens. 
 They wisely decided to move and do 
 so, and are kindly treated by the 
 Missourians. 
 
 1837 In January, Orson Hyde and Kimball 
 are sent to England as missionaries. 
 
 In the spring the Mormon Wild Cab 
 Bank is started in violation of law 
 without a charter. The Mormons 
 have a big hotel, tannery, mill, fac- 
 tory, big stores and big things general. 
 Jy. Smith and other leaders build 
 fine houses, live like nabobs and dress 
 like fops on other peoples' money and 
 goods obtained by credit, fraud and 
 rascality. Things are booming in 
 Kirtland. 
 
 In November Joseph's Wild Cat Bank, 
 his printing office, his big store, his 
 mills, his big land speculation, blew 
 up generally. Rigdon and Smith are 
 fined one thousand dollars each for 
 their swindling bank frauds. Print- 
 ting office levied on and Smith de- 
 clared insolvent with all his revela- 
 tions. 
 
 The printing office sold. The Mormons 
 burn the printing office and the Meth- 
 odist church. 
 
 1838 January 12th, Smith and Rigdon ligh^ 
 out in the night to escape the peni- 
 tentiary for swindling and fraud. 
 
 They arrivein Missouri in Marfh. They 
 scatter the saints over several counties 
 in order to obtain political ascendency. 
 The Missourians begin to be alarmed, 
 when they see that the Mormons elect 
 none but Mormons, and that their 
 property and rights are taken from 
 them, and Mormons will give them 
 no protection. 
 
 Smith who had tried to seduce a woman 
 in Pennsylvania, and who had much 
 trouble iu Kirtland about his intrigues 
 with beautiful sisters, now began to 
 fell his confidents that he had received 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 arevelation In favor of spiritual wifery, 
 Rigdon's doctrine. 
 
 'Rigdon, Smith, Cowdery and other lead- 
 ing Mormons had practised lewdness 
 and adultery and Rigdon defended it 
 with his spiritual wifery. Now Smith 
 told his intimates that hehad received 
 a revelation sanctioning it. He did 
 not reduce his revelation to writing 
 but he practised its ideas more openly. 
 
 This was one objection that Missouri- 
 ans urged to Mormons. Their loose 
 conduct and family relations and the 
 illegitimate children among them. 
 
 July 4th. Rigdon delivers his bom- 
 bastic harangue, that the Mormons 
 call "Sidney's Salt Sermon." He 
 mounts King Ahasuerus' horse and 
 cavorts, breathing defiance and de- 
 struction to Missouriansand apostates. 
 
 The Danite Band is organized with 
 Smith's sanction and authority, under 
 David Patton, one of the twelve apos- 
 tles. Dr. Arvard, a leading Mormon, 
 instructs them that it is their mission 
 to defend Mormons in their crimes, 
 by lying, stealing, perjury, profanity 
 and murder. 
 
 Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and 
 David Whitmer, the three witnesses 
 charging with lying, stealing, counter- 
 feiting and defaming Smith are cut off. 
 
 Orson Hyde, T. B. Marsh, W. W. Phelps 
 and many other leading Mormons 
 apostatize. They accuse the Mormons 
 of stealing, murder and other crimes. 
 Tney accuse Smith with planning and 
 being active in the outrages of the 
 Danites and the rest of the Mormons. 
 
 Sidney Rigdon and 84 other Mormons 
 retort by accusing the apostates with 
 many infamous crimes. Outsiders 
 conclude that rogues have fallen out 
 and decent people are learning the 
 facts. That both sides tell the truth 
 on each other. 
 
 Several quarrels occur between Missou- 
 rians and Mormons. The Mormons 
 steal eighty stand of arms at Rich- 
 mond, Mo. They fire on the inhabi- 
 tants at Crooked River, and kill sev- 
 eral. The inhabitants return the fire 
 and kill Patton, the Mormon Com- 
 mander. 
 
 Sept. 30. In retaliation for the murder 
 of their companions, the militia mas- 
 sacre and outrage Mormons at Hahn's 
 Mill. 
 
 The Mormons are driven out of Mis- 
 souri. Are given homes, food, cloth- 
 ing and sympathy by the people of 
 11 linois. This should be remem bered. 
 'The citizens of the Western Reserve, 
 Ohio, treated them kindly until Mor- 
 mon conduct exasperated them be- 
 yond endurance. 
 
 The Missourians were glad to see their 
 country settle up until Mormon out- 
 rages, insolence and crime enraged 
 them. Then their conduct became 
 outrageous, but Mormons began the 
 trouble, 
 
 The people of Illinois were lavish in 
 their kindness and favors. No emi- 
 grants were ever loaded with favors 
 as were the Mormons by the people 
 of Illinois. 
 
 Smith was arrested by the militia, who 
 were determined to shoot him. He 
 and leading Mormons handed over to 
 civil authorities. They allow them to 
 escape believing that to be the best 
 way to get rid of them. 
 
 1839 March 25, Brigham Youngand others 
 relay the corner-stone of the Temple. 
 The Elders cut off many that had 
 been leading Mormons, for crimes they 
 charged them with. 
 
 MM.V 9. Smith goes to Commerce, Illi- 
 nois. Dr. Galland gives him a great 
 tract of land. Smith immediately gets 
 a revelation that Zion is on his land. 
 He calls the Mormons to his land, and 
 sells to them what was given to him, 
 and becomes uncommonly rich for that 
 day and country. 
 
 September, Brigham Young and Kim- 
 bull are sent to England. Orson Pratt 
 does not go although revelation said 
 he would. 
 
 October. Smith goes to Washington to 
 get redress from the general govern- 
 ment for wrongs to the Mormons in 
 Missouri. 
 
 1840 A pril 21. The name of Commerce is 
 changed by revelation to Nauvoo, 
 which in Smith's reformed Egyptian 
 means beautiful. 
 
 The Mormons began to build a temple 
 at Nauvoo, although revelation had 
 declared that a temple should be built 
 in no other place than at Zion, near 
 Independence, Mo. 
 
 October, Mormons petition for a char- 
 ter. It is granted, They are given a 
 charter granting them powers thatno 
 government but an absolute despotism 
 exercises. 
 
 1841 February. The charter goes into op- 
 eration. Nauvoo is organized an in- 
 dependent nation almost under it. 
 
 Nauvoo Legion is organized with Smith 
 as Lieutenant General, and with as 
 many Major Generals, Brigadier Gen- 
 erals and Colonels, as would have 
 officered both armies in our civil war. 
 
 April 6. The corner-stone of Nauvoo 
 Temple laid with great military pa- 
 rade, by Smith, although he had de- 
 clared not ten years before that the 
 oialy Temple that should be built and 
 that speedily, was at Zion near inde- 
 pendence, Mo. 
 
 1842 Smith sends his Danite assassin, Port 
 Rockwell, as he said, ' to fulfill 
 prophecy "in assassinating Ex-Gov. 
 Boggs of Missouri. 
 
 Smith and other leading Mormons prac- 
 ticed spiritual wifery still more open- 
 ly. It leads to trouble between him 
 and his wife. She drives his concu- 
 bines out of the house. 
 1843 in January Smith uses Jacobs as a 
 cat's-paw to try the mass of uninitia- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE 
 
 ted Mormons, in regard to polygamy. 
 
 Smith and Jacobs select all passages of 
 the Old Testament that refer to polyg- 
 amy, and publish them in the "Wasp" 
 a Nauroo paper, with comments, and 
 special pleading justifying polygamy. 
 It creates great excitement among the 
 Mormons, that are not admitted be- 
 hind the curtain of its mysteries. 
 
 May 11, 1843, Smith sealed to Eli/a Pat- 
 ridge, Emily Patridge, Maria Law- 
 rence, and Sarah Lawrence, in the 
 presence of Emma Smith, his wife, 
 and Lovinia Smith his brother Hyram 
 Smith's daughter, by James Adams a 
 High Priest of Mormonism. 
 
 Smith hypocritically denied any con- 
 nection with the doctrine avowed by 
 Jacobs, and denounced it. But he had 
 taught it to too many had practiced 
 it too long, and with too many had 
 sealed too many in polygamy, too 
 many leading Mormons had practiced 
 it too long, and too much for it to be 
 concealed. 
 
 Too many others had learned of the 
 practice and were eager to gratify 
 their lusts as Smith had done, and as 
 other leaders had done. Smith's wife 
 and others had to be pacified and qui- 
 eted. 
 
 July 12. Smith dictated to Wm. Clay- 
 ton the infamy, that he blasphemous- 
 ly called "A Revelation in liegard to 
 Celestial Marriage." 
 
 Joseph C. Kingsbury and N. K. Whit- 
 ney took a .copy of it. Then it was 
 showed to Joseph's wife. The indig- 
 nant and outraged wife denounced it 
 as from hell and burned it. 
 
 Kim ball, Hyram Smith, Hyde, and at 
 last the Pratts accepted it. 
 
 August 12. The revelation is accepted 
 and indorsed by the twelve in High 
 Council. 
 
 1844 February. Smith announces himself 
 as candidate for the Presidency of the 
 United States, to the great delight of 
 the Saints. 
 
 Trouble had been brewing between the 
 Mormons and the people of Illinois, 
 who received them so generously and 
 kindly. The Mormons elect Mor- 
 mons only to office in Hancock county. 
 
 They had the entire control of all ad- 
 ministration of justice in Nauvoo. 
 The rights of citizents were outraged 
 and they could get no redress. They 
 lost property and traced it to Nauvoo, 
 and their attempts to recover it only 
 exposed then 1 to danger in Nauvoo, 
 and to retaliation and injury from the 
 Mormons. 
 
 Mormons were insolent and tried to 
 drive Gentiles out of the entire coun- 
 try that they had control of. The 
 law and the rights of the others were 
 trampled on by Mormons, until the 
 outraged people of Illinois rose in 
 arms in self-defense. 
 
 In addition to this the tstimony of 
 , Martha Brotherton and scores 
 
 of others in regard to the pollutions 
 of Smith and the leading Mormons 
 in the Endowment Rooms, and their 
 polygamy or spiritual wifery, in- 
 creased the indignation of an incensed 
 people. 
 
 April. Smith tries to seduce Nancy 
 Rigdon the daughter of Sidney Rig- 
 don the author of the doctrine of 
 spiritual wifery the wife of Wm. 
 Law the wife of Dr. Foster and 
 others. The incensed husbands and 
 fathers start a paper the "Nauvoo 
 Expositor" to expose Smith and his 
 confederates in their infamies. 
 
 June. The first number contained the 
 affidavits of sixteen ladies of the 
 highest standing in Nauvoo, testify- 
 ing that Smith and his confederates 
 in infamy, leading Mormons, had 
 tried to seduce them into lewdness 
 called spiritual wifery. 
 
 Smith gets his tools in the council to 
 pronounce it a nuisance and orders its 
 destruction. Law, Foster and others 
 flee for their lives, Dr. Foster flees to 
 Carthage for his life pursued by 
 Danites. 
 
 He sues out a writ for Smith's arrest. 
 Mormons prepare to resist. Smith 
 refuses to obey the writ. 
 
 The State military forces propose to 
 enter Nauvoo and take Smith. He 
 flees. Marks and Smith's wife indig- 
 nantly call him back. 
 
 Smith goes to Carthage declaring that 
 his hellish spiritual wife doctrine had 
 brought him into the condition in 
 which he stood and would cost him 
 his life. 
 
 The consience-smitten guilty wretch 
 meets his fate by assassination June 
 27, in Carthage jail. 
 
 The mass of the Mormons follow the 
 lead of the Twelve Apostles and that 
 of Priapus Young and migrate to 
 Utah. 
 
 Bmall bands follow the lead of Rigdon, 
 Law, Cutler, Strang, and others 
 during the years from 1844 to 1852. 
 1850 William Smith, brother of Joseph, 
 calls a conferance in Covington, Ken- 
 tucky. 
 
 1852 June 1. A conference held in Beliot, 
 Wis. through the efforts of J. W. 
 Briggs. 
 
 In October a conference held in La- 
 fayette county, Wisconsin. 
 1853 In January the Committee of Elders 
 of the Josephites issue a manifesto to 
 reject polygamy. 
 
 April 16. Conference in Lafayette 
 county, Wisconsin. Nothing special 
 seems to have been done. 
 I860 In April at the conference at Am boy, 
 Illinois, Joseph Smith, son of the 
 prophet so called took his father's 
 place in that portion of the Mormons 
 who called themselves; "The Reor- 
 
 Eunized Church of Jesus Christ f 
 atter day Saints," who reject Pria- 
 pus Young and his polygamy. 
 
88 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 I860 to 1884 the record is merely a record 
 of Conferences and no important or 
 startling events are to be recorded. 
 
 Unless it be the visit of Joseph III to 
 Utah and his discussion in his paper 
 with the Brighamites over the issue 
 11 Was Joseph Smith II the author of 
 polygamy, and the revelation in favor 
 of so called celestial marriage dated 
 July 12, 1843. 
 
 In this decussion Joseph III comes out 
 badly worsted. While one may sym- 
 pathize with his desire to rescue his 
 father's name from infamy, the facts 
 of history are against him. 
 
 QUESTIONS FOB KELLEY. 
 
 T. Do you deny the clear and positive 
 declaration of Mrs. 8. Spaulding, Miss 
 Martha Spaulding, John Spaulding, Mrs. 
 John Spaulding, Lake, J. N. Miller, Smith, 
 Wright, Howard, Cunningham, Joseph 
 Miller, McKee. Dr. Dodd, Jackson, and 
 Sidney Rigdon to Dr. Winter, that Solomon 
 Spaulding wrote a historical romance in 
 Bible style? If you do, on what ground 
 do you deny it? Do you deny that the 
 witnesses gave such testimony? Do you 
 impeach the witnesses ? Do you rebut the 
 testimony. 
 
 II. Do you deny the statement of the 
 witnesses concerning the plot of the 
 romance? That it was precisely as they 
 stated it, the plot in one other book, and 
 only one other, the Book of Mormon? 
 
 III. Do you deny the positive statements 
 of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. 
 Miller, Smith. Wright, Howard, Cunning- 
 ham, Jas. Miller, McKee, Dr. Dodd, Jack- 
 son and Rigdon to Winter, that it pur- 
 ported to be a veritable history of the 
 aborigines of America? 
 
 IV. Do you deny the positive statements 
 of Mrs. S. Spaulding, Miss Spaulding, J. 
 Spauldiug, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Wright, 
 Howard, Smith, Cunningham, that it at- 
 tempted to account for the construction of 
 the antiquitea of America, by giving a 
 veritable history of their construction ? 
 
 V. Do you deny the statements of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Smith, 
 J. N. Miller, Wright, Cunningham, Jack- 
 son, that it attempted to prove that the 
 Israelites were the aborigines of America, 
 by giving the history of such aborigines? 
 
 VI. Do you deny the statement of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. 
 Miller, Wright, Smith, and Jackson, that 
 Spaulding gave an account of their leaving 
 Jerusalem, to start their migration ? 
 
 VII. Do you deny the statement of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, J. N. 
 Miller, Smith and Jackson, that he delin- 
 eated their journey by land and sea, until 
 they reached America? 
 
 VIII. Do you deny the statement of Miss 
 Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld- 
 ing, Smith, Cunningham, and Jackson that 
 he represented Lehi ai-d Nephi to be their 
 leaders? 
 
 IX. Do you deny tne statements of Mrs. 
 J. Spaulding, J. Spaulding and Jackson, 
 
 that tney quarreled and divided into tw 
 parties, the Nephites and Lamanites? 
 
 X. Dp you deny the statements of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, and Jackson, 
 that in the wars between the Nephites and 
 Lamanites and between the parties into 
 which these nations divided, there were 
 awful slaughters, such as are unprecedent- 
 ed in any other wars ? 
 
 XL Do you deny the statements of J. 
 Spaulding, and Mrs. J. Spaulding that 
 tney buried their dead after the awful 
 slaughters in great heaps, which caused 
 the mounds, found in America? 
 
 XII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs 
 S. Spaulding and Jackson that after these 
 slaughters, persons who were sole sur- 
 vivors wrote a record of their people? 
 
 XIII. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. 
 S. Spaulding, Lake, and Jackson that the 
 survivors buried the records in the earth? 
 
 XIV. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. 
 S. Spaulding, Lake and Cunningham, that 
 this history was found in the earth, where 
 it had been buried : 
 
 XV. Do you deny the statement of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, J. N. Miller; 
 and Smith that it gave an account of the 
 civilization, arts, sciences, laws and cus- 
 toms of the aborigines of America? 
 
 XVI. Do you deny the statement of J. 
 Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Wright 
 and Rigdon to Winters, that these aborig- 
 ines were the ancestors of our present In- 
 dians? 
 
 XVII. Do you deny the statements ol 
 Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. 
 Spaulding, Lake, Smith, Wright, J. N. 
 Miller, Cunningham, and Jackson, that it 
 contains the names Nephi, Lehi, Laban, 
 Nephite, Lamanite, Mormon, Moroni, Zara- 
 hemla, etc.? 
 
 XVIII. Do you deny the statement that 
 in every instance the names were the names 
 of the same places and persons, with the 
 same characteristics and history, as the 
 names in the Book of Mormon? 
 
 XIX. Do you deny the statements of Mrs. 
 S. Spaulding Miss Spaulding, J. Spaulding, 
 Mrs. J. Spaulding, Lake, Jas. Miller, Smith, 
 Cunningham,. Jack&on, and Rigdon to Win- 
 ter, that it was written in scriptural style? 
 
 XX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. 
 S. Spaulding, J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spauld- 
 ing, Jas. Miller, Lake, and Cunningham 
 that the manuscript was rendered absurd 
 by its beginning nearly every sentence 
 w'ith: "And it came to pass," "Now it 
 came to pass"? 
 
 XXI. Do you deny the statement ol 
 Jackson that Spaulding got the nick-name 
 of " Old come to pass " from this absurdity ? 
 
 XXII. Do you deny the statement of 
 Smith that one party left Jerusalem to es- 
 cape divine judgments about to fall on the 
 Israelites? 
 
 XXIII. Do you deny the statement of J. 
 N. Miller that one party landed at the Isth- 
 mus of Darien, and called the land of Zara- 
 hemla, and traveled across the continent to 
 the northeast? 
 
 XXIV. Do you deny the statement of Jas. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 89 
 
 Miller and McKee, that in a battle between 
 the Amlicites and Lamanites the Amlicites 
 marked their foreheads with red crosses to 
 distinguish them from their enemies? 
 
 XXV. Do you deny the statement that 
 the Spaulding manuscript could have been 
 used for a pretended revelation, an addition 
 to the Bible? 
 
 XXVI. Do you deny the fact that there 
 never have been but two books, the Spauld- 
 Ing Manuscript Found and the Book of Mor- 
 mon, that had these features, that ever had a 
 single one of them? How do you account 
 for the fact that these two books agree in 
 all these great features, and in all particu- 
 lars, except the religious portion, as accu- 
 rately as any author can reproduce from 
 memory his manuscript, and more accu- 
 rately than most authors, with but very 
 rare exception could reproduce their manu- 
 script? Do you claim that by miracle 
 Spaulding wrote exactly what Joseph Smith 
 had given to him by the angel twenty years 
 afterwards? 
 
 XXVII. Do you deny that when a Mor- 
 mon preacher read to a Couneaut audience 
 portions of the Book of Mormon, that 
 Spaulding's old acquaintances recognized 
 his Manuscript Found? 
 
 Do you deny that Mrs. Davidson declared 
 as she gave the MS of the Manuscript Found 
 to Mrs. George Clark to read that the Mor- 
 mon Bible was almost a literal reproduction 
 of that manuscript? 
 
 XXVIII. Do you deny that Spaulding in 
 the seven years prepared several MS sev- 
 eral drafts of the story? That as James 
 Miller, Miss Spaulding and Rigdou declare 
 that he prepared and sent to the printer for 
 publication a copy of his story? 
 
 XXIX. Do you deny Mrs. Eichbaum's 
 statement that Rigdon was intimate with 
 Lambdin and hung around the office of 
 Patterson, where Spaulding's MS was taken, 
 until Engles, the foreman, complained of it? 
 
 XXX. Do you deny the statement of Mrs. 
 S. Spaulding that he took great interest in 
 the story? 
 
 XXXI. Do you deny the statement of Jas. 
 Miller, Dr. Dodd and McKee that Spaulding 
 said that his MS had been stolen and that 
 Rigdon was blamed with the theft? 
 
 XXXII. Do you deny the statement of 
 Dr. Winter that Rigdon showed him the 
 MS in 1822 or '3 stating that it, was a Bible 
 romance, written by Spaulding. a Presby- 
 terian preacher, and left by Spauldiug at a 
 printers, and that he had borrowed it, as a 
 curiosity? 
 
 XXXIII. Do you deny Mrs. Dunlap's 
 statement that her uncle Rigdon had the 
 MS and spent so much time on it that his 
 wife threatened to burn it, and he replied, 
 'It will be a great thing some day. 
 
 Do you deny Jeffrie's statement that Rig- 
 don told him that he took Spaulding's MS 
 from the printers and gave it to Smith to 
 publish? 
 
 XXXIV. Do you deny that Rigdon fore- 
 told the publication of the Book of Mormoa 
 years before it appeared, to A. Campbell, 
 A. Bently and D. Atwater that it was 
 dug out ol the earth, engraved on gold 
 plates, was a history of the aborigines ot 
 this continent, gave a history of the origin 
 of American antiquities that it said that 
 the gospel had been preached in America 
 in the first century of our era just as the 
 Disciples were then preaching it on the 
 Reserve? 
 
 XXXV. Do you deny the positive state- 
 ment of Z. Rudolph and other old acquain- 
 tances that Rigdon was frequently absent 
 from home for weeks while the Book of 
 Mormon was being prepared for the press, 
 and gave no account of where he had been? 
 
 XXXVI. Do you deny the statement of 
 old acquaintances and neighbors of the 
 Smiths, Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, Chase, San- 
 ders and McAuley that Rigdon was seen at 
 Smith's residence before the Book of Mor- 
 mon appeared? 
 
 XXXVII. Do you deny that Rigdon 
 preached as his peculiar hobbies the pecu- 
 liar features of the Book of Mormon", the 
 community of goods, restoration of spiritual 
 gifts, milleuial ideas, his old baptistic op- 
 position to secret societies, etc., as Green J. 
 Rudolph, Dille and others state? 
 
 XXXVIII. Do you deny that the Book 
 of Mormon approves of what Rigdon ap- 
 proved of before its appearance, and con- 
 demns what he condemned? 
 
 XXXIX. Do you deny that where he dif- 
 fers from the Disciples the Book of Mormon 
 differs from them, and that it is peculiarly 
 bitter on those points? 
 
 XL. Will you tell us: Did Rigdon bymir- 
 iclo preach the doctrines of the Book of Mor- 
 mon before it appeared? Or did he interpo- 
 late his hobbies into the MS he had stolen 
 from Spaulding, when he was preparing it 
 to be used as a pretended revelation? 
 
 XLI. On what ground do you assail the 
 evidence? Do you deny that the witnesses 
 so testified? If so, specify what witness? 
 
 XLII. Do you assail theii character or at- 
 tempt to impeach them? If so, specify what 
 witness? On what ground? 
 
 XLIII. D"> you try to rebut their testi- 
 mony? If so, what witness do you attack? 
 What rebutting evidenee or witnesses do 
 you introduce? 
 
 XLIV. Do you attempt tp show defects 
 in their testimony? If so, what witness do 
 you assail? What are the defects in the tes- 
 timony of each? 
 
 Until Mormons answer these queries let 
 them stop their brazen sneers at the 
 ''Spaulding story" that are almost idiotic 
 in their lack of reason or argument. Kelly 
 will not, dare not answer these queries. 
 The Prophet, the three I'd Joseph dare not 
 publish them in his paper and answer them 
 in order one by one. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S NINTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : In the concluding speech of 
 my opponent on last evening he undertook 
 to show you that he had been fair in read- 
 ing from his papers as I have been in my 
 argument. I claim that he ought to pre- 
 sent in full his important statements and 
 affidavits, especially so, since they ought 
 to be in the argument if published, as they 
 are not accessible to but few people; and 
 that if the statements in full are presented 
 I claim they bear the stamp of condemna- 
 tion upon their face. To permit him to 
 read a small portion here, and then run the 
 entire thing in the book would not be fair 
 either, as that would give him an undue 
 advantage in space, (and time consequent- 
 ly) in the discussion. Besides, it would 
 not be his matter in fact and I would have 
 no opportunity of reviewing it here, and a 
 statement or affidavit which he relies upon 
 and wishes his hearers to, in making his 
 affirmative statements good I claim he 
 ought to introduce in full. 
 
 He turns around and says: " Kelley has 
 done that all the time, Hasn't be read a 
 bit here and another bit there from the 
 Bible?" Now if I did that, without read- 
 ing or introducing sometime the full con- 
 nection, I did not do right. But I deny that 
 I have scrapped in this manner. When I 
 have read to you from the Bible I have read 
 to you the full connection. But this is 
 different from his affidavits or statements 
 in more ways than one. All persons have 
 the Bible at hand so that when a passage is 
 cited they can turn and read for them- 
 selves. Again there is no contest on the 
 Bible here. We have agreed that it is the 
 standard of investigation, and I abide by it 
 as heartily as he. Not so with his pur- 
 ported statements and affidavits. 
 
 They are not admitted, but absolutely 
 denied, and to come then and stand the 
 test as evidence they must appear in full, 
 with time, place, circumstances, and 
 reasons for making, etc. At best, they 
 are such a doubtful class of proofs that the 
 rules of evidence regard them with grave 
 suspicion from any standpoint, and courts 
 pay very little if any regard to them. 
 They are not in their character to lie con- 
 sidered in the naturo of reliable evidence. 
 Then we ought to have in this discussion a 
 full, fair look at th*<m Last evening in 
 my introduction of ovidejio J read several 
 full statements. There \ver one or two 
 statements of witnessed that I merely re- 
 ferred to, but not those upon any very im- 
 portant matter. I wish to state another 
 thing before entering upon the argument. 
 I have objected throughout this discussion 
 to his manner of misrepresenting my views 
 to the audience under the cloak of pretend- 
 ing to tell what I believe. Some of you 
 may have thought that I was particular 
 
 about this and that it was simply because 
 I claimed the right to represent my own 
 belief and views and those of the Latter 
 Day Saints that I have so strenuously ob- 
 jected. But this is not the fact. The real 
 reason is, because I see my opponent is 
 laboring under a mania. It is an old habit 
 I find of Mr. Braden of misstating or at 
 least of misunderstanding the views of 
 others. He misjudges evidently others from 
 reading their views. I have before me 
 A. Wilford Hall's Afic.roco*ni, one of the 
 ablest journals that is published in the 
 United States ; and the editor, A. Wilford 
 Hall, Ph. B., in reviewing an article of 
 Mr. Bradeu in the January number, 1884, 
 says : 
 
 "We limply utate for President Braden's informa- 
 tion that we never taught or thought of teaching any 
 such doctrine as he has attributed to us. We never 
 once intimated or even thoujjht that matter was made 
 out of spirit. We never thought of teaching that God 
 took a portion of his spirit and condensed it into a 
 material world. We never dreamt of teaching that 
 there are but two substances in the universe, much 
 less one, and that these two substances are spirlt'and 
 matter. We hold, on the contrary, and distinctly 
 teach that there are many essentially different sub- 
 stances in the universe under the general classification 
 of material and immaterial entities, and that, spirit 
 essence belongs among the immaterial substances of 
 nature. How President Braden could deliberately 
 assert and rep at it in different forms of expression 
 about twenty times that we teach but one substance, 
 spirit, and that matter came into existence by the 
 condensation of spirit, is a mystery we leave the 
 reader to solve." 
 
 Now, I read this to show you that some- 
 times ne misapprehends and misstates other 
 men's meaning, and I want him to be more 
 careful when he undertakes to give my 
 views to the audience, or be patient till I 
 give them myself. If he does not, I shall 
 bring some very serious things against him 
 here, too. 
 
 When my time was called upon last even- 
 ing I had just finished reading the state- 
 ment of Mrs. Solomon Spaulding, her daugh- 
 ter Mrs. McKinstry, Mr. Howe, and a sec- 
 ond account of Mrs. McKinstry, the only 
 persons of whom we have any account who 
 ever had knowledge sufficient to testify as 
 to the character of the manuscript Mr. 
 Spaulding wrote except Hulburt ; reading 
 from the statements of the witnesses to 
 show what kind of a manuscript, if any, 
 Spaulding ever wrote. What do these wit- 
 nesses' statements show as thus read, giving 
 them full credit, and they are all bitterly 
 partisan and prejudiced against the Saints? 
 
 1. That the manuscript they claim Solo- 
 mon Spaulding wrote was about one-third 
 as large as the Book of Mormon. 
 
 2. That this manuscript contained many 
 singular names from the classics and an- 
 cient history not one of which is common to 
 the Book of Mormon, or in any way sim- 
 lar. 
 
 3. That the Spaulding manuscript treated 
 of an idolatrous and not a religious people. 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 01 
 
 4. That it was a speculation as to the "ten 
 tribes" having corue to this country. 
 
 5. That neither of the persons who act- 
 ually saw the Spaulding 1 manuscript could 
 identify a single word in it as being like the 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 6. That the manuscript, whatever it con- 
 tained, they gave to Mr. Hulburt who gave 
 it to Howe, these being the two who were 
 trying to get up a work against the Mor- 
 mons. 
 
 7. That afterwards Hulburt and Howe 
 wrote back word that they did not use it 
 because it did not read as they expected. 
 
 Now I will introduce Hul hurt's statement 
 as published by another enemy of the bock, 
 Mr. Patterson of Pittsburg. Hulburt writes: 
 
 "GiBSONBURO, OHIO., Aug. 19, 1879. 
 "I visited Mrs. Matilda (Spaulding) Davidson at 
 tfonson, Mass., in 1834, and never saw her afterwards. 
 ( then received from her a manuscript of her hus- 
 Dand's which I did not read but brought home with 
 me and immediately gave it to Mr. E. D. Howe, of 
 Painesville, Ohio, who was then engaged in preparing 
 his book, 'Mormonism Unveiled,' I do not know 
 whether or not the document I received from Mrs. Da- 
 vidson was Spaulding's 'Manuscript Found,' as I never 
 read it; but whatever it was Mr. Howe received it 
 under the condition on which I took it from Mrs. David- 
 Bon, to compare it with the Book of Mormon and then 
 return it to her. I never recei ve_d any other manuscript 
 of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davidson or any one else. 
 Of that manuscript I made no other me than to give it, 
 with all my other documents connected with Mormon- 
 ism, to Mr. Howe. I did not destroy the manuscript 
 nor dispose of It to Joe Smith nor to any other person. 
 No promise was made by mt to Mrs. Da'yidson that she 
 houM receive any portion of profits arising from the 
 publication of the manuscript if it should be pub- 
 lished. All the affidavits procured by me for Mr. 
 Howe's book, including all those from Palmyra, N. Y., 
 were certainly genuine. D. P. HULBOET." 
 
 With this I refer you to the statement of 
 Mr. Howe, Hulburt's partner in the business 
 of publishing the story, as made by himself, 
 see Mormonisna Unveiled, page 288, as 
 follows : 
 
 "The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequent- 
 ly examined, and found to contain only a t> ngle 
 manucript book in Bpaulding's handwriting, contain* 
 ing about one quire of paper. This is a romarce 
 purporting to have been translated from the Latin, 
 found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave on the banks 
 of Conneant creek, but written in modern style, and 
 giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven 
 upon the American coast while proceeding from Rome 
 to Britain, a khort time previous to the Christian era, 
 this country then being inhabited by the Indians. 
 This old manuscript lias been shown to severol of the 
 foregoing witnesses who recognize it as Spaulding's, 
 he having told them that he altered his first plan of 
 writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing 
 in the old scripture style, in order that it might appi ar 
 more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance 
 to the 'Manuscript Found.' " 
 
 It was never taken back to Mrs. Spauld- 
 ing, the widow, or to Mrs. Mc-Kinetry, the 
 daughter, from whom it was obtained, and 
 the only persons in existence competent of 
 identifying the ' Manuscript Found,' but 
 carried up to a few of the ' old neighbors,' 
 who were at war with the Saints, and who 
 said they heard the 'Manuscript Found,' 
 read twenty-three years before, for identifi- 
 cation. 
 
 They say, says Howe, it bears no resem- 
 blance to the manuscript. But it is evident 
 .that they lied, if they said so, for Howe 
 who read it says : 
 
 "This is a Romance, pnrportir g to have been trans- 
 lated from the Lat n, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a 
 Cave on the batiks of Conneaut Creek, but written in modern 
 
 style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's crew 
 being driven upon the American coast while proceeding 
 from Rome to Britain a short lime previous to the 
 Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the 
 Indians." 
 
 "Found in a cave." This is the very 
 manuscript remember, that they have 
 claimed all the time that Rpaulding wrote, 
 traced right into Mr. Howe's hands the 
 one that was "found in a cave," so said. 
 It proves itself to be the Manuscript Found, 
 the very one they got, and the very one 
 they made way with, as I will show you, 
 lest it should spoil their little game. 
 
 The truth of the matter is very clear ; 
 Hulburt and Howe in their madness had 
 before this, skulked down to Conneaut, and 
 over into Pennsylvania with statements for 
 a few of these ready witnesses who \\ ere 
 embittered against the Saints, (for a large 
 number of people had accepted the faith 
 about Conneaut, Mantua and other places, 
 and thus made the sects rage), got the 
 parties to sign their stuff which they had 
 garbled from the Book of Mormon, and 
 afterwards when they got the Spuulding 
 manuscript they went back to see what the 
 trouble was, it did not read right. As 
 might have been supposed the witnesses 
 were caught; they could not deny that it 
 was Spaulding's manuscript, too clear a 
 case for that ; Hulburt had been and got 
 it right from the Mrs. Solomon ( Spauldiug) 
 Davidson herself: What do they do? In- 
 vent another lie to get out of the first, by 
 saying: "Spaulding told them that he had 
 altered his first plan of writing by going 
 farther back with dates, and writing in the 
 old scripture style in order that it might 
 appear more ancient." Did you ever ! I 
 Right out of the book that Brad en fats on ! ! ! 
 Spaulding is made to go to each one of these 
 witnesses, or they come to him, that he may 
 tell them he altered his first plan of writing 
 and he a stranger to them as it were, for all 
 the time he was in that part of the country 
 was but two years. Well, had they known 
 his first style? If so, why did they not 
 state something about it before they were 
 caught? And how came it that they never 
 struck upon this modern style while they 
 read the Spaulding manuscript so much, 
 which they try to foist upon the world? A 
 man that will take up and believe this con- 
 tradictory and abominable stuff gotten up 
 by a set of conspiring fanatics and tools 
 more than three years after the publi- 
 cation, and sale of a work they are trying by 
 this very means to break down, and with 
 that work right in their hands to draw their 
 names from as admitted in their statements, 
 see Wright's, Miller's, Lake's, etc., is 
 doomed to hopelessly fall in with the class 
 of people the apostle speaks cf, as living in 
 the last times when such a message of truth 
 as the Book of Mormon contains should be 
 presented to the people, who would oppose 
 the work, the truth: 
 
 "With all deceivablenessof n^rlghteonones* In them 
 that perUh : because they received ii"t the love of the 
 truth that they might hi- av*-d. Ai'<1 lor this cause 
 God shall send them strong delusion thnt tln-y should 
 believe a Hi-: Tha- iht-y all might be dimmed who be- 
 lieved ut the truth but* had pleasure in unrighteous- 
 ness." 2 Tbe^. 2: 10. 11. 12 
 
TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Men must examine a message from the 
 true standpoint, God's standard : "He that 
 ahideth hi the doctrine of Christ, he hath 
 both the Father and the Son." Don't 
 break God's law by speaking mean and 
 slanderous things against those who dif- 
 fer from you in religion ; there is neither 
 sense nor argument in it. "Speak evil of 
 no one." "Whatsoever ye would that men 
 should do unto you. do ye even so to them;" 
 and know assuredly, that, "whosoever 
 transgresseth [this law] and abideth notin 
 the doctrine of Christ, he hath not God." 
 o says the apostle John, and so say I! The 
 Book of Mormon is presented to the world 
 and claims to be the truth; it is presented to 
 the people as such and demands a fair inves- 
 tigation. As in every age of the world when 
 God has sent a message, Satan can't stand 
 to see the word, the truth, take root in the 
 heart ; so he begins on stories, and char- 
 acter, manufacturing and multiplying 
 scheme after scheme, falsehood after false- 
 hood, until in this instance the Spaulding 
 "Romance." came along, not even claiming 
 to be a thing of truth, but a speculative 
 lie, theory; and the people who are too 
 self-righteous and fanatical to believe the 
 truth, at once drink in the theory of the 
 *'Jlomance." 
 
 The evidence from their own witnesses 
 is complete in showing one thing, that is, 
 that Spaulding never wrote an article of 
 any kind that would in size, character, 
 style, sense, taste, sentiment, or in any 
 manner compare with the Book of Mormon. 
 But how about "old come to pass," says 
 one. Like the pretended remembrance of 
 the names Lelii and Nephi, the false sto- 
 ry of it was put into these witnesses' 
 mouths and they thought it a smart thing 
 to say; that is evident to a man who will 
 think. Why should they so persistently 
 call Spaulding "old come. to pass?" Turn 
 to the Bible, In almost every part it 
 abounds with the expression. In some 
 parts of St. Luke's gospel it is as frequent 
 as in the Book of Mormon. How could it 
 receive the title of "old come to pass," 
 from singularity, when the expression was 
 already a familiar one? Such a statement 
 is only equaled by the brazenly one put 
 into the mouth of Henry Lake of the La- 
 ban account. "I pointed out to him what 
 I considered an inconsistency, which he 
 promised to correct ; but by referring to 
 the Book of Mormon, I find to my sur- 
 prise that it stands therejust as read to me 
 then." Did you ever hear the like my 
 friends? YVV.O i s the inconsistency this 
 wise man pointed out, who although he had 
 not seeu ^r heaid anything in the Spauld- 
 ing Romance in twenty years, pretends it 
 twenty minutes reading to detect it by 
 the same passages which Mr Spaulding 
 had read to him ; only think, just read tr 
 him, more than 23 years befoie. Takean- 
 other of Braden's witnesses, John N Mil lei, 
 the fellow who worked for Lake, anothei o r 
 their holy crowd. Twenty-two years pass- 
 ed away with no word from the inaim- 
 script, and then ho remembers the namop 
 
 Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, Zarahemla, (the en- 
 tire book they have here ; the first part, 
 middle, and last part where the name Mo- 
 roni is found) and he has the history so well 
 that Braden says, "the average "Mormon 
 preacher," and I suppose he refers to me 
 by this, "could not to-day give it better." 
 No, sir ! But this smart John Miller 
 can give it from having read it in the old 
 manuscript twenty years before. And 
 Braden drinks it down ! What a wonder- 
 ful Miller this was! Can't you give us a 
 further clue to his life and services to his 
 country? But stop, my friends ! He fur- 
 ther testifies. . Let me read: "He (Spauld- 
 ing) said that he designed it as a historical 
 novel, and that in after years it would be 
 believed by many people as much as the his- 
 tory of England." There! Can you beat 
 that ? And yet there is to be no more 
 prophets ! This is Braden's prophet. I 
 might thus lake up and show the duplicity, 
 cheek, falsehood and spuriousness of every 
 one of these, said to be statements, but I 
 shall not so dispose of my time. They are 
 all effectually, fully and completely set out 
 and accounted for beyond a doubt by any 
 man who wants the truth in another man- 
 ner, and which I shall soon present you. I 
 am asked to answer the question, How will 
 you dispose of them ? "Attack their char- 
 acter ?" What! Don't he yet know me 
 well enough to know, that I will not make 
 of myself a bird of carrion to pass over all 
 proper and respectable waj's of testing a 
 matter, to gather from the sepulchre of the 
 dead and rotten ? I too highly respect the 
 Bible and the Christian religion, as well as 
 myself, for this. If character is to be the 
 test and that proven by one's enemies, our 
 Bible is not worth a straw ; the entire list 
 of writers will go down in the mire. And 
 should we test the issue of Bible writers on 
 character by the admissions of friends, one 
 half of our inspired men of the Bible would 
 go down. No sir; I have from the first tak- 
 en such grounds, that I could maintain my 
 faith clear through, in the Bible as well as 
 the Book of Mormon. Consistency is a jew- 
 el to be admired. Who is so blind as to not 
 see that if character is to be the test, that 
 is to try the faith of the Saints, and that 
 character proven by their enemies, the 
 same rule must be followed in trying others 
 also. The position is more desperate than 
 was entertained by ancient heathens. 
 "The good that men do" says Mark Antho- 
 ny over the dead body of Cresar, " lives 
 alter them, the evil is oft interred with 
 their bones ; so let it be with Caesar." 
 
 But Braden says, let us find some evil and 
 perpetuate that. Character ! What would 
 he accept as good under his rule? Nobody 
 ever lived of prominence in God's work 
 who has not been slandered and berated. 
 Doubtless many things, too, were true 
 against the early Christians; they were true 
 in part; so admitted in the Bible. But I 
 am not a teacher of the doctrine of infalli- 
 bility hi mankind. I believe with Jesus 
 th:- J .lone are good, (except God), "no. not 
 one.'-' Ko w hi long abuse and misrepre- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 93 
 
 sentation of the characters of Mr. Smith, 
 Rigdon and others last evening is entirely 
 foreign to the question under discussion. 
 Suppose they did do wrong and many ab- 
 surd and foolish things ! what weight can 
 that have in determining whether the part 
 God is said to have done is wrong? Try 
 this matter upon its merits. I do not, nor 
 does the church of which Mr. Smith was un- 
 der divine Providence the founder, claim 
 for these men perfection. Many of the 
 things that he stated about these men and 
 what they did may be true; but as to the 
 majority 1 am satisfied they are as false as 
 hell itself. And the list which he calls his 
 " Mormon Chronology," is dotted about oc- 
 casionally with a, fact, that he may thereby 
 hide the deformity of a hydra-head, which 
 he ho,x*s to force upon the people. 
 But his chronology as a whole is a brazen 
 piece of deception and of false statements, 
 drawn from such works as Howe, Tucker, 
 &G. Suppose I take up Mitchell's history 
 of the United States and read the infamous 
 story recorded against the character of John 
 Wesley in Georgia, charging a crime against 
 that religious teacher more heinous than 
 any ever made against Smith, how would 
 it affect the Methodist religion? Suppose 
 I take John Calvin, who permitted one of 
 his own adherents to be burned at the 
 stake because he differed \rith him on relig- 
 ion. Suppose I take the case of the great 
 reformer Luther, and the noble Melancthon, 
 and show that they consented to one of 
 their members entering into polygamy, the 
 great Luther actually performing the mar- 
 riage ceremony ! Shall I thrust it in the 
 face of the Lutheran Church upon a trial of 
 their faith? I know this was done by cer- 
 tain parties this last Fall upon the return 
 of the 400th anniversary of the " Pious 
 monk," but how despicably mean and spite- 
 ful it seemed to thinking men and women ! 
 The rule is wrong. We must get upon a 
 higher plane. Who wants to take the 
 office of " the accuser of the brethren?" 
 Gathering and sowing the evils spoken 
 against men. Enter the mission of Satan 
 in tne world ! No, sir; not me. Don't need 
 to ask me, if I will try to hunt up your wit- 
 nesses' character, unless I had those same 
 witnesses where they could face the ones 
 they are accusing, and they in turn could 
 face their accusers. This is demanded in 
 decency. Why! do you suppose if I was 
 debating with an infidel I would rake up 
 the past life of Col. Ingersoll? Is that what 
 you call impeaching character? To go and 
 rake up all you can find about a man and 
 peddle it send it forth publish it. That 
 is the way they slander men, but not the 
 way they impeach them. Suppose an infi- 
 del should attack the character of the wri- 
 ters in the Bible in the same way, and they 
 often do, would I then resort' to such a 
 course? No, sir. Such a contest would be 
 decided upon the ground of who could get 
 hold of and tell the biggest falsehood, and 
 I would engage in no such littleness. But 
 t have already devoted more time to this 
 than it deserved. It has been because I 
 
 did not know but possibly some one present 
 might think there was a little argument in 
 such a tirade as we heard from the nega- 
 tive last night, and for that reason only, I 
 have noticed it. As for myself I could lis- 
 ten for weeks at such abuse and villifica- 
 tion if necessary with simply a sense of 
 pity and shame for the one who spins it. 
 But I shall now finish my review of the 
 "Spaulding Romance," and every one of 
 his witnesses' testimony, and then each 
 evening I shall have new matters of evi- 
 dence on the question under discussion, and 
 many that have never been presented to 
 any audience. Here I might ask the ques- 
 tion, Do you still want proof that Spauld- 
 ing never wrote a manuscript like the Book 
 of Mormon, in any sense, or feature? The 
 total basis for all of their huge stories and 
 false statements about "Spaulding's manu- 
 script," was this one thing: Spaulding, 
 who came to New Salem, now Conneaut, 
 Ohio, and remained for about two years, 
 first representing himself as a preacher, 
 then a dealer in real estate, and thirdly un- 
 dertook to erect a "forge," (in all of which 
 he failed, -and suddenly left, leaving his 
 debts unpaid, so stated by their own wit- 
 nesses), at one time during his stay at New 
 Salem, told some parties that he had found 
 an old manuscript in a cave on Conneaut 
 creek, which gave an account of a long lost 
 shipwrecked crew on the American coast, 
 and it would be greatly interesting when 
 published, and he would be able to make a 
 raise of enough money to pay all his debts 
 and be independent. He wanted a little 
 more money out of them so he could go to 
 Pittsburg and have it published. He roped 
 in a few and leflt. but instead of getting up 
 the startling publication, he stayed but a 
 short time in Pitfcsburg and went to Wash- 
 ington county Pennsylvania, where he 
 died in 1816. He never, however, reported 
 to his creditors and they were left in the 
 suds, waiting for a check from the broken- 
 down clergyman. Twenty-one years pasa 
 away, and no tidings. In the meantime 
 the Book of Mormon is published and is 
 making a great excitement in the world, 
 and these duped creditors of Spaulding's 
 begin to think of the startling shipwreck 
 tale, of which Spaulding had told them he 
 would make his fortune ; and they got hold 
 of a copy of the Book of Mormon and the 
 base Hiilburt, who had been cut off from 
 the Church of the Latter Day Saints; got 
 out their statements and sent Hulburt after 
 the Spaulding manuscript. This they found 
 carefully laid away in the trunk of Spauld- 
 ing's widow, and it is brought back by them 
 and put into the hands of Editor Howe, of 
 Painesville, Ohio, who reads it and finds 
 no resemblance whatever to the Book of 
 Mormon. Howe says, page 2$8 of his book 
 entitled "Mormonism Unveiled:" "This is 
 a romance, purporting to have been trans- 
 lated from the Latin, found on twenty-four 
 rolls of parchment, in a cave, on the hanks 
 of Conneaut creek, but written in modern 
 style, and giving a fabulous account, of a 
 ship's being driven upon the American 
 
94 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 coast while proceeding from Rome to Brit- 
 ain, a short time previous to the Christian 
 era, this country then being inhabited by 
 the Indians." 
 
 Here is the Spaulding tale in a nutshell ! 
 The whole thing entirely different from 
 the Book of Mormon ; the style, dates, 
 names, peoples, and all. The whole thing 
 as foreign to the Book of Mormon as heaven 
 to hades, but it is the little nit from which 
 the enemies of Mr. Smith hatched this 
 terrible " Spaulding Story." 
 
 This i? his alibi. How I ask you, does 
 his evidence stand upon the first point ? Did 
 Solomon Spaulding ever write a manuscript 
 like the manuscript of the Book of Mor- 
 mon in any sense ? I say the evidence from 
 his own witnesses is against him and ask 
 him to now meet the issue he has made. 
 
 But he does not only have to show this, 
 but to show also : 
 
 2nd. That Rigdon and Smith in some 
 way stole it and that Smith used it. 
 
 3d. That Rigdon knew of Smith and the 
 Book of Mormon before the book was pub- 
 lished in 1830, and was connected with the 
 two in some way. 
 
 4th. That Parley P. Pratt did not bring a 
 a copy of this book and present it to Rig- 
 don while Rigdon was a Disciple Preacher, 
 and then and there, in 1830, Rigdon first 
 knew the contents of said book. 
 
 In beginning upon the second prop- 
 osition, I am reminded of the story that 
 is told of the absent juror. He had been 
 subpoenaed to attend a session of court; but 
 when the day arrived and court was called, 
 he was not there ; and the judge abruptly 
 demanded to know the reason. The juror's 
 friend arose and said there were several 
 reasons. And proceeded to give them. 
 The first is, he said, that the man is dead. 
 There! that is enough, said the judge, you 
 need not give any more. 
 
 Now it seems to me that if I have shown 
 you clearly that Spaulding never wrote 
 such a manuscript as the Book of Mormon, 
 or one that had any resemblance to it, from 
 their own witnesses, that ought to be 
 enough on this ; but lest some one may yet 
 have a doubt I will produce some further 
 evidence. First a letter from Sidney Rig- 
 don to the editors of the Boston Journal. 
 "COMMERCE, May 27th, 1839. 
 ME--SRS. BAKTLET AND SUUVAN : 
 
 T.iere was no man by the name ef Patterson, during 
 my residence in Pittsburg, who had a printing office: 
 what might have been before I lived there I know not. 
 Mr. Rol ert Patterson, I WHS told, had owned a printing 
 office before I lived in that city, but had been unfor- 
 tunate in business and failed before my residence 
 there. This Mr. Patterson, who was a Presbyterian 
 Preacher, I had a very slight acquaintance with 
 during my residence In Fittsburg; he was then acting 
 under an agency in the book and stationery business 
 and was the owner of no property of anv kind, print- 
 ing office or anything else, during the time I resided 
 in the city. If I were to say that I ever heard of the 
 Rev. Solomon Spanlding and his wife, until Dr. H. 
 Hulburt wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like 
 unto themselves." 
 
 Rigdon is emphatic, when he talks, you 
 know, oecause many of you used to hear 
 him talk. 
 
 " Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson ob- 
 tained to give force to the shameful tale of lies ? The 
 only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to 
 work with; he would not lie for them; for if he were 
 called on, he would testify to what I have said. This 
 Hulburt once belonged to the Methodist Church, but 
 was excluded for immoralities. He afterwards im- 
 posed himself upon the church of Latter Day Saints, 
 and was excluded for uiing abscene language to a 
 young lady, a member of said church, who resented 
 his Insult with Indignation, which became both her 
 character and profession. After his exclusion he swore 
 for he was vilely profane that he would have re- 
 venge, and commenced his work. He soon found 
 assistance; a pious old deacon of the Campbellito 
 church, by the name of Onis Clapp, and his two sons, 
 Thomas W. Clapp, and Matthew 8. Clapp, both ^-imp. 
 bellite preachers, abetted and assisted by her 
 Campbeliite preacher, by the name of Adamson re itly. 
 Hulbart went to work catering lies for the company. 
 Before he got through, his conduct became so scandal- 
 ous that the company utterly refused to let his <tme 
 go out with the lies he had collected, and he and his 
 associates had made, and thev substituted the name of 
 E. D. Howe. The change, however, was not much 
 better." 
 
 Then he refers in terms to Mrs. Matilda 
 Davidson, but it-is not material and I have 
 not it copied in here. I will read it if neces- 
 sary. 
 
 " A man of character would never have put his name 
 to a work which Hulburt wag concerned In. The tale 
 in your paper is one hatched up by this gang from 
 the time of their expulsion." 
 
 Respectfully, 8. RIGDON." 
 
 From the strong language of this letter 
 it is easy to see that Mr. Rigdon had been 
 maligned by the Campbellites, the people 
 with -whom he had formerly been connect- 
 ed to such an extent that it was almost 
 impossible to bear it any longer ; and the 
 reason of this was simply because he saw 
 fit in the honesty of his heart, to step out 
 and embrace what he believed to ba a bet- 
 ter and higher religion than was to be had 
 by remaining with his Campbellite breth- 
 ren. Hence it is, that when he speaks, it 
 is with that sternness and force, that was 
 a terror to his maligners. 
 
 Heretofore they have generally told about 
 Rigdon working for Patterson, but Braden 
 has seen this go to the wall once, as he did 
 also his "woman preacher story," at Wil- 
 ber, Neb., so he has deftly yclept it this 
 time ; that is better than no fairness ; when 
 you are driven clear to the wall drop it ; 
 and if he was not so eager to grab at some- 
 thing else he would improve in the world 
 much better. 
 
 This letter of Rigdon's effectually shows 
 that he never worked in a printing office in 
 Pittsburg; that Patterson had uosuch office 
 when he was there to his knowledge, and 
 was not engaged in the business of print- 
 ing; and, referring to Mr. Patterson, who 
 was at the time a Presbyterian preacher, 
 as a man who would corrobrate this state- 
 ment. Afterwards Patterson does corrob- 
 orate it. Rigdon says, the first he ever 
 knew of the Book of Mormon was in the 
 year 1830, when a copy was handed him by 
 a minister of the Latter Day Saints by the 
 name of P. P. Pratt. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 95 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S NINTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Mr. Kelley told you last 
 night that Mrs. Smith, the mother of Joe 
 Smith, and some other mem hers of the family 
 brought letters from a Presbyterian church 
 In Vermont and joined the Presbyterian 
 church in Manchester, New York. In the 
 life of Joseph Smith by his mother she says 
 she allowed herself to be baptized in Ver- 
 mont, * ut refused to join any church ; that 
 she rejoiced when the Mormon church was 
 started, that she then found a church that 
 shecould join. Nota Smith ever belonged to 
 a church in Palmyra. Not a Smith ever 
 belonged to the Presbyterian church in 
 Manchester, for there was no Presbyterian 
 church in Manchester until 31 years after 
 the Smiths left Manchester ; not one of 
 the Smith family ever belonged to any 
 church until Mormonism was started, for 
 although very superstitious, they were 
 noted for their neglect and disregard 
 of the church and all things connected 
 with religion. That statement of my 
 opponent is one of those statements some- 
 times said to be made out of whole cloth. 
 My opponent forgets that his talk here will 
 be stereotyped into a book and will stand 
 for generations when he makes such reckless 
 misstatements as he did last night. 
 
 The reader will read in my argument that 
 I introduced Priest's " Wonders " to show 
 that the idea that the aborigines of America 
 were Israelites was hundreds of years oldc-r 
 than the Book of Mormon, and a widely 
 believed theory, and that I said not a word 
 on "mounds "or "antiquities" in connec- 
 tion with that book. He will then read 
 KelJey's statement that I introduced it to 
 off-set his argument on antiquities and ask 
 himself. " What does the fellow mean by 
 such reckless assertions?" 
 
 He will read my statement that if the 
 Nephites were circumcised Israelites they 
 belonged to the same fold as those Jesus 
 was addressing and could not be the other 
 sheep not of that fold ; or if they had aban- 
 doned circumcision they were no longer 
 Israelites and the prophecies Kelley quoted 
 could not apply to them, and then read with 
 amazement that I said or hinted that they 
 were not circumcised. I never said so for 
 there n^ver were any Nephites to be circum- 
 cised. The reader will read Kelley's asser- 
 tion thi\t I introduced no witnesses, read 
 no testimony, and then turn back and see 
 in different type from my speeches the 
 testimony of 29 witnesses see that I read 
 the testimony of some witnesses two or more 
 times: that I had read more of Mrs. David- 
 eon's testimony than he did : longer por- 
 tions from several witnesses than h did 
 from any that he introduced ; I introduced 
 nnd read testimony just as he did, and 
 exclaim: "What can the fellow mean by such 
 falsehoods?" He will read Kelley 's assertion 
 
 that I said that Rigdon worked in Patter- 
 son's printing office at Pittsburg and turn 
 back and read my statement that he did 
 not work there but was in Pittsburg learning 
 the tanners' trade and was in Patterson's 
 office as a crony of Lambdin, one of the 
 printers, and IP that way learned of the 
 existence of the Spaulding manuscript, 
 which was attracting .much notice in the 
 office, and became much interested in it, and 
 stole it, as is proved by witnesses, and 
 exclaim: "Why, what 'does that fellow 
 by such reckless falsehoods?" 
 
 He will read my clear proof that Spauld- 
 ing wrote several manuscripts of his Manu- 
 script Found and then read with amazement 
 Kelley's reckless assertion that he wrote 
 but one. The manuscript described by 
 Mrs. Spaulding was his first brief draft. It 
 was this that John Spaulding read through; 
 it was this that Mrs. McKinstrey read. 
 The reader will read with amazement the 
 objection that Spaulding's Manuscript 
 Found represented the aborigines of Amer- 
 ica as idolaters, and the Book of Mormon 
 represents them to be worshippers of the 
 one God : when he remembers that I showed 
 that Rigdon changed the manuscript when 
 remodeling it to use as a pretended reve- 
 lation. He will read with amazement 
 Kelley's assertion that Hulburt obtained 
 from Mrs. Davidson the manuscript of the 
 Manuscript Found when she says she only 
 gave him an order to examine a trunk hun- 
 dreds of miles away in Hartwick, N. Y , to 
 see if it was in the trunk. The reader will 
 read with amazement Kelley's fabrication 
 that Howe said that he received from Hurl- 
 but a manuscript of the Manuscript Found. 
 Howe distinctly and pointedly declares that 
 he did not receive a manuscript of the 
 Manuscript Found but the beginning pages 
 of an entirely different manuscript the 
 manuscript of the first romance written by 
 Spaulding, written before he began the 
 Manuscript Found. In that first romance 
 Spaulding assumed that the Indians round 
 the Great Lakes were descendants of ship- 
 wrecked Romans. He abandoned this 
 tlieory and began the Manuscript Found, 
 in which he assumed the aborigines of 
 America and the ancestors of all Indians 
 were Israelites. Howe does not say that 
 he received the Manuscript Found and that 
 the Manuscript Found was not what he ex- 
 pected it to be as Kelly falsely asserts he 
 says. He says that he did not receive the 
 Manuscript Kound but the manuscript of an 
 earlier and entirely different story and the 
 manuscript that he received was not what he 
 expected, for it was not the manuscript of 
 the Manuscript Found, which was what he 
 expected to rereive. Why did not he re- 
 ceive the manuscript of the Manuscript 
 Found ? " We will a tale unfold" thut will 
 explain that. In a letter written to J. E. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 in 1842, Mrs. Davidson says that 
 shortly after Hurlbut left Munson with 
 the order from her to get the manuscript 
 of the Manuscript Found from the trunk at 
 Mr. Clark's at Hartwicke, N. Y., she receiv- 
 ed a letter from Hurlbut, in which he told 
 her th*t he had obtained from the trunk 
 what he had come for, the manuscript of 
 the Manuscript Found, and that when he 
 had taken it to the parties that sent him, 
 and it had been used for the purpose for 
 which they wanted it, that is published to 
 expose the plagiarism of the Book of Mor- 
 mon from it, he would return it to her. 
 
 Hurlbut came to the people at Conneaut 
 and Howe, and lied, and said that the only 
 manuscript he found was the part of the 
 manuscript we have described above. Up 
 to this time he had been very active in get- 
 ting up the book Howe published ; he had 
 spent months and much money in collect- 
 ing the evidence used in it: now he sud- 
 denly abandons all. takes no further part 
 or interest in it and goes to Western Ohio 
 and buys a farm ; when, before he had not 
 money enough to pay his traveling ex- 
 penses. Mrs. Davidson, on reading Howe's 
 book and Hurlbut's statement as given in 
 it was amazed and wrote to him reminding 
 him of what he had written to her and that 
 the Clark's had written that he had got the 
 manuscript of the Manuscript Found. She 
 demanded that he return the manuscript to 
 her. Her daughter also wrote repeatedly. 
 The letters were sent to persons who wrote 
 that they harded them to Hurlbut. He 
 never answered one of them. The Rev. J. A. 
 Clark published in the " Episcopal Record- 
 er" that the Mormons in Missouri said they 
 paid Howe $400.00 for the manuscript. The 
 Rev. Storrs in a letter published in 
 " Gleanings by the Way" states that Hurl- 
 but boasted that he made $400.00 out of the 
 manuscript. He sold it to the Mormons in 
 Kirtland. These charges Hurlbut never 
 met, but laid under them till his death. 
 This answers the demand why the Spauld- 
 ings did not publish the manuscript of the 
 Manuscript Found and expose the fraud. 
 That is the very thing they tried to do, but 
 the agent by whom they sent the manu- 
 script to Howe, the publisher, betrayed 
 them and sold it to the Mormons. Hurl- 
 but's false and contradictory statements 
 and absurd stories to Mr. Patterson in 1880 
 proved that he was guilty of what he was 
 charged with and was trying- to lie out of it. 
 The reader will read with amazement if not 
 too much disgusted at its stillness the at- 
 tacks on Hurl but's character by Kelley and 
 ask what has the character of the scribe 
 who collected the evidence to do with the 
 truthfulness of the statements of the wit- 
 nesses? He will read in the same waj the 
 statements over which Kelley tso idiotically 
 makes such great eyes and mouths that 
 Howe said that personally he knew nothing 
 about the facts stated hv the witnesses 
 whose testimony he published and ask 
 what odds does it make if the lawyer does 
 not know personally the facts his witnesses 
 iUvte? Kelley asks why is not ZebuJon 
 
 Randolph here? Kelley has quoted Howe. 
 Mrs. McKinstrey and several others why 
 are not they here ? Why does he not have 
 them here instead of telling us what he 
 says they told him and by the way Mr. 
 Howe contradicts flatly Mr. Kelley's state- 
 ment in his case. His silly objection puts 
 out of court all his own witnesses. Has not 
 Kelley sense enough to see that in such ob- 
 jections he puts a club in my hands with 
 which I can beat out his own brains if he 
 has any ? He asks what is the connection 
 between Mrs. Dunlap's statement that Rig- 
 don spent so much time over a certain man- 
 uscript, and Rigdon's authorship of the 
 Book of Mormon? The intelligent reader 
 will see the connection when he reads evi- 
 dence that Rigdon stole the Spaulding 
 manuscript : that he had it in his possession 
 before this time and that he also stated to two 
 witnesses that he also obtained the Spauld- 
 ing manuscript frera the printing office and 
 told one of them that he gave it to Smith to 
 publish as the Book of Mormon. Placed be- 
 tween such evidence Mrs. Dunlap's evi- 
 dence is another li-nk in a chain Mormons 
 cannot break. He aska what relevance in 
 the statement of Zebulon Rudolph and old 
 citizens of Mentor that Rigdon was absent 
 from home for weeks at a time aad no one 
 knew where during the three years that 
 preceded the appearance of the Book of Mor- 
 mon? When taken in connection with the 
 testimony that he was seen at Smith's dur- 
 ing the same time as stated by Case, Saund- 
 ers, Tucker, McAuley and Mrs. Eaton the 
 reader will see the force of the evidence. 
 
 Such, ladies and gentlemen, is the at- 
 tack on our array of testimony; reckless 
 falsifying of evidence, reckless fabrications 
 of what has no proof, and indeed is flatly 
 contradicted by the evidence and weak pet- 
 tyfogging. I confess I have been ama/ed 
 at the weakness of the reply. Is that the 
 best that the chosen representative of Mor- 
 monism with all its inspiration, spiritual 
 gifts, illumination and revelations, can 
 do? 
 
 I have presented the evidence of 29 wit- 
 nesses. Has he attempted to prove that 
 they did not testify ? No. That they are 
 wanting in truthfulness? No. Has he 
 attempted to rebut their evidence? No. 
 He has falsified their statements, misrepre- 
 sented them, fabricated rebutting evidence, 
 playing false witness and pettyfogger at the 
 same time. Such is the great Mormon Cham- 
 pion 's attacks on the Spaulding story. If 
 my opponent would present one quarter of 
 the evidence I have presented to prove his 
 right to an estate it would be given him. 
 
 Kelley denies that there is such a Greek 
 word as "Mormon." Donnegan gives tlu 
 following Mormon (anglicized Mormon) U A 
 female spectre, a phantom." Other lexicons 
 give the word and define it "a hobgo 1 'in, a 
 bugbear." Spaulding from his knowledge 
 of Greek used the word as significant of the 
 character of his fabrication. Smith and 
 Rigdon weie too ignorant to know the irony 
 there was in the word and published to the 
 world their new translation as the "Book 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 97 
 
 of Mormon" "Book of Phantom, of Hob- 
 goblin, of Bugbear," the most appropriate 
 title for the fraud and the eviJ work it has 
 done among fools. But think of Israelites 
 over in America who did not know there 
 were such beings as the Greeks in existence, 
 using pure Greek names ! My opponent 
 betrays his ignorance when he asserts that 
 the Greek word is "Mormou" or "Mor- 
 moun." He evidently mistook "Nu," the 
 Greek N. for U. which corresponds to the 
 Greek Upsilon. Mormon must belong to the 
 Reformed Egyptian of Joe 8mith and his 
 disciple Kelley. Alma is a pure Latin 
 word. Nephi is a Greek word. Israelites 
 in America using Greek and Latin words! 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. 
 
 Having given the history of the origin of 
 the Book of Mormon we shall now analyze 
 the book itself. We have already described 
 what the work purports to be. It was given 
 to the world in the following manner : Joe 
 Smith asserts that an angel revealed to him 
 the existence and location of certain plates 
 engraved with certain characters ; that he 
 obtained these plates and that by inspira- 
 tion, the miraculous power of God, he trans- 
 lated them. These plates had been buried 
 by Moroni about 1400 years before Smith 
 obtained them. They contained an abridg- 
 ment that Moroni and his father had made 
 by inspiration of the history of the abori- 
 
 fenes of Aiaerica. This abridgment was 
 ased on an immense library of plates writ- 
 ten by inspired men during the period of 
 over 4,000 years, beginning with Jared's 
 brother, who was contemporary with the 
 building of the Towel- of Babel. Mormons 
 defend this claim in three ways : first, by 
 an appeal to the external evidences, the af- 
 fidavits of the eleven witnesses; second, 
 that the utterances of the Book of Mormon 
 agree with the teachings of the Bible and 
 are good; third, by a most vindictive, ma- 
 licious, infidel attack on the Bible when 
 the absurdities of the Book of Mormon are 
 exposed. The first line of proof displays 
 some craft. They parade the eleven wit- 
 nesses. If we impeach these witnesses aa 
 we can and shall do, they can raise the cry 
 of persecution and attempt to rouse sympa- 
 thy. We shall not be deterred from duty by 
 any such cry. As they have introduced the 
 witnesses and stoked all on their testimony, 
 we shall impeach them. In reply to the 
 second line of proof we shall show that all 
 that is good in the Book of Mormon is felo- 
 niously stolen from the Bible, and is good 
 because it is the teaching of the Bible and 
 not because it was given by inspiration in 
 the Book of Mormon. Because a counter- 
 feit resembles the genuine it is no proof 
 that it is genuine, but that it imitates the 
 genuine in order to deceive, and because a 
 book pretending to be inspired resembles 
 one that is inspired, it is no proof that the 
 first is inspired, but that the counterfeit 
 imitates the inspired book in order to de- 
 ceive. Counterfeits imitate every feature 
 of the genuine if they can. Hypocrites and 
 Imposters imitate every feature and senti- 
 
 ment of the good and true. Rome of the 
 most infamous hypocrites have imitated, 
 copied and uttered, the best sentiments that 
 have ever been uttered. The discourses 
 and writings of the most infamous charac- 
 ters that have ever lived have contained 
 the very best of truth and goodness and 
 often not a word but what is true and good. 
 The devil can transform himself into an 
 angel of light, and talk as much truth and 
 goodness as an angel of light. Because he 
 talks as perfect truth and goodness as an 
 angel of light does not prove that he is an 
 angel of light. If the Mormon plea that 
 we must accept a man as a good man be- 
 cause he talks so, be true ; there can be no 
 means of detecting hypocrites and an im- 
 poster, for does not he talk all righ t? If the 
 devil repeats to us thedoctrinesofChristand 
 the truth we must accept him as perfectly 
 good and declare that he has the Father 
 and the Bon and is inspired, if he asserts 
 that he is. This claim, the pet argument 
 of Mormonism, is the most ineffable balder- 
 dash that I have ever met. 
 
 The Mormons reverse the line of argu- 
 ment. They absurdly assert that the claims, 
 the pretensions of a book should determine 
 the character of the book. Common sense 
 declares that we should carefully investi- 
 gate the character of the book to deter- 
 mine whether these claims be true. They 
 claim that we should accept their book as 
 divine because its author claims to be a 
 prophet, and eleven men assert that he is 
 inspired. Common sense says accept a man 
 as a prophet because the contents of his 
 book prove him to be a prophet. The one 
 sole argument of the Mormon is a constant 
 jabber of one passage. "He that hath the 
 Doctrine of Christ hath the Father and the 
 Son ;'' that is, he must be a child of God a 
 good man, and inspired, if he claims to be 
 inspired. Imposter Joe presents to us in 
 his book the Doctrine of the Christ, and 
 although we show that every word that is 
 good was stolen from the Bible, we must 
 believe that he has the Father and the Son 
 that he is a good man ; that he is inspired 
 because he says he is, and that the Book 
 of Mormon is of divine origin because im- 
 poster Joe says so. The devil presents to 
 us a book that contains the doctrine of the 
 Christ stolen from the Bible. According to 
 Mormon logic, because he has the doctrine 
 of the Christ, no matter how obtained, no 
 matter what his character may be, no mat- 
 ter what his motive may be, in presenting 
 it, the devil has the Father and the Son, 
 is a child of God, and if he says that he is 
 inspiiad we must believe him and accept 
 his book as of Divine origin. 
 
 When we remember that every good thing 
 in the Book of Mormon is stolen from the 
 Bihle, the Absurdity of the claim that be- 
 cause the truths of the Bible are in the pos- 
 session of thece thieves therefore they are 
 inspired and their book of Divine origin can 
 hardly be appreciated. To claim that the 
 thieves were good men is an Insult to com- 
 mon sense, but to claim that they were in- 
 spired of God in thb theft, because they 
 
98 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 stole the Divine utterances of the Bible 
 and mendaciously presented them to the 
 world as their own inspired utterances is 
 idiocy that is almost sublime in its magni- 
 tude! Priapus Young presents us the un- 
 varnished Mormon argument when he de- 
 clares 
 
 " The Doctrine the Prophet Jstph teaches In all I 
 c are about. Bring anything against that It you can. 
 ' As for anything else 1 don't care it theProphet Joseph 
 ' acted like the devil. He brought forth a doctrine that 
 ' will save us if we will abide by it. He may have got 
 ' drunk every day of his life, slept with his neighbor's 
 ' wife cve-y night, ran horses and gambled every day; 
 ' J care nothing about that, for 1 never embrace any 
 ' man in my faith. The doctrine the Prophet Joseph 
 'produced will tare \ou and me, and the whole 
 ' world." If you can ^n*. any fault with his doctrine, 
 'find it'" 
 
 Kelley is not as frank and as honest 
 as Priapus Young, but that is what he 
 means when he jabbers " He that hath the 
 Doctrine of the Christ hath the Father and 
 the Son." 
 
 We will admit this much. If the doctrine 
 in the Book of Mormon be true we should 
 acceptitas truth, becauseitis truth. Butthat 
 does not prove that Joseph Smith was even 
 a good man, for the Devil can litter truth. 
 It does not prove that his book is true in its 
 historic statements, nor that it is what it 
 claims to be a history of the aborigines of 
 America; for the biggest fraud ever concocted 
 may contain good doctrines, stolen from the 
 Bible or other sources. If Joseph Smith 
 was a good man, his assertion that he was 
 inspired, even if his doctrine were true, 
 would not necessarily be true ; for many a 
 good man has been decieved and thought 
 he was inspired when he was not and that 
 his talk was revelation when it was not. 
 This whole line of argument is the most 
 absurd and idiotic that has ever been pre- 
 sented to a thinking people. There are 
 several queries to be settled. Even if the 
 moral and religious ideas of the Book of 
 Mormon be true, who presents it to us, a 
 good being or an evil one? Is it presented 
 honestly or hypocritically? Is it genuine or 
 counterfeit that has stolen the features of 
 the genuine in order to deceive. If it 
 claims inspiration, is the one claiming in- 
 spiration one that would be chosen of God 
 as a medium for inspiration. Is he honest 
 or is he hypocritical ? If honest, sincere 
 and good was he mistaken or is his claim 
 true? Then what is the character of the pro- 
 posed revelation ? 
 
 The third line of argument is not only 
 maliciously hostile to the Bi ble but is a gross 
 fallacy. If Mormons could prove every 
 word of the Bible to be false and that the 
 Bible had every fault that we find with the 
 Book of Mormon, it would only overthrow 
 the Bible. It would not establish the divine 
 origin of the Book of Mormon. Proving 
 that Webster's dictionary is full of faults 
 does not prove that a book that contains 
 those faults is correct, but on the contrary, 
 it destroys Webster as authority. When 
 the vile character of Joe Smith and the 
 founders of Mormonism is exposed Mor- 
 mons point to the character of Baalam, 
 Saul, King of Israel, Jonah, and Caiphas. 
 
 If they are willing to place Imposter Joe in 
 the same category as Baalam with his greed 
 of gain and evil character, Sati! with his 
 murderous hatred and vile character, Jonah 
 with his rebellious wicked character, Cai- 
 phas with his murderous sectarian hatred 
 of Jesus, we will remind them that though 
 God did, in the dark surroundings of those 
 days use those persons for certain unim- 
 portant purposes, he did not make them 
 founders of dispensations, much less the 
 last one, and the one that is the fulness of 
 the Gospel. For such purposes he chose a 
 Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, an Elijah, a 
 Paul, and a Jesus the Son of God. 
 
 If the Mormon points to the sins and er- 
 rors of Noah, Lot, Abraham, and others 
 that were. children of God, or inspired ac- 
 cording to the Bible, when we point out 
 the sins of Joe Smith and the founders of 
 Mormonism we wish to remind him that 
 Noah's drunkenness was accidental and the 
 Bible does not say it was repeated There 
 is not one particle of proof that Noah knew 
 what would be the effects of fermented 
 grape juice until he was made drunk by it, 
 or that he ever repeated the act. Lot's 
 incest was not voluntary ; there is not one 
 scrap of evidence that Lot was inspired ; 
 the Bible does not say that he ever was. 
 Abraham's acts were the sins of his age ; 
 his polygamy was rather the act of Sarah 
 and in accordance with the custom of the 
 day than a wilful sin of Abraham. There 
 is no proof that Abraham knew that he 
 was doing wrong. The sins of Isaac and 
 Jacob were the sins of their times, resulting 
 from the evil advice of others. David's 
 sing were the sins of his age ; he was terri- 
 bly punished for them. Solomon was not 
 a child of God or inspired after he sinned. 
 Paul's sins were those of honest bigotry ; 
 he was a grand character, honest and manly 
 even in his persecution. Peter's sins were 
 those of cowardice and disappointment, 
 inasmuch as the Messiah did not act as 
 he expected he would. These persons re- 
 pented. Their sins were the sins of their 
 age. They were in advance of their age. 
 They were great characters notwithstand- 
 ing their sins. In the case of Joe Smith we 
 have one who tells us that he examined all 
 religious parties. He found that all had 
 apostatized. None were good enough for 
 Joe. He was the chosen instrument of 
 heaven to found a purer system than the 
 world had ever seen. He can not be placed 
 on a level with Noah, Abraham, David, or 
 Paul and their surroundings. He came 
 after eighteen hundred years of pro- 
 gress under the gospel of Christ. He 
 appeared in the purest Christian surround- 
 ings of this century. He was to give to the 
 world a religion that stood related to apos- 
 tolic Christianity as that stood related to 
 Judaism, l< the fullness of the gospel." 
 
 His system was to be as much above 
 his surroundings as Christianity was to its 
 surroundings when it appeared. God ia 
 selecting Noahj Abraham, Moses, Elijah, 
 John the Baptist and Paul, selected the 
 grandest characters in their age. He did 
 
THE BRADEN AND KKLLEY DEBATE. 
 
 thia In the dark surroundings of former 
 dispensations. What would hedoin select- 
 ing a person for a mission that Smith pre- 
 tended was committed to him, and in 
 the surroundings in which Smith appeared 
 Smith should be as much superior to Noah, 
 Moses and Paul as his surroundings were 
 superior to theirs, and his mission higher 
 than theirs. The Book of Mormon should 
 be as much superior to the Bible as the New 
 Testament was to the Old Testament. Its 
 inspired author, its suroundings should be 
 as much superior. That is what Mormons 
 claim for it. 
 
 This argument of Mormonism is merely 
 the silly retort of the sneaking boy who 
 when caught in lying or theft and exposed, 
 hangs his head and mutters, " Well I don't 
 care, you're another." It is as full of infi- 
 delity as Ingersoll's attacks on the Bible. 
 Unable to lift their contemptible false pro- 
 phet to the skies, the level of the Sons 
 of Uod, they would, with the malice of 
 fiends, drag the angels of religion down 
 to his vile level. When we expose the 
 ignorance, the illiteracy, the contradictions 
 of their vile imposture, the Book of Mor- 
 mon, they assail with all the malignity of 
 infidelity the character of the Bible. If 
 their foul imposture is exposed, they strive 
 with the malice of Infidel bate to befoul the 
 Bible by loading it with the same faults. 
 When we expose Impostor Joe's blasphem- 
 ous interpolations and change of the text 
 of the Bible, we are treated to a malicious 
 re-hash of old exploded infidel attacks on 
 the authenticity and genuineness of the 
 Bible ; we have a malicious infidel attempt 
 to drag the Bible down so low that Impos- 
 tor Joe's corruptions of It will be of no 
 more consequence than changing one of the 
 thousand versions of nursery tales. We 
 <have in Mormon writings, in the preface to 
 a pretended inspired translation of the Bi- 
 ble as malicious infidelity as can be found 
 in Ingersoll's writings. In the defense of 
 Impostor Joe and his illiterate blundering 
 frauds can be found as cowardly malicious 
 Attacks on the Bible, Bible characters as 
 can be found in any infidel production. It 
 Is time that the sheep's clothing was strip- 
 ped off of this imposture that claims to be 
 the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, but 
 hows its hatred of the Bible when its real 
 character is exposed. Judging from its 
 attacks on the Bible, the purity of its 
 text, the proofs of its origin, the 
 character of its prophets, and the 
 literary character of the Bible. Mormonism 
 is the vilest system of infidelity extant, 
 for it is the most hypocritical. Pretending 
 to restore the Bible in its purity, Christian- 
 ity in its primitive power, it bedaubs in its 
 slanderous assaults the Bible as a book, its 
 evidences, its literary character, the char- 
 acter of its prophets, and tries to drag them 
 to a level with Joe Smith and his frauds. 
 As the Book of Mormon is so largely sto- 
 len from the Bible, the Mormon in his infi- 
 del attacks destroys his own book when he 
 destroys the Bible. It is not enough that 
 the Book of Mormon be as good as the 
 Bible, it must be far better. The same cir- 
 
 cumstances cannot be urged In its 
 that can be urjjed in defense of ti iMe. 
 But few of the writers of the Bil.i mil us 
 they were inspired, the writers an<l speak- 
 ers of the Book of Mormon are cons mtly 
 telling us that the Spirit of the Lord has 
 told them that it is talking through them. 
 There is scarcely one that does noi inform 
 us of his inspiration. Not only so nut these 
 inspired persons were inspired above all 
 writers and speakers of the Bible except the 
 apostles of Christ after the day of Pentecost. 
 The Holy Spirit was not given in the name 
 of Jesus and in all his fullness until that 
 time, but Lehi and Nephi, the first writers 
 and speakers of the Book of Mormon, had the 
 Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus 600 years 
 before Jesus came, as fully and completely 
 as Paul. They had revelations 600 years 
 before Christ that were as perfect and com- 
 plete as any given to the apostles, in fact 
 more complete. The apostles did not settle 
 by revelation every subject of religious 
 controversy of the nineteenth century as 
 positively and completely and dogmatically 
 as any controversialist could do it. The in- 
 spired men of tne Book of Mormon did so 
 and were inspired far beyond the apostles. 
 But few of the Bible writers were told 
 to write what they wrote; nearly every 
 writer of the Book of Mormon writes in 
 obedience to a personal divine command. 
 But few of the writers of the Bible were 
 cautione'd to take steps, very careful pre- 
 cautions to preserve what they had writ- 
 ten ; nearly all of the writers of the Book 
 of Mormon were so warned and cprumxnded. 
 We have no instances of men being inspired 
 to revise and correct the books of the Bible; 
 such was constantly the case with the Book 
 of Mormon. Not a particle of the Bible 
 was preserved by miracle ; each and every 
 portion of the Book of Mormon and the 
 authorities on which it is based were so 
 preserved. Again, the Book of Mormon 
 stands related to the New Testament as the 
 New does to the Old : it contains the " full- 
 ness of the Gospel," or which the New Tes- 
 tament is but an outline. There were 
 churches and all the teachings of Christ 
 among the Nephites for hundreds of years 
 before Christ as perfect as ever existed 
 among the Israelites after he came, and of 
 course the revelations to such a highly 
 favored people must have been as much 
 more perfect and complete. The Israelites 
 in the old continent had only vague out- 
 fines of the gospel in their revelations. The 
 Nephites had the Gospel as perfect as the 
 Apostles had it. The Israelite prophets 
 had to study what their own utterances 
 meant. The Nephites had all the words, 
 acts and teachings of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles in the very language of Christ and his 
 Apostles. The Nephites enjoyed for hun- 
 dreds of years "the fullness of the Gospel," 
 while the Israelites on the old continent 
 were in the darkness of its dim twilight. 
 The writers, speakers and actors of the 
 Book of Mormon ought to excel those of the 
 Bible as much as their condition excelled 
 that of the writers and speakers of the 
 Bible. 
 
100 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S TENTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: When my time was called I 
 had just read the statement from their own 
 history with regard to Mr Rigdon, and 
 made a few hurried comments upon the 
 same and passed to a review of his work as 
 a minister to the time when Mr. Pratt call- 
 ed upon him with the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Up to this time Rigdon had been an en- 
 thusiastic and constant laborer in the "Re- 
 form Movement," as it was then called, as 
 is fully setout in the history of the Disci- 
 ples themselves, and his time so occupied 
 .in his ministerial labors that it was not pos- 
 sible for him to have left his work and du- 
 ties to visit Smith who at this time lived, 
 by the nearest way of travel, 250 miles dis- 
 tant in the uncultivated interior of the State 
 of New York, and when there were no 
 pleasant and easy lines of travel as now. 
 The Disciple, (Camp belli te) history seta 
 forth, that Rigdon was their standing min- 
 ister for the year 1825, at Bainbrirtge, Ohio, 
 tor the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbridge. 
 for the year 1827 at Mantua; for the year 
 1828, at 'Mentor, and this year is the time 
 when he met Alexander Campbell at War- 
 ren, Ohio, at their assembly, where the fa- 
 mous passage at arms took place between 
 Campbell and Rigdon of which so much has 
 been said. The next year, 1S29, Rigdon con- 
 tinued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid, 
 and founded the church in Perry, Ohio, 
 Aug. 7th. The next year. 1830, he continu- 
 ed as their minister, (and the ablest, of them 
 all,) at Mentor, Euclid, Kirtland. and oc- 
 casionally at Hiram, Mantua, Perry, and 
 Painsville, and using the words of their 
 own history, which shows a disposition to 
 temean him all possible, because he made 
 up his mind the Discipies did not have the 
 truth, he is shown to be the leadei of them. 
 It says 
 
 Sidney Rigdon was an orator of no inconsiderable 
 Ability In person, he was full medium height, rotund 
 in form, of countenance,;while;speaking, open and win- 
 ning, with n little oast of melancholy His action was 
 graceful, his language copious, fluent tn utterance, 
 with articulation clear and musical/' 
 
 Oh ! Thi is the pompous old Rigdon 
 that Braden is talking about is it ? This is 
 the fellow from whose crown Bro Scott 
 plucked a feather, and pulled off of Ahas : 
 ueras' horse. Here Rigdon is traced by 
 their own history till October, 1830, where 
 he is found as a live worker for the "Relorm 
 Movement," as they called it, when three 
 of our ministers open up meetings in the 
 district of Rigdon's charge and for the first 
 time he meets che expounders of the gospel 
 of Christ in its fullness, and also has an op- 
 portunity of reading that same gospel as 
 contained in the Book of Mormon. 
 
 What does he do? Like my friend Mr. 
 Braden here, he makes opposition with all 
 his great eloquence and powers, contesting 
 the "New religion," as they called it, at ev- 
 
 ery step, till every argument was taken 
 from him, when from the honestv of his 
 heartand desire for truth rather than error, 
 he accepted the faith, was publicly with his 
 wife, then and there baptised, preferring to 
 endure the reproaches of Christ lor a season 
 by accepting the full and complete gospel, 
 rather than to reject and retain his popular- 
 ity in the world. Was he the "ignoramus," 
 my audience, Bradeu has made him out 
 to be? Many of you knew him! After this he 
 ceases preaching and goes to work, and in a 
 few months he goes to New York State and 
 for the first time in his life sees and makes 
 the acquaintance of Joseph Smith. In this 
 connection I introduce the affidavit of Mrs. 
 Katherine Salisbury: 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS.) .. 
 Kendall County f 
 
 I. Katherine Salisbury, being duly sworn, depose and 
 say that I am a resident of the State of Illinois, and 
 have been for forty years last past ; that I will be 68 
 years of ape July '28th. 1881. 
 
 That 1 am a daughter of Joseph Smith, 
 Sen , and a sister to Joseph Smith, Jr., the 
 translator of the Book of Mormon. That 
 at the time the said book was published, I 
 was seventeen years of age; that at the 
 time of the publication of said book my 
 brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the 
 family of my father, in tha town of Man- 
 chester, Ontario County, New York, and 
 that he had all of his life to this time made 
 his home witn the family. 
 
 That at the time, and for years prior 
 thereto, I lived in and was a member of 
 such family, and personally knowing to 
 the things transacted in said family, and 
 those who visited at my father's house, and 
 the friendtj of the family, and the friends 
 and acquaintances of my brother Joseph 
 Smith, Jr., who visited at or came to my 
 father's house. 
 
 That prior to the latter part of tbe year 
 A. D. 1830, there was no person who visited 
 with, or was an acquaintance of, or called 
 upon the said family or any member there- 
 of to my knowledge, by the name of Sid- 
 ney Rigdon ; nor was such person known 
 to the family, or any member thereof, to my 
 knowledge, until the last part of tbe year 
 A. D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831, 
 and some time after the organization of the 
 Church of Jesus Christ by Joseph Hmith, 
 Jr., and several months after the publica- 
 tion of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 That I remember the time when Sidney 
 Rigdon came to my father's place, and that 
 it was after the removal of my father from 
 Waterloo, N. Y., tu Kirtlaud, Ohio. That 
 this was in the year 1831, and some mouths 
 after the publication of the Book of Mormon, 
 and fully one year after the Church was or- 
 ganized, as before stated herein. 
 
 That 1 make this statement not on account 
 of fear, favor or hope of reward of any kind, 
 but simply that the truth may be known 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 101 
 
 with reference to said matter, and that the 
 foregoing statements made by me are true, 
 as I verily believe. 
 
 KATHERINE SALISBURY. 
 
 Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my 
 presence, by the said Catherine Salisbury, 
 this 15th day of April, A. D. 1881. 
 
 J. H. JKNKS, Notary Public." 
 
 P. P. Pratt, in the city of New York, at 
 the time this Spaulding story first came 
 out, gives his testimony and knowledge of 
 the matter for publication in a letter to the 
 New Era, N. Y. He says : 
 
 "I myself had the happiness to present 
 it" (the Kook of Mormon), to him" (Rig- 
 don), in person " "He was much surprised, 
 audit was with much persuasion and ar- 
 gument that he was prevailed upon to read 
 it, and after he had read it, he had a great 
 struggle of mind before he fully balieved 
 and embraced it." 
 
 The idea has been thrown out to the world 
 that Sidney Rigdon drank right into the 
 faith of the Saints, without an effort to 
 disprove it. This is far from the truth, as 
 the witnesses upon both sides testify. 
 There is absolutely no contradiction of this 
 by any reliable testimony upon eitherside. 
 Does not this evidence then completely 
 break every link in the cunning device 
 gotten up and peddled out as the "Spauld- 
 ing romance?" 
 
 1. The only witnesses well enough con- 
 versant with the manuscript to testily show 
 it was entirely different from and not suffi- 
 cient by hundreds of pages to make the 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 2. It was not in Pittsburg when Rigdon 
 was there, and Rigdon never got or saw 
 it. 
 
 3. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon never 
 met until near two years after the book was 
 in press and ayear after publication. 
 
 4. The persons who had the manuscript 
 in their possession and claimed that their 
 affidavits were true, were the very ones who 
 destroyed the manuscript lest it destroy 
 their affidavits. 
 
 5. In the very places where they say 
 Spanldiug's manuscript was best known is 
 where the Saints gathered many converts 
 and were the most successful in disproving 
 these stories. 
 
 But he says, "what about the evidence of 
 John Spaulding, where he arose after the 
 reading of the book in the meeting and de- 
 nounced it." This is what I say about it. 
 It bears the stamp of falsehood upon its 
 face and in this : It was the statement in 
 a meeting held by a Mormon woman preach- 
 er, who read the book, they say. The 
 church in the first place never had a woman 
 preacher. I deny that there ever was such 
 preacher. Yet this is the basis for the 
 story that they arose and denounced it. 
 See Smucker page 43, History of the Mor- 
 mons. 
 
 2. John Spaulding, nor no other Spauld- 
 ing, ever arose in any meeting of the Saints 
 and madeany such a claim. It would never 
 have been done without the Minister re- 
 porting it to the society and none was ever 
 
 so made. John Spaulding never placed 
 himself where he could be cross-examined 
 on this matter, and none of thei? other pre- 
 tended witnesses, not one. But Mr. Braden 
 has already^ taken a course in which he 
 abandons his claim of Rig-don's connection 
 at Pittshurg, and wants to show that Smith 
 stole the manuscript and went to Ohio, and 
 roped Rigdon in. Smith he says, worked 
 for Sabine in 1823 or 1824, and this is when 
 the second revelation came out. He had 
 access to the Spaulding story. Ah ! but he 
 is caught here again. Mrs. Spaulding and 
 her daughter were at Sabiue's till 1820, 
 when Mis. Spaulding got married to David- 
 son. 
 
 Then they leave and order their trunk 
 sent to Jerome Clark, New York, for safe 
 keeping, from which place she afterwards 
 got it and the contents were all right so she 
 says, including the manuscript. 
 
 What is the insinuation here that Smith 
 either stole the manuscript and copied it 
 himself, or else during the time he was 
 working for Sabine he went to Ohio 
 and gave it to Rigdon. But Smith was no 
 scribe so that would not do aud there was 
 no chance for him to get to Ohio, if he 
 worked for Sabine. Why ! a man who can 
 believe such a yan as that, it seems to me, 
 ought to believe most anything. Gulliver's 
 travels, Robinson Crusoe and all. They 
 have not the first fact to base the story 
 upon. Smith did not work for Sabine as 
 they claim in 1823 or 1824. He was then a 
 boy in Wayne county, New York, at least 
 50 miles from where Sabine lived. Then, 
 canvass for a moment the weight there is in 
 the claim that the Histories, Encyclopedias, 
 Theological Dictionaries, etc., state it was 
 the Spaulding Romance. 
 
 This is like his testimony on the Polygamy 
 question over at Wilber. Most all of these 
 works give both sides of the question set 
 out Smith's claim, and then set out his 
 enemies' claim. Now if the fact that one 
 being in these works makes it true, it will 
 equally follow with the other. None of 
 them claim that there are sufficient facts to 
 sustain the Spauldiug romance as to justify 
 them in refusing a word from the friends 
 of the Book of Mormon. If these works 
 have found facts to settle it for the side of 
 the romance, what is the use of our debat- 
 ing? Why not send this audience a book 
 that will settle the question aud let them 
 read for themselves! Don't forget also, 
 that in the most of those same works there 
 is such a prejudiced account as to many of 
 the different religious bodies, that very few 
 of the denominations are satisfied that they 
 have justice done them, the Disciples with 
 the others. 
 
 I will now call your attention to some 
 proofs with regard to this matter of what 
 Smith did, how these stories were started 
 about him and Rigdon, etc. Also to some 
 things that have been referred to by my 
 opponent. Taking up the testimony "f Mr. 
 Saunders first. I read ym a published 
 interview of March 5th, 1881, ISaiiiiB Herald, 
 page 165, as follows : 
 
102 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Entering upon conversation with refer- 
 ence to our business, Mr. Saunders at once 
 said : " Well you have come to a poor place 
 to find out anything. I don't know an"- 
 thing against these men myself," (i.Al- 
 dently judging that we wanted to get 
 something against them only). 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with them Mr. 
 Saunders? 
 
 A. Yes sir ; I knew all of the Smith family 
 well; there were six boys; Alvin, Hyrum. 
 Joseph, Harrison, William and Carlos, ana 
 there were two girls ; the old man was a 
 cooper ; they have all worked for me many 
 a day ; they were very good people ; Young 
 Joe, (as we called him then), has worked 
 for me, and he was a good worker ; they all 
 were. I did not consider them good mana- 
 gers about business, but they were poor 
 people ; the old man had a large family. 
 
 Q,. In what respect did they differ from 
 other people if at all ? 
 
 A. I never noticed that they were differ- 
 ent from other neighbors; they were the 
 best family in the neighborhood in case of 
 sickness ; one was at my house nearly all 
 the time when my father died; I always 
 thought them honest; they were owing rne 
 some money when they left here; that is 
 the old man and Hyrum did, and Martin 
 Harris. One of them came back in about a 
 year and paid me. 
 
 Q. How were they as to habits of drinking 
 and getting drunk ? 
 
 A. Everybody drank a little in those days 
 and the Smiths with the rest; they never 
 got drunk to my knowledge? 
 
 Q. What kind of a man was Martin 
 Harris? 
 
 A. He was an honorable man. Martin 
 Harris was one of the first men in the town. 
 Q. How well did you know young Joseph 
 Smith? 
 
 A. Oh! just as well as one could very 
 well ; he has worked for me many a time, 
 and been about my place a great deal. He 
 stopped with me many a time, when through 
 here, after they went west to Kirtland ; he 
 was always a gentleman when about my 
 place 
 
 Q. What did you know about his finding 
 that book, or the plates in the hill over 
 there? 
 
 A, He always claimed that he saw the 
 angel and received the book ; but I don't 
 know anything about it. Have seen it, but 
 never read it as I know of; didn't care 
 anything about it. 
 
 Q,. Well you seem to differ a little from 
 a good many of the stories told about these 
 people. 
 
 A. I have told you just what I know 
 about them, and you will have to go some- 
 where else for a different story." 
 
 I claim your attention next while I read 
 the statements of J. H. Gilbert taken down 
 as he made them and afterwards published 
 and furnished him. He is asked first the 
 question: "What did you know about the 
 Smiths, Mr. Gilbert?" and answers: 
 
 I knew nothing myself ; have seen Joseph 
 Smith a few times, but not acquainted with 
 
 him. Saw Hyrum quite often. I am the 
 party that set the type from the original 
 manuscript of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Q. Did you change any part of it when 
 you were setting the type? 
 A. No, sir; we never changed it at all. 
 Q. Why did you not change it and cor- 
 rect it? 
 
 A. Because they would not allow us to; 
 they were very particular about that. We 
 never changed it in the least. Oh well, 
 there might have been one or two words 
 that I changed the spelling of, I believe I 
 did change the spelling of one, and perhaps 
 two ; but no more. 
 
 Q. Did you set all the type, or did some 
 one help you? 
 
 A. I did the whole of it myself, and helped 
 to read the proof, too ; there was no one who 
 worked at that but myself. . id yo ever 
 see one of the first copies? I have one here 
 that was never bound. Mr. Graudin the 
 printer gave it to me. If you ever saw a 
 Book of Mormon you will see that they 
 changed it afterwards. 
 
 Q. They did ! well let us see your ropy ; 
 that is a good point. How is it changed 
 now? 
 
 A. I vi 1 show you (bringing out his 
 copy). Here on the first page it says (read- 
 ing) "Joseph Smith, Jr., author and pro- 
 prietor." Afterwards they left that out, 
 and only claimed that Joseph Smith trans- 
 lated it. 
 
 Q. Well, did they claim anything else 
 than that he was the translator when they 
 brought the manuscript to you ? 
 
 A. Oh, no; they claimed that he was 
 translating it by means of some instruments 
 that he got at the same time that he did the 
 plates, and that the Lord helped him. 
 
 Q. Was he educated, do you know ? 
 
 A. Oh, not at all then ; but I understand 
 that afterwards he made great advance- 
 ment, and was quite a scholar and orator. 
 
 Q,. How do you account for the production 
 of the Book of Mormon, Mr. Gilbert, then, 
 if Joseph Smith was so illiterate? 
 
 A. Well, that is the difficult question. It 
 must have been from the Spaulding ro- 
 mance you have heard of it, I suppose. 
 The parties here, then, never could have 
 been the authors of it, certainly. I have 
 been for the last forty-five or fifty years try- 
 ing to get the key to that thing; but we 
 have never been able to make the connection 
 yet. For some years past I have been cor- 
 responding with a person in Salt Lake by 
 the name of Cobb, who is getting out a work 
 against the Mormons; but we have never 
 been able to find what we wanted. 
 
 Q. If you could connect Sidney Rigdon 
 with Smith some way you could get up a 
 theory? 
 
 A. Yes; that is just where the trouble 
 lies; the manuscript was put into our hands 
 in August, 1829, and all printed by March, 
 1830, and we cannot find that Rigdon was 
 ever about here or in this State until i-ome 
 time in the fall of 1830. But I think I I a e 
 got a way out of the difficulty now. A fel- 
 low that used to be here by the name of 
 
THE BRADKN AND KKLLEY DEBATE. 
 
 103 
 
 6aunders, Lorenzo Saunders, was back here 
 some time ago, and I was asking him about 
 It. At first he said he did not remember of 
 seeing Rigdon until after 1830 sometime; 
 but after studying it over a'while he said it 
 seemed to him that one time he was over 
 to Smith's and that there was a stranger 
 there he never saw before, and that they 
 said it was Rigdon. I told him about Cobb, 
 of Utah, and asked him if he would send 
 Cobb his affidavit that he saw Rigdon be- 
 fore the book was published, if he (Cobb) 
 would write to him ; he finally said he 
 would, and I wrote to Cobb about it, and 
 gave Saunders' address, and after a long 
 time I got a letter from him saj-ing he had 
 written three letters to Saunders and could 
 ,get no answer. I then sat down and wrote 
 Sauuders a letter myself reminding him of 
 his promise; and wrote to Cobb also about 
 it; and after a long time Cobb wrote me 
 again, that Saunders had written to him ; 
 but I have never learned how satisfactory 
 it was, or whether he made the affidavit or 
 not. 
 
 Q. Is that Saunders a brother of tha 
 Saunders living down here, Orlando Saun- 
 ders? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; they are brothers. 
 
 Q. Is he older or younger? 
 
 A. Younger; about fifteen years younger. 
 
 Q. Then he-must have been quit<> young 
 before the Book of Mormon was published? 
 
 A. Yes, he was young. 
 
 Q. This Saunders down here don't talk 
 like a great many people ; he seems to think 
 the Smiths were very good people ; we have 
 been there to-day. 
 
 A. Oh I don't think the Smiths were ttd 
 bad as people let on for. Now Tuikpj it 
 his work told too many big things ; cct-^dy 
 could believe his stories. 
 
 Q. What kind of a man was Martin Har- 
 ris? 
 
 A. He was a very honest farmer but very 
 superstitious. 
 
 Q,. What was he before his name was con 
 cected with the Book of Mormon ? 
 
 A. Not anything I believe. He was a 
 kind of skeptic. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by his being super- 
 stitious? Was he religious? 
 
 A. Well, I don't know about that but he 
 pretended to see things. 
 
 Q. What do you think of th Book of 
 Mormon as a book ; you are well posted in it? 
 
 A. Oh, there is nothing taught in the 
 book but what is good ; there ia DO dtnying 
 that ; it is the claim of being fror* Ood that 
 I strike at. 
 
 Q. Well, is it any more wonderful than 
 that God gave the Bible? 
 
 A. No, not a bit, and there is a good deal 
 more evidence to show that that is divine 
 than there is for some of the books in the 
 Bible. Why, it is all nonsense to think that 
 Moses wrote some of the books attributed 
 to him in the Bible. 
 
 Q. Then you don't believe the fish story, 
 either, Mr. Gilbert? 
 
 A. No, nor that Jonah swallowed the 
 whule. 
 
 Q. How about Samson catching tLe 
 three hundred foxes and the firebrands? 
 
 A. Yes ; that is a good one , you fellows 
 will do. 
 
 Q. Much dbliged, Mr. Gilbert. 
 
 A. You are quite welcome; I wish I could 
 give you more than I have." 
 
 Next! refer you to the statements made 
 by three of the Jackaways at Palmyra, es- 
 pecially to show you about the stories of 
 money digging, how they started, &c., and 
 that they had no foundation in fact. The 
 following among other questions were asked 
 these parties : 
 
 Q. "Where was Joe when he was translat- 
 ing his book ? 
 
 A. At home; it was translated in the 
 farm house. 
 
 Q. Mr. Gilbert across here, said it wan 
 done in a cave ; now you don't agree. What 
 does Tucker say? (reading Tucker.) 
 
 A. They all differ. Now Tucker ha* a 
 statement from Willard Chase in his book, 
 and Chase said Tucker never called on him 
 at all to find out what he knew. 
 
 Lady. Yes ; f have heard Willard Chase 
 say Tucker never even asked him for what 
 he knew, and Chase lived next, door to him, 
 too. Chase is now dead. 
 
 Q. Well, did you ever see HuJburt or 
 Howe, who published a work against the 
 Mormons ? 
 
 A. Yes ; Hulburt cans* around first, I be- 
 lieve, soon after the thins started, and they 
 had gone to Kirlland. Ohio, trying to find 
 things against them , and there have been 
 a good many around trying to connect Sid- 
 Ct-y Rigdoo with them." 
 
 Q. "Howfardid you live from town when 
 thfr Smiths were in this country? 
 
 A One-half mile south of Palmyra. 
 
 Q Were you acquainted with Joseph 
 Smith and his early followers ? 
 
 A. Yes. I knew them; seen them a many 
 a time old Joe and young Joe. 
 
 Q. How far did you livt fro a* them? 
 
 A. It was about a mile. 
 
 Q. You knew about their digging for 
 money, so Mr. Gilbert said ; he seut us to 
 you. 
 
 A Oh, yes; J can show you the places 
 now . there are three places over there 
 where they dug. 
 
 Q. Well, we wnt to see them. Did you 
 help them dig? 
 
 A. No. i never helped them. 
 
 Q. Well, you saw them digging? 
 
 A. No; I never saw them digging. 
 
 Q. How do you know they dug tb<* holes 
 you refer to ? 
 
 A. 1 don't know they dug them, but tne 
 holes are there. 
 
 Q,. Did anybody else dig for money at 
 that time there? 
 
 A. I believe there were some others that 
 dug, but I did not see them. 
 
 Q. Do you know any of them? 
 
 A I only know one now ; he lives up at 
 Canandaigua." 
 
 I next introduce the evidence f Dr. John 
 Stafford, of Rochester, N. Y., son of Wil- 
 liam Stafford, made so conspicuous by 
 
104 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Tucker In his work against the Mormons. 
 In answer to a question as to the character 
 of Joseph Smith. Dr. Stafford said : 
 
 " He was a real clever boy. What Tucker 
 said about them was false, absolutely. 
 
 Q. What about that black sheep your 
 father let them have 9 
 
 A. I have heard that story, but don't 
 think my father was tnere at the time they 
 say Smith got the sheep. I don't know 
 anything about it. 
 
 Q,. You were living at home at the time, 
 and it seems you ought to know if they got 
 a sheep, or stole' one from your father? 
 
 A. They never stole one, I am sure ; they 
 may have got one some time. 
 
 Q. Well, doctor, you know pretty well 
 whether that story is true or not that Tucker 
 tells. What do you think of it? 
 
 A. I don't think it is true. I would have 
 heard more about it if it had been true. I 
 lived a mile from Smith's. lam 76 years 
 old. They were peaceable among them- 
 selves. The old woman had a great deal of 
 faith that their children were going to do 
 something great. Joe was illiterate. After 
 they began to have school at their house 
 he improved greatly. 
 
 Q. Did they have a school at their 
 house ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; they had school in their house 
 and studied the Bible. 
 
 Q. Who was their teacher? 
 
 A. They did not have any teacher; they 
 taught themselves. 
 
 Q. Did you know Oliver Cowdery? 
 
 A. Yes ; he taught school on the Canan- 
 daigua Road, where the stone school house 
 now stands, just three and a half miles 
 from Palmyra. Cowdery was a man of 
 good character." 
 
 Thomas Taylor at Manchester said when 
 interrogated about Mr. Smith and family 
 as follows : 
 
 " Yes ; I knew them very well ; they 
 were nice men, too; the only trouble waa 
 they were ahead of the people, and the peo- 
 ple as in every such case, turned out to 
 abuse them because they had the manhood 
 to stand for their own convictions. 
 
 Q. What did the Smith's do that the 
 people abused them so? 
 
 A. They did not do anything. Why! 
 these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith 
 and ducked him in the pond that you see 
 over there, just because he preached what 
 he believed and for nothing else. And if 
 Jesus. Christ had been there they would 
 have done the same to him. Now I don't 
 believe like he did; but every man has a 
 right to his religious opinions, and to advo- 
 cate his views too; if people don't like it, 
 let them come out and meet him on the 
 stand and show his error. Smith was 
 always ready to exchange views with' the 
 best men they had. 
 
 Q. Why didn't they like Smith? 
 
 A. To tell the truth, there was something 
 about him they could not understand ; some 
 how he knew more than they did, and it 
 made them mad. 
 
 Q. But a good many tell terrible stories 
 
 about them being low people, rogues and 
 liars, and such things. How is that? 
 
 A. Oh ! they are a set of liars. I have had 
 a home here, and been here, except when 
 on easiness, all my life ever since I 
 came to this country* and I know these fel- 
 lows ; and they make these lies on Smith 
 because they love a lie better than the truth. 
 I can take you to a great many old settlers 
 who will substantiate what I say, and if 
 you want to go, come to my place across 
 the way, and I'll go with you. 
 
 Q. That is very kind Mr. Taylor ; but we 
 are first going to see these fellows, who, so 
 rumor says, know so much against him? 
 
 A, All right; but you will find they don't 
 know anything against those men when 
 you put them down to it ; they could never 
 sustain anything against Smith." 
 
 I have read you the foregoing interviews 
 for the reason that they were taken down 
 as they came from the lips of the parties 
 and may be relied upon. To my knowl- 
 edge there has never been a single contra- 
 diction of one of these statements by a 
 single one of the parties whose testimony I 
 have just read except Gilbert's, and at the 
 proper time if the question is raised I will 
 examine his. 
 
 This thing which they got up about the 
 Saints is an entire fraud, and I will prove 
 It by comparing the work, that from which 
 my opponent draws his testimony, this 
 Howe and Hulburt history, with our works, 
 and show you that they nave deliberately 
 garbled and falsified, and moat mischiev- 
 ously perverted our works. 
 
 Where our works are plain and distinct, 
 they have, in order to make them ridicu- 
 lous, taken out words and clauses, taken 
 out entire sentences, to present the teach- 
 ing as bad. Yet, this is the book that h 
 has commended to you and been reading 
 his statements and affidavits from. I will 
 show you further in the discussion that 
 what are called affidavits or statements of 
 John Spaulding and Martha Spaulding 
 were never made by them, and that in fact 
 he has no such : and if I don't prove all of 
 this, then I want you to denounce me be- 
 fore this audience. 
 
 Mr. Braden : Why, you are getting ex- 
 cited, my friend. 
 
 Mr. Kelley: Not at all, not at all, Bro. 
 Braden. 1 am emphatic and positive in 
 my positions, and if you have any evidence, 
 bring it on. 
 
 Entering upon an examination of this 
 work of Hulburt and Howe, I cite you first 
 some of their false representation* and spu- 
 rious quotations, contrasting what they pre- 
 tended to quote from our works with the 
 true reading. 
 
 1. Howe, page 27 says: "He repre- 
 sents Nephi as making plates in the wil- 
 derness with no ore." 
 
 Book of Mormon, Palmyra Edition, page 
 43, shows the plates were made after the 
 people arrived upon this continent, and 
 after they had found ore with many other 
 things. 
 
 2. Howe, same page, "Has a command- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 105 
 
 ment from tue Lord to make plates for the 
 special purpose of making a record of his 
 own ministry and his own people." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 17 "I have re- 
 ceived a commandment from the Lord that 
 I should make these plates for the special 
 purpose that there snould be an account 
 engraven o( the ministry of my people." 
 
 S.Howe again: "Our hero introduces 
 himself *s a minister." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 17: "And now I, 
 JSephi. proceed to give an account upon 
 tnese plates and of my proceedings and my 
 reign and ministry." 
 
 4. Howe, page 32. "It brought them all 
 safely or. the borders of the Red sea, with 
 the exception of Ishmael." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 42 "And we did 
 sojourn for the space of many years, yea, 
 even" eight years, in the wilderness. And 
 we aid come to the land which we called 
 bountiful, because oi its much fruit. And 
 we beheld the sea, whicn we called Irean- 
 tum, which being interpreted is many wa- 
 ters." Notice There is no Red sea about 
 it. 
 
 5. Howe, page 35: ''Whether the ship 
 was propelled by oars, or oy a current, or 
 by the wind, or by the power of the spin- 
 dle, we cannot inform our readers, for it is 
 not stated." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 48: "And it came 
 to pass that after we had all gone down 
 in to the ship toiid taken with us our provi- 
 sions and things which had been com- 
 manded us, we did put forth into the sea, 
 and were driven forth before the wind to- 
 wards the promised land." 
 
 6. Take another specimen of his professed 
 truths : Howe, page 38, states that there is 
 an exact copy of the 48th and 49th chapters 
 of Isaiah to be found in the Book of Mor- 
 mon ; and that they are introduced with 
 the same words that commence the chap- 
 ter in the Bible, intending thereby to show 
 that they were copied from the Bible after 
 it was divided into chapters and verses. 
 This is wilfully false ; for on comparison, it 
 is found that the wording of the prophesy 
 is different in its very introduction, and 
 there are numerous differences between the 
 two books, in words, sentences and- verses. 
 Neither can one tell where the division for 
 a new chapter should be made in the read- 
 ing of the Book of Mormon, save by noting 
 the last word found in the 48th chapter of 
 Isaiah, until he gets to the close of the 49th 
 chapter, where the subject of theo two 
 chaptets ends, and anew subject is intro- 
 duced, and there the writer of the Book of 
 Mormon left off writing. The claim is false. 
 and made obviously to deceive. They are 
 not alike, as claimed by Howe. Book of 
 Mormon, page 52 to 56. 
 
 7. Again Howe says, page 42 : "The 
 Nephites warred with each other until they 
 exterminated the whole race except three, 
 who were immortalized." 
 
 Book of Mormon, pp. 493 to 496 : "Yea, 
 even all my people, save it were those twenty 
 and four who were with me, and alto a few 
 had escaped into the south countries. 
 
 and a few who had dissented over unto the 
 Lamanites, had fallen and their flesh and 
 bones and blood lay upon the face of the 
 earth " 
 
 8. By way of an argument it is again stated: 
 Howe, page 44. "The Book of Mormon is 
 hard to understand." 
 
 "Would it not be reasonable to conclude 
 that any book whose author was the Holy 
 Ghost, would be clear and perfect in all its 
 parts so plain that the wayfaring man 
 need noterr." 
 
 I suggest that Mr. Braden try John's 
 Revelation by this rule, and see how long 
 ne can endorse his backer Howe. But I 
 proceed with the contrast. 
 
 9. Howe, png-o .52: 'iWe are likewise told 
 in the same discourse that the plates or 
 book would be sealed up, and should finally 
 be found by an uulearned man, whosliould 
 see then, and show them to three others." 
 
 Here is found the great bugbear, sought 
 to bi kept before the people to deceive. 
 How different, however, it is from the true 
 reading. 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 110: 
 
 "Wherefore, at that dny when the book shall be de- 
 livered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book 
 shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that th yc-s 
 of none shall behold it, save it lie thnt three wi neuet 
 thall beholdit, by thepowerof 6Vxi, besides him to whom 
 the book shall be delivered, and they shall testify to 
 the truth of the book and the tilings tbi rein. And 
 there is none others which sha'l view it, save it be a 
 few according to the will of God. to bear testimony of hi* 
 word unto tiie children of men." 
 
 10. Another illustration, Howe, p. 65: 
 
 " And if Christ had not risen from the dead or have 
 broken the bonds of death, that the ^-ave should have 
 no victory, and that death should have no sting, there 
 could have been no resurrection. " 
 
 He endeavors to prove by the tens* of the 
 verb here, that it was written after the cru- 
 cifixion of Christ, and to deceive quotes 
 only a part of the text. 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 169: "And now If 
 Christ had not come into the world, speak- 
 ing of things to come as though they had 
 already come,"&c. This he deftly leavei 
 out. But again, 
 
 11. Howe, pp. 68, 69: Mosiah causes all 
 records to be revised, and "transcribes" th 
 plates of brass brought out from Jerusalem." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 216 : 
 
 "Now Kin? Mosiah bad no one to confer the kin;, 
 dom upon, for there was not any of his sons which 
 would accept the kingdom; therefore he took the rec- 
 ords which were engraven upon the plate* of brass, 
 and also the plates of Nephi, and all the things which 
 he had kept and preserved according to the command- 
 ments of God, and after having translated and caused 
 to be written the records which weie on t e plate* 91 
 gold, which had been found by the people of Limhi 
 which was delivered to him by the baud of Lirnhi, 
 and this he did because of the great anxiety of hia 
 people, for they were desirous beyond measure, to 
 know concerning those people which had been de- 
 stroyed. And now he translated them by means of 
 those two stones which were fastened into the two run* 
 of a bow." 
 
 12. Howe, page 77 : 
 
 "Smith used a stone in a hat for the purpose of 
 translating the plntes. The spectacles lUrim and 
 Thummim) and plntes were found together, but were 
 taken from him and hid up again before he bad trans- 
 lated one word, and be has never seen them nince." 
 "This is Smith's own story." 
 
 The following is the account by Mr. Smith 
 himself: 
 
106 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 "I copied a considerable number of them, and by 
 means .if the Urim and Thummim 1 translated some of 
 them, which I did between the time I arrived at the 
 bouse of ray wife's father, in the mouth of December, 
 1827. and the Fi bruary following." 
 
 Again, see his own history by himself: 
 
 "Bv the wisdom of God they (the plates Urim and 
 Thummim and breast-plate.) remained safe In my 
 bands until I had accomplished by them what was re- 
 quired at my band, when according to arrangements 
 the messenger called for them; I delivered them up to 
 him and he has them in his charge until this day, 
 being the second day of May, 1838." Pearl of Great 
 Price, page 44. 
 
 See also Cowdery's statement : 
 
 " Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write 
 from his month, as he translated with the Urim and 
 Thummim, or. as the Nephites would have said, Inter- 
 preters, the history or record called the Book of Mor- 
 mon." Ibid, page 46. 
 
 13. Here is still another glaring perver- 
 sion and misrepresentation. Howe, page 
 89 : " The whole record being handed down 
 and altered according to our manner of 
 speech." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 538: "And now 
 we have written this record according to 
 our knowledge in the characters, which are 
 called among us reformed Egyptian, being 
 handed down and altered by us according 
 to our manner of speech." 
 
 The writer says the characters which they 
 used in writing had been changed ; Howe 
 says, the record was changed. 
 
 14. Again, Howe, page 90 : " God marched 
 before them in a cloud." 
 
 Book of Mormon, pp. 541, 542, and 48: 
 "The Lord did go before them, and talked 
 to them while he stood in a cloud, and gave 
 directions whither they should travel." 
 
 15. Howe, page 90 : "They make a hole in 
 the top to admit air and one in the bottom 
 to admit water ; in each hole was put a 
 molten stone, which when touched by the 
 finger of Jesus became as transparent as 
 any glass and gave them light under the 
 mountain waves. Two of these stones were 
 sealed up with the plates according to a 
 prediction before Abraham was born. 
 
 " Thou shalt make a hole in the top there- 
 
 of and in the bottom thereof, and when 
 thou shalt suffer for air, thou shalt un.stop 
 the hole thereof and receive air. And if it 
 so be that water come in upon thee thou 
 shalt stop the hole." 
 
 " And he did put forth the stones into the 
 vessels which are prepared, one in each end 
 thereof." 
 
 Howe, page 90: "The Lord commanded 
 him that he should seal up the two stones 
 which he had received and show them not." 
 Not a word about Abraham. 
 
 16. Howe, page 124: "Even their wine 
 they used for communion they were ordered 
 to make from cider and other materials." 
 
 Book of Covenants, page 102: " You shall 
 not purchase wine, neither strong drink 
 from your enemies, wherefore you shall 
 partake oi none save it is made new among 
 you." 
 
 Nothing about cider and other materials 
 as said by Howe. 
 
 17. Again, Howe, page 129: "If thou 
 lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep my 
 commandments; and behold fehou shalt con- 
 secrate all thy properties, that which thou 
 hast, unto me, with a covenant and a deed 
 which cannot be broken." 
 
 The true reading of the Book of Cove- 
 nants, page 143 : " If thou lovest me, thou 
 shalt serve me and keep all my command- 
 ments. And behold, thou will remember 
 the poor, and consecrate OP thy properties 
 for their support, that which thou hast to 
 impart unto them, with a covenant and a 
 deed which cannot be broken ; and inas- 
 much as you impart of your substance unto 
 the poor, ye will do it unto me." 
 
 .Howe says, "Thou shalt consecrate all 
 thy properties, that which thou hast, unto 
 me." Tue truth is they were required to 
 consecrate of their properties that which 
 they were able to donate for that purpose ; 
 and the promise was, " inasmuch as ye im- 
 part of your substance unto the poor,ye will 
 do it unto me." 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 107 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S TENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: The Books of the Bible were 
 written on papyrus, parchment, perishable 
 material; and they had to be copied and re- 
 vised to preserve them ; and this was done 
 by uninspired men liable to err. The Book 
 of Mormon was engraved by inspired men, 
 on plates, imperishable material.and needed 
 no copying. If the Bible was revised or 
 arranged, it was done by uninspired men. 
 The Book of Mormon was revised, abridged, 
 by inspired men. The manuscripts of the 
 Bible were written, preserved, and handled 
 by uninspired men. The plates of the Book 
 of Mormon were engraved, preserved and 
 handled by inspired men. The Bible has 
 come down to us without any miracle in its 
 production, except in the inspiration of its 
 inspired men. The Book of Mormon was 
 written by miracle, preserved by miracle, 
 Its existence revealed to Smith by mir- 
 acle. 
 
 Our translation as made by uninspired 
 men. They had to determine which of the 
 various readings is the true one, which of 
 the various meanings of Greek and Hebrew 
 words is the right one in each passage, then 
 the meaning of the passage, from the mean- 
 ing and use of its words, its context, its 
 grammatical structure, and this was the 
 work of uninspired learning. But Smith had 
 to compare no various readings. He had the 
 exact words, that the inspired Mormon en- 
 graved. He did not have to search lexicons, 
 and grammars for meanings and uses of 
 words. He looked into his interpreter and 
 God himself by miracle caused the word to 
 appear before Smith's vision. If there is any 
 mistake God made it not Smith. The only 
 chance for error was that Smith could not 
 read the word correctly, or that his scribe 
 did not understand the word as Smith gave 
 it to him ; but as Smith was inspired he 
 could make no mistakes and as Cowdrey 
 was directly called and qualified, according 
 to the revelation in the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants, he could make no mistake. 
 We can see how mental peculiarities and 
 lack of education could affect the writers of 
 the Bible, and understand that they should 
 appear in the books of the Bible ; but Smith's 
 illiteracy, iiis mental peculiarities, and style, 
 ought not, could not, appear in the Book of 
 Mormon, for God, by miracle, placed the 
 word before Smith, and all Smith did was to 
 read it and repeat it to Cowdrey, and all Cow- 
 drey did was to write it. Smith and Cow- 
 drey had no more to do with the words, 
 style, truth, literary character, of the Book 
 of Mormon, than a speaking trumpet, or a 
 telephone, or phonograph have with what a 
 man utters through them. 
 
 The angel Moroni declares in the inspir- 
 ed preface, which is a direct revelation 
 from the angel God authorized to give this 
 revelation to the world, that it is "written by 
 
 'way of commandment and by thespiritof 
 'prophecy and revelation, written and seal- 
 'ed, and hid up by the command and inspir- 
 'ation of God ; to come forth by the inspira- 
 'tion and power of God; and theinterpreta- 
 'tion (by Smith) was by thegift of God." It 
 was all done by inspiration, by God him- 
 self. Not only so, but the three witnesses 
 testify "We know that the records hav 
 "been translated by the gift and power of 
 "God for his voice declared it unto us, 
 "wherefore we know of a certainty that the 
 "word, the Book of Mormon is true." 
 Why? Because God's voice declared that it 
 was true. 
 
 The only opportunity there is for human 
 error in the Book of Mormon, is in typo- 
 graphical errors, and there can be none of 
 these, for it was proofread by inspired men; 
 and the caveat that it is pretended Moroni 
 issued in the preface "If there be fault it be 
 the mistake of men," is a deliberate lie, since 
 God inspired the speakers, actors, and wri- 
 ters, as fully as he did the apostles, since 
 he inspired and superintended all copying, 
 since he gave every word himself, by direct 
 miracle in the translation, as Moroni himself 
 tells us in the same preface, since he said, 
 with his own voice, to the three witnesses 
 that the translation was his own work; and 
 that the Book is true. There can be no mis- 
 take of man, for man had no more to do with 
 it than a telephone has with what it utters. 
 The statement of Moroni is as remarkable 
 for its morality as for its grammar "If there 
 be fault it be the mistake of men." The 
 Almighty, in his last and most perfect reve- 
 lation, sends out faults, a bundle of false- 
 hoods with the truth that he gave to the 
 world word by word by Joe ; and which he 
 commanded the three witnesses, with his 
 own voice, to declare all nations and tongues 
 to be true. 
 
 We are now ready to examine this revela- 
 tion we affirm : 
 
 1 . That God would not give, in so wonder- 
 ful and entirely miraculous a manner, a book 
 that did not commend itself to the common 
 sense and reason of men, as worthy of him, 
 and divine. 
 
 2. He would give it in a manner worthy 
 of himself and such a miraculously given 
 book. 
 
 3. The person through whom it was given 
 would be worthy of such a wonderful 
 mission. 
 
 4. The surroundings should be worthy of 
 such a. work. 
 
 5. Its utterances should agree with all 
 established truths. 
 
 6. They should agree with other revela- 
 tions in the Bible. 
 
 7. They should agree with other revela- 
 tions in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants 
 and all other revelations of Joseph Smith, 
 or any other inspired men. 
 
108 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 8. They should agree with the Inspired 
 translation of Joseph Smith. 
 
 9. They should agree with themselves. 
 
 10. They should be as much superior to 
 the Bible, as their origin was superior to the 
 origin of the Bible. 
 
 The first edition of the Book of Mormon 
 had on the title page written by inspira- 
 tion, "Joseph Smith jr., Author and Propri- 
 etor." Joe's egotism led him to tell the 
 truth, a part of the truth, for he did not 
 give credit to Spaulding and Rigdon, but 
 he fearfully contradicted the declaration of 
 inspiration, in the Book which declares 
 that Mormon and Moroni are the authors. 
 Inspired Joe noticed this contradiction and 
 corrected it in all later editions. According 
 to this inspired title page, Jehovah gave, in 
 the most miraculous mariner possible, a 
 revelation higher and better than all he had 
 ever given before for the salvation of the 
 human race and constituted ignorant, lazy, 
 loafing, lying, drinking, swearing, lewd, 
 fortune- telling, money-hunting Joe Smith 
 Its sole proprietor and sole sharer of its 
 profits. He gave to Imposter Joe, under 
 the seal of R. R. Lansing, District Clerk of 
 Northern New York, the sole right to vend 
 this revelation that is the fulness of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 In the introduction to the first edition it 
 seems that the Mormon God had not found 
 out what Lucy Harris did with the 116 
 pages that she burned. The Mormon God 
 issues a long manifesto to guard against a 
 trick that no one ever dreamt of trying. 
 The Mormon God undertakes to circumvent 
 any persons trying a trick that never was 
 imagined, by telling Joe to publish a deli- 
 berate lie. He is to translate the plates of 
 Nephi, until he comes to the same event as 
 the one with which the translation from the 
 plates of Lehi in ttie stolen pages ended, 
 and finish with the plates of Lehi. He then 
 is to publish the whole as a translation of 
 the plates of Nephi, and tell a lie. How 
 did Joe know when be reached that point, 
 as he did not have the plates? Why could 
 not the Mormon God re-translate from the 
 plates of Lehi, as well as translate from the 
 plates of Nephi, since he had both? The 
 truth is that Lucy Harris burnt the 116 
 pages of Spaulding's Mormon Manuscript 
 No. III., and that much was gone beyond 
 recovery. Rigdon had to re-model a portion 
 of Mormon Manuscript No. IT. to take the 
 place of what had been burnt. 
 
 We will now begin our analysis of the 
 matter in the book itself. On page 1, Nephi, 
 an Israelite born and reared in Jerusalem, 
 as his fathers before him had been for gen- 
 erations, tells us that he writes his record 
 in the language of his fathers, which con- 
 sists of the learning of the Jews and the 
 language of the Egyptians. There are four 
 ridiculous blunders in these few words. 
 I. The writer evidently meant to imitate 
 Stephen, who says "Moses was learned in 
 all the wisdom of the Egyptians." He 
 gets it the learning of the Jews, when they 
 were inferior to the Egyptians in learning. 
 He meant, perhaps, the learning of the 
 
 Egyptians. II. The tena Jew is not in th 
 original of the Bible. It is an English nick- 
 name, just as "Yank" is a nickname for 
 Yankee. The term Judahite or Judean 
 was not national, the name of a people 
 till after the return from captivity. III. 
 The preposterous idea that an Israelite 
 raised in Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew 
 was spoken whose fathers had lived in 
 Jerusalem, where only the Hebrew was 
 spoken could say that the language of his 
 fathers was Egyptian, a language that the 
 Israelties abhorred, as they did everything 
 Egyptian. The superstitious reverence of 
 the Israelites for the Hebrew is well known ; 
 yet the language of Nephi, Hebrew of He- 
 brews, was Egyptian. IV. The idea that 
 Jehovah spoke to an Israelite in Egyptian, 
 when he never used in his revelations to 
 them any language but the Hebrew. It 
 also contains a falsehood, for Nephi's fa- 
 thers were not Jews, but Mannassehites 
 the learning of his fathers was not that or 
 the Jews. 
 
 We could drop the Book of Mormon right 
 here. None but an ignoramus like Rigdon, 
 an ignoramus in biblical literature, would 
 have committed four such blunders as those 
 we have given. No Israelite ever did. On 
 the succeeding pages from 2 to 9, we are 
 told that Lehi was compelled by persecu- 
 tion to flee from Jerusalem, leaving every- 
 thing behind, and taking nothing but hi 
 family, some tents and provisions. By com- 
 mand of the Lord Nephi is seen returning 
 to Jerusalem to obtain certain plates in the 
 possession of his kinsman Laban. Nephi 
 offers Laban his father's property for the 
 plates. Laban refuses, and drives NephJ 
 and his brothers out, taking their property 
 by violence. Nephi returns, makes Labat 
 drunk, murders him, lies to his servants 
 gets the plates and returns to his father 
 who has a shouting time over the results o 
 murder and lying. This account is fullo/ 
 absurdities and contradictions. I. It assert* 
 that the writing material of the Israelites 
 was metallic plates. They used papyrus, 
 tanned leather, parchment, vellum, linen 
 smeared with gum, tablets smeared with 
 wax, but never used metallic plates. We 
 read of metallic plates but once in the 
 Bible in the Book of Job, who was not an 
 Israelite, and nearly 1,000 years before this 
 time. II. The idea that God approved of 
 Nephi's making Laban drunk, murdering 
 him, lying to his servants, and robbing him 
 of his property. III. On page 8 we have a 
 talk of a Church and Brethren 600 years be- 
 fore Christ. Sidney Rigdon's gross ignor- 
 ance is manifest in such a blunder. Let us 
 see what these five men carried away : (A.) 
 The books of Moses on metallic plates. (B.) 
 The records of the Jews from the begin- 
 ning. That is, all who spoke Hebrew were 
 called Jews, from the beginning. As well 
 say that all who spoke English were called 
 Yanks from the beginning. This would 
 take an enormous pile of plates, (c.) The 
 writings of all of the prophets and writers 
 of Israel from the beginning. All the Old 
 Testament written before Zedekiah. All 
 
THE BEADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 100 
 
 the books it mentions that were used In 
 writing the Books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 All the works of the prophets mentioned 
 In the Book of Mormon, but not mentioned 
 in the Bible. Doubtless many prophetical 
 writings never mentioned. (D.) Genealogi- 
 cal tables from Joseph to Laban. All this 
 voluminous literature, which would have 
 made a wagon-load if on parchment, was 
 engraved on plates and not on papyrus, the 
 only material then in use, and was carried 
 off by five men, who were dodging round 
 to save their lives, when it must have re- 
 quired a caravan of teams to have hauled 
 it. This rigmarole represents copies of the 
 Pentateuch and the Scriptures as being 
 common, well known, in open use with their 
 tables of genealogy. Not a hundred years 
 before they were almost unknown ; and in 
 the days of Zedekiah's father so little were 
 they known that reading a copy found by 
 accident revolutionized the nation. This 
 enormous load of plates was carried by 
 Lehi in all his journeyings. Laban's sword 
 was steel, when it is a notorious fact that 
 the Israelites knew nothing of steel for 
 hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as 
 ignorant a person as Rigdon would have 
 perpetrated all these blunders? When 
 Lehi saw that caravan-load of plates, got- 
 ten by making the owner drunk, by murder, 
 robbery and lying, he revelates and pro- 
 phecies that these plates of Laban shall go 
 forth to all nations. As not a single plate 
 of Laban has ever gone forth to anybody, 
 the Mormon God was mistaken when he 
 inspired Lehi with that prophecy. 
 
 On page 14 we have a beginning of a se- 
 ries of violations of the most positive re- 
 quirements of the law of God. Manasse- 
 hites begin offering: sacrifices in flagrant 
 violation of the law of God. On page 16 
 the Mormon God commands Nephi to make 
 plates to receive the record of the ministry 
 of his people. Although Lehi had brought 
 with them only tents and provisions, Nephi 
 digs ore, smells it, casts plates, makes tools 
 to do all this, and engraves on them in a 
 wilderness where a dozen persons are alone 
 with only tents and provisions. From page 
 17 to page 32 Rigdon makes Nephi and Lehi 
 talk like preachers of the nineteen century. 
 They foretell the history of John the Bap- 
 tist, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the 
 ministry of Jesus, giving the names of per- 
 sons and places with great minuteness; 
 also what they should do and say. The 
 prophets of Israel never did any such proph- 
 ecy ing. They rarely give names of persons 
 or places, and never foretell the exact lan- 
 guage persons will use. Rigdon makes 
 Nephi and Lehi discourse like Disciple 
 preachers. They discuss all the leading 
 topics of the gospel as Disciple preachers do, 
 and discuss many themes of modern theol- 
 ogy. They plagiarize Paul's parable of the 
 olive tiee. Lehi declares he has the Holy 
 Spirit in the name of Christ and through 
 faith in Christ 800 years before (Jurist came. 
 Rigdon airs one of his hobbies that he re- 
 tained from the Baptists and in which he 
 differed from the Disciples. John tells us 
 
 that the Holy Spirit was not given in that 
 way till after Jesus was glorified. Jesus 
 declares that the Holy Spirit would not be 
 
 fiven in his name till after his ascension, 
 ut Lehi knew better than Paul and Jesus. 
 Paul declares that these gospel themes were 
 mysteries until the apostles of Jesus re- 
 vealed them. Paul was mistaken, for Rig- 
 don tells us that Lehi and Nephi knew all 
 about them 600 years before Paul lived. 
 Not only so, but God revealed to Lehi and 
 Nephi far more than he ever did to the 
 apostles of Jesus. He revealed to them all 
 about the Romish Apostacy, its errors and 
 crimes, the peculiar doctrine of Luther's 
 reformation, settles several questions of 
 modern theology, and always in harmony 
 with Rigdon's ideas. 
 
 One of the most monstrous absurdities in 
 the Book of Mormon is the Liahoni, Lehi's 
 brass director or compass. We are told that 
 Lehi had given to him by miracle, direct 
 from the workshop of the Mormon God 
 doubtless a brass ball of curious workman- 
 ship. The reader will admit that it was of 
 most curious workmanship when he hears 
 it described, " and it was of fine brass, and 
 within the ball were two spindles, and one 
 pointed out the way we should go in the 
 wilderness." How could they see the two 
 spindles inside of a hollow biass globe? 
 "One pointed the way they should go." 
 Of what use was the other? It pointed the 
 way they should not go, I suppose. Page 
 36: "These spindles (inside of a brass globe) 
 worked according to the faith of the pos- 
 sessor." If they worked as the possessor 
 wanted them to point, of what use were 
 they? How did they see how they pointed 
 if they were inside of a brass globe? By 
 faith and the power of God I suppose, as 
 Imposter Joe saw the translation of the 
 Book of Mormon in the crown of his old 
 hat as he was peering into his stolen peep- 
 stone; but as the possessor knew they 
 pointed the direction he wanted them to 
 point, it did not make any odds whether he 
 saw them or not. "On these spindles was 
 written " on two fine spindles inside of a 
 brass globe where nobody could see "a 
 new writing." It must have been an ex- 
 tensive writing that was all on two fine 
 spindles. "Plain to be read." Yes it must 
 have been very plain on two fine spindles 
 and inside of a brass globe where nobody 
 could see, " and it gave us instructions con- 
 cerning the ways of the Lord," all on two 
 fine spindles and inside of a brass globe 
 where nobody could see; "and it was writ- 
 ten and changed from time to time" yes 
 all on two fine spindles or needles inside of 
 a brass globe where nobody could see it. 
 Then Sidney remarks with exceeding unc- 
 tion, "Thus we see that the Lord accom- 
 plishes great things by small means." Yea, 
 verily, Sidney; and when the Lord gave the 
 fulness of the gospel to the world through 
 such a lying, extravagant ignoramus as you, 
 in such balderdash as the above he ac- 
 complished the greatest work with the 
 smallest means ever tried. 
 Next Nephi is told to build a ship and 
 
110 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 showed in a vision where to find material. 
 Lehi left Jerusalem with nothing but tents 
 ami provisions, for he fled for his life and is 
 away in a wilderness and without tools. Ni- 
 phi alone.for the rest opposed and ridiculed 
 him, and there were only 15 men and wo- 
 men in all, digs ore, builds furnaces, forges 
 and machine shops, smelts ore, casts im- 
 plements, forges, tools, "every tree to cut 
 down," cuts the trees and builds the 
 ship "all his own self," as the boy boasted 
 he accomplished his task. But then Nephi 
 tells us that he did not construct it after 
 the fashion of men. but after a manner that 
 the Lord showed him. I am so glad that 
 he told us that, or we might not have be- 
 lieved his story. I suppose the Lord's plan 
 or patent on ships don't require any work. 
 What a pity that he did not leave the plan, 
 by which one man can, all by his own self, 
 do the work of hundreds and in next to no 
 time. If it be said that this was done by 
 miracle, then what need of Nephi's doing 
 anything? Why was not the ship fur- 
 nished ready made, like Lehi's wonderful 
 brass compass? 
 
 Lehi and his host set sail in this wonder- 
 ful ship made after the Lord's plan. Not- 
 withstanding this wonderful series of mir- 
 acles that Nephi had worked before their 
 eyes, Nephi's brethren rebel and bind him, 
 and "lo and behold," to use the celestial 
 language of this Divine translation of Re- 
 formed Egyptian, the wonderful brass 
 compass gets balky and refuses to work, 
 and tho rebels know not whither to steer 
 the ship, "inasmuch that there arose a 
 great storm, yea, a great and terrible tem- 
 pest." Awful, Sydney! perfectly awful! Now 
 whether the tempest so great and terrible, 
 was caused by the compass ceasing to work, 
 or by their not knowing which way to 
 steer, is not plain, but the language de- 
 clares "it was one or tother." The ship is 
 driven back ; now if they did not know 
 which way they were going how did they 
 know whether it was driven back, or for- 
 ward, or sideways. Nephi is released and 
 the compass points the way they should 
 eo? No, the way Nephi wants it to point. 
 That compass was as valuable as the Cali- 
 fornia hog scales. It is said that out there 
 they used to lay a rail across a log, put the 
 hog on one end and a pile of stones on the 
 other, until they balanced, and then guess 
 at the weight of the stones. 
 
 If it be said that Nephi knew what course 
 they ought to go. then of what use was the 
 compass to him? If the compass showed 
 him, how did he know when it ceusctl to 
 work? And how did it show him when he 
 made it point the way that he wanted it to 
 point? That compass was as serviceable to 
 Nephi as the man's snuffers who snuffed 
 the candle with his fingers and put the 
 snuff into the snuffers. Kinally they reach 
 the land of promise, and they find in the 
 wilderness both the "cow" and the "ox." 
 Now here is a miracle which ends all cavil 
 as to the divine origin of the Book of Mor- 
 mon. Cow and ox cannot mean two differ- 
 ent species of animals, and as one is suffi- 
 
 cient to designate the genus bos,' ox means 
 the male upon which an operation has been 
 performed to change him from a bull into 
 an ox. Now, as man had not been in this 
 land, we have the blasphemous ludicrous 
 insinuation that the miraculous power of 
 the Almighty had been exerted to change 
 these animals from bulls into oxen to pre- 
 pare them for Nephi's use. Now we know 
 of a certainty, Sidney, that the Book of 
 Mormon is of Divine origin. While thev 
 were in the wilderness before building the 
 ship Nephi was told to make brass plates 
 One of two things is certain, either he had 
 to dig up copper and zinc, smelt them and 
 manufacture brass plates, and that with- 
 out tools to do it, for they had fled from 
 Jerusalem with nothing but tents and pro- 
 visions, or he wrote on nothing or made the 
 plates out of nothing. 
 
 On landing in America, the Mormon God 
 is so cai .ful about having Impostor Joe get 
 these plates that he orders Nephi 10 make 
 some more plates gold, silver and copper 
 are mentioned, but no zinc ; J.ut Nephi has 
 got used to making things out of nothing, 
 and it was no trick at all for him to make 
 copp-r without zinc, build furnaces, work 
 mines and make machine shops without 
 tools, and nothing to do it with. 
 
 On page 44 it is declared that the dark- 
 ness at the death of our Saviour shou.M 
 cover the whole earth and last three days. 
 The Bible says it was only over the land ia 
 which he was crucified, and was only tbree 
 hours ; but hyfalutin spread-eagle Sidney 
 never did things by halves ; he had it ovei 
 the whole earth and three whole days 
 none of your cheap little miracles for Sid- 
 ney ; they might dp for the Bible, but they 
 wont answer for miracles in the "Fulness 
 of the Gospel." 
 
 On page 56, Lehi, in a sermon, quotes 
 whole sentences of Paul's writings more 
 than 600 years before Paul wrote : "By 
 the law no flesh is justified. He offereth 
 himself a sacrifice for sins which layeth 
 down his life according to the flesh'and 
 taketh it up according to the spirit that lie 
 may bring to pass the resurrection of the 
 dead being the first to rise." Which shall 
 we believe, that an Israelite in the wilds 
 of America quoted Paul's language, whole 
 sentences, 600 years before Paul was born, 
 or that the Disciple preacher Rigdon inter- 
 polated Paul's language into the romance 
 he stole from Hpaulding when he was re- 
 modelling it to be used as a pretended new 
 revelation? 
 
 From pages 59 to 60 is a pretended proph- 
 ecy of the Patriarch Joseph concerning Im- 
 Eoster Joe. "He is a choice seer." Verily 
 e was ! He shall bring forth the Nephite 
 Word of God. He will be of the seed of 
 the Patriarch Joseph, the Son qf Jacob. His 
 name shall be Joseph, His father's name 
 shall be Joseph. Now here is a dilemma. 
 The Nephites were all exterminated ; the 
 only descendants of Lehi and Joseph in 
 America are the Lamanites. They were 
 cursed with a skin of blackness and became 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLER DEBATE. 
 
 in 
 
 Indians. Did Imposter Joe come from the 
 Nephites that have not existed for 1400 
 years, or from the Indians? Of what tribe 
 is he the "big injun?" Perhaps he is one 
 of the three Nephites that never died. The 
 Patriarch Joseph prophesied of Sidney 
 Rigdon also. The Lord was to raise up of 
 the fruit of the loins of the Patriarch Jos- 
 eph a spokesman for that seer. Again we 
 are in trouble. Did Sidney Rigdon come 
 from the Nephites that have been extermi- 
 nated 1400 years, or is he "Bir Injun" of 
 some tribe of Lamanites? Perhaps he is 
 one of the Nephites that never died, and 
 Imposter Joe's father, who was of the seed 
 of Joseph, was the third. Is this prophecy 
 or is it a fraud of Sidney Rigdon? 
 
 Page 62 we have a long soliloquy that 
 Nephi engraved on the plates made up of 
 patches of the Psalms and Jeremiah badly 
 put together. Then Nephi marches off into 
 the wilderness with all of the company 
 except two sinners, Laman and Lemuel, 
 and their rebellious seed, who remain be- 
 hind and are cursed with a skin of blackness 
 and became Lamanites Indians. Nephi 
 and his company, however, keep the law of 
 the Lord according to the statutes of Moses. 
 We shall see how well they do it. Now we 
 encounter a blunder that is sufficient to 
 brand the Book of Mormon as the most 
 blunderingly constructed fraud, the most 
 transparent lie ever told. 
 
 The largest estimate that we can possibly 
 put on this company, will not make it more 
 than ten married couples all of whom, ex- 
 cept Lehi, are married after leaving Jeru- 
 salem ; yet, already they are divided into 
 two nations, and Nephi teaches one of these 
 mighty nations how to make weapons and 
 defend themselves against the mighty na- 
 tion of Lamanites, two men, two women, 
 and their children born during twenty years. 
 This mighty nation of Nephites composed of 
 not more than eight adults, four men and 
 four women, and their children born during 
 twenty years, erect in the wilderness of 
 America a temple like unto the temple of 
 Solomon ; they work in iron these eight men 
 and women, erect furnaces, forges and 
 machine shops, work in copper and gold, 
 yes, and in brass and steel, which Mormon 
 inspiration tells us are native ores. The 
 origin of the American Indians has puzzled 
 all ethnologists; but Sidney Rigdon ex- 
 planifies the whole matter. To prevent the 
 Nephites from mixing with the wicked 
 Lamanites, the Lord wrought a stupendous 
 miracle he cursed the Lamanites with a 
 skin of blackness. There now you have a 
 great scientific problem solved by inspira- 
 tion. I commend this wonderful scientific 
 explanation to Kelley as the crowning evi- 
 dence of the Divine origin of the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 After asserting that they kept the com- 
 mandments oi God, according to the law of 
 Moses, Nephi coolly tells us that they 
 erected a temple in America instead of at 
 Jerusalem consecrated priests out of the 
 tribe of Manasseh instead of Levi. And 
 these usurper priests offered sacrifices in the 
 
 wilderness of America instead of at Jeru- 
 salem in a temple built in violation of God's 
 law. God blessed these sacrilegious viola- 
 tors of his law far above the most favorite 
 obedient Israelite in Palestine, revealed to 
 them the Gospel, and conferred on them its 
 blessings as fully as on the most favored 
 apostles of Christ 600 years before Christ 
 came. God terribly punished Koran, Dath- 
 an and Abiram for violating his law, 
 though they did not violate is as flagrantly 
 as did these Nephites, and placed far above 
 all mankind these sacrilegious Nephites 
 who trampled nearly every precept under 
 foot. These Nephites preached the Gospel 
 of Christ as clearly as Sidney Rigdon could 
 preach it, and as he preached it ; and en- 
 joyed every blessing of the Gospel as fully 
 as Rigdon could, yet Nephi declares that 
 ' notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we 
 obey the lawofMoses." What a falsehood, 
 for he tells us they violated all its great 
 principles and "look steadfastly unto Christ 
 until the law be fulfilled." The law was to 
 prepare a way for the knowledge of Christ, 
 and then became useless having fulfilled its 
 purpose. The Nephites obeyed the law for 
 600 years after they knew all about the 
 Gospel, and obeyed it when the law was 
 useless to them, and they could not obey it 
 for they were obeying the Gospel. This 
 blundering, unscriptural introduction of the 
 Gospel 600 years before Christ who alone 
 was to reveal and introduce it, is in flat 
 contradiction of every idea of God's word. 
 But Rigdon was bound to have his Nephites 
 far greater fellows than their brethren in 
 Palestine, even if he did contradict God'a 
 word in doing it. 
 
 The Nephites who violate God's law far 
 excel Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel 
 in prophesying. They quote whole chap- 
 ters of the Old Testament, whole paragraphs 
 and sentences of the New, quoting tho ex- 
 act language hundreds of years before the 
 ones who uttered it lived. "They that are 
 filthy are filthy still. They shall go away 
 into everlasting punishment. He com- 
 mandeth all men that they must repent. 
 Where there is no law there is no punish- 
 ment, and where there is no punishment 
 there is no condemnation." These are a 
 few of scores of instances that could be 
 cited. Who is such a sodden idiot as to be- 
 lieve that men in America preached all the 
 doctrine of Christ and his apostles 600 years 
 before they uttered it, in the exact words in. 
 which they uttered it, rather than that 
 Sidney Rigdon interpolated these quota- 
 tions into the manuscript he had stolen 
 from Spaulding when he was remodeling 
 it to make a " big thing of it" as a new 
 revelation ? 
 
 It is perhaps necessary that we repeat 
 our answer to our opponent's endless talk 
 about American antiquities. We will con- 
 cede that if he can prove that Joseph Smith 
 gave to the world a single fact or truth re- 
 garding American antiquities or archaeology 
 or the history of the aborigines of America 
 that was not known before his day, or that 
 scientific research has discovered sine? his 
 
112 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 day, that he was inspired and the Book of 
 Mormon is of Divine orjjin. Our opponent 
 cannot ask more than that of us. Will he 
 meet the issue and prove that Joseph Smith 
 has done so? We have proved that from 
 the days of Cortez and Pizarro until Solo- 
 mon Spaulding, scores of writers had pub- 
 lished every idea in regard to American 
 antiquities to be found in the Book of Mor- 
 mon that more than a score of such publi- 
 cations were issued during the lifetime of 
 Solomon Spaulding in the United States 
 that Spaulding was well versed in these 
 theories and an earnest advocate of them 
 that where the works of his day were cor- 
 rect his ideas In the Book of Mormon are 
 correct where they were in error his ideas 
 in the Book of Mormon are erroneous. 
 
 My opponent tries hard to make some- 
 thing out of the fact that Priest published 
 his works after Spaulding's death, and the 
 last work after the Book of Mormon was 
 published. Unfortunately for his effort, the 
 authorities that Priest quotes in both works 
 were published before Spaulding died and 
 some of them before Smith was born. I de- 
 fy my opponent to name a single idea in the 
 Book of Mormon in regard to American an- 
 tiquities that was not published before 
 Spaulding wrote his Manuscript Found and 
 most of them before Spaulding was born. 
 They had been published in the United 
 States and were the belief of most preach- 
 ers in New England and the Middle States 
 when Spaulding wrote his Manuscript 
 Found. Sir Walter Scott wrote his histor- 
 ical novels and incorporated into them cer- 
 tain facts of Scotch antiquities, archaeology 
 and Scotch history. His novels agree with 
 the results of scientific research into Scotch 
 antiquities to a vastly greater extent than 
 the Book of Mormon agrees with the results 
 of scientific research into American antiqui- 
 ties. Not only so but they contain innumer- 
 able facts of Scotch History, many accurate 
 pictures of persons well known in Scotch 
 History ^ud innumerable incidents in theiv 
 
 lives. The Book of Mormon does nothing 
 of the kind: not a historic incident or 
 character in it can be found outsidt ot 
 the Book of Mormon except what it 
 plagiarizes from the Bible. Now to argMe 
 as Mr. Kelley does that the Book of 
 Mormon is true, a veritable history, and ol 
 Divine origin because it harmonizes with 
 certain ideas in regard to American an- 
 tiquities that had been current in the Uni- 
 ted States before its author was born is in- 
 finitely more absurd than it would be to 
 claim that all of Scott's historical novels 
 were true, veritable histories, and of Divine 
 origin, for they contain vastly more con- 
 cerning Scotch antiquities that is true than 
 the Book of Mormon contained concerning 
 American Antiquities; and they contain al- 
 most innumerable facts of Sco'tch history, 
 multitudes of real historic characters, ith 
 accurate descriptions of them and innumer- 
 able facts from their lives, while the Book 
 of Mormon does not contain a single hist6r- 
 ic fact or character or incident. All that 
 part of it is pure fabrication. Its history is 
 as pure fabrication as Gulliver's travels or 
 Baron Munchausen's Tales. The truth is 
 s,imply this that as Scott incorporated cer- 
 tain facts of Scotch antiquities that were 
 known in his day in to his historic romances 
 so Spaulding incorporated into his historic 
 romance the Manuscript Found certain 
 ideas in regard to American antiquities that 
 were current in his day. But Spaulding 
 was not nearly as accurate as Scott and did 
 not incorporate into his romance one hun- 
 dredth part as much truth as Scott did. II 
 Spauldiag was inspired and the Book ot 
 Mormon stolen from him a revelation 'Scott 
 was an hundred fold more inspired. Until 
 my opponent clearly proves that there is a 
 single fact or truth in the Book of Mormon 
 thatwafc not well k:>o\vn before ita,p red 
 his ar'-h-oological argument for its di me 
 origin is colloaal in its impudence and ab- 
 surdity. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 113 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 4 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: There are but two more 
 evening's upon this question. [The original 
 agreement was for eight sessions, but after 
 this evening was extended to ten.] I am 
 glad again of this privilege of standing be- 
 for you to advocate the divine sanction 
 claimed for the Book of Mormon, because I 
 think it is God's truth ; I not only think it 
 is true, but I am confident I know that it 
 is as claimed. I do not give you my per- 
 sonal knowledge, however, that you may 
 take it for evidence in this discussion ; but 
 I offer you the knowledge from God's word, 
 and if that is in accordance with my posi- 
 tions, I wish you to take that. 
 
 This evening I shall first take up and con- 
 clude my review of the kind of evidence 
 Mr. Braden has offered you to prove his 
 case, and asked you to rely upon, viz: 
 through the book of witness, (he says law- 
 yer), Howe. 
 
 Don't deceive yourselves, my friends, by 
 imagining that he is a lawyer. I have 
 never known a lawyer yet, who would de- 
 liberately publish for truth what purported 
 to be extracts from the works of a body of 
 people in order to bemean them, and to ac- 
 complish this end would publish garbled, 
 wicked and lying statements. I have known 
 of many low and mean things resorted to 
 by priests and people in order to try to make 
 the Saiiits out monsters of crime and ini- 
 quity, but not many so brazen and impu- 
 dent as to deliberately pretend to make a 
 quotation from their books and then cor- 
 rupt it, in order to keep it from knocking in. 
 the head their malicious scheme. 
 
 When I concluded last evening I was 
 contrasting Howe's spurious quotations 
 with the genuine, on the charge that he 
 was trying to make out, that the early au- 
 thorities of the church were after the peo- 
 ple's property. 
 
 Howe, as I was before reading, pretends 
 to quote: "Thou shalt consecrate all thy 
 properties, that which thou hast, unto me.'" 
 Page 129. 
 
 The true reading Is, and I read from the 
 first publication of the Book of Covenants, 
 here in Kirtland, published five years be- 
 fore Mr. Howe's work: " Thou shalt remem- 
 ber the poor and consecrate of thy proper- 
 ties for their support, that which thou hast 
 to impart unto them." Sec. 13, par. 8. 
 
 18. Again, Howe says : "He (the bishop) 
 shall appoint every man a steward over his 
 own property." 
 
 Here Howe, to carry out the evil purpose 
 of misleading the reader, misquotes and 
 makes the bishop appoint a steward for 
 every man. 
 
 The record is : " Every man shall be made 
 accountable unto me [Christ], a steward 
 over his own property." 
 
 In the record a man is made a steward 
 
 over his own by Christ, and is held respon- 
 sible by Christ the head of the Church, and 
 to no one else. 
 
 19. Again, Howe: "He that sinneth and 
 repenteth not shall be cast out, and shall 
 not receive again that which he has conse- 
 crated unto me ; for it shall come to pass, I 
 will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles 
 unto my people which are of the house of 
 Israel." 
 
 Here he wants to prove the lying asser- 
 tions so often made that the Saints expected 
 to get other people's property. A false as- 
 sertion, as I have before stated. 
 
 Hear the record upon this : ' He that sin- 
 neth and repenteth not shall be cast out of 
 the church, and shall not receive again that 
 which he has consecrated unto the poor and 
 needy of my church, or in other words, 
 unto me ; for as much as ye do it unto the 
 least of these ye doit unto me; for I will 
 consecrate of the riches of those who em- 
 brace my gospel among the Gentiles, unto 
 the poor of my people who are of the house 
 of Israel." 
 
 Then is there any foundation for the as- 
 sertion that has often been thrown to the 
 world by these perverters of our faith, that 
 we expected to consecrate of the property 
 of the Gentiles? It is so represented by 
 those who have perverted the faith, and 
 have garbled it, in order to misrepresent us 
 to the world. 
 
 The rule laid down and the notice given 
 as to getting back donations of property 
 made, is precisely according to the law of 
 the land, and differs as to other denomina- 
 tions in this: The Saints are plainly told 
 before giving they cannot expect to get 
 their properties back if they should at 
 some futue time be severed from the 
 church ; on the ground that it will have 
 likely been disposed of, for the purposes 
 for which it was given, to wit: the poor and 
 needy. Thus every man is put fully upon 
 his guard when the gift is sought that he 
 may not be deceived. Whereas, in other 
 churches they take the monies without 
 ever hinting that they can't get them back 
 if the donors are cast out afterwards. And 
 because they have .not been given back 
 when asked afterwards, I have known, and 
 doubtless all of you have, a large number 
 of law-suits against other churches to 
 reclaim such properties and donations, on 
 the ground of bad faith. The custom of 
 the Saints is fairer and less likely to deceive 
 than any other church with which I am 
 acquainted. The people are fairly and fully 
 notified before they give to the church that 
 they cannot get anything back that they 
 give to the poor or for the good of the 
 church. But are you notified oy anybody 
 else in that way? Notice is fairly given 
 that a man shall account unto Him (Christ) 
 and render in the final day of summons 
 
114 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 as to the stewardship over his own prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Every man was recognized & steward 
 over his own property, to de as he pleased 
 with it. But Mr. Howe makes it read the 
 bishop appointed men stewards over the 
 property of others. Mr. Howe says, " that 
 after the bishop received the property of 
 the church, that it cannot be taken from 
 the church." The revelation says, that 
 while men are acting as stewards over their 
 own property, and; shall see fit to conse- 
 crate "of them" unto the " poor" etc., and 
 the bishop shall receive" testimonies" con- 
 cerning the consecration of the properties 
 of the church, they cannot be taken from 
 the church. The revelation leaves every 
 man free to do as he pleases with his prop- 
 erties; to be his own "steward," to give 
 to the poor as ne may feel prompted ; but 
 when once given, it cannot be withdrawn; 
 while Mr. Howe teaches that the bishop 
 appointed men stewards over their own 
 property and that they were required to 
 consecrate "all of their properties," etc. 
 Do you discover a disposition here to be 
 fair, or present only facts? 
 
 20. Continuing upon page 130, Howe in 
 order to make his case out against the 
 Saints, attacks with the same wicked and 
 vehement spirit Jesus and the early Chris- 
 tians. He says; " If Smith and all his wit- 
 nesses were to now come forward and say 
 that his pretensions were a wicked decep- 
 tion, they (the Saints), would not believe a 
 word of it because [they claim] the Spirit 
 had shown that it was true." " Here " he 
 says, " Is the sure refuge, the fast hold of 
 every imposter. This something which is 
 the Spirit or Holy Spirit, has been the 
 standing, unequivocal, incontrovertible and 
 true witness for at least twenty-four false 
 Messiahs, for Mohammet who is consid- 
 ered the prince of impostors, and for nearly 
 fifty others who have come with pretended 
 commission from heaven." 
 
 Here is fairly shown the grand sequel of 
 Howe's bitterness against the Saints : They 
 claim that there is such a thing as " (he 
 Spirit" or " the Holy Spirit;" and whoever 
 in the world's history according to Howe, 
 has made such a claim, was a deceiver and 
 an " imposter." How do you like your 
 witness now who attacks the Savior, 
 Christ, as vehemently as he does the Book 
 of Mormon? 
 
 21. Again, says Howe: " His [Smith's] 
 predictions are always found far off' equiv- 
 ocal, and ambiguous, and always relate to 
 some events which everyone supposes to be 
 quite probable." Then hegoes on to falsify 
 as to what some of these prophecies were 
 as has been proved was the manner of his 
 other v. bling. But let us examine Smith's 
 statements and show the roguery of the 
 assertions : 
 
 1. That his "name should be had for 
 good and evil among all nations, kindreds 
 and tongues ; or that it should be both good 
 and evil spoken of among all people." 
 
 Is there anything ambigious or equivocal 
 about that? 
 
 And again, page 105, Book of Mormon ; 
 "And because my words shall hiss forth, 
 many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, a 
 Bible, we have got a Bible and there cannot 
 be any more Bible." What do you see 
 equivocal or ambiguous about this? The 
 Book of Mormon was published to the 
 world under the title of the Book of Mor- 
 mon. The title of Bible is not by it, nor by 
 its friends, ever been claimed for it ; neither 
 by them the term used for the plates from 
 which it was translated. Yet, the predic- 
 tion is a literally true one ; it is far and near,, 
 by the enemies of the Saints, called a Bible, 
 and perhaps there never was more than a 
 dozen, if even so many as two, Campbellite 
 preachers in the state of Ohio, who did not 
 thus in calling it the Mormon Bible con- 
 tribute to the truth of the prophecy in regard 
 to it, at the same time they misrepresented 
 the people and denounced the whole thins: 
 as false. This prophecy was given or the 
 statement made by Joseph Smith two years 
 before the book was published and sent to 
 the public, that when the book should go 
 to the world the people would say. "A 
 Bible." What dp you see equivocal or am- 
 biguous about this? 
 
 Another one, Book of Mormon page 496: 
 "And it [ the book] shall come [forth to the 
 world], in a day when the blood of the 
 Saints shall cry unto the Lord because of 
 secret combinations and the works of dark- 
 ness." Where is the ambiguity here? How 
 did Mr. Smith know, or how could he fore- 
 see, except by the illuminating light of 
 heaven, that in this land with a constitu- 
 tional guarantee of religious freedom, his 
 people should be slain oy wicked hands ; 
 that men who had warred for freedom in 
 the great revolution should be hewn to the 
 ground by religious bigots without mercy ; 
 that men, women and innocent children 
 should be butchered without mercy ; and 
 finally that a state should be permitted to 
 rob thousands of its citizens, and banish 
 them as exiles, to die upon other territories 
 through the hardships and rigors of a fear- 
 ful winter. Aggressors did you say? Turn 
 to the official address of Major-General Clark 
 of the forces that were sent to aid the mob 
 in Missouri when the Saints were defending 
 their homes and their wives and children 
 ajjainst the efforts of the grandest set of 
 rascals the world ever saw, to drive them 
 from the state, and then say aggressors if 
 you dare! Says he, to as faithful and true 
 men and women as ever graced God' earth, 
 as good and noble citizens, and as loyally 
 patriotic as the Republic ever produced, as 
 they were then deprived of the comforts of 
 their hearth and homes: and encamped 
 upon the bleak prairies of north Missouri: 
 
 "It now devolves upon you to fulfill the treaty that 
 you have entered into, the leading items of w filch I 
 now lay before you. The first of these you have already- 
 complied with, which is that you deliver up your lead- 
 ing men to be tried according to law. Second, that 
 you deliver tip your arms this ha^ been attended to. 
 The third is that you sign over your properties to defray 
 the expenses of this war this you have also done. 
 Anniher thing yet remains for you t* comply with 
 that i that you leave the State forthwith ; and whatever 
 your fielinir* concerning this affair, whatever your 
 in >'>*. ft ig nothing to me.'' 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 115 
 
 Can you point to a grander outrage In all 
 the annals of the world's history than this 
 against a people? "Whatever your inno- 
 cence, it is nothing to me." You shall not 
 even be permitted while you are in the 
 midst of the mobocrats to retain the arms 
 with which you could defend yourselves 
 from their vengeance of death. No, like 
 them of old they cry out, " Crucify him ! 
 Crucify him! But release unto us Barrabas," 
 the robber. 
 
 I could mention the relatives who have 
 been in the halls of Congress of men who 
 were hewn down there, and as able men as 
 there are in America to-day, if I would 
 take up my time to do so. And yet, such 
 actions are defended here by a pious-mind- 
 ed, high-toned elder of the Camp belli te 
 Church. Ladies and gentlemen, I begin 
 to see why it was that when they could not 
 cope with Mr. Smith and Rigdon over at 
 Hiram, in argument, they "got rid of them" 
 by the old way of applying the argument 
 of "tar and geese feathers." 
 
 But let me tell you here and now, that if 
 ever in my life-work I shall meet with such 
 a case of rapine and oppression, or unlaw- 
 ful vengeance against any people of any 
 denomination, or any party, whether Chris- 
 tian or infidel, I shall not fail to exert every 
 power within me to protest against it ; and 
 it is a cardinal principle of the faith of the 
 Saints, and ever has been, that they should 
 be as ready to stand for and defend the 
 rights and privileges of others as them- 
 selves. I know how Col. Lovejoy and an 
 associate was shot down in the streets of 
 Alton, 111., because he dared to express his 
 political opinions and stand for the princi- 
 ple of the freedom of the press in this coun- 
 try ; and it was a like evil and cowardly 
 crew that has been defended in this con- 
 troversy by the negative, who destroyed 
 men and women for religious opinions' 
 sake. But to return to the examination 
 of Howe, as a witness (lawyer), and the 
 Spaulding romance. 
 
 The prophecies he says are so ambiguous. 
 Take another, same page: "It shall come 
 to pass in a day when there shall be heard 
 of fires and tempests [tempest is a violent 
 wind as the now familiar cyclone], and va- 
 pors of smoke in foreign lands [like to the 
 great disturbance of the earthquake last 
 fall, which the scientific say so filled the 
 atmosphere of the world that it has occa- 
 sioned the crimson red phenomena of the 
 sun's appearance], and there shall also be 
 heard of wars and rumors of wars, and 
 earthquakes in diverse places : yea, and 
 it shall come in a day when there shall be 
 great pollutions upon the face of the earth ; 
 there shall be murders and robbings and 
 lyings and deceivings,and whoredoms, and 
 all manner of abominations, when there 
 shall be many who will say, do this, or do 
 that, and it mattereth not for the Lord 
 will uphold such at the last day." 
 
 I could in this manner read to you the 
 entire hour, of the certain, unmistakable 
 and definite prophecies in this book, many 
 of which have already had a complete and 
 
 literal fulfillment. Why Is it, then, that 
 this deceiving work of Mr. Howe is sent 
 forth to the world? No wonder he don't 
 want to put Mr. Howe upon the stand for 
 examination. I will ask him where he got 
 his compilation from, and if he did not 
 know he was misrepresenting the faith of 
 this people. I have met many men in my 
 time who could stand up and with all the 
 powers of dissimulation of innocence and 
 modesty tell to others what I believed ; 
 pretend to give my belief from the Bible 
 and other books, when there was not a 
 shadow of truth in what they were saying. 
 Turning over the book I shall pass at thia 
 time tne terrible mess set out in the letters 
 of Ezra Booth, and notice the pretended 
 affidavits of Peter Ingersol, Wm. Stafford. 
 Barton Stafford, purporting to be signea 
 before a judge of the Court of Wayne 
 county N. Y., Thomas P. Baldwin, which 
 upon the face is shown to be a humbug, for 
 there is not one in due form of law hart the 
 fficer properly signed, and had there been 
 such ; but upon dilligent inquiry I failed to 
 find that even the officer existed as such. 
 Having my doubts arroused as to the mat- 
 ter through an article in the Chicago Inter- 
 Ocean a short time ago, I wrote to the clerk 
 of the courts of Wayne county, N. Y., and 
 received the following reply : 
 
 "OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF WAYNK Co., N. Y., JOHW 
 
 McGoNiOAL, CLERK, LYONS. N. Y., Feb'y. 1st '84. 
 
 K. L. KELLKY, ESQ., Dear Sir: Yours of the 31st 
 
 Instant duly received, and In reply will say that I have 
 
 looked for the name of Thomas P. Baldwin as an 
 
 officer in the county and fail to find his name at all. 
 
 Looked back to the time the count v was organized. 
 
 (1823). Very Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN MCGONIOAL. 
 
 Again, not quite satifised, thinking per- 
 haps he might be mistaken, I wrote to him 
 again, asking him who was the County 
 Judge in 1833, when these purported affida- 
 vits of Mr. Howe say that they were signed 
 byThos. P. Baldwin County Judge. He 
 answers me February 7th, 1884: 
 
 "In reply to your favor of the 6th ult., will say that 
 David Arne, Jr., was County Judge in 1833." 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 JOHN McGowiGAV. 
 
 [Since the conclusion of the debate of 
 this proposion, the clerk has written to Mr. 
 Braden stating that he overlooked the 
 officer when examining the records at my 
 request. And upon this I claim nothing 
 upon the point that Baldwin was not a 
 Judge. KELLEY.] 
 
 Do you blame me, then, ladies and gen- 
 tlemen, for stating before you I cannot take 
 as evidence anything that has passed 
 through such hands as Mr. Hulburt and 
 Howe, unless I have the original statement 
 to compare, or it can be proven outside in 
 some way thai these statements that he has 
 been referring to but never reading in full 
 to you are unaltered and genuine? Here 
 is where he gets his John Spaulding, Mar- 
 tha Spaulding, Henry Lake, John Miller, 
 Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith and Nahum 
 Howard. Do you want me to swallow 
 their contradictory, self-accusing, wholy 
 improbable, malicious falsehoods, rather 
 than accept the truth of God.? Could any- 
 
116 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 thing pure and Immalculate have passed 
 through that sewer of filth and come out 
 worthy of the palate of decent men and 
 women? Answer for yourselves. But I 
 proceed further with the examination. I 
 now call your attention to the letter of Mrs. 
 Matilda Davidson, another of his witnesses, 
 to a Boston newspaper and published May, 
 1839, this a person too, better informed 
 upon these matters, who had a better oppor- 
 tunity to be so than all the others he has re- 
 ferred to; and she also manifests a terrible 
 feeling against the people that I represent, 
 fche says, "That any sane person should 
 rank it higher than any other merely human 
 composition is a matter of the greatest 
 astonishment, yet it is received as divine 
 by some who dwell in enlightened New 
 England, and even by those who have sus- 
 tained the character of devoted "Chris- 
 tians." Yes, and right here I might say, 
 that when I traveled through "enlighten- 
 ed New England" but about four months 
 ajro, I found many churches of the same peo- 
 ple, and hundreds of good, faithful, God- 
 fearing and worshiping men and women in 
 them/all the way from Providence, R. I., to 
 Addison, Me. But she continues, and I 
 read extracts, for the letter is very long 
 and in great part but conclusions which 
 are in no sense evidence, and which would 
 not interest you: "It [the manuscript] 
 claims to have been written by one of the 
 lost nations and to have been recovered 
 from the earth." [Got out of the cave on 
 Con neaut Creek], "and assumed the title of 
 *' Mamuscript Found." Assumedit? How? 
 By writing its own title on its back? No, 
 certainly not? Evidently by these parties 
 who we next hear about whom Spaulding 
 told that " he got it out of a cave on Con- 
 neaut Creek." "The neighbors would 
 often inquire how Mr. Spaulding progressed 
 in deciphering the manuscript, [Translat- 
 ing from the Latin as he claimed,] "and 
 when he had a sufficient portion prepared 
 he would inform them and they would as- 
 semble and hear it read. He was enabled 
 from his acquaintance with the classics and 
 ancient history, to introduce many singular 
 names, which were particulorly noticed by 
 the people, and could be easily recognized 
 by them." 
 
 "Mr. Spaulding had a brother John 
 Spaulding, who repeatedly heard the whole 
 of it read." Repeatedly heard 'he whole 
 of it read, which abounded in " names from 
 the classics and ancient history." 
 
 Ah! yes; here it is identified beyond a 
 doubt ; the same old scrap of forty or fifty 
 pages that was said to have been found in 
 a cave, and which she gave to Hulburt, who 
 gave it to Howe, who destroyed it, lest it 
 destroy the affidavits he and Hulburt had 
 gotten up. Howe now says Hulburt wrote 
 the affidavits. But she proceeds : 
 
 " He, Mr. Spaulding, exhibited his man- 
 uscript [same one] to Mr. Patterson, (at 
 Pittsburg,) who was very much pleased 
 with it. and borrowed it for perusal. He 
 retained it for a long time, and informed 
 Mr. Spaulding that if he would make out a 
 
 title page and preface, he would publish it r 
 and it might be a source of profit. This Mr. 
 Spaulding refused to do." Refused to make 
 out a title page and to have it published 
 for profit, although Braden's witnesses 
 make out that he was to pay his debts out 
 of this. Spaulding did not go back and 
 pay his debts, as Smith and Harris did with 
 Saunders in New York. No ; he was a pious 
 Presbyterian minister. But she continues : 
 
 " At length the manuscript was returned 
 to its author, and soon after we removed to 
 Amity, Washington county. Pa., where Mr. 
 Spauming deceased in 1816." 
 
 Notice, that she says that they went to 
 Amity, Pa., where he died in 1816. Left 
 Pittsburg, then, before Sidney Rigdon was 
 ever there according to their own testi- 
 mony. 
 
 "The manuscript then fell into my 
 hands," she says, "and was carefully pre- 
 served." 
 
 Did I not tell you I would expose the 
 fraud by witnesses that were from the other 
 side ? But again : 
 
 "It has frequently been examined by my 
 daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Munson, 
 Mass, [the same whose testimony I have 
 before introduced in this discussion], with 
 whom I now reside, and by other friends." 
 
 Again: "A woman preacher appointed 
 a meeting there [at New Salem], and in the 
 meeting read and repeated copious extracts 
 from the Book of Mormon." "Mr. John 
 Spaulding was present. His grief found 
 vent in a flood of tears, [Here is where these 
 witnesses bring the lachrymose John in,] 
 and he arose on the spot .and expressed to 
 the meeting his sorrow apd regret that the 
 writings of his deceased brother should be 
 used for a purpose so vile and shocking. 
 
 Oh, how his feelings were hurt ! 
 
 " The excitement in New Salem became 
 so great that the inhabitants had a meet- 
 ing and deputed Dr. Philastas Hulburt, one 
 of their number, [yes, one of their number, 
 citizens of Kirtland ; but the same who had 
 been banished from our society for an insult 
 to one of your lady citizens], " to repair to 
 this place and to obtain from me the orig- 
 inal manuscript of Mr. Spaulding for the 
 purpose of comparing it with the Mormon 
 Bible^ to satisfy their own minds" [Re- 
 member, they were not satisfied before] 
 " and to prevent their friends from embrac- 
 ing an error so delusive. This was the year 
 1834. Dr. Hulburt brought with him an in- 
 troduction and request for the manuscript, 
 which was signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, 
 Aaron Wright and others. 
 
 I am reading from her letter all the time. 
 "Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others." 
 Who are these Henry Lake, Aaron Wright 
 and others that send a letter to Mrs. (Spauld- 
 ing) Davidson for the purpose of getting 
 the manuscript? The same ones that he 
 
 Eointed put as the best men, or among the 
 eat citizens, of Geauga county, "old 
 Geauga county!" Wondered if I would 
 say any thing against them ! Not personally 
 against their character. I do not assail men 
 in that way. Don't have to, these men. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 117 
 
 These are the same parties whom he has 
 introduced as witnesses from Howe. 
 
 "Thus an historical romance, with the 
 addition of a few pious expressions and 
 extracts from the sacred scriptures (Ah ! 
 Smith and Rigdon did not put them in 
 then, they were in the original), has been 
 construed into a new Bible and palmed off 
 upon a company of poor deluded fanatics 
 as divine. I have given this brief narration 
 that this work of deep deception and wick- 
 edness may be searched to the foundation, 
 and the authors exposed to the contempt 
 and execration they so justly deserve. 
 
 MATILDA DAVIDSON." 
 
 My friends, are you still wanting evidence 
 as to where the Manuscript Found went? 
 Positively and certainly traced into the 
 ranks of its friends, and with this in the 
 hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding, who 
 was dead before the Book of Mormon was 
 published, ten identical words and express- 
 ions of which, as I have before stated, would 
 have been sufficient to have identified it if 
 there was any such thing written as these 
 witnesses tell about, and yet they destroy 
 the manuscript and publish their lying 
 statements; What do they do? Send Hul- 
 burt back to tell Mrs. Davidson she gave 
 him the wrong manuscript and to get the 
 rightone? Oh no! she never hears of them 
 until she writes to know what they did 
 with it. and Howe and Hulburt write back 
 word, ' It did not read as we expected, and 
 o we did not use it." Nor do they in this 
 letter to her ask if she did not have another 
 manuscript or extra original leaves of the 
 "Manuscript Found" which their witnesses 
 had sworn to. Had the one sent been an- 
 other than the true one, ten chances to one 
 It would have been similar in words, 
 phrases, and often sentences, to any other 
 Spaulding ever wrote, had another been 
 written by him, and a few words in his 
 hand-writing would have fully tested the 
 matter. .But no, they destroy it. The only 
 
 first evidence under the sun to detect the 
 fraud, if there was a fraud, and this right 
 in the hands of the lawyer, Braden's law- 
 yer ! ! A man who will, after he has all of 
 the facts before him, believe such a story 
 as this, must be ready to gulp down the 
 most egregious tale that it is possible for the 
 most depraved and licentious to weave an'd 
 concoct against an innocent and God-fearing 
 people. 
 
 I might further call your attention to the 
 fact that aside from these contradictions by 
 Mrs. (Solomon Spaulding) Davidson of the 
 statements of John and Martha Spaulding, 
 relatives, neither of their purported state- 
 ments bear any date, time or place of mak- 
 ing, or by whom made; that they are 
 quoted from something else and not the 
 original statement as they show upon their 
 face, and in such a way as to neither make 
 John, Martha or any one else responsible 
 for them. This is the testimony he so pomp- 
 ously thrust in my face the other evening; 
 the best he has. How do you like to swal- 
 low it, my friends? 
 
 The publication by Howe of these pur- 
 ported statements and garbled extracts 
 from our works in his History of Mormon- 
 ism, shows that the enemies of the Book of 
 Mormon had nothing of truth to sustain 
 their wicked attempt to overthrow it, or 
 they would have used it. It shows, too, 
 that the term falsifier is a tame enough word 
 to apply to any one so base as to falsify a 
 people's faith by such great garbling and 
 trickery, and present it to the world for 
 truth; and shows further the kind of com- 
 pany one is liable to be found in if he essays 
 to peddle such stuff in order to destroy the 
 character of honest men. 
 
 All of the statements he has referred to 
 have now been examined except those ot" 
 Mr. Campbell and Adamson Bentley this 
 Bentley the one Rigdon referred to in his 
 letter that I read on last evening to you. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
118 
 
 THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GEXTLKMEN MODERATORS, TMDIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN :- 1 will notice first a mis- 
 etatement made by ny opponent Saturday 
 night. I said on Friday night, after read- 
 ing a series of questions, that I would have 
 them copied in type-writing and give them 
 to my opponent* I did so before noon on 
 Saturday, and he had them in his posses- 
 sion eight or nine hours before the debate 
 began on Saturday night. He has had them 
 inliis possession ever since, and has them 
 now. Yet he said Saturday night that he 
 did not have them. If he claims that he 
 referred to another portion of my speeches, 
 I remind him that he has had everything 
 that he has asked of me. I think that after 
 giving him my speeches to examine at his 
 leisure, and prepare himself to reply to 
 them a thing no other opponent would 
 do I deserve at least fair treatment, and 
 should not have false statements made 
 about me. When the reader reads in Kel- 
 ley's speeches that I did not give names, 
 and that I gave persons testimony in my 
 own words ; and then turns back and reads 
 the names of the 29 witnesses and their tes- 
 timony in different type from the rest of the 
 matter, and in their own words verbatim, 
 he will see to what desperate straits my 
 opponent must be driven, when he will 
 make such reckless assertions. His desper- 
 ation can be seen in his pettyfogging and 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 He repeats the statement that we have ex- 
 posed several times, that the manuscript of 
 Spaulding's Manuscript Found was brought 
 to Howe. He says that Howe and Hul- 
 burt skulked over to Conneaut and got wit- 
 nesses to sign what they wrote. The truth 
 is, a Mormon preacher visited Conneaut 
 and preached his first sermon and read ex- 
 tracts from the Book of Mormon. John 
 Spaulding and others arose and exposed 
 the thelt of the Manuscript Found. It 
 was in a meeting of citizens of Conneaut 
 and not in a Mormon church meeting. It 
 was a Mormon preacher, and not a woman 
 preacher. That is a misprint in Schmucker's 
 book; as other books, that I have, show. 
 This detection of the theft was published 
 in the papers. Hulburt heard of it. He 
 went to Conneaut, and such men as Judge 
 "Wright, Lake, a leading business man, 
 and others of the best citizens of Conneaut 
 wrote out their statements and gave them 
 to him. There never was a number of affi- 
 davits more marked with independence 
 and individuality. Contrast them with the 
 joint statements of the witnesses to the 
 Book of Mormon written out by Impostor 
 Joe and signed by his confederates. Con- 
 trast their courteous testimony with Rig- 
 don's blackguardism, the worst of which 
 Kelley dared not read. 
 
 He says they never mentioned the Roman 
 manuscript until Hulburt brought it from 
 
 Hartwick. No, nor did they mention Spauld- 
 ing's sermons, and the 'stories he wrote 
 for his children. There was no occasion 
 for so doing until it was presented to them. 
 He assails Miller's recollection of names. 
 Readers of the debate will decide whether 
 Miller's clear, rational and straightforward 
 story is reasonable or not. I asked him 
 whether he impeached the character of 
 witnesses for truth and veracity, and he 
 affected a holy horror of the thought, that 
 is ridiculous, after his assaults on Howe 
 andHulburt. He, with a silliness that is id- 
 iotic, denies that Spaulding wrote the man- 
 script of the Manuscript Found, in the face 
 of the clear testimony of 17 witnesses, one of 
 whom is Rigdon himself. He blunders over 
 Smith's working for Sabine. He says Mrs. 
 Spaulding and her daughter left Sabine's 
 in 1820, and that the trunk was taken from 
 Sabine's in 1820. In 1820 Mrs. Spauldiug 
 left Sabine's, leaving her daughter with 
 the trunk in her care at Sabine's, and went 
 to Connecticut. Some time afterwards she 
 married Mr. Davidson in Pomfret, Connec- 
 ticut. Some time after this she returned 
 to Hartwick, N. Y., to live. Some time 
 after this she sent for the trunk. It was 
 years after 1820, and it may not have been 
 until near the marriage of her daughter to 
 Dr. McKinstrey in 1828, that she sent for 
 the trunk. Miss Spaulding was married 
 at her uncle's in 1828, and afterwards went 
 to Munson, Mass. Mrs. McKinstrey posi- 
 tively says that Smith worked for her uncle 
 while she was there with the trunk in her 
 care ; and that ends all Kelley 's impudent 
 denials. 
 
 He reads Rigdon's denial. Of course a man 
 who would steal would lie in order to lie out 
 of it. Criminals are not allowed to swear 
 themselves clear. The same is true of Pratt 
 his confederate. Kelley deliberately falsifies 
 my statements. I did not say that Smith stole 
 the manuscript and brought it to Rigdon in 
 Ohio. I said Rigdon stole the manuscript 
 Spaulding prepared for press, remodeled it 
 to suit his purpose and took it to Smith in 
 New York. Then Smith informed Rigdon 
 of the rest of the manuscripts in the posses- 
 sion of one who had been Spaulding's wife, 
 and stole all of them that he could, to pre- 
 vent detection of the fraud, and exposure of 
 the cheat. He says that Tucker did not see 
 Willard Chase before publishing his state- 
 ments. Wonderful! Tucker used an affi- 
 davit that Chase had sworn to, when the 
 events were fresh in his memory, and I quo- 
 ted the same affidavit, and not from Tuck- 
 er. I will attend to David Whitmer's tes- 
 timony in good time. What bearing has his 
 attack on Howe'8 analysis of the Book of 
 Mormon, on the truthfulness of the testi- 
 mony of the witnesses and other parts of 
 Howe's book. He reads an affidavit from 
 Mrs. Salisbury, Joe Smith's sister. In order 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 to make out that she must have known it, 
 If Rigdon visited Smith, she said that Joe 
 lived at their father's from 5827 tol 830, and 
 while he was translating toe plates, and 
 translated them at their father's Lucv 
 Smith, her mother, Joe Smith, David Whit- 
 mer, P P. Pratt and others say that Joe 
 moved to Pennsylvania, over one hundred 
 miles away, in the fall of 1827: and Lucy 
 Smith says that Joe took the horse and 
 wasron of one who came to move him to 
 Pennsylvania, to get the plates He went 
 right after finding the plates and before 
 any translation, to Pennsylvania Mrs. 
 Smith and Whitmer and Joe and others 
 say he returned to New York after wheat 
 sowing in 1823. He was in Pennsylvania a 
 year. Whitmer says he returned to Whit- 
 mer's father's and finished the translation. 
 Mrs. Smith says he lived away from home, 
 and that the plates were shown to the three 
 witnesses away in another neighborhood. 
 None of the translating was done at Joe's 
 father's. Joe was not at his father's, but 
 over one hundred miles away, for over a 
 year, and was in another neighborhood, and 
 not at his father's during the rest of the 
 time. If Mrs. Salisbury Tied, as we have 
 proved she did, in saying that Joe was at 
 their fathers, when he was not there, she 
 would lie in saying Rigdon was not there, 
 when he was. Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, McAu- 
 ley, Chase and Saunders say that he was 
 there, and some say at least eighteen 
 months before the Book appeared. Finally 
 we have a long reading from the SainVs 
 Herald of June 1881. In the Weekly News, 
 of Cadilac, Mich., of April 6th, 1880, the Rev. 
 C. C. Thorn, of Manchester, N. Y., publish- 
 ed an article asserting that old acquain- 
 tances of Joe Smith, in Manchester, N. Y. 
 made these statements : 
 
 "I knew Joe Smith, personally to some extent, saw him 
 ' frequently, knew well his reputation, he was a lazy 
 'drinking fellow, and loose in his habits in e> ery 
 ' way." Danford Booth "Smith's reputation was bad. 
 ' I was acquainted with Oliver Cowdrey. He was a 
 'low pettifogger, the cat's paw of the Smiths to do 
 1 their dirty work." Orrin Reed" I knew the Smiths 
 ' but di<i not associate with them for they were too 
 ' low to associate with. There was no truth in them. 
 ' Their aim was to gel in whf-re they could get prop- 
 'erty. They broke up homes in that way. Smith 
 had no regular business. He had frequent revela- 
 tious." Wm. Bryant. 
 
 In the spring of 1881, one quiet Lord's 
 day morning, several old people in Man- 
 chester were interviewed by a couple of 
 Danites. They did not tell their names or 
 business ; said it was no matter. They 
 asked questions about the Smiths, and 
 treated these old people as an impudent 
 lawyer treats witnesses he wants to bull- 
 doze. Several of these old people indig- 
 nantly refused to talk to them after they 
 had insulted them. 
 
 June 1st, 1881, an article appeared in the 
 Saints' Herald, signed by one of these Dan- 
 ites. It was read to you by the other Dan- 
 ite Saturday night. It asserts that Mr. 
 Thome did not talk with some of the par- 
 ties he mentioned in his article, and lied 
 about what others said. Mr. Thome had 
 taken and placed on file in Canandaigua, 
 
 Ontario Co., N. Y., in the County Clerk's 
 office, these affidavits : 
 
 ' Danford Booth, of the town of Manchester and 
 "countv of Ontario, N. Y .being duly affirmed, de- 
 'P >ses He hng read the article in the CadilLat Weekly 
 
 flews of April 6th. 1860. respecting ' Cowdery and the 
 "Smith family,' over the signature of C. C Tborue. 
 "The intervie'w therein mentioned between deponent 
 ''aii'l Thorne did take place The matters therein set 
 'forth, alleged to hare been stated by the deponent 
 "to Thorne, were so stated by deponent to Thorne. 
 
 He has read also in a paper called the Saint's Herald, 
 "of June 1st, 1881, an article purporting to give what 
 "was said in an Interview between W. H. Kelly anti 
 "another party and the deponent, in which His stated 
 ''that deponent informed said partiei that deponent 
 "and Thorne never had an interview as alleged by 
 "Thorne. Deponent declares that be did not so inform 
 "said parties, and that he has no recollection of such ft 
 "question being asked him by them. 
 
 (Signed) DANFORD BOOTH. 
 
 "Sworn to and subscribed before me. July 1st. 1881, 
 (Signed) N. K. COLK, J. P. ' 
 
 "Orrln Heed, of the township of Manchester, countr 
 "of Ontario, N. Y., being duly affirmed, deposes: His 
 ''age is 77. He was born in the town of Farmlngton. 
 "about four miles from what is called 'Mormon Hill.' 
 "During the last 46 years he has resided in the town of 
 "Manchester, and in the same school district in which 
 "Joseph Smith and family, of Mormon notoriety, re- 
 "sided, andtnree-fourths of a mile from 'Mormon Hill.' 
 "He has read an article published in the Cad llae Nev>9 
 "of April 6th, 1880, respecting 'Cowdery and the Smith 
 family,' over the signature of C. C. Thorne. The 
 'matters therein set forth and alleged to have been 
 'stated by deponent to Thorne were so stated by depo- 
 'nenr. at the time and in the manner stated in said 
 'published article. 
 
 (Signed) ORRIN REKD. 
 
 "Affirmed and subscribed before me June 29th. 188L 
 (Signed) N. K. COLE, J. P." 
 
 "Amanda Reed, being duly affirmed, deposes : Phe ! 
 'the wife of Orrin Reed. She heard the conversation 
 "tween her husband and C. C. Thorne. The statement 
 "mHde in the article published by Thorne in the Cadil- 
 "lac New? of April 6th. 1880, respecting Cowdery and 
 "the Smith family, were in fact so made. The Ian 
 "gnage employed by her husband ws substantially as 
 "th' rein stated. (Signed) AMANDA REKD." 
 
 Affirmed and subscribed as above. 
 
 "John H Gilbert, of the town of Palmyra. Wayne 
 "county, N. Y., being.duly sworn, deposes: That in the 
 "article published in the Saint's Herald, at Piano. 111., 
 "June 1st, 1881, over the signature of W. H. Kelly, pur- 
 "porting to give an Interview with the deponent on 
 "Mormonism, the deponent Is grossly misrepresented 
 "In almost every particular. Words are put in the 
 "month of the deponent that he never uttered. The 
 "pretended answers to questions that the deponent did 
 "answer, are totally at variance with the answers that 
 "the deponent really gave. The deponent believes 
 "that such misrepresentation was done designedly. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN H. CILBKRT." 
 
 "Sworn to and subscribed before me July 12th. 1881. 
 "M. C. FINLEY, J. P." 
 
 The originals are on file in the Clerk's 
 office in Canandaigua, Ontario County, New 
 York. I object to Mr. Kelley's playing 
 pettifogger and witness any more in this 
 case. I have impeached the witness. 
 "When we come to introduce witnesses on 
 the character of the Smiths, I shall not 
 allow the impeached witness to testify. 
 Readers can see how much dependence can 
 be placed on his statements concerning what 
 Howe and Mrs. McKinstrey said. I could 
 read a letter from Howe, if necessary, deny- 
 ing his statements. 
 
 We will now resume our analysis of the 
 Book of Mormon. Nephi follows Lent, 
 quoting 13 chapters of Isaiah, and he ex- 
 plains its fulfillment in the ministry of 
 Christ, as only Sidney Rigdon, with the 
 New Testament open before him, could do 
 it. He uses the exact language of Christ 
 and his apostles, 600 years before they 
 
120 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 uttered it. We have 20 pages of Rigdon's 
 preaching, and in it he rells us that these 
 plates shall be hid up and found by "an 
 unlearned man," and shown to " three wit- 
 nesses ; "not thirteen remember as Mormons 
 now tell us and then hid up again. Rig- 
 don's Nephites know all about the Gospel, 
 and obey it, and still obey the law of Moses, 
 while they are trampling it under foot, ana 
 are blessed of God, above all that have ever 
 Jived, while violating his law ; and he would 
 lain have us believe that God revealed the 
 entire Gospel to them, in violation of every 
 principle of the Bible This absurd, un- 
 ecriptural, blundering fraud is the "Fulness 
 of the Gospel." 
 
 On page 118 King Jacob tells us that a 
 tundreth part of the wars, contentions and 
 exploits of the Nephites could not be en- 
 graved on his plates. About forty yeari 
 before this, six women left Jerusalem but 
 one was then married. Their posterity, in 
 about forty years, have divided into two 
 nations, and one nation has built a temple 
 like Solomon's, built cities, and even the in- 
 spired Jacob can not engrave one hundreth 
 part uf their exploits on his plates. Sidney 
 never did things by halves when he mounted 
 King Ahasuerus' horse. 
 
 On page 119 King Jacob, alias Sidney, 
 preaches, and has a perfect knowledge of 
 the atonement and modern theological spe- 
 culations concerning it, and the resurrection 
 and the world to come. The Apostle Paul 
 declares that these things were mysteries, 
 hidden from even the angels, until revealed 
 to the world by the apostles of Christ. Poor 
 Paul did uot know what the Lord had done 
 for the ancestors of Imposter Joe, and 
 manuscript-stealing Sidney in the wilds of 
 America, 600 years before his day ; although 
 they habitually trampled under foot nearly 
 every precept of his law. King Jacob, alias 
 Sidney, now gives a parable from the Mor- 
 mon prophet Zenos. The terse, beautiful 
 parables of our Savior concerning the un- 
 fruitful tree, the husbandman and his 
 vineyard, and Paul's parable of the olive 
 tree, that would cover not a page of the 
 Book of Mormon, are diluted, caricatured, 
 and mixed and spread' over eight pages, as 
 only hifaluting Sidney could doit. In his 
 awkward attempts to imitate the authorized 
 version in style, he begins thirty sentences 
 on theseSyages with "anditcametopass," 
 thirty-one with " Behold." " Beheld " and 
 " Beholdest " occur nearly a score of times 
 each. "Wherefore" and " thereof " nearly 
 as many times. These cant words of the 
 writer com pose a large portion ot the parable 
 from Zenos. An eccentric, illiterate char- 
 acter, popularly called Lord Timothy 
 Dnxter f wrote a book and compelled the 
 printer to print it exactly as he wrote it. 
 There was not a capital letter, nor a mark 
 of punctuation, nor any division of matter 
 into paragraphs or sentences in it. The 
 book was eagerly bought up as a curiosity. 
 In printing a second edition Dexter stated 
 in an appendix that some had found fault 
 with his book, because there were no 
 capitals or punctuation marks in it ; and for 
 
 their benefit he added the appendix. Then 
 followed many pages, some covered with 
 capital letters, in all conceivable styles, each 
 style having several lines given to it. Then 
 followed whole pages of commas, then serai 
 colons, until every conceivable printers' 
 mark was printed in this way. The author 
 remarked at the close that each reader 
 might take as many and such capital letters 
 and punctuation marks, as he pleased, and 
 place them to suit himself. I would advise 
 the printers of the Book of Mormon to print 
 several thousands of " And it came to pass" 
 " Behold ""Wherefore " " Therefore " 
 "Thereof" and other cant words, and let 
 readers do, as Lord Timothy Dexter advised 
 his readers to do, select such cant words aa 
 they pleased, and as many as they pleased, 
 and place them where they pleased. 
 
 Let us quote a sentence or two of this 
 " Fulness of theGospel," that is to the New 
 Testament as the New is to the Old. 
 
 "And jt came to pass that he pruned it, and digged 
 "about it, and nourished it according to his word" 
 (nourishing a tree according to the word!) "And it 
 'came to pass that after many days it began to put 
 'foith somewhat, a tender little branches." 
 
 Who doubts that it took inspiration to 
 bring forth that sentence ? Again, 
 
 "Ye shall clear away the branches which brings 
 'forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the 
 good, and the size thereof, and ye shall not clear the 
 'bad thereof, all at once, lest the roots thereof be too 
 'strong for the graft thereof, and the graft thereof 
 'perish." 
 
 As Imposter Joe declares in his revela- 
 tions- about stores and land offices "Lo 
 here is wisdom." The wisdom of God is 
 manifest in such stuff as that, doubtless! 
 Who dares to doubt that it took the highest 
 display of inspiration ever made among 
 men to indite such twaddle as that? 
 Seriously is it not transcendant blasphemy 
 to even suggest that Jehovoh inspired 'a 
 man to steal the sublime, parables of the 
 Son of God, and the Great Apostle to the 
 Gentiles, hundreds of years before they 
 were uttered, and to torture their terse and 
 beautiful language into such balderdash as 
 that, then inspired another to engrave it on 
 plates which he preserved miraculously, 
 and then sent an angel to Imposter Joe to 
 tell him where the plates containing such 
 stuff were to be found, and put the climax 
 to this series of miracles, by doling out to 
 Imposter Joe, as he peeped through his 
 his stolen peep stone into the crown of his 
 old hat, this gibberish, word by word, so 
 precious was this " fulness of the Gospel," 
 the power of God unto Salvation? 
 
 In the next chapter Jacob explains this 
 wonderful parable of the Mormon prophet 
 Zenos, in what would be a good Disciple 
 exhortation, if there were more sense in it, 
 it, and closes with this characteristically 
 Rigdonian sentence "Finally Brethren I 
 bid you farewell, until I shall meet you be- 
 fore the pleasing ' bar of God,' which bar 
 striketh the wicked with awful dread and 
 ' fear.' " The Nephite Jacob, 500 years 
 before Christ, knew all about the English 
 legal idea or phrase "bar." at which a 
 criminal is arraigned. He Knew all about 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 121 
 
 the general Judgment, hundreds of years 
 before it was revealed by Christ and his 
 apostles. What a consistent metaphor is 
 the expression " the pleasing bar of God 
 " which strikes with awful dread and 
 "fear." King Ahasuerus' horse got away 
 with Sidney's good sense that time. In the 
 next chapter we have a debate between 
 Jacob and a Deist, in which the mediatorship 
 of Christ, the attonement, and kindred New 
 Testament ideas and modern theological 
 speculations, are discussed, very much 
 after the manner they were, in controver- 
 sies between Rigdon and a sceptical Justice 
 of the Peace in Beaver county, Pa., to 
 which my father listened about sixty years 
 ago. There is an awkward caricature of 
 the miracle of Paul's striking Ely mas blind, 
 and there is more talk about " plates" and 
 how they were to be kept, so that no 
 reader of the Book of Mormon could have 
 any doubtabout Impostor Joe's plates. 
 
 On page 137 we have another miracle. 
 Mosiah, a Nephite, discourses to the people 
 of Zarahemla Judahites who left Jerusa- 
 lem eleven years after Lehi's departure 
 They had lost all knowledge of God, and 
 were atheists, for they denied his existence, 
 and their language had become so changed 
 that they could not understand Mosiah , yet 
 these atheists, who could not understand 
 Mosiah, rejoiced exceedingly when he told 
 them what they did not believe, and what 
 they could not understand. Now we will 
 call attention to one of the most gigantic of 
 blunders in this bundle of blunders, the 
 Book of Mormon. We are told, on page 
 137: 
 
 " And It came to pass that after tbe people were 
 taught the language of Mosiah Zarahemla (their 
 chief) gave a genealogy of his fathers according to hla 
 memory, as they were written, (what the fathers I) but 
 not on these plates. And it came to pass that the peo- 
 ple of Zarahemla (the chief) and Mosiah (the chief) did 
 unite together, and Mosiah (the chief) was ap- 
 pointed to be their King And it came to pass 
 in the days of Mosiah there was * large stone 
 brought unto him with the engravings on it. and ha 
 did interpret the engravings by tbe gift and power of 
 Ood. And they gave on account of one Ooriantamui 
 and the slain of his people And Conantamur was 
 discovered by the people of Zarahemla (the Chief) and 
 he Dwelled with them (the subject of the chief 
 Zarahmla) for the space of nine moons." 
 
 If this language means anything it means 
 that Coriantamur died among the subjects 
 of the chief Zarahemla in Zarahemla's time. 
 That was about 150 years before Christ. 
 Turn to the Book of Ether and we learn 
 that Coriantamur was the last of the Jared- 
 ites, who were all slain but Coriantamur 600 
 B. C. Mormons may take which horn of 
 the dilemma they please. If the Jaredites 
 were slain before Lehi came to America, 
 Coriantamur was 600 years old when he 
 came among the subjects of King Zara- 
 hemla. Or the Jaredites and the Nephites 
 inhabited the same country for 450 years, 
 living together, knowing nothing of each 
 others existence ! 
 
 King Benjamin, alias Rigdon, declares in 
 a sermon, 150 years before Christ, 
 
 " Behold I come to declare unto you glad tidings of 
 "great joy. Behold the time cometh when the Lord 
 "shal' come down from heaven with power, and shall 
 *' dwell among the children of men, in a tabernacle of 
 
 " clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty 
 "miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead. 
 
 * causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their 
 'sight, the deaf to hear; and curing all manner of 
 ' diseases, and shall cast out devils and evil spirits 
 "which dwellin the hearts of the children of men: 
 
 And he shall suffer temptations and hunger, and 
 ' thirst, and fatigue and pain of body even more than 
 ' man can suffer, except to be unto death, for behold 
 1 blood cometh from every pore" (You see King Ben 
 
 jainin knew all about the physiology of the blood 2000 
 
 years before Harvey) " BO great shall be his anguish 
 for the sins and abominations of his people. Ami 
 
 " he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the 
 ' father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things, 
 'from the beginning, and his mother shall be called 
 'Mary, and lo He cometh to his own that salvntion 
 ' might come to the children of men, even through 
 ' faith in his name; and even after all this, they shli 
 'consided Him a man, and say that He bath a devil, 
 ' and shall scourge Him, and crucify Him, and He shall 
 ' raise the third day from the dead, and behold He 
 
 " standeth to Judge the world." 
 
 Did Isaiah, who stands among the proph- 
 ets of the Old Testament, as the prophet of 
 the Messiah, ever utter such prophecies 
 as these? Rigdon interpolated the his- 
 tory of Christ, as he took it from the New 
 Testament, into Spaulding's romance, when 
 he was remodelling it so that he could 
 make a "big thing out of it" as a new rev- 
 elation 
 
 Benjamin, alias Rigdon, proceeds. Re- 
 member Benjamin is an Israelite, living un- 
 der the law, 150 years before the birth of 
 Jesus. 
 
 " Salvation cometh to none except it be through 
 " repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. There 
 " shall be no other name given under heaven, nor any 
 " other means whereby salvation can come unto the 
 ''children of men, only through the name of Christ. 
 " Except they humble themselves, and become as lit. 
 " tie children, and believe that salvation was and is 
 " and is to come (a Disciple Idea) in and through the 
 " atoning blood of Christ (One of Rigdon's revival 
 *' expressions.) For the natural man is enmity against 
 " God and baa been since the fall of Adam (Mont 
 "modern theology.) But if he yields to tbe enticing* 
 " of the Holy Spirit (one of Rigdon's revival isms) 
 " and putteth off the natural man and becometn a 
 " Saint through tbe atonement of Christ oui Lord, and 
 " becometh as a child, submissive, humble, meek. 
 " patient, full of love, willing to submit to the thing* 
 M which the Lord seeth fit to inflict on him even as a 
 "child doth submit to bis father." 
 
 Seriously, now, as persons of sense, shah 
 we believe that an Israelite, under the law 
 of Moses, preached in that way, 150 years 
 before the birth of Christ? Or that Rigdon 
 interpolated these sentences from tbe New 
 Testament, these phrases from modern the- 
 ology, these revivalism? of his own, into 
 the MS he stole from Spaulding when he 
 was fixing it up to make "a big thing" out 
 of it as a new revelation? 
 
 In the sermon of a prophet, Abinadi, 
 which is as much like one of Rigdon's ser- 
 mons as the sermons of King Benjamin , 
 Rigdon completely "gives himself away," 
 as the slang expression has it. Page 174. 
 "If Christ had not risen from the dead, or 
 have broken the bonds of death (Shades of 
 Murray, what grammar), that the grave 
 should have no victory, and that death 
 should have no sting, there could have been 
 no resurrection. But there is a resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, therefore the grave hath 
 no victory, and the sting of death is swal- 
 lowed up in Christ." Rigdon forgot that 
 he was trying to put the resurrection of 
 Christ into the mouth of an Israelite be- 
 
122 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 lore it occurred, which demands the future 
 tense, and used such language as the real 
 speaker, Kigdon, should use, and spoke of 
 it as a past event, saying, "had risen, "has 
 broken." On page 277 we have doctrine 
 taught that is as clearly the work of Rigdon 
 as is his blackguard letter to the "Boston 
 Journal," or his glorification of King Ahas- 
 uerus' horse Immersion for the remission 
 of sins is preached over 100 years before 
 John the Baptist, and in the name of Christ, 
 more than 150 years before the day of Pen- 
 tecost, just as Disciple preachers preach it; 
 and to clinch the matter, that it is Rigdon, 
 immersion in the name of Christ is for the 
 miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, what 
 Rigdon believed and brought from the Bap- 
 tists, and the Disciples do not believe. Ob- 
 serve the teaching agrees with the Disci- 
 ples as far as Rigdon agreed with them, 
 and disagrees with them, just where hedif- 
 fered from them. Converts were added to 
 the church, which was completely organized 
 and in full operation more than 150 years 
 before Jesus said, "I will build my church," 
 proving that it did not then exist. Here 
 again we have an instance in which Rigdon 
 differed fiom the Disciples On pages 192, 
 193, 194 and 195 we have description? of 
 churches of Christ, Christian teaching 
 Christian ordinances Church discipline, 
 all in accordance with Rigdon's ideas of 
 what these things should be A wicked 
 eon of a preacher is converted, just as men 
 were converted under Rigdon's preaching, 
 
 a regular miraculous Baptist "experience." 
 This was followed by a regular series of 
 Rigdonish revivals, under preachers preach- 
 ing like Rigdon, the gospel in all of its ful- 
 ness, according to Rigdon's notions. On 
 page 233 we have a long extract from one 
 of Rigdon's sermons : 
 
 Ye must repent and be born again, for the spirit 
 
 " faith (where except in John III in the exact wi.rdii 
 
 " of Jesus) if ye are not born again ye cannot enter the 
 
 "kingdom of God ; therefore cme and be baptized 
 
 " unto repentence. that ye may be washed from your 
 
 "sins, that ye rc^y have faith on the Son of Mod, 
 
 'that taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty 
 
 ' to save and toc)rnse from .ll unrighteousness: Yea 
 
 *J say unto you come and fear not. lay to one side 
 
 ' every sin \vhich doth to easily beset you whirh doth 
 
 ' bind you down to de-dructioii, yea come and go forth 
 
 'and show unto your God that you are willing to 
 
 ' repent of your sins, and enter into a covenant with 
 
 'Him, to keep His commai'dments, and manifest it 
 
 unto Him this day, by going down into the waters of 
 
 baptism, and whosoever doeth this, and kPtpeth the 
 
 commandments of God. from this time forth, the 
 
 same will remember that 1 have sai * unto him thaf 
 
 he shall have eternal life according to the Holy Spirit 
 
 which testifietb in me. 
 
 Let me ask any person of common sense 
 which do you believe, that an Israelite, un- 
 der the law of Moses, preached in that way, 
 in the exact words of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, more than 10f> years before Christ? Or 
 has Rigdon interpolated one of his exhor- 
 tations into the manuscript he stole from 
 Spaulding when he was making "a big 
 thing," in the shape of a new revelation 
 out of it? Old acquaintances of Rigdon in 
 this audience can slmost hear hifalutin, 
 spread eagle Sidney in one of hi revival 
 exhortations, as they hear that language. 
 
 MR KELLEY'S TWELFTH SPEECH- 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN Before entering upon my 
 main argument I will notice one or two ob- 
 jections that have been made by my oppo- 
 nent. 
 
 First, with regard to the purported affida- 
 vits th>it he read. Take and read the state- 
 ment showing the manner of interviewing 
 the witnesses I introduced, when the lan- 
 guajre was taken down at the time the 
 parties own words and compare it with the 
 manner of running around and getting up 
 an affidavit when the other fide is not there 
 and you will soon discover who has the 
 truth. 
 
 Mr Braden : Was Mr. Thorn present 
 when you mterviewpd those parties? 
 
 Mr. 'Kelley: I have not presented any 
 affidavits, sir. I have given their exact lan- 
 guage taken at the time; written in their 
 presence. That is the manner of getting 
 
 this, and it is so stated here. I will read 
 from the conclusion of the intervit : 
 
 ' These facts and interviews are present d to the 
 ' readers of the Herald impartially, just a they oe- 
 " curred the good and bad side by side, and Hllowing 
 " tor a possible mistake or error from a misappreheu- 
 " sion or mistake in taking notes, it can be relied up- 
 " on as the opinion and gossip had about the Smith 
 "family and others among their old neighbors. It 
 "will be remembered that all the parties interviewed 
 "are unbelievers in. and some of them bitter ene- 
 mies to the faith of the Saints; aiid it is not unreason- 
 able to suppose that th>-y all tId the worst (hey 
 knew So we sui mil it to the Herald readers, without 
 'comment, with the expectation of sending each one 
 ' of the parties interviewed a copy when published." 
 
 When this was published each of the 
 parties was sent a copy of the Herald with 
 the interview, and not one from whose af- 
 fidavit Mr. Braden has read has had the 
 manliness to write to Mr. Kelley of CId wa- 
 ter, Michigan, and say that he was misrep- 
 resented. But somebody can run around 
 and get up an affidavit that does not men- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 12S 
 
 tion a single material contradiction, and a 
 couple of them sign it. How many affida- 
 vits did he have from the witnesses I read 
 from last night? From nobody but from 
 Major Gilbert and Major Gilbert fails to 
 point out a single thing in which he is mis- 
 represented. Did you not notice that? He 
 saye that he was misrepresented, but he 
 does not state wherein he was misrepre<-ent- 
 ed. The fact is, Major Gilbert, if he 
 made that affidavit, lied, and I know 
 that he did. I am willing to face him 
 In Palmyra, or any other place, and 
 say that it is not true because I know 
 his language was taken at the time. As 
 far as the contradiction is concerned I do 
 not care anything about it. I wantea it to 
 come before this audience. I knew what 
 Gilbert had done when he found he was 
 caught; and what Braden had to bring, but 
 I wanted to show this audience how easy it 
 was to run around and get affidavits and 
 statements' from persons and prove things, 
 when you write 'hem up yourself and have 
 them signed The way it started, this Mr. 
 Thorn, a Presbyterian preacher was living 
 there in the neighborhood, and he heard 
 of Elder Kelley's preaching at Cadi lac, 
 Michigan, and he went to these parties 10 
 get their evidence, and he sent it over to 
 Cadilac, Michigan, to publish It there in 
 order to defeat Elder Kelley's preaching. 
 
 Elder Kelley, instead of saying "O! you're 
 another," went directly to the parties them- 
 selves, and there upon the ground took 
 their statements, and took them down m 
 writing and sent their statements back to 
 them afterwards. Mr Thorn never did any 
 such thing with Mr Kelley, nor with these 
 witnesses, when they said they had made 
 other statements, as Mr. Braden represents. 
 I leave it then, for the honest and candid 
 thinkers, and those who love truth rather 
 than falsehood, to decide who has told the 
 falsehood and who has told the truth, if 
 there is any antagonism between tnese 
 parties. There is, in fact, no worthy con- 
 tradiction of W. H. Kelley's report of the 
 interview, as yet. Major Gilbert does not 
 ptate a single thing wherein he has been 
 misrepresented. Was it in the statement 
 that he had been trying for fifty years to 
 collect evidence against the Book of Mormon .' 
 Was it in that he said he had a way out of 
 the difficulty now he thought; that he had 
 spoken to Baunders to testify that Rigdoa 
 was there, and afterwards had written nim, 
 but Saunderd had not received it? Was it 
 in that he is reported as disbelieving in the 
 Bible? He is the only witness whose testi- 
 mony I read before you, who has said he 
 was misrepresented. The majority have 
 stood by their evidence as published in the 
 interview. The others I could say some- 
 thing about, but I will not at this time. 
 
 Here I will refer to one or two other 
 matters and then proceed with my argu- 
 ment. First, wiih regard to the "woman 
 E readier" referred to in Mr. Bpauld'ng's 
 jtter, as found in Smucker's History Does 
 he not know that that is the original sta te- 
 nant from which all the rest of these 
 
 histories of Mormonism go to for their 
 material, and yet the rest of them have 
 struck out the word "woman." What right 
 had they to dojthat? 
 
 Mr Braden: "When was Smucker's 
 book copyrighted ? " 
 
 Mr. Kelley : "I do not care when Smuck- 
 er's book was copyrighted? 
 
 Mr. Braden- "In 1878?" 
 
 Mr. Kelley; "1 did not get it from 
 Mr. Smucker. I got it from a hook that 
 was published long before Smucker. 
 Mackey's History of the Mormons, published 
 in England. I will hand you the book any 
 time you may wish to examine. It is a book 
 published long before Smucker, and it has 
 the words 'a woman preacher;' and it is 
 the oldest work that I have seen that con- 
 tained the letter. These others have taken 
 it out of the letter because it killed them so 
 easily. You quoted from works that had 
 deliberately garbled the letter and have 
 used such before this audience. 
 
 1 was, in a former speech, speaking of 
 these purported statements of John and 
 Martha Spaulding, as set out by Howe, 
 showing that they are quotations from 
 something and not the original. He does 
 not give any date to these statements; no 
 time or place, or party by whom they were 
 taken. They are put in quotations in the 
 book, and they do not, in any sense, amount 
 to statements. If they did, they are so 
 contradictory to what Mrs. Spaulding her- 
 self states, that they could not possibly be 
 relied upon. This is the testimony he so 
 triumphantly threw into my face the other 
 evening the best he has. How do you 
 like to swallow it down? The publication 
 by Howe of these purported statemen's, 
 and the garbled extracts from our works in 
 his "History of the Mormons, or Mormon- 
 ism Unveiled," shows that the enemies of 
 the Book of Mormon had nothing of truth 
 to sustain their wicked attacks and over- 
 throw it, or they would have used it. 
 
 All of the statements which he has pro- 
 duced have now been examined, except 
 that of Mr Campbell and Adamson Bea 1 ;- 
 ley, the last of these the one whom Rigdon 
 referred to in the letter that I read to you 
 last evening. I did expect to refer to Mr 
 Campbell's this evening. I guess I ehall. 
 as I am in this connection also Mr. Bent- 
 ley's. 
 
 Mr Campbell, you remember, mentioned 
 in his statement that he was not positiv* 
 with regard to this ; that is, that he thought 
 that he would like to see what brother 
 Bentley had to say about it before he gav 
 his testimony It is not independent evi- 
 dence by either of these parties This 
 Adamson Bentley is the same party wh> 
 was referred to by Sidney Rigdon ; who. 
 from the outset (18H1) undertook to destroy 
 him; and Mr Campbell says, as you will 
 find by reading his letter, "that the con- 
 versation alluded to in Bro. Bentley 'a let- 
 ter, in 1841. was in my presence as well as 
 in his. My recollection of it led me, som 
 two or three years ago, to interrogate Bro. 
 Bentley concerning his recollection of it." 
 
1.24 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Put T will produce the article and state- 
 men*-! of tin parlies in full, so that all 
 n< . roper l.y ., dge them : 
 
 iuleunial Harbinger for 1844 page 
 Sb - 
 
 Mr. Campbell heads these articles as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "MISTAKES TOUCHING THE BOOK OF MOR- 
 MON." 
 
 He then publishes an article entitled 
 "Mormon" The means by which it stole 
 the 'True Gospel," taken from the Evan- 
 gelist, one of their own papers, then edited 
 by Mr. Scott. 
 
 The article is as follows : 
 
 "It is well ktiwn that the Mormons preach the true 
 ' gospel, and plead for immediate obedience to it on 
 "the part of the hearers, as the advocate of original 
 '('hristinnity. This was not an original measure of 
 "Morrnor.ism for, indeed, baptism for the remission of 
 "sins is a phrase not found in their book. A few of 
 "their lenders took it from Rigdon at Euclid, on the 
 "Western Reserve, as may be learned from Brother 
 "Jor.es account of their first visit 10 Kirtland, pub- 
 lished in a preceding volume of the Evangelist, Rig- 
 'don we were perfectly aware, had possessed him- 
 "seil of our analysis, and the pleafor obedience raised 
 "thereupon, tut nt choosing to rely on my own re- 
 "collection of the means by and the times at which 
 "they were imparted to him, we wrote to Mr. Bentley, 
 "who is his brother-in-law, for the necessary informa- 
 "lion. Mr. Bentley's letter shows, not only whence he 
 "received his knowledge of the true gospel, but also 
 "that, coward that he was, he had not the indepen- 
 dence necessary to preach it in his own vicinity after 
 "he had received it. Thus the knowledge of ordering 
 "and pleading the elements of the true gospel by that 
 'people, is seen to arise near the same time, and' from 
 "the same source, as that of our own reformation. Mr, 
 "Bentley's letter is as follows : 
 
 " SOLON, January 22. 1841. 
 
 " Dear Brother Scott. Your favor of the 7th of Decem- 
 "her is received. I returned from Philadelphia, Pa., 
 "on the 10th, and the answer to your acceptable letter 
 "has been deferred. I was much gratified to hear from 
 "you and family, but would be much more to see you 
 "one* 1 more in the flesh, and talk over our toils and 
 "anxieties in the cause of our blessed Redeemer. 
 
 "You request that 1 should give you all the informa- 
 "tion I am in possession of respecting Mormonism. I 
 "know that Siduey Rigdon told me there was a book 
 "coming out (the manuscript of which has been found 
 "engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before 
 "the Mormon book made its appearance in this coun- 
 "try, or had been heard of by me. The same I com- 
 "municated to brother A. Campbell. The Mormon 
 "book has nothing of the baptism for the remission of 
 "sins in it: and, of course, at the time Rigdon pot Solo- 
 "mon Spaulding's manuscript he did not understand 
 "the Scriptures on that subject" [Of course he did 
 not. He was in the Campbellite Church then and 
 they never understood the Scriptures as they ought to 
 have done] "I cannot say he learned it from me, as 
 "he had been about a week with you in Nelson and 
 "Windham, before he cf>me to my house. I, however, 
 "returned with him to Mentor He stated to me that 
 "he did not feel himself capable of introducing the sub- 
 "jectin Mentor, and would not return without me if 
 "lie had to stay two weeks with us to induce me to go. 
 "This is about all that I can say. I have no doubt hut 
 "that the account given in Mormonism Unmaoked 
 (this is Ho.ve's book "Mormonism Unveiled," which 
 lie refers to. They all go back to that for their infor- 
 mation] is about the truth, ft was trot up to deceive 
 "the people and obtain their property, and was & 
 "wicked contrivance with Sidney Rigdon and Joseph 
 "Smith, Jr May God have mercy on the wicked men, 
 "and may thev repent of their great wicked ess! May 
 "the Lord bless you brother Scott, and family. 
 "Yours most affectionately. 
 
 "ADAMSON BENTI.EY.'' 
 
 This is a genuine Campbelhte letter, as it 
 has all of the ear-marks. He wants to tell 
 omething, when it is evident without the 
 least comment that he knows nothing at 
 all. He is Sidney Rigdon's brother-in-law, 
 and since Rigdon has left his church wants 
 
 to give him a dab, and he does not care how 
 so that he is not caught. He had been 
 intimate with Rigdon all along during the 
 years 1823, 24, 25, 2G, 27, 28, 29 and 30: the 
 two working together, preaching together; 
 and Bentley knew perfectly well that fJig- 
 don could have had no more to do in get- 
 ting up the Book of Mormon than he had; 
 and yet because Rigdon had united with 
 the Saints he was mad and wanted to de- 
 stroy him. He indorses Howe's book as 
 no doubt being "about the truth." This ia 
 the book which I showed you so perverted, 
 misquoted, garbled, and wickedly falsified 
 our works iii order to write down something 
 against them. Bentley drinks it down. 
 And the " May the Lord bless you, brother 
 Scott." That was the spirit that marked 
 the career of this man, at the time, to a 
 dot. Never mind anybody else. No differ- 
 ence what their claims. Hound them down 
 because they do not follow us. But the 
 Lord bless us ! me and my wife, my son 
 John and his wife, brother Scott and his 
 wife, us poor, and no more. 
 
 I reserve comment upon this statement 
 of Scott's and letter of Bentley till after 
 presenting the review of it, and the evi- 
 dence, as Mr. Braden has termed it, of Mr. 
 Campbell. You will observe at once that 
 this letter of Bentley's was too brazenly 
 absurd for Campbell to swallow for a mo- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Campbell says : 
 
 "Brethren Scott and Bentley arc both mistaken us to 
 "the fact of baptism for the remission of sins not b a v- 
 "ingbeen found in the Book of Mormon; and ont of 
 "them in the inference contained in the note append- 
 "ed to Elder Bentley's letter " [Here, then, are two mil- 
 takes, at least, and by both on one of the points.) 
 
 "The conversation alluded to In Brother Bentley'i 
 "letter of 1811, wns in my presence as well as his." 
 [This is a third, for Bentley says, "I communicated it 
 to brother A Campbell."! "and my recol ection of it led 
 "me, some two or three years ago to interrogate broth- 
 "er Bentley. touching his recollection of it," [Here is 
 a fourth contradiction of brother Bentley, for he said, 
 he 'communicated to brother A. Campbell. ] ''which 
 "accorded with mine, except the year in which It 
 "occurred, he placing it in the year 1827, and I in the 
 "summer of 1826." [This is the fifth contradiction.] 
 "Rigdon. at the time observing thai in th plates dug 
 "up in New York there was an account, not only of the 
 "Aborigines of this country, butalso it was stated that 
 "the Christian religion had been preached in thii 
 "cnnntrv iusf as we were preachingit on the Western 
 "Reserve " 
 
 Here is the sixth ; and a very essential 
 difference. Mr. Campbell says" that Ilig- 
 don was telling them about an account 
 that was contained upon plates dug 
 up in New York, but Mr. Bentley 
 puts it in his letter " the manuscript of 
 which had been found engraved on gold 
 plates." Here Bentley is convicted of 
 deliberately lying in order, if possible, to 
 make a show of connection between the 
 " Spaulding Manuscript," which at this 
 time, was in the possession of Howe, and 
 the Book of Mormon: and so he wickedly 
 puts the word "manuscript" into his letter 
 to mislead. 
 
 Mr. Campbell proceeds: 
 
 .une JIKS iwo years according u> r.mer nrmiey, HIIU 
 ''three years according to me after snid conversa< 
 ' ;iou (and certainly it was not less than two years), th 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 125 
 
 'Inference of brother Scott touching the person upon 
 'Whom the theft was committed would be plausible if 
 *'it was a fnct that biiptism for remission of sins is 
 44 no part of the Book, but something snper-mldt'd sinre 
 "from the practice in Ohio in the end of 1827 and begin- 
 'nlngof 1828; a year or more after Rigdon made the 
 'aforesaid statement." 
 
 Mr. Campbell proceeded then to make 
 quotations from the Book of Mormon, to 
 show that Messrs. Scott and Bentley were 
 wrong and over conclusive, quoting from 
 pages 240, 479, 581 and 582 of the book, and 
 then says : 
 
 "Certainly this is testimony enough without further 
 'readings. The note on the text of brother Bentley's 
 'letter shows how easily men may reason wrong from 
 'fulse fa'-ts, or from assumed premises. If the Editor 
 'of the Evangelist were not above the imputation of 
 'envy, jealously, or vanity, the whole affair might be 
 'construed disadvantageous!? , but as it is it seems to 
 'show the necessity of a scrupulous exami"ation of 
 'the premises before we presume on such grave cou- 
 'clusions." 
 
 Just so. There are a great many ear- 
 marks visible to the naked eye about this 
 alleged conversation with Mr. Rigdon, show- 
 ing "the necessity of a scrupulous exami- 
 nation of the premises before we presume 
 on such grave conclusions." Mr Campbell, 
 undoubtedly, made a large number of his 
 followers wince when he struck these two 
 conclusionists that little blow ; and had he 
 on this occasion heeded the advice tendered 
 to others, another erroneous, yet "grave 
 conclusion" would not have been arrived 
 at. 
 
 The only remarkable thing about this 
 statement of Campbell's at all, is the fact 
 that any man can be so blind as not to see 
 that there is not a shadow of proof in it 
 that in the least points to Sidney Rigdon 
 aa a party having any connection with the 
 origin of the Book of Mormon. Suppose 
 that the memory of Mr. Campbell to be 
 entirely correct in giving this conversation 
 at least ten years after the time fixed for 
 its occurrence (and he shows it is not, by 
 himself stating that he first asked Mr. 
 Beutley about it to see if he had it right), 
 and what have we? Simply that Sidney 
 Rigdon stated in his presence in the year 
 1826 or '27 that there was a claim made by 
 some person in New York State, not even 
 the name of the party then known to him 
 it seems, that some plates of gold had been 
 dug up in that State, giving an account of 
 the aborigines of this country, and stating 
 that the Christian religion had been 
 preached in this country just as we (Camp- 
 bell, Rigdon, Scott and Bentley) were 
 preaching it on the Western "Reserve. This 
 same claim (with the exception of the 
 words "just as we were doing upon the 
 Western Reserve"), doubtless, to this time 
 had been repeated by more than ten thou- 
 sand people in the United States ;. for the 
 laim was in the public press before this, 
 the announcement being made as early as 
 1823, and the plates were obtained in Sep- 
 tember, 1827 ; and would it be a strange 
 thing or proof of guilt for Sidney Rigdon 
 to also talk about it with others? Indeed, 
 when you turn the thought over, the 
 strength of the evidence is the other way, 
 for had Rigdon been connected with this in 
 
 any wise he would not have spoken of it to 
 Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bentley But, says 
 one, why did he use the words "just as w 
 were doing on the Western Reserve?" I 
 answer, because he did not know anything 
 about it, for had he, he could not have so 
 spoken The record from the plates did not 
 teach as they were teaching on the Western 
 Reserve, but in nine-tenths of all its prin- 
 ciples taught the reverse. Mr. Higilon 
 could not have made the statement had he 
 been connected in any manner in getting up 
 the Book of Mormon. All through, that 
 book contains doctrinal principles entirely 
 different to the teachings of Mr Campbell 
 and these preachers of the Western Re- 
 serve. 
 
 When Joseph Smith first announced that 
 the angel said to him that there was a 
 record of the ancient inhabitants of this 
 continent written upon gold plates and de- 
 posited, to be brought forth in the cwn due 
 time of the Lord, itn mediately all the good 
 old deacons and pious preachers of Man- 
 chester and Palmyra, New York, started 
 the story of a "Gold Bible." It was pub- 
 lished over the country ; and since Qampbell 
 and Rentley can not agree within a year of 
 the time when they say Rigdon spoke of the 
 notice, who will dare to say the conversa- 
 tion was not in 182, or even 1830, instead of 
 1826 or 1827. They can not agree within one 
 year of the time themselves ; yet, they pre- 
 tend to give such certain testimony, as they 
 would have you believe, although your 
 salvation may be shadowed in the grand 
 hereafter by it, for having rejected the 
 truth. 
 
 Persons who will take such statements 
 for evidence do so because they love that 
 which appeals to their own selfishness and 
 evil desires, and which is fallacious, rather 
 than God's*word, which says, "To the law 
 and to the testimony ; if they speak not ac- 
 cording to this word it is because there is no 
 light in them." And again; "He that 
 abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath 
 both the Father and the Son " Well, but 
 Mr. Braden says, "the devil may come 
 abiding in the doctrine." 
 
 When did you ever know of him coming 
 and abiding in the doctrine of Christ? It 
 is the New Testament my opponent attacks 
 upon this, and not me. Are we not to prac- 
 tically rely upon John's statement, where- 
 in he says- " If any come bringing not 
 this doctrine, receive him not?" the con- 
 verse of which is, if any come bringing this 
 doctrine, no difference who; he may be good, 
 although called bad, him receive. It is 
 founded upon the certain ground that the 
 devil will not come preaching the truth, for 
 it would destroy him ; it would be contrary 
 to his own existence-. "A house divided 
 against itself cannot stand." For this 
 reason Satan "abode not in the truth from 
 the beginning," says Jesus I am surprised 
 that a professed minister of the (Jospel 
 should take the indefensible ground that 
 you must denounce a thing whether it con- 
 tains the doctrine of Christ or not. In ihia 
 he gives the entire Christian religion away 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 The standard is "Though we, or an angel 
 from Heaven preach any other gospel," 
 [anything other than the truth or doctrine 
 of Christ] "let him be accursed." But my 
 opponent would have you give them a little 
 cursing if they do bring the Gospel. My 
 friends, you need never be afraid that 
 the Devil will come around abiding in 
 the doctrine of Christ. He might teach 
 one thing. He might teach for instance, 
 baptism by water only ; but he will 
 never teach baptism by water and of the 
 Holy Spirit, to the believer, because God 
 alone can give the Holy Spirit, and the Devil 
 could not teach that, without soon being 
 detected and exposed in the deception. Do 
 not understand me as referring to my op- 
 ponent or the Disciples as Satan. I was 
 only making the argument by way of an 
 illustration. (Laughter). 
 
 I have all of his questions here : forty-two 
 questions, 1 believe. He said I would nev- 
 er look at or examine them ; but I have and 
 find no basis to them whatever, except the 
 false statements, as I have shown, that he 
 referred to at the first. I need not say to 
 you that I do not have to take up my time 
 in examining each one of them separately 
 after having shown that the basis of every- 
 one of them is false. Let him get upon a true 
 basis and argue the facts essential to this 
 case if he can. I think, perhaps, he might 
 do better had he a different case. But, in 
 the name of common sense what has he ac- 
 complished by the forty questions present- 
 ed ? Simply changed the form of Chestate- 
 mentof what heclaims his witnesses say and 
 puts it interrogatively. Do I have to take up 
 this same evidence which I have shown be- 
 fore to be entirely unreliable and examined 
 it because now he has revamped it and put 
 iuin the shape of questions? You would 
 certainly call me silly to so waste my time. 
 I have, by showing the falsity of the state- 
 ments upon which his questions are based, 
 struck his foundation down, and what care 
 I now for the twists he takes in the debris. 
 It he has anything to offer in support of 
 his foundation, or any new evidence, I shall 
 gladly take the time to examine it. I have 
 already examined all of his testimony, ex- 
 cept, possibly, a few of the parties referred 
 to by Patterson in his pamphlet. Should I 
 find the statements of any others than 
 whom I have examined I shall refer to them 
 hereafter. 
 
 Now I will proceed to the argument upon 
 the main question, taking up first and an- 
 swering objections made. 
 
 My opponent, on the last evening of the 
 discussion said that all the good there was 
 In the Book of Mormon Smith and Rigdon 
 etole from the Disciples, alias the Campbel- 
 lites, but this is a thing to be proven, if 
 true. I confess, viewing the matter from 
 ne standpoint, that it seems as though 
 there might have been some tampering 
 with the Campbellite faith, some time, if 
 there was ever any special good in it, as it 
 seems to be quite barren ot any good thing 
 now ; but whether it was stolen from them 
 by the Latter-Day Saints remains . to be 
 shown. 
 
 He says: "It is all balderdash," to ar- 
 gue that "whosoever abideth in the doc- 
 trine of Christ he hath both the Father and 
 the Son." Yet this is the emphatic state- 
 ment of the word of God. Remember it is 
 not the language of myself, but he calls it 
 balderdash. He says that bad men and 
 the devil might come around abiding in the 
 doctrine, but they would not have the Fath- 
 er. Then the apostle must have missed it. 
 It is not true that bad men or the devil ev- 
 er did or ever will abide in the doctrine. 
 Of the devil it is distinctly said "he abode 
 not in the truth." Abiding in the doctrine 
 is one rule given by John to test true teach- 
 ers from false ones. The tru3 ones abide in 
 the doctrine ; the false ones do not. 
 
 Mr. Braden and his Disciple friends do 
 not abide in the doctrine, as I will show 
 more particularly in discussing the next 
 proposition; and they also argue that God 
 cannot be with them- mly in the word ; 
 hence they have neither the Father, Son 
 nor Holy Ghost. He is fighting the inspired 
 evangelist, not me. 
 
 Again, he says when Mormonism is at- 
 tacked by showing the bad character of 
 those engaged in it that'I retort by dragging 
 the Bible down to the level of the Book of 
 Mormon, attacking it. My opponent knows 
 too well the tendency of the kind of argu- 
 ment that is resorted to by him to defame 
 and destroy the Book of Mormon and blast 
 the reputation of its friends ; but if the 
 argument is good against the Book of Mor- 
 mon and its adherents, as showing that 
 God did not inspire or direct them, the same 
 argument is good against any other class of 
 men making similar claims. All of you can 
 see that if the Book of Mormon is to be 
 rejected because somebody slandered the 
 character of those who brought it to light, 
 that the New Testament must be under the 
 same hypothesis; that if it be true that 
 God would only select pure and ex-lted 
 characters, such as would at no time of life 
 do a wrong thing, through whom to reveal 
 his will, then pretty much all of the Bible 
 is to be rejected, for Noah, Abraham, Moses, 
 David, Solomon, Peter and Paul, those with 
 whom God is said to have communed, were 
 not men of such exalted and perfect charac- 
 ters. There was none good, so far as tha* 
 term is used, "no, not one." When my 
 opponent accepts them as mediums through 
 whom God revealed himself, what becomes 
 of his position taken here, that if he can 
 show that if some of the leaders who 
 brought to light under divine guidance 
 tne Book of Mormon did things some time 
 in their lives that was not just right, he 
 has proven the Book of Mormou false. 
 
 Among the first things which Moses did 
 was to kill an Egyptian and hide him in 
 the sand and then flee his country. Abra- 
 ham, the father of the faithful, had a con- 
 cubine, "Sarah's ni.-iid." Noah got drunk 
 soon after he tourli i dry land, after the 
 great flood. David had wives and concu- 
 bines too numerous to mention; 8olom->M 
 the same, combined with the sin of being 
 an idolater. Abijah, after five hundred 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 127 
 
 thousand had been slain in battle before 
 him, the Lord being with him, waxed 
 mighty and took 14 wives and begat 22 sons 
 and 16 daughters. 2 Chron. 13 . 21, 22. Ho- 
 sea went and took a woman of whoredoms 
 and lived with her, and then took his 
 friend's wife ; but still went on prophesy- 
 ing, and my. friend claims to believe the 
 Erophesy. Peter cursed and swore, denied 
 is Lord, and yet who would discard his 
 epistles ? Saul assented to stoning Stephen 
 to death, and afterwards he wa. an apostle 
 and had many trials and temptations, and 
 yet the list is not lull. All ol this is m the 
 Bible 
 
 My opponent assumes *o believe in the 
 inspiration of pretty much all here men- 
 tioned, just because their names occur h 
 the Bible, not because they did no bad 
 things during their lives . yet he endeavors 
 to sink the Book of Mormon by connecting 
 something to the lives of Joseph Smith and 
 Sidney Rigdon that is not just right He 
 can see that if such arguments will destroy 
 the Book of Mormon's claims to being di- 
 vinely inspired it destroys that of the Bible 
 also, and while he fats in bringing an 
 array of accusations against Smith and Rig- 
 don and others, which he has failed to 
 prove , with him it is dragging the Bible 
 (which he claims to believe in) down, to 
 apply to it in an argument the same Rind of 
 warfare. 
 
 For the fak of the argument. T might 
 admit (that which is not true) that Smith. 
 Rigdon et al were as bad as he repre- 
 sents them to have been, they would then 
 be entitled to a respectable standing among 
 the very best of those whom he admits that 
 God revealed himself through. He has 
 only got beside himself. It does not drag 
 the Bible down to tell the truth about it. Et 
 must stand on its merits just like the Book 
 of Mormon. I am a believer in both. It is 
 consistency, truth and fairness that we 
 want. 
 
 He objects to the Book of Mormon because 
 one of the writers says : " If there be faults 
 in it they are the mistakes of men ;" claim- 
 ing that if it is inspired there should be no 
 faults. But the Book of Mormon does not 
 claim to be wholly inspired any more than 
 the Bible claims to be wholly inspired. The 
 writer says he writes according to his knowl 
 edge in the characters ; confessed that they 
 had an imperfect language and that they 
 could not write as well as they could speak 
 When done his record, he asked that men 
 might read the book with chanty in their 
 hen ts, and not condemn it on account of 
 finding some fault; and then the writer 
 g es on and says : " If there are faults they 
 are the mistakes of men ; but I know of n'o 
 faults." He then exhorts not to condemn 
 the things that are of God. This is the 
 honestly declared statement of the writer 
 
 As I examine these objections it becomes 
 more and more apparent that brother Bra- 
 den has not made any criticism on the Book 
 of Mormon yet that will stand the test of 
 examination ; neither will he. That you 
 may see how much his assertions are worth, 
 
 just note the fact that he said, on the last 
 evening of the discussion, that the word 
 "Jew" was not known to Bible writers 
 until after the Jewish captivity. In II 
 Kings, xvi. 6, the King of " Syria drove the 
 Jews from Elath." This was about 742years 
 before Christ, and 120 years before the Jew- 
 ish captivity. The word Jew is found in 
 Jeremiah xxxiv. 9, 590 years before Christ, 
 and long before the return of the Jews from 
 their captivity. The word was in use 710 
 y ;ars before Christ, in the time of Hezekiah, 
 King of Judah, II Chron., chap, xxxii. 18. 
 1 1 was applied to all Israelites 580 years be- 
 fore Christ. Dan. viii. 12. 
 
 Again, he asserts as an objection to the 
 Book of Mormon that it speaks of stel and 
 its uses, and that the Jews knew nothing 
 of steel , that it was not known in old Bible 
 times; only mentioned, he says, once, and 
 that in the Book of Job That should have 
 been enough to remove his objections . but 
 he is keen to find fault, and " a drowning 
 man will catch at straws " In 2 Saml 
 22*35, it is stated, "He teacheth my hands 
 to war , so that a bow of steel is broken in 
 my arms.' This was only 1018 years before 
 the time of Christ. The same thing occurs 
 in Psalms of David, chap. 18, v 34, as well 
 as in Job 20 24 ; and this is said to be the 
 oldest book in the Bible 
 
 My opponent does far better with hli 
 stories than he does in dealing with things 
 that can be tested right here in this discus- 
 sion If he wishes to succeed he had better 
 go on telling his yarns, and not undertake 
 to handle edged tools. 
 
 Again, he says, the Israelites did not! 
 make and write on plates which would have ' 
 been the case if Lehi could bring plates 
 from Jerusalem. Very true , now let us 
 see. In I Kings, 7 30 we are informed that 
 they made " Plates of brass." These 
 plates were used in building the temple, 
 and the 36th verse says : "Graved [engrav- 
 ed] cherubims, lioas and palm trees" on 
 them. In Exodus, 39: 3 we read: "They 
 did beat the gold into thin plates." They 
 wrote, or engraved, also on gold plates. 
 " And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold 
 and grave upon it like the gravings of a sig- 
 net, Holiness to the Lord!" That which 
 was the most highly prized, beautiful and 
 sacred they wrote on gold plates. Ex 28: 
 37, Ex, 39:30. They made a plate of pure 
 gold, and wrote upon it a writing like the 
 engraving of a signet, Holiness to the 
 Lord " The Israelites not only engraved 
 upon gold and brass plates, but also upon 
 stones of various kinds, see Ex.28 9. 11, 
 21. and 30* 6, 19 But working in brass and 
 iron commenced with Tubal-cain. Gen. 
 4 22, and the art of engraving on hard 
 substances was known 1700 years oefore 
 Christian era. See Gen. 38; 18, 25. 
 
 So much for his objection to the Book of 
 Mormon because they wrote on gold plates 
 and brass plates. 
 
 Again, he ridicules the Idea of God giv- 
 ing Lehi the " Liahona," or compass ; and 
 says that "one spinnel pointed the way 
 they should go ; the other the way they 
 
128 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 should not go," of course; but the record 
 eays nothing about the way they should 
 not go. He thinks they could not read a 
 writing on the spindle in a brass globe, but 
 the writing was on the spindle and they 
 could see the spindle. This is too marvelous 
 a story for my opponent to believe ; but he 
 can swallow Jonah and the whale and then 
 be ready for more like it. He can believe 
 that God wrote the tables of the law and 
 went before the Israelites and fed them on 
 manna for 40 years ; when they got hungry 
 for fresh meat God would send a shower of 
 quails, and when they were thirsty the 
 water would roll out of a dry rock to quench 
 their thirst. He can gaze with delight and 
 the utmost rapture at the spring of water 
 as it gushed from the jaw-bone of an ass 
 in Samson's hand, and drink them all in 
 and then think them but common things, 
 and still be ready for more like it. But 
 when the Book of Mormon claims that God 
 guided the Jaredites and the Nephites by 
 miracle it is not to be believed ; it is all one 
 of Joe Smith's fables gotten up to deceive. 
 Whether Smith stole this part of the Book 
 of Mormon, (the big stories), from the 
 Campbellites or not, remains to be proven 
 along with the rest. Now there is not as 
 astounding and miraculous things stated in 
 the Book of Mormon as there is in the 
 Biblo; yet, my opponent objects to the 
 Book of Mormon because it states that God 
 by miracle aided the people who came to 
 this continent, notwithstanding the huge 
 miraculous accounts that are to be found in 
 t"fie book which he admits to be true. 
 
 Nephi does not say, as asserted by my 
 pponent, that he made plates in the wilder- 
 ness where there was no ore ; but that after 
 they had arrived at the promised land they 
 found " ore of gold," aud here lie made his 
 
 first plates. So much for his statement 
 that they made plates out of nothing. 
 
 He objects to the Book of Mormon because 
 the word church is used in it before the 
 Christian era. Church means an assembly 
 of worshippers. The Book of Mormon is a 
 translation into English. No matter what 
 an assembly of a like kind may have been 
 called in old time it would be called a 
 a church when translated into English. 
 Besides Stephens says, Acts, 7: 38 that t* >re 
 w.is a "Church in the wilderness," iir \ie 
 time of Moses. He objects to the Boa of 
 Mormon because it says the gospel is 
 preached on this continent before the tiue 
 of Christ. It was preached to Abraham, 
 Gal. 3 8, and to Moses and the Israelites, 
 Heb. 4: 2. He objects to the Book of Mor- 
 mon because the Nephites professed to have 
 the Holy Ghost before Pentecost Day ; and 
 said the Holy Ghost was not given until af- 
 ter Jesus was glorified. Peter says "Proph- 
 esy came not in old times by the will of 
 man, but holy men of God spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter, 
 2:21. This Holy Ghost inspired all of 
 the prophets and saints from Adam to 
 Christ ; why not the Nephites? After 
 Christ commenced his ministry on earth, 
 his disciples were not to receive the Holy 
 Ghost until after the ascension. He says : 
 "If I go not away the Comforter will not 
 come." 
 
 While he was in the world he was the es- 
 pecial light of the people. That is the way it 
 was, Mr. Braden. There is noclash herewith 
 the Book of Mormon. The Holy Ghost and 
 the gospel were enjoyed before the Savior's 
 ministry on earth, and they kept the law of 
 Moses, also. 
 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 
 MR BRADEN'S TWELFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTI/EMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GEN - ! -M.;N. On page 234 we have a de- 
 scription of many kinds of coin, and some 
 of them were very large. Why have we 
 never found any of these coins in America? 
 In ruins in the old world millions of coins 
 have been found. Why not on this con- 
 tinent V 
 
 On page 235 a Nephite preacher solves all 
 the disputes of modern theon gy concerning 
 the resurrection, and 100 years '.eiMt?\ hrist. 
 Men may differ in their interpretation of 
 of the general truths taught by Christ and 
 his apostles, but there can be no dispute 
 over the minute, dogmatical revelations of 
 the Nephite prophet, who, stransre to say, 
 
 gives by inspiration the exact ideas of Rig- 
 don 1800 years before Rigdon lived to 
 preach them. 
 
 " N'OW there is a death which is called a temporul 
 ' dewb and the death of Christ shall loose all bonds 
 of this temporal dvath, that all shall be raised from 
 this temporal death. The sp rit and the body shall 
 b<- re united again in its perfect form, both limb and 
 joint shall be restored t-uts propei form, even as they 
 ' now are at this time, and shall be brongh to stand 
 ' before the bar of God, knowing as we now know." 
 
 There, that settles the vexed question in 
 favor of a literal resurrection. God inspired 
 the Nephite Amalek, long before the birth 
 of Christ, to explain the ressurrectipn and 
 temporal death and spiritual death, just as 
 Rigdon believed. 
 On page 238 a soul-sleeper is silenced with 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Rigdon's ideas on eschatology. On page 
 289 we have the modern term '-Dissenter" 
 a word never used until men dissented 
 from the creed and practice of the church 
 of .England. On the page we have a de- 
 scription of Episcopalians, and the Lord's 
 day is mentioned. This is followed by 
 pages of preaching in which nearly every 
 idea of modern theology, even the most 
 abstruse, is discussed and settled in a 
 manner that utterly eclipses the general 
 teachings of Christ and his apostles; and 
 what is more miraculous, these Nephites 
 always agree exactly with Rigdon's theology 
 In their revelations. On page 280 we have 
 the Church of God described, and it is de- 
 scribed as having perfect Christian teaching 
 concerning topics the New Testament de- 
 clares were mysteries until revealed by 
 Christ and his apostles. On page 326 we 
 read: 
 
 "He prayed for blessings of Christ to rest on the 
 'brethren so long as there should be a band of Chris- 
 ' tinns to possess the land, for thus were all true 
 'believers of Christ, who belonged to the Church of 
 'God called by those who did not belong to the 
 'Church. And those who belonged to the Church 
 'were fxithful, yea all those who were true believers 
 * of Christ, took upon them gladlv the name of Christ 
 'or Christians as they were called, because of their 
 belief in Christ." 
 
 The New Testament declares that the 
 disciples of Christ were first called " Chris- 
 tians" at Antioch over one hundred years 
 after the Book of Mormon declares they 
 were called Christians universally in 
 America. 
 
 I wish now to call attention to one of 
 those little things that speak volumes. 
 There was ft difference of opinion among 
 the co-adjutors of Campbell concerning 
 what should be the name of the followers 
 of Christ. Campbell, Sheppard and others 
 insisted that they should be called "Discip- 
 les of Chris*." Walter Scott and others 
 insisted that they should be called "Chris- 
 tians," and that the Church should be 
 called "the Church of God" or "Church of 
 Christ." Rigdon agreed with Scott. Ob- 
 serve that bis ideas are repeated several 
 times in the above extract. By inserting 
 into his stole?? manuscript his ideas, he con- 
 tradicted the New Testament concerning 
 the time the name Christian was first given 
 and made his "big thing" a tissue of ab- 
 surdities. According to the Book of Mormon 
 there were great numbers of Churches of 
 God and multitudes of Christians hundreds 
 of years before Christ came. They had 
 a perfect knowledge of his Gospel and the 
 most abstruse ideas of modern theology, 
 all settled by revelation, long before Christ; 
 and the most singular fact is that the Lord 
 Agreed with Rigdon in all of these revela- 
 tions that he gave these highly favored 
 Nephites. How highly favored these old 
 prophets were in receiving, by inspiration 
 from God, all of Rigdon's theology 1800 
 years before the advent of Sidney. 
 
 We come now to another of those little 
 things that speak volumes. Rigdon as a 
 regular.Baptist prercher, had a bitter prej- 
 udice against all secret societies. In the 
 
 days of the anti-Masonic excitement of the 
 time extending from 1824-5 to 1834-5 Rig- 
 don was a rabid anti-Mason. On page 382 
 he gives the Masons a dig and airs his anti- 
 Masonic ideas. Gadianton and a band of 
 robbers have a Masonic lodge and act just 
 as anti-Masons said Masons acted. Again 
 on pages 365-6 he airs his anti-Masonic ideas. 
 A band of cutthroats have a secret society 
 with oaths, grips, signs, pass words, and 
 swear to protect, each other in crime. On 
 page 399 and on several pages following we 
 nave a repetition of Rigdon's anti-Masonio 
 ideas. Seriously, isthisthe work ofaNephite 
 before Christ, or is it the work of the anti- 
 Masons, Spaulding, Rigdon, or Smith one 
 or all of them? Page 474 a prophet tells the 
 Nephites that on the night our Savior Is 
 born it will be as light as day all night. 
 The sun will set and rise, but the light will 
 not be diminished in the least. The Bible 
 flatly contradicts such stuff*. On page 415 
 we are told again that the darkness at our 
 Savior's crucifixion will last three days. 
 The Bible says three hours. Page 422 we 
 are told that it remained as light as mid-day 
 (Sidney never does things by halves) all 
 one night and a star was seen, the night 
 our Savior was born. What sort of a star 
 could be seen in mid-daylight we are not 
 told. Perhaps all the Nephites had peep 
 stones and looked into their hats and saw 
 the star. For some years Gadianton 's wicked 
 Masons vex the righteous anti- Masonic Ne- 
 phites terribly but at last the righteous anti- 
 Masons prevail and exterminate these vile 
 Sons of Darkness the Masons and righteous- 
 ness prevails all over the land as the result. 
 Page 431 Mormon, who informs us that he 
 is a fully developed Christian, says that he 
 cannot write all that he wants to write be- 
 cause of the imperfection of the language. 
 The Almighty has inspired a man to engrave 
 a revelation on brass plates and suddenly 
 finds himself balked by the imperfection of 
 the language that he has in his ignorance 
 chosen. As the Mormon God is not infin- 
 ite he might make such a blunder. Then 
 follows a description of the three days of 
 darkness, and Hdney just cavorts on 
 King Ahasuerus's horse in depicting 
 the horrors of that time, that ac- 
 cording to the Bible never was. After 
 this was heard the voice of our Savior, 
 and it was heard over all North America. 
 Sidney's miracles are always something 
 worth while; none of your little miracles 
 such as the Son of God wrought in Pales- 
 tine,nothingbutsky-splittingand universe- 
 shaking miracles will do for Sidney. Then 
 a small voice not a loud voice is heard 
 that pierces their frames and causes their 
 hearts to burn ; and our Savior, speaking in 
 this small voice, says to the Nephites on 
 this continent, "I am the Alpha and the 
 Omega." Let the reader stop fora moment 
 and think of the absurdity of the Son of 
 God saying to Nephites on this continent, 
 who knew nothing at all about the Greeks 
 or their language, *' I am the Alpha and the 
 Omega," the first and the last letter of the 
 Greek alphabet. He might as well have 
 
180 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 used the first and last letters of the Chero- 
 kee alphabet. 
 
 After this our Savior, who had been res- 
 urrected at Jerusalem, appears on this con- 
 tinent and preaches one of Sidney Rigdon's 
 discourses to them, and commands them to 
 use Sidney Rigdon's baptismal formula, 
 "Having authority given me of Jesus Christ 
 I baptize you in the name of the Father and 
 of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." By the 
 way, Sidney dropped the Disciple peculiar- 
 ity of saying "Spirit" instead of "Ghost," 
 and went back to his old Baptist formula. 
 Who is such a simpleton as to believe that 
 our Savior visited America after his ascen- 
 sion into heaven, in violation of the New 
 Testament that declares his next coming 
 after his ascension will be at the end of his 
 dispensation ; that his mission was to preach 
 one of Sidney Rigdon's sermons to the 
 aborigines of America, and to give as the 
 law of heaven, by solemn revelation of the 
 glorified Son of God, that they must use Rig- 
 don's baptismal formula. On page 444 we 
 have one of Rigdon's idiotic extravaganzas. 
 Our Saviour commanded doubting Thomas 
 to thrust his fingers into the nail prints in his 
 hands and feet, and into the side that had 
 been pierced. Such a simple natural affair 
 as that would not do for the hifalutin spread- 
 eagle glorifier of King Ahasuerus' horse. 
 He tells us' that the entire multitude went 
 forth and each thrust his fingers into the 
 nail prints in his hands, into his feet, and 
 into his pierced side. We learn from a fol- 
 lowing page that there were at least 2,500 
 of them. It would be very rapid work for 
 a person to go up and put a finger in to a 
 nail print in each hand, each foot, and into 
 the pierced side, in fifteen seconds. Sup- 
 pose they did the work as expeditiously as 
 that, it took ten hours and twenty minutes 
 to go through this farce. The Son of God 
 came down from heaven, stood ten mortal 
 hours while 2,500 persons filed past him, 
 thrusting fingers into a nail print in each 
 hand, each foot, and into his pierced side. 
 Our humorous papers used to have cartoons 
 caricaturir? Grant's hand-shaking when he 
 shook hands with a few hundred for an 
 hour or two; but this "beats Grant." If 
 those who raised the cry " Any tning to beat 
 Grant" had called on Sidney he could have 
 beat him all hollow and not half tried. 
 
 Our Saviour, after this idiotic tomfoolery 
 is finished, delivers a discourse made of 
 badly arranged scraps of his discourses re- 
 corded in the New Testament. We cannot 
 say that his glorification has improved his 
 revelations. Rigdon can tell bigger yarns 
 than the truthful history of the New Tes- 
 tament, but when it comes to making revela- 
 tions that is another thing. It is to be ob- 
 served that our Saviour follows King 
 James' version. Even the obsolete English 
 words, style, and mistranslations are fol- 
 lowed exactly. He appoints twelve apos- 
 tles and Nephi baptizes himself, and then 
 the eleven, and the scenes of Pentecost are 
 outdone. Jesus did not come back from 
 heaven on the day of Pentecost, but poured 
 out the Holy Spirit. But then Sidney's 
 
 Nephites were always far above their breth- 
 ren back in Palestine. Our Saviour exam- 
 ines Nephi's plates, so as to have everything 
 fixed for Imposter Joe, and corrects one 
 error. The plates did not contain the pro- 
 phecy that the multitudes would arise in 
 America at our Saviour's resurrection. The 
 Nephites admit that the prophet did say 
 so, and declare that prophecy had been ful- 
 filled. Observe, again, how these Nephites 
 of Sidney outdo their brethren in Pala- 
 tine. In Palestine a few arise at the cruci- 
 fixion ; in America great multitudes at the 
 resurrection of Jesus. We have then a spe- 
 cimen of Mormon extravagance of ignor- 
 ance. Our Saviour in rebuking Peter, tells 
 him that if he were to order that John 
 should remain on earth till his second coin- 
 ing, it is no concern of his, and that he is to 
 attend to his own work. John further de- 
 clares that our Saviour did not say that he 
 should remain. Here was something that 
 just suited Mormon ignorance and folly. 
 Rigdon makes our Saviour tell three Neph- 
 ites that they shall never see death, and re- 
 main till he comes avain. Sidney's Nephites 
 are blessed again above all others. There 
 is no doubt here. Our Saviour says three 
 shall remain instead of one. He bestows a 
 boon he did not bestow upon his beloved 
 disciple John. Imposter Joe and Oliver 
 Cowdery have a revelation, on parchment- 
 from John that he did not die, and did re, 
 main on earth, in flat contradiction of God's 
 word. Just such silly wonders as these are 
 what Mormonism feeds on. The book closes 
 with a prophecy of the coming forth of the 
 Book of Mormon, and denounces fearful 
 woes on-all who do not receive the tomfool- 
 eries of Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spauld- 
 ing and Imposter Joe. 
 
 The Book of Nephi, the son of Nephi, ia 
 an unimportant one. It tells us on page 481 
 that masonry revived, and that Satan was 
 let loose and iniquity did fearfully abound. 
 Sidney must have been exceedingly malig- 
 nant against the Masons. Moroni takes up 
 Mormon's work and he informs us that 
 Masonry shall be prevalent when the Book 
 of Mormon appears; and that churches 
 shall be worldly and proud and that it will 
 be a time of unmeasured apostacy. Above 
 all men shall deny that miracles and revela- 
 tions are possible. Then Sidney goes for 
 the Disciples who would not accept the 
 Baptist idea of a direct and miraculous 
 influence of the Holy Spirit. We have 
 Sidneys ideas for several pages and one of 
 hia exhortations in his most approved camp 
 meeting style. 
 
 We find another of these incidental mat- 
 ters that expose the fraud in this Book of 
 Mormon. WP Have proved that c-paulding 
 wrote several ma mscripts. To his second 
 Mormon man. script he added the emigra- 
 tion of the Z.arahemlites, closing his 
 manuscript with the book called the " Rook 
 of Mormon." He very appropriately haa 
 Moroni declare that he finishes the record 
 of his father; and that he has only a few 
 things to write, a few things that his father 
 has commanded him to write on *he fe\;r 
 
THE BRADEN ANP KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 131 
 
 pages left on the plates. He declares his 
 father made the record and declares its 
 intent. He then says he would write more 
 if he had room on the plates but he cannot 
 for the plates are full and he has no ore to 
 make any more and is alone. He then adds 
 the few pages he declared he would and the 
 book appropriately closes. 
 
 When Spaulding went to Pittsburg, at 
 Patterson's request. he rewrote the romance, 
 writing Mormon Manuscript No. Ill, and 
 adding the Jaredite portion. He overlooked 
 this language of Moroni, with which he 
 had appropriately closed the Manuscript 
 No. II. and as the Book of Mormon now 
 stands, Moroni wrote 56 pages the whole 
 of the Jaredite portion, no nothing, for his, 
 plates were full, and he could write no 
 more. That one blunder is enough to con- 
 tisrxm this fraud. 
 
 la this Jaredite Portion, written on noth- 
 ing, and with nothing as a basis for it, we 
 havo a wonderful series of stories. Mor- 
 mon Has buried all the plates except "these 
 few plates." that he handed to Moroni, the 
 Plates of E\her with the rest years before. 
 Where did Mo/oni get the plates of Ether 
 to use in writing the 56 pages he wrote 
 on nothing? He wiote on nothing and had 
 nothing to write. The Book of Ether says 
 that the speech of tha Jaredites was not 
 confounded at Babsl. The Bible declares 
 that the speech of all mankind was con- 
 founded. If time would permit we could 
 multiply almost indefinitely such contra- 
 dictions. We will now give an idiotic 
 caricature of the history of iN"oah and the 
 aark and defy anyone, outside, or ixiside of a 
 lunatic asylum to equal it. North took eight 
 persons into the ark. Jared took with him 
 twenty-two grown persons and thfeir fami- 
 lies. Noah took with him into ths ark. at 
 most, two of all animals and fowls that 
 could not subsist in or on the water: 
 Jared took two of all animals and fowia, 
 swarms of bees and wonder of wonders, 
 two of all kinds of fishes and all kinds of 
 seeds. Sidney never does things by halves. 
 Jared was to take food and water for this 
 large company of persons, for all his fowls, 
 and fishes, and flowers for his 'bees. If the 
 cubit used was the sacred cubit, as was 
 doubtless the case, the ark was 60 feet, long, 
 100 feet wide, and 60 feet high. Jared built 
 eight cigar shaped canoes, and each was 
 small, set light ou the water, was sharply 
 pointed at each end, and as tight as a 
 dish, for we are told "the top thereof 
 "was as tight as a dish, and the sides 
 "thereof was as tight as a dish, and the 
 11 bottom therefore was as tight as a dish." 
 Each of these barges was tiie length of a 
 tree and not more than 75 feet. Since the 
 ends were sharply pointed, the ark would 
 hold as much as 2000 such barges or 250 
 fleets of such barges. All kinds of animals 
 could enter the ark; there were many that 
 could not enter one of those canoes. 
 Noah was told to have a system of 
 windows in the ark tor that is the 
 meaning of the Hebrew word. Jared 
 made his as tight as a dish. He took 
 
 into thee oight canoes, sharply pointed at 
 each end, not longer than a tree, twenty- 
 two grown persons with their families, two 
 of all kinds of animals, two of all kinds of 
 fowls, two of all kinds of fishes, swarms of 
 bees, and food and water for all for 3-14 
 days, and then shut down the door. No 
 wonder he halloed to the Lord for Jight and 
 air, shut up with such a crowd in a tight 
 little canoe, as tight as the inside of a jug 
 with the cork in. 
 
 The Lord finds that he has made a mis- 
 take in ordering Jared to make the canoes 
 after the Divine pattern. He seems to have 
 forgotten that animal life needu light and 
 air. How does he remedy it? With infi- 
 nite wisdom he tells Jared to knock a hole 
 in the top and another in the bottom of each 
 barge. Now, being an unbelieving Gen- 
 tile, and not a spiritually enlightened and 
 inspired Mormon, I can see that the hole in 
 the top would let in the air and light, if it 
 was big enough, and it would let in water 
 and drown them all in a storm also, but for 
 the life of me I cannot see what that hole 
 in the bottom was for, unless it was to let 
 in water and drown them. With ordinary 
 mortals, holes in the bottom of such heavily 
 loaded canoes would send every soul of 
 them to "Davy Jones's Locker" quicker 
 than you could say Jack Robinson, with 
 your mouth ready puckered, as the Yan- 
 kee expressed it. 
 
 But something like Mormon inspiration 
 seizes me ; I see it all as clear as mud. An 
 Irishman's boots had holes in the toes. 
 Pat sagely cut a hole in each heel. When 
 asked what that was done for, he replied. 
 "Why, to let the wather out at the hael 
 when it comes in at the toe, sure." As 
 Jared's canoes were to go plunging and 
 diving through the water, much of the time 
 under water, the hole at the bottom was to 
 tet the water run out, when it ran in at the 
 top. Having provided ventilation on the 
 most approved scientific principles, and hav- 
 ing guarded, in the most scientific manner, 
 agramst drawing by the water let in at tho 
 ventilating hole, the Lord then provides light 
 foi t N hem,and his mistakes are all corrected. 
 "And Jared did moulten out of a rock" 
 (shades of Johnson, whatEnglish)! "sixteen 
 small stones, and they were all clear 
 like glajs ' another scientific discovery 
 glass at ih-s time of Babel. He brought 
 them to thfc Lord, and the Lord touched 
 them with hfs finger, and immediately 
 they let out a tlood of light, and Jared did 
 not have to use kerosene, and he was inde- 
 pendent of the SUkd*rd Oil Company. Jared 
 placed one of these stones in each end of each 
 canoe, and the Lord jnd Jared got out of 
 all of these scrapes ex<>ept one small mys- 
 tery. How did the Lord *nd Jared get sev- 
 eral times as much as Notth took into the 
 ark into less than one two hundred and 
 fiftieth part of the space, and how did they 
 get into one of these canoes, anunuls that 
 must have been much taller than a canoe 
 was deep ; and then what about thai big 
 tank of fish, or did the fish get along with- 
 out water to live in, and were then takon 
 
182 
 
 1'HE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 into the canoes to save them from bein<* 
 drowned? But then such questions will 
 spoil . the best revelations in the world, 
 even the revelations of Sidney Rigdon. 
 Two of the stones mentioned above were 
 the stone interpreters of Jared's brother, 
 and imposter Joe found them with the 
 plates buried by Moroni, although Moroni 
 never had them, and never buried them, 
 and no Nephite ever saw them, and they 
 were never to come forth until the Gentiles 
 were all converted. 
 
 On page 509 Moroni prophecies that the 
 one who finds these plates shall show them 
 to three persons. Joe showed them to eleven. 
 David YVhitmer, says Moroni, showed them 
 to his mother, and Emma Smith says she 
 saw them for days on the table and handled 
 them only covered with a thin cloth, and, 
 strange daughter of Eve that she was, she 
 never "peeked" under that cloth. With 
 all our respect for the "Elect Lady" we can 
 not swallow such a miracle as that. On the 
 same page we have this balderdash " Jared's 
 brothers did put forth these stones into the 
 vessels which were prepared, one into each 
 end thereof, and behola they did give light 
 unto the vessels thereof." "Thereof" 
 means of it or of them. The vessels thereof 
 then means the vessels of the ends, for that 
 must be what "thereof" refers to. Such 
 balderdash as that is the "Fullness of the 
 Gospel," given by inspiration the fullest 
 inspiration man has ever known, was pre- 
 served by miracle, revealed by miracle, 
 and given to the world, word by word, so 
 precious is it, by direct miracle of Almighty 
 God. Who dares to stand up and blaspheme 
 the Almighty by such an assertion ? 
 
 At last the 'Jaredites set sail. Their 
 canoes wers in the depths of the sea, far 
 under the water, and not a drop of water 
 ran in through these two holes, one in the 
 top and the other in the bottom of each 
 canoe, and they had air with these holes 
 under the water. Bah! Let us stop! If, 
 as Imposter Joe tells us, God saves the 
 world by folly, there is idiocy enough in 
 that one scrap of Mormon "P'uilness of the 
 Gospel" to eternally save a whole universe 
 of Mormons. 
 
 On page 514 we are told that Masonry 
 broke out among the Jaredites and of course 
 Satan was let loose. We have a combina- 
 tion of Herodias and Tullia, Herod and 
 Tarquin. Jared, a murderous conspirator, 
 promises the hand of his wicked daughter 
 to Akish if he would bring him the head of 
 the king, Jared's father. Akish starts 
 Masonry among the Jaredites to accomplish 
 bis infamous purpose, and then "they all 
 did swear unto Akish, by the God of 
 Heaven, and also by the heavens, and also 
 by the earth ; and also by their own heads," 
 ( What a fearful job of cussing they did do), 
 "that who should vary from the assistance 
 that Akish desired" (what English) "should 
 lose his head, aud whoso should divulge 
 what Akish made known unto them, the 
 same should lose his life." Ordinary 
 mortals would suppose that when a man 
 loses his head, he lost his life ; but then 
 
 Mormon inspiration is a wonderful thing. 
 The difference between losing his head and 
 losing his life is as great as the Irish Justice 
 of the Peace discovered when he declared, 
 "It makes all the differ in the wurruld, in 
 the eyes of the law, whether he said, 'Come 
 out of the hoos McCarty,' or 'McCarty come 
 out of the hoos.' " "And Akish did admin- 
 ister unto them the oaths which were given 
 to them of old, who also sought power, 
 which had been handed down even from 
 Cain, who was a murderer from the begin- 
 ning." There you have it Cain was the 
 first Mason! "And they were kept up by 
 the power of the devil," ( The devil origin- 
 ated the first Masonic Lodge) "to administer 
 those oaths unto the people and keep them 
 in darkness, to help such as sought power, 
 to gain power and to murder and to plunder 
 and to lie and to commit all manner of 
 wickedness and whoredoms. Now it was 
 the daughter of Jared who put it into his 
 heart to search up these things of old. and 
 Jared put it into the heart of Akish, where- 
 fore Akish administered it unto his kindred 
 and friends, leading them away by fair 
 promises, to do whatever he desired, and 
 it came to pass that they formed a secret 
 combination, even as they of old, which 
 combination is most abominable and wicked 
 above all things in the sight of the Lord." 
 There Masons put that in your pipes and 
 smoke it. The Lord is not a Mason, "for 
 the Lord worketh not in secret combin- 
 ations." "Neither doth he will that man 
 should shed blood, but in all things hath 
 forbidden it from the beginning of men." 
 The Lord is an anti-Mason, and don't you 
 forget it. 
 
 " And I, Moroni, do not write the manner 
 of their oaths and combinations." He is not 
 a Morgan, then, "for it hath been made 
 known unto me they are had among all 
 people and they are had among the Laman- 
 ites, and they have caused the destruction 
 of this people of whom I am writing, and 
 also the destruction of the Nephites." 
 What an awful thing this Masonry has 
 been, and now listen : " Whatsoever nation 
 shall uphold such secret combinations to 
 get power and gain, until they spread over 
 the land, behold they shall be destroyed, 
 for the Lord will not suffer the blood of his 
 saints shall be shed by them ; they shall al- 
 ways cry unto him from the ground for ven- 
 geance upon them, and yet he avenge them 
 not." Now listen, Masons: "Wherefore, 
 O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God thai 
 these things snail be shown unto you, and 
 that thereby ye may repent of your sins 
 and suffer not that these murderous combi- 
 nations shall get above you which are built 
 up to get power and gain, and the work, 
 even the work of destruction shall come 
 upon you, even the sword of Justice of the 
 Eternal God shall fall upon you." Won't 
 they catch it, though ! ! "To your over- 
 throw and destruction if you shall suffer 
 these things to be, wherefore God com- 
 mandeth you when you shall see these 
 things come among you that you shall 
 awake to a sense of your awful condition " 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 133 
 
 one of Rigdon's revival expressions "be- 
 cause of this secret combination which 
 shall be among you all. Woe be unto it, 
 because of the blood of them that hath been 
 slain, for they cry for vengeance upon it, 
 and also upon those who built it up, for it 
 cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up 
 seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all 
 lands, nations and countries." The anti- 
 Mason rant of 1825 to 1830. " And it bring- 
 eth to pass the destruction of all people, for 
 it is built up by the devil." There, Masons, 
 you have it the devil is the founder of 
 Masonry, and Cain was the first Mason! 
 "Who 'is the father of all lies." There, 
 Masons, that cooks the Masonic goat to a 
 cinder! ! 
 
 Page 517 King Heth turns Mason, and, 
 of course, plots to murder some one. Page 
 522 Masonry breaks out in a new spot and 
 
 Satan is let loose of course. In all there 
 were over a score of stabs at Masonry, cov- 
 ering several pages. Every charge made 
 against Masonry in the years 1825 to 1830 \a 
 reiterated several times. When we learn 
 from Mrs. Spaulding that Spaulding was & 
 rabid anti-Mason, and remember that Rig- 
 don, a regular Baptist preacher, was fanat- 
 ically opposed to secret societies and was a 
 ranting anti-Mason, and that Smith was an 
 anti-Mason, all this rant and abuse is just 
 what is to be expected. But who is such a 
 sodden fool as to believe that Israelites, in 
 the wilds of America, 1400 years before the 
 anti-Masonic excitement in the United 
 States, uttered repeatedly all the anti- Ma- 
 sonic abuse of Masonry ? 
 
 This one feature is enough to condemn 
 the claim of the Book of Mormon and to 
 expose it as a transparent fraud. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S THIRTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : The Spaulding story upon 
 examination has been fully shown to be a 
 ftory; a wonderfully large one, too, for its 
 time. That thing was thoroughly answered 
 and put to shame by Sidney Rigdon as early 
 as January, 1836. His slaughter of that 
 through a published article in the Messen- 
 ger and Advocate, a paper printed here in 
 Kirtland, was sufficient to put all honest 
 men at the time upon their guard. Mr. 
 iligdon showed that there was not only no 
 truth in the general statement connecting 
 him with Joseph Smith and the publication 
 of the Book of Mormon, but further, that 
 each and every one of the statements and 
 allegations said to have been made by the 
 parties (the very same ones Braden has 
 brought up and cited as his witnesses in 
 this discussion) were false. This was long 
 prior to the death of Mr. Patterson, the 
 Presbyterian preacher, in Pittsburg, whom 
 Mr. Rigdon, in his letter of 1839, refers to 
 as not lending himself "to the infamous 
 plot to blacken his [Rigdon's] character." 
 A man of no sympathies in common with 
 the Latter Day Saints, and whom Rigdon's 
 enemies had held out as the one to whom 
 Spaulding delivered his manuscript for pub- 
 lication in Pittsburg, and as knowing cer- 
 tain things connecting Rigdou with the ro- 
 mance manuscript. But these persons never 
 get his (Patterson's) statement, although 
 he lived twenty years after they had started 
 the story, and eighteen j'ears after it had 
 lieeu publicly challenged and put to shame 
 
 by the Saints. However, Wm. Small, of 
 Camden, N. J., in the meantime, goes to 
 this same Patterson in Pittsburg, and he 
 makes affidavit to the fact that he never 
 knew anything about such a manuscript as 
 these parties had told about. But this don't 
 in the least dash these story-tellers ; they 
 lie low for a time till Patterson dies ; and 
 then, like them of old who said to the sol- 
 diers, " Say that his disciples came and 
 stole him away by night while we slept," 
 they revive and start other theories in order 
 to carry out their nefarious work. 
 
 If it was so easy in the first century to 
 get the guard to lie with reference to the 
 resurrection of Jesus, after they had beheld 
 the heavenly messenger and had fallen 
 back as dead men, would it be remarkable 
 that in the nineteenth century men would 
 be able to get parties to spin falsehoods, to 
 fill up the measure of crime as to this 
 Spaulding tale? 
 
 But these fair and full denials of this 
 story were made when the professed ''Man- 
 uscript Found," was in the hands of Howe 
 at Painesville, only nine miles away from 
 Kirtland and consequently, while' there 
 was access to the first, and only sufficient 
 evidence they ever had for such a story, if 
 ever such a story had existed in fact ; and 
 with the challenge of the truth of the story 
 in tneir very faces, and a demand made for 
 the proof, by one of the men assailed, too, 
 with others, and in the very midst of the 
 parties who claimed to know, Hulburt and 
 Howe and these men, (said to be witnesses), 
 
134 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 fail to put forth a single statement that can 
 in any view of the case be looked upon as 
 evidence, burned the manuscript they had 
 received of Spaulding, s admitted by them- 
 selves and began in an underhanded and 
 insidious manner to publish their stories 
 through the ready newspapers for such 
 things, and in 1840, after the Saints were 
 far away from this part of the country, in 
 the States of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa, 
 Howe gets out his slanderous and disrepu- 
 table work of " Mormonism Unveiled," or 
 "History of the Mormons." 
 
 This was four years after Sidney Rigdon 
 through the Kirtland publication had 
 shown the falsity of the story ; one year 
 after his letter in the "Boston Journal," 
 which played such havoc among the des- 
 poilers of his good name ; one year after 
 the full and clear examination and plain 
 contradiction of the story by Parley P. 
 Pratt, in the New Era, a New York paper; 
 and five years after the story had been pub- 
 licly met and put to shame in various parts 
 of the United States and Canada, by the 
 elders of the Saints, and notwithstanding 
 all of this, Howe and Robert Patterson, 
 this last a little fellow now livingover here 
 at Pittsburg (who would like to do some- 
 thing to destroy the faith of the Saints, if 
 he only could rake up something to do,) 
 brazenly put out for the truth, the state- 
 ment that their story was never denied till 
 just lately. Men who will deliberately or 
 ignorantly make such false claims as these, 
 and ask you to believe them, cannot be re- 
 lied upon in any feature of the case by hon- 
 est men. Before a person publishes a thing 
 as true, he should know it to be such, and 
 he cannot justify himself afterwards upon 
 the ground, or plea of ignorance. 
 
 Another point do not forget. All the 
 time, from 1834 to 1840, this same Howe had 
 the Spaulding manuscript in his hands, and 
 at the same time he had it in his hands, 
 Mesdames Davidson and McKinstry, the 
 widow and daughter of Solomon Spauld- 
 ing, were claiming it was in fact, the genuine 
 article that Spauldiug wrote ; the "MANU- 
 SCRIPT FOUND." And Howe writes Mrs. 
 Davidson a letter in the meantime, saying, 
 "It did not read as we expected, and we 
 did not use it ;" but never the once hints 
 that it was the wrong manuscript, or not 
 the "Manuscript Found," as claimed by 
 these parties, who were the only persons 
 under the sun wno could possibly tell 
 whether it was the "Manuscript found' 1 or 
 not. 
 
 He never once in his letter to them asks 
 If they did not have another manuscript 
 some where of Spaulding's, or if they had 
 any means of telling whether he had the 
 right one; or whether Hulburt had played 
 off on him and given him the wrong one. 
 No ; Howe knew he had the Spaulding 
 Manuscript in his possession, and that story 
 in his control, with all advantage in his 
 favor ; and as the coward that strikes down 
 his innocent victim at the time he thinks 
 no whisper of the deed can ever fall upon 
 mortal ear, so, brooding in jealousy and in- 
 
 cited through the lies and tales which had 
 been poured into his ready mind, he puts 
 forth his hand to consign to the past the 
 first and only evidence of this Spaulding 
 tale, while, with the weapons of false state- 
 ments and stories hawked about by the 
 vile and depraved, he essays to destroy an 
 innocent and noble people. 
 
 He knew at the time of his writing that he 
 ought to have a different class of evidence 
 to meet these things with and make good 
 his assertions than that which he had, and 
 he states in his book that he will furnish 
 depositions for this purpose, and which, he 
 says, "will sink these people." Oh! yes; 
 sink them; that was the object of Howe and 
 Hulbert ; but he fails, however, to publish, 
 or give in all of his writings or works, * 
 single deposition of any person whatever, 
 notwithstanding this boast. 
 
 But what does he do? Answer : 
 
 1. He publishes spurious, garbled, per- 
 verted and false things under the claim he 
 was making quotations from the works of 
 the Saints. 
 
 2. He publishes the questionable state- 
 ments of a few persons, the quoted state- 
 ments of two others' ; all of which are 
 positively contradicted by Mrs (Solomon 
 Spaulding) Davidson, Solomon Spaulaing's 
 daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, Sidjoey Rigdon, 
 Parley P. Pratt, and Patterson, the Presby- 
 terian preacher at Pittsburg; besides the 
 fact that they so clearly and unmistakably 
 bear upon the face the stamp of inconsist- 
 ency and falsehood. They hold the idea 
 throughout that these testifiers, who did 
 not pretend that they had heard of or seen 
 Spaulding's writing for more than twenty 
 years, were so familiar with a manuscript, 
 (which, to have been what they claim for it, 
 must have contained from fifteen hundred 
 to two thousand pages,) that they could, 
 after twenty years' lapse of time, give 
 names that were at the time strange and 
 new to them; and never spoken by them for 
 all of this time ; and other little things 
 which it is plain the copiers of the pre- 
 tended statements must have taken from 
 the Book of Mormon, as this was four years 
 after its publication, and done when they 
 have the book before them, this last fact 
 being clearly disclosed in the statements 
 themselves. 
 
 The absurdity, however, does not rest 
 alone upon all of these things ; but their 
 statements were emphatically, directly and 
 flatly contradicted by the manuscript then 
 in Howe's possession, and which claimed 
 for itself to be the one Spaulding said was 
 fonnd in a cave, and which was truly the 
 " MANUSCRIPT FOUND." 
 
 These statements so directly contradict- 
 ed, together with a few fraudulent affida- 
 vits which Hulburt got up in New York, 
 and which I have fully shown were fraud- 
 ulent, is the entire stock in trade of Mr. 
 Howe to form his basis of belief and cause 
 him to so severely and viciously attack the 
 faith of the Saints and make them appear 
 odious, except the bare disbelief of himself 
 in God, the Scriptures, and the fact that 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 135 
 
 there was any such thing in the universe of 
 God, or history of man, as the Holy Spirit, 
 in which the Saints believed and claimed 
 to rejoice. Ah! The secret is unfolded in 
 his own words: "I could betler believe 
 that Spaulding wrote it than Joe Smith saw 
 an angel." And so he wrote as Voltaire, 
 Hume and Thomas Paine from the stand- 
 point of his unbelief, without the honesty 
 of these others. I might introduce here as 
 cumulative evidence on this question the 
 additional statement of Mrs. McKinstry, 
 who had a better opportunity of knowing, 
 and did know the manuscript of her father 
 better, than either John or Martha Spauld- 
 ing and who as late as the year 1880, pub- 
 lished, (so stated by the compiler, Mrs. 
 Dickenseii), an affidavit in the Scribner 
 Monthly, still claiming and reaffirming that 
 thii H'ulburt did get the "Manuscript 
 Found." The statement of this Robert 
 Patterson, of Pittsburgh, who is trying to 
 find some terrible thing against the Saints, 
 to Hulburt 4 years ago, in the presence of 
 Mrs. Hulburt, "that his father, [Mr. Pat- 
 terson, the preacher,] always claimed that 
 he did not believe there was ever such a 
 manuscript as the parties claimed the 'MAN- 
 USCRIPT FOUND,' to be, about their printing 
 office in Pittsburgh." And notwithstand- 
 ing this, this same Robert Patterson, in 1882, 
 suppresses in his publication this claim of 
 his father, and gives the purported statement 
 as obtained from one, Rev. (?) Samuel Wil- 
 liams who wrote up a list ofstories for pub- 
 lication against the Saints, when the first 
 three lines of the statement clearly show 
 that it is a fraud, and that Patterson never 
 had anything to do with it whatever. It is 
 as follows : "R.Patterson had in his em- 
 ployment Silas Engles at the time, a fore- 
 man printer," etc., then, signed at the bot- 
 tom, "Robert Patterson." This is certain- 
 ly enough on this. 
 
 The statement of Mrs. Hulburt, made on 
 Tuesday, February 5th, 1884, I now submit 
 to you : She said that, 
 
 "Mr. Hulburt never obtained but one manuscript 
 from Mrs. Davison. That one he let E. D. Howe have. 
 When Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison let him have it. he 
 said he promised to return it; and when he let Howe 
 have it Howe promised to restore it to Mrs. Spanlding, 
 but he never did. Hulburt *pent about six mnths tinie 
 and a good deal of money looking up the Spaulding 
 manuscript and other evidence, but he was disappoint- 
 ed in not finding what he wanted. This was the rea- 
 eon he turned the whole thing over to Howe. He nev- 
 er was satisfied with what he found, and while on his 
 death-beil he would have givpn everything he had in 
 the world could he have been certain there was ever a 
 "Manuscript Found," as claimed, similar to the Book 
 of Mormon." 
 
 This is overwhelming proof, showing 
 there was never any such manuscript as 
 they claimed Spaulding wrote, and that 
 they got the quire of paper upon which he 
 did write. It is the confirming proof, too, 
 of Howe's guilt. Why did he not do as he 
 agreed, send the manuscript which he got 
 back to Mrs. Davidson? The reason is too 
 plain to be concealed for a moment. He is 
 eo anxious to have it destroyed that he vio- 
 lates his agreement to return "as soon as 
 used." Why did he not return it when "it 
 
 did not read as they expected," at the time 
 he wrote to Mrs. Davidson? 
 
 Shame on such trickery ! 
 
 I might also introduce the emphatic state- 
 ment of Mrs. Emma Smith, wife of Joseph 
 Smith the Seer. She positively states : 
 "That no acquaintance was formed between 
 Sidney Rigdon and the Smith family till 
 after the church was organized in the year 
 1830." "That neither" her husband nor 
 herself "ever saw Sidney Rigdon until long 
 after the Book of Mormon was in print." 
 This is the statement of one of the most 
 honored and esteemed ladies of Illinois, and 
 who, after the murder of her husband, con- 
 tinued a resident of the State, raising her 
 family, and departing this life but a short 
 time ago in a ripe age, loved by all who 
 knew her. Also the positive declaration of 
 David Whitmer, made at Richmond, Mo.. 
 April, 1882, in answer to a question asked 
 him in the presence of a number of persons, 
 by President Joseph Smith of Lamoni, la., to 
 which he gave this answer : "That the Rook 
 of Mormon was published long before Sidney 
 Rigdon was known to our (the witness), 
 family, or the Smiths ; that I know that the 
 story told of the Spaulding romance in con- 
 nection with the Book of Mormon is false." 
 
 I will, in this connection, again call your 
 attention to the affidavit of Mrs. Salisbury, 
 to which Braden was so hasty to speak of 
 last evening as being a lie, and therefore the 
 witness could not be believed. Let us ex- 
 amine it and see who lied. She says. 
 "That at the time of the publication of said 
 book, my brother, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived 
 in the family of my father in the town of 
 Manchester, Ontario county, N. Y." 
 
 That, you will not certainly say, is con- 
 tradicted. Now look at the next: 
 
 " That he had, all of his life to this time, 
 made his home with the family." 
 
 Do you say this is contradicted? Where 
 was his home to this time? Notice, she 
 does not say he was at home all the time, 
 but "made it his home with the family." 
 To the year 1827, he was a young man, and 
 his home was with the family, although he 
 at times worked away from home. There 
 are thousands of poor boys who have to Jo 
 this, and my observation of humanity tells 
 me that they are just about as apt to be 
 honorable and truthful as those who stay 
 at home and don't have any work to do ; or, 
 if they do have, do not do it. In this year 
 he gets married, (steals his wife, Braden 
 says,) although he was in his 22d year. ;uid 
 the lady he marries was in her 23d. Well. 
 it rather strikes my mind that she wanted 
 to be stolen. Besides, it is a proof that 
 their Campbellite preacher, Rigdon, did not 
 steal everything that came into Smith's 
 possession. 
 
 But Mr. Smith says in his history, that 
 after the marriage he went to his father's 
 and remained, living in the family a year 
 and farmed with his father. Here is his 
 home till 1828, certain, and without any 
 contradiction of any witnesses. And it is 
 certain from all, that all the time during 
 the year 1827 he was here in his father's 
 
I SB 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLER DEBATE. 
 
 family, and this is the time Tucker, Hul- 
 burt, etal., tried to fix, as the time when 
 the " Mysterious Stranger," (a wicked 
 falsehood deliberately made by them,) ap- 
 peared. Mrs. Salisbury and Mrs. Emma 
 Smith are both right upon the spot then, 
 and know who visit there, and no such 
 person as Sidney Rigdon or any other mys- 
 terious stranger, is about their place, or 
 visiting with Joseph Smith. Braden is 
 caught here and he knows it; that is the 
 reason he charges against the positive 
 knowledge and testimony of Mrs. Salis- 
 bury. 
 
 Mr. Smith receives the plates in Septem- 
 ber of this year, and a few months after he 
 got them, he was compelled through the 
 persecution of those who were trying to get 
 them from him, to go elsewhere for a time, 
 and he goes to his wife's father's place in 
 Pennsylvania: (the same from which they 
 say he stole his wife.) The lies of Smith's 
 enemies are so thick about this time that a 
 man in that country could hear anthing he 
 wanted to. While here also, the history 
 states: 
 
 " We had been threatened with being mobbed, from 
 time to time, and this too, by professors of religion. 
 And their intentions of mobbing us were only coun- 
 teracted by the influence of my wile's father's family, 
 (under divine Providence.) who had become very 
 friendlvtom'e, and who were opposed to mobs, and were 
 willinsr that I should continue the work of translation 
 without interruption ; and therefore, offered and prom- 
 ised us protection from all unlawful proceedings as 
 far as in them lay." 
 
 It will do well to think, my friends, of 
 the " Screen and blanket" stories, the 
 '/peep stones," the story he has told of 
 11 Smith being shut up in a cave," and all 
 such ridiculous stuff set afloat by the 
 " high-toned" gentlemen, who gave infor- 
 mation to Hulburt, Howe, Tucker, et al.; 
 and then, find him down at his wife's 
 father's, (Mr. Hale's), steadly and persist- 
 ently doing his work, right in the house of 
 those who did not believe with him and 
 who were terribly prejudiced against hia 
 work. 
 
 Here is where Oliver Cowdery visited him 
 and wrote for him, right in the house of Mr. 
 Hale for weeks from the 15th of April to 
 the 1st of June. About the 1st of June of 
 this year by reason of the continued and 
 increased persecution in the neighborhood 
 of his wife's father, he was compelled to go 
 to another place. This he found for a time 
 at a gentleman's by the name of Whitmer, 
 and from here he returned home to his 
 father's at Manchester, New York. The 
 records agree then. His home wasat his 
 father's, and he was here in 1829, when the 
 manuscript was given to the printer, and 
 remained till 1830, but in the spring of 1830 
 left Manchester and returned to Whitmer's. 
 What does the witness Mrs. Salisbury 
 say: 
 
 "That she knew the friends of the family and the 
 friends and acquaintances of Joseph Smith, her 
 brother, who visited at her father's house. That 
 prior to the letter part of the year 1830, there was no 
 person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, 
 or called upon the said family, or any member there- 
 of, to my knowledge, by the name of Sidney Rigdon." 
 
 Will you again Mr. Braden insult common 
 
 decency by saying she lied, and is contra- 
 dicted by all others? Or that she did not 
 tell the truth and the whole truth? Bring 
 forward some of your strong evidence, if you 
 have so much that is contradictory and let 
 us hear it read. This lady does not pretend 
 that she was with her brother all of this 
 time, every day or month. But that at her 
 father's house was her brother's home and 
 the place where he brought his friends ; was 
 there the greater part of the time himself, 
 and she says, "that to the extent of her 
 knowledge, no such person as Sidney Rig- 
 don was known to the family or any mem- 
 ber of the same." 
 
 Here then, is the positive and direct 
 knowledge that there was no such person 
 as Tucker tried by deception and inuendo 
 to make the people believe of a "mysterious 
 stranger," being at the residence of the old 
 gentleman Smith or an acquaintance of 
 Joseph Smith. 
 
 Here then, are the positive and certain 
 declarations of Sidney Rigdon, P. P. Pratt, 
 Catherine Salisbury, Emma Smith and 
 David Whitmer upon the question as to 
 whether Rigdon was ever an acquaintance 
 of the family of Mr. Smith, and knew of the 
 Book of Mormon, except as a rumor in the 
 world, possibly, as many other people prior 
 to its publication, and they all agree that 
 he was not known to the family or the 
 translator of the Book of Mormon in any 
 sense. 
 
 Add to this the statement of Braden 's 
 witness, Gilbert, who said in my pres- 
 ence, that he had tried for fifty years 
 or near that long to find out something that 
 would connect Rigdon and Smith together 
 in some way, he living at Palmyra, N. Y. t 
 all this time as shown in his testimony, and 
 who stated at the same time, that "they 
 could not find out that Rigdon was ever 
 about here or in this state until sometime in 
 the fall of of 1830," and it makes a clear and 
 positive case against his Spaulding story. 
 Compare my testimony upon this point now, 
 with the loose statements got up by Howe 
 and Hulburt and peddled by Braden here, 
 and you have the actual status of the case. 
 
 These tales and stories when summed up 
 are truly but tersely put by a writer who 
 has lately canvassed them as follows : 
 
 "Rev. Kirk says that Dr. Winters told him that Mr. 
 Rigdon told him 
 
 Dr. Winters' daughter says her father said that Rig- 
 don got Spaulding's manuscript 
 
 Rev. Bonsall heard Dr. Winters say so and so 
 
 And the impression of these three is that Dr Wintert 
 wrote out his recollections and therefore of course he 
 did. 
 
 Mrs. Amos Dunlap saw Rierdon reading a manuscript, 
 therefore it was the Spaulding Romance. 
 
 Pomery Tucker says a mysterious stranger visits Jo- 
 seph Sm'ith, therefore Sidney Rigdon is the man. 
 
 Mrs. Horace Eaton makes use of a similar statement 
 ssumiiig it as a matter of course." 
 
 These, with what Tucker said some one 
 else said, and all of which Hulburt and 
 Howe got up, is Braden's stock in trade, 
 and the only things offered to prove this 
 Spaulding Romance. 
 
 It seems to me that if there is anyone in 
 this audience, or any person outside, who 
 shall hereafter be found with these facts in 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 137 
 
 their possession, still trying 1 to gossip the 
 Spaulding story down people's throats, it 
 will be because they are wholly given over 
 to evil, and terribly addicted to that kind 
 of a business. 
 
 To such, I would advise in the language 
 of the apostle Paul: "But refuse profane 
 and old wives' fables, [gossip of the 'old 
 neighbors,' silly fables or falsehoods,] and 
 exercise thyself, rather unto Godliness." , 
 1 Tim. 4: 7. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, you have now 
 found what there is in fact to this Spanld- 
 ingtale. I have carefully examined this 
 thing, although I need not have noticed it 
 in order to have maintained successfully 
 the proposition. I have done it, because I 
 knew it to be the means hy which satan 
 sought to blind the eyes of the people by 
 gossip, and story, and tale and falsehood, 
 to prevent them from honestly investigat- 
 ing this book in the manner God wants 
 them to investigate all things. 
 
 But what has he proven as a fact of thia 
 story? 
 
 Did he prove that Solomon Spaulding 
 ever wrote such a manuscript as was that 
 of the Book of Mormon? 
 
 Has he sustained the burden of proof, 
 showing that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph 
 Smith were ever acquainted in any way till 
 after the publication of the Book of Mor- 
 mon? 
 
 Has it" been shown that Rigdon was ever 
 known to Spaulding in Pittsburg? 
 
 Did he prove that Sidney Rigdon took 
 the manuscript in order to start a church? 
 
 Has he proved that Rigdon, in fact, ever 
 knew anything of what the Book of Mor- 
 was, till it was presented to him by P. P. 
 Pratt, November, 1830? 
 
 You know all of these questions must be 
 answered in the negative. 
 
 The only thing he has fairly proven with 
 regard to this Spaulding story to my mind, 
 is the fact, that he had no evidence when 
 he began. 
 
 He refused to try to answer my arguments 
 and struck out upon his alibi, where the 
 burden of proof fell upon him, and his alibi 
 has gone down and left him sitting with 
 nothing under him. But he is still plucky, 
 and up and attacks the Book of Mormon 
 for what he deems objectionable in it. This 
 is a proper way to debate ; and if he can 
 find anything bad in it, let him turn it out 
 here. I shall not complain so he don't mis- 
 quote, or mis-state the book. 
 
 He has made a few Bible objections which 
 I shall notice in this connection. 
 
 Isaiah lfi:8, he says, "Refers to the disper- 
 sion of the Moabites." But why does he 
 say so? To whom does the prophet re- 
 fer as leaving this land as being the "vine 
 of Sibmah;" "principal plants?" The peo- 
 ple who were the desire of the Lord ; pleas- 
 ant to him? Will he say what people of the 
 land of Moab was referred to? There were 
 many. 
 
 Jeremiah 31, " Refers to the dispersion of 
 Israel in the Assyrian empire," he says. 
 But what right has he to say so? The proph- 
 
 ecy is emphatically against such an idea. 
 It says, "Behold, I will bring them from 
 the north country, and gather them from 
 the coasts of the earth." Neither of these 
 places refer particularly to Assyria. 
 
 Isaiah 11:11, he takes up and quotes just 
 part of the verse, and says : "This shows 
 it refers to the Israelites in the Assyrian 
 empire." Had he quoted the verse it would 
 have been sufficient to prove him wrong 
 without a word from me. Notice, while I 
 read : "From Assyria, and from Egypt, and 
 from Pathros, and from Cush, and from 
 El am, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, 
 and from the islands of the sea." (12, verse). 
 "And he shall set up an ensign for the na- 
 tions, and shall assemble the outcasts of 
 Israel, and gather together the dispersed 
 of Judah from the four corners of the earth." 
 Was it indeed limited to Assyria? Is this 
 the best be can do towards a refutation of 
 my positions? 
 
 He takes up what he considers the pet 
 passage of Mormonism, Ezekiel 37, and 
 thinks to make you believe that staff, rod 
 and stick are used interchangeably in the 
 Bible and mean power. I know we read of 
 the rod of Aaron and scepter of Judah, but 
 they are in no way used in the sense of a 
 stick. We can well speak of the scepter of 
 the king as meaning power, but not the 
 stick of the king as meaning power. The 
 words are not used interchangeably in the 
 English, neither are the originals in the 
 Hebrew so used in a single instance. But 
 in his interpretation he overlooks entirely 
 the writing upon the sticks which I partic- 
 ularly called attention to. Did this mean 
 the kingdoms too? Give us an exposition 
 once or confess you cannot. But read it now 
 substituting kingdom for stick, and you 
 have the ridiculous position of uniting the 
 kingdoms in the 19th verse, and uniting 
 them again in the 21st, without any idea of 
 the writing upon the stick or kingdom. 
 
 Now I shall answer the objection made by 
 him, that none of Ephraim came to America. 
 How does he know? Well, he says the 
 Book of Mormon says they were of the 
 tribe of Manasseh. Mr. Smith, he thinks, 
 (or rather the equestrian Ahasuerus, Rig- 
 don), made a great mistake here. If Mr. 
 Smith had just sent over to Andover, or 
 down to Hiram, or waited till the endow- 
 ment of Bethany, before committing him- 
 self, it would have been all right. But he 
 thinks he is clearly caught here. Let us 
 examine the position : Does the Book of 
 Mormon say all who came to this continent 
 were of the tribe of Manassah? No, it does 
 not. But it says Lehi was, and that is 
 enough for Braden. He can soon make the 
 objection. His objection is, then, that the 
 book of Mormon did not trace Ephraim 
 here by lineage. But had it done so an 
 objection would clearly have lain against 
 it, as we shall see from the prophecies. 
 
 It is written in Hosea v. 14 : " For I will 
 be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young 
 lion to the house of Judah ; I, even I, will 
 tear and go away; I will take away and 
 none shall rescue him." 
 
138 
 
 THE BRADEN-AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 H?re the thought is presented by the pro- 
 phet thai; Ephraim, for some cause or the 
 othe^, is to be broken up, torn to pieces, 
 scattered. By turning to verse 3, of the 
 same chapter we will readily discover the 
 reason icr this, which is clearly on account 
 of their evils and abominations. In the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah, vii. 15, the Lord 
 says : " And I will cast you out of my sight 
 as I have cast out all your brethren, even 
 the whole seed of Ephraim." It is clear 
 from this instruction that Ephraim had, 
 brought upon him a great and terrible judg- 
 ment by reason 01 his rebellion and trans- 
 gressions. 
 
 What was the penalty to be ? Utter de- 
 struction annihilation ? O, no. Turn with 
 me tor the answer to Hosea ix. 11, 12. The 
 Lord there saj's: "As for Ephraim, their 
 glory shall fly away like a bird, from the 
 birth, and from the womb, and from the 
 conception. Though they bring up their 
 children, yet will I bereave them, that 
 there shall not be a man left. Yea, woe 
 also to them when I depart from them ! " 
 
 Here the problem of .Ephraim is made 
 more plain. "Their glory,'' as a people is 
 at some time and in somti way to be taken 
 away. They were to be taken as from early 
 birth and separated one from another, and 
 thus destroyed as a nation, as predicted by 
 the prophet and scattered among the 
 people. Ibid. 7:8. "F.phraim, he hath 
 mixed himself among thw people ; Ephraim 
 is a cake not turned." Evidently not well 
 baked then, so when taken up, it is readily 
 broken to pieces; or, as in verse 11, pre- 
 figured, he falls apart of himself. "Epbraim 
 also is a silly dove without heart ; they call 
 to Egypt ; they go to Assyria." His attach- 
 ments are to be broken and he left to 
 wander everywhere, and not seek a place 
 with any one particular people. Mixed in 
 Egypt and Assyria his blood will afterwards 
 not only be found among the tribes, but 
 among the Gentile nations also. 
 
 Ephraim is thus set forth in the prophetic 
 history of the Bible ; and yet, the objection 
 is made by my opponent, and was long 
 before made by John Hyde, and other short 
 sighted theologians, that in the Book of 
 Mormon the line or lineage of Ephraim is 
 not traced to America, therefore, it is a 
 terrible blunder. Ah! out the blunder is 
 again upon the side of these self-constituted 
 critics. 
 
 Had the tribe been traced by lineage, 
 there would have been a conflict with the 
 prophecies. The Lord does not contradict 
 himself in his own work, that is quite clear. 
 Ephraim then, is mixed with the people 
 everywhere ; and per consequence over here, 
 as well as with the other nations. Turning 
 to the Book of Mormon, I find that witn 
 Lehi who came to this country, there was 
 the family of Ishmael, and Zoram ; and 
 although it had been common in Jerusalem 
 to keep the genealogy of all the people, it 
 eeems none was kept of these. Why, we 
 are not informed ; nevertheless, we are in- 
 formed that Ephraim should not be able to 
 keep his lineage or "glory," nor even desire 
 
 to do so, but that he should be "mixed 
 among the people." 
 
 So it was that when Mulok came out from 
 Jerusalem he brought "a company" with 
 him, but the lineage of the company is not 
 given. However, we are plainly informed 
 in the book that the descendants of Joseph 
 in Egypt were upon this land ; "of the seed 
 of Joseph," and not simply through Manas- 
 seh. And in Genesis, 49th hapter, it reads, 
 " whose branches, " not branch, bub 
 "branches," (daughters), "run over the 
 wall" "pass co the utmost bounds of the- 
 everlasting hills, above," (over, beyond), 
 the blessing of my progenitors, of Abraham 
 and Isaac. Both, also, as spoken of by 
 Moses in Deuteronomy, go to the promised 
 land and inherit together; he sets this out 
 in the blessing, which we have shown could 
 only refer to the land of America. In Gene- 
 sis 48th, they are made "to grow into a 
 multitude in themidstof the earth." In the 
 Book of Mormon we find them traced here 
 through the older brother, Manasseh, who 
 had not lost the birth-right; but Ephraim 
 as is clearly shown by the prophets would 
 be the case, is yet, "mixed among the 
 people ;" and hence, his lineage not traced. 
 
 Then the book is still fonnd to accord with 
 the Bible and truth, notwitstanding the ob- 
 jections of some of the self-wise of the age. 
 In the last days, Epbraim is to come out 
 from among the people, and do hjs work 
 and in his hand, in the inauguration of this 
 work is the "stick of Joseph," the "En- 
 sign," which is to be put with the Bible, or 
 "stick of Judah," and with the two, as with 
 the power, or "horns of the unicorn," "he 
 shall push the people together to the ends 
 of the earth." Hence, in speaking of the 
 gospel work of restoration in the last days, 
 the prophet Jeremiah, says : "They shall 
 come with weeping, and with supplications 
 will I lead them: I will cause them to walk 
 by the rivers of waters in a straight way, 
 wherein they shall not stumble. For, I am 
 a father to Israel and Ephraim is my first 
 born." Ephraim is to be first in the work in 
 the last time ; he never has been before f 
 but his lineage being lost, when he is 
 brought to light it will be as in the time of 
 Nehemiah, through the instrumentality of 
 a prophet standing up with the Urim and 
 Thummim. The Psalmist in the 80th num- 
 ber, exclaims aright then, when he says: 
 "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that 
 leadest Joseph like a flock ; Thou that dwel- 
 lest between the cherubim, shine forth. Be- 
 fore Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh 
 stir up thy strength, and come and save 
 us." 
 
 This part of the work of Ephraim with 
 others i-i so plain that it is hardly possible 
 to go amiss if you take the Bible for your 
 guide. And the prophecies are fulfilled in 
 every condition, so far as the work has pro- 
 gressed, in the coming forth of the BOOK of 
 Mormon. Here is where Mr. Braden rested 
 his great objection to the Book of Mormon, 
 and his objection to the application of the 
 prophecy in the 37th of Ezekiel to that book. 
 
 Now, I want to see him stand up to the 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 139 
 
 work and answer me upon this, if he can. 
 There is an issue here, and if he can show 
 that I am wro >g in my position of Ephraiin 
 being "mixed among the people," and "scat- 
 tered.upon all the mountains of Israel : upon 
 the face of the whole earth," but to be re- 
 
 vealed in the last day by the light of rev- 
 elation to inaugurate and "push to the 
 ends of the earth" the work of salvation 
 among the people, let him do so. 
 (Time called.) 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S THIRTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : My opponent quotes from 
 the Book of Mormon the declaration that 
 men will say in regard to the Book of Mor- 
 mon, " We have the Bible and that is suffi- 
 cient." There is no prophesy in that, for 
 the Disciples had been saying that to Rig- 
 don, the author of the book, for years, when 
 he was trying to prepare them to accept 
 new revelations and his book. The word 
 "Bible" was first applied to the scrip- 
 tures in the fourth century by Chrysostom. 
 We have here a Nephite in America using 
 it hundreds of years before another mira- 
 cle. As I have never read a word that 
 Howe said, and have not made him a wit- 
 ness, Kelley's attacks on Howe's analysis 
 of the Book of Mormon is a nonsensical 
 waste of time. As a lawyer will he tell me 
 what effect his attacks on Howe's analysis 
 of the Book of Mormon has on the testi- 
 mony of the witness recorded in another 
 part of the book ? I have sent for legal evi- 
 dence that T. P. Baldwin was Judge of one 
 of the courts of Wayne county, N. Y., in 
 1833. When it comes I will settle that 
 cavil of my opponent. I have explained 
 that Spaulding concealed from his wife and 
 daughter his purpose to publish his book, 
 and that he told his creditors that he in- 
 tended to publish it and pay his debts. 
 Mrs. Eichbaum, clerk in the post office in 
 Pittsburg, from 1812 to 1816 inclusive, testi- 
 fies that Rigdon was in Pittsburg in 1814-15, 
 or during the time the Spaulding manu- 
 script was taken to Patterson's office ; that 
 he was learning the tanner's trade and was 
 intimate with Lambdin, one of Patterson's 
 printers, and was about the office so much 
 that Engles, the foreman, complained of it. 
 That settles that matter. 
 
 My opponent said last night that Mrs. 
 Davidson said there were passages of scrip- 
 ture in her husband's Manuscript Found. 
 She does not. She says the passages of 
 scripture and religious talk were added to 
 the romance to get up the Mormon fraud. 
 I have proved that Spaulding wrote sev- 
 eral manuscripts, and my opponent's jabber 
 on the assumption that he wrote only one 
 is absurd. His attack on the testimony I 
 presented is absurd and puerile. My oppo- 
 
 nent seems to think that his course in inter- 
 viewing parties, and then going off and 
 writing off what he says they said, was far 
 more honorable than Mr. Thome's course in 
 
 foing to the parties and having them go 
 efore a magistrate and testify in their own 
 words and say what they pleased. The 
 witnesses swear that he falsified their state- 
 ments. ,He objects that Major Gilbert does 
 not specify in what particulars he is mis- 
 represented. It was not necessary, for, he 
 says, it is all misrepresentation, deliberate 
 falsehood. He objects that there is no date 
 to the testimony of Conrieaut witnesses. 
 There is none to most of what he reads. 
 There is neither date nor place to the testi- 
 mony of the witnesses for the Book of Mor- 
 mon ; and they do not si<m independent in- 
 dividual statements as these witnesses- do, 
 but a joint statement written out for them 
 by Imposter Joe. Cannot my opponent see 
 that such pettifogging is putting into my 
 hands a club that will knock out all the 
 brains he has got. 
 
 Campbell says Bentley is mistaken Con- 
 cerning one of the teachings of the Book 
 of Mormon, therefore Bentley's testimony 
 concerning what Rigdon told him is worth- 
 less. Such talk is twaddle. Campbell asked 
 Bentley whether he remembered a certain 
 conversation and what he remmebered of it ; 
 therefore Campbell's testimony is worthless. 
 More bosh. I have said that a man 
 may preach the teachings of Christ, or 
 steal them and present them to the world 
 as a revelation and be a hypocrite. He 
 quotes " If any man abide in the teachings 
 of Christ, etc." Yes, abide. What is it to 
 abide in such teachings ? To steal it and 
 present it to the world as a revelation in 
 a lying fraud, or live it out in life? For 
 pity's sake stop that idiocy. He cannot 
 make the Bible and the Book of Mormon 
 parallel cases. But few of the writers of 
 the Bible tell us they were inspired. But 
 few tell us their books were written by 
 divine command. None of the books were 
 revised by inspiration or by Jesus himself. 
 They were written on perishable material ; 
 had to be copied by uninspired men : they 
 were not preserved by miracle, and they 
 were translated by uninspired learning. 
 
140 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 The Book of Mormon was written by 
 men by divine command and most of them 
 Bay they were inspired in engraving on the 
 plates. They were preserved by miracle. 
 Revealed to Smith by miracle. Translated 
 by inspiration. Given word by word to 
 Smith, by the Lord, in a miracle; and the 
 witnesses declare that the voice of God 
 declared to them that the translation was 
 correct, and the Book of Mormon true. 
 There is no work of man here. It is all the 
 work of the Lord. If there are mistakes 
 they are the mistakes of the Lord. I said 
 the materials used by the Israelites in 
 writing their books were papyrus, parch- 
 ment rolls so the Bible declares. His 
 retort is absurd. Because the American 
 people engrave on gold, or stone, on 
 metal, wood, etc., the material on which 
 we write is metal, stone, etc. Bosh. The 
 use of the word " Jew,' is a blunder of the 
 translator, as much as for a Frenchman to 
 call all who spoke the English language 
 " Yanks," from the days of William the 
 Conquerer. He has found " steel" in the 
 Bible and he can find " farthing" also. 
 Bibical scholars say that steel was un- 
 known among the Israelites until shortly 
 before Chi is-t. If the Gospel was preached 
 to Abraham, it was not all of the teachings 
 of Christ and his apostles, in the exact 
 words they used. The New Testament 
 says the Holy Spirit was not given in the 
 name of Christ until after he was glorified. 
 The Book of Mormon says he was. 
 
 We will notice an item omitted from the 
 proper place. The Book of Doctrines and 
 Covenants says of the Book of Mormon. 
 " Condemnation rests and will rest on all 
 " who do not repent and remember the 
 "New Covenant, even the Book of Mor- 
 " moo." Again. "Behold I say unto you 
 " that all old covenants have been done 
 " away in this thing" (the Book of Mor- 
 mon) "and this" (the Book of Mormon) 
 "is a new and everlasting conveuant." 
 Mormon revelation declares that the 
 Book of Mormon is a new and everlasting 
 covenant doing away Christ's dispensation 
 and Christ's covenant. The Book of Doc- 
 trines and Convenants declares that the 
 Book of Mormon " Is the fulness of th 
 Gospel." The Bible Christ's Gospel was 
 imperfect did not contain the fulness of 
 the Gospel. The Book of Mormon de- 
 clares that the Romish Church " took 
 " away from the Gospel many parts which 
 "are plain and precious, and also many 
 "covenants of the Lord have they taken 
 " away." It declares that " it" (the Book 
 of Mormon) " makes known the plain and 
 " precious things that have been taken 
 "away." It places the Book of Mormon 
 above the Bible, the New Testament and 
 above the covenant of Christ. Such are the 
 the blasphemous claims of this fraud. 
 Kelley dues not present them to you. He 
 " roars you gently as a sucking dove." He 
 is giving you milk such as becomes baoes. 
 I give you the strong meat of Mor- 
 monism. 
 
 The Book of Mormon tells us that if Ad- 
 
 am had not transgressed and fallen h 
 would have had no children. The Bible- 
 says God commanded him to be fruitful. 
 According to the Book of Mormon God'a 
 first command to man was one that he could 
 not obey unless he sinned. If he did not 
 sin he must forever disobey the first com- 
 mand God laid on him. It says if Adam 
 had not sinned he would have known no 
 joy for he knew no misery. Then God put 
 man in Eden with everything that could 
 cause joy and gave to man no power to enjoy 
 it. Also unless persons suffer misery they 
 can have no joy. The angels that are bless- 
 ed suffer misery, for if they do not thev 
 have no joy. It further says: "They diet 
 no good for thy knew no sin." Then the 
 angels that have not sinned do no good ? 
 An intelligence can do no good till he si us r 
 Was Adam doing uo good when in a state- 
 of purity he obeyed God's commands? If 
 good comes through sinning then the more 
 Binning the more good. This absurd idea 
 of the Book of Mormon is in flat contradic- 
 tion of the teachings of the Bible. There 
 are many ideas in the Book of Mormon and 
 in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants and 
 in the interpolations of the inspired transla- 
 tion that are plagiarized from fancies of the 
 apocryphal Book of Enoch. 
 
 We will now resume our analysis of the 
 Book of Mormon. We are told on page 517 
 that the Asiatic horsa, ox and cow, the 
 same blunder as in the case of the Neph- 
 ites, the sheep, the ass and swine were 
 common in America thousands of years 
 ago. Science declares that these species of 
 animals were introduced by Columbus and 
 his successors. This Israelite writer (as ib 
 is claimed he is) speaks of swine as 
 "good for the use of man." The sodden ig- 
 norance of the fabricators of this fraud is 
 beneath contempt. They represent the Is- 
 raelites as living in the midst of the use of 
 the Hebrew and using the hated Egyptian, 
 instead of their sacred Hebrew for which 
 they had such a fanatical love. They speak 
 of the abhorred swine as good for man's 
 use. They trample under foot every great 
 feature of the law of Moses, and impudent- 
 ly tell us that they live under ic and obey it. 
 
 On page 523, Ether, a Jaredite, whose an- 
 cestors came to America 800 years before 
 Abraham, prophecies in the exact language 
 of the Hebrew letter, a thousand years be- 
 fore it was written, uses the language, the 
 exact language of the Bible, of which his 
 people know no more than the man in the 
 moon, and preaches the gospel to these 
 Jaredites a thousand years before Christ. 
 527, Masonry breaks out again. 529, more 
 deviltry by the' Masons. 530, the wars 
 caused by these sons of Belial, the Masons, 
 cause the slaughter of two millions of men 
 on one side.' to say nothing of women and 
 children. When we remember that all the 
 lives lost in our great civil war, directly 
 and indirectly, was less than a million, and 
 that less than half a million were killed or 
 died of wounds, we can form some estimate 
 of what a war it must have been when ten 
 times as many were slain. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 141 
 
 Then the two contending parties arrayed 
 themselves against each other, every last 
 man, woman, and child, and baby, with 
 helmets, swords and breast-plates. What 
 a heroic sight to see children and babies 
 armed with helmets, swords and breast 
 plates, and what a slaughter they made, 
 no doubt! Then they pitched in every last 
 man. woman and child and baby, and they 
 "fit,'' and they "fit," and they "fit" and 
 they "fit" and "fit \ until nobody is 
 left but Ether. He is miraculously 
 preserved to finish some plates for 
 Imposter Joe. Ether does not know 
 whether he will be translated, which would 
 be an easy job judging from his ethereal 
 name, or stay and die out as did Moroni, 
 his copyist. Thus ends the history of these 
 Jaredites who were not descendants of 
 Adam or Noah, for the speech of their 
 descendants was confounded at Babel and 
 the speech of the Jaredites was not con- 
 founded they were not descendants of 
 Noah. 
 
 Finally, after copying on nothing, for his 
 plates were full before he began, and he 
 could make none, and from uotning, for 
 Mormon had buried everything except the 
 plates of Ether, which he never had ; 
 Moroni whiles away his time in writing a 
 liturgy for the followers of Imposter Joe. 
 He then rehashes portions of the New 
 Testament in a sermon about faith f hope 
 and love, repeating Paul's language in 
 many places. It looks as if Rigdon was 
 trying to fix up his book so that he could 
 set the 'New Testament as much in the 
 background, as the New sets the Old. Then 
 comes the miracle of miracles. Mormon 
 out in the wilds of America, "all his lone" 
 as Paddy would say, on pages 539, 540, 541. 
 preaches Sidney Rigdon's sermon against 
 infant baptism and quotes scores of passages 
 and phrases from the New Testament. 
 What an insult to common sense to ask us 
 to believe that an Israelite, in the wilds of 
 America, over one thousand years after 
 his people had any communication with 
 the old continent or knew about its troubles 
 over "infant baptism," just beginning, 
 preached in America, 1400 years before Rig- 
 don was born, Rigdon's rant against infant 
 baptism. Mor' ni, alias Rigdon, closes with 
 one of Rigdon's rhapsodies of exhortation 
 in which (Sidney mounts King AJiasuerus' 
 horse for the last time in the Book of Mor- 
 mon, and he then lets his Pegasus rest 
 until he joins Imposter Joe in Manchester, 
 New York, in December 1830. Such is a 
 mere outline of the countless absurdities in 
 the Book of Mormon, "The Fulness of the 
 Gospel." 
 
 We will now call attention to certain 
 matters that require more space than we 
 could give to them in a running criticism. 
 The ancient Israelites believed that the 
 earth was stationary and that the stars 
 moved. They did not know the difference 
 between the planets and fixed stars. 
 Inspiration among the Israelites never 
 revealed to them scientific facts. On page 
 286 of the Book of Mormon, Alma a Nephite 
 
 nearly 2000 years before Copernicus says 
 "The earth and its motion and the planets 
 which move in their regular form declare 
 there is a God," a prose adaptation of Addi- 
 son's hymn. Page 410 the language of the 
 Hebrew poet in the Book of Jasher quoted 
 in Joshua is thus commented and explain- 
 ed. "If the Lord say to the earth thou 
 " shalt go back that it lengthen out theday, 
 "we know that it is done, and thus accord- 
 "ing to his word the earth goeth back and 
 " it appeareth to men that the sun standeth 
 " still, yea and behold this is so far it is the 
 "earth that moveth and not the sun." It 
 is wonderful how much more than their 
 brethren in Palestine Sidney's Nephites 
 and Jaredites always knew. Had the 
 Israelite poet been one of Rigdon's poets 
 he would not have represented Joshua as 
 commanding the sun to stand. No he 
 would have expressed himself in the most 
 approved phraseology of modern science 
 although his language would have been 
 regarded as idiotic falsehood by his readers. 
 Page 3 Lehi says he left Jerusalem because 
 the Lord commanded him to do so, in a 
 dream. Page 401Nephi says he was driven 
 out by people. Page 106 Nephi says he and 
 his people were descendants of the Jews. 
 The word " Jew" is a nickname as much as 
 " Yank" and the word from which it is 
 derived was not applied to any nation until 
 a hundred years after Nephi left Jerusalem 
 and the nickname was not used until mod- 
 ern times. Page 231 Amulek declares that 
 Nephi and all who went with Lehi were 
 Manassehites and not Jews at all. Page 
 375 we are told that the devil led 
 Jared and his people. Page 502 we 
 are told it was the Lord. Page 76 Jacob 
 declares that the Lord told him America 
 is an island. Common sense says it is a con- 
 tinent. Page 416 an inspired prophet de- 
 clares the darkness at the crucifixion shall 
 be over the whole earth three days and a 
 subsequent passage declares as a fact f 
 history that the darkness covered the whole 
 earth three days. The Bible says it was 
 over the land in which the crucifixion took 
 place and only three hours. John the 
 Baptist declares that only our Savior could 
 give the baptism of the Holy Spirit and 
 that it was future in his day. The apostle 
 declares that the Holy Spirit would not be 
 given in the name of Jesus until after his 
 ascension. Our Savior so declares. A 
 Nephite prophet hundreds of years before 
 the birth of Jesus says of his brethren 
 " that they have been visited by the Holy 
 Spirit, have conversed with angels and 
 been spoken to by the voice of the Lord : 
 have had the spirit of prophecy and the 
 spirit of revelation, and many spiritual 
 gifts. The gift of speaking with tongues, 
 the gift of prophecy, the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost and the gift of translation." A more 
 flat contradiction of the word of God and 
 the Son of God could not be conceived. 
 Page 19 and 20 we are told Jesus was born 
 at Nazareth. Page 223 at Jerusalem. The 
 Bible says it was at Bethlehem. We call 
 yjur attention next to a tissue of flat con- 
 
142 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 tradictions. Page 507 "Jared's brother" 
 (I wish Rigclon had given that fellow a 
 name while he was about it) "seals up his 
 plates and interpreters and hides them up 
 unto the Lord and they are not to go forth 
 until the Gentiles exercise faith and are 
 clean before the Lord." That time has not 
 come yet for the Book of Mormon was to 
 go forth in an age of apostacy, unbelief, 
 and crime, even the horrible crime of 
 Masonry, Page 523 Ether, the last Jare- 
 dite writes his gold plates. Page 158 Limbi 
 finds them and breastplates and swords 
 but not Jared's plates nor any interpreters. 
 Mosiah interprets these plates of Ether 
 with interpreters handed down among the 
 Nephites for generations. Page 2<)4 
 Mosiah's interpreters were handed down to 
 Mormon. Page 492 Mormon buries them 
 with over twenty other relics, and hands 
 only " the'-e few plates" with no interpre- 
 ters to Moroni, who buries ''these few 
 plates." Smith finds not only "these few 
 plates" which Moroni buried, and that was 
 all that he buried, but he finds with them 
 Laban's sword that was not buried with 
 them and was buried before and apart from 
 them. Lehi's brass compass which was 
 not buried with them and was buried 
 before and apart from them and the inter- 
 preters of Jared's brother that no Nephite 
 or any one else ever saw or can have until 
 the Gentiles all believe and are clean before 
 the Lord. 
 
 The Book of Mormon teaches that God 
 led the Manassehites to America and bless- 
 od them far above Judah. The Bible de- 
 clares II Kings XVII, 18-20, The Lord 
 rejected all the seed of Israel (Manasseh 
 with the rest) and afflicted them and deliv- 
 ered them to the spoilers until he cast them 
 out of his presence. Therefore the Lord 
 was angry with Israel and removed them 
 out of his sight. There was none left but 
 the tribe of Judah only." You can believe 
 the Bible or the Book of Mormon one or the 
 other but not both. 
 
 Mormons quote as their special reliance 
 the prophecies in regard to Ephraim ap- 
 plying them to the aborigines of America. 
 According to the Book of Mormon there 
 never was an Ephraimite in America. 
 Page 231. The Nephites and Lamauites 
 were Manassehites. The Zarahemlites were 
 of the seed of Zedekiah-Judahites. There 
 was not an Ephraimite on the continent. 
 They could with far greater propriety quote 
 the prophecies in regard to Judah for some 
 were Judahites. To apply to Manassehites, 
 the prophecies in regard to Ephraim, is 
 as gross a contradiction as to apply to 
 these Manassehites, the laws for the Levites, 
 as these Rigdonite revelations so frequently 
 do. Page 271. Alma says " let us retain 
 our swords that they be not stained with 
 the blood of our brethren for perhaps if we 
 stain our swords again they can no more be 
 washed bright through the blood of the 
 Sou of our God." What blasphemy ! 
 Swords washed bright through the blood of 
 the Son of God. The blood of the Sou of 
 God a polishing powder. Who doubts that 
 
 that the Book of Mormon is of divine 
 origin? Page 437 we are told that Christ 
 was crucified on the fourth day of the first 
 month. He was not crucified until after 
 the passover, which was the fourteenth 
 day of the month, and was really crucified 
 on the 20th day of the month. The context 
 declared that a just man kept this record 
 and it was true. Sidney was mistaken that 
 is all. Page 1. We are told that Lehi left 
 Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah, in the 
 first year of his reign. If we add the 70 
 years of captivity, which began with Zede- 
 kiah to Daniels 483 years we have 553 years 
 or 47 years less than 600. If we put the 
 date of Christ's birth where it should be 
 we have over 50 years. Sidney is mistaken 
 again. 
 
 The Book of Mormon flatly contradicts 
 the Bible in its stuff about the Melchisedeo 
 priesthood. I. The Bible clearly teaches 
 that there never were but two priests of 
 that order, Melchisedec himself and Christ. 
 
 II. Melchisedek officiated before the Le- 
 vitical priesthood. There was an introduc- 
 tion of the Levitical priesthood and an in- 
 troduction of the law of Moses. III. Tb 
 Levitical priesthood under the order of 
 Aaron was abrogated ; Christ is priest, and 
 he alone. The law is changed from the law 
 of Moses to the law of Christ. IV. Christ 
 alone is priest after the order of Melchise- 
 dec. V. He was not priest on earth but is 
 priest in heaven. The Book of Mormon 
 makes these priesthoods parallel, and talks 
 of innumerable priests of the order of Mel- 
 chisedec. Mormons appeal to the fact that 
 Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Jethro and 
 Moses offered sacrifices. That does not 
 prove that they were priests of any order. 
 They offered sacrifices as patriarchs and 
 prophets and not as priests. If there were 
 any Melchisedec priests it was only those 
 who offered sacrifices before the Levitical 
 priesthood was established , and when the 
 law was changed to the law of Moses the 
 priesthood was changed to the Levitical 
 priesthood. Samuel and all who sacrificed 
 after the Levitical priesthood was estab- 
 lished sacrificed as prophets. They are 
 never called priests. 
 
 The Book of Mormon tells us that the 
 Nephites had priests of the Aaronic order, 
 for they were consecrated according to the 
 law of Moses, but every soul of them was 
 a Manassehite, and not a Levite among 
 them, although the law of Moses punished 
 severely any one except a Levite who at- 
 tempted to officiate as priest. The Bible 
 declares that Christ did not ascend to hea- 
 ven until forty days after his resurrection, 
 and that his second coming is yet future 
 Heb. ix. 28. In the Book of Nephi we are 
 told that Christ descended from heaven 
 and visited the Nephites, and ascended in to 
 heaven again, and then descended and 
 spent three days with the Nephites. Here 
 we have a second and a third coming from 
 heaven before the Hebrew letter was writ- 
 ten, and in less than a year from his first 
 ascension into heaven. The appearances of 
 our Saviour to Paul and others in a vision 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 143 
 
 are not comings direct from heaven In the 
 flesh as he appeared to the Nephites the 
 manner in which t_he angels declared to the 
 Apostles at his ascension he would come in 
 his second coming. 
 
 On page 527, Moroni, a Nephite in Amer- 
 ica, who knew nothing of any Hebrew or 
 Christian scriptures after Jeremiah, writes: 
 "These things bring to pass the scripture 
 which saith, 'They who are first shall be 
 last, and they who are last shall be first.' " 
 Where do the Scriptures say so? Matthew 
 xix. 30, or Luke xiii. 30. Did Moroni, a 
 Nephite in America, who knew nothing of 
 the New Testament Scriptures, write that? 
 Or did Rigdon, when he was revising the 
 manuscript he stole from Spaulding to make 
 a big thing out of it in the shape of a pre- 
 tended new revelation? Page 498, Moroni, 
 alias Rigdon, writes : " Do we not read that 
 God is the same yesterday, to-day and for- 
 ever, and that in him is no variableness, 
 neither shadow of turning." Yea, verily, 
 Sidney, we, you and your readers do read 
 such language in Heb. xiii. 8, and in James 
 1. 17, but no person in America 1,000 years 
 
 before Columbus ever so read. Page 539: 
 The Holy Ghost says to Moroni, " Listen to. 
 the wor'ds of Christ," and then we have 
 over twenty quotations of the sentences and 
 phrases from the New Testament. No, 
 Sidney, the Holy Ghost never said that to 
 Mormon. You used to say just such things 
 to your hearers in your sermon on infant 
 baptism^ and you have interpolated your 
 sermon into the manuscript you stole from 
 Spaulding. 
 
 Page 494, Jesus says to the three Nephites 
 who were never to taste death : " When I 
 come in my glory ye shall be changed from 
 mortality 'to immortality." Positively de- 
 clares that they were mortal and would re- 
 main mortal until he came in his glory. In 
 the very next paragraph Nephi says that 
 whether they were mortal or immortal from 
 their transfiguration he does not know, 
 After recording the clear, positive declara- 
 tion of Jesus that they were mortal and 
 would be till he came in his glory, Nephi 
 cooly declares that he did not know whether 
 Jesus lied or not i 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH! 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : I will first notice one or two 
 things in the statements that my opponent 
 has just made. I suppose that if I should 
 ask any person in this audience, now that 
 they have just listened to his argument, to 
 state a single objection that he has made 
 against the Book of Mormon, just to arise 
 and state one objection, you would not be 
 able to do it. How many of you would? 
 Why, he has read such a string here that 
 you cannot understand it, so far as making 
 an objection is concerned, and no other per- 
 son, unless he would take weeks and weeks 
 to go through it, or was well acquainted 
 with the book, and such a person would ask 
 for no reply on my part. And when you 
 see, as I shall show you, that every one of 
 those supposed objections that he has offered 
 is clearly answered in the book, what will 
 you think of the objector? The book itself 
 answers every one of the objections that he 
 has made, which I will show if I have time 
 during this discussion, noticing each one 
 particularly. Now, what is the proper 
 manner of arguing a question? I will call 
 attention to this again, so that you may not 
 forget the difference between argument and 
 the simple statement of something that 
 does not amount to an argument. If he can 
 find a dozen objections to that book that 
 will stand the test, that is enough to send 
 
 the book down. Why don't he make his 
 objections fairly, and give opportunity of 
 replying to them ? But no, such a couTtest 
 don't suit. The whole object seems to be to 
 lug in so much that no white man who is 
 sane, nor dark man either, on the continent 
 can answer them all. Well now, he will 
 find out that Sidney was on Ahasuerus's 
 horse all the time when he tries to defeat 
 the question in that way. To-morrow night, 
 however, I will answer the Gordian Knot. 
 Among all these objections there was a 
 " Gordian Knot," you know. That must 
 be answered. That was a strong one ! Will 
 he give up when that is severed ? It will 
 be cut in twain ; just remember that. 
 
 The objection was made that the New 
 Testament, in the history which it gives of 
 the events in the time of the Savior, sayg 
 that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, 
 while the Book of Mormon, he states, says 
 it was given. There he thinks is a flat con- 
 tradiction. Well, perhaps somebody in the 
 audience who has never read the Book ot 
 Mormon, nor the New Testament but very 
 little, may think there is a contradiction 
 here. The New Testament is speaking 
 about a particular time when the Holy Ghost 
 was not given to the disciples of Jes'us, viz : 
 between the ministry of the Savior and hia 
 resurrection and ascension. The Book of 
 Mormon is speaking of a time long prior to 
 
144 
 
 TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 the time when Jesus was in the flesh here. 
 Will he take the ground that the Holy 
 Ghost was never given to the prophets on 
 the Eastern continent? 
 
 Mr. Braden: Not in the name of Christ. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : In what name was it given 
 if not in the name of Christ? Will you 
 answer that? Let me cite you an example 
 that will show that the Holy Ghost was 
 given. Don't you remember that Saul was 
 among the prophets at one time when this 
 Holy Spiri t was given to them ? And that at 
 another the seventy elders of Israel proph- 
 esied when the Holy Spirit was upon them? 
 The same Holy Ghost, too, that was not yet 
 given, as the term is used in the New Tes- 
 tament scriptures. And did I not quote 
 last night whets Peter says, "That holy 
 men of old spake as they were moved upon 
 by the Holy Ghost?" Then it was given 
 before, was it not? If you meant not 
 through Christ when you said that the Book 
 of Mormon contradicted the New Testament, 
 why didn't you say not through Christ 
 then? 
 
 Mr. Braden : I did. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : We will see. But what bet- 
 ter does that make it? That is no objection. 
 The Holy Ghost was given in the Old Testa- 
 ment times too, and people possessed it and 
 prophesied by reason of it long before 
 Christ's time in the flesh ; and if it was not 
 given through ChristI suppose it was given 
 through men, just common men, away back 
 there. But he ought to know that he who 
 was Ciirist Jesus in the flesh was the same 
 who was in the church in the wilderness. 
 " And they did all drink of that spiritual 
 rock, which rock was Christ," says the 
 Apostle Paul, and this was when they were 
 in the wilderness. Yet he wants to make 
 out that because the Book of Mormon speaks 
 of men being blest with the Holy Ghost be- 
 fore the time of Pentecost, that there is a 
 contradiction between the Book of Mormon 
 and the New Testament. The rock they 
 drank of was Christ, and the way men par- 
 take of that rock is by the Holy Ghost. It 
 is "a well of water, springing up unto eter- 
 nal life." But enough on this point at pres- 
 ent. I have plenty of material here this 
 evoaing that is in shape. 
 
 He objects again to the Book of Mormon, 
 because it says that God cursed certain 
 people with a skin of blackness, (the In- 
 Qians.) Yet, doubtless, he accepts the idea 
 that God did curse Canaan and from him 
 were the descendents of Ham. That he al- 
 o put a mark upon Cain. But then these 
 accounts are in the Bible, and possibly my 
 opponent has no difficulty in believing 
 thsrn. It is a fact, however, that the In- 
 dians' skins are black, or dark, and there 
 must have been a cause for it. The Book 
 of Mormon says God put this upon them be- 
 cause of their iniquity. Can Mr. Braden 
 give a better reason ? But now we strike 
 our friend's invincible objection. The 
 stronghold behind which he bids defiance 
 to the Book of Mormon. He 'says, among 
 other animals which they found, on the 
 promised land in the wilderness, was the 
 
 ox. "Miraculous !" he exclaims. He had 
 quite forgotten that it is stated in the Bi- 
 ble, "Thou shalt not plpw with an ox and 
 an ass together." Deut. 22: 10. And that ox ia 
 used to represent a class of animals known 
 as the cattle kind, just as the ass is used to 
 represent another kind known as the ass ; 
 as swine represents the hog kind ; and that 
 neither the Bible nor any other writer 
 thought it necessary to use only the male 
 gender in all of their writing ; but used the 
 common, the familar and modest words, 
 " The ox and the ass." If you will turn to 
 Webster's Dictionary, you will see that he 
 defines the word "ox" as applying to all 
 cattle kind, and especially when they are 
 found in a wild state, or in the woods, as 
 they were found when the second people 
 came to this continent. Can't you under- 
 stand it, Mr. Braden? Read and be in- 
 structed and come out from your strong 
 wall of defense ! It will be better for your 
 side perhaps, if you will put a little erudi- 
 tion into your speeches, and copy with less 
 credulity from the misrepresentations, and 
 falsehoods, published by Mr. E. D. Howe, 
 et al. Every one of these objections of 
 yours are but the reproduction of Howe. If 
 they would stand the test, all well arid 
 good ; but when any one can see the fallacy 
 of them by taking the objection as made by 
 Howe, and comparing with the record in 
 the Book of Mormon it seems childish to me 
 for a man who, according to his own story, 
 has scalped Ingersoll, and put a nost of 
 Philistines like Underwood, Jamieson, Rev. 
 Mr. Hughey, and Moses Hull to flight, to be 
 thus burdening his intellect with such 
 trifling matters. But he objects to the 
 Book of Mormon by reason of the predic- 
 tion of the day of darkness upon the earth 
 as follows : Book of Mormon, p. 22. 
 
 "And it came to pass that I saw a rnist of darkness on 
 the face of the land of promise ; and I saw lightnings, 
 and I heard thnnderings and earthquakes, and all 
 manner of tumultuous noises : and I saw the earth and 
 the rocks that they rent; and I saw mountains tum- 
 bling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth 
 that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that 
 they were sunk." 
 
 This was a vision of things to occur on the 
 promised land, not on all the earth. The 
 fulfilment of the prediction took place at 
 the crucifixion of Christ as record- rt on 
 pages 437 and 438 of the Book of Mormon. 
 However much this may be spurned and 
 laughed at by my opponent, the tradition- 
 ary evidences given hy the natives confirm 
 the statement. "There was a terrible hur- 
 ricane that carried away trees, mountains, 
 houses, and the largest edifices." "All this 
 time they were in darkness without seeing 
 the light of the sun or moon." See North 
 Americans of antiquity, by John T. Short, 
 page 239. I will turn to Baldwin's Ancient 
 America, page 176, and show you what is 
 given in historical works in regard to this. 
 He says : 
 
 "In the first place Brnsseur de Bonrbourg claims 
 that there Is In the old Central American Books a con- 
 stant tradition of an immense catastrophe of the char- 
 acter supposed: this tradition affirms that a part of the 
 continent extending into the Atlantic was destroyed in 
 the manner supposed, and appears to Indicate that the 
 destruction was accomplished by succession of 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 145 
 
 frightful convulsions. Three are constantly mention- 
 ed and sometime* there is mention of one or two 
 others," 
 
 Who will he say went down to Central 
 America and got this out of the old books? 
 Sidney Rigdon, or Solomon Spaulding? 
 Take which horn of the dilemma you 
 choose now. But I will read on : 
 
 "The land waj shaken by frightful earthquakes, and 
 the wiivt-s of the sea combined with volcanic fires to 
 overwhelm and engulf it Each convulsion swept 
 away portions of the land, until the whole disappeared, 
 leaving the line of the coast as it is now. Most of the 
 inhabitants, overtaken amid their regular employ- 
 ments, were destroyed ; but some escaped in ships and 
 some fled for safety to the summits of high mountains, 
 or to portions of the land which, for the time, escaped 
 Immediate destruction. Quotations are made from the 
 old books in which this tradition is recorded which ap- 
 pear to verify his report of what is found in them. To 
 criticise intelligently his interpretation of their signifi- 
 cance, one needs to have a knowledge of those books 
 and traditions, equal at least to his own." 
 
 These things it is stated, same page, were 
 handed down to the people, " and were pre- 
 served in some of their festivals, especially 
 one celebrated in the month of Izcalli which 
 was instituted to commemorate this fright- 
 ful destruction of land and people, and in 
 which princes and people humbled them- 
 selves before the divinity and besought him 
 to withhold a return of such terrible cala- 
 mities." 
 
 I might refer also to the fact that Geolo- 
 gical speculation recognizes "catastroph- 
 ism" as affecting the wonderful changes on 
 the continent. Baldwin, page 181. The 
 criticism and great parade over the sign that 
 was given on this continent of the birth of 
 Christ into the world, as found on page 422 
 of the Book of Mormon, is no credit to my 
 opponent. The book simply states that 
 when Christ was born there was no night 
 or darkness on this continent; and this was 
 one of the signs given to indicate the time 
 of his coming. A star also appeared, but it 
 does not say it shined in the day time. 
 Why Mr. Braden should object to super- 
 natural things occurring on this continent 
 at the birth of the Savior, when so many 
 wonderful things occurred on the Eastern 
 continent, as recorded in the Bible, ia 
 singularly strange. Or why that the same 
 things should not appear here as there. A 
 star appeared on the Eastern continent and 
 went before the wife men from the East and 
 stood over the child Jesus. Did it shine in 
 the day time or only in the night? Mr. 
 Braden don't know. The wise men and 
 searchers could not have come from very far 
 East in one night. The whole difficulty he 
 has found is answered in the question, was 
 God able to make it appear light in this 
 country at the time when darkness would 
 lome on? If this account was in the Bible 
 he would swallow it down and then ask for 
 more like it; but as it is in the Book of 
 Mormon it must be spurned and ridiculed. 
 
 Because the Savior's coming was clearly 
 predicted by the prophets on this continent 
 with many of the events that should trans- 
 pire during his birth and ministry, Mr. 
 Braden sets up, " It is plagiarism stolen 
 from the Bible or New Testament." Says 
 the predictions were made " more full here 
 than by the prophets on the Eastern con- 
 
 tinent." And here it is well to observe that 
 he does not know that. There were many 
 things written by inspired men upon the 
 Eastern continent which are not in the 
 Bible. Some twenty books are mentioned 
 in the Bible that are not known at the 
 present time. What those books said about 
 the birth of Christ, Mr. Braden don't know. 
 Christ's second coming, which has not yet 
 taken place, was pretty fully set forth as 
 early as the days of Adam. Jude quotes 
 from an inspired book which Mr. Braden 
 never saw, as follows : " And Enoch, the 
 seventh from Adam, prophesied of these 
 saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten 
 thousand of h ; s Saints to execute judgment 
 upon all the ungodly." As the Nephites 
 had the Old Testament scripture up to the 
 time of Jeremiah the prophet, they doubt- 
 less were in possession of many of the 
 inspired writings which are now lost to the 
 world, including the one that Jude quotes 
 from, which in all probability just as clearly 
 and definitely set forth this first coming of 
 Christ as the second. This is the reason 
 that the Nephites quote from several pro- 
 phets whose names are not found in the 
 Bible. What of it? Christ affirmed that 
 all of the prophets testified of him. If they 
 testified, they said something about him, 
 and many of them the same or like things. 
 Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Zachariahand 
 others speak particularly of his birth and 
 events attendant upon his first coming. 
 They specify that he should be born of a 
 virgin, that none should desire him, " A 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;" 
 would be crucified, killed between two 
 thieves ; be spit upon, his garments parted, 
 smitten on the cheek and a scepter put in 
 his hand in derision ; and an array of other 
 things too numerous to mention, and in 
 which it is just as particularly set forth, 
 and more so in detail, than in the prophe- 
 cies as found in the Book of Mormon. This 
 objection to the Book of Mormon like the 
 others made is of no consequence ; and no 
 proof of plagiarism. Bui he says, "The 
 Book of Mormon teaches the resurrection of 
 the dead just like Rigdon believed it." 
 How many ways are there to believe in the 
 resurrection? Ezekiel says, " I will open 
 your graves and cause you to come out of 
 your graves." Is there any other way to 
 believe in the resurrection? Christ rose 
 from the dead. If the Book of Mormon 
 taught the resurrection of the dead, it would 
 be taught just as found in the Bible, for 
 there is but one way to be resurrected, . e. t 
 to have the body restored to life again. Do 
 the Campbellites believe it in a different 
 way? You notice now when he answers 
 this. 
 
 The derisive manner in which he treats 
 the Book of Mormon is the same as that 
 used by all sceptics against the Bible to 
 hold it up in sport and derision ; and there 
 is scarcely a chapter in the Bible but what 
 has received their scathing satire and ridi- 
 cule. Does my opponent think this a 
 Christian way to examine a subject of any 
 kind in order to reach the facts in the 
 
140 
 
 matter? Has he forgotten that noted 
 sceptics who beJieve as little in the Bible as 
 he can in the Pook of Mormon, make a busi- 
 ness of entertaining great audiences by treat- 
 ing the Bible precisely as he does the Book 
 of Mormon. He must remember, that after 
 all of his mirth and light treatment, truth 
 remains just tae same. That the audience 
 may know just how much argument there 
 is in such a method, I will read a passage 
 from the Bible after his style of reading the 
 Book of Mormon, and see how it sounds. 
 Isaiah 7 : 14-23 : " Therefore the Lord him- 
 self shall give you a sign ; behold a virgin 
 shall conceive and bear a son and shall call 
 his name Immanuel." 
 
 Is not this miraculous enough to begin 
 with? But I will continue : 
 
 "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he 
 may know to refuse the evil and choose the 
 good." 
 
 According to Mr. Braden's superficial 
 view of commenting, that would be a sin- 
 gular thing. Hereafter all you parents need 
 to do in order to have good and wise chil- 
 dren is to give them plenty of butter and 
 honey to eat. Eighteenth verse : 
 
 "And it shall come to pass in that day 
 that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is 
 in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, 
 and for the bee that is in the land of Assy- 
 ria." 
 
 What is to be done with these wonderful 
 flies that live in the rivers of Egypt and the 
 Assyrian bee. Read the next verse and you 
 will see ; they are to fill all the holes of 
 the rocks in the country, and to eat in the 
 "thorn bushes." But I will read on : 
 
 "In the same day shall the Lord shave 
 with a razor that is hired, namely, by them 
 beyond the river, the king of Assyria, the 
 head and the hair of the feet [on the bot- 
 tom of the feet my opponent would say], 
 and it shall also consume his beard." 
 
 Well, a great many razors do that these 
 times. 
 
 Now, if this was in the Book of Mormon 
 would he not have a more miraculous or 
 terrible thing to laugh at than any he has 
 found in that book shaving the "hair 
 of the feet?" 
 
 And again : "It shall come to pass in 
 that day that a man shall nourish a young 
 cow and two sheep ; and it shall come to 
 pass, for the abundance of milk that they 
 shall give, he shall eat butter ; for butter 
 and honey shall every one eat that is left 
 in the land." 
 
 If this was in the Book of Mormon, would 
 it not be a fine piece for Mr. Braden's ridi- 
 cule? 
 
 Now, it seems to me, my friends, that be- 
 fore you begin to swallow down such argu- 
 ments as that, you had better just stop and 
 candidly think awhile ; weigh and consider 
 these things and statements in the connec- 
 tion in which they are written in their full 
 and true light, and not regard the ridicu- 
 culous statement made as to them. This 
 ridicule is not argument. It does not meet 
 argument upon any plane, and it will not 
 attack the Hook of Mormon. Neither can 
 
 it attack the Bible in any successful sense 
 with thinking men and women. 
 
 But he makes sport of the Book of Mor- 
 mon, because, says he, "It speaks against 
 Masonry." Yet, strange as it may appear, 
 the word Mason does not appear in it. It 
 speaks against secret societies, where peo- 
 ple band together to rob, and steal, and 
 murder, and plunder; warns the people 
 into whose hands the book should fall 
 against all such, as they had been a fruit- 
 ful cause of the destruction of the govern- 
 ment upon the continent and the peace of 
 the people. Is this bad advice? Or is this 
 Masonry? If so, the sooner it be put down 
 the better. But that is not what Masons 
 profess. Their's is a benevolent institu- 
 tion ; and Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon 
 were both "Masons." The Book of Mor- 
 mon says, page 382 that "Gadianton, who 
 was exceeding expert in many words, and 
 also in his craft to carry on the secret work 
 of murder and robbery ; therefore he be- 
 came the leader of the band of Kishku- 
 men." "They also sought place in the gov- 
 ernment." Page 39 ( J. This band of rob: 
 bers became so powerful that the law- 
 abiding people were compelled to take up 
 arms and defend their wives and children 
 and property against them. See Book of 
 Mormon, pages 424, 425, Is this Masonry? 
 These robbers had such strong holds in the 
 mountains that the people could not dis- 
 lodge them. Pages 426, 427 and 430. On 
 page 423 of the Book of Mormon it reads : 
 "And it came to pass that the ninety and 
 third year did also pass away in peace, save 
 it were for the Gadianton robbers, who 
 dwelt upon the mountains who did infest 
 the land ; for so strong were their holds 
 and their secret places that the people could 
 not overthrow them." 
 
 Again, page 424, verse 10 "The war be- 
 tween the robbers and the people of Nephi 
 did continue and became exceeding sore ; 
 nevertheless the people of Nephi did gain 
 some advantage of the robbers, insomuch 
 that they did drive them back out of their 
 lands into the mountains, and into their 
 secret places." 
 
 Book of Mormon, page 427: "And it came, 
 to pass in the latter end of the eighteenth 
 year,' those armies of robbers had prepared 
 for battle, and began to come down, and to 
 sally forth from the hills and out of the 
 mountains, and the wilderness, and their 
 strongholds, and secret places, and began, 
 to take possession of the lands." 
 
 This is what my friend calls Masonry. 
 This account is confirmed by recent explo- 
 rations. On the Lookout Mountain, lying 
 between the Gennessee and Cass rivers, 
 there is a strong fortification built upon the 
 brow of the great ledge of stone. It in- 
 cludes about two acres of ground. Within 
 thirty feet of the top of this rock are five 
 rooms made by dint of labor. The entrance 
 to these rooms is very small. Mr. Fergu- 
 son thinks them to have been constructed 
 during some dreadful wars and thosi who 
 constructed them acted on the defensive ; 
 and believes that it was so formidable, thai 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 147 
 
 twenty men could have withstood the 
 whole army of Xerxes ; as it was impossi- 
 ble for more than one to pass at a time, 
 and by a slight push could be hurled one 
 hundred and fifty feet below. Says, Mr. 
 Short, in speaking of these: "This intro- 
 duces us to another class of ruins, which, 
 with a couple of exceptions, were not dis- 
 covered prior to the summer of 1874. We 
 refer to the cliff dwellings, the most remark- 
 able habitations ever occupied by man." 
 Pages 293 to 298. "The most surprising re- 
 sults in all history of archaeological explo- 
 ration in this country was obtained in Sept.. 
 1874, by a party connected with the United 
 States' Geological and Geographical Sur- 
 vey Corps." " One of the first cliff houses 
 discovered by explorers is a most interest- 
 ing structure, the position of which i over 
 600 feet from the bottom of the cafion in a 
 niche of the wall furnishes a significant 
 commentary on the straits to which this 
 sorely- pressed people were driven by 
 their enemies." "Five hundred feet of 
 the ascent to be made to this aerial dwelling 
 was comparitively easy, but a hundred feet 
 of almost perpendicular wall confronted 
 the party, up which thay never could have 
 climbed, but for the fact that they found a 
 series of cuts in the face of the rock leading 
 up to the ledge upon which the house was 
 built. This ledge was ten feet wide by 
 twenty feet in length, with a vertical space 
 between it and the over-hanging rock of 
 fifteen feet. The rocks of the cliff served 
 as the rear wall of the house. The door 
 opening on the esplanade was but twenty 
 by thiity inches in size." "Some little 
 taste was exhibited by the occupants of 
 this human swallow nest." " An examina- 
 tion of the immediate vicinity revealed the 
 ruins of a half dozen similar dwellings in 
 ledges of the cliffs, some of them Qccupy- 
 ing positions the inaccessibility of which, 
 must ever be a wonder, when considered as 
 places of residence for human beings." 
 Down the valley a ways, a remarkable 
 "watch tower" was discovered. "The 
 outer wall of which was 43 feet in diameter, 
 the inner twenty-five. The outer wall is 
 still standing twelve feet high." Mr. 
 Jackson's next discovery was " on the face 
 of the vertical rock, which here ran up 
 from tbe bottom of the cauou; und at a 
 
 height of from fifty to one hundred feet, 
 were a number of nest-like habitations." 
 " The cliff house in this case was reached 
 by its occupants from the top of the canon. 
 The walls were pronounced as firm as the 
 rock upon which they were built. The 
 stones were very regular in size. The 
 dwelling measured fifteen feet in length, 
 five feet in width, and six feet in height. 
 Three miles further down the cafion, the 
 party discovered at heights from 600 to 800 
 feet above their heads, some curious, unique 
 little dwellings, sandwiched among the 
 crevices of the horizontal strata of the 
 rock of which the bluff was composed. 
 Access to the summit of the bluff a thousand 
 feet high was obtained by a circuitous path 
 through a side cafiou, and the houses them- 
 selves could only be reached at the utmost 
 peril of being precipitated to the bottom 
 of the dizzy abyss by crawling along a 
 ledge twenty inches wide and only high 
 enough for a- man in a creeping position. 
 This led to the wider shelf on which the 
 houses rested. The perfection of the finish 
 was especially noticeable in one of these 
 houses, which was but fifteen feet long 
 and seven feet high, with a wide wall run- 
 ning back in a semi-circular sweep." 
 
 Here I will state that in the summer of 
 1876, when I was in Washington City, I 
 visited the National Museum and noticed 
 that they had just begun to place casts, 
 representations of these cliff dwellers' 
 cities, among the relics and curiosities of 
 that institution. But when in 1882 I visited 
 the same institution there were large num- 
 bers of these representations that Seemed to 
 particularly interest and attract the public. 
 You will find there miniature representa- 
 tions of these cliff cities that have been 
 lately discovered, prepared for the purpose 
 of interesting and entertaining the world, 
 for there is nothing that has ever been 
 found that is like them. And yet they are 
 set out, described, located and traced in 
 the Book of Mormon, in the history of 
 what he terms Masonry, but which in fact 
 is the history of the combinations of robbers, 
 and not Masonry. How did Sidney Rigdon 
 get these facts? Here is anotner thing of 
 which to make a note when he answers. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
148 
 
 THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : We will now ask your atten- 
 tion to a conglomeration of contradictions 
 and absurdities, as incapable of being un- 
 tied as the Gordian knot ; and no Mormon 
 can cut it either, not even with the wonder- 
 ful sword of Laban. Page 507 : The plates 
 of Jared's brother are to be sealed and 
 buried, and are not to go forth until the 
 Gentiles repent of their iniquity, have faith 
 and are clean before the Lord. According 
 to the Book of Mormon that time has not 
 come. Page 523 : Ether hides up his plates 
 of gold, and they are afterwards found by 
 Limbi. Not Jared's brother's plates, but 
 Ether's plates, who never had or saw the 
 plates of Jared's brother. Page 158 : Ser- 
 vants of Limbi find twenty-four gold plates, 
 said to be Ether's plates, not the plates of 
 Jared's brother. Page 156: King Benjamin 
 lived only three years after Mosiah began 
 to reign in his stead. Three years after Mo- 
 siah ascended the throne, or just after his 
 father's death, he sent men out who first 
 learned of Limbi and his people. Limbi 
 told them of the gold plates of Ether, found 
 by his people. Page 507: Jared's brother 
 was to write and seal up what he had seen, 
 and bury it, and his two stone interpreters, 
 and they were not to come forth until after 
 the death of Christ, and until the Gentiles 
 were converted, and this time has not come 
 yet. Then occurs this sentence: "For this 
 cause did King Benjamin keep the plates of 
 Jared's brother, that they should not come 
 to the world till after the death of Christ." 
 Page 200 : King Mosiah translates the plates 
 found by Limbi's people, with the inter- 
 preters handed down from generation to 
 generation from the beginning, that the 
 people might 'know concerning the people 
 that had been destroyed. 
 
 Now, then, let us point out a portion of 
 the contradictions. 1. The plates of Jared's 
 brother were hid up, and were not to go 
 forth until the Gentiles were converted, and 
 yet King Benjamin had them. 2. Here it 
 is represented that the servants of Limbi 
 found the plates of Jared's brother, and 
 they came into King Benjamin's hands. 
 In another place it is the gold plates of 
 Ether that they find. 3. King Benjamin 
 had the plates found by Limbi's people, 
 yet he died before his people knew anything 
 about Limbi's people, or the plates they 
 had found. 4. King Benjamin had these 
 plates found by Limbi's people, yet Limbi 
 gave them to King Benjamin's people after 
 the kind's death. 5. If the plates in King 
 Benjamin's possession were the plates of 
 Jared's brother, they could not be trans- 
 lated without the two stone interpreters 
 he buried with them at least the Lord said 
 so. Those interpreters were never found, 
 yet Mosiah translated the plates without 
 these interpreters, with a pair his ancestors 
 
 had handed down for generations. 6. If 
 they were the plates of Jared's brother they 
 were not to go forth until after the death of 
 Christ and the conversion of the Gentiles, 
 yet Mosiah gave their contents to his people 
 before the death of Christ, and the Gentiles 
 are not converted yet. 7. Jared's brother 
 buried his interpreters with his plates. If 
 King Benjamin had his plates where were 
 those interpreters that were so all-import- 
 ant to an understanding of the plates. 8. 
 Mosiah interpreted these plates with stone 
 interpreters handed down for generations, 
 from the beginning. From the beginning- 
 must mean since Lehi left Jerusalem. We- 
 hear of Laban's sword, Laban's breast- 
 plate, Lehi's compass, but nothing of these 
 all-important instruments, interpreters 
 until now. 9. Mosiah 's grandfather trans- 
 lated the stone of Coriautimur without any 
 interpreter; but his grandson mut use in- 
 terpreters that his grandfather did not have, 
 or did have and did not use, and yet could 
 not translate without using them. If they 
 were the plates of Jared's brother we have 
 in the Book of Mormon, at least all their 
 important features, in the Jaredite portion, 
 yet the Lord said they should not go farther 
 until the Gentiles were converted, and that 
 has not been done yet. Well, there we will 
 stop, though we are by no means done with 
 the contradictions. 
 
 The Jaredites left Asia right after the 
 confusion of tongues. Between that time 
 and their destruction they had iwenty-six 
 kings, some of whom reigned but a short 
 time. .They were destroyed about 250 B. 
 C., for "Coriantimur died among the Zara- 
 hemlites about that time. From Moses to 
 Christ was 1600 years by true Chronology. 
 Subtract 250 and we have 1350. From 
 Moses to Abraham 645 years by true chron- 
 ology. From Abraham to Babel was 250 
 years, or the time from the departure of the 
 Jaredites from Babel till their destruction 
 was 2250, which divided by 26 gives 86 
 years, as the average length of the reign of 
 each Jaredite king, if we accept the other 
 statement that they were destroyed 600 
 pears before Christ, the average reign was 
 73 years. Sidney did not stop and figure 
 that story out, when he wrote it. 
 
 Jared's* brother ( I wish Sidney had given 
 that fellow a name while he was about it ), 
 seals up his record and buries it, and with 
 it his stone interpreters, without which no 
 one can read the record, and the Lord says 
 it shall not go forth until after the death of 
 Christ and the conversion of the Gentiles, 
 an event yet future. Over 2000 years after- 
 wards, long before Christ, Ether finishes 
 this record. How could he so long before 
 Christ get the portion Jared wrote, when 
 the Lord said he could not ? How did he 
 write on the plates if they were sealed? 
 How did he interpret it so as to know 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 when to begin his record, so as to 
 begin when the record stopped in the 
 history? If Ether got those plates was not 
 the Lord mistaken? If he read them was 
 not the Lord mistaken? If he ieft them so that 
 Linibi got them, was not the Lord mistaken ? 
 If Mosiah translated them without Jared's 
 brother's interpreter, was not the Lord 
 mistaken ? If Mosiah gave the whole thing 
 away to his people, was not the Lord mis- 
 taken? If Ether's plates are a continuation 
 of the plates of Jared's brother, how did 
 Moroni interpret the portion of Jared's 
 brother's? How did he get Jared's broth- 
 er's interpreters without which, according 
 to the Lord, it was impossible to understand 
 the plates? He did not have them, he had 
 Mosiah's interpreters. Then he had Mosiah 's 
 translation, or rather his father did, and 
 buried it, and Moroni had neither plates 
 nor translation, come to think about it. If 
 he had what Mormon buried, and he must 
 have had them in order to get Ether's plates, 
 he had Mosiah'e, full translation. What 
 need then of Moroni's translation, when 
 Mosiah had done it? What need of his 
 abridgement, when he could have buried 
 for Impostor Joe the whole fleet load of 
 plates, the whole library? What need of 
 Moroni's translation for Imposter Joe since 
 he had Jared's brother's interpreters, and 
 eould read the original? How did Imposter 
 Joe get those interpreters since Moroni 
 never had them? Moroni never had them, 
 nobody ever had them, and nobody can 
 have them, until the Gentiles are converted. 
 How could Moroni and Mormon translate 
 those plates of Jared's brother, without the 
 interpreters sealed up with them and with- 
 out which the Lord said nobody could 
 understand them, and Imposter Joe had to 
 have Jared's brother's interpreters that the 
 Lord said nobody should have, to interpret 
 an abridgement of a translation made by 
 those who did not have what the Lord said 
 they must have. How but there we will 
 stop again. This jumble of lies is the "Ful- 
 ness of the Gospel." 
 
 The Book of Mormon tells of three fellows 
 who never died, and never will die. That 
 is a pretty big story, but it beats that in 
 another place. It tells us of a fellow who 
 lived before he was born, or before he lived 
 at all. Page 481 Ainaron hid up the records 
 in the year 320. Page 482. Mormon was 
 then ten years old. Page 483. When he 
 was fifteen or in 325 the Nephites who 
 were never to see death, were taken away 
 because of the sins of the people. They 
 were taken out of the land entirely. Page 
 485. Moroni writes : 
 
 "There are none that know th true God, save It be 
 " the three disciples of Jesua, who did tarry in th 
 " land, until the wickednes of the people was so great 
 " that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with 
 " the people, and whether these be on the face of the 
 " land, no man kno vvetli. But behold my father and I 
 " have seen them, and they have ministered unto us." 
 
 Contradictions: I. Mormon flays that 
 these three were taken out of the Land 
 when he was fifteen. Moroni says nobody 
 knows whether they are in the Land or 
 not, although he tells ua that the Lord 
 
 took them out of the Land. Mormon says 
 they were taken out of the Land when he 
 was fifteen. If they ministered to Mormon 
 it was before he was fifteen. Moroni says 
 they ministered unto him and his father. 
 
 They ministered to him years before he 
 was born, or he had a very precocious 
 father. With ordinary people that would 
 be extraordiuory, but it doubtless was a 
 common thing with Sidney's Nephites. 
 
 The story of the extermination of the Ne- 
 phites is idiot' cally absurd. We are told, 
 Eage 384, that the Nephites covered the 
 md from the sea East to the sea West, and 
 from the sea South to the sea North, 
 or from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
 and from the Gulf of Mexico to the 
 Northern Ocean, or all of British Amer- 
 ica and the United States, and probably 
 most of Mexico. They were a highly-civil- 
 ized, wealthy people, with ships, temnles, 
 houses, cities, cultivated farms, and fixed 
 residences. In the year 880 the Nephites 
 were signally defeated by the Lamanites. 
 Page 491. Moroni, their leader, proposes 
 that both sides gather every man, woman, 
 and child, on each side for a final struggle, 
 inthePlainofCumorah. in the present State 
 of New York. The object of the writer is 
 to get the people together to have them ex- 
 terminated, and in the right spot for Im- 
 poster Joe to find the plates. Who believes 
 that an intelligent leader, of an intelligent 
 civilized people, ever dreamed of such a 
 fool's project, or even proposed it to a sen- 
 sible people? The Mormons who flock to- 
 gether at the call of Imposter Joe, or Pria- 
 pus Young, might do it, but people of com- 
 mon sense would not. Who believes that 
 an intelligent, wealthy, highly civilized 
 people, covering British America, Uni- 
 ted States and Mexico would abandon 
 cities, homes, farms, property, and flock to- 
 gether, millions of them, in obedience to 
 such an idiotic command? Who believes 
 that such millions of people could accom- 
 plish such an undertaking? Think of the 
 North and South leaving homes and prop- 
 erty, and flocking, men, women and chil- 
 dren, to the central part of New York for a 
 "Kilkenny cat fight;" and this was done 
 before telegraphs to send out the command 
 from the State of New York to A laska. Cal- 
 ifornia, and Florida. And the people nock- 
 ed by millions, men, women and children, 
 to central New York, without railroads to 
 carry them, marching, men, women and 
 children, every soul of them to central New 
 York, from Alaska, from California, from 
 Florida, to be exterminated, and all that 
 Imposter Joe might get those plates. In 
 less than four years these millions of idiots 
 who had come at this idiot's idiotic decree, 
 gathered, men, women and children in cen- 
 tral New York. And the fool Lamanites 
 they gathered also. And then they "fit," 
 and they "fit," and they "fit," and "fit." 
 and "fit," until only one Nephite was left, 
 Moroni, and he escaped for no earth ly reu- 
 son, except that the Lord wanted him to 
 finish up and bury these plates for Impos- 
 ter Joe. Seriously, ladies and gentlemen, 
 
150 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 do you believe that such idiocy as that is 
 the "fulness of the gospel?" 
 
 The slaughter of the Jaredites is even 
 worse than this. In their case there was a 
 war until ten times as many soldiers as were 
 killed in our great civil war were slain, and 
 fifteen or twenty millions of noTi-combat- 
 ents ; and then there is an idiotic gathering 
 of millions of idiots men, women and chil- 
 dren for an idiotic "Kilkenny cat fight," 
 
 There is the same leaving of home, cities, 
 property, and all behind. The same flock- 
 ing toge'ther of men, women and children. 
 Observe tbe idiocy of both this account and 
 the Nephite slaughter. Warriors leave their 
 wives, children and non-combatants at 
 home. But a portion of the men as are ever 
 taken tothe field; some are left to take care 
 of the property. It is only migratory nations 
 or people on an emigration like the Israel- 
 ites in the wilderness that take their women 
 and children with them. This people were 
 a highly civilized, wealthy people, and the 
 very people who would send put only a 
 portion of their men. Another idiocy. We 
 are told men, women and children marched 
 armed with shields, head plates and breast 
 plates and other weapons of war. Women 
 armed with weapons of war, children armed 
 with weapons of war! Idiocy ineffable! 
 And then they went forth to battle, men, 
 women and children, millions of them 
 babies and all, with head-plates, breast- 
 plates, shield and swords, spears, bows, 
 arrows, darts, and doubtless with catapul- 
 tae and battering rams. And they "fit," 
 and they "fit" and "fit," and "fit" and 
 "fit," till Coriantimur, and Shiz, andEthef 
 fwho was bottle holder) alone were left. 
 "Then Coriantimur smote off the head of 
 Shiz, and it came to pass that after 
 he had smote off the head of Shiz. 
 that Shiz raised up his hands and fell 
 after that he had struggled for breath he 
 died." Now most men die and quit breath- 
 ing when their heads are off, all except 
 Sydney's Jaredites. Thatexplains the oath 
 of the Masons among the Jaredites. "If a 
 man would not do what he had sworn to 
 do, he was to lose his head. If he told the 
 secrets he was to loss his life." As Syd- 
 ney's Jaredites did not lose their lives when 
 they lost their heads, the difference in the 
 two penalties is all clear now. Ether then 
 then finished his work in making out a re- 
 port for Impostor Joe. This fight was worse 
 than even the Kilkenny cat fight. In that 
 classic contest the tip of each cat's tail was 
 left, but in this, the cats, tails and all, on 
 both sides, down to the last hair, were used 
 up, except one hair, Ether, that was not in 
 the fight at all. The Jaredites were taken 
 up to Central New York to be exterminated. 
 Then the Nephites were taken up there to 
 be exterminated; and all that Ether and 
 Moroni might leave the plates where it 
 would be handy for Impostor Joe to find 
 them. The Book of Mormon piously mor- 
 alizes "We see the Lord accomplishes 
 great things with small means." Yes, in 
 these two instances he accomplished the 
 smallest possible thing with infinitely and 
 miraculously great means. 
 
 Having told us of men who lived before 
 they were born, or [lived at all, and men 
 who lived after they were dead, Sidney 
 tells of two great nations who occupied 
 the same country, farms and cities at the 
 same time and never knew of each other's 
 existence. On page 136 we are told that. 
 Coriantimur died among the subjects of 
 King Zarahem la about 250 B. C. The Jared- 
 ites covered the continent of North Amer- 
 ica until that time with cities, farms, houses, 
 and at the least calculation there must have 
 been 60,000,000 of them. 600 B. C., or 530 
 years before the Jaredites were destroyed, 
 the Nephites and Zarahemlites came over 
 and they spread over and occupied the same 
 land for 350 years before the Jaredites used 
 each other up, so we have two great na- 
 tions of different race and language occu- 
 pying the same farms and cities at the same 
 time, and not knowing anything about 
 each other. There now, who doubts that 
 the Book of Mormon is of Divine origin? 
 These Jaredites marched up to New York 
 and slew each other, and the Nephites who 
 were occupying the same land and farms 
 knew nothing of it. I was going to suggest 
 that Symmes's theory must be true, and 
 that one party occupied the upper side of 
 the farms while the other occupied the 
 lower side in Symmes's hole, but the State 
 of New York, where the Jaredites perished, 
 is on the upper side. Perhaps they occupied 
 the land as the Irish and the fairies occupy 
 Ireland at the same time. Will Kelley tell 
 us which were men and which were fairies, 
 or "good people," as the Irish call them. 
 
 We are told that Jaredite cattle went 
 into the land of Zarahemla : that Jaredites 
 went after them : that Jaredites hunted in 
 Zarahemla and built cities there and yefc 
 the Zarahemlites and Jaredites knew noth- 
 ing of each other, although the Zaraheml- 
 ites were over 300 years before Coriantimur 
 came among them. One of these people 
 must have been fairies certainly. Page 516 
 Jaredite prophets tell the people that unless 
 they repent the Lord will destroy them 
 and bring in a people to take their place. 
 As Coriantimur died among the Zaraheml- 
 ites about 300 years after the Nephites and 
 Zarahemlites came to America they had 
 already been in the land hundreds of years 
 when these prophets were prophecying, 
 but doubtless it was as fairies invisible 
 people, and the Jaredites and their inspired 
 prophets knew nothing of it. 
 
 The Book of Mormon tell us that the 
 Jaredites had glass when they left the 
 Tower of Babel for how could Jared's 
 brother tell that the "stones he did moul- 
 ten out of a rock" were like glass if he had 
 never seen glass? They must have had 
 
 flass for Granny Smith says, Jared's 
 rother's interpreters were diamonds set in 
 plates of glass, which were set in silver 
 bows. They had steel also before Abraham's 
 day, for " Shule did moulten steel out of ore 
 and make swords for his people." Page 
 512. We have also such anachronisms as 
 " Church" 600 B. C.. when the word wa 
 not used till after his time. We have 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 151 
 
 Christians by millions hundreds of years 
 before Christ: when the followers of Christ 
 were first called Christians at Antioch 
 after his ascension. We have "Churches 
 of Christ" by thousands when that terra 
 was not thought of until after his death. 
 We have " Martyrs for Christ" before he 
 was preached to men. We have Masonry 
 described and denounced thousands of 
 years before it was thought of. Episco- 
 palian liturgy, pulpits and "Lord's day" 
 and " Dissenters" before the day of Christ, 
 when they are peculiar to England and the 
 Christian Dispensation. We have the Eng- 
 lish legal idea of the " bar of God" fre- 
 quently. There are debates on Soul-sleep- 
 ing, Universalism, Deism, Unitarianism, 
 and all the topics that Rigdon used to 
 debate, and the Nephite prophets agree 
 with Sidney every time. 
 
 The Book of Mormon has such American- 
 ismsas "Bearing down against theChurch." 
 " All manner of good homely cioth." 
 " Sent forth to preach among the people." 
 " Somewhat." " It supposeth me." It 
 has these Rigdonisms. " The numerority of 
 'our forces." (I suppose Bigdon believed 
 with the Western stump orator that he had 
 as good a right to make words as old Web- 
 ster.) "The enormity of our number." 
 What particular wickedness constituted 
 the enormity of their numbers Sydney does 
 not tell us. " Rations." " Are a marching." 
 " It mattereth not." "Makes Bellowses." 
 (That is equal to the boy who wanted some 
 " molaBseses.") "Having waxed stronger 
 11 in health. "I am a man of no small 
 "reputation among those who know me." 
 fThat is the Nephite way of saying " I am 
 ''some Punkins tu hum.") "As I was a 
 *' journeying." "The foundation is begin- 
 "ning to be laid." "As I was a going 
 " forth." " He saw Amulak a preaching." 
 " My heart is brim with joy." " A tremen- 
 w dous battle." " One continual round of 
 " murder." 
 
 Sidney Rigdon was famous for his power 
 In revival excitements. He had his revival 
 expressions common to the camp-meeting 
 style of his day. The Book of Mormon is 
 full of them, such as " I am encircled about 
 eternally in the arms of his Jove," (page 55, 
 670 B. C.) " Have ye been spiritually born 
 of God;" ' If he have experienced a change 
 of heart;" "If ye have felt to sing the 
 songs of his redeeming love;" "For the 
 arms of mercy are extended towards you." 
 (Page 222, 80 B.) The last expression oc- 
 curs several times in the book. "Ye shall 
 awake to a sense of your awful condition." 
 (Page 531.) "Many died firmly believing that 
 their souls were redeemed by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ." (Page 333, 80 B. C.) "Have they 
 not revealed the plan of salvation. (Page 
 136, 400 B. C.) Disciple all over. " The own 
 due time of the Lord." (Pages 17, 72, 600 
 B. C.) " Or otherwise ye can imagine your- 
 selves brought before the tribunal of God 
 with your souls filled with guilt and re- 
 morse." (Page 321, 80 B. C.) Rigdon all 
 over. "Thus mercy can satisfy the de- 
 mi.nds of justice." Page 304, 75 B. C.) 
 
 Nepht declares, 600 B. C., "his father Lehi 
 spake by the power of the Holy Spirit, 
 which he received by faith on the Son of 
 God, and the Son of God was the Messiah." 
 (Page 123.) Nephi declares, 536 years B. C., 
 " I glory in my Jesus, for he has saved my 
 soul from hell." "Enter into the narrow 
 gate and walk in the straight way which 
 leads to life." A regular Baptist experience 
 and exhortation. "For none of these can 
 I hope unless they be reconciled to Christ." 
 "Pour out your souls in prayer." "Live 
 without God in the world." " O blessed 
 Jesus, save me from an awful hell." "Pure 
 as the driven snow." "Days of probation." 
 "One eternal round." We might quote 
 Rigdon's pet revival expressions by the 
 page. Perhaps the clearest cases of mod- 
 ernisms are the following: "From nature 
 up to nature's God " a quotation from Al- 
 exander Pope's "Essay on Man," line 331. 
 2000 years before he lived. On page 54 Lehi 
 says: "I go to the cold and silent grave, 
 (a revivalism of Rigdon) from whence no 
 traveler can return," quoting from Shak- 
 speare's Hamlet 2000 years before Shak- 
 speare was born< 
 
 Then listen to some of the revelations and 
 translations that Jehovah doled out to Im- 
 poster Joe, " word by word, so precious was 
 it." " If there be fault it be the mistake 
 of men." "And I, Nephi, beheld his sword 
 and drew it from the sheath thereof, and 
 the hilt thereof was of gold and the work- 
 manship thereof was exceeding fine, and I 
 saw that the blade thereof was of most 
 precious steel." What a sentence thereof. 
 "Ye shall clear away the branches which 
 bear bitter fruit according to the size of the 
 good and the strength thereof, and ye shall 
 not clear away the bad thereof all at once, 
 lest the roots thereof be too strong for the 
 good and the graft thereof." We under- 
 stand thereof. "And it came to pass that 
 after many days it began to put forth some- 
 what a little young and tender branches, 
 and behold the main top thereof began to 
 perish." 
 
 "And the barges were built after a man- 
 " ner that they were exceeding tight, and 
 "that they would hold water like unto a 
 " dish, and the bottom thereof was tight like 
 "unto a dish, and the sides thereof were 
 " tight like untoa dish, and the ends thereof 
 " were peaked, and the top thereof was tight 
 " like unto a dish, and the length thereof 
 "was the length of a tree, and the door 
 " thereof when it was shut was tight like 
 "untoa dish." As clear as mud thereof. 
 " Behold the Lord said thou shalt make an 
 " hole in the top thereof, and in the bottom 
 " thereof, and when thou art in want of air 
 " thou shalt unstop the hole thereof, and 
 "receive air, and if it be that the water 
 "come in upon thee thou shalt stop the 
 " hole thereof (hole of water) that ye may 
 "not perish in the flood." 
 
 "And he put the stones in the vessels 
 "which were prepared, one in each end 
 "thereof, and behold they did give light 
 " unto the vessels thereof." (Vessels of 
 " the ends of course.) 
 
1*2 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 What sense in this: "Never has man 
 " come before me with such exceeding faith 
 "as thou hast, for were it so ye could not 
 "have seen my finger." "The Scriptures 
 " are before ye, if ye shall arrest them (what 
 harm have the Scriptures done that they 
 should be arrested ?) it shall be to your own 
 destruction." Take such English as the 
 following : as " the fullness of the Gospel." 
 "The Lord spake and sayeth." " Dwindle 
 Into unbelief." "I saw rumors of wars." 
 *'The walls were rent in twain." That is, 
 several walls were rent, and when the rend- 
 ing was done there were two walls. "Be- 
 come worse than as though he had never 
 known these things." "He that eatteth of 
 this bread atteth to their soul." "Bury 
 weapons of peace." "I ought not to har- 
 row up in my desires the firm decrees of a 
 just God," No, no, Sidney, you shouldn't 
 orter do any such orful thing as that. "Sent 
 forth to preach among the people, &c." 
 What a revelation of truth there is in an 
 "&c?" "No afflictions save swallowed 
 up in joy," is, I suppose, what the Dutch- 
 man meant when he told of a " schweet 
 pain." "Stabbed by a garb of secrecy." 
 What a hole that would make in a fellow. 
 " The more part of a history." " The more 
 part of the ministry." "Shepherd hath 
 called and art calling." "Nevertheless 
 they did not remain a perfect peace." 
 "They yieldeth." " I the Lord delighteth in 
 the chastity of women." ''Ye are like 
 unto they." "Do as ye hath hitherto 
 done." "These things had not ought to 
 be." "Plates of which hath been spoken." 
 'Law had ought to be done away." 
 'Knowledge of they which art in Jerusa- 
 ' lem concerning they which shall be scat- 
 ' tered unto they which art of the house of 
 ' Israel, unto all they that believe, unto all 
 11 they which are filled with the spirit." 
 " I had spoke many things." " They saith 
 unto the King." "I who ye call your 
 king." " Moroni had wrote." 
 
 The Book of Doctrines and Covenants 
 contains such inspiration as the following : 
 "I the Lord willeth." "Verily I say unto 
 you for this once." "I the Lord justifieth 
 you." "I the Lord maketh you free." 
 "For lo and behold saith the Son Anmon, 
 " or in other words Alphus, or in other 
 " words Omegus, once Jesus Christ, your 
 "Lord." Alphus and Omegus are new 
 Greek letters, never heard ol by Pericles. 
 " It is expedient in me." " All they shall 
 be comforted." " All they should gather 
 together." "Did moulten out of a rock." 
 " And this servant went and did all things 
 whatsoever." We will submit a couum- 
 drum to our opponent : What did this sen- 
 tence, on page 244 of the old edition of the 
 Book of Doctrines and Covenants mean? 
 "That ye go to make use of the steward- 
 ship which I have appointed unto you ex- 
 clusive of the sacred things for the purpose 
 of shine love these things." We have put 
 In these beauties of the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants to show that Mormon reve- 
 lations are sui generis; there is nothing like 
 them. Admire sufficiently, if you can, 
 
 such beauties as the following: "Now the 
 joy of Amron was great, even that he was 
 full, yea he was swallowed up in joy of his 
 God, even to the exhaustion of his strength, 
 and he fell again to the earth. Now was 
 that not exceeding great joy?" Yea, verily 
 Sidney, it was. 
 
 "There were no robbers nor murderers, 
 neither were there Lamanites, or any other 
 manner of ites." Sidney Rigdon all over. 
 
 We have reserved the climax of Mormon 
 Inspiration to the last. Page 327. "And 
 "Moroni went forth among the people 
 " waving the rent of his garment in the air 
 " that all the people might see the writing 
 " that he wrote upon the rent." There now 
 doubt if you dare that the Book of Mormon 
 is of Divine origin. The one who hid up 
 the plate that Impostor Joe translated went 
 forth waving a hole that the people might 
 see the writing he had WROTE on the 
 hole. I never heard of but one instance to 
 rival this. An old chap who lived in 
 Trumbull county, Ohio, used to tell that in 
 a freshet in the Mississippi river it washed 
 away so much of a bank that was full of 
 kingfisher's holes, that it left the holes 
 sticking out into the air fifty feet. The hole 
 that Moroni waved in the air, and on 
 which he had wrote the writing that the 
 people "might see what he had wrote on the 
 hole must have been like the old fellow s 
 kingfisher's holes. 
 
 The adaptations and imitations of modern 
 literature and the Bible expose the fraud TI- 
 lent character of the Book of Morman. In 
 the first book we have the revival power of 
 animal magnetism imitated 600 years before 
 Christ. Pages 23 to 28 John's Apocalypse 
 imitated and the Church of Rome describ- 
 ed, as only history can describe it. Page 
 24. The American Revolution described. 
 Pages 176, 180, 181, 243, 245, 272 and 373 are 
 imitations of Fox's Book of Martyrs. Pages 
 196-7 a weak imitation of Paul's conver- 
 sion. Page 202 teaches the modern radical 
 democratic idea of vox populi vox Dei. 
 Pages 226, 246. Peter's deliverance is imi- 
 tated. Ananias lying to tueLord imitated. 
 Page 223. All spiritual gifts enjoyed. Page 
 246. Peter healing the father of Aeneas imi- 
 tated. Page 252. Watering of Jethro's 
 flocks by Moses imitated Pages 256 and 
 266. The fall down power of modern revivals 
 is imitated. Page 289. Episcopalians preach 
 from high pulpits, and have liturgies and 
 on the Lord's Day, something never dream- 
 ed of till after Christ. 322. An inspired 
 prophet scalps his enemy just like any 
 other " big injun" who .takes " heap much 
 scalp." Page 391. The delivery of the 
 Hebrews from the fiery furnace imitated. 
 Pages 406-407. Elijah's miracle of drought 
 and rain imitated. Page 480. Daniel cast 
 into the lion's den imitated. Page 438. 
 Candles invented. Page 436. The raising 
 from the dead by Jesus and others 
 imitated. Page 456. The miracle of the 
 loaves and fishes imitated by making the 
 institution of the Supper just like it. 
 Pages 226 and 231. Peter and Cornelius imi- 
 tated. Scenes at the crucifixion of Christ, 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 darkness, rending rocks, raising of the 
 dead, imitated, only Sydney far out-does 
 the New Testament writers. Thomas put- 
 ting his ringers in nai! prints and side imi- 
 tated, only Sydney has over 2500 spend ten 
 or twelve hours in such A performance. 
 An attempt to imitate our Saviour's lan- 
 guage to Peter about John's tarrying here 
 absurdly changed in to his saying and doing 
 what th New Testament, (John himself 
 being the writerjsays he did uotsay or do. 
 Page 614. Daughter of Herodias imitaied. 
 Page JO. Daniel's interpreting the hand 
 writing on the wall instated. Solomon imi- 
 tated 519. 
 
 These are only a portion of the adaptations 
 and imitations. So servilely does Rigdon 
 opy ulie Bible, and especially the Now 
 Testament th it all his prophets and preach- 
 ers preach and prophecy just as the Bible 
 preachers and prophets speak, using their 
 exact language much *f the time except 
 when they preach lligdon's special hobbies. 
 The Jaredites who came to America from 
 the Tower of Babel have the complete gos- 
 pel preached among them before the days 
 of Abraham. No Israelite prophet was ev- 
 er favored with such revelations, not even 
 Isaiah as Jared's brother. 
 
 I challenge my opponent to name an im- 
 portant Chistian idea, or important idea of 
 
 modern theology that Rigdon does not pub 
 into the mouth of his Nephites. His gross 
 illiteracy appears tn ths fact that he did 
 not see that he was exposing his owa hand 
 and work and voice as clearly as he ever 
 did in any sermon b> preached. It is 
 the most transparent Ciuudering /raud ev- 
 er attempted 
 
 By actual careful count the plagiarisms 
 from the New Testament of paragraphs, 
 phrases and sentences ar? over 500 The 
 quotations of phrases amount to hundreds. 
 There are over ten in each page of Rigdon's 
 sermon against infant Baptism. Pages 
 3JO 340,341. Whole chapters are auoted. 
 
 Isaiah \\ to XIV. 
 
 xxr. 
 
 XLVIII. 
 
 L 
 
 LIE. 
 
 LIV. 
 
 Malachi III. 
 
 Matthew V VT. VII. 
 
 II Corinthians XIII. 
 
 One-eighteenth ol the Book is stolen by 
 chapters. If we add to this paragraphs and 
 verses fully one-twelfth : if we add phrases 
 fully one-eight; if we enumerate ideas stol- 
 en, adapted or imitated, we have the entire 
 religious portion of the Book except its 
 Rigdonisms. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FIFTEENTH SPEECH] 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLKMEN : Whon I closed my remarks 
 last evening, it was with a record of some of 
 the discoveries of this rountry that I claim 
 to be corroborative evidence of the truth 
 and divinity of the Book of Mormon. The 
 author from whom I was reading gives cuts, 
 representations and descriptions of many 
 of those cliff dwellings and cities which are 
 in direct connection with my proofs here, 
 but I will not take the time to read farther 
 at present, as I wish to examine the objec- 
 tions so far as presented by my opponent, 
 and present also another line of proofs ob- 
 tained by the researches of explorers and 
 scientists, and introduce others touching 
 particularly upon the individual identity of 
 the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which 
 it is claimed lived in a highjy civilized and 
 enlightened state upon this continent. 
 
 Von Humboldt in his Equinoctial Regions 
 of America, vol. 1, pages 16 and 269, refers 
 to the finding of the bones of the megathe- 
 rium and megalonyx on this continent, but 
 reports them as extremely scarce. He also 
 states in same work : "That natulraist, M. 
 
 Cuvier, has also recognized two new species 
 of mastodons and an elephant among the 
 fossil bones of quadrupeds which we 
 brought from America.'' 
 
 Prof. Winchell, in his Sketches of Crea- 
 tion published in 1874, pages 356 and 357* 
 says : " In the United States we detect also 
 some evidences of the co-existence of man 
 and extinct species of quadrupeds. Dr. 
 Koch, the reconstructor of the Tertiary 
 Zeuglodon, insisted long ago that be had 
 found in Missouri such an association of 
 Mastodon and Indian remains as to prove 
 that the two had lived cotemporaneously. 
 "I have myself (says the author) ob- 
 served the bones of the mastodon and ele- 
 phant imbedded in peat at depths so shal- 
 low that I could readily believe the animals 
 to have occupied the country during its pos- 
 session by the Indians, and g'av, ,>ublicatiou 
 to this conviction in 1862." " More recently 
 (he says) Prof. Holmes, of Charleston, has 
 informed the Academy ol Natural Sciences 
 of Philadelphia that he finds upon the 
 banks of the Ashley river a remarkable 
 conglomeration of fossil remains in deposits 
 
164 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 of post-tertiary age. Remains of the hog, 
 horse, and other animals of recent date, to- 
 gether with human bones, stone arrow- 
 heads hatchets and fragments of pottery 
 arp tfcere lying mingled with the bones of 
 the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizzards. 
 Cotemporary with these American animals, 
 but not yet found associated in their re- 
 mains with the relics of the human species, 
 lived in North America horses much larger 
 tnan the existing species, grazing in com- 
 pany with wild oxen (another of Braden's 
 miracles ; this is Alex. Winchell, LL. D., 
 Prof, of Geology, Zoology and Botany in the 
 University of Michigan who discovers this 
 rmracle) and herds of bisons and shrub- 
 Joving tapirs. The streams were dammed 
 by (he labors of gigantic beavers, while the 
 lorests afforded a range for a species of hog, 
 and a grateful dwelling-place for numerous 
 edentate quadrupeds related to the sloth, 
 tut of gigantic proportions." 
 
 Short, in his North Americans of Antiqui- 
 ty) page 530, published in 1882, says : " The 
 question as to whether man and the masto- 
 don, were cotemporaneous in America has 
 long been a matter of dispute, as the reader 
 is aware." Then he cites the elephant pipe 
 discovered six or eight years ago by a 
 farmer living on the line 'dividing Musca- 
 tine and Louisa counties, Iowa. He says : 
 " The finder, who had no idea of its archaeo- 
 logical value, kept it with a number of ' In- 
 dian stonjes,' as he termed them, until last 
 year (1878), when it became the property of 
 the Davenport Academy." Dr. Farquarson 
 says: "The ancient mounds were very 
 abundant in that vicinity (Louisa county), 
 and rjoh in relics, which are deposited *on 
 the surface of the soil, not in excavations." 
 " Then," says the author, "the pipe, which 
 i? of a fragile sandstone, is of the ordinary 
 mound-builders' type, and has every ap- 
 pearance of its age and usage of its gen- 
 uineness I have no doubt. .Together with 
 the elephant mound of Wisconsin, the ele- 
 phant head of Palenque depicted in Lord 
 Kingsborough's work, our pipe completes 
 the series of what the French would call 
 1 documents,' proving the fact of the cotem- 
 poraneous existence on this continent of 
 man and the mastodon." 
 
 I might, in this connection, refer you to 
 the late article in the Chicago Advance, by 
 Professor Wright, of Oberlin College, upon 
 the "Animal mounds," ancient earthworks 
 of Wisconsin, particularly describing, 
 *mong others, the elephant mound before 
 referred to, and from certain features which 
 are presented it seems that the Professor is 
 doubtful as to whether he should believe it 
 was intended to represent the elephant or 
 some other animal. "The mound is 135 feet 
 long, 60 feet broad (from the bottom of his 
 feet to his back), with a trunk or proboscis 
 30 feet long. The head Is large, and the 
 proportions of the whole are symmetrical." 
 
 Now it is just possible after all that the 
 difficulty in identifying this mound arises 
 from the fact that one of the other animals 
 referred to in th6 Book of Mormon in con- 
 nection with the elephant is that repre- 
 
 sented ; but, whether this or the elephant, 
 it is true that the existence of all of these 
 animals, and the fact that they were co- 
 temporaneous with man, was published 
 boldly to the world in 1830, in the Book of 
 Mormon, when these things were unknown 
 to the world, and no scientist has since 
 made discoveries which are at variance 
 with it. 
 
 The force of this corroborative testimony 
 will be readily seen when we consider for a 
 moment the overwhelming evidence which 
 subsequent developments had bioughl 
 against the book, had it in its full and clear 
 statements upon like things omitted to 
 have even mentioned the sheep, the horse, 
 the ox, the elephant, the curelom, thecum- 
 mom, and many others, or had given an en- 
 tirely different class of animals from these. 
 1 tell you, my friends, that with this work 
 in my hands, I can substantiate the faci 
 that God is, and that there is truth in th9 
 narrative that Jesus Christ was his Bon, 
 and came into the world to help fallen hu- 
 manity. Is this a bad thing for Christian- 
 ity? is it not well entitled to the respect 
 and belief of all Christian people? I am 
 well aware of the fact that for the past 50 
 years people have been crying out deceiver 
 and imposter, and trying to ridicule and 
 laugh this people down ; and even went so 
 far in Missouri and Illinois as'to try to put 
 them down by force. But in comparing 
 men with men as I have found them in 
 all grades of society in this country and 
 in all the industries and professions of life, 
 I unhesitatingly state before you, that for 
 ability of thought, clearness of perception 
 and honesty of purpose and determination, 
 I have met with none who excel this same 
 people, and but few societies that will equal 
 or compare with them. The day of silly 
 stories, fabricated falsehoods, and old wives, 
 tales is of the past. If there are objections 
 worthy of consideration, we have plenty of 
 men and women who are able and willing 
 to examine them ; and I call upon this giant 
 in debate to stop his spinning of yarns told 
 about the Saints, and bring forward one 
 argument or proof that he is willing to 
 stand by. 
 
 Returning to these corroborative scien- 
 tific evidences, I again refer you to Sketches 
 of Creation, page 362: "The primeval in- 
 habitants of North America were Asiatics 
 in their features, their language and their 
 arts, and tradition speaks of them as mov- 
 ing from the direction of Asia. These move- 
 ments of human populations like radiating 
 streams from the western part of Asia, cer- 
 tainly afford a presumption that the only 
 people of whose movement we have neithe'r 
 history, tradition nor buried monument, 
 proceeded also from the direction of the 
 orient. From the same quarter of the world 
 proceeded most of our domestic animals and 
 plants, and in the same quarter of the world 
 the perpetually uttered prophecies of the 
 geologic ages proclaimed that the line of 
 animal life should have its culmination." 
 
 These are the thoughts of the learned. 
 Now, who is ready to say that the critio 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 155 
 
 Ism of Mr. Braden was a smart one against 
 the book for bringing the domestic animals, 
 the fish, and the seeds of the earth, to a cer- 
 tain extent across the broad ocean. He 
 would have you believe that these animals 
 came over themselves. Especially the fish. 
 "Just listen to the nonsense," he says ; 
 "took the fish in the boat to keep them from 
 being drowned in the water." When he 
 produces the example of a fresh water fish 
 from the old world swimming the briny 
 ocean and safely landing on the coast of 
 America, it will be time enough for the 
 facetious ridicule of the eight vessels or 
 barges which brought the Jaredites and 
 certain animals and fish to the continent. 
 
 Then the eight "vessels or barges" are 
 ridiculed ; spoken of as a canoe, the reflec- 
 tion made that they were dug out of a tree. 
 I will read it : "The Lord said, go to work 
 and build after the manner of barges which 
 ye have hitherto built." 
 
 How did these people build them before? 
 Turn back to page 02, where we have the 
 account of their departure and journey to- 
 ward the sea. "And they did also lay 
 snares and catch fowls of the air [not every 
 one as he represented to you] ; and they did 
 also prepare a vessel in which they did carry 
 with them the fish of the waters ; [any- 
 thing strange about that? Have we not got 
 fish commissioners in almost every State in 
 the Union, whose business is to transplant 
 fish and stock the many lakes and rivers?] 
 "and they did also carry with them deseret, 
 which, by interpretation, is honey bee ; and 
 thus they did carry with them swarms of 
 bees and all manner of that which was 
 upon the face of the land, seeds of every 
 kind." 
 
 Here then we have the first vessel built, 
 and it is no canoe, but sufficient to hold for 
 a short time many things; not everything, 
 however, as he represented. Turning back 
 now to the vessels, the length of which 
 "was the length of a tree," I read : "And 
 the door thereof, when it was shut, was 
 tight, like unto a dish." 
 
 How many canoes with doors did you 
 ever see? In his anxiety to get "the bottom 
 thereof tight and the sides thereof tight," 
 ( what is the use of laboring to make them 
 tight if it is a dug out?) "and the ends 
 thereof peaked," heinnocently forgets that 
 "the dooi thereof" must be large enough 
 for this mighty man whose name he would 
 like to know, to go in at ; and for such ani- 
 mals as were to be inmates thereof to go in 
 at, whether the camel, the elephant or the 
 whale. The larger the animals he puts in, 
 the larger he must make the door, and the 
 larger the door the larger the vessel. I 
 will now read to you what the book says, 
 page 510: 
 
 "And it came to pass that when they had 
 prepared all manner of food that thereby 
 they might subsist upon the water, and 
 also food for their flocks and herds and 
 whatsoever beast or animal or fowl that 
 they should carry with them." "Whatso- 
 ever beast, animal or fowl that they should 
 carry with them." They did not carry all 
 
 then? Oh no; well, is that the way you 
 understood Braden? Why did you try to 
 make this audience think they brought 
 everything as fully as Noah had in the ark? 
 But neither you, nor any other man caii 
 show but what these eight vessels would 
 hold more than the ark. Then what be- 
 comes of the criticism. O, he says, it had a 
 hole in the top and a hole in the bottom ; 
 how large he don't know, yet he speculates 
 upon it as though he did. It would be 
 presumed that a person who knew enough 
 to build a boat would also know enough to 
 put a hole in it, if directed, in proportion to 
 the size of the same and the use to be made 
 of the opening ; and in the bottom as well as 
 the top. This description of these vessels 
 is in favor of the inspiration of the book 
 rather than against it. There is not a pro- 
 bability in favor of the idea that as early 
 as 1829, there was a man in ten millions 
 who was able to read and write and who 
 was getting up a work of fiction, who would 
 have ever thought in describing a 
 boat of such a thing as putting 
 a hole in the bottom. Yet in the 
 time of fifty years it has become quite 
 common. Our best Life-boat is made upon 
 that principle. I have seen it myself. And 
 the bottom thereof was tight like unto a 
 dish, and the sides thereof were tight like 
 unto a dish, and the ends thereof were 
 peaked ; and the manner of building it is, 
 that after it is built the holes are made in 
 the vessel and in the bottom too; and suffi- 
 ciently large to empty itof the water if filled, 
 in a few seconds ; and the length thereof 
 was not quite the length of a tree. And it 
 is the very boat that is used by the United 
 States Signal Service, altogether on the 
 Pacific coast, so stated by the gentleman in 
 charge of the Signal Service Department in 
 Washington to me when he showed me the 
 boat, and not only is it used in the United 
 States Signal Service, but in the British 
 Signal Service also. Yet his sportive de- 
 scription of a like ressel in the Book of 
 Mormon, is the best that can be said against 
 the book to prove it is not of divine origin 
 and not entitled to the respect and belief of 
 all Christian people. 
 
 Ah! hut he has made another objection, 
 a terrible one. What is it, you ask ? This 
 is it: There is so much of the Campbellite 
 faith in it. Yes ; but you will see, my 
 friends, how much Campbellite faith there 
 is in it before these discussions are over! 
 There is in truth hardly to be found so 
 much as was left of the Jaredites, after they 
 had "fit, and fit, and fit, and fit." Tell me 
 the faith that is a living active principle as 
 taught in the Book "of Mormon was taken 
 from the CampbellitfS ! They never believed 
 or taught the principle of restoration in 
 repentance as set forth in the Book of Mor- 
 mon : Nor did Sidney Rigdon till after his 
 conversion to the faith the last part of the 
 year 1830. They never taught nor believed 
 In the baptism of the Holy Spirit except as a 
 thing of the past, nor did Rigdon till after 
 1830. They never believed in contending 
 for the faith once delivered to the Saints as 
 
166 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 that book teaches; but they contended for 
 only a part of it, a very small part at that ; 
 neither did Ri.srdon till after his conver- 
 sion in 1830. They never belie>ed in a 
 divine call to the ministry, nor do they now, 
 claim that their ministers are so called; 
 nor did Sidney Rigdon till after his conver- 
 sion in 1830. They do not believe in the 
 laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy 
 8pirit, nor did Rigdon till after his conver- 
 sion in 1830. They do not believe hi God 
 answering the penitent child for wisdom 
 by any communication directly to him, or 
 by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor 
 did Rigdon till 1830. They do not believe 
 in the signs of the Gospel as spoken of by 
 Jesus attending the believer, nor did Rig- 
 don till 1830. 
 
 They do not believe in the organization of 
 the C&iLrcb as spoken of in the 12th of Cor., 
 lOtb of Matt., and 4th of Eph., nor did Rig. 
 don till 1830. The Book of Mormon teaches 
 all of these things; that God not only is, 
 but is willing to shd forth his Spirit in the 
 heart crying Abba, Father ! and many 
 more things I might mention which Rig- 
 don nor none of the Campbellite Church 
 believed till after the publication of this 
 work. Then will he still, without a shadow 
 of proof, continue to assert, " Rigdon did 
 it?" Because, forsooth, he left Braden's 
 Society and sought one whose faith is more 
 nearly in accord with the Bible, and man- 
 fully fought his way in life for what he hon- 
 estly from the heart believed to be true, 
 and died as he lived, taught his friends and 
 his children the faith as he received it in 
 1880 will Braden, because of vengeance 
 and spite, continue the assault upon his 
 dead bones? My opponent will never make 
 a case by such a course that will stand the 
 test. Not even as much will be left of it as 
 was left of the "Kilkenny cats." He may 
 have a couple of tails left, but they are 
 shown to be putrid and rotten ones. But 
 he says the book teaches that two nations 
 existed here and killed each other in their 
 reat battles. So it does, and so does science. 
 It teaches that the enlightened were slain. 
 So do scientists and archaeologists. It 
 teaches that they had their battles and de- 
 fenses, and signals for alarms and watch- 
 towers from the Ohio to New York, and 
 nearly all over the country : so does scien- 
 tific research. Mr. Short, in his North 
 Americans of Antiquity, page 50, says: 
 "The military works of the mound-build- 
 ers, other than those previously mentioned 
 as existing on the lakes and in western New 
 York State, are of a two-fold chaiacter, 
 consisting first, of fortified eminences, of 
 which an instance is found in Butler county, 
 Ohio." He then describes this and others, 
 among which is the remarkable one known 
 as Fort Ancient, Ohio, on the Little Miami 
 river, a description of which was given to 
 the public by Professor Locke in 1843. The 
 whole circuit of this work is between four 
 and five miles. The number of cubic yards 
 of excavation may be approximately esti- 
 mated at 628,800. The embankment stands 
 in places twenty feet in perpendicular 
 
 height. The most interesting and valuable 
 
 Kiper on this work is that by Mr. L. M. 
 osea, of Cincinnati, in the Quarterly Jour- 
 nal of Science, October, 1S74, page 287, et 
 eq. Judges Dundery and Force, the latter 
 in a memoir on the mound-builders, (1872,) 
 estimate the period at a thousand years 
 while Mr. Hosea thinks several thousand 
 years would be required to produce the nu- 
 merous little hillocks and depressions which 
 mark the spot where trees have fallen and 
 decayed. 
 
 These men of science place it a thousand 
 years back as the time when that fort must 
 have been last occupied, and that is not a 
 great way from the time the Book of Mor- 
 mon fixed in 1830. 
 
 " Fort Ancient, which would have held a 
 garrison of 60,000 men with their families 
 and provisions, was of a line of fortifica- 
 tions which extend across the State, and 
 served to check the incursions of the sav- 
 ages of the North in their descent upon the 
 mound-builders' country." 
 
 Don't talk of families, gentlemen, or Mr. 
 Braden will have you arming the babies ! 
 
 "The second class of military works is 
 exceedingly numerous on all the water 
 courses existing not only on the Ohio and 
 Mississippi, but on all their tributaries, 
 especially on the Muskingum,Scioto, Miami, 
 Wabash, Illinois, Kentucky, and minor 
 streams are mounds which served as out- 
 looks." 
 
 Squire and Davis remark on this subject, 
 that, "There seems to have existed a system 
 of defenses extending from the source "of the 
 Alleghany and Susquehanna in NewYork, 
 diagonally across the country, through 
 central and northern Ohio, to the Wabash. 
 Within this range the works which are 
 regarded as defensive are largest and most 
 numerous. The signal system, we have 
 reason to believe, was employed through- 
 out the entire extent of this range of works." 
 
 Shall I claim your time further to show 
 what was stated in the book years before to 
 have been since corroborated ? 
 
 But he calls them " fools " for fighting so. 
 Well, that don't help the matter. The 
 Book of Mormon don't endorse their work 
 as having been right. The question is, did 
 they so live, and fight, and destroy each 
 other ? The book says they did, and that 
 there was not only one nation, but two, who 
 came to a similar end in this very country ; 
 and after the people have tried to laugh the 
 idea down for fifty years, explorers and 
 scientists have come in and say they are 
 facts. 
 
 Then do they not corroborate the history 
 as given in the book, aud place it beyond 
 any doubt that the book must stand? Will 
 he not answer to the arguments instead of 
 standing like a schoolboy and talking about 
 Kilkenny cats ? 
 
 FIRST HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 I will now briefly refer you to the time in 
 which Ancient America began to be known 
 through the reports of archaeologists to the 
 world. Of their journey to Guatemala in 
 1839 and 1840, Stephens says, page 124: 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 157 
 
 H We did not know that the country was so 
 completely secluded ; the people are less 
 accustomed to the sight of strangers than 
 the Arabs around Mount Sinai, and they 
 are much more suspicious. Col. Galindo 
 was the only stranger who had been there 
 before us and he could hardly be called a 
 stranger, for he was a Colonel in the Cen- 
 tral American service, and visited the ruins 
 under a commission from the Government." 
 
 These are the remarks of Mr Stephens, 
 who with Mr. Catherwood, was under the 
 auspicies of the United States Government, 
 and they required this backing to get the 
 aid of the Central American Government 
 as far as it could give, to protect them in 
 their explorations as late as 1839 and 1840, 
 in exploring and describing the very 
 country and its cities, described in the 
 Book of Mormon in 1828 and 1829. He says 
 that no stranger except Col. Galindo had 
 been there before. And yet my opponent 
 wants to make you believe that Sidney Rig- 
 don, Solomon Spaulding, or Joseph Smith 
 knew all about these ruins and cities and 
 peoples so as to place it in the Book of Mor- 
 mon ; that book placing the landing of one 
 portion of the people that came to this 
 country in Yucatan, the very country that 
 is spoken of by this eminent traveler. 
 
 Referring to the explorations of Captain 
 Del Rio, he says : 
 
 "The report of Captain Del Dlo, with the commen- 
 tary of Dr. Paul Felix, of New Guatemala, deducing 
 n Egyptian origin for the people, through either the 
 suplneness or the jealousy of the Spanish Government, 
 vag loekecl'up in the archives of Guatemala until the 
 *!rne of the revolution, when by the operations of 
 liberal principals the manuscript came into the hands 
 of an English gentleman, long a resident of that 
 country, and an English translation was published at 
 London in 1823. This was the first notice in Europe of 
 the discovery of these ruins; and instead of electrify- 
 Jng the public mind, either from want of interest in 
 the subject, distrust, or some other cause, so little 
 notice was takan of it, that in 1834, the Literary Gazette, 
 a paper of great circulation in London, announced it 
 as a new discovery made by Col. Galindo." 
 
 Now for a research for the publication of 
 Captain Dupaix. His expeditions were 
 made in 1805, 1808, and 1807, the last of 
 which was to Palenque. The manuscript 
 of Dupaix, and the designs of his drafts- 
 man were locked in the Cabinet of 
 Natural History in Mexico till 1828, when 
 M. Baradere took them from the museum, 
 "where," says Stephens, "But for this 
 accident they might still have remained, 
 and the knowledge of the existence of this 
 city again been lost." " Afterwards the 
 work was first published in France in 1834 
 aud 1835.V 
 
 About this time Lord Kingsborough pub- 
 lishes his works, which, says Stephens, "so 
 far as Palenque is but a reprint of Dupaix, 
 and then his works iu Paris were four hun- 
 dred dollars per copy." Stephens, etc., 
 297, 298. Then he says, with reference to 
 his own work, the materials for which were 
 gathered in 1840 and 1841, " My object has 
 been, not to produce an illustrated work, 
 but to present the drawings in such an in- 
 expensive form as to place them within 
 reach of the great mass of our readers." 
 Page 310, vol. 2. 
 
 Speaking of these buried cities in another 
 place he says, " that even Humboldt had 
 never heard of, much less seen." 
 
 Do I still, my friends, have to convince 
 some in this audience, or even Mr. Braden 
 himself, that there was no general knowl- 
 edge known to the world to be gathered to 
 form the basis to make the history con- 
 tained in the Book of Mormon in 1828 or 
 1829, much less 1810 and 1811, when it is 
 claimed by Braden that Solomon Spaulding 
 wrote? The work therefor? is not the work 
 of man alone, and has a higher authority, 
 which proves its divinity. 
 
 Continuing the question of individual 
 identity of the remnants of the tribes of 
 Ephraim and Manasseh, who formerly lived 
 in a civilized state upon this continent, and 
 Israelitish tribes of the old world, I intro- 
 duce the analogical evidence of identity of 
 the family, as set forth by Mr. Delafield, 
 page 65. 
 
 He finds that there is a resemblance: In 
 language, anatomy, mythology, uses of 
 writing, knowledge of astronomy, and hab- 
 its of burial of their dead. 
 
 The effrontery exhibited in standing be- 
 fore an audience and asserting without the 
 least shadow of proof that there are no such 
 proofs of similarity, is only equaled by the 
 audacity of the statement that there are no 
 proofs of the remains of the horse on the 
 continent, or if there were horses, as he 
 argued at Wilber, they were not like our 
 horses. Does the Book of Mormon say that 
 they were like our horses'! Prof. Winchell, 
 in his "Sketches of Creation," page 210, 
 says : 
 
 "It is a curious fact that so many generl, now extinct 
 from the continent, but living in other quarters of the 
 globe, were once abundant on the plains of North 
 America. Various species of the horse have dwelt 
 here for a<;es, and the question reasonably arises 
 whether the wild horses of the Pampas may not have 
 been iudiginous. Here too the camel found a suitable 
 home." 
 
 This is the way our scientific men, per- 
 sons who are posted upon these things 
 talk. 
 
 In 1877, there were discovered in the fos- 
 sil beds of Lake County, Oregon : 
 
 "Fossil bones of theelephat, camel, horse, 
 elk and reindeer. The horse being much 
 more abundant than either of the others. 
 Also bones of other animals larger than 
 the elephant." 
 
 There are now in the museums of this 
 country, of Yale College and the (Smithson- 
 ian Institute, skeletons of two kinds of 
 animals which formerly lived upon this 
 continent, either of which is larger than the 
 elephant. Do I have to call your attention, 
 to the fact of the discoveries of Prof. Marsh, 
 who in the "Chicago Times Expedition" to 
 the west three years ago, found in the peat 
 beds of Wyoming, the bones of the mas- 
 todon ? 
 
 The Book of Mormon, in the year 1830, 
 was published, and on page 577 it mentions 
 with the horse the fact of the existence 
 upon the continent of "elephants, cureloms, 
 and cumoms ;" and placing them in their 
 order as to size, and giving the nature of 
 the animals also, as to disposition, struct- 
 
158 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ure, &c., by saying they were "useful unto 
 man." Are these bold statements of a 
 work claiming for itself ENTIRE credibility, 
 anything like the musings of Gulliver's 
 travels, which we have been referred to? 
 
 But the objection is further made that It 
 is like Gulliver's travels as there was no 
 beginning point, no directions, no stopping 
 places by which to test it. The trouble is 
 the assertion is not true. From the outset it 
 begins with giving the names of the parties 
 setting out upon the journey described. The 
 very spot known to the world from which 
 they migrated. The very time and names 
 known to the world at the 1 time and found 
 in history and the Bible, to-wit, Lehl, La- 
 ban, Lemuel, Ishmael, &c. Giving a full 
 genealogy of the prominent parties of one 
 tribe, running all risks of being caught by 
 reason of historical or other contradictions, 
 
 or by reason of disclosures of history or 
 discoveries in science : Takes these fami- 
 lies from Jerusalem, giving direction of trav- 
 el, distance, naming number of days of trav- 
 el in each direction, definitely, distinctly, 
 and clearly see pages 2, 4, 33, 35, 3fi, 41, 
 43 of the book giving a description of the 
 country, the rivers crossed, deserts passed 
 and mountains reached, until it lands them 
 upon the sea shore. And yet it is persist- 
 ently stated before you that the account is 
 on a par with Gulliver's travels a work of 
 fiction that pretends to give no time, place, 
 country, or people or fact. Has he repre- 
 sented it fairly or truthfully t Is there not 
 time, place, people, destination, race, char- 
 acteristics, habits, customs and the exact 
 present status of descendants all given? 
 (Time called.) 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FIFTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Kelley told you last night 
 how Rigdon exploded the Spaulding story 
 in the Messenger and Advocate. Would it 
 not have been better to have repeated the 
 explosion, than to have given his unsup- 
 ported assertion that Rigdon performed such 
 marvels. He repeats the story already ex- 
 posed as a fabrication of his own at least 
 twice that Hunbut got the Manuscript 
 Found from Mrs. Davidson, and Mrs. Mc- 
 Kinstry. They only gave him an order to 
 search a trunk for it. He repeats his falsi- 
 fication of the language of Hurl but ; that he 
 says he got the Manuscript Found. Hurl- 
 but says he did not get it, but a part of an en- 
 tirely different manuscript. He repeats 
 that Howe says they got the Manuscript 
 Found, and it was not what they expected 
 it to be. Howe says no such thing. He 
 says the manuscript Hurlbut brought to 
 us was not what he expected. It was not 
 what they expected, because it was not 
 the Manuscript Found. The assertion i/hat 
 either Howe or Hurlbut said they obtained 
 the Manuscript Found, and it was not what 
 they expected, is a deliberate fabricaiion of 
 Kelley. Hurlbut did get the Manuscript 
 Found, H wrote Mrs. Davidson that he 
 did. But he did not give it to Howe. He 
 sold it to the Mormons. Mr. Patterson does 
 say that he knew but little of the man- 
 uscripts jaken to the printing office. En- 
 glee, the foreman, attended to them. But 
 Patterson's ignorance, however, does not 
 set to one side the clear testimony of 
 other witnesses. 
 
 My opponent undertakes to ridicule the 
 
 evidence I introduced as heresay "Rev. 
 Bonsali Winter's stepson ; Mrs. Irwin, his 
 daughter, and Rev. Kirk said that Winter 
 told them." Let us retort. "Kelley says that 
 Joseph III. says that Emma Smith says. 
 Kelley says that Ho we said. That Gilbert 
 said. Kelley says that the Quincy Whig 
 says, that Nichols says, that Ely says, that 
 Mrs. Davidson said." Does he not know 
 that he commits murder on his own testi- 
 mony when he resorts to such pettifogging? 
 My opponent has not offered a scintilla of 
 evidence that an Ehpraimite ever entered 
 America. He tries to get out of that ridh-- 
 ulous blunder about oxen. I know tha 
 cow is used as a generic name for the genus 
 bos ; so is ox. But where both are used to- 
 gether, neither is generic; but both are tl.o 
 names of a class of the genus. ''Cows" 
 means the females of the genus, when used 
 with ox and "oxen" means an unnatural 
 class of the genus when mentioned with 
 cows. Suppose instead of saying ''sheep" 
 the Book of Mormon had said "ewes" and 
 "wethers." Would they be generic names? 
 Come, sir, you can't get out of that idiotic 
 blunder in any such way. As the Book of 
 Mormon says in one place that darkness 
 shall cover the earth three days after the 
 crucifixion, and the Bible declares that it 
 was only three hours and over the land 
 about Jerusalem, he cannot pettifog away 
 the contradiction. If it was as light as 
 mid-day all night how could a star be seen 
 in mid-day light? My opponent has not 
 explained'! t Low the Nepnites foretold the 
 exact language Christ would use to such an 
 ex leu t, that whole pages are so foretold. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE, 
 
 159 
 
 Nor how they come to speak of the language 
 as then in the Scriptures, hundreds of years 
 before Christ and the apostles uttered it. 
 He asks me if I know what was in the 40 
 books known and unknown, quoted or re- 
 ferred to by the Bible. I don't. But until 
 he proves that the language was in those 
 books, he cannot prove that his Nephites 
 quoted from them. Again if it was, it 
 would only change the absurdity from the 
 Book of Mormon to another book. Finally, 
 we find the language in the New Testament 
 and we know that neither Nephite or anyone 
 else could quote it until it was uttered, any 
 more than they could quote Shakespeare or 
 Pope. Did these unknown prophets quote 
 from Shakespeare and Pope thousands of 
 year? before they Jived, EO that Sydney's 
 Nephites could quote such language from 
 them 1 I. read from the Book of Mormon 
 denunciations of secret societies, their oaths, 
 grips, signs, pass-words, all the denuncia- 
 tions uttered by anti-masons when the 
 Book of Mormon first appeared. This shows 
 that it was written in that excitement. 
 Science says that the Asiatic species of our 
 domestic animals were not iu America un- 
 til introduced by Europeans. The Book 
 of Mormon says they were a flat contra- 
 diction. 
 
 Another fraud in this affair, Oliver Cow- 
 dery began his work of writing down the 
 translation of the BOOK of Mormon, the 
 Book of Doctrines and Covenants de- 
 clares, April 17th, 1825. The translation 
 was finished, Mrs. Smith says, early in 
 June. The copy-ri^ht was taken out June 
 10th. Just to think of a man writing as 
 dictated to him slowly word by word the 
 manuscript of a book as large as the Old 
 Testament, or about 2000 pages of foolscap 
 in less than sixty days, thirty-three pages 
 per <Jiem, and the writer a blacksmith un- 
 used to copying. Here is another Mormon 
 miracle. Another fact that exposes the 
 fraud in the Book of Mormon. It was given 
 by miracle to Smith word by word by the 
 Almighty. Inspired Joe called off each 
 word. Inspired Oliver copied or wrote it 
 down. Inspired Joe and Oliver read the 
 proofs of the printer. Of course it was all 
 right. The concoctors of the fraud told 
 Gilbert, the printer, that the manuscript 
 was the work of inspiration, and it must 
 not be changed a particle. It had in it not 
 a mark of punctuation, not a capital letter 
 at the beginning of sentences, was badly 
 spelled, and the grammar was atrocious. 
 The printer refused to print such a mon- 
 strosity. He was allowed to punctuate 
 and correct the spelling where he could. 
 When the book appeared it had in it thou- 
 sands of errors and blunders, and of the 
 worst kind imaginable. 
 
 We are ready to expose another of the 
 ridiculous blunders of the fabricators of 
 the Book of Mormon. In translating from 
 one language to another, if the translation 
 be at all literal, there will appear the idioms 
 of the original and the idioms of the 
 tongue into which the translation is made. 
 The former will be the idioms of the origi- 
 
 nal language that were peculiar to it in the 
 age in which the book was written. The 
 latter will be the idioms of the language 
 into which the translation is made. There 
 have been scores of translations of the 
 Bible, from the original into English, in 
 different ages. In each appear the idioms 
 of the Hebrew and Greek, and the idioms 
 of the English language peculiar to it in the 
 age in which the translation was made. 
 The first belong to the Bible in the original. 
 The latter to the English translations. We 
 can tell in what age each book of the Old 
 and New Testament, was written by the 
 former. We can tell in what age of the 
 English language each translation was 
 made by the latter. 
 
 The fabricators of the Book of Mormon, 
 in their gross ignorance of this fact, in 
 their attempts to imitate the Bible, and to 
 make the Book of Mormon like the ancient 
 Hebrew so as to accord with the assump- 
 tion that the authors were Hebrews who 
 emigrated to America, have imitated the 
 idioms of the Greek of the New Testament, 
 wherever it appears in King James' ver- 
 sion; notwithstanding the Nephites could 
 know nothing about that: and to cap the 
 climax of absurdity, they have imitated 
 the English idioms of King James' transla- 
 tors, that did not live until 1200 years 
 after the last Nephite was dead. They 
 have made the idioms of the English lan- 
 guage of 16J,1 the idioms of the Nephites in 
 America who lived hundreds of years 
 before there was any English, and 1200 
 years before such idioms were used. We 
 can illustrate the absurdity of this blun- 
 der by a case like this. A man who 
 knows nothing about the Old Testament, 
 except what he learns by hearing an Irish- 
 man read the original Hebrew, and trans- 
 late it into Kuglish, the Irishman reading 
 the Hebrew to himself and giving the Eng- 
 lish of it to his auditor, as he reads, cornea 
 before us with a book that he claims a 
 angel gave to him in Hebrew manuscript, 
 and that he was inspired to translate ii 
 into English. When we come to examine 
 it, we find that he has imitated, not only 
 the Hebrew idioms of the Old Testament, 
 that were brought out iu the Irishman's 
 translation, but has actually .imitated the 
 Irishman's Hibernicisms, his brogue, sup- 
 posing in his ignorance that Paddy isms 
 were Simon Pure Hebraisms. Would any 
 body but a Mormon be such a fool as not 
 to declare, in one moment, that his ridicu- 
 lous putting of Paddyismsinto the mouth 
 of Hebrew, exposed his story as a lie and 
 a fraud, and his b >ok as a ridiculous blund- 
 ering fraud? Would it not be as clear as 
 day? 
 
 In precisely the same stolidly ignorant 
 manner, the fabricators of the Book of Mor- 
 mon have put into the mouths of Israelites 
 in America, not only the Hebraisms that 
 are in the King James' version of the Old 
 Testament, but the Hellenisms of th 
 Greek of the New Testament, that appear 
 in King James' translation; and what is 
 idiotically absurd the Anglicisms, the 
 
Iftft 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 brogue of King James' translators. Think 
 ot Israelites in America, thousands qf years 
 go, using the brogue of King James* 
 translators, thousands of years before such 
 brogue was spoken by the English them- 
 selves. Not only so, but they have imi- 
 tated the incorrect readings of the manu- 
 scripts used by those translators, as any one 
 can see who compares the plagiarisms from 
 the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, with 
 King James* version and the late Canter- 
 bury version. The Lord in giving the 
 translation, word by word, to Joe Smith, 
 slavishly followed the incorrect readings 
 of the manuscripts, from which King 
 Jame's translators made their translation, 
 just as they appear in that translation. 
 Not only so but he actually copied their 
 mistranslations also, as one can see by com- 
 paring the plagiarisms in the Book of Mor- 
 mon with King James' version and the 
 Canterbury version. Let me give two 
 noted instances. The Lord in doling out 
 word by word, I Cor. xiii. 4, copied the 
 blunder of King James' translators and 
 inserted the word "easily" and translated 
 the Greek " Charity is not easily provoked;" 
 when every scholar knows, whether the 
 Mormon God does or not, that "easily" is 
 is not in a single Greek manuscript known 
 to exist. In like manner in doling out 
 Isaiah, xviii, 10, he copied the blunder of 
 King James' translators and gave it to Joe, 
 "The Lord God and His Spirit* hath sent 
 me" when every scholar knows, whether 
 the Mormon God does or not, that it 
 should be "The Lord God hath sent me 
 and His Spirit," i. e., " He hath sent me 
 and hath sent His Spirit." This is sufficient. 
 We might give many more. 
 
 The fabricators of the Book of Mormon 
 have copied the obsolete words, the obso- 
 lete grammar, the violations of grammar, 
 and the punctuation of King James' ver- 
 sion, showing that they were as ignorant 
 as the man in our illustration. They have 
 copied the blunders of King James' trans- 
 lators as Simon Pure Hebraisms, just as he 
 copied the blunders of the Irishman. They 
 are like the Chinaman that a lady employed 
 to make some plates to fill out a set of 
 chinaware. She had but one plate to give 
 him as a pattern and it was cracked and 
 nicked. To her amazement and amusement 
 when John brought to her the two dozen 
 plates she had ordered, every one was 
 cracked and nicked just as the plate she 
 gave him. He copied everything, suppos- 
 ing it to be a part of the pattern. Just so 
 the fabricators of the Book of Mormon 
 have copied every crack and nick in King 
 James' version. 
 
 Another thing that proves that the pecu- 
 liarities of the Book of Mormon are awk- 
 ward attempts to imitate i, . ....i they are 
 such a blundering caricature of King James* 
 version. They are as much of a caricature 
 and as awkward as the attempt of a New 
 England \ ankee to imitate the brogue of 
 an Irishman. The paddyisms are exagger- 
 ated until the attempt is a caricature. The 
 41 Beholds," "Wherefores," "Therefores," 
 
 "Thereofs," and "Now it came to pass," in 
 the Book of Mormon, are ridiculously fre- 
 quent and most awkwardly used. By actual 
 count nearly 1,700 sentences have "Behold" 
 at the beginning of them or near the begin- 
 ning. Nearly 1,400 have " And it came to 
 pass." Nearly 700 have "therefore." Nearly 
 500 have "wherefore;" and "lo," "yea," 
 and "thereof" are most awkwardly fre- 
 quent. The awkward use of the brogue of 
 King James' translations betrays them just 
 as the hackdriver's blunder betrayed him. 
 A great Quaker convention was assembling 
 in Philadelphia. Quakers patronized tlieir 
 own people. To get customers one limb of 
 the world put on drab and a broad brim. 
 He looked all right, but when he asked an 
 old Quaker, "Where is thee's baggage?" 
 the Quaker retorted, " Away with thee for 
 a cheat." The same is true of the jargon of 
 the Book of Doctrines and Covenants. It 
 is no more like the brogue of King James' 
 version than the talk of the stage Irishman 
 is like the brogue of the genuine Paddy 
 right from the"ould sod." Mormons ab- 
 surdly seem to think that the brogue, the 
 lingo of King James' translations, is the 
 genuine dialect of heaven, and that angels 
 and the Lord cannot or do not talk in any 
 other. The Lord and angels spoke to Egyp- 
 tians in Egyptian, to Philistines in their 
 dialect, to Chaldeans in their tongue, to the 
 Hebrews in Hebrew, and when the Israelites 
 ceased speaking Hebrew, Aramaic,Greek, or 
 whatever was the speech of the people they 
 were addressing ; but they affected no an 
 tique brogue, or rather caricature of it If 
 the Lord had translated the Books Oi Mor- 
 mon for Joe Smith he should have put it in 
 decent English of the nineteenth century, 
 and not in the obsolete brogue, granmiati' 
 cal blunders and atrocities of King Jaraes* 
 version, or rather in a most absurd, disgust- 
 ing caricature of them in an ignoramus s 
 effort to imitate them. Hardshell Baptists 
 think that preaching is not preaching unless 
 in the nasal sing-song whine called "the 
 holy tone," and that the most idiotic bal- 
 derdash is equal to the preaching of angels, 
 if in that twang. So Mormons seem to think 
 that revelation is not revelation unless it 
 is in the brogue of King James' transla- 
 tors, and that the most idiotic twaddle ia 
 equal to the seraphic strains of Isaiah, if in 
 that lingo. In their attempts to imitate it 
 they come about as near to it as the Yankee 
 schoolboy does the genuine Hardshell sing- 
 song when he attempts to declaim "A Harp 
 of a Thousand Strings." 
 
 Mormons attempt to parry these objec- 
 tions, by appealing to faults in the Bible. 
 We reply 1. The blunders of King James' 
 translators, their brogue, is no part of the 
 original, as Mormons are so ignorant as to 
 suppose. 2. The messengers of God in the 
 Bible never used an old obsolete brogue, or 
 rather a most awkward, absurd caricature 
 of it. Nor did the Holy Spirit make the 
 persons inspired perpetrate such idiocy 
 
 3. The uneducated Amps did not use the 
 polished Hebrew of Isaiah or Jeremiah. 
 Nor did Peter use the classic Greek of 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 161 
 
 Thuoydides. But neither Amos nor Peter 
 violated all laws of grammar and speech, 
 in their writings. Their language is terse 
 and blunt, but not such an atrocity as the 
 balderdash of the Book of Mormon and 
 Mormon revelations. Will our opponent 
 give us such a list from the original as we 
 have given from the Book of Mormon? It 
 may be asked if Spaulding, an educated 
 man, and a person like Higdon were authors 
 of the Book of Mormon, how could it be full 
 of such errors? How could they put such 
 errors in it? Would not they know enough 
 to avoid them, and would not they do so? 
 We reply: 1. Spaulding has been very 
 much overrated. His education could not 
 have been what it is claimed it was or he 
 never would have been so grossly ignorant 
 as to suppose that the brogue of King 
 James' translators was the oldest dialect 
 he could find, as his wife tells he did. His 
 ridiculous imitations of the brogue of King 
 James' translators, his awkward imitation 
 that caricatured it, until his neighbors 
 ridiculed it and nicknamed him "Old- 
 came-to-pass," and his stolidly retaining 
 such an ignorant blunder to the last, shows 
 that he has been very much overrated. He 
 was doubtless a dull visionary prosy pedant 
 who undertook a work for which he was 
 utterly incompetent. 2. Rigdon was very 
 illiterate as his letter to the Boston Journal 
 proves, by its misspelled words, violations 
 of grammar, and utter ignorance of punctu- 
 ation, as the publishers describe it. His 
 education was obtained in a log school 
 house. He was never a reader except of the 
 visionary and extravagant. He was a rant- 
 ing, spread-eagle, highfaluten declaimer, 
 who mistook bombast for eloquence, fustian 
 for rhetoric, extravagance for sublimity. 
 We have then the blunders that such a 
 man aslSpaulding would makein writing on 
 such a theme. His prosy dull repetitions and 
 awkward imitations of the Bible, that made 
 his stuff what Mark Twain calls it "chloro- 
 form in type." Then the ignorant blunders 
 ofsuclyan illiterate person as Rigdon and 
 his rant, fustian, spread-eagle and bombast. 
 The blunders that an ignoramus like Smith 
 would makein reading such a manuscript to 
 another, and the blunders that an illiterate 
 blacksmith like Cowdery would make in 
 copying, then the blunders a printer would 
 make in setting up such unusual stuff, espe- 
 cially when he dare not strike out what 
 seemed wrong to him, as he might mar the 
 inspiration by striking out its cant and its 
 brogue. If it had been decent English, the 
 printer could have corrected it. But it \vaj 
 like Josh Billings spelling. The wit in Josh 
 is the bad spelling. So the inspiration in the 
 Book of Mormon was its butch-ering of the 
 people's English, The atrocities of speech 
 were the divinity that was in it. Still one is 
 compelled to admit that with all of these 
 causes of error, each cause of error, wrought 
 a stupendous miracle, to have gotten up 
 such a monstrosity as the Book of Mor- 
 mon. We have proved by historic evi- 
 dence that Rigdon remodeled Spaulding's 
 manuscript, interpolating the religious Dor- 
 
 tions so as to fit it to be used as a pretended 
 revelation. We have proved by the Rigdon- 
 isms in the Book of Mormon that it is his 
 work. His belief in immersion, believer's 
 baptism, baptism for the remission of sins, 
 free grace, opposition to infant baptism, 
 opposition to the doctrine of total heredi- 
 tary depravity that borders on Pelagian- 
 ism These were the ideas of the Disci |>les 
 then. His opposition to secret societies, 
 denunciation of Sectarianism. When he 
 agreed with the Disciples we have Disci 
 pies teaching, but when he differed, their 
 teaching is bitterly opposed. He contends 
 for community of goods. He retained the 
 Baptist idea of direct and miraculous power 
 of the Holy Spirit. This led him to con- 
 tend for baptism of the Holy Spirit, bap- 
 tism to receive miraculous gifts of the Holy 
 Ghost. Imparting spiritual gifts by lay- 
 ing on of hands. Restoration of mira- 
 cles, revelations and spiritual powers of 
 the Apostolic church. We have also the 
 fall down power of Rigdon's revivals, and 
 that he was subject to himself When 
 he agreed with the Disciples the Book of 
 Mormon agrees with them. WhttL he dif- 
 fers from them it differs bitterly. Take for 
 instance his bitter denunciation of those 
 who say, "We have the Bible, we need no 
 new revelation." He is especially bitter 
 over this, and his book is full of instances 
 of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, 
 such as he contended for. We have his pet 
 expressions, his revivalisms, his baptismal 
 formula, his rant against infant baptism. 
 The child is not more clearly the offspring 
 of his parent than the religious portion of 
 the Book of Mormon is the workol Sidney 
 Rigdon. 
 
 Rigdon committed an absurd blunder in 
 using the words "baptize" and "immerse" 
 as he did. On page 444 he represents Christ 
 as making baptism and immersion two en- 
 tirely different things. He commands men 
 to baptize, and tells them to immerse in 
 doing it. Our Savior used but one word, 
 and that meant to immerse and that alone. 
 He committed another absurd blunder 
 when he represented immersion as univer- 
 sal among the Nephites, hundreds of years 
 before Christ. Immersion was utterly un- 
 known as a religious rite, except the bath- 
 ings of the law of Moses, until John the 
 Baptist. He made the blunder still more 
 absurd when he represented the Nephites 
 as immersing in the name of Christ. That 
 was never done until it was done by the 
 apostles of Christ. He magnified his blun- 
 der still farther when he represented them 
 as immersing for the remission of sins. 
 That was never done until it was done by 
 John the Baptist. He capped the climax 
 of this tissue of absurdities when he rep- 
 resented them as immersing for the mirac- 
 ulous gift of the Holy Spirit, and he flatly 
 contradicted the word of God. He coolly 
 tells us that these Nephites^had all spiritual 
 gifts, and every miraculous power of the 
 Holy Spirit, to an extent utterly unknown, 
 even to the apostles. 
 John vii. 38, Jesus said "He that believeth 
 
162 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 on me. as the scriptures have said, out of 
 him shall flow rivers of water. But this 
 he spake of the Spirit which they that be- 
 lieved on him should receive. Fo'r the Holy 
 Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was 
 not glorified." John xv. 7, "Nevertheless 
 I tell you the truth, it is best for you that I 
 go away. For if I go not away the com- 
 forter will not come urito you, but if I go 
 away, I will send him unto you." Eph. iv. 
 When Jesus ascended, then he gave spirit- 
 ual gifts unto men. Had Rigdon been there 
 he would have told Jesus, "Nevertheless 
 "you are telling a falsehood. The Holy 
 " Spirit, in your name, has been enjoyed by 
 "my Nephites over 600 years, and to an 
 " extent that no human being ever did or 
 " ever will enjoy, outside of my Nephites." 
 
 This stuff" of Rigdon contradicts the teach- 
 ings of the Bible, that the revelations that 
 constitute the sacred scriptures were given 
 in Palestine and in connection with the 
 Israelites in Palestine. Rigdon has a higher 
 and far better dispensation, over in Amer- 
 ica, and different from the one in Palestine, 
 for the priesthood is in Manasseh, not in 
 Levi, and the scepter is in Manasseh, not 
 in Judah, thus abrogating the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation entirely. 
 
 The Nephites had the gospel so fully and 
 completely that there was nothing left for 
 Jesus to reveal; nothing for him to do but 
 to fill the programme that Nephite prophets 
 had marked out for him, as minutely, word 
 for word, act for act, as Shakspeare has 
 written out the part of the one who plays 
 the part of Hamlet. 
 
 The law of Moses was to prepare the way 
 for the teachings of Christ, just as the Ter- 
 ritorial Government prepares the way for 
 the State Government. Rigdon has a more 
 perfect State Government than even the 
 apostles instituted in full blast hundreds of 
 years before the Territorial is abolished, or 
 the Constitutional Convention held, or the 
 State organized. 
 
 He has the people living under the State 
 Government and claiming all the time to be 
 living under the Territorial' Government, 
 every feature of which they are trampling 
 underfoot. One is inclined to ask Sydney 
 " why did not God give prophets and reve- 
 lations and the Gospel to the Israelites in 
 Africa, India, or China?" There were 
 great multitudes of them, with great 
 schools, in all of these places. Why was 
 not the Gospel revealed, and the baptism 
 in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spir t 
 and all spiritual gifts, in Christ's name, 
 enjoyed among such prophets, as Ezekiel, 
 Daniel, Malachi in Palestine as well as 
 among your Nephites in America? Why 
 did not Jesus go to Spain, India, or China, 
 after his resurrection, as well as to your 
 Nephites? This lying fabrication of Rig- 
 don contradicts Christ's commission to his 
 apostles. The Gospel was to go forth to the 
 world through his apostles, and through 
 them alone. 
 
 They were to go to all nations, give the 
 Gospel to every creaiure. It contradicts 
 the claim of the apostles, " To us is commit- 
 
 ted the ministry of reconciliation. We 
 were chosen to do this work." It con- 
 tradicts Isaiah and Micah ; ''The law of 
 Christ was to go forth from Zion, his word 
 from Jerusalem." "The gospel was to be 
 preached among all nations, beginning at 
 Jerusalem." It teaches that Manasseh 
 took the priesthood from Levi, before the 
 Messiah, the Melchesidec priest, and the 
 scepter from Judah, before Shiloh came. 
 The rebellion of the Ten Tribes was a sin. 
 The conduct of Rigdon's Nephites was 
 rebellion, apostasy, and yet God blessed 
 them, even above faithful Judahites and 
 Levites. 
 
 Rigdon, in the case of his Jaredites, flatly 
 contradicts Gen. xi. 9. At the Tower of 
 Babel the Lord confounded the language of 
 all the earth. Sidney declares that his 
 Jaredites were top smart for the Lord and 
 ran away from him, and the Lord did not 
 dp what he thought he did or said he did. 
 Sidney pretends that his Jaredites, who 
 came to America 250 years before A braham, 
 had a higher and more perfect knowledge 
 of the Gospel than any Israelite, known to 
 the Bible, had before the advent ol Christ, 
 and in some particulars better than any 
 have ever had, except his Nephites. Why 
 did not Christ make his ad vent among these 
 Jaredites 2,000 years before he came ? They 
 were better prepared than he found the 
 Israelites in Palestine when ne did come. 
 Why did he not make his advent among 
 the Nephites, hundreds of years before he 
 came? They were better prepared for him, 
 and indeed he and his apostles did not leave 
 the Israelites and Gentiles on the old conti- 
 nent in as highly favored a condition as 
 these Nephites were hundreds of years be- 
 fore he came. Why did not God make 
 Jared's brother the father of the faithful 
 instead of Abraham ? 
 
 If the Book of Mormon be a revelation 
 Jared's brother so far excelled Abraham 
 hundreds of years before Abraham lived 
 that he is the real father of the faithful, 
 and Abraham only a pretender. He was 
 favored above all Israelite prophets except 
 Sidney's fictitious Nephites. The apostles 
 were not so highly favored and all to no 
 purpose for he was to seal it up. The time 
 that the Lord said they were to go forth is 
 not yet come. After all the work of Christ 
 and his apostles the world is not yet ready 
 for the revelations that God gave to Jared's 
 brother long before Abraham's day. If the 
 Nephites had our Bible, or as much of it as 
 was in existence before they left Jerusalem, 
 why was not it buried instead of Moroni's 
 plates? Why do not we have an abridg- 
 ment of it on the plates as well as what is 
 given on them? If it is because they had 
 the Bible, then why did the book of Mor- 
 mon steal so much from the Bible? We 
 have neither the historical part of the Bible 
 nor an abridgment of it in the Book of Mor- 
 moii, but the religious portions of the Book 
 of Mormon are stolen from the Bible and 
 mixed with Rigdon's notions. If we need 
 the Book of Mormon in addition to our 
 Bible, it must be because it contains addi- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 163 
 
 tional truth. What single new idea, what 
 single better expression of a biblical idea 
 have we in the Book of Mormon? 
 
 We are told on pages 505-506 that Jared's 
 brother (I wonder if that fellow really had 
 no name, if he was always anonymous?) 
 said that Christ was literal flesh and blood, 
 that Jesus showed himself to him as he did 
 to the Nephites, after his resurrection, with 
 his body of flesh, bones nnd blood. This 
 flatly contradicts the positive declarations 
 of the Bible, that he first tabernacled in 
 flesh, became incarnate, in the person of 
 Mary. That he took on him the seed of 
 Abraham. That his human nature was of 
 the seed of Abraham, was a lineal descends 
 ant of Abraham. That his body was pre- 
 pared for him when he came to do God's 
 
 will, or in the person of Mary. Here we 
 are told that he showed that body to this 
 anonymous fellow of Sidney Rigdon's cre- 
 ation, hundreds of years before Abraham 
 or any of his seed existed, and thousands of 
 years before he became incarnate, according 
 to the Bible. We are further told that 
 man's body is an exact image or copy of 
 God's body. Then God has a literal body 
 of literal flesh, blood and bones, notwith- 
 standing Jesus says " God is a Spirit," and 
 " spirit has not flesh and bones." Of course, 
 then, God has organs of eating, digesting, 
 evacuation, procreation, and uses tnem, or 
 he eats, digests, evacuates and procreates 
 like man, and Priapus Young's Adam-God 
 theory is true according to the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH! 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: I will first call your atten- 
 tion to one or two things that have been 
 mentioned, as objections, and then go on 
 with my argument. 
 
 1. That it is not probable that any per- 
 sons could have been led to this continent 
 as claimed at the time of the confusion of 
 languages without the same being known 
 to the people of the old world. Gen. 11: 8 
 states: "So the Lord scattered them 
 abroad from thence upon the face of all the 
 earth: and they left ofF to build the city. 
 Therefore is the name of it called Babel ; be- 
 cause the Lord did there confound the lan- 
 guage of all the earth ; and from thence did 
 the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face 
 of all the earth." It seems to me that they 
 did know it on the old world. 
 
 Josephus says, that they were scattered 
 abroad upon all the earth, and that some 
 of them "went over the sea." The Book of 
 Mormon tells about a colony that came out 
 from there composed of a few families, and 
 Mr. Braden thinks it could never have hap- 
 pened. In fact, however, it is improbable 
 to the Bible-believer that God should not 
 have taken steps to the colonization of all 
 the earth, since he had created man for the 
 purpose of dwelling thereon. It is said, 
 here that the language of all the earth was 
 confounded, and Mr. Braden objects again, 
 for the reason that the Book of Mormon 
 states that there was a family who were 
 permitted to retain their speech so that they 
 could understand each other. The history 
 of it in the Book of Mormon is as follows: 
 That at the time of the confounding of the 
 language of all the earth, the brother of 
 Jared went and asked that the Lord would 
 
 remember him in his mercy, and that He 
 would permit that these brothers and their 
 families might understand each other ; and 
 he prayed, and the Lord granted his prayer 
 as to himself and Jared and a few others. 
 Now, is it in fact unreasonable, or does it 
 contradict the Bible in any particular? 
 The language was confounded so that the 
 people could not work together to build th 
 tower there and that they should go 
 abroad and inhabit the whole earth. That 
 was the object of it. And a few were per- 
 mitted, and we don't know but what doz- 
 ens of families, or hundreds even, were per- 
 mitted in the same way to understand one 
 another of which we have no record. But 
 he objects because the family, first of Jared 
 and then of Jared's brotiier, or the broth- 
 er of Jared and then Jared himself, were 
 permitted to first converse about this and 
 understand each other. Mr. Braden makes 
 his mistake in supposing that the work of 
 confounding the language was all of a sud- 
 den, a thing similar to a stroke of light- 
 ning. There is no sense in supposing that 
 in this God did not work like himself, and 
 use some proper means to perform this work 
 and warn too, the people. 
 
 Again, he says that the Jaredites ran 
 away from the Lord so he could not con- 
 found their language. But where did he 
 get it? When a man says a thing he ought 
 to have some foundation for it. The Book 
 of Mormon states that the Lord led them 
 away. He did not get it out of that Book. 
 Where did he get it? Where did you get 
 the statement that Jared ran away so the 
 Lord could not do it? The Book of Mormon 
 does not say either that the Lord could not 
 do it, but on the contrary that the Lord 
 
164 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 cnuld dolt, but that he had compassion and 
 pity on these parties because they cried un- 
 to him. Do you understand that God is not 
 such a being that he will answer when peo- 
 ple cry unto him ? 
 
 But, he objects again that Jesus did not 
 come to this continent, because if he did why 
 did he not go to Spain and other places also. 
 How does he know but what he did? It 
 may be that he did. Heappeared, says Paul, 
 to five hundred brethren at one time after 
 his resurrection, and doubtless to many 
 that we did not have any account of on the 
 Kastein Continent. And how does he know 
 but what he went to Spain and China and 
 the islands of the sea ? If it is an argument 
 in his favor to interrogate upon something 
 lie knows nothing about, it is an argument 
 in mine. That is the logic of it. 
 
 '2. Then he gives to us a reminiscence of 
 Sidney Rigdou's bitter denunciation, as lie 
 says, of those who clung to the Bible while 
 he was a Campbellite preacher. What has 
 that or anything else Rigdon did while a 
 Campbellite to do with the question under 
 discussion? Do you believe that while he 
 \vas a Campbellite, preaching here in North- 
 ern Ohio, and converting so many upon the 
 "Western Reserve, nay Campbellite friends, 
 that he was denouncing those who claimed 
 to believe in the Bible? Was that his man- 
 ner? Mr. Braden says it was. Yet you 
 kept him for your preacher and he was the 
 ablest p-eaclier you had. He made more 
 converts than any other two preachers on 
 the Western Reserve. This is shown in 
 your own history. And still Braden asserts 
 this man was denouncing everything that 
 was good at the same time that he was mak- 
 ing these converts. Is that the way to make 
 converts to the Campbellite faith? If not, 
 where is the sense in such statements, my 
 friends? 
 
 3. Again, he objects to the Book of Mormon 
 because somebody prophecied he should re- 
 ceive the Holy Spirit in the name of Christ, 
 or through Christ. I would like for him to 
 tell this audience two things. 
 
 1. In what way did the people of olden 
 time receive the Holy Spirit? How did 
 Elijah and Malachi, or any of the proph- 
 ets? I asked him the question upon a for- 
 mer evening. Let him answer that ques- 
 tion. 
 
 2. Turn to the Rook of Mormon and show 
 where they claimed to have received the 
 Holy Spirit through Christ, or in a different 
 manner over here than is represented in 
 the Bible. There is not an instance in the 
 Book of Mormon where it teaches the receiv- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit in a different sense to 
 the Bible. This is all Braden's imagina- 
 tion. Do not misrepresent the book to the 
 audience. Note his answers to these, will 
 you please? 
 
 4. Another thing. He says that my testi- 
 mony of the three witnesses to the Book of 
 Mormon is precisely like his, because I refer- 
 red tothe fact that Mr. Howe's purported 
 statements from John Spauldingand Martha 
 Spaulding had no time, place, or date, nor 
 were they original testimony ; that is, that 
 
 they were quoted from something else and 
 not genuine. Now if you will turn to the back 
 part of Mr. Howe's book, you will find, in- 
 stead of giving the statement itself, he gives 
 a quotation from a statement. That is not 
 like the testimony I offered. When I turn 
 to the testimony of the three witnesses, my 
 criticism, he says, "is the club that knocks 
 me in the head." But the testimony of the 
 three witnesses which I read is their state- 
 ment, not a quotation from the statement 
 of the witnesses. There is no pretention to 
 a quotation here, but the witnesses send it 
 forth themselves as their testimony. "Be 
 it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues 
 and people." This is our testimony. Can 
 you find anything like that in Howe's quo- 
 ta! ion from the purported statements of 
 John Spaulding and" Martha Spaulding? 
 The cases are not parallel in any sense. 
 There is not nor never has been a question 
 or reason to suppose that the statement in 
 the Book of Mormon was not that of the 
 three witnesses. All three of the witnesses 
 have voluntarily since confirmed this fact ; 
 I have read you some of these later state- 
 ments of them. While the others (these 
 quotations found in Howe's book), are ques- 
 tioned, and they show doubt upon the face 
 of them. Those of the three witnesses he 
 thinks were written up by Joseph Smith. 
 Will some of you take the trouble and ex- 
 amine them, and then tell me if a man who 
 could write those statements up could be 
 justly called an "ignoramus," if you please, 
 that he has been calling Joseph Smith. Mr. 
 Braden has used that language of Joseph 
 Smith from the first. Again, he tells us 
 that Joseph the third says thatErnma says, 
 and all of this. Ah! yes ; but all there is 
 to it, Joseph Smith wrote his mother's tes- 
 timony down as she gave it. Now his evi- 
 dence, so far as being direct and explicit, 
 don't compare with this at all. So, also, 
 of David Whitmer's evidence: it is upon 
 record, and we quote from his evidence as 
 given by himself, published by himself 
 over his own signature. Braden's state- 
 ments are objected to because they are not 
 given by the parties directly. But, he says, 
 Mr. Bonsall says, that somebody else told 
 him so; and they thought Dr. Winters 
 put it in writing, and they did not have 
 the original statement. Mrs. Dunlap Rig- 
 don's niece, who was a member of Bradeu's 
 church, is said to have said, &c. That is 
 what I object to sir ; and if you can pro- 
 duce the original statements of these par- 
 ties or a reliable publication of them, do so, 
 and then the argument upon that point will 
 cease. But I deny that you have any evi- 
 dence from Dr. Winters, Abel Chase, John 
 Spaulding, &c. Bring on your evidence and 
 I will examine it, if you have any. Patter- 
 son and Howe won't do to put up evidence 
 for me. 
 
 5. Next I notice that he has raised the old 
 objection that the Book of Mormon contains 
 in it the idioms which peculiarly belong to 
 the translation of the Bible. That is a valid 
 objection, if true to any extent, and now 
 will he dare examine it candidly with me. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 165 
 
 I say it is not true and ask him to cite 
 instances which he is willing to rest his ar- 
 gument upon. If I do not answer objections 
 of that nature before the conclusion of the 
 discussion, there will be one point against 
 roe. It is a valid objection if the idioms or 
 words peculiar to the translation of the 
 Bible have been copied in the Book of Mor- 
 mon from the Bible in a reckless, blundering 
 way, as he says, and it is an objection that 
 I will meet on to-morrow evening, and I 
 want you all here to hear it, too. At this 
 time I will proceed with my main argument. 
 
 The Book of Mormon states that the last 
 civilization which came to this continent 
 landed here about 590 years before the time 
 of Christ, and existed in a civilized state 
 here till the close of the fourth century; 
 giving specific statements of dates, places 
 and conditions which are quite sufficient by 
 reason of their completeness, to either con- 
 demn or corroborate the narrative in the 
 subsequent developmentof the relics, ruins, 
 etc., of that ancient people, through the 
 independent line of evidence brought for- 
 ward by archseologists. This was in 1827 
 to 1830; the developments have been made 
 since. 
 
 Do they contradict or confirm this state- 
 ment bofdly and fearlessly made? I refer 
 you to the latest accounts given of the dis- 
 coveries in this direction. S. B. Evans, of 
 Ottumwa, Iowa, published through the 
 Chicago Times, 1881, his explorations, con- 
 clusions, etc., from travels on the continent 
 and examinations of works, and from these 
 concludes that there have been at least two 
 civilizations that have lived and dwindled 
 away on the continent prior to the Aztecs 
 or Toltecs, of Mexico; the last of -which 
 must have ceased to exist at least from a 
 thousand to fifteen hundred years ago, 
 ,nd occupied the time of at least one 
 thousand years of civilization here. Take 
 his time and conclusions and compare with 
 the positive declaration of the Book of Mor- 
 nion made over fifty years before without 
 the aid of these examinations and the 
 published accounts of researches and dis- 
 coveries now attainable, and you must 
 begin to fnel that its work was not that of 
 the guesser. The civilization must have 
 ceased to exist according to the best scien- 
 tific theories the fourth or fifth century of 
 'the Christian era. The Book of Mormon 
 says 400 years after Christ. A thousand 
 years back from the fourth or fifth century, 
 again gives about the time that Lehi left 
 Jerusalem according to the record. If Mr. 
 Smith was guessing, did he not guess well? 
 Do you still believe he was guessing? 
 
 Oh ! but Braden says he did not write in 
 a perfect language, and before he will 
 receive anything as of divine origin it must 
 be in a perfect language. He asks me to 
 state whether Peter or Paul, or any of the 
 prophets wrote in an imperfect language. 
 My answer to this is, that, there is not a 
 scrap of gospel manuscript under the sun 
 within two hundred years of Peter or 
 Paul. Mr. Braden nor no other man can 
 tell whether they wrote in pure Greek, or 
 
 pure Hebrew, or in the Syrian, or the 
 Syrio-Chaldaic or what they wrote in. He 
 does not even know what particular lan- 
 guage they did write in, imperfect as it 
 must have been ; and it is in dispute at the 
 present time as to the particular languagt> 
 Jesus himself used when he was here. And 
 yet, I am asked to furnish something in 
 the exact original writing of Peter, Paul, 
 or John, so as to prove to Braden that 
 what they wrote was not perfect grammer. 
 Let us examine this silly nonsense a mo- 
 ment. It is the old objection of Howe, 
 and Hyde, and as might have been ex- 
 pected without any foundation. What 
 language known toman is perfect? Will 
 he tell this audience what language known 
 to man now, or that has ever been known 
 or in use since the time of Enoch that was 
 perfect? Can any of you think of one? 
 Mr. Braden can you? Don't you know 
 there has never been such since Babel's 
 time at least. So that if you require a 
 perfect language, God could never have 
 spoken to the -world. 
 
 We will take the English language, as 
 that is the one more nearly connected with 
 the question under consideration. Three 
 hundred years ago what would have b'een 
 considered good English is not now the 
 language is continually changing. The 
 great Shakespeare, the master, says "I had 
 rather," while our school ma'ams turn up 
 their noses at it now, and correct the little 
 one to say " I would rather." I could give 
 you many such instances from such writers 
 as Spencer, Cowper, etc., could I take the 
 time here, showing great changes day by 
 day and year by year of the English lan- 
 guage. Pope tells us that the language 
 changes as do the fashions. This of itself 
 ought to be a sufficient answer to the objec- 
 tion that it is not in good English. The 
 American Bible Society, I understand, 
 claims 23,000 inaccuracies so far as minor 
 points of language, use and construction are 
 concerned, found in King James' transla- 
 tion of the Bible, and yet at the time of the 
 translation it was put into English by the 
 masters of literature the best scholars of 
 the realm. Only last night we were saluted 
 with the remark, " Suppose Joe Smith had 
 as good a right to make a word as Web- 
 ster." Certainly he had. According to 
 the history of the English language, Mr. 
 Smith or any one in this audience hasijust 
 as good a right to make a word as Webstei 
 er any other man ; and I can cite hundreds 
 of instances of words that have been manu- 
 factured, not by the scholarly of the age, 
 but by men that were in indifferent cir- 
 cumstances in life. Don't you remember 
 that a few years ago, only in 1840, I believe 
 it was, in a great political convention held 
 at the time that Henry Clay was a candi- 
 date for the Presidency, a gentleman in the 
 convention from Tennessee a common 
 farmer too who got tired of the noise and 
 rattle in the convention, said that he be- 
 lieved that they ought not to tolerate the 
 "outsiders" in there any longer; and from 
 that very time the word "outsider" was 
 
\66 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 coined into the English language, and we 
 now use it, and it is admitted to be a proper 
 word coined by a man that was among 
 those not scholarly, as he thinks was the 
 position of Joseph Smith. I could tell you 
 of a hundred such cases, and taken right 
 from the works upon the English language. 
 If he is acquainted with the literature of 
 the English language he knows the state- 
 ment to be entirely correct. 
 
 But the objection is further urged that 
 the Book of Mormon was translated by in- 
 spiration and should have been in a perfect 
 language. Think a moment! For God to 
 look ahead and use language In advance of 
 the times would make it incomprehensible 
 to the persons to whom it was given, and 
 too, imperfect when compared with their 
 language as a standard, no difference how 
 much better in fact it might have been. 
 This is the logic he offers. God must talk 
 in perfect language when he speaks, al- 
 though he speaks through men. Perfection 
 so far as our language is concerned is deter- 
 mined by the usage of the times. The usage 
 changes, hence perfection changes. 
 
 Therefore, if God speaks, he must so 
 speak, that it will be good English to-day, 
 according to the language, and good Eng- 
 lish next year, according to the standard, 
 although the standard has changed. The 
 lallacy of the position must be apparent to 
 all. We must conclude that the language is 
 but the medium through which the thought 
 is convened, and the Lord uses the medium 
 w'0lrSveT The question is not one of perfect 
 language or imperfect language. No claim 
 is made to giving a perfect language to the 
 world. The only sensible criticism to be 
 made as to the language used in the book is 
 from the standpoint of whether it is in such 
 language as all people may understand it, 
 who are conversant with the language in 
 which it is given; for the message claims 
 to be sent to all. Has he made the objec- 
 tion that it is in such language that all 
 may not understand it? Everyone; whether 
 high or low, rich or poor, the educated or 
 the uneducated? Oh, no. His objection is, 
 that it is not in the vocabulary of we 
 giants in the world of language and litera- 
 ture. If he will turn to I Cor. 1 : 26, he 
 find that "Not nia.,y wise men after the 
 flvsh, not many mighty, not many noble 
 are called. But God hath chosen the fool- 
 ish -things of this world to confound the 
 wise, and the weak things to confound the 
 things which are mighty ; and base things 
 3f the world, and things which are 
 drspixed, hath God chosen, yea, and things 
 which are not to bring to riaught things 
 that are." God's ways are not Braden's 
 ways. That is clear. Braden's view is. 
 just to think of the grand, good, and 
 noble characters of the last three hundred 
 years ; of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Camp- 
 bell, etc. And then, think of the Lord 
 choosing as an instrument the likes of 
 Joseph Smith. No; the Lord says, "not 
 many noble," after the ways of the world ; 
 but Braden's Idea is, let us have what we 
 cat/ noble. 
 
 The untutored Galileans and poor fisher- 
 men of Judea stand a poor show with the 
 great "Scalper of Robert Ingersol." But 
 I will continue farther to notice the criti- 
 cism. Is this an objection in fact, or is it 
 only an imaginary one? Will not the im- 
 perfections of an original language in a 
 strictly literal and true translation appear 
 in the translation. If you take the writ- 
 ings of Xenophon, or of any of the great 
 Greek scholars, or the speeches of Cicero in 
 the Latin, ana put them in the English 
 language, will they not read differently 
 from the speeches and writings of the ur 
 learned made in the same time and in the 
 same language in which those scholars 
 lived and wrote ! They will read differently, 
 although they have been correctly trans- 
 lated into the English language, And so 
 it would be, too, if the original writers of 
 the Book of Mormon did not have a perfect 
 language, or did not speak or write cor- 
 rectly ; the imperfection would crop out 
 when it was put into the English language ; 
 nor would it be in the fine literature that it 
 might have appeared in, had they been 
 scholarly men, which they say themselves 
 they were not, as I have before shown you 
 from the book wherein one of them states 
 they were not mighty or efficient ;iu 
 writing even as in speaking. In their 
 writings then we might expect to find 
 many imperfections. If so, it would crop 
 out, and the unskillful work and style be 
 reflected in the translation into English, 
 as it would if made from the Hebrew, the 
 Greek, or the Latin. It is not difficult even 
 for a novice to detect these interjected 
 anachronisms in language in many authors. 
 Let us examine the strength of the argu- 
 ment from the other standpoint: Suppose 
 the Book of Mormon was in fact in the 
 smooth and finished speech of a graduate 
 of Dartmouth college, as is claimed for Mr. 
 Solomon Spaulding, and then you should 
 find the expression therein, that the origi- 
 nal language in which tne book was written , 
 was a very imperfect one, as is the admis- 
 sion in the Book of Mormon ; would not my 
 opponent say at once that it was an irrecon- 
 cilable inconsistency? And would he not 
 have a more reasonable basis upon which 
 to make the claim that the. book was the 
 work of the cultured clergyman of New 
 England? There can be no doubt of it. - 
 Every position Mr. Braden takes against 
 this book on account of its unenticing 
 style, language, address, and compilation, 
 exposes more fully the utter unreasonable- 
 ness and absurdity of his Spauldiug tale, 
 "old come 'to pass," and all. 
 
 But I will examine the work of some New 
 Testament writers: Mark was as much 
 inspired as Matthew, but his language of 
 recording the gospel is quite different. 
 Luke's style and language is not that of 
 John, and it is easy to see that the untaught 
 Peter is such a character from his inspired 
 Epistles; while Paul's characteristics of 
 culture shine out in his. But Braden thinks 
 that, if the Lord should use Joseph Smith 
 and inspire his mind to use the means he 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 167 
 
 had prepared to translate a language, he 
 must not use the vocabulary of Joseph 
 Smith. 
 
 The Lord, in translating the book through 
 Joseph Smith, would certainly use the lan- 
 guage of Joseph Smith so far as that vocab- 
 ulary would reflect truthfully the original. 
 If it was deficient, then of course it must 
 have been supplied, but not otherwise. 
 "What vocabulary would he use? Of some 
 learned gentleman who was president of 
 Harvard or Dartmouth? Why, how would 
 Joseph Smith understand it after he had 
 translated, according to that? And then 
 Satan would find some argument for his 
 Spaulding story. Was not the message to 
 Mr. Smith as well as to the others of the 
 human family, and could he understand it 
 if not, in great part, in his vocabulary? 
 Was it not also most proper that he first of 
 all understand this message? All must 
 answer these questions the same. Then 
 why object to the work upon this ground? 
 It is but reasonable to expect that we should 
 find in the translation the language in great 
 part in use and understood by the translator 
 at the time of the translation. I might 
 refer also to the fact that there are hundreds 
 of works written in the English language 
 that were correct according to the best 
 usage at the time in which they were writ- 
 ten, but which are poor English to-day; 
 and not only this, but the very vocabulary 
 of those works is altogether unlike the vo- 
 cabulary of other works that were in good 
 English, written at the same time. Need I 
 cite you to the common work that is known 
 all over Christendom, published in England 
 a few years ago, known as Bunyan's Pil- 
 grim's Progress ; thought to be a model 
 yet, in many things, of good English, for 
 the reason that the words that are used in 
 it are so simple that everybody can under- 
 stand it ; but because of this does it follow 
 that other works written at the same time, 
 but in a widely different vocabulary, were 
 not in proper form and style also? Mr. 
 Braden's reasoning is like this : Joseph 
 Smith was an unlearned boy, with a limited 
 vocabulary of words, as the vocabulary of 
 all unlearned persons is of few words when 
 compared with the scholarly. The Book of 
 Mormon is in the language of such an un- 
 learned and illiterate boy ; Sidney Iligdon 
 and Solomon Spaulding were educated, 
 able and well-informed men, and ministers 
 one a Presbyterian and graduate of Dart- 
 mouth College, the other belonging to the 
 church of which " I, Clark Brad en, am a 
 member," orator of the great Mahoning 
 Association, a city pastor, etc., their vocab- 
 ulary of the English language was of the 
 best at the time, rich, and especially Spaul- 
 ding's, who was 'classical and scholarly. 
 Therefore the learned and scholarly Spaul- 
 ding wrote the Book of Mormon, in common 
 phrase language, and the eloquent and 
 gifted Sidney (Bro. Braden's pastor) stole 
 it and gave it to Joseph Smith, an un- 
 learned, illiterate, low, mean, drinking, 
 shiftless, lazy, thieving, rascally boy, who 
 lived hundreds of miles away, in the forests 
 
 of the State of New York, at the time when 
 they had no news, lines, railroads, or easy 
 conveyancing as now, and when from the 
 very surroundings of the case it was impos- 
 sible that Rigdou could, from his station in 
 life, ever have noticed that there was such 
 a boy living in the world so far as having 
 anything to do with him was concerned. 
 How do you like it? Sidney Rigdon, so far 
 as the use of language is concerned, was 
 one of the most eloquent men that this na- 
 tion has ever produced. I can read you 
 passages from his speeches, his sermons, 
 and from his presentation of the case of this 
 people before Congress and the world, tbat 
 equal anything that I have ever seen in tne 
 writings'or addresses of Calhoun, Webster 
 or Clay. And yet persons will try to make 
 out, in order to if possible connect him with 
 the authorship of the Book of Mormon, that 
 he was such a poor, illiterate "ignoramus" 
 of a fellow that he did not know anything. 
 His language was all of this clap-tiap 
 "nonsense," of unusual "verbosity," and 
 abounding in "vulgarisms," and such as 
 that. Well, now, it is not true. All of you 
 who have heard Sidney Kigdon, and theie 
 are many in this audience, know it is not 
 true. You know that he was a man who 
 could talk, and talk eloquently ; talk in 
 one-half hour more than Braden, or-I either, 
 can talk in two days, so far as the use of 
 fine and eloquent language is concerned. 
 That is the kind of man he was and what 
 he could do. And yet Mr. Braden will have 
 it that these two ministers, Sidney Rigdon 
 and Solomon Spaulding, made the Book of 
 Mormon. It seems to me that his argu- 
 ments will not tally at all when you begin 
 to examine and weigh them. Paul says, 
 "And I came not with excellency of speech," 
 and yet he was inspired of the Lord, and so 
 may'be the case of Joseph Smith. 
 
 My friends, can you not all now see that 
 such objections are really frivolous, and 
 that the work must be tested upon its mer- 
 its; of what it is; of its teachings, its 
 doctrines, its principles, and not upon 
 the false objections that have been rais- 
 ed. "He that abideth in the doctrine 
 of Christ, he hath both the Father and 
 he Son." Not if their message is in good 
 language "with excellency of speech," pure 
 Greek, Hebrew or English ; but is it 
 so as to be understood, and when un- 
 derstood is it according to the doctrine of 
 Christ. Can you see the point ? I think 
 my audience can. 
 
 But all the good there is in the Book of 
 Mormon is borrowed from the Bible he says. 
 Does that make it bad because it is borrow- 
 ed from the Bible? Why don't he point 
 out the bad to this audience and show 
 where that came from? That is what you 
 are waiting for him to do. Does he sup- 
 pose you will go home and begin to kick 
 the Book of Mormon if he leaves it like the 
 Bible? Would it not be entitled to the re- 
 spect and belief of Christians, if it did come 
 out of the Bible? Jesus said "every good 
 and perfect thing came from God." 
 
 But again, the claim is made that the er- 
 
168 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 rors of King James' translation were copied 
 In the Book of Mormon when it was trans- 
 lated. Now this I deny. It is an assertion that 
 cannot be made good. If they are let him 
 rpa.'f the passages to this audience and give 
 me page and paragraph ami prove it. That 
 is the way to debate. Select a few he can 
 stand by and let us have an issue. What 
 is argument? For the negative to copy out 
 all day what he finds in thos^ works writ- 
 ten against the people he has assailed, 
 without regard to the question, or what 
 the affirmative has produced, and then to 
 stand and read it off at night? If that is 
 the way I respectfully suggest that hereaf- 
 ter when you want to discuss with the 
 Saints that instead of getting a professed 
 minister of the gospel, you just buy one of 
 Howe's or John Hide's books against the 
 Mornjons, and when our minister has mtide 
 his argument you just arise and read the 
 stories from Hide, or Tucker, or Howe, or 
 Kidder, or Smucker, or Beadle, or Ann 
 Eliza, or John D. Lee you can't go amiss 
 they are all directly to the point. No 
 difference what the question is, they will 
 testify. But in contradiction to such a course 
 I suggest that if my reasons are not good 
 he ought to show such facts, and which he 
 can well afford to do, if they are bad. 
 
 But here I will now take up my affirma- 
 tive proofs. It is well known that for the 
 iniquity of the ten tribes of Israel, God 
 gave them into the hands of Shalmaneser, 
 and he carried them into Assyria, since 
 which time they have not been known in 
 the history of nations. The tribes of Judah 
 and Benjamin, with remnants of tribes, 
 remained at Jerusalem until about seventy 
 yean aftor the coming of Christ, when Je- 
 rusalem was beseiged by the Romans, the 
 city was taken and destroyed together with 
 the magnificent temple, and the Jews were 
 scattered among the nations. Since that, 
 neither Judah nor Israel has been an inde- 
 pend i,L .lotion in the earth. As nations 
 they have been blotted out from the knowl- 
 edge of the world. They (they Jews) are 
 only known in their scattered state. Their 
 city and coveted land has, for Jo, those ages, 
 been under the feet of their enemies. This 
 has been so truly the case that it has been 
 a current belief in the world that they 
 would never again be restored to their land 
 or become a great nation. That the Lord 
 has utterly rejected them. But Paul cor- 
 rected that idea in his letter to the Romans 
 11:1-2: 
 
 "I say then has God cast away his peo- 
 ple ? God forbid ! For I am an Israelite 
 of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Ben- 
 jamin. God has not cast away his people 
 which he foreknew." 
 
 Paul was right, for God had declared as 
 an unalterable decree, as fixed as the ordi- 
 nances of heaven, that they should be re- 
 membered, and not cease to be a nation for- 
 ever. Jer. 31 : 35, 40. 
 
 "Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the 
 sun for a light by day and the ordinances of 
 the moon and the stars for a light by night, 
 which divideth the sea when the waves 
 
 thereof roar; the Lord of Hosts is his 
 name." Verse 36: " If those ordinances 
 depart from before me, saith the Loid, then 
 the seed of Israel also shall cease from 
 being a nation before me forever." Verse 
 37 : " Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above 
 can be measured and the foundation of the 
 earth searched out beneath, I will also cast 
 off all the seed of Israel for all that they 
 have done saith the Lord." Verse 38: 
 " Behold the days come saith the Lord, 
 that the city shall be built to the Lord from 
 the tower of Hananeel to the gate of the 
 corner." Verse 39 : "And the measuring 
 l*ne shall yet go forth over against it upon 
 the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to 
 Goath." 
 
 They were to be scattered and peeled ; 
 " become a hiss and a by word among the 
 nations," but they were to be gathered 
 again in God's own due time: hence Paul 
 says, "God has not forgotten his people." 
 But when will their restoration commence? 
 The learning of men is not able to answer. 
 But God by his prophets has made it quite 
 clear. As if on purpose to correct this 
 popular error, Paul writes : " For I would 
 not my brethren have you ignorant of this 
 mystery, lest ye should be wise in your 
 own conceits ; that blindness in part has 
 happened to Israel, until the fullness of the 
 Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel 
 shall be saved, as it is written. There shall 
 come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall 
 turn away ungodliness from Jacob : For 
 this is my covenant unto them, when I 
 shall takeaway their sins." Rom. 11 : 25, 26. 
 
 When the time comes that God will take 
 away the sin of Israel, about the time 
 that the fullness of the Gentiles should 
 come in, by their turning away from un- 
 godliness, or hardness of heart he will 
 make a covenant with them. Jesus fixes 
 this event at the same time with Paul, and 
 says, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of 
 the Gentiles." But how long? He-con- 
 tinues, " Until the times of the Gentiles be 
 fulfilled." Luke 21: 24. Jerusalem was to 
 be in the. hands of the Gentiles until these 
 predictions of Christ and Paul should be 
 fulfilled. Then God would renew his cove- 
 nant with them. But when is the time 
 when Jerusalem shall cease to be trodden 
 down of the Gentiles, and God shall take 
 away the sin of Israel and renew his 
 covenant f Let the prophet answer. Jere- 
 miah says : 
 
 "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
 that I will perform the good things which 
 I have promised unto the house of Israel 
 and the house of Judah. In those days, 
 and at that time, will I cause the branch of 
 righteousness to grow up unto David, and 
 he shall execute judgment and righteous- 
 ness in the land. In those days shall 
 Judah be saved, and Jerusalem dwell 
 safely." 
 
 That is the age and time when God will 
 begin the work that is to effect the restora- 
 tion of Israel to their ancient homes ; 
 when their sins shall be pardoned, and 
 God's covenant established among them. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 169 
 
 It is the same time referred to by both Paul 
 and Jesus. So the prophet goes on to state : 
 
 " Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will 
 make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
 with the house of Judah. Not according to the cove- 
 nant that I made with them when 1 took them by the 
 hand to bring them outof the land of Egypt: which 
 my covenant they brake, although I was a husband- 
 man unto them saith the Lord. But this shall be the 
 covenant that I will make with the hou~e of Israel 
 after those days saith the Lord. I will put my law in 
 their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and I will 
 be their God and they shall be my people, and they 
 shall teach no more every man his neigh bor, mid every 
 man his brother. Buying, Know the Lord; for they 
 shall know me from the leastof them (o the greatest of 
 them, saith the Lord ; for I will forgive their iniquity, 
 and I will remember their sins no more." 
 
 Nothing need be made plainer than this 
 prediction in order to be well understo >d. 
 When God takes away the "sin" of Israel 
 he is to "remember their iniquities no 
 more." He is to make with them a cove- 
 nant, and the law is to be written in their 
 hearts, not on tables of stone. "Moreover, 
 I will make a covenant of peace with them ; 
 it shall be an everlasting covenant, with 
 them, and I will place them, and multiply 
 them, and will set my sanctuary in the 
 midst of them forever more." Ezek. 37:26. 
 
 In view of accomplishing this event, it is 
 written : 
 
 " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall 
 no more be said the Lord liveth that brought up the 
 children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but 
 the Lord liveth that brought up the children of 
 Israel from the land of the north ; and from 
 all the lands whither he had driven them; and I 
 
 will bring them again unto the lands that I gave nnto 
 their fathers. Behold I will send for many fishers and 
 they shall fish them, and aiti-rwards will I send for many 
 hunters and they shall hunt them from every moun- 
 tain and from every hill, and out of the holes of the 
 rocks." Ezek. 16 : 14-16. 
 
 And in order to accomplish their restora- 
 tion, as thus pointed out, the Lord says : 
 "I will direct their work in truth, and I 
 will make an everlasting covenant with 
 them. And their seed shall be known 
 among the Gentiles and their offspring 
 among the people." Isaiah 61:8,9. 
 
 Here Israel is to be revealed among the 
 Gentiles, and their offspring among the peo- 
 ple. Their lineage is to be discovered. And 
 how? Evidently as in old time, when 
 doubts, or no certainty was had concern- 
 ing the lineage of certain of the tribes, 
 who sought to be registered among those 
 who were reckoned by genealogy, but they 
 were not found; "they were not to eat of 
 the most holy things, till there stood up a 
 priest with Urim and Thummim." Ezra 
 2:63. Neh.7:65. As the "Urim andThutn- 
 mim" was the means by which ancient 
 Israel and their lineage was revealed, it 
 will doubtless be the means that God will 
 employ to make their "seed known among 
 the Gentiles, and their offspring among the 
 people." God will work like himself; "He 
 will reveal his secrets to his servants the 
 prophets." Amos 3:7. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: \Vewill now call your at- 
 tention to a radical difference between the 
 Book of Mormon and the Bible. In the Bible 
 the miraculous power of God was sparingly 
 exerted, and revelations were sparingly 
 given. God never did for man what he 
 could do for himself, for such help would 
 have been injurious, just as doing every- 
 thing for a child ruins him. With his ten- 
 dency to exaggeration, extravagance and 
 falsehood, Rigdon, in his fiction, the Book 
 of Mormon, has miraculous power exerted 
 on all occasions, even the most trivial and 
 in the most extraordinary manner. He 
 is constantly loading his miraculous cannon 
 to shoot some flea of difficulty. Miraculous 
 power was as common among the Nephites 
 as the use of speech. Their miracles are 
 so much more wonderful than those of the 
 Bible. At the birth of Christ the Bible 
 tell us that a star appeared. Rigdon tells 
 us that it was as light as mid-day all night. 
 At the crucifixion the Bible tells us that 
 darkness covered the land around Jerusa- 
 
 lem for three hours and there was an earth- 
 quake in Asia Minor. Rigdon tells us a 
 horrible darkness covered the whole earth 
 three days and three nights or until Christ 
 arose all the time he was in the tomb. 
 The Bible tells us that some saints arose 
 during the earthquake at the crucifixion. 
 Sydney tells us multitudes arose three 
 days after, at the resurrection. Rigdon lets 
 King Ahasuerus' horse run away with him 
 every time he gets to fabricating miracles, 
 Rigdon regarded miracles as the all in all of 
 revelation, as such an extravagant vision- 
 ary fabricator of lies would naturally do. 
 The Bible teaches us that they are merely 
 a means to an infinitely higher end, and 
 worthless except as they accomplish that 
 purpose, and will cease when it is accomp- 
 lished. It teaches that the Corinthian 
 Church that excelled all others in its won- 
 ders, was the most imperfect Church in l* 
 days of the Apostles. That is true to day. 
 Th*e lowest displays of religion are among 
 the negroes of the South, Spiritists, Mor- 
 mons, and in meeting and revivals wher 
 
J70 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 there are the most claims made to super- 
 natural power. Spiritism is a low system. 
 Negro religion is a disgusting caricature. 
 So is Mormonism with the gibberish called 
 speaking with tongues, its pretended reve- 
 lations, its rubbing with sweet oil. It is a 
 childish superstition. It substitutes won- 
 ders for divine truth. 
 
 The supernatural of the Bible differs from 
 Mormonism in every particular. The his- 
 tory of the Bible occurred in the midst of the 
 worlds history and was a wonderful part of 
 it. There is no getting off into Utopia, 
 Nowhere, as in the case in the Book of Mor- 
 mon. No studious avoiding the crucial 
 test of connection with the world's history. 
 No hiding plates in the ground. No 
 clumsy contrivance of plates and bungling 
 machinery of stone interpreters. No hid- 
 ing behind blankets. No handing plates 
 down out of heaven, that are of no conceiv- 
 able use. For their contents are not read 
 from them but are given word by word in the 
 crown of an old hat, and seen by peeping 
 through a stolen peepstorie. No hiding of 
 plates or manuscript when copied or trans- 
 lated. No concealment. No contradictory 
 absurdities. None of the surroundings 
 that imposture always throws around 
 itself. There were no surroundings of pre- 
 vious imposture vagabondism and crime. 
 Compare Mormouism with all other frauds 
 and it has every objectional feature of all 
 them, exaggerated. The prophecies of the 
 Bible are majestic outlines surrounded by 
 the clouds of unrevealed mysteries out of 
 which they appear. They arouse expecta- 
 tion, they cheer with promises, or warn 
 with threats, but they give only grand out- 
 lines. The prophecies in the Book of Mor- 
 mon are as minute and exact, and as full 
 and set forth the event as completely as the 
 first machine exhibits every detail, of all 
 other machines made just like it. In noth- 
 ing is this more apparent than in the proph- 
 ecies concerning Christ. If all prophecies 
 in the Old Testament that are claimed to be 
 prophecies of Christ, were real Messianic 
 prophecies, they would not foretell as 
 much concerning him as a meagre table of 
 contents tells of what is in a book. When 
 we reduce the list to its proper proportions, 
 about twenty Messianic prophecies, they 
 do not foretell more of his career than a 
 title page does of a book. The prophecies in 
 ;he Book of Mormon begin with Christ's 
 mother's name, and they foretell every inci- 
 dent of his career with the minuteness of 
 history. They even foretell his exact lan- 
 guage, a thing the Bible does not do in a 
 single instance, and close with his ascen- 
 sion. We have as exact history as we have 
 in the New Testament. Rigdon was deter- 
 mined that his prophecies should excell the 
 Bible, and he copied the New Testament 
 to such an 'extent that the fraud is as impu- 
 dent as it would be to introduce a child to 
 his father, or a man to his wife. 
 
 The writers and speakers of the Bible 
 give their message to the world with the 
 dignified confidence of conscious truth and 
 inspiration. They do not stoop to hedging 
 
 against doubt and unbelief. They declare 
 their message and leave it with the reader 
 or hearer without argumentor excuse. The 
 writer of the Book of Mormon begins hedg- 
 on the first page, and his last page closes- 
 with hedging against objections and unbe- 
 lief, anticipating them and trying to pre- 
 v nt them, and to answer them. We are- 
 told with painful iteration and reiteration, 
 on nearly every page, how the Lord com- 
 manded them to make plates, to record on 
 them this and that. What care the Lord 
 took to have the plates preserved. How 
 they were revised and corrected by the Lord. 
 How they were hid up unto the Lord. How 
 interpreters were provided and preserved. 
 That "if there be fault, it be the mistake of 
 men." We are besought not to condemn 
 the record on account of imperfections. 
 That they would have done better if they 
 had had more time, or if they had written 
 in another language. That a more perfect 
 account is yet to be brought to light. The 
 arguments of those who contended, as the 
 Disciples did with Rigdon, that we have a 
 perfect revelation in the Bible, are elabor- 
 ately stated and answered with all the bit- 
 terness that Rigdon felt against the Disci- 
 ples because they rejected his fanatical hob- 
 bies. All the objections that it is thought 
 will be urged against Imposter Joe are an- 
 ticipated and discussed. A language that 
 no one ever heard of is fabricated as the 
 language in which the plates were written. 
 They are miraculously preserved and the 
 records are engraved on plates in the most 
 imperishable manner. In all this we see 
 the conscious fear and guilt of the impostor 
 hedging against detection in his fraud. It 
 is as different from the Bible as falsehood is 
 from truth. 
 
 We propose now to show that the Book 
 of Mormon is destitute of every particle of 
 evidence necessary to sustain an uninspired 
 book. What must be proved to sustain the 
 Book of Mormon? I. That the family of 
 Jared emigrated to this continent from the 
 Tower of Babel, escaping the confusion of 
 tongues. II. That Jared's brother and 
 Ether did, by Divine command and inspira- 
 tion, engrave on plates the history of these 
 people. III. That Limbi and King Benja- 
 min obtained these plates and handed them 
 down, so that Moroni abridged them. IV. 
 That Lehi and his family emigrated to this 
 country from Jerusalem in the first year of 
 the reign of Zedekiah. V. That Lehi, Nephi 
 and other prophets by Divine command, 
 and inspiration kept a history and engraved 
 it on plates. VI. That members of the fam- 
 ily of Zedekiah migrated from Jerusalem 
 to the land near the Isthmus of Darien. 
 VII. That they were discovered by the 
 Nephites during the reign of their King 
 Zarahemla. VIII. That Zarahemlites and 
 Nephites were united. IX. That their his- 
 tory was kept by a succession of prophets 
 by Divine command and inspiration. X. 
 That Mormon, by Divine command and in- 
 spiration, abridged these records. XI. That 
 Moroni finished the abridgment and buried 
 it. XII. That in the form of an angel Moroni 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 171 
 
 appeared to Joe Smith and gave him the 
 plates he had buried. XIII. That Joe Smith 
 by inspiration translated the plates. XIV. 
 That we have that translation and an 
 abridgement of the history of Nephites, 
 Zarahemlites and Jaredites in the Book of 
 Mormon. Such is the claim. What attempt 
 is made to sustain it? 
 
 How do we sustain the claims of any 
 ancient book? Xenophon's Anabasis for 
 instance? I. We show that it is the. uni- 
 versal belief of the world, learned and crit- 
 ical as well as unlearned, that Xenophon 
 wrote the Anabasis, and that we have in it 
 what he wrote, and that he wrote. the truth. 
 II. We show that such has been the uni- 
 versal belief of each generation until we 
 reach the generation in which it is claimed 
 that Xenophon lived and wrote. III. We 
 then show that the people of that genera- 
 tion, in their literature, mention Xenophon, 
 his book, and that they accepted it as true. 
 IV. We show that other writers of that age 
 record the same events, mention the same 
 persons and events. V. We show the 
 places, customs, surroundings that it men- 
 tions are true ; that it interlocks truthfully 
 in geography, customs, literature, etc., with 
 the surroundings and with the age that it 
 describes. Such is the course we pursue to 
 sustain the claims of an uninspired book. 
 
 How much of this proof has the Book of 
 Mormon? I. It is not universally received 
 by this generation, learned and critical and 
 unlearned, as what it purports to be. II. 
 We can trace it no further back than Joe 
 Smith, in 1830. III. Before he gave it to 
 the world, not a soul had heard or knew 
 one particle of the Book of Mormon, or its 
 contents, or a single incident in its pre- 
 tended history. IV. Not another genera- 
 tion or book knows a particle about it or its 
 pretended history. V. From the Tower of 
 Babel to 1830 not a human being knew of 
 the Book, or knew a single particle of its 
 pretended history. VI. Mormons cannot 
 appeal to a single book, fact, custom or 
 place back of Joe Smith. VII. Its pre- 
 tended history interlocks with no other, 
 does not even touch it. Its places, customs, 
 persons and events are utterly unknown to 
 all geography, history or literature. VIII. 
 We have neither coins, inscriptions, ruins, 
 or any relics that can be traced to its per- 
 sons or pretended history. IX. It stands 
 upon the assertion of Joe Smith as entirely, 
 and it is unsupported by anything else, as 
 the Mosaic account of the creation stands 
 upon the inspiration of Moses. Even more 
 so, for science has shown that the Mosaic 
 account is a correct outline of the course of 
 evolution in creation. But there are no rel- 
 ics, no remains, no fossils to sustain the 
 Book of Mormon. If it claimed to be writ- 
 ten without inspiration, like Champollion's 
 translations of Egyptian papyrus, ft has no 
 evidence to sustain it such as he produced. 
 He showed the papyrus. By comparing his 
 translation with Greek records of the same 
 events, he proved that he had translated 
 correctly. He proved by an appeal to other 
 history, to literature, to customs and sur- 
 
 roundings, that his translation and iti 
 statements were sustained. 
 
 No one but the few witnesses ever claimed 
 to have seen Im poster Joe's plates. No one 
 ever knew whether he translated correctly 
 or not. No one ever knew an idea tha't 
 would sustain his translation or its state- 
 ments. All the proof we have is certain 
 assertions. I. Imposter Joe asserts that an 
 angel gave him certain plates. II. That he 
 translated them by the gift and power of 
 God. III. That what is in the Book of 
 Mormon is that translation. IV. The three 
 witnesses declare that by a miracle they 
 were showed certain plates. V. That the 
 voice of God declared to them that Joe's 
 translation in the Book of Mormon is true. 
 VI. The eight witnesses declare that they 
 handled certain plates. All they say be- 
 yond that is an assertion of what they did 
 not know. The appearance of Moroni to 
 Imposter Joe was a miracle. So was his 
 giving Imposter Joe the plates. Of this we 
 have not one scrap of evidence but that of 
 Imposter Joe. The translation of the plates 
 was a miracle. That the Book of Mormon 
 contained the translation thus miraculously 
 made we have the testimony of four per- 
 sons Imposter Joe, Martin Harris, Oliver 
 Cowdrey and David Whitmer. 
 
 We may as well dispose of impostor Joe 
 first. The questions we have to settle are : 
 I. Is the point to be established suscepti- 
 ble of proof? We will concede that as far 
 as Imposter Joe is concerned he is compe- 
 tent. II. Are the witnesses of sufficient in- 
 telligence to be competent? We will con- 
 cede that Joe is. III. Is he worthy of be- 
 lief? Is he of good character for truth and 
 veracity? We will impeach Imposter Joe 
 under this test. IV. Was he disinterested 
 in the issue? We will impeach Imposter 
 Joe under this test. V. Was there collus- 
 ion ? We will impeach Imposter Joe un- 
 der this head. VI. Has his testimony the 
 consistence, harmony and appearance of 
 truth? We will impeach Imposter Joe under 
 this test. Is Imposter Joe worthy of belief? 
 For years before he told the story about the 
 revelation and its inspiration he had spent 
 his time in witching for water, pretending 
 to find lost property, buried treasures and 
 mines of precious metals. This is the uni- 
 versal testimony of his neighbors. It is ad- 
 mitted by his mother in her history (Pages 
 96, 97) and by the editor supposed to be W. 
 W. Blair, an apostle in the Reorganized 
 concern. That this was a fraud and decep- 
 tion no one will question. If Joe lied in his 
 pretended marvelous hunting for water, 
 &c., he lied in his pretended miraculous re- 
 ception of plates and translation of them. 
 Smith lied concerning the fictitious stone 
 vault in which he said he found the plates. 
 Smith lied concerning his pretended trans- 
 lation of the papyrus, now in the book of 
 Abraham. If he perpetrated a fraud in that 
 book and translation he did in the Book of 
 Mormon and the pretended translation of it 
 from pretended plates. Fifty -one neighbors 
 and acquaintances testify that Imposter Joe 
 was universally considered to be entirelj 
 
172 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 destitute of moral character, addicted to vi- 
 cious habits, and utterly unworthy of belief. 
 Eleven more testify that he was intemperate 
 and unworthy to be believed. Over twenty 
 more testify in separate affidavits to the 
 same effect, among these his father-iu-law 
 and his brother-in-law. 
 
 Henry Harris testifies in an affidavit 
 that he was on a jury before which Smith 
 testified, and that in their deliberations the 
 jury threw out Smith's testimony because 
 they regarded it as utterly unworthy of be- 
 lief. All these 80 odd persons were inti- 
 mate acquaintances. Was Joseph Smith in- 
 terested ? He was sole author and propri- 
 etor of the Book of Mormon, according to 
 copy-right. He repeatedly declared that 
 he would make money out of it. He was 
 practicing a fraud for money, just as he 
 hunted for water, lost property, and hidden 
 treasure, and precious metals, for money, 
 as a fraud. Was there collusion ? As we 
 will show the pretended revelations of June 
 1829 were fabricated in 1835, and dated back 
 and the testimony of the witnesses shows 
 that Imposter Joe wrote the revelation and 
 both affidavits and certificates. 
 
 Are Smith's statement* consistent and 
 worthy of belief? At first he told his 
 neighbors he had found plates and mention- 
 ed nothing else. In his autobiography he 
 adds "and a breast-plate worn by the an- 
 cients." In the Book of Doctrines and 
 Covenants he adds Lehi's compass and La- 
 ban's sword. Which of these statements 
 are to be believed? Imposter Joe told 
 Peter Ingersoll that his whole story was a 
 hoax. He had no such book. He did not 
 believe there was any such book ; but "he 
 had got the damned fools fixed and he 
 should carry out the fun." He told Willard 
 Chase he was to keep his book two years 
 and not let any one see it but himself. He 
 told his father-in-law, Isaac Hale, the 
 first one to see it was a young child. He 
 told N. C. Lewis that he should see the 
 plates and lied, for he could not show him 
 any. He told his brother-in-law that after 
 keeping the plates 18 months he would 
 show them to the world. He told Henry 
 Harris that no one could tee the plates but 
 himself and wife. He promised his broth- 
 er-in-law, Alva Hale, he would show him 
 the plates, got mad, and lied, and could not 
 show any. He told Levi Lewis that 
 the reason he did not show him the plates, 
 according to promise, was that God had de- 
 ceived him. He told Sophia Lewis that the 
 plates could only be opened by his first 
 child, which would be a male child, 
 it was still born. We might continue 
 his lies indefinitely. W shall show that 
 his revelations are contradictory false, 
 the frauds ot a low trickster. That he lied 
 in them. His pretended traiisiat: :>n of tho 
 book of Abraham was a tran.paient fraud. 
 He bought some Egyptian ipummies. He 
 pretended to translate tre papyri found 
 with them, ami published the translation, 
 claiming that, the papyrus was written by 
 Abraham, and the translation is now in 
 "The Pearl, of Great Price" as one of his 
 
 greatest revelations and achievements. A 
 French scholar has translated the papyri 
 a portion of them and proved that his pre- 
 tended translation is a fabrication, every 
 word of it. He lied in his Book of Abra- 
 ham. He lied in his tale about the Book of 
 Mormon. The pretended facsimile of what 
 was engraved on the plat 4 **, that he gave to 
 his dupes, is a most transparent fraud, made 
 up of the letters and numerals of the Eng- 
 lish alphabet, inverted or reversed. Out of 
 68 characters 64 are palpably copies of our 
 alphabet, figures and punctuation marks. 
 But it would be an insult to follow this 
 work further. 
 
 We will next examine the three witneses. 
 We object to their testimony. 
 
 i. If the Book of Doctrines and Covenants 
 be true before they pretend to have seen 
 the plates Impostor Joe presents them 
 with a pretended revelation in which they 
 are told just what they shall testify. The 
 words they use in their testimony are iden- 
 tical with the words in this "pretended 
 revelation. 
 
 II. In March 1829 Imposter Joe presents 
 Harris with a pretended revelation in which 
 the identical words of the testimony of the 
 witnesses occurs. 
 
 III. In that revelation Harris is com- 
 manded to lie, to say that he had seen the 
 plates when he has not se^n them and is 
 reminded that he had promised Joe that he 
 would tell such a lie. 
 
 t IV. The testimony is not like the evi- 
 dence presented to prove that Spaulding 
 wrote the Manuscript Found, a series of 
 independent statements, but a joint state- 
 ment without date, written by Joe Smith 
 as comparison with his two pretended 
 revelations just named will show. It has 
 every mark of fraud and collusion. It is 
 prefaced by two pretended revelations, in 
 one of which one of the witnesses is com- 
 manded to lie. And is reminded that he 
 had promised to lie. It tells them what they 
 shall say, and it is written out by Imposter 
 Joe and signed by his three confederates in 
 fraud. 
 
 The witnesses are interested in the issue. 
 Harris had his farm staked on its succes. 
 Cowdery had months of time staked on it. 
 Harris declares "If the whole affair was a 
 fraud he expected to make money out of it." 
 All expected to make money out of it. 
 Harris was bought with 'the promise of a 
 monopoly of the sales of the book. He ex- 
 pected to clear over $3,000.00. Harris was 
 noted for his absurd marvelous stories. 
 He said that he had see Jesus and " he was 
 a beautiful young man." 
 
 "He had seen the devil and he was a 
 jackass with hair like a mouse." He proph- 
 ecied that the nation would be destroyed 
 in four years if they did not accept Mor- 
 moaism. If other witnesses tell the truth 
 Harris lied to Amthon about how the trans- 
 laliuq was done. He lied about what 
 Amtht n said to him. Joe in a revelation 
 reminds Harris that he had promised to lie 
 and commands him to do so. In a revela- 
 Joe jvarns him against adultery and 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 173 
 
 murder. He used to beat his wife. He sat 
 by her bedside as she was dying, wrote 
 a letter to a woman he intended to marry, 
 brutally told his dying wife what he was 
 doing, married his Leman in less than two 
 weeks after his wife's death. He lived in 
 adultery with a tenant's wife. It was this 
 that Joe warned him against and against 
 murdering her husband. 
 
 Harris declared repeatedly that he had 
 as much evidence for a Shaker book he 
 had as for the Book of Mormon. He told 
 Deacon Morley, Maj. Gilbert, Mr. Mark- 
 ell, Mrs. Mil liken, Mr. Milliken, Mrs. 
 Whitney, Mrs. Hansbury, and many 
 others that he did not see the plates 
 with his natural sight. He saw them 
 by faith. That is he did not see them, 
 but thought or believed he saw them. He 
 told Mr. and Mrs. Hansbury that he did 
 not see the plates. He saw the box that 
 they were in and heard them rattle. He 
 knew Joe had them. 
 
 In the Elder's Journal of August, 1838, 
 page 49, Imposter Joe denounces him "as 
 so far beneath contempt that a notice of 
 him would be too great a sacrifice for a 
 gentleman to make. The church exerted 
 some restraint on him, but now he has 
 given loose to all kinds of abominations, 
 lying, cheating, swindling, with all kinds 
 of debauchery." That disposes of Mart in 
 Harris. 
 
 We will now take up Oliver Cowdery. 
 David Stafford testifies that "Oliver Cow- 
 dery proved himself to be a worthless fel- 
 Jow, not to be trusted or believed when he 
 taught school in this neighborhood." Dan- 
 foid Booth says he was a low pettifogger, a 
 cat's-paw of the Smiths to do their dirty 
 work. Imposter Joe is constantly warning 
 him in revelations of his selfishness, his 
 ambition, his desire to be some big person. 
 In a pretended revelation of November, 
 1831; Imposter Joe bears this testimony to 
 Oliver's character: "Hearken unto *me, 
 saith the Lord your God, for my servant 
 Oliver Cowdery's sake: It is not wisdom 
 that he be entrusted with the moneys which 
 he shall carry into the land of Zion unless 
 some one shall go with him who shall be 
 true and faithful." In Vol. I. of Times and 
 Seasons, Hiram Smith charges Oliver Cow- 
 dery with forging a note against himself 
 (Hiram Smith), robbing his father (Joseph 
 Smith, Sr.,) and plundering Joseph Smith's 
 house. Pages 22-3, Vol. I, Times and Sea- 
 sons, Hiram Smith says : 
 
 " Persons came to my house while I was in prison 
 and ransacked it and carried off money and my valu- 
 ables. Among tho*e who treated me thus I cannot 
 help making particular mention of Lyman C wdery, 
 who In connection with his brother Oliver Cowdery 
 took from me a great many things, and to cap the 
 climax of his iniquity compelled my age i father, by 
 threatening to bring a mob upon him, to deed over 
 to him or his brother Oliver about 160 acres of land 
 to pay a note which he said I had given to Oliver for 
 $165. Such not e 1 confess I was. and am, entirely 
 entirely ignorant of, and after mature consideration 
 I have to say that I believe it must be a forgery." 
 
 Witness Oliver a robber, a thief, a forger! 
 Joseph Smith says, in Times and Seasons, 
 Vol. I, page 80 : 
 " About this time there were several persons living 
 
 In the Far West who were cut off from the church 
 Thv*e eh arsi-toi swore svn'iiously engaged in emula- 
 ting f. ilse and slanderous reports against (he Saints to 
 stir up oar enemies to drive us from our homes and 
 enjoy the spoils together. They are as fallows : Oliver 
 Cowdery, David Whitmor, etc." 
 
 These liars plotting robbery are witnesses 
 to the Book of Mormon. 
 
 In a circular letter addressed to Oliver 
 Cowdery, David Whitmer and others, 
 signed by Sidney Rigdon and 84 other lead- 
 ing Mormons a circular that was authenti- 
 cated in a District Court before Judge King, 
 and which is further authenticated in a 
 report of a committee of the United States 
 Senate and published in the report by au- 
 thority of the United States Government, 
 constituting Congressional Document 189, 
 A. D. 1841, Oliver Cowdery is charged with 
 stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, and 
 that he was a leader of a gang of scoundrels 
 of the blackest dye. After he abandoned 
 Mormonism he openly declared his testi- 
 mony was a lie. In a piece of poetry pub- 
 lished in the Times and Seasons, occur 
 these lines : 
 
 " Or prove thf>t Christ was not the Lord 
 Because that Peter cursed and swore, 
 Or Book of Mormon not his word 
 Because denied by Oliver." 
 
 In this doggerel the Mormons themselves 
 declare he repudiated his testimony. He 
 committed adultery with a hired girl in 
 Kirtland. He lived in adultery also in 
 Nauvoo. Such is the Apostle Cowdery 
 witness Cowdery. He died an apostate, a 
 drunken sot, a beastly wreck. 
 
 David Whitmer next. He destroys his 
 testimony by the yarns he tells, and his 
 contradictions. He tells that Joe took him 
 into a field, on Whitmer's father's farm, 
 and showed him the plates lying on the 
 ground. He tells us that the angel showed 
 them to his (Whitmer's) mother. That the 
 angels sowed eleven acres of plaster to ena- 
 ble him to go to Pennsylvania to move Joe 
 (Lucy Smith's history, pp. 144, 145). That 
 he was miraculously enabled to do two 
 heavy days' work in less than one day (id.) 
 That the angels plowed seven acres for him 
 in the night (autobiography of Joe Smith, 
 p. 740). That Moroni trudged alongside of 
 the wagon as he was moving Smith, sweat- 
 ing like an old tramp, lugging the plates. 
 The person who will be fool enough to have 
 any confidence in the stor,y of such a man 
 after reading such monstrous and silly lies, 
 may do so, people of sense will not. In 
 Times and Seasons, Vol. I., pages 81 , 82, 83, 84 
 as quoted above. Imposter Joe declares that 
 Cowdery and Whitmer were studiously en- 
 gaged in circulating false and slanderous 
 reports and plotting fo rob the Saints. Rig- 
 don and 83 other leading Mormons, as quoted 
 above, denounce Whitmer as being a mem- 
 ber of a gang of thieves, counterfeiters and 
 blacklegs of the deepest dye. Page 83 of 
 the Times and Seasons Imposter Joe says : 
 "Poor Phelps, who professes to be much of 
 a prophet, has no other dumb beast to ride 
 but David Whitmer, or to forbid his mad- 
 ness when he goes up to curse Israel. But 
 this ass (not being of the same kind as 
 Baalam's), therefore notwithstanding the 
 
174 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 angel appeared unto him, yet lie c&tmot 
 sufficiently penetrate his understanding, 
 but that he ( Whitmer) brays out curses in- 
 stead of blessings. Poor ass, whoever lives 
 will see him and his. rider perish like those 
 who perished in the gainsaying of Noah." 
 A sweetscented witness, according to God's 
 vicegerent Jmposter Joe. Whitmer has re- 
 peatedly stated to his neighbors in Rich- 
 mond, Mo., that his statement was a lie. 
 That the only angel he saw was a man by 
 the name of Angell. 
 
 We are now ready for the eight witnesses. 
 Their testimony is worthless. They testify 
 they saw and handled certain plates that 
 Joe showed them. That the plates had on 
 them characters of ancient workmanship, 
 and were of ancient and curious workman- 
 ship. That they saw as many plates as 
 Smith had translated. How did they know 
 that he had translated the plates before 
 them? How did they know that Joe had 
 translated any plates? That the plates 
 had been given to him by an angel? That 
 the Book of Mormon was a translation of 
 the plates before them, or of any plates ? 
 The only thing they could testify was that 
 Joe had showed them certain plates. All 
 the rest they could not know, and lied when 
 they said they did know. Another fatal 
 objection to the testimony of both the three 
 witnesses, and of the eight, is they are all 
 of the gang of low, villainous followers of 
 Smith, and interested in the fraud. The 
 thirteen are as follows : Imposter Joe, au- 
 thor of the fraud ; old Joe, his father, a 
 notorious drunkard, liar and thief; Hiram 
 Smith, his brother, afterwards a leader in 
 Mormonism ; S. H. Smith, another; old 
 Mrs. Whitmer, David Whitmer, Christian 
 Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer, 
 Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, brother-in- 
 law of the Whitmers, Martin Harris, old 
 Mrs. Whitmer and Emma Smith, Joe's 
 wife. Six Whitmers, one member of the 
 family, four Smiths, Oliver Cowdery and 
 Martin Harris. 
 
 One afternoon a number of persons were 
 playing town ball in the flat on the bank of 
 the creek in Kirtland, while the Mormons 
 were there. There was whiskey on the 
 ground, and Bill Smith, brother of Imposter 
 Joe, got so drunk that he had to sit down 
 between the roots of a stump and lean back 
 
 against the stump to sit up. Some of the 
 Mormons reminded him that he was an- 
 nounced to preach the next day, and that 
 he would not be allowed to preach if he 
 made such a display of himself. He roared 
 
 out, " I'll be d d if I wont preach. If 
 
 they don't let me preach, by O d I will 
 tell all I know about them plates." He 
 preached. On another occasion, while riding 
 with Mr. Markell, he began to sing an ob- 
 scene song. Mr. Markell reminded him 
 that he was a preacher, and was to preach 
 the next Sunday (Bill and Joe were in a 
 quarrel then). 'Smith replied: " I am not 
 going to preach any more. The whole 
 thing (meaning Mormonism) is a d d 
 humbug. I am going to tell all I know about 
 them plates." G. B. Frost swears in an 
 affidavit made in Boston, Mass., Sept. 16th. 
 1S42, before Bradford Sumner, J. P., that 
 Bill wanted some money of Joe, who re- 
 fused him until Bill threatened to tell what 
 he knew about the origin of Mormonism. 
 Then Joe gave him the money. Of the 
 three, all three apostatized, and five of the 
 eight witnesses apostatized. This is suffi- 
 cient to show that their testimony was all a 
 fabrication, gotten up by Imposter Joe and 
 signed by 'them as confederates in a fraud 
 that they abandoned when it ceased to be 
 profitable to them. Another objection: In 
 the first edition of the Book of Mormon, 
 the eight call Imposter Joe "Author and 
 proprietor" of the Book of Mormon. Now 
 it reads "Translator." They allowed the 
 testimony to be doctored to suit the point to 
 be established. They allowed it to be fab- 
 ricated by Imposter Joe, and perjured them- 
 selves by swearing to it. The two testimo- 
 nies contradict each ether and Mormon rev- 
 elations. The Book of Mormon declares 
 that Joe shall show the plates to three wit- 
 nesses. He showed them toeleven. The Book 
 of Doctrines and Covenants declares that 
 to three and none other will God give 'this 
 privilege. It was given to twelve besides 
 Imposter Joe. It required a wonderful mir- 
 acle and an angel to enable the three to see 
 the plates. It required no angel, no mira- 
 cle to enable the eight. They saw and han- 
 dled them like shingles. So did Emma 
 Smith, according to he r story, only the/ 
 were covered with a " thin cloth." 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 175 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Last Saturday evening Mr. 
 Braden made the statement that not one of 
 the Smith family ever belonged to the Pres- 
 byterian or any church, except as he says, 
 the Mormon. I have intended to correct it 
 a number of evenings, but each time it 
 has escaped my mind, so I will do so now. 
 The history is as follows: 
 
 "I was at this time in my fifteenth 
 year." This is the history written by Jo- 
 seph Smith himself. "My father's family 
 was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, 
 and four of them joined that church, name- 
 ly, my mother, also my brothers, Hyrum, 
 and Samuel Harrison, and my sister 
 Bophronia." 
 
 That is in accordance with the statement 
 that I made to the audience at the time he 
 took occasion to deny it, and the statement 
 is borne out through the history of the 
 church; and I ca^ll for the reading of the 
 evidence he has, if' he had any foundation 
 for the statement which he made to the 
 contrary. 
 
 Last evening I was just reading to you an 
 argument based upon the work that the 
 Lord would begin to accomplish or perform 
 in the last days, and should begin with 
 Ephraiin ; and I had called your attention to 
 the fact that in the restoration of this work 
 and the bringing to light of the seed of 
 Ephraim himself, the Urim and Thummim 
 must be restored again, as was stated by 
 the prophet Nehemiah, (7 : 65) which was 
 necessary in that time also to the restora- 
 tion of certain ones before the Lord ; also, 
 that when this was done -it would be 
 through the means of the Lord working 
 throughjthe instrumentality of a prophet. I 
 shall this evening first follow out these won- 
 derful predictions of the prophets, and as I 
 trust, interest you in one of the most hope- 
 ful and encouraging promises God has ever 
 made to his children. 
 
 As a priiicipaland initiatory means of in- 
 augurating the great work of revealing the 
 seed of Israel as they exist among the na- 
 tions, and the restoring of them to their 
 promised land, Isaiah says, when "God 
 shall set his hand again the second time to 
 recover the remnant of his people which 
 shall be left, he will set up an ensign for 
 the nations and shall assemble the out- 
 casts of Israel, and gather together the dis- 
 persed of Judah from the four corners of 
 the earth" 11:12. 
 
 The outcasts of Israel are the "ten tribes;" 
 the dispersed of Judah are those scattered 
 in the year seventy by the Roman Army. 
 But the promise is that both Israel and 
 Judah shall return. "That Ephraim shall 
 not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex 
 Ephraim." "The adversaries of Judah 
 hall be cut off." This kiL tiever been. A 
 
 "highway is to be cast up." And God !s to 
 smite the Egyptian sea in the seven streams 
 and cause men to go over dry shod. The 
 first event to transpire in this series of 
 events, is the setting up of an "ensign to 
 the nations." Isa. 61:10, says, "Go through, 
 go through the gates ; prepare ye the way 
 of the people ; cast up, cast up the high- 
 way ; gather out the stones ; lift up a stand- 
 ard for the people." 
 
 This is just to precede the coming of the 
 Son of God, and is the preparatory work to 
 be performed before his coming. 'But what 
 is this "ensign" or "standard" that is to 
 be raised up? It is evidently the warning 
 voice brought by the angel, "And I saw 
 another angel fly in the midst of heaven, 
 having the everlasting gospel to preach un- 
 to them that dwell on the earth, and to 
 every nation, kindred, tongue and people, 
 saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give 
 glory to him, for the hour of his judgement 
 is come." 
 
 It is in the gospel that the revelation and 
 establishment of the everlasting covenant 
 is made which is to be written in the hearts 
 and put in the inward parts of Israel, when 
 "God takes away their sin." Hence Paul 
 says, "Written, not with ink, but with the 
 Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of 
 stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." 
 2 Cor. 3:3. It was the blood of Christ that 
 sanctified this covenant. Heb. 10:29. It 
 is the gospel, that is God's standard or en- 
 sign to the people; and Isaiah says that he 
 will "set it up." Isa. 11: 12. 
 
 Jesus said in the age of preparation that 
 should precede the coming of the Son of 
 Man, "And this Gospel of the Kingdom 
 shall be preached in all the world for a 
 
 witness unto all nations, and then shall 
 the end come." Matt. 24 : 14. 
 
 After the Gospel shall have been preached 
 to all nations for a witness, then the Savior 
 will come, "Taking vengeance upon all 
 those that know not God and obey not the 
 Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." But, 
 when the Lord comes he is to find Judah 
 restored to Jerusalem: Zach. 14. Who is 
 to take the lead in this restoration of the 
 tribes, and the bearing of this "standard?" 
 Let inspiration answer. "Hear the word 
 of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in 
 the isles afar off and say, He that 
 scattered Israel will gather him, and keep 
 him as a shepherd does a flock." "They 
 shall come with weeping and with suppli- 
 cation will I lead them ; I will cause them 
 to walk by rivers of water in a straight 
 way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I 
 am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my 
 first-born." Jer. 31 : 9, 10. 
 
 Ephraim was not the first born of Joseph's 
 sons, but the second ; and for his iniquity 
 God declared that he would blot him out aa 
 
176 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 a nation, or tribe, to the world and his 
 lineage should be unknown. "His root 
 dried up." Hos. 9:16. 
 
 He was to be mixed with the people, but 
 not "utterly forgotten." The Lord says, 
 " My heart is turned within me, my repent- 
 ings are kindled together ; I will not execute 
 the fierceness of mine anger, I will not 
 return to destroy Ephraim." Hosea 11 :8, 9. 
 
 Not utterly destroyed, but mixed among 
 the people. But when God makes the seed 
 of Israel "known among the Gentiles and 
 their offspring among the people," Ephraim 
 is to be revealed ; for they are the ten 
 thousands of Ephraim, and the thousands 
 of Manasseh." Deut. 33. Ephraim is the 
 first-born in the great work of restoring 
 Israel in the last days ; the first revealed, 
 and commissioned to "bear the "ensign," or 
 the "standard," to the nations, which God 
 will set up. Ezekiel says, referring to the 
 same work : 
 
 " Behoid I will take the stick of Joseph 
 which is in the hand of Ephraim and the 
 tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put 
 them with him even with the stick of Judah, 
 and make them one stick, and they shall 
 be one in mine hand." "And say unto 
 them, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I 
 will take the children of Israel from among 
 the heathen whither they be gone, and will 
 gather them on every side and bring them 
 into their own land. And I will make them 
 one nation upon the mountains of Israel, 
 and one king shall be king to them all ; and 
 they shall be no more two nations, neither 
 shall they be divided into two kingdoms 
 any more at all.-" Ezekiel 37. 
 
 The Bible, the Old and New Testaments, 
 are by the ablest critics acknowledged to 
 be the stick of Judah, containing the things 
 of God written " to Judah and his fellows." 
 The stick of Joseph in the true interpreta- 
 tion must be another record containing the 
 great; things of God's law written to him 
 and his fellows, that at one time is to be in 
 the hand of Ephraim, removed and joined 
 with the stick of Judah. But where is 
 Joseph's record, or the stick of Joseph? I 
 answer, in Joseph's land. Where is that? 
 To the " Utmost bounds of the everlasting 
 hills," from Palestine or Egypt. "Utmost" 
 signifies the farthest off. The "utmost" 
 land from Goshen in Egypt is North and 
 South America. Hence Moses says : 
 
 'Blessed of the Lord be his (Joseph's) 
 land ; for the precious things of heaven, for 
 the dew and the deep that coucheth beneath. 
 And for the precious fruit put forth by the 
 sun, and for the precious things put forth 
 by the moon. For the chief things of the 
 ancient mountains, and precious things of 
 the lasting hills, and for the precious things 
 of the earth and the fulness thereof." This 
 landed blessing was to come upon the head 
 of Joseph. Joseph's sons, Manasseh and 
 Ephraim, inherited this land of right; God 
 gave it to them. These children were to 
 grow into a multitude in the midst of the 
 earth." Gen. 48:H>. The younger brother 
 was to be the greater, verse 19. This being 
 their land of inheritance, God was able to 
 
 bring them here. That they came here 
 about fiOO years before Christ I showed on 
 a previous evening. Hence we can under- 
 stand the prophet when he declares that 
 "When the Lord roars'" the children of 
 Ephraim "shall tremble from the west." 
 Hosea 11:10. When shall the Lord roar? 
 "The Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter 
 his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens 
 and the earth shall shake, but the Lord will 
 be the hope of his people, and the strength 
 of the children of Israel." Joel 3:15. Then 
 it is that Ephraim shall be in the west, be- 
 cause he is on Joseph's land, in his inheri- 
 tance. But the "stick of Joseph" does not 
 mention Ephraim as coming to the inheri- 
 tance, but Manasseh only, it is objected. 
 True, but Ephraim was to be destroyed in 
 his identity as a tribe, his lineage cease to 
 be counted and he be mixed among the peo- 
 ple ; and be utterly lost among the nations 
 of the earth until he should be revealed in 
 the last days to become the first born in 
 commencing lue work of restoration. It 
 was on this, Joseph's land (the land of 
 America) that the "ensign" was to be raised 
 in the last days, or the "standard set up." 
 Isaiah says, "Ho to the land shadowing 
 with wings which is beyond the rivers of 
 Ethiopia." Stretched out in the shape of 
 wings not as a bird with wings but as 
 two wings stretched or spread out. 
 
 Now when you stand at Jerusalem and 
 look beyondthe rivers of Ethiopia, beyond 
 the Niger, Grande and Mezurado, which ex- 
 tend to the west coast of Africa, the first 
 and only land that comes to view is North 
 and South America. Theprophetcontinues : 
 "All ye inhabitants of the world and 
 dwellers on the earth see ye when he 
 lifteth up an ensign on the mountains ; and 
 when he bloweth the trumpet hear ye." 
 Isaiah 18. In the land shadowing with 
 wings the ensign was to be raised ; and 
 the gospel trumpet to be blown. And as 
 all other prophets have testified, it was to 
 be "just afore the harvest," or "end of 
 the world." From this land shadowing 
 with wings the messengers were to be sent 
 to a people "'scattered and peeled," whose 
 land the rivers, or nations, " had spoiled ;" 
 because of the decree, "Jerusalem shall be 
 trodden down of the Gentiles, until the 
 time of the Gentiles be come in." Then, 
 "Thus saith the Lord God, behold I will 
 lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set 
 up my standard to the people, and they, 
 shall 'bring thy sons into their arms, and 
 thy daughters shall be carried upon their 
 shoulders. And kings shall be thy nurs- 
 ing fathers, and their queens thy nursing 1 
 mothers." Isaiah 49:22. "Andhewill Uftf 
 up an ensign to the nations from far, and will 
 hiss (call) unto them from the end of the 
 earth." Isaiah 5: 26. Standing at Jerusa- 
 lem and lifting up an "ensign from far" 
 at the "ud of the earth," and we are 
 brought again to see Joseph's land. The 
 Book of Mormon does not say that Ephraim 
 came to America along with his elder 
 brother to receive his inheritance; neither 
 does it say that he did not come; but it 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 177 
 
 does say, that a number came whose gen- 
 ealogy is not given : and as Ephraiih had 
 equal rights of inheritance with his brother 
 Manasseh, and his tribal name was to be 
 blotted out, " his glory to fly away like 
 a bird from the birth," and be mixed among 
 the people and his name lost, until the 
 mighty work of God should commence in 
 the last days, it is clear as to whyEphraim's 
 lineage is not recorded in that work. When 
 the stick of Joseph was taken from the 
 hand of Ephraim and put with the stick of 
 Judah, and this standard raised up, then 
 the work that is to result in the restoration 
 of Israel is to commence. God says, "I 
 will take them from among the heathen 
 and gather them on every side, and bring 
 them into their own laud. And I will 
 make them one nation and they shall 
 defile themselves no more." The stick of 
 Joseph says : 
 
 " But behold there shall be many at that day, when 
 I shall proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder 
 among them, that 1 may remember my covenant which 
 I have made unto the children of men, that I may set 
 my hand again the second time to recover my people 
 which are of the house of Israel. And my words shall 
 hiss forth unto the ends of the earth for a standard 
 ttnto ray people which are of the house of Israel. And 
 because my words shall hiss forth many of the Gentiles 
 shall say, A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and 
 there cannot be any more Bible. Thou fool that shall 
 say a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more 
 Bible. Know ye not that there are more nations than 
 one? Wherefore murmur ye because ye shall receive 
 more of my word ? Because that ye liave got a Bible ye 
 need not suppose that it contains all my words, neither 
 need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be 
 written: And it shall come to pass that my people 
 which are of the house of Israel shall be gathered 
 home unto the land of their posessions, and my word 
 also shall be gathered into one. And I will show unto 
 them that fight against my word and against my people 
 who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that 
 I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember 
 his seed forever." Pages 105. 106. 
 
 Now, it is thought by some that possibly 
 some man might have been smart enough 
 in the inauguration of the work of the last 
 days to have conformed his work to all of 
 the precise prophecies in the Bible respect- 
 ing that work. Can you believe that there 
 is or has been any in the world's history 
 who could take from the Bible the prophe- 
 tic evidences in regard to the restoration of 
 the work in the last days, and so bring 
 forth a work and establish it in every par- 
 ticular, that the work itself, that he brought 
 forth would completely and fully fulfill all 
 the predictions that the prophets had made 
 with regard to the same work? Yet you 
 are called upon to believe that, " ignoramu- 
 ses," as they have been termed before you, 
 have been able to do this. 
 
 " For after the book of which I have spoken (so this 
 book nays) shall come forth and be written unto the 
 Gentiles, and sealed up unto the Lord, there shall be 
 many who shall believe the words which are written ; 
 and they shall carry them forth unto the remnantof our 
 seed. And then shall the remnant of our seed know 
 concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem. 
 And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are 
 ecattered also shall begin to believe In Christ, and they 
 hall begin to gather in upon the face of the land." 
 
 How did Joseph Smith and Sidney Rig- 
 don know this, and know that the work 
 should go forth unto all nations and be ac- 
 cepted by many, peopl when it was pub- 
 lished to the world and before any one had 
 accepted it? They did not know that it 
 
 would be any more of a remarkable thing 
 in the world than ten thousand other works 
 that have been published within the same 
 time, and yet you have never even heard 
 the names of those works. 
 
 "And it shall come to pass that the Lord 
 God shall commence his work among all 
 nations, kindreds, tongues and people to 
 bring about the restoration of his people 
 on the earth." Book of Mormon, pages 106, 
 
 The sign given that the time had come 
 when the work of the Father should com- 
 mence to effect the restoration of Israel and 
 the renewing of the covenant with them, 
 should be the coming forth of this work 
 and its publication to the world. Book of 
 Mormon, pp. 103-8. To this all the proph- 
 ets of the Bible who have written concern- 
 ing it testify. Ezekiel, in his 37th chapter, 
 states emphatically, as already shown, that 
 w.hen the record of Joseph should be taken 
 and put with the record of Judah, that then 
 should commence the work that would even- 
 tuate in the gathering of Israel. Isaiah, in 
 his 29th chapter, is specific upon this same 
 point, and the manner in which the record 
 should be brought forth to the world. He 
 states that a nation which would be unto 
 him (God) "as Ariel," should have forts 
 raised against them, besieged and camped 
 against, and "Thou shalt be brought down, 
 and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy 
 speech shall be low out of the dust ; and 
 thy voice shall be-, as one that hath a famil- 
 iar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech 
 shall whisper out of the dust." Verse 4. 
 
 This could only take place by a nation's 
 history -being written and hid up in the 
 earth, which after the nation had passed 
 away and should be recovered, and then the 
 nation would speak through its record out of 
 the ground. This was to take place when 
 God should remember the covenant made 
 to the house of Jacob : and Jacob's lace 
 was to be no longer pale; but the favor of 
 God and prosperity should be upon him. 
 Verse 22. 
 
 David refers to the same thing, the com- 
 ing forth of the record out of the earth, 
 and as preceding the restoration of Israel 
 in his 85th Psalm, as follows: "I will hear 
 what God the Lord will speak, for he will 
 speak peace to his people and his Saints." 
 "Mercy and truth are met together; right- 
 eousness and peace have kissed each other. 
 Truth shall spring out of the earth, and 
 righteousness shall look down from heaven, 
 yea the Lord will give that which is good, 
 and our land shall yield its increase. Right- 
 eousness shall go before him, and shall set 
 us in the way of his steps." 
 
 Here it is shown that just before Israel ia 
 set in the way of God's steps, and the land 
 of Israel shall yield its increase, that truth 
 shall spring out of the earth. And that 
 this shall be a means of setting them in the 
 way of his steps." What is this truth? 
 David says again : "Thy law is the truth." 
 "Thou art near, O Lord, and all thy com- 
 mandments are truth." Psalms 119, 142, 
 157. And Jesus says, "Sanctify them 
 
178 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 through thy truth, thy word Is truth." 
 John 17:17. Isaiah says, "Let the skies 
 pour down righteousness; let the earth 
 open, and let them bring forth salvation." 
 45:8. 
 
 Here it is shown that a record of a peo- 
 ple should be brought out of the ground ; 
 they should "whisper out of the dust," 
 just previous to the laud of Israel yielding 
 its increase. It wa to come at a time when 
 men would be "drunken, but not with wine ; 
 stagger, but not with strong drink." Be- 
 cause "the Lord had poured out upon them 
 the spirit of deep sleep, and closed their 
 eyes." They had no prophets nor seers. 
 All these are thought to have been "done 
 away." Then it is that 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 hesaith, I cannot, for it is sealed." 
 Isaiah 29:10, 11. Now it is well known that 
 when the record of Joseph (or Book of Mor- 
 mon), was brought to light, that some of 
 the characters were copied and sent to Prof. 
 Anthon and Dr. Mitchell, of New York 
 city. The message was taken by Martin 
 Harris. Pearl of Great Price, page 45. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF MARTIN HARRIS. 
 "I went to the City of New York, and presented the 
 characters which had been transcribed, with the trans- 
 lation thereof, to Professor Anthon, a gentleman cele- 
 brated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon 
 stated that the translation was correct, more so than 
 any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. 
 I then showed him those that were not translated, and 
 he said that they were Egyptiari. Chaldaic, Assyriac 
 and Arabic, and he said that they were the true char- 
 acters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the peo- 
 ple of Palmyra that they were true characters, and 
 that the translation of such of them as had been trans- 
 lated 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 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 unto 
 me, Let me see the certificate. I accordingly took it 
 out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it 
 and tore it to pieces, saying 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." 
 
 This statement of Mr. Harris is corrobo- 
 rated and confirmed by Mr. Anthon, show- 
 ing that he did make the trip to New York, 
 and presented him with the characters. In 
 the history of the Mormons, by Howe, who 
 wrote to Mr. Anthon and claimed to get his 
 answer, page 272 of his work, he says, as 
 follows: " Some years ago a plain, appa- 
 rently simple-hearted farmer " yes, that is 
 Mai tin Harris "called on me with a note 
 from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now dead, 
 requesting me to decipher if possible a pa- 
 per which the farmer would hand me, and 
 which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable 
 to understand." 
 
 Don't overlook the confession of Dr. 
 Mitchell, which is almost invariably left 
 out of the letter of Prof. Anthon by all au- 
 thors who wish to make a case against the 
 book, whether by foul or fair, means, al- 
 though this is the original publication of it. 
 
 " When I asked the person who brought It how he 
 obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I now recol- 
 
 lect (notice the language, 'as far as I now recollect') 
 the following account; A 'gold book,' consisting of a 
 number of plates of gold fastened together in the >hape 
 of a book, by wires of the same metal, which had been 
 dug up in the northern part of the State of New York, 
 and along with the book an enormous pair of 'gold 
 spectacles.' These spectacles were so large that if a 
 pereon attempted to look through them his two eyes 
 would have to be turned toward one of the glasses 
 merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too 
 large for the human face. Whoever examined the 
 plates through the spectacles was enabled to not only 
 read them, but understand their meaning. All this 
 knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a 
 young man who had the trunk containing the plates 
 and spectacles in his sole possession. He put on the 
 spectacles, or rather looked through one of the glasses, 
 and deciphered the characters in the book, and having 
 committed some of them to paper, handed copies to a 
 person outside. This paper was in fact a singular 
 scroll. It consisted 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 let- 
 ters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted, or 
 placed sideways, were ranged in perpendicular col- 
 nmns, 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." 
 
 Thus the learned man admits that he was 
 waited upon by a " simple hearted farmer," 
 who presented him with the characters, 
 whatever may have been his opinion about 
 them, and the learned man's statement, 
 though an attempt is made at derision, is in 
 favor of the claims of the Book of Mormon, 
 and has also been confirmed by the finding 
 of plates fifteen feet under ground in the 
 State of Illinois, in 1843, with characters 
 resembling those described by Prof Anthon . 
 These plates were found by Mr. Robert 
 Wiley. They were four inches in length, 
 and one and three-fourths inches wide at 
 the top and two and three-fourths inches 
 wide at the bottom and covered with 
 " Hieroglyphics." A fac-simile of which is 
 here presented; ( the fac-simile is shown to 
 the audience). 
 
 I now show you a fac-simile of those plates 
 that were found seventeen years after the 
 publication of the Book of Mormon, with 
 characters similar to the ones shown to 
 Prof. Anthon, and not found by Latter Day 
 Saints either not found by Joseph Smith 
 or Sidney Rigdon and they are now in the 
 possession of scientists. And yet Joseph 
 Smith must be called a liar and a thief and 
 everything else if he says that he got any 
 plates, because, forsooth, he says at the 
 same time that he saw an angel, and there 
 are no angels in this age of the world ; so 
 Mr. Braden would have you believe. 
 
 Here it has been shown that the prophecy 
 of Isaiah was literally fulfilled so far as the 
 characters being taken to learned men are 
 concerned, and they not being able t 
 interpret them, as confessed by both parties. 
 But the book was to be delivered "to him 
 that is not learned, saying, read this I pray 
 thee, and he saith, I am not learned." The 
 book was to be delivered to the unlearned 
 and he was not able to read it by his own 
 wisdom. Therefore the Lord said verse 14, 
 "I will proceed to do a marvellous work 
 among this people, even a marvellous work 
 and a wonder ; for the wisdom of their wise 
 men shall perish, and the understanding of 
 their prudent men shall be hid." 
 
THE BRADUN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 179 
 
 How was the wisdom of the .wise and 
 prudent to be confounded? By God pro- 
 ceeding to do his own work. He would take 
 the illiterate man and cause him to do that 
 which the most learned and scholarly 
 men of the age could not do. That 
 is, read the book. Bring it to light. 
 For the " dear were to hear the 
 words of the book." Verse 18. That Joseph 
 Smith was such an illiterate youth, is con- 
 fessed by every one ; and himself and other 
 witnesses testify that he translated the 
 book. But when was this book to be re- 
 vealed? In a day when men should deny 
 that such a thing as a revelation from God 
 could be. When people would draw near 
 to the Lord, "with the mouth," and with 
 "their lips honor him," but with hearts far 
 from him, the same as the Jews once acted in 
 the time of Christ. But the fear of God 
 "would be taught by the precepts of men." 
 A dead form, "lip service," without any 
 heart in it, all under the direction of the 
 wisdom of men was to be the spirit of the 
 time. Verse 13. It was to come forth just 
 before " Lebanon should be turned into a 
 fruitful field." Just before Palestine should 
 be restored from its sterility to the receiving 
 of the early and the latter rains, in order to 
 send forth vegetation for " my people, 
 Israel, for they are at hand to come." This 
 sealed book, the Record of Joseph, the stick 
 of Ephraim, was to be brought out of the 
 ground, taken in the hand of Ephraim and 
 put with the stick of Judah and raised as 
 an " ensign," or " standard," upon the land 
 shadowing with wings, just as God should 
 commence the great work among the nations 
 of the earth for the restoration of scattered 
 Israel to Palestine again. God was to reveal 
 his secret to his servants, the prophets, 
 concerning the time when tnis work should 
 commence, for the wisdom of men could not 
 divine the time. The coming of the angel. 
 Rev. 14 : 6, and the raising of the Gospel 
 standard to be preached to every kindred, 
 tongue and people, inaugurated the great 
 era declared by Paul to be the "dispensa- 
 tion of the fullness of times." Ephesians 
 1 : 10. Or the dispensation that shall wit- 
 
 ness the bringing about of these things 
 spoken by the prophets, and be crowned 
 with the coming and glory of Jesus Christ, 
 and the resurrection of the saints. This 
 last dispensation is the time referred to by 
 Peter when he said, "The heavens must 
 retain the Son of Man, until the time of the 
 restitution of all things spoken by all the 
 holy prophets since the world began." 
 Acts. 3. It is the era predicted by Jesus 
 and Paul in which the fullness of the Gen- 
 tiles would be come in, and Jerusalem should 
 cease to be trodden down. It is the era 01 
 dispensation in which the angel would 
 restore the Gospel to be preached to every 
 nation, kindred, tongue and people, saying 
 with a loud voice, "Fear God and give 
 glory to him ; for the hour of his judgment 
 is come." It is the time when " This Gospel 
 of the kingdom shall be preached in all the 
 world for a witness to all nations, and then 
 shall the end come," as declared by Jesus. 
 It is the time when the stick of Joseph 
 should be taken from its resting place and 
 be put with the stick of Judah, and in the 
 hands of divinely commissioned officers 
 raised as a standard with authority from 
 God to say to all Israel that the day of 
 their redemption is nigh, and God will re- 
 move the curse from their land and remem- 
 ber the covenant that he had made that 
 they should not cease to be a nation before 
 him, forever. It is the day, when the angel 
 would say, "Run and speak to this young 
 man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited 
 as towns without walls, for the multitude 
 of men and cattle therein ; for I, saith the 
 Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round 
 about, and be the glory in the midst of 
 her." Zach. 2:4. 
 
 There is no work on earth that answers 
 to these prophecies or can claim to be a 
 fulfillment of the same as pointing out the 
 time, and the nature and character of the 
 work that should reveal the dispensation 
 of the fullness of times, and commence tht 
 great work of restitution, but that brought 
 forth by the young man, Joseph Smith. 
 
 (Timf.rxf.ired.) 
 
L80 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS. LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : The question has often been 
 asked: Did Joe Smith have any plates? 
 Some think that Joe found some glyphs, 
 like those said to be found in Kinderhook. 
 Ills., while pretending to hunt for buriea 
 money. Some think that Rigdon obtained 
 some glyphs and furnished them to Joe. 
 Some think that Rigdon or Joe had some 
 manufactured, and exhibited them to the 
 witnesses. I assert positively that Joe nev- 
 er had a plate, and never sho.wed one to 
 anybody : that Joe and his witnesses delib- 
 erately lied from beginning to end. We 
 have proved that Joe was a liar about his t 
 water-witching and money-hunting: that* 
 he lied about his book of Abraham : that 
 the/ac simile of what was on the plates was 
 a wholesale fraud: that he said he had no 
 plates. Pomeroy Tucker tells us that two 
 young men, Van Dreuverand Hussey, were 
 allowed, by Joe, to look into his box, and 
 see what he said was the Book of Plates 
 covered with a cloth. That, by a quick move- 
 ment, Hussey snatched off the cloth, and 
 found that it covered only a brick. The 
 entire gang of witnesses had gone into the 
 fraud with Joe.^'to make mo:iey by deceiving 
 the world. They lied to help carry out the 
 fraud. If Joe had ever had any plates they 
 would have been exhibited most ostenta- 
 tiously to the world, like the pretended fac 
 simile, and the papyri that it is pretended 
 were translated in the Book of Abraham. 
 Joe and his twelve confederates lied. He 
 never had anything but Rigdon's manu- 
 script which was a revision of Spaulding's 
 manuscript. This he read as he sat behind 
 the curtain, or handed portions of it out at 
 other times. 
 
 I assert that the entire gang engaged in 
 carrying out the fraud, were a pack of liars 
 on account of their contradictory yarns. I 
 defy my opponent to take the stories of the 
 fourteen witnesses separately, and select an 
 important statement in the testimony of 
 any of the fourteen that I caunot show 
 that it is contradicted by other witnesses, 
 and that in almost every instance the wit- 
 ness contradicts the statement elsewhere. 
 
 I. Material of the plates. We are told they 
 re "Pure Gold." "Gold." "Looked like 
 fold." "Were brass." 
 
 II. Description of the Book of Plates. 
 Impostor Joe says they were fastened to- 
 gether at the back by three rings, each ring 
 running through every plate, and that a 
 
 Eart were sealed. David Whitmer says they 
 ad been cut across the middle, and the 
 half of each plate next the rings was solder- 
 ed to the others. He does not tell us 
 whether the loose half was fastened to the 
 half from which it had been cut or not. 
 Martin Harrris gave a dozen different de- 
 scriptions. The eight witnesses tell us 
 that the leaves Joe had translated were 
 
 loose, separated from what he had not 
 translated. That they hefted, saw and 
 handled what he had translated, and did 
 not see the rest. S. H. Smith says the 
 whole i book was together, as Impostor Joe 
 and Whitmer declared and he saw it weigh- 
 ed. Emma Smith says they lay loose on 
 her table covered with a cloth, not fastened 
 together nor sealed, nor soldered, and she 
 felt of them in that condition. 
 
 III. Where were they kept ? Joe's 
 mother says he kept them in a hollow tree, 
 a box, in a cooper shop, in the woods, 
 buried in the ground. Joe had them in his 
 possession all the time ; then again he did 
 not. The angel brought to him the entire 
 pile when he began translating, and took it 
 away as he ceased, each time. The angel 
 brought each piate as Joe began to trans- 
 late it, and took it away as he finished it. 
 Joe had the plates in the book by him as 
 he translated ; he had the plates lying 
 loose under a cloth ; he did not have them 
 by him ; they were in his trunk ; in the 
 woods ; in the ground ; in the care of the 
 angel ; noboby knew where. He had them 
 and showed them to the eight witnesses 
 he did not have them and an angel had to 
 bring them from heaven, or some other 
 place, and show them to three witnesses. 
 It required a miracle, a wonderful miracle, 
 to enable the three to see them. The eight 
 saw, handled and hefted, without any 
 angel or miracle. Joe could show them as 
 he could a pile of his wife's dinner plates. 
 Emma Smith saw them covered with a 
 cloth, and felt of them as she did of her 
 tin pans. It was death to look on them, 
 unless prepared, by miracle for the sight. 
 Emma Smith saw them under a cloth, felt 
 of them. Whitmer saw them lying in his 
 father's field. Old Moroni let his (Whit- 
 mer's) mother have a squint at them in the 
 barn. The eight saw, handled and hefted 
 them, like shingles, and nobody " hurted." 
 When outsiders wanted to see the plates, 
 Joe told them the angel had them. He only 
 had them while translating, or he had only 
 one plate at a time, while translating. Or 
 the Lord would not let him show them. Or 
 it was death to look on them. Or it required 
 a miracle to enable one to see them. When 
 the Mormon's are lying and telling that 
 they saw them and knew all about them, 
 then Joe had them all the time, they saw 
 them, and handled them, felt of them, saw 
 them weighed ; they lay on the table and 
 were handled like dinner plates. 
 
 IV. Joe at first only told of finding 
 plates. This was his tale for months. Then 
 a breast-plate, and interpreters. His 
 mother says breast-plate and interpreters. 
 She says the breast-plate was gold, Joe 
 says brass. Then Joe told of breast-plate, 
 interpreters, brass compass and sword. 
 The story kept growing all the time. Had 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 181 
 
 Joe lived long enough he would have added 
 the entire twenty-four articles mentioned 
 in the Book of Mormon, and manufactured 
 a perfect museum in addition. 
 
 V. What the three witnesses saw. They 
 declare they saw the plates. They men- 
 siou nothing else in their testimony. Joe 
 in his revelation, fabricated in Kirtland in 
 1835, declares that they shall see the brass 
 director, the interpreters, the breast-plate, 
 and sword. Whitmer says afterwards they 
 saw all this and piles of plates and other 
 things besides. Harris says the sword was 
 gold. The Book of Mormon says it was 
 steel. 
 
 VI. Whose interpreters did Joe use? Joe 
 sa>d, the interpreters of Jared's brother. 
 The Book of Mormon says they were not to 
 come forth until after the conversion of the 
 Gentiles. That Mormon had Mosiah's 
 interpreters, not Jared's brother's. That 
 Mormon buried Mosiah's interpreters years 
 before Moroni buried Jew's plates and in 
 another place. 
 
 VII. Description of the stone interpre- 
 ters. Granny Smith says they were three- 
 pointed diamonds, set iu glass plates glass 
 at the time of confusion of tongues the 
 plates set in silver spectacle bows spec- 
 tacles at the Tower of Bable. Harris and 
 others say that they were two cloudy stones, 
 so large that a man could look through only 
 one, and could look through one with both 
 eyes, set in gold spectacle bows, making an 
 enormous pair of spectacles. Emma Smith 
 says it was Joe's peep-stone that he used in 
 peeping for treasure. Her father says the 
 same. Impostor Joe told Willard Chase 
 that it was the peep-stone he stole from his 
 children. 
 
 VIII. How translation was done. Neigh- 
 bors declare that they were told when it 
 was going on, that Joe sat behind a screen, 
 a blanket. So Harris told Anthon. So all 
 Mormons said at first. Emma Smith says 
 lie did not. He sat in her kitchen, at her 
 kitchen table. Whitmer says that Joe 
 looked through one of those opaque stones 
 of the big spectacles, at the plates, as they 
 lay before him. Emma Smith says that he 
 looked into his peep stone placed in his hat. 
 Her father says the same. She says the 
 plates lay beside him on the table. Whit- 
 mer says before him, and he read them 
 through the stone in one of The rims of the 
 big spectacles. Others say that he did not 
 have the plates by him. His father-in-law 
 says that Joe said they were were in the 
 woods, and he peeped into his hat crown 
 through his peep stone. Some say the an- 
 gel gave him one plate at a time, and he 
 read it. Others, he had all of the book. 
 Some ,say that as he looked into his peep 
 stone the .Lord caused the translation to 
 appear one word at a time. When Joe called 
 it out it disappeared, and another, word ap- 
 peared. That was the most common yarn. 
 Harris said Joe. copied the characters him- 
 self, as he sat behind the screen, and 
 handed out the leaves to, an outsider. 8. H, 
 Smith says he announced each word as it 
 appeared, by miracle, before him, and the 
 
 scribe copied it. Some say he sat behind 
 a screen and called out. Emma Smith says 
 he sat at her kitchen table. 
 
 IX. Where the plates were found. Im- 
 postor Joe said in a hole where he had dug 
 for treasure ; sometimes one, sometimes 
 another. Finally, years afterwards, he tells 
 us of a strong stone vault around the plates. 
 Where is that vault now? Where are those 
 stone slabs? Did anyone ever see them, o: 
 tell of them until twenty years after Joa 
 should have had his first vision? 
 
 X. Joe never told of his first vision in 
 1823, or until he began to tell of his second 
 vision in 1827. 
 
 XI. He said at first he went alone and got 
 the plates and told no yarn about an as- 
 sault on him. Then he said his wife was 
 with him. That he and his wife went 
 in a wagon, and that he carried his spade 
 and crow-bar that he used in digging for 
 treasure. His mother says he went with 
 his wife in Mr. Knight's wagon. Then Jos 
 says he went alone, on foot, and was as- 
 saulted by two ruffians. One had a club, 
 and he knocked the ruffian down. His 
 mother says he was assaulted some time af- 
 terwards, as he was changing the hiding 
 place of his plates, and one of the ruffians 
 had a gun, and knocked Joe down with it, 
 and he was crazy for some hours after it. 
 Orson Pratt says he used a rail to pry off 
 the stone top. Joe said nothing at first 
 about a stone cover or vault, and when 
 he did, he said he used a crow-bar. 
 
 XII. Size of the plates. Joe says thev 
 were seven inches by eight, and the thick- 
 ness of common tin. The Book of Mormon 
 covers 545 closely printed pages of solid 
 Minion. It would require at least 2,000 
 closely written pages of foolscap to contain 
 it. It would require one page of the plates 
 to each page of the manuscript, if half oi 
 the plates were sealed, as Whitmer de- 
 clares ; or it would require 1,000 plates if 
 none were sealed to contain the Book of 
 Mormon.. That would be a pile of plates 
 over four feet high. If we reduce it by 
 half, it would be a pile over two feet high. 
 If gold, it would weigh 750 pounds. If 
 brass, about 250. If gold, it would be worth 
 $75,000. Joe tells us that he carried this 
 pile of plates, a sword, a monstrous breast- 
 plate, brass compass, the big spectacles, 
 all hid in his frock ; fought off two men, 
 one armed with a club, knocked oue down, 
 and ran two miles, with a load of more than 
 half a ton, if plates, breastplate and sword 
 were gold ; or more than three hundred 
 pounds if they were brass. According to 
 his mother, Pratt, Impostor Joe, his wife 
 and other Mormons, this pile of plates, 
 weighing hundreds of pounds, worth nearly 
 a hundred thousand dollars, with gold 
 sword, a huge gold breastplate, were in a, 
 box, a trunk, in a hollow tree, a barrel of 
 beans, in the woods. The plates were in 
 the field, on the table, lying around 
 loose. If they lay around, and Joe 
 could show them so freely, why did 
 he not hand them down to others? Why 
 cannot we see them as we can the papyrus 
 
182 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLKY DEBATE. 
 
 of the Book of Abraham ? Why not the 
 plates instead of a scrawl fabricated and 
 called a fac simile of what was on them? 
 If Joe ever had any plates they would be 
 on exhibition like the papyrus of the Book 
 of Abraham in the fac simile scrawl. 
 
 We repeat our assertion that Joe lied 
 when he said he found any plates. His 
 ftbsurd and grossly contradictory stories 
 )>rove it. The fact that he never showed 
 them to any one proves it. The fact that 
 they are not on exhibition with the papyrus 
 of Abraham shows it. He did buy a papy- 
 rus. It is on exhibition. The three wit- 
 nesses deliberately lied. Their character, 
 their interest in the fraud and their con- 
 tradictory stories prove it. The eight wit- 
 nesses lied. Their character, their in- 
 terest in the fraud, and their subsequent 
 lies and contradictory stories prove 
 it. Whitmer's mother lied when she 
 said Moroni showed her the plates, or he 
 lied when he said she said so, as he lied 
 when told of seeing the plates in a field, 
 and told of angels sowing plaster, plowing 
 land and tugging plates around. Emma 
 Smith lied when she said Joe translated in 
 her kitchen, and the plates lay on the table 
 covered with a thin table-cloth, and she 
 felt of them, and, strange daughter of Eve 
 that she was, never peeked ! Or those lie 
 who say she told such a story. Every wit- 
 ness is contradicted in every statement by 
 other witnesses, and contradicts his own 
 story in almost every particular. 
 
 The Book of Mormon lacks every parti- 
 cle of evidence that a book claiming inspir- 
 ation should have. Let us contrast it with 
 the Bible. The Book of Genesis is com- 
 posed of thirteen old books. In all of the 
 oldest religions of the world are found 
 fragments of these books. In some instan- 
 ces the books almost entire can be quoted 
 from old religions. These fragments can 
 be traced to the confusion of tongues. 
 There is nothing of the Book of Mormon 
 that can be traced beyond Joe Smith, Sid- 
 ney Bigdon and Solomon Spaulding. The 
 Pentateuch has been attributed to Moses by 
 Israelite literature for over 3,000 years. It 
 has been attributed to Moses in Gentile 
 literatue 2,500 years. In its names, places, 
 customs and description of surroundings it 
 interlocks with the history, surroundings 
 and literatuie of the age to which it is 
 ascribed. There is nothing of this kind in 
 the Book of Mormon. Israelite customs, 
 religion, government, and life were a series 
 of monumental institutions, based on its 
 events, especially its supernatural events. 
 Nothing of the kind do we observe in the 
 Book of Mormon. The historical books, 
 Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chroni- 
 cles, Ezra, Nehemiah recorded a history 
 that interlocks with surrounding geography 
 history customs and literature. Nothing of 
 this kind is there in the Book of Mormon. 
 Its literature, Ruth, Esther, Job, Psalms, 
 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's. Song, 
 refer to surrounding nations, geography, 
 customs, literature, and quote the Israelite 
 history and the Book of Moses. There is 
 
 nothing of this in the Book of Mormon. 
 Israelite history was a wonderful element 
 in the world's history, prominent in it, 
 interlocking with it at every point. The 
 Book of Mormon is the exact reverse of 
 this. 
 
 Our Saviour and his apostles appeared in 
 a learned, sceptical, and critical age. They 
 lived and worked in the most open public 
 manner. Their work and writings were 
 quoted by enemies, discussed, attacked by 
 enemies, until they can be reproduced 
 largely from them. The life and course of 
 millions were formed by them. They revo- 
 lutionized the world. As a message to the 
 world, they were delivered in the world. 
 Monumental institutions based on their 
 miracles have existed from their day. The 
 Old and New Testament contain many 
 wonderful prophecies. Great numbers of 
 eye witnesses of the miracles of the Bible 
 died for their testimony. Those who 
 claimed inspiration in the Bible wrought 
 miracles, prophesied, displayed divine 
 knowledge of what unaided reason could 
 not know. Not a particle of this can be 
 claimed for the Book of Mormon. Though 
 full of miracles, of such a character, that 
 Bible miracles are child's play, and meagre 
 in number, in comparison ; they are all put 
 back into the wilds of America, and have 
 no more connection with anything else in 
 the world's historv, or career of humanity, 
 than Vernet's " Trip to the Moon" and its 
 description of the wonders and the inhabi- 
 tants of the Moon. 
 
 The Book of Mormon has every feature of 
 a fraud. Mohammed, like all impostors, 
 avoids all contact with the actual life of 
 men, in his visions. He avoids all tests. 
 He tells us what he saw in vision, or what 
 was revealed to him. No one else knows 
 anything about it. So does Impostor Joe. 
 Swift in his "Gulliver's Travels ;" Baron 
 Munchausen ; Moore in his "Utopia," Wil- 
 kins in his " Flying Islanders :" all avoid 
 mentioning a place, a person or an incident 
 of which anyone knows a particle. They 
 a^oid contact with history, geography, lit- 
 erature, known surroundings. So does the 
 Bock of Mormon. Spaulding dropped th 
 fiction that the aborigines of America wer 
 Romans, as dangerous; because it brought 
 him too near to actual history. The absurd 
 talethftt plates were hid by Divine direct- 
 ion, re vaaled by Divine revelation, to suck 
 a character as Joe Smith, in such surround- 
 ings, stamps it as a fraud. The clumsy ma- 
 chinery of plates, the clumsy contrivance 
 of stone interpreters, their needless use, 
 the needless contrivance of plates, when 
 each word was caused to appear before Joe 
 by a miracle, stamp it as a clnmey fraud. 
 Why did God not give it by inspiration, as 
 he did the Bible to its prophets? Or reveal 
 it in vision ? What need of plates when 
 Joe did not look on them at all ? According 
 to some he did not have them in the house 
 with him. What need of stone interpreters 
 when a miracle gav* the translation we rd 
 by word ? 
 
 It is evident that finding jf lyj he cugr>td 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 183 
 
 the idea of pretending to find plates. That 
 Joe's lying tricks, with his stolen peep stone, 
 suggested the ideaof pretending to translate 
 the plates by means of the peep stone, 
 which was enlarged into Jared's interpre- 
 ters, two great diamonds, worth hundreds 
 of thousands of dollars, set in plates of 
 glass, before glass was dreamed of, and 
 and these set in spectacle bows, thousands 
 of years before such contrivances were 
 thought of. Such is Granny Smith's yarn. 
 
 The atmosphere of fraud, money-hunting, 
 lying, and contradictions in which the 
 Book of Mormon began, stamps it as a fraud. 
 The trickery of concealment behind a cur- 
 tain, the use of a peep stone, the lies about 
 Elates, that never existed, Joes lying ieve- 
 itions to keep up the cheat to keep his 
 dupes and confederates at work, the absurd 
 lies of Joe, of his mother, of his father, of 
 the Whitmers, of Harris, show that it was 
 a fraud of the lowest and clumsiest charac- 
 ter. Spiritism resorts to cabinets, dark cir- 
 cles, concealment, tricks, and every device 
 of fraud. Impostor Joe resor ted to machin- 
 ery, concealment, and every device of fraud. 
 Spiritism has its dark circle, its cabinet. 
 Joe had his blanket screen. Spiritism has 
 its tin horns to whisper through, its wri- 
 ting in the dark, its mediums to act through. 
 Joe had his needless plates, his needless in- 
 terpreters, and his lies about the impossi- 
 sibility of persons seeing plates or interpre- 
 ters, just as spiritism has its lies about 
 spirits not being able to manifest them- 
 selves in the light. There are just the same 
 evidences of lying, fraud, concealment, self- 
 ishness, meanness, desire of gam, power 
 and gratification of lust, in Moinaoui&m 
 that there is in every fraud. 
 
 Was Joe Smith a'prophet? O<(J ^R Dis- 
 play superhuman power? We defy our 
 opponent to give a single instance. Did he 
 display superhuman knowledge ? I defy 
 my opponent to mention one prophecy, one 
 idea that he gave to the world, that it did 
 not have. Did he attest his work by mi- 
 racles? Not a single one. Does prophecy 
 foretell him or his work? JNot in a single 
 instance. Does he fulfill prophecy? Not 
 unless it be that which dec. ares that liars 
 and deceivers shall arise and deceive men. 
 Was his character such as God would choose 
 to inaugurate work, a Noah, an Abraham, 
 a Moses, a Samuel , an Elij. h, an Isaiah, an 
 Ezra, a John the Baptist, a Paul, a Luther, 
 a Cal\in, a Wesley, a Campbell ? Did God 
 choose as his last and greatest agont to give 
 to the world the last and best dispensation 
 a lazy, loafing, lying, drunken, stealing, 
 swearing, money-hunting fraud, an igno- 
 ramus, a notorious liar, vender of absurd 
 petty ghost stories, an obscene blackguard, 
 a notorious libertine ? Did Jehovah through 
 such a character give revelations about Joe's 
 house, his wife's work, his stores, farms, 
 and every contemptible little emergency ag 
 the"Fullness of the Gospel?" Was Jehovah 
 the lackey of Joe Smith to keep him supplied 
 with scribes, a house, to transact his busi- 
 ness, to run stores, shops, land offices arid 
 speculations, printing houses, taverns? 
 
 Who will da,re to blaspheme the infinita 
 Jehovah by suggesting such blasphemy? 
 
 While Smith waa living in Kirtland, a 
 showman visited Kirtland wih soms Egyp- 
 tian mummies There were papyrus rolls 
 and other articles with Egyptian characters 
 on them, that had been found with the 
 mummies. As soon as he saw them Joe 
 was seized with a spell of revelation. He 
 declared that one of the mummies was 
 Pharaoh's daughter. Joe had evidently 
 not learned that Pharaoh was no more a 
 proper name, than Czar is a proper name of 
 a Bussian Emperor. He announced that 
 one of the papyri was written by Abraham. 
 He once gave as proof of this, the statement 
 that papyrus had not been used since Abra- 
 ham's days. Joe translated one of the 
 papyri. The showman, who knew as much 
 about it as a goat, gave Joe a certificate that 
 he had translated it correctly. Joe gave 
 the showman a certificate that his mummies 
 were genuine, and the farce was completed, 
 when Showman Joe bought of the other 
 showman his mummies, and sent his mother 
 out to exhibit them and lecture on them. 
 Joe published, under the title of the " Book 
 of Aoraham," his pretended translation of 
 the papyrus. Unfortunately he published 
 with it fac-similes of certain cuts and paint- 
 ings that he had translated. An Egyptol- 
 ogist got hold of it and shows that Joe'a 
 translation is a humbug and not correct iu 
 a single particular. Joe's Book of Abraham 
 is a shameless fraud, and so is nis Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 Mormonism has been can Mainly and con- 
 stantly revising this work of inspiration. 
 The work was engraved on the plates by 
 the Divine command of the Lord. Its 
 engravers assure us that they were inspired, 
 full of the Spirit, in this work of engrav- 
 ing. The Lord, by miracle, gave each 
 word of the translation to Impostor Joe. 
 Inspired Joe announced each word separ- 
 ately to Inspired Oliver, who wrote each 
 word down. Inspired Joe, Oliver and 
 Hyram read the proofs. If ever a work 
 should be perfect it should be this Book of 
 Mormon. But Mormons have been revis- 
 ing it, in every edition, and will continue 
 such revision until Mormonism is dead. 
 On the ti^e page of the Palmyra edition we 
 have " Joseph Smith, Jr., Author and Pro- 
 prietor," also "Printed for the author." 
 The revised edition reads, " Translated by 
 Joseph Smith, Jr." The copyright of the 
 Palmyra edition says Joseph Smith is 
 " Author and Proprietor," and he signs 
 himself " Author" to the preface. He is 
 call "author and proprietor" in the testi- 
 mony of eight witnesses. Thus In four 
 instances, written by Smith himself, he is 
 called " Author" in flat contradiction to 
 the assertion that he is merely translator. 
 This blunder of Inspired Joe is corrected. 
 Moroni's epistle or introduction is, in viola- 
 tion to all printer's rules, put on the title 
 page. This was done by Divine command 
 against the protest of the printer. That 
 blunder of Inspired Joe has been corrected. 
 
 In Moroni's introduction we have nine 
 
184 
 
 THE RRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 words altered. Second line, Palmyra edi- 
 tion, "which; 1 revised edition, "who" 
 The Lord is learning grammar. End of 
 paragraph 1st, Palmyra ed., "Book of 
 Ether;" rev. ed., "Gift of God." Second 
 paragraph, 1st line. Palmyra ed., "which," 
 rev. ed., 2d line., "who.'' Palmyra ed., 4th 
 Jine, "how;" rev. ed., 5th line, "what." 
 Palmyra ed., 7th line, "be fault ," rev. ed., 
 9th line, "are faults." Palmyra ed , 8th 
 line, "it be the mistake;" rev. ed., 9th line, 
 "they are the mistakes." In the testimony 
 of the three witnesses, Palmyra ed., 6th 
 line, "his;" rev. ed., 6th line, "their." Pal- 
 myra ed., 7th line, "which;" rev. ed., 7th 
 line, "who." In the testimony of the eight 
 witnesses, 2d and 3d hues., "Joseph Smith, 
 Author and Proprietor;" rev. ed., 3d line, 
 "Translator." In the Palmyra edition is a 
 ridiculous, blundering "Preface," by the 
 inspired ' Author. ," The Mormon Deity 
 had not yet learned what had become of 
 the 116 pages lost. He inspired Joe to tell 
 how he circumvented a trick nobody ever 
 thought of by substituting a translation of 
 the plates of Nephi for the translation of 
 the plates of Lehi, that had been stolen, 
 until hie reached the point in the plates of 
 Lehi where the stolen translation ceased, 
 and then finishing with the pltes of Lehi 
 and telling a barefaced lie in publishing the 
 whole as a translation of the plates of Ne- 
 phi. The Mormon Deity has learned that 
 Lucy Harris burnt 116 pages, and that he 
 had made a fool of himself in his lying 
 trickery, and that lying blunder is revised 
 out. 
 
 The revised edition has an index of eight 
 pages, a caption over the first book, para- 
 graphs are numbered, and at the top of 
 each page the chapter is printed. The 
 Mormon Deity is learning the printer's 
 trade as well as grammar. Chap. 1st, in 
 the heading, 17th line, Palmyra edition, 
 "They call the place;" rev. ed., "they 
 called the name of the place." First para- 
 grah, 10th line, Palmyra ed., " to be true ;" 
 rev. ed., "is true." Seventieth paragraph, 
 6th line, Palmyra ed., "is;" rev. ed., "are." 
 Nineteenth line, Palmyraed., "after that I;" 
 rev. ed., "after I." Paragraph ten, 5th line, 
 Palmyraed., "is over all them;" rev. ed., 
 " are over all those." Eleventh paragraph, 
 2d line, Palmyra ed., "sayeth;" rev. ed., 
 "said." Paragraph thirteenth, Palmyra 
 ed. f "and he departed;" rev. ed., "and 
 departed." Palmyra ed., 7th line, " which 
 
 was :" rev, ed., "which are." Fourteenth 
 paragraph, 2d line, Palmyra ed; " beside a 
 river;" rev. ed., " by the side of a river." 
 Palmyra ed., 4th line, "he made ;" rev. ed., 
 "made." Fifteenth paragraph, 9th line, 
 Palmyra ed., " because that he was ;" rev. 
 ed., " because he was." Palmyra ed., 10th 
 line,""that he had led ;" rev. ed., "and had 
 led." Palmyra ed., 10th line, "and to per- 
 ish ;" rev. ed., ''to perish." Palmyraed., 
 20th line, "sought;" rev. ed., "who 
 sought." Paragraph 16th, 5th line, Pal- 
 myraed., "did do;" rev. ed., "do." We 
 have now cited each change of a word, with 
 other changes, and many important changes, 
 and we have not finished the fourth pajje. 
 If the changes continue in the same ratio 
 throughout the book, they would amount 
 to over 5,000. Think of the Almighty ro- 
 vising himself in any such style the Al- 
 mighty learning grammar and composition. 
 Some of the blunders thus corrected would 
 be outrages on the good sense of a savasje 
 Paragraph 40, Chap. III. of the Book of 
 Nephi, Palmyra ed., reads that the Lord 
 will not suffer that the Gentiles shall de- 
 stroy the Nephites ; nor that the Gentiles 
 remam forever "in that state of awful 
 woundedness which thou beholdest." In 
 the rev. ed. it reads " awful state of blind- 
 ness." The sense is changed as well as the 
 words, and the blunder could not b a 
 printer's mistake, but Is one of Sydney's 
 spread-eagle blunders. Palmyra ed,, page 
 382, has "the numerority of our forcs ;" 
 387, "the enormity of our numbers;" 260, 
 " if ye do arrest the scriptures." These 
 atrocities that were given word by word to 
 Joe by the Mormon Deity the Mormon Deity 
 has corrected. The truth is that the igviora- 
 muses Rigdon and Smith perpetrated Uiese 
 atrocities, and would not allow the printer 
 to correct them. In their intercourse with 
 men they learned better, and the assailants 
 of the book pointed them out, and Joe and 
 his successors have revised them ou t This 
 one fact that over 5,000 correction* have 
 been made in grammar, composition, 
 thought and teaching in the Book o! Mor- 
 mon, explodes the idea that it was Britten 
 by inspired men and translated by Inspira- 
 tion. Couple with this the fact that after 
 all this revision the book still r*tnains a 
 monstrosity in its errors, and the claim of 
 inspiration iu writing and translating is 
 transcendent blasphemy. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 1S5 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S EIGHTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: T will first call your atten- 
 tion to one or two things that have been 
 mentioned by the negative, and then pro- 
 ceed to finish my argument, and take up 
 afterwards and more fully examine the ob- 
 jections that have been made. 
 
 It seems to me that the difficulty with 
 my opponent is that he is not himself con- 
 ve'rsant with what is in the books. For in- 
 stance, he makes considerable sport of the 
 fact that glass should be referred to so far 
 back as the time when the Book of Mor- 
 mon places it. Why, I took up Dr. Smith's 
 Bible Dictionary to-day and opened at the 
 word glass, and he put it at the time of Jo- 
 seph in Egypt the first, thing, and said that 
 doubtless it went back farther than that ; 
 but to that time they were positive having 
 discovered the means that were used as far 
 back as that for blowing glass. And yet, 
 Mr. Braden is making objections here. It 
 seems to me that if he will be a little more 
 critical and inform himself better on some- 
 of these points, it will be more to the satis- 
 faction and edification of the audience. 
 
 Again, he estimates that a book written 
 closely, (after the manner of the English 
 language, of course), would comprise two 
 thousand pages of manuscript. He forgets 
 Jo tell you that the plates did not 
 pretend to be written in the English 
 language, and that it was a phonetic system 
 of writing used. Now to contain all of the 
 books, all of the words, that were upon those 
 plates in the phonetic system that the Re- 
 porter before me is using, or some other 
 phonetic system, it would not take two 
 thousand pages nor any thing like two thou- 
 sand pages. Yet, that is the way he gets 
 his muie's load. But how about Spauld- 
 ing's 48 sheets, if it would take two thou- 
 sand pages? I asked him to explain this 
 before by showing the inconsistency in the 
 Spaulding claim, but he has never noticed 
 it. I have showed clearly from Howe's 
 own words that this 48-page manuscript 
 which came into Howe's hands, was the 
 "Manuscript found." It purported to have 
 been found. I did not misrepresent the 
 language of either Howe orHulburt. Bra- 
 den misrepresented me that is all there is 
 to that. Another way he gets his mule's 
 load is this : He estimates a chunk of solid 
 gold to be so much. Well were the thin leaves 
 ol the plates solid gold? And would a book 
 of gold leaves weigh like solid gold ? In order 
 to et his 250 pounds he stretches every- 
 thing. Then he starts out with his mule's 
 load, (250 pounds) and wonders if there is 
 any man in the world that could have done 
 as Joseph Smith says he did. At the same 
 time he takes up the Bible and reads where 
 Samson carried off the gates of Gaza, where 
 he slew his thousands and tens of tlou- 
 ands, where he leaned against the pillar 
 
 and the whole edifice .*n which they were 
 came down ; and he swallows that down 
 easily, and that is certainly a thousand 
 times bigger thing than the 250 pounds 
 load. But he says, there has been so many 
 stories told about this : Well here is the 
 trouble with Mr. Braden. He hunts up 
 these stories that have been told about how 
 they got the plates, and how the plates 
 were translated ; goes to all the persons he 
 can find who will tell stories, ( but who know 
 nothing) instead of opening the standard 
 works and accepting the statements of 
 those who do know something about it. I 
 could go around and hunt up stories enough 
 that have been told by one people or de- 
 nomination against others in this country 
 when there has been a conflict, to sink any- 
 body ; because when a person gets a little 
 miffed at somebody, it is quite natural to 
 begin to tell stories about him. I remember 
 meeting a gentleman a short time ago, as I 
 was going to Willoughby, (there was also, 
 in the company a Baptist and a Congrega- 
 tionalist Minister,) who was berating Alex- 
 ander Campbell, and telling all kinds of 
 stories about him ; and in order to prove 
 that Campbell was bad, he said that when 
 he went back to Scotland to visit his own 
 home, they would not even allow him to 
 preach in their churches. I said to them, 
 "That is no evidence to me against Mr. 
 Campbell, for as good men as ever lived 
 have been traduced and prohibited from 
 preaching to old neighbors when there was 
 nothing against them." But lean find men 
 who will tell stories about Ihis one and 
 about that one, and often persons who prefer 
 to believe them to the truth, and there are 
 right here persons who have told me since 
 last evening, that some of the parties to 
 whom he referred last evening as knowing 
 certain things against the Saints, they 
 would not believe on oath ; but is that any 
 reason that I shall drag their characters be- 
 fore this audience and begin to berate them 
 in that way ? That is not the manner to dis- 
 cuss questions properly. Neither is it prop- 
 er to even make attacks upon the charac- 
 ter of parties from stories ; because, as you 
 have been shown time and again, the facts 
 of history are such as to show that as soon 
 as you assume that position you destroy 
 the foundation of the Bible which is the 
 agreed standard of truth in this contro- 
 versy. Now there were and are now, just as 
 many different stories told with regard t 
 the resurrection of Jesus, and the way thafc 
 the Disciples moved along in their work as 
 ministers after his resurrection, as there is 
 about the plates and the angel that visited 
 Mr. Smith. There were many different 
 stories told about what Paul said when he 
 was converted, and we have two different 
 stories as to some things which occurred 
 then handed down in the Bible. And yet 
 
186 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 he wants one straight forward story with 
 regard to the plates from which the Book 
 of Mormon was translated, notwithstand- 
 ing the fact that the same evil power is in 
 the world to make stories to-day as in the 
 first century. I could take up the seventh 
 chapter of Kings and read to you a story 
 from that single ch'apter, which is in fact 
 bigger than any in any two chapters in the 
 Book of Mormon. It states that Elisha died 
 and after he was dead he prophesied to the 
 king and got mad because the king did 
 not do to suit him. There was more power 
 in his bones after he was dead than there 
 was when he was alive, because they let a 
 dead man down into his grave, and the 
 corpse touched the bones of Elisha, and the 
 man arose and stood upon his feet as soon 
 as the bones of Elisha touched him. It 
 makes Elisha out to have died twice. Makes 
 him talk after he did die to the king who 
 came to visit him. Gives to his dead bones 
 more power than it did to them while alive. 
 And yet we have "stories." That is no ar- 
 gument, no way to debate. The things 
 that I cite are in the standard the 
 Bible. I am yet with that. If Mr. 
 Braden's style of telling stories aud 
 asserting is the way that this question is to 
 be tried, I might as well go away from my 
 argument and the clear proofs that I have 
 brought, because all the answer he makes 
 to them is, why there is not a prophecy 
 that says anything about it, right in the 
 face of the fact that I have cited more than 
 40 prophecies that are directly in point, and 
 he has not shown that I have misapplied a 
 single one of them. Another thing: He 
 says that David Whitmer told different 
 stories. I deny that he ever did. I know 
 persons say that he did tell different 
 stories, but* they are the same kind of per- 
 sons who told different stories about Joseph 
 Smith. They believed that he was an im- 
 postor, and in order to put it down they 
 believed that anything that they could do 
 against him would be proper ; and they 
 were ready to lie or even steal, and willing 
 to hatch and tell stories to put the impostor 
 as they called him down, or to do anything 
 else to put him down, no difference how or 
 what it was. I will now read you the 
 statement of David Whitrner made quite re- 
 cently, and you will see that the statement 
 that he once denied his testimony is entire- 
 ly false. 
 
 The statement that Oliver Cowdery de- 
 nied his testimony and he did not confirm 
 it upon his deathbed too, is wholly false. 
 The statement that Martin Harris had 
 denied his testimony at some time was 
 false. Martin Harris ever stood by his 
 testimony, and confirmed it the last act 
 and speech of his life. David Whitmer's 
 statement September 15th, 1882, to Wm. H. 
 Kelley, G. A. Blakeslee, of Gallen, Michi- 
 gan, and others is as follows : 
 
 " Elder Whitmer remarked that he did not feel irmch 
 ' like talking as he had not been feeling well for >ome 
 | time. He appeared feeble. He is now upwards of 
 
 seventy-six y.-ars of age, hflvinir been born January 
 ' 7th, 1805. He is of me lium height, and rather of a 
 ' ft slender build ; but this appearance may be on ac- 
 
 " count of age and recent illness. He has darldsh 
 ' brown eyes, and his luiir is white and thin. Has a 
 ' good head and honest face. He talks with ease and 
 ' seemed at home with every subject suggesied; and 
 ' without an effort, seemingly went on to amplify upon 
 'it, so that we had nothing to do but question, sug- 
 ' gest and listen. His intellect is far more vigorous 
 ' and retentive than we expected to find. He is care- 
 'ful in his speech, for he studies to express himself ia 
 'such a way as not to be misrepresented. A reporter 
 'called to see him some time ago, asked a few qnes- 
 ' tions and went off and published that he had denied 
 ' his testimony concerning the truth of the Book of 
 ' Mormon. This hurt him so that he is very careful 
 1 now to have some known friends present when stran- 
 ' gers call to see him. This accouuts for the presence 
 ' of others when we were there." 
 
 Speaking of Joseph Smith the Seer, he 
 said, and this is very nearly his wording: 
 
 " It makes no difference what others say. I know 
 "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and he trans- 
 " lated the Book of Mormon by the inspiration of Go* 
 " from the plates of the Nephites." 
 
 Let me say in this connection that alt 
 these assertions that there was a curtaia 
 between these parties, and that he was 
 secluded, are false in all their particulars, 
 and the statements that one told this thing 
 to a certain one, and that thing to a certain 
 one, are simply the lies that were conjured 
 up against these parties in New York by 
 those who wished to injure them. The 
 parties never told- any such -thing aa 
 that themselves. And yet that is what we 
 "have before this audience. He further 
 said : 
 
 " Some people think if they can only make it appear 
 " that Joseph's life and character were not perfect, and 
 " that he had human weaknesses, that it would prove 
 " that be was not a prophet, yet the same persons wiH 
 " believe that Moses who killed the Egyptian, and, 
 " David who had Uriah killed, and who took a multi- 
 " tude of wives, and Solomon who was a polygamist 
 " aud idolator ; and Peter who lied and cursed, ect., 
 *' were all prophets, and should be honored and re* 
 "spected. What the individual life of Joseph Smith 
 "was after he translated the Book of Mormon, bus 
 "nothing to do with the question as to whether he 
 " was, or was not inspired to bring that book forth." 
 
 "Do you know anything against his 
 character?" 
 
 " I know nothing against him. I have heard some- 
 "things, these I know nothing about. I have nothing 
 " to say about the character of any one only aa I know. 
 " It is not my mission to talk about the character of 
 " any My mission is to testify concerning the truth of 
 " the coming forth of the work of God." 
 
 " What kind of a man was he when yom 
 knew him personally?" 
 
 " He was a religious and straitforward man. He h4 
 " to be ; for he was illiterate and he could do nothing 
 " of himself. He had to trust in God. He could not 
 " translate unless he was humble and possessed the 
 " right feelings towards every one. To illustrate so 
 "you can see. One mdVning when he was getting 
 "ready to continue the translation, somethii g went 
 " wrong about the house and he was put out about it. 
 ' Something that Emma, his wife had done. Oliver 
 ' and I went up stairs and Joseph came up soon after 
 ' to continue the translation, but he could not do 
 ' anything. He could not translate a sinule syllnble. 
 ' He went down stairs, out into the orchard, and made 
 ' supplication to the Lord ; was gone about an hour 
 'came back to the house, asked Emma's forgivness 
 ' and then came upstairs where we were and then the 
 ' translation went on all right. He could do nothing 
 ' save he was humble and faithful." 
 
 He could do nothing save he was humble 
 and faithful as reputable a man as there 
 is in the United States to-day David 
 Whitmer as I shall show you by the state- 
 ment of more than twenty-five witnesses, 
 a Judge of the Courts of the State of Mis- 
 souri, and men living where he lives ia 
 Richmond, Kay county, Mo. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 187 
 
 His statement concerning the vision 
 they had of the plates and the angel was as 
 follows : 
 
 " I was plowing In the field one morning, and Joesph 
 and Oliver came along with a revelation, stating that 
 I was to be one of the witnesses to the Book of Mor- 
 mon. I got over the fence and we went out into the 
 woods, near by and sat down on a log and talked 
 awhile. We then knelt down and prayed. Joseph 
 prayed. We then got up and sat on the log and were 
 tMlking, when all at once a light cnme down from 
 above us and encircled us for quite a little distance 
 ' around; and the angel stood before us." 
 
 This was in the day time. No jugglery, 
 no slight of hand about this. Martin Har- 
 ris was not present at this time, and he was 
 not present when the other two saw what 
 they declare here. Now he describes the 
 angel. 
 
 " He was dresied In white, and spoke and called me 
 'by name, and said : ' Blessed is he that keepeth his 
 ' commandments.' This is all that I heard the angel 
 ' say. A table was set beforp us, and on it the records 
 ' were placed. The records of the Nephites from 
 ' which the Book of Mormon was translated, the brass 
 ' plates, the ball of directors, the sword of Laban, and 
 ' other Plates. While we were viewing them, the 
 ' voice of God spoke out of heaven saying the book 
 ' was true and the translation correct." 
 
 I now offer you the irrefutable testimony 
 of David Whitmer as published in the 
 Chicago Times in the year 1881, which will 
 fully refute the false and slanderous stories 
 which so many have sought to circulate 
 against him, and which my opponent deals 
 so largely in. Also what the first men of 
 the county in which he lives say about him. 
 It is headed " A Proclamation, 11 and reads 
 as follows : 
 
 " Unto all Nations, Kindred, Tongues and People unto 
 whom these presents shall come: 
 
 It having been represented by one John Murphy, of 
 Polo, Cad well county, Missouri, that I in a conversation 
 with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of 
 the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. 
 
 To the end, therefore, that he may understand me 
 now, if he did not then, and 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 1 have never at any time denied that testimony 
 or any part thereof, which has so long since been pub- 
 lished 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 trut,h of all my state- 
 ments as then made and published. 
 
 " He that hath an ear to hear let him hear ; It was no 
 delusion! What Is written is written, and he that 
 readeth let him understand. 
 
 And that no one may be decleved or misled by this 
 statement, I wish here to state that I do not endorse 
 poly gamy or spiritual wifeism. It is a great evil, shock- 
 ing tc the moral sense, and the more so because prac- 
 ticed in ihe name of religion. It is of man and not of 
 God, and is especially forbidden in the Book of Mor- 
 mon itself?. 
 
 And if any man doubt, should he not carefully and 
 honestly read and understand the same, before pre- 
 suming to sit In judgment and condemning the light 
 which shlneth in darkness, and showeth the way of 
 eternal life as pointed out by the unerring hand of God. 
 
 In the Spirit of Christ who hath said : "Follow thou 
 me, for I am the life, the light, and the way," I sub- 
 mit this statement to the world. God in whom I trust 
 being my judge, as to the sincerity of my motives and 
 the faith and hope that is in me of eternal life. 
 
 My sincere desire is that the world may be benefited 
 by this plain and simple statement of the truth. 
 
 .And nil the honor be to the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, which is one Qod. Amen. 
 
 DAVID WHITMEK, SB. 
 RICHMOND, Mo., March 19th, 1881. 
 
 TESTIMONIAL OF CITIZENS. 
 We. the undersigned citizens of Richmond, Ray 
 county, Missouri, where David Whitmer, Sr., has re- 
 
 sided since the year 1838, certify that we hare been 
 long and intimately acquainted with him and know 
 him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of un- 
 doubted truth and veracity : 
 
 A W. Doniphan. 
 
 G. W. Dunn, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. 
 
 T. D. Woodson, President of Ray Co. Savings 
 Bank. 
 
 J. T. Chiid. Editor of Conservator. 
 
 H. C. Garner, Cashier of Ray Co. Savings Bank, 
 
 W. A. Holman. County Treasurer. 
 
 J. S. Hughes, Banker, Rickmond. 
 
 James Hughes, Banker, Ricomond. 
 
 D. P. Whitmer, Attorney at Law. 
 
 Jas. W. Black, Attorney at Law. 
 
 L. C. Cantwell, Postmaster, Richmond. 
 
 George I. Wasson, Mayor. 
 
 Jas. A. Davis, County Collector. 
 
 C. J. Hughes, Probate Judge and Presiding Jus- 
 tice of Ray County Court. 
 
 George W. Trigg, County Clerk. 
 
 W. W. Mosby, M. D. 
 
 Thomas McGinnis, ex-Sheriff, Ray County. 
 
 J P. Queseni ery. Merchant. 
 
 W. R. Holman, Furniture Merchant. 
 
 Louis Slaughter, Recorder of Deeds. 
 
 Geo. W. Buchanan, M. D. 
 
 A. K. Reyburn. 
 Given at Richmond, Mo., this March 19th, 1881." 
 
 Also the following terse statement from 
 the Conservator, a newspaper published in 
 the State of Missouri, and opposed to the 
 religion of Mr. Whitmer : 
 
 AN EXPLANATION. 
 
 " Elsewhere we publish a letter from David Whit- 
 " mer, Sr.. and old and well known citizen of Ray, a 
 "well as an indorsement of his standing as a man 
 " signed by a number of leading citizens of this con- 
 "munity, in reply to some unwarranted aspersions 
 " made upon him. 
 
 " There is no doubt that Mr. Whitmer, who was one 
 
 " of the three witnesses to the authenticity of the gold 
 
 " plates from which he asserts that Joe Smith trans- 
 
 "lated the Book of Mormon (a fac-simile of the charac- 
 
 " ters he has now in his possession with the original 
 
 " records), is firmly convined of its divine origin, and 
 
 "while he makes no efforts to obtrude his views or 
 
 " beliefs, he simply wants the world to know that so 
 
 " far as he is concerned there is no variableness or 
 
 'shadow of turning. Having resided here for nearly 
 
 ' a half a century it is with no little pride that he 
 
 ' points to his past record with the consciousness that 
 
 ' he has done nothing derogatory to his character as a 
 
 ' citizen and a believer of the son of Mary, to warrant 
 
 " such an attack upon him, come from what source it 
 
 ' may, and now with the lillles of seventy-five winters 
 
 * ' crowning him like an aureole and his pilgrimage on 
 
 " earth well nigh ended, he reiterates his former state- 
 
 " ments, and will leave futurity to solve the problem 
 
 " that he was but a passing witness of its fulfillment. 
 
 " His attacks on the vileness that has sprung up with 
 
 " the Utah Church must have a salutary effect upon 
 
 ' those bigamists who have made adultery the corner 
 
 " stone in the edifice of their belief." Conservator, 
 
 March 24, 1881. 
 
 Let me call your attention now to another 
 thing that has been stated with regard to 
 the manuscript of this book, as it was when 
 carried to the printer, and it was Major 
 Gilbert's statement, so Mr. Braden said. 
 I snowed you what Major Gilbert's state- 
 ment was as it was published two years ago. 
 Yesterday I telegraphed to David Whit- 
 mer, who has in his possession the original 
 manuscript from which the Book of Mor- 
 mon was printed, and asked him to examime 
 that manuscript and telegraph to me 
 whether in it the proper names and the 
 sentences began with capital letters, and 
 whether there was any punctuation marks j 
 and this is his answer: 
 
 RICHMOND, Mo., FKBRUABY 20. 
 
 "E. L. Kelley, Kirtland, Ohio: There are capiia* 
 " letters beginning proper names and sentences and aM 
 " neceasary punctuation marks in the original manu- 
 " script. (Signed) DAVID WHITMKB." 
 
188 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 And yet, we have been told here that there 
 was no such thing, and a witness cited to 
 prove taat. Itmakes no difference how many 
 stories have been told about this, by one 
 person and another, when a man goes and 
 looks at the original manuscript, that was 
 in the printer's hands he can certainly tell 
 how it was, unless the telegram gets crooked 
 on the way. 
 
 I had just closed with Paul's declaration 
 of the fullness of times that is to be ushered 
 in, recorded in Ephesians 1 : 10, or the dis- 
 pensation that should be crowned with the 
 coming and glory of Jesus Christ and the 
 resurrections of the Saints ; and was sshow- 
 J rj g by the prophets the time of this handing 
 out of God's word and will, or dispensation, 
 when my time expired. This argument I 
 will novv conclude. 
 
 The stick of Joseph was to be brought to 
 light in a day of storms and tempests, and 
 Hoods and fires, and wickedness all over the 
 land; and of earthquakes and famines and 
 disease; of distress and perplexity; of 
 pride and vanity, of wickedness and de- 
 fiance of God ; of denying the principle and 
 the power of true religion. A day when 
 the sea and the waves would roar and sweep 
 beyond their bounds, and men's hearts 
 would fail them for fear, looking after those 
 things coming on the earth. 
 
 Bad men may scoff and slander and devils 
 may oppose, but the decree of God is, it shall 
 go forth, and "none shall hinder it/' 
 
 Lebanon has already begun her increase, 
 and the work described must be in progress 
 some place, unless the entire prophecies 
 have failed. 
 
 This evening I will introduce the evidence 
 I referred to upon a previous occasion upon 
 the fact of the return of '-'the early and 
 latter, 1 ' rains to the country of Lebanon, 
 showing that within the last few years the 
 event spoken of in the prophecies must have 
 taken place. The "ensign," -'the standard," 
 ''the stick of Joseph," "the everlasting 
 gospel," the book which would contain 
 this Gospel has been published with the 
 message, "Fear God and give glory to him, 
 for the hour of his judgment has come." 
 This is the message of the Book of Mormon. 
 Is it a bad thing? The following is the 
 statements of good authorities upon the 
 condition of Palestine : 
 
 "It (Palestine) has the same bright sun and un- 
 1 clouded sky, as well as the early and latter rain, 
 ' which, however, is diminished in quantity owing to 
 ' the destruction of the trees." Chambers Encyclo- 
 pedia, vol. 7. page 11, Palestine. 
 
 "I arrived in Indiana a few days since, from the 
 ' Eastern continent. I stopped at Joppa for nearly the 
 ' whole winter. For my part I was well pleased with 
 ' the country. It is certainly a land of most wonderful 
 'fiuitfnlness, with a delightsome climate, producing 
 'everything, if properly cultivated, and from two to 
 'three crops a year. They have grain, fruits and 
 ' vegetables a 1 the year round; in fact I never was in 
 ' such a country before. I have seen much good 
 'country in Europe and America, but none to compare 
 'with Palestine: its fruitfulness is uncommon, and 
 'the climate is the most delightsome; even in the 
 ' winter I did not see the least sign of frost, and vege- 
 ' tables of every sort were growing in profusion in 
 ' gardens It IP &fact thai the rain and dew are restored; 
 ' refe"tly in 185S, the former and the latter rains were 
 ' restored to the astonishment of the n lives. The Jews 
 ' have been returning to the Holy Laud for some time 
 
 and are increasing, going to their beloved Canaan 
 from many parts of Europe. Asia and Africa. They 
 are making preparations to rebuild cities and (build') 
 railroads. The fruit in Palestine is better than 
 in Europe and America They have camels, mules 
 horses, asses, cattle, sheep and goats; but I saw no 
 hops. The natives are generally friendly." Louis 
 Van Bnren, Sen., Nov. Hth. A. D. 1867. 
 
 These are ample to satisfy the most 
 skeptical upon this point. 
 
 Now I will take up the supposed objec- 
 tions that he has cited and examine them, 
 and should I omit a single one that you 
 wish still further examined and considered, 
 any person in the audience will do me a 
 favor by calling attention to the fact, and I 
 shall yet notice it. I have already shown 
 the weaknef s of the criticism upon the 
 word "thereof," that he has tried to make 
 against the book. Wherever it is used it is 
 plain to be understood, and the worst 
 criticism that can be made against it, is 
 that the brother of Jared in his description 
 of the vessels and narration of what he did, 
 does not seem to have conformed to Mr. 
 Braden's ideas of "excellency of speech." 
 Evidently the brother of Jared was a true 
 mechanic as he As represented in the book. 
 It don't make any difference to Braden 
 what habits of talk'ng or writing the 
 brother of Jared had, whether he used a 
 superfluous, modifying or other word ; wheH 
 it is translated into English the correction 
 must be made in the original. Now, sir, 
 I will show the absurdity of this profound 
 criticism upon the translation of the Book 
 of Mormon. I will ark you this question: 
 Had the translator a right to leave out a 
 word, put in a word, o<" change anything in 
 the original, that it might appear with 
 "excellency of speech" in English? Agaia, 
 had it been done, could :uot the translation 
 have been questioned wi*h more propriety 
 and upon stronger grounds, than in its 
 present shape? And wo<Ald not you your- 
 self have criticised it for tnat very reason ; 
 claiming that the translator, Smith, in order 
 to put it in the best English left out some 
 superfluous modifier, word , phrase or sen- 
 tence in the original, and y( u did not know 
 whether such modifier, if <eft to remain, 
 would have changed the seme or not. Will 
 you answer these questions" But Braden 
 says, that the errors in transiting from the 
 Greek, Hebrew, etc., do not appear in the 
 English when translated. If the error con- 
 sists in omissions, superflucxis words or 
 phrases, why do they not ? Vi ill he answer 
 this? Is it not because the ti anslator into 
 English left the same out or a Med a word 
 to make the reading smooth in ASnglish thus 
 Anglicizing it? Herein lies the difficulty 
 of Bible translators, and we have different 
 translations. There is not, neither, always 
 a corresponding word in the original to the 
 English word and vice versa. The Book of 
 Mormon claims to be a correct translation of 
 what was written upon the platos ; not a 
 translation of the writings of th plates 
 corrected. And hence for Mr. Bw<l-r to 
 object to the use of the word "thereot " iu 
 the book, he must, to be able to ni - o a 
 point against the translation, show tha tb< 
 error was not in the original and thai *>fe > 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 189 
 
 word "thereof," as translated is not the 
 English word corresponding to such original 
 word. By a careful reading of the Book of 
 Mormon we readily see that this is the 
 correct position. Where there is given a 
 description or narration of a matter by the 
 writer in his own language, we are met with 
 common expressions upon which so much 
 silly criticism has been made. But where 
 we have the translation from other records 
 as the prophecy of Isaiah which the people 
 brought with them to this continent, " the 
 words of Jesus," etc., as given in his own 
 language, the errors do not appear, unless 
 per chance there was an error also in the 
 writing down of the original. The trans- 
 lation in the Book of Mormon of Isaiah's 
 words, was not from the Bible original 
 remember, but from an original made about 
 the same time the Bible original was made ; 
 whether a copy, duplicate, or how taken, 
 wearenot told, nor does it matter; certainly 
 they are sufficiently distinct in translation 
 to show clearly to a critic that one was not 
 copied from the other. Take the 48th 
 chapter of Isaiah which has been referred 
 to; if copied either by Smith or Rigdon, 
 they being the poor scholars that Braden 
 claims that they were, they would have 
 most certainly copied the words thrown in 
 by the translators of King James' version. 
 But upon a comparison there is found to be 
 a*difference of nearly fifty words in this 
 single chapter, and in the verse he cited 
 you to prove the copying, there is a differ- 
 ence of eight words. Yet the language in 
 the Book of Mormon that he claims was 
 opied or changed by these unlearned, illit- 
 erate persons is strictly proper and correct 
 English. 
 
 I will read a single specimen and com- 
 pare the two : 
 
 1. From the Bible. "I have not spoken 
 Jo secret from the beginning ; from the 
 time that it was, there am I." 
 
 2. The Book of Mormon. "I have not 
 spoken in secret from the beginning ; from 
 the time that it was declared have I 
 spoken." 
 
 Here, the idea sought to be expressed, is 
 krought out full and clear ; and it is evi- 
 dent that something had been changed or 
 expunged in the Bible original, or that the 
 translation of the sentence was an improper 
 one. 
 
 The translation by Robert Lowth, D. D., 
 Bishop of London reads : 
 
 " From the beginning I have not spoken 
 to secret : Before the time when it began 
 to exist I had decreed it." 
 
 The Bishop of London agrees with the 
 translation in idea and sentiment as in the 
 Book of Mormon. And yet he claims that 
 these " ignoramuses," put it in the Book of 
 Mormon, and makes his objection upon 
 that. Isaiah then was not cooied into the 
 Book of Mormon from King James' trans- 
 lation of the Bible. Try again Mr. Braden. 
 
 Why does he object then to the rendering 
 of the remainder of the sentence the same 
 as it is in King James' translation, since 
 those who translated it believed they did 
 
 so correctly, and they were doubtless as 
 good, if not better Hebrew scholars than we 
 have now, and especially, since the senti- 
 ment is correct, and he knows nothing to 
 the contrary than that it accords strictly 
 with the original from which it was' taken. 
 
 Then he still insists that I shall point out 
 where Peter, or Mark differed in their 
 style in the original, and did not at all 
 times write and speak correct Hebrew. 
 Let him put in my possession some Hebrew 
 written by Peter, or Mark, or Luke, and 
 then it will be time enough to make his 
 wise test. 
 
 The idea that is thrown out to this 
 audience that any book of the Bible can be 
 traced away back to the writer is one that 
 cannot be maintained, and he knows that 
 very well. The best that we have is the 
 copies that have been handed down, none 
 of which extend back to within a hundred 
 and fifty years of the writers. And when 
 I quoted from the same persons, through 
 whom they came, on the doctrine of "Lay- 
 ing on of hands" atiWilber, Neb., the same 
 parties in part who must have copied the 
 manuscripts, he denounced the men, and 
 would not believe their statements in his- 
 tory. 
 
 The gospels were transcribed by learned 
 men and put in to the Greek, and Latin, and 
 in some things changed in the original, in 
 doing so, as I believe and can prove, and 
 will in ^he proper place. Notwithstanding 
 this, scholars can still detect a difference in 
 the writers in the use of language, etc. 
 
 Adam Clark in the manuscripts he was 
 able to examine could detect the difference 
 in style and language, and they were the 
 copies which passed for original; and Paul, 
 though a learned man says, " When I came 
 unto you it was not with excellency of 
 speech, or enticing words of man's wis- 
 dom ;" and this is enough to show me that 
 the language, or speech, of Joseph Smith 
 will not condemn him, nor stand as a criti- 
 cism against the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Paul .talked under the power and inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Uhost to those very people, 
 and yet he says it was not with " excel- 
 lency of speech," in fine style after man's 
 wisdom. Oh no, but brother Braden wants 
 excellency of speech in the Book of Mormon. 
 "Not with enticing words of man's wis- 
 dom," Paul says. But we must reject the 
 Book of Mormon if not in that style of lan- 
 guage, according to Braden. 
 
 Again it is claimed that the errors, angli- 
 cisms or idioms peculiar to King James' 
 translation of the Bible are copied in the 
 Book of Mormon. This I deny, and will 
 prove to you it is not true. 
 
 it is claimed by the Book of Mormon that 
 they had the writings of Moses, Isaiah, etc.. 
 on the brass plates which were brought 
 from Jerusalem. If so, in translating into 
 English, the same English word might be 
 used if correct in the translation of th 
 same as used in the Bibl->, providing the 
 two originals were alike. In translating 
 the Bible *' re had to be words supplied in 
 order to make smooth English, wnich wer 
 
190 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 not in the original language from which the 
 translation was made. Any of you taking 
 your Bibles will soon see what they are, for 
 they are the italicised words. These itali- 
 cised words were supplied by the transla- 
 tors intb the English, and were not found 
 in the original. Now in the translation of 
 Isaiah, or the words spoken by Jesus upon 
 this continent, these words, supplied by our 
 Bible translators, are not used by the trans- 
 lator of tne Book of Mormon in such a man- 
 ner as to indicate copying in the least. I 
 have diligently compared chapter after 
 chapter in the Bible and Book of Mormon, 
 and found that such words are very seldom 
 the same in both, and when so, it is in such 
 cases as different scholars translating from 
 . the same language, although not known to 
 each other, would necessarily use the same. 
 Besides, evidently the originals slightly 
 differed. In the comparison the proportion 
 of use of such supplied words was forty- 
 eight dissimilar to eleven similar, and nearly 
 every one of the eleven were the pronouns 
 in the first person, or the present tense of 
 the verb to be words which would have 
 been selected the same, by independent 
 translators, whether they lived as far apart 
 as the continents. The test proves beyond 
 a doubt to the honest examiner that there 
 was no copying unless done by a person 
 thoroughly conversant with both languages, 
 and then it was not a copying of the trans- 
 lation. The scholar who will take and dili- 
 gently compare the words of Isaiah as 
 translated in the Book of Mormon, with the 
 same book in the Bible, must come to the 
 conclusion that there was no copying and 
 changing unless it was done by a person 
 who was versed in both languages, and he 
 has claimed that neither Smith nor Rigdon 
 were scholars. He must again fall back 
 upon his pious Presbyterian preacher to 
 copy and change the prophecies of Isaiah. 
 The translations show they were independ- 
 ent. And remember, the common expres- 
 sions of "more history part," etc., do not 
 occur in the translations of the words of 
 Moses, Isaiah, or Jesus, but of the language 
 Moroni used when he was copying the ac- 
 count of the history of the Nephites. Yet, 
 notwithstanding the difference in the word- 
 ing of the translation in the Book of Mor- 
 mon and the Bible, the teaching does not 
 differ. What scholar put it in this elegant 
 language? My friends, compare the two for 
 yourselves and you will find that I am right. 
 Then the idea that there are quotations in 
 there from Hebrews and other parts of the 
 New Testament before they were given is 
 not correct. It might be expected that if 
 the same Holy Spirit worked with men and 
 spoke through them on this continent, as 
 wrought upon men on the Eastern, it would 
 in all instances teach like things, and in 
 many give the exact words ; and so he may 
 find in scrapping and dividing verses and ' 
 sentences that there are in a few instances 
 those in the Book of Mormon as in the 
 Bible, or a line in Shakespeare or Cowper; 
 but that proves nothing. In the New Tes- 
 tament we often find words and expres- 
 
 sions that were before used by the philoso- 
 phers and teachers of other nations, and 
 our infidel friends claim them to have been 
 borrowed. But does he believe it? Did 
 Jesus take the sentiment, and in great part 
 the wording of the golden rule from the 
 great Chinese philosopher who lived and 
 wrote 600 years before ? I think not. God 
 may reveal a like thing or sentiment to 
 two different persons in the world, and 
 does often, as in the instances of Cornelius 
 and Peter, and Paul and Ananias, and this 
 is a proof and a sure test of a correct claim to 
 inspiration, instead of being against it, 
 But, he says, actually they had the English 
 word Bible before it was in existence. But 
 how? Had he done his duty in stating how, 
 I should not have had to refer to it again. 
 The prophet foresees what \vould be the 
 mind of the people toward the Book of 
 Mormon, and makes the prediction that 
 when it is brought to light in the last days 
 that its enemies would call it a "Bible; " 
 see Book of Mormon page 105. Not its 
 friends, but its enemies and how could 
 he have seen otherwise, were he a true 
 prophet? Could it have been a truth had 
 he said they would call it an almanac, or a 
 dictionary ? Is not the prophecy a true one ? 
 How did Smith know when he was the 
 means under God of translating the plates, 
 and when the work was to be sent forth 
 under the name and title of the " Book of 
 Mormon," that the people would change- 
 the title and call it a Bible? 
 
 What becomes then of his assertions that 
 Isaiah 2, 14, 21, 48, 50, 52, 54, and Malachi 3 
 were copied in the Book of Mormon ? The 
 statement is entirely without foundation, 
 and contrary to the facts, and untrue; and 
 he had the means in his hands of proving it 
 untrue if he had only compared them with 
 a view of ascertaining the truth of it, in- 
 stead of trying to find an objection. 
 
 But, he says, Matthew 5, 6 and 7 are 
 copied. Why ? Because the Book in giv- 
 ing Jesus' instruction on this continent 
 gave it the same as it was given upon the 
 other, and it appears the same, with a few 
 slight changes in the wording. But would 
 he have Jesus talk differently on this con- 
 tinent from what he did on the other? He 
 mentions I Cor. 13 as another; but this 
 does not appear in the Book of Mormon, 
 nor does any quotation from the New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures appear there; nor is there 
 a quotation in the Book of Mormon from 
 any part of the Bible. There are quota- 
 tions by these writers from their own writ- 
 ings, which, in some instances, were the 
 same as those in the Bible. And these 
 they had as good a right to use as did Peter 
 or Paul, when they quoted from them. 
 The question is, while in using these like 
 words was the sentiment preserved, and is 
 it in all things in harmony with the teach- 
 ings in the Bible. 
 
 Here is where the fallacy of his pretend- 
 ed argument lies, upon these quotations. 
 He jumps at the conclusion that God never 
 spoke to any person except to the Jews on the 
 other continent, and from that wrong conclu* 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 sion he makes the argumept that there has 
 been copying. Remember the conclusion 
 itself is in dispute, and under controversy 
 here, and he has only wasted his time in 
 that supposable, logical argument. 
 
 When he shall have proven that God 
 never spoke to anybody but the people 
 called Jews, on the other continent, no one 
 will ask him to take up his valuable time 
 comparing to see if there lias been copying 
 or quotations made. Such a course of mak- 
 ing assertions without a particle of evi- 
 dence, as he has done, may be argument to 
 Messrs. HnUnirt and Howe, or to some one 
 who does not know, nor does not want to 
 
 know how to reason ; but it will hardly do 
 for this audience. It is to be presumed 
 that if there was inspiration on this conti- 
 nent, the same God speaking here as upon 
 the other, and by the same Spirit, there 
 would be like wordings and sentiments in 
 the co'mmunications ; and it would have 
 been a proof that the Book of Mormon was 
 not inspired had it claimed to have had the 
 same Holy Spirit through which its inspi- 
 ration was committed as the Bible/, anr" 
 there had been found therein no resemb 
 lance in language, sentiment and prhrasec 
 logy. 
 (Time expired.) 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: Kelley gives the statement of 
 Joseph III, of what Emma Smith said. We 
 have Whitmer's statement. We have Mrs. 
 Salisbury nee Smith's statement, in regard to 
 Rigdon's presence at Smith's in New York. 
 Would it not be well to introduce some one 
 not interested in the fraud ? Give us some- 
 body besides Smith's and Whitmer's, for if 
 what these two gangs tell of each other be 
 true, as we shall show by reading their state- 
 ments, the testimony of all the Smith's and 
 Whitmer's would not establish a claim to 
 a "yaller dog." Their testimony that they 
 did not see Rigdon, will not set to one side 
 the statements of Chase and Sanders that 
 they did. Mrs. Salisbury, to show that she 
 had means of knowing whether Rigdon 
 visited Smith or not, says that Smith was 
 at his father's all the time he was translat- 
 ing, and did the translating there. That is 
 a he, if her mother, Joe himself, P. P. 
 Pratt, and Whitmer tell the truth. Lucy 
 Smith says he went to Pennsylvania in the 
 fall of 1827 and before he began his transla- 
 tion, so say Pratt and Whitmer ; Lucy Smith 
 and Whitmer says that he went back to 
 New York after wheatsowing in 1828, or one 
 year afterwards. Whitmer says be brought 
 Smith to Whitmer's father's. Mrs. Smith 
 says to Waterloo, and that Whitmer lived 
 in Waterloo. She says that Joe finished 
 the translation in Waterloo and showed the 
 plates to the witnesses there. Joe did not 
 translate a word at his father's. He did not 
 live there while translating, but miles away, 
 part of the time over one hundred miles 
 away. If Mrs. Salisbury lied, as we have 
 proved in saying Joe was where he was not, 
 she would lie in saying Rigdou was not 
 where he was. 
 
 Impostor Joe gave Martin Harris a scrawl 
 that he said was a/ac simile of some of the 
 
 writing on the plates. Harris carried it to 
 Prof. Anthon of New York City. Prof. 
 Anthon describes it: "It was indeed a sin- 
 gular scrawl. It consisted 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 in various compartments, 
 decked with various strange marks, evi-, 
 dently copied after the Mexican calendar 
 given by Hum bold t." 
 
 There used to be in the archives of the 
 church in Kirtland and Nauvoo, a scrawl, 
 that is now in Utah, pretending to be a fao 
 simile of a couple of lines or columns of the 
 writing on the plates. There are 68 char- 
 acters. Any one can see by examining 
 them, that 64 of them are merely our alpha- 
 bet, our numerals and marks of punctua- 
 tion varied a little, or placed in unusual 
 positions. If Joe lied in these scrawls, if 
 his/ac simites were frauds, belied in regard 
 to the plates and the Book of Mormon. The 
 whole thing is a fraud. 
 
 In 1830 Smith and Rigdon began a trans- 
 lation and correction of the Scriptures. It 
 was finished in 1833. Mormons say it was 
 done by direct revelation of God. It was 
 done by inspiration. Every word in il is 
 the word of God, as much as what h en- 
 graved on stone for Moses. It changes 
 King James' version in thousand of places. 
 It adds phrases, sentences and whole para- 
 graphs to King James' version. Where it 
 adds to king James' version, Mormons 
 claim that version was faulty in the origi- 
 rial text. Where it changes the translation 
 that version is a mistranslation. By corn- 
 
92 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 paring the quotations from the Bible in the 
 Book of Mormon, with the inspired trans- 
 lation, and King James' translation it will 
 be seen that the Lord in revealing the Book 
 of Mormon, in scores of places, copied King 
 James' version, and did not correct the errors, 
 as he did afterwards in the Inspired Trans- 
 lation. The Lord inspired Joe to translate 
 the Book of Mormon. In it the Nepbites 
 and Jaredites, quote from King James' ver- 
 sion, which is erroneous, if the inspired 
 translation be true. In his speech to tne 
 Nephites, our Savior quotes over thirty such 
 errors of King James' translation, if the In- 
 spired Translation be correct. Yet my op- 
 ponent has the audacity to declare that the 
 Book of Mormon does not quote the errors 
 of King James' translation. Will he ex- 
 plain this ? The Inspired Translation 
 changes names and language in some places, 
 and leaves them unchanged in others. 
 
 In his speeches last night, my opponent 
 told you that Jared's barges, as long as a 
 tree, and sharply pointed at each end, were 
 so large that the eight excelled the capacity 
 the ark. If sharply pointed, and seventy 
 or eighty feet long, they could not have 
 been more than ten or twelve feet wide, and 
 high in the center. It would take over 
 2.000 such barges to equal the ark. The 
 preposterous idea that these idiotically con- 
 structed barges, were constructed like -ur 
 scientific life-boats, is too ridiculous for re- 
 futation. Will my opponent tell us how 
 many families, animals of all kinds, fishes, 
 birds, together with food for all for 344 days, 
 can be put into eight life-boats, not more 
 than seventy feet long, and sharply pointed 
 at both ends ? How did his eight barges 
 keep together for 344 days? He took I/he 
 dodge I expected him to take? He claims 
 that Jared took only domestic animals and 
 fowls with him. 
 
 Why should he taketho horse, ass, sheep, 
 hog, and cows, and oxen, and animals /or 
 the use of man, when the country was full 
 of them already? Had the Mormon Deity, 
 when he got over Into Asia, in his troubles 
 over Jared's barges, and his corrections of 
 his mistakes in regard to ventilation and 
 light, forgotten that there were horses, cows, 
 sheep, asses, hogs, and all animals for 
 man's use in America, and that by miracle 
 he had changed a portion of the cattle into 
 oxen for Jared's use. If he had not forgot- 
 ten this, vhy burden poor Jared, with pro- 
 viding fof.d for them, feeding them, and the 
 inconven) mce of the effluvia in his barges, 
 all needlossly. for the land was full of them 
 before ho got there. 
 
 My opponent says the Book of Mormon 
 does spoak of rivers, lands and seas. Does 
 it give the name of a river, sea, mountain, 
 er city that is found in ancient geography 
 or describe them so they can be identified? 
 
 The Bible says, as a fact, that the speech 
 of all was confounded at Babel. The Book 
 of Morm >n says that the speech of part was 
 not confounded. A flat contradiction. My 
 opponent says that the statements and 
 affidavits in Howe are m^r quotations. 
 On the contrary, the affidavit nu<l state- 
 
 ments of Palmyra and Manchester witnesses 
 are in the first person and signed in due 
 form, and not a quotation mark. The Con- 
 neaut statements are in full, in the first 
 person, and signed by the parties. The 
 printer by mistake has put quotation marks 
 to the statements of John Spaulding, Martha 
 Spaulding and Art-emus Cunningham. The 
 statements of the other four have none. All 
 the statements are in che first person and 
 signed separately and by the person making 
 the statement. What does my opponent 
 hope to accomplish by such reckless mis- 
 statements? My opponent gave us what 
 Joseph the Third says, his mother said. 
 Can not Mrs. Irvin tell what her father 
 said ? Rev. Bonsall tell what his stepfather 
 said, as well as Joseph the Third tell what 
 his mother and stepfather said ? Or Kelley 
 tell what Gilbert orHoweor Mrs.McKinstry 
 said ? 
 
 A man may be illiterate and a talker. 
 Tecumseh did not know a letter, yet he was 
 not only a talker far better than Rigdon, 
 bnt he was a reasoner which Rigdon never 
 was. Rigdon's letter to the Boston Journal 
 showed, in misspelled words, grammatical 
 blunders, lack of capitals and punctuation, 
 that he was illiterate. That Rigdon preached 
 the peculiarities ofMormonism for two or 
 more years before he joined them is notori- 
 ous. Darwin Atwater mentions it. So 
 does Campbell, Bentley, Zeb Rudolph, John 
 Rudolph, and A. B. Green and Dille. He 
 advocated community of goods, and espe- 
 cially the idea that a restoration of the 
 apostolic church must include spiritual gifts, 
 miracles and revelations, the pet hobby of 
 Mormonism. My opponent himself has 
 stated that Rigdon had a contest with 
 Campbell over these peculiar doctrines of 
 the Book of Mormon before he joined the 
 Mormons, nearly eighteen months before 
 that time if my opponent be correct in the 
 time. These facts are as notorious as that 
 Rigdon was a Baptist preacher, before he 
 joined the Disciples. My opponent under- 
 takes toexcuse the tomfoolery of the assemb- 
 ling of the Jaredites, and afterwards of 
 Nephites from all over North America, for 
 a Kilkenny Cat fight, so as to leave plates 
 in the right place for Imposter Joe, by 
 reading about military works found in 
 North America. Does that prove that the 
 people who built them ever did such an 
 idiotic thing as Nephites and Jaredites 
 are said to have done. 
 
 The prophesies that my opponent quoted, 
 have no more reference to Nephites in 
 America than to New Zealanders. His fan- 
 ciful farfetched supposed references, would 
 apply as well to the man in the moon. 
 
 We will now review his archaeological 
 argument. 
 
 We remind the reader that the Book of 
 Mormon consists of two parts. 
 
 I. An assumption of certain general ideas 
 common to all lands and people. That the 
 continent has been peopled in former ages 
 by civili/od peoples. That there have been 
 two civilizations, only two, for the Nephites 
 and Zarahemlites are substantially one. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 193 
 
 The general ideas of cities, governments, 
 wars, and what all civilized people have 
 are assumed. 
 
 2. The part peculiar to the Book, that 
 one Jared led people into America just after 
 the confusion of tongues. Their history, 
 cities, wars, chiefs, governments, customs, 
 etc. My opponent has not offered a scrap 
 of evidence that this, that is particular to 
 the Book of Mormon ia true, in a single 
 particular. That Lehi and sons of Zede- 
 tiah led two peoples out here that united. 
 That the Lehi tea divide into two races. 
 The wars and career of each. He has not 
 brought forward one scintilla of evidence 
 for this. Not a ruin, city, person or inci- 
 dent has one particle of proof. What he 
 appeals to is common to all men. What 
 needs proof he has not touched. What th 
 Book of Mormon says in general assump- 
 tions can be applied to ruins in Ceylon, 
 India or Ireland, or any land where thera 
 are prehistoric ruins. 
 
 The language of the Book of Mormon will 
 describe any prehistoric ruins, as well as 
 those in America. 
 
 We showed by an appeal to Priest and 
 scores of witnesses who lived long before 
 the Book of Mormon, that it was known 
 that there were ruins of prehistoric races to 
 be found all over North America. That a 
 civilized people inhabited the land before 
 the Indians. This assumption that civil- 
 ized people inhabited tin continent before 
 the Indians, was an old idea, before the 
 Book appeared. We showed that Cortez 
 found a civilized people in Mexico, and that 
 the Aztec Empire extended from the Isth- 
 mus of Darien to what now is the South- 
 western portion of the United States. They 
 had great cities, temples, and public build- 
 ings. We have proved that the Mexicans 
 declared that their country had beeu inhab- 
 ited by Aztecs, who were in possession when 
 Cortez conquered it, by the Chicemas, who 
 preceded the Aztecs, and by the Toltecs, who 
 preceded the Chicemas, and that the Tol- 
 tecs describe a prehistoric civilization before 
 their occupation of the land. That Pizarro 
 found a civilized people in Peru, and that 
 the civilization of the Inras had been pre- 
 ceded by other civilizations, some of which 
 are prehistoric. All this was known 
 to educated men hundreds of years before 
 the Book of Mormon. All this Spaulding 
 knew. It suggested the assumptions of hi* 
 romance. 
 
 We have proved that Cortez conquered 
 Yucatan ; that it was inhabited by a civil- 
 ized people, with gr>at cities ; that his com- 
 panions and other Spaniards, such as Diaz 
 and Herrera, describe great cities that were 
 inhabited at the time of the conquest of 
 Yucatan ; that educated men who had read 
 the history of the conquest of Mexico and 
 Peru knew these facts; that Spaulding 
 knew them. He had his people come to 
 America from Southwestern Asia, by sea. 
 He had them land at the Isthmus of Darien, 
 which he called the laud. of Zarahemla. 
 This the witnesses prove. We have proved 
 that all that ray opponent can cite in the 
 
 Book of Mormon, as sustained byresearch, is 
 just what the witnesses say Spaulding knew 
 and put into his romance. The witnesses 
 are not witnesses that manufactured their 
 evidence, as was the case with Mrs. Salis- 
 bury and the witnesses of my opponent, or 
 th-ey would have claimed to know more 
 than they did. They repudiate the relig- 
 ious portion of the Book of Mormon as an 
 addition to Spaulding'g romance. They do 
 not mention the Jaredite portion ; but one 
 mentions the Zarahemlite portion. They 
 do not exaggerate their recollection of the 
 historic part of the Nephite portion. If 
 ever there were cautious, conscientious 
 witnesses they are. 
 
 This explodes all his archaeological read- 
 ing. He has sustained those general as- 
 sumptions of the Book of Mormon that are 
 common to all civilized people that need no 
 proof, certain facts that were well known 
 . before the Book of Mormon appeared. But 
 he has not furnished one particle ot proof 
 for those things that need proof the his- 
 tory, the historic statements in reference to 
 persons, places, battles, etc. If necessary 
 we could show, as Mr. Ward of Denver did 
 in his controversy with Joseph III, that 
 American archaeology flatly contradicts 
 many statements in the Book of Mormon, 
 but it is not needed. My opponent tries to 
 deny that the absurd statement of arming 
 children is in the Book of Mormon. On 
 page 531 we are told "All that were on the 
 face of the land were gathered into two 
 armies," not a soul left behind, and it adds, 
 "both men, women and children being 
 armed with weapons of war, having shields, 
 breastplates and headplates, and being 
 clothed after the manner of war, they did 
 march forth against one another to battle." 
 If that does not declare that children 
 were armed with headplates, breastplates, 
 shields and weapons of war, and went out 
 to battle, language cannot make such a 
 statement. It is idotic nonsense, but 
 that is just what the Book of Mormon 
 
 Utters. 
 
 My opponent made a poor out in howling 
 over the objection that the Book of Mor- 
 mon, in quoting the Bible, quotes King 
 James' version, the only one Rigdon who 
 interpolated the religious portion into the 
 romance of Spaulding knew That it pun 
 into the mouths of Nephites who lived 2,000 
 years before King James' translators, the 
 brogue, the errors of King James' transla- 
 tors. We give two instances, one from Cor. 
 13-5. King James' translators interpolatt<<l 
 "easily." The Book of Mormon does th- 
 same. Again, in Isaiah 16-7, it quotes t*>* 
 blunder of King James' translators, ana 
 says "The Lord and his Spirit hath sent 
 me," instead of "the Lord hath sent me and 
 his Spirit." Instead of quoting only read- 
 ings of the original, that were in existence 
 before A. D. 400, when Moroni buried the 
 plates, it quotes readings found in King 
 James' translation, that have come into 
 existence since Moroni's day. It quote 
 the punctuation of King James' version. 
 Not only so but it quotes the misquotation* 
 
194 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 that were common In Rigdon's day, Chap- 
 ter 5, paragraph 26, lines 33 to 36, we have 
 "fiery flying serpent." The serpents refer- 
 red to were "flying." The "fiery" is a 
 popular misquotation, Page 540 we have 
 "bonds of iniquity," instead of "bond of 
 iniquity." Another universal misquota- 
 tion. We have "sins of the world" instead 
 of "sin of the world." These expressions 
 are quoted as Scripture. They are not. 
 Doubtless it was the fact that he had heard 
 them quoted as Scripture and thought they 
 were, that led Rigdon to quote from Shakes- 
 peare's Hamlet, "from whence no traveller 
 can return," and from Pope's Essay on 
 Man, "look through nature up to nature's 
 God." This quotation of the errors of King 
 James' version, in original, in translating, 
 in punctuation, its obsolete grammar, its 
 obsolete words, its obsolete style, proves 
 that Rigdon used that, because he knew no 
 other. Why did not the Lord use some 
 other version, especially where they are 
 correct and the version of King James is 
 not? Why did not he correct that version? 
 Why did he use an erroneous version, in 
 this fullness of the gospel, and then correct 
 its errors afterwards, in the Inspired Trans- 
 lation? Why did he not give the correct ver- 
 sion in the Book of Mormon. Why corrupt 
 it with errors? The fact that the Book of 
 Mormon contains perversions of the Bible 
 common in Rigdon's days shows that it 
 belongs to that time. I did not urge that 
 the language should be perfect in the Book 
 of Mormon, but I urged that the Lord 
 would not dole out word by word such 
 atrocities as we find in the Book of Mor- 
 mon. Since the Lord, by miracle gave it. 
 word by word, Joe's illiteracy could affect 
 it no more than a telephone or an echo 
 can put blunders into what it utters. 
 The illiteracy of Joe has nothing to do with 
 it. If there are blunders the Mormon 
 Diety made th.em. 
 
 My opponent, with a fatuity that is mi- 
 raculous, tells us that language changes, 
 and that what is correct in one generation is 
 incorrect in another. That is true, and his 
 Mormon Deity in giving a revelation does 
 not use a language that is correct in the 
 time of the translation, but goes back and 
 uses language of two hundred years before 
 that time, that has become grosslv incor- 
 rect, and exaggerated and caricatures into 
 a monstrous burlesque, those errors. Why 
 did not the Lord use what was correct 
 when he made the translation? Why did 
 he use what had become grossly incorrect? 
 The reason is evident, Spaluding and Rig- 
 don wanted to imitate the Hebrew idiom. 
 They were so ignorant that they did not 
 know that a large proportion of the peculi- 
 arities of the Bible were the brogue of the 
 translators, and they inserted into their 
 fraud and into the mouths of Israelites, in 
 America, the brogue of the English of King 
 James' translators, hundreds of years 
 before there was any English language. 
 We have proved that the Lord has been 
 improving his grammar, has corrected 
 thousands of errors. Why did he not make 
 
 it right at first? My opponent can not see 
 the difference between Rigdon's blunders 
 in English? Joe's blunders in English and 
 errors in the original. I do not think the 
 Nephites made blunders in English. 
 
 The blunt Greek of Peter, the blunt 
 Hebrew of Amos are not full of atrocities 
 in grammar and composition. Let us have 
 a list of such atrocities in the Hebrew 0.1 
 the Greek of the Bible. Bunyan wrote a 
 clear, simple style, but it is free from gram- 
 matical atrocities, and atrocities in compo- 
 sition. His style is a model for simplicity, 
 purity and accuracy. All these excuses 
 are utterly bootless. These features of the 
 Book of Mormon show that it is an attempt 
 of an ignoramus, to imitate the Hebrew 
 idioms of the Bible, who blunderingly car- 
 icatured the brogue of King James' transla- 
 tion, as Simon Pure Hebraisms. There 
 are one or two contradictions of the Bible 
 that we will give. The Book of Mormon 
 claims to be the " fulness of the Gospel." 
 The Bible says " Christ came in the fulness 
 of the times. That the fulness of the God- 
 head dwelt in Christ bodily. All authority 
 in heaven and earth was his. The church 
 contains the fullness of him that fills 
 all in all. The church is perfected to the 
 fullness of the stature of Christ. Christ 
 gave to the apostles all things that pertain 
 to life and Godliness " The Book of 
 Mormon claims to be the fullness of the 
 Gospel, and to be added to what the 
 apostles had. It is a flat contradiction of 
 God's word. Mormons claim revelations, 
 visions, prophesy now. Daniel ix. "Seventy 
 weeks are determined upon thy people, 
 and upon thy holy city, to finish the trans- 
 gression, to make an end of sins, to make 
 reconciliation for iniquity, to being in ever- 
 lasting righteousness, and to seal up the 
 vision of the phrophecy, and to anoint the 
 most holy. 
 
 <l Know therefore from the going forth 
 of the decree to restore Jerusalem, etc." 
 Cyrus issued a decree, but said nothing of 
 rebuilding the city. Darius Hystaspes 
 issued a decree, but not concerning rebuild- 
 ing the city. Artaxerxes Longimauus 
 issued a decree but said nothing about re- 
 building Jerusalem. In the twentieth 
 year of another Artaxerxes a decree to 
 rebuild Jerusalem was issued. From the 
 one who was high priest when the work 
 was done, we learn it was in the reign of 
 Artaxerxes Miiemon. The twentieth year 
 of Artaxerxes Mnemon was B. C. 385. 490 
 years Daniel's seventy periods of seven years 
 minus 385, leaves A. D. 105, as the time when 
 the vision and prophecy was to be sealed or 
 revelations were to cease. The last one to 
 whom one apostle had imparted these gifts 
 died, and prophecy, visions, revelations 
 ceased. We have not noticed the infidel 
 attack of my opponent on the Bible for I 
 am examining Mormonism, not defending 
 Christianity. I want his infidelity to be 
 stereotyped in the debate, and let it, like 
 the fly in the ointment, send out its stink- 
 ing odor. The book will be read by 
 preachers all over the United States. They 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 195 
 
 will see the infidelity of Mormonism, that 
 tries to drag Christianity to its vile level, 
 when it cannot rise to the level of Christi- 
 anity. If my opponent dares to affirm, in a 
 separate debate, his assaults on the Bible, 
 I will defend it, and expose his infidel 
 attacks, in all their shallowness, and his 
 *'ostility to the Bible. 
 
 We will now notice some of the pettifog- 
 ging of my opponent's last speech. He 
 insults the intelligence of the audience, 
 v'hen he assumes that his talk about the 
 omission of words will so befog their minds 
 that they will loose eight of the gross 
 grammatical blunders that we exposed. 
 Reading pages does not remove the blander. 
 " Th-e Lord spake unto my father, yea even 
 in a dream, andsayeth unto him." " Lord" 
 in the third person is made nominative to 
 " sayeth" iu the second person and 
 "spake" in the past tense is joined to " say- 
 eth" in the present tense. "Stabbed by 
 his brother by a garb of secrecy" his 
 brother stabbed him by a garb of secrecy. 
 What a hole it must have made in him. 
 With my manuscript before him, he delib- 
 erately falsified my quotations. My Manu- 
 script does quote it " I ought not to harrow 
 up in my desires the firm decrees of a just 
 God." Omitting ''I ought not" does not cause 
 the sentence to talk balderhash. The fustian 
 is in the words "Harro\v up in my desires 
 the firm decrees of a just God." He finds 
 that " arrest" is used in the sense of 
 " check" or " stop." Will he show how it 
 can have that meaning in the sentence " If 
 ye do arrest the scriptures." Sydney did 
 not know the difference between arrest and 
 wrest, the word he wanted to use. We 
 need follow his twaddle no further. He 
 finds in the older books of the Bible ideas 
 that resemble the palpable quotations from 
 the New Testament and quotations from 
 modern authors that we have exposed. 
 Unfortunately for him, it is not ideas that 
 resemble each other, that we cited, but 
 quotations of entire sentences verbatim 
 the exact words. 
 
 He admits that quotations from the Bible 
 in the Book of Mormon are free from the 
 atrocities in speech, that occur in other por- 
 tions of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 That proves the truth of our assertion 
 that the Book of Mormon, aside from what 
 it steals from the Bible, is an awkward 
 attempt to imitate the Bible. Kelley's 
 assumption thatRigdon could not adapt his 
 fraud to meet the objections that the Disci- 
 ples had urged against additional revela- 
 tions, is ridiculous. The fact that what the 
 Disciples said to Rigdon in refusing to 
 accept his teaching, is bitterly assailed in 
 the Book of Mormon, proves that Rigdon 
 wrote it. When one remembers that I have 
 cited over five hundred quotations from the 
 
 New Testament found in the Book of Mor- 
 mon, scores of verses and even whole para- 
 graphs and chapters verbatim, Kelley's 
 denial that there are any quotations is 
 colossal in its impudence. He coolly asks 
 me "Do you know that they are not quota- 
 tions from Israelite books, older than the 
 Book of Mormon, that the Nephites had?" 
 As well ask me "Do you know that they are 
 not quotations from books on the dog star 
 Sirius ? " We find the language in the 
 New Testament alone. That proves that 
 the Book of Mormon was written by one 
 who quoted them from theNew Testament, 
 and, of course, after the New Testament 
 was written. Did Lehi, alias Rigdon, quote 
 from "Whence no traveller returns" from 
 an edition of -hakespeare, in the hands of 
 the Nephites? Did a Nephite quote 
 "Through nature up to nature's God" from 
 an edition of Pope's "Essay on Man," in the 
 bands of the Nephites? Did Nephites quote 
 Rigdon 's baptismal formula, his revival 
 expressions? 
 
 He staggers fearfully under the charge 
 that the revisions, that the Mormon Deity 
 has made of himself, as seen by comparing 
 the first and last editions of the Book of 
 Mormon, average nearly seven to a page, 
 and over 5,000 in the aggregate, seventeen 
 corrections being made on one page. He gab- 
 bles weakly about printers' mistakes. J. H. 
 Gilbert, who set up every word of the book 
 and who is one of the best compositors 
 in the country and a man of superior literary 
 and critical ability, did not insert blunders 
 of whole lines, omit whole lines. He did 
 not change sentences so as to entirely reverse 
 their meaning. The Mormon Deity inspired 
 Mormon and Moroni to write, doled out to 
 Smith word for word, the translation, gave 
 Cowdery a divine gift to write, and the 
 
 S roofs were read by the inspired Joe and 
 liver, and then the Mormon Deity had to 
 revise himself, omitting lines, inserting 
 lines, reversing the meaning, make seven- 
 teen changes on a page, seven on the 
 average on a page and over five thousand 
 in the aggregate It is disgusting for my 
 opponent to call on me to prove that 
 the atrocities in speech were not on the 
 plates. It is like calling on me to prove 
 that the telephone is not the author of 
 blunders in a message, it carries. Will he 
 prove there were any plates? When he 
 presents the plates and shows that these 
 blunders were on them, we will notice such 
 talk. 
 
 Even then, if we found on the plates 
 hundreds of quotations verbatim from '..ne 
 New Testament and modern authors, thous- 
 ands of gross blunders, we would be com- 
 pelled to conclude that the plates had their 
 origin with some such modern ignoramus as 
 Smith or Rigdou. 
 
196 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S NINETEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: I call your attention to a 
 statement that was made by my opponent 
 to the effect that I had stated in the debate 
 at Wilber that some eighteen months before 
 the Book of Mormon appeared, Sidney Rig- 
 don and Alexander Campbell had a passage 
 at arms over the religion of the Mormons. 
 I stated no such thing. The gentleman is 
 entirely mistaken. What I gave to the au- 
 dience upon that, I read from their own 
 book, "The History of Discipleism on the 
 "Western Reserve." I will read it to you. 
 Instead of being eighteen months before, it 
 was a passage at arms between them, as this 
 says, two and one-half months before, just 
 as I read it at Wilber. 
 
 What answer will Mr. Braden have to 
 this misrepresentation of what was said, 
 when it was said, and also who said it, at 
 Wilber? The statement is as follows, p. 209: 
 
 "The discomfiture he experienced at the 
 hands of Mr. Campbell, at Austintown, 
 when seeking to introduce his common 
 
 groperty scheme, turned him away morti- 
 ed, chagrined and alienated. This was 
 only two and one-half months before he re- 
 ceived, in peace, the messengers of delu- 
 sion." 
 
 The idea is carried here in their own his- 
 tory that Rigdon joined the Saints two and 
 a half months after this affair at Austin- 
 town because he got a back-set from Camp- 
 bell and was mad. This alienated him. 
 Well, if this did it, clearly then it was not 
 because Rigdon was in any way mixed in 
 with our faith before. This was only two 
 and a half months before he "received, in 
 peace, the messengers of delusion." Carnp- 
 uellite testimony. 
 
 Remember that they were not In contro- 
 versy over any principle of what he calls the 
 Mormon faith. There is no community plan 
 or common property plan in the faith of the 
 Latter Day Saints, nor in the Book of Mor- 
 mon. That only exists in the minds of those 
 who could not, or did not wish to under- 
 stand our faith. It is not only not accord- 
 ing to the faith of the church, but is con- 
 trary to its principles and the faith as the 
 church believed in 1830. You will have to 
 change again, Mr. Braden, upon that, and 
 find something else from which to make out 
 your case. 
 
 Last evening when I closed, I was expos- 
 ing the fallacy of his reasoning in trying to 
 make an argument on the assumption that 
 quotations from the Bible are contained in 
 the Book of Mormon. There is no such 
 thing in the Book of Mormon, but if there 
 was such, he could not make use of it as an 
 argument until after he had established the 
 proposition that God had not also spoken to 
 the people on this continent, because that 
 is the question in this controversy. If He 
 did speak to them, the presumption must 
 
 be that the instruction would be much the 
 same as upon the other, and it could appear 
 without any copying. 
 
 In the translation of the prophecies of 
 Malaohi, Isaiah, etc., and the account given 
 of the instructions of Jesus to the people 
 upon this continent, there is such a differ- 
 ence in the general use of the anglicisms. 
 as I have before shown, as to place beyond 
 the possibility of a doubt the fact that these 
 were not copied. It was either done by in- 
 spiration, as - claimed, or by persons ac- 
 quainted with both languages. But he per- 
 sists that because of the general wording of 
 the sentiment, even if expressed by the 
 Holy Spirit, that it must convict the work 
 of plagiarism. The objection is on a par 
 with his argument associating the Corinth 
 ian Church with "Mormons, Spiritualists 
 and negroes" in order to try to burlesque the 
 church because of its spiritual gifts. "They 
 are persons subject to low manifestations of 
 the spirit," he says. He admits, then, that 
 these gifts exist with persons in this age, 
 viz: Mormons, Spiritualists and negroes. 
 Where is his argument, then, confining 
 them to the first century? I have found a 
 lower spiritual manifestation than this, it 
 seems tnat of no manifestation at all. 
 That is where the Disciple Church comes in. 
 They do not claim any at all ; and it ia 
 lower, certainly, than the Corinthian saints. 
 But, my friends, we are in good company 
 the company of Jesus and all the apostles 
 and prophets and prophetesses of Christian- 
 ity ; and I thought when he so absurdly 
 divided up the spirit the other night into 
 the miraculous, the indwelling, the sealing 
 and the resurrecting powers, and then face- 
 tiously tried to put the saints on a par with 
 Baalam's ass because it spoke with the 
 miraculous, as he said, that he as much 
 lowered the standard of Jesus, Peter and 
 Paul, as he did that of the Latter Day 
 Saints ; for they, too, had this miraculous 
 power; and Paul says, "I speak with 
 tongues more than you all." 
 
 Mr. Braden seems to get into a comer 
 upon every position he takes. The only 
 hope he now has, however, is to try to 
 make so many objections that I shall not 
 have time to take them up and examine 
 them at all. True, a man can make a run- 
 ning fight, and throw dust and dirt in his 
 style for a time, but this will all wash off 
 if the investigator will only permit the ap- 
 plication of a little pure water. 
 
 But he is wrong again should I take 
 up by item and examine these pages in the 
 Book of Mormon which he claims are quo- 
 tations. Let me now candidly consider 
 them : He reads a passage from the Book 
 of Mormon and says, "A quotation from 
 Shakespeare's Hamlet, before written;" 
 but how does he know? This is on a par 
 with this continual asserting, without any 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 197 
 
 proof. Why did he not say that Bhakes- 
 peare took it from Job, who wrote 3,000 
 years before Shakespeare's time, and in 
 whose book the same thought and wording 
 in great part occurs. " Before I go whence 
 I shall uot return, even to the laud of dark- 
 ness and the shadow of death." And 
 again; "Man goeth to his long home." 
 Job 10 : 21 and 16 : 22. The wording in 
 2S T ephi and Shakespeare are not the same, 
 nor more alike than the Bible and Shakes- 
 peare, or the Book of Mormon and the 
 Bible. This shows conclusively that Mr. 
 Braden did not know what he was talking 
 about when he charged the plagiarism. 
 He had to follow John Hyde's criticism 
 made thirty years ago, however. 
 
 Another; " Shepherd hath called and art 
 calling." Book of Mormon, page 223. He 
 left out seven words in this one sentence in 
 order to make it read badly. He quotes 
 again: Stabbed by a garb of secerecy," 
 Book of Mormon, page 402. "Oh! what a 
 stab," he exclaims. Yes, but the stab is 
 not as bad, after all, as the perversion by 
 Braden. The true reading is, "Stabbed by 
 his brother by a garb of secrecy." How do 
 you like such grand arguments thrown into 
 your faces, my friends, by this Reverend 
 gentleman? Why did you, Mr. Braden, 
 leave the words ''by his brother" out? Was 
 it to deceive? 
 
 Again: "They buried their weapons of 
 peace." Page 272. He left out the explana- 
 tion, "or they buried the weapons of war 
 for peace." Again, "No afflictions save 
 swallowed up in joy." Pa.ge 298. It reads, 
 "He also gave them strength that they 
 should suffer no manner of affliction, save 
 it were swallowed up in the joy of Christ." 
 Do you say it is contrary to Christian expe- 
 rience, when rightly read? "I ought not to 
 harrow up in my desires the firm decrees of 
 a just God." Page 288. No, nor should 
 Mr. Braden harrow up in his desires such a 
 strong disposition to misquote these men. 
 
 Again he says : "Episcopalians preach 
 from high pulpits and have liturgies." 
 Read the text, my friends, and you will find 
 he has put in all of this. "Episcopalians," 
 "pulpits," "after their style" and "litur- 
 gies." Who could not find objections after 
 this style of argument? It is too weak for 
 a ten year old boy. Again, on page 322 he 
 says : "An inspired prophet scalps his en- 
 emy, just like any other 'big injun who likes 
 heap much scalp.' " Yes, just like big In- 
 dian Braden misrepresented it. It reads : 
 "As [Zerahemnah] raised his sword 
 [against Moroni] behold one of Moroni's 
 soldiers smote it, even to the earth ; and he 
 [the soldier] smote Zerahemnah that he took 
 off his scalp and it fell to the earth." 
 What have you to say to this? 
 
 Again, he charges imitation of incidents, 
 and cites the deliverance of .the three He- 
 brews from the furnace as being played in 
 the book ; but an examination shows that 
 the cases are not so similar as to indicate 
 any imitation or copying whatever. The 
 entire history of the two is dissimilar. 
 
 Thus, I might go through the entire list 
 
 exposing the spurlousness of the criticisms; 
 but shall I so waste my time? Are you ed- 
 ified by criticisms that will, In no way bear 
 examination? You, doubtless, wish him 
 to give such, that, hereafter, you will be 
 able to give a reason for not believing in the 
 teachings of the Book of Mormon when 
 questioned upon it, do you not? Not to 
 have something put into your minds jthat 
 will make you look ridiculous in the eyes 
 of a person posted, if you should give it for 
 a reason. 
 
 He again takes up the Book of Mormon 
 and gets off this : "For do we not 
 read that God is the same yesterday, to-day 
 and forever, and in him there is no variable- 
 ness, neither shadow of turning." "Yes," 
 he says, "weread it in the New Testament;" 
 and then he tries to make you believe the 
 writer (Moimon) was quoting from that. 
 Had he turned to Alma 5 : 3 ; 2 Nephi, 12: 7; 
 Nephi 11:1; Mosiah 1 : 8 he would have 
 seen that it was here where the writer read 
 it, and not from the New Testament. He 
 argues that because the expression is sim- 
 ilar to that in the Bible it must have been 
 taken from it. This is not correct. In the 
 Veda, which bears a date 1,200 years before 
 Christ, we read, "O God have mercy! give 
 me my daily bread!" Rig- Veda 6:37. 
 Did Jesus steal it when he put it in the 
 Lord's prayer? Take another. (Rig- Veda 
 9: 113, 8) "Where life is free, in the third 
 heaven of heavens, where the worlds are 
 radiant, there make me immortal." Did 
 Paul steal this idea to get material for his 
 Corinthian letter ? According to Braden 's 
 way of reasoning he must have done so. Of 
 the ancient Zend-Avesta,Dr.Haug remarks: 
 "The Zorpastrian religion exhibits a very 
 close affinity, or rather identity with sever- 
 al important doctrines of the Mosaic relig- 
 ion and Christianity." Chips from a Ger- 
 man workshop, page 125. 
 
 He objects to the use of the word Christ 
 and Christian over here before the birth of 
 the Savior. Eusebius Eccl. His., page 21, 
 22, says: "The very name Jesus, as also 
 that of Christ, was honored by the pious 
 prophets of old. * * * Moses attaches 
 the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ ; * * 
 the prophets that lived subsequently to 
 these times, also plainly announced Christ 
 before by name." Paul says: "Moseses- 
 teemed the reproach of Christ greater rich- 
 es than the treasures of Egypt." 
 
 It may be the Campbellite idea, that 
 Christ was not known at all and not doing 
 anything for humanity till he was born in 
 Judea, and that he was not in the Church ; 
 but it is not Bible. It was Rigdon's idea, 
 however, until his conversion to "the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," in the year 
 1830 ; and, therefore, he could not have put 
 the reverse of it in the Book of Mormon. 
 "Without this ( this same Jesus) there was 
 not anything made that was made." "He 
 was as a lamb slain from the foundation of 
 the world." He began his work for man 
 that early. "Was in the Church in the 
 wilderness." He had a Church under 
 Moses and was there. He was preached to 
 
198 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Abraham and Noah, and was known of 
 Enoch, for his is . "the only name under 
 heaven whereby man can be saved," and 
 Enoch was saved, saved through the name 
 of Christ! "Before Abraham was, I am," 
 said Jesus. "And they did all drink of 
 that spiritual rock, which rock was Christ," 
 Bays Paul. 
 
 These are the teachings of the Bible; 
 they are also the sentiments taught in the 
 Book of Mormon. They are not the teach- 
 ings of the Campbellites, nor were they 
 ever such ; nor of Sidney Rigdon till after 
 his conversion in 1830. Rigdon therefore, 
 had nothing to do with the getting up of 
 the Book of Mormon, or its publication. 
 He was as distant from that scene as Braden 
 himself. He tries to make a point against 
 the work because Mormon said that he 
 did not know what change was effected in 
 the three disciples who should remain and 
 not die. Yet he says : "Christ said they 
 should remain 'mortal.' " Christ said no 
 such thing. He said : "Ye shall never 
 endure the pains of death." Then, there was 
 to be some change wrought in them. This 
 was done when afterwards Jesus touched 
 them ; and Moroni, referring to this change 
 said that he did not know whether they 
 were "mortal or immortal," (he knew they 
 could not die), without, in the least refer- 
 ring to the grand clothing upon and 
 "abundant entrance" which would super- 
 abound over this change in the time when 
 Christ would come in his Kingdom and 
 glory, and all should be changed like unto 
 him. He next misrepresents the record on 
 
 E. 137, Book of Mormon ,in making Mosiah and 
 is people meet Coriantumr, whom he says 
 must have been, at least, 500 years old. 
 The record makes the people of Muluk and 
 Corianturar meet, and not the Nephites and 
 Coriantumr ; and these Mulukites came 
 out from Jerusalem near the time of Lehi, 
 and landed on that part of the continent 
 and are, several hundred years afterward, 
 found by the Nephites ; and Mosiah gets 
 and reads the record of Coriantumr instead 
 of meeting the man. In the late writings 
 of explorers they have found the word 
 "Muluc" right here where the Book of 
 Mormon located these people. See North 
 Americans of Antiquity by Short, pp. 436 
 and 438. 
 
 Why did he pervert it in order to take 
 my time up with an explanation ? 
 
 Again, "What is the use?" he says, "of 
 the Jaredites bringing over the animals 
 when they found them here?" That is 
 another misrepresentation of the record. It 
 was the people of Lehi and Muluk, who 
 came near two thousand years after, who 
 found the animals already here; these 
 animals having been before brought by the 
 Jaredites ; but which were found by 
 another people, and they found them with- 
 out care on the continent, as stated by Jere- 
 miah in the 49th chapter of his prophecy. 
 
 He would like to dodge the irrefutable 
 proof of Jaredites' account of bringing the 
 animals first to the continent, 4,000 years 
 ago, as the book sets out ; and this, because 
 
 I have so fully corroborated by science that 
 it was done. 
 
 Again he says: "There were two nations 
 spread over the en tire continent at the same 
 time, and yet they knew nothing of each 
 other." The record gives the particular 
 parts of the continent on which those 
 nations existed, and shows directly contrary 
 to Braden's statement, giving particularly 
 an account and description of the terri- 
 tory that divided these peoples, (The Neph- 
 ites and Mulukites), and shows why they did 
 not discover each other sooner. Yet, he 
 wants me to give my reason of how they 
 could have remained so long without the 
 knowledge of each other. Does he expect 
 me to give a different reason to that stated 
 in the book itself? That is amole, full and 
 satisfactory. If not, why did he not attack 
 the reason given instead of mis-staling the 
 history? 
 
 Again, he tries to show that Moroni wrote 
 47 pages of the book after he had no plates 
 upon which to write. Turning to page 494 
 of the book I find the objection is 
 not found in the book, but only 
 in Mr. Braden's crooked reading. Moroni 
 says : "Behold my father hath made this 
 record, [account of the history and destruc- 
 tion of the people,] and he hath written the 
 intent thereof; and behold I would write it 
 also [the same account] if I had room upon 
 the plates, but I have not, and ore I have 
 none, for I am alone." This is the plain 
 statement which he tries to twist. Not 
 that he had no plates to write upon, but 
 "no room upon the plates," for that account. 
 He then writes the things for which he had 
 room. Can you see the point now, Mr. Hra- 
 den ? If not I will take to rubbing them in 
 a little. 
 
 He goes back to the barges and says it 
 would take 2,000 boats with sharp points to 
 hold as much as the ark. Who, except 
 himself, said they had sharp points? The 
 book says they were peaked. Does it say 
 they were peaked after the manner of the 
 torpedo boat, or after the style of the Great 
 Eastern, that would of itself, doubtless, 
 hold as much as the ark ? Will he say that 
 the ark was not peaked? Here is a fair 
 sample of his reasoning: If the cubit spo- 
 ken of in the description of the ark was the 
 same as the sacred cubit, (which he admits 
 he does not know), then the ark was so long 
 and would hold so much. Just so, Mr. 
 Braden. Now let me apply your mode of 
 reasoning to the other side. If the tree 
 which these boats were.likened to in length 
 was as long as some of our trees, and the 
 animals which went in at the door as large 
 as some of our animals, and the boat build- 
 ed in proportion to the length, which is to 
 be presumed. then the eight vessels that 
 brought the Jaredites here would equal the 
 probable capacity of at least two arks. Is 
 not this fairly his style? This profound 
 logic reminds me of his wise interpretation 
 of Mark 16. Here it is verbatim: "Go ye 
 (Who? The eleven ?) Preach the gospel to 
 every creature" (Who preach ? The eleven?) 
 "He that believeth and is baptized," (by 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 199 
 
 whom? The eleven?) shall be saved ; and 
 these signs shall follow them that believe ; 
 {Believe what ? The preaching of the elev- 
 en?) Anybody else? No. Nobody but 
 the eleven." What about following the be- 
 liever in the preaching, which Matthias 
 hould do, he was not one of the eleven. 
 Oh, he will leave him out! You will! 
 What about the preaching of Paul and 
 Barnabas? They were not of the eleven ; 
 yet those who believed their preaching re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghost, and the signs follow- 
 ed? What about Ananias? He was not one of 
 the eleven, nor an apostle either, yet Paul 
 received the manifestation, (miraculous, 
 too,) of the Holy Ghost under his hands. 
 This solution of his reminds me of the dar- 
 kie's discourse upon which he was interro- 
 gated by another gentleman of color. A 
 few such questions as these would spoil 
 Braden's entire theory. This is after his 
 interpretation of 1 Cor. 12: 13. "For by one 
 spirit are we all baptized into one body.'' 
 He says that Kelley does not know the dif- 
 ference between baptized by the spirit and 
 baptized by the command of the spirit." 
 X,et us see if Braden does. The following 
 is Jesus' language: "Except a man be born 
 of the water and of the spirit" Oh, no, 
 Jesus ! Braden says you do not understand 
 it. You should have said : "Except a 
 man be born of water and of the command of 
 the Spirit." Yes, that is very clear ; Kelley 
 cannot understand it. 
 
 Take another : Paul, Titus, 3. "By the 
 washing of regeneration and renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost." Hold a moment, Paul! 
 Braden says "by the command" of the 
 Holy Ghost ye are renewed. My friends, 
 .whether Kelley can understand or not, he 
 has it just as Jesus and all the apostles did. 
 But Braden has the effrontery to add to the 
 word of God and insert in the plain teach- 
 ing of Paul, the words, "the command of," 
 in order to keep up his Disciple theory, that 
 the baptism of the spirit is not for our time. 
 
 Again, he takes up the text: "My words 
 they are spirit and they are life." Here it 
 is, no spirit except through the medium of 
 the word ; yet they received the Holy Spirit 
 on Pentecost day, shed through Jesus Christ 
 and not the word. Philip preached the 
 word at Samaria, but the word did not give 
 them the Holy Ghos,t, nor they did not re- 
 ceive it through the medium of the word. 
 But when Peter and John laid their hands 
 on the believers in the word which Philip 
 had preached, then the Holy Spirit fell 
 upon them. "And when Simon saw that 
 by the laying on of the apostles' hands the 
 Holy Spirit wa-j given, he offered them 
 money." Again, Paul says to the Ephesian 
 saints: "After that ye heard the word of 
 truth, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit 
 of promise, after that ye believed." O, no, 
 Paul ! when they believed the word they 
 had it, Braden says. The scripture is plain 
 without his torturing it. Jesus says : "The 
 words that I speak unto y>" they are spirit 
 and they are life." Ohe*' en to the >rds 
 v 11 bring forth the life, L the idea V nght. 
 '1 know that the commandment if lif 
 
 everlasting," says Jesus again. Not if a 
 man has it and does not keep it, however, 
 but if he keeps it, it will bring him into 
 life. It is the royal road. So of the spirit. 
 If he follows the commandments he will 
 receive the spirit, the seal of adoption shed 
 abroad into, the heart by Jesus Christ as a 
 comfort and acknowledgment for having 1 
 kept the word. But if he hears and be- 
 lieves the word and then does not comply 
 therewith, he does not get the spirit shed 
 abroad from on high, and enabling us to cry 
 "Abba Father" any more than if he be- 
 lieved the word and will not comply there- 
 with he will get the life spoken of therein 
 by Jesus. 
 
 Mr. Braden objects to the Book of Mor- 
 mon because of the use of the word "arrest." 
 Do not try to arrest the scripture. Yes, 
 arrest. Webster says, in defining the word, 
 "anything by power, physical or moral.'' 
 And Bishop Taylor uses the word in that 
 sense: "Were sad arrests to his troubled 
 spirit." You can select a more appropriate 
 word according to the usage now, but the 
 idea conveyed is the same if the other is 
 used. 
 
 He still, for want of argument, infringes 
 upon the modesty of this audience with his 
 smart turn, borrowed from Howe, on the 
 word ox; but I took up your school diction- 
 ary to-day and copied as follows: "When 
 wild animals are spoken of (such animals 
 as are found in the woods) ox is very often 
 applied to both male and female." When I 
 quoted this the other night he shook his 
 head. But that is nothing. He has shaken 
 his head at a number of other facts during 
 this discussion. The audience, I judge, can 
 likely see the points made during the de- 
 bate without he or I having to shake our 
 heads at them. So much for his jack and 
 bull criticism. 
 
 But he says, that Joseph Smith said some 
 hard things about the actions of David 
 Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery in 1838. Yes, 
 he wrote a letter after lying in jail for weeks 
 surrounded by as wicked and foul-mouthed 
 a guard as, perhaps, ever kept any man, 
 and from which he suffered abuse each 
 hour, and at a time when there had been a 
 misunderstanding between these parties 
 and some others, as to the proper thing for 
 the church to do; there bad, likewise, 
 arose a division, and a hot one too. just 
 like it was between Paul and Barnabas at 
 Antioch, when they got so mad at each 
 other they would not travel the same road ; 
 likeElisha 2 Kings, 13:19: "And the man 
 of God was wroth," but he is there repres- 
 ented to be prophesying all the time ; and 
 when the friends of one of these parties had 
 told their side of the story to Joseph and 
 Hyrum Smith while they were thus jailed 
 and treated as dogs, it was more than 
 humanity could endure ; and they right 
 lively retorted back. But what haa that to 
 do with the truth of the Book of Mormon, or 
 to show that Mr. Smith was trying to build 
 up a rotten -hm- 'i. He fearlessly turned 
 his own witnesses out when they were 
 charged with doing things which, years 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 after, were proven to be entirely false so far 
 as implication in counterfeiting, roguery, 
 etc., was concerned. A little different to 
 the way some churches do now, I know. 
 They keep those charged with bad conduct 
 for fear of an exposure. Mr. Smith must 
 have been honest or he would have feared an 
 expose too, from them in the matter of their 
 testimony. He would not have dared to do 
 what he did, had this their testimony not 
 been true. They were honest in their testi- 
 mony, or they would have gone back upon 
 it after this treatment ; and- so, instead of 
 being an argument against the credibility 
 of the testimony of the witnesses to the 
 Book of Mormon, it is in its favor and highly 
 BO. These men had every inducement 
 possible offered them to make them go back 
 upon their testimony: Money, popularity, 
 political fame, etc., but they would not; 
 and they have, through as terrible persecu- 
 tions as the world has ever seen since the 
 days of the spike and the rack, maintained 
 the truth of their statement and taught it 
 to their children's children ; their families 
 to-day being members of the church, and 
 abiding in the doctrine of Christ as set out 
 in their testimony of being contained in the 
 Book of Mormon and the Bible. Every 
 trying circumstance in which these wit- 
 nesses have been placed is a standing 
 monument, attesting the truth of their 
 testimony as first given to the world ; for 
 they have stood the test as does the solid 
 rock. 
 
 There is nothing in the argument then as 
 to what Joseph Smith may have said about 
 these witnesses for Braden's side. 
 
 Here, I will notice that "gordian knot" of 
 his. It is simply misstatements and misrep- 
 resentations that confuses my opponent, 
 however, in this. The brother of Jared was 
 not commanded to bury his record up in the 
 ground, as my opponent stated, but to seal 
 it up. It does not say that Jared's history 
 should not be made known until the Gen- 
 tiles were converted. It was brought to 
 light after Christ had been crucified. The 
 account was re- written by the Nephites on 
 plates and sealed up along with the record 
 of the Nephites. It was this part of the 
 plates, or book, that Joseph Smith did not 
 translate, and is not to be translated until 
 the Gentiles repent. My opponent has the 
 two distinct periods and writings and cir- 
 cumstances confounded, which, by the way, 
 is quite a habit he has of doing things 
 dull scholar that he is. The people of 
 Limhi did not get the plates that were 
 sealed up by the brother of Jared, or the 
 interpreters so far as we have an account, 
 but they obtained the record of Ether 
 written on twenty-four plates. The last 
 Jaredite king lived a long time with the 
 Mulukites, and Mosiah discovered them at 
 Zarahemla. From Coriantumr, the last 
 Jaredite king, the plates of the brother of 
 Jared and interpreters came into the pos- 
 session of the Mulukites, and from them to 
 Mosiah. This appears evident from the 
 i<*ct that the inter pr< era are not spoken of 
 until that time. The Book of Mormon does 
 
 not state just how the sealed part fell into 
 the hands of the Nephites, but this is the way 
 in which it could very naturally have come 
 in to their hands. There are many things that 
 were not written ; indeed, the record only 
 claims to give an abridgement of the things 
 done. The interpretation of engravings by 
 the "gift and power of God," Book of Mor- 
 mon, page 137, is the same as translating 
 by stones, page 200. The stones were of no 
 benefit only as God would manifest his 
 power and wisdom in the same. Just as 
 with theUrim andThummim, a stone which 
 was in Aaron's breast-plate, that shone by 
 the power of God and through which the 
 high-priest obtained revelations. Josephus 
 says: "It ceased to shine one hundred and 
 fifty years before Christ," i. e., the power 
 of God ceased to accompany the stone ; hence 
 no revelation; and in that. case the stone 
 was worthless as an interpreter or instru- 
 ment through which to gain knowledge. 
 Is this his only "Gordian Knot fr " 
 
 But he next objects, that the book ought 
 not to be believed because the printer did 
 not do his duty : There are typographical 
 errors, and gramatical errors and errors 
 " et punctu-at-em." Just so. I begin now 
 to see that my opponent means business. 
 Did any of you ever see a book that did not 
 contain such errors ? I never have. When 
 last in Chicago I paid nearly $10 for the 
 best Oxford print Bible, printed upon silk 
 paper and with all the care, it seems, that 
 could possibly have been taken to get it 
 correct; with the advantages of all the 
 various editions of that book, and skilled 
 help, at the command of the publishers, 
 and I have noticed in it since my return 
 home a typographical error. I refer to this 
 to apprise you to begin with, of the diffi- 
 culty in the way of issuing a publication of 
 the size of this book, and having it abso- 
 lutely correct. 
 
 The Book of Mormon was printed at a 
 small office in a little village of Western 
 New York, 55 years ago, by men who were 
 not scholars, and not much printers either ; 
 and he expects to find everything just right 
 even when examined in the light of the 
 progress in these things, made since that 
 time. My opponent has his mark set high. 
 He wants to see one of the impossibles. 
 
 He says he can find two thousand mis- 
 takes in the book. Suppose he can, what 
 of it? The American Bible Society make 
 the claim, so I understand, that there are 
 twenty-three thousand errors in the Bible 
 of this character; but does this interfere 
 with the divine claim of that book, or so 
 change the sentiment, or reading that it 
 was not entitled to the respect and belief of 
 all people? Certainly not. 
 
 In the publication of the Book of Mor- 
 mon he wants God to furnish the means of 
 translating the work ; then to write down 
 the translation as made into English, set 
 up the type, read the proof, and be respon- 
 sible for all poor or worn out type, blunders 
 of copyists, etc., and then, doubtless, he 
 would have the heavy press work done 
 by inspiration. '-Just to think," Bra- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 201 
 
 den says, " of the Lord correcting him- 
 self; revising his own proof reading." 
 He certainly ought to be reasonable if he 
 is not. Does he not know that the chances 
 are ten to one against the scribe of Mr. 
 Smith getting all of the words just as they 
 came from the lips of the translator, to say 
 nothing of the copy from this. The transla- 
 tor had to change scribes often during the 
 time of translating, on account of the per- 
 secutions against him, the violence of mobs 
 and to not have had many mistakes of 
 words and punctuation, would have required 
 a miracle each day equal to that of the rais- 
 ing of Lazarus. Before he has made any 
 point at all against the translation he must 
 show that the original manuscript was 
 wrong and that, too, in sentiment and 
 doctrine. Not simply in the dropping of a 
 word, or the misuse of a word. Such an 
 objection is entirely frivolous when consid- 
 ered by thinking people. 
 
 The process of translation, as described 
 by those who witnessed it, is clear and 
 reasonable. The power of inspiration was 
 with the unlettered, yet humble boy, 
 during the work of translation. It was as 
 Aaron gazed upon the Urimand Thummim 
 when he received the divine will. But it 
 did not write down the words. Mr. Smith 
 had to procure a scribe who did this. Is it 
 an argument against the truthfulness of it 
 that he did so? The result of the work 
 is a translation that is plain, simple, easy 
 to be understood ; correct in sentiment and 
 thought; pure and elevating in teaching; 
 fully instructive and enlightening, in mor- 
 ality and religion, to both the unlearned 
 and the wise. Who shall demand more ? 
 
 He has presented no mistakes of teach- 
 ing or thought, neither has my opponent 
 shown a single material difference in the 
 corrections in thought or sentiment in the 
 later editions. There have been correc- 
 tions of grammatical and typographical 
 errors. 
 
 Again, he states, that Martin Harris told 
 somebody, so somebody told him, that he 
 (Harris) saw the plates by the eye of faith. 
 Suppose he did, what of it? Did he mean 
 by that to convey the idea that he did not 
 see them? On no! he wanted to show that 
 a person was only privileged to see them 
 through the exercise of faith in God. Does 
 any man object to that? That is the way 
 Peter, James and John were permitted to 
 be the especial witnesses of the transfigura- 
 tion in the Mount, and is certainly sensible. 
 
 Remember that Martin Harris never went 
 back on his testimony in regard to his view- 
 ing the plates and witnessing the manifest- 
 ation of the power of God upon the occa- 
 
 sion, but affirmed the truth of the same, 
 and the truth of the work all through his 
 life to his enemies and his friends, his 
 neighbors and his own family. But I ask, 
 What is the point to be gained in this dis- 
 cussion by so viciously attacking the char- 
 acter of these witnesses, and that of Joseph 
 Smith, or Sidney Rigdon? Has it been 
 pertinent in answering my argument? 
 Have I attempted to cram you with what 
 any of these parties said about it, and 
 thereby undertaken to prove the Book of 
 Mormon true? Have the Saints ever so 
 held out the claim to the world that men 
 and women should believe in this book be- 
 cause these witnesses said it was true? 
 Does the book so hold? No, sir. All these 
 questions must, in truth, be answered in 
 the negative. No more have we done so 
 than the apostles asked the people in their 
 time to believe in the religion they brought, 
 simply from their statements. 
 
 The witnesses were for the purpose, of 
 offering to the people a prima facie case, 
 such as would require them, if honest, to 
 hear and investigate the matter, and be 
 sufficiently forcible to hold them responsi- 
 ble for refusing to entertain and consider 
 the message. But their testimony was not 
 all that the people were to be able to test 
 the matter by far from it. That would 
 have been the way for most men to work, 
 but not our Heavenly Father. He says, 
 "To the law and to the testimony ; if they 
 speak not according to this word it is be- 
 cause there is no light in them." Isaiah 
 8:20. This is the divine rule, and minis- 
 ters ought to abide it. The apostles so 
 proved their faith by the law already be- 
 lieved in by the people, besides being wit- 
 nesses, and thus presenting a prima facie 
 case to the world. Hence Paul says of the 
 citizens of Berea, "These were more noble 
 than those in Thessalonica, in that they re- 
 ceived the word with all readiness of mind, 
 and searched the scriptures daily whether 
 those things were so." Acts 17:11. And 
 Jesus says : "They (the scriptures) are they 
 which testify of me." 
 
 The true test, then^ of the faith of a peo- 
 ple, is not in the stories told about them by 
 their enemies, or the false witnesses that 
 are so often set up to destroy a good man, 
 as witness the 6th of Acts, 12 to 15 verses; 
 but it is in the consideration of princi- 
 ples, and by the attainment of knowledge 
 through the divine promise. "If any man 
 will do his will he shall know of the doctrine 
 whether it be of God" a higher, grander 
 and more exalting plane than that of hark- 
 eiiing to the voice of the slanderer, or fol- 
 lowing in the trail of the tale-bearer. 
 
.202 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S NINETEENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMKN : Was Joe Smith the origina- 
 tor of Mormon polygamy? The last argu- 
 ment that we present in refutation of our 
 opponent's claim that Joe Smith was a true 
 prophet of God, and that the Book of Mor- 
 mon that he gave to the world is of Divine 
 o igin, aud worthy to be accepted as a reve- 
 lation, is the damning fact that Smith was 
 the originator of the abomination Mormon 
 polygamy, and the author of that blas- 
 phemy entitled, "A Revelation in Regard 
 to Celestial Marriage." This damning fact 
 that after wallowing in lewdness for years, 
 without even the pretended sanction of that 
 profanation of marriage, polygamy, he gave 
 to the world that infamy, blasphemously 
 entitled "A Revelation in Regard to Celes- 
 sial Marriage," and was the originator cf 
 that abomination Mormon polygamy, is 
 enough to sink him and every pretended 
 revelation from him below the vilest depths 
 of the most infamous corner of the lowest 
 hell. On no other topic have the "re-organ- 
 ized" done so much lying to the square inch 
 as in denying that Smith was the origina- 
 tor of Mormon polygamy I propose to end 
 the controversy for ever on that topic. Dr. 
 Mclntyre, family physician of the Smith's 
 in Manchester, N. Y., declares that the 
 house of Joseph Smith, Sr., was a perfect 
 brothel. Ezra Pierce, Samantha Payne 
 and other schoolmates and associates of* the 
 Smith's, testify that Smith was lewd, and 
 so were the family and the entire money 
 hunting gang, and that the digging was 
 done at night by a gang of low men sur- 
 rounded by lewd women, who loafed in the 
 daytime and prowled around at night, and 
 that the Smiths were the worst of the gang. 
 A sister of Joe left New York enceinte and 
 unmarried. 
 
 Levi Lewis testifies that while Smith was 
 
 Eretending to translate his pretended plates 
 e tried to seduce Eliza Winters and de- 
 fended his infamous attempt, declaring that 
 adultery was no sin. Dr. John Stafford, a 
 schoolmate, testifies that Joe was a great 
 admirer of Mohammed and the Koran, and 
 defended Mohammed's polygamy and the 
 Koran in teaching it ; and that he heard 
 him repeatedly declare that polygamy was 
 right, and that nature and the Bible taught 
 it. In March, 1832, Smith was stopping at 
 Mr. Johnson's, in Hiram, Ohio, and was 
 mobbed. The mob was led by Eli Johnson, 
 who blamed Smith with being too intimate 
 with his sister Marinda, who afterwards 
 married Orson Hyde. Brigham Young, in 
 after years, twitted Hyde with this fact, 
 and Hjyde, on learning its truth, put away 
 his wife, although they had several chil- 
 dren. Lyman Jonnson, another brother of 
 Marinda Johnson, and a leading Mormon, 
 repeatedly declared that he knew that poly- 
 gamy was practiced by Smith and others in 
 
 Kirtland. Martin Harris told J. M. Atwater r 
 Mr. Clapp and many others that polygamy 
 was taught and practiced by Smith anil 
 in Kirtland under the name of "spiritual 
 'wifery." Lewis Bond and Ezra Bond have 
 repeatedly stated that their father and 
 mother, who were amongst the first Mor- 
 mons in Kirtland, repeatedly declared that 
 Smith practiced polygamy in Kirtland, and 
 that he followed a girl into a privy and 
 committed fornication with her. Mrs. Bond 
 made such declarations to Mrs. Hansbury 
 and others. Lewis Bond says his fathej is 
 so disgusted with the dishonesty of the 
 Josephites in denying what he knows to be 
 true, that he will not affiliate with them. 
 
 Fanny Brewer testifies that Smith had 
 serious trouble in Kirtland, arising from his 
 seducing an orphan girl living in his family, 
 and that Martin Harris told her that Smith 
 was notoriously lewd and untruthful. Mr. 
 Moreton one of the first Apostles, told hi 
 daughter, Mrs. Hansbury, and her hus- 
 band thatEmma Smith detected Joe in adul- 
 tery with a girl by the name of Knight^and 
 that Joe confessed the crime to the officers 
 of the Church. W. W. Phelps stated that 
 while Smith was pretending to translate 
 the papyrus, for his book of Abraham, he 
 declared that polygamy would yet be a- 
 prac^ce of the Saints. Martin Harris told 
 J. M. Atwater, that the doctrine of spiritual 
 wifery was first positively announced as a> 
 revelation, by Rigdon, before a meeting of 
 the officials of the Church, in an old build- 
 ing that used to stand southwest of the 
 Temple, W. S. Smith and others testify that 
 the practice of pealing women to men wa 
 so much talked of at Kirtland, while Smith 
 was there, that it became a by-word on the 
 streets ; and that common report said, that 
 a bitter quarrel between Rigdon and Smith 
 shortly before they left Kirtland was be- 
 cause Smith wanted to have Nancy Rigdon 
 a girl of 16 sealed to him. In the article on 
 marriage on pages 239, 330, Book of Doc- 
 trines and Covenants, adopted, Mormons 
 say by the annual conference in Kirtland, 
 April 1834, we read: "Inasmuch as this 
 Church of Christ has been charged with for- 
 nication and polygamy." This proves that 
 the acts and utterances of Mormons had 
 been such, before April, 1834, that outsiders 
 charged them with polygamy. R. M. Elvin 
 and other leading Josephites have admit- 
 ted that Rigdon' and. Smith have taught 
 Spiritual wifery^or "sealing women to men in 
 time for eternity." They claim that it confers 
 none of the privileges of marriage, but when 
 a woman allows another man, besides her 
 husband, toge't such control over her, as to 
 be sealed to him in marriage call it spirit- 
 ual, or celestial, or what not she will allow 
 him the privileges of terrestial marriage. 
 Such was the result in Smith's case always. 
 In the "Elders' Journal," edited by Joe 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Smith, No. 2, page 38, published in Kirt- 
 land, November 1837, in an editorial, Smith 
 publishes some questions that he says 
 "Were asked daily and hourly, by all clas- 
 ses of persons while we were traveling." 
 The 7th is "Do Mormons believe in having 
 more wives than one?" Smith himself con- 
 fesses that the acts and utterances of Mor- 
 mons had been such, that all classes of per- 
 sons asked him daily and hourly, while he 
 was journeying- between Kirtlandand Far 
 West. "Do Mormons believe in having 
 more wives than one?" Scores of persons 
 who were prominent among the Mormons in 
 Missouri, have declared that Smith confid- 
 ed to his confidants, that he had received a 
 revelation in favor of polygamy, but that 
 it was not prudent to make it public. The 
 time had not come to make known the will of 
 the Lord. In Nauvoo, while discussing the 
 extraordinary power conferred by the char- 
 ter they intended to ask from the Illinois 
 Jegislature, Smith said that they needed 
 such extraordinary powers, for the Turk, 
 with his harem, would come toNauvoo, and 
 they must have power to protect him in 
 polygamy. Smith declared in a sermon he 
 preached in 1840, that polygamy was right'. 
 It was right, in the sight of God, for a man 
 to have as many wives as he pleased. Peo- 
 ple of polygamous countries would be con- 
 verted and want to come to Zion, and Mor- 
 mons must have polygamy as an establish- 
 ed institution, and then they could bring 
 their polygamous wives with them. He 
 made the same argument from the Bible 
 that Brighamites now make. This sermon 
 raised such a storm he became alarmed, and 
 tried to lie out of his revelation of polyga- 
 my, by declaring that he was only trying 
 them (the Mormons). But he rebuked 
 them for their rebellious spirit in daring to 
 oppose what he said, and told them that 
 their hardness of heart prevented the will 
 of the Lord being revealed and carried 
 out. He practiced polygamy himself and 
 taught it to other leading Mormons, who 
 also practiced it in secret and taught it to 
 others. 
 
 His intimacy with Julia Murdoch, his 
 adopted daughter, caused trouble with his 
 wife, who sent the girl to her father. At 
 one time he had in the Mansion House 
 eleven girls, that he called his daughters, 
 saying that he had adopted them to take 
 care of them. His wife left the house and 
 he had to dismiss his harem, to silence the 
 fecandal, and get his wife back. Rushton, 
 who was a sort of factotum about the Man- 
 sion House, testifies that while Mrs. Smith 
 was in St. Louis on business, the wife of a 
 leading Mormon took her place in Joe's bed, 
 and that he saw her there when he went to 
 Joe's room for some keys. The complais- 
 ant husband was made an apostle for his 
 submission to the will of the Lord. Did 
 space permit we could give the sworn state- 
 ments of Orson Pratt's wife, Wm. Law's 
 wife, Dr. Foster's wife, Wm* Mark's daugh- 
 ter, Nancy Rigdon, Martha Brotherton, 
 Melissa SoLindle, and a score more of as re- 
 spectable women as ever lived in Nauvoo. 
 
 that Smith tried to seduce them into spirit- 
 ual wifery. We could quote the affidavits 
 'of scores of men and women that positively 
 swear that they knew of his lewedness with 
 scores of women. We could quote the rev- 
 elations of Van Duzen and his wife and 
 others in regard to the orgies of the Endow- 
 ment House. The fact that these revelations 
 made before the death of Smith, are an ex- 
 act description of the orgies of the Endow- 
 ment House as practiced in Utah, proves 
 that they were practiced in Nauvoo before 
 Smith's death, as these parties declare, and 
 that Smith was their author as Utah Mor- 
 mons now declare. 
 
 In the fall of 1842 Joe secretly performed 
 the first plural marriage ceremony. He 
 married Wm. Noble to his first plural wife, 
 and Noble united Joe to his sister. Joe had 
 had scores of spiritual wives be/ore this, but 
 without the farce of a ceremony of marriage. 
 Soon after he took the beautiful wife of B. 
 H. Jacobs as a plural wife as she and otherg 
 testify. In the winter of 1843 Smith gave 
 to 8. H. Jacobs an article presenting the 
 usual arguments for polygamy. Jacobs pub- 
 lished it in the "Wasp" and in pamphlet 
 form. Joe was trying the Saints again. 
 The opposition to the infamy alarmed him 
 again, and he tried to lie out of it, and pre- 
 tended to oppose polygamy. He told the peo- 
 ple again that their rebellious spirit would 
 not let the will of the Lord be made known. 
 In the spring of 1843, however, matters had 
 gone so far, so many had gone into polyg- 
 amy, Joe's wife was making so much oppo- 
 sition to his course, that he could wear his 
 mask no longer. June 12th, 1843, he dicta- 
 ted to William Clayton "A Revelation in 
 Regard to Celestial Marriage." N, K. 
 Whitney, who has done more of Mormon 
 official writing than any other man, de- 
 clares he heard it dictated to Clayton, and 
 that he copied it from the copy taken down 
 by Clayton. Joseph C. Kinsbury testifies 
 that he heard it dicta ted and copied it also. 
 
 When the original copy, taken down by 
 Clayton, was presented to Smith's wife, she 
 declared it was from the devil and burned 
 it. David Fullmer and others who were 
 Apostles and high Councillors testify that 
 Hyram Smith presented the revelation to 
 the Apostles and the Council, and that it 
 was adopted and sanctioned. In the Spring 
 of 1844 Marks, Higbee, Law and otherg 
 seceded and held meetings. In these 
 meetings, ladies of the highest character, 
 positively testified that Smith and other 
 Mormon leaders had tried to seduce them 
 into polygamy. Scores testified to the poly- 
 gamy of Smith and Mormon leaders, and 
 to the abominations of the Endowment 
 House, and other secret meetings of the 
 Mormons. In June 1844 the malcontents 
 issued a paper called the "Nauvoo Exposi- 
 tor." In it were affidavits of sixteen ag 
 respectable ladies as were in Nauvoo, that 
 Smith and other Mormon leaders had tried 
 to seduce them into polygamy. Joe's 
 answer was to send a mob of his tools to 
 destroy the press and compel the publishers 
 to flv for their lires. They swore out war- 
 
204 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 rants for the arrest of Smith. He was put 
 In jail at Cartage and murdered, not by 
 Missiourians and Illinoisians, but by men ' 
 whose wives and daughters he had tried to 
 ruin. He fell, not as a martyr to religion, 
 but as a victim to his own crimes, as he 
 himself declared when going to Carthage. 
 Such are the facts in regard to the career 
 of Smith in his connection with Mormon 
 polygamy. 
 
 We prove our statement by the testimony 
 of intimate acquaintances of Smith in New 
 York, leading Mormons and citizens in 
 Kirtland, leading Mormons in Missouri, 
 leading Mormons in Nauvoo. We have 
 cited the statements and certificates of 
 scores. We prove that Smith was the 
 author of the revelation in favor of Poly- 
 gamy by Clayton to whom he dictated it. 
 Whitney and Kingsbury who heard it 
 dictated and copied it. By Fullmer and 
 other apostles and councillors to whom 
 Hyram Smith presented it, and by whom it 
 was sanctioned. We cite the testimony of 
 Edwin Hunter, presiding bishop of Utah 
 church, in an affidavit dated Salt Lake City, 
 September 1st, 1883. He solemnly swears, 
 "Since 1842 he has held most intimate re- 
 lations, personal and official, with the lead- 
 ing men of the Church. President Joseph 
 Smith was his warmest personal friend, he 
 was herald and armor-bearer to Joseph. 
 From this very intimate and personal rela- 
 tion and intercourse he knows that Joseph 
 Smith both taught and practised the celes- 
 tial and eternal order of marriage from 
 the beginning of our acquaintance to the 
 time of his death." This is but one 
 of scores that can be cited, scores to 
 whom Smith taught polygamy. The 
 testimony of Eliza R. Snow, Eliza Par- 
 tridge, Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, Mrs. 
 Jacobs and others to whom Smith was 
 married in polygamy. 
 
 The testimony of others who saw him 
 married in polygamy among the rest, the 
 oath of his niece, the daughter of Hyram 
 Smith, that she saw him married in poly- 
 gamy. The oaths of persons for whom he 
 performed the ceremony of plural marriage. 
 W. Noble, J. B. Noble, J. D. Lee, and 
 others. The reply to all this array of 
 evidence is an impudent denial, without 
 one particle of rebutting testimony, and 
 abuse of the witnesses as liars and per- 
 jurers. As the persons who now pour out 
 such abuse did not make such denials when 
 the facts were recent, and make them now 
 when they think the evidence can be weak- 
 ened by such denials, on account of lapse of 
 time, these denials are merely the retort of 
 the cornered ruffian, "You are a liar." It 
 is amusing to read the weak efforts of the 
 Josephites to get rid of the damning fact 
 that Impostor Joe was the originator of 
 those abominations, Mormon polygamy and 
 the revelation in favor of it. They remind 
 one of the lawyer who was defending a 
 man charged with stealing a kettle and 
 failing to return it. He said I. The plain- 
 tiff never had a kettle. II. We never bor- 
 rowed his kettle. III. We returned the 
 
 kettle. IV. The kettle was worthless. V. 
 We paid for the kettle. VI. The kettle 
 was ours in the first place. In like manner, 
 I. T. W. Smith suggests that in giving Im- 
 postor Joe that revelation in favor of poly- 
 gamy, the Lord did not do different from 
 what he did in his revelation to David 
 through Nathan; thus tacitly admitting 
 that Joe did have such a revelation and 
 that it is all right. II. The leading editorial 
 in the first number of the Saints' Herald 
 says that the Lord gave that revelation to 
 Joe to punish Joe and the Mormons. III. 
 In the same number Isaac Sheen says Joe 
 had such a revelation and that it was from 
 the devil. IV. Joe lied and said he received 
 such a revelation, when he did not. V. It 
 is a lie and a forgery gotten up by Utah 
 Mormons. VI. It is a lie told by the 
 Gentiles. 
 
 As the "clodings" peddler tells us, "you 
 takes which you likes." It is all the same 
 material lie throughout. When the Jo- 
 sephites started, they did not dare to deny 
 that Joe was the originator of Mormon poly- 
 gamy, and the author of that revelation. 
 The facts were too recent and there was too 
 much evidence to be lied down. Forty years 
 have elapsed since the revelation was given 
 and over fifty since Joe first taught 
 and practised polygamy. Now they 
 impudently try to lie out of it. We 
 will stop all such lying attempts by quot- 
 ing their own testimony, given when 
 they started, and when the facts were 
 recent and the evidence so palpable that 
 they freely admitted the truth themselves. 
 On page 26 of the Saints' Herald, Vol. 1, 
 No. 1, William Marks, one of the leaders iu 
 there-organization movement, one of their 
 founders and a leader till his death, declares 
 that June 1844 he was presiding elder of the 
 Stake at Nauvpo, and presiding officer of 
 the High Council. At that time the Church 
 had in a great measure departed from the 
 pure doctrines and principles of Jesus Christ, 
 it was revealed to him that the only way 
 to purify the church was to dis-organize it. 
 A few days after this revelation to him, the 
 Prophet Joseph sought an interview with 
 him, and said to him in these words, verba- 
 tim, for they were indelibly impressed on 
 his memory : 
 
 " He had for a long time desired to have an Interview 
 11 with me on the subject of polygamy. It would prove 
 ' the overthrow of the church and we would have to 
 ' leave the United States on account of it. He would 
 ' go before the congregation and proclaim against it. 
 ' 1 n 
 
 must go before the High council and proclaim 
 against it. He would prefer charges against those ia 
 'transgression, and I must sever them from the 
 * Church, if they would not make complete satis- 
 faction. ' 
 
 From this clear, positive and circumstan- 
 tial evidence of one who was high in au- 
 thority at Nauvoo when Smith's influence 
 as a prophet was omnipotent in the church 
 one who was intimate with Smith one 
 who knew perfectly all that was going on 
 in the church one who was one of the 
 founders of the Re-organization and a leader 
 till his death, as given in the first number 
 of the official organ of the Re-organized, we 
 prove : 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 205 
 
 I. That while Smith was living, and 
 when his influence as a prophet was omnip- 
 otent in the church, this abomination was 
 so prevalent that Marks, presiding elder at 
 Nauvoo, declared that the only way to pu- 
 rify the church was to dis-organize it. 
 
 II. That this abomination, polygamy, 
 prevailed to such an extent that its author, 
 Smith, became alarmed and declared that 
 it would be the ruin of the church, and that 
 the Mormons would be driven out of the 
 United States on account of it. 
 
 III. The testimony of Marks and of 
 Smith himself substantiates the charges of 
 the witnesses we have cited, that polygamy 
 was prevalent in the church when it was 
 nnder the control of Smith, and when his 
 influence as prophet was omnipotent in it. 
 Also the statements of witnesses in regard 
 to the orgies of the Endowment House and 
 other secret meetings in Nauvoo. The 
 church had become corrupt in polygamy 
 and lust. 
 
 Marks does not state how far Smith was 
 responsible for the horrible state of affairs 
 that so alarmed him, but as he had been 
 and was the great prophet, and as his influ- 
 ence was omnipotent, so startling an inno- 
 vation as polygamy could not have become 
 so prevalent unless, as hundreds of wit- 
 nesses testify, he was the originator of it. 
 Josephites appeal to Marks' statement that 
 Smith told Marks that he and Marks must 
 oppose it. True, but it was because he 
 found that the people of the United States 
 would drive the Mormons out of the country 
 on account of it, and thus ruin Mormonism. 
 
 We quote from page 27 of the first num- 
 ber of the official organ of the Josephites a 
 statement of Isaac Sheen, one of the found- 
 ers of the Re-organization, and one of the 
 leaders till his death : 
 
 "Joseph Smith repented of his connection with this 
 doctrine (polygamy) and said it was from the devil. 
 He caused the revelation on that su) ject (polygamy) to 
 be burnt. When he voluntarily came back to Nauvoo 
 and surrendered himself into the hands of his enenves, 
 he said he was going to Carthff> to die. At that time 
 he also said that if it bad not been for that accursed 
 spiritual wife doctrine be never would have come to 
 that" (condition.) 
 
 By this positive statement, published 
 with approval in the first number of the 
 official organ of the Josephites, and made 
 by one of the editors, a founder of the Jo- 
 sephites and a leader till his death, we 
 prove: 
 
 I. That Joseph was the author of the 
 vile pretended revelation in favor of poly- 
 gamy. 
 
 II. That the statement made by Mor- 
 mons in Utah is true, that the original of 
 the revelation was burned. Sheen tries to 
 give Smith credit for burning it. Utah 
 Mormons tell the truth and say that his 
 wife burned it. 
 
 III. That Smith publicly and openly 
 confessed that he was the author of it, and 
 that the death he feared would be caused 
 by his crimes in polygamy. 
 
 We will now clinch the matter by quoting 
 from the leading editorial in the first num- 
 ber of the official organ of the Re-organized, 
 written, it is said, by Z. H. Gurley, one of 
 
 the founders of the Josephites and a leader 
 in that body, and an editor of that official 
 organ from which we quote, pages 8 and 9 : 
 
 "This adulterous spirit" (of polygamy) 
 "had so captivated their hearts" (the hearts 
 of the Mormons), "that they" (the Mor- 
 mons) "desired license from God to lead 
 away captive" (in polygamy) "the fair 
 daughters of his people." Could the Lord 
 do anything more or less than Ezekiel hath 
 prophecied? The Lord hath declared by 
 Ezekiel what kind of an answer he would 
 give them. Therefore he answered them 
 according to the multitude of their idols. 
 Paul had also prophecied "for this cause 
 God shall send them strong delusions that 
 they might believe a lie, and that they all 
 might be damned." In Ezekiel the Lord 
 also says "I will set my face against that 
 man, the prophet, and I will cut him off 
 from the midst of my people, and ye shall 
 know that I am the Lord." The death of 
 the prophet (Joseph Smith) is a fact that 
 has been realized, although he repented of 
 :his iniquity (polygamy), "and abhorred 
 it before his death." 
 
 By this leading editorial of the first num- 
 ber of the official organ of the Re-organized, 
 written by one of the founders and leaders 
 of the Josephites, one familiar with Smith, 
 and what transpired in Nauvoo we prove. 
 
 I. That Smith was the author of the 
 revelation in favor of polygamy, and that 
 his death by violence was caused by his 
 connection with the iniquity of polygamy. 
 
 II. That Smith repented of this iniquity 
 before his death. This confirms Sheen's 
 testimony. 
 
 These three declarations of founders of 
 Josephites made in the first number of their 
 official organ ought to palsy the tongues of 
 the Josephites with shame, when they are 
 trying to lie out of the truth in regard to 
 Smith's polygamy. The Josephites assert 
 that these men have since retracted their 
 statements. If that were true it would 
 merely show that in the first number of the 
 "Saints' Herald," when the facts were re- 
 cent, they stated what was true, because 
 the evidence could not then be gainsayed ; 
 and that since then, when they think that 
 the evidence has disappeared, they are try- 
 ing to lie out of the truth they once con- 
 fessed. But we defy Josephites to produce 
 evidence that-they have ever retracted these 
 statements. These statements stood for 
 years unquestioned and admitted. Now 
 Josephites try by cheek and impudence to 
 lie out of the damning fact that Joe 
 Smith was the originator of Mormon poly- 
 gamy. The evasions of Josephites when 
 forced to face this crushing array of testi- 
 mony are contemptible in their weakness. 
 They heap abuse on the one who presents 
 the evidence. That is as sensible as it 
 would be for a pettifogger to abuse the law- 
 yer whose array of evidence he could not 
 meet. It matters not what the lawyer may 
 be. That does not affect one particle the 
 evidence of the witnesses he presents. They 
 abuse and villify the witnesses. They ar 
 liars, slanderers, &c., although they are 
 
206 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 most ef them Mormons, and were leaders 
 among the Mormons before they gave their 
 testimony. Calling them names will not 
 get aside their evidence. 
 
 They appeal to the denials of Smith and 
 others. The cheek displayed in such a plea 
 colossal. On the same ground every scoun- 
 drel arraigned for crime should be declared 
 innocent because he denies it. If persons 
 who accept such denials were judges in 
 criminal trials, they would set every scoun- 
 drel free the moment he set up the plea, 
 "not guilty." If men commit so infamous 
 a crime as polygamy, they will not hesitate 
 to lie out of it. The Pratts, Taylor, Richards 
 and others, who united with Smith in such 
 denials, now admit that they and Smith 
 were practicing polygamy, when the deni- 
 als were made, and that th- and Smith 
 lied in denying it, because it not then 
 
 prudent to avow it. Smith's revelations 
 and teachings contain many instances where 
 concealment and deception were com- 
 manded under similar circumstances. 
 Smith's character for fraud, lying, cheat- 
 ing and deception were notorious all his 
 life. The impudence of persons who will 
 appeal the denials of such a person in 
 the face of hundreds of witnesses whose 
 testimony is clear and direct, is idiotic it its 
 silliness. 
 
 When the clear positive testimony of O. 
 Pratt, P. P. Pratt, Taylor, Richards, Kings- 
 bury, Clayton, and scores of others is 
 quoted to the Josephites, that they saw 
 Smith unite in plural marriage many per- 
 sons, that they saw him married in plural 
 marriage, that he united them to other men 
 and women in plural marriage; that he 
 dictated, in their presence, the revelation 
 in favor of plural marriage; they howl 
 "Brighamite" " Polygamist ", and sneer 
 at the one quoting the testimony, for 
 uniting with Utah polygamistsin defaming 
 the character of martyred Joseph. The 
 Josephites publish and use as their stand- 
 ards, the works of the Pratts and other 
 Utah Mormons. They quote their testi- 
 mony in their books, and accept it un- 
 questioned, on all topics, except their 
 positive declaration that Smith was the 
 originator of polygamy. If these men and 
 women are worthy of perfect credence on 
 all other topics, as the Josephites show, by 
 the way they quote them, they are worthy 
 of as much credence, when they declare 
 that Smith was the author of p'ol.vgamy. 
 The course of the Josephites in this is ab- 
 surdly contradictory, and is an insult to the 
 good sense of all people of sense. They quote 
 these parties with absolute confidence on 
 all other matters, and they cannot reject 
 their evidence on this topic merely because 
 it contradicts their lying attempt to lie out 
 of Smith's connection with polygamy. 
 
 Young Joseph appeals to what he says 
 his mother told him. If Emma Smith ever 
 made such statements to him she lied in 
 the face of what she knew hundreds knew 
 Of her troubles with Joe in New York, over 
 Eliza Winters, and in Kirtland over the 
 Knight girl and several others, that she 
 
 herself charged Joe with adultery in Kirt- 
 land, and that he confessed it to her and 
 the Church, that she sent Julia Murdoch to 
 her father because of Joe's intimacy with 
 her, that she left the Mansion House in 
 Nauvoo on account of Joe's harem of girls, 
 and that she knew of his polygamy, and 
 was present at his marriage to four of his 
 plural wives. She either lied in the face of 
 all this evidence, or young Joseph lied in 
 manufacturing that evidence. I have heard 
 several persons who were intimate with 
 her and her history, make this statement. 
 Finally they appeal to the teachings of the 
 Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants. 
 
 The Book of Mormon condemns secret 
 societies in scores of instances, far more 
 positively than it does polygamy, yet Rig- 
 don, Smith, and leading Mormons become 
 members of such societies, and instituted 
 them, in the face of these scores of positive 
 condemnations of them. 
 
 Several as glaring violations of the teach- 
 ings of the Book of Mormon can be cited. 
 The teachings of the standards of the church 
 do not amount to a feather's weight in the 
 face of such an array of evidence of the 
 facts ; especially when Smith trampled them 
 under foot in scores of instances. 
 
 But the Book of Mormon leaves the door 
 open to polygamy. Immediately after t e 
 passage quoted to prove that it condemns 
 polygamy, occurs this language. After de- 
 claring that the people must keep the com- 
 mandment against polygamy, just given to 
 them, it adds, "For if I will raise up a seed 
 unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, I will 
 command my people. Otherwise they shall 
 keep my commandments," (against poly- 
 gamy). This means just this, "If I will 
 raise up a seed unto me, I will command 
 my people to practise polygamy. Until then 
 they are to keep my present commandment 
 against polygamy," That this is what it 
 means is evident from the fact that in the 
 pretended revelation in favor of polygamy 
 the great object of polygamy is declared to 
 be to "raise up a seed unto the Lord." In 
 that sentence following the commandment 
 against polygamy the door is left open for 
 polygamy, when Rigdon and Smith chose 
 to introduce it. 
 
 This is confirmed by Smith's language in 
 an entry in his diary under date of October 
 5th, 1843. 
 
 " Gave instructions to try those persons who were 
 ' teaching, practising and preaching the doctrine of 
 ' plurality of wives. For according to the law; I hold 
 ' the keys to tliis power (to teach and practise poly. 
 1 gamy ) in the lust days, for there is never but one 
 ' on the earth, at a time, on whom this power ( to teach 
 and practice polygamy), or its keys are conferred. 
 ' And I have constantly said, that no mnn shall have 
 ' but one wife at a time, unlets the Lord orders other- 
 ' wise." 
 
 Smith does not order persons to be dealt 
 with because polygamy is wrong, but be- 
 cause they are rushing ahead with it without 
 authority from him. They are making it 
 too public and leading others into it, when 
 he alone has that power. He teaches that 
 men shall have but one wife, unless the 
 Lord, through him, gives permission to 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 207 
 
 have more than one. Joe had given the 
 revelation in favor of polygamy, but he had 
 not allowed it to be publicly taught yet. 
 Persons could avail themselves of the 
 license it gave, only as he, in person, 
 allowed them to do so. Such are the facts 
 in the case in regard to Smith's polygamy. 
 
 There is not as clear evidence in favor of 
 any pretended revelation Joe ever gave, as 
 in favor of this revelation in favor of poly- 
 gamy. The Josephites have no more 
 warrant to reject this, than any other 
 revelation. 
 
 We defy the Josephites to present as clear 
 evidence that Smith dictated any other re- 
 velation, as we have presented for this. As 
 clear evidence that he gave any other 
 revelation, or as clear evidence that Smith 
 practised any other practice, as we have 
 given that he practised polygamy. Let 
 
 them select the revelation cr practice and 
 undertake it. As intelligent a Mormon as 
 the writer ever met declared to him that 
 she was disgusted with the duplicity of the 
 Josephites in denying the palpable facts of 
 history. The only true course was to 
 acknowledge the truth that Smith was 
 guilty of licentiousness and polygamy, and 
 was the author of the revelation in its 
 favor, and then claim that it no more affected 
 the Book of Mormon than Solomon's poly- 
 gamy affected his writings. 
 
 Will Joseph Smith and his followers cease 
 to deny the plainest facts of history and 
 own the truth in regard to Smith's connec- 
 tion with polygamy. They are lying for no 
 purpose, for no one believes them, and the 
 only result is to cover them with infamy for 
 their impudent falsehood. 
 
 KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECH ON FIRST PROPOSITION. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : It is with no little gratifica- 
 tion and pleasure that I am again permitted 
 to claim your attention in the consideration 
 of the question, "Is the Book of Mormon of 
 Divine origin, and are its teachings entitled 
 to the respect and belief of all Christian 
 people?" 
 
 This is also my last thirty minutes upon 
 the proposition, and after answering the ob- 
 jections and assertions last presented by 
 my opponent, I shall pass to a review and 
 general summary of the arguments and 
 positions upon the questions by both dis- 
 putants. 
 
 I am surprised to find my opponent at 
 this late time in the discussion, telling the 
 audience how much he can prove. He has 
 now had ten evenings in which to do this, 
 and he has not done it. I suggest that it 
 will look better for him to first do some- 
 thing if he can towards proving his stories, 
 or meeting the argument of the affirmative, 
 and then tell you what he has done. 
 
 I have been waiting and listening with 
 patience too, these ten evenings for some 
 testimony to meet, or arguments to reply 
 to, but nothing has fallen upon my ears ex- 
 cept bundles and scraps of the most dog- 
 matical assertions, bound up with state- 
 ments of what he can Drove by Mr. Ru- 
 dolph, or by witnesses" from Mr. Howe's 
 book, or Mr. Tucker's ; or what Mr. Camp- 
 bell, Mrs. Amos Dunlap or somebody else 
 has said. Of these persons named by him, 
 are Mr. Rudolph, a minister of his own de. 
 nomination, who lives but three miles away, 
 and Mr. Howe who lives but nine. Of these 
 
 I took the firm position from the very first, 
 that I had myself had conversations with 
 both within the past few months, and that 
 neither of them in fact knew a single thing 
 that was in the least contradictory to my 
 positions upon this question, and invited 
 him to put them upon the stand here for 
 examination, the latter at my expense. 
 Has he done so? Has he tried to have them 
 appear? Will I find him after this discus- 
 sion has closed, traveling the. country 
 through, and telling what he can do, or 
 what his witnesses knew? But he says 
 now, that he don't claim Mr. Howe as a wit- 
 ness, only as a lawyer who compiled the 
 evidence. But I have attacked the compi- 
 lation itself, the manner of the work and 
 what it contains. Shown the gross perver- 
 sions and misquotations in it, and demand- 
 ed that' Mr. Howe first satisfactorily ac- 
 count for this, and the destruction of the 
 originals of the purported statements and 
 affidavits contained in that book, and the 
 original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding 
 before it is proper under any view of 
 the case to use them before this audience. 
 This is the only basis Mr. Braden has for 
 these stories. All pretended authors, in all 
 their publications of these, either took them 
 from Howe's book or some other work that 
 had taken them from his book, and the en- 
 tire list when examined, have gone down as 
 having been concocted in the same spirit 
 and manner as the story of the guards of the 
 sepulchre who were made to say, "His dis- 
 ciples came by night and stole him away 
 while we slept." But he now has anothei 
 witness on what Rigdon said in 1820. 
 
208 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Suppose it to be true that Sidney Rigdon 
 did take the position in 1826, or 1827, that 
 the Apostolic religion could not be intro- 
 duced in full, unless it was with the gifts 
 accompanying and following the believer in 
 Christ, what of it? Was it not a truth 
 readily ascertained from the reading of the 
 New Testament? 
 
 He would not in this have been adverse 
 to Charles Wesley. The same doctrine was 
 taught by Mr. Wesley. And yet he could 
 not claim for a moment that Mr. Wesley had 
 anything to do in connection with Mr. 
 Smith in getting up the Book of Mormon. 
 Such statements as this which he has 
 placed before you for argument, only lay 
 bare the terrible weakness of his positions. 
 Again he has tried to run something in 
 the discussion this evening at the last 
 hour in the hope that he might possibly 
 be able to throw me off the main argument 
 and get me to leave the question under dis- 
 cussion, as he has done, and debate a new 
 issue. What other reason could he have 
 had for charging polygamy at the last hour? 
 Was it because he thought I had not the 
 time to answer him, and also make a 
 summary of my arguments, and he would 
 thus further prejudice your minds against 
 Mr. Smith? What has polygamy to do 
 with the debate upon the present question? 
 Does he suppose that I cannot answer the 
 false and slanderous charge of polygamy 
 against Joseph Smith? and does he not 
 know that I have answered in this country 
 abler men, and those better posted upon 
 that charge than is Mr. Braden or any 
 preacher of the so-called Christian church ? 
 (Applause.) Those, too, who have had far 
 better opportunity for knowing as to the 
 truth of the charge. It is a comparatively 
 easy matter to answer to that charge under 
 a proper question and at a proper time. I 
 have only to refer to my books and the 
 many citizens of Kirtland here to show that 
 the parties who have been peddling on the 
 outside that theSaints believed in polygamy 
 while here in Kirtland, or any kind of mar- 
 riage in any relation contrary to the one 
 lawful wedlock in monogamy, have told 
 absolute falsehoods having no reasonable 
 basis whatever for such assertions. 
 
 The people of Utah themselves who be- 
 lieve in and practice polygamy, pretend to 
 no such thing. And persons' who are so 
 given to tale-bearing as to insidiously hawk 
 about such things against a people innocent 
 of any such charge are in a far more deplora- 
 ble condition than any classes of the Saints 
 whom it has been my lot to meet. 
 
 The law of the church was then, and is 
 now, specific upon this question. In para- 
 graph 2 of section 42, in a Revelation to the 
 church in 1831, the instruction is emphatic: 
 "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." 
 
 Again, in section 49, paragraph 3, it is 
 written : 
 
 "I say unto you that whoso forbiddeth to 
 marry is not ordained of God, for marriage 
 is ordained of God unto man; therefore it 
 is lawful that he should have one wife, and 
 they twain shall be one flesh, and all this 
 that the earth might answer the end of its 
 creation; and that it might be filled with 
 the measure of man. according to his crea- 
 tion before the world tvas made. 1 ' 
 
 This is the strongest sentence expressive 
 of but a single person of each sex in proper 
 wedlock that I have ever met with in any 
 book, and it came in a revelation to the 
 church here in Kirtland, through Joseph 
 Smith. Yet he seeks to lug into this dis- 
 cussion the question of polygamy to arouse 
 the mean sense of prejudice of the people. 
 
 His own arguments, however, completely 
 decapitate him. He says that "Elder Wm. 
 Marks stated in a letter that Joseph Smith 
 told him in the year 1844, just before his 
 death, that he (Smith) would prefer charges 
 against those in transgression, and that he 
 wanted him (Marks) to cut them off from 
 the churcii." That being true, it certainly 
 could not be true what ho stated but a few 
 moments before, that Joseph Smith was in 
 transgression while here in Kirtland. It 
 was six years before this that Mr. Smith 
 was in KirUand, and yet he has him makiug 
 charges against the transgressors. Braden 
 wants you to believe that Mr. Smith was 
 himself in transgression and was to prefer 
 charges against himself. The absurdity of 
 that conclusion has only to be referred to in 
 order that it be exposed. Who does not 
 know that Mr. Smith could not have been 
 guilty of any such a thing for" six years 
 while right with these parties without their 
 knowledge? And such being the case, it is 
 perfectly absurd to think that he would 
 have dared to instruct Elder Marks, the 
 President of the High Council in Nauvoo, 
 that he would prefer charges against the 
 transgressors and Elder Marks should cut 
 them off. And to do also as he did in Feb- 
 ruary of that same year, cut a man off from 
 the church for that same crime, publicly 
 and fearlessly. 
 
 In connection with Elder Z. H. Gurley of 
 Iowa, I met this question of the origin of 
 polygamy among the Latter Day Saints be- 
 fore the Judiciary Committee of the House 
 of Representatives during the first session 
 of the 47th Congress, and we were able 
 there, and in our "memorial," and "argu- 
 ment," presented to the President and each 
 Senator and Representative, to maintain 
 our case in opposition to those versed in the 
 theory of those people who believe in poly- 
 gamy ; and do you think I could not sustain 
 my position here? 
 
 Mr. Bradeu : Do it, do it. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : I am ready and prepared to 
 do it if you 'wish to take up that question. 
 But I shall not leave the question now un- 
 der consideration to do it. I am in the 
 affirmative here. 
 
 Suppose that Mr. Smith did have more 
 wives than one, what has what he did, after 
 the oublication of the Book of Mormon, to 
 do with the question of whether it is true 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 209 
 
 or not? There is no dispute by anybody of 
 the fact that his first, and as we claim his 
 only marriage, took place in the year 1827, 
 the same year he began the translation of 
 which this book is the result. He was then 
 but twenty-one years of age. But further, 
 I open the Book of Mormon here at page 
 116, and read as follows : 
 
 "For behold, thus saith the Lord, this people [the 
 ancient Inhabitants] begin to wax in iniquity; they 
 understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse 
 themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the 
 things which were written concerning David and Solo- 
 mon, his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had 
 many wives and concubines, which thing was abom- 
 inable before me, saith the Lord ; wherefore, thus saith 
 the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of 
 Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might 
 raise up unto me a righteous brunch from the fruit of 
 the loins of Joseph. [Joseph in Egypt.] Wherefore I, 
 the Loid God, will not suffer that this people shall do 
 like unto them of old. 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, 
 dclighteth in the chastity of women and whoredoms 
 are an abomination before me: Thus saith the Lord 
 of Hosts " 
 
 Polygamy then is clearly condemned by 
 this book under discussion. 
 
 I open to other works of the church and 
 I find that it is absolutely denounced ; and I 
 fail to find a single word, scratch of the pen, 
 or fully established act of Joseph Smith, in 
 any place during his life, where he ever in 
 any manner or way approved or counten- 
 anced in any form at any time a sentiment 
 or thought contrary to, or in disregard of, 
 the veritable teaching of Jesus Christ upon 
 the sacred rite of marriage, wherein he 
 says: "Have ye not read, that he which 
 made them at the beginning made them 
 male and female; and for this cause shall 
 a man leave father and mother, and shall 
 cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be 
 one flesh." Matt. 19:4, 5. 
 
 Some pretend to believe that he practiced 
 polygamy privately; but after a careful and 
 candid examination of what they have 
 claimed as evidences for this, I have found 
 that they have invariably fallen far short 
 of what would honestly be called, under 
 the laws of evidence, proofs. Whereas, on 
 the other hand, I have also noticed that the 
 claim has either been made by persons who 
 would like to have it so, in order to ( in a 
 manner) excuse their own evil practices, or 
 by those who desired it BO, in order that 
 they might have a weapon with which to 
 assail the faith of the Saints. 
 
 Then there is no foundation for, or reason 
 In any shape why Mr. Bradeu should make 
 his polygamic assault here to claim my 
 attention. 
 
 Now there have been a great many stories 
 told here by him ; and a great many things 
 asserted and reasserted with regard to 
 character, and he has jumped from one 
 conclusion to another, in order to dodge the 
 real question at issue, prejudice your 
 minds, and save his failing cause. But in 
 fact he has only succeeded in proving one 
 instance to this audience as yet, to show 
 that there has been lying and stealing 
 going on, as he has charged ; and that was 
 the instance where he proved that his 
 
 Campbellite Minister, whom he put upon 
 the stand ( Mr. Moss ) stole a revelation 
 from Martin Harris' Hat. ( Applause.) 
 
 When my time was called I was discuss- 
 ing the manner of honorable debate and 
 showing you how persons might lespect- 
 fully prove or disprove the claims of the 
 Book of Mormon, or any other work making 
 a claim to inspiration. Showing that these 
 things are brought to the attention of the 
 people : 
 
 First: In the form or character of signed 
 statements, or petitions which are properly 
 used to set forth the truth of a matter, and 
 when in harmony with established rules 
 may be said to establish a primes facie case. 
 This is not such a class of evidence howev- 
 er, as will enter with any degree of force in 
 determining the truth of a matter at issue. 
 
 Second. The evidence to be afterwards in- 
 troduced to prove the case set forth in these 
 statements, or duly prepared petitions. 
 The joined issue is ascertained by an exam- 
 ination of the points in these orderly state- 
 ments. The positions taken and the claims 
 made by the parties. But, in this discus- 
 sion, my opponent has tried to make the is- 
 sue upon the characters of the signers ; 
 which position I have certainly proved can- 
 not be tolerated under the divine rule, as it 
 makes no difference in the argument wheth- 
 er a man comes from the mean city of Naz- 
 areth, is called a "wine bibber, "glutton- 
 ous," "stirer up of sedition," or a "deceiv- 
 er," the rule is: "If I say the truth why 
 do you not believe?" Never mind if they 
 do say I am the carpenter's son, and Mary 
 is my mother, and Joses and Simon, and 
 Judas and James are my brothers ; nor 
 whether I eat with "publicans and sinners," 
 or wash before or after eating. "Which of 
 you convinceth me of sin," (by the word.) 
 "He that is of God heareth, (receiveth, 
 abideth in, judgeth by,) God's word." 
 
 But aside from this I told you from the 
 outset of this discussion that I offered the 
 statements signed by these witnesses for 
 the purpose of setting forth the object, 
 character, and claims of the work, under 
 the rule requiring me to present my case. I 
 showed in this way that I had upon all 
 points complied with the law in this regard 
 and then proceeded to bring the evidence as 
 provided in the law to prove my case. 
 
 There were three ways in which I could 
 do this, and prove it beyond a reasonable 
 doubt; I could follow one or all; but if I 
 proved it in either way, I would be entitled 
 to the verdict, which would be, that the 
 Book of Mormon is of divine origin, and its 
 teachings are entitled to the respect and 
 belief of all Christian people. 
 
 1. By the internal evidences of the book 
 itself. Examining them under the rule in 
 the constitutional and accepted standard, 
 the Bible: "Whosoever transgresseth 
 and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ 
 hath not God. He that abideth in the doc- 
 trine of Christ, he hath both the Father and 
 the 8011. If there come any unto you and 
 bring not this doctrine, receive him not in- 
 to your house, neither bid him God speed." 
 
210 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 From the first I read copiously from the 
 Book of Mormon to show that in doctrine 
 and teaching it was absolutely in harmony 
 with the New Testament, and that whoso- 
 ever in faith and doctrme was a believer in 
 the principals taught in the Bible, was al- 
 ready a believer m the doctrine and faith 
 set forth in this book. Further I affirmed 
 that the sentiments which I read were in 
 perfect harmony and keeping with all oth- 
 er sentiments contained in the Book and 
 held out as a rule of faith and practice ; 
 and called upon my opponent to produce a 
 single paragraph of bad instruction contain- 
 ed in the book if he could. What was his 
 answer to these proofs? "Impostor Joe," 
 and a "set of rascals." "Mormon ism, and the 
 Mormon Deity," "We have all the revela- 
 tion God ever intended the world should 
 have in the Bible." We think God spoke 
 to Peter and Paul, but as for t'his book we 
 don't want it. Just because ! That has 
 been his strongest argument all the way 
 through the entire ten evenings. Then 
 when this was stale he referred you to what 
 Aaron Wright said what he heard read 
 twenty years before he said it. And. ditto, 
 Henry Lake, John Miller, et al, in Howe's 
 book, beautifully closing the argument with 
 "and it came to pass." 
 
 2. The second way in which I could under 
 the law prove my case was by taking the 
 things written in the lav? prophetically, and 
 prove my claim by comparing it with the 
 prophetic utterances, and if the book in its 
 object and charcter was in agreement 
 with them, and no other reasonable inter- 
 pretation of these prophecies was adverse, 
 I would be entitled to a judgment of having 
 sustained the question upon that. 
 
 I cited these prophecies and showed their 
 fulfilment, and that thebo:k was well for- 
 tified with these from Gent sis to the Apoc- 
 alypse, a summary of which I will give you 
 this evening, and he answered me with "the 
 Koran will apply as well to the passages." 
 And then it was Sidney Rigdon, and again 
 the character of the witnesses to the Book 
 of Mormon, and the Spaulding story." 
 What had all of this to do with my argu- 
 ment upon the prophecies? I was not ask- 
 ing him to take what the witnesses said 
 abuut it. I only offered them as the signers 
 to a respectable paper showing that I had a 
 prima facie case. What has he to say about 
 the evidences I bring from the prophecies 
 in support of the work ? "If you believe in 
 Moses and the prophets ye would believe in 
 me, for they wrote of me." This is the po- 
 sition of the Savior upon the question of how 
 to test a case by the prophecies. My claim 
 here and the claim of the Saints for this 
 book is strictly in harmony with this in- 
 struction of Jesus and it should be so exam- 
 ined: Moses and the prophets, and Jesus 
 Christ, and some of the apostles spoke and 
 wrote of it. 
 
 3. The third line of proof was by the 
 prophetic evidence contained in the book 
 Itself and demonstrated to be such : 
 
 First. By showing that the statements 
 made in the record of the habitation, char- 
 
 acter, condition, nativity, enlijarhtenmant 
 and final termination of the ancient races 
 of man (and in many instances of classes 
 of animals), of the continent were such that 
 if true, the work must be of a divine ori- 
 gin, for when published a knowledge of 
 these things had not been attained by the 
 world. This could be attested by the intro- 
 duction of such evidences as have, since the 
 publication of the book, been brought to- 
 light through research and discovery. 
 
 Second. By the occurrence of certain re- 
 markable events in fulfillment of prophetic 
 statements made in the book, and which 
 have taken place within the knowledge of 
 the people since the publication. To sub- 
 stantiate this I presented the attested 
 greatness of the ancient civilizations of 
 America by their works, monuments and 
 ruined palaces and cities, discovered and 
 explored since the publication of the Boo.k 
 of Mormon. And secondly, gave the his- 
 tory and narration of certain things which 
 had occurred in fulfillment of predictions 
 in the book, showing that as predicted 
 therein on page 103, tne blood of the Saints 
 had gone up into the ears of the Lord of 
 Sabaoth in the diabolical butchery of their 
 men, women and children in Missouri and 
 Illinois ; that the devouring fire, and fierce 
 and vivid lightnings, earthquakes, and 
 smoke in foreign lands, so as to crimson the 
 rays of the suu itself, had taken place as 
 foretold by one of the prophets on page 496 ; 
 that the book from the first had been fought 
 as and called a Bible by its enemies as pre- 
 dicted in it on page 105 ; that the historical 
 early and latter rains had returned to re- 
 freshen and bless Palestine, and prepare 
 for Israel's return there soon after its pub- 
 lication, as foretold on pages 102 and 107; 
 that the peculiar work of the cyclone had 
 taken place to the astonishment of all peo- 
 ple, as declared in the book in the figure of 
 the "tempest," and many other predictions 
 and the fulfillment that I might name. 
 
 To all of this what has been his answer? 
 
 1. That Joseph Smith could have gained 
 this knowledge of the habitation, greatness 
 and civilizations from things already known, 
 to the world of the antiquities of America, 
 and as a proof, cited Priest's work that was 
 published before the Book of Mormon, he 
 said. I took his (Priest's) work, and showed 
 that what he had cited you as a prior pub- 
 lication of Mr. Priest was not a work upon 
 antiquities at all, but a book of tales entit- 
 led, "The Wonders of Nature and Provi- 
 dence." He made a great display of the 
 names of authors Priest quoted from, men- 
 tioning Boudinot, Edwards, Elliot, Cotton 
 Mather, et al. ; but failed to read to you a 
 single thing these men had said upon the 
 subject; and, indeed, they had said nothing 
 except as to enter their speculations upon 
 the subject of whether the American In- 
 dians? were the descendants of the "lost 
 tribes of Israel." I had preceded him, how- 
 ever, in this, showing there were such spec- 
 ulations ; but what had all this to do with 
 the great civilizations, works of art, loca- 
 tion of cities, skill and mechanism, towering 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 211 
 
 <liff dwellings and cities, and the grand, 
 enlightened and populous nations described 
 in the Book of Mormon and since verified by 
 discovery? I asked him. And so far as an- 
 swering is concerned he has sat dumb and 
 speechless throughout the ten evenings. 
 But he could talk about Solomon Spauld- 
 ing, Mrs. Duulap, Dr. Winters, Alexander 
 Campbell and Pomeroy Tucker, and try to 
 villify Sidney Rigdon and others. 
 
 But again, I pointed him to the prophe- 
 cies in the book and their fulfillment, and 
 he could only cry, "Impostor Joe," "Sally 
 Chase," "Money digger," and "such abom- 
 inable trash and stuff." 
 
 What had all of this to do as to whether 
 these prophecies had actually been fulfilled 
 or not? I refer to his kind of weapons and 
 methods of warfare to show you how he has 
 effectually escaped making an argument 
 touching the issue. The book is here, and 
 the question presented for proof under the 
 agreed standard between us ( the Bible) is, 
 Does it fulfill the requirements of the law? 
 He has only referred to this, however, by 
 asserting that not one of the prophecies 
 apply. But my judgment is that they do 
 apply, and I have given you my reasons for 
 applying them and claimed that they can 
 be properly applied to nothing else, and the 
 time is past for the fulfillment of many. He 
 has stood before you under the name of a 
 theologian and has not even dared to take a 
 position as to what they did refer to, lest he 
 be caught. He told you some person in 
 London applied some of them in one way, 
 and Mahomet applied some in another ; but 
 when I ask him to examine them and meet 
 the issue here, he goes back to hurling 
 epithets at the witnesses to the Book of 
 Mormon, who are called for au entirely 
 different purpose. 
 
 I took up the other line open to me and 
 showed that the statements made in the 
 work upon the ancient state and civilization 
 of the continent as developed by writings 
 within the past fifty years were corrobora- 
 tive, and convincing of the truth of the 
 work; and he at once takes the ground 
 that all this development in the ancient 
 civilization is but a reproduction of what 
 was known before the publication of the 
 book. 
 
 The finding of the fossil remains of the 
 animals which had ceased to exist when 
 America was discovered by Columbus, and 
 which were not known to have existed upon 
 the continent till after the publication of the 
 Book of Mormon, and I am referred to 
 Cortez' invasion of Mexico, where he found 
 the people in such a state of barbarism that 
 they were sacrificing human lives to gods 
 made with their hands for a solution. To 
 the march of Pizarro in Peru, who met with 
 the Incas in their rudeness ; but was this 
 an indication that two highly cultivated and 
 civilized peoples had lived and died in these 
 very countries? No, sir; nor has such a 
 deduction ever been made from the then 
 condition of the peoples. The facts of these 
 great civilizations arise from the researches 
 among their ruins. Before, it was only a 
 
 speculation as to whether the Aztecs and 
 Toltecs and Incas, or either of them, had 
 ever been a civilized and enlightened people. 
 It was on ly ascertai ned by explorers through 
 the distinct character of the sculpture and 
 paintings, roadways, and ruined palaces 
 and temples, and buried cities, that these 
 three distinct; civilized peoples had existed 
 here, the discoveries of which were sub- 
 sequent to the published record in the 
 Book of Mormon. Then he goes back again 
 to his tub of vilification and slander, and 
 attacks the witnesses offered to make the 
 prima facie case. But what of the main 
 evidence? Not in the ieast referred to by 
 him. Suppose our case was before a court 
 in the shape of written pleadings and 
 signed. There we would respectively pre- 
 sent our cases as we have presented them 
 here. As the one affirming, I begin and 
 introduce my evidence to prove my case, as. 
 set out in my pleading, and rest. My 
 opponent, when his time conies, instead of 
 introducing evidence on his side, contents 
 himself by vilifying the signers to my peti- 
 tion which I have never introduced to prove 
 the main issue. I would go on and prove 
 my case, and my opponent would content 
 himself with an attack upon these same 
 witnesses. The result would be that at the 
 close of the trial he would find himself 
 sitting with his chair from under him. 
 
 Now look at the kind of proof for the 
 Spaulding story from this standpoint of the 
 evidence. He first introduces his witnesses 
 to make his prima facie case, viz : to show 
 that Spaulding wrote a manuscript. That 
 is all right ; they can do that by their mere 
 statements or affidavits. But when he 
 comes to his main case he has only these 
 same statements only this and nothing 
 more; and he introduces these same state- 
 ments to show what was in the manuscript 
 they say was written, and they burn the 
 manuscript itself. Can you swallow their 
 story, then? All of his statements and 
 affidavits have first gone through the hands 
 of Howe, who I have shown you so fully 
 (that even Braden has not denied it), filched 
 and garbled from our books to try to make 
 his points. Were the statements clean 
 then, after having passed through this 
 sickening sewer? Who will say that they 
 were? Then we were told that the Whit- 
 mers and Harris and Smith expected to 
 make money out of this thing. The lie is 
 given to it from the very first by the public 
 writings. They were distinctly told as 
 early as 1823 that they should not make 
 money out of it, and that was published 
 and of record from the first. Why should 
 these plain, published facts be contradicted 
 by his witnesses of easy reputations? And 
 why should he continually harp on charac- 
 ter? Is his faith so based upon frail hu- 
 manity that he judges mine to be? He has 
 examined into the private lives of these 
 men as though he expected we were to be 
 saved through or by their acts. What has 
 their acts to do with our faith? Does he 
 violate respect of Jesus' unblemished life 
 by pretending to compare the wayward lif 
 
212 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 of mankind with it? Of any person? Does 
 not Jesus stand out alone the model and 
 pattern in life to the children ? Do we take 
 any of the apostles' or prophets' private 
 lives as an example to model after, except 
 so far as they followed Christ? Oh no, the 
 8aints do not; but my opponent's ire has 
 been aroused; it is " war to the knife, and 
 the knife to the hilt " with him ; and he will 
 open his mind and heart to nothing good 
 unless it perchance comes through the small 
 glasses through which his vision is alone 
 lighted. Man can never reach truth in 
 any sense by such a course, and I advise 
 him to change, and now. ; . 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I 
 shall now briefly summarize the arguments 
 adduced in the investigation of the propo- 
 sition, as I have contrasted the proofs of 
 both the affirmative and the negative, and 
 the methods pursued by each in the exami- 
 nation of evidence. I showed to you : 
 
 First, That the standard by which men 
 and revelations are to be tried, and their 
 teachings and claims to divinity deter- 
 mined, is the doctrine and words of Jesus 
 and his servants, viz: "to the law and the 
 testimony." 
 
 This is the advice of the prophet Isaiah 
 to the people when testing the teachings of 
 the professors of his time. Not by their 
 pretended supernatural works, their char- 
 acters, or the lies told about them. Isaiah 
 8:20. Jesus submits this same rule to the 
 hypocritical Jews as the one holy and just, 
 as the rule by which he would submit and 
 be tried as to his claims when they would 
 fain attack his character ; submitting that 
 "He that is of God heareth God's words. 
 Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are 
 not of God." John 8:47. "Whosoever 
 transgresseth and abideth not in the doc- 
 trine of Christ hath not God. He that 
 abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath 
 both the Father and the Son." 2 John, 9th 
 verse. 
 
 Second. By this DIVINR rule, I showed 
 that the writings of the Book of Mormon 
 must be tried, and its claims to a divine ori- 
 
 2 in must be determined. By this rule the 
 ook stands approved, its teachings being 
 In strict harmony with those of Christ, the 
 prophets, and apostles, as attest the con- 
 tents of the volume entire and as proof of 
 which, I cited certain passages found on 
 pages 99, par. 16, 224, par. 4, 242, par. 4, and 
 249, par. 8, and which were cited as but re- 
 flecting the sentiment of the book through- 
 out. By the Bible, therefore the claims of 
 the Book of Mormon to a divine originupon 
 a doctrinal basis are found to be true. 
 
 Third. The avowed object of the book in 
 its being brought to light to convince the 
 Jews and the Gentiles that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Savior ;as witness the preface of 
 the work, and pages 441, and 290, read the 
 first evening, is a good one and in harmony 
 with the Bible. By the voice of two or 
 three witnesses shall every world be estab- 
 lished. 
 fourth. I also presented as bearing upon 
 
 the investigation of this question, the great 
 and divine truth, enunciated by the apostle 
 Paul and Peter, that God created the na- 
 tions of the earth, and determined the 
 bounds of their habitation, for the express 
 purpose of being sought after, felt after and 
 being found of them. And the only way 
 any nation has been able as yet to really 
 find him, is by seeking him throng h the reve- 
 lation he has given to them. They could 
 only work righteousness to acceptance with 
 him by conforming to the law of righteous- 
 ness, (the gospel,) as it is therein that his 
 righteousness is revealed. See Acts 17 : 26 
 27 ; 10 : 34, 35. Evidence does appear both 
 in the Book of Mormon and in the accounts 
 of modern scientific investigation, and ar- 
 chaeological discoveries on the American 
 continent, showing that the ancient inhabi- 
 tants of this continent knew of and worship- 
 ed God, and therefore the claims of the 
 Book of Mormon to containing a record of 
 the gospel as revealed to the ancient inhab- 
 itants of this continent is both scriptural 
 and reasonable. This great fact is of impor- 
 tance in this controversy, illustrating the 
 thought, that He who Scattered the people 
 from the Tower of Babel, abroad "upon the 
 facejof all the earth," (ana hence some were 
 brought to the Western continent,) &s Is af- 
 firmed by the Bible and twice staled in 
 Genesis, chapter 11, versus 8 and 9, left 
 them not without providing for tboi) moral 
 and spiritual welfare. This the Book of 
 Mormon teaches regarding the Joredites 
 who journeyed to this land from the tower, 
 and were blessed here with a irevelatJoD of 
 God's will to them and here again the 
 Book of Mormon and the Bi ble agree in 
 thought. 
 
 Fifth. The Book of Mormon teaches that 
 the branches of the tribe of Joseph of Egypt 
 emigrated to this continent about 600 yoars 
 before Christ, and here became a grsat peo- 
 ple, and were blessed with manifestations 
 of God's will. To this agree the prophetic 
 blessings of Jacob upon the sons of Joseph, 
 Manasseh and Ephrahn, when blessing 
 them concerning things to come. He pre- 
 dicted they should become "a multitude in 
 the midst of the earth," geographically lo- 
 cating them on this continent when taking 
 our stand in Egypt, and extending our 
 measure to " the midst of the earth." Not 
 only this, but the descendants of Joseph 
 alone were to become a multitude of na- 
 tions, whereas the entire twelve tribes be- 
 came but two nations, so far as the Bible 
 informs us, on the Eastern continent. Gen. 
 48:14-19. On this continent the multitude 
 of nations is fully represented in the abo- 
 rigines, and in the different nationalities 
 congregated here since the time of the dis- 
 covery. And the Bible bears out the Book 
 of Mormon in its claims again. 
 
 Sixth. In Genesis, chapter 49 : 21-26, Jacob 
 blesses Joseph with a land situated beyond 
 the sea, or "over the wall," and to which 
 Joseph's descendants were to emigrate; 
 and not only this, but this landed blessing 
 prophetically given to Joseph was to far 
 exceed i,i geographical boundaries and ex- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELI EY DEBATE. 
 
 213 
 
 tent the land of Canaan, the land of Jacob's 
 progenitors ; for he said, " The blessings of 
 thy father have prevailed above the bless- 
 ings of my progenitors, unto the utmost 
 bound of the everlasting hills. They shall 
 be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown 
 of the head of him that was separated from 
 his brethren." 
 
 Moses also, when blessing the tribes of 
 Israel for the last time, marks Joseph dis- 
 tinctly with a landed estate that in none of 
 its leading characteristics refers to their 
 little portion of Palestine : A land blessed 
 with the deep that coucheth beneath ; great 
 inland seas or lakes of fresh water ; the 
 precious things of its everlasting mountains 
 and its noted hills, the ores and minerals of 
 which Canaan is devoid ; the great variety 
 of fruits, indicative of varieties of tempera- 
 ture, which was not true of Joseph's little 
 portion in Palestine. But the laud of Amer- 
 ica fills this prophetic description of Moses 
 to the very letter, thus confirming the Book 
 of Mormon in its claims that Joseph's de- 
 scendants came and inherited this land 
 anciently. 
 
 In the history of the Book of Mormon I 
 showed to you that two companies of Israel- 
 ites came to the continent, one landing upon 
 the western coast of South America and 
 the other in Yucatan, and that afterwards 
 these peoples were united. From the dis- 
 coveries and explorations since made, I 
 showed you that this was corroborated in 
 the fact that the cities builded in Yucatan 
 were quite different from those builded by 
 the Jaredites in other parts of Central 
 America. That such a people did exist is 
 proven also by Mr. Short, pages 436 and 438, 
 where he says they still preserve in history 
 the word "Muloc," and as used by them it 
 means "union." The Mulockites of this 
 part of Central America were the very peo- 
 ple the Book of Mormon says united with 
 the people of Nephi ; and to maintain that 
 the evidence from the explorer and linguist 
 is corroborative of the narrative in the book, 
 is entirely reasonable and legitimate. 
 
 Seventh. 1 showed you that the fact that 
 Ephraim should be hidden, mixed and un- 
 identified with the people, until one should 
 
 stand up with the Urim and Thummim t<? 
 declare him was entirely scriptural : and 
 the fact that the one who translated the 
 record of the Book of Mormon had this in- 
 strument by which the positive light was 
 turned upon the prophetically first born of 
 Joseph in pushing the work of gospel 
 progress, in the last days, was a convincing 
 evidence of the Book of Mormon and its 
 agreement with the Bible. 
 
 Eighth. That the people to whom Jesus 
 referred in John 10:16 were emphatically of 
 Israel, and that they did hear his voice 
 and were those whose record we have in the 
 Book of Mormon. 
 
 Ninth. That the "ensign to be lifted up" 
 in Isaiah 18; the message represented by 
 the writing upon the stick of Joseph in the 
 37th chapter of Ezekiel; "the book," which 
 was to contain the doctrine of Christ set 
 forth in the 29th of Isaiah, and the "gos- 
 pel," which John witnessed committed by 
 the angel in Revelations 14:6, all pointed to 
 the culmination of a certain thing, and the 
 inauguration of the same work, at a time 
 in the world's history, "just afore the har- 
 vest," when "Lebanon "was to be turned 
 into a fruitful field," "in the hour of his 
 [God's] judgment, in the time when the 
 "Son of man shall come;" and that these 
 prophetic descriptions are fully and com- 
 pletely answered in the coming forth, ob- 
 ject, character and work of the Book of 
 Mormon, and that it is therefore a light in- 
 deed to the people and the precursor of the 
 glory of Israel. 
 
 Tenth. That the work was not to com- 
 mend itself through its excellency of speech 
 or words of man's wisdom, but absolutely 
 as declared by the prophet, be blessed to 
 those who should seek after the wisdom 
 and power of God ; "for the wisdom of their 
 wise men shall perish and the understand- 
 ing of their prudent men shall be hid." 
 Isaiah 29:14 all of which is fully answered 
 in the message brought by the Book of Mor- 
 mon. 
 
 (Time called). 
 
 I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for 
 your patient hearing. (Applause). 
 
214 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S CLOSING SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : The proof that Impostor Joe 
 was the author of Mormon polygamy seems 
 to have completely unbalanced my oppo- 
 nent. He howled and ranted and talked 
 against time till his chagrin, anger and 
 evident consciousness of defeat were piti- 
 able. The argument is this. The Re-orga- 
 nized denounce polygamy as from the devil. 
 God would not give such a revelation. If 
 Joe did give to the world such a pretended 
 revelation, it was from the Devil and not 
 the A Imighty , according to the Re-organized 
 themselves, and he was a prophet of the 
 Devil and not of the Almighty. We take 
 them on their own grounds. We presented 
 the testimony of William Marks, intimate 
 with Joe and high in authority under Joe, 
 and one of the re-organizers of the Re-organ- 
 ized, one of their founders and teachers, one 
 of the editors Of their official organ, that 
 when the power and influence of Joe Smith 
 was omnipotent among the Mormons as 
 their prophet, polygamy prevailed to so 
 fearful an extent that Marks had a revela- 
 tion that the only way to purify the church 
 was to utterly dis-organize it. Also that 
 even Joe himself, the author of the abomi- 
 nation, was alarmed, and said thatpolygamy 
 would be the ruin of Mormonism. This was 
 while Smith was living and his influence 
 was omnipotent. Will Kelley deny the 
 statements of Marks, one of the founders of 
 his re-organized concern? 
 
 We read the declaration of Zenos H. 
 Gurley, in the first number of the official 
 organ of the "Re-organized." written by 
 Gurley, one of the editors, and one who was 
 intimate with Smith in Nauvoo and who 
 was one of the re-organizers of the Re-organ- 
 ized, one of the founders of Kelley's organi- 
 zation, who declares, positively, that the 
 Mormons wanted to go into polygamy, and 
 that Joe gave them the revelation, and that 
 he repented of the iniquity of giving this 
 revelation and was punished for it by a 
 violent death. Will my opponent deny this 
 statement? We presented the positive 
 statement of Isaac Sheen, one who was 
 intimate with Smith and knew all that 
 transpired behind the scenes in Nauvoo, one 
 of the re-organizers of the Re- organized, one 
 of the editors of their official organ, one of 
 the founders of the organization, that Smith 
 was the author of that abominable, so-called 
 revelation, that he declared himself that he 
 was the author of it, and that, if it had not 
 been for the practice and teaching of poly- 
 gamy in which he had indulged, ne would 
 not have been involved in the troubles that 
 cost him his life. Will my opponent deny 
 this positive testimony of three of the re- 
 organizers of the Re-organized, the three 
 
 editors of the official organ of his organiza- 
 tion, three of the founders of his so-called 
 church ? Does he dare attempt it? 
 
 His appeals to the Book of Mormon and 
 Book of Doctrines and Covenants amount to 
 nothing. The Book of Mormon is full of the 
 anti-Rfasonic rant of the times of its origin. 
 Yet Rigdon and Smith afterwards became 
 Masons. Joe never had a pretended revela- 
 tion that he could not contradict by another 
 pretended revelation. We have proved 
 that from infancy he was a notorious liar. 
 We have proved that he and his confederates 
 repeatedly lied in denying the most palpable 
 facts. Mormons lied for years in denying 
 that spiritual wifery and polygamy were 
 practised and taught among them, when 
 the testimony of hundreds of persons who 
 saw and heard it, proved that they were 
 lying. 
 
 The facts we have proved, that Smith 
 advocated polygamy before ne left New 
 York, that he tried to practice it in Penn- 
 sylvania, and said adultery was no sin. the 
 declarations of Mormons who were behind 
 the scenes in Kirtland, that he practiced it 
 secretly in Kirtland, that he practiced it in 
 Missouri, that he declared in Kirtland that 
 it would be the practice of Mormons, his 
 declarations to his confederates in Missouri 
 that he had such a revelation, his practice 
 of it in Nauvoo, teaching it extensively in 
 private, his taking plural wives, as the 
 affidavits of such wives and witnesses* 
 prove, his performing the ceremony for 
 others ; the testimony of men to whom he 
 dictated the revelation, of the one who took 
 a copy from this original, of apostles who 
 passed on the revelation in high council, 
 and of the editors, re-organizers, founders of 
 the Re-organized, in the first number of their 
 official organ, render Kelley's attempted 
 denial brazen in effrontery, and idiotic in 
 its worthlessness. 
 
 In his attempt to reconcile the gross con- 
 tradictions in the Book of Mormon, that we 
 exposed, he falsifies its statements. The 
 plates of Ether which Limbi found, were 
 not the plates of Jared's brother, which 
 were not to go forth until after the Gen- 
 tiles were converted. He did not explain 
 how any Jaredite plates could be in the 
 keeping of King Benjamin, when Mosiah, 
 Benjamin's son and successor, did not ob- 
 tain the plates until after Benjamin's death, 
 and the Nephites did not know of the exist- 
 ence of the plates, or the people who had 
 them, until after Benjamin's death. The 
 Book of Mormon does say, in so many words 
 that Coriantumr died among the subjects 
 of King Zarahemla, who reigned 250 years 
 before Christ, or 350 years after the Neph- 
 ites reached America, and 340 years after 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 215 
 
 the Zarahemlites reached America; or at 
 least 350 years after all the Jaredites, except 
 Coriantumr were slain. Moroni did say he 
 could write no more for his plates were full, 
 and he could make no more plates. In 
 representing that he afterwards wrote the 
 Jaredite portion, the Book of Mormon does 
 make him write on uothing, 57 pages of the 
 Book of Mormon. Unfortunately for my 
 opponent's gabble ahout the sticks of Eph- 
 raim and Judah, the same Hebrew word 
 means "rod," "staff," "stick," "scepter." 
 In not one instance are rolls or books called 
 sticks. Ezekiel wrote on a literal stick, as 
 Aaron wrote on a literal stick. We have 
 several times proved from the context that 
 his long string of prophecies can refer only 
 to Israelites on the old continent, and not 
 to Israelites in America, for there never 
 were any such, and the speakers knew 
 nothing of America. We have several 
 times exploded his archaeological stuff. 
 
 If any one will compare the characters 
 on real glyphs with Joe Smith's lying pre- 
 tended fac simile of what was on his pre- 
 tended plates, he can see the difference be- 
 tween real glyphs and a clumsy fraud got- 
 ten up by an ignoramus. 
 
 The contradictions in Mormon statements 
 that I have exposed, I quoted from Mormon 
 books themselves. I showed that Mormon 
 statements are contradictory. By quoting 
 from Mormon books we proved that Smith, 
 Harris, Whitmer, Cowdry and others 
 flatly contradicted themselves. In the same 
 statement of Whitmer that Kelley read a 
 portion of, are silly yarns about angels 
 plowing seven acres of land, sowing eleven 
 acres of plaster, old Maroni trudging along 
 side of Whitmer's wagon, lugging the 
 plates, and sweating like an old tramp. 
 The silly lies of Whitmer, Harris, Smith 
 and Moroni destroy their testimony. Kelley 
 says Whitmer is a most estimable man. I 
 read from his own copy of the Mormon offi- 
 cial organ, the "Times and Seasons, 11 the 
 statement of Smith that he was an ass 
 braying out cursings, and was cut off from 
 the church for lying, slander and plotting 
 robbery and murder. We read an official 
 document issued by Rigdon and 83 Mormon 
 officials, their highest officials,. that he was 
 guilty of lying, stealing, counterfeiting, 
 and was a blackleg of the blackest dye. 
 
 The Book of Mormon declares that the 
 plates were engraved by divine command, 
 by the gift of God, translated by the gift of 
 God, and the witnesses declare that God 
 told them the translation was correct, yet 
 the Mormon Deity had to correct 5000 blun- 
 ders ! 1 
 
 CONCLUDING SUMMARY. 
 
 The issues in this debate have been : I. 
 Did mankind need new revelations in addi- 
 tion to those in the Scriptures, when Joseph 
 Smith pretended, in the Book of Mormon 
 and other pretended revelations, to give to 
 the world new revelations, in addition to 
 those in the Bible ? II. Was Joseph Smith 
 a true prophet of God? III. Did Joseph 
 Smith, in the Book of Mormon and other 
 professed revelations, give to the world new 
 
 revelations, in addition to those in the Bible? 
 We have been agreed : 1. That man needs 
 a revelation of religion and morals. 2. That 
 it should be given by inspiration of chosen 
 men. 3. That inspiration and revelation 
 should be attended and attested by signs, 
 wonders and superhuman powers. 4. That 
 the Bible is a revelation given by inspira- 
 tion, attended by signs, superhuman pow- 
 ers. 5. That these superhuman powers did 
 benevolent work for man while attesting 
 inspiration and revelation. 6. That they 
 combatted evil superhuman powers, and 
 enabled man to overcome them. 7. That 
 they aided and directed man in matters in- 
 cidentally connected with the development 
 of the revelation of truth recorded in the 
 Bible. 8. That they developed and culti- 
 vated his spiritual nature. We haveagreed 
 in this concerning the Bible and superhu- 
 man power connected with it. 
 
 The issues have been: 1. Has man receiv- 
 ed inspiration superhuman power, and new- 
 revelations since the apostles of Christ com- 
 pleted their work ? Or more particularly, 
 did he need inspiration, superhuman pow- 
 er, new revelations, when Joseph Smith 
 pretended to be inspired, possessed of su- 
 perhuman power, and to give new revela- 
 tions in addition to those in the Bible? 3. 
 Does the Bible teach that inspiration, su- 
 perhuman power and new revelations are 
 possible? That they were and are to con- 
 tinue, as an essential constituent element in 
 the church? 4. Or does it teach that they 
 are to cease? That they perfected their 
 work when the New Testament was perfec- 
 ted? That the law of God was and is, that 
 they should cease, when the New Testa- 
 ment was completed, having accomplished 
 their work? Our position has been that, 
 just as*, in the analogous cases, of e:;ercise 
 of miraculous power in creation, r-s in the 
 growth of each individual existen -e in the 
 animal and vegetable world, or in the work 
 of framing a constitution, and organizing a 
 government under it, so in the exercise of 
 miraculous power, and the influence of in- 
 spiration, in the giving of revelation there 
 was an end, a purpose to be accomplished, 
 and that that purpose determined the 
 time of its continuance, and that it ceased, 
 when it had accomplished its puYpose, and 
 was succeeded by a higher and more per- 
 fect condition, for which it had prepared 
 the way. 
 
 We explained that there have been two 
 influences of the Holy Spirit. 1. The direct 
 and miraculous, seen in inspiration, revela- 
 tion, and miracle. 2. The ordinary through 
 the truth. The first is not a moral influ- 
 ence, produces no moral change. Left the 
 person influenced just as it found him. 
 That the only moral influence the Holy 
 Spirit has exerted on men has been through 
 truth. Conversion and sanctiflcation can 
 . be accomplished only through the truth 
 The Bible speaks of these manifestations of 
 the Holy Spirit: 1. The inspiration enjoyed 
 by the inspired men of the Old Testament, 
 and until the ascension of Christ. 2. Bap- 
 tism in the Holy Spirit. 3. Spiritual gifts 
 
216 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Imparted by the hands of an apostle. We 
 proved that promises of Joel, John the Bap- 
 tist, and Jesus, in regard to the Holy Spir- 
 it, all had reference to the miraculous influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit. That the promise 
 of the Comforter was to the apostles alone, 
 and was miraculous. That Jesus limited 
 the promise of Joel "to all flesh," to believ- 
 ers ; and that his language in Mark 16, logi- 
 vially does not extend beyond the apostles ; 
 each apostles as would preach, believing his 
 promise to be with them ; for it concludes 
 "they" the apostles "went" everywhere 
 preaching, and the Lord was with them" 
 the apostles "attesting their work," the 
 work of the apostles, with the signs he had 
 promised to the apostles. 
 
 We proved that Peter limited the promise 
 of Joel to such believers as "the Lord should 
 call," to the exercise of the spiritual powers, 
 that Joel promised. We proved that the 
 Lord called by the imposition of an apostle's 
 hands, that none but an apostle could im- 
 part these gifts. That they never descended 
 to a third person. We proved that there 
 never were out two instances of baptism in 
 the Holy Spirit, and that, as there is one 
 baptism, only water baptism is in the 
 church. Baptism in the Spirit has ceased. 
 We proved by an appeal to Eph. 4, that 
 spiritual gifts were to remain until the 
 church was completed, or became a perfect 
 man, and the faith was completed in the 
 New Testament. By an appeal to 1. Cor. 
 12-13, that there is a more excellent way 
 than the exercise of the best spiritual gifts. 
 That prophecy, all speaking by inspiration, 
 knowledge, all revelations, tongues, all 
 mere signs, were to cease; when the church 
 was completed in organization, and theNew 
 Testament, the perfect law of liberty, that 
 which makes perfect, was completed. We 
 proved by our appeal to Daniel's prophecy 
 that all vision and prophecy were to cease 
 about 105 years after Christ. That as mirac- 
 ulous work in creation ceased, and gave 
 way to the higher, the operation of natural 
 law, so miraculous work in revelation ceased, 
 and gave way to the higher, the moral 
 power of truth. We next stated the forty 
 cardinal ideas of religion and showed that 
 Christianity contains all of them, expresses 
 each perfectly as a universally applicable 
 truth, and that it is an absolute religion of 
 universal and eternal truths, perfectly ex- 
 pressed, and can not be outgrown. 
 
 We demanded of our opponent, what 
 single truth had been given to the world by 
 Mormon pretended revelations, not in 
 Christianity. What idea that was not 
 better expressed in Christianity, than in 
 Mormouism? He has utterly failed to meet 
 this question. We proved that all Bibie 
 writers and speakers speak of the work of 
 Jesus and the apostles, as perfect, the last, 
 the final. They never speak of any thing 
 that is to succeed it. They declare that 
 Christ came in the fullness of the times. 
 That In Christ dwells the fullness of the 
 Godhead, in him was all fullness. They say 
 that all fullness is in his church. That 
 the Gospel is the fullness, the completeness 
 
 of God's word. That the church is perfect 
 in organization and faith or doctrine. That 
 God gave to the apostles all things pertain- 
 ing to life and godliness. This utterly 
 forbids all ideaof Mormon revelation. They 
 are needless, for the perfect, that which is 
 complete, the fullness, all things have been 
 given in Christianity. 
 
 We then presented the history of the Book 
 of Mormon and proved that it had a base 
 human origin, and was fabricated as a 
 fraud to deceive. We proved by the con- 
 current testimony of seventeen witnesses, 
 one of them Rigdon himself, that Solomon 
 Spaulding wrote a romance called the 
 " Manuscript Found ;" that he wrote three 
 drafts, or manuscripts, of this romance and 
 part of another before his death. We have 
 proved that the "Manuscript Found" had 
 in it these features found in the Book of 
 Mormon, and found in no other books but 
 the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript 
 Found. 1. The plot of the Manuscript 
 Found, as witnesses describe it, was just 
 what Mormons give when describing the 
 Book of Mormon. 2. It purported to be a 
 veritable history of the aborigines of Amer- 
 ica. So does the Book of Mormon. 3. It 
 attempted to account for the antiquities of 
 America by giving an account of their con- 
 struction. So does the Book of Mormon,, 
 4. It assumed that Israelites were the abo- 
 rigines of America and ancestor s of the In- 
 dians. So does the Book of Mormon. 5. 
 It said the Israelites left Jerusalem. So 
 does the Book of Mormon. 6. They left to 
 escape divine judgments about to fall on 
 these people. So does the Book of Mormon. 
 7. That they journeyed through and from 
 Southern Asia, by land and sea. So does the 
 Book of Mormon. 8. Their leaders were 
 Nephi and Lehi. So does the Book of Mor- 
 mon. 9. One Laban was murdered to ob- 
 tain records. So declares the Book of Mor- 
 mon. 10. They quarreled and divided into 
 two nations, called Nephites and Lamanites. 
 So says the Book of Mormon. 11. There 
 were terrible wars between the two nations, 
 and the parties into which they divided, 
 with awful slaughter. So declares the Book 
 of Mormon. 12. They buried their dead 
 after these slaughters in great heaps, that 
 caused the mounds. So declares the Book 
 of Mormon. 13. In two instances the end 
 of these wars was the total annihilation of 
 all but one, who escaped to make a record 
 of the final catastrophe. So declares the 
 Book of Mormon. 14. These sole survivors 
 finished the record of the people and buried 
 it. So declares the Book of Mormon. 15. 
 The Manuscript Found gave an historical ac- 
 count of the civilization, laws, customs, arts 
 and sciences of those peoples. So does 
 the Book of Mormon. 16. One party of 
 these people were the ancestors of our 
 American Indians. So declares the Book 
 of Mormon. 17. The names Nephi, Lehi, 
 Laban, Laman, Nephite, Lamanite, Mor- 
 mon, Moroni, Amlicite, Zarahemla, etc., 
 were in the Manuscript Found. So they are 
 in the Book of Mormon. 18. The use and 
 characteristics of these names in the Manu- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 217 
 
 script Found were precisely the same as in 
 the Book of Mormon. 19. The Manuscript 
 Found was written in scriptural style that 
 is, the style of King James' version. So is 
 the Book of Mormon. 20. " Now it came to 
 pass " occurred so frequently as to render 
 the language ridiculous. Such is true of 
 the Book of Mormon. 21. This ridiculous 
 peculiarity got for the author of the Manu- 
 script Found the nickname of "Old Came 
 to Pass." The Book of Mormon is just *uch 
 a book. 22. The original from which the 
 story was translated^ was taken from the 
 earth. The same is claimed by the Book of 
 Mormon. 23. One party of emigrants 
 landed near the Isthmus of Panama, and 
 migrated across the continent in a north- 
 eastern direction. So declares the Book of 
 Mormon. 24. The land near the Isthmus 
 was called the land of Zarahemla. So de- 
 clares the Book of Mormon. 25. In a battle 
 between Amlicites and Lamanites, one 
 party marked their foreheads with a red 
 cross to distinguish them from their ene- 
 mies. So declares the Book of Mormon. 
 26. The destruction of the nations extermi- 
 nated took place near a hill called Cumorah. 
 So declares the Book of Mormon. 27. The 
 Manuscript Found could have been used as 
 a fraud, an imitation of the Bible, a pre- 
 tended revelation. The Buok of Mormon is 
 just such a fraud. Now, then, the reader 
 must do one of the two things, believe that 
 Solomon Spaulding, during a period of 
 from twenty-two to fourteen years before 
 the Book of Mormon appeared, by a miracle 
 wrote a romance that contained these 
 twenty-seven great features of the Book of 
 Mormon features that no oth.er book except 
 the Manuscript Found and Book of Mormon 
 ever contained in common or that Rigdon 
 stole the manuscript of the Manuscript 
 Found and remodeled it into the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 We proved that the third manuscript of 
 Manuscript Found was taken to Patterson's 
 printing office. That Rigdon was learning 
 the tanner's trade in Pittsburg at that time. 
 That he was very intimate with Lambdin, 
 one of Patterson's printers. That the 
 Spaulding Manuscript Found attracted 
 much curiosity in the printing office. That 
 Rigdon as 'i. uch interested in it. That he 
 hung around the office, till Engles, the fore- 
 man complained of it. That the manuscript 
 was stolen. That Rigdon was charged with 
 stealing it. That He afterwards showed it 
 to Dr. Winters, saying that it was a Bible 
 romance, written by a Presbyterian preacher 
 named Spaulding, giving a history of the 
 Indians, and that it had been taken to a 
 printing office for publication, and that he 
 borrowed it as a curiosity. We proved that 
 he spent so much time over it that his wife 
 threatened to burn it. That he retorted: 
 "Indeed you will not ; this will be a great 
 thing some day." We proved by Jeffries 
 that Rigdon told him that he took the 
 manuscript from the printing office and 
 gave it to Smith to publish. We proved by 
 Tucker, Mrs. Eaton, McAuly, Chase and 
 Saunders that Rigdon was seen at Smith's 
 
 in New York, from the spring of 1827 to the 
 fall of 1830. We proved that he was absent 
 from Mentor for weeks at a time, during 
 these years, and no one knew where. We 
 proved by Bentley, Campbell and Atwater, 
 that he announced years before it appeared 
 fuch a book as the Book of Mormon, trans- 
 lated from Gold plates, dug up in New 
 York, giving the origin of American Anti- 
 quities, a history of the aborigines of Amer- 
 ica, and telling that the gospel had been 
 preached in America just as the Disciples 
 were then preaching it on the Reserve. We 
 proved by Atwater, Dille, Z. Rudolph, John 
 Rudolph, Green, and by Kelley himself, 
 that Rigdon preached and advocated the 
 doctrines in which the Book of Mormon dif- 
 fers from the Disciples, the peculiar ideas of 
 the Book. That he so indoctrinated all his 
 hearers, where he could, that every Rigdon- 
 ite became a Mormon, when he became one. 
 He had prepared then for theslightchange. 
 chiefly a change of name. We showed that 
 when a Mormon preacher read to a Conne- 
 aut audience, for the first time they had 
 ever heard it, the Book of Mormon, Spaulct- 
 ing's old acquaintances, who had heard 
 him read his Manuscript Found, denounced 
 the fraud, Squire Wright shouting : "Old- 
 come-to-pass has come to life." His broth- 
 er, John Spaulding, denounced it on the 
 spot. 
 
 We have shown that the witness after 
 reading the Book of Mormon, declare that 
 the historic portions, in all of the twenty- 
 seven great features we have enumerated, 
 is identical with the Manuscript Found 
 of Solomon Spaulding. They reject the re- 
 ligious portion. That accords with the idea 
 that Rigdon stole the Manuscript Found, 
 and remodeled it to the use of a pretended 
 revelation, interpolating the religious por- 
 tion. The testimony showing that Spauld- 
 ing wrote several Manuscripts explains 
 away the trouble over Rigdon's copying it. 
 
 He stole it. It explains the size of the 
 Manuscript Martha Spaulding read. She 
 read her father's first brief draft, or the 
 portion he wrote in Amity after Rigdon 
 stole what he had sent to Patterson's office 
 to be published. It explains away all 
 trouble over the discrepancy, the difference 
 between Spaulding's sentiments and the 
 teaching of the Book of Mormon. 
 
 We then gave a chronology of Mormon- 
 ism showing that our history of the book 
 accorded exactly with every demand of his- 
 tory. We then proved by the Rigdonisms 
 in the Book of Mormon that Rigdon is its 
 author. We found that no one but a Dis- 
 ciple preacher of the time when it appeared, 
 could have been its author, used its lan- 
 guage, and uttered its teachings. We 
 showed that where Rigdon agreed with 
 the Disciples, the Book agreed with them 
 Where he disagreed it disagreed and very 
 bitterly too. That it advocates Rigdon'a 
 ideas on community of goods, restoration of 
 spiritual gifts, new revelations, his fall- 
 down power to which he was subject. His 
 anti-Masonry. His name for believers and 
 for the church. His sermon against infant 
 
218 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 baptism. That it contains his baptismal 
 formula, his revival expressions, his rant 
 bombast, fustian, and spread-eagle. That 
 it has every mark of being arranged by one 
 mind, not many, as Mormons claim. The 
 style is a unit not diverse as is the case in 
 the Bible. That one mind is Rigdon. 
 
 We took up the testimony of Smith, the 
 three witnesses, the eight. We proved that 
 Smith was notorious for his frauds and lies. 
 We exposed his almost countless lies and 
 contradictor}' stories about the matter. We 
 proved that he never made a statement 
 that he did not, at some time, contradict. 
 We proved by the declarations of those who 
 had been his neighbors, associates, and by 
 Mormons themselves that he was notorious 
 for his falsehoods and frauds. We took up 
 the three witnesses. We proved Martin 
 Harris to have been utterly unreliable 
 in his stories about Mormonism. He lied 
 about his interview with Anthon. He told 
 most idiotic lies. He said he never saw the 
 plates with his natural sight. He saw them 
 by faith. We read Joe's warning against 
 adultery and murder, in a revelation ad- 
 dressed to Harris. Joe's denunciation- of 
 of him as being beneath the notice of a gen- 
 tleman. That he had been a vile character 
 before hejoined the Mormon Church, and 
 he gave his testimony one year before he 
 joined the church. We showed by his ri- 
 diculous, idiotic tales, that he was utterly 
 unworthy of belief. We proved by Cow- 
 dery's old neighbors that he was worthless 
 and unworthy of belief. By a revelation 
 uttered by Smith that he was not to be trus- 
 ted. By Hiram Smith that he was a thief 
 .and a robber and forger. By Joe that he 
 had been cut off from the church for crime, 
 and was engaged in lying against the Saints, 
 and plotting their murder and robbery. 
 That he died a drunken sot with delirum 
 tremens. 
 
 We proved by David Whitmer's yarns 
 that his testimony was worthless. Angels 
 sowing plaster, plowing land, and all such 
 tomfoolery. We proved that Joe said he 
 was cut off with Cowdery from crime, and 
 was engaged with him in circulating lies 
 and plotting the murder and robbery of the 
 Saints. We showed that Rigdon and 83 
 other Mormons, their leaders, denounced 
 Cowdery and Whitmer as slanderers, liars, 
 thieves, counterfeiters, connected with a 
 gang of blacklegs of the blackest dye. Such 
 are the three witnesses according to Mor- 
 mons themselves Joe Smith, Hyram Smith. 
 Rigdon, and leading Mormons. We showed 
 that the testimony of the eight witnesses 
 was a lie, for they testify to what they 
 could not know. We showed by compar- 
 ing the revelation announcing to the wit- 
 nesses that they should see the plates, with 
 the two testimonials, that Joe wrote all 
 three. He wrote the lie and the confeder- 
 ates in the fraud swore to it. We proved 
 by appeals to their stories in Mormon books 
 that the persons who claim to have seen the 
 plates and their associates in the fraud, tell 
 contradictory stories on every point con- 
 nected with it. That there is not a state- 
 
 ment of one that is not contradicted bjr 
 others, and that the witnesses contradict 
 themselves, every statement they make. 
 On such testimony as this is the'Book of 
 Mormon based. 
 
 We proved that Joe had for years, before 
 going into Rigdon's book fraud, been en- 
 gaged in lying frauds, witching for water, 
 peeping for money with the peep stone he 
 stole from Chase's children, digging for 
 money, lying about it, swindling every 
 dupe he could find, and stealing in connec- 
 tion with it, and that all the witnesses were 
 connected with this money digging, thiev- 
 ing, lying gang, who had been lying to get 
 money by fraud, and a living without 
 work. If Joe's peep-stone, stolen from 
 Chase's children, his witching for water, 
 his digging for money, his seeing buried 
 money with his stolen peep-stone were 
 frauds, so was his tale about finding plates, 
 and his tale about translating them. The 
 Book of Mormon is as much a fraud as his 
 digging tor pots of money. We showed 
 that his translation of the papyrus was a 
 transparent fraud. So was his Book of 
 Mormon. It was as great a fraud as his 
 Book of Abraham. We showed that the 
 pretended fac simile sent to Anthon and 
 the one in Utah were lying frauds. So was 
 the lie he told about having plates, from 
 which he copied these frauds. All these 
 are frauds, one as transparent as the other, 
 and as palpable as the noonday sun to all, 
 except fanatics or dupes. 
 
 We proved that the Book of Mormon is 
 based on two assumptions: 1. An angel 
 gave a pile of plates to Joe Smith. 2. The 
 Lord gave the translation of the plates to 
 Joe, word by word, by miracle. Of this we 
 have not one iota of proof, except the naked 
 assertions of Joe Smith. We have already 
 exposed his character and frauds. His as- 
 sertions are no better in regard to this than 
 in regard to witching for water, peeping 
 for money, or his translation of papyrus 
 rolls, or his lying fac simile. The Book of 
 Mormon has not one particle of proof that 
 an uninspired book should have. No inter- 
 locking with history, geography, literature 
 and customs. No more than Vernet's "Trip 
 to the moon." It has every feature of a 
 fraud. It avoids all tests like all frauds. 
 It lacks every feature that sustains the 
 Bible. It does does not interlock with other 
 history, geography, literature and customs. 
 It is not attested by national customs, his- 
 tory; by monumental institutions; by 
 prophecies; by a vast literature based on 
 it; by growing up in the midst of hostile 
 criticism and attacks. It does not form the 
 most wonderful part of the world's history, 
 as does the Bible. It is as isolated from all 
 these tests as Gulliver's Travels. It is as 
 monstrous a fabrication and in finitely more 
 improbable. 
 
 We examined the book itself. We ex- 
 posed its contradictions of common sense, 
 its monstrous fabrications, its hundreds of 
 contradictions of itself, its contradictions of 
 the Bible, in history, in doctrine; its con- 
 tradictions of the inspired translation of Joe 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 219 
 
 Smith, its contradictions of science, of 
 history. We exposed its literary character, 
 its grammatical blunders, its atrocious style, 
 its silly expressions. We show that Mor- 
 mons admit its ridiculous inaccuracies and 
 atrocities by revising out of it over 5,000 
 blunders, many of which are perfect mon- 
 strosities. Yet it was written by inspira- 
 tion by the Almighty. The Almighty 
 revising himself ! The Almighty learning 
 grammar and composition!! We exposed 
 its quotations from King James' translation, 
 quoting its blunders in text, in translation, 
 in grammar, its obsolete words, its ridicul- 
 ous copying of the brogue of that transla- 
 tion ; showing that it was written by a 
 person who used that translation alone. 
 We exposed its adaptations from modern 
 history and the Bible, its anachronisms, its 
 speaking of things hundreds of years before 
 they existed, its quotations from the New 
 Testament hundreds of years before it ex- 
 isted, its ridiculous quotations from modern 
 authors, proving that it was written after 
 their day. 
 
 Finally we proved that Joe Smith was 
 the author of Mormon polygamy and the 
 infamy blasphemously called ''The Reve- 
 lation on Celestial Marriage." This alone 
 damns with infamy all claim that he was 
 a prophet, or that a book that emanated 
 from him is of divine origin. In conclusion, 
 ladies and gentlemen, will you believe that 
 Spaulding by miracle in writing a fictitious 
 history.of the aborigines of America wrote 
 a book that agreed with a revelation of the 
 history of the aborigines of America in all 
 important features and names, events, and 
 even of persons and nations, twenty years 
 before such pretended revelation appeared? 
 Or will you believe that the pretended 
 revelation is a plagiarism from Spaulding's 
 
 manuscript written twenty years before it 
 appeared? There are twenty-seven great 
 features of the Manuscript Found in the 
 Book of Mormon. The Manuscript Found 
 is twenty years the oldest. They were 
 stolen from the Manuscript Found by the 
 Book of Mormon. Will you believe that 
 Nephites, in America, quoted whole chap- 
 ters of the Bible written after they left 
 Asia, quoted chapters and hundreds of 
 . verses before they were uttered, that they 
 quoted modern authors, quoted the brogue 
 of King James' translators, its grammatical 
 blunders, its obsolete words, quoted Rig- 
 don's baptismal formula, his rant on infant 
 baptism, his revivalisms, his peculiar ideas 
 in every particular, all of which existed 
 before it appeared? Or will you believe, 
 as we have proved, that Rigdon stole 
 Spaulding's manuscript and remodeled it 
 into a pretended revelation, "to make a big 
 thing out of it," as he declared he would? 
 You can act for yourselves, but common 
 sense says this fraud was started by a back- 
 slidden, sceptical man, once a preacher. 
 Another sceptical preacher stole and re- 
 modeled it. A third infidel gave it to the 
 world with his stolen peep-stone. As it 
 was the work of infidelity, there is a fitness 
 of things in its being defended here by in- 
 fidel attacks on the Bible. As infidels got 
 it up, an infidel should defend it with in- 
 fidel sophistries. It was begotten by Spauld- 
 ing, a sceptical back-slider, in sin; con- 
 ceived by Rigdon, another sceptical 
 back-slider in iniquity; and brought forth 
 by Joe Smith, a sceptical admirer of Paine, 
 and an advocate of his sentiments, in de- 
 pravity and pollution ; and has flourished 
 in fraud and fanaticism until it has culmi- 
 nated in Utah in what would make devils 
 blush. 
 
220 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 Proposition : I* the Church of which I, 
 dark Braden, am a member, identical 
 in faith, organization, ordinances, teach- 
 ing, worship and practice, with the Church 
 of Christ, as it was left completed and per- 
 fected, by the apostles of Christ. 
 
 CLARK BRADEN AFFIRMS: 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : To avoid all wrangling be- 
 tween the disputants, and to enable the 
 hearer to understand, fully the issue, the 
 proposition and its terms need careful ex- 
 planation. 
 
 The word church has a variety of meanings, 
 arising from the various ways in which it is 
 used. 1. It includes all the children of 
 God in heaven and on earth ; as when 
 it is declared that the whole family on earth 
 and in heaven are named after Christ. 
 Eph. 2. Also in the expression "the Church 
 of the First Born." 2. It includes all fol- 
 lowers of Christ on earth when it is declared 
 that the Church is the pillar and support 
 of the truth. Christ loved the Church and 
 gave himself for it, etc. 3. It includes all the 
 followers of Christ in a certain country, 
 region or district, as the Church in Galatia, 
 Rome, United States, Ohio, Saline County, 
 or Cincinnati. 4. It means a body of 
 Christians organized according to the New 
 Testament model. 5. It means a number 
 of Christians who meet to worship God, 
 whether organized or not, as the church in 
 the house of Anuila. Such church may be 
 an organized church or an elemental church. 
 These are all the uses of the word that are 
 recognised in the New Testament, when the 
 word is applied to the followers of Christ, for 
 there were no denominations in the days of 
 the apostles. Since the division of Christians 
 into denominations, it means : 5. A body 
 of Christians that are separated from all 
 others into an organization characterized 
 by certain features peculiar to themselves, 
 such as the Methodist Church, Baptist 
 Church, etc. 
 
 It is in this sense that I use the word in 
 the expression, " the church of which I, 
 Clark Braden, am a member." Thomas 
 and Alexander Campbell, believing that 
 the division of Christians into denomina- 
 tions is unscriptural and wrong, tried to 
 remedy it by securing a union of all follow- 
 ers of Christ. They undertook to accomplish 
 this, by trying to get all Christians to take 
 the Bible as their creed ; to return to exact 
 conformity to the apostolic precedent. They 
 urged that all should abandon everything 
 that had not a clear apostolic precedent, 
 and accept all that had such precedent. 
 They undertook a restoration of Apostolic 
 Christianity, and not a reformation of any 
 or all existing denominations, which was 
 
 all that Savonarola, Wickliffe, Huss, 
 Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other reformers 
 attempted. 
 
 The result of the efforts of the Campbells 
 and their coadjutors, has been a body of 
 people known as the "Disciples of Christ," 
 "The Christian Church," or "The Church 
 of Christ." It is this body of people that I 
 mean, when I speak of the church of which 
 I, Clark Braden, am a member. 
 
 There is one more phrase that needs 
 explanation, it is "The Church of Christ," 
 as it was left perfected and completed by 
 the apostles of Christ." The revelation 
 contained in the Scriptures, was gradually 
 revealed and developed, during a period of 
 several thousand years. God's deaHngs 
 with men, in making this revelation can be 
 divided into four dispensations. 1. The 
 Antediluvian Dispensation, that we might 
 call the Infancy of our race, extending from 
 Adam's first transgression, to the Flood. 
 During this period there was no organiza- 
 tion of the children of God. God had 
 individual followers, like Abel, Seth, 
 Enoch. To these individual followers he 
 gave rudimental revelations, the alphabet 
 of revelation, through angelic messengers 
 and inspired men. 2. The Patriarchal Dis- 
 pensation, the childhood of our race, extend- 
 ing from the Flood to the calling of Moses. 
 During this period, the family was the 
 organization, and the father was the priest 
 of the family. To these families God gave 
 higher teaching and simple commands, but 
 it was still elementary. 3. The Mosaic 
 Dispensation, extending from the calling of 
 Moses to the Day of Pentecost, that we 
 might call the Youth of our race. 
 
 During this period God had a chosen 
 nation " The Commonwealth of Israel." 
 To this nation he gave, in the Mosaic Code. 
 a disciplinary law of positive commands, 
 and a system of types, symbols, object 
 lessons, prophetical of a better dispensa- 
 tion, and symbolizing great truths. 4. The 
 Christian Dispensation, extending from the 
 Day of Pentecost until the end of the human 
 epoch of the world's career, that we may 
 designate the "Manhood" of our race. 
 During this period God has a church, an 
 organization based entirely on faith and 
 piety. To this he has given a law of uni- 
 versally applicable truths, and principles, 
 in the gospel of Christ. 
 
 The Israelites were God's normal school 
 in religion. It was his purpose to develop 
 among them a religion for the salvation of 
 men, and by such development to train 
 them to be its missionaries, the teachers of 
 this religion to the world. In this normal 
 school there were different periods or grades 
 of teaching. From the calling of Abraham 
 to Moses was the primary grade, with sim- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 221 
 
 pie teaching and discipline. From the call- 
 Ing of Moses to the Prophets, beginning 
 with Samuel, was the intermediate grade, 
 with much teaching and discipline. From 
 Samuel to Malachi was the grammar grade, 
 with still closer drill, discipline and teach- 
 ing. From Malachi till the day of Pente- 
 cost, during which time there was no reve- 
 lation, was the high school grade. 
 
 In this period John the Baptist called the 
 Israelites back to a faithful, pious obedience 
 to the law of Moses and the teachings of 
 the Old Testament. Our Savior educated 
 his apostles and prepared the way for the 
 establishment of the church by them. But 
 neither John nor Jesus established a church. 
 They were loyal Israelites, obeying the law 
 of Moses, and never worshipped apart from 
 the Israelites' worship. During this devel- 
 opment of revelation there were revelation, 
 inspiration, miraculous work of the Holy 
 Spirit. He inspired all men who spoke, 
 wrote or acted under inspiration from Adam 
 to John the Baptist. He insp're I Zacha- 
 riah, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, Simon. Jesus 
 and his apostles when they acted under 
 inspiration. 
 
 John and Jesus promised a more complete 
 work of the Holy Spirit. Joel and the 
 prophets had prophesied that, at the close 
 of tiie Israelite dispensation and the begin- 
 ning of the Christian dispensation, there 
 should be a wonderful work of the Holy 
 Spirit that should not be confined to Israel 
 but should extend to all mankind. John 
 and Jesus promised the baptism in the Holy 
 Spirit. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as 
 a comforter or advocate to his apostles. 
 
 Peter promised the Holy Spirit to all that 
 God should call. The apostles imparted 
 miraculous gifts to Christians, such as our 
 Savior promised in the last chapter in Mark. 
 These gifts existed in the apostolic churches. 
 They were designed to supply inspired 
 teaching to the church, and attest it, until 
 the apostles had perfected the organization 
 of the church, and had completed the work 
 of revelation in giving to the church the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Then, as God completed his work of crea- 
 tion, when he created man, and creation 
 ceased, and plants and animals came into 
 being by natural laws, so when the New 
 Testament church was perfected by the 
 apostles, and its perfect law of liberty was 
 completed and perfected in the New Testa- 
 ment, the work of revelation and inspira- 
 tion ceased, having been perfected in the 
 apostolic church and in the New Testament, 
 and the church is controlled, and will be 
 until the end of time, by the perfect Word 
 of God, the New Testament. 
 
 By the Church of Christ, as left perfected 
 and completed by the apostles of Christ, I 
 mean the followers of Christ, as they were 
 left in congregations, with the New Testa- 
 ment as their rule of faith and practice, by 
 the apostles and inspired men, when the 
 last inspired man fell asleep in Jesus. 
 
 It is my work to prove that the " Disciples 
 of Christ," "The Christian Church," " The 
 Church of Christ," the denomination of 
 
 which I am a member, Is identical in faith, 
 organization, teaching, ordinances, worship 
 and practice with, trie apostolic churfh, 
 composed of the congregations that the 
 apostles left with the New Testament as 
 their rule of faith and practice. 
 
 I believe as the apostle John teaches, that 
 all persons who believe with the whole 
 heart that Jesus is the Christ, who forsake 
 and oppose all sin, and who believe and 
 accept the Bible as God's word, and live 
 according to the light they have, in its 
 teachings, are "Christians;" and that all 
 denominations composed of such persons 
 are "Churches of Christ," although they 
 may be imperfect and in error in certain 
 particulars. 
 
 It is our duty, as teachers of God's word, 
 to proclaim its full teaching and to enforce 
 its every law ; but we are not judges, to 
 decide who shall be saved, or to decide who 
 are Christians, and who are not. Preach 
 the whole truth, and leave judgment with 
 God. 
 
 Tne " Church of Christ" is controlled by 
 certain great principles in its use of the 
 word of God. These may be summarized 
 as follows : 
 
 1. The Scriptures, and the Scriptures 
 alone, should be the creed of all Christians. 
 The word "creed " has three uses. A man 
 reads the Scriptures and he believes that 
 they teach certain things. What he 
 believes the Scriptures to teach, is his creed. 
 Men preach, write and print what they 
 believe the Scriptures teach. Such belief 
 is their creed in the second use of the word. 
 Men use such understandings of the Scrip- 
 tures as a bond of union, and unite on them 
 with all who believe with them. They use 
 them as a test of fellowship, and will unite 
 with only such as profess to believe such 
 understandings of the Scriptures, and will 
 fellowship only such. They use such un- 
 derstandings of the Scriptures as guides in 
 worship, practice and discipline. 
 
 This is the third use of the word "creed." 
 It is only in this sense that we object to 
 creeds. The difference between ourselves 
 and others can be seen by a familiar illus- 
 tration. A legislature enacts a statute. A 
 case is brought before a judge that cornea 
 under this statute. He decides the case by 
 his understanding of the statute. In like 
 manner, if a question of faith, practice, 
 worship, ordinance or duty arises, we, ia 
 common with all Christians, decide it by 
 our understanding of the Scriptures. So 
 far we do just as all Christians do. 
 
 Now comes the difference. We say "Go 
 to the law each and every time, and decide 
 each and every question, by an original in- 
 vestigation of the law." The rest of the re- 
 ligious world reduce their first understand- 
 ing to a crefed, written or unwritten, and 
 deside all subsequent cases by their first 
 understanding, or more properly, by an un- 
 derstanding of their first understanding. 
 They practically lay the law on the shelf, 
 and use original investigation only to reach 
 an understanding of the first understand- 
 ing of the Bible. 
 
222 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 We say use the Bible just as you use 
 
 Sjur "Confession of Faith," or "Book of 
 iscipline." God's word declares it should 
 be so used, and it alone should be so used. 
 
 2. Agreement among Christians is to be 
 required only in such matters of belief, or- 
 ganization, worship, practice, and duty, as 
 are matters of faith. In matters of opinion 
 there must be toleration and Christian 
 charity. There should be charity also in 
 all questions covering expediency and in- 
 strumentalities, iu carrying out the faith, 
 worship, practice, and duty embraced in 
 matters of faith. 
 
 3. Nothing should be required of anyone 
 as an item of faith in belief, organization, 
 worship, practice, or duty, for which there 
 is not a "Thus saith the Lord," expressed, 
 or clearly implied, for which there is not 
 an apostolic precedent expressed in lan- 
 
 fuage, or action, or by clearest, implication, 
 or all items of faith in belief, worship, or- 
 ganization, ordinances, worship, practice 
 and duty, there must be a clear apostolic 
 teaching, by word, or example, clearly ex- 
 pressed or implied. 
 
 All creeds declare that the Scriptures are 
 a perfect and all-sufficient rule of faith and 
 practice, and that what cannot be read 
 therein, nor proved thereby, should not be 
 required of anyone, as an item of religious 
 faith or practice. We say if they are per- 
 fect and all-sufficient, we need no creed. If 
 we can read an item of faith or practice in 
 the Scriptures, or prove it by them, we do 
 not need a creed to do what we can do by 
 using God's perfect word. 
 
 4. Where the Bible speaks, Christians 
 can speak, and should speak, and always 
 speak as the Bible speaks. 
 
 5. Where the Bible is silent, concerning 
 what is claimed to be an item of faith or 
 practice, Christians should be silent, and 
 never teach or enforce as an item of faith or 
 practice. The silence of the Bible is as much 
 to be respected as its speech. This does not 
 apply to opinions, or to expedients, means 
 and instrumentalties, to be used in carrying 
 out faith or practice. It forbids enforcing 
 these as items of faith and practice, and 
 divisions of Christians over such opinions, 
 means and expedients. 
 
 6. We will always call Bible things by 
 Bible names. We' will use the speech of 
 Canaan and not of Ashdod. We say "Lord's 
 Day" not "Sabbath," which belonged to 
 the Israelite seventh day. 
 
 7. We will apply Bible names only to 
 Bible things. We call immersion of a be- 
 liever baptism. We do not apply that term 
 to sprinkling or pouring, nor to immersing, 
 sprinkling or pouring an infant. 
 
 8. All followers of Christ should wear his 
 name, and his name alone, and be called 
 "Christians," and that alone. The Church 
 should wear his name, and his name alone, 
 and be called "The Church of Christ," or 
 "The Church of God." 
 
 We do not say that none but ourselves 
 are Christiana. We merely say we are 
 Christians, ^hat we should wear that name 
 Alone. If others are Christians, they should 
 
 wear that name alone. We do not hinder 
 them from doing so. We only object to 
 their nick-naming us. If they are willing 
 to wear a nick-name rather than the name 
 "Christian," they have no right to force us 
 to violate the law or God, in forcing a nick- 
 name upon us. 
 
 We do not claim that our church is the 
 only church of Christ. We may say we are 
 a church of Christ, and will wear that name 
 alone. If other denominations are "Churches 
 of Christ," they should wear that name 
 alone. They violate God's law in using a 
 nick-name. If they prefer a nick-name, 
 they have no business to try to force us to 
 violate it by forcing on us a nick-name. 
 
 9. To apostolic precedent, in all items of 
 faith, in regard to belief, organization, or- 
 dinances, teaching, worship, and practice, 
 for which there is an apostolic precedent, 
 there should be strict conformity. 
 
 10. All followers of Christ should be one, 
 as he prayed, when he said : 
 
 " Father keep them through thine own name, the 
 disciples that thou hast given me. That they maybe 
 one, as we are ene. Neither pray I for these alone," but 
 also for those who shall believe on me through thy 
 word, that they also may all be sue, as thou, Father, 
 art in me, nd I in thee, that they also may all be one 
 in us, that the world may believe that thou has sent 
 me." 
 
 And that they should be one by standing 
 on the platform laid down in Eph. 4; and 
 that they all could, and would be one, if 
 they would do so. Paul says : 
 
 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, to talk worthy 
 of the name by which you are called, with all lowliness 
 and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one 
 another in love, giving diligence to keep the unity of 
 the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is OIIH body and 
 one Spirit, even as you were named in ot>e hope of your 
 naming, (one hope through the name by which you are 
 called), one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Ood and 
 Father of all. who ia over all and through all and 
 in all." 
 
 Paul lays down eight items, eight planks 
 in the platform forChristian union. 1. One 
 God, the Father. 2. One Lord Jesus, the 
 Christ. 3. One Holy Spirit. 4. One faith, 
 the faith, one system of belief and teaching, 
 the Scriptures. 5. One baptism. 6. One 
 hope. 7. One body, the Church. 8. One 
 name for believers, "Christian." One name 
 for the Church, "The Church of God," "The 
 Church of Christ." 
 
 We will now analyze these eight items, 
 specifying wherein we agree with the 
 religious world, and wherein we disagree, 
 and our reasons for such disagreement. My 
 opponent will criticise our position in two 
 ways. He will object to some thing we 
 teach. He will object that we do not teach 
 certain things, that he regards as essential 
 to the Church of Christ. 
 
 The first criticism we will notice. The 
 second we will let rest until he begins his 
 affirmative. 
 
 1. One God the Father. One self-exist- 
 ent, independent, self-sustaining, eternal, 
 absolute Spirit, the author of all other ex- 
 istences, and the cause of all phenomena. 
 In this we differ from others, only in refus- 
 ing to speculate as to whether God is with- 
 out form, body or parts, or has form, body 
 and parts. Obeying the apostolic injunc- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 223 
 
 tion, "avoid untaught questions," we are 
 pilent on a matter on which the Bible is 
 cilent. 
 
 2. One Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, the only 
 begotten son of God ; Deity manifest in 
 flesh; the Divine Prophet, source of all 
 teaching religion. We reject Joseph Smith 
 as a orophet. Divine Priest, the one who 
 made an expiation for the sins of every 
 human heing. Divine King, the only one 
 whose commands we obey in religion. And 
 his commands are all divine. Not one is a 
 non-essential. We teach that Christianity 
 is loyalty to Christ, a Divine person. 
 
 We do not teach eternal Sonship, nor 
 anything about essences, substances, etc., 
 for the Bible says nothing about them. 
 We reject all the speculations of Trinitarian- 
 ism, Arianism, Socinianism, Unitarian ism. 
 and the thousand other isms, that attempt 
 to be wise above what God has revealed. 
 We speak only where theBible speaks, and 
 as it speaks. We are silent when it is silent, 
 and reject the confusion of the theological 
 Babel, and the jargon of Ashdod, and use 
 only the pure speech of Canaan. 
 
 3. One Holy Spirit. We teach that there 
 is such a Divine being or person as the Holy 
 Spirit. We say "Spirit," not "Ghost." 
 He, his and him, not it. That He inspired 
 all persons that the Scriptures declare 
 spoke, wrote and acted by inspiration from 
 Adam to Christ; that he was given to men 
 in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, on the 
 day of Pentecost ; and at the house of Cor- 
 nelius. That he was imparted by the im- 
 position of the apostles' hands in the gifts 
 that our Savior promised in the last chap- 
 ter of Mark, and in other places, those 
 spiritual gifts that existed in the apostolic 
 churches. That he inspired the divine 
 truths in the Scriptures. That wherever 
 and whenever these divine truths influence 
 the spirits of men, the Holy Spirit influ- 
 ences the spirits of men, through the di- 
 vine truths that he has revealed in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 We differ from the otner people in reject- 
 ing these three dogmas: 1. That portion of 
 the religious world that arrogates to itself 
 the exclusive right tothe titles "orthodox" 
 and "evangelical" teaches that in convict- 
 ing and converting the sinner, and in com- 
 forting and sanctifying the Christian, the 
 Holy Spirit exerts, on the hearts and spirits 
 of men, a direct and immediate influence, 
 in addition to and distinct from any that 
 He exerts through the divine truths that 
 He has revealed through the Scriptures. 
 2 Some of this party claim that the Holy 
 Spirit is given in the baptism in Holy 
 Spirit, now as He was on the Day of Pente- 
 cost, and at the house of Cornelius ; and 
 that the baptism that is for remission of 
 sins, that our Savior declares saves, etc., 
 is baptism in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 3. The Latter Day Saints teach that the 
 gifts of the Spirit that our Savior promised 
 to his apostles and disciples, and that 
 existed in the apostolic churches, should 
 exist in the Church of Christ now We 
 reject the first dogma for these reasons: 
 
 1. There is not a sentence in the bible that 
 even hints thatin convicting and converting 
 the sinner, or in comforting and sanctifying 
 the Christian, the Holy Spirit ever did'in a 
 single instance, ever will, or does now exert 
 any such direct and immediate influence, 
 in addition to and distinct and different 
 from what He exerts through the divine 
 truths that He has revealed in the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 2. An honest, careful i-nvestigation of the 
 Bible shows that all work that is ascribed 
 to the Holy Spirit, except His miraculous 
 influence, is ascribed to the Word of God, 
 or the truth, proving that the Holy Spirit 
 exerts all influence, except the miraculous 
 influence, through thedivine truths that He 
 has revealed in the Scriptures. 
 
 3. Conviction, conversion, sanctification 
 and comforting are moral influences, in 
 which man is a free moral agent. Such 
 influences can be exerted only through 
 motives presented to the spirit of man in 
 the truth. 
 
 Man is convicted and sanctified through 
 hearing, believing and living the truth, as 
 the Scriptures teach. 
 
 4. If conviction, conversion and sanctifi- 
 cation are to any extent the results of a 
 direct influence of the Holy Spirit, in 
 addition to what is accomplished through 
 motives presented in the truth, and not the 
 result of a free choice of the truth, by man's 
 spirit, they are so far the acts of the Holy 
 Spirit, and not of man's spirit, and man is 
 not responsible for the absence or presence 
 any more than a machine is responsible for 
 whatmansstrength accomplishes through it 
 
 5. If su<^h an influence of the Holy Spirit 
 is what converts and sanctifies men, if God 
 is impartial He will exert it on all men, 
 and save all men, and Universalism is true. 
 Or if He does not, he is partial, and exerts 
 it on only part, and elects them to eternal 
 life, and passes by the rest and reprobates 
 them to eternal death, and then Calvinism 
 is true. No Arminian can be consistent 
 and believe such a dogma. 6. Such an 
 influence renders all preaching of the 
 Gospel needless, for man is converted by 
 an influence of the Spirit, distinct from 
 preaching ; and absurd, for it can do no 
 good ; and presumptuous, for man tries to 
 accomplish, by preaching the Gospel, what 
 Ged alone can do and does by the direct 
 influence of His Spirit. 
 
 7. If there are in the mind of one on 
 whom such an influence is exerted, two 
 sets of impulses, the impulses of the Holy 
 Spirit, and the impulses of his own spirit, 
 man cannot distinguish between the im- 
 pulses of his own erring, sinful spirit, and 
 the impulses of the Holy Spirit. The result 
 has ever been, that believers in such influ- 
 ences have mistaken the impulses ol their 
 own spirits, for impulses of the Holy Spirit, 
 and every delusion, folly, absurdity, and 
 crime, have been mistaken for the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit. The insanity and absur- 
 dity of what is called " the power " " sanc- 
 tification," "second blessing," "higher life" 
 has led to insanity, folly, crime, and infamy. 
 
224 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 8. If men appeal to their feelings as a 
 proof that the Spirit exerts such a power, 
 we reply that they measure themselves by 
 themselves, and sanction their own folly, 
 and not by the word of God, that condemns 
 all such fanaticism. All enthusiasts, urge 
 the same proof as confidently. The lives of 
 those who make the loudest professions of 
 such an influence, are the most defective of 
 all professed Christians. The lives of the 
 apostles of this dogma are the most defective 
 of all ministers. This delusion has loaded 
 Chistianity with the most infamous fanat- 
 icism and crime, and caused more infidelity 
 than all other causes combined. It has led 
 to Shakerism ; the Oneida Community ; 
 Free Love and pollution. 
 
 We reject all idea of any baptism in the 
 Holy Spirit except on the day of Pentecost 
 and'at the house of Cornelius, for these rea- 
 sons: 
 
 1. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was a 
 promise, not a command. A promise is 
 received, not obeyed. There is but one 
 baptism In the church. Eph.4:5. Christ 
 commanded men to baptize others. This 
 baptism that he commanded is the one bap- 
 tism in the church. It is not Holy Spirit 
 baptism, for Christ could not command men 
 to baptize men in the Holy Spirit any more 
 than he could command them to create a 
 world. 
 
 2. Men were commanded to baptize oth- 
 ers. This is the one baptism that is in the 
 church. Man can no more obey a command 
 to baptize in the Holy Spirit than he can 
 create a world. It is not Holy Spirit bap- 
 
 'm that is the one baptism that is in the 
 church. 
 
 3. The baptism that Christ commanded, 
 and that is the one baptism that is in the 
 church, was in the name of the Father, Son 
 and Holy Spirit. The baptism in the Holy 
 Spirit was not in any name. The baptism 
 in the Holy Spirit is not the one baptism 
 that was commanded by Christ that men 
 vvere to obey, and that was in the name of 
 the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is Dot 
 the one baptism in the church. 
 
 4. Holy Spirit baptism was a promised 
 miracle. The one baptism in the church is 
 not a miracle. And miracles have ceased. 
 
 5. Holy Spirit baptism was attended by 
 miracles and miraculous power. The one 
 baptism in the church is not attended by 
 
 miracles or miraculous power. All ouch 
 power has ceased. 
 
 6. Christ was the administrator of the 
 Holy Spirit baptism. It was from heaven. 
 Man is commanded to administer the one 
 baptism in the church. Holy Spirit bap- 
 tism is not the one baptism. 
 
 7. The scriptures never hint that more 
 than two occasions were baptisms in the 
 Holy Spirit. Peter declares, Acts xi. 15, 16, 
 17, that two occasions, the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit on the apostles at the beginning 
 or on the day of Pentecost and the descent 
 of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles at the 
 house of Cornelius, are baptisms in the Holy 
 Spirit. Not a passage of scripture hints 
 that any other occasion was a baptism in 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 8. Persons who claim a baptism in the 
 Holy Spirit, and to speak as the Spirit gives 
 them utterance, utter nonsense, contradict 
 the word of God, contradict each other. 
 Such a claim is blasphemous, and an insult 
 to the Holy Spirit, on whom they palm such 
 nonsense, and contradictions of sense the 
 Bible and each other. 
 
 9. The one baptism that is In the church, 
 that is in the name of Father, Son and Holy 
 Spirit, is water baptism, for it is com- 
 manded and men are to obey it. Holy 
 Spirit baptism, that was a promise, not a 
 command; that was received, not obeyed; 
 of which Christ was the administrator, not 
 man ; that was not in the name of the 
 Father, Son and Holy Spirit ; that was a 
 miracle that was attended by miracles, is 
 not the one baptism in the church. All 
 claim to it now is unscriptural and absurd. 
 
 The claim of the Latter Day Saints that 
 the gifts promised by our Savior, and that 
 existed in the church in the days of the 
 apostles, should he in the church now, we 
 will examine when we refute our opponent's 
 affirmation in the third proposition. In re- 
 gard to the trinity and the nature of the 
 union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 
 and how they are one, we are silent, for the 
 Bible is silent. It is an untaught question. 
 We utterly discard the jargon of triuita- 
 rianism and unitarianism alike, for the 
 Bible knows nothing of either. They are 
 attempts to be wise beyond w hat is revealed . 
 and are plain violations of the command 
 "to avoid untaught questiors." We stop 
 with the words of the scriptnres. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 225 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FIRST SPEECH ON SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN.: I shall first notice in my ar- 
 guments this evening some of the things 
 which have to be determined, in order for 
 us to progress so as to receive any light 
 whatever in the discussion of this propo- 
 sition. 
 
 It is said in the question that "the church 
 of which I, Clark Braden, ana a member, is, 
 In faith, doctrine, teaching, organization, 
 practice and ordinanceSj in accordance with 
 the Church of Christ as it was left perfected 
 by the apostles." By what rule are we to 
 determine how the Church of Christ was 
 left by the apostles? You will doubtless 
 form in your minds a conclusion as to how 
 that is to be determined. What record do 
 you go to in order to find out how it was left ? 
 The affirmative has said, in the application 
 of this principle to his church, and in the 
 definition that he hasgiven to "The church 
 of which T, Clark Braden, am a member," 
 that it is like the congregations that were 
 left scattered in different parts of the earth 
 after the apostles had fallen asleep. If that 
 is true, where do we find the history of 
 those congregations, that will show us just 
 where and how they were left? I judge 
 that my opponent will not dispute that, so 
 far as the apostles' work was concerned in 
 perfecting the Church, if they did perfect it, 
 the history of their work as recorded in the 
 New Testament is the proper history to go 
 to in order to find out what those congrega- 
 tions were as they were left. The only way 
 then by which we can tell how the congre- 
 tious were left will be to turn to our New 
 Testaments and ascertain from the situa- 
 tion and history as given therein, of the es- 
 tablishment of the churches, and of what 
 the apostles did, thus learning from the 
 record how the congregations were left, 
 and whether they then filled the standard 
 of perfection in faith and the attainment in 
 the gifts of the Holy Spirit which theapos- 
 tles so much desired they should enjoy. 
 
 Now, it is one thihg to assume, as my op- 
 ponent has, that there were congregations 
 of believers left in the world without any 
 presiding officers or duly authorized minis- 
 ters, but instructed that they might make 
 their own presiding officers and ministers, 
 by authority of the congregation, and it is 
 another thing to prove it. It is a little like 
 the presumption on his part, that the Holy 
 Spirit has ceased its miraculous power or 
 work, for the reason, as he says, that the 
 Holy Spirit, so far as miraculous power was 
 concerned, was a miracle, and as miracles 
 have ceased, therefore the Holy Spirit has 
 ceased to operate upon the people. You 
 Bee both of these are conclusions without 
 any proper basis. They are not legitimately 
 drawn from the New Testament Scriptures. 
 There is, therefore, no argument in a single 
 one of them. He starts out upon a false 
 
 premise'. That is, that the miraculous 
 manifestations of the spirit have ceased. 
 That is a false premise. That they 
 ceased with the apostles, too! It is 
 false when we examine it in the_ light 
 of the history as written just subse- 
 quent to the apostles' time, and false 
 from the prophetic history in the New Tes- 
 tament. When we turn to Mosheim and oth- 
 er historians they tell us that the miracu- 
 lous manifestations of the Spirit was known 
 until the close of the third century, at least; 
 and yet all of the apostles had fallen asleep 
 long before this. Then, if all the apostles 
 had fallen asleep, and still the spiritual gifts 
 and miraculous manifestations were in the 
 church, it will be a false assumption if he 
 shall infer or state to the audience, as the ba- 
 sis of an argument, that they were not to con- 
 tinue after the apostles' time and that 
 therefore, we are not to have any thing of that 
 that nature, because, as he says, there are to 
 be no more miracles. The argument turns 
 upon the point: Where does he get the "be- 
 cause?" If he could take up the New Tes- 
 tament Scriptures here and read to us that 
 there were to be no more miracles after thn 
 first age of Christianity, then his first prem- 
 ise would be good, because he would have 
 a "because" upon which to base it. But he 
 makes his premise, which is not good, and 
 proves it by a false presumption that the 
 gifts were to cease, when he has not a 
 single passage of scripture which he can 
 stand by to base it upon. Thus he stands 
 before the audience upon a false premise to 
 begin with, and from this he draws his false 
 conclusion. 
 
 Now let us examine and see if this is not 
 correct. Unless he can show that there is 
 some passage of Scripture, showing that 
 miracles were to be confined to the first 
 age of Christianity, he fails. In the first 
 place, Jesus says, in Mark 16th chapter, 
 "Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 Gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
 and is baptized snail be saved, but i:e that 
 believeth not shall be damned. And these 
 signs shall follow them that believe." Not 
 you to whom I am talking, but the believer 
 in the words that you shall bear. Well, 
 who were to believe? Those who were to 
 be saved, evidently. Is there any promise 
 broader than that in the whole Bible with 
 regard to salvation? "Preach the Gospel 
 to every creature, and (every creature) that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
 and these signs shall follow (every creature) 
 that believeth." Now, if he can show from 
 the Bible that there is another passage some 
 place saying that this statement of Jesus 
 referred to the first ag^ of Christianity only, 
 and that after the first age of Christianity 
 there were to be no miraculous gifts, Gospel 
 preached, true believers or anything of that 
 nature, tben he may truly state to this 
 
226 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 audience, that there were to be no miracu- 
 lous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, or 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit. But let us first 
 have some proof, and then it will be time 
 enough for assertions. 
 
 He says that he (his church) rejects the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, for the reason 
 that they do not consider it a means enter- 
 ing into the conversion of the sinner; that 
 these miraculous manifestations have no in- 
 fluence in the conversion of the sinner, or in 
 changing his moral state in any manner. 
 He rejects the views of the Saints for that 
 reason. And then he rejects the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit as believed in by the ortho- 
 dox world, he says, because that has nothing 
 to do with the conversion of the sinner 
 either. Why does he make a difference, 
 then, in rejecting the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit as we believe it, as it is manifested 
 in the different. gifts and signs, and the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit as believed by 
 Mr. Wesley and others? This distinction 
 evidently is for the purpose of keeping up 
 a supposed difference between the views of 
 the Saints and others, when, in fact, it does 
 not exist. It seerns to me, that, if he rejects 
 it in their way, because it does not enter 
 into the conversion of the sinner, as he 
 thinks, that ought to cover also the rejec- 
 tion with regard to us, because we do not 
 claim it enters into the conversion of the 
 sinner in the sense, in which he seeks to 
 apply it. We claim, as far as that is con- 
 cerned, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit 
 and the miraculous manifestations of the 
 Holy Spirit are for the purpose of confirm- 
 ing the believer in the Word of God and 
 adding the graces to his faith, and that was 
 what it was for in the first age of Christian- 
 ity. Why do you reject it for yourself for 
 then, Mr. Braden? Answer me that ques- 
 tion. Because it is not to be used in the 
 conversion of the sinner, you say, when it 
 was never given for that specific purpose; 
 and truly you might ask, if it had been 
 given for the conversion of the sinner only, 
 why was it poured out upon the believers 
 on Pentecost day? You reject it, because 
 it is not given for the conversion of the 
 sinner, and yet Jesus gave it for a different 
 purpose. Why do you not k^ep it to answer 
 the purpose for which Christ placed it in 
 the church? Answer that question as you 
 proceed. 
 
 Now, upon Pentecost day the Holy Spirit 
 was poured out upon the believers. And I 
 ask, for what purpose? Evidently as a 
 blessing; and for the purpose of confirm- 
 ing those in the Word, who had already 
 accepted of Jesus and John's teaching. 
 John the Baptist came teaching, of which 
 you are well aware, as stated in the history, 
 saying, "I indeed baptize you with water 
 unto repentance ; but he that corneih 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." 
 In the preaching of John the Baptist and 
 of Jesus there was something more to be 
 attained and sought, than simply baptism 
 of the water. There was something that 
 
 the Christian was pointed to, that waa 
 higher and more, excellent and enduring 
 than simply going down into the water and 
 coming up out of the water. And this ex- 
 cellent thing, that which formed the great 
 central thought of the Christian religion, 
 was the baptism of the Spirit ; or the fact 
 that men and women might attain unto the 
 Spirit of God in order that, in their. lives, 
 they might be comforted, and that they 
 might have that Spirit to confirm and 
 establish them in the faith and keep them 
 unspotted from the evils of the world. 
 
 Now, this promise was fulfilled and veri- 
 fied to the disciples of Jesus on the day of 
 Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy 
 Spirit. We read in the second chapter of 
 the Acts of the apostles : " Now when they 
 heard this [the preaching of the apostle 
 Peter], they were pricked in their heart, 
 and said unto Peter and to the rest of the 
 apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we 
 do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, 
 and be baptised every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ for the re'mission of, 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gilt of the 
 Holy Ghost." What was the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost? The same thing that they had 
 just witnessed as having been received on 
 the day of Pentecost. "Ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost." And yet, Mr. 
 Braden stands before you and declares em- 
 phatically that that was the only instance 
 in which this gift of the Holy Spirit was 
 manifested or given except at the house- 
 hold of Cornelius. If hi position is true, 
 then the Apostle Peter, while speaking un- 
 der the influence of the Spirit of God, told 
 those people they should receive' this same 
 gift of the Holy Ghost when it was not for 
 them, and they did not, and consequently 
 he told what was not true. Now, will you 
 please clear this up? Peter told them that 
 they should receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, and there was the farnw day 3,000 
 added to the church. Did they afterwards 
 receive it, or did he tell them that they 
 should receive something that they could 
 not receive? But let me read further: 
 "For the promise is untoyou and toyourchiJ- 
 dren, and to all that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God snail call. And 
 with many other words did he testify * d 
 exhort, saying. Save yourselves from thi; 
 untoward "generation." "And they went 
 forth and preached everywhere, the Lord 
 working with them, and confirming the 
 word with signs following." Following 
 the believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
 and thus they were "signs" indeed. The 
 sign of the true believer. 
 
 IVow, it seems that the signs did not go 
 beforehand in order to convert men. The 
 signs did not go beforehand in order to 
 make men believe the truth. Nor was that 
 the manner of procedure in the establish- 
 ment of the churches in the first age of < 
 Christianity to any extent. Nor is it the 
 manner of the establishment of the doc- 
 trine and faith of the Latter Day t-ainta 
 (the saints of t.o-dsty ), or those who belong 
 to the Chim-h ot Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 227 
 
 Saints; we use the term Latter Day Saints 
 to distinguish the church from former day 
 Saints. 
 
 Right here I will notice the argument 
 and "claim made for his church on the point 
 that all should take the name of Christ. 
 What name? Does it mean the entire name 
 of Christ, or simply the name Christ, or 
 God? Our Winebrenarian friends say just, 
 Church of God. Braden says, Church of 
 Christ. I take it, from the third chapter of 
 the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesian saints, 
 that he means that they shall take the full 
 name; the name of Jesus Christ, after 
 whom the whole family, both in heaven 
 and on earth, is named. The epistle 
 does not say Christ simply, but "Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 Let me ask, why do you strike off the 
 name Jesus and say, " We will just call our 
 church Christ Church? What is your au- 
 thority for suppressing the name Jesus? 
 Please answer that question and show the 
 audience that if a church takes the name of 
 " Jesus Christ," it does not have the name 
 of Christ? Tell us how it comes that a 
 church that takes the name of Jesus Christ 
 is not as likely to be called after the name 
 of the, Only begotten of the Father and of 
 whom the whole family in heaven and 
 earth are named, as a church that simply 
 takes the name of Christ, or the Christian, 
 or Disciple church? I am now upou the 
 negative, and shall expect some proof forth- 
 coming. 
 
 There are a few other things that were 
 mentioned in the beginning of the remarks 
 of Mr. Braden that I wish to call your at- 
 tention to, and shall dp so, because I wish 
 to have an understanding as we proceed in 
 this matter, so that we can come to a fair 
 issue in the argument. 
 
 There is a difference of understanding, it 
 seems, with regard to Just what should be 
 in the church. He thinks that I will differ 
 with him in regard to things that ought to be 
 In the church, and claim some things that he 
 has not in his church. Well, what are some 
 of those things? Possibly it is in some of 
 the articles of fail.h, possibly in the organ- 
 ization of the church. Whatever, let him 
 point them out, or the features not in 
 his, that were in the church in the time 
 of the apostles, and tell us why not? 
 If his is stricly with the organization of 
 the church as it was left perfected by the 
 apostles, and we go back to the record of 
 the apostles to find what they did to perfect 
 It, his church will have in it, as is recorded 
 here in the twelfth chapter of the Epistle 
 of Paul to the Corinthian saints, the officers 
 connected with the church as God set them 
 in the same. Because how can we get the 
 organization of the church as it was left 
 perfected by the apostles without turning 
 back and reading what was in theirs, and 
 what the apostles did? It is said in this 
 twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians: "Now ye 
 are the body of Christ, and members in 
 particular. And God hath set some in the 
 church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, 
 thirdly teaches; after that miracles, then 
 
 gifts of healing, helps, governments, diver- 
 sities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are 
 all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all 
 workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of 
 healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do 
 all interpret?" He argues there that God 
 has given a number of spiritual gifts for the 
 purpose of aiding in the perfecting of the 
 saints here, in the work of the ministry, 
 and among these he has set in the church 
 the gift, or office, of an apostle. Now, 
 when I turn back to the record of the 
 apostles, and wish to compare that record 
 with the church of which my opponent is a 
 member, I ask him to state whether his 
 church is in agreement with the record there, 
 and if not, why not? Doyouhaveapostlesas 
 first officers in your church as they were first 
 officers in the church of Christ as it existed 
 in the first century? If not, why not? Do 
 you have prophets also? Do you haveevan- 
 gellists, and pastors, and teachers inspired 
 men to perform duties as set in the church 
 as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Paul's 
 letter to the saints at Rome? If not, why 
 not? The Apostle says : " For as we have 
 many members in one body, and all mem- 
 bers have not the same office, so we, being 
 many, are one body in Christ, and. every 
 one member one of another. Having then 
 gifts differing according to the grace that 
 is given to us, whether prophecy, let us 
 prophesy according to the proportion of 
 faith ; or ministry, let as wait on our minis- 
 tering; or he that teacheth, on teaching: 
 or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he 
 that giveth, let him do it with simplicity," 
 etc. Here it is distinctly stated that so far 
 as the office of each individual in the church 
 was concerned, they were to magnify the 
 office in accordance with the spiritual gift 
 that God had given to them by which to 
 work in the church. Now, is that the way 
 that you Campbellites do? Is that the way 
 you found these organizations left after the 
 apostles had fallen asleep? Or did you not 
 find that there were officers placed in tho 
 organizations as Paul states as recorded iu 
 the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, wherein he teaches that he 
 ordained men as the Holy Ghost had called 
 them: "Take heed therefore unto your- 
 selves, and to all the flock, over the which 
 the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." 
 He is talking to the elders, teaching them, 
 "To feed the Church of God, which He 
 hath purchased with His own blood. For 
 I know this, that after my departing shall 
 grievous wolves enter in amoung you, not 
 sparing the flock. Also of yourselves shall 
 men arise, speaking perverse things, to 
 draw away diciples after them. Therefore 
 watch, and remember, that by the space of 
 three years I ceased not to warn everyone 
 night and day with tears." The apostle 
 is warning them against, the very thing 
 Braden is contending for, viz., making 
 ministers of their " own selves." 
 
 Right in this connectiou, another thing 
 that my opponent stated before the audience 
 needs to be examined iu order that you may 
 see it as it i. He took up the history aa 
 
228 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 contained in the Bible, dividing it into 
 periods after this order : from the time of 
 Adam to the flood ; from the flood to Abra- 
 ham or to the Mosaic economy ; from the 
 Mosaic institution of things to the time of 
 Malachi ; and from Malachi to the day of 
 Pentecost ; afterwards, from the day of 
 Pentecost to the present and futurity, as 
 though, ever since the day of Pentecost, 
 there had been an effulgent light in the 
 heavens, and that the people had been 
 drawing nigh to this and gathering know- 
 ledge from that great light which had 
 arisen, and that the world ever since that 
 time had been in the ascendency, so far as 
 truth is concerned and the enjoyment of 
 the highest blessings to be attained in the 
 Christian economy. Do you mean that, 
 Mr. Braden ? Then you do not believe that 
 the apostles prophesied truly when they 
 were writing their knowledge of things here 
 and warned the people that after their time 
 there would come a falling away; and that 
 the church here should not be a church 
 perfected, but a church that would be im- 
 perfect ; and that, as reported in Revelations 
 of the seven churches of Asia, many of 
 which had so far gone out of the way that 
 God would not recognize them any more as 
 in the light, but gives them to understand 
 that unless they repent He would utterly 
 cast them out of His sight. 
 
 The apostle Paul, here in the 20th chap- 
 ter of the Acts of the Apostles, predicts 
 that very thing, viz: that there is to be a 
 falling away from the faith. The apostacy 
 was plainly working then, and when we 
 come to view the lives ana teachings and 
 true characters of those men who are called 
 Reformers, who have labored and wrought 
 to restore to its original and pristiee beauty, 
 Christianity as it was at the first; to at- 
 tain the apostolic doctrine, as taught by 
 Peter and Paul ; they have taught us very 
 clearly that the falling away was so great 
 that they had hardly a dead form left. Mr. 
 Wesley says that they had hardly a dead 
 form left. And the reason he gives is, 
 that tbu j world turned heathen again after 
 the death of the apostles and that for this 
 cause raith was taken from the earth and 
 Christians had no more faith than the rest 
 of the world ; therefore, there was no longer 
 the spiritual blessing in the church as in 
 the first age of Christianity. See 94, and 
 95, sermons of Wesley. I might refer also 
 to Mr. Calvin for authority upon this. 
 When he began the work of what after- 
 wards proved to be the organization of 
 churches of his peculiar principles, he said : 
 "Our only object is to restore the doctrines 
 of the primitive church, which have been 
 corrupted by the Papal authorities." That 
 was the object as expressed in his own 
 language with regard to the beginning and 
 object of his work, to restore, to reinstate, 
 the pure principles of the doctrine of Christ 
 from which there had been a falling away. 
 So it was with the Reformers all through. 
 They recognized clearly the fact that dark- 
 ness had sprung up instead of light and 
 that men were without God in the world. 
 
 But let me call your attention to the fact 
 that while one of these Reformers has tried 
 to reach and restore the rituals and ordi- 
 nances of the church, another has tried to 
 attain to the spiritual life and the comfort- 
 ing influences of the Holy Spirit, as enjoyed 
 by the saints at the first ; and charged upon 
 others that they had shut out the light of 
 God by laying too much stress upon rituals 
 and conforming too much to the order of 
 things in the world, until it has come to a 
 state as confessed, at the synod of the Pres- 
 byterian church the past year, that they 
 have squeezed the entire life out of the 
 church by adhering to their forms and con- 
 ventionalities, instead of contending for the 
 life and religion of the Holy Spirit as it was 
 given in the beginning, and realized for two 
 centuries by the early saints. 
 
 Now the position that I occupy before 
 you is this : That so far as the ordinances, 
 rituals, forms and rules are concerned, as 
 laid down in the new testament, found en- 
 joined in the word, we ought to conform to 
 them but not have them take precedence of 
 everything else ; and that so far as the 
 spiritual light and life is concerned, which 
 is spoken of in this word, we ought to con- 
 form to that and have it also. It is a kind of 
 a golden mien between the extremists who 
 have worked on either side of the question 
 Of what shall be reformed in the church. You 
 remember that Mr. Fox, at the time when 
 he started out had seen so much of wrong 
 perpetrated in the world because of institu- 
 tions that adhered only to the rituals of the 
 church, and discarded any and all actual 
 spiritual life, that he threw away these 
 and contended for the spiritual influences 
 only : striking out everything in the shape 
 Of organization, and rituals, and everything 
 that would require persons to do anything 
 towards conforming to the forms and cere- 
 monies established in the first age. When 
 it came to Mr. Campbell's turn he went off 
 on another tangent and his followers to-day 
 adhere closely to the ordinances of baptism 
 that can be performed by an individual in 
 water, because they say that, that was a 
 command ; but they leave out the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit, as my friend, Mr. Bra- 
 den, here, this evening. He says it was 
 not a command for us to perform ; that we 
 should not receive the baptism of the spirit 
 because it was not a command and bethinks 
 that because it was not a command to do, 
 therefore, we could not baptize men with 
 the Holy Spirit and should not seek it. 
 Well, let us see. Is eternal life a com- 
 mand? No, and yet we are all to seek eter- 
 nal life, and the Campbellites, I suppose, 
 are seeking eternal life also; either in the 
 right or wrong way. If we were not to seek 
 eternal life because it is not a command, it 
 seems to me that the great object and pur- 
 pose of Christianity would be lost entirely. 
 But is it nota command to seek this spiritual 
 baptism? My opponent has overstepped 
 the bounds in both directions. Paul says 
 hre in the 14th chapter and 1st verse of his 
 Corinthian letter: "Follow after charity 
 and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that yi 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 229 
 
 may prophecy." Is it not a command, 
 then,, to follow after these things? 
 
 Again, " For he that speaketh in an un- 
 known tongue speaketh not unto men but 
 unto God: for no man understandeth him; 
 howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysie- 
 ries." It is right, then, to seek this spirit, 
 C conclude. In the 12th chapter the apos- 
 tle gives us to understand that for the hope 
 . and spiritual development of those who un- 
 dertake to worship Christ and follow him, 
 41 a manifestation of the spirit is given to 
 every man to profit withal." This mani- 
 festation of the spirit is given to the man 
 who is unlearned, to the woman who is not 
 as much of an adept as another, for the 
 purpose of enlightenment and instruction 
 through this their particular gift from God 
 that they may profit, not only to their own, 
 but to the advantage of the entire church ; 
 thus the church may be built up and may 
 be made a fit temple for the indwelling of 
 the Holy Ghost by reason of this spirit 
 that is to be poured out upon each member, 
 and thus it becomes "even a habitation of 
 God through the spirit." And remember 
 that it is not miraculous influences only, so 
 far as outward manifestations are con- 
 cerned, in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc., 
 that come by reason of this Holy Spirit, but 
 it is such manifestations and gifts as -the 
 church must absolutely have in order to 
 grow in the graces and knowledge of Christ 
 of wisdom, knowledge and faith. I under- 
 stand that the church of my opponent has 
 none of these gifts of wisdom, knowledge 
 find faith. Am I right? Now I ask him to 
 answer these questions as we proceed : 
 
 First, whether the spiritual gifts spoken 
 of in the eighth, ninth and tenth verses of 
 the twelfth chapter of Paul's first letter to 
 the Corinthians is desired in his church, or 
 are any of them attained to in his church ; 
 whether the wisdom spoken of there is ; 
 whether the knowledge is; whether the 
 faith is ; whether the other things that are 
 spoken of in those verses as belonging to 
 the early saints are with them, and whether 
 they desire them at the present time, and 
 are they considered necessary by his church 
 in order to guide men and women aright? 
 The apostle teaches, 
 
 "For to one is given by the spirit the word of wis- 
 dom; to another the word of knowledge by the same 
 spirit; to another faith by the same spirit; to another 
 the (rifts of healing by the same spirit; to another the 
 working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another 
 discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of 
 tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but 
 ell of these worketh that one and the self-same spirit 
 dividing to every man severally as he will." 
 
 Second, now is this wisdom which was 
 
 given to the church by the spirit of God to 
 irect the church then, to be the guide of 
 the church to-day, as it was anciently ? or 
 do you claim that it was miraculous wis- 
 dom? 
 
 Third. If you claim it was miraculous 
 wisdom, will j'ou jusc please stale to the 
 audience what kind of wisdom is miracu- 
 lous, and what is not? And so of knowl- 
 edge? 
 Fourth. If you answer these questions in 
 
 the negative, will you stop and tell us in 
 what respect your church resembles the 
 early church? 
 
 I claim that so far as manifestations of the 
 Spirit to the church are concerned, that the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is promised 
 by Jesus and by John, was not to those 
 who were gathered together on Pentecost 
 day only, but "to as many as the Lord our 
 God should call," as Peter says. Not call 
 to the miraculous gifts or power, as Braden 
 has it, but call to salvation. "The prom- 
 ise is unto you and to your children and to 
 all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 Lord our God shall call." Not extending to 
 the end of the Jewish age only, as he has 
 interpreted Joel's prophecy, but extending, 
 as that prophecy did, to the time, "when the 
 knowledge of the Lord should cover the 
 earth, as do the waters the sea." Was that 
 accomplished in the end of the Jewish age? 
 Will you please answer that question as 
 you go along? And not only that, but 
 whether the following has ever taken place : 
 "It shall come to passin the last days, sailh 
 God, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
 flesh; and your sons and your daughters 
 shall prophecy, and your old men shall 
 dream dreams, and your young men shall 
 see visions, and on my servants and on my 
 handmaidens I will pour out my Spirit, 
 and they shall prophecy." Was all that 
 fulfilled at the end of the Jewish age ? Or 
 has it ever been fulfilled since then? If it 
 has not been fulfilled, nor will not be, who 
 limited it? Please tell us, so we can have 
 an opportunity of comparing the pattern as 
 set forth in the Bible with the views of your 
 church. 
 
 I next call your attention to some things 
 with regard to the continuation of practices 
 and ordinances in the church. Now, I under- 
 stand that he claims that he believes in the 
 church as it was left perfected by the apos- 
 tles, whatever that may mean. In the first 
 place then, I suppose he believes in the 
 church that practiced the ordinances as the 
 apostles practiced them ; doubtless as 
 found recorded in the eighth chapter of the 
 Acts of the apostles, fifteenth to twentieth 
 verses ; where Peter and John went down 
 to Samaria, after that the people had re- 
 ceived the word through the preaching of 
 Phillip ; and when they were come down 
 prayed for them that they might receive the 
 Holy Ghost. Then laid they, their hands 
 on them, and they received the Holy 
 Ghost." Also, the practice of . the early 
 church as shown in the instance of Ananias, 
 who was not an apostle, putting his hands 
 on Saul, as recorded in the ninth chapter 
 and seventeenth verse of the Acts of the 
 apostles, where another instance is record- 
 ed of the manifestation of the Holy Ghost 
 through this ordinance of the laying on of 
 hands. Will you answer this question? 
 Was Paul ever baptized of the Holy Spirit? 
 and if so, when and where ? Since you say 
 only those at Pentecost and Samaria were 
 so baptized, and Paul was not in either 
 place. Afterwards we have a clear and de- 
 cisive illustration of the practice of Paul in 
 
230 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 his ministry, as recorded in the nineteenth 
 chapter of the Acts of the apostles, where 
 he, at a certain time, carne to Ephesus and 
 found a certain people who were called "cer- 
 tain disciples," and who said they had re- 
 ceived the baptism of John, but had not re- 
 ceived the Holy Spirit. This gives a fair il- 
 lustration of the difference between Mr. 
 Braden's teaching and mine, and the wide 
 difference existing, as I claim, between the 
 teaching of him and his church, and the 
 Bible, and the examination of this differ- 
 ence is doubtless what this audience wants 
 to listen to just now. It was not difficult 
 for the apostle to find out whether these per- 
 sons calling themselves disciples, were in 
 fact such. I will read you the history : 
 
 "And it came to pass [here It 'old come-to-pass> f 
 "again, rigut in the New Testament], that while 
 
 ' A polios was at Corinth, Paul having parsed through 
 
 ' the upper coasts, came to Ephesus and finding cer. 
 
 ' tain disciples, h said unto them, have ye received 
 the Koly Ghost since ye believed? And they said 
 unt him, wehnvo not so much as heard whether 
 
 there be any H< ly Ghost. And he siid unto them. 
 
 'unto what then were ye baptized; and they said, 
 
 1 unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily 
 baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying nnto 
 'the people that they should believe on him which 
 ' should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. 
 ' When they heard this, they were baptized in the 
 ' name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid 
 ' his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them : 
 ' and they spake with tongues and prophesied. And 
 ' all the men were about twelve." 
 
 This, my friends, establishes fully the 
 practice of the early church. The first in- 
 quiry of the minister of Christ was, "Have 
 ye received the Holy Ghost, since ye be- 
 lieved?" and when he was answered, no; 
 he proceeded to put them in the way to 
 receive it. I present this as showing a 
 direct contrast between the practices of the 
 New Testament church and the church of 
 which, "I, Clark Braden, am a member ; " 
 and as showing the fact that, instead of 
 being in harmony with the New Testament 
 church, the so-called Christian, Disciple or 
 Campbellite church is in direct antagonism 
 to that, as revealed in the record. 
 
 (Time called). 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 GENTT-EMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMKN : We will continue our defini- 
 tion of our views: 
 
 IV. One faith, one system of belief, one 
 system of teaching "the faith once deliv- 
 ered unto the Saints." The Scriptures. 
 We have sufficiently explained itm matter. 
 
 V. One baptism. We have a I ready proved 
 that the one baptism is in the name of the 
 Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a command, 
 is to be obeyed, is to be performed on men 
 by Christians and is baptism into water. We 
 practice immersion into water for these 
 reasons. 
 
 I. Not a sentence can becited in the Bible 
 that even hints that God ever authorized 
 in any way, pouring, or sprinkling, the ele- 
 ment water on any human being in a sin- 
 gle instance for any ceremonial, moral or 
 religious purpose 1 utterly defy any one to 
 find such a passage. 
 
 II Baptiam is a form, a type, a symbol, a 
 figure of Christ's burial and resurrection 
 It is an object setting forth and teaching 
 Christ's burial and resurrection It is a like- 
 ness of Christ's burial and resurrection 
 It is a memorial of Christ's burial and resur- 
 rection. It is a monumental institution, a 
 monument of Christ's burial and resurrec- 
 tion. Pouring and sprinkling are utterly 
 out of the question, as much as calve's-foot 
 jelly for the bread, and buttermilk for the 
 wine in the Lord's Supper They utterly 
 destroy the symbolical, the memorial, the 
 
 monumental power of baptism. They de- 
 stroy baptism and are no more baptism 
 than Romish Mass is the Lord's Supper. 
 Immersion alone is appropriate, it alone is 
 baptism. 
 
 III. Baptism is an object lesson, setting 
 forth the sinner's death to his past sinful 
 life, and resurrection to a new and right- 
 eous life. Pouring and sprinkling utterly 
 destroy this lesson and destroy baptism. 
 They are not baptism. Immersion alone 
 teaches this lesson. It alone is baptism. 
 
 IV. In baptism persons went down into 
 the water. Idiotic if they were merely 
 sprinkled or poured. Persons of common 
 sense never go down into the water for such 
 acts. They do and must to be immersed. 
 Immersion is baptism. Pouring and 
 sprinkling are not. 
 
 V. Persons como up out of the water 
 after baptism. They never do after pour- 
 ing and sprinkling. They always do after 
 immersion. Immersion is baptism. Pour- 
 ing and sprinkling are not baptism: 
 
 VI. Jesus was baptized in Jordan. A cor- 
 rect rendering would be "into the Jordan." 
 He was immersed Pouring and sprinkling 
 are out of the question. 
 
 VII Baptism was where there "wa 
 much water." It is needed for immersion. 
 It is not for sprinkling or pouring. Per- 
 sons were immersed, not poured or sprink- 
 led 
 
 VIII Baptism is likened to a birth. Pour- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Z'dl 
 
 ing and sprinkling are utterly out of the 
 question. Immersion is like a birth. 
 
 IX. Baptism is called a burial. Persons 
 are buried in immersion. Not in pouring 
 or sprinkling. 
 
 X. An overwhelming of sufferings is 
 called a baptism. It was not a sprinkling 
 or a pouring of sufferings. 
 
 XI. Baptism is called a bath, a laver. 
 Immersion is such. Pouring and sprinkling 
 are not. 
 
 XII. In every instance in which the ele- 
 ment water alone was used in the ceremo- 
 nies of the Israelite ritual or religious acts, 
 it was used in immersion alone. Blood and 
 the cleansing water, or lye, alone were 
 sprinkled. 
 
 For these reasons we reject pouring, or 
 sprinkling, and accept only immersion. All 
 pai'ies in creed and practice accept immer- 
 sion as baptism. We are orthodox and 
 caiholic and accept what is catholic and 
 uni ersal, and that alone. 
 
 We teach that a person who believes the 
 gospel with his whole heart who has re- 
 pented of his sins with that godly sorrow 
 which needs not to be regretted who has 
 confessed Christ with his mouth is a scrip- 
 tural subject for scriptural baptism, and he 
 alone. Some teach that an infant that is 
 too young to believe the gospel with the 
 whole heart, to repent with a godly sorrow 
 for past sins and to confess Christ with the 
 mouth, is a scriptural subject for scriptural 
 baptism. 
 
 We reject such a dogma for these reasons: 
 
 I. Not a sentence of scripture can be 
 found that even hints any authority for the 
 baptism of an infant; not a command, not 
 a teaching, not an example, not a hint of it. 
 
 II. In every case of baptism recorded in 
 the Bible, the narrative shows that the 
 persons baptized were believing penitents. 
 
 III. The design and object of baptism 
 Utterly forbid all idea of infant baptism. 
 
 I v . The most wretched, far-fetched, spe- 
 cial pleading and pettifogging in human 
 speech is the attempt to sustain infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 V. Infant baptism has not a shred of 
 warrant in reason, common sense or scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 VI. The absurd and contradictory rea- 
 sons urged for infant baptism show its utter 
 fallacy. 
 
 We teach that the gospel of Christ is the 
 power of God unto salvation to all who be- 
 lieve it. Romans 1:16. That men must 
 hear the gospel of Christ. "How shall 
 they believe on him of whom they have not 
 heard." Romans 10: 14. And "Faith comes 
 by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 God." Romans 10:17. That "With the 
 heart man believes unto righteousness." 
 Romans 10: 10. That "God commands all 
 men everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30. 
 That men should repent of their past sins 
 that " Godly sorrow that works a reforma- 
 tion not to be regretted." II Cor. 7 : 10. 
 That " with the mouth confession is made 
 tin to salvation." Rom. 10:10. This is be- 
 lieved by all parties. 
 
 We teach also that the one who has been 
 begotten by the spirit through the word in 
 believing, is born of the water and spirit in 
 baptism ; that the one who has believed and 
 been baptized is saved from his past sins ; 
 that penitent believers must be baptized 
 into the remission of past sins ; that peni- 
 tent believers must arise and be baptized, 
 washing away their past sins, calling on 
 the namje of the Lord ; that penitent believ- 
 ers are baptized into the death of Christ; 
 that they are buried with Christ in baptism; 
 that they are buried to sin in baptism ; that 
 they arise out of baptism to a new life ; that 
 penitent believers are made free from sin 
 when they obey, in baptism, the figure, 
 form, symbol or type of the teaching, the 
 burial, the resurrection of Christ delivered 
 unto them. 
 
 That men are children of God through 
 faith when they put on Christ in baptism. 
 That baptism now saves us in the sense of 
 pardon of past sins, as the answer or re- 
 quirement of a good conscience toward 
 God. 
 
 Our position is this : The gospel law of 
 pardon was first preached on the day of 
 Pentecost. That it is the duty of men to 
 preach it as it was then preached in all and 
 every instance. That since the day of Pen- 
 tecost, when persons have been properly 
 instructed in the Jaw of pardon, immersion 
 in water, into the name of the Father, Son 
 and Holy Spirit, is a condition of the re- 
 mission of past sins, to one who has believ- 
 ed the Gospel of Christ, with the whole 
 heart, who has repented of -past sins with 
 a godly sorrow, and who has confessed 
 Christ with the mouth. 
 
 We teach it for these reasons. I. In the 
 first transgression, in Eden, man became a 
 sinner through hearing falsehood, believing 
 falsehood, desiring the results of falsehood 
 and obeying the teachings of falsehood, in 
 violating the positive command, "Thou 
 shalt not eat." He returns by retracing his 
 steps, hearing the Gospel, believing the 
 Gospel, repenting, confessing Christ, and 
 obeying the truth in obeying the positive 
 command baptism. II. The en tire man is 
 changed in each case. Believing falsehood 
 changed man's beliefs; desiring the re- 
 sults of falsehood, changed man's desires' 
 his heart ; disobeying a positive command, 
 changed man's volitions, his conduct; 
 punishment changed his condition, his 
 state. In like manner believing the truth 
 changes man's beliefs ; repentance, his 
 heart ; confession, his position before men 
 and divine law ; baptism changes man's vo- 
 lition, his conduct ; pardon changes his 
 state. III. The entire man is tested in each 
 case. Beliefof falsehood wasatestof mind, 
 reason, judgement; desiring the results of 
 falsehood was a test of the heart ; disobe- 
 dience of a positive command was a test of 
 the will. In like manner belief of truth 
 tests man's mind, reason, judgment. Re- 
 
 Eentance tests his heart, and baptism tests 
 is will. IV. Disobedience to a positive 
 command was before and in order to pun- 
 ishment, in the first transgression. Obe- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 dience to a positive command is before and 
 in order to the removal of punishment in 
 man's conversion. V. In John's work pre- 
 paring for Christ, baptism was into refor- 
 mation, into remission. VI. Jesus said 
 men are begotten by the Spirit, through 
 hearing his words, and believing the truth; 
 and born of the water and Spirit in baptism. 
 VII. Jesus said, "he that believes and is 
 baptized shall be saved" from his -past sins. 
 In Matthew's account of the same discourse 
 he tells us that this baptism was into the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 It was water baptism. VIII. Peter said to 
 converted believers "Repent and be bap- 
 tized unto the remission of sins." IX. The 
 penitent praying Saul was told to "Arise 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins 
 calling on the name of the Lord." X. Peter 
 who has to tell Cornelius "what he must do 
 to be saved," preached, Cornelius believed 
 Peter commanded him to be baptized in 
 water in the name of the Lord. XL The 
 jailor asked Paul what he must do to be 
 saved. Paul told him to believe, and bap- 
 tized him. XII. Baptism is recorded as an 
 essential element in every conversion as 
 much so, as faith. On the day of Pente- 
 cost, Lydia, Saul, the Eunuch, the Sa- 
 maritans, Cornelius, the jailor, the house- 
 holds of Stephanas, Crispus, Gains, the 
 Romans, Corinthians, Epbesians, Colossi- 
 ans, the language of Paul to Titus, the 
 language of Peter. XIII. The Romans were 
 baptized into Christ's death. The blood of 
 Christ is met in hit, death. Were united 
 with Christ in baptism, in the likeness of 
 his death. Were buried to sin in baptism 
 and rose to walk a new life. Were made 
 free from sin in obeying, in baptism, the 
 symbol of the doctrine delivered to them, 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ. XIV. 
 The Galatians put on Christ in being bap- 
 tized into him. XV. The Ephesians are 
 loid that Christ cleansed the church by the 
 washing the laver, bath of water, baptism, 
 through the word. XVI. The Colossians 
 were buried with Christ in baptism, and 
 rose through faith, to walk a new life. 
 XVII. As the Israelites were freed from 
 Fiiaroah and came under Moses in the bap- 
 tism unto Moses in the cloud and sea, so we 
 are freed from sin and come unto Christ in 
 being baptized into Christ. XVIII. We 
 aie saved by the washing, laver, bath of re- 
 generation, baptism, and the renewal of the 
 Holy Spirit in belief, being begotten by the 
 Spirit through the word. XIX. Baptism 
 saves us as the answer or requirement of a 
 good conscience towards God. XX. If we 
 arrange the teachings of the Scriptures in 
 pairs we can see what they are. Persons 
 are begotten by hearing the words of the 
 Spirit (faith) and born of water and Spirit 
 (baptism). He that believes (faith) and is 
 baptized (baptism) is saved. Believing 
 penitents (faith) are told to be baptized into 
 remission (baptism). Believing Saul (faith) 
 is told to arise and wash away his sins 
 (washing of regeneration baptism) in bap- 
 tism. Cornelius believed (faith) and was 
 baptized in water in the name of the Lord 
 
 (baptism) as what he was todo to be saved. 
 The eunuch believed (faith) and was bap- 
 tized (baptism). The Samaritans believed 
 (faith) and were baptized (baptism). The 
 jailor believed (faith) and was baptized 
 (baptism). The Romans believed (faith) 
 and were baptized into Christ's death 
 united with him in the likeness of his death 
 (in baptism), obeyed (in baptism) the sym- 
 bol of the doctrine, the burial and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ. The Ephesians were cleansed 
 by the laver bath of water, (baptism) 
 through the word (faith). The Galatians 
 were children of God through faith having 
 put on Christ in being baptized into Christ. 
 The Colossians were buried with Christ in 
 baptism rose to a new life through faith. 
 We are saved by the laver both washing of 
 regeneration (as Paul washed away his sins 
 in baptism) and the renewal of the Holy 
 Spirit in faith. Baptism, as an act of faith, 
 saves us as the answer or requirement of a 
 good conscience towards God. XXI. The 
 baptism mentioned in- these couplets is 
 water baptism. It-was into the name of 
 the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, in the 
 name of Christ in water in the name of 
 the Lord here is water a laver a bath a 
 washing a command administered by 
 man, not miraculous, not attended 
 with miraculous power. It was the 
 one baptism. Baptism in the Holy 
 Spirit that is a miraculous promise, not 
 a command ; received, not obeyed ; that 
 is administered by Christ alone was a 
 miracle and attended with miraculous 
 power, is utterly out of the question. XXII. 
 Then we teach that obedience to a positive 
 ordinance baptism occupies the same posi- 
 tion, in order, in man's return to God, that 
 disobedience to a positive ordinance, "Thou 
 shall not eat," did in man's departure. 
 That obedience to a positive ordinance is 
 before and in order to a removal of punish- 
 ment, in the same sense that disobedience 
 to a positive ordinance was before and in 
 order to infliction of punishment in the 
 transgression. That as man was not punish- 
 ed when he believed falsehood, nor when he 
 desired its results, and not until he had 
 arrayed his will against God's positive com- 
 mand ; and in his actions violated his positive 
 command; so in conversion, the penalty is 
 not removed when man believes or for faith 
 only, nor when he repents, but when he 
 submits his will to God's will, in his posi- 
 tive ordinance baptism, and by his acts 
 obeys this ordinance and is born into the 
 Kingdom of God, saved from his past sins, 
 baptized into remission, washes away his 
 sins, is made free from sin, is baptized into 
 Christ, is saved by the laver of regeneration, 
 is cleansed by it, saved by baptism in meet- 
 ing the requirements of God's law and has 
 a good conscience toward it. 
 
 We teach that faith is a means of man's 
 justification. We reject the dogma that 
 man is justified by faith only, for these 
 reasons: I. The Scriptures nowhere declare 
 that man is justified by faith only. The 
 "only" is an interpolation. II. The Scrip- 
 tures nowhere declare that man is justified 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 233- 
 
 by faith without works of obedience to the 
 law of Christ. Deeds of law have no refer- 
 ence to deeds of the law of Christ. III. 
 The Scriptures declare that man is justi- 
 fied by ten different things and faith in 
 one of them. IV. Faith is an act of obe- 
 dience to the law of Christ, a work as much 
 as baptism. V. The word of God declares, 
 "Man is justified by works, and not by faith 
 only." We believe this and not sectarian 
 theology which flatly contradicts God's 
 word in saying, "Man is not justified by 
 works, but by faith only." 
 
 The sixth item or plank is one hope 
 though the name of Christ. It embraces 
 hope of pardon and the Spirit through the 
 word in the case of the sinner eternal life 
 and the resurrection and heaven in the case 
 of the Christian, who is faithful in a holy, 
 righteous life to the end. 
 
 The seventh item or plank is the one body 
 or "The Church of Christ." We find that 
 there were two classes of persons in the 
 church in the apostolic age. There were 
 two kinds of work. One required miracu- 
 lous powers ; the other did not. The 
 miraculous was extraordinary, temporary, 
 to endure until the New Testament church 
 was perfected, and the perfect word of God 
 was completed in the New Testament. Then 
 this miraculous power and all its work 
 ceased ; and the men who possessed it 
 ceased out of the church. This removes 
 apostles, prophets, who preach by inspira- 
 tion, and all miraculous work and persons 
 possessing miraculous power. It leaves 
 evangelists, who, as uninspired preachers, 
 proclaim the Gospel, that was perfected by 
 the inspired apostles, to the world. Then 
 overseers and servants or deacons. These 
 two classes of officers are generally termed 
 "Elders," because chosen from old men. 
 They and the evangelists are called "shep- 
 herds," because they fed the flock. We 
 reject episcopacy over more than one con- 
 gregation, and all orders not embraced in 
 evangelists, overseers and deacons. We 
 reject creeds, councils and all ecclesiastical 
 hierarchies. The local congregation is the 
 master of its own affairs in all matters of 
 faith 1 , practice and discipline. 
 
 The eighth plank is the one name. Indi- 
 vidual followers should bear this one name, 
 the name of Christ, in being called " Christ- 
 ians." The Church should bear this one 
 name of Christ in being called " The Church 
 of Christ," or, " The Church of God." Thus 
 we stand on the divine platform of eight 
 planks laid down by Paul, so we proclaim 
 these eight items to the world. 
 
 We do not preach Trinitarianism because 
 it is an attempt to be wise beyond what is 
 written. We reject unitarianism because it 
 denies the divinity of Jesus, that he was 
 divinity manifest in human form. We 
 have rejected total hereditary depravity 
 because unscriptural and absurd. We are 
 not Pelagians, for we 1 elieve in inherited 
 depravity of man's physical, mental and 
 moral nature. We reject all idea of inherit- 
 ed sinfulness or guilt, and the idea that 
 inherited depravity can be total. We have 
 
 rejected all idea of veiigefulness on the part 
 of God, and all horrible pictures of punish- 
 ment, gross ideas of hell aud punishment, 
 but are not Universalists. We believe that 
 there is punishment of sin here and here- 
 after, and that the finally impenitent will 
 be eternally lost. We have rejected absurd- 
 ities of human inability, that man can do 
 nothing in hearing and obeying God's word ; 
 ideas of substitutionary righteousness in 
 the sense that Christ's righteousness and 
 obedience will be accepted instead of what 
 we should and can do. Yet we believe that 
 Christ died for us, made an atonement for 
 us, and is our mediator and expiation. But 
 that he did this, not to do our righteousness 
 for us, but to enable us to be pardoned and 
 do our own righteousness, and by obeying 
 Him, grow up into the character we should 
 have. 
 
 We have rejected the absurd ideas tha.t 
 conversion is a miracle. Also absurd ex- 
 periences, and relying on our own feelings 
 for evidence of pardon. We take God at 
 His word. We obey Him and we take Hia 
 
 Sromise of pardon as the evidence of pardon, 
 ur evidence is divine, not human. We 
 reject mourners' benches, seekers' circles, 
 mourning for days or years, all idea that 
 God has to be converted by penance on th 
 part of the sinner, before he will pardon. 
 We hold our protracted meetings just as 
 the apostles held theirs. Preach the same 
 ideas. Tell persons the same things. 
 Proclaim the same commands. Make the 
 same promises. We tell persons believe 
 the Gospel, believe with the whole heart, 
 repent with a Godly sorrow, confess Christ, 
 with the mouth be baptized into remission. 
 We organize them into churches exactly aa 
 the apostles did, with the same officers and 
 services. Break the loaf on each first day 
 as they d id. Build each other up in Christian 
 knowledge and life, by teaching, exhorta- 
 tion, songs, prayers, reading the scriptures, 
 and live as tiie scriptures require. Thus I 
 prove that we are identical in faith, ordi- 
 nances, organizations, teaching, worship, 
 practice, and duties with the Church of 
 Christ as left completed by the apostles 
 of Christ. 
 
 We will notice briefly some things said 
 by my opponent. I will first remind him 
 that the New Testament is our authority in 
 regard to the Church of Christ. Not the 
 traditions of what are called "the fathers." 
 There is no issue that there were miracu- 
 lous powers in the church in the days of th 
 apostles. The issue is this : "Did the apos- 
 tles, in giving the constitution of the church, 
 the New Testament, ordain that they should 
 remain in the church as a permanent fea- 
 ture of the church they ordained in the New 
 Testament?" There is no disputing the 
 fact that Jesus promised that signs should 
 attend certain persons. The issues are, 
 " were they to attend the preaching of more 
 than believing apostles? Were they to re- 
 main perpetually in the church?" We are 
 glad to hear him say that miraculous power 
 wag not given to convert those to whom it 
 was given. See If he does not back out of 
 
234 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 that before we are done. " The last days " 
 in Joel's promise were the last days in the 
 Mosaic dispensation. Peter declares that 
 " this " series of events at which you are so 
 amazed "is that" series of events "that 
 was promised by Joel," and that Christ had 
 shed forth that series of miraculous dis- 
 plays which they saw or heard. Peter de- 
 clared that Joel's promise was to persons 
 among all flesh that "God should call." 
 That they should receive the Holy Spirit as 
 a gift. There were two manifestations of this 
 miraculous influence, baptism in the spirit, 
 poured forth by Christ on two occasions, 
 and spiritual gifts received by the imposi- 
 tion of apostle's hands. There is no dis- 
 pute that there were spiritual powers in the 
 Corinthian church ; nor tnat tlley were ex- 
 horted to desire the best of these gifts 
 while they remained in the church. I be- 
 lieve Paul when he says "there is a more 
 excellent way " than exercising the best of 
 these spiritual gifts. My opponent does not. 
 I desire " the more excellent way." He 
 does not. We have apostles in our church, 
 just aw we have Christ in our church, by 
 their words, their law, their inspired utter- 
 
 ances. We have prophets in the same way. 
 We do not substitute Joe Smith's fraud, the 
 Book of Mormon, as the "fullness of the- 
 gospel," for Christ's law, the New Testa- 
 ment. Nor do we substitute Mormon im- 
 postors for the apostles and prophets of the- 
 New Testament. We have evangelists, 
 shepherds and teachers in our church, who 
 take God's word as their sole guide, for it 
 "makes them perfect, and thoroughly fin- 
 ishes them to all good works." We do not 
 have Mormon impostors who pretend to be 
 inspired, and we refuse to follow the lying 
 vagaries of such instead of the perfect word 
 of God. Baptism in the spirit was a prom- 
 ise. We learn from the history of Christ's 
 administration of it that it ushered in tho 
 proclamation of the gospel to Jews on 
 the day of Pentecost, and the proc- 
 lamation of the gospel to Gentiles at 
 the house of Cornelius. We learn from the 
 Bible history its period of existence. W 
 learn from the context the meaning of 
 Paul's language ; the wisdom and knowl- 
 edge that were to pass away, were the wis- 
 dom and knowledge imparted by inspira- 
 tion, mentioned in the previous context. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MOHEJIATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: I am <g;lad we are going to 
 have a discussion. I have been here, this 
 is the eleventh evening now, and we have 
 not had a discussion yet; he failed even to 
 undertake to meet the issue in the other 
 question. But it seems we are to have an 
 issue in this, and upon that issue we are to 
 have a discussion. The negative will not 
 fail to meet tho issue this time, I assure 
 you. 
 
 I call attention to the last remark of the 
 speaker with regard to the wonderful '"seed" 
 or the germ which had in its growth proved 
 to be the culmination of the work of what 
 the Christian world has been foolishly con- 
 tending for, as he thinks, forlo, these many 
 years. The culmination is in, that it has 
 gone to seed in "Mormonism." What is it 
 that he says is the seed of Mormonism? 
 The belief in the power and regenerating 
 influence of the Holy Spirit. It seems to 
 me the seed is not a very bad one, then. 
 All of this talk about Mormonism is be- 
 cause we claim that men ought to be blessed 
 with the gifts of the Spirit if they have the 
 Spirit of God ; if they are blessed with the 
 gift of wisdom, let them be wise servants ; 
 if with the gift of knowledge, let them use 
 it; if the gift of faith or any other, Jet it 
 be properly exercised ; and if that is "Mor- 
 
 monism," and the prayerful desire for the- 
 Holy Spirit by the churches "the seed," 
 was not the doctrine that Paul and Jesua 
 and Peter taught Mormouism also? Was 
 the full light of the gifts taught by Jesus 
 and the apostles, "Mormonism gone to 
 seed?" Wiil you please answer that to- 
 morrow night? If they taught these spir- 
 itual gifts just like I am teaching them, 
 and you call mine the result of the faith and 
 the worship of the various seeded organiz- 
 ations, or "Mormonism gone to seed," what 
 do you call theirs ? Because certainly they 
 taught the same things that I have been 
 trying to teach here, and if they did not, it 
 is with you to point out the difference. 
 
 I call your attention now to the text that 
 I quoted in my first speech : "Follow after 
 charity and desire spiritual gifts, butrather 
 that ye may prophesy." Well, but "yet," 
 he says, "I show unto you a more excellent 
 way." Oh no, Mr. Braden, this was after 
 he was going to show a more excellent way. 
 That was said as recorded in the twelfth 
 chapter; this is the fourteenth I am quot- 
 ing. This is an exhortation made after the 
 reference to the more excellent way. Here 
 it will be proper to stop and enquire what 
 this "more excellent way" is. 
 
 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and 
 members in particular. And God hath set 
 
TIIE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 some in the church, first apostles, seconda- 
 rily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
 miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, gov- 
 ernments, diversities of tongues. Are all 
 apostles? are all prophets?" "But covet 
 earnestly the best gifts ; and yet show I 
 unto you a more excellent way." Then 
 Braden says the apostle goes on and shows 
 the more excellent way. That is, that proph- 
 ecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, and 
 whether there be knowledge it shall vanish 
 away. That is the more excellent way my 
 opponent thinks, outlined in the thirteenth 
 chapter. Then I turn to the first part of 
 the fourteenth chapter, after he had given 
 them the more excellent way, according to 
 his wise interpretation, and get the most 
 excellent way. Now, Mr. Braden, you re- 
 member to-morrow night, and give us the 
 most excellent way. "Follow after charity, 
 and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that 
 ye may prophesy." According to your in- 
 terpretation, what comes last is the best; 
 and by this, after he had given them the 
 more excellent way, according to the inter- 
 pretation of that clause, as any of you can 
 see by turning and reading it, he then pro- 
 ceeded to give them the most excellent way. 
 And I want to call your attention to the 
 fact that this letter was not divided into 
 chapters or verses when the apostle Paul 
 wrote his letter as it is found here. These 
 divisions are of a comparatively modern 
 date. The apostle sent this letter entire to 
 the Corinthian Church, and in it he gives 
 them here, as recorded in the twelfth chap- 
 ter according to Mr. Bradeu's interpreta- 
 tion first, the excellent way ; second, in the 
 thirteenth chapter he gives them the more 
 excellent way ; third, in the fourteenth 
 chapter he gives them the most excellent 
 way ; and when he gets to the most excel- 
 lent way, it is, "Follow after charity, and 
 desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may 
 prophesy." He will find out before we get 
 through that "yet snow I unto you a more 
 excellent way," is in accordance with the 
 interpretation that I gave at Wilber, that 
 then I was correct ; and I will try and make 
 it clear before this discussion closes. But 
 of this I shall particularly speak another 
 time. The apostle does not occupy the ab- 
 surd position of teaching three ways as my 
 opponent would have us believe, but he 
 teaches one only, and that is taught in all 
 of these chapters. 
 
 When my time was called I was ex- 
 amining the practice of the church as found 
 in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of 
 the apostles, where Paul, in addressing 
 some of the people at Ephesus, asks them 
 whether they have received the Holy Ghost 
 since they believed. It reads: "He said 
 unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost 
 since ye believed ? And they said unto him, 
 we have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost." Now this is 
 a fair illustration of the difference between 
 my teaching and my opponent's. I meet 
 a community of persons that say they are 
 believers, and I ask them, have ye received 
 the confirmation of the Spirit or the Hoxy 
 
 Spirit since ye believed? Or, "Have ye 
 received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" 
 Mr. Braden comes along, and if they have 
 had water baptism it is all right. He never 
 thinks of such a thing as asking them if 
 they have received the Holy Ghost. The 
 terms "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" 
 remember, are used in the Bible inter- 
 changeably. So also with these is " Gift ol 
 the Holy Ghost," and " Born of the Spirit." 
 But the record proceeds: 
 
 And he, Paul, said unto them, " Unto what 
 then were ye baptized?" And they said 
 "Unto John's Baptism." Then said Paul, 
 "John verily baptised with the baptism ol 
 repentence, saying unto the people that 
 they should believe on him which should 
 come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 71 
 When they heard this they were baptised 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when 
 Paul had laid his hands upon them, th 
 Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake 
 with tongues and prophesied." Now, here 
 are more miraculous manifestations, so far 
 as the record shows, than was witnessed 
 upon the day of Pentecost. On the day of 
 Pentecost there was but the gift of tongues, 
 so far as miraculous manifestations are con- 
 cerned. But here are both tongues and 
 prophecies. The Holy Ghost was poured 
 out bountifully, and the brethren filled to 
 overflowing. -And yet he pretends to say 
 that on Pentecost day there was a baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit, while in this instance 
 there was not. But the record holds that 
 there was a baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 Now, I wish him to clear this up, and show 
 to the audience the difference between the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit and the reception 
 of the Holy Spirit ; between the reception 
 of the Holy Spirit as was here spoken of by 
 the Apostle Paul and the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit on Pentecost day ; or the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit as was given unto those 
 who believed at Samaria, Acts 8: 20, and 
 the gift of the Hoh Spn' ,s bestowed upon 
 the household of Cornelius, Acts 11: 17. 
 All of these are used interchangeably as I 
 have before stated, and the phenomena is 
 the same in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the 
 reception of the Holy Spirit, or as I might 
 correctly use the term Holy Ghost in each 
 instance. I take it that this is in accord- 
 ance with the teaching of Jesus in the third 
 chapter of John. "Except a man be born 
 of the water and of the Spirit," the birth 
 of the Spirit representing certainly the 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, "He cannot 
 enter into the Kingdom of God." Now will 
 my opponent please answer to-morrow 
 evening the question of what that birth of 
 the Spirit to which Jesus referred had ref- 
 erence, and whom it affects. Do not forget 
 that. And do not answer it by saying " I 
 believe so and so," as you have pretended 
 to answer the questions that I asked you 
 this evening. I am not asking you for what 
 you believe about it, but for what the record 
 teaches. I want a clear exposition of the 
 record. Do not say that Kelley believes so 
 and so, and that Braden believes so and so. 
 
236 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Eet us have the facts bearing upon this 
 issue set out as they are in the record. But 
 I will pursue the thread of my argument 
 upon tne practice in the early days of the 
 church of the ordinance of the laying on of 
 hands. 
 
 When the apostle had laid his hands on 
 those at Ephesus, they received the Holy 
 Ghost, and they spake with tongues and 
 prophesied. This is in the record that he 
 claims is the only genuine and correct record 
 to show how the church was, as it was left 
 by the apostles, and the pattern to the 
 church now, directing what we should do. 
 Is the church of which Mr. Braden is a 
 member in practice and teaching with the 
 early chursh, if it disregards these things ? 
 (And it does.) Now, I turn back and refer 
 you to the record as contained in the eighth 
 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where, 
 after Philip had been down to Samaria and 
 had preached to the people, and they had 
 received the word, as it is recorded, as 
 follows : 
 
 "But when they believed Philip preaching the 
 things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and 
 women. Then Simon himself believed also; and when 
 he was baptized, he continued with Philip and wonder- 
 ed, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 
 Now, when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, 
 heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they 
 sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were 
 come down, prayed for them, that they might receive 
 the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none 
 of them ; only they were bapti ed in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and 
 they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw 
 that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy 
 Ghost was given, he offered them money." 
 
 I cite this for two purposes ; First to show 
 that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
 given to those, who were obedient and were 
 confirmed by the laying on of hands after 
 the day of Pentecost, in this instance to the 
 people of Samaria ; and they were evidently 
 baptized of the Holy Ghost as fully and 
 effectually, as were tnose of Pentecost day. 
 Second, to show that the Holy Ghost is not 
 given through the medium of the word, aa 
 Brad en's church believes, but through a 
 different means shed abroad directly by 
 Jesus Chsist. As confirmative proof of my 
 eositions, I also cite the ninth chapter of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, 17th verse: 
 
 " And Ananias went his way and entered into the 
 house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother 
 Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee 
 by the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou 
 mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy 
 Ghost. And immediately there fell from his ey_es as it 
 had been scales, and be received sight forthwith, and 
 arose and was baptized." 
 
 Here is a fair sample of the practice. A 
 clear case showing that the Holy Ghost was 
 nor. received through the medium of the 
 word, but through the ministration of an 
 elder, one not an apostle. 
 
 Now he says that none received the Holy 
 Ghost, except they had the apostles' hands 
 laid upon them. But he is mistaken; here 
 is Ananias who lays his hands upon Saul 
 of Tarsus; and Saul received the Holy Ghost 
 under his hands, and Ananias was not an 
 apostle. What excuse have you now to 
 offer to this audience for saying that this 
 practice ought not to be in the church; that 
 
 the Holy Ghost is given through the> 
 medium of the word and under an apostle's* 
 hands only ? Here are three flat contradic- 
 tions to your order in one case. 
 
 Then I call your attention again to the- 
 household of Cornelius, where " the Holy 
 Ghost fell on them which heard the word," 
 and was not imparted through the medium 
 of the word ? 
 
 I next invite your attention to the church 
 record as given by the best historians sub- 
 sequent to that time, to show that this was 
 not only the order during the New Testa- 
 ment times, but that it continued to be the 
 order for a long time subsequent, and that 
 they actually received the Holy Ghost by 
 conforming to the ordinances as they were- 
 placed in the church, and not simply 
 through the medium of the word. 
 
 The following are the authorities showing 
 the order of doctrine of the laying 
 on of hands, as it was practiced in the early 
 church upon baptized believers, and the 
 manner of reception of the Holy Spirit in 
 the church as left perfected by the apostles, 
 if ever perfected. 
 
 First. Tertulliau, A. D. 200. de Bapt. c.6. 
 
 "After baptism the hand is imposed by 
 blessing, and calling, and inviting of the 
 Holy Spirit, who willingly descends from 
 the Father on the bodies that are cleansed 
 and blessed." 
 
 Further upon this in chapter 8 he says : 
 
 " It is the fleshly, or outward act of bap- 
 tism that we are dipt in water ; the spirit- 
 ual effects that we are freed from our sins. 
 Tiien follows laying on of hands, the Dis- 
 penser, inviting the Spirit of God by prayer, 
 And being cleansed by baptismal water 
 we are disposed for the Holy Spirit under 
 the hands of the Angel of the church." 
 
 Speaking concerning the order and state 
 of the church at this early time, after the 
 death of the apostles, he says, (de Script. 
 Cap. 36) : 
 
 "She belieyeth in God, she signs with 
 water, (that is baptizeth,) she clothes with 
 the spirit, (viz., by the Imposition of 
 hands,) she feeds with the Eucharist, (ad- 
 ministers the emblems of the Lord's body,) 
 and exhorts to martyrdom, (to faithfulness, 
 and the keeping of the law of God even unto 
 death,) and against this order or Institution 
 she receives no man." 
 
 This is the declared practice of the church 
 as it was left by the apostles. I call my 
 opponent's attention to it particularly, and 
 ask him to explain how it is, that it is not 
 the order in his church too, since he affirms 
 his "is in accordance with the church of 
 Christ as it was left perfected by the apos- 
 tles." I have shown you that under the 
 immediate supervision of the apostles that 
 this was the order and practice, and now 
 that it was still the order in the century 
 which immediately followed. And I want 
 some evidence that will support your bold 
 assertions to the effect that your church, 
 call it Christian, Church of Christ, Cainp- 
 bellite, Disciple, or what you may, it mat- 
 ters not, is either in faith, doctrine or prac- 
 tices, in accord with the church as it was 
 
THE BE ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 237 
 
 under the apostles, or in the immediate 
 time subsequent. 
 
 Second, But I have other evidence to 
 offer from the history of the early church. 
 Eusebius, (not the Pope of that name,) but 
 Eusebius Pamphilus, who lived about 
 three hundred years after Christ, in his 
 work (Book 7, c. 2). certifies that: 
 
 "The ancient manner of receiving mem- 
 bers into the church was with prayer, and 
 the laying on of hands." 
 
 Again he says, ( Book 6, c. 26) : 
 
 " That one Novatius being sick was bap- 
 tized, if it may be called a baptism which 
 he received, for he obtained not after his 
 recovery that which he should have done 
 by the 'canon of the church, to-wit, con- 
 firmation by the hands of the Bishop, which 
 having not obtained, how can he be sup- 
 posed to have received the Holy Spirit." 
 
 This was about the year 260. And it 
 must not either be supposed to have been 
 derived from the practice afterwards of 
 Crossing, or Chrysni, for the writer makes no 
 mention of these in his work. 
 
 Third, Cynrian, in A. D. 250, and against 
 whom none will bring an accusation, in his 
 73d letter, when referring to the fact of the 
 apostles going to Samaria to confirm those 
 that Phillip had baptized, says : 
 
 " Which custom is also descended to us, 
 that they who are baptized, might be 
 brought by the rules of the church, and by 
 
 S'ayer of in position of hands to obtain the 
 oly Ghost." 
 
 Again in Ep. 72: 
 
 "It is of no purpose to lay hands on them 
 to receive the Holy Spirit, unless they re- 
 ceive the baptism of the church." 
 
 Fourth, Hierom in answering this ques- 
 tion, viz: "Why he that is baptized in the 
 church doth not receive the Holy Ghost but 
 by the imposition of hands?" answers 
 (Dial ad Lucifer) : 
 
 "This observation for the honor of the 
 priesthood, did descend from the Scrip- 
 tures. IfyouasKme where it is written ? 
 'Tis answered, in Aetibus Apostolorum, in 
 the Acts of the Apostles." 
 
 Fifth, The testimony of Chrysosfom, who 
 wrote during the fourth century. He says: 
 
 "That confirmation gives us the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 Sixth, Augustine, of the same century, 
 writes : 
 
 " Still we do what the Apostles did, when 
 they laid their hands on the Samaritans 
 and called down the Holy Ghost upon 
 them." 
 
 With these I might also cite Mosheim's 
 Church History, Vol. 1, page 91 ; and 
 Gahiin's Church History, page 93. 
 
 These give you an unmistakable history 
 of the church upon the doctrine and prac- 
 tice of the reception of the Holy Spirit^ and 
 the laying on of hands, down to the fourth 
 century from the time of Christ. These 
 historians are some of the same parties 
 through whom we received the record of 
 the Scriptures themselves. 
 
 The practices and teachings of the church 
 by the apostles as I have shown, were 
 
 not only different from Braden's church, 
 but also that of the church after the 
 apostles, whether perfected or not. What 
 has he to answer, I again ask him, to thia 
 emphatic testimony? 
 
 I cite these to show you that after the 
 apostles' time the churches that were left, 
 (these congregations that have been referred 
 to), practiced the same things that we have 
 recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, 
 and that this is the highest and most cor- 
 rect history and account that we have with 
 regard to the practices of the church after 
 the time of the apostles. This is the his- 
 tory as handed down of the doings of those 
 chnrches after the apostles' time. 
 
 Now I hurriedly invif.e your attention to 
 a description of the doctrine of Christ as 
 set forth in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, 
 and call the attention of my opponent to 
 the fact that in describing the faith of his 
 church this evening, he left out one of the 
 first or foundation principles here named by 
 the apostle Paul, and not only by Paul, but 
 by others of the apostles; and as I have 
 shown, was held to be the practice and doc- 
 trine of the church as handed down after- 
 wards until the fourth century, at least af- 
 ter the apostles' time. 
 The apostle says : 
 
 " Therefore leaving the principles of the 
 doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfec- 
 tion, not laying again the foundation of re- 
 pentance from dead works, and of faith to- 
 ward God of the doctrine of baptisms, and 
 of laying on of hands." 
 
 Now, you did not enumerate this last as 
 one of the doctrines of your church, and 
 one of the things you believe in. Do you 
 believe in it for any purpose, and practice 
 it for any purpose, in your church, either 
 for the ordination of the minister setting 
 apart of the minister, or anything else? 
 Do you for anything? You may answer 
 these questions to-morrow night. The 
 record continues : 
 
 "And of resurrection of the dead and of 
 eternal judgment. And this will we do if 
 God permit." 
 
 Remember these are principles in the 
 foundation of the structure. Do you accept 
 all as being in the foundation of your struc- 
 ture? If you do not, then answer the fur- 
 ther question, and show your authority in 
 the scriptures here, something upon which 
 we may safely rely, for your people taking 
 that out of the New Testament so far as 
 your practicing it is concerned. Just give 
 us one passage of scripture to-morrow even- 
 ing showing that that passage is not as the 
 apostle used it, one of tne first, fundamental, 
 foundation principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ, and that .it should be taken out of 
 the New Testament. Not only that, bub 
 to-morrow evening will you please answer 
 this question, for I wish time enough to ex- 
 amine your answer : Where and how da 
 you receive authority to teach and admin- 
 ister the ordinances as established by Christ 
 for these, as you say, congregations which 
 jwere left after the apostles' time? Second* 
 who were left over these congregations, and 
 
238 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 from whence did they receive their author- 
 ity ? Third, and when Mr. Campbell organ- 
 ized his church in this century, where did 
 he get his authority to organize, if 'the au- 
 thority is vested in the congregation ? And 
 fourth, had he any more authority to or- 
 ganize a church at the time that he did than 
 I have to organize a church, or you have to 
 organize a church ? Please answer all these 
 questions to-morrow evening. 
 
 I shall call your attention in this connec- 
 tion to the claims made by him with refer- 
 ence to the continuance of the Holy Spirit 
 as manifested upon the day of Pentecost, 
 and spoken of by Peter as belonging by 
 promise not only to that people but " to all 
 that were afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our God shall call." Was this indeed a 
 fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel? 1 will 
 read it carefully, because I wish you to un- 
 derstand and comprehend the full instruc- 
 tion given. Acts 2: 38: 
 
 "Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, 
 every one of you in th name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
 in ission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, for the promise is unto you and to your children, 
 and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our Hod shall call. And with many other words did 
 he testify and exhort, saying. Save yourselves from 
 tiiis untoward generation." 
 
 The promise he says of this gift of the 
 Holy Ghost is " unto you and to your chil- 
 dren, and unto all that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 Called to the laying on of the apostles' 
 hands, or called to miraculous power? 
 Could the apostle -Peter have had in his 
 mind at the time that the promise " to you 
 and your children, and to all that are afar 
 off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call," was only to those that the apostles 
 could lay their hands upon? Was the call 
 to stop with those? Jesus had ordained a 
 certain Seventy before this time, as you will 
 find by turning and reading the tenth 
 chapter of Luke. 
 
 " After these things the Lord appointed 
 other seventy also, and sent them two and 
 two before his faoe into every city." 
 
 Seventy elders, besides the apostles, cer- 
 tainly, and i he reading is such that it is 
 claimed to show LVO {Seventies, making 140 
 that we know of that were in existence at 
 that time, and recognized by Christ besides 
 the apostles ; and these went out preaching. 
 and there were many of them preaching and 
 teaching as is shown by reference to other 
 passages in scripture. Did the promise 
 made by Peter extend to those who should 
 accept the faith under these others, or did 
 they only follow the eleven apostles whom 
 Jesus . met after his resurrection ? Peter 
 says, verses 32 and 33: "This Jesus hath 
 God raised up, whereof weallare witnesses. 
 Therefore being by the right hand of God 
 exalted, and having received of the Father 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
 shed forth this which ye now see and hear." 
 This is connected with the sixteenth verse 
 of the same chapter, where he refers to the 
 prophecy of Joel. "For these are not 
 drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the 
 third hour of the day. But this is that " 
 
 now what do " this" and "that" refer to? 
 The word " this " all must agree refers to 
 the thing poured out upon that occasion 
 the Spirit. The argument of the apostle is, 
 For this that you see, that which seems to 
 make this audience stagger, or act different- 
 ly from what they would act at other times, 
 is not strong drink, " seeing it is but the 
 third hour of the day." " But this [Spirit] 
 is that [Spirit] which was spoken of by the 
 prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in 
 the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out of 
 my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and 
 your daughters shall prophesy, and your 
 young men shall see visions, and your old 
 men shall dream dreams'." 
 
 Now let me examine it as Braden wishes 
 you to take it. This is the fulfillment of the 
 prophecy made by Joel. Can't you see that 
 that is a different thing entirely from a 
 mere reference to that Spirit that Joel said 
 would be poured out in the last days? The 
 true antecedent or substantive is Spirit, and 
 not the " fulfillment of Joel's prophecy." 
 Hence he says : This is that [Spirit] which 
 was spoken of by the prophet Joel, "and it 
 shall come to pass in the last days, saith 
 God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all 
 flesh." This is the Spirit of God, then. 
 Peter is giving them to understand upon 
 that day that it is the Spirit of God that 
 is made manifest before their eyes, and not 
 a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, because he 
 could not have truthfully made them believe 
 it was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, for 
 Joel's prophecy included seeing visions and 
 dreaming dreams. Was thereany body there 
 that fell asleep and had a dream that you 
 have any account of? Was there anything 
 poured out there "On my servants and on 
 my handmaidens?" etc. Was it poured 
 out upon all flesh there? It is not only to 
 be poured out upon certain persons w'heu 
 the prophecy is fulfilled, but upon all flesh. 
 Then is the time when the lamb and the 
 lion shall lie down together, when all shall 
 be at peace, and when the earth shall be 
 full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the 
 waters fill, or cover, the sea. I know that 
 Mr. Braden thinks it will be when the lamb 
 is inside of the lion that they will lie down 
 together, but that is not according to the 
 prophecy. The prophets declare that they 
 shall lie down together at a time when they 
 should not molest each other, and a little 
 child even should lead them, etc., and we 
 ought to believe fully in the predictions and 
 in the prophecies being actually fulfilled at 
 some time, for these prophets spoke as 
 they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Here I shall take up his idea of the Spirit 
 being received only through the word, and 
 cite passages of scripture to show that the 
 Spirit is not given through the word, the 
 letter of the law, as the Campbellites hold. 
 1 Peter 1 : 1012: 
 
 " Of which salvation the prophets have Inquired and 
 searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace (hat 
 should come unto you. Searching what, or what 
 manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them 
 did signify, when it testified beforehand the suffering" 
 of Christ, and the glory ttmt should follow. UnU 
 whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, bu 
 unto us, they did minister the things whicb are no 
 
THE BRA BEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 239 
 
 reported unto yon by them that hare preached the 
 Gospel unto you with the H"ly Ghost sent down from 
 heaven, which things the angels desire to look into." 
 
 Now the persons who before this time 
 received the Holy Ghost as "sent down 
 from heaven," the apostle Peter says re- 
 ceived it, not as it came through the word, 
 the dead letter, but direct from heaven. 
 There is no such thing in the Scripture, 
 either that the Holy Ghost was given for 
 the purpose of perfecting the word. The 
 word, as I understand, was perfected as it 
 emanated from God. It was perfect then. 
 Do you think Jesus gave the Holy Spirit in 
 order to make the word more perfect? So 
 far as that is concerned, it was perfect in 
 the Psalmist's day. "The law of the Lord 
 is perfect, converting the soul." Was it 
 perfect in the sense that my opponent would 
 have you believe now, so far as to include 
 all that God should ever give? Not at all. 
 This is only a false theory among the peo- 
 
 Kle. James speaks of the "perfect law of 
 berty." That perfect law of liberty that 
 he was speaking of was the law that they 
 had then, and that they were commanded 
 to teach, and they had all the law that was 
 in a sense requisite to salvation, from the 
 time when the great commission was given 
 by Jesus, when he said, " Go ye into all the 
 world and preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture." Mark 16. "Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you." Did he tell them to teach anything 
 else than what he had commanded? Yet, 
 notwithstanding the fact that they were 
 instructed to teach just what Jesus had 
 commanded them, afterwards they received 
 word upon word, line upon line, and pre- 
 cept upon precept, and we have this in part 
 here in the New Testament, and it com- 
 prises the greater part of the New Testa- 
 ment all received, so Braden would have us 
 believe, after they had enough close the 
 portals we have got a Bible; we don't 
 want any more Bible. But the men inspired 
 of God never thought of such a thing, yet 
 they were commanded to teach just what 
 Jesus had commanded. If he says now the 
 word is perfected, I say it was just as per- 
 fect at the time that Jesus taught the eleven 
 disciples upon this occasion, and raised up 
 his hands and blessed them. The perfec- 
 tion of the word does not consist in the 
 amount of the word, but it consists in the 
 fact that the word emanated from God. 
 Because;if you say it consisted in the amount, 
 there are several of these writings in the 
 Bible made after the time that Jesus speaks 
 of "the perfect law of liberty." And Jude 
 says, "(Jon tend for the faith that was once 
 dtlwered to the saints." 
 
 Do you say it was this faith that is con- 
 tained in the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment that he exhorted them to contend 
 for? The faith that is contained in the 
 New Testament is a system of religion, and 
 was not compiled in Jude's time. Do you 
 aay that it meant the powerful faith, 'the 
 
 active faith, the principle by which men 
 and women cou ! d do wonderful things by 
 the Spirit'of God that he exhorted them to 
 contend for? If so, why do you not contend 
 for it? Just answer these questions, arid 
 answer them one way or the other, so we 
 may know your position. The apostle Jude 
 wrote in the year 66. Many of the Epistles 
 found in the New Testament, were written 
 after his time. Yet he exhorted them to 
 contend for the faith "once delivered," 
 already done, not that which is to be de- 
 livered to the Saints. 
 
 But let us examine more particularly the 
 position taken that these epistles and reve- 
 lations were given for the purpose of perfect- 
 ing the word of God. It occurs to me that 
 there are no grounds for this, and that it is 
 but a false assumption on the part of my op- 
 ponent. He assumes that the apostles were 
 placed in the church for the purpose of 
 perfecting the word of God. Now, I open 
 the Bible to ascertain whether this wt*s for 
 the purpose of perfecting the word of God 
 or not, and turn to the fourth chapter of 
 Ephesians and read as follows : 
 
 "And he gave some, apostles ; and some, 
 prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, 
 pastors and teachers." For the perfecting 
 of the word of God: Did you read it that 
 way, Mr. Braden ? The Bible reads, verse 
 12, "For the perfecting of the Saints." And 
 yet he had it for the perfecting of the word 
 of God. Again, "for the work of the minis- 
 try" doing the preaching and administer- 
 ing under the word, and yet he has it for 
 the perfecting of the word. 
 
 Again, "For the edifying of the body of 
 Christ." No, Braden says, to edify the 
 word. And now let me call attention to 
 the fact that when he said, "How shall 
 they believe in him of whom they have not 
 heard?" He did not quote the full text, 
 which also says : "And how shall they 
 hear without a preacher? and how shall 
 they preach except they be sent?" Why 
 did you not quote the entire verse there? 
 "How shall they believe in him of whom 
 they have not heard?" Very true; but 
 what is the balance? See tenth chapter of 
 Romans: "And how shall they hear with- 
 out a preacher? And how shall they 
 E reach except they be sent? as it is written, 
 ow beautiful are the feet of them that 
 preach the gospel of peace and bring glad 
 tidings of good things." O, the true mes- 
 senger from God brings something of value 
 then. He does not only relate history, but 
 he brings to the craving heart the like rest 
 and peace of which he reads. God has 
 something to do with such a preacher of his 
 word, and hence the calling of men in order 
 to do this preaching, to dispense this word 
 to the people. They cannot believe except 
 they shall hear. So this is the idea for the 
 giving of the apostles, and prophets, and 
 elders, and teachers, etc., and not that these 
 apostles and preachers were given for the 
 purpose of perfecting the word of God as 
 Braden interprets it. In contradistinction 
 the apostle says they were given for the 
 perfecting of the Saints, (those who believ- 
 
240 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ed in Jesus Christ and had undertaken to 
 become his children and walk in his ways,) 
 "for the work of his ministry, for the edi- 
 fying of the body of Christ." They were 
 there for the purpose of exhorting them, 
 instructing them, and to this end they 
 received knowledge from time to time, 
 so as to be able to rightly divide the wora 
 and build up the church ; and thus their 
 work was in perfecting the church, instead 
 of perfecting the word. Braden's church 
 has not only changed the officers and prac- 
 tices of the church, but actually changed 
 the object and effect of the work done, and 
 of those who did it. And yet he pretends 
 to affirm that his church is in accordance 
 with the New Testament pattern in faith, 
 doctrine and practices, organization, etc. 
 Wherein is it similiar? Will he please tell 
 us so that we can discover any similarity 
 whatever, in fact, aside from the represen- 
 tation that Paul makes to Timothy that at 
 
 sometime there should a people arise claim- 
 ing to be the Church of Christ, "Having a 
 form of Godliness, but denying the power 
 thereof ;" but of this class the apostle says, 
 "from such turnaway." The apostle seems 
 to clearly foresee that somebody would try 
 to take one of the foundation principles out 
 of the structure, and discard the means or- 
 dained, for giving access to the power, and 
 he warns Timothy to be careful : 
 
 "Take heed unto yourself, and unto the 
 doctrine; continue in them: For in doing 
 this thou shalt both save thyself and them 
 that hear thee." He could not dispense 
 with one, two, three, or all the principles 
 of the doctrine of Christ except baptism in 
 water, and be justified. But was to "observe 
 these things without preferring one before 
 another, doing nothing by partiality." 
 1 Tim. 4: 16, and5:21. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
 MR BRADEN'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MOPERA TORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Last night I gave you a de- 
 tailed account of the faith, organization, 
 teaching, ordinances, worship and practice, 
 of the church of which I am a member. I 
 compared these features with the church of 
 Christ, as organized and completed by the 
 apostles, and established perfect ident'ty. 
 There were open to my opponent three 
 lines of criticism. I. I did not describe my 
 church accurately. He has not urged this 
 objection and has conceded the accuracy 
 of my description. II. There were features 
 In my church that were not in the apostolic 
 church. He has conceded that the apos- 
 tolic church had all of the features of my 
 church. Mormons usually tell us, "You 
 Campbellites are all right as far as you go ; 
 but you don't go far enough." III. There 
 were features, elements, in the apostolic 
 church that are not in my church. This is 
 the criticism that he has made. On this 
 alone do we differ. He has conceded 
 that we are right in our teaching in re- 
 gard to the one God in regard to the one 
 Lord. His first attack is on our teaching in 
 regard to the work of the Holy Spirit. 
 We are agreed that there is a divine person, 
 the Holy Spirit. That he has exerted two 
 influences on men, direct in inspiration and 
 mediate through the medium of the truth 
 he has revealed. We are agreed that the 
 direct influence was exerted in inspiration, 
 miracles, evolation. We both believe that 
 this influence was exerted in the inspira- 
 tion of men that the Bible says were in- 
 
 spired, from the days of Adam until the 
 days of the apostles. We both believe what 
 the Bible teaches in regard to the inspira- 
 tion of men during that period, and that 
 they wrought miracles, g^ave revelations, 
 acted, spake and wrote by inspiration. We 
 are both agreed that this influence was not 
 exerted in conviction, conversion, sanctifl- 
 cation and comforting. We are agreed that 
 it was to reveal truth, attest such revela- 
 tions, do benevolent work in miracles of 
 mercy, and to aid man in emergencies in 
 which human wisdom was not adequate. 
 We are agreed that in the conviction and 
 conversion of the sinner, and in the sancti- 
 fi cation and upbuilding of the saint, t-he 
 Holy Spirit accomplished his work through 
 the truth revealed in his word, or preached 
 in accordance with it. My opponent claims 
 that it is a part of the permanent constitu- 
 tion of the church, that believers should 
 enjoy the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 as it was enjoyed in the apostolic churches. 
 That this direct influence will constitute 
 persons, apostles, prophets, etc.. in the 
 church now, and thus the church should en- 
 joy all the powers and possess all of the 
 works that the apostolic church possessed, 
 inspiration, prophesying, speaking with 
 tongues, working signs, revelations. 
 
 There is no difference between my oppo- 
 nent and myself as to whether these spirit- 
 ual powers were in the Apostolic Church. 
 The sole issue is this, " Does the constitu- 
 tion of the Church the New Testament 
 ordain that they are to remain in the 
 
THE BRADEN AND TELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 241 
 
 Church? Does it make them a permaneni 
 constituent element as it constitutes aud 
 organises the permanent organization of 
 the Church?" My opponent need not read 
 to me Joel's promise. I believe that. We 
 differ as to its extent and time of con- 
 tinuance. Nor the promises of John and 
 Jesus of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I 
 believe that. We differ as to its extent and 
 continuance. Nor the promise of Jesus that 
 his apostles should receive the Comforter. 
 I believe that. We differ as to its extent 
 and continuance Nor the promise that 
 his apostles, when before magistrates, 
 should be inspired, nor that those who be- 
 lieved on Him should have inspiration, 
 like rivers of water. I believe that. We 
 differ concerning thd extent and con- 
 tinuance. Nor His promise to His apostles 
 that they should be endued with power 
 from on high, and that signs should follow 
 their teaching. I believe that, but differ as 
 to its extent and continuance. Nor Peter's 
 promise on days of Pentecost. We differ as 
 to its extent and continuance. He need not 
 read accounts of the baptism in the Holy 
 Ghost. I believe that. We differ as to ita 
 extent and continuance. He need not read 
 to me accounts of the apostles conferring 
 the Holy Spirit, nor of the apostles working 
 miracles, nor of persons working miracles 
 who possessed spiritual gifts. I believe all 
 that. We differ as to its extent and con- 
 tinuance. Heneednotreadtomel Cor. XII 
 xiii. xiv. and Eph. iv., and other passa- 
 ges. I believe all that. We differ only 
 Concerning extent and continuance of such 
 
 S'fts. He assumes that the baptism in the 
 oly Spirit was a general gift in the Church. 
 I assert that there were only two occur- 
 rences of it. He asserts that it was to re- 
 main as a constituent element in the church. 
 I assert that it ceased with the two sole 
 occasions of such baptism. He asserts that 
 the promises of our Saviour of the Comforter 
 were to all Christians. I assert they were 
 to the apostles alone. He asserts that the 
 promise of signs in Mark xvi. was to all 
 believers I assert it was to the apostles who 
 believed. He asserts that Peter's promise 
 was to all believers. I assert that it was 
 ,011 ly those whom God called in his appointed 
 "way, the imposition of an apostle's hands. 
 He asserts that others than those on whom 
 an apostle had laid his hands possessed 
 these spiritual gifts. I assert that only 
 such possessed them. He asserts that the 
 persons possessing these powers as des- 
 cribed in 1 Cor. xii. xiii. xiv. and Ephesians 
 iv. were, by the constitution of the Church, 
 placed in the Church as permanent offices, 
 a permanent element in the Church. I 
 assert that they were provisional, the 
 constitution making power of the Church, 
 and ceased when the constitution, the New 
 Testament, was completed, and the Church 
 was organized under it ; and that the con- 
 stitution did not ordain them as a perma- 
 nent constituent element of the Church, 
 organized in accordance with the completed 
 constitution. That the constitution ordains 
 that the Church is to be governed by the 
 
 perfect word of God in the New Testament, 
 aud that we need no new revelations. That 
 it ordains that evangelists, pastors, teachers, 
 officers, servants, without direct influence 
 of the Spirit or constitution making power, 
 shall rule the Church, in accordance with 
 the perfect law of God, completed in the 
 New Testamen t. The issue then is whether 
 miraculous powers, such as existed in the 
 Apostolic Church, and such as are described 
 in 1 Cor., Eph. and other epistles shall be a 
 permanent constituent element of the 
 Church ? Or were they merely provisional, 
 constitution making powers that ceased 
 when the constitution was completed and 
 the Church was organized under it and 
 were not part of the Church. 
 
 We will now review my opponent's talk 
 and answer his questions. In I Cor. xii, 
 the apostle explains to the Corinthians the 
 spiritual gifts in the church. He says, "de- 
 sire earnestly the best spiritual gifts, never- 
 theless I show unto you a more excellent 
 way" than the exercise of the spiritual 
 gifts. He then explains what that more 
 excellent way is. It is the condition of the 
 church, after spiritual gifts have ceased, 
 and the church is under the perfect word of 
 God. He then closes by telling them to 
 desire spiritual gifts as long as they are to 
 remain in the church. It is not, however, 
 the most excellent way, but the way he had 
 discussed in the eleventh chapter. Moses 
 gave laws to the Israelites when in the wil- 
 derness suited to their condition. He tells 
 them what will be their condition in the 
 land of Canaan, and often returns to their 
 present condition and tells them how they 
 are to conduct themselves until they reach 
 the land of promise. So Paul tells the Cor- 
 inthians how to act under spiritual gifts; 
 then describes a more excellent way than 
 the best of these gifts, when they shall 
 cease ; then he returns to his first thought, 
 and tells them how to exercise the gifts till 
 that more excellent way obtains. He no 
 more describes the permanent of the church 
 than Moses describes the permanent of the 
 Israelites in similar language. 
 
 My opponent says I would not ask con- 
 verts "nave ye received the Holy Spirit 
 after ye believed." No, I wouldnot. Iwould 
 know that the indwelling of the spirit they 
 had received, and that the miraculous power 
 of the spirit, such as Paul inquired about, 
 they could not receive, for the Bible so 
 teaches. The baptism of the spirit is one 
 thing, the gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit 
 is another. To receive the Holy Spirit in 
 baptism from Christ is one thing, to receive 
 him in spiritual gifts by an apostle's hands 
 is another. Those baptized at Samaria had 
 received the indwelling of the spirit. The 
 miraculous influence of the spirit could only 
 be imparted by the imposition of an apos- 
 tle's hands. Will my opponent tell me? 
 Had these Samaritans been born of water 
 and spirit before the apostles laid hands on 
 them? Were they saints or sinners? If 
 sinners, how could they receive the spirit? 
 Jesus says the world cannot receive him. 
 The Holy. Spirit in miraculous power was 
 
242 
 
 THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 not through the word. It was by imposition 
 of apostles' hands. But the indwelling was 
 through faith, belief of the word. " After 
 ye believed, because ye were sons, God has 
 given you his spirit." Ananias was a spe- 
 cial apostle, just as persons sometimes 
 offered sacrifices who were not priests when 
 a priest was not present. So Ananias was 
 a special apostle sent by God to impart the 
 spirit to Saul. 
 
 He challenged me to explain the birth of 
 the water and the spirit. I will cheerfully 
 do so. The Greek has one word, gennaoo, 
 that is used of both male and female. When 
 used of the male it means " beget ;" when 
 used of the female it means " to bear, to 
 bring forth." When James says "He begat 
 us by the word of truth" he used this word. 
 When Paul says "I begat you through the 
 gospel" he uses it. When'Peter says " We 
 are begotten through the truth" he uses it. 
 Then God, the Spirit and Paul begat the 
 believers through the truth. When it is 
 asked "Where is he that is born King of 
 the Jews?" it is this word. "Those born 
 of woman " it is the same word. In a birth 
 there are two parties, the father who be- 
 gets. God or his spirit begets through the 
 truth. There is the mother of whom the 
 person is born. When we speak of both 
 together we say a man was born of his 
 mother and father, or born of his mother to 
 his father, because he must be born of his 
 mother before he is born to his father. The 
 word pneunia occurs in the Greek New Tes- 
 tament 287 times. It is translated "spirit" 
 in every case except one, in John iii, 8, 
 when it is said " the wind bloweth where it 
 listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, 
 and thou canst not tell whence it cometh nor 
 whither it goeth ; so is every one that is 
 born of the spirit." If it should read "The 
 wind bloweth," it should read also "be 
 born of wind " in the same sentence, which 
 is absurd. If it is "born of spirit" it 
 should read the "spirit breathes." There 
 is no sense in giving such different mean- 
 ings to the same word in the same sentence. 
 Wind in every other case in the New Testa- 
 ment is a translation of anemos. 
 
 Our Savior told Nicodemus that unless a 
 man be born again he could not see the 
 Kingdom of God. Nicodemus did not un- 
 derstand, and asked him to explain what 
 he meant. Our Savior did so. He did not 
 make it still more mysterious^ but he told 
 Nicodemus just how a man is born again. 
 He said, "Except a man is born of water 
 and the Spirit, he cannot enter the King- 
 dom of God." "It is not the natural birth 
 that I mean," he explains to Nicodemus. 
 He then tells how men are begotten by the 
 Spirit. "The Spirit breathes" (in inspira- 
 tion) "where he pleases, and you hear his 
 voice." (The words he inspires, the Word 
 of God.) "You cannot tell whence he comes 
 or whither lie goes. In this way (by hear- 
 ing the word of God) "is every one (begot- 
 ten) that is begotten of the Spirit." Then 
 men are begotten by the Spirit through the 
 word, and born of the water and Spirit in 
 baptism. The fact that in twenty cases we 
 
 cited last night, belief and baptism are so 
 coupled together, proves that this is correct. 
 
 Hebrews VI. refers to the Mosaic law 
 that these Hebrews were not willing to lay 
 to one side. The Mosaic law was the foun- 
 dation of the gospel, prepared the way for 
 it. The gospel of Christ is that which is 
 perfect. The writer exhorts them to lay to 
 one side Mosaism and go on to perfection 
 in the gospel. We lay hands on evangel- 
 ists, overseers and servants of the Church, 
 to induct them into office, and not to impart 
 spiritual gifts. He wants to know what 
 offices were left in the Church ? Evangel- 
 ists, overseers, servants, who acted as pas- 
 tors, teachers. Where do they get their 
 authority? From the constitution of the 
 Church, the New Testament. Where did 
 Campbell get his authority ? From the 
 constitution of the Church, the New Testa- 
 ment, just where those who went preach- 
 ing the word got theirs ; just where Aquilh* 
 and Priscilla got theirs when they taught 
 Apollos the word of the Lord more perfectly. 
 He wants to know if the Seventy did not 
 impart spiritual gifts. The Li ble does not 
 say they ever did. It does say the twelve 
 did, so did Paul the Apostle to the Gen- 
 tiles ; so did Ananias, a special apostle. 
 The word was given perfectly to the disci- 
 ples. They gave it to the world complete. 
 First spoken, then written. Even if it had 
 not been all written when Jude wrote, it 
 had been spoken. Then it was reduced to 
 writing. 
 
 We will now teach our opponent another 
 Bible lesson. In Gen. xvii, we read that 
 circumcision in the flesh is the token of the 
 inheritance, the land of promise, to all who 
 are born of Israel's seed after the flesh. I, 
 Chron. xvi, 15, declares that the land of 
 Canaan was the inheritance that the cove- 
 nant gave to them. Circumcision in the 
 flesh of a descendant of Israel was a token 
 that he, under the covenant, was entitled 
 to a share of the land, the inheritance. In 
 Gen. ix, the bow in the cloud is called a 
 token of the covenant not to drown tt,e 
 earth. It is so called three times. Ti> 
 token and the covenant are not the sanj* 
 thing. The token binds a verbal covenant , 
 as a seal does a written covenant, or a 
 signing a written covenant binus it. Ro- 
 mans iv., 2. "Circumcision is a sign, *. 
 token, and a seal of the covenant God mad* 
 with Abraham." Saints are born of th* 
 water and the Spirit. John iii, 5. lit 
 Galatians iv., and following verses th* 
 apostle speaks of those under the law o 
 Moses as born after the flesh Their tokeu 
 was in the flesh, and their covenant wa 
 after the flesh, and so was the inheritance. 
 He speaks of those who are born of th 
 Spirit. Their covenant is after the Spirit, 
 their inheritance is after the Spirit, their 
 token or earnest is after the Spirit. Eph. 
 i, 13-14. "After you believed, you were 
 sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who 
 is the earnest of our inheritance. II. Cor. 
 I. "God has sealed us and given us the 
 earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Rom. 
 v, 5. "The love of God is shed abroad in- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 243 
 
 jur hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given 
 unto us." Gal. iv. "We receive the adop- 
 tion of Sons in believing the Gospel of 
 Christ and being baptized into him. Then 
 because we are sons God has sent forth the 
 Spirit of his Son into our hearts." Col. ii, 
 2. " Wo are circumcised in Christ with the 
 circumcision made without hands, by the 
 circumcision of Christ in putting off the 
 body of the sins of the flesh." Romans ii, 
 28-2*9. "He is not a Jew who is one out- 
 wardly, neither is that circumcision which 
 is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew 
 who is one inwardly, and circumcision is 
 that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in 
 the letter, whose praise is not of men but of 
 God." My opponent confounds. the indwel- 
 ling of the Spirit, which is without hands, 
 with the impartation of the Spirit by bauds. 
 He confounds the Spirit as the earnest of 
 our inheritance, with the impartation of the 
 Spirit by hands to confirm acts of inspira- 
 tion and revelation. He has admitted that 
 the direct miraculous influence is not ex- 
 erted in conviction, conversion, sanctifica- 
 tion, upbuilding. Yet, he quotes passages 
 where the convicting, converting, sanctify- 
 ing, upbuilding influence is spoken of as the 
 present privilege of the sinner and saint, to 
 prove that the miraculous power that he ad- 
 mits has nothing to do with conviction, con- 
 version and sanctiflcationis also a privilege 
 of the church. If he will learn to rightly di- 
 vide the word of truth he will not blunder so. 
 Let us now learn the object of miracu- 
 lous power and miracles. John, xv, 26, 27. 
 The apostles and the Holy Spirit were both 
 to testify of Christ, bear witness. Mark, 
 xvi, 20. "And the apostles went forth ana 
 preached everywhere, the Lord working 
 with them and confirming their words by 
 signs, that followed their preaching, i, 
 Cor. ii, 4. Paul's preaching was in a demon- 
 stration of the Spirit and power. I, Thes., 
 i, 5. The gospel came not unto you in word 
 only, but in power and the Holy Spirit and 
 in much assurance. Rom. xv, 18. Paul had 
 preached the gospel over the Roman em- 
 pire, through mighty signs and wonders, 
 through the power of the Spirit of God. 
 I, Cor., xiv, 22. "Tongues or miracles are 
 for a sign to those that believe not, and not 
 to those that believe." Hebrews, ii. "The 
 gospel was first spoken through Christ, and 
 confirmed unto us by those that heard 
 Christ, God bearing witness with them, by 
 signs and wonders, and manifold powers, 
 and by distributions of the Holy Spirit, ac- 
 cording to his will." If necessary, we can 
 trace the signs God gave to Moses and to 
 Pharoah and Israel to demonstrate that 
 Moses was his servant. The signs he gave 
 to Gideon and others. These miracles are 
 a testimony that God gives that the person 
 is inspired a demonstration, an assurance, a 
 confirmation. When the word was com- 
 pleted in the new Testament, inspirations 
 and revelations were no longer necessary, 
 and miraculous powers, signs of revelation 
 and inspiration are not needed. After God 
 has authenticated his word, when he gave 
 it, was it necessary for him to continue to 
 
 authenticate it by working miracles all the 
 time? After the government of the United 
 States has authenticated a law by govern- 
 ment seal, must it authenticate it by a new 
 sealing, every time the law is used? My 
 opponent would have God stand on the wit- 
 ness stand for ever. He would have him 
 pub the seal of miracle to his revelations in 
 the Bible, every time a man reads or 
 preaches it. We say that the seal of heaven 
 put once on the law of God, the teaching 
 of the apostles is sufficient. My opponent 
 wants the seal used every time he opens 
 his mouth to read the word of God. It is 
 not faith but lack of faith, as in the case of 
 doubting Thomas. Did my opponent stop 
 to think that if miracles were the never 
 failing accompaniment of preaching, in all 
 ages, they would cease to be miracles, and 
 become the order of nature, an ordinary, a 
 common event? Will my opponent tell me 
 what confirmation an event that always at- 
 tends preaching gives to it? What sort of 
 a sign would it be ? The difference between 
 my opponent and myself then is this: I 
 believe that God inspired the men that the 
 Bible says were inspired. I believe that 
 he confirmed their inspiration by signs, 
 miracles; I believe that God's seal onceset 
 to their teaching is sufficient. My opponent 
 wants the Almighty to stand at his elbow, 
 like a lackey, to apply the seal to his talk, 
 every time he reads the Bible, or preaches its 
 truths. The law of God does not sanction 
 such nonsense. It is utterly opposed to it. 
 My opponent blunders over I. Peter 1, 10, 
 The apostle declares that the Spirit that wag 
 in the prophets testified of the glory that 
 should follow. He declares that the Holy 
 Spirit, sent down from heaven, preached, 
 through the apostles, the Gospel. My op- 
 ponent blunderingly jumbles these two 
 manifestations as he does everything he 
 touches. My opponent blunders over "the 
 faith once delivered unto the Saints " in 
 Jude. Romans iii, 3. "Shall the unbelief 
 of men make the faith, the Gospel of God 
 of no effect?" Gal. iii, 2. "Receive ye the 
 Spirit by works of law or by the hearing of 
 faith which should afterwards be revealed." 
 Eph. iv, 5. "One faith, the faith, the Gos- 
 pel, the word of God." Then the faith once 
 delivered unto the Saints is the Gospel, 
 God's word. It had been delivered in 
 preaching before it was committed to writ- 
 ing. I. Corinthians xv, t. "I delivered unto 
 you the Gospel." In I. Corinthians xiii, Paul 
 dsclares "Though I have faith, (miraculous 
 faith) so as to move mountains it is DO profit 
 unless I have Christian love." Our Savior 
 says, Matt, xvii, 20: "If you have faith 
 (miraculous faith) as a grain of mustard 
 seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Le 
 plucked up and cast into the sea,' and it 
 shall be done." Has Kelley or any Mormon 
 miraculous faith as a grain of mustard seed? 
 Let us see him pluck up a Kirtland hill 
 and cast it into the lake. Belief of the faith 
 the Gospel, saves, converts, sanctifies. 
 Miraculous faith that my opponent regards 
 as the all in all of the religion of Christ, does 
 not have one particle of moral influence. 
 
244 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: Last evening I waited pa- 
 tiently for my opponent to lead out upon 
 his proposition, and show the similarity and 
 agreement in teaching, organization, prac- 
 tice and doctrine of his with the New Tes- 
 tament church ; but the longer I waited the 
 less I was able to gather either a compari- 
 son of the features of his church with the 
 New Testament, or of an explicit statement 
 of the teaching of either, so that the audi- 
 ence could compare. I noticed, however, 
 that he took particular pains to compare his 
 views with what he thought the views of 
 the Latter Day Saints were, and with what 
 the views of other churches were, not for- 
 getting the Spiritualists, Buddhists, etc. ; 
 and, strange as it may seem, always with a 
 favorable opinion in his own mind of the 
 superiority of his little system over all oth- 
 ers. It called to my mind the prayer of one 
 of old, "Lord, I thank thee that I am not 
 as other men." Now will he please tell us 
 to-night what bearing all of this had upon 
 the question under discussion ? Whose 
 faith is it that is called in question, and is 
 now under discussion here? Anybody else 
 except that of " the church of which I, 
 Clark Braden, am a member?" Yet almost 
 all denominations and beliefs are dragged 
 in here by him, and men and women as- 
 sailed upon the right and left, although t hey 
 are not permitted under the rules to offer a 
 word in reply or defense, and whsr I can- 
 not be expected to answer the charges, be- 
 cause they are not in the least touching the 
 question. Does he show a disposition of 
 fairness toothers in this? I call attention to 
 this particularly because the manner adopt- 
 ed by him through the first proposition in 
 two-thirds of his work had as little applica- 
 tion to the question under consideration as 
 the polygamy practiced by Nicholas and 
 the body of Christians under him in the first 
 century had to do with the faith which 
 Jesus and Paul preached. Don't you forget 
 the question under discussion, my friends. 
 if Braden does. I noticed last evening that 
 a wonderful change had come over him 
 since the discussion of the first proposition; 
 in that, because the Book of Mormon spoke 
 of the Holy Spirit being enjoyed before 
 Christ was manifest in the flesh, he said it 
 contradicted the New Testament, for that 
 said " thj Holy Ghost was not yet given ;" 
 and it \vas no consequence to him that I 
 showed that the prophets before received it 
 and spoke by it no, sir; he insisted it was 
 a flat contradiction. But now he confesses. 
 Last night he had the Holy Ghost inspiring 
 all the prophets, from Adam's time to that 
 of Malachi. My few remarks upon that 
 seem to have completely revolutionized 
 him. But he has not yet told us whether 
 they received it through Christ or some 
 man, a question asked him five evenings 
 
 ago. The idea thrown out by him that the 
 Disciples go to the Bible for information 
 but other churches go to their creeds, when 
 presented in this false light looks very 
 plausible for his side, sprinkled over as it is 
 with a good deal of sophistry ; and this 
 makes it look very bad for others. The in- 
 ference is that others go to their creeds for 
 precepts, whether based upon the Bible or 
 not, for the reason that tbey have a written 
 statement of what they believe, uotwith- 
 standing, as they think, taken from the 
 Bible, while the Campbellitex go to the 
 Bible. What is the difference between a 
 written statement and an unwritten one, so 
 far as a comparison with the Bible doctrines 
 is concerned ; and if there is a difference, 
 would it not be in favor of the written, so 
 that men could with more certaiiHy com- 
 pare with the Bible? I am aware that there 
 are formulas of faith and disciplines in the 
 world, and interpretations of the inspired 
 writings, but when I come to examine crit- 
 ically, I find among them Mr. Campbell's 
 Christian System; and in many things ifc 
 comes as far short of standing on the Bible 
 and the Bible alone, as many others. Why 
 did he not arraign his own creed instead of 
 going out of the way in this discussion to 
 attack others? I take up this work of Mr. 
 Campbell and read upon page 11 of tho pro- 
 face, "Our aim is now to offer to the pubU/ 
 a more matured view of such cardinal prin- 
 ciples as are necessary to the right inttrpr - 
 tation of the Holy Scriptures, both IJQ ac- 
 acquiring and communicating a correct 
 knowledge of the Christian institution.' 
 
 It sevtms from this that these professed 
 Pible-alone-people have something to go to 
 also, so that they may know first what Mr. 
 Campbell thought about it. 
 
 Turn to page 85, chapter 26, and you have 
 the fifteen points of their discipline duly 
 arranged. I call Mr. Braden's attention to 
 it for the reason that when I simply re- 
 ferred to the matter in the Wilber-Nebraska 
 debate he got terribly beside himself. I 
 have the book now, so that ii he disputes 
 me I can soon decide the matter. 
 
 The chapter is headed : 
 
 "THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLINE," 
 And contains the points of discipline of the 
 so-called Christian, Disciple, Church of 
 Christ or Campbellite Churchj as fur- 
 nished by Alexander Campbell himself for 
 that body. 
 
 In this discipline I find a different order 
 introduced and held out as a rule of prac- 
 tice to the Bible order. It is the formal, or 
 "hand-shaking" order, or the plan of re- 
 ception of members into the church after 
 baptism. This evidently takes the place- 
 of confirmation under the hands of the 
 eldership that was practiced in the early 
 church. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, on page 86, makes this- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 245 
 
 tormal reception out to be a "necessity," 
 Although he has not a word of sanction for 
 tin the Bible; yet, it is pretended here by 
 ny opponent that they go to the Bible alone 
 for their precepts, and are thus peculiarly 
 different from others. But this bauble I 
 shall fully puncture at another time, and 
 this evening will take up at once those 
 prominent points of difference that ar so 
 apparent between "the church of which I, 
 Clark Braden, am a member," and theNew 
 Testament, and examine them ; for the rea- 
 son that the general differences are so many 
 it would hardly be possible to enumerate 
 and make the reference of an argument to 
 them in a single evening. 
 
 The great trouble is to find in what they 
 do resemble. Take out the doctrine of bap- 
 tism lor the remission of sins, which Camp- 
 bell began fully to teach in 1828, but which 
 was plainly set forth in the Gospel as con- 
 tained in the record Mr. Smith received of 
 the ancient inhabitants of America in 1827, 
 and Mr. Campbell's church will be as hard 
 to identify with theNew Testament church 
 as would some of the organized benevolent 
 societies of our time. Good enough in their 
 places, but not calculated to point out the 
 straight and narrow way that leadeth unto 
 life. In their order then I take up : 
 
 I. The name of the church, "Christian, 
 Disciple, Church of Christ." I referred to 
 the fact that the word Christian was only 
 used three times in the Bible. 
 
 1. In Acts 11:26, where the saints were 
 called Christians at Antioch. 
 
 2. Where Paul was dragged before the 
 king for his faith, and Agrippa says, "Al- 
 most persuadest thou me to bea Christian." 
 Very similar to the way I have been treated 
 time and again, when I had placed before 
 persons the hope of my promise in Christ, 
 and reasoned with the people from the 
 Bible, the answer would be returned: 
 "Well, I don't see anything bad in what 
 these Mormons teach after all." Why do 
 they have to nick-name us, cast derision, 
 as those out of Christ did the saints in Paul's 
 time? 
 
 3. The last is in I Peter, 4:16: "Yet if any 
 man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
 ashamed." Don't be ashamed, if they do 
 nick-name you, who are Saints, and call you 
 Cnristians, because you have a hope well 
 founded in the Messiah. Nick-names con- 
 tain no argument, and if you are not of the 
 world, you will certainly be nick-named by 
 them. This is the sum and substance of 
 the teaching of Peter upon that. 
 
 But what were the people of God called? 
 Disciples? That showed no distinguishing 
 feature between Jesus' disciples and Plato's 
 disciples. Disciple simply means a learner, 
 a follower, etc. And may be applied to 
 learners and followers outside of religion as 
 in. The true and distinguishing name of 
 the children of God is that of Haints. soused 
 both in the Old and New Testament, and 
 they are to be known as such when Jesus 
 brings them with him in his second advent. 
 When he comes the Saints will be with 
 him, and none others at that time. Not 
 
 Saints only after they are dead and ?one, 
 but Saints here. Upon this I hastily oifer 
 my authorities: 
 
 1. "Israel in the wilderness called Sain ts." 
 Deut. 33 : 2-3, 
 
 2. "Precious in thesightof the Lord is the 
 death of his Saints." Ps. 116:15. 
 
 3. "And the graves were opened and many 
 bodies of the Saints which slept arose." 
 Matt. 27 : 52. 
 
 4. "Saints at Lydia." Acts 9 . 32. 
 
 5. "Many of the Saints shut up in prison." 
 Acts 26 : 10. 
 
 6. "For God is not the author of confusion, 
 but of peace as in all the churches of the 
 Saints," 1. Cor. 14:33. 
 
 7. "Collection for the Saints." 1 Cor. 
 16:1. 
 
 8. "Fellow-citizens with the Saints." 
 Eph. 2:19. 
 
 9. "For the perfecting of the Saints." 
 Eph. 4:12. 
 
 Showing that they were not perfect 
 beings, but to be perfected through the 
 instruction and teaching of a spiritual 
 ministry not by persons versed in man's 
 wisdom only if so they would have their 
 hope in men instead of the power and wis- 
 dom of God. 
 
 10. "The prayers of the Saints." Rev. 5: 8. 
 
 11. "The Saints are refreshed by thee, 
 brother." Phil. 7th verse. 
 
 12. "Salute all the Saints." Heb. 13:24. 
 Besides the name Saints, they also are 
 
 named after Jesus Christ; Eph. 3:14- 
 15; he being not ashamed to call them 
 brethren; and hence we have the Church 
 of Jesus Christ cf the Saints; cal- 
 led Saints, and Latter Day Saints, 
 in distinction of Former Day Saints. 
 The Church Re-organized (since the or- 
 ganization in 1830) and hence properly 
 called The Re-organized Church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Church 
 of Jesus Christ, it being his formal organi- 
 zation of the Saints. 
 
 Leaving the name, I pass to the second 
 difference. He says Jesus established no 
 church before his death or the day of Pente- 
 cost. Let us examine this ; for it is clear 
 from the New Testament that if he did not, 
 he did not establish any at all. 
 
 Matthew 16: "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." 
 These were to enable Peter to act authorita- 
 tively here on earth in the church ; the 
 kingdom of heaven being represented and 
 established here under the name, style and 
 title of the church. 18th chapter, 17th 
 verse: '-And if ho shall neglect to hear 
 them, tell it unto the church." And 18th 
 verse, "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever 
 ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in 
 heaven." Showing Peter's work in the 
 church, the kingdom of heaven then in 
 existence, as referred to, when he says, 
 "The Kingdom of God is [now] within 
 you." In your midst, among you. Then 
 established and men pressed into it. Luke 
 16:16. 
 
240 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 "The law and the prophets were until 
 John, since that time the Kingdom of God 
 is preached, and every man presseth into 
 it." 
 
 How did they get in, if there was none? 
 But the Kingdom, the v Church, was within 
 them. Not the kingdom as it was in 
 heaven, for "flesh and blood" could not 
 inherit up there, but the kingdom as repre- 
 sented in the church on earth. Matt. 11 : 12. 
 "And from the days of John the Baptist 
 until now the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth 
 violence, and the violent take it by force." 
 And also 12: 28: "But if I cast put devils 
 by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of 
 God is come unto you." But how come? 
 I answer emphatically that it was under 
 the figure and name of the Church. Jesus 
 the King was there; He gave .them the 
 laws of the Kingdom then and there, as 
 also his servant John taught before. He 
 had chosen officers to carry out and minis- 
 ter these laws and bring men and women 
 into the kingdom, and they were then and 
 there doing it, viz.: "Translating them 
 into the Kingdom of His dear Son," by 
 administering the" laws of the Kingdom, 
 properly bringing them into the Church. 
 Col. 1 : 13. Thus forming, in fact, the 
 family of God, making them heirs of the 
 Kingdom, the body of Christ, " which is 
 the Church," Col. 1: 24. Hence Jesus 
 could call them brethren. "They*are not 
 of the world, even as I am not of the world." 
 John 17: 16. This is why Paul said in the 
 1st Corinthian letter : "And God hath set 
 some in the Church, first apostles." When 
 was it done? After Pentecost day? No, 
 long before, as shown by Luke 6: 13. After 
 the day of Pentecost no Apostles were set 
 in the Church except the calling of others 
 to fill the vacancies made by death, or 
 otherwise. 
 
 Braden says the law of Moses extended 
 to Pentecost day, and Jesus kept this 
 law in all things. But Matthew and Luke 
 say " the law and the prophets were until 
 John," and that Jesus said, "Before Abra- 
 ham was, I am." That he went through 
 the fields on the Sabbath day, and plucked 
 the ears of corn ; and told His disciples, 
 "Except your righteousness exceed the 
 righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees," 
 (these persons who kept the law of Moses 
 and their traditions), "ye can in no wise 
 outer into the kingdom of heaven." Refer- 
 ring evidently to that kingdom which was 
 from above, of which the church on earth 
 was the figure, type or representative; and 
 hence his disciples were not of the world 
 because they imbibed, yielded obedience to, 
 had partaken of the laws which were from 
 above the laws of Christ's Church, 
 "Therefore the world hateth you." 
 
 Acts 2: 41: "Then they that gladly 
 receive the word were baptized, and the 
 same day there were added unto them About 
 three thousand souls." Added to whom? 
 To the children of God there, the Church, 
 see verse 47, same chapter, " And the Lord 
 added to the Church daily such as should be 
 saved." What church? The church then 
 
 In existence, and which had existed from 
 the time Jesus organized it, for no act had 
 been done towards further organizing it, so 
 far as the history shows to this time, except 
 to fill the vacancy in the church caused by 
 the death of Judas Iscariot. God hath set 
 in the church "first apostles," said Paul. 
 And now when this Judas falls, it is from 
 the church ; for his office was in the church, 
 and his place, or office, which is etill in the 
 church, is filled by another. This is the 
 sentiment taught by Jesus, the great Head 
 of the Church, in John, 15th Chapter, "I 
 am the vine," " ye are the branches," an i 
 now, not hereafter ; and if branches, they 
 were members in the family of God, the 
 body of Christ, "which is the Church," 
 and which was in existence then and there. 
 Jesus even before John's time had a church. 
 " This is He that was in the < b, irch in the 
 wilderness with the angel that spake to 
 Him in the mount Sinai ; and with our 
 fathers who received the lively oracles to 
 give unto us." Acts 7: 38. This is the 
 reason we find elders in Moses' time the 
 70 elders they were officers in the church. 
 
 But says ;Braden, "The gospel law 
 of pardon was first preached on the day of 
 Pentecost." 
 
 What does he wish to teach by this ? 
 That there are two gospel laws ? That peo- 
 ple received forgiveness of sins after Pen- 
 tecost differently from what they did be- 
 fore ? Lt us see. Luke i, 76 and 77, speak- 
 ing of the work of John says: "For thou 
 B halt go before the face of the Lord to pre- 
 pare his ways ; to give knowledge of salva- 
 tion unto his people by the remission of 
 their sins." Was this any different gos- 
 pel than that preached afterwards? Mark 
 1:4: "John did baptize in the wilderness 
 for the remission of sins." This seems to 
 me was freeing men from their sins before 
 the day of Pentecost in some other way 
 than by the sacrifice of the dove, the lamb, 
 and the pigeon. Here, "the church of 
 which I, Clark Braden, am a member," is 
 clearly shown not to be in accord with the 
 New Testament pattern in doctrine and 
 faith. "The law and the prophets were until 
 John." Not John's birth; but till John 
 was commissioned by the Most High to 
 teach the principles of the Kingdom of God, 
 and came preaching the Gospel law, in con- 
 tradistinction to the Mosaic, and saying, 
 "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at 
 hand;" proclaiming a law which superceded 
 the old ; and when the new came in the old 
 was displaced, and for that reason nailed 
 to the cross. Not nailed to the cross while 
 it was in force and operative, but after it 
 had performed its work and God had abol- 
 ished it. 
 
 4. Now I approach the fourth difference 
 and distinction between his church and the 
 New Testament church ; vix., the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit. In this book by which 
 we are to try his church, there is such a 
 baptism taught as the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit; the Comforter, of which Jesus 
 speaks when he says: "It is expedient for 
 vou that I go away : for if I go not away, the 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 247 
 
 Comforter will not come." Teaching the 
 necessity of its coming; and not only for 
 those with him there, "but for them also 
 who shall believe on me through their 
 word." This Comforter which Jesus was 
 to send was the Holy Ghost, verse 26th, 
 14th chapter ; and for this they were to 
 wait at Jerusalem that they might receive 
 this Holy Ghost, which was "the promise 
 of the Father," Luke24:49: "and behold 
 I send the promise of the Father unto you : 
 but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem until 
 ye are endowed with power from on high." 
 This power from on high was the promise 
 made by John and Jesus when they taught, 
 "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost 
 not many days hence." Not simply to en- 
 able them to do signs and wonders, for they 
 did those things before; but to comfort 
 them, and guide them into all truth, so 
 they would not have, or take, erroneous 
 views as to his teachings and God's word. 
 The same is spoken of also by Jesus as the 
 Baptism of the Spirit. "Except ye be 
 born of the water and of the Spirit." 
 It was in the hour in which "the 
 true worrshippers shall worship the Fath- 
 er in Spirit and in truth; for the 
 Father seeketh such to worship him." 
 This Spirit which he wanted them to 
 have, the Holy Ghost Religion, shall 
 be in them a well of water, "springing up 
 into everlasting life" referring to the giv- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost. Again, Jesus says : 
 'My words, they are Spirit and they are 
 'ife." Not that the word itself is spirit dis- 
 connected with anything else ; any more 
 than the word is life itself disconnected 
 with anything else. My opponent will hard- 
 ly take the ground that a man just taking 
 up the word and reading it, or even eating 
 it would have the Spirit spoken of there, or 
 the life spoken of ; but as Jesus interprets 
 it in John 12: "My commandments are life 
 everlasting." "He thatloveth mekeepeth 
 my commandments ; and if ye keep my 
 commandments, I will send the Comforter;" 
 (John 14 : 15 and 17,) which is the Spirit of 
 truth ; this having come because they obey- 
 ed the word, and which will make com- 
 plete the new birth, and "spring up into 
 eternal life," and thus only is the word, 
 "spirit and life;" and for this cause the 
 "manifestation of the Spirit is given to ev- 
 ery man to profit with all." I Cor. 12:7. 
 The wish of the Savior was that all should 
 partake of this spirit. Hence, we are saved 
 "by the washing of regeneration and re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3: 5. 
 
 Those on the day of Pentecost did not re- 
 ceive the Holy Ghost through the medium 
 of the word ; but by reason of having 
 obeyed the word; hence the apostle de- 
 scribes the giving of the Holy Ghost as be- 
 ing that "which He shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Savior." Titus, 
 3:6. This is also the idea conveyed in 
 Ephesians 1st chapter : "In whom ye trust- 
 ed after that ye heard the word of truth, 
 the gospel of your salvation." "Where- 
 fore I also, after I heard of your faith I 
 ceased not to give thanks for you, that the 
 
 God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of 
 Glory may give unto you the spirit of wis- 
 dom and revelation in the knowledge of 
 him. 
 
 They did not get it through the medium of 
 the word, for they had long before had that, 
 but through Jesus Christ and the ordinance 
 of "laying on of hands." Acts 8:17, 18. 
 "Then laid they their hands on them, and 
 they received the Holy Ghost. And when 
 Simon saw that through the 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 hands 
 he may receive the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Thus we readily discover the sixth dif- 
 ference between Mr. Braden's church and 
 the New Testament church. 
 
 But these persons, he says, were not bap- 
 tized with the Spirit. Oh no, only those on 
 Pentecost day and the household of Corne- 
 lius. It makes no difference to him that 
 Peter said that which was shed forth on 
 Pentecost day, they should receive who 
 were repentant and obedient ; and althoug 
 he takes up the prophecy of Joel and shows 
 that "the promise is unto you, and unto 
 your children, and unto all that are afar off, 
 even as many as the Lord or God shall 
 call," and this was the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit, to which Peter refers ; nor what has 
 been said upon this by the great apostle of 
 the Gentiles, who too, speaks emphatically 
 upon this question, 1 Cor., 12:13: "For 
 by one spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, 
 whether we be bond or free; and have 
 been all made to drink into one spirit." 
 
 Remember not baptized by water into the 
 one body, or into the spirit, but baptized by 
 "the spirit into one body, and which is 
 equivalant to drinking into one spirit." 
 Paul agrees with Jesus, "Born of the water 
 and of the spirit," and both disagree with 
 Braden's church ; therefore the church "of 
 which I, Clark Braden, am a member," is 
 according to the pattern ! Now, is not this 
 wise logic? There is not a ghost of a hint 
 that there is such a thing taught in the 
 Bible as where the spirit is given through 
 the medium of the word. When Peter 
 taught the Gentiles it fell on them inde- 
 pendently, and so it came to the Ephesian 
 saints after they had believed the word and 
 had complied with the ordinance of "lay- 
 ing on of hands." Just so at Samaria, 
 and on Pentecost day; for before this 
 Jesus had "lifted up his hands and blessed 
 them." Paul says: "Icame not to you in 
 word only, but in power and the Holy 
 Ghost." "He therefore, thatministereth to' 
 you the spirit, and worketh miracles among 
 you, doeth he it by the works of the law, 
 or by the hearing of faith." 
 
 Now I come to the Hebrew letter which 
 he claimed referred to the law which they 
 had before Christ. It reads : "Therefore 
 leaving the principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ, let us go on to perfection." [It is 
 not the old law then, but the principles of 
 the doctrine of Christ,] of faith, repentance, 
 baptisms, fof water and the spirit] and of 
 
218 
 
 THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 laying on of hands, and of resurrection of 
 the dead, and of eternal judgment." Heb. 
 6: 2 and 3. 
 
 "Who were these Hebrew saints to whom 
 the apostle is addressing this letter? I 
 answer Those of Jerusalem ; and who had 
 before this accepted of the principles of the 
 doctrine of Christ; but had forgotten to 
 build upon them aa they should. The 
 apostle, however, exhorts them to go on 
 and perform the work to which they had 
 given adherence: "Not laying again the 
 foundation." And then in verse 4, they 
 are told, " For it is impossible for those who 
 were once enlightened and have tasted of 
 the heavenly gift, and were made partakers 
 of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the 
 good word of God, and the powers of the 
 world to come, if they shall fall away, to 
 renew them again unto repentance." 
 
 This is the language the apostle uses 
 towards these Hebrew Saints, and no 
 wonder. They were among those, doubt- 
 less, who had tasted of the heavenly gift 
 on Pentecost day and at Samaria, and they 
 should not have to lay again, the second 
 time, the foundation principles of the doc- 
 trine of Christ, of faith, repentence, bap- 
 tisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of 
 the dead, and eternal judgment. Ah! the 
 reason is evident why "baptisms" is, as 
 it is put by the apostle in the plural, they 
 had been " born of the water and of the 
 Spirit," as Jesus had directed, and thereby 
 tasted of the heavenly gift. Then Paul in 
 closing his letter could well say, for he is 
 talking to those who had accepted these 
 first, or foundation principles: "And I 
 beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of 
 exhortation, for I have written a letter unto 
 you in few words." 
 
 But he did not wish them to keep doing 
 their first works over again, remember, 
 first works in the Gospel of Christ but " go 
 on [in the Gospel of Christ] unto perfection." 
 Please look back three verses : " For when 
 for the time you ought to be teachers, 
 [they had not progressed and improved as 
 they ought to have done, hence] ,ye have need 
 that one teach you again, which be the first 
 principles of the oracles of God." Heb. 5 : 12. 
 
 Certainly there were never positions more 
 secure than I have taken on these texts. 
 Baptisms, then, and laying on of hands, 
 are foundation principles in the doctrine of 
 Christ. But Mr. Braden's church is just 
 the reverse in doctrine and practice. He 
 has neither the baptism of the Spirit nor 
 the practice of the laying on of hands in his 
 church, therefore, he concludes that he 
 stands on the Bible, and the Bible alone. 
 No creed in his church. O, no! Turn now 
 toEphesians 4: ft. ''One Lord, one faith, 
 one baptism." By this one baptism they 
 are baptized into one body, of course, for 
 Paul again says, " by one Spirit are we all 
 baptized into one body." 1 Cor. 12: 13. 
 Ah! Then if the word baptism in Ephe- 
 siana 4 : 5, refers to the elements of the new 
 birth, it cannot exclude the Spirit. There 
 i a baptism of the Spirit. No nn can 
 successfully deny this. " Ye shall be 
 
 tlzed with the Holy Ghost, (the Spirit), not 
 many days hence." Acts 1: 5. "Verily, 
 verily, I say unto thee, except a man be 
 born of the water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." 
 John 3: 5. "Not by works of righteousness 
 which we have done, but according to His 
 mercy He saved us, by the washing of regen~ 
 eration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
 which He shed on us abundantly, through 
 Jesus Christ our Savior." Titus 3 : 5, 6. Not 
 through|the medium of the word, remember. 
 
 This baptism, then, is used in the sense 
 in which the same apostle refers to it in the 
 Galatian letter, as well as the Hebrew. 
 "For as many of yon as have been baptized 
 into Jesus Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 
 3:27. Here are twe acts referred to; the 
 baptizing into, and the putting on "wash- 
 ing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." What is it to put on Christ? 
 Simply to go into the water ? No. That act 
 is only for the cleansing, freeing from sin : 
 thus men may be swept and garnished, but 
 after this, shall the house be left empty? 
 No, not in Christ. Hence he has ordained 
 the supply of grace in the heafrt by means 
 of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. "I will 
 not leave you comfortless," says Jesus, but 
 "I will pray the Father, and he shall give 
 you another comforter, that he may abide 
 with you forever, even the Spirit of truth ; 
 whom the world cannot receive, because it 
 seeth him not, neither knowethhim; but 
 ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, 
 aud shall be in you." John 14-16, 17. These 
 were to receive the "baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost not many days hence." While Jesus 
 was with them in person, they might en- 
 dure without it, but not otherwise. There- 
 fore they afterwards received the renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost, as did Israel, who were 
 "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
 the sea, and did all drink of that spiritual 
 rock, which rock was Christ." Why, says 
 one, they partook of Christ, then, did they? 
 Certainly. ThatwasonlyoneofMr. Braden's 
 whims in criticizing the Book of Mormon, 
 because they enjoyed Christen this conti- 
 nent. Peter says, referring to those before 
 Christ: "Searching what, or what manner 
 of time the Spirit of Christ which was in 
 them did signify, when it testified before- 
 hand the suffering of Christ and the glory 
 that should follow." 1 Peter 1:11. This is 
 sufficiently emphatic, showing that the 
 Nephite prophet was right, and my oppo- 
 nent wrong, and just so upon this point of 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit after Christ. 
 Those who are "born of the water and of 
 the Spirit are made complete in one birth 
 by the "washing of regeneration, and the 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Thus they have given to them a deed, 
 "earnest" of their inheritance in the king- 
 dom of God, which "earnest," or deed, is 
 the "gift of the Holy Ghost." There ia 
 none in Mr. Braden's church, however, but 
 there was in the apostolic church. There- 
 fore my opponent believes that Mr. Camp- 
 bell was a restorer, 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 249 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : My opponent wants to know 
 why we do not use the term "Church of 
 Jesus Christ," instead of "Church of 
 Christ." He may ask the Holy Spirit why, 
 in Romans 16-16, he did not say "The 
 Churches of Jesus Christ" or "The Re-or- 
 ganized Churches of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints." Let him settle it with the 
 Holy Spirit. He wants to know if men can 
 not seek for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
 even if it is a promise. Yes, all to whom 
 God has promised it, can seek it. But my 
 opponent can not dodge in that way. We 
 have proved, and he dare not deny it, that 
 there is but one baptism in the church. He 
 dare not deny that the one baptism that is 
 in the church, is a command, not a promise, 
 is in the name of the Father, Son and the 
 Holy Spirit, and is in water. Holy Spirit 
 baptism, that is not a command, but is a 
 promise, is not in the name of Father, Son 
 and Holy Spirit, and is not unto remission 
 3f sins, is not the one baptism that is in the 
 church. That ends that matter. My op- 
 ponent blunders outrageously over Peter's 
 language in Acts 2. Peter does say that 
 this event, this occurrence at which you are 
 astonished, is that event or occurrence of 
 which Joel prophesied, when he said, and 
 quotes Joel's promise. In the 34th verse 
 Peter declares that Jesus has shed forth, 
 this series of wonders that you see and hear. 
 Not the Spirit, for they did not see him. 
 
 Let us now narrow down our contest to 
 as narrow a compass as possible. We have 
 given ten reasons why we do not believe 
 that the baptism in the Spirit is in the 
 church now. My opponent has not noticed 
 them, although stated twice, and he has 
 been challenged twice to notice them. We 
 need not re-state them. We have given our 
 reasons for believing that the promise of 
 the Comforter was to the apostles alone. 
 My opponent and myself agree that it refers 
 to the miraculous influence of the Spirit. 
 Until he notices our arguments, he confesses 
 that the promise was to the apostles 
 alone. My opponent dare not deny that ' 
 Jesus says that believers alone shall enjoy 
 Joel's promise. We have given our reasons 
 for confining it to the apostles. He had re- 
 buked the apostles for their unbelief. He 
 told them (theapostles) to preach. He said 
 the signs should follow those who went out 
 preaching, believing what he said. 
 
 The context declares, the apostles went 
 forth preaching; the Lord did confirm the 
 preaching of theapostles, and the signs did 
 follow the preaching of the apostles, who 
 believed and preached. My opponent will 
 not deny that Peter says that such believers 
 as the Lord should call, will receive the 
 Holy Spirit as a gift. We are agreed that 
 it refers to the miraculous power of the 
 Holy Spirit, and that alone. "The prom- 
 
 ise" is Joel's promise, just quoted above, 
 the only promise Peter quotes or refers to. 
 
 How did God call believers? By the case 
 of the Samaritans, who had believed and 
 were baptized, were saints and had the in- 
 dwelling of the Holy Spirit, but who could 
 not receive the miraculous power until the 
 apostles laid hands on them, although the 
 mighty wonder-worker, Philip, full of the 
 miraculous power of the Spirit, was with 
 them ; by the case of Saul, who could not 
 receive the Spirit until Ananias, a special 
 apostle, laid hands on him ; by the case of 
 the disciples at Ephesus, who could not re- 
 ceive the Spirit until the apostle to the 
 Gentiles had laid hands on them ; by the 
 case of Timothy, who received the gift of 
 the Spirit through Paul's hands as one of 
 the Presbytery, and at the order of the 
 Presbytery, we learn that no one received, 
 or could receive, the Holy Spirit as a mirac- 
 ulous gift except by the imposition of an 
 apostle's hands. When my opponent points 
 to a single case outside of the baptism in 
 the Spirit that received the Holy Spirit in 
 any other way than by the imposition of an 
 apostle's hands, he proves his case. I am 
 not to prove that no one did. Let him 
 prove that one did. I am not to prove a 
 negation. He need not jabber about Saul 
 of Tarsus, for he received the Holy Spirit, 
 and could only receive it through one spe- 
 cially and miraculously sent by the Spirit. 
 a special apostle for that purpose. 
 
 All the cases he quotes, the Samaritans, 
 Saul, the household of Cornelius, the dis- 
 ciples at Ephesus, the events in the church 
 at Antioch, are all cases of the miraculous 
 power of the Holy Spirit.. The issues are, 
 "Did any enjoy the baptism of the Spirit 
 except at Pentecost and at the house of Cor- 
 nelius?" We have proved that no one ever 
 did, except on those occasions. Did any 
 enjoy the gifts of the Spirit, outside of bap- 
 tism in the Spirit, on whom an apostle had 
 not laid hands? Let him cite a case. 
 
 Lastly the great issue is, " How long 
 were these gifts to continue?" I was 
 amused at my opponent's dodge over Eph. 
 iv. He reads that apostles, prophets and 
 evangelists, with miraculous powers, and 
 pastors and teachers with miraculous pow- 
 ers, were given for the perfecting of the 
 saints unto the work of the ministry. I 
 accept all that. They were given to perfect 
 the saints for such work of ministry" as the 
 churches then needed. Also for the up- 
 building of the body of Christ. I believe 
 that. All these workers with miraculous 
 powers were needed to build up the body, 
 to give to the church government and con- 
 stitution, and to guide it until that was 
 done. There is not a word of difference 
 over that. The issue is, how long were 
 apostles and prophets that were miraculous 
 to continue? How long were miraculous 
 
250 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 powers to be given to the evangelists, pas- 
 tors and teachers? How long were miracu- 
 lous powers to continue? "Forever." as 
 Rellev says? 
 
 No! Paul says, "Until;" Until when, 
 Paul? "Until we all attain to the unity of 
 the taith and of the knowledge of the Son 
 of God." Or until the one faith, of which 
 Paul spoke is completed. Until the word of 
 God is completed. "Until we attain also 
 unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of 
 the stature of the fullness of Christ." Or 
 until the new man, composed of Jew and 
 Gentile; the body of which Christ is the 
 head, the church is completed in organiza- 
 tion. These miraculous powers are to con- 
 tinue until then; then they cease. If my 
 opponent will read all the context and 
 rightly divide the word, it will utterly ex- 
 plode his cavils and quibbles. My oppon- 
 ent nibbles around the argument based on 
 1 Cor., 12-13-14. Having been once landed 
 high and dry, with it through his gills, the 
 fish nibbles cautiously. We agree that the 
 Corinthian church had in it nine spiritual 
 gifts. That these gifts constituted powers, 
 nine miraculous powers in the church. 
 
 Paul compares the church to the human 
 body. Christ is the head. These spiritual 
 powers are the members, not the trunk of 
 the body. My opponent will not deny that 
 Christ is still the head of the church, ai- 
 thongh in heaven, and not in the church, 
 &3 he was among men before his ascension. 
 
 Christ is in the church, in his word, his 
 law, his government, his Holy Spirit. Not 
 miraculously, but in the indwelling of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 The Apostles, prophets, and all miracu- 
 lous powers are in the church, just as Christ 
 is in the church, in the New Testament, in 
 their words and acts recorded there, for 
 our example, in what they left on the pages 
 of the New Testament as the embassadors 
 and representatives of Christ. 
 
 We no more remove the apostles of Jesus, 
 nor his inspired imbassadors, his represen- 
 tatives, his delegates out of the church, 
 when we say that they had no successors, 
 then we remove Christ out of the church, 
 when we say he had no successor. 
 
 We no more need persons to succeed the 
 persons who exercised the spiritual powers 
 in the church, than we need a person to 
 succeed Christ. We no more need the con- 
 stant presence and ministry of men with 
 the nine gifts, that were in the Corinthian 
 church, than we need that Jesus should 
 stay on earth, and be in the church in 
 person. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is present in his indwell- 
 ing power, though the truths he revealed by 
 inspiration, just as God is present in the 
 operation of natural law, that took the 
 place of miracles of direct creation. 
 
 We no more remove the Holy Spirit from 
 the church than we remove God from 
 nature. There is no more need of miracu- 
 lous power of the Holy Spirit, and miracles 
 of revelation, and signs in religion, than 
 there is need of miracles of direct creation 
 in nature. 
 
 The apostle speaks of the exercise of spir- 
 itual gifts, as analogous to the exercise of 
 miraculous power in creation. It was pro- 
 visional and preparatory to a higher and 
 better law, and would pass away when it 
 had prepared the way for that higher and 
 better, and would be succeeded by it. He 
 declares, "desire earnestly the best spiritual 
 gifts," while they are the order of the 
 church. "Nevertheless, I show unto you 
 a more excellent way," than the exercise 
 of the best of these spiritual gifts. The 
 apostle is contrasting two states of the 
 church. One is the exercise of the best of 
 these spiritual gifts. Theother is more ex- 
 cellent than that.. In the eighth verse fol- 
 lowing he declares prophesying, all utter- 
 ance by inspiration shall cease. Knowl- 
 edge imparted by miracle shall cease. 
 Tongues, all miracles that are signs shall 
 cease. That is the more excellent way. Or 
 that shall be the state of the church, when 
 that more excellent way has prevailed. 
 That is as clear as sunlight. He confirms 
 it when he says "That under these spirit- 
 ual gifts, knowledge and prophesying are 
 but fragmentary in each exercise, they are 
 partial, can only give a part at a time." 
 
 He declares that when that which is per- 
 fect has come, the partial shall pass away. 
 This is not heaven or the future state. There 
 is notareferenceto heaven or the future state 
 in the chapters. Paul is talking of the state 
 of the church under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. The partial childish formative state 
 is the condition of the church under theoe 
 spiritual gifts. Its state when it is a man, 
 when that which is perfect is come, is when 
 the word of God, that which makes Chris- 
 tians perfect and thoroughly furnishes them 
 to all good works, is completed ; and the 
 body, the church, the new man, of which. 
 Christ is the head, is completed in organi- 
 zation. This is plain common sense. Both 
 members of the comparison are states of the 
 church, and both are states under the 
 Christian dispensation. 
 
 He then resumes his former exhortation, 
 "Desire the best gifts, but above all to 
 prophesy, to teach by inspiration, while 
 spiritual gifts are the order, and until 
 the word is completed, then prophesying 
 will cease." He describes the condition un- 
 der gifts, just as Moses described the con- 
 dition of the Israelites in the wilderness. 
 He then speaks of a better state than the 
 exercise of such gifts, as Moses spoke of a 
 better condition, of the Israelites in Canaan, 
 better than the condition in the wilderness. 
 
 He then returns to directions how they 
 were to exercise these spiritual gifts, while 
 they were the order of the church, and 
 until that better way is ushered in, just as 
 Moses resumes directions to the Israelites 
 how to live until they enter Canaan, or 
 while they are in the wilderness. There is 
 no more three states in one case than in the 
 other. That sets to one side that little 
 quibble. 
 
 We have called bur opponent's attention 
 to the fact that our Savior constituted the 
 apostles his representatives, embassadors, 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 251 
 
 delegates, to organize the church, first pro- 
 visionally, during which time spiritual 
 gifts prevailed, and to give to it the consti- 
 tution, the New Testament, and to organize 
 it permanently under that constitution, and 
 tn accordance with it. His claim that these 
 spiritual powers, these provisional powers, 
 and these constitution-making powers, these 
 delegates, should be forever in the church, 
 is as absurd as to claim that the old govern- 
 ment under the Articles of Confederation, 
 and the Constitutional Convention should 
 forever remain in session and be forever 
 making constitutions. 
 
 He would either never have the govern- 
 ment ordained by the constitution, for the 
 old government, and the convention would 
 not give way to it. Or if the government 
 ordained by the constitution and the con- 
 stitution ever were in full force, he would 
 have the farce of a form of government from 
 which all authority had been taken, and a 
 constitution-making convention that had 
 nothing to do/ and could do nothing, for a 
 constitution had already been made and 
 was in force. 
 
 If he contends for new revelations he im- 
 peaches the word of God. If he contends 
 for miracles to confirm the word of God, 
 already .perfect in the New Testament, he 
 has the farce of God's sealing forever that 
 to which he once put a seal. If he does not 
 have new revelations of truth in addition 
 to those in the Bible, he has God eternally 
 engaged in the farce of confirming what he 
 has once confirmed. In no way can he 
 show that inspiration, miracles and revela- 
 tions are necessary, unless the New Testa- 
 ment is imperfect and incomplete, as the 
 Old Testament was incomplete. If the 
 work of the Son of God was incomplete, as 
 was the work of Moses, and if he stands 
 related to Joe Smith as Moses did to the 
 Son of God, then we need Joe Smith, new 
 revelations, inspired men to give them, 
 and miracles to confirm them. Will he take 
 that position? 
 
 If Jesus does not stand related to Joe 
 Smith as Moses did to Jesus ; if the New 
 Testament does not stand related to the 
 Book of Mormon as the Old Testament does 
 to the New; if the spiritual powers of the 
 days of Jesus and the apostles do not stand 
 related to the spiritual powers of Joe Smith 
 and Mormonism as the spiritual power of 
 the Mosaic dispensation stands related to 
 the spiritual powers of the Christian dis- 
 pensation, what need of Joe Smith, the 
 Book of Mormon, and Mormon spiritual 
 powers and revelations and miracles to suc- 
 ceed those of the Christian dispensation, as 
 they succeeded the Mosaic dispensation? 
 What need of instruction and tutors for 
 children if the church became a man in 
 Christ? What need of an everlasting con- 
 stitution-making convention? What need 
 of an eternal sealing of God's word by mira- 
 cles? If such a course were pursued, would 
 not they cease to be miraculous? My oppo- 
 nent's position is a contradiction * of all 
 scripture and common sense. He would 
 have God continue to bring animals and 
 
 plants Into existence by miracle of creation 
 after preparing the way for and establish- 
 ing the control of natural law. 
 
 My opponent wants to know why nob 
 have the perfect word of God and miracu- 
 lous gifts now, both in the church. Because 
 such is not now the decree of the constitu- 
 tion, God's word. He undertakes to find 
 fault with the course I have pursued in my 
 argument. I have presented frankly what 
 we, as a people, teach and practice. If it 
 Is so like the New Testament teaching that 
 he can find no fault with it, the fault is ia 
 his attempt to assail it, and not in my pre- 
 sentation of it. My opponent confounds 
 two operations, two influences of the Spirit. 
 The Spirit, as enjoyed in inspiration before 
 Christ, ana that higher manifestation that 
 was not given till after Christ was glorified, 
 which was sent forth in the name of Christ. 
 John 14:26. 
 
 We differ from people who have v, ritten 
 creeds in this. They decide cases of faith 
 and discipline by an understanding of an 
 understanding of the Bible, the creed. We 
 decide them by our understanding of the 
 Bible itself, found in every instance by 
 original investigation of the Bible itself, 
 and not by an investigation of our under- 
 standing of the Bible, a creed. "Saint" is 
 a name for children of God in all ages. 
 "Christian" is the name of saints who are 
 followers of Christ. In that name they are 
 called after Christ, are called by his name. 
 Saint would not call them after his name ; 
 it would not call them by his name. 
 
 He admits that Paul never heard of "Lat- 
 ter Day Saints," nor of "Re-organized" 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints, f Paul had heard of "Christian" and 
 gloried 'in it. He had heard of "Church 
 of God" and "Church of Christ." "Paul I 
 know, and Jesus of Nazareth I know, but 
 who are ye." The Bible knows no such 
 Ashdodish lingo. Our Savior told his apos- 
 tles when announcing to them the law of 
 the church, and instructing them in it, that 
 when the church was organized by them, 
 members in certain cases should lay certain 
 things before the church. That no man 
 proves that the church was then in exist- 
 ence than his telling them what they should 
 do after they were endued with power from 
 on high, proves that they were then endued 
 with power. The kingdom was not then in 
 existence, for after the death of Jesus, 
 Joseph of Arimathea was still waiting for 
 the kingdom. Kingdom has a variety of 
 meanings. The kingdom is spoken of in a 
 variety of aspects. 
 
 The Kingdom was among the Israelites 
 in Christ's day, in promises, in preaching 
 that announced that it was at hand, ap- 
 proaching, and not as an established insti- 
 tution, for Jesus himself said it was only at 
 hand, approaching. The law and prophets 
 were preached until John. John preached 
 that the Kingdom was at hand. Not that 
 it was in existence, and he in it. He was 
 not, for the least that was in the Kingdom, 
 when established, was greater than John. 
 
 My opponent must be hard pushed when 
 
252 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 he quotes Colossians 2:13, "hath trans- 
 lated us into the Kingdom," written thirty 
 years after the death of Jesus, fo prove that 
 the Kingdom was in existence before his 
 death. 
 
 The apostles were in the kingdom as soon 
 as selected, he tells us. They were selected 
 at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. 
 Just before his death, not six weeks before, 
 Jesus said, "I will build my church ; " and 
 my opponent admitted it was still future at 
 that time. Will he explain how the apos- 
 tles werein the Kingdom, three years before 
 that time, when the Kingdom 'was future, 
 was not in existence at that time? He read 
 "added to them," "added to the church," 
 said of what happened on and after the day 
 
 of Pentecost. If he will read such language 
 in regard to events before the day of Fente 
 cost, he will prove that the church existe* 
 before that day. There was an Israelitt 
 congregation in the wilderness, but not th 
 "church of Christ." Not a soul had beei 
 baptized in to Christ. They had been bap 
 tizedinto Moses. As themiraculous influence 
 of the spirit is no part of conversion, by hit 
 own admission, it is no part of the birth ol 
 the water and spirit. That ends that mattei 
 if he does not back out of the truth he ad- 
 mitted. We receive the Holy Spirit now a f tei 
 that belief and obedience that makes ut 
 sons of God. "Because we are sons of God, 
 he sends forth the Spirit into our heaite," 
 the indwelling of his Spirit. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : It seems that if there is any- 
 thing to be attached to the manner of one 
 of the disputants in a debate, I should not 
 have anything to say this time. My oppo- 
 nent has finished up the argument closed 
 the thing down. He says, "There is only 
 one baptism in the church, and that one is 
 not the baptism of the Spirit, and that 
 settles it." What is the use of argument? 
 Braden can settle it alone without any 
 trouble. Just because. Now can't you see 
 the point, my friends ? 
 
 Inbtead of giving you an interpretation of 
 the passage, he says, I assert that there is 
 but one, and that is not by the Spirit. But 
 Jesus said. "Born of the water and of the 
 Spirit." "Ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost not many days hence." Peter 
 says, "Repent and be baptized every one of 
 you, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost." And this was the baptism of 
 the Spirit, so admitted by Mr. Braden. 
 Those at Pentecost and those of Cornelius' 
 household received the baptism of the 
 Spirit, he says, only. But why should God 
 give it to. them, if not in the church? Again 
 Paul says, ''By one Spirit are we all bap- 
 tized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
 Gentiles; whether we be bond or free; and 
 have been all madetodrink intooneSpirit." 
 Here the authority of Jesus, Peter and Paul 
 settles the question adversely to Mr Bra- 
 den, for they say there is a baptism of the 
 Spirit in the church. 
 
 The passage in Ephesians 4:5. which Mr. 
 Braden professes to rely upon, I showed 
 fully in my last speech did not, when 
 properly understood, exclude the baptism 
 of the Spirit from the Christian system. 
 
 But my opponent thinks they had no use 
 
 for the baptism of the Spirit after tbe first 
 century, for the reason that they hud the 
 word after that, and Jude said, "contend 
 for the faith," etc. But whom did he tell 
 to contend for the faith ; those of the second 
 and third centuries, or those of the first? 
 Jude is exhorting the saints in his time, 
 who also have these spiritual gifts, having 
 been baptized with the Holy Spirit, to "con- 
 tend f n f the faith delivered (then) to the 
 saints. They had both then. So also had 
 the Corinthian Saints. Paul says, I Cor. 
 15:1, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto 
 you the Gospel, which I preached unt< you 
 which also ye have received and wherein 
 ye stand." 
 
 Here these people are plainly shown to 
 not only have the law, the Gospel in word, 
 but also the gifts. Enjoying both at the 
 same time, and having both more fully than 
 the people have either now ; yet, we are 
 gravely told that all this spiritual endow- 
 ment was to cease when the word came. At 
 the same time too, he says the Spirit, what 
 little we have, comes through the medium 
 of the word. But if that is true, would it 
 not also follow that they who have the most 
 word would have the most Spirit and vice 
 versa. 
 
 Whichever way Mr. Braden turns in this 
 net, he winds himself just that much 
 tighter. 
 
 He says now, that I have conceded certain 
 things were all right. O yes, Kelley has 
 given away his case. But did he show you 
 wherein? Take out the baptism in water 
 that he holds to, and in what other thing is 
 he with the Bible? John the Baptist 
 preached and administered that rite; but 
 there is now, as theu, something 1 else to seek 
 after. A greater baptism than that of 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 2J3 
 
 water. "I Indeed have baptized you with 
 water," says John; but this was not the 
 great central thought in the religion of 
 Christ. Mark 1:8, "He shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost." This was the great 
 central thought of both John's and Jesus' 
 preaching, besides that of all the apostles 
 after them. Hence we find Paul the first 
 thing enquiring at Ephesus, "Have ye re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? " 
 
 But again, he says the Mormons believe 
 so and so, pretending to tell you what I 
 believe. 
 
 The question under discussion now is not 
 what I believe, or what the Mormons be- 
 lieve, if he wishes to nickname the Saints 
 that ; but what does Bradeu and the so- 
 called Christian, Disciple or Camp belli te 
 church believe. 
 
 What the Saints believe, and how far 
 that, belief agrees with the Bible, we will 
 consider under the third question, and I 
 shall not attempt to avoid the issue. 
 
 He takes up the plain declaration of Jesus 
 in John 3:5, and undertakes to translate. 
 The word Spirit, he says, is from the Greek 
 word Pneumatos. Well, suppose it is, does 
 that make any difference? Is his position 
 upon this, that the word means breath, or 
 wind, as some of our Adventist friends 
 claim, and therefore Jesus did not mean 
 baptism of the Spirit, but of breath or wind? 
 
 Mr. Braden : 1 said it was Spirit, not wind. 
 
 Mr. Kelley: Why do you refer to the 
 word wind at all, then, in giving your in- 
 terpretation? In your use of the word 
 wind, breath, etc.,"y u make it appear as 
 though Jesus referred to the wind. 
 
 Mr. Braden : I said the translation of the 
 3d of John was wrong. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : You will have a chance. I 
 am arguing that it is not wrong, but right, 
 and consistent with all other teachings of 
 Jesus and the apostles. The Greek word 
 Pneumatos is properly translated Spirit, 
 signifying the Holy Ghost. I Cor. 2:10, 
 "But God hath revealed them unto us by 
 his (Pneumatos) Spirit. For the (Pneumd) 
 Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep 
 things of God." Again, Rom. 8:16, "The 
 Spirit (from Pneuma again) beareth- wit- 
 ness with our spirit (pneumati) that we are 
 the children of God." 
 
 These are texts, and I might give many 
 others, where even Mr. Braden himself 
 could not claim that the word Spirit was a 
 mis-translation. What argument then is 
 there in trying to re-tianslate John by put- 
 ting a different word there? Suppose we 
 translate the word Pneumatos to mean 
 simply an element and not spirit; in what 
 will it benefit the matter? Read it thus, 
 fixed up: "Born of the water, and of" 
 what? The element of water again? 
 Breath, air, wind, or what? Spirit is the 
 most consistent, and it is true, and that is 
 what Jet<us said and meant. Hence we 
 have written in Acts 1:5, Jesus' words: 
 " For John truly baptized with water ; but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Hoiy Ghost 
 (Pneumati. Sjuriij not many days uence." 
 
 But he wants me to answer the question 
 
 as to whether the people of Samaria were 
 sinners, whom Philip baptized, before they 
 received the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I answer, no more than the apostles were 
 sinners before they received it while they 
 were tarrying at Jerusalem waiting for the 
 Holy Spirit to be poured out as had been 
 promised. 
 
 Will Braden answer as to whether he 
 considers the 120 at Pentecost sinners up to 
 that time? The people of Samaria, although 
 they had obeyed the word and had great 
 joy, wanted something else they wanted 
 the "promise of the Father," aa that was, 
 "to as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call ;" but they did not receive it prior to 
 the confirmation by the laying on of hands, 
 for Peter says, " for as yet he was fallen 
 upon none of them." Yet this was the 
 Spirit of truth, the Comforter, which alone 
 could give them a right to the inheritance. 
 He tries to make out, however, that when 
 they have the word of truth they have the 
 other also, as per consequence; but where 
 are his proofs? Here at Samaria they had 
 the word but not the Spirit. However, 
 those who had received the word from 
 proper motives afterwards received the 
 Spirit through the laying on of hands. So 
 also, as declared in the first of Ephesians, 
 those who received the word, after that they 
 believed, they were sealed with that Holy 
 Spirit of promise which is the earnest of 
 their inheritance. 
 
 But had the Spirit anything to do in their 
 conversion, he asks. I answer that it was 
 not given to them as a comforter, seal of 
 adoption , or as "the promise of the Father," 
 before conversion, any more than it was 
 given as such to Peter, James and John 
 prior to Pentecost. Yet will he say God by 
 his Spirit had nothing to do with Peter, 
 James and John before this? 
 
 Jesus said. "No man can come to me ex. 
 cept the Father draw him." I apprehend 
 that the Father has much to do in bring- 
 ing people to the point where they may re- 
 ceive the baptism of the Holy Spirit which 
 they do not give him credit for. But be- 
 cause of this is it any reason that they 
 should not have the baptism of the Spirit, 
 or the seal of adoption, the.means by which 
 they may indeed manifest their right to the 
 inheritance when they shall be called to 
 give an account before the Judge of both 
 the quick and the dead ? 
 
 Again he thinks that it was not Christ's 
 church in the wilderness. No, that was only 
 Moses' church. 
 
 But Paul says Christ was in the church 
 In the wilderness, and if Christ was in it, 
 that is more than Mr. Braden can show for 
 his church. And if Christ was in it, it was 
 indeed His church. 
 
 He attempts to turn one of my arguments 
 by referring to the passage, "The Kingdou. 
 of God is within you." in order to .h. *,nat 
 the church was not there then. Jesus wrier 
 usmp this language is talking to the wicKec 
 Pharisees. Luke 17:20. "And when be a 
 demanded of the Pharisees, when the King- 
 dom of God should come, heanswered them 
 
254 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 and said, the Kingdom of God cometh not 
 with "observation ; neither shall they say, 
 lo here ! or lo there! for behold, the King- 
 dom of God is within you." 
 
 He does not tell these wicked persons that 
 the Kingdom was within them in their 
 hearts as we sometimes hear but in their 
 midst. [Among you]. Look on the margin 
 of your reference Bible; the word among ia 
 given as a better one. The thought and in- 
 struction presented by Jesus at the time is, 
 that the kingdom was well represented 
 then in their midst. And had they but 
 opened their eyes they could have beheld 
 the same ; but it was not in such pomp and 
 splendor as to attract the attention of the 
 vile or indifferent. Hence, "not with ob- 
 servation." Notwithstanding this, Jesus 
 the King was there. He had announced 
 the laws of the kingdom, and urged their 
 acceptance, thus putting them in force. 
 He had chosen officers then and there to 
 administer these laws ; and they were be- 
 ing administered. Men and women were 
 becoming subjects of this king daily, and 
 the power of the kingdom was felt, not 
 only upon the good, but the evil ; and hence 
 we find that even the evil spirits had to 
 obey. "And I, If I cast out devils by the 
 power of God, then the Kingdom of God 
 is come unto you," said Jesus. This had 
 come under the form and organization of 
 the church. And although the Scribes and 
 Pharisees stood disputing the fact like my 
 opponent here, Jesus argues that if these 
 things are done, then the kingdom is there 
 in fact, no difference how much they may 
 cavil over the matter. The very fact that 
 these things are accomplished, viz., "The 
 sick healed," "devils cast out," "the dead 
 raised," and that "the poor had the gospel 
 preached unto them," is overwhelming 
 proof that the Kingdom of God with which 
 men have to do in this life the church 
 was an established fact. 
 
 The word kingdom is used in the New 
 Testament to not only represent the church 
 here as in Luke 16:16, Matt. 11 ; 12, and 
 7 : 29 ; but also at times as referring to the 
 kingdom when it is to be revealed in glory 
 and majesty, as in Matt. 6:10, 26:29, and 
 Mark. 15:43. This last refers to the text he 
 quoted where Joseph of Arimathsea waited 
 for the kingdom of God. But it was not 
 the church, or the giving of the Holy Ghost 
 that he watched for ; but the time when the 
 glory of the kingdom should return to Is- 
 rael ; when one should come and "Establish 
 the kingdom and sit upon the throne of 
 his father David forever." 
 
 But he says, his church claims that Christ 
 is among his people. I know he does, and 
 so do all others. But how does he know? 
 His very principles do not permit Christ to 
 do anything in the church if he should be 
 IE It. The distinction is this : We not only 
 oial\_ that Christ is in the church, but that 
 a. 'A act. direct his people, answer them, 
 in *>!. ess them directly. Being the head of 
 t) * *.iurcu, he can, and does communicate 
 with ihe body and in an intelligent, reason- 
 able manner. 
 
 My opponent pretends to have Christ 
 along, but it is only as a kind of a silent 
 partner. It is a more absurd position than if 
 he would say, Jesus was not in the church 
 at all. For he places him in his church where 
 he must observe the evil, and then by his 
 creed, binds the Master so he is not permit- 
 ted to speak, or in any way protest against 
 their unlawful works. Do not deceive 
 yourselves my friends; where Jesus is, there 
 his power will be felt. "If I by the power 
 of God do these things, then the kingdom 
 of God is come." The converse of the propo- 
 sition is : If the power is not made mani- 
 fest, to wit: In the healing of the sick, 
 casting out devils, speaking with spiritual 
 gifts, and preaching the Gospel in power 
 and the Holy Ghost, then the king- 
 dom, or the church of Christ in fact, is not 
 represented. But, there is simply an or- 
 ganization "Having a form of Godliness, 
 but denying the power thereof." 2Tim.3:5. 
 
 I ask my opponent to point out a single 
 instance in the world's history, where 
 Christ has ever had a church on earth, one 
 that was acknowledged and accepted of 
 him in any way, when he had not inspired 
 men in the same, and the people were 
 not I lest with the presence of this power? 
 Wheie they had not the gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit; and the sick were not healed; men 
 blest with prophecies, tongues, visions, wis- 
 dom, knowledge, faith, discernment of 
 spirits and interpretations. In which too, 
 there was not either an apostle or prophet? 
 Can he mention a single time within the 
 past five thousand years of the history of 
 the race when such an anomalous thing 
 took place? Yet he pretends to say his 
 church is Christ's church. But don't he 
 know hundreds of others that are widely 
 different from his, are claiming the same 
 thing? Is Christ divided? What reason 
 is there in claiming that a church which de- 
 nies all communication of Christ to it; 
 that rejects the idea of present inspiration 
 of Jesus ; that rejects the idea of the 
 manifestations of the spirit that Jesus prom- 
 ised to be with his children is in fact Christ's 
 church? The idea is preposterous. In the 
 language of the apostle, I feel like saying 
 to such: "Awake thou that sleepest, aud 
 arise from the dead, and Christ shall give 
 thee light." 
 
 But it is claimed that the Campbellites 
 have apostles in their church. Ah ! do 
 thev ? How do they have them ? So as to 
 speak and act in the church, "for the work 
 of the ministry," as they did in the church 
 established by Jesus. 'Oh no. It is only a 
 turn Braden has. He wants to carry the 
 idea that they have dead apostles and 
 prophets in their church. What are they 
 in there for then, and who are they? It is 
 not Peter, or Paul, or James, I assure you, 
 for they are in the church Triumphant 
 they said they were going, ere they left. 
 "If our earthly house of this tabernacle 
 were dissolved, we have a building of God, 
 an house not made with hands, eternal in the 
 heavens." 2 Cor. 5:1. "Knowing that 
 shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 255 
 
 ven as the Lord Jesus Christ hath showed 
 rue 1 ' 2 Peter 1:14. But says Braden, Is 
 jiot Christ in the church, and he died too? 
 Yes, Christ is in his church; but how? 
 Answer, by the presence of the Holy Spirit. 
 "I will pray the Father, and he shall give 
 you another Comforter, that he may abide 
 with you forever, even the Spirit of truth ; 
 whom the world cannot receive, because it 
 seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But 
 ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you 
 and shall be in you. I will not leave you 
 comfortless. I will come. unto you." John 
 14 : 16-19. Here i? fully set out* the manner 
 of Christ's presence in his church, but not 
 BO the apostles. This is the Spirit that 
 Jesus shed forth upon them on the day of 
 Pentecost. It is that which Jesus speaks of 
 in the 2'ith verse of the same chapter : "But 
 the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
 whom the Father will send in iny name, he 
 shall teach you all things, and bring all 
 things to your remembrance whatsoever I 
 have said unto you. " 
 
 But Braden has already disclaimed the 
 ideaofit being in the church now, hence it is 
 shown beyond all controversy that Christ 
 can not be in his church. The apostles 
 were set in the church for a purpose, to 
 edify the church ; not forever, as Braden 
 said*, I believed , but till the church is edified, 
 "and we all come to a unity of the faith, to 
 a perfect man in Christ." That is what I 
 said, and that is what is written. Again, 
 he thinks I am wrong as to Joel's prophecy, 
 because he says they could not see the 
 Spirit, and Peter says, ''this which ye see 
 and hear." 
 
 Could not see the Spirit ! Who said so? 
 My opponent, that is all. The record says 
 they both saw and heard it. "And suddenly 
 there came a sound from heaven as of a 
 rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the 
 house where they 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." Acts 
 2: 1-5. 
 
 Then they did both see and hear the 
 Spirit. And John beheld the "Spirit like a 
 dove descending and lighting upon him." 
 Yes, the Spirit can be seen and heard. So 
 much for another one of Braden 's wise ex- 
 positions of Scripture. This is like his posi- 
 tion as to the Spirit being in the church. 
 O yes, he says, I believe in the Spirit. 
 Kelley misrepresents me. But he wants it 
 in a modified form, a different thing alto- 
 gether from what was in the church then. 
 That is the reason I say he has none. When 
 he changes its form, purposes, powers, 
 operations and fullness, he has a different 
 thing. He thinks it a terrible thing, if he 
 he;irs of the Methodists sprinkling with a 
 little water for baptism, changing the ordi- 
 nance Jesus instituted. He says, it is no 
 baptism at all. But at the same time he 
 comes in and says, just give us as little of 
 the Spirit as possible. A very little will do 
 now. Can he not see that it is a greater 
 
 evil to the Christian system to try to limit 
 the baptism of the Spirit, than to limit the 
 baptism of water to limit Spirit in baptism 
 than to limit water in baptism? 
 
 But the question of authority has been, 
 raised, and he says that Mr. Campbell 
 claimed the word of God as his authority. 
 Very well ; if he did we will go to the word 
 of God and see what it says : 
 
 1. Acts 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves 
 and to all the flock of Gpd, over which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." 
 
 Plere the word of God gays the Holy Ghost 
 made persons overseers, ministers of the 
 word ; but Mr. Campbell said there was 
 none now calling ministers into the church ; 
 be was certainly not the restorer as to this 
 part of the gospel then. 
 
 2. Actsl3:2, the word speaks again : "And 
 the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barna- 
 bus and Saul for the work whereunto I 
 have called them. And when they had 
 fasted and prayed and laid their hands on 
 them, they sent them away." 
 
 Here again the Holy Ghost is the agent 
 and authority for the calling of the minis- 
 ter, and the laying on of hands the ordi- 
 nance used to convey the authority. 
 
 3. Again John 20:21: "As my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you." How was 
 Jesus called and sent? Heb. 5:5, 6. "So 
 also Christ glorified not himself to be made 
 an high priest ; but he that said unto him, 
 Thou art my son ; to-day have I begotten 
 thee. As he saith also in another place, 
 Thou art a priest forever after the order of 
 Melchisedec." 
 
 No, not even Jesus would take the honor 
 from the word, and undertake to administer 
 in the house of God. 
 
 4. Again we are told: "No man taketh 
 this honor unto himself, but he that is 
 called of God as was Aaron." Heb. 5,4. 
 
 Aaron was called by the Lord communi- 
 cating his will in the* matter to Moses, and 
 directing the ordination by his Spirit as in. 
 other cases. Numbers 28:1. 
 
 Where is it. then, Mr. Campbell finds any 
 authority for his acts in the word ? Let me 
 examine further. 
 
 5. 1 Cor. 7:17: "But as God hath distri- 
 buted to every man, as the Lord hath called 
 every one, so let him walk. And so ordain 
 I in all churches." Here it is again. God 
 does his work through the Holy Spirit, as 
 Mathias was chosen. And they prayed and 
 said, "Lord, show which of these twothou 
 hast chosen." Acts 1:24. Again I ask if 
 Mr. Campbell is with the record as he claims, 
 where did get his authority since he re- 
 jected the inspiration of the Holy Ghost 
 that our other Christian friends had been 
 long praying for, and God answered him 
 not by this Holy Spirit, neither hy prophets, 
 nor by dreams, nor by Urimand Thummim? 
 
 I will answer it, as my friend seems to be 
 ignorant on the topic. 
 
 You will find it in Barton W. Stone's his- 
 tory, about page 175: " We concluded if we 
 had authority to preach we had authority to 
 baptize." "If we had authority to preach." 
 Here it Is! Their whole church hang* 
 
256 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 upon an if. Man-made from foundation 
 to top. And yet they are going about, or at 
 least Braden is, calling the Saints blasphe- 
 mers because we promise the people that 
 they may have a realization of the bless- 
 ings of God's kingdom here if they obey 
 him so they may have a firm assurance of 
 their acceptance with him ; and thus they 
 can find out whether we are impostors here 
 for themselves. But the Disciples go about 
 promising the greatest gift of God, which 
 is eternal life, if they will only conform to 
 their water baptism ; but their converts, 
 they say, shall not hear from God upon this 
 highest of all matters to their being, so 
 they may know whether their preachers 
 are impostors or not. They make them 
 wait till they get to that " bourne from 
 whence no traveler returns " before they let 
 them know anything about it, and, of 
 course, they receive no deed to this prom- 
 ised inheritance. Now who is the most 
 consistent? Yet he tells you my doctrine 
 is blasphemous. Why is it? Because it 
 differs from the Bible? No. For Jesus 
 Bays, "These signs shall follow them that 
 believe," and that is what we promise to 
 the believer. It is for the reason that we 
 differ from him that he talks that way. 
 That is all. Whether he hugs it to his bo- 
 som or not, it is the outcroppings of that 
 spirit of intolerance that is adverse to ihe 
 great Christian system as reflected by 
 Christ, and this is another grand distinctive 
 difference between his church and the New 
 Testament church as left by the apostles. 
 This makes ten differences to begin with, 
 broad ones, too. 
 
 It was rather amusing on last evening to 
 hear my opponent state that Mr. Alexander 
 Campbell was not a reformer, but a re- 
 storer. If a restorer he must have brought 
 back something that was lost. That is, the 
 
 S erfect church that was established by 
 esus Christ and his apostles. Notwith- 
 standing this wonderful claim made by my 
 opponent that their church is the restored 
 one, yet he don't say that theirs is the only 
 true church. This is another strange diver- 
 sion. There is but one other person who 
 has lived in this age who claims to have 
 been a restorer, and that was Joseph Smith. 
 All others who have gone forward in church 
 organization only made the claim of being 
 reformers. Now before it becomes neces- 
 sary to restore the church it must be lost. 
 This restoration my opponent, in the person 
 of Mr. Campbell, claims to have effected. If 
 so, then it is the true church, and all this 
 talk that they don't say that they are the 
 only true church is some of his " balder- 
 dash," unless he accepts the Latter Day 
 Saints as another true one; for if necessary 
 to restore, all not restored must in some 
 sense be lacking, hence not true. But he 
 makes faces at the Church of the Latter 
 Day Saints, and calls it nasty, and "gone 
 to seed." Where is the other true one ex- 
 cept the one "of which I, Clark Braden, am 
 a member." Please name one. Mr. Hmith 
 was honest in his claim, and said that God 
 had restored the true church by his hands 
 
 through the administration of an angel, 
 just as it was to be restored as shown in 
 prophecy, and that all others were in some 
 particulars wrong, not excepting Mr. Camp- 
 bell's restored church. Because of this 
 claim, a great many got mad at Mr. Smith, 
 including Mr. Campbell's followers, who 
 were claiming to be in a restored church, 
 and in order to meet his claims and refute 
 his positions, a number of them gathered 
 together, including a large number of Mr. 
 Campbell's restored Disciples, now prac- 
 ticing the doctrine of love, and, "As ye 
 would that men should do to you do ye even 
 so to them," and put " tar and feathers" on 
 Joseph's bare back and told him to "git." 
 Of course this was the restored churclfand 
 restored Disciples that did this. Smith 
 was consistent, and stuck as tight to his 
 claim as did the tar and feathers to his bare 
 back. But my opponent is inconsistent 
 when he says that Mr. Campbell restored 
 the true church, and notwithstanding all 
 his labor and effort at restoring, it is no 
 more right than others ; yet Braden affirms 
 it is just like the church that the old time 
 Saints were identified with when Paul 
 ministered to them. 
 
 That there would be a necessity for a 
 restoration was clearly predicted by Paul, 
 and John and others, and this is admitted 
 by all reformers, and the restorer, Mr. 
 Campbell. Paul says the coming of the Sou 
 of Man will not take place "till there comes 
 a falling away first, and that man of sin be 
 revealed." 2 Thess. 2. And John the rev- 
 elator says: "And it was given unto him 
 to make war with the Saints and overcome 
 them; and power was given him over all 
 kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Rev. 
 13. The history of the church confirms these 
 predictions, and others of like import. By 
 reason of these statements and the history 
 of the doctrine of Christian light and civil- 
 ization, all reformers say there was an apos- 
 tacy ; hence, it made it possible for them 
 to be reformers. Mr. Campbell united in 
 this belief and declared as follows : 
 
 "The day of light so illustrious In its beginning, i.e., 
 the gospel in the time of the apostles, became cloudy. 
 The Papacy arose and darkened the heavens for a long 
 period, obscuring the brightness of the risen glory of 
 the Sun of righteousness, so that men groped in dark- 
 ness. By the reformation of the 17th century that dark 
 cloud wasbroken in fragments, and though the heavens 
 of gospel light are still obscured by many clouds the 
 sects of various names the promise is that at evening 
 time it shall be light The primitive gospel, in its 
 effulgence and power, is yet to shine out in original 
 splendor to regenerate a world." Hay den's History 
 of the Disciples in the Western Reserve, page 36. 
 
 Mr. Campbell gave expression to this in 
 1826. It was after that date that the "prim- 
 itive gospel in its eTulgence and power" 
 was to shine out. If he was ever a restorer, 
 it was after that date- for it was after this 
 that the gospel was to shine. The "Sects," 
 the reformed churches, the Episcopalian, 
 Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists and 
 others, are represented by him as obscur- 
 ing the "heavens" like so many dark 
 "clouds." If they were dark clouds then.and 
 are now as then, how many true churches are 
 there besides the one of which "I, Clark 
 Braden, am a member?" 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 257 
 
 These are the utterances of this wonder- 
 ful apostle of restoration. About four years 
 after this date the "primitive gospel did 
 shine out," by the authority of the angel's 
 message; but Mr. Campbell got mad at it 
 and set about being a restorer himself. 
 Walter Scott had been preachiugall through 
 the Western Reserve baptism for the remis- 
 sion of sins, as a member of the Mahoning 
 Association, and that they should receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost that there was 
 a Millennium day spoken of, and contend- 
 ing that they should have Christianity as 
 it was. Sidney Rigdon was the great ora- 
 tor and leader of this great Mahoning Bap- 
 tist Association. Scott and Rigdon and 
 Osborn and Alexander Campbell were all 
 contending in 1826 for the reinstating of 
 "primitive Christianity." It was not then 
 revealed, says Mr. Campbell. In 1830 the 
 
 ospel began to be preached in New York 
 tate and over the Western Reserve. A 
 number who labored in the Reform move- 
 ment investiga'ted and accepted it, and 
 among them Mr. Rigdon. All that they 
 had been praying for, for years, was pre- 
 sented to them. Some accepted and some 
 rejected. 
 
 Among those who rejected, was Mr. A. 
 Campbell; and he told Mr. Scotland Mr. 
 Osborn not to preach, "You shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost." any more; so 
 they Jid not. Page 75 of Hayden's history. 
 Now they began to blacken lligdon's char- 
 acter. He had dwelt right here on the 
 Reserve for years. Was preaching con- 
 stantly. Well-known by every one. Com- 
 muning with members of the Association 
 on the Sabbath, and considered worthy 
 beyond question. But when he espoused 
 the new faith, that he and Scott and Camp- 
 bell h:id been praying for and talkingabout, 
 and which was too formidable for them to 
 overthrow, he soon became, according to 
 their vocabulary, all that was bad, even ac- 
 
 cused afterwards of having been in league 
 with Smith for several years in order to get 
 up a new faith ; and Smith over in New 
 York State and but just a little upwards of 
 14 years of age. It is much easier, and a 
 thousand times more reasonable, to believe 
 in miracles and angels than to believe that 
 under the circumstances Rigdon and Smith 
 could have been in communication with 
 each other; and this story never would 
 have been hatched up, had it not been that 
 Smith was illiterate, and they hoped to give 
 some plausible answer for not accepting the 
 truth. For it is well known that, if the 
 faith of the Saints is not true, that Sidney 
 Ri<rdon himself was one of the worst hum- 
 bugged men by it that ever belonged to the 
 church and lived and died under the de- 
 lusion. 
 
 Having rejected the Gospel message Mr. 
 Campbell and associates set about to get up 
 a church of their own; and after trying for 
 nearly fifty years to name it they have not 
 yet positively decided whether it is the 
 Christian Church or the Disciple Church. 
 Campbelhte Church seems to more fittingly 
 express it than anything else, as it received 
 Mr. Campbell's impress all through. This 
 institution which we will call the Disciple 
 Church is said by Mr. Campbell, the re- 
 storer, to have been built on the "Bible and 
 the Bible alone." The meaning of this is, 
 that it was a new thing under the sun and 
 that they rejected all creeds in its establish- 
 ment, and that it is an exact pattern of the 
 church of God as was established by Jesus 
 and the apostles. This my opponent under- 
 takes to show. When John the Baptist 
 came preaching he said, "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 that bnptizeth with the Holy Ghost." 
 John 1 : l.S. 
 
 (Time called). 
 
258 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : We will first dispose of the 
 question whether the church was in exist- 
 ence before the day of Pentecost. The gos- 
 pel has been preached in three ways ; I. 
 in promise; II in its formative period ; III, 
 as an accomplished fact. The church has 
 been spoken of as existing in three con- 
 ditions. I, as future; II, as in formation; 
 I II, as completed. The gospel was preached 
 in promise to Abraham, saying, "In thee 
 and thy seed shall all the nations of the 
 earth be blessed." II The gospel was 
 
 {reached in process of development Mark. 1. 
 . "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God." III. The gospel 
 as an accomplished fact, 1 Corinthians, xv: 
 
 "Now brethren I declare unto you the gospel which 
 1 preached unto you, which ye also received, and 
 wherein ye stnd. and by which you are saved, if ye 
 keep in memory what 1 p cached unto you, unless ye 
 have believed in vain For I have delivered unto you 
 the first of all that which I also received how that 
 Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, 
 was buried and thai he rose again the third day ac- 
 cording to the scriptures." 
 
 The gospel in promise could be preached 
 before the church existed. The gospel in 
 process of development could be preached 
 to prepare the way for the church. But the 
 gospel in fact as the foundation of the 
 chnrch, could not be preached until Christ 
 died for men and rose for their justification. 
 Christ is the foundation of the church. Hia 
 Messiahship is the basis. For Christsays : 
 "On it will I build my church." It could 
 not be built until he demonstrated his 
 Messiahship by his resurrection and ascen- 
 sion. 
 
 , lie kingdom, the church is spoken of as 
 yetfuture. John preached, "TheKingdom is 
 at hand" approaching, not that it existed ; 
 and he was in it. Jeus preached the king- 
 dom is at hand, approaching, not that it 
 existed ; and that he was in it. He said, 
 after he had chosen all of his apostles, and 
 but six weeks before his death, "I will 
 build my church on the truth ; that I am 
 the Messiah." It was then future. Mark, 
 ix, 1. Jesus said unto them, "There are 
 some of those that stand here that shall not 
 taste death until they have seen the king- 
 dom of God come with "power." It was 
 yet future. Mark, xv, 43. Joseph of Ari- 
 noathea waited for the kingdom of God, af- 
 ter the death of Jesus." It was yet future. 
 "When did it come with power? Luke, xxiv, 
 49; "Behold, I send the promise of my 
 fathei upon you." Still future. "Tarry ye in 
 Jerusalem till ye are endued with power 
 from on high." The power that was to 
 usher in the kingdom, the church, was yet 
 future. Acts, i, 8. "You shall receive power 
 after the Holy Spirit has come upon you." 
 The power that was to usher in the king- 
 dom, the church was future, just a few mo- 
 menta before the ascension of Jesus. The 
 
 Holy Spirit fell with power upon the apos- 
 tles on the day of Pentecost. They were 
 endued with power. The kingdom came 
 with power, was ushered in with power 
 then, and not till then. This was the be- 
 ginning of the kingdom in fact. Peter de- 
 clares : Acts, xiv: "The Holy Spirit fell on 
 us at the beginning." The beginning of the 
 kingdom, the church. My opponent quotes 
 "Thelawand the prophets, were until John, 
 but now the kingdom of Heaven is 
 preached." The law and the prophets were 
 preached until John, now the kingdom of 
 Heaven is preached. Preached, how? 
 That it is at hand, approaching. Not that 
 it is in existence and John in it. "The least 
 in the kingdom is greater than John." John 
 was not in the kingdom. "The kingdom of 
 God (in preaching in promise) is among 
 you," not in fact for it had not come. He 
 has found an Israelite Congregational Na- 
 tional Assembly in the wilderness, but no 
 church of Christ, for Jesus said just before 
 his death that it had not come and was yet 
 to be built. The Israelites were baptized, 
 into Moses and not into Christ. They re- 
 ceived the revelations that his Spirit gave 
 them. Not that they were in the church of 
 Christ but that Christ was yet to come. 
 He asserts that John's law was the gospel ; 
 John preached the law of Christ. John 
 preached that the church or kingdom Con- 
 trolled by the law of Christ was yet future. 
 If my opponent will exercise common sense 
 and divide the word correctly and dis- 
 tinguish between the gospel in promise, in 
 process of development, and accomplished 
 fact; between the kingdom in promise, in 
 process of formation, and the kingdom in- 
 augurated, set up. he will avoid such flat 
 contradictions of tne word of God. My po- 
 sition agrees with all clear passages of the 
 word, and with a sensible interpretation of 
 other passages. His interpretation flatly 
 contradicts the only possible meaning the 
 passages I quote can have. 
 
 Was the Comforter to the apostles alone? 
 Jesus was to leave the apostles and the 
 Comforter was to take His place with the 
 apostles. Jesus does not leave men now 
 and the Comforter does not come instead of 
 Jesus and take the place of Jesus, the place 
 Jesus has occupied with men now. He was 
 to recall to the minds of the apostles what 
 Jesus had said to the apostles. He never 
 called to the mind of any person what 
 Jesus had said to them except in the case 
 of the apostles. Does the Holy Spirit recall 
 to the minds of Mormon apostles what 
 Jesus in person has said to such Mormon 
 apostles? The idea of a Mormon claiming 
 that promise is as absurd as for him to 
 claim the promise of Jesus that He would 
 meet the apostles in Galilee after His 
 resurrection. One is sis personal to the 
 apostles as the ofh'T. My opponent quotes 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 259 
 
 Acts, viii. He does net have intelligence to 
 see that it is fatal to his position. The 
 miraculous power of tna Spirit could not be 
 'enjoyed by the Samaritans until an apostle 
 had laid hands on them. Jiist what we claim. 
 They had been baptized. Will he tell us 
 whe'ther they had been born of God, born of 
 water and of Spirit before the apostles laid 
 hands on them? If not, how could they 
 receive what sinners cannot receive? If 
 they were children of God they had been 
 born of God, of water and the Spirit before 
 receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on 
 of an apostle's hands. They had the in- 
 dwelling of the Holy Spirit before receiving 
 this miraculous power. Will my opponent 
 be man enough to answer these questions 
 and cease playing the coward as he has so 
 far done. 
 
 We repeat again that my opponent does 
 not seem to be able to distinguish between 
 baptized ft;y one Spirit, that is, by the com- 
 mand of one Spirit, on the one hand, and 
 baptized in one Spi i it on the other. Between 
 baptism A.y the Spirit and baptism in the 
 Spirit. He confounds also " Born of the 
 Spirit," and " baptism in the Spirit." He 
 confounds "baptism in the Spirit," and 
 being " begotten by the Spirit." There is 
 no use in arguing with one so obtuse or so 
 perverse. He says Christ does not speak 
 to the " Disciples." He speaks to us in the 
 New Testament, not in the Book of Mormon, 
 or any other Mormon fraud. By His chosen 
 apostles, and not by Mormon impostors. 
 He wants to know when there was a Church 
 of Christ without miraculous powers in it. 
 If he will read Eph. iv. he will learn that 
 miracles were to exist until the Church was 
 completed. If be will read I. Cor. xii. and 
 xiii. he will read God's description of the 
 perfect Church, and God's declaration that 
 miraculous power should cease out of the 
 Church before it became perfect, and when 
 it became perfect. There is the Church 
 without miraculous powers : A perfect 
 Church. The Church with such powers 
 was imperfect, in its childhood. Will he 
 dare to notice that? 
 
 We have Christ in our Church, not as a 
 silent partner as Kelley says. He speaks 
 to us in His word, the New Testament, not 
 in that fraud, the Hook of Mormon. He 
 speaks to us in His chosen apostles, not by 
 Mormon impostors. The Holy Spirit is in 
 our Church. He speaks to us in the New 
 Testament, not in that clumsy, lying fabri- 
 cation, the Book of Mormon. He speaks to 
 us ihroiiirh the apostles He inspired, and 
 Hoi in the lies of Mormon impostors. My 
 opponent blunders over the immersion in 
 the Spirit. Spirit alone can be immersed 
 inspirit. Spirit alone immersed Spirit. 
 The spirits of tlie apostles were immersed 
 in the i-ower of the. Spirit of God. The 
 Holy Spirit was not poured out as a bucket 
 of waier or a dish of (in- on the persons of 
 the apostles. Such is the gross materialism 
 of Momionisrn. lie re-h.-ishe* Hebrew vi. 
 It is simply a fact that this letter was 
 written to Hebrews who .-limy to the 
 Mosaic law, and regarded it as better than 
 
 the Gospel. It was written to prove that 
 the law of Moses was only a preparation for 
 the Gospel. That they should leave the 
 law of Moses and accept the Gospel. That 
 the law of Moses was their schoolmaster, to 
 teach them the first principles and lead 
 them to Christ. The dead works were 
 works of the law of Moses. Are works of 
 the law of Christ dead works? Faith 
 towards God must be now faith in Jesus 
 Christ. The baptisms were the bathings 
 of the law of Moses, for there is but one 
 baptism in the Gospel. The laying on of 
 hands was the laying on of hands in the 
 Mosaic ritual. The resurrection was the 
 Israelite idea. They were to leave all this 
 and take the Gospel in its stead. 
 
 But these persons had received the Holy 
 Spirit. Yes, persons can accept the Gospel 
 and receive the Holy Sprit, and than go 
 back to beggarly elements. Persons have 
 done so in accepting Mormonism. Ho says 
 we have no baptism in the Spirit. No, for 
 the word of God declares that there were 
 but two occasions of that baptiojn. &ud that 
 it was never bestowed on any ottur occa- 
 sions and never will be. He h-M no baptism 
 in the Spirit either. He hrjs u Mormon 
 vagary as nnscriptural as Pajil mass. We 
 have laying on of hands to sol persons apart 
 to a work, but not to import miraculous 
 power. Only an apostle coind do that. His 
 laying on of hands is as gro/t a, farce as the 
 Papal pretense to chango the bread and 
 wine into the flesh and Mood of Christ. 
 Will my opponent be rut,n enough, play 
 that he is man enough, to answer these 
 questions. Is there but jc.e baptism in the 
 church? Is that baptijfj water baptism? 
 Or is it Spirit baptism ? Do you insult com- 
 mon sense by saying tt.r.t two baptisms are 
 one baptism ? Or do ycu give the lie direct 
 to the Spirit of God and say there is more 
 than one baptism in the church ? Come, do 
 not play the coward any longer, but answer 
 like a man, if you can play man long enough 
 to do so. 
 
 We believe and teach, that all obedient 
 believers receive the indwelling of the Holy 
 Spirit, receive the Holy Spirit as an earnest 
 of an inheritance. We receive it through 
 faith, belief of God's word, and not by the 
 imposition of the hands of any Mormon Im- 
 postor. We receive it in God's appointed 
 way; not in the lying farce concocted by 
 Sidney Rigdon. Our overseers are made by 
 tiie Holy Spirit, by his word, by his law, 
 and not by mummeries of Mormon Impos- 
 ture. He calls my attention to the laying 
 on of hands in Acts xiii. He asserts that 
 hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas by 
 persons not apostles; very true. That it 
 was to impart the miraculous power of the 
 Holv Spirit; it was not. It was to separate 
 them to the work of preaching. To set them 
 apart to the work to which the Spirit called 
 them. It could not be to impart the Holy 
 Spirit, either the ordinary indwelling or the 
 miraculous power, for Paul and Barnabas 
 had both. Acts xii, 24. Long before this 
 I', ina lias was full of the Holy Spirit. Lay- 
 ing on hands was not to give the Spirit to 
 
260 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 him. Acts ix, 17. Ananias said to Saul, 
 "Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me that 
 you might he filled with the Holy Spirit," 
 and he laid his hands on him. It was not 
 to impart the Holy Spirit to Saul, for he was 
 full of the Spirit long before. It was merely 
 to separate to a work, set apart to preaching. 
 It imparted no authority, no miraculous 
 power. 
 
 Kelley says, we say converts cannot hear 
 from God. We say unless they have heard 
 from God in his word they cannot be con- 
 verted. We say, unless they have heard 
 from God in his word they cannot be Chris- 
 tians. We have them* hear from God 
 through his Son and his word, and not 
 through Joe Smith and Mormon impostors. 
 
 We will now give him our authority for 
 preaching, organizing churches, and admin- 
 istering ordinances. I Peter, ii, 5 : " Ye, as 
 lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, 
 a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices 
 acceptable to God by Jesus Christ: but ye 
 are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, 
 a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you 
 should show forth the praises of him that 
 has called you out of darkness into his mar- 
 vellous light." Every obedient child of 
 God is by his faith and obedience constitu- 
 ted by Almighty God, not by the hands of 
 Mormon impostors, a king, a priest, a royal 
 priest. Here is the authority, and all are 
 equal in this priesthood and royal power. 
 Revelations i, 5: " Unto him that loved us 
 and washed us from our sins in his own 
 blood, and has made us kings and priests 
 unto God." All who have been pardoned, 
 washed in the blood of Christ, are made by 
 that act kings and priests unto God. Here 
 is where we get our authority : not from a 
 pretended revelation, the farce narrated by 
 Joe Smith when he tells us that he baptized 
 Oliver Cowdery and Cowdery prophecied, 
 and Cowdery baptized him and he prophe- 
 cied. Our authority is from God; he has 
 made us, when he pardoned us, kings, 
 priests, a royal priesthood. We can do all 
 that kings and priests of God can do. That 
 was Alexander Campbell's authority. He 
 was a king, a priest unto God, and he had 
 divine authority from God and not from 
 Impostor Joe Smith to do what he did. 
 
 We will now examine his claim to be 
 called of God as was Aaron. If I do not 
 expose the ineffable blasphemy of that im- 
 pudent claim, I will yield the discussion. 
 Beginning with Hebrews iv, 14, we read: 
 
 "Having then a great high-priest who has passed 
 through the Heavens. Jesus, the Son of God. let us 
 hold fust our confession. For we havenpi a high -priest 
 that cannot be touched with the feeling of our in- 
 firmities, but <>ne that has'been tried at all points like as 
 we, yet wiihout sin. Let us therefore <1 raw m>ar with 
 bold'ucss to the throne of grace, that we may find grace 
 to help us in every time of need." 
 
 Observe it is Christ that is the great 
 high-priest. 
 
 " For every hfgh-prlest taken from among men is 
 ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he 
 may offer both gifts and sacrifices lor sins; who can 
 have compassion on the ignorant and them that are i-ut 
 of the way, for he himself is also compassed with in- 
 firmity. And by reason thereof he ought, as for the 
 people so also for himself, to offer for sin. And no man 
 tnkeih his power." 
 
 What power? Acting as high priest, 
 offering sacrifice for the people, 
 
 "But he that was called of God as was Aaron. So 
 also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high 
 priest, but he that said unto him (unto whom? Unto 
 all Mormon impostors? No. unto Christ), "Thou art 
 my Son : this day have I begotten thee." And he 
 saith in another place (to Mormon impostors? No, to 
 Christ), "I hou art a priest forever, after the order of 
 Melclmedek." 
 
 Then Christ is the only one who was called 
 to the high priesthood as Aaron was. Aaron 
 was called by the voice of God to the posi- 
 tion of first high priest of the Aaronic priest- 
 hood. Christ was called to the Mek-hizedek 
 priesthood by the voice of God as Aaron 
 was, and Christ alone. He had no predeces- 
 sor in his office of high priest, and he has no 
 successor. Measure, if you can, the blas- 
 phemy of Kelley and other Mormon impos- 
 tors claiming to be called as Christ was 
 called, as Aaron was called. Placing them- 
 selves on an equality with the Son of God. 
 Christ alone was called as Aaron was. 
 
 W T e are called to be kings and priests unto 
 God as the persons Peter addressed were 
 called, by the obedience of faith. We were 
 made kings and priests unto God when 
 Christ washed us from sin. As kings and 
 priests made by Almighty God and not by 
 Joe Smith or Mormon impostors, we have 
 divine authority for all, and every act a 
 king and a priest unto God can perform. 
 We lay hands on some of our kings and 
 priests who have the qualifications that the 
 law of God requires, not to impart miracu- 
 lous power, not to impart authority, for 
 they have already as kings and priests unto 
 God received the authority from the Al- 
 mighty; but to set them apart to a certain 
 work. All are equal in authority, but they 
 are set apart to a certain work. Peter de- 
 clares in II Peter, i,3: "God's divine power 
 has given to us" the apostle and the Chris- 
 tians of his day "all things that pertain to 
 life and godHness toroiigh the knowledge 
 of him that has called us" the apostle 
 and all Christian* in hip day "to glory and 
 virtue." Here the apostle declares that all 
 things that perta ; u lo life and godliness had 
 already been given, and through knowl- 
 edge, 'through the truth revealed. If all 
 things had already been given all that per- 
 tain to life and godliness, Mormon revela- 
 tions are humbugs and impostures. I will 
 stake the issue of the debate on that one 
 passage. Will my opponent read it and 
 tell us where his Mormonism comes in. 
 
 IS CAMI'BELLISM THE OKIOIN OF MORMON- 
 ISM? 
 
 The statement is often made as a reproach 
 to the Disciples that Campheilism is the 
 parentof Mormonism. Mormonism isCamp- 
 bellism gone to seed. We propose to vindi- 
 cate the Disciples from such a reproayh. 
 While it is true that there are things in the 
 Book of Mormon that no one but a DiH|.le 
 
 Ereacher would have written at the time the 
 ook appeared ; and that there are one or 
 two features in which the Disciples and Mor- 
 mons agree ih differing from the orthodox 
 religious world; it is also as true that it 
 was not what Rigdou took from the Disci- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 261 
 
 pies that gave origin to Mormonism. On 
 the contrary, it was the points on which he 
 differed from the Disciples that gave rise to 
 Mormon ism. Had Sydney Rigdon accepted 
 all of the teaching of the Disciples, and had 
 he been loyal to them, the Book of Mormon 
 and Mormonism would never have been 
 dreamed of by him. The vital difference be- 
 tween the Disciples and the so-called ortho- 
 dox world is the dogma that the orthodox re- 
 ligious world make the central idea of their 
 teaching, the dogma that in the conviction 
 and conversion of the sinner, and in the 
 comforting and sanctification of the saint 
 the Holy Spirit exerts a direct and immedi- 
 ate influence, distinct and different from, 
 mid in addition to any that he exerts through 
 the truth, that he has revealed in the Scrip- 
 tures. Some regard this influence as mirac- 
 ulous. Others say that it is not miraculous. 
 The Disciples teach that all direct and im- 
 mediate influence was miraculous, was not, 
 and could not bea moral influence, and had 
 not one particle of moral influence on the 
 party influenced. Its work was to inspire, 
 to reveal truth, to work miracles, and it can 
 form no part of conviction, conversion and 
 sanctification. They teach that all the moral 
 power that an intelligence, like the Holy 
 Spirit can exert on another intelligence like 
 man's spirit, is resident in ideas, moral influ- 
 ences, presented to the spirit influenced in 
 words or acts. They teach that conviction, 
 conversion and sauctiflcation are accom- 
 plished by moral power alone, resident in 
 truth and acts. They believe the Bible de- 
 clarations that "the gospel is the power of 
 God unto salvation to all who believe." II 
 Peter, i. "Divine power has granted unto us 
 all things that pertain unto life and godli- 
 ness through knowledge." That all "men 
 are begotleu by the word of truth." That 
 ruen are sanctified by God's word as Jesus 
 declares They reject all direct and immedi- 
 ate influence of the Spirit in conviction, 
 conversion and sanctification, for such influ- 
 ence was all miraculous, and it did not and 
 could not produce one particle of moral in- 
 fluence or change. Because the Bible never 
 ascribes one im tance or particle of conver- 
 sion to such direct influence. Because it 
 invariably ascribes it to the gospel the word 
 of God, the truth. Such is the great differ- 
 ence between disciples and others. 
 
 Sidney Rigdon brought from the Baptists 
 to the Disciples and agreed with the Disci- 
 ples in : I. Immersion alone is baptism. 
 II. Penitent believers alone are scriptural 
 subjects of baptism. 
 
 He accepted from the Disciples : I. Rev- 
 elation alone should be the creed of Christ- 
 tians. II. The religious world had de- 
 parted from the apostolic Christianity and 
 should return to it. III. What are called 
 "first priuciples " by the Disciples. 
 IV. Baptism is unto the remission of sins. 
 
 Not one of these would have even hinted 
 the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. He 
 brought from the Baptists and never agreed 
 with the Disciples. I. Opposition to secret 
 societies. That is in the Book of Mormon. 
 It is full of it. II. The orthodox idea of a 
 
 direct, immediate and miraculous influence 
 of the Spirit in -conversion. While a Dis- 
 ciple preacher he would often get so excited 
 in his preaching, as to have whai is called 
 " the power," and often claimed that he 
 had visions and revelations in that state. 
 He was always extravagant in his preach- 
 ing, and had much trouble and difference 
 with the Disciples over this idea. He tried 
 to get the Disciples to accept this idea, and 
 that a full restoration of apostolic Chris- 
 tianity must restore inspiration, spiritual 
 gifts, and revelations. The orthodox idea 
 of direct and miraculous influence of the 
 Spirit that he retained was simply this 
 claim of Rigdon, the idea that was Rigdon'3 
 special hobby, and that was rejected by 
 the Disciples. He brought from the Bap- 
 tists the orthodox idea of a direct and im- 
 mediate influence of the Holy Spirit in ad- 
 dition to and distinct from any influence 
 that he exerts through the truth. Like 
 all who believe this notion, he regarded it 
 as the sum and substance of religion Ha 
 was consistent and logical, however, and 
 the orthodox world are not. He asserted, 
 and truthfully, that this direct and imme- 
 diate influence ever had been and ever 
 must be miraculous and attended with mi- 
 raculous power, inspiration and revelation. 
 He came into the Restoration with that 
 hobby and with the intention to engraft it 
 on to the movement, and when he had 
 gotten the Disciples to accept it, he could 
 then get them to accept new revelations, and 
 bring forward his "Golden Bible" that he 
 had fabricated out of Spaulding's "Manu- 
 script Found," and make of the Restoration 
 what Mormonism now is. 
 
 Accordingly he was constantly talking 
 and preaching that a full return to apostolic 
 Christianity must include a restoration of 
 the spiritual gifts, mirculous powers, the 
 inspirations and revelations of the apostolic 
 age. He had large numbers of the congre- 
 gation, for which he preached indoctrinated 
 with these ideas, and some had adopted his 
 idea of community of goods and feet 
 washing. These he had prepared for Mor- 
 monism, and when he pretended to be con- 
 verted to Mormonism that he himself had 
 originated, and had used Smith as a tool to 
 publish for him, these persons who had 
 accepted his hobbies went with him, and 
 this accounts for the wonderful rapidity 
 with which converts were made to Mor- 
 monism in the churches where he had 
 preached, and had great influence. His 
 teaching in regard to new revelations led 
 them to expect such revelations and they 
 were ready to accept the Book of Mormon 
 as a revelation. Here again the admirable 
 scri ptural knowledge and admirable sense of 
 the Campbells saved the Restoration from 
 shipwreck, as it did in regard to his millen- 
 nial vagaries and the community of goods. 
 The long and unanswerable series of articles 
 on the Holy Spirit in "Christianity Re- 
 stored," clearly separated, the miraculous 
 and extraordinary influence of the Spirit, 
 in inspiration, revelations and miracles, 
 which was the direct and immediate in- 
 
262 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 fluence of the Spirit, from the ordinary 
 influence which was only through the 
 truth. These articles showed that this 
 dir<ct and immediate influence was for 
 a definite purpose the completion of 
 revelation the word of God, and that 
 the scriptures taught that it ceased with 
 that work. That the only power the Holy 
 Spirit exerts in conviction, conversion and 
 sanctification is by and through the truth 
 he has revealed in the scriptures, and that 
 such influence is the only moral influence 
 He can exert. 
 
 The rejection of this special hobby of Rig- 
 don that he brought into the Restoration 
 from the Baptists and the orthodox relig- 
 ious world, and through which he hoped to 
 get. the Disciples to accept his "Golden 
 Bible " and lead them off into what is now 
 Mormonism, drove him from the Restora- 
 tion. It is often said that " Carapbellism is 
 the parent of Mormonism that it is Camp- 
 bellism gone to seed." We have freely 
 stated just what Rigdon took into Mormon- 
 ism from the Restoration. Because he ac- 
 cepted certain truths we teach, no more 
 proves that we are responsible for Mormon- 
 ism, or that our teachings logically lead to 
 Mormonism, than the fact that Mormonism 
 accepts many of the teachings of the Bible 
 proves that the Bible is responsible for 
 Mormon ism, or that the teachings of the 
 Bible logically lead to Mormouisrn. 
 
 The truth is that our clear, common-sense 
 scriptural teaching that the direct and im- 
 mediate influence of the Spirit was miracu- 
 lous and ceased with miracles, and that 
 the only influence that the Spirit exerts 
 now is through the truth he has revealed, 
 the only moral influence he can exert, is 
 utterly fatal to the central idea of Mormon- 
 ism, and the origin of everything that is 
 peculiar to the system, the direct and mi- 
 racuious influence of the Spirit, in inspira- 
 tion and revelations. It was this truth that 
 led the Disciples to reject Rigdon's idea of 
 a restoration of miraculous oowers. Had 
 they believed the orthodox idea of a direct 
 and* immediate influence, in addition to 
 and distinct from the influence through the 
 truth, and been as logical and consistent in 
 carrying out the idea as they were in all 
 else| they would have said "such influence 
 in miraculous," and accepted his idea of 
 restoration of miraculous power. Because 
 they rejected the orthodox idea of direct 
 ami immediate in^ue-jce, they rejected his 
 hobby ol restoration of miraculous powers. 
 No orthodox church could have rejected 
 his hobby if *b<9.y were consistent with their 
 
 belief of a direct and immediate influence 
 of the Spirit, for such influence must be 
 miraculous, and if really present be at- 
 tended with miracles. 
 
 Rigdon took from the orthodox world this 
 idea, the key note of orthodoxy, the direct 
 and immediate influence of the Spirit, in 
 addition to and distinct from any that he 
 exerted through the truth. From the Meth- 
 odists he took the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost. Having taken these ideas from the 
 religious, orthodox world, Rigdon was con- 
 sistent and logical and scriptural in assert- 
 ing that such influence was miraculous, and 
 when really present attended with miracu- 
 lous powers, inspiration and revelations. 
 
 Mormonism agrees with the orthodox 
 religious world in claiming this direct and 
 immediate influence of the Holy Spirit in 
 addition to, and distinct and different from, 
 any influence that he exerts through the 
 truth. It does not illogically stop with 
 making the claim and refusing to claim the 
 necessary effects of such a cause, miraculous 
 powers, inspiration and revelations Mor- 
 monism claims, and has every truth o 
 scriptural teaching and all common sense to 
 sustain it, that such influence was miracu- 
 lous, and as necessarily attended by mira- 
 cles as the effect must attend the cause. 
 Miracles were what distinguished th 
 miraculous influence, which WHS direct and 
 immediate, from the ordinary influence that 
 was only through the the truth. Claiming 
 the cause Mormonism is logical, scriptural 
 and in accordance with common sense in 
 claiming the effect, miracles. 
 
 Mormonism is logical and in accordance 
 with common sense and the Scriptures in 
 claiming all the spiritual gifts that existed 
 in the apostolic church, when it claims their 
 cause the direct and immediate influence 
 of the Spirit. Orthodoxy is illogical in 
 claiming the cause, and refusing to claim 
 the necessary effect, that can no more be 
 separated from the cause than the falling 
 of unsupported bodies can be separated from 
 the law of gravitation. 
 
 Sometimes in its claim of special call to 
 preach, miraculous evidence of conversion, 
 that regeneration is a miracle, that men 
 preach as the spirit gives them utterance 
 and in revival, camp meeting, holiness, and 
 sanctiflcation extravagances, in miraculous 
 providences and answers to prayer, ortho- 
 doxy actually claims miraculous pawer, and 
 absurdly denounces the Mormon claim to 
 miraculous power and revelations as un- 
 scriptural and absurd. 
 
Til!-; miADJJN AND KELLEY DEBATK. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTT,RMEN T MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 {tENTLicMKN : When my time was called 
 last, night I was making an argument upon 
 the authority of the minister, citing John 
 1:5. "There was a man sent from God 
 whose name was John." Jesus also con- 
 stantly urged that he did not come to do 
 his own will but the will of him that sent 
 him. That his Father had sent him. "My 
 commandments are not mine but his that 
 aent me." 
 
 These men were eent by the God of 
 heaven to establish his church and reveal 
 his will to men on earth. Had they not 
 been sent, they never would have assumed 
 to be teachers. But they had a message 
 because the Lord had sent them ; and they 
 said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
 is at hand." Paul recognizing the necessity 
 of being "sent" before starting out with 
 tiiliiiHS, says, "How shall they preach ex- 
 cept they be sent." Rom. 10. In accord- 
 ance with this, Jesus said to his apostles, 
 "As my Father sent me, so send I you." 
 "Whosoever receiveth you, receiveth me, 
 and he that receiveth me, receiveth him 
 that sent me." Here we have the authori- 
 tative right to minister, extending from 
 heven to earth, and that right is either 
 vested in God's minister, or he has no 
 right to act. "How shall they preach ex- 
 cept they be sent?" Sent of God. When 
 Mr. Campbell and party commenced the 
 work of church building, (restoring Chris- 
 tianity), upon the "Bible, and Biblealone," 
 the first thing that stared them in the face 
 was, by what authority shall we act? Mr. 
 Campbell did not believe that either the 
 Catholics or Protestants had any authority, 
 i. e., transmitted authority, i hat which had 
 come down from the apostles' times. He 
 did not believe that God, or angels or the 
 Holy Ghost could say anything; that is 
 he held that they had had their say. 
 
 So they met together, says Mr. Stone, to 
 act |by common consent, and with the in- 
 tention of only doing that which the Bible 
 authorized them to do. The question of 
 baptizing came up ; but who has authority 
 to baptize, was the problem of problems. 
 They consulted together on the ''Bible 
 alone," and alone they were. Neither God, 
 nor angels, nor the Holy Ghost could do 
 anything for them, for they did not believe 
 that these could. They had no faith. They 
 believed that these things were formerly 
 in the church, but not now. Here they are 
 gathered together. It is no common occur- 
 rence. The time of the great restoration 
 has come, but how it was found out is not 
 told and the birth of the restored church 
 is about to take place. All is expectation 
 and anxiety. In the midst of the pain and 
 anguish to bring it forth, there is an un- 
 
 yielding difficulty standing in the wny. It 
 'is this: Who shall baptize the fir>f one. 
 They pause! At last a thought struck one 
 of them. He was ready to cut the goruian 
 knot. Said he, "//" we have authority to 
 preach we have authority to baptize." That 
 was the electric bolt. They thought they 
 had it, and they went to work; minister* 
 baptized ministers, and then the people. 
 So the restoration commenced with all the 
 authority of an IF. When the church of 
 Christ was established in the time of the 
 apostles, it took a divine commission, a 
 word from heaven, the ministering of angels 
 and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
 apostles and prophets to set it up; but af- 
 ter the dark day of apostacy, and the 
 church of God could not be found on earth, 
 Mr. Campbell, and Mr Stone and Mr. Scott 
 and some others restored it over in Ken- 
 tucky in all its splendor, without a word 
 from heaven, from the Son, Holy Spirit, or 
 angels, apostles or prophets, while stand- 
 ing on the "Bible alone, "and restored it on 
 the most doubtful of words, if. The only 
 wonder is that it has not taken the world 
 before this time. From that time to this 
 they hold that one person has just as good 
 a right to preach and baptize as another. 
 That ordination even amounts to nothing; 
 and upon that ground I understand that 
 my opponent refused to let any of the 
 brethren in this wonderful restoration lay 
 hands on him, down at Carbondale a few 
 years ago. Am I not correct? Or have you 
 changed your mind upon this since you put 
 so many of your preachers to rout on this at 
 Carbondale' 111.? He, like all those who 
 ministered at the birth of this institution, 
 was already authorized. That is if, and if. 
 Their is a great deal of certainty in their 
 theory of religion (?) 
 
 The Disciples say they built fheirChurch 
 on "The Bible and Bible alone." But 
 Jesus Christ built Hi* upon a different 
 foundation altogether. Seethe following: 
 " And Jesus answered and said unto him. 
 Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona, for flesh 
 and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 [that I am the Christ] but my Father which 
 is in Ht-aven. And I say also unto thee, 
 that thou art Peter, and upon this ock I 
 will build my Church, and thegatesof hell 
 shall not prevail against it." " Upon this 
 rock" says Jesus, "I will build my Church." 
 Upon what rock? Upon the Bible and 
 Biblealone? Not upon that, but upon the 
 rock of revealing, the means and power of 
 obtaining the knowledge that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God. This communication 
 from the father is that which antedates all 
 gospel preaching, and is the inspiration 
 and rock upon which the whole Christian 
 institution rests. Hence Jesus says, 
 
20.4 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 'when he, the Holy Ghost, Is come, he 
 will testify of me." "He will take of the 
 things of the Father and show them unto 
 you." 
 
 The whole superstructure was to partake 
 of the essence of the Rock upon which the 
 foundation rested ; hence, Paul says, the 
 church was.a "habitation of God through 
 theSpirit." Thefoundation was laid by the 
 declared fact that Jesus is the Christ ; hence 
 it is written: "Other foundation can no 
 man lay, than that is laid which is Jesus 
 Christ." And again it is declared, "Are 
 built upon the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 the chief corner stone. In whom all the 
 building fitly framed together, groweth 
 unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom 
 ye are builded together for a habitation of 
 God through the Spirit." Eph.2: 20-22. 
 
 Here we have an insight into the nature 
 of the church building, as to what consti- 
 tutes the foundation, and the rock upon 
 which it rests. The revelation of God, not 
 that of the past, but present, is the inspira- 
 tion, underlying strata of the church of 
 Christ, and that upon which it rests. But 
 Mr. Campbell started his on the " Bible 
 alone," so claimed. There is not an in- 
 stance from Genesis to Revelations where 
 God ever authorized any man or angel to 
 build his church on theBiblealone. What 
 is the New Testament? It is the constitu- 
 tional law that governs in the church, and 
 giving also a history of the formation and 
 provisions of the church, and rights of the 
 citizens in order to its perpetuity. This 
 constitution says God placed the officer* in 
 the church as "it pleased Him;" Fist 
 apostles, secondly prophets, then gi-ta of 
 healings," &c., 1 Cor. 12. For these officers 
 our constitution (the New Testament) 
 provides, and no promise is made for any 
 other kind of organization or officers. But 
 Mr. Campbell and others in the great res- 
 toration made, while standing on the Bible 
 alone, did not see fit to put any of these 
 in his restored church. They moved out 
 upon the hypothesis that if they could 
 preach they could baptize, and if they 
 could baptize, perhaps they could organize 
 Christ's church without apostles, and so 
 went on "restoring." Seeing that the 
 New Testament was against their presum- 
 tuous work, they arose to explain: "That 
 apostles were all right until the New Tes- 
 tament was written , then the Bible stood 
 In the place of apostles and prophets, and 
 all of the inspired ones," and there was 
 nothing to take the place of the overseer 
 and deacons, so they retained them. This 
 restored church, bu'ilton the"Biblealone," 
 expunged all the officers that Christ put in 
 the only church of which the New Testa- 
 ment gives any account that he ever built, 
 and it then whipped around and squared 
 itself for battle, declaring that it was the 
 ancient church "restored." Braden says so. 
 
 But let us examine that idea, that after 
 the Christian constitution was written thev 
 needed no more chief officers to carry on 
 the work of the church. In the organiza- 
 
 tion of our government there was a consti- 
 tution formed. It stands related to the 
 state as the New Testament does to the 
 church. By constitutional provision there 
 are certain officers appointed in thegovern- 
 ment, and the rights and privileges of the 
 citizens declared. But who is fanatical 
 enough to believe, that after the constitu- 
 tion was written aad Washington's term of 
 office had expired, that there was to be no 
 more Presidents or V ice-Presidents, Sena- 
 tors or Judiciary, or delegates from the peo- 
 ple to constitute the house of Representa- 
 tives. That they were no longer needed in 
 the government; that the constitution, Con- 
 stable and Justice of the Peace were all that 
 were needed to run the government. 
 
 Is it not a fact that the constitution pro- 
 vides for a line of presidents, vice-presi- 
 dents, senators, etc., and a government 
 according to the constitution cannot exist 
 without them? The constitution of the 
 government is all essential and so are its 
 officers in order to its perpetuity. To 
 destroy the officers is to destroy the govern- 
 ment. To organize another not just as pro- 
 vided for in the constitution is to establish 
 a new and strange government, not known 
 to the people or the constitution. This is 
 true in church as well as state. The New 
 Testament is the constitutional enactment 
 to govern in the Christian church. To build 
 by that is to build aright. That constitu- 
 tional lav/ says that the first officer in the 
 church of God is an apostle. The church of 
 which Mr. Braden is a member has no such 
 officer The constitution says the second 
 officer is a prophet. The church which Mr. 
 Braden represents here, has none. Why has 
 he the presumption to say then, that the 
 church he represents is the ancient church 
 "restored?" But he says there was to be a 
 change. Apostles were to cease. Let us see. 
 
 When Judas Iscariot went and hanged 
 himself after he had betrayed his Lord, 
 there were but eleven apostles left. What 
 was done ? Just what is done in our govern- 
 ment when the President, or a Senator or 
 any other officer dies or is removed for other 
 cause; another was appointed in his stead, 
 and "he was numbered with the eleven." 
 The only difference in the appointment is 
 that in the church God appoints, and in the 
 state the people appoint. By and by the 
 wicked Herod killed James, another apos- 
 tle, and there is another vacant seat; and 
 just over the leaf a ways we read Paul, the 
 apostle, and so on until we reach about 
 nineteen apostles named in the New Testa- 
 ment. As if to settle this question forever, 
 Paul says these apostles were given "for the 
 work of the ministry ; " (after Jesus ascend- 
 ed upon high) "for the edifying of the body 
 of Christ;" and to continue "until we all 
 come into a unity of the faith, to a knowl- 
 edge of the Son of God, that we be no more 
 tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine." 
 Eph. 4. And this side of the house will not 
 be moved by my opponent's gust of wind, 
 that he imagines to himself is a raging 
 Nebraska blizzard. These ministers are 
 called to their several offices by direct reve- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 26ft 
 
 lation from God, without which they had 
 no right to act. Hence, up at Antioch, the 
 Holy Ghost said, "Separate unto me Bar- 
 nabas and Saul for the work whereunto I 
 have called them." "Then laid their hands 
 on them and sent them away." Acts 13. 
 41 As God hath distributed to every man, as 
 the Lord hath called every one, so let him 
 walk. And so ordain I in all churches." 
 Paul did not presume to send any one until 
 the Lord spoke; but Mr. Braden denies the 
 necessity of a divine call to the ministry. 
 Ail of his church are called when they are 
 born. Don't need any laying on of hands 
 to authorize them. But in Mr. Bradeu's 
 mind this is Christ's church come again 
 restored ; but it came to life, if it has any, 
 in a different way than the church of Christ 
 was instituted, and they have left out ail of 
 the leading officers, and none of them are 
 sent of God or have any authority, only IF 
 they can preach they can baptize. 
 
 This would be about the position of Mr. 
 Campbell when truly illustrated. Thepeo- 
 ple of the United States, by reason of some 
 extraordinary event, find themselves with- 
 ont a set of officers to execute the laws, 
 without any government. Mr. Smith takes 
 up the constitution of the United States 
 and says: "The means is provided herein 
 for officers by the calling of an election, get- 
 ting the voice of the people, for that is the 
 highest authority." 
 
 Mr Campbell says no, not that. "Here 
 Is our constitution perfected by our fathers. 
 No use of the authority any longer. r lhe 
 former organization was only for the pur- 
 pose of perfecting this law. I will be your 
 president." 
 
 Ah ! but says Mr. Smith, you may not 
 suit the people. 
 
 Never mind that, says Mr. Campbell. 
 The people, who are the recognized author- 
 ity, have nothing more to do with it. The 
 word, the Constitution, gives me the right 
 to act. Of course my right can't be traced 
 in it; but never mind; if I have authority to 
 read the constitution and tell my neighbor 
 about it; I have a right to act as president 
 without a call or election by the people, as 
 provided by the constitution, and I will 
 not wait till lam elected. Of course some 
 one else may claim the same right, and their 
 claim would be just as good as mine, and 
 thus we may create division and anarchy 
 amongthepeopleofa country who formerly 
 had one government, one system, one se't 
 of officers at a time. But what of it? 
 
 But Mr. Smith stands before the people at 
 the same time and claims that when the 
 constitution was ordained there wa* a provi- 
 sion made therein for the filling up of va- 
 cant offices, and that before the constitu- 
 tion can become operative this provision 
 of it must be put in force as any other, and 
 that it will not do to permit any person 
 who sees fit, to force himself into the place 
 of one of the officers, seeing that under it, 
 one man has as good a right as another to 
 do that, and if this assumption is permitted 
 we will destroy the constitution, the liber- 
 ties of the people, and consequently all 
 
 hope of a true Republic ite/', and change 
 it into a monarchy and have a system of 
 another type and different government 
 altogether. Which is the sounder position? 
 
 Mr. Braden and myself agree that we 
 have the constitutional law given for the 
 regulation and government of the church. 
 We both urge the adoption of this constitu- 
 tion on the part of the people yes, every- 
 body says, it is a good thing; let us adopt 
 it. But how adopt it? As an instrument 
 telling what the organization of the true 
 church once was? "What the true teach- 
 ings once were? Or as a rule of faith and 
 practice by which to regulate the church 
 now? He says it gives a true account of the 
 organization as it once was, the practices 
 as they once were ; but that we are not to 
 have the same now, because certain of these 
 officers are done away by reason of the per- 
 fecting of the constitution, and that we 
 must pattern after the church as left per- 
 fected after this time, instead of the church 
 as reflected in the constitution itself. At 
 the same time he claims Mr. Campbell as a 
 restorer of the church under the constitu- 
 tion of the apostolic religion. But a re- 
 storer means to produce the thing not to 
 produce something which is not the thing, 
 neither something that might have existed 
 after the thing. I take the ground and 
 state to you that it, the constitution, gives 
 a true account of the organization as it once 
 was, the practices as they once were, and 
 that they are the same that ought to be in 
 the church now, and would be if anarchy 
 had not reigned since the true officers fell 
 asleep, and a change was effected iu the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 That there is a means provided in the 
 constitution for the calling of officers, and 
 when called in that way they will act and 
 administer the laws as "did the original offi- 
 cers, and, if not, the government itself is 
 chanered, and hence a different church, and 
 instead of being the church as provided in 
 the conslitution, it is a new thing, unknown 
 to the constitution ; that his man (Mr. 
 Campbell; is uot the restorer, for the reason 
 that he has not produced the thing in or- 
 ganization, practice or teaching as included 
 in and was a part of the original ; that 
 among the things provided in the constitu- 
 tion are : 
 
 1. That men may attain to wisdon and 
 knowledge by the teaching and instruction 
 of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 "Hmybeit. when he the Spirit of truth Is come, he 
 will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of 
 himself; but whatsoever he shall hear that shall ho 
 speak, anrl he will show you things to come." John 16:13. 
 
 " This is eternal life that they may know th. e the 
 only true God, and Jesus Christ whom ihou hast sent." 
 76fdl7:3. Again, " No man can say that Jesus is the 
 Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."! Cor. 12:3 "After I 
 heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love unto all 
 the Saints, I ceased not to make mention of ynu in my 
 prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Father of gl<>ry, may give unto you the Spirit of wit- 
 dom and revelation in the knowled. e of him. That ye 
 may know what is the hope of his calling " Eph 1, 15. 
 
 2. That the officers under this constitu- 
 tion are to administer, as called to act in the 
 work by the head of the church, Christ, 
 through the Holy Spirit. 
 
266 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 3. That in the church itself are placed 
 certain gifts for the 'jualification of persona 
 for the work of perfecting of the tSaiuts, 
 carrying on the ministerial work, the in- 
 struction of the body the church, ''Till 
 we should all ^ome to the unity of the faith, 
 to the fullnt-si- of the measure of the stature 
 of Christ." Were these provisions of the 
 constitution respected there would be the 
 full means of carrying on the work as there 
 is under our election system of filling the 
 vacant places in the government. And 
 when I stand with the constitution and in- 
 sist that officers must be chosen in a proper 
 way, and that way is by the inspiration of 
 the Spirit, the only answer he gives me is 
 the old one used against the Saints in the 
 first century, that only a few fanatics be- 
 lieve in revelation. But shall I drop the 
 Bible and go into the grand scramble for the 
 spoils in the anarchy of confusion, and say 
 I have as good a right to elect myself as any 
 one? 
 
 " It is only a few fanatics who believe in 
 revelation." O yes, certainly. But it has 
 been only a few persons who were falsely 
 called fanatics who have believed in revela- 
 tion in the history of the race. 
 
 Noah was the fanatic in his time, so the 
 people claimed. He believed in revelation. 
 Abraham was the next prominent fanatic; 
 then came Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 Daniel and Zechariah, most all of whom 
 the people thought so fanatical that they 
 were vilely treated or killed. 
 
 After them comes Jesus, and he is set 
 down with the fanatics ; then Peter, James, 
 John and Paul all fanatical, according to 
 the rage of the people in their time, and 
 terribly maltreated and abused. 
 
 Now, it is only a " few fanatics " that be- 
 lieve in revelation. It is the Latter Day 
 Saints this time. Does anybody else? No. 
 That is the reason they call them fanatics. 
 They are the only ones that "contend for 
 this faith once delivered -to the Saints." 
 And hence, we are called fanatics. My 
 friends, are we not yet in good company, 
 with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, David, 
 Job, Jesus, and all of the apostles and 
 prophets of the world? 
 
 The constitution of the Christian Govern- 
 ment clearly provides for an uninterrupted 
 line of apostles to be continued in the 
 church and the step was taken to carry 
 out this provision by the filling of the seat 
 of Judas Iscariot, and that of the apostle 
 James, &c., all having been appointed by 
 the great head of the church, Christ. 
 
 By the constitution of our country there 
 are certain rights and privileges belong- 
 ing to the citizen, that is, the right of suf- 
 frage ; the right of representation; the 
 right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness ; and the right to worship God 
 according to the dictates of his own con- 
 science. These rights are guaranteed by 
 the constitution. To deny them to the citi- 
 zen is to take away their constitutional 
 rights and destroy the force of the consti- 
 tution itself. So long as this government 
 is to be continued, and the constitution ad- 
 
 hered to, these rights must lemainwith the 
 citizens. This is true also ... tLe constitu- 
 tion of the church. It provides for the re- 
 ceiving of foreigners into the fold, and 
 specifies the way, and lays down the rules 
 by which they are to be received, which 
 are : 1st faith, 2nd repentance, 3d baptism, 
 4th the laying on of hands. These rules 
 are stipulated and ordained by the consti- 
 tution itself, and these rules originated with 
 God, and not with man ; men have not the 
 right to abrogate any one of them, or 
 change them in the least unless it can be 
 shown that the constitution itself is not in 
 force, but has been 'set aside and another 
 established by the great head of the church 
 to take its place. The constitution further 
 provides, for certain blessings and privil- 
 eges to be enjoyed by the citizens ; and all 
 are equal under the constitutional law m 
 the church, as well as in state. The bless- 
 ings in the chureh are : 
 
 1. The gift of the Holy Ghost, of which 
 there is but one ; but it manifests itself in. 
 different ways, but it is the same Spirit ; 
 and everyone has the right to enjoy it as 
 really in the church as they have the equal 
 right of representation, or worship, in the 
 state. "For there are differences of ad- 
 ministration, but the same Spirit." 1 Cor. 
 12. "The manifestation of the Spirit is 
 given to every man." "Ye may all prophe- 
 cy one by one." 1 Cor., 14:3*1. In their 
 adoption each one is entitled to the Holy 
 Ghost as the seal of his adoption. Hence, 
 "After tliat ye believed ye were sealed with 
 the Holy Spirit of promise." This is the 
 Holy Spirit which Jesus said he would 
 send if he went away. Said he, "When he 
 in come he will testify of me," and the "tes- 
 timony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 
 Rev. 19 : 10. This is all the spirit that was 
 ever promised to the believer, either as in- 
 dwelling or as outdwelling. The attempt to 
 make it appear that there are two Holy 
 Spirits, the miraculous and non-miracu- 
 lous; or the miraculous and Indwelling, is 
 sheer cant, and without warrant in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 2. To the citizen is guaranteed by the 
 constitution, that if any are sick, they may 
 send for the elders of thechurch, (not apos- 
 tles of the church), and let them pray over 
 them, anointing them with oil. and the 
 " prayer of faith shall save the sick; and the 
 Lord shall raise them up." James, 5 ir >. 
 Hence, Jesus says, "They shall lay handp on 
 the sick and they shall recover." Mark 16. 
 This privilege is guaranteed to the citizen 
 in the constitution of the church equally 
 with the right to vote by the constitution 
 of the state. And you can no more destroy 
 these rights in one, and retain the goven 
 ment in tact, than you can in the other. 
 But Mr. Campoell in his "restored church," 
 claiming to stand on and pattern after the 
 old Christian constitution, discarded the 
 doctrine of "baptism and the laying on of 
 hands," and retained one baptism and nr> 
 laying on of hands claimed that the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost was quite an unneces- 
 sary thing to be enjoyed so Long a time 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 207 
 
 after the writing of the constitution. The 
 constitution was good, but its promises are 
 of no account. That a great many repeals 
 have been made, or the provisions ignored, 
 and new regulations and provisions provid- 
 ed, but of course it is the old "church 
 come again." Let us see. The ancient 
 church was built by divine revelation from 
 heaven by men authorized to act as ambas- 
 Badors; Mr. Campbell said, "If we can 
 preach we can baptize " The ancient 
 church had apostles and prophets; Mr. 
 Campbell had none. If they could preach 
 they could baptize, and if they could bap- 
 tize, may be they could get along without 
 apostles or prophets, and they put only 
 elders and deacons into their church But 
 it is the same old church restored. That 
 is as clear as mud. 
 
 The ancient church taught the laying on 
 of hands for the receiving of the Holy Ghost; 
 but Mr. Campbell said that if they could 
 preach they could baptize; and if they 
 could baptize, may be they could put ail of 
 the apostles out and put In the elders and 
 deacons (without God saying anything 
 about either), and perhaps the laying on of 
 hand? was not needed, so it was left out of 
 Mr. Campbell's restored church. What a 
 restoration ! The ancient church enjoyed 
 the snft of the Holy Ghost in faith, and 
 wisdom, and knowledge, and tongues, and 
 prophecy, and visions, and dreams, and 
 healings, by which they received the testi- 
 mony of Jesus and the seal of their inheri- 
 tance. But Mr. Campbell with an "if," 
 and a "perhaps." and "may be," had pro- 
 ceeded thus far in restoring the ancient 
 church, and having done so well, he thought 
 that it was likely they could get along wiih- 
 out any Holy Ghost at all vision, dream, 
 prophecy, healing or revelation. It was the 
 old church "restored," however, so says 
 Mr. Braden. But they must hold on to the 
 old constitution, "stand on the Bible alone" 
 no doubt about that. This so forcibly 
 reminds me of the politician's story of 
 
 grandfather's old gun, that I will ask the 
 audience to indulge me in relating it. The 
 guu was one that was said to have come 
 down through the wars. It had been re- 
 vamped and remodeled, so much, however, 
 that it wag difficult to trace the antiquity. 
 The gifted little son had inquired and found 
 out that the old gun had a new stock, new 
 barrel, new lock and new ramrod ; and he 
 was puzzled. Finally, he looked up to his 
 father and asked: Why, I don't see why 
 you call it grandfather's old gun? You 
 little fool, said the father, don't you see 
 that touch-hole? That is the same that was 
 in your grandfather's old gun. Now I have 
 been looking for this old gun since Mr. 
 Braden brought out his faith, and I have 
 found that he called his people by a differ- 
 ent name from the Saints, had a different 
 kind of faith, different baptism, changed 
 tne laying on of hands, had a new kind en- 
 tirely of church officers, a different Holy 
 Spirit. Christ e worfc in the church differ- 
 ent, a different kind of apostles and proph- 
 ets (dead instead of live ones), a different 
 way of calling tneir ministers, their church 
 on a different rock from the ancient cnurch, 
 and I begin to look around to see why he 
 calls it, the old church "restored," and lam 
 pointed to, "baptism for the remission of 
 sins." (Applause). Thus with scarcely a 
 single important provision of the old con- 
 stitution to be found in their new tangled 
 "restored church," they have the unquali- 
 fied presumption to come before the world 
 with the claim that they are standing solid 
 on the old Christian constitution, or "Bible, 
 and Bible alone." Or in other words, while 
 professing to carry in tact "grandfather's 
 old gun," they take the absurd position and 
 make the absurd statement that there was 
 a more excellent church than the one the 
 constitution made special provision for, 
 and cite us to the following to support it: 
 "But covet earnestly the best gifts, and yet 
 show I unto you a more excellent way." 
 (Time called) 
 
2(58 
 
 THE BUADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Mormonism takes from or- 
 thodoxy, this key note of orthodoxy, this 
 direct and immediate influence of the spirit, 
 in addition to and distinct from any that 
 he exerts through the truth. Having 
 claimed the cause, it claims the necessary 
 effects, inspiration and revelation. By 
 means of new revelations, Mormonism can 
 introduce any new dogma, and if consis- 
 tent, orthodoxy cannot reject such dogma. 
 As revelation from the days of Adam to the 
 writing of the last book of the New Testa- 
 ment was constantly adding new ideas, 
 and new revelations as the New Testa- 
 ment was added to the Old, Mormonism, 
 says the book of Mormon, and the revela- 
 tions of Joseph the Seer have been added 
 to the New Testament, and if orthodoxy is 
 logical to its admission of a direct and im- 
 mediate influence of the spirit, distinct 
 from, and in addition to any through the 
 truth, an influence that is miraculous, it 
 cannot reject this claim of Mormonism. 
 
 Through this wide door, thrown fully open 
 by orthodoxy, Mormonism enters with its 
 new revelations. It can change the name 
 of "Christian" to "Latter Day Saints" and 
 claim revelation for so doing new revela- 
 tions a claim that no one can make for 
 changing Christian into any human name. 
 It can change the name of the church from 
 the simple Scriptural title ''The Church of 
 Christ" into the Ashdodish lingo of Babel 
 "The Re-organized church of Jesus Christ 
 of Latter Day Saints" and make the same 
 claim a thing that no one can do for 
 any name worn by the churches. It can 
 teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence 
 of souls, confirmation, blessing children, 
 and add to the simple officers of the church 
 a score of officers unknown to the Bible, and 
 change the church into a hierarchy in 
 which nearly every man is an officer, and 
 claim revelation for it. Such claim cannot 
 be made for the corruptions that orthodoxy 
 has introduced into Clmstianity. Nay, it 
 can through this dogma of orthodoxy, a di- 
 rect and immediate influence of the spirit, 
 since such influence must be miraculous, 
 and inspiration, claim to give the world a 
 new revelation in favor of spiritual wifery 
 and polygamy, calling it "celestial marri- 
 age " This dogma of a direct, immediate 
 and miraculous influence of the spirit, is 
 the sole and only parent of Mormonism, and 
 every new and peculiar feature in it. It is 
 an insult to common sense, and a deli berate 
 falsehood, for the orthodox religious world 
 to vociferate that "Campbellism is the par- 
 ent of Murmonism." The clear, scriptural 
 teaching of what they call "Campbellism," 
 that all direct and immediate influence of 
 the spirit was miraculous and ceased with 
 miracles, and that the spirit now influences 
 men only through the truth he revealed is 
 
 utterly destructive of Mormonism, and! 
 drove Rigdon out of the Restoration. As- 
 well say that Christianity was the parent 
 of papacy. Orthodoxy is the parent of 
 Mormonism; of all that is peculiar to it. 
 The orthodox notion, that is the key note 
 of orthodoxy the direct and immediate in- 
 fluence of the spirit, the miraculous influ- 
 ence of the spirit, is the sole and only parent 
 of Mormonism Mormon revelations, in- 
 cluding the revelations in favor of polyga- 
 my, revelations in favor of all other Mormon- 
 vagaries are simply that key note of ortho- 
 doxy gone to seed. 
 
 This central idea, this key-note of ortho- 
 doxy, is the Trojan horse by means of which 
 those lying Greeks, Mormon revelations 
 and vagaries were introduced into the 
 Scriptural ideas, that Mormonism in com- 
 mon with what is called "Campbellism 1 * 
 accepted from the Bible; and which, like 
 Aeneas, the Disciples rejected as falsehoods 
 of the enemy. It is by means of this Trojan 
 horse, fabricated by orthodoxy, that the 
 pure teachings of the Bible, that what i 
 called "Campbellism" taught; and that 
 Mormonism accepted at first have been de- 
 stroyed. Had Rigdon, Smith and the lead- 
 ers of Mormonism accepted the clear Scrip- 
 tural teaching of the Disciples, that all di- 
 rect, immediate and miraculous influence 
 of the Spirit ceased when it had accom- 
 plished its work in completing the work of 
 God, Mormonism would never have cursert 
 the world. No immediate, miraculous in- 
 fluence ; no new revelations, no baptizing 
 the living for the dead, no pre-existence of 
 souls, no spiritual wifery, no polygamy, no 
 Mormonism. But they rejected the clear 
 Scriptural teachings of the Disciples and 
 took up the orthodox idea of a direct, im- 
 mediate and miraculous influence of the 
 Spirit, in addition to and distinct from any 
 he exerts through the truth he has revealed, 
 and logically claimed that when they had 
 the cause they had the necessary effect, 
 inspiration and new revelations ; and gave 
 us revelation after revelation, until this 
 immediate, miraculous influence of ortho- 
 doxy culminated in spiritual wifery, celes- 
 tial marriage, polygamy; in pollution that 
 would disgust a Grecian satyr. It is a fact 
 that has puzzled many persons, thatalmost, 
 invariably claims of direct influence of the 
 Spirit, inspiration and miraculous power, 
 sanctiflcation and holiness end in infamous 
 lewdness. Let one examine a history of 
 the various parties and sects that have 
 arisen in human history that have claimed 
 this direct influence as a constant influence 
 of their followers, and have laid special 
 claims to revelations, inspiration, holiness, 
 sanctification, second blessing, higher life, 
 and in every instance delusion, fanaticism, 
 crime, and especially lewd ness has attended 
 them. The most infamous scenes in human 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 2G9 
 
 history have been the result of such vaga- 
 ries and movements. There is not a church 
 that believes in this direct and immediate 
 influence, that has not had trouble with in- 
 famies and pollutions growing out of it. 
 The fanatics that troubled the apostles and 
 the fathers, the visionaries of all ages the 
 monsters of Munster, the perfectionists of 
 the last hundred years, the sanctification- 
 ists, and holiness fanatics of all ages, 
 religions and lands, have invariably ended 
 in lewdness, as perfectionism ended in the 
 Oneida pollution, and Mormon claims of 
 inspiration ended in polygamy. 
 
 As a class the persons who make such 
 claims are the most spasmodic, fanatical, 
 inconsistent members in the church. The 
 preachers who preach it are of the same 
 character. The poorest specimens of daily 
 Christian life are the preachers, the persons, 
 the churches who make the loudest claims 
 to perfection, sauctification, holiness, second 
 blessing, higher life, direct influence of the 
 Spirit, Inspiration, revelations, etc. They 
 mistake such fanaticism for Christianity, 
 and think that because they have this 
 frenzy they do not need to trouble them- 
 selves about pure living, and often think 
 that because they act constantly under the 
 influence of the Spirit, what they are in- 
 clined to do, no matter what, must be right. 
 It is not their excited, frenzied appetites 
 and lusts that move them, but a direct in- 
 fluence of the Spirit, therefore it must be 
 right. The Mormon claims, and logically, 
 that if he is under the influence of the 
 Spirit, and feels Mke polygamy, it is the 
 Spirit that makes him feel so, and it must 
 be right. 
 
 There is a reason for this lewdness of these 
 frenzies. All abnormal excitements of the 
 nervous system, such as are caused by ether, 
 opium, hasheesh, alcohol, etc., generally 
 excite the base of the brain, and especially 
 amativeness and combativeness, hence 
 the drunkard is obscene, profane and quar- 
 relsome. A disordered condition of the 
 nervous system, and generally the organs 
 of sex. especially in females, is present in 
 nearly every instance of such frenzy, and 
 is generally its exciting cause. Mesmerism, 
 its trances, somnambulism, catalepsy, and 
 abnormal conditions of the nervous system, 
 are generally based on and caused by, or at 
 least attended by disordered condition of 
 certain organs. The result is that just as 
 the drunkard is lewd, these parties display 
 lewd inclinations, and mistake such frenzy 
 for the Influence of the Holy Spirit. As 
 disordered condition of certain functions is 
 the cause of such frenzy, it is attended by 
 lewdness. 
 
 The entire teaching of the Bible is utterly 
 opposed to the idea of a constant enjoyment 
 of this miraculous influence, by every one. 
 As it was not a moral influence it could uot 
 so be enjoyed. Then we repeat that the most 
 dangerous delusion that has ever cursed 
 the church has been this vagary of a direct 
 and immediate influence of the Spirit. It 
 has been the Pandora's box out of which 
 has come only delusion, fanaticism and pol- 
 
 lution. The polygamy of Mormonism is its 
 last and foulest product, but it is the legi- 
 timate fruit of the orthodox dogma of direct 
 and miraculous influence of the Spirit. The 
 Oneida abomination and the pollutions of 
 Utah are onJy that dogma gone to seed. It 
 is irrational, utterly unscriptural, the off- 
 spring of a diseased* imagination or nervous 
 system, and its results are delusion, fana- 
 ticism, lewdness, infamy and crime. Sanc- 
 tification and perfection ended in the 
 Oueida abomination, and direct and imme- 
 diate influence of the Spirit and revelations 
 ended in polygamy among Mormons. Such 
 parties overlook two facts. The direct am! 
 immediate influence of the Spirit was not a 
 moral influence and exerted no moral power. 
 Its purpose was to reveal truth. It was not 
 an influence imparted to all followers of 
 God, but only to those whom he used as 
 mediums of revelation. It was not a con- 
 stant influence with them, but was exerted 
 only while they were revealing the truth. 
 It was not poured out prodigally, but was 
 sparingly used. It was used only when 
 necessary. It was not a tool of the one en- 
 joying it to be used constantly for every 
 trivial purpose like the pretended inspira- 
 tion of Joe Smith and other visionaries, but 
 was used sparingly and only when neces- 
 sary, and no longer than to accomplish its 
 immediate object. Not only is it true that 
 the clear, common-sense, scriptural teach- 
 ings of the Disciples are utter destruction of 
 this vagary and all of its foul progeny, but 
 the Disciples alone can meet Mormons in 
 discussion and overturn it. The Disciple 
 appeals to the word of God, and that alone. 
 He shows that it teaches that there have 
 been two influences exerted by the Holy 
 Spirit. One immediate, direct, miraculous, 
 that was torevea] truth and attest its divine 
 origin. That was not a moral influence, 
 was given for a certain purpose. That pur- 
 pose has been accomplished. It has ceased. 
 This cuts off all the Mormon claim to direct, 
 immediate, miraculous influence of the 
 Spirit, miraculous powers in revelation. Ifc 
 is a death blow to all such claim. This is 
 why the Mormons of Wilber were so much 
 opposed to debating with a "Camp belli te," 
 that they went to the Hon. S. 8. Alley and 
 wanted him to write to me and persuade 
 me not to accept the invitation of Mr. Luse, 
 to debate with their champion. They knew 
 that our clear, common-sense, scriptural 
 teaching took the very ground from under 
 their feet. No one who believes and admits 
 the orthodox claim of direct and immediate 
 influence of the Spirit can meet a Mormon. 
 Let a man who believes it undertake to 
 debate with one. The Mormon demands, 
 "Do you believe in a direct influence of the 
 Holy Spirit a direct call by the Holy Spirit 
 to preach that regeneration is a miracle, 
 and in the baptism of the Holy Ghost ? '* 
 "I do," fervently responds our orthodox 
 brother, "and blessed be God, thousands 
 can testify they have experienced all of 
 them." "Then," coolly retorts the Mor- 
 mon, "that is just what we claim, only w 
 are consistent, and you are uot. We claim 
 
270 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 this direct influence, tis yon do, and no more 
 than that, but we are consistent. As it is 
 miraculous, we claim miracles. We claim a 
 call by the Hol.v Spirit to preach, and we 
 claim to speak by inspiration as the Spirit 
 give.* usutterance. Claiming that wespeak 
 as the Spirit gives us utterance, we are con- 
 sistent and claim that our utterances are 
 revelations, as all utterances of the Holy 
 Spirit are and must be. Claiming the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost, we claim its miracu- 
 lous power and' miracles. If you admit this 
 miraculous influence, you should admit that 
 its utterances now are as much revelations, 
 as they were in the apost'es' day. We 
 claim that God called men who were poly- 
 garnists and gave men more than one wife ; 
 and that he did no more in giving the poly- 
 gamy revelation to Smith than he did 
 anciently. In short, we unite with you in 
 claiming thecausedirect, miraculous power, 
 and you cannot claim the existence of the 
 cause and deny its necessary effect, any 
 more than you can admit the law of gravi- 
 tation and deny the fall of an unsupported 
 body." To such a claim orthodoxy can 
 make no reply. No believer in the key 
 note of orthodoxy direct, miraculous influ- 
 enctt of the Spirit, can meet a Mormon in 
 discussion. 
 
 We will now notice some of my oppo- 
 nent's talk. I have proved Joe Smith to be 
 a base impostor, and I call him such. I 
 have proved Mormons who claim inspiration 
 to be impostors, and I call them such. All 
 that Christ has washed in his blood and has 
 made kings and priests have a right to 
 preach and baptize. John said Christ had 
 made them kings and priests, and such 
 have a right to preach and baptize. Jonn 
 said Christ had made them kings and 
 priests. He did not say n* witt. Peter said 
 that all Christians were kings and priests 
 then, not tnai they wou:a oe It took mi- 
 raculous power to reveaj trutn and confirm 
 it to g:ve the constitution. Those made 
 kings and priests oy the constitutioc need 
 no constitution-matting power. The church 
 is built on Cnrist on his- Messiahship, on 
 aposties and prophets. There is no conflict 
 It. such expressions. We denounce Joe 
 Smith as an impostor because he pretended 
 to be a constitution maker, when God de- 
 clares that such work is done and has 
 ceased. When the world departed from the 
 constitution Mr. Campbell said to it, "The 
 constitution is perfect and divine, let us or- 
 ganize in accordance with it." His author- 
 ity was in the constitution that made him 
 king and priest. Joe Smith and Mormons 
 got up a bogus constitutional convention, 
 made a lot of trash they call " the fullness 
 of the gospel," and undertake to substitute 
 it for the constitution given by God's con- 
 vention, the apostles. 
 
 QUERIES FOR MR. KELLEY. 
 
 I. "Does not the inspired Paul say that 
 there is but one baptism in the church? 
 Eph. iv, 5. 
 
 II. Did not Jesus command his apostles 
 to baptize converts? Matt, xxviii, 2tt. 
 
 ill. Were not they to baptize in the name 
 of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? 
 
 IV. Was not this baptism unto the re- 
 mission ol sins? Acts ii, 38. 
 
 V. Was it not in water? 
 
 VI. Is it not this baptism that Jesus com- 
 manded the apostles to perform, that is, in 
 the name of the Father, Son and Holy 
 Spirit, that is unto remission, that is in 
 water, the one baptism that is in the 
 church ? 
 
 VII. Is not baptism in the Spirit a prom- 
 ise? Is not Christ alone the administra- 
 tor? 
 
 VIII. Is it a command ? 
 
 IX. Is it in the name of Father, Son and 
 Holy Spirit? 
 
 X. Is it unto remission of sins? 
 
 XI. Can Holy Spirit baptism, that Id u 
 promise, not a command, that is not in the 
 name of the Father, Son and Holy Spiri% 
 of which Christ alone is the administrator, 
 that is not unto remission of sins, be the 
 one baptism that is in the church? 
 
 XII. If there is but one baptism, which 
 is that baptism, water baptism or Holy 
 Spirit baptism ? 
 
 Xlir. Do you give the lie direct to the 
 Holy Spirit in saying there are two bap- 
 tisms ? 
 
 XIV. Or do you insult common sense by 
 denying that each of these is a baptism, 
 separate and distinct from the other? 
 
 XV. Did not Jesus say that he would 
 leave the apostles, and that the Comforter 
 would take his place with the apostles ? 
 
 XVI. Does the Holy Spirit take the place 
 of Jesus with any one now, after Jesus has 
 left any person now? 
 
 X VII. Did not Jesus declares that the Holy 
 Spirit would recall to the minds of the 
 Apostles what he, Jesus, had said to the 
 apostles? 
 
 XVIII. Does the Holy Spirit recall to the 
 mind of any person now what Jesus said to 
 such persons? 
 
 XIX. Then is not this promise as personal 
 to the apostles as the promise that Jesus 
 made to the apostles that he would m^efc 
 them, the apostles, in Gallilee? 
 
 XX. Did the apostles have to V hands 
 on the Samaritans before they TOUtd re- 
 ceive the Holy Spirit, in miracul^uo o' w ei ? 
 
 XXI. Were not these Samaritans "VQO 
 believed and had been baptized children of 
 God? 
 
 XXII. Had not they been born 01 fchfe 
 water and the Spirit? 
 
 XXI II. If they were children of G'.d, 
 had not God sent the indwelling Spirit into 
 their hearts? 
 
 XXIV. Did not John preach that the king- 
 dom was at hand, approaching? 
 
 XXV. Could he then be in it? 
 
 XXVI. Did not Jesus preach that the 
 kingdom was at hand, approaching? 
 
 XXVII. Could he then be in it? 
 
 XXVIII. DM n >t Jesus declare that per- 
 sons to whom he was talking would see 
 the kingdom come with power? 
 
 XXIX. Was it then in existence? Was 
 he in it? Were his apostles? Wasanyone? 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 271 
 
 XXX. Did not Jesus say only about six 
 weeks before his death that he would build 
 his church ou the truth, his Messiahship ? 
 
 XXXI. Was it not still future? Was he 
 or any one in it? 
 
 XXXII. Could his Messiahship be laid 
 as the foundation, as a demonstrated truth, 
 until he had, by his resurrection, demon- 
 strated his Messiahship? 
 
 XXXIII. Could the church be in exist- 
 ence before itsonly foundation had been laid? 
 
 XXXIV. Was not Joseph of Arimathea 
 etill waiting for the kingdom after Jesus 
 was dead ? 
 
 XXXV. Could it be in existence? Was 
 it not future? Could any one be in it? 
 
 XXXVII. W^re not the apostles to be 
 endued from on high? Was not this the 
 case after the resurrection of Jesus? 
 
 XXXVIII. Were not the apostles still 
 to receive power when the Holy spirit fell 
 on them justa few moments before theascen- 
 sion of Jesus ? 
 
 XXXIX. Did not they receive this prom- 
 ise on the day of Pentecost? 
 
 XL. Did not the Holy Spirit fall on them 
 at the beginning of the kingdom as an. ac- 
 tual fact on the day of Pentecost? 
 
 XLI. Was not that when the kingdom 
 came with power? 
 
 XI, II. Does not Paul say in Eph. iv. that 
 miraculous powers are to remain until the 
 children of God attain to the unity of the 
 faith, until they attain to a perfect man, a 
 perfect body of which Christ is the head? 
 
 XLITI. Where is your Scripture for con- 
 tinuing them beyond that period. 
 
 XLIV. Does not Paul say to the Corinthi- 
 ans, who had nine spiritual powers in their 
 church, "Desire earnestly the best spiritual 
 gifts, nevertheless I show unto you a more 
 excellent way?" 
 
 XLV. Does he not mean a way more ex- 
 cel lent than the exercise of the best spiritual 
 gifts. 
 
 XLVI. Does not Paul say that prophecy, 
 all utterance by inspiration, knowledge, or 
 inspiration, or knowledge imparted by in- 
 spiration, tongues, all signs of inspiration, 
 and revelation shall cease. 
 
 XLVII. Does he not say that such pro- 
 phecying, such knowledge was partial, 
 when given by the exercise of these spir- 
 itual gifts. 
 
 XLVIII. Does not he mean that such ut- 
 terance, in each instance, can only be part 
 the word of God, a part of revelation. 
 
 XLIX. Does not he say when that which 
 is perfect is come, then partial revelation 
 under spiritual gifts shall pass away? 
 
 Is not that which is perfect complete 
 revelation ? If the partial is a part of God's 
 word is not the perfect the whole of God's 
 word? 
 
 Then does not Paul declare that when 
 God's word is perfected, these partial pro- 
 phecies, revelations and miracles to attest 
 them shall cease? 
 
 Did not the apostles complete God 's word ? 
 
 Did not revelations, iuspiration, and 
 miracles cease then ? 
 
 Has Mormonism given one new idea? A 
 better expression, a single idea. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GKNTL.KMEN : It seems that my opponent 
 got so worked up on last evening that he 
 has not yet descended from that high horse 
 of Ahasueras. The trouble with him is, 
 that under the soured state of his feelings 
 he concludes there is more argument in the 
 use of mean terms and unbecoming expres- 
 sions than in a true and manly way of de- 
 bate 
 
 How ridiculous for a man to come before 
 an audience with the name and reputation 
 of a clergyman, debater and logician, and 
 to then have him employ the means of slan- 
 der, vituperation, and expressions without 
 meaning to meet his opponent. Here on 
 his own question he has left entirely the 
 issue and :one back to his pet theory of 
 howling -'Joe Smith," "Impostor"' "Mor- 
 mon Deity," ''great fraud," "blacklegs," 
 "rascals," "villains," "scoundrels," etc. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, he Is quite 
 welcome to all the argument there is in 
 those terms, so far as I am concerned. I 
 could, had I the disposition, answer him 
 very effectually by returning the fire with 
 like polite and refined language; but I will 
 say here that I shall not so lower my stand- 
 ing as a minister, nor the great cause of 
 Christ's truth which I represent, by de- 
 scending to any such plane. (Applause.) 
 
 The first points discussed by my opponent 
 I shall take up and answer fn their place. 
 But all of that relating to Sidney Kigdon 
 and what Braden calls Morraonism, I shall 
 pay no attention to, it being in no sense 
 connected with the question under discus- 
 sion. 
 
 It is the faith, doctrines, practices and 
 organization of Braden 's. or the Campbell- 
 ite church that is under consideration now, 
 and I shall not be drawn away from the 
 
272 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ques Ion before you, whatever the disposi- 
 tion jr the other side, but proceed to show 
 tha' his little building is upon a sandy 
 fou idarion. After first concluding the line 
 of trgument which I was upon last eveu- 
 in ;, I shall take up and examine partieu- 
 1? ly his positions. 
 
 L had just introduced the text, "And yet 
 f iow I unto you a more excellent way." 
 i Cor. 12:31. Paul at the time of using this 
 iad just devoted a whole chapter to de- 
 jcribing the church, its officers, how they 
 were placed in the church, the gifts of the 
 Spirit and the manner in which the Spirit 
 was manifest, together with the object of 
 luch manifestations. When through with 
 ill of this labor, was he ready, as Braden 
 nrould have you believe, to tell them in the 
 eery last verse of the chapter that there 
 was another and better system than that 
 which he had just been'pointing out to 
 them, " a more excellent way ?" Why did 
 he point out the one not so good .instead of 
 this ''more excellent?" and, what is stranger 
 still, he never in a single epistle after- 
 ward set forth a different order than the 
 one mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. Then where is 
 the trouble? The whole difficulty is with 
 the interpretation of Mr. Braden himself. 
 In his great anxiety to do away with the 
 order of the church established by Christ, 
 and at the same time endeavor to make the 
 people believe that it was restored by Mr. 
 A. Campbell and aids of which he is a rep- 
 resentative, he explains that the apostle 
 would give them another order. If the or- 
 der specified in the New Testament was 
 limited, and some other system was to take 
 its place, when did the old lose its force? 
 Was it in the year 70, 90, 100, 150, or when? 
 When did the new order begin? Where is 
 its constitution and order, and what right 
 has Mr. Campbell to be harping that they 
 are standing on the old constitution, when 
 they refuse to build by its provisions? But 
 what did Paul mean by "yet show I unto 
 you a more excellent way?" 
 
 I shall here particularly examine this, the 
 81st verse of the l'2th chapter of the Corin- 
 thian letter that has given my opponent an 
 imaginary covering at every step of this in- 
 vestigation, when he has been brought into 
 the light of God's word as reflected from 
 every part of the New Testament. Is it a 
 fact, my friends, that, notwithstanding the 
 promises made by Jesus and John that "ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
 many days hence." and that due prepara- 
 tion for tne reception of this out-pouring of 
 the Spirit had to be made before it could be 
 received, of "prepare ye the way of the 
 Lord, make his paths straight," and that 
 afterwards it was. the embodiment of the 
 promise which Jesus made to his followers 
 o< the Comforter that should be in his stead 
 personally, to them who loved him, that 
 those who received it were made no better 
 thereby? Brought no closer to him who is 
 the head of the church and raised no higher 
 in the advancing plane of the divine life? 
 
 Do you accept Braden 's proposition as 
 sound wherein he represents that the pres- 
 
 ence of the Spirit of God in power has not 
 a tendency to make men better? That it is 
 not a moral agent or such an agency that 
 acts upon men so as to build up and main- 
 tain a true character and expurge the evil? 
 This cherished position of his I shall try 
 and notice minutely and strip it of its de- 
 formity; for throughout the discussion of 
 these questions he has taken the position 
 that where there was an absence of all the 
 manifestations of the Spiritof God, and con- 
 sequently the immediate presence of divine 
 instruction, that there, was the higher 
 Christianity and the greater Gospel light. 
 
 According to this the disciples before 
 Pentecost were better Christians than after; 
 because they had not thecomf<>rter, and 
 consequently these gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
 as they had afterwards. Down at Samaria 
 where Philip had preached the word and 
 they who believed him had been baptized 
 by water, and had great rejoicing because 
 of having found the truth, they were pretty 
 fair Christians, until Peter and John went 
 down and laid their hands upon them that 
 they might receive the Holy Ghost; but 
 upon this the Spirit ot God was poured out 
 upon them, and they were at once lowered 
 in the Christian scale and fit only to be 
 classed with such persons as the Corinthian 
 church, the Latter Day Saints and the 
 negroes, according to Braden. Afterwards 
 the Lord tells Cornelius to send to Joppa 
 for Peter, and that he would receive good 
 therefrom. Cornelius obeys, sends for Peter 
 and when the apostle comes down and" be- 
 gins speaking to the people, the Holy Ghost 
 falls upon them and they begin to speak 
 with tongues and magnify God. Here the 
 Spirit of God, according to my opponent's 
 talk (I will not call it argument) lowers the 
 household of Cornelius in the Christian 
 scale and they must be classed along with 
 persons of such a low form of religion as the 
 Corinthian Saints, or the Latter Day Saints, 
 according to Braden. But I proceed. Paul 
 passing through the upper coasts comes to 
 Ephesus ; he finds certain disciples ; he en- 
 quires if they had received the Holy Ghost; 
 no, they said, they had never heard of such a 
 thing, they had only heard the word, and but 
 part of that. These persons were in a pretty 
 high state of church civilization, according 
 to Braden and Mr. Campbell. But this im- 
 petuous Paul takes them and baptizes them. 
 They had only gone through the form of 
 baptism before, some person officiated who 
 had no authority, and Paul knew it, because 
 he did not teach tha people about Christ 
 and the Holy Spirit. Then Paul lays his 
 hands upon them and the Holy Ghost comes 
 down on them, "and they" spake with 
 tongues and prophesied. 1 ' Went right back 
 to the low ievfll Mr. Braden placed the i 'or- 
 inthian and Mormon churches. Again 
 Jesu.s is resurrected; ascends in to the heavens 
 far above all. What does he do? "And 
 (he) gave gifts unto men," "And he gave 
 some apostles, and some prophets and some 
 evangelist* and some pastors and teachers, 
 for the perfecting ot the saints, for the work 
 of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 273 
 
 [church] of Christ. Till we all come into 
 the unity of tho faith and the knowledge of 
 the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the 
 measure of tho stature of the fullness of 
 Christ." 
 
 All of these gifts were imparted to the 
 early church. They are among the gifts 
 exercised by Uie Corinthian church ; Jesus 
 bestowed them as his especial favor upon 
 his children after he had gone into the 
 heavens. These were the highest things 
 he could bestow upon his people that were 
 calculated to make them better, and not- 
 withstanding this, according to Brad en and 
 Mr. Campbell, those receiving this Spirit 
 and gift wore placed by them in such a low 
 state of Christian attainments, that they 
 could never with these, equal the exact 
 standing in Christian perfection of "us pop- 
 ular se^ts " of the 19th century, who cannot 
 even follow the injunction, '"Whatsoever 
 ye would that men should do to you, do 
 you even so to them." That rule was given 
 as one of the first things for the early dis- 
 ciples to pattern after. These things to 
 some extent were the inevitable result of 
 the birth of the Spirit, the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost, the seal of adoption, the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit, which Jesus referred 
 Nicodemus to, the same bein<* a fact, a 
 birth of the Spirit, a transition into a new 
 and higher life, a partaking of the nature of 
 thekingdom that was nofmeatanddrink," 
 as some had in Paul's time foolishly sup- 
 posed, as he says ; " but righteousness, and 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Thus 
 in the 3d of John, Jesus says, "Except a 
 man be horn of water and of the Spirit," 
 referring to the complete birth by the two 
 elements, as in the citation, "There are 
 three that bear witness in earth : the Spirit, 
 the water and the blooii, and these three 
 agree in one." Braden I know undertook 
 to explain this birth of the water and 
 Spirit in John, but did one of you get hia 
 idea? The trouble with him was, that he 
 did not understand it himself, and jf course 
 could not explain it for others. He wanted 
 to get the birth independently of the Holy 
 Spirit. But this cannot be done. There is 
 in Christ's church a baptism of the Spirit 
 as well as of water. " Ye shall be baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost not many days hence;" 
 receive the outpouring of the Spirit of God 
 that shall fill them and bring them in rap- 
 port with higher things; clothe them with 
 the new life which Jesus should shed forth; 
 hence become new creatures with the com- 
 pleteness of the new birth. Mr. Braden 
 confounds these with " begotten by the 
 word," as he says. Does he mean to imply 
 a birth by this? That here is where they 
 are born of the Spirit? Are they born of 
 the Spirit before they are of th water, Mr. 
 Braden? If not, why are you talking about 
 begotten of the word? It reads "born of 
 water and of the Spirit." 
 
 Turning to the "more excellent way," 
 which Paul refers to, my opponent says, "a 
 more excellent way than thespi ritual gifts." 
 Here is where he makes a mistake at the 
 outs tart. iSot a more excellent way than 
 
 the spiritual gifts. He confounds at once 
 the trueantecedent. It is a more excellent 
 way than one person having, and exercis- 
 ing, all of tho spiritual gifts. Read back 
 just two verses : "Are all apostles? are all 
 prophets ? are all workers of miracles ? have 
 all the gifts of healing? do all speak with 
 tongues? do all in terp-et?" No; Paul has 
 shown a more excellent way than this. 
 Notice the 8th, 9th and 10th verses of the 
 same chapter. " For to one is given by the 
 same spirit, the word of wisdom, to another 
 the word of knowledge, by the same spirit ; 
 to another faith by the same spirit; to 
 another the gifts or healing by the same 
 spirit," etc. Here it is fully set out, and 
 hence, when he repeats by interrogatory 
 in the 29th, and 30th verses, as he does, 
 "are all apostles?" etc.; and then refers 
 to the "more excellent way," he refers to 
 this one as being of a more excellent way 
 than that of one person having all of these 
 gifts which he had already referred to in 
 the 8th, 9th and 10th verses, and not a 
 more excellent way than the instruction by 
 the gifts themselves. By such an interpre- 
 tation as Braden gives, Paul is made to 
 appear as teaching one thing at one time, 
 and an adverse thing at another time and 
 still a different one at another. For before 
 this Braden will not deny that he taught 
 the use of the gifts ; then he has him teach 
 that they shall not use them in the 13th 
 chapter ; and afterwards in the 14th chap- 
 ter, he teaches, "Follow after charity and 
 desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may 
 prophecy." This kind of an interpretation 
 shakes up Paul considerably and places 
 Paul versus Paul. But it is not the worst 
 part of it: it places Paul versus Jesus, the 
 master and head of the church. Jesus, when 
 he had ascended upon high, gave gifts unto 
 men ; but Paul, according to this w ; ise inter- 
 pretation of Braden, was to show them a 
 more excellent way than this. Jesus, before 
 he ascended, said: "And these signs shall 
 follow them that believe;" but Paul is to 
 show a more excellent way than this. Peter 
 says, "This, the spirit which ye now see 
 and hear, he hath shed forth ; " but Paul, 
 according to the profound? interpretation 
 of Braden, will show a more excellent way. 
 Is it not plain that Braden can't give the 
 true solution of this? Now let us examine 
 the 31st verse. "And yet show I unto you 
 a more excellent way. "Yet," is from the 
 Greek word eti, and means still, hitherto, 
 yet, and does not of itself denote something 
 to follow in the future, as notice examples : 
 "While he yet spake," (still spake), Mark 
 14:43; "While the other is yet a great 
 way off" (now siill, etc.). Luke, 15:20, 
 " When I was yet with you " ( hitherto, 
 before ) ; 2 Thess., 2 : 5. Whatever was 
 the cause or may be the reason, it is plain 
 there has been a transposition of the clause 
 here, either by tne transcribers of the origi- 
 nal, or the English translators. Let me 
 read: "Have all the gifts of healing? do 
 all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" 
 "Yet, (still) I show (point out) to you a 
 more excellent way," lhau this. He had 
 
274 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY I EBATE. 
 
 already in the letter, which he was writing, 
 pointed out a better way than all speaking 
 with the same gift, the more excellent way. 
 Hence, the instruction comes, therefore 
 "covet earnestly the best gifts." Why? 
 Because Paul would show them a better 
 way than spiritual gifts ? Not at all ; but 
 because Paul had told them in this letter, 
 now, all could not have the same gift, but 
 that God divided these lo them as he would, 
 as they were worthy, and as the Lord saw 
 it would be for their good, and the good of 
 his work. The verb in the original is not 
 in the future tense. Paul don't say, I 
 will show you a more excellent way. That 
 is made so to read by the translator into 
 the English. Now, let me read to you 
 the letter of Paul as he wrote it ; beginning 
 with 12th chapter, 7th verse I read: 
 
 "But the manifestation of the spirit is given to every 
 man to profit with all. For to one is given by the 
 spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of 
 knowledge by the same spirit : to another faith by the 
 same spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the 
 *anie spirit; to another the working of miracles; to 
 another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits: 
 to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another he In- 
 teipretntion of tongues. But all these worketh that 
 self-same spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
 will." 
 
 . Pass on now to verse 29 : 
 
 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all 
 teachers? Areailworkeriofmirac.es? Have all the 
 gifts of haling? Do all speak with tongues ? Do all 
 interpret?'* 
 
 No: 
 
 "For (literally) a more excellent way I point out. 
 show." 
 
 Not in the future, but now ; already done. 
 Hence, properly translated : 
 
 'For I have shown unto you a more excellent way ; 
 therefore, covet earnestly the best gifts." 
 
 This interpretation agrees with all that 
 Paul is at this time writing, and that he 
 wrote at any other time: & u d is the only cor- 
 rectone. Wherehad he shown the moreexcel- 
 lent way? Answer, as set out in the7,8,9, 10, 
 11, '28, 29, and 30, verses of this same chapter. 
 Now read what follows upon thesame point 
 in the 14th chapter, first verse: 
 
 "Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but 
 ralher that ye may propnesy." 
 
 Verses 39 and 40: 
 
 "Therefore, brethren, covet to prophesy and forbid 
 not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done 
 decently and in order." 
 
 Such an interpretation as this harmonizes 
 with all other instruction upon these things. 
 Il is not a proper interpretation of the Bible 
 or any other thing, where you make a con- 
 flict by the interpretation, or render a part 
 of the instrument unnecessary or void. 
 The rule is that the entire word, teaching, 
 shall have its full force and effect when it 
 can be done; and if it could not be done in 
 Bible interpretations, who would take the 
 responsibility of believing a part was in 
 force and not the. other part also? The 
 sense and meaning of the apostle here is as 
 clear as the noon-day sun. He is not teach- 
 ing them two or three laws : good, belter, 
 best; or bad, ill, worse ; but one law, that 
 of Jesus Christ. It was the Gospel law, and 
 he says himself, "Though we, or an angel 
 
 from heaven, teach any other law than that 
 you have received, let him be accursed." Is 
 it so uncertain that Paul himself was double- 
 tongued in teaching it? No, ladies and 
 gentlemen, the trouble has been in the man 
 interpretation, and as in that verse, an at- 
 tempt at interpolation ; but of this last I 
 shall speak paiticularly hereafter. 
 
 Now, I proceed to examine the 8th verse of 
 the 13th chapter. "Whether there be pro- 
 phecies they shall fail, whether there be 
 tongues they shall cease; whether there be 
 knowledge it shall vanish away." This is 
 a prophecy of Paul's; not instruction to the 
 saints at Corinth, telling them how they 
 shall do as to prophecy. To what extent is 
 it and how far does it relate? Does he mean 
 that the time is coming when we shall have 
 no more prophecies, no more knowledge, 
 no more languages (tongues), through 
 which we are to be able to commu- 
 nicate thought? Certainly not. What 
 does he mean then? Let Paul answer; 
 he is the one that uses the language 
 and the proper one to explain it. He says, 
 (verse 9), "For we know in part and we 
 prophesy in part, but when that which is 
 perfect is come, then that which is in part 
 shall be done away." What shall be done 
 away? Paul answers, "That whicU is in 
 part." How? By us having less proph- 
 ecies, less knowledge, less power to speak 
 with different tongues than now ? No, no. 
 By ushering in the perfect time "when we 
 shall see as we are seen, and know as we 
 are known ; " and hence, the seeing in part 
 and knowing in part is done away. Being 
 brought to the state of positive knowledge 
 and, like Jesus, understanding all things, 
 that which was miraculous an<l revealed 
 only in part shall fail, cease, vanish away; 
 whether in prophecy, knowledge 01 speak- 
 ing in tongues ; hence he says : "For now 
 we see through a glass darkly ; but then 
 face to face. Now I know in part " 
 
 Yes, Paul knew only in part, although he 
 had been taught by the revelations direct of 
 Jesus Christ, and had been in the third heav- 
 en, in the Paradise of God. He knew about 
 things that had been hidden from the found- 
 ation of the world, and of the future -*ud 
 final state of the church, even things un- 
 lawful to utter; yet he still knew buc in 
 part, but he says : " Then, when that which 
 is perfect (perfect now, but to corne) is come, 
 then shall I know even as also I am known." 
 What time is it, that is the perfect time? 
 Turn to 1 John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we 
 the sons of God (Paul was this, too, when 
 he was talking), and it doth not yet appear 
 what we shall be: bufc we know that when 
 he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for 
 we shall see him as h is." Here is the 
 same time Paul referred to when he should 
 see him (Jesus) as he is, in the perfect time. 
 This time John places at his second coming. 
 It is then that the knowledge of the Lord 
 shall cover the earth as the water does the 
 great deep. "And all shall know him from 
 the least unto the greatest." Not that all 
 knowledge shall be done away, but a full- 
 ness of knowledge arrived at, and part 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 275 
 
 xhv>r ledge shall have ceased; because we 
 ahull see and know fully as we are seen and 
 known. This agrees exactly with the time 
 and evei'tas fixed by Paul in Eph. 4: 13 for 
 the continuation of these spiritual gifts: 
 "Till we all come into the unity of the faith 
 and of the knowledge of the Son of God 
 unto a perfect man [no man is perfect now, 
 neither the church] unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fullness of Christ." The 
 apostle is in harmony throughout with him- 
 eelf not a single contradiction nor disa- 
 greement ; but it is clearly contrary to what 
 my opponent teaches, ali of it. Can it be 
 *aid, then, his church is after the apostolic 
 pattern? It is far short of it, Mr. Braden. 
 
 Paul is consistent in his teaching, then. 
 In the i-tii chapter of this letter he teaches 
 them theui-eand benefit of these spiritual 
 gifts. In the 13th he teaches them that the 
 miraculous effects of this Spirit to them 
 will not cease till the "perfect" time shall 
 arrive, when Jesus shall come the second 
 time,. In the 14th chapter he teaches them 
 to follow after them ; desire, ''covet" them, 
 and to forbid not their exercise. It is all 
 the time the straight and narrow way. 
 
 But again, Braden says: "There were 
 some features in the apostolic church not 
 in theirs." That is true, there was ; and a 
 great many of them at that. He says also 
 that the Holy Ghost is revealed through 
 the word, but the word is the result of the 
 moving of the Holy Ghost upon a person, 
 and not a medium through which it is com- 
 municated. The word simply expresses its 
 will, and to a bad man just the same as a 
 good one. How terribly mixed indeed are 
 his positions. Again he says, " desire spir- 
 itual gifts as long as they were to remain 
 in the chur.oh." The constitution of the 
 church provides that they shall remain 
 aiways, so far as the present condition of 
 man is concerned, till "that which is perfect 
 is come." To destroy it is to take away 
 the citizen's rigrn) and destroy the force of 
 the constitution. Where is there a consti- 
 tution authorizing a better way? He says 
 there is an "indwelling Holy Ghost," 'in 
 contradiction to tho miraculous Holy Ghost, 
 yet the scripture knows but one. *The in- 
 dwelling wa^ the miraculous ; and Jesus 
 says, "It shall be in you as a well of water 
 springing up into everlasting life." 
 
 David says, "My heart was hot within 
 me, while I was musing the fire burned; 
 then spake I with my tongue." Ps. 89:3. 
 "The Holy G host and tire" was promised. 
 The Holy Spirit was in them as a flame, 
 and it expressed itself in tongues, prophecy 
 a id w s lorn as God willed and cheered 
 i he biessed soul in which it glowed. This 
 is the Spirit as promised and sent down 
 from heaven. Again he says, "Ananias 
 was a special apostle." But who says he 
 was any more special than any of the others 
 not apostles? Oh, Mr. Braden, that is all. 
 He is great to divide and subdivide. He 
 has general apostles and special apostles; 
 miraculous Holy Spirit, indwelling Holy 
 Spirit, the Holy Spirit in the word and as 
 111 the previous discussion, the one Unit 
 
 moved on Balaam's ass. Yet the Scripture 
 only speaks of one. But why does he say, 
 without the least authority, that Ananias 
 was a "special apostle?" Just because he 
 has asserted that no one ever received the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost only thoseon whom 
 apostles laid their hands, and it was shown 
 that Ananias laid hands on Paul for the 
 receiving of the Spirit, and Mr. Braden at 
 once announces: "He was a special apostle;" 
 without the least authority tor it ; a sheer 
 dodge. But the body of elders laid handa 
 on Timothy and it was an act of presump- 
 tion if they did not have authority to do it, 
 and under their hands he received a gift. 
 It does not say that Paul laid on hands with 
 them, neither does it say that the gift that 
 Timothy received under the hands of the 
 elders was the same one that he received 
 under Paul's hands. So we have a number 
 of elders here, "special apostles, I sup- 
 pose," to also accommodate Mr. Braden. 
 He is not quite as wiley as some others of 
 the Campbellite "restored elders" that I 
 have seen take positions ; they have uni- 
 formly said, "no one received the Holy 
 Ghost by laying on hands, except those on 
 whom the apostles laid their hands and the 
 ones on whom this second party laid their 
 hands." By this method they pushed the 
 enquiry clear out of New Testament times, 
 and could stand on their assumption and 
 say that the New Testament does not say 
 in so many words that any others ever re- 
 ceived it; and about that time they get 
 oblivious to all church history, as does my 
 opponent on the question of the laying on 
 of hands. He says, "that those that went 
 put from Jerusalem preached by the author- 
 ity of the New Testament." But the New 
 Testament did not exist for two hundred 
 years only in scattered fragments. Paul 
 and Barnabas went out from Jerusalem and 
 was completely authorized on the way at 
 Antioch, not by the New Testament, but 
 by a divine call and ordination, the only 
 way that any one was ever authorized to 
 preach. "How can they preach except they 
 be sent?" Not by an assumptive congre- 
 gation, but by the Almighty. 
 
 He says, I confound " Indwelling of the 
 Spirit with the miraculous." There is but 
 o.ie ; the Holy Ghost in any f.rai is miracu- 
 lous, whether manifest in tongues, 01 pro- 
 phecy, or acting like aglow of fire in the heart 
 and soul of the saints, to con firm and encour- 
 age them to strive on. But he says again, 
 "Aftei God had authenticated his word, mi- 
 racles ceased. The authentication belonged 
 to all believers. "Grieve not the Holy 
 Spirit by which you (the believers) are 
 sealed to the day of redemption." Mr. 
 Braden would have it, if the Christian 
 wishes confirmation now and sealing, he 
 must read an account of something that 
 to place near two thousand years ago ; the 
 Christian enjoyed the spirit and was sealed 
 and that this must be all satisfactory to 
 him. Might as well conclude that when 
 Christians are hungry in this age if thejf 
 will but sit down and read that Paul and 
 Peter and others of the saints of their day, 
 
278 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ate a good square meal on some occasion, it 
 will lie all satisfactory ; that the Christian 
 now does not need any real food, but to read 
 an old account of some one else's eating will 
 ease the gnawing of hunger. Again he 
 Bays, "I would have Christ standing by 
 me ready to whack on the seal." It is 
 poorly expressed ; but the meaning is clear. 
 I do believe that Jesus should be with his 
 ministry and people. He says to hissent,his 
 ministers : "Lo, lam with you always, even 
 to the end of the world." Evidently ready 
 and quite willing, to "whack on the seal." 
 To the believer he says, "Where two or three 
 are gathered together in my name there am 
 I in the midst of them." Just as every 
 foreigner, when he is made a citizen in our 
 government, must have his own certificate, 
 and evidence of adoption, and this made un- 
 der the hand and seal of the proper officer, 
 BO must every new addition to the church 
 of Christ, receive the seal of the spirit, to 
 confirm them. Their bodies are to be tem- 
 ples for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. 
 And hence, the church b< conies a habita- 
 tion of God through the spirit. "And they 
 are no longer foreigners nor aliens but fellow 
 citizens with the saints." When I ask for 
 his authority, or that of Mr. Campbell, to 
 institute and organize a church, he answers 
 me with, "We are all kings and priests 
 made so by Jesus Christ, and don't need 
 any more authority than that." Then I 
 ask, "If all are thus kings and priests and 
 have this inherent authority to act, why is 
 he calling Joseph Smith a fraud, and say- 
 ing he "presumed to preach?" If all have 
 this authority one has as good a right as 
 another, and Joseph Smith as much right 
 to organize a church and preach as Mr. 
 Campbell by his own admission. Mr. Bra- 
 den is lost here, and he knows it. He dare 
 not undertake to pointout to you any author- 
 ity for Mr. Campbell to start out preaching 
 upon, and organizing churches, than he 
 must admit that both he and I have. Yet, he 
 talks about impostors. He is as wild and ex- 
 cited over this, as he was last evening when 
 he broke out to me, "Paul I know, and 
 Jesus I know, but who are you? Who is 
 Kelley ?" Now, my friends, I like to see a 
 man quote scripture, but when he has to 
 take up and quote what the devils said for 
 scri pture, I take it he is pretty hard pressed. 
 (Applause). 
 
 It reminds me of the old lady who was a 
 yrreat lover of the Bible. A new son came 
 to the family and she was bound to christen 
 It with a Bible name. Finally she could 
 select upon no other, (there was already a 
 large family who had been named out of the 
 Bible,) when she thought of "Beelzebub." 
 She was at once delighted, and they called 
 him Beelzebub. Again he takes up the 
 Constitutional Convention argument, and 
 tries to make out that the case of these 
 apostles, who were set in the church, is a 
 parallel one to the delegates in the Conven- 
 tion. He is determined to make them out 
 the lawmakers if he can, instead of leaving 
 that work to Jehovah. Anything to defeat 
 the purpose for which they were, in fact, 
 
 placed in the church as they give it them- 
 selves. "For the work of the ministry, the 
 perfecting of the saints ; for the edifying of 
 tlje body of Christ." But a moment's re- 
 flection will show the absurdity of his 
 reasoning. The framers of the constitution 
 were not officers in the government under 
 the constitution without being placed there 
 afterwards. The apostles were officers in 
 the church. "God set in the church first 
 apostles, secondly prophets ;" and then fol- 
 lows the other officers. Not so in the Con- 
 vention that framed the constitution. They 
 were delegates who met to formulate a new 
 and better system of government, and when 
 their work was done they were done, so far 
 as officers in the incoming government was 
 concerned, unless again made such . Wash- 
 ington was a delegate and afterwards set, 
 elected as an officer in the government and 
 made President; as apostles were set in the 
 church away back by Jesus. If you take 
 the ground that the apostles were the 
 framers of the Constitution, and that took 
 effect and the new government, after they 
 had done their work, died, then th> were 
 never in the church, and what becomes of 
 Braden's dead apostles which h<- claimed 
 were in his church ? If you take the ground 
 that they were in the church as officers as 
 they were, then they were not in a delegate 
 capacity, but in a similar position to hat 
 Washington occupied during his Presidency 
 in the government. Hence, the true like- 
 ness of the officers in the church is not found 
 in the fram.ers of the Constitution of the 
 United States, but in the officer? in the 
 government of the United States; and the 
 true Constitutional maker of the church of 
 Jesus Christ is the God and Father of all 
 I shall not permit my opjwjnent to reason 
 Him out of existence. When Jesus sent hi* 
 disciples out to teach, he told them to teach 
 whatsoever he had commanded them. H& 
 did not send them out making constitution* 
 He would not do that himself; but said: 
 "I have not spoken of myself ; but the Father 
 which sent me, he gave me) a command- 
 ment, what I should say and what I should 
 speak." Hence hecomjnanded his disciples 
 the officers under him : "Go ye therefore 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father and the Son and the 
 Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever Ihavecomtnandfdyou." 
 Matt. 28: 19-20. He did not send them out 
 then, "making constitution every day," 
 did he? This brings to my mind another 
 point. "Baptizing them in the name of the- 
 Father," etc. Now Braden's church bap- 
 tizes into the name, instead of "?'/? the name 
 of," for the reason, I understand, that they 
 have no right to use the name, having no- 
 especial authority to baptize. Aiu I not 
 right in this? 
 
 My opponent tries to cover himself first,, 
 and associates in his church secondly, with 
 glory, and says, "they are the only minis- 
 ters who have been ablo to meet our 
 people." At the same time he is the h'r^t 
 of his church I have ever met \ ho ti i<-d to 
 stand tire, while I have debated witi- a- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 277 
 
 number of ministers of other persuasion?. 
 It won't do for him to assume quite so much 
 nor to think he is getting along, because he 
 denies all work and power of the Holy 
 Spirit in the church. Why? "This belief 
 in the work of the Holy Spirit will lead a 
 man into polygamy," he says. How will it? 
 If a man follows the guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit do you say, he will land in polygamy? 
 If so, that would make polygamy right. 
 It will "guide into all truth," Jesus said. 
 
 Braden seems to be upon the Brighamite 
 fence here, and claims it will lead a man 
 into polygamy. I say it will lead him into 
 nothing of the kind. By this same Spirit 
 came the teaching of monogomy. Would it 
 turn around and teach polygamy next? 
 But, says Braden, the people professing to 
 be guided by it would be deceived and led 
 into polygamy. Why would they be de- 
 ceived? 'The moment the governing spirit 
 of the individual taught anything contrary 
 to that already taught, the person must 
 know that it is not the right spirit. We 
 are comma oded to not only "worship in 
 Spirit, but in truth." This reference to 
 truth shows that theiSpiritual direction, to 
 be of God, must agree with that which 
 is already written. Is there in fact, then, 
 this dangei Braden speaks of? Not at all. 
 If a man's spiritual direction is contrary to 
 that already given, it is of the evil one and 
 not the good spirit. Hence Paul says, "If 
 any man think himself to be a prophet, or 
 spiritual, let him acknowledge that tho 
 things that I write are the commandments 
 of the Lord." What shall we do, then ; 
 get along without the Spirit? No; for with- 
 out this Spirit we cannot be guided into the 
 truth This is to guide intoall truth. There- 
 fore Paul says: " For as many as are led by 
 the Spirit of God they are the Sons of God." 
 
 Ah! here is the secret, then; we must 
 have both the Spirit and the truth. But 
 Braden will not have the Spirit, hence he 
 cannot have the truth, and this is the secret 
 cause why he is found so universally at . 
 variance wi't the Bible. 
 
 Again, upon this profound logic of his, 
 that the basis of polygamy is a belief in the 
 work of the Holy Spirit he builds his false 
 castles and says : "This is the reason Joseph 
 Smith was in polygamy here in Kirtland." 
 etc But both basis and conclusion is false. 
 Joseph Smith was never in polygamy while 
 here in Kirtland ; no well informed man of 
 any party who regards the truth at all. will 
 claim that. Those of the polygamic church, 
 in Utah, denounce the claim as entirely 
 false. No well informed man among them 
 claims that polygamy was ever intimated 
 or believed in by any man in the church for 
 five years after the Saints left K;rtiand. 
 This is wholly without any truthful basis. 
 Joseph Smith was never in polygamy and 
 never had but one wife 1 am, as I before 
 stated upon this stand, willing to negative 
 the ques-tion, that he was not, upon any 
 platform and against any man, either out of, 
 or in Utah. 
 
 But Braden can talk to try to prejudice 
 his case through with this audience. Why 
 is ho not willing to affirm the proposition 
 with me that Mr. Smith was a polygamist, 
 if ho knows so much? I am ready to meet 
 him upon it. But the belief in the insp. ra- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit will lead men into 
 polygamy and other crime, he says. Jesus 
 and Peter and John and all of the apostles 
 believed in it and were led by it. Did it 
 lead them into polygamy or other crime? 
 Did Paul's belief in the present direction 
 of the Holy Spirit lead him into wrong 
 doing? Remember. Braden claim is that 
 a belief in the immediate direction of the 
 Holy Spirit will lead men into these things. 
 If so, why did it not lead the early Saints 
 into these things? They believed in the 
 present and immediate direction of t he Ho!y 
 Spirit. My opponent's charge is not true. 
 Neither as to the Latter Day Saints nor as 
 to others who believed in the immediate 
 power and direction of the Holy Spirit as 
 an essential thing in the church. 
 
 (Time called) 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, 1/ADIKS AND 
 
 GENTLEMEN: My opponent spent much 
 time last night jabbering about Mr. Camp- 
 bell's authority to organize churches after 
 the apostolic pattern, baptize and breach. 
 We showed him that every child of God is 
 a king, a priest, made a royal priest by God 
 himself. Such persons have a divine com- 
 mission to preach, baptize, and do any and 
 all acts required in the Kingdom of God. 
 The members, all of them who were driven 
 out of Jerusalem, went everywhere preach- 
 ing the word. Aquilla and Priscilla in- 
 structed Apollos, taught, preached, and 
 had a church iu their house, without any 
 pretended commission from any Joe Smith 
 of their day. As kings and priests by the 
 act of the Almighty, they had their author- 
 ity direct from heaven and not from the 
 hands of any one. It required miraculous 
 power to do the work that the public work- 
 ers in the church did in the days of the 
 apostles. It took miraculous power in cre- 
 ation to bring animals and plants into be- 
 ing, but it does not now, when the law of 
 God is that they shall come into being by 
 process of natural law. It required mirac- 
 ulous power to give the word of God 
 and attest its inspiration. It does not re- 
 quire miraculous power now when it is com- 
 plete, to use it and obey it. Wedo not deny 
 a divine call. We believe God has called 
 us and made us kings and priests unto him- 
 self. If my opponent's church is the church 
 of Christ, all are kings and priests by God's 
 acts, and not by the act of Joe Smith or any 
 other impostor. I call Joe an impostor 
 because he pretended to be what the Bible 
 declares he could not be. If a set of men 
 were to set themselves up as a constitutional 
 convention I would call them impostors, 
 because the people had not called them to 
 any such work. 
 
 Let us now examine New Testament his- 
 tory for a few minutes. After revelations 
 ceased with Malachi, the Israelites were 
 under the written word of God, in the Old 
 Testament. John the Baptist preached 
 unto them repentance toward God, and an- 
 nounced unto them the coming of the Mes- 
 siah. Jesus came, preached and instructed 
 his apostles to prepare them for the work 
 they were to do after his departure. Joel, 
 John and Jesus promised that the most 
 complete manifestation of the Holy Spirit 
 ever given to men should usher in the per- 
 fect dispensation. Jesus promised theCom- 
 lorter to his apostles to do for them what 
 he had done while with them ; that they 
 should be endued with power, by the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Spirit, whichshould usher 
 in his kingdom with power. Jesus abro- 
 gated to Mosaic dispensation by his death. 
 The apostles began the work of building 
 tiie church on the day of Pentecost. They 
 preached and baptized persons into Christ. 
 
 They had their converts, met as Christian- 
 worshiping assemblies. So long as the con- 
 gregations were not too numerous, the apos- 
 tles took personal charge of them and 
 taught tnem. They did not organize them 
 fully at fiast, but took charge of them them- 
 selves. There was not a perfectly organized 
 congregation until long years after the day 
 of Pentecost. The Old Testament had 
 ceased to be a complete word of God. It 
 could not be such to the congregations of 
 Christians. The apostles gave to the con- 
 gregations the inspired teaching they need- 
 ed. When congregations became so numer- 
 ous that an apostle could not be with them, 
 the apostles laid hands on suitable persons 
 and imparted to them the spiritual gifts 
 decribed in I. Cor. xii. Their object was 
 three-fold. I. To supply needed inspired 
 teaching. II. To govern the churches. 
 III. To attest and confirm the inspiration 
 and teachings of these teachers and govern- 
 ors. There is no dispute between my oppo- 
 nent and myself that these miraculous pow- 
 ers were in the church iu the days of the 
 apostles ; that they were necessary then. 
 
 The issues are then, I. Was the church 
 then a model? Was it in the condition 
 that was designed to be permanent. II. 
 Does the word of God ordain that all that 
 was in the church then, is to remain always 
 in the church? My opponent admits that 
 the New Testament is the constitution of 
 the church. Just as the people through state 
 legislatures selected delegates to form our 
 National constitution, eo God, through 
 Christ selected the apostles to give the con- 
 stitution, the New Testament, to the church 
 and to organize the church under it. The 
 apostles gave the word of God orally at 
 first, and organized churches. Then they 
 reduced it to writing and left it in writing 
 with the churches they had organized, un- 
 der the oral announcement of the constitu- 
 tion. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit gave 
 the church every word of the constitution, 
 through apostles or companions of the apos- 
 tles. Our fathers in constitutional conven- 
 tion gave to the people the constitution. 
 They ruled the people under the articles 
 of confederation. The people adopted the 
 constitution and organized a national gov- 
 ernment under it. The articles of Confed- 
 eration, the government under them ceased 
 and the constitutional convention ceased 
 when it had done its work. The people 
 now live and act under the constitution. 
 They have only such officers as it ordains ; 
 only such officers as it ordains have succes- 
 sors. Miraculous power was to give inspir- 
 ed teaching, or give the constitution, or to 
 rule provisionally the churches. It was 
 constitution-making power. The apostles 
 were the constitutional convention of the 
 church. I hope my opponent will not be 
 so silly as to repeat ; " God gives the con- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 279 
 
 stitution not the apostles." The people 
 through their delegates ordained our con- 
 stitution. God through his chosen dele- 
 gates ordained the constitution of the 
 church, the New Testament. The differ- 
 ence between my opponent and myself is 
 here. I believe that when miraculous power 
 had given revelation, the constitution, 
 then miraculous power, constitution mak- 
 ing power ceased. He would have consti- 
 tution making power perpetual and the only 
 power in the church. I believe that wheu 
 the constitution makers did their work, 
 gave the constitution, then they ceased to 
 act. He would have them perpetual, and 
 the only power in the church. I believe 
 that the constitution makers perfected their 
 work. He would have constitution making 
 goon forever. I believe that constitution 
 making, and the constitution makers pre- 
 pared fora perfect government under the 
 constitution, and ceased when that the 
 perfect government was constituted. He 
 contends that constitution making and 
 constitution makers shall continue for 
 ever and never give place to what the 
 constitution ordains. They are forever 
 preparing, getting ready for something 
 that never comes. The constitution pro- 
 vides for constitutional officers and their 
 successors, but it does not ordain that con- 
 stitution-making and constitution-making 
 officers shall go on for ever. It does not 
 provide for actual constitution-making and 
 an actual succession of constitution makers. 
 Judas had a successor just as a delegate 
 who dies while a convention is in session 
 is succeeded by another person, selected by 
 the people through their legislature. Paul 
 was the apostle- of the gentiles just as 
 Canada might have had delegates in our 
 constitutional convention, had their inde- 
 pendence been acknowledged and had they 
 applied for union with us. But no apostle 
 had a successor when the constitution was 
 made, the New Testament was completed, 
 any more than our constitution makers 
 have had successors. We can fill vacancies 
 in offices ordered by the constitution, but 
 we do not fill vacancies in constitution- 
 making offices now, for there are no such 
 offices. The apostles are such officers, and 
 have no successors. We now lay hands on 
 men to set them apart to work under the con- 
 stitution, the New Testament. We do not 
 lay hands on them to impart miraculous 
 power, constitution-making power, for the 
 apostles completed that work, and we have 
 neither constitution making nor makers, 
 nor do we impart constitution making 
 power. The fallacy of my opponent's ap- 
 plication of the many passages ot Scriptures 
 he reads, is this: He reads of what was 
 done by the constitution makers and what 
 existed and was necessary before the con- 
 stitution was completed, and the church 
 completed under it, and applies it to an 
 entirely different period, and state of 
 affairs, the Church after the constitution is 
 completed, and the church completed in 
 organization under it. It he can show that 
 the constitution ordains that what he reads 
 
 was to be permanent in the church, he has 
 accomplished his object. Until hedoes, his 
 reading is as bootless as to read what was 
 done under the law of Moses. Christ gave 
 apostles, prophets and evangelists, shep- 
 herds and teachers with miraculous powets, 
 during the constitution-making period, ano 
 until the constitution was made, for such 
 were constitution-making powers. Bu', 
 when the constitution was made, such con- 
 stitution-making power ceased. Proving 
 that they existed before the "until" doe! 
 not prove that they must exist after the 
 "until." Let him address himself to the 
 last work. God set in the church the nina 
 miraculous powers. Yes, they were con- 
 stitution-making powers, and he set them 
 in the church during that period before, 
 " The more excellent way" when the con- 
 stitution was made had come. Let him 
 show that the constitution makes them a 
 part of the more excellent way. Then he 
 will prove his point. God created animals 
 and plants by miracle, before natural law 
 prevailed. That does not prove that he 
 does now. Because God set miraculous 
 powers in the church before the constitution 
 was completed, as constitution-making 
 powtrs, it do.'s not prove that he sets them 
 in the church under the constitution, after 
 constitution-making is no longer needed 
 A man has guardians v/hile a minor. That 
 does not prove that he has guardians when 
 a man. No, we reason that what he needed 
 in his childhood has ceased, being no 
 longer needed. God set miraculous powers 
 in the church iu its childish condition. 
 When the church became a man it laid to 
 one side such childish things, as Paul de- 
 clares. My opponent claims that we have 
 no prophets and apostles in our church. 
 The people of the United States have the 
 work of the Conotitutional Convention in the 
 Constitution and the government in accord- 
 ance with it. They do not need to have an 
 eternal Constitutional Convention, an * ier- 
 nal constitution-. riaking, to have the work, 
 the Constitution. Indeed such an attempt 
 would prevent the people's ever having 
 their work. It would be like a general's 
 eternally organizing the army and never 
 using it in the work for which all organizing 
 is done. We have the apostles in our 
 church, just as we have Christ. In the 
 constitution they gave us, in their law, 
 in their work. Just as we have our Con- 
 stitutional Convention in our Constitu- 
 tion and the government under it. My 
 . opponent grew witty over his gun illustra- 
 tion. That gun will kick him so that it 
 will do naore harm at the breech than it will 
 at the muzzle. The difference between us 
 is this. I take the gun just as it came from 
 the armory of heaven and use it. He throws 
 away the gun and tries to use Joe Smith's 
 bogus gun making machine, pretended 
 miraculous power to make another. I take 
 the gun as it came from the armory of 
 heaven. He substitutes from Joe Smith's 
 bogus gun factory, a new barrel in the Book 
 of Mormon, a new stock in the Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants, a new lock in the 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Hook of Abraham, and keeps on throwing 
 away what was manufactured in heaven's 
 armory and putting in what came from Joe's 
 bog-us gun factory until he finishes with 
 a bran new and appropriate touch hole 
 in Joe's polygamy revelation. And when 
 he is done, his gun bursts and blows 
 his brains out and kicks his remains out 
 of sight. He grows witty over nay quoting 
 the language of the Devil. Yes, I quoted 
 it te him. He regards it as "the fullness 
 of the Gospel," Smith's lying fraud, the 
 Book of Mormon. The Devil is the father of 
 lies, and the Book of Mormon the most mon- 
 strous of his progeny. I concluded if he 
 valued so highly the Devil's work in the 
 Book of Mormon, he would accept as gospel 
 a direct quotation from him. Since my op- 
 ponent regards "Mormon" as a Scriptural 
 name, and so precious a name, and the word 
 means "a ghost," "a hobgoblin," doubtless 
 he regards Beelzebub, the father of Hob- 
 goblin's, as a choice Scriptural name. I do 
 not. He wants to know why I say, baptize 
 "into." I care not whether in or into. The 
 one baptism in the church is in the name. 
 Holy Spirit baptism is not. It is not in the 
 church. He has not answered and dare not 
 answer our questions. Were the Samaritans 
 children of God before the apostles went 
 down to them? Had they been born of 
 God? Born of water and the Spirit? If 
 they had not, did the apostle give the Holy 
 Spirit to sinners, when Jesus says such can 
 not receive him? He wants to know why 
 the apostles imparted the miraculous influ- 
 ence of the Spirit to the Samaritans and 
 others. The constitution, the word of God, 
 was not completed, and they needed mira- 
 culous power to supply inspired teaching 
 until inspiration was completed, in the New 
 Testament. When inspired teaching was 
 completed in the New Testament such 
 power was needed no longer. 
 
 As my opponent Is so good, his religion 
 makes him so good, I dare not say he wil- 
 fully misrepresents me. No, he is honest, 
 no doubt. So good a man would never mis- 
 represent me. I must charge it to his ignor- 
 ance and lack of sense enough to under- 
 stand me and the word of God. I have said 
 that there are two influences of the Holy 
 Spirit ; one manifested in miraculous power. 
 The other manifested in moral power, 
 through the truth he has revealed. My 
 honest opponent in his extreme ignorance 
 and lack of ordinary sense, says that I say 
 there are two Holy Ghosts, when I never 
 used the word "ghost." Can you under- 
 stand, sir, one Holy Spirit, who has mani- 
 fested himself in two ways, who has influ- 
 enced men in two ways ? Just as a man 
 can influence another by mesmerising him, 
 or by the truth he presents to him. My 
 good, honest, ignorant friend cannot under- 
 stand the word of God when it declares 
 "There are different gifts, but the same 
 Spirit." "There are diffeient operations 
 (of the Spirit), but one God." Nor when 
 it declares God bore the apostles witness 
 with manifold powers and distributions of 
 the Spirit. He, honest, ignorant soul that 
 
 he is, supposes that it means different holy 
 ghosts, manifold holy ghosts, and his infi- 
 del lackies, and Danites in the audience, 
 whose brains are in their heels instead of 
 in their heads, stamp, yell, whistle, clap 
 and cheer such honest idiocy. 
 
 I said that the miraculous influence of the 
 Holy Spirit was not a moral influence on 
 the one it influenced or inspired. I repeat 
 it. It was given to wicked persons such as 
 Balaam, Saul, King of Israel, Caiaphas, the 
 Pharaohs, the Abimlechs of the Bible. It 
 left them just as it found them. Such was 
 the case with all of these parties. They 
 did not, while under its influence, utter, 
 what they wanted to utter. They did not 
 often understand what they had uttered. 
 It used them to reveal truth which is God's 
 power unto salvation, which begets, which 
 sanctifies. I said that the condition of the 
 church while it was dependent on the frag- 
 mentary revelations uttered by men with 
 Spiritual gifts was inferior to that state 
 when it had the complete word of God ; all 
 these fragments united in the New Testa- 
 ment. So Paul declares. The condition of 
 a man who has completed his course of 
 study and has the full course in his library 
 and head, is superior to his condition when 
 his teachers were giving him a fragment at 
 a time, no matter how talented such teach- 
 ers may have been. Here again my honest, 
 good opponent misunderstood me. He rep- 
 resents me as teaching that the imparting 
 of Spiritual power reduced persons to a 
 lower condition than they vere in before 
 such powers were imparted. Poor, honest, 
 ignorant, good soul that he is. How hia 
 ignorance and lack of sense is to be pitied; 
 but then so good a person must be honest 
 in it. Because I claim that a man who has 
 completed his studies and is no longer under 
 teacher's supervision, is superior to hia 
 condition under teachers, of course I teach 
 that when his parents took him from his 
 condition before he had teachers, and put 
 him under teachers, they put him in a lower 
 condition than he was before he had any 
 teachers. Because I say that our condition 
 under our completed constitution is better 
 than when the constitutional convention 
 was in session, of course, I teach that when 
 the people set that convention to work, they 
 put themselves in a much lower condition 
 than they were in before they set it at 
 work. 
 
 Because I assert that the world is In a 
 higher condition now, when creation has 
 been completed and it is under the operation 
 of natural law, than when God was bring- 
 ing animals and plants into existence by 
 miracle or direct creation, of course I teach 
 that when God changed the world from 
 chaos to the beginning of his course of crea- 
 tion he reduced it to an inferior condition. 
 So good a sonl as my opponent must be 
 honest in all this. If so, his stolidity is to 
 be pitied. No doubt he was honest, the 
 good soul that he is, in representing me as 
 teaching that the direct and immediate in- 
 fluence of the Spirit led to folly, impurity, 
 crime, and polygamy. I said that such an 
 
THE BRADEX AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 281 
 
 rnfluence was not exerted now could not 
 be received now ; that men mistook their 
 own frenzies for such influence, and gave 
 loose reins to their heated frenzies and pas- 
 sions, and that had given to the world such 
 abominations. No doubt so good a man, 
 with such a religious spirit, was honest in 
 thatoutnigeous falsification of my language. 
 I never said that the Book of Mormon taught 
 
 Polygamy. It does leave the door open for 
 ;. But, good, honest soul, he is mistaken 
 in that. I said that a pretence to a direct 
 influence of the spirit led to that lying reve- 
 lation. 1 said Ananias was a special apos- 
 tle. An apostle is one who is sent. Anan- 
 ias was sent by the Holy Spirit to do a 
 special work If it were his usual preroga- 
 tive to impart the Holy Spirit, why did the 
 Holy Spirit by miracle tell him that he 
 could and should do such a work? Ananias 
 said, " The Holy Spirit has sent me to you 
 thatyou may be filled with the Holy Spirit." 
 I will accept all cases of such persons who 
 by miracle or direct revelation have been 
 sent to do a certain work. Has he found 
 any other? The very fact that God had to 
 speak to Ananias and give him authority 
 to do this work, proves that none but an 
 apostle could do it Paul declares that the 
 gift of God that was in Timothy was by the 
 laying of hands. He speaks of a gift that 
 was in Timothy that was given by proph- 
 ecy by the laying on of the lands of the 
 Presbytery, if the gift was different, Paul 
 imparted the miraculous power and the 
 Presbytery did not impart any miraculous 
 power, for Paul had already done that. 
 They set him apart to his work as Saul and 
 Barnabas were set apart. 
 
 We give more proof that only an apostle 
 could impart the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Galatians, 3-5. "He that supplies to 
 you the Spirit, and works powers in you, 
 does he do it by works of law, or by the 
 message of the faith?" II Cor. '12-12. 
 "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought 
 among you, in all patience in signs and 
 wonders and in mighty power." Horn. 15- 
 19. "I will not dare to speak of anything, 
 save these that Christ wrought through 
 me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by 
 word and deed, in the power of signs and 
 wonders in the power of the Spirit of God." 
 Rom 1-11. For I long to see you that I may 
 impart unto you some spiritual gift to the 
 end that you may be established." From 
 these Scriptures we learn: I. 'There were 
 those that supplied the Holy Spirit, and 
 worked in the saints miraculous powers. 
 II. That Paul or an apostle alone could do 
 this. III. That the power to impart these 
 spiritual gifts, miraculous powers, was the 
 eiirn of apostleship. With this accords the 
 declaration in Acts viii: 18, "The Holy Spirit 
 was jriven through the laying on of the 
 apostle's hands." This declaration, that 
 the Holy Spirit was given through the 
 laying on of the apostle's hands settles the 
 matter. He never was given in any other 
 way. 
 
 We will now move on to the real battle- 
 ground, Eph. iv and I Cor. xii, xiii. In 
 
 Eph. iv we read that when Christ ascended 
 he gave gifts unto men. We are agreed 
 that these gifts were miraculous powers. 
 He gave men to the church to be apostles. 
 Their work required miraculous power. It 
 was constitution-making work, and it re- 
 quired constitution-making power. And he 
 gave some men to the church to be proph- 
 ets. Their work was miraculous. It was 
 giving revelations, uttering the ideas of 
 inspiration. He gave men to the church to 
 be evangelists. Some of the evangelists, if 
 not all, in that state of the church had mi- 
 raculous power. It was needed in the state 
 in which the church was then. He gave 
 some men to the church to be shepherds 
 and teachers. Some of the shepherds and 
 teachers of the church in the state it was 
 then in had miraculous power. They were 
 needed in the state the church was then in. 
 These miraculous powers were given for 
 what purpose? "For the perfecting of the 
 saints." The saints were to be perfected 
 for what? "Unto the work of ministering." 
 They ministered for what? "Unto the 
 building up of the body of Christ, the 
 church." The church was to grow up in 
 all things into Christ, who is the head of 
 the body, the church, " From whom all the 
 body fitly framed and put together, through 
 every joint of supply, according to the 
 working in due measure of each several 
 part, maketh increase of the body unto the 
 building up of itself in love." These mirac- 
 ulous powers were to perfect the saints for 
 the work of ministering. They were to be 
 perfect for building up of the church. Then 
 the church was, by its own parts, joints 
 and members to build itself up. This mi- 
 raculous power was not to do it. 
 
 The constitutional convention is appointed 
 to perfect the people for the work of organ- 
 izing the body, the government. When 
 that is done, then each part that the con- 
 stitution ordains, the government that it 
 ordains, builds up itself. The constitu- 
 tional convention does not continue to build 
 what it has already built and completed. 
 Constitution-making and government-or- 
 ganizing are done. Tbe man has reached 
 his growth. The government now performs 
 its functions as a perfect government. The 
 man now performs his duties as man. He 
 does not continue to grow or liveas a minor 
 under teachers. We will now go back and 
 look at it again. These powers were given 
 to the church, and were to perfect the 
 Saints for the work of the ministry, and 
 this ministry was the building up of the 
 church. Common sense would say that 
 when that was done the work was com- 
 pleted, and they would cease, just as when 
 the constitution is perfected and the gov- 
 ernment organized under it, all con^titu- 
 tion-making powers cease, having accom- 
 plished their work. So the Holy Spirit 
 declares. It declares these miraculous pow- 
 ers, these constitution-makinir powers, were 
 to do their work and exist, "until." There 
 is a period before the "until-," the constitu- 
 tion-making period There is a period after 
 "until," the period when the church ia 
 
282 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 the perfect cont ruction and perfectly 
 org;inized in accordance with it. Uni.il 
 wnen? "Fntil we attain unto the unity of 
 the faith," the word of (Ind. until the con- 
 stitution is completed, ami "of the knowl- 
 edge of (he Son of (i.-d " thr urh his com- 
 pu ted gospel. Also "unto a full grown 
 man," until the body of Christ has become 
 a full grown man. until the government is 
 completely organized under the completed 
 constitution, ihe complete word of God. 
 "Also unto the measure of the stature of 
 the fullness of Christ." It is until that 
 time. When that is accomplished these 
 constitution-making powers cease. They 
 exist until then. Afier that constitution- 
 making powers ceae, having accomplished 
 their purpose. That takes that passage 
 away from him. 
 
 It my opponent will divide the language 
 at the "until" he will find that all miracu- 
 lous, all constitution-making power was 
 before it. After the ''until" there is no 
 miraculous or constitution-making power. 
 It has accomplished its purpose. The con- 
 stitution declares miraculous or constitution- 
 making power exists "until" it has made 
 the constitution, and the government is 
 organized under it. Then it ceases, having 
 accomplished its purpose. My opponent 
 absurdly contends that because he finds 
 constitution-making power before the "un- 
 til" while it was making the constitution, 
 il must exist after the "until" when it has 
 completed its work in completing the con- 
 stitution, and the government has been 
 completed in accordance with the constitu- 
 tion. His own passage is fatal to his absurd 
 position. His position is a flat contradic- 
 tion of all sense and all teaching of the 
 Hcriptures. Cannot he understand that 
 the period before the "until" and the one 
 after it, between the constitution-making 
 period and the one when it has ceased are 
 different. 
 
 We come now to his last struggle. God 
 had imparted to theCorinthian church nine 
 miraculous gifts and set nine miraculous 
 powers in the church. The Corinthians 
 erred not in each one wan ting to exercise all 
 gifts, as he falsely asserts ; but in each one 
 thinking that his one gift was better than 
 all other gifts; and for that reason heshott d 
 be the chief one and the one most hon >red 
 in the church. The apostle beautifully 
 illustrates the church and the exercise of 
 these powers by the human body and its 
 members, and shows that all are essential 
 and all should be honored alike. HH did 
 not approve of Mormon hierarchy of a score 
 of officers from president down. The Corin- 
 thians erred also in regarding these Spiri- 
 tual gifts as the great end of the religion of 
 Christ. Paul exposes that error also. He 
 says, "But desire earnestly the greater gifts, 
 and a more excellent way I will show unto 
 you." My opponent, through ignorance no 
 doubt, for so honest and good a soul would 
 not do it wilfully, represents the apostle as 
 eaying that he had shown unto them a more 
 excellent way than for each one to exercise 
 all gifts. As the Corinthians had each but 
 
 onp gift and had never dreamed of ex^rcis- 
 ing any other, for each thought the gilt he 
 had far aboveall other gifts, the apo*i le did 
 not warn them against what they had not 
 dreamed of, and he did not show them a 
 more excellent way than a way that never 
 had existed, could not exist, and they had 
 never dreamed could exist. My honest, 
 pious opponent blundered grieviously in 
 that falsification of the apostles language. 
 Next he innocently, good, pious soul 
 that he is. transposes the mem hers of the sen- 
 tence and violates all grammar and sense 
 and has nota manuscript or a scholar in the 
 world tosustain him. Bll fiatly forbid such 
 transposition. Finally he caps the climax of 
 his pious honest falsifications of the language 
 by changing the tense from " I show you," 
 into " I have shown you," making it re'fer to 
 what the apostle has said before, and not to 
 what he is about to say ; as the truth of the 
 case declares can be his only meaning. So 
 good a soul as my opponent would not do 
 this wilfully. No doubt he is honest and 
 did it innocently, ignorantly. It through 
 ignorance how great is that ignorance. But 
 when we open our Bibles and discards his 
 falsifications, itstill reads, " Desire earnest- 
 ly the greater gifts and a more excellent 
 way I show unto you." More excellent than 
 what? As the way he had just mentioned 
 was the exercise of the greatest Spiritual 
 gifts, the more excellent must be some other 
 way than the exercise of the greatest Spir- 
 itual gifts. Common sense will allow no 
 other interpretation. The fact that the 
 Corinthians regarded Spiritual gifts as the 
 great end-of the Gospel proves that Paul 
 meant that. He denounces that idea as 
 an error, by declaring that there was a 
 more excellent way than the exercise 
 of the best of these gifts. That such 
 was his meaning the sentences imme- 
 diately following show. He declares all 
 gifts are worthless unless they aid in 
 producing Christian love, Christian charac- 
 ter. He then enters into a eulogy on Chris- 
 tian character, and declares the trreat pur- 
 pose of the gospel is to produce that; and 
 anything that does not do that is worthless. 
 Spiritual gifts are worthless unless they do 
 that. Having thus exposed this error in 
 making spiritual gifts the end, instead of 
 only a means to a higher end, he explains 
 the only way of producing Christian charac- 
 ter, the way that is better than the exer- 
 cise of the best spiritual gifts. He declares 
 prophesying, the prophesying of which he 
 spoke in the xii chap., all speaking by in- 
 spiration ; all knowledge, the knowledge, 
 the revelations of which he spoke in the 
 xii chapter; all tongues the signs of 
 which he spoke in the xii chap., all the 
 spiritual gifts of which he spoke in the xii 
 chapter, shall be done away, cease. The 
 more excellent way than the exercise of the 
 greatest spiritual gifts is a state of the 
 church in which they will be done away. 
 He says this prophesying, this knowledge, 
 these revelations of "which you think so 
 much, are only partial, a fragment, a part 
 of God's word. When that is completed, 
 
TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 283 
 
 or when the perfect word of God has come, 
 these partial revelations will cease, being 
 no longer needed for the church will be in 
 that more excellent way having a complete 
 word, instead of a partial revelation, a frag- 
 ment of it. That is plain common sense. 
 Just what the language means. The apos- 
 tle goes back to his figure of the human 
 body used in the ;xii chapter. In the xii 
 chapter he uses a body. In the xiii he 
 uses his own body, illustrates and personi- 
 fies the church 'with his own body. He 
 says just as I perceived as a child, thought 
 as a child, when I was a child, so the church, 
 now under these spiritual srifts, perceives, 
 thinks and speaks as a child. And just as 
 I put away child's things when I became 
 a man, so the church will put away these 
 childish things, these partial revelations 
 under these spiritual gifts, when it becomes 
 a man, having the sompleted word of God. 
 
 Under these spiritual gifts the church sees 
 as in a mirror darkly, its knowledge is only 
 partial, and a fragment at a time; but 
 when the word of God is completed it will 
 see what it ought to be, the image will be 
 perfect, and it will know what it ought to 
 be. as God knows what it ought to be. 
 The partial and complete do not refer to the 
 church before Christ's second coming and 
 its condition afterwards. There is not a 
 hint of such an idea in the whole context. 
 It refers to two states of the church under 
 the apostles. One was the state under 
 spiritual gifts which were partial in their 
 revelations. The other and more excellent 
 state, was when the word of God, revela- 
 tions were not partial, but perfect in God's 
 word, when gifts would cease, having ac- 
 complished their purpose, and being no 
 more needed. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: My opponent seems much 
 worried over my exposition of the language, 
 "Yet show I unto you a more excellent 
 way." He could take up a plain and 
 positive passage like that of Jesus in John 
 3: 5, and try to translate for you. But 
 when I interpret according to other Bible 
 passages this sentence which shows upon 
 the face of it that there is a mistake some- 
 where, he thinks I arn outside of my pro- 
 vince entirely. Now such a position as that 
 is too frivolous to take up any time with 
 argument. 
 
 There are many passages in the New 
 Testament which require an interpretation, 
 by reason of something being left out or 
 put in the Bible manuscripts which were 
 copied from the original. It is the true 
 minister'!" province to interpret these so as 
 to ajrree with and not contradict any other 
 part of the Bible. And a rule of interpre- 
 tation laid down by a distinguished Bible 
 critic is: "To bring all scripture bearing 
 upon the point in controversy together, and 
 if you thus lorm no contradiction you are 
 right." 
 
 Take the passage in John : "Noman hath 
 seen God at. any lime." 
 
 I turn back to Exdua 24 : 9 & 10, and 
 road thai " Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abi- 
 hu. and seventy of the elders of Israel : saw 
 the (tod of Israel : and there was under his 
 feet a* it were a paved work of a sapphire 
 stone, and as it were the bodv of heaven in 
 
 its clearness. And upon the nobles of the 
 children of Israel he laid not his hand: 
 also they saw God, and did eat and drink." 
 
 This passage in John upon its face then 
 raises a question of explanation. And the 
 evident reason is, that thequalifyingclause 
 has been omitted by the transcriber at some 
 time. It is not difficult from all the 
 passages bearing upon this to tell what it 
 was, however 
 
 Take the language again of Jesus, "All 
 who ever came before me are thieves and 
 robbers." Why, John came before him, 
 and was not. The true explanation is to 
 be made : "All who came before me (who 
 testified not of tne)aretheivesand robbers." 
 
 Again, " Whosoever is born of God cannot 
 sin." 
 
 It is a flat contradiction of the Hebrew 
 letter. 
 
 " Whoseover is born of God (will not con- 
 tinue) in sin." 
 
 Thus with the text, " Yet show I unto 
 you a more excellent way " 
 
 The thought at once springs to the mind 
 the question, was Paul to give these saints at 
 Corinth a new order of instruction in church 
 government and the uses and blessings of 
 the spiritual grifts to what he had then writ- 
 ten, and to what he gave the saints at Ephe- 
 8iis and the church of Jerusalem? Hence, 
 comes in the work of the minister of L'br'tl 
 to teach and instruct. The Eunuch sahi, 
 ' How can I (understand it) except ome 
 man should guide me." Acts 8: 31. And 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 the man must be instructed and sent of the 
 Lord who guides, or he will not guide 
 aright. Theological schools and institutes 
 of learning are all good in their place, but 
 they can no more supply the place of the 
 Holy Spirit in leading the mind and take 
 the place of the true guide, than, they can 
 supply the place of the work of the Holy 
 Spirit upon the mind and heart. But it is 
 as Paul says, "How shall they believe in 
 him of whom they have not heard? How 
 shall they hear without a preacher? And 
 how can he preach except he be sent." 
 Hent of God and duly authorized. Keep 
 this before the people. 
 
 He claims now that he did not divide 
 up the Hol.v Spirit, but only divided 
 its work. Why did he use the term 
 "Miraculous Holy Spirit," indwelling 
 Holy Spirit," etc., for then? "Indwelling 
 Holy Ghost and Miraculous Holy Ghost." 
 They are not my terms. I claim the 
 Holy Spirit to be only such, whatever the 
 form, and whatever the administration, 
 in fact, whether of indwelling, sealing, 
 aiioptingor confirming, it is in all instances 
 inspiring and miraculous. The Holy Ghost 
 to man is miraculous in all of its manifesta- 
 tions. I still say, Mr. Braden, that you 
 made an unwarranted and incorrect division 
 and distinction, and one that is calculated 
 to deceive. 
 
 Again he reflects that the Book of Mor- 
 mon is the cause of polygamy. 
 
 Mr. Braden : I did not say the Book of 
 Mormon taught polygamy. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : You made the argument last 
 night that polygamy was the outgrowth of 
 it. You will not be permitted to misrepre- 
 sent me before this audience on the polyga- 
 my question, sir. If the Book of Mormon 
 does not teach it, nor theSaints.whom I have 
 the honor to represent, believe in it, as they 
 do not, why do you persist in bringing it 
 into your argument? We are now upon 
 the question of your church, its faith, 
 teaching, etc. What has that to do with 
 polygamy? I understand the object of your 
 references to this. 
 
 My opponent drops apostles and prophets 
 from the church for the reason, he says, 
 that they were placed in it for the purpose 
 of "perfecting" giving us the constitution. 
 But he also drops out all the spiritual gifts, 
 or gifts through the Spirit: "The word of 
 wisdom," "knowledge," "faith," "gifts of 
 healing," "working of miracles," "proph- 
 ecy," "discerning of spirits," "divers kinds 
 of tongues" and the interpretation of 
 tongues ; these include pretty much all 
 that was calculated to beautify, enlighten, 
 adorn, develop and purify the church, ex- 
 cepting the gifts of apostles, prophets, 
 evangelists, pastors and teachers which he 
 has excluded. These other gifts were not 
 given for the perfecting of the constitution, 
 he will hardly claim either ; and since they 
 were not, will he tell this audience why his 
 church drops them? Or is it for the wise 
 reason which is sometimes given, "Because 
 they are no longer needed"? 
 
 But again he demands that I must show 
 
 that some one has the Holy Spirit now, that 
 brings things to his mind, or it is plain t..at 
 it is not needed. But the question is not 
 does any one enjoy the Spirit now, but 
 does Mr. Braden's church correspond with 
 the church of Christ as described in the 
 New Testament. The Saints enjoyed it 
 then, and the promise was to all if they 
 would keep all his commandments. Mirac- 
 ulous gifts, he says, were to continue until 
 the one faith was completed, or the word 
 " perfected." The word, thegospel, was per- 
 fect when preached by Peter, yet Paul 
 received his knowledge of it by revelation, 
 and he concluded that it was so absolutely 
 perfect, that he said, "Though we or an 
 angel from heaven preach any other let him 
 be accursed, or if any man preach any 
 other, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8. 
 The gospel was perfect then ; called by 
 James the perfect law of liberty ; yet the 
 church was in the highest state of spiritual 
 enjoyment at the same time, and always 
 would have continued thus had there not 
 been a falling away and the Christians 
 turned heathen again and had only a dead 
 form left. 
 
 Let us see how many times the law has 
 been made perfect and complete according 
 to Mr. Braden's ideas of perfection Far 
 back in Moses' time it was not to be added 
 to: Deut. 4:2. "Ye shall not add unto the 
 word which I command you, neither shall 
 you diminish aught from it, that ye may 
 keep the commandments of the Lord your 
 God which I command you." Did he mean 
 to close up the avenues of inspiration and 
 shut God out of the world ? Ps. 19:7 : " The 
 law of the law is perfect, converting the 
 soul." This was more than a thousand j> ears 
 before the birth of Christ. (Shall we dis- 
 card all thai was given afterwards because 
 perfect then? That is the argument of my 
 opponent and his church. Jesus says, "Go 
 ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
 ing them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you." Here it is again : 
 "Teaching them to observe alt things what- 
 soever J have commanded you." 
 
 This was said in the year 33 of the Chris- 
 tian era. But because of it shall we reject 
 the other writings which were made 10, 20, 
 30, 40, 50 and more than 60 years afterwards ? 
 All of the epistles of Peter, John, James, 
 Jude, Paul and the revelations? What an 
 absurd predicament my oppenent has placed 
 himself in. He sends these persons out aa 
 constitution makers. But Jesus sends them 
 as publishers of his commandments only. 
 Jesus says, "My doctrine is not mine but 
 his that sent me'." "The Father which sent 
 me he gave me a commandment, what I 
 should say and what I should speak." 
 Here is where we find the framer of the 
 Constitution. It was God, the Eternal 
 Father, and in the different ages he sent 
 forth his servants into the world to publish 
 this Constitution and teach it to the people, 
 but these servants the people killed and 
 would not hear. Then he sent his Sou with 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 285 
 
 the me'oasre, saying: " Thpy will rpverence 
 my son;" but they called him an impostor, 
 a fraud, collected all the lies they could 
 scrape up which they told about him ; 
 charged him with being a ''deceiver" and 
 an enemy to the govemment and put him 
 to death. They did not want him making 
 constitution for them, as they called it, they 
 had enough constitution, they claimed 
 Moses and the prophets. Don't want any 
 more constitution. "We know that God 
 spoke to Moses, but as for this man we 
 know not from whence he is." Afterwards 
 as Paul says: (God again) "Committed unto 
 us the word of reconciliation. Now then we 
 are ambassadors for Christ as though God 
 did beseech you by us." Why! How Paul 
 does differ from Braden? Instead of being 
 a constitution maker, Paul says he was only 
 an "ambassador," a messenger, agent, one 
 sent to instruct in and urge obedience to the 
 law, or constitution, and not to make laws 
 and constitution. 
 
 But the people were not content with the 
 death of the Son, the heir, but, see Acts 6th, 
 they determined to put down all others who 
 claimed to be preachers of the word ; they 
 therefore opened a discussion with Stephen, 
 selecting the best men they had in their 
 synagogues to carry on the discussion on 
 their side; but, (verse 10), "they were not 
 able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by 
 which he (Stephen) spoke." What did they 
 do then? Let every man think for himself 
 and show a willingness for the principles of 
 truth to triumph? No, that would have 
 been too Christlike ; verse 11. "Then they 
 suborned men which said, we have heard 
 him speak blasphemous words against 
 Moses and against God. And they stirred 
 up the people and the elders and the scri bes 
 and came upon him, and caught him and 
 Drought him to the council. And set up 
 false witnesses which said, this man ceaseth 
 not to speak blasphemous words against 
 this holy place and the law. For we have 
 heard him say," (such and such things). 
 Was not that a pretty way to do Stephen 
 after they had agreed to discuss their differ- 
 ences and abide the issue from what was 
 written in their law? Which side there, 
 my friends, showed that it was willing to 
 abide by the faith as set forth in God's 
 word, and which showed a greediness for 
 the falsehoods and stories? I ask my op- 
 ponent here, to answer? But after they 
 bring in their stories they permit Stephen 
 again to answer, and he begins citing them 
 to the law and testimony as written in their 
 Bible, (the Old Testament Scriptures), ap- 
 pealing to that 'o prove his cause, and as he 
 proceeds, the Spirit of God is sent forth to 
 aid him, so that it is perceptibly felt and 
 realized by the entire audience, and his ap- 
 peals to the law and the testimony of Moses 
 imi the prophets is so powerful and cutting 
 because of their hypocrisies, false manner 
 of attack and evil works, that they get so 
 mad they will endure it no longer, and so 
 determined to get rid of him another way, 
 and rushed upon him with stones and clubs 
 and mercilessly beat him to death, although 
 
 he had shown in his work that he possessed 
 the true spirit that belonged to iii , . .0-11 
 of God from the first. He stood upon the 
 doctrine of appealing to the law in fairness. 
 Not to the stories told, or violent means. 
 Now, I will hurriedly read to you a sketch 
 of the manner the Disciples (Campbellites) 
 met and vanquished the Saints, at Hiram 
 over here, where they have the Restored 
 Church, in 1831. from their own history. 
 History of the Disciples in the Western 
 Reserve, page 220: 
 
 " Perhap>. in no place except Klrtland dH the doc- 
 *' trines of the Latter D*y Saints gain a more p^rma- 
 " nent footing than in Hiram. It intrenched itself 
 " there so strong that its leaders felt assured of the 
 " capture of the town. Rudon's former popularity in 
 "that region gave wings to their appeal, and many 
 "people, not avowed conye'ts, were under a spell of 
 " wonder at the strange things sounded in their ears. 
 "To give particulars of the Mormon excitement i 
 " Wl would require a volume. A few words must 
 " suffice. It has been stated that from the year 1815 to 
 " 1835, a period of twenty years, all sorts of doctrines 
 1 by all sorts of preachers had been plead, and most of 
 1 the people of Hiram had been disposed to turn out 
 ' and hear. This went by the specious name of ' lib- 
 ' eral." The Mormons at Kirtland, being informed of 
 ' this particular iiate of things, were soon prepared 
 ' for the onst-t." 
 
 I call your attention particularly to the 
 appeals made by the Saints, then, as set out 
 by their enemie*s,in behalf of their religion. 
 There was no fraud or deception in this 
 no fear manifest of meeting the issues hon- 
 orably. As men advocating principles 
 which they believed to be true, wherever 
 they found a place where they would be 
 permitted to compare their views with oth- 
 ers, as the saints of old, they gladly ac- 
 cepted the opportunity. However, they 
 were not always met with the same godlike 
 way of working, as you will soon see from 
 this Campbellite historian. He continues : 
 " In the \viuterofl83l, Joseph Smith with others had 
 " an appointment in the South school-house in Hiram. 
 " Such was the apparent piety, sincerity and humility 
 "of the speaker-, that maiiy of the hearers WIT* 
 " greatly affected, and thought it impossible tnat such 
 " preachers should lie in wait to deceive. 
 
 " During the next spring and summer several con. 
 " verts were ma.le, *rd their suceess seemed to indi- 
 "catean immediate '--iuiTiph in Hiram.*** Accordingly 
 " a company was formed by citi.ens from Shalersville, 
 "Garrettsville and Hiram, in March 18:i2. and pro. 
 "ceededto headqnurters n the darkness of th wf ht, 
 " and took Smith and Rigdon from th ir bed* and tarred 
 " and feathered them both and let them go. This had the 
 " desired effect, which was to get rid of them." 
 
 What a grand spread Braden made last 
 night over the success, as he termed it, of 
 the elders of the Campbellite church meet- 
 ing the Saints when other denominations 
 could not do so! Oh.no! But they knew 
 just how to do it. They circulated around 
 among the people in an underhanded way 
 false stories and all manner of lies against 
 the Saints, and appealed to the prejudices 
 of their poorly-instructed followers, and in 
 this heathenish way raised a mob and "got 
 rid of them." Was this a "restored" fea- 
 ture in Mr. Campbell's church? one taken 
 from these Pharisees who stoned Stephen 
 to death? I have never yet seen in their 
 publications where they denounced it, 
 neither have I ever heard one of their 
 preachers publicly do so. How is it with 
 my opponent? Do you denounce the out- 
 rage thus perpetrated by your members or 
 approve it ? Do you defend freedom of con- 
 
280 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 science and of speech, and a trial of the 
 religious issues in a polemic encounter, or 
 do you urge persons, as in the case of the 
 Jews against Stephen, and the Campbell- 
 ites and others against Smith and Rigdon, 
 to use against men who oppose you the 
 carnal weapons possible? 
 
 Will you answer the question to this 
 audience? But I will continue the line of 
 my argument upon the "perfect law." Paul 
 to Timothy : "From a child thou hast 
 known the Holy Scriptures, which are able 
 to make thee wise unto salvation !" 2 Tim. 
 3:15. Why, here Paul finds enough to 
 make a man wise unto salvation in the Old 
 Testament; the New, was not yet written. 
 He called it "the Holy Scriptures." Bhall 
 we then say, Since you had enough Paul, 
 you had better stop the inspiration bureau, 
 and thus cut out all of the New Testament? 
 Paul again says, Rom., first Chapt., as early 
 as thf year A.D.60: "For I am not ashamed 
 of the gospel of Christ, for therein is the 
 righteousness of God revealed." Is revealed 
 in the year fiO; and yet, the New Testa- 
 ment writers go on revealing and talking 
 by inspiration for nearly forty years after. 
 Take James 1 :25. This was written in the 
 year 60, also : "But whoso looketh into the 
 perfect law of liberty and continueth there- 
 in," etc. Did he mean a complete law? 
 Let us see. Read by substituting the word 
 complete: "Whoso looketh into the (com- 
 plete) law of liberty," this changes the 
 idea and does violence to the wisdom of 
 God. It is the perfect law, in the same way 
 as the Psalmist spoke of the perfect law; 
 but being such, it does not cut off all of 
 God's perfect law, written after this time. 
 Take up the text that he is willing to stand 
 on, so he says : And I will say here that 
 he has been hunting about like a man lost 
 at sea for something to hang to, ever since 
 the discussion began and never found that 
 which would satisfy him till last night. 
 Here it is, 2 Peter, 1:8: "According as his 
 divine power hath given unto us all things 
 that pertain unto life and godliness, through 
 the knowledge of him that hath called us 
 to g'ory and virtue." 
 
 I shall try to examine his strong text, 
 fairly and impartially. Does it mean that 
 Christ has spoken all that is ever needful 
 for man to know and that there is to be no 
 more revelation, prophecy, divine instruc- 
 tion from this date? "Hath given," the 
 apostle says: "Not, is giving or going to 
 give, but "hath given !" Notwithstanding 
 he had then given, we had written after- 
 wards: Paul's 2nd epistle to Timothy, the 
 three epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, 
 the Book of Revelations, and John's gospel. 
 Then he did not mean that all that God 
 wanted tosay, to the human family had been 
 said and there was to be no more inspir- 
 ation? Certainly not. Such a thought would 
 have appalled the inspired Peter. What 
 did he mean? Just what he said, "Hath 
 given unto us all things that pertain unto 
 life and godliness." What are the things 
 that pertain unto life and godliness. 1st. 
 the Comforter ; "If I go away I will send 
 
 him, and he will guide you into all truth?" 
 This then pertaim to life and godliness. 
 "This is eternal life that they might know 
 then the only true God and Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent." How can they at- 
 tain to this? Answer, by the means ordained 
 to lead to life and godliness. The inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit. See Paul's letter: 
 "No man can say (know) that Jesus is the 
 Christ but by the Holy Ghost." This is tho 
 principle upon which Jesus said "I wiH 
 build my church." Not begin to build, 
 remember; he had already begun, but was 
 to continue building, and is yet building; 
 and he says, "I will build," upon the prin- 
 ciple of immediate and direct re\ elation. 
 Hence, Paul says, "After I heard of your 
 faith I ceased not to give thanks that He 
 would give unto you the spirit of wisdom 
 and revelation in the knowledge of him." 
 
 This principle was the great and <-rown- 
 ing one of the all things that pert.-iincd to 
 life and godliness, and without it, Christ's 
 church was not, nor could not have been 
 builded. Will you discard it then ? Now, 
 Mr. Braden, let us hear from you on your 
 strong text which you are willing to rest 
 your case upon. 
 
 I next call your attention to his blunder on 
 Mark, ix : 1. "There be some standing here 
 who shall not tast* of death, till they have 
 seen the kingdom of God come with power." 
 Here is another of his strong pillars; he 
 rests his case here again. 
 
 No difference to him that Jesus had said 
 to the Pharisees " the Kingdom of God is 
 within [among] you," and that " from the 
 days of John the Baptist it had suffered 
 violence," and that men then "pressed 
 into it;" it was only on Pentecost it came 
 with power, and that is the time he says, 
 this was fulfilled in Markix: 1. " There be 
 some standing here who shall not taste 
 death " Well, it was a pretty large sum if 
 he referred to Pentecost, for all of them 
 were there except Judas Iscariot. Yet the 
 language is "There be some." What did 
 Jesus refer to? I answer, to the coming of 
 himself in his kingdom, in power and great 
 glory. Was that on Pentecost? No. He 
 did- not so come then as predicted here. 
 Did any of them see it? Yes. Who? 
 Answer, Peter, James and John. Begin 
 with the second verse of the same chapter: 
 "After six days Jesus taketh with him 
 Peter, James and John and leadeth them 
 up into an high mountain apart by them- 
 selves ; and he was transfigured before 
 them." Jesus is transformed, changed, 
 so that his countenance did "shine as the 
 light." This is the time for the intro- 
 duction of important evidence in the church. 
 There are to be witnesses to something 
 else than the mere reinstating of the church 
 on earth ; it is for the establishment of the 
 the promise, that Jesus will come again in 
 his kingdom, in "power and great glory." 
 
 Hence, he takes his chosen three wit- 
 nesses, all were not permitted to see him 
 even of the twelve; only three witnesses 
 behold this grandest of all things ill hope 
 and promise to the human family. They 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 287 
 
 are overcome with its splendor, grandeur 
 arid power ; Moses and Elias appear, the 
 voice of Ood is heard verifying tbe truth- 
 ullness of the event, and the prophecies 
 ^re truly confirmed. Afterwards the world 
 hrough the witnesses is permitted to know 
 fa surety of he coming of the Kingdom 
 of God in power. Then, does thestatement 
 refer .o the setting up of the kingdom on 
 "'entecost day ? No, sir. Turn to the des- 
 cription of the event and testimony by Peter 
 himself. Second Peter, 1:16. "For we 
 have not followed cunningly devised fables, 
 when e made known unto you the power 
 and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but 
 were eye 'itnesses of his majesty. For he 
 received from God the Father honor and 
 glory /hen ohere came such a voice to him 
 from the excellent glory : This is my beloved 
 Bon. n whom I am well pleased."' 
 
 when did the event of witnessing this 
 rlory md power of Jesus coming in his 
 ^Cliufdo ;i with the just of earth take place? 
 8e- versa 18: " And this voice which came 
 fro >i h aveii we heard when we were with 
 Mm 'u the Holy mount." 
 
 Her i then is the fulfillment of Mark ix: 1, 
 as declared by Peter himself, and it was 
 nob oa Pentecost day. Ho another pillar has 
 gone from under Braden's church. 
 
 Again, they are the " royal priesthood, 
 an holy nation, a peculiar people," he says. 
 All kings and priests. No queens among 
 them. But you cannot touch a Disciple 
 without coming in contact with a king and 
 priest. The other evening, however, he 
 hooted at the idea of any one having the 
 royal, or Melchizedek priesthood. Christ 
 was the last of the line, and heentered into 
 the vail, and was their prophet, priest and 
 king. Now, he says, all are priests and 
 hinffs; and yet not a sign of Priesthood. 
 No, no; only such impostors as "Joe 
 Smith," he says, 'claim such things," and 
 he says, " if I have proven him an impostor 
 I have a right to call him one." Yes, and 
 if he has not proven any such thing (and 
 truly he has not even bordered on to proving 
 it), he has no right to use the expression ; 
 but to the priesthood question. 
 
 I can see how Peter could speak of the 
 church then, as a "chosen generation, a 
 royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar 
 people:" Because thy were chosen of God 
 by his Spirit for their work ; called by in- 
 spiration. The church was built up "an 
 habitation of God through the Spirit." All 
 were in the bonds by virtue of the love of 
 God shed abroad in the heart. They were 
 in possession of the ro.val, or Melchizedek 
 priesthood, and conferred it; hence, the 
 right of ordination and conferring of some- 
 thing. As Jesus was sent, so he sent the 
 apostles, and he was made a priest after 
 the order of Melchizedek, the royal line. 
 I can see all this, but where does it harmo- 
 nize with a church with no one sent; no 
 priesthood; no Holy Ghost ; no habitation 
 of God through the spirit? 
 
 But, he says, h gets his in Revelations, 
 1:6 and 5:10: "And hath made, us kings 
 and priests untoour God." When ar^they ? 
 
 Now? Read on, "and we shall reign on 
 the earth." What! reign and minister 
 before the kingdom is conferred ? Can you 
 enter upon your work in the priest, or 
 kingly office before you have received your 
 authority? Paul was chosen when Jesus 
 first -uet him in the way; but long after- 
 wards he was authorized and set apart by 
 the instruction of the Holy Spirit for the 
 special duties of a minister. But they are 
 all kings and priests in Mr. Braden's church 
 now. No authority can be conferred. They 
 are all away up at the top of the ladder. 
 Let us see further. Revelations, 20:6. 
 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in 
 the first resurrection ; on such the second 
 death hath no power, but they shall be 
 priests of God and Christ, and shall reign 
 with him a thousand years." Shall rei^n 
 with Christ if they have part in the first 
 resurrection. And this is why they are 
 called kings and priests. But our Curnp- 
 bellite friends have the cart before the 
 horse, and are reigning and ministering 
 before the time' of the resurrection and the 
 thousand 3 r ears. Does not this prove Mr. 
 Campbell a restorer ? And remember, my 
 friends, that these disciples are not heirs, 
 simply. There are no princes even among 
 them. They are kings and priests now, 
 according to Braden, and have, therefore, 
 entered upon their inheritances, and we 
 must look out, for ihey are reigning. 
 
 He says again, that an event that always 
 attends preaching is no confirmation. This 
 is a mistake. Preaching is just as edifying 
 once a week as twice a year. The enjoy- 
 ment of the Spirit is just as comforting 
 and confirming received every day, and 
 more so, than but once a year ; or, as the 
 Disciples have it, never. "The confirming 
 of Peter and John did not answer for Paul. 
 He required a similar confirmation, as do 
 all the children of God. It is not an im- 
 peachment of the word to require the mani- 
 festation of the Spirit, or new revelation, 
 for the word of God no where forbids it. 
 "I will give you line upon line, precept 
 upon precept, here a little and there a lit- 
 tle" as God wills is the thought expressed 
 in the revelation of his word. But Mr* 
 Braden's position is: Bar out God, and Christ, 
 and angels, and the Holy Spirit. If you 
 wish to know anj'thing about these things, 
 just read what Paul said he knew about 
 such things, and that will be all sufficient. 
 Is this a corrcet one? No, never. Kvery 
 ehi d of God needs, and is entitled to, the 
 revelation of the Spirit to him or herself, 
 that they may have the testimony of Jesus 
 and attain to the knowledge of God. "This 
 is life eternal that they might know thee 
 theonly true God and Jesus Christ whom, 
 thou has sent." "No one can say that Jesus 
 is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." But 
 he says, there are two states of the church 
 represented. One under the gifts, the other 
 without them, and that the church without 
 the gifts is the more excellent one. Let us 
 see : In First, Corinthians, 12, Paul likens the 
 church unto the body of a man, and says: 
 
 "For as tbe body is one and batb many members and 
 
288 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY EEBATE. 
 
 'nil the members of Ihnt one body, being many, are 
 'one body, so also is Christ." Verse 12, "For the body 
 1 is not one member but many ; if the foot shall say, 
 ' Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it 
 'therefore, not of the body ? If the ear shall say be- 
 ' cause I am not the eye I am not of the body, is It 
 ' therefore, not of the body ? If the whole body were 
 ' an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole we e 
 ' hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath 
 'God set every one of the members in the body as it 
 'hath pleased him. Now there are many members, 
 'but one body. " 
 
 Paul goes on to tell what he means by 
 this illustration as applied to the church. 
 He says, "and God hath set some in the 
 "church, first apostles, secondarily proph- 
 " ets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, 
 "then gifts of healing, helps, governments 
 "and diversities of tongues." Theapostles, 
 prophets, teachers, miracles, tongues, inter- 
 pretations, &c., were to the church what 
 eyes, hearing, tasting, smelling, hands and 
 feet are to the body of a man. 
 
 The perfect man with eyes and ears and 
 mouth and tasting and smelling, hands and 
 feet, &c., represents the true church of 
 Christ as set out by Paul. But Mr. Braden 
 says, "This perfect man did not represent 
 the highest state of the church ; that this 
 is Paul in infancy playing with toys; but 
 the perfect church, or full grown man, 
 and higher developed church came after.'' 
 Then it would be appropriately represented 
 by a man who has no eyes, nor ears, nor 
 mouth, nor smelling, nor hands, nor feet. 
 Hence the Campbellites gouge out Paul's 
 man's eyes, (apostles), and tear off his ears, 
 (prophets), deprive him of smelling and 
 tasting, close up his mouth, against inter- 
 pretations, cut off his hands and feet, (helps 
 and governments inspired of God), and then 
 present their blind, deaf, dumb and maim- 
 ed man to the world and mount the old 
 Christian constitution with an assumptions 
 claim that they "stand on the Bible and the 
 Bible alone," and swear in their wrath 
 that they have restored Paul's man to life, 
 that the old church has come again. Paul's 
 was full of light, and hope ; could see, and 
 hear, and smell, and taste, and walk, and 
 work, and grow in grace and the knowl- 
 edge of the Lord ; but theirs is the more ex- 
 cellent one, Braden says. He is blind, and 
 deaf, and dumb; cannot walk or use his 
 hands, and has no life or sense. What a 
 similarity indeed, there is between these 
 two churches ! What a restorer Mr. Camp- 
 bell must have been ! ! They go on and ar- 
 gue that the seeing man was to be done 
 away, but the blind, and deaf one, was to 
 be continued, not done away. 
 
 My friends, Paul's child church is the 
 church of Christ on earth, seeing and know- 
 ing in part by the aid of prophecy and 
 tongues, and all other spiritual gifts; and 
 the full grown, or perfected state of the 
 church, will be, when a full knowledge is 
 revealed, when Christ is come, when "we 
 Bhall know as we are known and see as 
 we are seen." Then that through which 
 only a part could be revealed will be done 
 away. Paul did not convey the thought 
 thatanother church would arise that would 
 eclipse in glory the one which lie set forth, 
 and which he labored to build up, which 
 
 might appropriately be illustrated by a 
 blind, deaf, mute, lifeless, man.' .No, nev- 
 er tliought of such a thing. But, that the 
 church established on earth with authority, 
 power, and gifts as the means by which it 
 should be built up and guided would, at 
 some time, be ushered into the full glory of 
 Christ and this time was at his comi.ni/; and 
 that all partial gifts not essential to that 
 age of light and perfect knowledge and glo- 
 ry would be done away. It is plain enough 
 for even a wayfaring man to see. 
 
 But Braden goes on and tries to make out 
 that the gospel never was preached in fact 
 until the day of Pentecost. In order to sup- 
 port this assumption he proceeds to divide 
 thegospel into several parts, and hasthegos- 
 pel in prospect.and thegospel in process, and 
 thegospel in fact ; but where does he get the 
 gospel of prospect and the gospel of pro- 
 cess ? Not in the Bible. With all the reve- 
 lations of ancient and modern days, it was 
 left for the Campellites to reveal the gospel 
 of prospect and process. Christ is the cen- 
 tral figure of the gospel, and it is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that be- 
 lieveth. This was true before the days of 
 Christ's earthly ministry as it was after. 
 The only difference is, the saints in the 
 olden time believed that he would come, 
 and the saints now believe that he has 
 come. Jesus' existence was just as much a 
 reality before the time that he was born of 
 a virgin as it was after. He was as "a lamb 
 slain from before the foundation of the 
 world." "Before Abraham was, I am," 
 says Christ. He was in the church in the 
 wilderness. Christ was so truly known, 
 and the gospel so really preached in olden 
 times, that Job exclaims, ''I know that my 
 Redeemer liveth," and after that skin 
 worms had destroyed his body (or after the 
 resurrection), standing upon the earth, in 
 the latter days in his flesh he should see 
 God. "Immortality and eternal life is 
 brought to light by the gospel." Immor- 
 tality and a perpetuity of light is not re- 
 vealed or attained through any system but 
 the gospel. In it Enoch's hope was found- 
 ed, and he looked forward and saw Christ 
 coming with ten thousand of his saints. 
 But this is the gospel of process, according 
 to Mr. Braden, as the event has not trans- 
 pired as yet. Enoch had the gospel just 
 the same as Paul preached ; knew of Christ, 
 and was made partaker of the powers of the 
 world to come because of his faith in God, 
 which is one of the first principles. Heb. 
 6:1, "The gospel was preached to A lira- 
 ham," ami he became the father of the 
 faithful. So all that afe saved through the 
 gospel are to be saved with faithful Abra- 
 ham. Nothing is said about a gospel in 
 prospect, process, or in fact. Abraham 
 heard and understood thegospel, which is 
 " the power of God unto salvation to every 
 one that believeth." It was preached to 
 the Israelites in the wilderness, but they 
 would not abide by it, and Go<l aided the 
 "schoolmaster, ' (the law of Mose.-), which 
 did not make the comers thereunto perfect. 
 It was a "yoke too hard for us or our lath- 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 289 
 
 ers to bear," says Peter. The old iron yoke 
 is one thing, and the gospel of liberty un- 
 derstood by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abra- 
 ham, and presented to the Israelites, is an- 
 other thing. The Israelites rejected the 
 gospel, just as they rejected God when they 
 chose to have a king. But let us come a 
 little nearer home. " Jesus came into Gali- 
 lee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of 
 God." Mark 1:14. Again, "And Jesus 
 went about all Galilee teaching in their 
 synagogues and preaching the gospel of the 
 kingdom." Matt. 4:23. But, says Braden. 
 "this was in process, or prospect." But 
 Matthew and Mark say nothing about pro- 
 cess, or prospect, or fact. That was left for 
 the Disciples to add to the Bible. Gospel 
 was gospel with Matthew and Mark, wheth- 
 er preached before, on, or after Pentecost. 
 It was all the same with inspired men. But 
 Disciples do not want any gospel until Pen- 
 tecost ; if so, it will have to be modified a 
 little with process, or prospect, or fact. 
 That was a great day with the Campbell- 
 ited as old men dreamed dreams and young 
 men saw visions, the sun was turned into 
 darkness and the moon into blood, and 
 Joel's prophecy was limited to those on 
 whom the apostles laid their hands, while 
 the kingdom came in its glory. But this is 
 Disciple theory only. Jesus said, " The 
 kingdom of God is within (among) you," 
 before Pentecost day. Paul says, "The 
 krigdom of God is not in word, but in 
 
 power." Jesus was advocating its claims 
 and preaching its principles, and men and 
 women were obeying just as truly and 
 really before as they ever did after Pente- 
 cost day. "So John camo into all the coun- 
 try about Jordou preaching the baptism of 
 repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 
 3:3. "Thou s'mll givo knowledge of salva- 
 tion unto his people by the remission of 
 sins." Luke 1 : 77. Here John is preaching 
 the knowledge of salvation. Paul says, 
 "The gospel is the power of God unto sal- 
 vation " John was preaching the gospel. 
 No wonder "John did baptize in the wil- 
 derness and preach tho baptism of repent- 
 ance for the remission of sins." Mark 1:4. 
 "Then went out unto him all Jerusalem, 
 and all Judea, and the region round about 
 Jordan, and were baptized of him, confess- 
 ing their sins." Matt. 3:5, j6. Or, as stated 
 elsewhere, " for the remission of sins." 
 What is the use for men to say, then, who 
 pretend to believe the Bible, that the first 
 gospel sermon in fact was preached on Pen- 
 tecost. Faith in the Savior was taught by 
 all of the prophets ; repentance and bap- 
 tism for the remission ol sins were univer- 
 sally conceded to be right; so that John 
 never had a single controversy with the 
 Jews on this question. Baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit was taught. So much for the pros- 
 pect, and process, and fact gospel. 
 (Time called.) 
 
 - MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Does the constitution of the 
 church of Christ ordain that miraculous 
 powers shall cease out of the church? We 
 announced in our opening speech on the 
 first proposition that this question is the 
 central idea of the discussion, this is the 
 vital is^ue of the debate. If my opponent 
 can show that miraculous powers were to 
 remain in the church, he has a basis for 
 his claim for the inspiration of Smith, and 
 that the Book of Mormon is a revelation, 
 and that his organization can possess these 
 miraculous powers. This would only, how- 
 ever, raise the real issue. Was Smith in- 
 spired? Was the Book of Mormon a reve- 
 lation? Does his organization possess these 
 powers? Proving that a thing is possible 
 does not prove that it really exists. That 
 is a question of fact and not of possibility 
 If we prove that miraculous powers were co 
 cease o-it of tho church, we prove that they 
 cannot sxist novr, nnd that the claim that 
 Joseph Smith wtt! inspired that the Book 
 
 of Mormon is a revelation that Latter Day- 
 Saints possess miraculous powers, is ah 
 utter impossibility. I propose now to do 
 this so thoroughly as to leave no room for 
 cavil. There is no dispute over certain 
 facts. I. There is a Divine person, the Holy 
 Spirit. II. That he inspired all that the 
 Bible declares spoke, wrote or acted by in- 
 spiration from Adam to Malachi. III. He 
 inspired all who spoke, wrote or acted by 
 inspiration from John the Baptist till the 
 last one died to whom an apostle had im- 
 parted spiritual power by the imposition of 
 his hands. IV. That he was promised by 
 Joel and other prophets that he should be 
 
 Eoured out in a wonderful manner at the 
 eginning of the Christian dispensation. 
 V. That he 'was promised in baptism by 
 John and Jesus. VI. That Jesus promised 
 him as the Comforter to his apostles. VII. 
 That Peter promised him to all whom the 
 Lord should call. VIII. That Jesus prom- 
 ised him in his last commission in miracu- 
 lous power, to .ill of his apostles who should 
 
290 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 believe and preach the Gospel. IX. That 
 ho was given in baptism on the day of 
 Pentecost and at the house of Cornelias. 
 X. That he was imparted by the imposition 
 of the apostles' hands, and existed in mira- 
 culous powers in the apostolic churches. 
 
 The issue is this : Do these promises ex- 
 tend to the church now? Does the Holy 
 Bpirit exert miraculous power now? My 
 opponent firstclaimed that because the Holy 
 Spirit, exerted miraculous power once, he 
 does now. We replied, that is no proof. 
 Because God once exerted miraculous power 
 in creation is no proof that he does now. 
 He next claimed that because he was prom- 
 ised, and because it was prophesied that he 
 would exert miraculous power, he does now. 
 We replied, that is no proof. Because the 
 prophets prophesied of Jesus and his work, 
 and promised him, doesn't prove that he is 
 on earth doing. his work now. This drove 
 him to the third position. That the prom- 
 ises and prophecies include the church 
 during all ages, and that the church now 
 possesses these miraculous powers. We 
 took up the promise and history of the bap- 
 tism in the Holy Spirit and proved that 
 there were but two occasions of such bap- 
 tism and that it cannot and does not exist 
 now. Persons who claim it are as absurd in 
 their talk as if they were to claim power to 
 create by miracle. We took up the promise 
 of the Comforter and proved that Jesus was 
 giving his last lecture to his apostles before 
 his death. He was about to leave them. 
 But he would send the Comforter to take 
 his place with the apostles, as he had been 
 with the apostles. This Comforter would 
 recall to the minds of the apostles what 
 Jesus had said to the apostles. Jesus had 
 left a work for the apostles to do. A work 
 they finished, and no one can do it after the 
 apostles died. The Comforter was to qualify 
 the apostles to do their work, this work 
 that Jesus leftjto the apostles alone, and that 
 none but an apostle can do. Hence, he is 
 not given as Comforter to any one now, for 
 no one has the work to do that he, as Com- 
 forter, enabled the apostles to do. We have 
 settled that issue. 
 
 We have now the issue on the miraculous 
 power promised by Joel, Jesus and Peter, 
 and that existed in the church. Joel's 
 promise was to all flesh without limitation. 
 Jesus limited his promise to believing 
 apostles: His promisewas toapostleswho be- 
 lieved and preached the Gospel. Peter's pro- 
 mise was limited to those whom God should 
 call. Joel, Jesus and Peter were proclaim- 
 ing the same law. The Holy Spirit in Joel 
 and Peter and the Word in Jesus do not 
 contradict. As the time was ready for a 
 more complete definition of the promise, 
 when Jesus announced and limited tne 
 promise to believing apostles, so the time 
 was ready for a still further dolJnition of 
 the promise, when the Holy Spirit in Peter 
 delned and further limited il. and he 
 limited it to those that God should call, 
 and those alone. The sole issue now is: 
 How did God call them ? The (Samaritans 
 believed had bee;; baptized, were pardoned, 
 
 had received the Spirit In his ordinary in- 
 dwelling in all believers. The apostles had 
 to come down and lay their hands on them, 
 and call them before they could enjoy the 
 promise of Joel and Peter. Haul of Tarsus 
 believed and was baptized, but Ananias, 
 a special apostle, sent for this purpose, and 
 with power to work miracles and prove his 
 divine authority, had to be sent to Saul 
 and impart the Spirit by his hands. John's 
 disciples at Ephesus were baptized Then 
 Paul laid hands on them and they displayed 
 miraculous power of the Spirit. Timothy 
 received the Holy Spirit as a miraculous 
 gift by Paul's -hands. Thus we show that 
 the promise was limited to those that God 
 called. . And he never called them except 
 by the imposition of an Apostle's hands. 
 We have no instances of persons exercising 
 these gifts when an apostle had not been 
 with them to impart them. We have no 
 instance that any but an apostle imparted 
 them. We have no instance where they 
 descended to a third person. An apostle 
 was one who had seen Jesus. Then when 
 the last one who had seen Jesus died, all 
 power to impart these gifts ceased. When 
 the last one to whom an apostle had im- 
 parted them by his hands died this miracu- 
 lous power ceased. Here we might leave 
 the matter : we have settled it historically 
 but we will do mure: 
 
 All of God's work is progressive in ita 
 character. All of his work has a purpose. 
 This purpose determines. I. Time of be- 
 ginning. II. The manner in which the 
 work is conducted. III. How long it shall 
 continue. IV. When it shall cease. The 
 transgression determined the beginning of 
 the revelation of the plan of redemption, 
 contained in the Bible. The necessities of 
 the work of revealing the plan of redemp- 
 tion determined the manner in whirh it was 
 done, as recorded in the Bible. The object, 
 the revelation of a perfect scheme of re- 
 demption, determined how long it should 
 continue, until that was perfected. The 
 perfection and completion of this plan of re- 
 demption determined when inspiration 
 should cease. It ceased when the revelation 
 of a completed plan of redemption was com- 
 pleted. Just as God created animals and 
 plants by miraculous power, until he com- 
 pleted his work of creation in man, and 
 then ceased creation by miracle, for he had 
 completed the work of creation by miracle, 
 and left the introduction of animals and 
 plants to a higher law, the law of natural 
 production; so when God-had by miracu- 
 lous power, in inspiration, completed the 
 revelation of a scheme of redemption in the 
 New Testament, he ceased miraculous 
 power in inspiration, for such miraculous 
 power had accomplished its work when the 
 revelation of a plan of redemption was 
 perfected. As he accomplishes all intro- 
 duction of animals and plants by a higher 
 law, natural production, soheaccomplishes 
 all results in salvation by a higher law, 
 the operation of perfect divine truth, as 
 recorded in tne word of God. As God is 
 in his higher law, natural production in 
 
THE BIIADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 291 
 
 a higher sense than he was in miraculous 
 power in creation ; so he is in his word in a 
 higher sense than he was in miraculous 
 power. As miraculous creation was pre- 
 paratory to natural law, so miraculous 
 revelation and inspiration were preparatory 
 to a higher law to the moral power of truth 
 in God's word. One error we want to re- 
 move. As God's miraculous power in 
 creation was not a partof the things created, 
 but merely what produced them, and ceased 
 when that work was completed, so miracu- 
 lous power in inspiration was not a part of 
 the things it produced, the word of God 
 and the church ; but what produced them, 
 and ceased when it had done that work. 
 
 My opponent unwittingly admitted this 
 when he used the constitution of the 
 United States as an illustration of the New 
 Testament. The illustration is a most ap- 
 propriate one. The condition of settlements 
 before England gave them charter govern- 
 ments corresponds to the antediluvian 
 dispensation when God bad individual fol- 
 lowers but no organization. The condition 
 under charter governments corresponds to 
 the patriarchal dispensation, when God had 
 families as the organizations. The condi- 
 tion under the Colonial Congress during the 
 revolution, corresponds to the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation, when there was a nation with 
 whom God was dealing. The condition 
 from the Day of Pentecost to the comple- 
 tion of the New Testament, and the com- 
 pletion of the organization of the church 
 under it, corresponds to the condition from 
 the recognition of our independence on 
 through the forming of a confederacy under 
 the Articles of Confederation, the calling of 
 a constitutional convention, the framing of 
 the constitution until the government was 
 organized under it. The apostles were the 
 constitution-making power. Christ gave 
 the constitution through them. The apos- 
 tles and those they ordained, and those to 
 whom they gave miraculous gifts were 
 the government under the Articles of Con- 
 federation. Miraculous power was consti- 
 tution-making power and provisional power 
 to rule the church during that provisional 
 period. Ir supplied inspired teaching when 
 an apostle was not present, and when one 
 was, until the completed constitution, the 
 New Testament was completed and the 
 government constituted under it. Miracu- 
 lous power was constitution-making power 
 and not what was made a part of the con- 
 stitution. It ceased when the constitution 
 was made, as the constitutional convention 
 ceased when the constitution was made. 
 
 My opponent argues thafc we need mir- 
 aculous power now. As well say we need 
 constitution-making powers; in tho shape 
 of a constitutional convention to be per- 
 petual, and that it should be forever mak- 
 ing constitution, when we havo completed 
 the noiiMi'tutioo. He says wt made the 
 constitution uie work of tho apostles. We 
 repiy one work of <iod through theapoxtlcs, 
 just as a i-onstiuuiou is a work of ttie 
 people through their delegates. We do not 
 remove God out of the church, any more 
 
 than we remove the people out of the gov- 
 ernment, when we claim that as the people 
 now act through the constitution they have 
 ordained, God acts through the constitu- 
 tion he has ordained, the New Testament. 
 My opponent seems to think that the only 
 way that God can act is through miracu- 
 lous power. As well say that the only way 
 that the people can act is through constitu- 
 tion-making power. As the people ai-e act- 
 ing through the constitution, in a higher 
 sense, than they did when they were 
 making the constitution, so God is* acting 
 in a higher sense, through his word, than 
 when he was constitution-making through 
 his miraculous power. We have now nar- 
 rowed the question to what does the con- 
 stitution ordain? Does the completed con- 
 stitution of the church ordain miraculous 
 powers as a part of the organization, the 
 permanent form and powers of the church. 
 It can do this in two ways. It can ordain 
 officers whose powers are miraculous. Or 
 it can ordain miraculous powers. My op- 
 ponent claims that it has done both. We 
 have examined all his proof especially Eph. 
 iv. I Cor. xii, xiii, xiv. But we will not 
 review them and prove that they teach ex- 
 actly the reverse of his claim. Eph. iv. 
 Paul declares that in the constitution of the 
 church there is provided, I. One God. II. 
 One Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One faith, 
 the faith, the scriptures, the faith once de- 
 livered to the saints, and the completed 
 constitution of the church. V. One bap- 
 tism. VI. One hope. VII. One body, the 
 completed church organization, organized 
 under the completed constitution. VIII. 
 One name. He says that when Christ 
 ascended out of Hades, he led forth a mul- 
 titude of captives, and when he ascended on 
 high, to the right hand of his Father, he 
 gave gifts unto men. This was done before 
 the day of Pentecost. He gave to men who 
 were bis followers, some men to be apostles, 
 some to be prophets, some to be evangel- 
 ists, some to be shepherds, some to be teach- 
 ers. It is freely conceded that the very of- 
 fice of apostle and prophet required miracu- 
 lous powers in the day of the apostles. The 
 questions are: Do apostles, and prophets 
 exist now? Does the completed constitu- 
 tion ordain them in the church? Does the 
 constitution ordain miraculous powers to 
 evangelists, shepherds and teachers? This 
 is the real issue. 
 
 Because they existed or were given once 
 does not prove their existence now. Because 
 they were needed once does not prove that 
 they are needed now. It is a question of 
 fact. We object to the claim that they ex- 
 ist now. Apostles, prophets and miracu- 
 lous powers were constitution-making pow- 
 ers, and ceased when the constitution was 
 completed, and constitution-making ceased, 
 because it was completed. The constitu- 
 tion declares it shall cease. It says these 
 gifts miraculous gifts were given "for 
 the perfecting of the Saints unto the work 
 of the ministry," and were given "for the 
 purpose of building up the body of Christ." 
 Tho body of Christ is his church. They 
 
292 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 were given for the purpose of building up, 
 organizing this body, the church, and ceased 
 when that was done, when the organiza- 
 tion was completed. The apostle declares 
 they were to exist "until we all came into 
 the unity of the faith," the one faith, the 
 faith delivered unto the Saints, the Scrip- 
 tures. The "faith" means the Scriptures 
 as it did above in verse 5, and it does in 
 Jude; "the faith delivered unto theSaints." 
 These were to continue until we came into 
 the unity |of the faith, into the one faith, 
 until the word of God is completed. These 
 gifts were given until we attain through 
 the one faith to a perfect knowledge of the 
 Son of God. Until we attain to a full grown 
 man. This man is the one body Paul men- 
 tions above, the church. They are to con- 
 tinue until the church organization is com- 
 pleted. The constitution tells just how 
 long they were to remain. It declares they 
 were to cease when that was done. The 
 constitution declares that they shall con- 
 tinue only until the constitution, the one 
 faith, is completed, and the one body is 
 organized under it. 
 
 We come now to the last passage of 
 Scriptures, and one that settles the matter 
 forever. I Cor. xii, xiii, xiv, Paul in these 
 chapters points out certain errors of the 
 Corinthians in regard to spiritual gifts. I. 
 That they were the highest, the grandest, 
 the especial things of the gospel. My oppo- 
 nent's error. II. That men were to be hon- 
 ored especially for them. III. Errors in 
 using them. He tells us in the XII chapter 
 God gave miraculous gifts as follows: I. 
 Word of wisdom. II. Word of knowledge. 
 III. Faith. IV. Gifts of healing. V. Work- 
 ingof powers. VI. Prophecy. VII. Power 
 to discern spirits. VIII. Power to speak in 
 unknown and different tongues. IX. Power 
 to interpret these unknown and different 
 tongues. In the latter part of the chapter 
 he tells us that by giving these miraculous 
 gifts, God has set in the church I. Apos- 
 tles. II. Prophets. III. Teachers. IV. 
 Powers. V. Gifts of healing. VI. Helps. 
 VII. Wise counsels. VIII. Those who 
 speak with tongues. IX. Those who inter- 
 pret tongues. He then corrects their error 
 in each one, claiming that his gift was best, 
 and that he should be honored above all 
 other possessors of gifts. He does it by the 
 beautiful figure of the human body and its 
 organs. He then corrects their error, the 
 error of my opponent that spiritual gifts, 
 on which they prided themselves, were the 
 highest, greatest and especial features of 
 the religion of Christ. He says "desire 
 earnestly the best spiritual gifts" now 
 while they are needed, "but nevertheless I 
 show unto you a more excellent way" than 
 the exercise of the best of these spiritual 
 gifts. That is his meaning. The thing he 
 has been discussing is the exercise of these 
 gifts. He says desire the best of them while 
 this is the way, but I will show unto you 
 a more excellent way than the highest exer- 
 cise of the best of these spiritual gifts. 
 Observe, then, that Paul says there is a 
 more excellent way than the highest exer- 
 
 cise of the best of these spiritual gifts. In 
 this he differs from Mormons, that regard 
 these spiritual gifts as the highest, the 
 greatest element of the religion of Christ, iu 
 fact as the religion of Christ. 
 
 Paul unfolds this more excellent wav. 
 He declares that Christian love, Christian 
 spirit and character are the aim of the Gos- 
 pel, as he says to Timothy that "the end of 
 the commandment is love out of a pure 
 heart, and unfeigned faith." All gifts, all 
 things are worthless unless they produce 
 Christian love, and are valuable only as 
 they produce it. Miraculous power" itself 
 cannot do this, for as we have showed, it is 
 not a moral influence. It produces no moral 
 change. Paul after declaring that spirit- 
 ual gifts are worthless unless they produce 
 Christian love, Christian spirit and char- 
 acter, unfolds the more excellent way (than 
 the best spiritual gifts) to produce Christian 
 love. As they can produce it only as they 
 reveal truth, that alone can produce it ; the 
 more excellent way is a perfect revelation 
 of the truth that alone can produce Chris- 
 tian love. Paul declares Christian love, 
 Christian spirit and character are to remain 
 for ever, and that what will produce them 
 best will remain for ever. He declares all 
 prophecying, all utterance by inspiration, 
 shall cease ; all miraculous speaking with 
 tongues, all signs of miraculous power shall 
 cease; all knowledge imparted miraculously 
 shall cease. My opponent admits that they 
 shall cease. The query arises " When?" 
 That is the sole issue. Common sense 
 would say that as Paul is comparing the 
 state of the Church when the best of the 
 miraculous gifts exist, with a more excel- 
 lent way for the Church; that the more 
 excellent way is when they cease. That as 
 Paul says they are valueless, unless they 
 produce Christian love, they cease when the 
 completed word of God, the perfect way of 
 producing Christian love is finished. Chil- 
 dren of God are made "perfect in teaching, 
 in reproof, in correction, in instruction in 
 righteousness, and are made perfect, and 
 thorough lyfurnisheduutoevery good work," 
 not by miraculous gifts, but by the Script- 
 ures. Paul says, "For we know in part we 
 prophecy in part." That is during the ex- 
 istence o*f the best of these spiritual giftsj, 
 knowledge imparted by inspiration was 
 but a fragment at each time, was partial, 
 prophecyiug was partial, but a fragment 
 of the truth was uttered at each time when 
 prophecying was done. "But when that 
 which is perfect is come, that which is in 
 part shall be done away." The question' 
 now is: What is that which is perfect? 
 That is the only issue. Common sense would 
 say thatas the partial is partial revelations, 
 that are the highest exercise of these spir- 
 itual gifts, that the perfect would be com- 
 plete revelations. The partial that is to be 
 done away is partial revelation, by means 
 of miraculous gifts. The perfect is com- 
 pleted revelations, when these gifts pass 
 away. As Paul is discussing the condition 
 of the Church, and mentions, as the partial, 
 the condition of the church, when those mi- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 293 
 
 raculous gifts exist; the perfect is when 
 the partial these gifts have passed away, 
 the condition of the church under the com- 
 pleted revelations, when these gifts have 
 ceased. That is the perfect, the more ex- 
 cellent way that f he apostle was to show. 
 My opponent admits miraculous gifts are to 
 cease hut claims it is after the resurrection 
 has mado us perfect, for our eternal resur- 
 rected state. I object. The apostle is not 
 discussing the eternal state, but the state 
 of the church, He is not contrasting the state 
 of the church during all time with the eter- 
 nal state. But the state of the church un- 
 der the best of these miraculous gifts, with 
 the state of the church when they shall 
 cease, and as the imperfect state was on 
 arth, the perfect state is on earth -as the 
 imperfect was when these gifts existed, the 
 perfect is when they shall not exist. Kelley 
 foists in the idea of the perfection of saints 
 in the eternal dispensation, after the resur- 
 rection, out of all connection, sense and 
 Jogic. It is preposterously absurd and out of 
 place. 
 
 What is that which is perfect? As the 
 partial was partial revelations, by spiritual 
 /gifts, the perfect was a perfect revelation, 
 when they had ceased. "The law of the 
 <iod is perfect, converting the soul." There 
 we have the perfect. "The Scriptures are 
 perfect for teaching reproof, correction for 
 instruction in righteousness, for they make 
 the man of God perfect, and thoroughly 
 furnished for every good work." There we 
 have the perfect. Paul says in Ephesians 
 these gifts are to remain until we attain to 
 the unity of the faith, the one faith, God's 
 completed word. Then we have what is 
 perfect. That settles the matter. For we 
 do not contrast imperfect revelation with a 
 thing entirely different, the state of the 
 righteous after the resurrection; but we 
 contrast imperfect revelation under miracu- 
 lous gifts with perfect revelation after these 
 gifts have ceased, having perfected the re- 
 velation. Paul now returns to his figure in 
 the xii chapter, where he compared the 
 church to a body and these gifts to the 
 organs of the body. He personifies the 
 church by himself. He puts the man, the 
 body, in the first person. He says, "When 
 I was a child, I felt as a child." That is 
 the nhurch that he personifies by himself is 
 in its childish condition while receiving 
 the best of these gifts. They are partial 
 and it can only speak as a child. Its reve- 
 lations are partial childish. He continues 
 "But when I became a man I put away 
 childish things." That is when the church 
 which he personifies by himself becomes a 
 man it will put away these childish things, 
 these partial things, when prophesying, in- 
 spiration and miracle working shall cease. 
 "Now we see in the mirror darkly." 
 Our revelations are partial, childish, 
 and they are an imperfect mirror. We 
 see imperfectly "But then," when partial 
 things, these revelations and gifts have 
 ceased, ''we shall see face to face." 
 As James say* : "A mail who is a hearer of 
 the word and not a doer is like a man who 
 
 beholds his face in a mirror and forgets 
 what manner of man he was. But he that 
 looks unto the perfect "Law of Liberty" 
 (God's word) and continues there shall 'be 
 blessed." The mirror is God's perfected 
 word. The mirror is imperfect during these 
 partial revelations. It will be perfect when, 
 the word is completed aiid they have passed 
 away. "Now," under these partial reve- 
 lations, " I know in part." The Church 
 that he personifies knows in part under 
 these partialrevelatious. "But then," when 
 the word is completed, when the perfect, 
 the completed word has come, when the 
 mirror God's word is perfect, "T shall 
 know" the Church shall know "even as I 
 am also known." The Church shall know 
 what it ought to be, after a perfect revela- 
 tion has been made, as it in known to 
 God, as he knows it, and intends it to be, 
 and as he will reveal it, and the Church 
 shall then know it. Paul concludes that 
 perfect faith, God's perfect word, hope, 
 God's perfect promises, Christian lovo, 
 produced by God's perfect word will remain 
 for ever. With this harmonizes the idea 
 that as God ceased miracle in creation, so 
 he ceased miracle in revelation, when each 
 had accomplished its work. In each case 
 miracle prepared for a higher work of God 
 by operation of perfect law. With this 
 harmonises the fact that as revelation 
 ceased with Malachi when the Old Testa- 
 ment was completed, until Christianity 
 came, so revelation ceased when the New 
 Testament was completed, until the next 
 dispensation, the eternal, is introduced. 
 With this harmonizes the idea that consti- 
 tution-making ceases when the consti- 
 tution has been perfected. With this 
 harmonizes the idea that none but 
 an apostle could impart this mirac- 
 ulous power, this constitution ma- 
 king and provisional power. With this 
 harmonizes the idea that this power never 
 descended to a third person. With it har- 
 monizes the idea that when the last one, to 
 whom an apostle imparted this power by his 
 hands died, it ceased. It harmonizes every 
 portion of God's word. It is in accordance 
 with sense. With it harmonizes the idea 
 that the religion of Christ embraces all re- 
 ligious ideas and expresses each perfectly, 
 and man now needs no higher or better 
 revelation of these truths. He can learn 
 more of their scope and grasp, but never 
 outgrow them. As man has reached abso- 
 lute truth, universal principles in the law 
 of gravitation and in the Copernican law of 
 the universe, so he has reached absolute 
 truth in religion, in Christianity. As man 
 cannot outgrow the law of gravitation, so 
 he can never outgrow the infinite truths of 
 Christianity. As man only learns more of 
 the scope and grasp of the law of gravita- 
 tion, so he can only learn more of the scope 
 and grasp of Christianity, of its truths re- 
 vealed in the New Testament. As he can 
 never outgrow the law of gravitation, and 
 needs no other law. so he can never out- 
 grow the revelations in the New Testament, 
 needs no more revolution.. Finally we have 
 
294 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 challenged our opponent to name one new 
 Idea or truth that all his pretended revela- 
 tions have given to the world. He cannot 
 give one We have had no new revelation. 
 We have challenged him to name one single 
 truth that, his pretended revelations have 
 given in a better manner than in the New 
 Testament. He cannot name one. We 
 have no new revelations. What is not sto- 
 len from the Bible is balderdash. What is 
 stolen is mangled by the thief. It is proof 
 that his inspiration is the ass trying to wear 
 the skin of the dead lion. After declaring 
 that the New Testament is the constitution 
 of the chureh given by God to the church, 
 my opponent attempts to destroy the fatal 
 effect of the analogy on his theory by rais- 
 ing the objection that as the people who 
 appointed the delegates to frame our con- 
 stitution had to ratify their work, so God 
 who appointed the apostles a? his delegates 
 would have to ratify their work. The peo- 
 ple's delegates were nut inspired and infal- 
 lible, foil's delegates were. The Mormon 
 God and his inspired instrument, Joe Smith, 
 weresofallible in giving the constitution of 
 the Mormon organization, that he has had 
 to revise that last and most perfect work of 
 inspiration from title-page to finis. He has 
 made seventeen changes on one page, and 
 over rive thousand in all. As the delegates, 
 the apostles, who gave our constitution, the 
 New Testament, were not inspired by the 
 Mormon God but by Jehovah, their work 
 needed no revision or ratification. 
 
 The way in which my opponent will de- 
 liberately falsify God's word when itcontra- 
 dicts his errors can be seen in his falsification 
 of the passages we quoted. Peter declares 
 that those he addressed were kings and 
 priests and had been made so before he 
 wrote. John declares that Christ has 
 washed those of whom he spoke and made 
 them kings and priests. Both are past. 
 Kelley deliberately falsifies the language 
 and declares it is to be done in our glorified 
 condition. He claims that because saints 
 are called kings and priests in that state, 
 they cannot be saints now. He falsifies the 
 word of God to avoid its flat contradiction 
 of his hobbies. 
 
 By what authority does my opponent 
 assert that the passage, "Desire earnestly 
 the greater gifts, and a still more excellent 
 way I show unto you," has been transposed 
 by 'copy ing? He has not a manuscript, a 
 commentator or scholar to sustain him. He 
 impudently changes it in violation of all 
 authority and the sense of the context of the 
 passage, as he impudently changes the tense 
 from present to perfect, the time from future 
 to past, and reads, "I have shown," instead 
 of ''I show." A more impudent, deliberate 
 falsification of God's word was never per- 
 petrated. Sealing of the Spirit and the 
 miraculous influence of the Spirit are differ- 
 ent. One is not a moral influence, the other 
 
 is. Each one is sealed for himself by the 
 Holy Spirit, but not by the miraculous 
 power of the Spirit. That he assumes, iu 
 flat contradiction of God's word. Moses 
 declared his law was perfect for the 
 purpose for which he gave it, to pre- 
 pare for a better the law of Christ. The 
 teaching in each grade in a school may be 
 perfect for its purpose to prepare for a better 
 grade, and the last prepares fora still better 
 state when the pupil becomes a man and is in 
 school no more. The building of t.he church 
 is going on now. It is not in the sense in 
 which he uses the term. Our government 
 is not being organized now. We are not 
 adding to our officers. Nor do we have a 
 Constitutional Convention in session. New 
 persons are succeeding those who pass away. 
 The number of States and citizens is being 
 ever increased, but our government is not 
 changed one particle. So the church re- 
 ceives new members and sends out mission- 
 aries, but is not changed one particle. 
 Christ through the apostles perfected the 
 church. 
 
 The royal Priesthood of Peter and John 
 was not the Melchizedek priesthood, for 
 Christ was the only priest of that order, 
 and had no successor. I can not sufficiently 
 denounce the falsehood that we have no 
 Holy Spirit in our church. We have him 
 as sons of God, in accoidance with God's 
 word, and do not set up, a lying claim that 
 any Joe Smith has or had him in miracu- 
 lous power, when the Bible declares such 
 miracles have ceased. Our church is not 
 another church from the Apostolic church, 
 but the same church having, as the apostle 
 declared, laid to one side childish things, 
 and having entered on the more excellent 
 way. W T e have Christ in his word and law, 
 just as God ordains. Mormons cut off Christ 
 the head, and substitute that fraud. Joe 
 Smith; gouge out the eyes, and substitute 
 Mormon impostors as prophets, nut off the 
 ears and substitute Mormon frauds as 
 apostles. They cut off every member of 
 God set in the church, and substitute their 
 frauds and load the mangled remains with 
 councillors and over twenty monstrosities 
 of their own manufacture of which the Bible 
 knows nothing and call the monstrosity the 
 church. 
 
 We have now placed before you the sim- 
 ple Apostolic church with its eight founda- 
 tion stones. I. One God. II. One Lord. 
 III. One Holy Spirit. IV. One faith the 
 faith, God's word. V. One immersion. 
 VI One hope. VII. One body the church 
 of Christ. VIII. One name "Christian," 
 for individuals, and "Church of Christ," foi 
 the organization. The building is made of 
 living stones saints, deacons or (servants, 
 overseers and evangelists who are made 
 perfect by God's wont. It is the perfect 
 man as God perfected it. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 295 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECH. 
 
 GENTIGMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 <3rEN T Ti,fci.vEN : Let me call your at- 
 tention At once to the misrepresen- 
 tation ol" my reference to the call- 
 ing- of Paul and Barnabas, in Acts 13 : 2- 
 3. My opponent stated that this laying on 
 of hands was not for the purpose of giving 
 the Holy Ghost ; but what did he say that 
 for ? Who said it was for the purpose of 
 conferring the Holy Ghost? The position 
 which I took was that it was for the purpose 
 of conferring authority upon these parties 
 to enable them to discharge the duties to 
 which they were called as ministers. My 
 position differs from my opponent in this : 
 He and his church think it was but an idle 
 or void form; that there was no special au- 
 thority conferred by the act of the elders at 
 Antioch laying their hands upon these two 
 persons, for elders did not have the right to 
 lay on hands to confer the right to the Holy 
 Spirit by confirmation as did the apostles, 
 or to confer especial authority by virtue of 
 the authority of this Holy Spirit, in setting 
 persons apurt for the work of the ministry. 
 But I claim that the facts are against them. 
 That this compliance with the ordinance in 
 the instance of Barnabas and Saul at this 
 time, was that they might receive some- 
 thing of the right of authority, which they 
 had not. That it is a similar case to the 
 one which I presented from 1 Tim. 4: 14; 
 and of which my opponent has taken no no- 
 tice, where, Paul calls Timothy's attention 
 to the fact that in his (Timothy's) ordina- 
 tion under the hands of the elders rre had in 
 fact received something, and by the power 
 of the Holy Ghost which was in those officia- 
 ting. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
 which was given thee by prophecy with the 
 laying on of the hands of the presbytery 
 [eldership]." Here is an emphatic declara- 
 tion that there was in this ordinance of 
 the imposition of hands a conferring of 
 gifts. 
 
 But Braden says, they (his church) lay on 
 hands to merely set men apart, but that 
 they do not confer anything. No author- 
 ity is conferred thereby. This is as I have 
 claimed all the time ; I knew that they did 
 not by so doing confer anything, for they 
 have nothing to confer; not being elders 
 in fact in the church of God. But it is en- 
 tirely different to the action and methods of 
 the <;hurch in the days of the apostles, and 
 therefore, proves beyond a doubt, by Bra- 
 den's admission, that his church is not in 
 harmony in faith and practice with the New 
 Testament church. 
 
 In the early church, as I have shown, 
 there was also a regular order in the calling 
 of the minister, as by the example of Jesus, 
 (not the congregation,) calling the apostles. 
 Math. 10:38. "Pray ye therefore the Lord of 
 the harvest, that 'he will send forth labor- 
 ers into the harvest." And Luke, 6: 12-13. 
 
 "And it came to pass in those days, that he 
 went out into a mountain to pray, and con- 
 tinued ail night in prayer to God. And 
 when it was day, he called unto him hia 
 disciples, and of them he chose twelve, 
 whom also he named apostles." And also 
 as contained in Luke 10: 1. "After these 
 things the Lord appointed other severity 
 also, and sent them two and two before his 
 face into every city and place, whither he 
 himself would come." In Acts 1 : 15-20 
 verses, it is recorded that when an office in 
 the church was vacant, as I have before 
 fully shrwn you, the apostles applied to 
 the proper authority, and head of the 
 church, for instruction as to the filling of it. 
 As Jesus did, so did they, "Pray the Lord 
 of the harvest that he may send forth the 
 laborers." They did not usurp the prerog- 
 atives of the "Lord of the harvest," and go 
 themselves ; or send others to their liking, 
 as do the congregations of the so-called 
 Christian or Campbellite churches. 
 
 So these apostles pray when they are lo 
 select a minister: "Thou, Lord, which know- 
 est the hearts of all men, shew whether of 
 these two thou hast chosen." They knew 
 well enough that it was not their right or 
 place to call and make apostles, but that 
 the officers in the church had to be chosen 
 by the great head of the church. So it was 
 in the instance in Acts 13:2. "The Holy 
 Ghost said, separate me, Barnabas and 
 Saul, for the work whereuito 1 have called 
 them." Not the congregation called them, 
 as Braden holds, but as God calls them. 
 This also, as I have shown, accords with 
 the practice and faith of Paul as setforth in 
 his first letter to the saints at Corinth, 7:17: 
 "But as God hath distributed to every man, 
 as the Lord hath called every one, so let 
 him walk. And so ordain I in all churches." 
 
 But is this the way with Braden's church ? 
 Oh, no. As the imperfect, short-sighted 
 and often fanatical congregation calls, his 
 church ordains. The apostle, as I have 
 shown, believed in the doctrine, that when 
 Christ ascended up on high "he gave gifts 
 unto men." And. that these gifts were for 
 the purpose of qualifying them for the 
 duties they were called to in the church, both 
 as officers and lay-members; and that a man 
 could only be properly ordained to an office 
 when it was done in accordance with the 
 distribution of these gifts ; and hence, he 
 must wait till the Lord designated where 
 the gift should be bestowed as he instructs 
 in Rom. 12:6 and 8 : "Having, then, gifts 
 differing according to the grace that is given 
 untous, whether of prophecy, let us prophesy 
 according to the proportion of faith. Or 
 ministry, let us wait on our ministering ; 
 or he that teacheth on teaching," etc. The 
 idea, as before pointed out, is full and clear; 
 men must work in accordance with the gift 
 and calling of God unto them, and hence 
 
298 
 
 THE BE A DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 mu?t wait till God designates the gift of 
 their calling before they can properly beset 
 apart to act. 
 
 This brings to my mind his comment on 
 the declaration of the apostle in Heb. 5: 
 "And no man taketh this honor unto him- 
 self but he that is called of God, as was 
 Aaron. " Paul did so teach, and it is in 
 harmony with the instruction given upon 
 this calling of the ministry by him, and 
 Jesus, acd all of the apostles whose words 
 we have. 
 
 "But," says Braden, "Paul referred to 
 the rule and requirement under the Mosaic 
 economy." What does he refer to it for? 
 Why did you not answer that? He refers 
 to it as a basis of argument to show to the 
 Jewish Saints how they must act under the 
 later law ; maintaining that the same rule 
 had been adopted under the order in the 
 Church in his time, and must be followed 
 as in the case of Aaron. This is shown in 
 the next verse: "So also Christ glorified 
 not himself to be made a high priest; [he 
 did not call himself nor permit the congre- 
 gation to do it;] but he that said unto him, 
 'Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten 
 thee'." As he saith also in another place, 
 "Thou art a priest forever, after the order 
 of Melchizedek." This application of his 
 own argument, by the apostle, is too plain 
 to be gainsaid. Jesus would not call him- 
 self to be a minister ; a congregation could 
 not properly do it, but he must be called as 
 was Aaron, by revelation through the Holy 
 Ghost that giveth utterance. This same 
 Jesus was in his obedience and observance 
 of the rules of law and government, to be 
 "our example in all things." Therefore, 
 " No man taketh this honor unto himself, 
 but he that wus called of God as was 
 Aaron.'- Oan ,-oa see that Paul was teach- 
 ing and laying down a governing ] 
 
 r,Mr. 
 
 in tne Christian economy now, Mr. Braden? 
 But it is the reverse of your system as ad- 
 mitted by yourself. Again he says, "That 
 if Joseph Smith had denied revelation, 
 there would have been no Mormonism, nor 
 Mormon polygamy." 
 
 Now is this not a sweltering argument? 
 How does it come that the belief by Mr. 
 Smith in revelation brought polygamy in 
 Utah, when the belief by Paul and Peter 
 in revelation did not bring polygamy among 
 the followers of Nicolas, one of the Seven. 
 ordained under the hands of the apostles at 
 Jerusalem ? Will he answer this ? This is 
 like the argument so often made by infidels, 
 that if in the beginning the Devil had not 
 been created, there would have been no evil 
 whatever in the world ; therefore, the Lord 
 
 wholly responsible. 
 
 Do you accept the theory, Mr. Braden? 
 
 xid can you not see there is no basis to 
 ur reasoning? If there are parties in the 
 
 orld who shall take advantage of their 
 privileges, and stations, and the blessings 
 which Uod may have to give to his children, 
 does that argue that none of the children 
 shall have the blessings? 
 
 But, if Mr. Smith had not believed in the 
 principles of revelation there would have 
 
 been no Mormonism. Oh, no! Then ac- 
 cording to himself Mormonism is the result 
 of a belief, not a disbelief, in revelation; 
 and Smith was no deceiver, impostor, pre- 
 tentious fraud, etc., as he has called him. 
 He was a man, then, who acted from con-' 
 viction and taught what he believed. Will 
 you now take back the false accusation* 
 you have before made against him ? 
 
 But permit me to turn this profound (?) 
 logic over a moment. He will not dispute 
 that if all the people of the world had be- 
 lieved like the Campbellites do, and Mr. 
 Campbell did, that there never would have 
 been a revelation. No, they deny the prin- 
 ciple of present revelation. (They are nob 
 like Mr. Smith.) But denying, they stand 
 in such a relation and position to God that 
 had the men of God in the world's history 
 believed as Mr. Campbell and Braden anil 
 their church, no revelation could ever 
 have been received, and we should be with- 
 out Moses and the prophets ; without the 
 Psalms; without the gospels and all of the 
 inspired epistles of the apostles; without 
 the Bible ; without the presence of the Holy 
 Ghost, and without God and Christ in the 
 world. Aye ! my friends, had the prophet* 
 of old, and Jesus and the apostles believed 
 as these Campbellite friends of ot.rs, all to- 
 day would be darkness and gloom, and 
 Christendom as the raging heathen who 
 has no divine record, no communion with 
 the Father and Son, and no gift ol the Holy 
 Ghost. Who will desire to stand up for a. 
 faith the effect of which is t ieave the 
 world in this benighted state? It will not 
 do. The Pharisees of old cried out, " We 
 know that God spoke to Moses, but as for 
 this man (Jesus) we know not from whence 
 he is." The position was one of error and 
 darkness, and it finally led them into de- 
 struction and death. Jesus' position wa 
 that of present revelation: "Upon this 
 rock I will build my church ;" " If any man 
 will do his will, he shall know of the doc- 
 trine;" " If ye believed in Moses and the 
 prophets ye would believe in me, for Mose 
 wrote of me." You must not only believe 
 in revelation in the past, but for the present, 
 for this was to "guide into all truth ;" and 
 this system of present revelation has given 
 light and glory to the world, and would 
 have shined far brighter than it has had it 
 not been for the persistent teaching of the 
 evil one, telling the children, Ye cannot 
 hear from your "Father who art in heaven," 
 now. 
 
 "The greatest curse upon the world," 
 Braden says, "is the belief in the direct 
 and immediate influenceof the Holy Ghost " 
 That is just the position the ancient Scribes 
 and Pharisees occupied towards Jesus, and 
 the apostles, and the martyr Stephen. See 
 Acts, 6th. Has Braden fairly represented 
 you, my Camphellite friends? If so, I would 
 say, "Come out of her and be not partaker 
 of her sins." 
 
 But, says Braden again, "Mormons by 
 this belief in the gifts of the Holy Spirit 
 can go into and practice polygamy." There 
 is where he and the world have beeu mis- 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 297 
 
 taken for years. Will he turn and show me 
 ven a pretended present revelation through 
 the poly gamic church ? I know the world 
 have had it in mind that the people of Utah 
 profess to enjoy present inspiration and the 
 gifts of prophecy, tongues, wisdom and in- 
 terpretations, etc., but they have only de- 
 ceived themselves. There is not by the 
 Utah people even an open claim, that I have 
 ever heard of, to the receiving of a revela- 
 tion directing affairs, ever coming to the 
 Utah church through either Mr. Young or 
 Mr. Taylor, the only two heads. They are 
 on the common basis with my Campbeliite 
 friends out there. "That these things are 
 not necessary by them, for they say we have 
 a living priesthood." It is the same old 
 dodge, but placed upon a different basis. 
 What good is the living priesthood when 
 the life-power, the manifestation of the 
 Holy Ghost, is taken away? No; they are 
 not persons who are " led by the Spirit of 
 God" out there, and for this reason ''the 
 sons of God;" but they are all "kings and 
 priests" in Utah, except Governor Murry. 
 They differ from our Campbeliite friends in 
 that they also have an especial belief in 
 queens as well as kings. 
 
 He again comes to the front with his 
 assertions, and defies me to show that there 
 is more than one baptism in the church. 
 He forgets that he is in the affirmative on 
 this question and that it is his place to 
 prove and to stop his asserting. I shall 
 not undertake to prove that there is more 
 than one baptism in his church, for I am 
 satisfied there is not, nor never was. In- 
 deed, I deny that he has any baptism in 
 fact, in his church, and have all along. The 
 requisites of a valid baptism is not only a 
 proper administration in water, but an 
 authorized officer to perform such adminis- 
 tration. This I have questioned from the 
 first as being in his church, and he has failed 
 to show that they had ; therefore I must 
 conclude that there is no baptism per- 
 formed in his church that God will sanc- 
 tion or ratify by giving to the candidate 
 the "seal ot adoption," the gift of his Holy 
 Spirit ; and Braden admits that not one in 
 hia church ever had the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, or the seal of adoption ; No; it would 
 have made Mormons of them, he thinks. 
 However, I have already fully shown, that 
 there were two baptisms in the Apostolic 
 church. "I, indeed baptize you witl *"ater, 
 but he that cometh after me, is 't^ntier 
 than I, he shall baptize you wit'- 're and 
 the Holy Ghost." John, Math.? Again, 
 "Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Ghost, 
 not many days hence." Jesus. Acts 1 : 5. 
 "Born of the water and of the Spirit." 
 Jesus, John 3:5. "Repent, and be hap- 
 tized, everyone of you, and ye shall receive 
 the gift [baptism] of the Holy Ghost." 
 Peter, Acts. 2:38. "Then laid they their 
 hands on them, and they received the Holy 
 Ghost." Acts, 8:17. "By one spirit are we 
 all baptized into one body, whether we be 
 Jews or Gentiles, whether we bo bond or 
 free ; and have been all made to drink into 
 one spirit." Paul. 1 Cr. 12:13. "Faith, 
 
 repentance, baptisms laying on of hands, 
 resurrect-ion of the dead and eternal judg- 
 ment." Heb. 6:1 to 3. 
 
 "He saves us by the washing of regenera- 
 tion [baptism in water] and renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost;" [baptism of the Spirit.] 
 For the next verse says that this renewing 
 was as follows: "Which he shed on us 
 abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
 Savior." When Jesus so shed this forth on 
 Pentecost day, it was a baptiBm of the 
 spirit, and just so too, in every other 
 instance. 
 
 But notwithstanding all of this, Braden 
 defies me to show two baptisms. I can show 
 it readily enough in Jesus' church, I assure 
 you. Then, in Eph. 4:5, it is written : "One 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Complete 
 birth, as I have shown you ; washing of 
 water and renewing of the Holy Ghost.] 
 This is also in accordance with the teach- 
 ing in the preceding verse: "There is one 
 body, and one Spirit even as ye are called 
 in one hope of your calling." What is thia 
 one Spirit for? Not for anything in Braden 's 
 church, for he admits they have none by 
 denying all of its office-work. But in Christ's 
 church it was for to bless the believer by 
 clothing him upon with the new man, Christ 
 Jesus, and sealing their hearts in love to 
 him; hence, "As many of you as have been 
 baptized into Jesus Christ have put on 
 Christ." Jesus, John, Peter, Paul and Luke 
 were right in their teaching then ; there is 
 in the church of God a baptism of the water 
 and of the Spirit. 
 
 It seems hard for my opponent to give up 
 the point on the application of the consti- 
 tution argument to the apostles and New 
 Testament. He has a new theory now. 
 The sovereign people he now says made the 
 constitution through their delegates, and 
 so God made, as the likeness would go, the 
 constitution of the church by his delegates, 
 the apostles. Let us see how it will work : 
 After the delegates had framed the consti- 
 tution themselves, the people doing noth- 
 ing except sending them there, they return 
 it to the people for acceptance and ratifica- 
 tion. Now, according to this, in the church, 
 after the apostles had got up a constitution 
 according to their own wisdom, they send 
 it back to the Lord, who made them dele- 
 gates, for his acceptance and ratification. 
 Is not this the exact claim of Col. Ingersoll? 
 That the Lord did not give this law, but 
 that the apostles and some others got it up 
 themselves? Why, Braden has by this last 
 turn of his, made it worse than before. 
 Making the people to represent the Al- 
 mighty in his suppositious case, he has 
 clearly left the word of God without any 
 inspiration at all. Inpreparingthe Ameri- 
 can constitution, the people selected men 
 who were wise enough, they thought, to 
 frame a constitution for them. Did then 
 the Lord select some one to frame him a 
 constitution, as did the people of this gov- 
 ernment? Nonsense. There is not a half- 
 witted person in the state of Ohio but who 
 ou<rhtto see farther than that. 
 
 When the constitution of the United 
 
298 
 
 THE B II ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 States was framed it was done by the wis- . 
 dom of the delegates chosen by the people. 
 The people was the principal and the dele- 
 gates the servants. When done it was sub- 
 mitted to the principal, the people, for rati- 
 fication, and after ratification and adoption, 
 messengers and officers were chosen there- 
 under. 
 
 The work of the apostles under the Christ- 
 ian constitution begins where this delegate 
 work of forming a constitution ended. God 
 framed, devised and adopted it, and then 
 selected his officers under it, and the 
 officers were first apostles, secondarily 
 prophets, etc. The same as the people 
 after adopting the constitution placed in 
 the government thereunder first a pres- 
 ident, etc. Braden's suppositious case is in 
 no sense a parallel one, and I am certain 
 you can see that it is not, my friends, 
 whether he can or not, so I pass along. 
 
 Again he claims that we have a perfected 
 constitution now, but that it was not per- 
 fect while Peter, Paul and John were in the 
 church; but what right has .he to say so? 
 When they were in the church they had 
 more constitution than we have now, there 
 are many writings referred to in the New 
 Testament as being in their possession which 
 we have not, besides they had much of all 
 we do have. Why does he persist in saying 
 then, that the Gospel law is perfect now 
 but was not then? James called it perfect 
 then, as I have shown? It was perfect in 
 the Psalmist's time in the same way, and 
 there is not a single scrap from Genesis to 
 Revelations intimating that it would ever 
 be perfect any other way, until the time 
 when Jesus shall come in clouds of great 
 "glory and bring all his saints with him, 
 taking vengeance on all them who know 
 not God and obey not the Gospel." When 
 "we shall know and see him as lie is, for we 
 shall be like him." 
 
 Until this time it will he as Paul says of 
 the Gospel : "For therein is the righteous- 
 of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is 
 written, the just shall live by faith." Not 
 received in full, all at once. It is quite im- 
 possi ble to so dispense or receive the Gospel, 
 but revealed from faith to faith; and just 
 about the time a man thinks he has got the 
 whole thing and there is nothing else for 
 him to learn, then is the time that he is 
 under sin and "the bonds of iniquity." 
 There is something in the Gospel to bless 
 man all the time and enable him to grow in 
 grace and the knoivledge of the truth; and 
 when he gets all truth it will be after he is 
 *ar ahead of where Paul was who says, 
 'Now I see in part and know in part, 
 hrough a glass, darkly, but then shall 
 I see as I am seen and know as I am 
 known." 
 
 It is just as was the creation of the plants 
 and animals, which I have before referred 
 to, the Lord created them and established 
 the law of life by which they are perpetuat- 
 ed. He created his church and established 
 a law of life by which this living church is 
 perpetuated, and just as certain as there is 
 found an absence of this animal and vege- 
 
 table life where the true conditions oflifo 
 are not recognized, just so sure are we to 
 find an absence of the true life and power 
 in the church, and, per consequence, true 
 church where the conditions of spiritual 
 life are violated. Hence, the apostle talking 
 of the true church says : "We have not come 
 to the mount that might be touched and 
 that burned with fire nor unto blacknes* 
 and darkness and tempest." * * * 
 
 "Btityeare come unto Mount Zion, and 
 unto the city of the living God, the heaven- 
 ly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable com- 
 pany of angels. To the general assembly 
 and church of the first born, which are 
 written in heaven, and to God, the Judge 
 of all, and to the spirits of just men made 
 perfect. And to Jesss, the mediator of the 
 new covenant, and to the blood of sprink- 
 ling that speaketh better things than that 
 of Abel.'-' Heb. 12:18-25. 
 
 Paul's church was one of light, and life, 
 and glory ; they had the blessings of grace 
 in the heart; the gifts and life of the Holy 
 Spirit; inspiration, administration of an- 
 gels, communion with the church of the 
 first born from the dead, and Jesus the me- 
 diator of the new covenant, [the power of 
 the Holy Ghost writing the law in the 
 heart.] 
 
 Compare now, ray friends, this living, en- 
 lightening, glowing church of the first cen- 
 tury, with the dark cloud that is prefigured 
 in Braderi's church, and judge for your- 
 selves if he has even so much as of grand- 
 father's old gun left as a resemblance. 
 Without apostles, prophets, gifts, wisdom, 
 knowledge, healings, tongues, prophecies, 
 living testimonies, the Holy Ghost and all 
 of its manifold manifestations ; devoid of 
 doctrine, tongues, revelations, psalms and 
 wisdom ; without the ministration of angels 
 and far from all communication with the 
 chuichofthe first born; without the new 
 covenant and the placing of the law in the 
 heart and writing it in the inward parts ; 
 without Jesus the mediator of this new cov- 
 enant whom no man can receive "but by 
 the Holy Ghost." Truly it is "a cloud with- 
 out water carried about of winds ; as a treo 
 whose fruit \\ithereth; without fruit." 
 "Having men's persons in admiration be- 
 cause of advantage." "Those be they who 
 separate themselves, sensual, having not 
 the Spirit." Jude. 19th verse. "But^we," 
 says the same apostle, "beloved, building 
 up yourselves on your most holy faith, 
 praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves 
 in the love of God, looking for the mercy of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." 
 Can you my audience catch a glimpse of re- 
 semblance between his and the church of 
 the apostles? If there is any, it is in the 
 fact that they have " a form of godliness but 
 deny the power thereof." The work in the 
 New Testament church was all the time 
 under the diiection and life giving power of 
 the Holy Ghost; it, indeed, was the fash- 
 ioner and builder, and let us not deceive 
 ourselves that we can ever become "lively 
 stones in the building" of Christ, the 
 church, without the gifts and power of the 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 299 
 
 same; for this reason I have shown that "a 
 manifestation of the Spirit was given to 
 every mail to profit withal." 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen : The question 
 under discussion for the last four evenings 
 has been with relation to the claims of the 
 Disciple or Campbellite church. There has 
 been no consideration of the claims of the 
 church of Jesus Christ, which I claim to 
 represent, but merely of canvassing the 
 positions of the body of people of which it 
 is affirmed in the question, conceived as I 
 judge and formulated by my opponent him- 
 self, as follows, to wit: 
 
 "Is the church, of which, I, Clark Braden, 
 am a member, identical in faith, teaching, 
 practices, doctrine, ordinances and organi- 
 zation with the church of Christ as left per- 
 fected by the apostles." 
 
 1 have claimed that it is not. That it is 
 not in any sense of the term. 
 
 In the presentation of my argument, I 
 showed you : 
 
 First, That in the consideration of the 
 question we must come to an understand- 
 ing as to the proper way to find out how 
 the church was left by the apostles. Where 
 do we have the history of it? Do we find 
 the history from which we must ascertain 
 this condition in the New Testament? Or, 
 is it to be had in the writings of those 
 termed, "Church Historians?" As he 
 refused to answer me directly where this 
 history of the church which was left "per- 
 fected by the ap >stles" as he says, was to be 
 found, I have taken the trouble to set forth 
 the condition of the early church as shown 
 in the New Testament and also in the his- 
 tory of the practices of the church during 
 the second and third centuries. 
 
 Second, Having fully ascertained the true 
 status and condition of the church as set 
 forth in the New Testament, and also sub- 
 sequent history, I took up the faith of his 
 church as set put by himself and reflected 
 in its publications and compared it with the 
 history of the church established by Jesus 
 and the apostles and the continued 
 practices of the same as shown in the his- 
 tory of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What 
 has been the result: 
 
 1. I showed that his claim to having the 
 right name, was a myth; for he had no 
 right to drop the name Jesus as shown 
 in Ephesians third; or to just call his 
 church disciples, or Christians, for neither 
 of these names were ever recognized of God 
 as the distinguishing name of his people in 
 any place in the Bible. 
 ^ Then I proved to you by ten citations Of 
 Scripture that the true and proper name by 
 which the children of our Heavenly Father 
 is known and recognized by him here, and 
 by which they are to be recognized by him 
 hereafter is that of Saints. Has he even 
 attempted to reply to it? 
 
 2 He claimed he was identical with the 
 ancient church in faith. I took up the faith 
 held by the ancient saints, hy which they 
 had access toGod through his Spirit. Showed 
 it was a living, and active principle that 
 
 actuated the members of the early church, 
 being the power by which they could move 
 forward to mighty deeds of greatness and 
 that it was this that they were exhorted 
 to contend for; and what was his answer 
 to this: "Let Kelley remove one of these 
 Kirtland lulls." But it was not Kelley's 
 faith which was on trial, it is the faith of 
 Kelley's Campbellite opponent. What 
 answer had he? None besides this. Why 
 should he claim they are identical in faith 
 therefore? Jesus said of his church mem- 
 bers, that if you shall have faith, you suall 
 do many wonderful works, and afterwards 
 they did to them Bradeu's church, then, 
 is not identical in faith. 
 
 3. I showed that repentance in the early 
 church consisted of not only a sorrowing 
 for sin, but if any one had wronged an other 
 he must restore the wrong. That simply 
 being sorry for a theft, robbery or evil and 
 injurious act was not sufficient. 
 
 Braden's chnrch has not been shown to 
 believe in the true repentance of the Bible 
 even. 
 
 4. Baptisms as practiced in the early 
 church was canvassed as referred to by 
 Paul in Heb. 6:1 to 4, where the apostle 
 enumerates the first, or fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the doctrine of Christ, and Braden 
 at once admitted that they had no baptism 
 in their church except in water, nor never 
 have had. 
 
 Why does he claim that his church is 
 identical in doctrine and practices with 
 that of which the New Testament is a his- 
 tory, then ? In that, they had the baptism 
 of the water and of the Spirit, and Braden 
 himself admits they were baptized of the 
 Holy Spirit on Pentecost and at the house- 
 hold of Cornelius. 
 
 5. Another of the first, or foundation prin- 
 ciples in the church of which the New Tes- 
 tament gives a history was the doctrine of 
 "Laying on of hands." Remember, it was 
 & first, or foundation principle upon which 
 to build, and consequently recognized as 
 the right of every believer to receive, as in 
 the cases cited and practices established. 
 Acts 8:17, 9:17, 19:2 and 4, where hands were 
 laid on after baptism for confirmation and 
 the giving of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 My opponent admits they have nothing 
 of the kind in his church. Why should he 
 say they are identical with the church as 
 left by the apostles then ? From the history 
 of the practices of the church in the 2nd, 
 3rd and 4th centuries I showed that this 
 practice of laying on of hands was had in 
 all instances where there was a true bap- 
 tism, by the church long after the year 
 98, and that the Lord confirmed it by giving 
 the Spirit, and he has not even attempted 
 a reply. No. He don't accept any thing 
 of a history outside of the New Testament. 
 He ought to accept the practices as laid 
 down in that then. 
 
 6. On the question of the calling of the 
 minister I showed conclusively that the 
 New Testament order was by the Holy 
 Spirit as God directed. His answer to 
 this is that the rule is now changed. If so 
 
800 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 why Is he claiming to be identical in faith 
 and practice with the Xew Testament order 
 and practices? That is the question. If 
 the rule is changed why does he not man- 
 fully say so, and then tell us that his churrh 
 Is not idfntiraL with the New Testament 
 church in faith, practices and ordinances. 
 
 Why humbug his members into the belief 
 that they are like an assembly that Peter 
 or John constituted in their time, when In 
 fact there is hardly a show of agreement? 
 Who changed the order of calling the minis- 
 ter? Has heanswered that? Hashefuund 
 a single passage in the Bible going to show 
 that God would change his order of calling 
 his ministry? No ; he knows he has not. 
 
 7. The organization of the early church, 
 I showed, was with apostles, prophets, 
 evangelists, pastors, teachers, helps, gov- 
 ernments and gifts, and that their rule of 
 practice was, when one of these places in 
 the church was made vacant, to fill it up 
 with a like officer ; as Matthias was called, 
 in Acts 1:24-25, Barnabas and Saul after- 
 wards to the apostleship and so on when 
 vacancies occurred, until they were filled 
 to the number of nineteen, which I was 
 enabled to trace from the record. 
 
 What was his answer to this? Only that 
 this order had been done away, and a new 
 order instituted. Well, does that make him 
 identical in practice and organization with 
 the church the history of which alone is 
 set forth in the New Testament? 
 
 Is it not apparent by this time, my friends, 
 that Mr. Braden undertook a big job when 
 he set out to show that Mr. Campbell was 
 a " restorer f" A restorer not only of the 
 church but the ancient church itself? 
 
 I called attention to the nine different 
 spiritual gifts exercised by the members in 
 the early church as set out in Jesus' lan- 
 guage in Mark, and the 12th of 1 Corinthians 
 by Paul, and what does he say to tha't? All 
 done away. But why does he claim an 
 identity with them if they had all of this 
 with them, and Braden has not a single one 
 in his church? 
 
 That wise reason : "Because that's done 
 away;" " It's not necessary now," has de- 
 ceived more people, my friends, on all of 
 the principles of the doctrines of Jesus 
 Christ than my opponent could enumerate 
 for an evening. What a formidable reason 
 that is to hand out to thinking men and 
 women, "they are done away." Nobody 
 says that God did them away. That Jesus 
 commanded that they cease. That the 
 apostles refusal to exercise these gifts and 
 stamped thenrout. No; as long as there 
 were any persons in the world whom God 
 approved, they stood for these things, and 
 it has been left for those who, as the apostle 
 said, " have fallen away," not having the 
 true faith; who have "heaped to them- 
 selves teachers having itching ears," and 
 thus made their own ministers to do these 
 things away. 
 
 The 'more excellent way" referred to by 
 the apostle I have shown clearly to point to 
 the way he taught: that men should have, 
 and exercise these gifts, and so continue 
 
 until we should all see as we are seen and! 
 know as we are known, and not that one 
 person should have all the gifts, or that the- 
 church should consist of just one class of 
 officers, all apostles or all elders or deacons^ 
 but that all the officers must be in the- 
 church to have a true body, as much so as 
 that all the members of the body have to 
 be intact so as the man shall have a perfect 
 body, and that a church which has only 
 elders and deacons in it can no more be in 
 fact the true church, the body of Christ,. 
 than a pair of hands and a couple of toes- 
 can make the full body of a man. 
 
 The more excellent way, in other words, I 
 showed was that which Paul set forth in 
 the 8th, 9th, 10th, llth, 12th, 28th, 29lh and 
 30th verses of the 12th chapter of 1st Corin- 
 thians, and the 1st, 21, 39th and 40th verses 
 of the 14th chapter, and which he said in 
 the 13th chapter of the same letter should 
 remain in the true church till that time 
 should come when they should "see as they 
 were seen and know as they were known." 
 
 9. They were placed in the church as I 
 have shown "for the perfecting of the sain ts,. 
 the work of the ministry, the edifying of 
 the body of Christ, till we all come into the 
 unity of the faith unto a perfect man unto- 
 the knowledge of the Sou of God." Epru 
 4: 12. But this is just the opposite of what 
 Braden has held, for he took the position it 
 was for the "perfecting of the law." Is- 
 he with the pattern again? No, certainly. 
 
 10. The tenth difference I showed between 
 between his church and the New Testa- 
 ment was the principle of intolerance to 
 others who differed with them religiously. 
 Braden has not denied this nor denied that 
 his "restored " members of Mr. Campbell 
 used violent measures against the Saints 
 when they could not meet them in argu- 
 ment. Neither has he denounced such 
 measures. No such practice was ever en- 
 gaged in by God's children, Jesus or the 
 apostles. But it was "whatsoever ye would 
 that men should do to you do ye even so to 
 them." 
 
 11. Braden's church preaches gospel of 
 promise, gospel of process, gospel in fact ; 
 but the gospel was all that John, Jesus, 
 Peter, Paul or any of the Saints knew any- 
 thing about, either before or after Pente- 
 cost. 
 
 12. Braden's church claims that Jesus did 
 not establish any church ; that there was 
 none till after Jesus' death, and not then 
 till Pentecost. I have showed beyond cavil 
 that the church did exist before Pentecost 
 day, and was established and organized by 
 Jesus during his ministry. 
 
 13. His church denies the gift or baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit to all of their followers. 
 I have shown that it was promised to all 
 the believers in the early nhurch, and the 
 apostle taught, "For by one Spirit are we 
 all baptized in to one body, whether we be 
 Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; and have 
 all been made to drink into one Spirit." 
 His answer to this was Paul meant "bap- 
 tized by the command of the Spirit," but 
 it is evident Paul meant no such thing. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 801 
 
 Why should he persist, then, in saying they 
 are the "restored" church, and that their's 
 is the one "restored" gospel which Paul 
 preached ? 
 
 1.4 The church of which Braden is amember 
 claims there is no Holy Spirit given to the 
 believer in Christ, except through the me- 
 dium of the word, the letter of the law; 
 "Whereas, The practice in the early church 
 was to administer the Spirit as ehed forth 
 by Jesus Christ, not through the medium 
 of the word, but sent down from heaven on 
 the converts alter they had believed and 
 obeyed the truth. This is exactly the re- 
 verse oi the faith and practice of Braden's 
 church. 
 
 15. Braden's church professes to be built 
 upon the Bib.e, and the Bible alone. I have 
 shown you that God did not build bis 
 church on this but the rock of present reve- 
 lation, which his church denies to its adher- 
 ents, and therefore his church is not built 
 upon the foundation of apostles and proph- 
 ets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner 
 stone. It takes present revelation and a 
 present enjoyment of the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost to build in this way and it is 
 not enough to simply believe apostles and 
 prophets and Jesus once existed in the 
 church. 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
302 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S OPENING SPEECH ON THIRD PROPOSITION. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTI,KMKN : It is with considerable pleas- 
 ure that I again appear before you, to in- 
 vestigate a question touching directly upon 
 the taitli in the gospel of Christ as I believe 
 ij. The people generally are as ignorant of 
 the actual faith and principles of the 
 church I represent as the ancient Scribes 
 and Pharisees were of the faith and doctrine 
 Jesus and Paul [(reached. For this reason, 
 if there were no others, I am glad to-night, 
 being assured in my heart that when I shall 
 be rightly understood by you, and the peo- 
 ple whom I represent shall have been truly 
 known by you, that we shall find in your 
 hearts a warmer feeling than is possible to 
 exist in the absence of such knowledge. 
 
 I delight also to engage in a friendly in- 
 vestigation of the facts underlying my faith 
 in the Redeemer, because I have so care- 
 fully considered and criticized it, that I 
 know that there is nothing contained there- 
 in, but that will appeal to man's intelligence, 
 and is entitled to a place in the highest im- 
 pulses, and worthy to be honored with the 
 noblest sentiments of the human heart. 
 
 "he question, the discussion of which we 
 en er upon this evening, reads : 
 
 "Is the Re-organized Church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter Day Saints the church of 
 God in fact, and accepted with him." 
 
 am well aware that to begin with, my 
 friends, I have the unpopular side of this 
 issue; and that even men and women of 
 much intelligence, look upon a person who 
 accepts the faith of the Saints, as being not 
 only visionary, but actually fanatical. But 
 notwithstanding this, lean truly say that 
 the ablest critics and most profound reason- 
 ers that it has been my lot to meet among 
 any people I have found among the Latter 
 Day Saints. I ask you then to accept, for 
 the time of this investigation at least, the 
 injunction of the wise man, and hear this 
 issue discussed, before pussing upon the 
 nieritsofit: "He that answereth a matter 
 before he heat eth it. it is a folly and a shame 
 unio him." Yea, and those who are ready 
 tn condemn a man, or people, before they 
 give them a fair and full hearing, are not 
 only unfit t<> 1 19. called children of God, but 
 are in fact, btra citizens and evil doers in 
 the government itself. I ask you then to 
 discharges yur minds of such prejudice, or 
 bias, as would otherwise prevent you from 
 judging the arguments to be p-oduced in 
 this discussion, upon their merits, and as 
 free men and women, think and act for 
 yourselves, and of yourselves, instead of 
 being led by the mischievous influences 
 which may have by reason of your relations 
 in life, been thrown around you. It may 
 appear to you that in the very fact of the 
 claim thacthe church which I represent is 
 
 thechurch of God and accepted with Him, it 
 is shown that I have not sufficient charity for 
 the work and feelings of others. Lut, chink 
 of it! Is it really a thing to be condemned. 
 or not rather an affirmation to bfe admired ? 
 
 Would you expect me to belong to the 
 church I do, and seek to promote its 
 interests, if I did not think it was the 
 church of Ood in fact, and accepted with 
 him! I am sure that upon a second 
 thought you would not. Well, if I really 
 believe it. is it wrong to tell you candidly 
 what my belief is? You cannot but answer 
 me that it is not. "But," says some of my 
 friends of the other churches, "You ouyht 
 not to believe that yours is the accepted 
 church of God." Let me ask, is not that 
 what you all believe? 
 
 What church member present of what- 
 ever name or denomination, who does not 
 believe his church is thecharch of God, and 
 accepted with him? If there is such a one 
 I would like to see him. What does he 
 belong to it for, if it is not God's church? 
 Does he expect to be saved by reason of 
 belonging to some man's church, or does 
 he think Deity has hundreds of churches 
 on theearth all teaching adverse views and 
 principles and impelled by diverse motives? 
 Such a view degrades the character of our 
 Heavenly Father. It is a fact, my friends, 
 that he does not approve of all that takes 
 place in the name of religion in this .world, 
 and the sooner we admit this and seek to 
 sustain and attach ourselves to that only 
 which we are satisfied our Heavenly 
 Father does approve of and accept, the bet- 
 ter it will be tor us, and the more actual 
 good we will be enabled to perform in the 
 world. 
 
 But it is not your church that is affirming 
 this evening, my friends, neither that is on 
 trial. It is the one I represent. Is if the 
 church of God and accepted with Him? 
 I claim that it is, and for the purpose of 
 proving this claim I shall proceed to com- 
 pare it with the Divine Code, the funda- 
 mental law, contained in the book called 
 the Bible, and ascertain if there is an entire 
 agreement. 
 
 To compare with this fundamental law, 
 it will be necessary that I first set out the 
 fundamental principles of my faith ; you 
 will want to know whether they are in 
 agreement with the law. To niHintain the 
 proposition which I affirm, it will be requi- 
 site for me to show : 
 
 I. That the principles and faith of the 
 church are in harmony with the word of 
 God Are, indeed, thegood seed of Christ's 
 Kingdom, which, when men have sown, 
 brin srs forth the proper fruit that which 
 is acceptable with Jesus Christ: providing 
 it has fallen.upou thegood ground. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 303 
 
 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, 
 ' and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked 
 ' one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his 
 1 heart. This is he which receiveth seed by the way- 
 1 side. 
 
 " But he that rerelved seed into the good groiind ia 
 'he that heareth the word, and understandeth It; 
 ' which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some 
 1 an hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty." Matt. 
 13: 19 and 23. 
 
 This parable is also plainly set forth by 
 the evangelist Luke, 8:11 and 15. Jesus 
 says : 
 
 "Now the parable is this: The seed Is the word of 
 " Mod " ''But that on the good ground are they, which 
 " In an honest and good heart, having heard the word, 
 " keep it and bring forth fruit with patience." 
 
 It is the same thought, yet illustrated in, 
 a different way. that is found in Luke's 
 gospel, 6 : 47 and 49 : 
 
 "Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, 
 " and doetli them, I will show you to whom he is like." 
 
 "He is like a man which built an house, and digged 
 " deep, and laid the foundation on a rock." 
 
 This was a sure way in which to build ; 
 and so in building in the church of God, 
 the only place where we may hope to find 
 true work and a building that will stand 
 the test of an examination of the Master, is 
 that which is built by the word of God. 
 The sowing and planting the good seed in 
 good and honest hearts. For this reason it 
 is written : 
 
 " Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on 
 " him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my dis- 
 " ciples indeed : And ye shall know the truth and the 
 " truth shall make you free." John 8: 31 and 32. 
 
 After satisfying you as to what this seed 
 (word of. God) of the kingdom is, I must 
 show : 
 
 2. That the church which I represent in 
 its work is in fact sowing this good seed ; 
 distributing the word of God ; abiding in 
 God's word in its system of faith and doc- 
 trine. 
 
 1 shall, therefore, now set forth the fun- 
 damental principles of our faith, together 
 with some of the scripture citations, which 
 we claim to reflect and enjoin these princi- 
 ples, as follows: 
 
 PRINCIPLES OP FAITH AND DOCTRINE. 
 
 1. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his 
 Bon Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Matt. 28: 19. 
 1 John 1:3. St. John 11: 26. 
 
 2 That men will be punished for their own sins, 
 and not for Adam's transgression. Ecc. 12:14. Matt. 
 16 : 27. 1 Cor. 3 : 13. Rev. 20 : 12-15. 
 
 3. That through the atonement of Christ, all men 
 may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances 
 of the gospel. 1 Cor. 15:3. 2 Tim. 1:10. Rom. 8; 1-6. 
 
 4 That these ordinances are : 
 
 (lot). Faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Heb. 
 11:6. Pet. 1:21. 1 Tim. 4:10. John 3:16, 18, 36. 
 Mark 11: 22. John 14:1. 
 
 (2d). Repentance. Matt. 3:2, 8, 11. Luke 13:3; 
 24 : 47. Kzek. 18 : 30. Mark 1 : 5, 15. Acts 2 : 38. Rom. 
 2 '4. 2 Cor. 7:10. 
 
 (3d). Baptism by immersion for the remission of 
 sins. Matt. 3:13-15. Mark. 1:4, 5. Luke 3:3. John, 
 8:5. Acis 2:38, 22; 16; 2:41; 8:12, 27. 38. Mark 
 16:16. CoL 2:12. Rom. 6:4, 5. John 3:23. Acts 
 8 1 38. 39* 
 
 (4th). Laying on of hands for th gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. Deut. 34:9. John 20:21. 22. Acts8:17; 19-6. 
 1 Tim 4: 14. Acts 9: 17. 1 Cor. 12:3. Acts 19: 1-6. 
 
 6. We believe in the Resurrection of the Body; that 
 the dead in Christ will rise first, and the rest of the 
 dead will not live again until the thousand years are 
 expired. Job 19: 25,26. Dan. 12:2. 1 Cor. 15:42. 1 
 Thess. 4:16. Rev. 20:6. Acts 17: 31. Phil. 3:21. John 
 11:24. Isa.26:19. Ps 17:15. 
 
 6. In the doctrine of Eternal Judgment, which pro- 
 Tides that men shall be judged, rewarded or puiished. 
 
 according to the degree of good or evil they shall have 
 done. Rev. 20:12. Ecc. 3:17. Matt 16:27. 2 Cor. 
 5 : 10 . 2 Pet. 2 : 4, 13, 17. 
 
 7. That a man muxt be Called of God and ordained 
 by the Laying on of Hands of those who are in author- 
 ity, to entitle him to preach the Gospel and Administer 
 in the Ordinances thereof. Heb. 5 : 1, 5, 6, 8. Acts. 
 1 24, 25 ; 14:23. Eph. 4:11. John 15: 16. 
 
 8. That the church should have the same kind of 
 organization that existed in the primitive church, viz: 
 Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, 
 &c. 1 Cor. 12 : 28. Matt. 10 : 1. Acts 6 : 4. Eph. 4 : 11 ; 
 2 : 20. Titus 1 : 5. 
 
 9. That in the Bible is contained the word of God so 
 far as it is translated correctly, and further that the 
 canon of scripture is not full, but that God, by His 
 Spirit, will continue to reveal His word to man until 
 the end of time. Job 32: 8. Heb. 13:8. Pro v. 29:18. 
 Amos3:7. Jer. 23:4; 31:31, 34; 33:6. Ps. 85:10,11. 
 Luke 17 : 26. Rev. 14 : 6, 7 ; 19 : 10. 
 
 That the believers in Christ are entitled to the pow- 
 ers and sifts of the everlasting gospel, viz: the gift of 
 faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, heal- 
 ing, visions, tongues, and the interpretation of 
 tongues, wisdom, charity, brotherly love, &c. 1 Cor. 
 12:1-11;14:26. John 14: 24. Acts 2: 3. Matt. 28:19, 
 20. Mark 16 : 16. 
 
 11. That marriage is ordained of God; and that the 
 law of God provides for but one companion in wedlock, 
 for either man or woman, except in cases' where the 
 contract of marriage is broken by death or transgres- 
 sion. Gen. 2: 18, 21-24; 7 : 1, 7, 13. Prov. 5 : 15-21. 
 Mai. 2 : 14, 15. Matt. 19 : 4-6. 1 Cor. 7 : 2. Heb. 13 : 4. 
 
 12. That the doctrines of a plurality and a commun- 
 ity of wives are heresies, and are opposed to the law of 
 God. Gen. 4; 19, 23, 24 ; 7:9; 22 : 2, in connection Gal. 
 4th and 5th c. Gen. 21:8-10. Mai. 2: 14, 15. Matt. 19- 
 3-9. 
 
 13. That in all matters of controversy upon the duty 
 of man toward God, and in reference to preparation 
 and fitness for the world to come, the word of God 
 should be decisive, and the end of dispute; and that 
 when God directs, man should obey. 
 
 14. That the religion of Jesus Christ, as taught in the 
 New Testament Scriptures, will, if iis precepts are 
 accepted and obeyed, make men and women better in 
 the domestic circle, and better citizens of town, county 
 and state, and consequently better fitted for the change 
 which comeih at death. 
 
 15. That men should worship God in "Spirit and in 
 truth;" and that such worship does not require a 
 violation of the constitutional law of the land. John 
 4: 21-24. 
 
 16 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty 
 God according to the dictates of our conscience, allow 
 all men the same privilege, let them worship how, 
 where or what they may. 
 
 Other than these we esteem as a sacred 
 injunction the observance of the Lord's 
 Supper, or Eucharist ; anil under proper 
 circumstances and place, the washing of 
 feet. But I will not catalogue further at 
 this time. 
 
 Now, I have presented to you our system 
 of faith. It is proper, and necessary to ex- 
 amine the faith and doctrine a people re- 
 presents, in order to ascertain whether they 
 are right or wrong. It is the only possible 
 correct test. You cannot judge by the sto- 
 ries told about them, nor from outward ap- 
 pearances ; but you can tell whether they 
 speak that which is found in the word of 
 God, if you will take the trouble to examine 
 your Bibles. 
 
 It is, therefore, an established principle 
 in Christ's kingdom, that by the word, a 
 man shall stand justified or condemned. 
 
 "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ^ 
 he hath both the Father and the Son." 
 
 This is an absolute truth, and all the pow- 
 er of Satan, and works of evil men combined,, 
 will fail in the effort to overthrow it. The 
 salvation of an individual, from a Bible 
 standpoint, rests upon the condition of 
 whether he will accept the principles of 
 the doctrine of Christ, and adhere to them* 
 
804 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KEI.T.EY DEBATE. 
 
 Hence, Jesus says, "For whosoever doeth 
 the will of God, thesame is my mother, my 
 Bister and my brother." This is the stand- 
 point from which the church of God is re- 
 presented upon earth to-day, if represented 
 at all. Those who abide in, and represent 
 His truth, abide in and represent Him ; and 
 are, therefor*, His children, and for that 
 reason Jesus said, I am not ashamed to call 
 you my brethren. Will my opponent then 
 enter upon an investigation of these 16 
 prominent principles and help you to ascer- 
 tain if a single one is contrary to the verit- 
 able doctrine of the Messiah, as revealed in 
 the Bible, or whether in this System of 
 Faith, there is lacking, or the absence, of a 
 single principle of the Gospel, taughtand 
 enjoined by Jesus and the apostles? 
 
 Jesus in the commission says : "Teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with 
 you always, even unto the end of the world." 
 The promise is as true now, as when ut- 
 tered ; and it is the distinctive mark by 
 which the true minister may be known to- 
 day ; and the apostle, therefore, urged in 
 his time, "If any man preach (teach) any 
 other gospel, let him be accursed." Gal. 1: 
 8-9. It is by their teaching then that we 
 are to judge of the merits of the claimants, 
 now under trial. Not by some story told 
 around the corners about them. Never ! 
 
 But I shall not only prove that we are In 
 harmony with the principles and doctrine 
 of Christ., but will also show : 
 
 3. That this church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter Day Saints, was founded by Christ 
 himself, in accordance with the promises 
 made through the prophets. A work fore- 
 told by them to be accomplished in the last 
 days, or in the "dispeiibation.of the fullness 
 of times." 
 
 As bearing directly upon the work and 
 time of reinstating the gospel and organiza- 
 tion of the church your attention is called 
 to the prophecy of Isaiah, Chap. 11 : 12, 13 
 verses. 
 
 "And he shall set np n en1pn for tn* nations, and 
 41 shul! as>emblr the i."' . t.f I* M< 1, '"' gmher to- 
 41 gether the dispersed of Judab from the four corner! 
 *'of the earth. 
 
 "The envy also of Rphrafm shall depart and the 
 " adversaries of Judab shll be cm off: EphiHim shall 
 " not envy Judah. and Judah shall not vex Ephrxim." 
 
 Here is fully set forth the fact that at 
 Borne time in the world's history the God of 
 heaven should undertake to fulfill the 
 promises made to the patriarchs and Moses 
 to establish their posterity permanently. 
 The time is fixed, too, after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem in the year A. D. 70; for it 
 says, "and shall assemble the outcasts of 
 Israel, and gather together the dispersed of 
 Judah from the four corners of the earth." 
 Judah was not dispersed till about the time 
 above referred to; for although the other 
 tribes were outcasts driven from the prom- 
 ised land of Canaan it was said of Judah. 
 Gen. 49: 10: v 'The scepter shall not depart 
 from Judah, nor a law-giver from between 
 his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him 
 shall the gathering of the people be." 
 
 This is full and explicit. Judah was not 
 
 to lose a national existence until' Christ 
 should come; but after that time it is evi- 
 dent from the prophecy that they would, 
 for it is declared, "unto him (Christ) should 
 the gathering of the people be." They 
 were to be scattered then as prefigured in 
 the prophecy, after the Shiloh should come. 
 But notice, "unto him they are to be gath- 
 ered : Hence, he is to set up an ensign" 
 (raise the eospel standard) after the disper- 
 sion of Judah, and from that beginning 
 gather not only Judah but all the outcasts 
 of Israel, even though so far scattered and 
 dispersed as to the "four corners of the 
 earth." 
 
 The same work is pointed out 2n Isaiah 
 62: 10 and 11: 
 
 "Go through, go through the gate: prepare ye the 
 " way of the people: fast up, cnat up tie hitihway; 
 "gather out the siouei; lift up a standard for the 
 " people. 
 
 ''Behold, the Lord hth proclaimed unto the end of 
 ' the world, Say ye to tne daughter of Zion Behold, 
 "thy salvation c>meth; behold, hie reward if with 
 " him, aud bis work before him." 
 
 The prophet here sets forth the work of 
 bringing again the people from their dis- 
 persion, and the preparation to be made for 
 this work ; the standard among other things 
 is to be "lifted up," as declared in the for- 
 mer citation; and this is just before the 
 seco.id coming of Jesus, for it says : "Behold 
 thy salvation cometh: behold his reward is 
 with him, and his work before him." Jesua 
 when he came before did not restore the 
 Jews they were not then dispersed ; neith- 
 er did he then "come to reward every 
 man according to his work." Here, how- 
 ever, the propnet points to the time when 
 he shall come bringing his "rticanls" with 
 him. 
 
 Let us pass on to the statement mad? by 
 the propiiet Jeremiah of this same work. 
 Jeremiah 16:16-20. In the 16, 17 and 18 
 verses the prophet speaks of the restoration 
 of Israel in the time when it is declared he 
 "will send forth many fishers and they 
 shall fish them; and many hunters and 
 they shall hunt them from every mountain 
 and from every hill and out of the holes of 
 the rocks." Then, in verse 19, he says: 
 
 " O Lord, my strength and my fortress and my refuge 
 " in the day of affliction, the Uentiles shall come unto 
 thee from the ends of the earth und shall say. Surely 
 " our fathers have inher ted lies, vauity, aud thingi 
 "wherein there is no profit." 
 
 " Shall a man make sods unto himself, and they are 
 " no gods?" 
 
 " Therefore, behold, T will this once cause them 
 ' to know. 1 will <-M use them to kn"W mine hand and 
 "rnymiglt; aud they shall know that my uaind is 
 The Lord." 
 
 Here the condition of society Is vividly 
 set forth and the evil teaching that is to do 
 so much mischief to the Gentiles. Israel, 
 it is predicted, shall be established, although 
 the false teachers among the Cien tile nations 
 have told the people it would not be done. 
 The Lord of all the earth is to do a work 
 and command and authorize his servants, 
 although the people had been taught that 
 they could call their own preachers and set 
 vp their own ministers, God's hand is to 
 be revealed. He is to actually declare his 
 purposes as in the olden time, although the 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 305 
 
 people have been taught that revelation and 
 the immediate work of God among them 
 "has been done away." For these things 
 the Gentiles will yet be surprised, because 
 of the great things coming upon the earth, 
 nd they shall wake up but to exclaim 
 "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, 
 vanity and things wherein there is no 
 profit'." That they have been deceived and 
 "have set up gods unto themselves and they 
 are no gods." Let me tell you, my friends, 
 there is coming a time when there is to be 
 a change, and then there will be a weaken- 
 ing all around among these self-constituted 
 revivalists. 
 
 The prophet further refers to the work of 
 the Lord, ibid. 23 ; 1 to 5 verses : 
 
 "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter 
 " the sheep of my pasture ! saith the Lord." 
 
 " Therefore, thus saith the Lord against the pastors 
 " that feed my people ; ye have scattered my flock and 
 *' driven them away and have not visited them ; behold 
 "I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the 
 " Lord." 
 
 " And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of 
 "the countries whither I have driven them; and I 
 " will bring them again to their folds and they shall 
 " be fruitfu' and Increase." 
 
 " And I will set up shepherds over them which shall 
 " fee>1 them, and they shall fear no more nor be dis- 
 " niayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the 
 " Lord." 
 
 Thus it is further shown that it comes 
 from the unsound work of the teachers, that 
 the people of the Lord are scattered and 
 divided in every place, and there will com- 
 mence a work of change in the right direc- 
 tion, when he shall begin to select, call his 
 own shepherds, teachers, ministers, and 
 send them forth with the true gospel stand- 
 ard which he has declared he will set up. 
 
 But hurrying on in these prophecies, I 
 cite you the 20th of Ezekiel, 33 to 37 verses: 
 
 The same work is here outlined and to be 
 done, as before indicated, in the last time; 
 and the manner of it is clearly set forth in 
 verse 35 : 
 
 "And I will bring you Into the wilderness of the 
 " p< ople, Fnot in a desert wilderness this time,] and 
 " there will I plead with you face to face." 
 
 "Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilder- 
 " ness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you. 
 "Brtith the Lord God." 
 
 There will be a revealment of God's hand 
 then this late in the world, and revelation 
 and inspiration are not things of the past. 
 They are certainly to be again employed in 
 the work God shall be concerned in, in the 
 last days, when he shall set his hand a 
 "second time to recover his people from 
 every country." 
 
 Notice next in this connection the testi- 
 mony offered upon the question of the final 
 change to take place as to the relative situ- 
 ations of the Gentiles and Israel, by the 
 apostle Paul : Rom. 11 : 25 and 27. 
 
 " For I would not. brethren, that ye should be Jgnor- 
 " ant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise In your 
 "own conceits: [Paul is writing to the Gentile 
 " sninls and desires to open their eyes to the fact of 
 41 some changes to be made:] that blindness, (or hard- 
 " ness) in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness 
 * of th Gentiles be come in." 
 
 "And so all Israel shall be saved; as It Is written 
 
 " there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall 
 
 "turn awy ungodliness fmm Jacob:" "For this is 
 
 ' my covenant unto them, when I shall take away 
 
 " their sins." 
 
 This Deliverer was to come after Paul's 
 
 time, and the restoration and revelation 
 made after that time. Who ?hall say then 
 that God shall not reveal himself again, 
 and that his "hand" shall not be made 
 manifest as he has declared. 
 
 Open your hearts, my friends, to the 
 sublime tact that the promise of revelation 
 is for our time, and this, when God shall 
 set up his church, "no more to be thrown 
 down or left to another people." 
 
 Jesus in the 21st chapter of Luke, speak- 
 ing of this wonderful transformation in the 
 situations of the people says : 
 
 " And they shall fall by the rdge of the sword, and 
 " shall be led away captive into all nations ; and Jeru- 
 " salcm shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, uulil 
 " the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." 
 
 Will my opponent say. that then it shall 
 -not cease to be trodden down, and that the 
 Lord shall not at that time be found plead- 
 ing in the wilderness of the people for the 
 old paths, and the removal of Israel's sins? 
 But, says the enquirer, how shall this sin 
 be removed and all of this work be brought 
 about? This leads me to consider another 
 feature entering into the discussion of this 
 proposition, showing: 
 
 4. The means used in the accomplishment 
 of the work mentioned in these prophecies, 
 or the nature of God's work. 
 
 It is to be identical in kind with the work 
 of the first century. I understand there is 
 to be no change so far as Deity is concerned, 
 in carrying or> his work. . 
 
 Jesus says : 
 
 "And this go^x>el of the kingdom shall 
 be preached in al *he world for a witness 
 unto all nations ; fc.^4 then shall the end 
 come." Matt. 24: 14 
 
 He evidently refers tv the word "this," 
 to the kind of gospel hu will be, that is 
 preached, and the end of ti\ world, as the 
 time of preaching it; for IK ^.s answering 
 the following questions askeq him by his 
 disciples ; see verse 3: 
 
 1. "Tell us, when shall these v. M tigs be?" 
 
 2. " What shall be the sigu M thy 
 coming?" 
 
 3. "And, [what shall be the sign] o. tiii> 
 end of the world?" 
 
 He uses the language relating to " thu 
 gospel of the Kingdom" in connection with 
 the answer to the third question. Hence, 
 I conclude, it is not to change, but in the 
 end of time, be the same old gospel. This 
 is as the Revelator viewed it, for he says : 
 
 "And I saw another angel fly In the midst of heaven, 
 ' having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them 
 ' that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and 
 ' kindred, and tongue, and people." 
 
 " Saying with a loud voice, fear God, and give glory 
 'to Him; for the hour of His judgment Is come; and 
 ' worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the 
 ' sea, and the fountains of waters." 
 
 There are two prominent things set out 
 In this language bearing upon the propo- 
 sition : 
 
 1. That it is the "everlasting gospel." Ik 
 is always the same them; does not change, 
 and hence, equal to " This gospel of tho 
 Kingdom," of which Jesus spoke. 
 
 2. That it is placed by John aa being 
 committed to earth and preached in th* 
 
806 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 "hour of God' 8 judgment." The exact 
 time to which Jesus refers, " the end of 
 the world. 11 
 
 I will proceed to examine it then, and 
 ascertain if possible, what it is, and what, 
 if anything, is connected with it wherever 
 it is found. It is stated in the record by 
 Matthew 4: 23.: 
 
 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching In their 
 " Synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the King- 
 " dom. and healing all manner of sickness and all 
 " manner of disease among the people." 
 
 It is set forth in Luke 4: 18 to 30, in the 
 same light: 
 
 " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath 
 " ainiointed me to preach the go>pel to the poor: he 
 " hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach 
 " deliverHiice to the cai tives. and r covering of sight 
 " to the bli. d, to set at liberty them thnt are bruised." 
 
 " To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." 
 
 He at this time says to the people: 
 
 " Ye will surely say un o me this proverb, Physician, 
 " hC'il thyself. Whatsoever we have heard done in 
 " Cape- nnnm, do also here in thy country. And He 
 "said. Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted 
 " in his own country." 
 
 Jesus recognized the fact that of a truth 
 where the gospel of his kingdom was, there 
 was power also; providing, the people were 
 in a frame of mind to receive it ; for he says 
 in another place : "But if I cast out devils 
 by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of 
 God is come unto you." Matt. 12:28. The 
 power was, as the preaching of the gospel, 
 one of the necessary evidences. Therefore, 
 the answer was returned to John the Bap- 
 tist, when he sent to Jesus to know of a 
 truth whether he was the one that should 
 come, or do we look for another : 
 
 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show 
 "John again, those things which ye do hear and see : 
 "The blind receive Mieir eight, and the lame walk, 
 "the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf har, the dead 
 "are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached 
 " unto them." Matt. 11 : 3. 4 & 5. 
 
 This is a fair statement and description of 
 the work of preaching the gospel, and 
 building up of the kingdom of God ; and it 
 is the example set by Jesus himself. 
 Hence, we read in Luke 4 : 40. 
 
 "Now when the sun was setting, all they that had 
 "any sick with cTvers diseases, brought them unto 
 "him; mid ht- laid his hands on everyone of them, 
 * aud healed them." 
 
 The publication of the gospel then, which 
 is the distinguishing feature of Christ'* 
 kingdom, is the initiatory means of this 
 work of the last days, and this gospel is t& 
 be not merely in name, sound, or word, but 
 as delivered by Jesus and the apostles* 
 The gospel is properly described as being: 
 
 1. In word God's truth, and 
 
 2. In power and the Holy Ghost. 
 Upon this Paul says: 
 
 " For our gospel came not nnto you In word only, 
 but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost and in 
 much assurance; as ye know what manner of men 
 we were among you for your sake." 1 Thess 1:5: 
 "And my speech and my preaching was not with 
 enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstra- 
 tion of the Spirit and power." I Cor, 2:4. 
 " For the kingdom of God is not in word, but im 
 
 11 power." Ibid, 4 : 20. 
 ' But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God then th 
 
 " Kingdom of God is come unto you." 
 
 So declared by Jesus, and the converse of 
 the proposition is, that where there is an 
 absence of this manifest work of the Spirit 
 of God in power, there is an absence of the 
 church and kingdom of Jesus Christ. 
 
 I shall, then, ladies and gentlemen, have 
 fully established my proposition by the 
 Bible, if I ana successful in maintaining 
 these points : 
 
 1. That these principles which I have set 
 forth as embodying the faith of the church 
 are indeed in harmony with the word of 
 God, the good seed of the kingdom. 
 
 2. That the church is doing the work of 
 sowing this good seed. 
 
 3. That it was founded in pursuance of 
 the statements made by the prophets. 
 
 4. That the manner of work is after the 
 pattern established by Jesus, not only by 
 the administration of the letter that killeth, 
 but also "the Spirit that giveth life." 
 
 "Whosoever trangresseth and abideth 
 not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God ; 
 but he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ 
 he hath both the Father and the Son " 
 
 If we abide in this doctrine we shall hav* 
 both the Father and the Son, and that will 
 prove that it is God's church, aud accented 
 with him. 
 
 (Time called). 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLER DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FIRST SPEECH ON THIRD PROPOSITION, 
 
 MODERATORS, LiADIKS AND 
 
 ORNTLRMKN: It is freely conceded that 
 Morrnoniam contains much that is good. 
 80 does Mohammedanism. Yet both are 
 j in postures, one as much as the other. It 
 Is conceded thatits organization has features 
 that are identical with some features of the 
 church of Christ. So-does a Masonic Lodge. 
 The Masonic Lodge is a human institution 
 that has copied some of the features of the 
 church. 80 is Mormonism. It is to be ex- 
 pected that Mormonism should teach some 
 things that are good, for its religious utter- 
 ances, in the Book of Mormon and other 
 pretended revelations, plagiarize large por- 
 tions of the Bible. It is to be expected that 
 it should imitate the church of Christ, for a 
 counterfeit is always made as much like the 
 original as possible. We should not accept 
 Mormonisra because of the stolen portions 
 of the Bible in its pretended revelations, 
 any more than we should take poison 
 because placed in a dish of food. Mormon- 
 ism steals from the Bible for the same pur- 
 pose that treacherous enemies will assume 
 tha uniform, flag and name of reinforcements 
 that the garrison is expecting, in order to 
 effect an entrance by deception and capture 
 the citadel. It is a fraudulent use of the 
 word of God to deceive. We do not accept 
 Mormonism on account of the features of 
 the church of Christ that it has counter- 
 feited. The closer the imitation the more 
 dangerous the counterfeit. The question to 
 be settled is this : "Is the Mormon organi- 
 zation the true church of Christ." It is not. 
 "Does Mormonism utter some good things?" 
 The devil can do that. Nor "does it have 
 somethings that the apostolic church had." 
 The counterfeit has some features of the 
 genuine. The question is, "Is it genuine?" 
 To determine that question we shall examine 
 the teachings of Mormonism in regard to the 
 eight great features of the church of Christ, 
 as given by Paul in Enh. iv. I. One God. 
 II. One Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One 
 faith. V. One baptism. VI. One hope. 
 VII. One body. VIII. One name. By a 
 comparison of the teachings of Mormonism 
 with the teachings of the Bible in regard 
 to these great features of the church of 
 Christ we will expose its grossly unscrip- 
 tural and anti-Christian character. I shall 
 not be deterred from doing this work by 
 any regard for the feelings of the disciples 
 of Mormonism or of sympathizers with it. 
 I shall do it truthfully, unsparingly and 
 fully. I shall tell the truth, the whole 
 truth, without mercy, even if it does anger 
 the Mormon Devil who cannot be shamed. 
 Let us compare the teachings of the Bible 
 and Mormojiism in regard to the "One God" 
 who is the Father of all, over all, in all and 
 through all. The Bible teaches that there 
 le one self-existent, independent, self-sus- 
 UJuing and eternal Spirit, the origin of all 
 
 derived being, of all being except his own; 
 and the cause of all phenomena. Mormon- 
 ism is a gross system of idolatry, a gross 
 compound of idolatry and materialism. It 
 assumes the self-existence of matter. 
 Smith did this in his teachings years 
 before his death. P. P. Pratt published 
 his "Eternal Duration and Regene- 
 ration of Matter," years before the death 
 of Smith, and it was a standard, and the 
 universal teaching of Mormonism. Orson 
 Pratt in public discussion advocated the 
 eternity and self-existence of matter, and 
 declared that God was matter, and had 
 form organs of man, even to those of digest- 
 ion, evacuation, and procreation, and that 
 he used them as much as man ana the same 
 as man. Logically and consistently Mor- 
 monism denies the omnipotence, omnipres- 
 ence, and omniscience of God. If matter 
 and God be co-existent, mutually depend- 
 ent on each other, and mutually sus- 
 tain each other, each must be finite and 
 limited by theother. If matter be self-ex- 
 istent, independent, self-sustaining and 
 eternal, then God is a product of matter, 
 and includes but a part of matter and its 
 energies. In either case God can not be 
 omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and 
 infinite for in one case he has been eternally 
 limited by the eternal laws of matter ; in 
 the other he is the creature of matter. 
 They hold that matter has ever existed and 
 never was created, since that would pre- 
 sume the existence of a creative spirit, ante- 
 rior to matter which is impossible, since 
 Spirit itself is matter. The theory of crea- 
 tion advocated in standard Mormon author- 
 ities on the topic, is this: "In eternity two 
 elementary particles of matter met in con- 
 sultation and compared intelligence. Then 
 these two atoms called to their aid a third 
 passing atom and the three uniting in one 
 will, the three atoms became the first power. 
 To the dignity of this first power no other 
 subsequent power could attain, because the 
 first power had the priority, and by uniting 
 more atoms together, it would always have 
 the precedence and advantage of all other 
 combinations of power." This is bald athe- 
 ism. It is Ingersoll's theory of the origin, 
 of all things almost word for word. Hesaya 
 in his "Gods." "Let us suppose that two 
 atoms of matter come together. We have 
 then cause, effect, order, and law." And 
 he consistently adds, "without God or any 
 need of one." But Mormonism absurdly 
 makes a God out of these two atoms that 
 have accidently met. Out of this first Com- 
 bination, the First Power, the Head God 
 was begotten, not made, and ther Gr.ds 
 have sprung from him as his children. Rex 
 is a cardinal, universal, and eternal, attri- 
 bute and law of all being, physical and 
 moral. Therefore there are Kings and 
 Queens in heaven, and there are Fathers 
 
8Ub 
 
 THE BKADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 mirt Mothers of onr Spirits, that were begot- 
 ten by these higher beings, having sex, in 
 heaven ; and wait to become incarnate, as 
 men and women give them opportunity by 
 intercourse with each other. This is the 
 basis of the Doctrine of Spiritual Wifery, 
 that Rijjdon advocated in Kirtland long 
 before Joe announced it as a spiritual rev- 
 elation. God himself was married or how 
 could he do the work of a father? All spir- 
 its are literally the Sons of God, who is lit- 
 eraily the father of spirits having begotten 
 all in the ordinary course of generation. 
 God has had therefore nobody knows how 
 many wives and concubines. Thisisclear- 
 Jy proved by the words of the psalmist. 
 ''Kings' daughters are among thy honorable 
 women ; Upon thy right hand does stand 
 the Queen in gold of Ophir." The apostle 
 told the Hebrews, "We have had fathers in 
 our flesh who corrected us and we gave 
 them reverence. Shall we not much rather 
 be subject to the father of spirits and live?" 
 "Father of spirits" which are in the form 
 and shape of mortal beings proves that spir- 
 its were begotten as fathers beget, and of 
 course spirits have mothers as well as fath- 
 ers. Such was the teaching of standard 
 Mormon books before the death of Smith. 
 Such is Mormonism. 
 
 The Book of Mormon pages 505-6, we read: 
 Jared's brother saw the ringer of the Lord 
 and it was as the finger of a man, like unto 
 flesh and blood, and he said, "I saw the 
 finger of the Lord ; I knew not that the 
 Lord had flesh and blood." And the Lord 
 said unto him, "Behold I am Jesus Christ ; 
 I am the Father and the Son. Seest thou 
 that ye are created after my own image. 
 Yea, even all men were created in the 
 beginning after my own image." This 
 teaches that Christ before his incarnation 
 had flesh and blood and a body just like 
 man's body and that God has also. Then 
 he has a human material organization with 
 all its organs of flesh and blood of eating, 
 digestion, evacuation, and procreation. He 
 is limited and finite. He is not spirit, as 
 Jesus declares, for a spirit has not flesh and 
 bones. The Mormon God is an idol a mere 
 man. Orson Pratt declared in a public dis- 
 cussion years before the death of Smith, 
 and the language was a favorite opinion 
 with Mormons years before Smith's death 
 we quote it from a publication printed in 
 1843, "We worship a God who has both 
 body and parts who has mouth, eyes and 
 ears, (and as we have shown they teach 
 that he has organs of digestion, evacuation, 
 and procreation, has organs of sex) "who 
 speaks when he pleases, and to whom he 
 pleases. "Our God is as good at mechani- 
 cal inventions, architecture, tailoring, 
 smithing, stone-cutting, &c., as any other 
 business." Orson Pratt, P. P. Pratt, Tay- 
 lor, and scores of Mormon leaders, years 
 before Smith's death taught that God ate 
 drank and d id all of the acts that man per- 
 forms and has all of man's organs The 
 "Millennial Star," Vol. VI, quotes Joseph 
 Smith himself as saying, "What is God? 
 He is a material organized intelligence pos- 
 
 sessing both body and parts. He is in the 
 form of man, and is in fact of the same 
 species ;" (hence, according to Joe, he has 
 organs of eating, digesting, evacuatien, and 
 procreation.) "He is the model and stand- 
 ard of the perfection to which man is des- 
 tined to attain, he being the great Father 
 and head of the wholn family. This being- 
 cannot occcupy two distinct places at once, 
 hence he cannot be everywhere present; 
 (God's infinity omnipotence, omnipresence 
 and omniscience positively denied. Accord- 
 ing to Joe he is limited in form, in place, in 
 time and in knowledge.) "What are 
 angels?" They are intelligences of the 
 human species. Many of them are the off- 
 spring of Adam and Eve. Of men it is said, 
 being Gods or Son's of God," endowed 
 with the same powers, capacities and attri- 
 butes, that the Heavenly Father and Jesus 
 Christ possess. The weakest child of God 
 that now exists upon earth will possess 
 more dominion, more property, more sub- 
 jects, more power, more glory than is now 
 possessed by Jesus Christ or his Father, 
 while at the same time Jesus and his 
 Father will have their dominion subjects 
 and kingdom increased in proportion." 
 
 Then you have revelation and inspiration 
 of Impostor Joe. Spiritual gifts ought to 
 exist to reveal such blasphemous stuff as 
 that. No doubt Joseph the Seer, is the 
 greatest prophet of God, and the Book of 
 Mormon that he gave to the world, the acme 
 of revelation "The fullness of the Gospel." 
 God is matter, he had a beginning. He is 
 a creature of matter. He is finite, very 
 fiuite, since he can increase so wonderfully. 
 He has all ef the organs of the human body, 
 sex, eating, digestion, procreation and 
 evacuation. He eats, drinks, digests, evac- 
 uates, procreates like mere man, and very 
 properly, for he is mere man. Mormonism 
 teaches that the Father is not eternal in his 
 existence, or without a beginning, for he 
 had a father and a grand-father, and a line 
 of progenitors, extending back almost ad- 
 infinitum until they reach the great head 
 God, who was generated when two atoms 
 of matter met and called in a third atom, 
 and in the process of generation begat the 
 First Power. In the Times and Reasons of 
 Feb. 15th, 1845, the leading editorial 
 declares "Mormonism embraces a plurality 
 of Gods, as the apostle said there are Gods 
 many and Lords many. We say Jesus 
 Christ had a father and mother of his 
 spirit, and a father and mother of his flesh, 
 and so have all of his brothers and sisters. 
 That is not all. The first line of Genesis, 
 properly translated should read: "the 
 Head God brought forth all of the Gods 
 with the heavens, and with the earth." 
 Schmucker quotes similar language from 
 Joe Smith himself, from the King Follett 
 sermon, and Joe adds " the head -God, has 
 had any number of offspring that he has 
 begotten by ordinary process of procrea- 
 tion." Who can doubt that the best of 
 spiritual gifts and highest of inspiration 
 exist in a system that is based on such stuff 
 as that, and that they were needed to give 
 
TttE BRA DEN AND KJSLLEY 'DEBATE. 
 
 309 
 
 the world such stuff, nd that such stuff is 
 the last and best revelation vouchsafed to 
 men. 
 
 We charge then that Mormonism as 
 taught by Joseph Smith and its leaders, 
 chosen and approved of him, and in works 
 that were standards under Smith's pro- 
 phetic control, is a revolting system of 
 Paganism. It is a polytheism of the gross- 
 est, character, a return to the most loathe- 
 some idolatry and j/aganism. It is bald 
 materialism. Matter is its God, matter 
 prrcreated its Head God. He has pro- 
 created other Gods. Its Gods are finite, 
 very finite, mere id, ,1s. It blasphemously 
 carries into heaven all human organs and 
 actions, eating, di/rking, digestion, evacu- 
 ation, procreation, and all of the acts that 
 are their function A. It with, transcendent 
 blasphemy, attempts to foist them into the 
 being of the fj'Jd Absolute Seif-existent 
 and Eternal Fr/rit, and to make him like 
 Unto themselv-//, with all their organs, appe- 
 tites, passion' and sins. Such is Mormon- 
 ism as taiy/jt by its founders, and as 
 presented >: its standards. 
 
 We will LOW examine the teaching of 
 Mormon i' ( M in regard to the one Lord. The 
 Spirit of Christ was begotten in heaven by 
 the Fatbir on one of the Queens of Heaven. 
 His bo'iy was begotten of one of the ter- 
 restrial concubines of the Father, Mary of 
 Nazareth. The Father descended and 
 wooed Mary as Jupiter wooed Latona or 
 Semele, and then consigned her to the arms 
 of the complaisant Joseph. As the result 
 of the celestial amours, the Saviour of the 
 world was born. The amour of the Father 
 with Mary is like the amour of Jupiter with 
 Europa or Alcmena, lo or Latona or other 
 victims of supernal lust. Jupiter in the 
 form of swan, bull, or shower of gold, out- 
 rages purity, and the victim of supernal 
 lu^t is compelled to bear Perseus, Hercules 
 and Apollo. The Father as literal dove 
 or in some other material form compels 
 Mary. to" bear Jesus The heathenism of 
 Greece and Rome was elevating in com- 
 parison with Joe Smith's beastly, sensual 
 teachings, in regard to things celestial and 
 divine. The hoary Jupiter of Olympus 
 whose nod shook heaven and earth, was a 
 much more noble being than Joe Smith's 
 head God, and his sway over the world 
 was much more intelligent and divine than 
 the sway of Joe's head God, who is so 
 finite that the weakest mortal will soon 
 eclipse him. Such is the teaching of Mormon 
 ism in regard to the origin of the Divine Lo- 
 gos, the Divine Messiah. Weobject that Mor- 
 nionism denies that Jesus was, through his 
 inspired apostles, our only Divine prophet, 
 our only source of revelation, and it adds 
 to his completed revelation in the New 
 Testament, the Book of Mormon, and other 
 
 gretended revelations, extending from Joe 
 mith down to the vagaries of visionaries 
 and fanatics of the present hour. It denies 
 that Jesus is, through the New Testament, 
 our sole king, and that his commands, com- 
 pleted in the New Testament, are the sole 
 constitution and law of the church, and 
 
 adds the pretended revelations of Joe 
 Smith and others from Smith down to the 
 present hour. We have examined the 
 Book of Mormon, we will examine others iu 
 their proper place. 
 
 Mormonism errs in its teachings in regard 
 to the one Holy Spirit. In writings extant 
 before the death of Smith, it is taught that 
 the Holy Spirit is merely the concomitant 
 will of the Father and the Son, the one 
 mind possessing, actuating and harmonizing 
 both, and which gives vitality and unity 
 . to their thoughts and purposes. The Holy- 
 Spirit differs from the Father and the Son 
 in being merely a spiritual attribute, and 
 not a person possessing body and parts, 
 which they teach all persons must have, 
 and without which there can be no person- 
 ality. As the Holy Spirit is not a person 
 we cannot see how our opponent can claim 
 such spiritual powers, as he does. We 
 have already sufficiently exposed the fallacy 
 of Mormonism in claiming that the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit is now in the Church, 
 and that it is now enjoyed by them. The 
 fallacy of their claims to inspiration and 
 revelations. We have sufficiently exposed 
 the unscriptural and character of such 
 claims. We now submit a practical test. 
 We challenge and defy my opponent to 
 present one instance of miracle, inspiration 
 or revelation, that ever occurred in Kirt- 
 land, the head centre of Mormonism for 
 years, the shrine of Joe, Sidney, and all the 
 inspired men of Mormonism. Present one 
 utterance and prove that it was and must 
 have been inspired. Present one miracle 
 ever wrought here. Stop the idiocy of 
 eternally vociferating that j'ou have the 
 cause, spiritual gifts, inspiration, miracu- 
 lous powers, that all your officers had it 
 while in Kirtland that all have it now 
 that your members had it here that 
 multitudes have it now until you present 
 one effect, one utterance, that must have 
 been a revelation, one miracle, one proof of 
 your claim to inspiration and miraculous 
 power. It is an insult to all reason and 
 common sense for you to vociferate this im- 
 pudent lying claim any longer. Give us 
 one proof or be silent with shame. 
 
 The one faith the one system of teach- 
 ing, the faith once delivered unto the Saints. 
 To this one faith, the word of God, the Mor- 
 mon adds the Book of Mormon, the Book 
 of Doctrines and Covenants, and the pre- 
 tended revelations of Joe Smith and oth- 
 ers, published as revelations in their publi* 
 cations ; and in their congregationalaction, 
 they add the vagaries of visionaries', who 
 profess to have received revelation. We 
 hear much of the toleration and charity of 
 this people. In the Book of Doctrines and 
 Covenants we read, "Those who recfiveth 
 it" (the Book of Mormon) "in faith and 
 work righteousness, shall receive a crown 
 of spiritual life; but those who harden their 
 hearts in unbelief and reject it (the Book of 
 Msrmon), it shall be to their own condem- 
 nation." Joe says to his apostles and emis- 
 saries, pretending to speak for Christ, 
 "verily, verily, I say unto you, they who 
 
310 
 
 THE BF '< 
 
 AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 believe not on your word and are not bap- 
 tized by water in my name or the remis- 
 sion of sins, etc., shall be d-imned. And 
 this revelation unto you is in force from this 
 hour upon all the world." B .ok of Mormon. 
 "He that denies these thi'/gs let him be 
 accursed." Book of Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants. "And this condemnation resteth on 
 the children of Zion eve/:, all. And they 
 shall remain under tholr condemnation 
 until they repent and \<t, member the new 
 Covenant, even the E-.'/ok of Mormon." 
 "That Joseph Smith o;rid those to whom 
 these commandments' were given might 
 have power to lay it,') foundation of this 
 church the only tin// and living church 
 now on earth." 
 
 In a public discassJon in 1840 a high priest 
 of Mormonism defined it, "Mormonism is 
 to believe that Christ is the Son of God" 
 (truth), "a firm belief in the Scriptures" 
 (truth), "in faith, repentance and baptism 
 for the remission of sins" (truth), "laying 
 on of hands for the reception of the Holy 
 Ghost" (imposture), "having the church 
 organized according to ihe New Testament 
 pattern" (truthj but Mormonism has de- 
 parted from it m a score of officers, ordi- 
 nances and practices), "and to live by every 
 word that proceeds out of the mouth of 
 God" (truth, but Mormonism falsely pre- 
 tends that the Book of Mormon and Joe 
 Smith's revelations and other revelations 
 proceed from the mouth of God as much as 
 the Bible). "All who reject this belief 
 (Mormonisna) will be damned if the Scrip- 
 tures be true." All who reject Mormonism 
 will be damned if Mormonism be true. 
 This high priest coolly tells that all who 
 reject the Mormon idea of laying on of 
 hands for the imparting of the miraculous 
 influencoof theHoly Spirit, will be damned. 
 All who do not believe in a Church accord- 
 ing to Mormou pattern with presidents, 
 vice-presidents, councillors, seers, revela- 
 tory, translators, patriarch, priests, high 
 priests, twelve apostles, several quorums of 
 apostles, and so on ad innnitum, will be 
 damned. All who do not accept the Book 
 of Mormon and all Mormon frauds will be 
 damned. 
 
 Osie of the apostles, one of the Pratts, 
 rears before Smith's death, thus defines 
 Mormonism in one of his books: 
 
 "Some of the leading characteristics of Latter Day 
 Sospel are as follows: It declares that all of the earth, 
 Christian and Jew, heathen and pagan, are living in 
 cvickedness and unbeliet, and without a knowledge of 
 liod. It declares that the religion of Jesus established 
 on the eurth in the days of the primitive apostles has 
 been lou perverted imo human institutions, without 
 either the form or power of Godliness, and consequently 
 are not acknowledged of God. It declares that all 
 those calling themselves Christians in the nineteenth 
 century are nothing less than idolaters living under a 
 broken covenant. It declares that God has now spoken 
 from the heavens ai d given a commission unto men to 
 go forth and usher in the fullness of the times (Mor- 
 monism) by opening the Kingdom of God (Mormon Dis- 
 pensation; to both Jew and Gentile. It declares that all 
 who will not humble themselves and go forth and be 
 baptized for the rein ssion of their sins, and have the 
 imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost 
 by those wh.>m God has called (Mormon emissaries), 
 will never enter the Kingdom of God and be saved 
 with the everlasting salvation. It declares that all 
 who are without prophets and apostles, the spirit of 
 
 Inspiration and Immediate revelation from God, to 
 pether with the Holy Ghost, which will enable men to 
 dream dreams, see visionband prophesy, sp. ak in un- 
 known tongues and work miracles, are not yet fellow- 
 citizens with the Saints, or of the household of God. 
 It declares that this (the Mormon Dispensation) i^ the 
 stone cut out of the mountain, without hands, spoken 
 of by Daniel and the prophets, and that it will roll on 
 until every hostile power has fallen before it, and it has 
 become a great mountain and has filled the whole 
 earth." 
 
 Such is Mormon charity and catholicity, 
 of which our opponent boasts. 
 
 The one baptism. We object to Mormon- 
 ism that it teaches that there are two 
 baptisms in the Church, when inspiration 
 declares there is but one. That it claims 
 the baptism in the Spirit, when the word 
 of God teaches that the baptism in the 
 Spirit ceased with miracles, and that it was 
 administered by Christ but twice =wheu 
 the gospel was first proclaimed to Israel 
 and to Gentiles. It was the power with 
 which the kingdom was to be ushered in. 
 We object that Mormonism confounds being 
 born of the wafer and Spirit, being begot- 
 ten by the Spirit through the word, and 
 being born of water and the Spirit in bap- 
 tism with being baptized in the Spirit. 
 That it makes what was miraculous a part 
 of conversion, which can be accomplished 
 only by moral power. We object that 
 Mormonism teaches baptism of the living 
 as proxies for the dead. The first publio 
 announcement of this farce, was in a ser- 
 mon by Joe Smith to a conference at Nau- 
 voo, October 3rd, 1840. In April, 1841, 
 Rigdon preached it to a conference. It was 
 stated thus "The gospel has been, and we 
 infer, is still preached to the dead, that is 
 to disembodied spirits. The departed 
 spirit is still in a probationary state, capable 
 of being affected by a proclamation of the 
 gospel. Christ offers salvation to the 
 departed on the condition of faith in per- 
 son, and baptism by a living kinsman in 
 his behalf." In May 1841, in a conference 
 held in Kirtland, nearly all of twonty-five 
 baptisms, were for the dead. In a general 
 conference in October 1841, at Nauvoo, Joe 
 Smith declared "The doctrine presents in a 
 clear Mght the wisdom and mercy of God 
 in preparing an ordinance for the salvation 
 of the dead. Being baptized by proxy, 
 their names are recorded in heaven, and 
 they are judged according to the deeds 
 done in the body. This doctrine was the 
 burden of the scriptures. Those saints 
 who neglect in on behalf of their deceased 
 relatives, do so at the peril of their own 
 salvation." After this declaration Joe 
 tells the faithful that the Lord will allow 
 no more baptisms for the dead until the 
 temple is completed, and lashes them like 
 Tetzel with his indulgences, to pour in the 
 money to build the temple, so that they can 
 save their dead, who are to stay in hell till 
 that font in the temple is finished. Will 
 anyone swallow such stuff' as revelation. 
 
 We would like to hear from Bishop Kel- 
 ley an answer to these queries : How can 
 the departed know anything about what 
 his living proxy has done? How can the 
 living proxy know what the departed has 
 
TFTE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 811 
 
 done? What degree of relationship will 
 make the baptism valid? If the departed 
 believes, and no living 1 person can or will 
 be baptized for him, will he continue in 
 hell? If the living is baptized and the de- 
 parted does not believe, what good does 
 this ignorant farce, this blundering in igno- 
 ram-e. do any one? We hope Bishop Kelley 
 will clear up this matter. 
 
 We obje<-t to Mormon teaching in respect 
 to the '' One hope." They convert it into a 
 sensualistic materialistic paradise, like the 
 paradise of a Mohammedan. The earth is 
 to be changed into a fit theatre for sensual 
 enjoyments. The Saints will be resurrected 
 and reign over Gentiles for a thousand 
 years. Jesus, as temporal ruler, will reisrn 
 at Jerusalem. Then will come a renovation 
 of the earth by tire, and the Mormons will 
 all become Gods. Smith declares, in the 
 King Follett sermon, "You have got to 
 learn to be Gods yourselves, to be kings and 
 
 Eriests unto God, the same as all other Gods 
 ave done, by going trom one small degree 
 to another, from grace to grace, from exalt- 
 ation to exaltation, until you are able to sit 
 in glory as doth those who are enthroned in 
 everlasting power." Mormons teach that 
 men are the offspring of God the Father, 
 and brothers of Jesus Christ. They were 
 formerly intelligent spirits in the presence 
 of God, and were with him before the crea- 
 tion of the world. Men are capable of re- 
 ceiving intelligence and exaltation in such 
 a degree as to be raised from the dead, with 
 a body like that of Christ, and to possess 
 immortal flesh and bones, becoming in fact 
 Gods, endowed with the same forms, attri- 
 butes and capacities which God the Father 
 and Christ possess. The" Book/ of Doctrines 
 and Covenants declares that "The Saints 
 shall be filled with the glory of Christ and 
 shall be equal with him." We can see why 
 the devotees of this system despise all oth- 
 ers. Gentiles will be the slaves of the 
 Saints. The Saints will become Gods. The 
 Gentiles will not. Such t^n^hing fosters 
 spiritual arrogance and pride. It is not the 
 
 humility of Christianity but the pride of 
 the infidel philosopher, the arrogance of 
 the Mohammedan slayer of the unbeliev- 
 ers, that is inculcated by the hope of the 
 Mormon. 
 
 We object to Mormon teaching in regard 
 to the "one body." It has a fiction in re- 
 gard to a Melchizedek priesthood when the 
 Bible teaches that Christ was the only 
 Melchizedek priest and had no successor. 
 It has a fiction about an Aaronio priesthood 
 and absurdly declares that all such priests 
 must be "literal" descendants of Aaron. 
 What balderdash. All priests must bo 
 called as Aaron was. Christ alone was so 
 called. Mormon priests blasphemously 
 place themselves on an equality with the 
 Sou of God. Then there are presidents and 
 vice-presidents, councellors, bishops, elders, 
 pastors, teachers, seers, revelators, patri- 
 archs, prophets, twelve apostles, several 
 seventies of apostles, quorums, presiding 
 elders, traveling elders, presiding bu hops, 
 traveling bishops, translators, priests, high 
 priests, until not even an inspired Mormon 
 can tell all the lingo of official additions to 
 the simple church organization of the New 
 Testament. Is this army of officials the 
 simple apostolic Church, with its evangel- 
 ists, overseers and servants of the church ! 
 
 The one name. The Disciples were first 
 called Christians at Antioch by the apos- 
 tles. Mormons were first called "Latter 
 Day Saints" by Rigdon -at Kirtlaud. The 
 congregations were called ''Churches of 
 God," "Churches of Christ." The Mormon 
 organization is called "the Re-organized 
 church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints." Of course it is the true church of 
 God. This modern monstrosity adds to the 
 ordinances of thechurch, lay ing on of hands 
 to impart spiritual gifts, that was confined 
 to the apostles of Christ, and blessing of 
 children and has patriarchs as blessers. It 
 enjoins baptism at eight years, whether 
 there is faith and repentance or not. Of 
 course it is the church ol Christ. 
 
812 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATOKS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : Before taking up the line of 
 affirmative proofs, I shall notice a few of 
 the assertions indulged in by the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 I. That of the witness of the brother of 
 Jared to the coming of the Messiah in the 
 flesh. Braden says that the Book of Mor- 
 mon teaches that Christ's physical body 
 existed away back at that time. Why did 
 he not read to yjou the entire passage, if it 
 said anything bad, or not strictly correct? 
 I will read it: 
 
 " And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the 
 1 brother of Jared and he saw the finger of the Lord; 
 1 and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and 
 ' blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the 
 ' Lord for he was struck with fear. And the Lord 
 ' saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; 
 1 and the Lord said unto him, Arise, why hast thou 
 ' fal'en ? And he sa th unto the Lord, I saw the 
 
 finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite 
 ' me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and 
 ' blood. And the Lord said unto him, Because of thy 
 ' faith thou hast seen that I shall <ake upon me flesh and 
 ' blood; and never has man come forth before me with 
 ' such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so, 
 1 ye could not have seen my finger." 
 
 What is there in this entire passage that 
 any person who believes in God at all, can 
 object to? The statement is: 
 
 1 . That the finger of the Lord, as revealed 
 to the brother of Jared, was like unto flesh 
 and blood. 
 
 2. That this was to show him that Jesus 
 would fake npon him flesh and blood. 
 
 II. He objects, because he says we believe 
 in a material God. A personage composed 
 of matter, &c. But what is matter? If we 
 believe God to be material and composed of 
 matter it is because we believe Spirit to be 
 material and composed of matter. If he 
 means by the term "matter" that of the 
 nature of the substances with which we 
 commonly come in contact here, then he 
 misrepresents us. We claim that the ele- 
 ment of spirit itself is material, and in this 
 sense God is material. To believe in any- 
 thing else, is to believe in no God at all. It 
 is to take Braden's theory of religion that 
 the spitit of God when given, has no effect 
 on the individual; is not an agent, influ- 
 encing men and women to do good ; and 
 consequently there is nothing to it. This, 
 \ve claim, is anti-Bible and anti-Christian. 
 So it would be with his view of God. He 
 makes out God to be a spirit, and then 
 makes out God to be immaterial that is. 
 having no properties or materiality, and 
 consequently nothing; and by this, he is 
 /able to make God out to be nothing, and 
 this is in perfect accord, as I have claimed 
 from the first, with thy whole tendency of 
 his arguments; that they were calculated 
 to cause men to have less faith and confi- 
 dence in God. instead of strengthening 
 them in the belief of an existing Creator. 
 W do not accept the materiality idea of 
 
 God, as set forth by Mr. Pratt, or Mr. 
 Young, or anybody else that claims that 
 God is the same kind of a creature as man. 
 That theory is on the other extreme from 
 Braden's view. He has one absurd notion 
 in relation to the tangible existence of God, 
 the people of Utah have another. The only 
 difference between them that lean discover, 
 is, that Bradsn's ideas upon this, (if they 
 can be called ideas), are more absurd than 
 those of the polygamists. They do hold to 
 the idea of God, although in a misconceived 
 materialistic way ; while my opponent in 
 his scouting the idea that spirit is material 
 and therefore composed of matter, makes 
 out beyond question that his God is nothing 
 at all. John saw the Spirit when he de- 
 scended upon Jesus ; it was distinctly visi- 
 ble on the day of Pentecost; when David 
 was imbued with it, it was perceptibly felt 
 glowing in his heart; when the iSaints of 
 old were visited by it, it was felt, seen and 
 heard. Shall we conclude then it is nothing, 
 immaterial is un perceptible to the senses, 
 occupying no space and having no exten- 
 sion, just because it is of a different quality 
 of matter to that with which we more fre- 
 quently come in contact? No. There is no 
 special form or degree of substance required 
 for the existence of a thing before it can be 
 called matter. The iron from the earth is 
 material, having the properties termed 
 matter. But because it is material, con- 
 taining such properties undera certain form 
 shall we say that the common gases, or th# 
 subtle electric fluid, are not also material 
 and composed of matter? 
 
 The statement of God's word is : "God is 
 a Spirit, and they that worship him must 
 worship him in Spirit and in truth." I 
 have shown you that the Spirit through 
 which we may worship Him is something ; 
 can be seen, felt, and heard, is perceptible ; 
 shall I then take the absurd view that the 
 being worshipped through this Spirit is an 
 absolute nothing, that cannot be seen, felt, 
 heard or perceived ? Never, if I wish to be 
 right. My opponent should remember that 
 all matter is not the same, any more than 
 that all flesh is the same ; and when he re- 
 fers to the Saints' belief in God as being 
 materialistic, he mis-states, and misrepre- 
 sents them, unless he means by this refer- 
 ence to materiality of Deity, that God is a 
 Spirit, and that Spirit is composed of spirit- 
 ual matter, and that it is in that sense, they 
 believe that God is material. He should 
 not seek to misrepresent our ideas of what 
 these properties of matter are, in order to 
 try to make out that we have an absurd 
 view of the actual character and attributes 
 of Jehovah. It is easy to see that either 
 my opponent is no philosopher, or else he 
 has not studied to know what the views of 
 my church are upon this question. Christ 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 313 
 
 existed in reality before he took upon him. 
 an earthly tabernacle. And the apostle so 
 understood it. 
 
 "For as muoh then as the children are partakers of 
 flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of 
 the same." 
 
 'For verily he took not on him the nature of angels' 
 but he took on him the sceil of Abraham." 
 
 There is then, I conclude, in fact a nature 
 belonging to man, a nature of angels and a 
 nature of spiritual existence beyond this, of 
 the which is the nature and existence of 
 Deity himself. But shall I conclude that the 
 existence of man and angels is something, 
 but that the existence of God is of nothing? 
 This would be following in the old trail of 
 theological absurdity that has kept the 
 minds of the people darkened for the last 
 thousand years; and from which many 
 philosophers have drawn their ideas and 
 thereby been led to apply wrong and ab- 
 surd definitions to spirit and materiality. 
 In the translation of the Bible by Joseph 
 Smith, the Seer, as contained in the first 
 chapter of Genesis is clearly set out the true 
 idea of God. I will read it: 
 
 "And it came to pass that the Lord spake 
 unto Moses saying, Behold, I reveal unto 
 you concerning this heaven and this earth ; 
 write the words which I speak. 
 
 "I am the Beginning and the End; the 
 Almigh y God." 
 
 There is no absurd view of God, or thought 
 making him out a finite being to be fairly 
 drawn from any standpoint from the pas- 
 sage. This is from what is termed the In- 
 spired Translation of the Scriptures ; a work 
 which we claim contains more of absolute 
 merit than any translation of the Bible ex- 
 tant. We use generally, however, what is 
 termed the King James' Version, because 
 that is the one generally accepted by the 
 people, and so far as proving our faith ia 
 concerned, we can do that, we think, by 
 any of them. Mr. Braden's argument on 
 the materiality of God and his quotations 
 about the head gods and Adam and beget- 
 ting spirits, etu., reminds me of a little 
 notice I saw in one of the Pittsburgh papers 
 a few days ago. In giving an account of 
 this discussion it stated that "Mr. Kelley 
 represented the Re-organized church of the 
 Latter Day Saints, and Mr. Brad en repres- 
 ented the Brigharnite or Polygamous 
 church. 1 ' Now it seems to me that if the 
 reporter of that paper has chanced to drop 
 in here again this evening and heard Mr. 
 Braden's speech just made, he will again 
 be put down for a Brighamite. (Applause.) 
 
 Over at Wilber, Nebraska, I took occasion 
 to tell him that Joseph Smith never held 
 che absurd views of God attributed to him 
 by the Utah people. Nor did he. We do 
 not accept the statements in the works 
 published after his death, of what some one 
 said he said, to find what he believed ; but 
 tut directly to what he said himself. The 
 trouble with the sermon called the King 
 Follet sermon is, in the fact, that it is not 
 published as delivered. It was not pub- 
 lished in his lifetime, was partially written 
 up after its delivery by others, and the full 
 sermon never published anywhere, at any 
 
 time, and shall you say we shall accept this 
 as his views with reference to God when it 
 contradicts that which we know he wrote 
 himself, and when many who heard tne 
 discourse attributed to him tell us it reads 
 entirely different to what it was as 
 delivered. The trouble is in that publica- 
 tion that it does not contain what he said. 
 But if it did and was then contrary to what 
 is in the inspired works of the church, we 
 would be bound to reject it and hold to the 
 idea of God as reflected in the Bible and the 
 Book of Mormon and the Revelations to the 
 church which are in harmony necessarily 
 with these books. Is this the best BradeD 
 can do for an ohjection? 
 
 The religion of Joseph Smith was, and ig> 
 as I set it forth in my opening speech upon 
 this question. This was set forth by an 
 endorsement under his own hand in 1844, 
 to Hon. John Wentworth, then editor of 
 the Chicago Democrat; and on the 6th of 
 June, 1844, only 22 days prior to his death 
 in a letter to an English publisher, thank- 
 ing him for setting forth the faith as it was, 
 for he had found that almost universally 
 those who had referred to his religion had 
 done so only that they might misrepresent 
 and bemean him. 
 
 I have set forth the faith which the 
 church accepts to which I belong. My 
 opponent, notwithstanding this, has occu- 
 pied the greater part of his time in pre- 
 tending to tell you what I believe. The 
 greater part, too, of what he has stated, is 
 wholly false and slanderous, copied from 
 works in part which were written for the 
 purpose of destroying the faith of the 
 saints instead of placing it fairly before the 
 public. A man who is so ignorantor preju- 
 diced as not to see that I am the proper one 
 to say what our faith is, in this discussion, 
 is certainly in a forlorn state. 
 
 Nothing can be more ridiculous than that 
 upon a question touching the validity of 
 my own faith that my opponent can be per- 
 mitted to set up anything he pleases and 
 say it is that, and undertake to overturn 
 that, instead of my argument and positions 
 set forth by myself. 
 
 Does he propose in the discussion of this 
 question to set up a man of straw and attack 
 that all the time, as he did in the first 
 proposition? And expect you to know no 
 better than to accept such a course as argu- 
 ment applicable to the issue ? I expect that 
 you are a class of people who are not so 
 overly greedy for anything to beat the 
 11 Mormon" with, that such a marshaling 
 of insinuations, stories and wicked asper- 
 sions will at all satisfy you. 
 
 I will state tomy opponent right here, once 
 for all, that so far as the faith of the Re- 
 organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints is concerned, as compared to the 
 faith of the followers of Brigham Young, 
 or the people who are usually termed po- 
 lygamists, I claim that it differs more 
 wulc.ly from that people, than does the 
 faith of the Disciple or Campbellitechurch. 
 And rememioer I am willing to affirm the 
 proposition from this platform, that we 
 
314 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 differ more widely from the doctrines of 
 the polygamous church than does the 
 church of Mr. Braden, and am prepared to 
 enter upon a test of that question at the 
 close of the present. I hope that he will 
 either accept this challenge or quit trying 
 to confound our views and faith with that 
 faction of the early church that went west 
 and went into all manner of evil. 
 Besides this, I invite him to take up the 
 
 Solygarnous sentiment and affirm that 
 oseph Smith was in any sense the author 
 of the purported polygamous revelation, or 
 that he ever had more than one wife. I 
 will deny either, or both, and Braden can 
 have time to tell all he professes to know 
 upon this question, and he need not then 
 run off on side issues during the discussion 
 of the question now before us. I am here 
 for the purpose of giving my opponent an 
 opportunity to tell all he knows (and find 
 he is telling a great deal more), and shall 
 not close down the debate until he has all 
 the time he wants, only let the discussion 
 be orderly. 
 
 III. t Let me ask: Was Joseph Smith di- 
 rectly responsible for everything that took 
 place in the church prior to his death even? 
 Such a position would destroy the work, 
 example and character of Peter, James and 
 John, and in fact all of the apostles. We 
 cannot hold men responsible for crimes or 
 actions of others unless they are personally 
 connected with them and approve of such. 
 The best men that ever lived have been 
 oeset with those who were bent on evil. It 
 is such that Satan seeks to surround with 
 evil designers that he may overthrow them. 
 That bad men got into the church during 
 the life time of Joseph Smith is no discredit 
 to his religion or his church government. 
 If his was the church of God, it could not 
 have happened otherwise. Jesus says: 
 "The kingdom of heaven is like unto anet, 
 that was c.ast into the sea, and gathered of 
 every kind." 
 
 IV. We do not pretend to claim that 
 everything Joseph Smith did in his lifetime 
 was just right, nor did he ever so claim for 
 himself. Far from it. But the question 
 under discussion is not how much bad he 
 did, or how little he did that was bad. The 
 question is as to the accepted faith of the 
 church. What is that? Is it good or 
 bad? 
 
 Do not deceive yourselves by imagining 
 that the Saints are expected to take every- 
 thing that Mr. Smith or any other man said 
 as law or gospel. His own revelations teach 
 the reverse of this, and that even the peo- 
 ple are not expected to receive anything as 
 true that should come claiming to bea reve- 
 lation even, until they shall have first ex- 
 amined and ascertained for themselves as 
 to the evidences in favor of its authenticity. 
 There is no more independent people under 
 the sun, so far as action and thought is con- 
 cerned, than those whom I represent here. 
 Those of you who attended upon the ses- 
 ionof our General Conference here in Kirt- 
 land know this. Our men and women think 
 and act in accordance with their respective 
 
 judgments more independently than any 
 other body of people I have ever seen con- 
 vened. They are taught to do this. That 
 they must render an account to the Master, 
 the head of the church, for their own acts 
 and that no one can act as proxy or answer 
 for them. 
 
 So much as to the character and manner 
 of thought of our people. 
 
 V. Again, he takes up the question of 
 baptism, and says that we differ from the 
 Bible because we believe in two baptisms 
 instead of one. Oh, no! We don't differ 
 from the Bible in that, only from the Camp- 
 bellite church. He is evidently comparing 
 my views now with those of his church. 
 Of course he must expect that we shall 
 differ from them, because they are not with 
 the Bible, as I was enabled to show fully in 
 the former proposition. 
 
 The Bible teaches, in the language of 
 John: " I indeed baptize you with water, 
 but there cometh one after me who is might- 
 ier than I ; he shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost." And yet only one baptism, 
 Braden says. Jesus said, "Born of the 
 water and of the Spirit ;" but Braden says, 
 only one baptism. Paul says in the Hebrew 
 letter " baptisms," in the plural. 
 
 Mr. Braden : Paul says one baptism. 
 
 Mr. Kelley: He not only says one, but 
 one more "baptisms." Heb. 6:2.- "Wash- 
 ing of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5. "For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ 
 have put on Christ." Gal. 3:27. Baptized 
 with water and the Spirit, the same as Je*ua 
 instructed upon this question. And he 
 says: "For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
 tized into one body." 1 Cor. 12:13. But 
 Braden wants to fix this up by saying: 
 "By cbrnmand of the Spirit we are bap- 
 tized ;" and over in John, 3:5, he wants to 
 change that so it will read something else 
 instead of Spirit. He don't dare take the 
 position that the term " born of the water" 
 don't mean baptized in that element, so he 
 is fastened on " born of the Spirit," as 
 meaning baptized of the Spirit. All the 
 shuffling in creation cannot get around it. 
 There is not a passage to be found anywhere 
 in the Bible saying there is only one bap- 
 tism and that is in water. In Eph.4:5 I 
 showed clearly that it did not exclude the 
 baptism of the Spirit in my argument on 
 the second pnoposition discussed. I am 
 willing that my argument upon that shall 
 be put to the test. 
 
 The difference between us touching the 
 prophecy of Ezekiel, 20:33-36, is in this: 
 He says the Lord will never have anything 
 more to do with the people, towards reveal- 
 ing Himself to them. That all inspiration 
 and Divine communications were confined 
 to the first century. The prophecy in 
 Ezekiel Is yet to take place, and it says the 
 Lord will plead with them "face to face, 
 like as he plead with Israel in the wilder- 
 ness." He plead with Israel in the wild- 
 erness, by revelation, and so he must again, 
 or the prophecy is false ; the text is strictly 
 applicable then. Paul places it, when the 
 
THE ERADEN AND IvELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 315 
 
 11 fullness of the Gentiles he come !n," the 
 fullness of the Jews had just cuiue in, 
 when Paul uttered the language. 
 
 Here, I leave his objections for the pres- 
 ent, and take up the 
 
 MAIN ARGUMENT UPON TttE QUESTION. 
 
 In the first century, the evidences of the 
 decay and dis-establishment of the church 
 was in the turning away from the truth, 
 and cessation of the gifts of the gospel. 
 \Vill it not follow then that if the church is 
 to be re-established, that the first evidences 
 of that work, will be in the fact of a return- 
 ing and adherence to that same truth, and 
 the restoration of the Holy Ghost and 
 Spiritual power. Herein lies the distinctive 
 difference between the church of Christ, 
 and churches of the world in any age. 
 Jesus says: "Not every one that saith, 
 Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven, but he that doeth the will of nay 
 Father who is in heaven." 
 
 We cannot do as we choose, or select the 
 way we will walk, outside of the command- 
 ments of God, and still keep withiu the 
 promises. "In vain (says Jesus), do you 
 worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
 commandments of men." True worship 
 cannot be had in this way. For we are 
 taught better: "They that worship the 
 Father, must worship him in spirit and in 
 truth." There ought not to be any contro- 
 versy about this, among professing Chris- 
 tians, but all of you know there is, and a 
 wide one too; that the multitude of 
 worshippers to-day, pretend that it don't 
 make any ditference what you believe, so 
 you are honest. Thia was one of the false 
 seeds which was sown, that tended to first 
 corrupt the faith of the early saints and 
 turn them from the truth. Hence, the fall- 
 Ing away from the faith came. 
 
 Jesus predicts the event : " And because 
 Iniquity shall abound, the love of many 
 shall wax cold." Matt.4:12. Theapostle 
 Paul in referring to this, says: "For the 
 mystery of iniquity doth already work." 
 2 Thess. 2 : 7. Again, verse 3 : "Let no man 
 deceive you by any means: for that day 
 shall not come, except there come a falling 
 amtiy rirst, and that man of sin, be revealed 
 tlieson of perdition." 
 
 This falling away, was to be from the 
 ffi'/h, the truth, and the spiritual light and 
 power ; not simply going out of the church. 
 Bitch an event as merely going out of the 
 church, would have no more alarmed Paul, 
 thnn those to whom he refers upon another 
 or-c.-ision, when he says: ''They went out 
 from us, because they were not of us." It 
 I' the waxing cold in their love for the 
 truth, that, was the troublesome fact before 
 ti mind of thefSavior, and also the apostles. 
 
 Paul addressing the elders who were 
 cal'ed together by him, says : 
 
 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
 and 1,0 all the flock, over which the Holy 
 (host has made you overseers, to feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased 
 with his own blood." 
 
 I Jinow this, that after my depart- 
 
 ing shall grievous wolves enter in among 
 you, not sparing the flock." Acts 20: 28, 29. 
 
 The full thought here is plainly brought 
 out: "Speaking perverse things," per- 
 verting the ways of the Lord, and thereby 
 turning men and women from the truth. 
 As expressed in his letter to the saints of 
 Galatia, 1: 7. "There he some that trouble 
 you, and would pervert the gospel of Chris't." 
 Again in his charge to Timothy this danger 
 of leaving the truth and turning to other 
 things, he is especially warned against 
 1 Tim. 4: 1: 
 
 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, thai 
 In the latter times some shall depart from 
 the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, 
 and doctrines of devils." 
 
 The manner of the falling away can no 
 longer be in doubt after this charge, they 
 are to "depart from the faith', " Not only 
 this but turn toother doctrines than those 
 taught by the Savior. Paul in the begin- 
 ning of this letter, 1: 3, says to Timothy : 
 
 "1 besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I 
 went into Macedonia, that thon mightt'st charge some 
 that they teach no oth. r doctrine." 
 
 In his second letter to Timothy 4: 2, 3, 4, 
 it is written : 
 
 "Preach the word; be Instant In season and out of 
 Reason ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffer- 
 ing and doctrine. For the time will come when they 
 will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own 
 lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, havin? 
 itching ears; And they shall tnrn away their ears from 
 the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 
 
 Who shall demand more positive proof 
 than this upon this question ? This shows: 
 
 1. That there would come a time of great 
 apostasy. 
 
 2. That it would consist In the fact of a 
 departure from sound doctrine and having 
 a delight in the fables, concocted schemes, 
 and inventions of men. 
 
 8. That these fables would be fed to tho 
 people by the very men they should select 
 of themselves to do such work preachers, 
 "teachers," made in numbers, or "heaps," 
 at the instance of the people or congrega- 
 tion. The fulfillment is as perfect and 
 complete in the state, work and condition 
 of what is termed "popular religion," in 
 our own. times as though the apostle were 
 present to describe it. 
 
 No wonder with this vivid picture of 
 apostasy from the faith before the mind of 
 the gifted apostle he should again charge 
 his co-laborer : "Take heed unto thyself, 
 and unto the doctrine ; continue in them; 
 for in doing this thou shalt both save thy- 
 self and them that hear thee." 
 
 Whatever others should do, Paul desired 
 that the devoted Timothy should not lose 
 sight of the sound doctrine which Christ 
 bad taught, and be buried neath the clamor 
 of those who denired simply to pursue those 
 things that were pleasing to their owa 
 hearts. 
 
 As he charged Titus, he wanted him to 
 continue: 
 
 "If "M in c- fast the faithful word as he hat been tausht. 
 that he'niay be able by sound doctrine both to exhort 
 ami to convince the gainsayers." 
 
 The apostle Peter has added his testimony 
 upon this with the many others ; hs says : 
 *'ut there were falao prophet! also among the peo- 
 
816 
 
 THE tffcADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 pic, even as there ahull be falie teachem among yon, 
 who privily slml bring in damnable heresies, even 
 denying the Lord thit bought them, and bring upon 
 themselves swift destruction." 
 
 "And many shall follow their pernicious ways, by 
 reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken 
 /." 
 
 My opponent seems to think it a terrible 
 thing because that the Latter Day Saints 
 and their faith are spoken against so 
 much; and is willing to gather up and 
 peddle out all of these false tales for sound 
 logic on his side. The apostle Peter, tells 
 the people, however, that the truth should 
 be spoken against, in this same way, and 
 this shows again that Mr. Braden has fol- 
 lowed a course, all through this discussion 
 that has ever been taken, and likely to be 
 again, by those who fight against Jehovah 
 and his work, instead of for him. 
 
 If any of his friends console themselves 
 In the narration of these stories and tales 
 against the Saints, they are welcome to the 
 the comfort for me, because I know it will 
 last at best but for a little time. 
 
 But I return to the apostacy. It is clear 
 from these evidences that the church in the 
 first century began to depart from the faith 
 and that in this, there began that general 
 work of sowing the seeds of evil (tares) 
 instead of the good seed, the word of the 
 kingdom, (and a receding from the spiritual 
 powers consequently), which eventuated 
 in the complete change of the established 
 order of Jesus. The church, as in the figure 
 was carried into the wilderness and the 
 prophecy of Jesus fulfilled when he said: 
 'From the days of John the Baptist until now 
 the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
 and the violent take it by force." Matt. 11:12. 
 
 And do not lose sight of the thought that 
 the evil consisted in the planting of differ- 
 ent principles and faith of church organiza- 
 tion and the working of the ministry, from 
 that planted by Jesus and the apostles. 
 After the apostles had fallen asleep, this 
 evil seed or doctrine was sown, differing as 
 it did from the good and afterwards we 
 find that its fruit was different. Hence 
 tares. It is complete in the likeness Jesus 
 gave in Matt. 13 : 24 to 30. 
 
 "The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a 
 dan which sowed good seed in his field. 
 
 "But while men slept, his enemy came 
 and sowed tares among the wheat, and went 
 his way. 
 
 "But when the blade was sprung up, and 
 brought forth fruit, then appeared the 
 tares also." 
 
 The explanation was that the enemy had 
 <lone this. And it had been done while 
 men slept. While the people slumbered, 
 and there was no voice or wisdom of the 
 master sought by the people. And the ef- 
 fect of the sowing of this false doctrine was 
 tares or persons who are not fitted for the 
 garner of the Lord although they may have 
 grown in the field. Having imbibed an- 
 other set of principles than those Jeus 
 taught, they had indeed become subservi- 
 ent to a different ruler and king, as the 
 Apostle says : 
 
 41 Whomsoever ye list yourselves servants 
 
 to obey, his servants ye are ;" and thus 
 only those can be the servants of Jesus 
 who accept of and obey his word. For 
 this reason he said : "*Unto those Jews 
 who believed on him, if ye continue in my 
 word, then are ye my disciples indeed ; 
 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
 shall make you free." 
 
 They were his disciples if they kept this 
 good seed in their hearts, for " it is the 
 truth," (the good seed) which was to devel- 
 op and make them free. Now I come to the 
 question of the restoration of this truth, this 
 good seed of the kingdom, the kingdom it- 
 self, and ask if any of you have considered 
 how it should be done and what we should 
 have were it done. Would it be indeed a 
 restoration? A return to the old paths? 
 Wherein we would have the same gospel 
 and the same church organization ; the 
 same faith and the same power in religion ; 
 the same promises and the same spiritual 
 enjoyment; the same catalogue of faith and 
 the same ordinances in the church ; the 
 same Father and Son and the same gift of 
 the Holy Spirit; and, in fact, the church of 
 Christ restored as it existed under him and 
 the apostles? So I believe; and that any- 
 thing short of this will fall short of a res- 
 toration, and short of the straight and 
 narrow way that leadeth unto life, of 
 which Jesus was the great teacher and 
 exemplar. 
 
 Such a work as this, it is my privilege to 
 ask your consideration of ; and it must be 
 made in a proper and true way, do you 
 expect to arrive at an intelligent judgment. 
 I know, my friends, that the feeling of 
 people is against asking for anything good, 
 or seeking for light, in this way, which lias 
 so long been evilly spoken of, but it is no 
 more against us than it was the former 
 servants of Christ. The people of Rome 
 eaid to Paul: "We desire to hear of thee 
 what thou thinkest; for as concerning this 
 sect, we know that every where it is spoken 
 against." Acts 28: 22. 
 
 Pilate said to the Jews: "Ye have 
 brought this man (Jesus) unto me, as one 
 that perverteth the people." 
 
 Did that make Jesus bad because the 
 people accused him of evil things', and a 
 perverter of their law? All of yon answer 
 not; my opponent, who engages in a like 
 warfare in this discussion, must answer no. 
 
 Against Stephen it is said that they : 
 
 "Set upfalae witnesses, which said, [ye, 
 said, this is like a great many to-day] '1 his 
 man 'ceaseth not to speak blasphemous 
 words against this holy place, and the law." 
 
 What a charge they had against Stephen ! 
 He had been telling them of the destruction, 
 of their temple, and that they must listen 
 to present revelation, as well as to rend 
 what the " Lord said to Moses," and for 
 this they called him a terrible fellow and 
 stoned him to death. 
 
 Has not my opponent taken his strong- 
 hold just like these people all of the time? 
 Has not he continued the charge against ma 
 that because f was contending for th whola 
 word of God that I was attacking the Bible? 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 317 
 
 Oh, yes, he says Kelley is attacking the 
 Bible! But have I said anything against 
 the Bible? No; no man ever heard me 
 utter word against that book. But J have 
 contended, as Stephen did, that it was not 
 sufficient to simply read what God said to 
 Moses and the prophets, or Jesus and the 
 apostles, but that we must have an experi- 
 mental knowledge for ourselves through 
 the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the 
 means of inspiration ; and my opponent, as 
 the Jewb of old, cries out l% he is attacking 
 the law." But I am not attacking the law, 
 hut abiding in the law, and telling him that 
 if he believed in Moses and the prophets, 
 ;''n Jesus and the apostles, he would believe 
 in the words that I speak, for tuey all wrote 
 of this day and this work. 
 
 Do not then, my friends, be turned fro-m 
 the truth by the tales of evil that have been 
 epun by the evilly disposed against the 
 founding of the church of God in this age, 
 bnt cast these from you s you would the 
 most deadly poison or the tares of Satan 
 and examine this question as men and 
 women who have judgments of your own 
 and who have been nobly fashioned in the 
 image of God, that you should thus act for 
 yourselves. 
 
 Now all of these pretended stories and 
 tales of Joseph Smith being a money-digger 
 in the sense these persons tell that tale, 
 hazel-witching, stone-peepingand rambling 
 fortune-seeker are wholly, emphatically and 
 totally without foundation in truth. But 
 tales manufactured by such subborned wit- 
 nesses as those against Stephen, and those 
 who told that Jesus' "disciples came and 
 stole him away by night while they slept," 
 for the money and promised favor in the 
 
 community extended them. Will you be 
 prejudiced against an investigation upon 
 this then by reason of them '? Not if you 
 are wise men and women. 
 
 It is a fact that, when in his fifteenth year 
 a boy of the State of New York, us with 
 Samuel of old when he was but a mere lad, 
 made the announcement to the world that 
 bo far as an acceptance of the various sys- 
 tems of Christianity in the world with our 
 heavenly Father was concerned, none of 
 them met his approval in their doc- 
 trines taught as a whole, and in their 
 work. And he went on to tell wherein 
 and the reason they were in this condi- 
 tion. Many thought this a very sacrileg- 
 ious thing in the boy to state this as he 
 did, in the year 1821, and at once set 
 up a clammor against him although he was 
 thus young, and they have kept it up ever 
 since not even ceasinsr with the offering 
 made by him of lite itself foi the truth of his 
 statement. He was murdered for opinions' 
 sake in this free country when only 88 years 
 of age, and still the warfare goes on under 
 the most extravagant and absurd concoc- 
 tions of slanderous tales, sandwiched with 
 the most unbecoming and impolite epithets 
 and disgusting expressions. 
 
 But I wish you to particularly notice and 
 examine the straight forward account of 
 the founding of the church by Divine Prov- 
 idence as related by an actor and proper 
 witness, and then choose whether you will 
 prefer to believe the cunning lies and false- 
 hoods of Satan as touching this, or that 
 which carries the con Diction of truth on the 
 face of the n?> ''ration, 
 
 (Time called.) 
 
318 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KKLLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 MORMON REVELATIONS. 
 GEXTJ.KMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: Mormons are committed by 
 organic action to receive as revelations I. 
 The so-called inspired translation of the 
 Scriptures by Joseph Smith, the seer, in 
 which Joe pretends to translate and correct 
 the word of God by inspiration. II. The 
 Book of Mormon which they elevate above 
 the Bible, for they declare it contains "the 
 fullness of the gospel." III. The Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants. Out of 341 pages, 
 279 are covered by articles that they pub- 
 lish as revelations. IV. Revelations of Joe 
 Smith publish-ed in "Times and Seasons," 
 "Elders' Jourual," "Morninsr and Evening 
 Star," "The Missouri Expositor," "The 
 Wasp," '-The Millenial Star," and oth^r 
 publications. V. Revelations of Cowdery, 
 Rigdon and other leading Mormons, pub- 
 lished in the si>me publications. VI. They 
 regard as of authority and of divine origin 
 nearly all that <vas written and published 
 before the death of Smith. In discussion 
 they may deny this, but in their church 
 practice they act in accordance with it. In 
 communication with inquirers they will 
 sometimes deny having a translation, or 
 rather a corruption of the Bible, that Joe 
 Smith pretended to make by revelation, 
 although they published it to' the world as 
 done by inspiration with a pretended reve- 
 lation as preface; and with an introduction 
 full of infidel attacks on the Bible as a pal- 
 liation for Smith's corruptions of the Bible. 
 They will deny that they make the Book of 
 Mormon a part of what they re^-mi as 
 divine revelations, when their Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants declares it con- 
 tains the fullness of the Gospel. They will 
 deny that they make the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants a part of what they use as 
 divine revelations, when every article after 
 the introductory lectures, that cover but 
 about one-sixth of the book, is headed "A 
 Revelation." They will deny that they re- 
 gard certain articles if Joe Smith, Rigdon 
 and 01 hers as divine revelations, when they 
 
 Enblish them in their official organsasreve- 
 itions. In his corruption of the Bible called 
 an inspired translation, Joe Smith interpo- 
 lates two verses of his stuffat the beginning 
 of the first chapter of Genesis and changes 
 constantly the form of the language. He 
 interpolates five verses of his stuff at the 
 beginning of the third chapter of Genesis. 
 The ideas in the latter interpolation have 
 not one particle of warrant or support in 
 the rest of the Bible. All other transla- 
 tors have been content to compare manu- 
 scripts and translate the best reading. 
 This ignoramus that could not write a 
 decent sentence of English, pretends to 
 translate Hebrew and Greek, and to tell us 
 that his stuff was what the writers of the 
 
 books of the Bible wrote, that has been lost 
 siuce they wrote. It is about as uoriby of 
 the faith of mankind as his pretended reve- 
 lations in regard to lost property, obtained 
 by looking through his stolen' peep-stone 
 into his hat. It is not as reliable, for from 
 the way things stuck to his fingers he could 
 tell exactly where the money or stolen arti- 
 cle could be found. We will spend no more 
 time in analyzing this monstrous piece of 
 colossal impudence and ignorance. 
 
 .The Book of Mormon we have already 
 examined. We will now examine briefly 
 the stuff that is blasphemously attribuied 
 to the Almighty, as revelations from him 
 in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants. 
 On page 65 we are told : "Behold, I am God 
 and have spoken it. These commandments 
 are of me, and were given unto my servants 
 after the manner of their language." (That 
 is not true, for they did not talk the brogue 
 of King James' translators.) "That after 
 having received the record of the Nephites, 
 yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun- 
 ior," (How exact the Lord is, to guard the 
 people against thinking it was old Joe, the 
 father. } "might have power to translate 
 through the mercy of God, by the power of 
 God, the Book of Mormon, and also (that) 
 those to whom these commandments were 
 given (he meant might be given) might 
 have power to lay the foundation of this 
 Church, and to bring it forth out of obscur- 
 ity, and out of darkness, the only true and 
 living church upon the face of the whole 
 earth, with which I, the Lord, am well 
 pleased." There you have the sincere milk 
 of Mormonism. It is the only church on 
 the whole earth, with which the Lord is 
 well pleased. 
 
 Page 66, Martin Harris' wife disgusted 
 with the fraud, that Joe Smith had cajoled 
 her husband into, took 116 pages of the 
 precious revelation, and laid them in the 
 coals that Martin had covered up, and 
 burned them. The Mormon God did riot 
 know what she had done, and when 
 he missed the manuscript, he gives Joe a 
 revelation. He tells Joe that somebody 
 had stolen the manuscript, intending, if Joe 
 replaced the language verbatim, to alter it, 
 and pretend that Joe was not inspired, for 
 he could not restore what he wrote at first, 
 or If he did not restore it, then they 
 would produce what he wrote at first, 
 and show that he was not inspired, for he 
 could not replace it verbatim. But the 
 Mormon God, although he did not know 
 who got the manuscripts, nor that it was 
 destroyed, was altogether too sharp for a 
 trick, nobody ever thought of trying. He 
 knew a trick worth a dozen of a trick no- 
 body thought of. He takes some time to 
 study it out, however. Page 67, we are told 
 the Indians are to be converted. This was 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 319 
 
 one of the vagaries of Mormonism that 
 they seem to have abandoned. The Indians 
 are not Mormons, and the Saints have 
 abandoned their conversion to the apostates 
 of other churches. That prophecy is not 
 fulfilled. Page 69, Martin Harris catches 
 Aleck, fo r wanting to see the plates that 
 Joe had not got. Joe has no gift, not even 
 to show the plates, expect to translate. 
 Martin is told that he feels too big. He 
 must get down off his high horse. Then 
 the Mormon God coolly tells Martin to lie. 
 He says, "And I the Lord command him, 
 my servant, Martin Harris, that he shall 
 say no more unto these (the people of this 
 generation), concerning these things, (the 
 plates), except he shall say I have seen 
 them." As he had not seen them, the 
 Mormon God told Martin to lie. "And they 
 have been shown unto me by the power of 
 God." As they had not been shown unto 
 him by the power of God or Joe Smith 
 either, the Mormon God told Martin to tell 
 another lie. "And these are the words 
 which he shall say," (that is he shall tell 
 two lies) " but if he deny this," (that is 
 does not tell two lies) " he will break the cov- 
 enant, which he has before covenanted with 
 me, and behold he is condemned." Be- 
 cause he would not do what he promised 
 Joe Smith he would do, tell two lies for 
 him, and what the Mormon God tells him 
 to do, tell two lies. 
 
 Page 72, Oliver Cowdery, who Is Joe's 
 scribe, gets the big head. He wants to have 
 revelations of his own as well as Joe. He 
 is not content with merely writing down 
 Joe's stuff. The Mormon God gives him a 
 sugar plum telling him that if he will be a 
 good bo" he will some day translate some 
 plates of his own. Page 75 Joe and Oliver 
 get curious over the fool idea that the 
 apostle John is now on earth. They get a 
 revelation telling them that he is now on 
 earth. All devout Mormons believe that 
 balderdash. This revelation as now pub- 
 lished is more than half of ita fraud. Pages 
 -J6-77 Oliver gets the big head again and is 
 modified with a sugar plum or two to keep 
 him writing for Joe. If he is a good boy 
 and does what Joe wants him to, he will 
 some day translate other records, "his own 
 self." 
 
 Page 78-83. At last the Mormon God has 
 ciphered it out how to beat a trick that 
 never was tried. He will give a more par- 
 ticular account from Nephi's plates instead 
 of Lehi's. That will make a march on the 
 fellow who thought he could put up a job 
 on the Mormon God. 
 
 Pau;e 83, we have a revelation to Hiram 
 Smith. Page 86, one to John Knight, sr., 
 and David Whitmer. Page 87, to John 
 "Whitmer. Page 88, to Peter Whitmer. Joe 
 was just "chock-full'-' and running over 
 with revelations. He had a revelation for 
 every one he wanted to rope in. 
 
 Page 89. The three witnesses having 
 been prepared by special revelations are 
 now told that they shall see plates, the 
 golden breast plate, the golden sword of 
 La ban, the Urim and Thummim of Jared's 
 
 brother, and the miraculous director of 
 Lehi. They tell us in their testimony, they 
 saw the plates and mention them alone. 
 Perhaps the Mormon God forgot and did 
 not show them the rest. They were told it 
 took wonderful divine power to enable 
 them to see these things. Not long after 
 this eight men saw them and no divine 
 power was needed. Granny Smith tells us 
 that long before this she had asquint at the 
 golden breast-place, and without one part- 
 icle of miraculous power. Life of Joseph 
 Smith, pa:e 114. Will some Mormon tell 
 us what became of these articles, we are 
 told an angel took them back from Joe as 
 fast as he got through with them. Then 
 he could not have shown them to his eight 
 witnesses and his mother. If the angel did 
 not take them back, where are they ? Great 
 heavy metallic articles like those would 
 certainly be preserved. Why do not Mor- 
 mons show thVm ? Why not point out the 
 solid imperishable stone chamber where 
 they were found. It would silence all 
 scepticism. 
 
 This revelation is not in the "Evening and 
 Morning Star" or the Book of Command- 
 ments ; David Whitmer says there never 
 was such a revelation. The revelation and 
 the phrase, Urim and Thummim, and the 
 notion about the Urim 'and Thummim were 
 fabricated in Kirtland in 1835 to furnish a 
 basis for a yarn Cowdery fabricated and 
 wrote for the Messenger and Advocate, and 
 was then dated back. 
 
 Page 93, we are told : I. Joe was inspired 
 to translate the Book of Mormon. IF. The 
 Book of Mormon contains t^e " Fullness of 
 the Gospel" to Gentile and Jew. III. That 
 the Book of Mormon was given by inspira- 
 tion and confirmed unto others by minister- 
 ing of angels. Page 96, an apostle, we are 
 told, is an elder. The scriptures teach that 
 he was sent as a witness to teach and 
 preach, because he had seen Jesus after his 
 resurrection. We are told he imparts by 
 laying on his hands the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost and of fire. The baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost was never imparted by the laying on. 
 of an apostle's hands. That baptism was 
 imparted by Christ himself and from heav- 
 en, and in no other way by any other per- 
 son. The apostles imparted spiritual gifts 
 but not the baptism. Again there is an 
 egregious blunder in regard to the baptism 
 of fire. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was 
 for those of the righteous to whom Christ; 
 should impart it. The baptism in fire was 
 for the wicked. "The wheat" the right- 
 eous "he will gather into his garner." 
 "The chaff" the wicked "he will burn 
 with unquenchable fire" the baptism in 
 fire. We are told a priest's duties. The 
 New Testament does not know of such an 
 officer or of its duties. All Christians are 
 priests. Page 97, we have papal confirma- 
 tion by laying on of hands. The New Tes- 
 tament knows nothing of it. We have an- 
 other ordinance added the blessing of chil- 
 dren. The New Testament knows nothing 
 of this. They have added another officer, 
 patriarchs, or blessers. The New Te.sta- 
 
820 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATft. 
 
 went gives no liturgy ; nearly all known 
 jreeds do. The Book of Doctrines and Cov- 
 enants betrays its human origin by giving 
 i liturgy. Page 99, Martin Harris gets a 
 revelation, giving the Universalists fits. 
 Mormons have changed somewhat since 
 Joe was fighting Universalists. Martin the 
 witness, one of the sacred three, is told not 
 to commit adultery, not to murder. He 
 must have been a good one for a chosen 
 witness. He is told he must give his prop- 
 erty to have the Book of Mormon printed. 
 Bless the Lord ! He must not covet his own 
 property. Glory ! He must pay the printer 
 of the Book of Mormon. Glory hallelujah ! 
 Martin is told he must not argify. He does 
 not know enough. Sinners get "the advan- 
 tage of him. He must content himself with 
 preaching alone. He is told again to give 
 up his property, even his land, to pay the 
 printer of the Book of Mormon, and if he 
 don't he will catch it. Page 102, the Mor- 
 mon God fixes up Joe's titles. He is to 
 be called I. Seer. II. Translator, in. 
 Piophet. IV. Apostle. V. Elder. Joe 
 had saved all the big places for himself. 
 Page 105, we have this sublime piece of ar- 
 
 fifying done by the Mormon God: "Behold 
 am the Lord God Almighty, and endless 
 is my name, for I am without beginning of 
 days or end of years. And is not this end- 
 less?" So there now! Moses has a won- 
 derful vision all to tell him about Joe Smith. 
 Joe was inclined to magnify his own name, 
 not the Lord's. Page 109, the church is 
 told they will be cursed if they don't sup- 
 port Joe. Page 110, Emma Smith is to quit 
 work, write for Joe instead of Oliver Cow- 
 dery, do as Joe tells her, and she shall be 
 supported by the church, and receive won- 
 derful gifts, get up a hymn-book, etc. How 
 good the Mormon God is to Joe to act as 
 errand boy for him, and fix up all these 
 little matters for him. Page 113, Oliver 
 wants to be as big as Joe. He has revela- 
 tions. He gets a backset for it. He must 
 not try to boss Joe or rival him. He must 
 quit talking about revelations. To keep 
 him out of mischief he is sent off to the 
 Indians. Hiram Page's peep-stone Is not 
 the "old oiiginal Jacob To wnsend." It is 
 from Satan. Joe's peep-stone alone is the 
 Simon-pure. 
 
 Now let our readers stop and think of 
 such stuff as this coming down from the in- 
 finite God of the Universe. Tricks to cajole 
 men into fraud, to wheedle money out of 
 them, to prevent any one rivaling Joe 
 Smith, to see that he has some one to write 
 for him, and all such low paltry, tricky 
 stuff are called revelations. Page 116, Joe 
 spreads himself and prophecies of a howl- 
 ing old time, if folks don't accept, his reve- 
 lations. Page 117-18, Uuiversalisin a lick. 
 Also Calvinism. He explains the first 
 death in accordance with Hi don's theol- 
 ogy. He hits original sin a lick also. The 
 Lord always reveals that Rigdon's notions 
 are right; everybody else is wrong of 
 course. What a happy thing for the Lord, 
 that he always agrees with Rigdon 1 Page 
 119-, David, Peter and John Wbitmer are 
 
 snubbed up. Joe la the counselor .\v\I Joe 
 alone. Paare l'_G, T. B. Marsh is stubbed 
 up also. Pago 12)., Peter Whitrmr, Oliver 
 Cowdery, P. P. Pratt and Ziba Pet--on are 
 all punched up a little. NextEzn, T ay re, 
 Northrup f?vreet, Orson Pratt, and JiMward 
 Partridge are stirred up. Page 124 is a long 
 rigmarole about Rigdon, being an Elijah 
 to the new Messiah, Joe. Page 127, is a 
 long rigmarole pretending to be an extract 
 from the Book of Enoch, mentioned by Jude. 
 Page 136, the saints are to possess Kirtland 
 for ever. To obey no power bUbMormonism. 
 Pages 137-'J8-39, James CovolJ is ordered 
 to go to Ohio. He catches Aleck, because 
 he will nt sacrifice his business and 
 go. Page 140, the followers with money 
 are told that Joe must have a house 
 to live in And translate in. It must be 
 built for him. Edward Partridge must 
 let his business, h/.s store go to the dogs, 
 and attend to it. Page 141, preachers are 
 ordered out. To avoid grumbling, Joe 
 and Sydney mnt go with the rest, but the 
 Mormon God will give them a revelation 
 in a short time to come back, and have an 
 easy time. Partridge catches it because he 
 won't give up his business and run the 
 plans of Joe in the church. Page 147, the 
 Mormon God has to tell some unruly ambi- 
 tious fellows that Joe is the only prophet. 
 Page 159, the Mormon God kindly acts as 
 Joe's lacky and provides one to do his 
 drudgery instead of Cowdery. Page 161, 
 the Shakers get a dig. Page 164, Partridge 
 gets it again because he wont give up his 
 business. Page 169, the Mormon God sends 
 out Joe and Kydney on a land speculation. 
 Page 171, the Mormon God hunts up another 
 one to do Joe's drudgery. Page 173, Ezra 
 Thayre catches Aleck because he wont give 
 his property to the church to provide means 
 for Joe and others to go out on the land 
 speculation, and go to Missouri, trusting to 
 
 Set his money back, in the land in Missouri, 
 oe's creditors are told they will be paid in 
 land in Missouri. Page 174, a surveyor, 
 land agent, and editor, provided by the 
 Mormon God. Pages 176-80, Partridge gets 
 a dressing down for not believing all of Joe's 
 big yarns. Martin Harris is approved for 
 giving up his money, but he feels too big. 
 Phelps wants to be too big. Z. Peterson gets 
 a set back. It is amazing how careful the 
 Mormon God was that no one should rival 
 his servant Joseph. Sydney Rigdon is to 
 write a description of the promised land. 
 We are gravely told, "Behold, here is wis- 
 dom." Yea, verily; if tall lying was to be 
 done, there was wisdom in selecting Syd- 
 ney to do it. He could beat Munchausen. 
 Now comes a farce that is disgusting and 
 ludicrous. Joe had got a crowd of men in- 
 to Missouri by revelation. There were 
 more than could find work or means of liv- 
 ing. Some must return home. There was 
 only money enough to pay the way of three 
 part way back. A revelation is given that 
 Ft is dangerous for all but Joe and Sydney 
 and Oliver to go by water. The rest must 
 give up their money to them that could go 
 on a steamboat without danger, and foot it 
 
THE BRADEN AMD KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 321 
 
 home as they could. No wonder that Ezra 
 Booth's good sense rebelled at such infa- 
 mous swindling, in the blasphemous guise 
 of a revelation. Page 180-181, a second revela- 
 tion is given to get the money from the 
 dupes, for Joe, Sydney and Oliver. The 
 Mormon God tells them to doit and trouble 
 him no more. Page 182, nevertheless he trims 
 down those who are not willing to foot it 
 back preaching. He tells them to go to St. 
 Louis he don't care how, and go preaching. 
 Page 183, comes a revelation again telling 
 them thatit is dangerous to goon the waters. 
 It is not needful that any should be moving 
 swiftly on the waters except Joe and his 
 two pets. The rest must foot it home and 
 send Joe and his pets on their way in com- 
 fort. Page 186, they are told to go out on the 
 preaching mission. Ride if they can get the 
 means, but put out. 
 
 How any one could be so besotted in su- 
 perstition as to publish this stuff with its 
 selfishness, folly, low cunning, and hypoc- 
 risy as revelations from God, is unaccount- 
 able to all common sense. That men should 
 remain dupes of such a knave after such 
 imposition is still more inexplicable. 
 
 Page 188, Oliver Cowdery is hinted at for 
 
 his adultery with his hired girl. Rigdon's 
 
 spiritual wifery was making trouble. Page 
 
 190, the Mormon God fixes up the business in 
 
 Kirtland. Sydney had been trying to be as 
 
 \ big as Joe, and he gets a lashing. Paerel93-5, 
 
 \ the rebellious ones who don't mind Joe get 
 
 t a trimming down. Booth cut off. Part- 
 
 ridge catches it again. It was wonderful 
 
 . how much trouble the Mormon God had 
 
 t with that Partridge. He was a most can - 
 
 ytankerous bird. The Mormon God tells 
 
 ' who shall sell and go, and who shall stay, 
 
 and fixes it all up. 
 
 Page 194, we have this revelation, "Behold 
 it is said in my laws or forbidden to go in 
 debt to their enemies ; but behold it is not 
 baid at any time that the Lord should not 
 take when he pleases, and pay as seemeth 
 him good ; wherefore as ye are agents, and 
 ye are on the Lord's errand, and whatso- 
 ever ye do according to the will of the Lord, 
 is the Lord's business, and he hath sent 
 you to provide for his saints in these last 
 days, that they may obtain an inheritance 
 in the land of Ziou,'and behold I, the Lord, 
 declare unto, and my words are sure and 
 shall not fail, they shall obtain it." Which 
 means in plain English "Don't go in debt, 
 but take by violence or steal from your ene- 
 mies." It was this revelation that has been 
 quoted ever since, when Mormons stole or 
 robbed, in Missouri, in Illinois, in Utah, 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Page 195, McLelin is to send his money 
 to Missouri, and go East himself. Page 197, 
 the elders catch it. Let them beat Joe's 
 revelations or dry up. Page 199, we have 
 the unscriptural nonsense about the Mel- 
 chizedek priesthood. Page 200, children 
 must me Baptized at eight years anyhow. 
 Page 201, Joe gets afraid to trust Cowdery 
 with the money to be sent to Missouri. He 
 sends John Whitmer with him to watch 
 him and report. Page 202, the faithful 
 
 are scourged for not giving to Joe and his 
 pets. Joe and his pets are to keep all they 
 get, even if more than they want. Page 205, 
 the faithful are punched up to give to have 
 Joe's revelations published. Page 211, we 
 have in a wonderful revelation the popular 
 error that the Lucifer of Isaiah is the devil 
 when he was the king of Babylon. Page 223, 
 there is a positive revelation that a won- 
 derful temple is to be built in Missouri, and 
 a cloud to rest on it in that generation. The 
 Mormons had better be hurrying up or that 
 prophecy will not be fulfilled. Page 224, a 
 fictitious lot of stuff is got off about that 
 unscriptural fabrication the Melchizedek 
 priesthood. Page 247, the farm on which 
 old Joe Smith lives must not be sold, and 
 old Joe must not allow too many to loaf 
 around him. Joe is looking out for the 
 main chance always. Page 253. we have 
 a long revelation about having the faithful 
 come down with their dust to build a house 
 for the President and for printing purposes. 
 It is positively declared " Behold there ia 
 none other place appointed than that which 
 I have appointed in Missouri, neither 
 shall there be any other place for the 
 work of the gathering of my Saints." 
 Page 136, Joe told them the land 
 of Kirtland and vicinity was to be the in- 
 heritance of them and their children for 
 ever. Now he says it is Missouri, and 
 there shall be no other place. When at 
 Nauvoo he told them that was to be their 
 inheritance for ever. This needs a little 
 fixing up. Page 265, one of the most 
 brutal insults ever offered to a set of duped 
 wretches. After getting thousands of 
 dupes to go to Missouri, by his lying reve- 
 lations, and after encouraging them to spoil 
 the Gentiles by his revelations, Smith cooly 
 tells them that what they suffered as a 
 result of obeying his revelations, was a 
 
 Runishment for their sins. Page 277, the 
 formons are to curse their enemies and to 
 take vengeance on them even unto the third 
 and fourth generations. This bloody utter- 
 ance bore its fruit in the Mountain Meadows 
 butchery and hundreds of fiendish murders. 
 Page 278, a crusade against enemies ia 
 preached. Page 286, Missourians to catch 
 it. Page 287, another preaching of a cru- 
 sade. These bloody utterances have stirred 
 Mormon fanatics to many a deed of blood. 
 Page 289, we have a hierarchy more ex- 
 tensive and elaborate than that of Rome 
 built up, and about as much like the simple 
 New Testament Church. Page 301, we 
 have a long revelation to the faithful to 
 shell out, and build for Joe a great tavern 
 at Nauvoo for him to live in and make much 
 gain out of 'the Gentiles who came to 
 Nauvoo. The Mormon God organizes a 
 stock company and slashes William Law 
 and Dr. Foster and others who haye money 
 because they don't shell out. Probably to 
 have the book close with "something 
 religious," on page 315 we have a pla- 
 giarized mixture of the Book of Revelations 
 and the Prophets of the Old Testament. 
 Then two letters about the farce of the 
 baptizing the living for the dead, written 
 
822 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 while Joe was dodging jus flee for attempt- 
 ing the assassination of Gov. Boggs, by the 
 hand of that cut-throat Port Rockwell, one 
 of the elect band of Mormons, the Danites. 
 Then come revelations of Joseph III, two 
 sickly little tilings. The new prophet 
 must take courage: steal some dead man's 
 manuscript, steal from the Bible, get some 
 blatherskite like Rigdon to help him rant 
 and rave and howl bombast and balderdash 
 and he will be a Mormon prophet worth 
 while. As it is now he makes a poor fist of 
 it. He must tear round more than he has 
 yet, or the Mormons will call that younger 
 brother, the "child of prophecy," out of the 
 madhouse. 
 
 We have now examined the Book of Mor- 
 mon and the Book of Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants. We will devote a few lines to that 
 impudent fraud, the most brazen product 
 of Mormon ignorance and blasphemy called 
 the Inspired Translation. During the years 
 1831-2-3 Rigdon and Smith pretended to 
 translate the Bible by inspiration. They 
 deliberately changed words in the thou- 
 sands of instances. They deliberately in- 
 terpolated words, sentences and whole par- 
 agraphs. They assign no reason for this, 
 except that inspiration told them to do this, 
 in order to restore the Bible to its original 
 condition as it came from the hands of the 
 writers They pretended to restore the 
 Book of Enoch mentioned in Jude to re- 
 store writings of Moses now lost, to restore 
 a book written by Abraham. Joe overdid 
 the matter in the case of the Book of Abra- 
 ham. He pretended to translate a papyrus 
 found with a mummy. Scholarship shows 
 that his translation, his Book of Abraham 
 is an ignorant fraud. So are all other pre- 
 tended revelations from him. That blas- 
 phemous fraud, the inspired translation in- 
 terpolates into the beginning of the book of 
 Genesis: "And it came to pass that the Lord 
 spake unto Moses saying, Behold, I reveal 
 unto you concerning this heaven and this 
 earth. Write the words which I speak, I 
 am the beginning and the end, the Almighty 
 God. By mine only begotten I created these 
 things." 
 
 It blasphemously interpolates into Gene- 
 sis iii, at the beginning of the chapter five 
 verses of such stuff as this : 
 
 "And I the Lord spake unto Moses saying, that Satan 
 whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine only 
 begotten is the same which was from the beginning. 
 And he came before me saying, 'Behold I (what gram- 
 mar) send me (why did he not say send I), I will be thy 
 Son and 1 w 11 redeem all mankind, that one soul shall 
 not be lost and surely I will do it, wherefore give me 
 thine honor.' But behold, my beloved Son, which was 
 my beloved and chosen from the beginning, said unto 
 me, 'Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine 
 forever.' Whe'refore that Satan rebelled against me 
 and sought to destroy the agency which the Lord had 
 given him and also that I should give unto him mine 
 own power by the power of mine only Vegotten, I 
 caused that he should be cast down and become Satan 
 yea even the Devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and 
 to blind men and to lead them captive at his will." 
 
 But the most blasphemous interpolation 
 is in Genesis L. Into that chapter is inter- 
 polated a long lot of blasphemous frauds 
 from the second chapter of the second Book 
 of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Listen: 
 
 "Aud Joseph said unto his brethren, 'I die and go 
 
 unto my fathers and I go down to my grave with joy 
 The God of my father Jacob be with you to deliver you 
 out of affliction in the days of your" bondag- for the 
 Lord hath visited me and I have obtained a promise of 
 the Lord. For out of the fruit of my loins the Lord 
 God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins 
 (Joe Smith) and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath 
 named Israel, a prophet (not the Messiah who is called 
 Shilo), and this prophet shall deliver my people out of 
 Egypt in the days of thy bondage. And it shall come 
 to pass that they shall be scattered again, and a branch 
 shall be broken off, and carried into a far country 
 (Sidney's Nephites). Neverthele-s they shall be re- 
 membered in the covenants of the Lord, when the 
 Messiah cometh. For he shall be made manliest unto 
 them in the latter days in the Spirit of power. And he 
 shall bring them out of darkness into light out 
 of hidden darkness and captivity into freedom. 
 A seer (Joe Smith) shall the Lord my God raise 
 up, who shall be a choice seer (verily Joe was a 
 choice seer) unto the fruit of my loins. Thus saith the 
 Lord God of my fathers unto me. A choice seer (the 
 choice Joe Smith) will I raise upof the fruit of thy loins. 
 And he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of 
 thy loins, his brethren (verily the people who knew 
 Joe esteemed him highly). And unto him I will give 
 commandments that he shall do a work for the fruit 
 of thy loins. And he snail bring them to a knowledge 
 of the covenants which I have made with thy father. 
 And he shall do whatsoever work I shall command 
 him. And I will make him great in mine eyes (Joi 
 always looked out for his own glorv) for he shall do my 
 work, and he shall belike unto him whom I said I 
 would raise up unto you to deliver my people, Oh house 
 of Israel, out of the land of Egypt," and he shall be 
 called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he 
 is of the house, for he shall be saved by the king's 
 daughter and he shall be called her son. '(How much 
 more definite Sidney's prophets are than the prophets 
 of the Old Testament). And again a seer (Joe Smith) 
 will I raise up out Of the f rait of thy loins (and don't 
 you forget it) and unto him (Joe Smith) will I give 
 power to bring forth my word (Book of Mormon) unto 
 the seed of thy loins. And not to the bringing forth of 
 my word only saith the Lord, but to the convincing 
 them of my word (the Bible) which shall have gone 
 forth amongst them in the last days. Wherefore the 
 fruit of thy loins shall write (the Book of Mormon), and 
 the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write (ihe Bible). 
 And that which shall be written by the fruit of thy 
 loins (the Book of Mormon) and also that which shall 
 be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah (the Bible) 
 shall grow together unto the confounding of false 
 doctrines, and the laying down of contentions and the 
 establishing of peace among the fruit of thy loins and 
 bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the 
 latter days and also to a knowledge ofmy covenants saith 
 the Lord. And out of weakness shall he (Joe Smith) be 
 made strong in that day when my work (Mormonism) 
 i: all go forth among all people which shall restore 
 them who are of the House of Israel in the last days. 
 And that seer (Joe Smith) will I bless, and they that 
 seek to destroy him (Joe Smith) shall be confounded, 
 for this promise 1 give unto you for I will remember 
 you from generation to generation. And his name 
 shall be called Joseph, and shall be aftei the name of 
 his father (old Joe), and he *ball be like unto you, for 
 the thing (Book of Mormon) which the Lord shall bring 
 forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salva- 
 tion." 
 
 Then follow two paragraphs about Moses 
 with all of Rigdon's dehuiteness. 
 
 Now then, do you doubt that the Book o 
 Mormon is divine ? Sidney has fixed it up so 
 that the Patriarch Joseph prophesied all 
 about it and Joe Smith. There is one thing 
 I don't understand, Joe Smith was to be a 
 lineal and literal descendant of Joseph the 
 patriarch. Now as all the Nephites were 
 slain and as only the Lamanites, the In- 
 dians, were left, and these were cursed with 
 a skin of blackness, the query arises, was 
 Joseph a descendant of the Nephites who 
 had been exterminated 1,400 years? Or is 
 heaLamanite? Of what tribe is he, "Big 
 Injun?" Will Bishop Kelley inform us? 
 That is enough of that blasphemous slaugh- 
 ter of the word of God, the Inspired 
 Translation. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 323 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: When my time was called 
 last evening, I was entering upon the nar- 
 rative of young Mr. Smith, with reference 
 to the manner of the Commitment of the 
 Gospel, and the beginning of the work that 
 culminated in the organization of the 
 church in this century. I shall this even- 
 ing first finish this narrative and then pro- 
 ceed with the argument : Pearl of Great 
 Price, pp. 37 to 44. 
 
 "I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's 
 family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and 
 four of them joined that church, namely, my mother. 
 Lucy, my brothers, Hyrum, Samuel Harrison, and 
 my sister Sophronia. 
 
 "During this time of great excitement, my mind 
 was called up to serious reflection aud great uneasi- 
 ness; but though my feelings were deep and often 
 pungent, still I kept myself aloof from all those parties, 
 though I attended their several meetings as often as 
 occasion would permit: but in process of time my 
 mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, 
 and I felt some desire to be united with them, but so 
 great was the confusion and strife among the different 
 denominations, that it was impossible for a person, 
 young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and 
 tilings, to come to any certain conclusion who was 
 right, and who was wrong. My mind at different times 
 was greatly excited, the cry and tumult was so great 
 and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided 
 against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all 
 their powers of reason or sophistry to prove their 
 errors, or, at least to make the people think they were 
 in error. On the other hand the Baptists and Method- 
 iits, in their turn, were_ equally zealous to establish 
 their own tenets, and disprove all others. 
 
 "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of 
 opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done? 
 Who of all these parties, are right? or, are they all 
 wrong together? If any one of them be right, which 
 is it, and how shall I know it ? 
 
 " While I was laboring.under the extreme difficulties, 
 caused by the contest of these parties of religionists, 
 I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chap- 
 ter and fifth verse, which reads: 'If any of you lack 
 wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth unto all men 
 liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given 
 him. 1 Never did any passage of scripture come with 
 more power to the heart of man, than this did at thii 
 time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into 
 every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and 
 again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom 
 from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and 
 unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, would 
 never know ; for the teachers of religion of the differ- 
 ent sects understood the same passage so differently, 
 as to destroy all confidence in settling thequestion by 
 an appeal 10 the Bible. At length I came to the con- 
 clusion that I must either remain in darkness and 
 confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, 
 ask of God. I at length came to the determination to 
 ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to 
 them that lacked wisdom, aud would give liberally 
 and not upbraid, I might venture. So, in accordance 
 with this my determination to ask of Uod, I retired to 
 to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the 
 morning of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring 
 of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first 
 time in my life I had made such an attempt, for amidst 
 all of my anxieties I had never as yetmade the attempt 
 to pray vocally. 
 
 " After I had retired into the place where I had 
 previously designed to go, having looked around me 
 and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began 
 to offer up the deiires of my heart to God. I had 
 scarcely dene so, when immediately I was seized upon 
 by some power which entirely overcame me, and had 
 such astonishing influence over me as to bind my 
 tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness 
 gathered around me, and it seemed tome for a time, as 
 if I were doomed to sudden destruction. Butexerting all 
 my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the 
 power of this enemy, which had seized upon me, and 
 
 at the very moment when I was ready to sink Into 
 despair and abandon mvself to destruction, not to an 
 imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being 
 from the unseen world, who ha;l such a marvelous 
 power as I had never before felt in any being Jnsi at 
 this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light 
 exactly over my head, above the brightness of the 
 sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. 
 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered 
 from the enemy which held me bound. When the 
 light rested upon me, I saw two personages, whose 
 brightness and glory defy all descriptii n, standing 
 above me 'in the air. One of them spake unto me, 
 calling me by n.'ime, and said (pointing to the other) 
 'THIS IS MY BELOVED 9ON, HKAR HIM.' 
 
 "My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to 
 know which of all the sects was right, that I might 
 know which to join. No sooner therefore, did I get 
 possession of myself, so as to be able to spenk, than I 
 asked the personages who stood above me in the light, 
 which of all the sects was right (for at this time it hud 
 never entered into my heait that all were wrong), and 
 which I should join I was answered that I musi join 
 none of them, for they were all wrong, and the person- 
 age who addressed me said, ' That all their crt-eds were 
 an abomination in his sip-fat; that those professors 
 were all corrupt, they draw near to me with their lips, 
 but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doc- 
 trine the commandments of men, having a form of 
 godliness, but tdey deny the power thereof. ' 
 
 "He again forbade me to join with any of thorn; 
 and many other things did he say unto me which I can- 
 not write at this time. When I came to myself again, I 
 found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. 
 
 "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened 
 to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, 
 wko was very active in the before mentioned religious 
 excitement, and conversing with him on the subject 
 of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of 
 the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised 
 at his behavior, he treated my communication not only 
 lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of 
 the devil, that there were no such things as visions or 
 revelations in these days; that all such things hnd 
 ceased with the apostles, aud that there never would 
 be any more of them. 
 
 "I soon found, however, that my telling the story 
 had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among 
 professors of religion, and was the cause of great per- 
 secution which continued to increase; and though I 
 was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen 
 years of age, and my circumstances in li/e such as to 
 make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of 
 high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the 
 public mind against me, and create a hot persecution, 
 and this was common among all the sects, all united to 
 persecute me. 
 
 "It has often caused me serious reflection, both then 
 and since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, 
 of a little orer fourteen years of age, and, one, too, who 
 was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty 
 maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a 
 character of sufficient importance to attract the atten- 
 tion of the great ones of the most popular sects of the 
 day_, so as to create in them a spirit of the hottest perse- 
 cution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and 
 was often cause of great sorrow to myself. However it 
 was, nevertheless, a fact, that I had had a vision. I 
 have thought since, that I felt much like Paul when 
 he made his defence before king Agrippa, and related 
 the account of the vision he had when he "saw a light 
 and heard a voice,'-' and still there were but few 
 who believed him ; some said he was dishonest, others 
 said he was mad, and he was ridiculed and reviled; 
 but all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. 
 He had seen a vision ; he knew he had, and all the. per- 
 secution under heaven could not make it othe wise ; 
 and though they should persecute him unto death, yet 
 he knew and would know unto his last breath, that ha 
 had both seen a light, and heard a voice speaking to 
 him, and all the world could not make him think or 
 believe otherwise 
 
 "So it was with me, I had actually seen a light, ana 
 In the midst ot that light I saw two personages an.l 
 they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did ; 
 and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that 
 I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they 
 were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all 
 
124 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 manner of evil agnlnst me, falsely for so saying, T was 
 led to say in my heart, why persecute for telling the 
 truth ? I have actually seen a vision, and "who am I 
 that I can withstand God?" or why does the world 
 think to make me deny what I have actually seen ? for 
 I had seen a vision; I knew It, and I knew that God 
 knew it, and I could not deny it, neither Jare I do it: 
 at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God 
 and come under condemnation. 
 
 "During the space of time which intervened between 
 the time I had the vision, arid the year eighteen hun- 
 dred and twenty-three, (having been forbidden to join 
 any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very 
 tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to 
 have been my friends, and to have treated me kindly, 
 and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeav- 
 ored, in a proper and affectionate manner, to have re- 
 claimed me,) I was lelt to all kinds of temptations, 
 and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently 
 fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weak- 
 ness of youth, and the corruption of human nature, 
 which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, 
 19 the gratification of many appetites offensive in the 
 sight of God. In consequence of these things I often 
 felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; 
 when on the evening of i he above mentioned twenty- 
 first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the 
 night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to 
 Almighty God, for forgiveness of all my sins and fol- 
 lies, and also for a manifestation to me that I might 
 know of my state and standing before him; for I had 
 full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation us I 
 had previously had one." 
 
 " While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I 
 discovered a light appearing in the room, which con- 
 tinued to increase until the room was lighter than 
 at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared 
 at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not 
 touch the floor. He had on a loose robe of most exquis- 
 ite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything 
 earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any 
 earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly 
 white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his 
 arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his 
 feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. 
 His head and neck were also bare. I could discover 
 that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it 
 was open, so that I could see into his bosom. 
 
 "Notonly was his robe exceedingly white, but his 
 Whole person was glorious beyond description, and 
 his countenance truly like lightning. The room wag 
 exceedingly light, but not so very bright as imme- 
 diately round his person. When I first looked upon 
 him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called 
 me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger 
 sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name 
 was Nephi That God had a work for me to do, and 
 that my name should be had for good and evil among 
 all nations, kindreds and tongues; or that it should ba 
 both good and evil spoken of among all people. He 
 Bald there was a book deposited, written upon gold 
 plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of 
 this continent, and the source from whence they 
 sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlast- 
 ing gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Sa- 
 vior to the ancient inhabitants. Also, that there were 
 two stones in silver bows (and these stones, fastened to 
 n breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and 
 Thummim) deposited with the plates, and the posses- 
 sion and use of these stones was what constituted 
 Seers in ancient or former times, and that God had pre- 
 pared them for the purpose of translating the book. 
 
 " After telling me these things, he commenced 
 quoting the prophecies of the old Testament. He first 
 quoted part of the thiid chapter of Malachi, and he 
 quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same pro- 
 phecy, though with a little variation from the way it 
 reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse 
 as it reads in our books he quoted it thus: ' For behold 
 the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the 
 proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall burn as 
 etubble, for they that come shall burn them, saith the 
 Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root 
 nor branch.' And again, he quoted the fifth verse 
 thus: 'Behold, I will reveal unto yoii the Priesthood 
 by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming 
 of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.' He also 
 quoted the next verse differently: ' And he shall plant 
 in the hearts of tha children the promises made to the 
 fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to 
 their fathers ; if it were not so, the whole earth would 
 be utterly wasted at His coming." 
 
 "In addition to these he quoted the eleventh chapter 
 of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He 
 quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second 
 
 and twenty-third verse*, precisely as they stand !n 
 our New Testament. He said that the prophet was 
 Christ, but the day had not yet come when ' they who 
 would not hear his voice should be cut off from 
 among the people.' but soon would come. 
 
 " He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the 
 twenty -eighth to the last verse. He also said that this 
 was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further 
 stated, the fullness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. 
 He quoted many other passages of scripture and offered 
 many explanations, which cannot be mentioned 
 here. Again, he told me that when I got those plates 
 of which he had spoken (for the time that they should 
 be obtained was not yet fulfilled) I should not show 
 them to any person, neither the breastplate with the 
 Urim and Thummim, only tothose to whom I should be 
 commanded to show them; if I did, I should be des- 
 troyed. While he was conversing "with me about the 
 plates, the vision was open to my mind that I could 
 see the place where the plates were deposited, and 
 that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place 
 again when I visited it. 
 
 "After 'bis communication, I saw the light in the 
 room bi in 'o gather immediately around the person 
 of him \ ho bad been speaking to me, and it continued 
 to do so until the room was again left dark, except 
 just around him, when instantly I saw, as it were, a 
 conduit open right up into heaven, and he as. 
 cended up until he entirely disappeared, and the room 
 was left as It had been before this heavenly light had 
 made its appearance. 
 
 I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and 
 marvelling greatly at what had been told me by this 
 extraordinary messenger, when, in the midst of my 
 meditation, I suddenly discovered that my room was 
 again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, 
 as it were, the heavenly messenger was again by my 
 bedside. He commenced, and related the very same 
 things which he had done at his first visit, without the 
 least variation, which, having done, he informed me 
 of great judgments that were coming.upon the earth, 
 with great desolations by famine, sword and pestilence, 
 and that these grievous judgments would come on the 
 earth in this generation. Having related these things, 
 he again ascended as he had done before. 
 
 "By this time, so deep was the Impression made on 
 my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay 
 overwhelmed with astonishment at what I had both 
 seen and heard; but what was my surprise when I again 
 beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard 
 him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same 
 things as before, and added a caution to me, telling mo 
 that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of 
 the indigent circumstances of my father's family) to 
 get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This 
 he forbid me, saying, that I must have no other object in 
 view in getting the plates but to glorify Qod, and must 
 not be influenced by any other motive than of building 
 his kingdom, otherwise I could not get them. 
 
 "Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario 
 county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, 
 and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. 
 On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under 
 a stone of considerable size, lay the plates deppsited 
 in a stone box; this stone was thick and rounding in 
 the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the 
 edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above 
 the ground, but the edge all round was covered with 
 earth. Having removed the earth and obtained a 
 lever which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, 
 and with a little exertion raised it up ; I looked in, and 
 there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and 
 Thummim, and the breastplate as stated by the mes- 
 senger. The box in which they lay was formed by ly- 
 ing stones together in some kind of cement. In the 
 bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of 
 the box, and on these stonei lay the plates and the 
 other things with them. 
 
 "As my father's worldly circumstances were very 
 limited, we were under the necessity of laboring with 
 our hands, hiring by day's work and otherwise as we 
 could get opportunity; sometimes we werj at home 
 and sometimes abroad and by continued labor were 
 able to get a comfortable maintainance. 
 
 "In the year 1824 my father's family met with a 
 great affliction, by the death of my eldest brother 
 Alvin. In the month October, 1825, I hired with an 
 old gentleman, by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived 
 in Chenango county, state of New York. He had heard 
 something of a silver mine having been opened by the 
 Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna county, State 
 of Pennsylvania, and had, previous to my hiring wilh 
 him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover 
 the mine. After I went to live with him he took ma 
 among the rest of his hands to dig for the silver miue, 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 32( 
 
 atwhich I continued to work fornearly a month without 
 success In our undertaking, and finally I prevailed 
 with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. 
 Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having 
 been a money digger. 
 
 "During the time that I was thus employed, I was 
 put to board with a Mr. Isaac Hale, of that place: it 
 was there that I first saw my wife his daughter) Emma 
 Hale. On the 28th of January, 1827, we were married, 
 while yet I was employed in the service of Mr. Stoal. 
 
 "At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, 
 the Urim and Thummin, and the breastplate. On the 
 22nd day of September, 1827, having gone, as usual, at 
 the end of another year, to the place vriiere they were 
 deposited ; the same heavenly messenger delivered 
 them up to me with this charge, that I should be re- 
 sponsible for them ; that if I should let them go care- 
 lessly or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut 
 off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to pre- 
 serve them, until he, the messenger, should call for 
 them, they should be protected." 
 
 I have thus been particular in reading to 
 you this narrative, because it is so entirely 
 unlike the Carious manufactured stories told 
 about the visions, work, character, habHs 
 and integrity of this boy, that I wished 
 them placed side by side before you. 
 
 The detailed circumstances by young Mr. 
 Smith are altogether different to the old 
 woman's tales and neighborhood gossip 
 so universally given out by his enemies. 
 
 And is it not strange that these same 
 parties who pretend to tell you how it all 
 was, and just what actually did occur, should 
 also deny that anything at all remarkable 
 occurred. Why do they tell so much for 
 about satan and f;he peep-stones and water- 
 witching, and the plates and angels, and 
 the frock of sand and tool chests, if there 
 was nothing at all? And how can any hon- 
 est man come to the conclusion that he will 
 reject Mr. Smith's statement of the matter 
 since he was the one there and knew what 
 happened and believe what his enemies 
 said about it when they admit they were 
 not there and know nothing about it, ex- 
 cept what they got from Mr. Smith second 
 or third handed? If the statement comes 
 from him any way, shall we not go directly 
 to him instead of taking it through his 
 enemies? That sounds too much like the 
 old story on the disciples charging they 
 came and stole him away, for me. Satan's 
 hand is discernable. Such in brief is an 
 account of the beginning of the restoration 
 of the gospel through this young boy of 
 Manchester. And now, ladies and gentle- 
 men, I shall proceed to examine with you 
 the work as prefigured by the positions 
 laid down by me the first evening. 
 
 I. That the principles and faith of the 
 church are in harmony with the word of 
 of God as contained in the Bible. Are in- 
 deed the good seed of the kingdom, which 
 when men have sown bring forth fruit in 
 the good ground acceptable with Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 II. That from this faith and these princi- 
 ples there was a falling away and perver- 
 sion after the first century, as was clearly 
 predicted by Jesua and the apostles, and 
 that the church went into the wilderness 
 and her authority was taken away; and 
 that since the falling away was occasioned 
 by reason of the perversion of the truth and 
 a corruption of the gospel principles as 
 taught in the early ages, the restoration 
 
 must consist of a reinstatement of these 
 same principles and truths, with the same 
 organization and authority as was had in 
 the early church of the Saints. 
 
 III. That the restoration was made and 
 the order of the church reinstated by Christ 
 himself in accordance with the predictions 
 made by the prophets relative to this par- 
 ticular work of the last days or time. It 
 may be objected that this work set out in 
 the prophecies to be instituted and estab- 
 lished under the immediate supervision of 
 Christ himself, as predicted by the prophets 
 relates to the restoration of Israel and their 
 return to their own country, rather than to 
 a restoration of the gospel. My answer to 
 this is, that one of the things to be eventu- 
 ally accomplished by the work is the re- 
 storation of Israel to their own country; 
 but that is but a part of the work to be ac- 
 complished or even of restoration : it is but 
 one of the results to be brought about by 
 the replanting of the gospel standard. The 
 visible beginning of the entire work is the 
 "lifting up of the ensign." Isa. 11. "The 
 lifting up of a standard to the people and 
 the casting up of a highway." Isa. 62. The 
 calling ard sending forth of men under the 
 proclamation as foreseen by the prophet: 
 "Behold, I will send for many fishers, saitb, 
 the Lord, and they shall fish them; and 
 afterwards I will send for many hunters, 
 and they shall hunt them from every moun- 
 tain and from every hill." "I will cause 
 them to know my hand and my might, and 
 they shall know that my name is Jehovah." 
 Jer. 16. The Lord is to do his own work 
 and manifest, His "hand," show forth his 
 power, communicate with the people, and 
 notwithstanding the claim made by the 
 many of the world, that the day of revela- 
 tion has ceased and that God was to have 
 nothing more to do in the enlightenment 
 and conversion of the human family, He 
 is to plead with the people " face to face," 
 like as he plead with Israel under Moses, 
 and bring them into the bond of the cove- 
 nant. The more particularly distinguish- 
 ing feature of this work which the Lord ia 
 to perform among the people is that of the 
 preaching of the gospel. 
 
 This is in fact God's ensign ; his standard, 
 the way of life and salvation ; "Immor- 
 tality and eternal life is brought to light 
 through the Gospel." It is the means by 
 which the Gentiles are made "partakers of 
 the promises in Christ." "The power of 
 God unto salvation." Hence, the work of 
 restoration when it begins will be by first 
 recommitting this means of preparation, and 
 John says of the beginning of the work : "I 
 saw another angel fly through the midst of 
 heaven having the everlasting Gospel to 
 preach unto them that dwell on the earth, 
 and to every nation and kindred, and tongue 
 and people. Saying with a loud voice, fear 
 God and give glory to him for the hour of 
 his judgment is come: and worship him 
 that made heaven and earth and the sea 
 and the fountains of water." The restora- 
 tion is not only to consist of the gathering 
 of Israel into the bonds of the Covenant, 
 
826 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY LED ATE. 
 
 but in the language of the apostle Peter, 
 "Of-all things which God hath spoken by 
 the mouth of all his holy prophets since the 
 world began." All things which have been 
 predicted are to be restored. The time of 
 this work the apostle places exactly with 
 that spoken of by the prophets and Jesus, 
 and the apostles Paul and John : "And he 
 shall send Jesus Christ, which before was 
 preached unto you : Whom the heaven must 
 receive until the times of restitution of all 
 things, "etc. Acts3:20-21. Then the times 
 of the restitution is in the time when Jesus 
 too, will come, in the "hour of God's judg- 
 ment." And in the time when "this Gospel 
 of the kingdom shall be preached in all the 
 world for a witness unto all nations ; and 
 then shall the end come." The same as the 
 Revelator said was to be preached "to every 
 nation, kindred, tongue and people." "This 
 Gospel," says Jesus referring to the one 
 which he was preaching, which consisted 
 not only of words, a record of the dead letter 
 but of power, as described by the evangelise 
 Mark 1:27; "what thing is this? What 
 new doctrine is this? For with authority 
 commandeth he even the unclean spirits 
 and they do obey him." This is the Gospel 
 that is to be preached as a "witness unto 
 all nations;" and it will be, "a witness," 
 for it will be unlike the preaching which 
 has laid claims to being the Gospel for cen- 
 turies ; hence, an evidence of itself and 
 truly "a witness" that the angel has made 
 his way in the midst of heaven, and the 
 times of the restoration or restitution is at 
 hand. It is not true as is supposed by my 
 opponent, that all there is to the Gospel is 
 the record which any one may take up and 
 read. If that was true, all who read the 
 account of the Gospel would be saved ; "for 
 it is the power of God unto salvation." But 
 many read the record and do not believe it. 
 The Gospel then is in the word God's 
 truth, and in power and the Holy Ghost. 
 Hence the apostle says: "For our Gospel 
 came not unto you in word only, but in 
 power and the Holy Ghost and in much 
 assurance." Here is where we get the idea 
 of true preaching, of Gospel preaching. It 
 is a mistake to suppose that a man can 
 preach the Gospel of Christ without the 
 power of Christ's Spirit to aid him ; there 
 is no instance on record of where this was 
 done. Even Jesus himself could not do it 
 without this Spirit and power. Hence it i8 
 written of him by the prophet Isaiah 61:1, 
 'The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, 
 because he has anointed me to preach good 
 tidings unto the meek." And before Jesus 
 sent his disciples into the world to preach, 
 he said unto them, "But tarry ye at Jeru- 
 ealem until ye are endowed with power from 
 on high." Although they had been three 
 years with the master himself, receiving 
 instructions, and had then received the full- 
 ness of the Gospel so far as its presentation 
 in word is concerned, they were not yet to 
 undertake to minister his word, until they 
 should have with them the power, as well 
 as the letter of the Gospel. To undertake 
 to preach otherwise than by this would be 
 
 to make confusion and discord in their work 
 instead of bringing unity and arriving at 
 the truth ; this is the reason we find the 
 world in the state it is in to-day. Instead 
 of men teaching as directed by that Spirit 
 that was to "guide them into all truth," 
 they have preached as they have been 
 educated in their peculiar systems, and their 
 educations having been in different schools 
 and there being an absence of that spiritual 
 guide that was to bring unity and oneiu-ss 
 of thought in the truth, we have a thousand 
 divisions, all widely different, and yet, nil 
 professing to be the right one. 
 
 The educated Catholic preaches Cathoii- ,/ 
 cism. 
 
 The educated Disciple preaches Camn- 
 bellism. 
 
 The educated Baptist preaches Calvin- 
 ism. 
 
 The educated Methodist preaches Armm- 
 ianism ; and 
 
 The educated Hebrew preaches Judaism. 
 
 And so I might go on naming the entire 
 thirty minutes ; and notwithstanding the 
 fact that all of these claim to be the children 
 of God, and all expect to reach the highest 
 seat around the Lord's table, it would be as 
 great a miracle as the moving of the Kirt- 
 land hills to get them to sit down in peace 
 and unity around the Lord's table here in 
 this world. Don't flatter yourselves, my 
 friends, that by the change, called death, 
 all of these barriers are broken down and 
 you will meet with entire different feelings, 
 and tastes on the other side ; for it is writ- 
 ten : "Whatsoever a man soweth that 
 shall he also reap : " and if you would have 
 the Spirit of unity and love, charity that 
 never faileth when you arrive over on the 
 other side, you must first lay hold upon it 
 here. This comes by reason of the "Com- 
 forter, of whom Jesus said, I will send you, 
 if I go away, even the Spirit of Truth." 
 
 Why, says my opponent, that was for the 
 apostles ; Yes, and for all men who desired 
 the truth. He takes the ground that peo- 
 ple now should not have this "Spirit of 
 Truth." This was the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, the comforter and the reverse spirit 
 to this, the apostle says, "is the spirit of 
 error," 1 John 4:6. Then when I contend 
 that this "Spiritof Truth," should be in the 
 church and it after the pattern, in the man- 
 ner, that God set it in the church, shall I 
 be continually met with the "dodge" that, 
 this Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the comforter, 
 was to the apostles just after the time of 
 Jesus only? In Jesus' time the true church 
 was known by means of the presence of this 
 life power. "But if I cast out devils by the 
 Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is 
 come unto you." There is no denying the 
 position that where the church of God, or 
 kingdom of God is, there is power; the 
 power of the Holy Spirit ; Paul knew this, 
 and be therefore asked at Ephesus if those 
 who claimed to have been baptized by John's 
 baptism, had received the power. "Have 
 ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be- 
 lieved ?" He knew just how to tell whether 
 they were in the church, or kingdom of 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 327 
 
 dod, or not ; for in that, there was power. 
 Hence, ''have ye received the Holy Ghost," 
 been baptized with the Holy Ghost? The 
 difference is only in the imagination of my 
 opponent. What right has he to say that 
 when the Holy Ghost fell on these twelve 
 men at Ephesus, and they spake with 
 tongues and prophecied," that they were 
 not baptized with the same, since he admits 
 the baptism of the household of Cornelius, 
 and the record reads as in the case of the 
 baptism at Ephesus? "The Holy Ghost 
 fell on all of them which heard the word, 
 and they heard them speak with tongues, 
 and magnify God." This dividing up of 
 the Holy Spirit, making a distinction be- 
 tween the reception of the Holy Ghost, the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost, and thu gift of 
 the Holy Ghost, is without warrant in the 
 Avord of God, and for the purpose only of 
 maintaining a theory, as I have before 
 shown you. But it is claimed that people 
 sre better off without this Holy Spirit than 
 the early Christians were with it. 
 
 Singular asit may seem, persons claiming 
 to be wise, ministers of various orders, will 
 undertake to make this claim. 
 
 Can they not see that they take sides with 
 the class of whom Jesus spoke who taught 
 that their way was better than that which 
 he taught them, when he was here, when he 
 told them they could only receive the Holy 
 Spirit represented by the new wine, after 
 divesting themselves of their old religion. 
 "No man also having drunk old w r ine 
 straightway desireth new, for he saith, 
 The old is better," Luke 5:39. And so it is 
 now claimed, that men are better off and 
 nearer to God, than though they received 
 of this Holy Spirit, the Comforter ; the 
 Spirit of Truth ; the Spirit of prophecy and 
 testimony of Jesus, as he says : "When he 
 is come he will testify of me." If this 
 Spirit is with anybody then, he*will testify 
 of Jesus, and "herein we may know the 
 Spirit of Truth from the spirit of error." 
 Hence John writing to his little chil- 
 dren, as he calls the saints, says: "But 
 ye have an unction from the Holy One, and 
 ye know all things." How do they know 
 all things? Answer, by that "unction," 
 (Spirit) "from the Holy One;" for Jesus 
 had said, I will send him if I go away, and 
 he shall bring all things to your remem- 
 brance," etc. 
 
 Here, as given in the account in John's 
 letter, we find these believers enjoying the 
 styne spirit after all of the apostles had 
 fallen asleep, except John, that they had 
 had from the first. Again, verse 27 : "But 
 the anointing which ye have received of 
 him [Christ] abideth in you, and ye need 
 not that any man teach you : but as the 
 same anointing teaches you of all things, 
 and is truth [the Spirit of Truth] and is no 
 lie, and even'as it hath taught you, ye shall 
 abide in him." 
 
 As it hath taught you ; not the written 
 word hath taught you; but it, the spirit of 
 truth, the ''unction." They had to abide 
 in the word also, for if they did not do this, 
 they could not have this unction or Holy 
 
 Spirit to teach them ; nor could they abide 
 in the word without it. The spirit was 
 with its other walk, to bring the word, "all 
 things Jesus had taught him to their remem- 
 brance " Hence, Jesus says: "If a man 
 love me," if a man, (not one of you twelve 
 or seventy,) "If a man lovemehe will keep 
 my words." Is that all ? oh no ; "He that 
 loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and 
 I will love him, and will manifest myself 
 unto him." 
 
 Unto who, the twelve? No, he that 
 loveth him and keepeth his commandments. 
 John 14:21, to 27. 
 
 The apostle could then truly say of his 
 anointing, 2 Cor. 1:21 and 22: "Now he which 
 stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath 
 anointed us in God ; who hath also sealed 
 us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in 
 our hearts." And the same anointing is 
 that which Jesus was blessed with. Heb. 
 1:9. "Therefore God, even thy God, hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
 thy fellows." 
 
 Now I call your attention to the para- 
 ble relating to the dispensation of the 
 gospel in the "fullness of times," repre- 
 sented under the head of hours of labor, 
 including all' the dispensations, or the call- 
 ing of men into the ministry from the time 
 God began to warn and instruct the people 
 BO far as the record informs us. And in 
 whatever age or dispensation a man labored 
 he received the penny appointed t and so of 
 those who labored in the eleventh hour. In 
 the presentation of this work Jesus also 
 showed that the order of nations in this 
 would be reversed ; that there Would be 
 brought about the change of the first being 
 last and the last first. In the first century the 
 gospel was presented first to the Jews, and 
 afterwards was to go from them to the Gen- 
 tiles ; but in the "dispensation of the full- 
 ness of times," the presentation is to be 
 made first to the Gentiles, and then to the 
 Jews. Hence the language of the apostle 
 Jerusalem shall be trodden down, 
 "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come 
 in ;" then the time of rejoicing of the Jews 
 is to take place; and of Jesus in Math. 20:16: 
 "So the last shall be first, and the first 
 last." The standard, then preached by 
 him to the Jews, was in the last time to be 
 lifted up, and to go from the nations termed 
 Gentiles, to the Jews. The prophet Zecha- 
 riah naming the particular way in which 
 the work should begin that would result iu 
 the restoration of Israel, says: "And be- 
 hold the angel that talked with me went 
 forth and another angel w r ent out to meet 
 him. And said unto him, Run, speak to 
 this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be 
 inhabited as towns without walls for the 
 multitude of men and cattle therein ; there* 
 fore I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a 
 wall of fire round about, and will be the 
 glory in the midst of her." Zech. 2:3, 5. 
 
 Thus we have the full, clear and complete 
 establishment of the work as outlined in 
 prophecy, and as set forth, perfect agree- 
 ment and harmony in the work itself in the 
 fulfillment. 
 
828 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BHADEN'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : My opponent tried to dodge 
 the quotation from the Book of Mormon. 
 It will avail him nothing. It does repre- 
 sent Christ as answering the astonishment 
 of Jared's brother, when he saw his finger, 
 by reminding him that men are in the like- 
 ness of the Father, who has flesh and 
 blood and bones as they have. Smith, and 
 the Church in his day accepted the teach- 
 ings of the Pratts as standards, and uni- 
 versally taught them. It is amusing to see 
 the dodges of my opponent. It makes no 
 matter who uttered a teaching, nor how 
 universal it may be, if he cannot defend it 
 he repudiates it. It is not a teaching of the 
 Church. It is a very convenient method of 
 discussion. He repudiates what they have 
 published as revelations, in the same way. 
 These revelations are valuable helps. If 
 the revelation suits them, they accept it. 
 If it does not, they reject it. That is as 
 much help as California Hog Scales. Put 
 the hog on one end of a rail laid across a 
 log. Balance him with stones, and guess 
 at the weight of the stones. So Mormons 
 balance revelations with their notions. If 
 they agree, they accept. If not they reject. 
 My opponent balances his revelations 
 with what he can defend. If he thinks he 
 can defend them, they are revelations the 
 teachings of the Church. If not, he rejects 
 them. Such a prophet is as valuable as a 
 fifth wheel to a wagon, it only adds to the 
 load, and they throw it away when they 
 can't haul it. 
 
 I did not say that the language I quoted 
 was in Joe's inspired translation, and my 
 opponent knew that I did not. I said he 
 made such comment in the first verse of 
 Genesis in the King Follett sermon, and he 
 knew that was what I said. But anything, 
 even falsification of statements, to dodge. 
 He tells me, Joe did not put certain things 
 in an article in a religious enclyelopsedia. 
 Jesuits do not either. They conceal part of 
 their sentiments. I quoted Smith's declar- 
 ations in an article published in one of the 
 church papers the prophet's special teach- 
 ing to the faithful. But the present head 
 of the Church has repudiated such teach- 
 ing. He is to be commended for his good 
 sense ; but unregenerate Gentiles have this 
 trouble, which are they to accept? The 
 positive teaching of the founder and great 
 Seer and revelator Joe II., as published in 
 Vol VI. " Millenial Star," or the utterances 
 of the present head, Joe III.? When you 
 decide which is head and which is the 
 tail, we can decide which way the snake is 
 going. The world will hold them to what 
 their standards have published, especially 
 their great prophet, seer, revelator, and 
 founder said, and especially what they 
 have published of his utterances, and have 
 accepted and taught themselves, until 
 
 pressed in debate, when they dishonestly 
 try to evade it. He dishonestly says that 
 I teach that God will have nothing to do 
 with men now. He knew that was false 
 when he uttered it. I believe God deals 
 with men now in a perfect revelation, in a 
 higher and more perfect manner than he 
 did in partial revelations. Just what Paul 
 teaches. 
 
 I called on him to prove that a single 
 revelation or miracle had ever occurred in 
 Kirtland. His answer is amusing. After 
 assailing my Church, because we have no 
 miracles and revelations, and boasting that 
 his Church is the Church, because it has 
 miracles and revelations, all officers and 
 most of the members having such power; 
 when called on to produce one, just one, iu 
 its head centre, he says " the Gospel is 
 based on reason and not on miracles." Just 
 what I have claimed, just what our people 
 claim, and for such teaching he denounced 
 us as apostates. He even asserted that we 
 do not believe in the Holy Spirit, because 
 we say that no one enjoys his miraculous 
 influence ; and declared that there was but 
 one influence of the Holy Spirit, and that 
 is miraculous. Christ appealed to his mira- 
 cles when upbraiding Capernaum, Chorazin 
 and Bethsaida. He said to unbelievers 
 " Believe me for my works." He wrought 
 miracles to convince men and to prove his 
 claims. Ho healed the sick in Nazareth, 
 and ceased only when they refused to 
 believe, and it was no longer of any avail 
 to give them proof. Will my opponent do 
 what Christ did? Lay his hands on a few 
 sick and heal them? Will he do as Christ 
 did, recite the miracles that Mormons have 
 done in Kirtland? You denounce our peo- 
 ple because we have no miracles or revela- 
 tions. You claim to be the Church, because 
 you have them. We defy you to cite one. 
 Shut up for shame till you do. 
 
 He read Joe Smith's yarn about his first 
 vision. That story was first told by Smith 
 in 1843, when he was 38 years old, and 23 
 years after he says he had the vision. His 
 mother and his father's family knew nothing 
 about it then. His mother in writing his 
 life quotes this very story, as he wrote it 23 
 years afterwards. It is all a fabrication. 
 No ignorant boy of fifteen, scarcely able' to 
 read, had such knowledge of all the pro- 
 found theological questions of the day. He 
 did not reason like a theologian of forty. 
 Joe fabricated that yarn after sixteen years 
 acquaintance with Rigdon. He got the 
 Campbellism of his pretended vision from 
 Rigdon. It is a lying fabrication. His vis- 
 ion is a lie, for he says he saw the Father in 
 person. No mortal ever saw him. Human 
 ears have heard him but three times. His 
 long quotations have as much relevance as 
 quoting the multiplication table. He sup- 
 poses that persons are silly enough to think, 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 because he quotes many passages he is 
 proving his proposition, whether they have 
 any bearing on the question or not We 
 are agreed that a falling away was proph- 
 ecied . The sole issue is7 What does a res- 
 toration include? I claim a return to the 
 Bible, as our sole standard. He says to Joe 
 Smith's pretended revelations, to the pre- 
 tended miraculous power, visions, miracles, 
 frauds and fallacies, of Mormon knaves and 
 dupes. I claim that the Bible alone is the 
 word of God. He adds Mormon frauds. 
 
 I object to his church that it flatly contra- 
 dicts the Holy Spirit and declares there are 
 two baptisms in the church, when he says 
 there is but one. Will my opponent answer 
 these queries. I. Does not John declare 
 "I immerse you in water, but Christ will 
 immerse you in the Holy Spirit." II. Does 
 not John make these two immersions ? III. 
 Is not immersion in water for the remission 
 of sins, in the church? IV. Does not the 
 Holy Spirit say there is one immersion in 
 the church ? V. Is not that one immer- 
 sion immersion in water, for the remission 
 of sins. VI. If immersion in water for the 
 remission of sins, is in the church, and 
 there is but one immersion in the church, 
 can immersion in the Holy Spirit, which 
 John declares is entirely different from im- 
 mersion in water for the remission of sins, 
 be in the church ? N ow answer or stop that 
 gabble that gives the lie direct to the spirit 
 of God. He appeals to Hebrews vi. Can 
 not he see that his perversion of that pas- 
 sage only makes' the scriptures contradict 
 themselves, and fails to sustain his per- 
 version. Now it is a fact that, I. The 
 Hebrew letter was written to Hebrew 
 Christians who esteemed the law of Moses 
 above the Gospel. II. The apostle shows 
 that the law of Moses was a preparation for 
 the Gospel, the schoolmaster to lead to 
 Christ. III. He exhorts them to abandon 
 the law of Moses and accept the Gospel 
 alone. IV. He exhorts them to lay to one 
 side repentance from dead works, the works 
 of a dead law, teaching concerning immer- 
 sions the immersions, bathings, washings 
 of the law of Moses the different immer- 
 sions of Heb. 9-10, "carnal ordinances, 
 meats, drinks, and different immersions 
 imposed till the time of reformation," or 
 until the Gospel came. The immersions of 
 Hebrews, 6: 1, and the different immersions 
 of Hebrews, 9: 10, on the same. 
 
 Again suppose that my opponent finds 
 different immersions in the Bible, it does 
 not prove that there is more than one im- 
 mersion in the church. The Holy Spirit 
 says there is but one in the church. Can he 
 understand that? The Bible speaks, I. of 
 one immersion in water for remission of sins. 
 My opponent admits that it is in the church. 
 II. Immersion in the Holy Spirit. III. 
 Immersion in fire. IV. Immersions in 
 sufferings endured by Christ. V. Immer- 
 sion into Moses. VI. Different immersions 
 of the law of Moses. Are all these in the 
 church? They must be if in the Bible; ac- 
 cording to my opponent. Why does he not 
 have immersion in suffering immersions 
 
 into Moses in the different immersions in 
 the law of Moses, in the church, as well as 
 the immersion in the Spirit? 1 Cor. 8:4, 
 "For though there are those that are called 
 Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as 
 there are Lords many and Gods many) to ua 
 there is but one God the Father." If my 
 opponent finds a score of immersions in the 
 Bible, to us, to the church, the Holy Spirit 
 says there is but one baptism, as there is 
 but one God. He might as well claim sev- 
 eral Gods, as several immersions several 
 faiths several Lords several Holy Spirits 
 several hopes several bodies, justas well, 
 as claim several immersions. To us, to the 
 church, there is but one baptism, as there 
 is but one God one Lord one Holy Spirit 
 one faith one hope one body one im- 
 mersion. 
 
 Again, if the one baptism be immersion 
 in the Holy Spirit, then two of the items 
 are the same, the one Spirit and the one 
 immersion in the Spirit are the same. Or 
 we have the one Spirit and then we receive 
 him again in the immersion in the Spirit. 
 The obtuseness or perverseuess of my oppo- 
 nent is to be pitied. He cannot see the 
 difference between immersion by one Spirit 
 and immersion in the Spirit the difference 
 between in and by. The difference between 
 born of the Spirit and immersion in the 
 Spirit; the difference between in and of 
 the difference between immersion in the 
 Spirit, and the renewal of the Spirit the 
 difference between in and of. Until he can 
 see that by is not in, in is not of, he had 
 better stop debating, and study a dictionary 
 for several years, for it would take that 
 long for him to understand what any 
 schoolboy knoVs. Now then let our oppo- 
 nent stop this gabble about two baptisms 
 which gives the lie direct to the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 To his long string of irrelevant prophecies 
 we object : I. His application of them to Joe 
 Smith and the Book of Mormon is a mere 
 inference. Jf we were to insert the infer- 
 ence it would make the prophecies sound 
 ridiculous. IT. The context limits several 
 to the return of the Israelites from captivity. 
 Isaiah xi, 16, "And there shall be a 
 highway for the remnant of the people 
 which shall be from Assyria." What bal- 
 derdash to apply this to Joe Smith and 
 Mormonism. Isaiah is merely poetic hyper- 
 bole, describing the return of the Israelites 
 from Assyrian captivity. One of the egre- 
 g'rious blunders of those who run crazy over 
 Hebrew prophecies is that they take what 
 these prophets said of their nation, and 
 they rarely prophecied of anything else, 
 and carry it over into modern history, of 
 which the prophets never dreamed. Men 
 find railroads, telegraphs, telephones, gas 
 lights, electric lights, in Hebrew prophecies. 
 They find that the English people are 
 descendants of Israelites, the Indians are, 
 that the United States is prophecied of, 
 that Louis Napoleon was foretold, Bismarck, 
 the Fox girls, and Joe Smith. I confess 
 that I have such a disgust for such vagaries 
 that I have no patience to notice them.' 
 
830 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Jeremiah xvi refers to the Assyrian cap- 
 tivity and return from it. So also EzeUiel. 
 xx. Even if it did not, it could be applied 
 to the Fox girls and Spiritism, as well as to 
 Joe Smith and Mormonism. Such vagaries 
 backed up by irrelevant quotations and 
 misapplication of prophecies are to prove 
 that Mormonism is the church of God. 
 
 We will now continue our examination of 
 the pretended revelations of Mormonism. 
 All inspiration should be harmonious and 
 agree with itself. If Joe Smith was in- 
 spired when he translated the Book of 
 Mormon, and when he made the Inspired 
 translation, these two products of inspira- 
 tion should agree. If Joe was inspired 
 when he gave the revelations in the Book 
 of Doctrines and Covenants, and when he 
 made the Inspired Translation, these two 
 products of inspiration should agree. In 
 the Book of Mormon there are hundreds of 
 quotations from the New Testament ; hun- 
 dreds from the Old Testament. In his 
 Inspired Translation Joe has changed these 
 passages, in scores of instances. If he was 
 inspired in his translation, King James 7 
 version is wrong in all of these instances. 
 Yet strange to say the Book of Mormon 
 follows King James' version, quotes the 
 erroneous language in our version in every 
 instance. How did the Nephites, who 
 quoted by inspiration from old Hebrew 
 writings, happen to quote the errors of 
 King James' version, that was not in exis- 
 tence till hundreds of years after their day ? 
 Will Kelley explain this to this to us? Did 
 Sydney Rigdon quote from our version 
 when he wrote the Book of Mormon? Or 
 did the Nephites who quoted by inspiration, 
 quote our version hundreds of. years before 
 it was made, instead of from the correct 
 text ? Our version is wrong if the Inspired 
 Translation is right. 
 
 The Book of Mormon declares that Jesus 
 after his ascension visited theNephites, and 
 repeated to them nearly all of his sermon 
 on the mount. Jesus says to them: "Be- 
 hold ye have heard the things which I 
 taught before I ascended to my Father." 
 In his sermon to the Nephites he repeats 
 what he had said before his ascension, just 
 as it is in our version and different from the 
 Inspired Translation in over thirty instances 
 of marked differences between our version 
 and the Inspired Translation. Did Rigdon 
 copy from our version in writing the Book 
 of Mormon? Or did Jesus, in his conversa- 
 tion with the Nephites, quote from our ver- 
 sion endorsing its errors, hundreds of years 
 before it was made? Or did Christ use the 
 correct utterance, and the Nephites quote 
 from our version its errors, hundreds of 
 years before it was made, instead of quoting 
 the language Christ did use? Or is our 
 version right and Joe wrong in his Inspired 
 Translation. As an illustration, the Book of 
 Mormon says that Jesus said, "Then I will 
 profess unto them I never knew you, depart 
 from me ye that work iniquity." The In- 
 spired Translation says that he said, "Then 
 I will say unto them ye never knew me, 
 .depart from me ye that work iniquity." 
 
 Which inspiration is correct? Will Kelley 
 straighten out this contradiction. In like 
 manner in the Book of Doctrines and Cov- 
 enants revelations agree with our version 
 and contradict Joe's Inspired Translation 
 in many instances. 
 
 Again Joe's Inspired Translation contra- 
 dicts itself. Genesis ii : 5-9 and vi : 5. Joo 
 interpolates his dogma on pre-existence of 
 souls. He makes God declare that ho 
 created the Spirits of men in heaven, before 
 he created their bodies on earth, and beforo 
 any human body existed. In I Cor. xv : 
 44-49 he translates the language so that it 
 declares that the first man instead of being 
 merely spiritual first, was first of the earth, 
 "that which is natural, is first, that which 
 is spiritual last." The Inspired Trans- 
 lation says, Math.iv: Jacob begat Joseph 
 the husband of Mary. Luke iii : 30 declares- 
 Jeseph was from the loins of Heli. Hence 
 he had two natural fathers. The original 
 declares that Joseph was the son of Heli r 
 that is by marriage. The inspired Trans- 
 lation contradicts itself in regard to creation. 
 It declares that when man was created there- 
 was no flesh on the earth, water or air, an<t 
 that man was the first flesh on the earth. 
 Gen. ii: 6-8. In the first chapter we have- 
 fishes, fowls and all animals created before 
 man was created. The words Joe inter- 
 polates into the second chapter flatly con- 
 tradict the first chapter. We have thus- 
 proved that Joe's inspiration in the Inspired 
 Translation flatly contradicts his inspira- 
 tion in the Book of Mormon', in the Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants, and contradicts 
 itself. Had we the Book of Commandments 
 to compare with the revision of its revela- 
 tions and inspiration in the Book of Doc- 
 trines and Covenants, we could show that 
 hundreds of corrections have been made, 
 that the Mormon God has revised himself 
 in hundreds of instances. 
 
 We will now attack the very corner stone 
 of I.lormonism, the ordination of Oliver Cow- 
 dery and Joe Smith. Itisdescribed by Smith: 
 
 "We on a certain day went into the woods t*> pray, 
 and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism fur 
 the remission of sins as we found mention in the- 
 translation of the plates. While we were thus em- 
 ployed praying and calling upon the Lord a messL'nger 
 from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having 
 laid his hands upon us he ordained us sayin?, 'Lpotv 
 you my fellow servants in the name of the Messiah I 
 confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys 
 of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repen- 
 tance and of baptism of immersion for the remission of 
 sins; and this shall never be taken again from the 
 earth, until the sous of Levi do offer again an offering 
 unto the Lord in righteousness.' He said that this. 
 Aaronic priesthood had not the power of laying on of 
 hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this shouM 
 be conferred on us hereafter. And he commanded u* 
 to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I 
 should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afienvanl* 
 he should baptize me Accordingly we went and were 
 baptized. I baptized him first and afterwards he bap- 
 'ti'ed me. After that I laid my hands on his head and 
 ordained him to the Aaronic piiesthood; and after- 
 wards he laid his hands upon me and ordained me to 
 the some priesthood, as we were commanded. The- 
 messenger who visited us upon this occasion and con- 
 ferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was 
 John the same thnt is called John the Baptist in the 
 New Testament, and that he acted under the directions 
 of Peter, James and John who held the keys of the 
 priesthood of Melchezedek which priesthood he said! 
 should in due time be conferred ui>on us, and I should 
 be the first Elder and he the second." 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 831 
 
 Joe and Oliver were divinely inspired 
 men engaged in the translation. They had 
 the miraculous influence of the Spirit, the 
 baptism in the Spirit according to my oppo- 
 nent, yet they had not been baptized for 
 the remission of sins, and were not par- 
 doned. The miraculous influence of the 
 Spirit'does not confer pardon. It is not the 
 birth of the Spirit, if Joe's story be true. 
 Will my opponent fix this up ? Either Joe 
 lied when he said he had this miraculous 
 influence of the Spirit, or it had not confer- 
 red on him remission of sins. It was not 
 the birth of the Spirit. Again, as baptism 
 is immersion the angel talked the nonsense 
 of "immersion by immersion." The angel 
 says the sons of Levi are to make offering 
 unto the Lord. That will repudiate the 
 sacrifice of Christ, set to one side the anti- 
 type and introduce the shadow. Thatangel 
 needed to be told that Jesus offered him- 
 self once for all, and abolished all sacri- 
 fices of the sons of Levi. "There remains 
 no more offering for sin." That angel or- 
 dains Joe and Oliver to the Aaronic priest- 
 hood, and then repudiates his own act and 
 tells them to ordain each ocher. If his ordi- 
 nation was valid, why tell them to ordain 
 each other? If it was not, why the farce 
 of conferring it? Why not tell them to or- 
 dain each other at first? That angel needed 
 to be told many things. 
 
 I. The Aaronic priesthood never was in 
 the church of Christ. It belonged to the 
 dispensation of the law of Moses, which 
 was changed "for the priesthood being 
 changed (from the priesthood of Aaron), 
 there is made of necessity a change also 
 of the law." The Aaronic priesthood was 
 superseded by the Melchezedek priesthood 
 of Christ. 
 
 II. Christ was never an Aarpnio priest 
 and he has ordained no such priests in his 
 church. "Our Lord sprang from the tribe 
 of Judah of which Moses spake nothing con- 
 cerning the priesthood." 
 
 III. There is not a word about the Aaro- 
 nic priesthood in the church of Christ. It 
 is a Mormon fiction. 
 
 IV. The angel, was John the Baptist, the 
 last who held the keys of the Aaronic 
 priesthood. John died early in our Lord's 
 ministry. He died under the law of Moses. 
 He never ordained a priest in the church. 
 There was no Aaronic priest from John till 
 Joe and Oliver. According to this Christ 
 had not properly organized his church and 
 John had to correct his omission by ordain- 
 ing Joe and Oliver in 1829. 
 
 V. If John had been a priest, death would 
 
 have cutoff his priesthood. Aaron io priests 
 were not suffered to continue by reason of 
 death. Hebrews vii, 22. 
 
 VII. W T as John resurrected to ordain Joe? 
 If so, how did resurrection restore to John 
 his priesthood ? 
 
 VIII. If John was not resurrected death 
 had cut of his priesthood, and his spirit 
 could not confer what it had lost. 
 
 IX. John claims to have been sent by 
 Peter, James and John. Why not by Christ. 
 Christ himself shed forth what laid the 
 foundation of the church at Pentecost. 
 
 X. John says that Peter, James and John 
 held the keys to the Melchezedek priest- 
 hood. An utter untruth, the Melchezedek 
 priesthood belongs to Christ alone; and he 
 has no successor. Heb. vi. 15-17. There 
 arises another Priest after the order of 
 Melchezedek. 
 
 XI. Christ did not officiate as priest of 
 any order while on earth. He began his 
 Melchezedek priesthood after his ascension. 
 Hebrews viii. : 4. " If Christ were on earth 
 he would not be a priest." So he did not 
 begin his priesthood on earth. Christ chose 
 and ordained apostles ; John xv: 16. But 
 he did not ordain Aaronic priests, for but 
 one of his disciples was a Levite. Hecould 
 not ordain them Melchezedek priests before 
 the law was changed, and before himself, 
 the first priest of that order. 
 
 XII. Christ is a priest forever after the 
 order of Melchezedek. He can have no 
 successor. 
 
 XIII. The priesthood under the gospel 
 belongs to all Christians. 1 Peter, ii: 5:6; 
 Also Revelations i : 2. 
 
 These objections overturn the corner 
 stone of Mormonism. The lie that Joe 
 fabricated to have a divine commission, for 
 his pretense to hold the keys of the Aaronic 
 and Melchezedek priesthoods. It is aa 
 baseless as the fabric of a dream. Mormon- 
 ism claims that there is but one gift of the 
 Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit in miraculous 
 powers. Joe said that the Melchezedek 
 priesthood alone can confer that. So tho 
 angel told them. The Melchezedek priest- 
 hood was not in existence, and of course 
 the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, 
 which that Priesthood alone can confer, 
 was not in existence. Joe and Oliver had 
 not received the priesthood nor the power 
 it alone can confer. Yet Joe had received 
 an inspiration to translate; so had Oliver. 
 And they prophesied on this occasion, before 
 the priesthood which could confer such 
 power was in existence. 
 
 (Time called). 
 
832 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : The Book of Abraham has 
 become a terror to my opponent all at once. 
 Well, is that the question under discussion ? 
 Is it in any respect connected with it ? No. 
 What has the question of whether Joseph 
 Smith translated the Book of Abraham or 
 not, to do in deciding- as to whether the 
 Latter Day Saints have, and abide in the 
 gospel of Christ? 
 
 IF, as a people, we are sowing the good 
 seed or doctrine of the kingdom, and have 
 the gospel preached by Jesus and the apos- 
 tles restored, it will make no difference 
 whether Joseph Smith did something else 
 correct or not. 
 
 Did he do this work of restoring the 
 gospel and church correctly? that is the 
 question. And it is easy to see that he 
 may have done this and yet failed in some 
 other work if he was not called to do that ; 
 and again it is just possible and very prob- 
 able, he did both right. 
 
 So far as the translation of the Book of 
 Abraham, no called, is concerned, I have 
 examined the purported translation of T. 
 Deveria as published and it shows upon 
 its face and the way that it is gotten up, 
 that it is a humbug, whatever be that made 
 by Joseph Smith. M. Deveria was not a 
 
 freat savant, as has been claimed for him, 
 ut a young Frenchman who had made no 
 stir in the world on account of ability of 
 any kind and none since. He only had a 
 copy of this papyrus and how genuine, 
 neither he nor the parties who delivered 
 him the copy, knew, and taking his pur- 
 ported translation (I say this, for he did 
 not claim to be able to translate it in full) 
 and compare with that of Mr. Smith and 
 any intelligent man cau soon see that even 
 Deveria's work confirms the fact that Smith 
 knew something about the papyri. The 
 work of Joseph Smith will stand the test of 
 all such jobs as men of that class can put 
 up on him. But the Book of Abraham 
 forms no part of our faith and never did, 
 and I therefore leave it with the "young 
 
 My opponent thinks I misapply the pro- 
 phecy in Isaiah 11 : 12 and 13. If he really 
 thinks so why does he not take a stand 
 here and show how it is misapplied. He 
 overturns more than simply my argument 
 if he can show this has been fulfilled. 
 When the angel visited Joseph Smith when 
 he was a boy as I read to you, it is said he 
 quoted this language of Isaiah and stated 
 it had not had a fulfillment but soon would. 
 If Braden can overturn that statement, he 
 has made a point. Let him do his worst 
 now. The events spoken of I claim have 
 never taken place at any time. Itmustyet 
 be accomplished. Judah has never been 
 gathered since the dispersion and when 
 this is fulfilled it is to be by bringing them 
 
 from "the four corners of the earth" the 
 extremities of the earth. Then shall the ad- 
 versaries of Judah be cut off' and Ephraim 
 and Judah dwell together in peace. Two 
 things which have never been since long 
 before the Ephraimites were, with tn? 
 other tribes, taken captive first, by tho 
 King of Assyria. I showed you fully from 
 the Bible upon the first question tha,, 
 Ephraim had not existed as a nation nor 
 been known since they were cast out with 
 the tribes, nor would not be until one should 
 stand up as of old with the Urim and 
 Thummim to make his seed known among 
 the people. Hence, this prophecy could 
 not have taken place. But the following 
 verses are sufficient upon this: 
 
 "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of 
 the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he 
 shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it ir: the 
 seven streams, and make men go over dry shod." 
 
 "And there shall be a highway for the remnant of 
 his people, whi< h shall be left, from Assyria; like 
 it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of 
 land of Egypt." 
 
 This has never been accomplished in any 
 sense neither in a miraculous, as predicted, 
 manner, nor in any way so far as the cross- 
 ing of the sea ,or destruction of the nation 
 who shall abide there, nor in the general 
 return of Judah and Israel. 
 
 He thinks he has found a contradiction in 
 what is termed the Inspired Translation of 
 the Scriptures, because in Genesis it says 
 man was created spiritual first, whereas in 
 1 Cor. 15 :47, it says the first man was of the 
 earth, earthy. 
 
 In Genesis, the Lord is represented as 
 giving an account of the creation of man. 
 His organization; and shows it was first* 
 spiritual, then natural. In Corinthians 
 Paul is contrasting the position of Adam 
 with that of Christ. Try again, Mr. Braden, 
 you may strike something yet before the 
 close of the debate. 
 
 Again the objection comes up that the 
 Book of Mormon follows the errors in King 
 James' translation, while the quotations in 
 it an d the Inspired ought to agree. I burst- 
 ed his bauble in my 18th and 19th speeches 
 on the first proposition as to the errors and 
 idioms in King James' translation being 
 copied in the Book of Mormon . Now it does 
 not follow that the translation of the Bible 
 should agree in the wording in order for 
 both to be correct. They are translated 
 from different writings and writers, who 
 penned the words at different times, and it 
 ought not to be claimed that they should 
 have got the exact word every time. You 
 just as well claim that where Mark and 
 Luke or Matthew and John differ in their 
 wording of what Jesus said on an occasion, 
 one of them is wrong. It will not follow 
 that either is wrong, and to be discarded 
 unless it can be shown that it contains some 
 false sentiment or doctrine. It would be a 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 333 
 
 fact that It would look a little suspicious 
 did the Inspired Translation and Book of 
 Mormon agree every time in wording, 
 although translated from originals written 
 by different persons, as they were. Try 
 again for av.ilid objection. 
 
 Again, he takes up 1 Cor. 12:13, but soon 
 to drop it, and says now that I can't distin- 
 guish between being baptized in the Spirit, 
 or in the language of the Spirit, or by the 
 Spirit. He said "by the command of the 
 Spirit," before when commenting upon this. 
 But my comment has induced him to 
 change the form again. Suppose we let it 
 readjust as it is in the Bible. It so suits 
 me, and should all. ''For by one Spirit are 
 we all baptized into one body, whether we 
 be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
 or free ; and have been all made to drink 
 into one Spirit. 
 
 Comment is useless. My opponent may 
 try to figure around this all day, and at 
 night his work will be knocked all into pi 
 by simply reading aloud the text. 
 
 There is a baptism of the water and of 
 the Spirit. Those on Pentecost were bap- 
 tized by the Spirit, and they had before 
 been baptized in water. Paul was baptized 
 in water, and received also the baptism of 
 the Spirit. This I have shown and much 
 more on this point, however. Paul in this 
 language in 1 Cor. 12:13, gives the Saints 
 to whom he is writing to understand that 
 not only he, but all were baptized by this 
 Spirit. So I believe. The reference in Eph. 
 4:5 I showed could not mean there was no 
 baptism of the Spirit, for that would con- 
 tradict Jesus, Peter, Paul, John the Apos- 
 tle and John the Baptist. It refers to the 
 complete birth in the kingdom of God, the 
 church of Christ, the "washing of re- 
 generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost" 
 "the baptism into Christ and putting on 
 Christ," or the burial in the liquid wave 
 and the clothing upon with the Holy Ghost. 
 Paul says in the Hebrew letter, "baptisms" 
 in the plural, speaking of it also as one of 
 the first or foundation principles of the doc- 
 trine of Christ. 
 
 There has as yet been no claim made that 
 the doctrine and faith of the church differs 
 in any regard to that taught in the New 
 Testament, aside from baptisms, which we 
 use as Paul did in the plural. My opponent 
 has been content so far in rehearsing the 
 various tales about some of the men who 
 first were called to this work, and with 
 making objections to the form of the church 
 organization as not being identified with the 
 New Testament church. 
 
 Strange, too, that a person who is in an 
 organization that does not pretend, under 
 any circumstances, to have more than two 
 officers, as contained in the New Testament 
 church, and even these two are entirely 
 different in their work and spiritual endow- 
 ments to those of the early church, should 
 attempt to criticise another body of people 
 on the ground that he thinks one or two of 
 their officers are not just according to those 
 mentioned in the Scriptures. 
 
 But I a hall patiently compare the organi- 
 
 zation of the church with the New Testa- 
 ment and ascertain what, if any, differences 
 there are. In the New Testament the order 
 is set forth as follows : "Apostles," "Proph- 
 et*," "Evangelists or Seventy" (Luke 10 
 and Eph. 4:11), "Pastors" [shepherds or 
 priests], "Teachers," "Helps" [helpers or 
 assistants], "Governments" [directors]. 
 "Miracles" [powers], "Gifts of Healing" 
 [gifts of cures], "Diversities of Tongues" 
 [different languages]. See Matthew 10:1, 5; 
 Luke 6:13 to 16, and 10:1. Horn. 12:4 to 9. 
 1 Cor. 12:28 and 29, and Eph. 4:11 . Are these 
 all the officers that were in the New Testa- 
 ment church? No, there were a number of 
 others. Turn to Phil. 1 : 1. and we read : 
 
 "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, 
 to all the Saints in Chrisi Jesus which are at Philippi, 
 with the bishops and deacons. If a man desire the 
 office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop, 
 then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vig- 
 ilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitHlity, apt 
 to teach. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of 
 filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, nor covetous; 
 one that ruleth well in his own house, having his chil- 
 dren in subjection with all gravity (for if a man 
 know not how to rule his own house how shall he take 
 care of the church of God?)" 1 Tim. 3:1 to 5, and 12 
 and 13. 
 
 These fully set forth the fact that there 
 were the offices of bishop and deacon in the 
 church, besides those before named. And 
 upon this I have quoted fully to show the 
 character of the office of bishop. That it 
 was one in which he has to deal with the 
 temporal interests of the church as well as 
 the spiritual. He therefore is not to be a 
 covetous or greedy man. In his department 
 as to the temporal interests, as chief bishop, 
 he has also supervisory control over the 
 church, hence the expression, "How shall 
 he take care of the church of God?" 
 
 The writing is also clear that provision 
 was not only made for one, but assisting 
 bishops to him ; hence, " helps," assistants, 
 are provided for in the business and order 
 of the Temporal department in the church 
 as well as in the Spiritual. Also in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, 6:5, it is said: "They 
 choose Stephen, a man full of faith and of 
 the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, 
 " H Nicanor, and Timon, and Parnenas, 
 
 and 
 
 and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch : 
 
 " Whom they set before the apostles ; 
 and when they had prayed, they laid their 
 hands on them." 
 
 Here is the history of the setting apart 
 of seven men to act in a certain position 
 which it seems had not been supplied up to 
 this time. What the particular office was 
 we are not told in the narrative any more 
 than we are told in the 13th of Acts, what 
 particular office Barnabas and Saul were 
 set apart to fill as laborers in God's work. 
 Philip is referred to afterwards as an evan- 
 gelist, but just what the duties of that 
 office were, is not fully set out. The best 
 authority upon this, is that it was a special 
 work to which certain ones were called 
 who held a high office in the church. Doc- 
 tor Smith, in his Theological Dictionary, 
 refers to the office to which these seven 
 wise men were set apart, as being evidently a 
 high and responsible one in the church, bujr 
 which does not seem to be named anywhere. 
 
834 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 It was not that of deacon, lie concludes. 
 And it is fair to presume that these men 
 were bishops, or high priests instructed to 
 act in that position, and especially are we 
 warranted in taking this view since some 
 of the special work pointed out for these 
 men to do, is the same as that connected 
 with the bishop's duties hi 1 Tim. 3rd 
 chapter. 
 
 Again, it is thought to be the order in the 
 Betting apart of evangelists under the New 
 Testament, to select them from among the 
 High Priests, on account of the very station 
 of these officers, who should have attained 
 the eminent position as had, it is clear, these 
 seven men mentioned in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, by reason of being men: "Of 
 honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and 
 wisdom." 
 
 The Priesthood 'was in the church at 
 that time it is certain, and the office of 
 High Priest is connected in this line of 
 Authority. Christ it is said was made " an 
 High Priest," Heb: 5:10; and he certainly 
 would not have been called to any office 
 not in the church. Remember it does not 
 say the High Priest, as though there were 
 to be but one, and this one the last, but: 
 "an High Priest." He is also called, "the 
 Apostle and High Priest," Heb. 3:1. But 
 he was not the last and only apostle, but 
 held that office in the church, which evi- 
 dently was the highest office in the church. 
 J'aul makes it precede that of High Priest 
 in the language quoted: "And God hath 
 set some [gifts] in the church first Apostles." 
 It is a fixed fact; and those who wish to 
 make Jesus the last High Priest, because 
 they think that was the highest office in 
 the church, and he having held it, therefore 
 he will continue to act in that, and no one 
 else can, make a mistake. He held and 
 acted in the office of High Priest as he did 
 also in that of other offices, because it was 
 an office in the church, as the office of an 
 Apostle was also in the church, and he 
 acted in that, and was not only an Apostle 
 .and Priest and an Elder here, but after his 
 ascension still an Apostle and Priest and 
 Elder, and must continue such forever. 
 But this does not cut off the offices, or take 
 them out of the church, for Peter and 
 James acted as Apostles here, while the 
 Apostle (Jesus) was in the heavens. But 
 these are not the only officers as Peter 
 says : 
 
 "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am 
 also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings df 
 Christ, nnd also a partakerof thatglory to be revealed. 
 
 " Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking 
 the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; 
 jiot foi- filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Neither as 
 being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples 
 to the flock. 
 
 "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye 
 shall receive a crown of glory that ladeth not away." 
 1 Peter, 5:1 to 4. 
 
 What officers have we now set forth in 
 the New Testament as existing in the 
 church under the apostles? 
 
 I will enumerate:^ Apostles, Prophets, 
 Seventy, (Evangelists,) High Priests, Bis- 
 hops, Elders, Teachers and Deacons. These 
 lesser officers evidently are also among: the 
 
 "helps, governments," &c., and as such, 
 they are qualified to act by the authority 
 of the lesser or helping priesthood. The 
 authority of the priest, teacher and deacon 
 then, is just as much a fact, as that of any 
 other officer, and Paul so instructs: 
 "Having then gifts differing according to 
 the grace that is given to us, whether 
 prophecy, let us prophesy according to the 
 proportion of faith ; or ministry, let w 
 wait on our ministering ; or he that teach, 
 eth on teaching." 
 
 How does this list compare with th 
 organization of the Re-organized Church ol 
 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? 
 
 In that church, the organization is as 
 follows: Apostles, Prophets, Seventy, 
 (Evangelists) High Priests, Bishops, (Pre- 
 siding Bishop and assistants,) Elders, 
 Priests, Teachers and Deacons, Helps, 
 Governments and Diversities of tongues 
 [Languages], 
 
 Can you not observe a similarity with the 
 New Testament order? Now think back 
 when my opponent began to compare the 
 organization of his church with the New 
 Testament Church, and see what a plight 
 he was caught in. He had elders and 
 deacons in his church, and these they made 
 themselves. God don't have anything to 
 do, he claims, in the calling of the minister 
 by the manifestation of his will in these 
 days ; revelation is all confined to the first 
 century, and "only a few fanatics" believe 
 in it any longer. But " our church," he 
 claims, is " identical, (just examine the 
 definition of that word, will you?) with the 
 New Testament Church in organization," 
 etc. Who, so little informed as to be de- 
 ceived longer by such an assumption? 
 
 The other evening Mr. Btaden claimed 
 there were priests in his church they are 
 all kings and priests. He is a high, or 
 Melchezedek priest. 
 
 Mr. Braden : I did not say I was a Mel- 
 chezedek priest. 
 
 Mr. Kelley : O, you are an Aaronic priest, 
 then, are you? That gives me my Aaronic 
 or lesser priesthood without much trouble, 
 There are only two lines of priesthood, 
 and a man must either be a priest after one 
 line or the other. If he is not a Melchezedek 
 priest he is an Aaroiiic, or no priest at all 
 of God. 
 
 My opponent renews still his objections 
 to the Latter Day Saints idea of God. But 
 ; the trouble with him is. he seems to be much 
 better acquainted with theBrighamite views 
 and theories than with that of the Saints. 
 But inojst any kind of notion about God' is 
 better than the Campbellite view, for did 
 he not confess in the discussion of the 
 previous question that they did not pretend 
 to know anything about God? He finds 
 fault because some one had expressed his 
 belief that there are more gods than one. 
 This was a charge brought against Christ 
 by the Jews, But Jesus answered "Is it 
 not written in your law, I said ye are gods?' 
 If he called them gods unto whoin the word 
 qt God came, and the scripture cannot be 
 broken fSiiy ye of -him wiioiri the Fattier 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 835 
 
 sanctifieth and sent into the world, thou 
 blasphemest?" John 10:34. Moses was 
 made as God to Aaron. The Latter Day 
 Saints believe with Paul: " Though there 
 be them that are called gods, whether in 
 heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many 
 and lords many), but to us there is one God, 
 the Father, of whom are all things, and we 
 in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom are all things, and we by him." 
 " Howbeit," he says, " there is not in every 
 man this knowledge." Just so; and our 
 Campbellite friends, Braden says, have not 
 got it. 1 Cor. 8 : 5, 6, 7. 
 
 As to the personality of God, the Latter 
 Day Saints believe he is something. That 
 he is composed of substance, or essence 
 called spirit, as I have before set forth, 
 hence, it is written, " God is a Spirit." Man 
 was made in the image of God. Gen. 1: 27, 
 1 Cor. 11 : 7. Jesus Christ wa made in the 
 express image of his Father's "person." 
 Hebrew 1:3. " The image of the invisible 
 God." Col. 1:15. Here it is shown that 
 Jesus Christ is the express image of his 
 Father of his "person," and Jesus looked 
 so much like mankind in general that he 
 was called the ' Carpenter's son." He ate 
 and drank, walked about and conversed 
 with man ; was crucified and laid in 
 Joseph's new tomb; was raised from the 
 dead and appeared unto the disciples with 
 the wounds in his hands and side. He ate 
 and drank with his disc'ples after he arose 
 from the dead. Mr. Braden thinks it would 
 be just "awful" if the Latter Day Saints 
 should think that he digested also. How 
 did hegetridofthefish heate, Mr. Braden? 
 Or was it a slight of hand performance? 
 Remember it is Braden who raises this 
 question and presumes it is wicked to think 
 he digests, etc. Besides, he has left a 
 promise that he will drink wine with his 
 disciples when he comes again. Yet, 
 Braden says, the faith of the Saints is a 
 "beastly system," because they believe 
 that God has a body and parts. Braden 
 forgets, perhaps, that every whole is made 
 up of parts, and that if God exists at all he 
 exists somewhere and somehow, and is 
 something. We have shown that man was 
 made in his image. Stephen says : " I see 
 the heavens opened and the Son of man 
 standing on the right hand of God." Acts, 
 7: 56. Stephen saw the Father and Son, or 
 there is no truth in the Bible. Then God is 
 a being, and it is not Paganism to believe 
 that he exists, and that the Son was in the 
 express image of his person. But my 
 opponent says again that the Latter Day 
 Saints believe in the eternity of matter. 
 This is a simple question. Which is the 
 most reasonable, to believe that God made 
 the universe out of nothing, or are the 
 elements out of which the material universe 
 was made, self-existent, and God formed 
 the universe out of this self-existent 
 matter. Some of the Latter Day Saints 
 believe the latter the most reasonable. It 
 is simply a philosophical speculation, and 
 uot a cardinal feature of the faith. As for 
 myself, it appears far more reasonable, that 
 
 God created all things out of existent 
 elements, than that he created them out of 
 nothing. I would have thought, however, 
 that after my opponent had had his idea of 
 God creating all things out of nothing so 
 effectually exploded by A. Wilford Hail, in 
 his Microcosm for Jan., 1884, he would have 
 dismissed the unreasonable and unphilo- 
 sophical notion from his mind. 
 
 The Latter Day Saints believe as the 
 Former Day Saints did in the personality 
 of the Father and the Son. That they are 
 distinct personages ; that they are omni- 
 present by the agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 That the Holy Spirit is a substance, and is 
 intelligent and is the medium by which 
 Christ is present with his church on earth ; 
 hence he says, "If I go away I will send 
 the comforter." Like the light of the Son, 
 the Holy Spirit may pervade the whole uni- 
 verse. God is also made known through 
 other agencies by the sending of his angels ; 
 but these move and are directed by the 
 Spirit of God in their administrations. 
 Christ sent his angel to John on Patmos to 
 reveal to him the message recorded by him 
 in the Book of Revelations. Concerning 
 procreation in heaven by which Spirits are 
 begotten as charged by my opponent as be- 
 ing a part of the faith of the Saints, this is 
 like much he has had to say during the 
 discussion an assertion of his. The Latter 
 Day Saints hold to no such a faith. The 
 Scriptures say God is the "Father of Spir- 
 its." Heb. 12:9. That he "forms the Spirit 
 of man within him." Zech. 12:1. The other 
 part and about the queens in heaven my 
 opponent learned in his Salt Lake school in 
 which he seems to have attained great pro- 
 ficiency. 
 
 He challenges me to furnish one well 
 attested miracle that has been wrought 
 among the Latter Day Saints. The Latter 
 Saints do not rest their cause on miracles, 
 but to gratify my opponent I will adduce 
 one or two by giving Campbellite witnesses : 
 
 Hayden's History of the Disciples, Pages 
 250 and 251. 
 
 "Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of 
 much more than ordinary culture, and with strong 
 natural abilities, in company with his wife. Mr. and 
 Mrs. Johnson, and some other citizens of this place, 
 visited Smith at his home in Kirtland, in 1831. Mrs. 
 Johnson had been afflicted for some time with a lama 
 arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her 
 hand to her head. The party visited Smith partly out 
 of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what 
 there might be in the new doctrine. During the inter- 
 view, the conversation turned on the subject of super- 
 natural gifts; such as were conferred in the days of the 
 apostles. Someone said, ' Here is Mrs. Johnson with a 
 lame arm ; has God given any power to men now on 
 the earth to cure her ?' 
 
 "A few moments later, when the conversation had 
 turned in another direction. Smith rose, and walking 
 across the room. Inking Mrs Johnson by the hand said 
 in the most solemn and impressive manner: ' Woman, 
 in he name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee to be 
 whole. ' and immediately li-fl tho room. 
 
 "The company were awe-stricken at the infinite pre- 
 sumption of the man, and the calm assurance with 
 which he spoke. The sudden mental and moral shock 
 I know not how better to explain thi well attested 
 fact electrified the rheumatic arm Mrs. Johnson at 
 once lifted it up with ease, and on her n-tnrn Home the 
 next day she was able to do her washing without diffi- 
 culty or pain." 
 
 Here is your miracle, Mr. Braden, from 
 ypur uv/ii history, pat-formed in a company; 
 
838 
 
 THE BPtADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 of citizens, none of whom were Latter Day 
 Saints, told by the same company, the lead- 
 er being "a Methodist preacher of much 
 more than ordinary culture," and Joseph 
 Smith at this time was but a boy, not 26 
 years of age, Yet your own history says it 
 was a."weil attested fact," and also that this 
 young man, "spoke ivith a calm assurance," 
 and commanded the woman, "in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be whole," and 
 tnen your book says she was. Will you ac- 
 cept it or will you try to mystify it away, 
 like the writer of your history does. When 
 Peter said to the man at the gate of the Tem- 
 ple in the name of Jesus Christ to be whole, 
 and he arose, you seem to think it was all 
 right. 
 
 But here is another and a far more fully 
 attested fact, and you begin to talk about 
 "moral and electric shocks." Either these 
 moralizers are wrong, or the Bible is. Jesus 
 taught: "No man can do a good work in 
 rny name and be against me." 
 
 This was wrought in the name of Jesus 
 Christ. What will my opponent do with it ? 
 Go back on Jesus' words and say it was but 
 a shock mesmerism? 
 
 But this Disciple historian continues: 
 
 Speaking of the experience of Elder Hyder, 
 one of their ministers. 
 
 "In the month of June, he read in anews- 
 paper an accouutof the destruction of Pekin, 
 in China, and he remembered that six weeks 
 before, a young Mormon girl had predicted 
 the destruction of that city." 
 
 Thus I have produced from their own his- 
 tory two as remarkable examples, one of 
 healing, the other of prophecy and its fulfill- 
 ment, as he can point to, with few excep- 
 tions, in the Bible and I wonder if he will 
 do as those of old, say it was'by some other 
 power than that of God. 
 
 He says that Latter Day Saints believe 
 that all who reject the Book of Mormon 
 will be damned. The Latter Day Saints 
 believe that the Book of Mormon is a true 
 history of the ancient inhabitants of the 
 American continent. That it confirms the 
 Bible teachings concerning the existanceof 
 God, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior of 
 men. If it is a true message, and God has 
 revealed it, then i t stands to reason tha t men 
 are under moral obligation to give it con- 
 sideration, and if they neglect its teachings 
 they must suffer loss, the same as if 
 rejecting any other Divine message. But 
 whoever abides by the faith of the Bible 
 necessarily lives the faith revealed in the 
 Book of Mormon. The great question is, is 
 the Book of Mormon divinely inspired ? If 
 BO, and which I have proved to be correct, 
 then those who have an opportunity to 
 become informed and benefited by the 
 teachings, but refuse to do so, must take 
 the consequence of their action, just as 
 people did in olden times who rejected the 
 message of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, 
 etc. Dogged persistency and the utter 
 refusing of a people to hear a message, has 
 nothing to do with the obligation and jus- 
 tice demanding of them recognition ; neither 
 will it stay the purpose of the Almighty to 
 
 answer upon them the proper rule of com- 
 pensation. But he says further, "The 
 Latter Day Saints is the only true and 
 living church upon the face of the whole 
 earth with which I, the Lord, am well 
 pleased." What of it? If the true and 
 living church had been on earth, the proph- 
 ets would not have talked about a re- 
 storation. No use of restoring something 
 which is not lost, or is already here. The 
 Disciples should not object to this, for if 
 the true and living church was here when, 
 Mr. Campbell commenced his great re- 
 storation, then he was a transgressor. 
 Neither Mr. Luther, nor Mr. Calvin, nor 
 Mr. Wesley thought the true church was 
 here in their day, so they each built one to 
 suit themselves ; Just as Mr. Campbell did. 
 While we recognize that there are good 
 people in all denominations trying to do 
 the best they know, and all have more or 
 less good among them, which one, Mr. 
 Braden, among all the sects is the true and 
 living church of God, or Christ, or that has 
 the Holy Ghost in it according to their own 
 showing? Will you answer? As complete 
 a form of Godliness without the power as 
 was ever presented to men on earth. The 
 immediate presence of God and Christ and 
 the Holy Ghost is not claimed by them. 
 They only claim God in the word, etc. 
 
 The Latter Day Saints claim what others 
 have asserted. That there was- an apostacy 
 from the true church established by Christ, 
 that God on account of the desire of men for 
 evil withdrew his Spirit, and a day of dark- 
 ness ensued. All true reformers unite in 
 this belief and hence have worked to try to 
 get back to the original faith and practices. 
 But which one has succeeded. Mr. Camp- 
 bell's was among the last established, but 
 I have proven that it is wanting when 
 measured by the New Testament pattern. 
 The Latter Day Saints make the claim that 
 God has re-instated the ancient order of 
 things in its authority and power, as proph- 
 ets have declared that he would. This they 
 undertake to maintain, but they have been 
 met by false and unfounded assertions, 
 stories and slander. Is it unreasonable and 
 wicked to hold that God has done juBt what 
 he said he would do and has done? If he 
 has set up his church, then it is the one trua 
 and living church upon the whole earik. 
 John made a similar claim. Was it wicked? 
 Said he, "We know we are of God and the 
 whole world lieth in sin." I won ier how 
 many said, John, you are uncharitable and 
 a bigot. Certainty in religion Is an all 
 essential feature. This cannot be, save God 
 is in it by the revelation of his will, yet this 
 is the main feature objected to in the faith of 
 the Saints. Among all the denominations 
 of Christendom some one has more truth 
 and light than either of the others, and each 
 claims that it is his ; why should it be 
 thought then sacrilegious or astounding 
 that the Latter Day Saints claim that it is 
 theirs? 
 
 He says that Oliver Cowdery was living 
 in concubinage here in Kirtland This ia 
 another of his false assertions, neither oou 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 337 
 
 he maintain it by any reliable testimony. 
 It is akin to the false and slanderous asser- 
 tions made against the character of Martin 
 Harris which the citizens of Kirtland know 
 to be false and slanderous. Even Tucker 
 who wrote against the Latter Day Saints 
 confessed to Harris' honesty. Tucker's 
 History page 61, he says : "Harris was pro- 
 verbially a peaceful and honest man." 
 
 "Honesty had always been conceded to 
 to him;" ibid, page 71. Tucker was per- 
 sonally acquainted with Harris and wrote 
 his book while residing in Harris' old 
 neighborhood; and although he wrote 
 wickedly against the Saints, he universally 
 accords to Harris' honesty. 
 (Time called). 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FOURTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN : \V3 reject the prophets who 
 are the foundation of Mormonism, for their 
 false prophecies (Nephi I ) that Laban's 
 brass plates shall go forth to all nations of 
 his (Lehi's) seed. This prophecy is an utter 
 failure. God said through Joe (Doctrines and 
 Covenants, page 69), that he will show the 
 plates to three and tonone else. Eight others 
 say they saw them; "Whitmer's mother says 
 she saw them; Emma Smith says she saw 
 and handled them, covered with & thin cloth. 
 The three witnesses were to testify to having 
 Boeii Laban's sword, a breast plate, the 
 I.] rim and Thumniim, and the brass compass 
 of Lehi. They never testified to seeing one of 
 them. God promised Oliver Cowdery that 
 he should translate other records. He never 
 did. Page 75 we have a translation of a 
 parchment written by the apostle John and 
 "hid up," in which he tells us that he is to 
 remain on earth until our Savior comes 
 again. As John says in his gospel that 
 Jesus did not say that he should remain 
 until he came again, here is a flat contra- 
 diction of the Bible. Why did not John 
 tell Joe in person, as he was one of the three 
 to ordain Joe? Or why did he not hand 
 them the letter then? Why not write it in 
 English and save Joe the trouble of trans- 
 lating? Why not write on paper instead 
 parchment? What became of the parch- 
 ment? Why not kept like the papyrus of 
 1 he Book of Abraham ? Could not the apos- 
 tle John have written English as well as 
 for John the Baptist to talk English? If 
 John talked English, could he not write it? 
 How did Joe get that parchment? Did an 
 an angel give it to him ? Did he have three 
 wi' nesses to it? Over 52 years ago Joe 
 prophecied that a wonderful city and won- 
 derful temple should be built in Missouri 
 in that generation. Not a stone of either 
 have been laid, and will not be in a hun- 
 dred years. Never will be. The Book of 
 Mormon predicts that the Lord will bring 
 forth the words of the Book of Plates, of 
 which the prediction forms a part. One 
 hundred and eighteen pages were destroyed 
 
 and never brought to light. Another fail- 
 ure. Joe's inspired version in scores of casea 
 follows our version, and in another place 
 changes the same names, words and sen- 
 tences. In Genesis iii, 32, 33, Joe, like the 
 ignoramus that he was, put into the trans- 
 lation of the language addressed to Moses. 
 two verses of language that God addressed 
 unto him, Joe .Smith. In the inspired trans- 
 lation Adam is said to have been baptized, 
 and baptism is said to have been preached 
 under the law of Moses by the Nephites 
 for hundreds of years. The Inspired Trans- 
 lation never mentions baptism under the 
 law of Moses in Palestine. If baptism was 
 a requirement of the law of Moses in Amer- 
 ica, why not in Asia? If a perverted trans- 
 lation omits it, why did not Joe's Inspired 
 Translation mention it ? The Book of Cove- 
 nants, says page 225, that John the Baptist 
 was baptized in his childhood and ordained 
 by the angel of God at the time he was 
 eight days old. The Book of Mormon de- 
 nounces infant baptism as solemn mockery, 
 a blasphemous sin. 
 
 In May, 1833, two months before the In- 
 spired Translation was finished, the Mor- 
 mon god prophecied that a certain lot in 
 Kirtland should have a building erected on 
 it for the publication of the translation. 
 The translation was published 33 years 
 afterwards in Piano, Illinois. In May,' 1833, 
 Joe is told that after finishing his transla- 
 tion, he is then to study languages. If, as 
 he declared, he understood by inspiration 
 all the languages, why should he study? 
 If he had to study, why tell him to study 
 after he had finished translating ? In March, 
 1833, Joe is told that he need not translate 
 the Apocrypha and correct its errors, for 
 Mormons who have the Spirit can discern 
 between the truth and the error in it. Could 
 not they have done the same with the Bible? 
 What need of his translation? After Joe 
 had translated the Scriptures, by inspira- 
 tion in his preaching, he quoted our ver- 
 sion a score of times, when according to his 
 inspired version it is grossly incorrect. He 
 translates Hebrews xi, 40: "That without 
 
833 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 suffering they should not be made perfect." 
 In defending baptism for the dead nine 
 years afterwards, he quotes our grossly 
 incorrect version : "That they without us 
 should not be made perfect," and makes his 
 argument turn on the erroneous word and 
 the error. 
 
 Book of Doctrines and Covenants, page 
 244, feet washing is pronounced an ordi- 
 nance and restricted to the priesthood. 
 Paulsays, "If she have washed the Saint's 
 feet." When Joe comes to that to avoid 
 conflict with his revelation given about six 
 months before, he changed it into, "If she 
 has washed the Saint's clothes." Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants, page 226. Break- 
 ing the covenant of priesthood is an un- 
 pardonable sin. If Peter was a priest as 
 Mormonism declares, he broke his covenant 
 and lied, and swore, yet he was pardoned. 
 If John is on earth, as the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants declares, where is he? Is 
 he preaching and doing some good ? If he 
 is skulking around in idleness, why is he 
 here? On pages 294, 328, Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants, we are told that Michael 
 the archangel and Adam are the same per- 
 son. The Bible utterly forbids the idea 
 that men's spirits become angels. Man 
 was made lower than the angels. Men be- 
 come equal to the angels. Christ took not 
 on him the nature of angels but human 
 nature. The assembly of the first born and 
 angels are different. Page 234, Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants. Inspiration tells 
 us that "the spirit and body is the soul 
 of man." When Abinadi prayed, "O God 
 receive my soul," Did he mean his body 
 and spirit? When Elisha prays, "Let this 
 child's soul come into him," it'meant, "Let 
 this child's body and spirit comeinto him." 
 Again the Book of Mormon says, soul and 
 body shall be re-umted in resurrection. 
 
 Joe's inspired translation renders Matt, 
 xvii, 18, "Whatsoever ye shall oind on 
 earth, shall be bound in heaven." In ar- 
 
 5ifying on Baptism for the dead, inspired 
 oe renders it, "Whatsoever ye record on 
 earth, it shall be recorded in heaven." 
 Which ins| iration is right? In the Book of 
 Mormon we have a metal called "zif,"and we 
 have 'cureloms' and 'cummons' as animals." 
 If Joe was inspired, why did not he trans- 
 late those words? Uninspired translators 
 might plead ignorance, but inspired Joe 
 cannot. When Joe lost his gift to translate 
 what did he lose? Did he lose his inter- 
 preters? It says he. lost "tha writings and 
 his gift too." If the gift was in Joe, what 
 need of the interpreters? If in the inter- 
 preters how could he lose it without losing 
 the interpreters too? Page 69, Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants, Joe is to have no 
 other gift than to translate, no other until 
 the translation is finished. Joe tells us that 
 two months before the translation was fin- 
 ished he exercised the gift of prophecy. 
 The .\lormouGodwasmistakenagain. Joe, 
 Bays Hook of -Doctrines and Covenants, 
 page 112. that it was Elias who visited 
 Zechariah the father of John. Luke says 
 it was Gabriel. Luke was mistaken. Joe 
 
 says that Elijah and Ellas visited him afc 
 the dedication of the temple. The ignor- 
 amus did not know that the Elijah of the 
 Old Testament, and the Elias of the New, 
 aie one and the same person. 
 
 The witnesses are to see the plates by 
 faith. They are to believe that they saw 
 them. Harris declared he never saw them 
 with his natural sight. He saw them by 
 faith. He believed he saw them, imagined 
 it. In the Book of Mormon Christ repeat* 
 to theNephites part of Malachi's prophecy. 
 Joe's Inspired Translation agrees with our 
 version, and contradicts Christ in several 
 places, and disagrees with our version it> 
 several places where Christ agrees witU 
 our version. I would like to know which is 
 right, inspired Joe or Christ? Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants: "He that kills 
 has no forgiveness in this world, nor in the 
 world to come." The Nephite Church was 
 founded by the murderer and unpardoned 
 sinner Nephi. The Book of Mormon de- 
 clares that Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, 
 and Zoramites became one people, called 
 Nephites, and were exterminated 400 after 
 Christ. Doctrines and Covenants, page !{>, 
 declares that a knowledge of the Saviour 
 shall come to Nephites, Zoramites, Jacob- 
 ites, and Josephites through the Book of 
 Mormon. Page 248, Joe declares that Mis- 
 souri Zion shall not be moved out of her 
 place. In less than nine mouths it was 
 moved and has never got back. Page 26<, 
 Joe declares there is no other place than 
 Zion, in Missouri, appointed fora gathering. 
 Page 306, Joe says that if the sons of men 
 prove too strong for the Lord, he will excuse 
 his people, and that he accepts offerings to 
 build up Nauvoo, built before his law 
 allowed them to build it. 
 
 Joe, in Book of Doctrines and Covenants, 
 page 98, gives a baptismal formula in viola, 
 tion of Christ's words to the Nephites, who 
 gave the exact words Nephites were to use. 
 If Joe was a Nephite why did he violate 
 Christ's law? Page 93, Joe does not know 
 that our Christian era begins four to six 
 years before the birth of Christ. Doctrines 
 and Covenants, page 155, Joe promises that 
 he will give additional information when 
 he translates the New Testament in regard 
 to the parable of the Ten Virgins. The 
 Mormon God forgot all about that when he 
 translated that parable. The Book of Mor- 
 mon declares that Mulek and Lehi, sons of 
 Zedekiah, led the second emigration to 
 America. The Bible, even Joe's own in- 
 spired version, declares that the King of 
 Babylon slew the son? of Zedekiah and all 
 the princes of Judah all the nobles of 
 Judah. A flat contradiction. Again Zede- 
 kiah's eldest sou could not have been more 
 than ten or twelve years old, for Zedekiah 
 was only thirty-two when he was de- 
 throned. What leaders they must hav& 
 made. Slaughtered children ten years old. 
 The Book of Mormon, after telling us that 
 Nephites arid Lamanites talked with each 
 other without interpreters, that Nephiles 
 preached to Lamanites and their leaders 
 talked to each other in scores of instances 
 
TILE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 839 
 
 without any interpreters, tells in Mosiah 
 xi : 3, that'the language of the Nephites 
 began to be taught among the Lamauites. 
 The Mormon God forgot again. 
 
 The Book of Mormon teaches that bap- 
 tism is for the remission of sins. Yet Alma 
 (Mosiah XI 22.) was pardoned and born of 
 the Spirit by the fall-down power before he 
 was baptized. Book of Doctrines and Cov- 
 enants, page 100. It is denied that torment 
 has no end. The Book of Mormon (Mosiah. 
 III. 1. Mosiah I. 10. I. Nephi III. 44.) 
 It is positively declared to be endless. 
 Book of Mormon (Mormon III. 2.) Mormon 
 says he hid the plates in the hill of Comorah. 
 Moroni says (Ether VI. 3) Mormon hid 
 them in the hill Ramah. Which shall we 
 believe? The Book of Mormon keeps poor 
 Moroni dodging I/amanites, 36 years before 
 he hides those few plates for Joe. Could 
 he not have done it a little sooner? The 
 Book of Mormon (Alma XIX. 2.) declares 
 that all the righteous who died before 
 Christ's resurrection rose at or after his 
 resurrection, before his ascension. The 
 Inspired Translation places the resurrection 
 of some Saint at the crucifixion. Book of 
 Mormon (Mormon II.) declares that mira- 
 cles had ceased when Mormon was 15 years 
 old. It declared 95 years afterwards (Mor- 
 mon VJI. 13-4) that miracles have not 
 ceased. In quoting Isaiah Ixiii, in his 
 visit to the Nephites our Savior changes 
 the language in several places. In his In- 
 spired Translation Joe follows our version. 
 Which is correct, Christ or inspired Joe? 
 ButVe have found contradictions enough 
 in our investigation. We could -multiply 
 them indefinitely. 
 
 As we are exarning Mormon revelations, 
 the basis or Mormonisrn let us see how the 
 stories of Morrnonism hang together. 
 
 Book of Mormon (Mormon III. 2.) we are 
 told that Mormon hid in the hill Comorah 
 all the records of the Nephites, Zarahem- 
 lites, and Jaredites, that had been in the 
 possession of the Nephites, except an 
 abridgement he engraved on a few plates, 
 leaving a few plates of " these few plates '' 
 for Moroni, who is to complete the record, 
 for Joe Smith. Moroni (Mormon IV. 1.) 
 tells us that his plates are full, when he 
 has done this, and he has no ore or plates. 
 Yet he writes 57 pages of the Book of Mor- 
 mon on nothing. As Mormon had buried 
 the plates of Ether, how did Moroni get 
 them to abridge them. Moroni says (Ether 
 I. 1.) that he wrote an abridgement of only 
 part of Ether's plates, and that whoever 
 gets them, will get the full account, But 
 God said to Jared's brother: "Write them 
 in a language that they cannot read." How 
 can the finder understand them. He says 
 that the two stone interpreters are to be 
 sealed up with them, so that the finder can 
 read them. But Joe found these identical 
 interpreters of Jared's brother. How will 
 the fellow who finds Ether's plates under- 
 stand them, when the interpreters are 
 gone ? Ether's plates were not what Joe 
 found, nor with what he found. As the 
 Interpreters were sealed up with Ether's 
 
 plates, which Joe did not find, and not 
 with Mormon's plates which Joe did find, 
 how did Joe get those interpreters? How 
 did they get into that stone vault with 
 Moroni's plates, when they were buried in 
 another place, with Ether's plates? Mor- 
 mon, as we have seen, hid all the records, 
 yet, Moroni says (Ether I. 7.) that he hides 
 Ether's plates again in the earth. The 
 plates are Ether's, Kot Moroni's, for Moroni 
 writes on Mormon's plates 27 pages after 
 hiding up the plates he hid. He sealed tha 
 plates he hid, and he could not write on seal- 
 ed plates. He hid the interpreters with the 
 plates he hid, Ether's plates, and Joe 
 found them with Mormon's plates. Moroni 
 says in the next chapter that he had sealed 
 up the plates of Ether, and the interpre- 
 ters with them, and he wrote from memory 
 on the plates of Mormon, really on nothing 
 as we have seen, and yet Joe finds the Jar- 
 edite interpreters with Moroni's plates. 
 Those interpreters and plates were like the 
 thimble in thinble rigging. Now you see 
 it. Now you don't. 
 
 Mosiah's interpreters were dreadful 
 things. If one who was not commanded 
 looked through them he would perish. 
 Whitmer looked through Joe's interpreters 
 and was not hurt. If one looked through 
 them he became a seer. Whitmer did not. 
 The gift was in the person and the inter- 
 preters were useless. Mosiah's interpreters 
 were handed down from the time Lehi left 
 Jerusalem. Ether's plates are found and 
 no interpreters with them. Mosiah trans- 
 lated them with his interpreters, although 
 theLord had said noone could interpret them 
 unless he had the Jaredite interpreters. If 
 Moroni interpreted Ether's plates which he 
 never had, for Mormon hid them and 
 which he had for he buried them himself 
 how could he do it, for the interpreters of 
 Jared's brother were not found with them. 
 After Moroni hid the plates of Ether, which 
 he never had, and which he had, and witii 
 them the Jaredite interpreters, whi^h he 
 never had and which he had, how did Joe 
 find them with the plates of Mormon with 
 which they were hid. 
 
 Jared's brother's plates are not to go forth 
 till the Gentiles are converted. Book of 
 Mormon page 507. Ether engraves plates 
 and Limbi's people find them, not Jared'a 
 brother's plates, for Ether did not have 
 them, unless the Lord was mistaken when 
 he had them buried. Mosiah finds Limbi'a 
 people who give him Ether's plates. This 
 is the first time a'Nephite saw them. But 
 on page 507 we are told that King Benjamin 
 who had been dead years, who was Mosiah'a 
 predecessor, had Jared's brother's plates. 
 His people did not know of any Jaredite 
 plates, till years after his death. Will my 
 opponent tell us how Benjamin had Jared'a 
 biother's plates when the Limbites found 
 Ether's plates and not Jared's brother's. 
 Will he tell us how Benjamin had any 
 Jaredite plates, when his people knew noth- 
 ing of Jaredite plates or the people that had 
 them until years after his death ? In Nephi 
 i : 7. Amos' began to keep records A. D. 294, 
 
840 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Id. 1 : 2, Amos died A. D. 305 ; or he kept 
 records one hundred and eleven years. 
 As his lather was one hundred when 
 he gave him the records, Amos was 
 an old man when he got them, and must 
 have been over 160. So Amaron the brother 
 of Amos must have been over 160. Nephi 
 xiii : 3 Christ puts the limit of man's age at 
 72. Yet Amos and Amarou were engravers 
 on metal lond after they were twice that 
 age. II Nephi ii : 2 Amaron hides plates, 
 A. D. 320, when Mormon is ten. Mormon is 
 to dig them up when he is twenty-four, or 
 A. D. 334. He dug them up A. D.' 345, or 11 
 years after Amaron had said he would do 
 it, Bigdon added 24 to 320 instead of 14, 
 forgetting that Mormon was ten. 
 
 Lehi declares (2, Nephi I.) "That the 
 seed of his son Joseph shall not be utterly 
 destroyed : " The Nephites, including the 
 seed of his son Joseph, were utterly ex- 
 terminated, according to Mormon and 
 Moroni. If Moroni tells the truth Lehi was 
 a false prophet. The Book of Mormon de- 
 clares that Joe Smith the Seer is of the seed 
 of Joseph the patriarch. Joe Smith was a 
 Gentile. That prophecy is false. If Joe 
 Smith was a josephiteor Israelite, then the 
 prophecy (Nephi XII 1.) that the finder and 
 translator of the records shall be a Gentile 
 is false. If Joe is of the seed of Nephi. 
 Lehi's son, then the Nephitea were not 
 exterminated, and the book is false. If 
 they were exterminated then Joe is not a 
 descendant of the Nephites. If Joe is a 
 descendent of Lehi he must be a Lamanite 
 Indian, for the Nephites were all extermi- 
 nated. I. Nephi IX, 15. The Book of 
 Mormon is called a revelation from the 
 beginning of the world till its end. Ether 
 1 It extends no further back than the 
 Tower of Babel, thousands of years after 
 the beginning. Alma XXI, 2. Alma proph- 
 esies that the people shall dwindle in 
 unbelief 400 years after Christ shall man- 
 ifest himself to them. He manifested 
 himself in A. D. 34. The Nephites were 
 destroyed A. D. 384 or 350 years from Christ's 
 
 manifestation, or 50 years too soon , and they 
 dwindled in unbelief many years before 
 this, or more than 50 years too soon. 
 Itigdon counted from Christ's birth instead 
 of from his manifestation, and then got 
 it 40 or 50 years too soon, for that. Rigdou 
 was not good in figures. The Book of Mor- 
 mon says, "Saints arose at the resurrection 
 of Christ." The Inspired Translation says, 
 "at his crucifixion." Which is correct? 
 A Mormon revelation in the Book of Doc- 
 trines and Covenants, page 319, says that 
 "John the Baptist was raised at the 
 restirrection|of Christ." The Inspired Trans- 
 lation says that " the Saints arose at his 
 crucifixion." If Saints arose immortal at 
 the crucifixion how could Christ be the 
 first born from the dead? But why follow 
 these contradictory jumbles any further. 
 This is revelation. Mormonism is divine 
 doubtless, when there is scarcely a page of 
 its revelations that is not contradicted by 
 some other page. I will give my opponent 
 an additional contradiction of the Bible to 
 the scores already given. The Book of 
 Mormon, page 445, Christ declares that 
 after his apostles have baptized persons 
 in water he will baptize them with fire and 
 the Holy Ghost. Matthew, III, 10, "And 
 now the axe is laid to the root of the trees, 
 therefore every tree that bringeth not forth 
 good fruit is hewn down and cast into the 
 fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto 
 repentance, but he that cometh after me 
 shall baptise you in the Holy Spirit and in 
 fire, whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
 thoroughly purge his floor and gather his 
 wheat in his garner, but he will burn the 
 chaff with uiquenchable fire." Evil trees 
 are burned with fire, the chaff is burned 
 with unquenchable fire, baptize in fire. 
 The baptism in fire is for the wicked. The 
 wheat is gathered in the garner ; good trees 
 are cherished ; the good are baptised in the 
 Holy Spmt. The Book of Mormon teaches 
 that God gives the baptism of fire, the 
 doom of the wicked to his children. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 341 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GKNTM MKN : As my opponent has left the 
 field entirely, so far as undertaking to make 
 and stand by an argument, and devotes his 
 time wholly to hunting up supposed objec- 
 tions to some things in some of our published 
 works and rehearsing these, together with 
 the stories told, I shall take the time to ex- 
 amine these as I proceed. I am aware that 
 a more intelligent judgment of the merits 
 of our faith might be arrived at, if my op- 
 ponent would but select a few of what he 
 deems the most prominent errors, and try 
 to maintain that they are such, so we could 
 get down upon a basis of genuine argument 
 and thereby test the matter; but it must 
 be quite evident to all by this time that he 
 is not the man to meet the issue in this way. 
 I shall therefore take a look at his running 
 objections. 
 
 Again he says: "The Latter Day Saints 
 believed in baptizing children at 8 years of 
 age." Yes, if they have been properly in- 
 structed in the faith, and understand the 
 object of baptism, and desire so to be. Can 
 he produce something better, or show where 
 this disagrees with the word of God? He 
 misrepresents the faith of the Saints, by 
 saying, "they believe they will reign over 
 the Gentiles in the Millenium." The Saints 
 believe in the prayer taught them by the 
 Savior, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be 
 done on earth as in heaven." That he will 
 come and reign with his saints on the earth. 
 "And we shall reign on the earth," Rev. 
 6:10. "The meek shall inherit the earth," 
 Math. 6. The kingdom and dominion under 
 the whole heaven shall be given to the peo- 
 ple of the saints. Dan. 7:22. 
 
 Again, he objects, that the doctrine of 
 baptizing for the dead was once taught 
 among the Latter Day Saints, as though it 
 was a very wicked thing. What does this 
 mean Mr. Bradeu ? "Else what shall they 
 do which are baptized for the dead, if the 
 dead rise not at all ? Why are they then 
 baptized for the dead." I Cor. 15:29. It 
 seems to have been a common practice and 
 well understood by the ancient Saints ; so 
 much so, that Paul based an argument upon 
 it; will he scandalize Paul also? This is 
 in the New Testament ; he doubtless knows 
 little or nothing about it, but Paul had an 
 understanding of it. Paul says further, 
 "No man knows the things of God but the 
 Spirit of God," and the Disciples deny the 
 possibility of God's Spirit as being able to 
 reveal any thing in this age, and it is no 
 wonder that they know no more about this 
 than many other things. Is it wicked to 
 believe in the New Testament? Again, 
 "For, for this cause was the Gospel preached 
 to them that are dead, that they might be 
 judged according to men in the flesh, but 
 live according to God in the Spirit " I Peter 
 4:6. Shall the Latter Day Saints deny this 
 
 part of the New Testament also, because 
 the Campbellites dou't know anything 
 about it ? 
 
 He misrepresents the Saints again, when 
 he says that they claim they will be greater 
 than Christ in the next world. They claim 
 that they will be equal heirs with him to 
 the inheritance of the saints. Hence, Paul 
 says, "And if children, then heirs ; heirs of 
 God and joint heirs with Christ ; if it so be 
 that we suffer with him, that we may be 
 also glorified together." Rom. 8:17. "The 
 Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit 
 that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:- 
 16. "Sealed with that Holy Spirit of prom- 
 ise, which is the earnest of our inheritance 
 until the redemption of the purchased pos- 
 session." Eph. 1:13, 14, and 4:30. "And 
 because ye are Sons, God hath sent forth 
 the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, cry- 
 ing, Abba. Father. Wherefore, thou art 
 nomore a servant, but a Son ; and if a Son, 
 then an heir of God through Christ." Gal. 
 4:6, 7. This was the faith of Ancient Saints; 
 and of course must be of the Latter Day 
 Saints. 
 
 My opponent attacked the inspired trans- 
 lation of the Bible with but little effect. 
 Did not Joseph Smith have as good a right 
 to translate the Bible as Mr. Campbell and 
 Mr. McKnight, or the Baptists, or the 
 Adventists, or those who recently trans- 
 lated what is known as the New Revision ? 
 Mr. Smith's translation stands upon its 
 merits just like all the rest. If it reveals 
 the Scriptures in the true light, then it is 
 good. If not, then let him show it. But 
 he says, Smith stole from the Book of Mor- 
 mon and put in the Inspired Translation. 
 But first, according to Braden, he stole from 
 the Bible and made the Book of Mormon ; 
 now, he has him steal from the Book oi 
 Mormon to make the Inspired Translation 
 What a thief! It is like a man stealing 
 himself rich from his own pocket- book, with 
 but a dollar to start with. 
 
 He says, Latter Day Saints accept all 
 that Smith says in the "Times and Seasons," 
 "Elder's Journal," or anywhere else as in- 
 spiration. This is not correct. I read from a 
 publication, showing the contrary as fol- 
 lows: "At a conference held at Beloit, Wis., 
 on the 12th and 13th of June, 1852, the follow- 
 ing was passed: Resolved, that the whole 
 law of the church of Jesus Christ, is con- 
 tained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and 
 Book of Doctrine and Covenants." Word 
 of Consolation, page 2. 
 
 The Latter Day Saints hold the Bible in 
 equal veneration, with any people on the 
 earth ; they also believe in the truth of the 
 Book of Mormon, and other revelations, 
 that they are assured come from God. 
 They believe that God is just as capable of 
 giving a true revelation of himself now, as 
 at any time since the world began. 
 
342 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 My opponent's attack on the "Rook of Doc- 
 trine and Covenants was so ridiculous, that 
 it was sufficient within itself to carry its 
 own refutation along with it. He says, the 
 saints have gone back on the idea of con- 
 verting the Indians, etc. This is not cor- 
 rect. The Saints believe that many of the 
 Indian nations will finally accept the faith ; 
 some individuals have already done so. 
 
 Again, Martin Harris was not required 
 to tell any lies as asserted by my opponent 
 last night. He was promised a view of the 
 plates if faithful. He had been telling 
 some things about the plates and in the 
 revelation referred to and he was charged 
 that he should say no more concerning 
 them, except he should bear the testimony 
 that God should give him, at the time he 
 should sufficiently humble himself that he 
 might obtain a view of them. Page 70, 
 F>ook of Covenants. Any one who wishes, 
 can read and satisfy themselves. From 
 Braden's first reference, up to page 194, in his 
 jumbling of things, there remains nothing 
 that needs even an explanation. All are 
 explained by the book itself; easy to be 
 understood and deserve a better consider- 
 ation than a tirade of gush and ridicule. 
 There is nothing in the charge that the 
 book permits stealing. Certain ones were 
 assigned to a certain work and its says : 
 "Ye are on the Lord's errand; and what- 
 ever you do according to the will of the 
 Lord, is the Lord's business." Whatever 
 they did according to the will of the Lord, 
 was the Lord's business. 
 
 This book expressly and empJtaticaUy for- 
 bids any such thing. Pages 142 and 177. 
 Is it according to the will of the Lord to 
 steal? If it is, then stealing is taught in. 
 the revelation, otherwise it is not. He 
 charges on the Revelation, the teaching of 
 the shedding of blood, which he impiously 
 says led to the Mountain Meadow massacre. 
 Here is the passage : 
 
 "For Satan puts it into their hearts (the enemies of 
 the Saints; to anger against you and to the shedding of 
 blood, wherefore the laud of Zion shall be obtained but 
 by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none 
 inhe itanne for you. And if by purchase, behold, ye 
 are blessed; and if by blood, as you are forbidden to 
 thed 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." Page 189. 
 
 The Revelation positively forbids blood 
 shedding. It says, there is but two ways 
 to get possession of the land, by purchase 
 or war ; and they were advised to purchase 
 and forbidden to shed blood, and reminded 
 that if they did their efforts would fail and 
 their enemies be upon them, and they would 
 be scourged and but a few of them would 
 ever live long enough to receive an inherit- 
 ance. Who will say it was not a true state- 
 ment? But he says it led to the Mountain 
 Meadow slaughter. He might just as well 
 have said the advice of Christ, "If they 
 smite you on the right cheek, turn the left 
 also," led to the battle of Bunker Hill. The 
 whole of the references to pages included 
 between 65 and 301, are of a piece, misrepre- 
 sentation and ridicule, and he has made no 
 material or worthy criticism against them, 
 
 and it would be but to waste my lime on 
 frivolous matters to consider them by item, 
 but I have replied to that which has a 
 semblance of needing an explanation. There 
 is neither truth nor point in his vulgar 
 tirade or jargon read off last evening, claim- 
 ing to be a criticism of the Book of Doctrines 
 and Covenants. Just let him select one 
 single i tern that he is witling to take a stand 
 upon and maintain that it is false and he 
 will have done something, until then, his 
 tirade is unworthy of notice. Again he 
 says that men never become angels. But 
 Moses and Elias appeared in the capacity of 
 angels on the Mount with Christ. Luke 
 9:30-31. Angels were frequently called 
 men. Gen. 18:2. Josh. 5:13. Lu'ke24:4. 
 Acts 1:10. Hen. 13:2. 
 
 Men are called angels. Rev. 2 : 1. "Unto 
 the angel of the church of Ephesus." Also 
 verses 8-18 and chapter 3:1,7, 14. 
 
 "And I fell at his feet to worship him. 
 And he said unto me See thou doit not, I 
 am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren 
 who have the testimony of Jesus." Rev. 
 19: 10. Here one of the old prophets was 
 sent to John on Patmos as an angel and he 
 tells him, "I am thy fellow servant and of 
 thy brethren." Saints are called angels. 
 Deut. 33:2. Psalms 68: 17. Jude 14. Zach. 
 14:5. Matth. 25:31. He passes by my 
 Scriptural texts with a wave of the hand ; 
 has not "patience to notice them." Yet, he 
 declines to undertake to show wherein 
 either one of these texts are misapplied. I 
 asked him to try Isaiah 11, but he don't 
 make a stand. 
 
 He asks me to state why the Book of 
 Mormon and Inspired Translation do not 
 contain the same wording, when both were 
 translated by inspiration, and cites Matt. 
 7 : 23 as follows: "And then will I say ye 
 never knew me." Inspired Translation : 
 "And then will I profess unto them I never 
 knew you." Book of Mormon, page 450. 
 This I have answered before. The Inspired 
 Translation and Book of Mormon are both 
 distinct translations. One from the record 
 of the Jews, the other from the record of 
 the Nephites. Neither claims to give the 
 language verbatim as it was delivered by 
 the Savior, but as it was written on the 
 record by the respective parties making the 
 records. There is nothing surprising in the 
 thought that two writers should differ in 
 the presentation of their ideas at times and 
 agree perfectly at other times. The sense 
 is the same here in either case. To know 
 God or to be known of God means just the 
 same; hence, "I never knew you," or "you 
 never knew me, "is the same sentiment, but 
 by different ways of expression. One writer 
 uses one method and the other writer the 
 opposite, and so they were translated. 
 
 My opponent further says, the baptism 
 of fire is the burning of the wicked when 
 Christ comes, "burning up the chaff," etc. 
 But had he read a little more closely, he 
 could have avoided this blunder. In Math. 
 3, it is shown that the identical parties 
 who were baptized with water were to be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire; 
 
THE BRADEN AND.KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 343 
 
 The -wicked has no promise in either bap- 
 tism. "I indeed baptize you with water," 
 says John ; "He shall baptize you [the 
 same ones] with the Holy Ghost and fire." 
 They were thus baptized. "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." 
 Acts, 2:3, 4. 
 
 The element or property of fire warmth 
 is associated with the substance known 
 AS the Holy Spirit which dwells with heav- 
 enly beings. Said the disciples, "Did not 
 our hearts burn within us while he talked 
 with us by the way, and while he opened 
 tons the Scriptures?" Luke 24:32. "But 
 his word was in mine heart as a burning 
 fire shut up in my bones." Jeremiah 20 : 9. 
 Says David, "My heart was hot within 
 me, while I was musing the fire burned ; 
 then spake I with my tongue." Ps. 39:3. 
 "His eyes were as a flame of fire." Rev. 
 1:14; Dan. 10:6. "And the sight of theglory 
 of the Lord was like devouring fire." Ex. 
 14:17. This Fire of Glory the Holy Ghost 
 shown so resplendent from Moses' face, 
 that he had to veil himself before he went 
 into the camp of Israel. The literal fire 
 that is to consume the wicked burn up the 
 chaff is one thing, and the fire and the 
 Holy Ghost with which the disciples of 
 Jesus were to be baptized, is quite a different 
 thing. 
 
 I have not claimed that the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit was tor the remission of 
 sins, but to bless and confirm the believers. 
 They went everywhere preaching, the Lord 
 working with them, confirming the word 
 with signs following. 
 
 He made a great ado about Jared's inter- 
 pretations, etc. I answered that in the dis- 
 cussion of the previous question. There is 
 no contradiction or inconsistency in the nar- 
 rative. The last of the Jaredite kings was 
 contemporary with, and associated with, 
 the Mulekites, and they in tvirn met with 
 the Nephites and Jared's interpreters could 
 in a very natural and ordinary way have 
 been placed in the hands of Mosiah. 
 
 Page 507 of the Book of Mormon referred 
 to last night, I also answered on a previous 
 evening definitely. The things the brother 
 of Jaredsaw were not to be revealed until af- 
 ter the Gentiles should repent, after Moroni 
 hid them up. They have not as yet been 
 translated. They were translated by the 
 Nephites, however, after the crucifixion, 
 and that translation, as engraved by the 
 Nephites, was hid up with the Book of 
 Mormon by Moroni. 
 
 The plates of brass spoken of by Lehi, 
 page 11, did go forth among his posterity ; 
 are now in existence, as has been testified 
 of, and in due time will be manifest again 
 to his posterity. They were removed from 
 there for a season, because they sought to 
 destroy them. It was what was on the 
 plates that was the main thing that was to 
 go forth. The plates themselves are now 
 ift the care of one of Lehi's descendants, 
 the angel Moroni. 
 
 .T now come to the mystery of mysteries, 
 
 that has never been matched by anything, 
 save it were hazel-witching. 
 
 My opponent read last evening fiom Mrs. 
 Eaton's graphic pen, the old story about 
 Joseph Smith, Sen., digging a well, once 
 upon a time, and from the bottom thereof, 
 he exhumed a baby's foot. Joe was on 
 hand as usual, and snatched it from, his 
 father, and ran off peeping for money. 
 Whether his father ever chastised him for 
 this impiety is not stated. But my oppo- 
 nent was particular to elaborate, upon 
 another yarn, wherein it was claimed that 
 the said Joe stole this baby's foot from one 
 of Chase's children, and went off hazel- 
 witching and seeking for money. So says 
 Mr Chase, per my opponent. But we are 
 informed also by him that Miss Chase had 
 a baby's foot too, and could see equally 
 well with Joe, and often pointed out where 
 money was, and could really find lost 
 property. She was a Seeress when she died 
 just a few years ago. Thus we have been 
 shown that this wonderful baby had at 
 least three feet, and either, when looked 
 upon, would reveal hidden mysteries. What 
 Joe would have seen and revealed had he 
 succeeded in stealing that entire baby, no 
 mortal will likely ever know. Anyway, 
 Joe got the baby's foot from his father, ami 
 stole it from the chase family, and yet Miss 
 Chase was in possession of the baby's foot, 
 and was divining on all occasions when 
 called upon, till just a few years ago. This 
 nonsense and tomfoolery Mr. Braden drinks 
 all in, and then licks out his tongue for 
 more like it. Hence he goes on, and not- 
 withstanding he has labored long and hard 
 to make out Sidney Rigdon the real author 
 of the Book of Mormon, and to prove that 
 he used "ignorant Joe" as a cat's paw, 
 while he strode along on Ahasueras' horse, 
 yet last night he had the consummate 
 audacity to charge the whole Iraud of pro- 
 phet-making on' poor old Mother Smith, 
 while they yet lived in Vermont, and Joe 
 Was only seven years old. Was the old 
 lady Smith and Sydney Rigdon in cahoot 
 while she lived in Vermont in the prophet- 
 making business? She to raise the prophet, 
 he to write the book? But my opponent 
 swallows all of this down, and it looks as 
 reasonable to him, and so he yearns for 
 more like it. There is nothing about the 
 Latter Day Saints faith that looks reason- 
 able to him. So he goes on ; Joe was always 
 to be found at corn huskings where there 
 was plenty of whisky, and something to 
 gratify his wild, reckless and voluptuous 
 nature. He was proverbial for his Iaz3', 
 thieving, lying, shirking, drinking, out- 
 landish habits; yet his mother had him 
 drilled, and tutored, and inspired so com- 
 pletely with the prophet notion, that he 
 appeared as calm and serene as a minister, 
 and both he and his mother had the as- 
 tounding bad habit of looking people square 
 in the eyes, all the time wearing the air of 
 a sober deacon, and never stooping to 
 trifling things, lest the people might not 
 believe that he was Divinely Inspired ; 
 Seldom known to laugh. Have you got any 
 
344 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 more like this, Mr. Braden? It is so won- 
 derfully consistent ! Almost thou per- 
 suadest me. But he asks, why did Joseph 
 and Oliver have to ordain each other after 
 the priesthood was conferred by the angel ? 
 He might as well ask why acorns do not 
 grow on briar bushes ; or why Moses laid 
 his hands on Joshua after the Lord had 
 called him ; or why the laying on of hands 
 is to precede and for the receiving of the 
 Holy Ghost ; or why Aaron was clad with 
 a robe and bonnet, and had bells on his 
 robe and wore a breastplate; or why the 
 Lord did not write on metal plates instead 
 of stone, so that when Moses got mad he 
 could not have broken them by tossing 
 them upon the ground. It is God's order 
 of things, that is all. 
 
 He says that the Book of Covenants states 
 that, "Zion shall not be moved out of its 
 place." Is it moved, Mr Braden? It was 
 to remain, "though her children were scat- 
 tered." The children are scattered, but 
 they will return in due time and re-inhabit 
 and build the City and Temple in this gen- 
 eration. 
 
 The Nephites were not exterminated 
 as claimed. Many of them joined the 
 Lamanites' Standard. Page 493, Book of 
 Mormon . 
 
 Concerning the objection that no one is to 
 be forgiven who is a murderer, John says, 
 "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in 
 him." In the Book of Covenants and New 
 Testament both, reference is evidently nad 
 to a heartless, malicious and wilful murder- 
 er. He objects to the use of the names Elias 
 and Elijah. Elias is the Greek for Elijah, 
 (Hebrew), and Gabriel is the nameassigned 
 to Elijah as an angel ; like it was when God 
 covenanted with Abraham. He changed 
 his name from Abram to Abraham. Jacob's 
 to Isreal ; and to the apostles, Jesus as- 
 signed new names. There is no contradic- 
 tion in the Book of Covenants in the use of 
 the names Elias, and Elijah. Concerning 
 the objection of the body and Spirit being 
 called the soul, I will say a word. The same 
 idea is held in the Bible: "Eight souls 
 were saved by water." "Breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life and man became 
 a living soul." This is sufficient upon the 
 eoul criticism. 
 
 Again, Emma Smith never saw the plates, 
 only when covered with a cloth. In this 
 way she says she did, and handled them. 
 The Book does not say that there should be 
 but three persons who should see them, 
 but that there should only be three who 
 should have them shown them by the pow- 
 er of God and the hand of an angel. 
 
 My opponent could make some strong 
 points doubtless, if he was permitted to rep- 
 resent the record in his own way ; but even 
 that would be but temporary. The very 
 first time a person got hold of the Book of 
 Mormon and began to compare it with Bra- 
 den's pretended statements, he would be 
 detected, and the honest investigator would 
 turn away in disgust. 
 
 Men who pretend to make criticisms upon 
 the works -of others, should, above all 
 
 things else, be, 1. Honest; and 2. Fair. 
 In this way only, can the hearer be profited, 
 and a discussion, whether religious, or po- 
 litical, result in good to the people. 
 
 But I must proceed with noticing his run- 
 ning list of objections. I call them running, 
 because the moment he undertakes to make 
 one, he drops it, seemingly afraid of the 
 answer I shall make, and jumps at some- 
 thing else. 
 
 It has been asserted, that I discard all 
 revelations which I cannot defend. But 
 did he tell you of any I could not defend ? 
 Oh, no. When they come to a contest, he 
 says they (our elders) discard them. There 
 is not a word of truth in it. I affirm and 
 defend here all that the church believes or 
 has ever believed and taught. But he asks 
 what do I do with the revelations printed 
 in the Star, Times, and Seasons, Elders' 
 Journals, etc.? They are the same as con- 
 tained in the Book of Covenants ; and all in 
 there with the exception of one or two of a 
 private nature, (relating to individuals and 
 not to the body generally) and these I am 
 ready to defend. Here is the trouble with 
 Braden. He wants to carry the idea that 
 whatever is contained in the church publi- 
 cations it is the same as revelation to us. 
 This is a false assumption. The writings 
 and arguments are taken for what they are 
 worth when compared and criticized by the 
 accepted standard works of the church, and 
 are no creed for us; we do not te'ievein 
 men-made creeds. When the Lord speaks 
 we are bound to hear and obey, but we are 
 not bound to hear and obey before we know 
 whether it is the Lord talking or not. No 
 more than were the early Saints or the 
 Saints of the first century. As Paul says, 
 'If anything is given by 'the Spirit to one, 
 let the others judge." Never take away a 
 man's judgment if you expect to do him 
 good, even in so particular a matter as of 
 judging upon revelations, or influences of 
 the Spirit. He next makes his one baptism 
 argument under the form of six questions ; 
 the 6th one being, "If there is but one im- 
 mersion is not that one by water?" The 
 trouble is with hist/; upon this little word 
 the authority of Campbell, Scott and Stone 
 was found to be resting, and the little word 
 could not bear up the load. 
 
 "//" there Is but one immersion," says 
 Braden: But if, there is a baptism of the 
 water and of the Spirit, then that settles ef- 
 fectually his, "if there is but one." I have 
 shown you that John the Baptist, Jesus, in 
 John 3:5 ; and Acts 1 :5. Peter in Acts 2:38 ; 
 Paul in I Cor. 12:13; Heb. 6:2 ; and Titus 
 3:5, all taught baptism of the water and the 
 Holy Ghost or, of the Spirit, and does he 
 wish me to now take his "if there is but 
 one?" 
 
 The other five question are of the same 
 kind, and I have answered every one of 
 them in my argument before this. 
 
 Again, he says : "No man hath seen God 
 at any time." I suppose that by this, he is 
 trying to find some contradictions in the 
 Bible. If this chaffy stuff is to be termed 
 objections, I can find him five hundred 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 345 
 
 ^jntradictions in the Bible. Gen. 32:30, 
 Jacob says, " I have seen God face to face." 
 Exodus 24: 9, 10 and 11, "Then went Moses 
 and Aaron, Nadaband Abihu, and seventy 
 of the elders of Israel; aud they saw the 
 God of Israel ; and there was under his 
 feet, as it were a frame-work of a sapphire 
 stone, and as it were the body of heaven in 
 his clearness." 
 
 But, Braden says, no man hath seen God 
 at any time; while that sacrilegious boy, 
 Smith, said he saw him. The trouble is 
 Braden is not posted. But he objects to the 
 Book of Covenants, because it makes the 
 Lord to take notice of little things ; give 
 directions for building a house; told them 
 what to do when they needed funds ; where 
 to locate; who is to take certain positions 
 and offices in the church, etc. What an 
 objection this is, indeed, for a Bible man to 
 make ! All through the Scriptures, both 
 in the Old and New Testaments, there are 
 many instances of seeming far less impor- 
 tance, in which the wisdom of God is 
 brought to bear, and which may be more 
 effectually ridiculed, if that manner is to 
 be taken for argument, than theinstances of 
 direct Providence in the Book of Doctrine 
 and Covenants. 
 
 "The direction to build the ark and to 
 pitch it without and within; to make it 
 three stories high, and put one window in 
 it," Gen. 6; is a good example. Take the 
 receipt which the Lord gives to Moses by 
 revelation, for making ointment for the 
 anointing of the tabernacle, the priests, 
 etc. Nobody is permitted to make this 
 kind of oil, but Moses, and if any one did, 
 he should be put to death. "Whosoever 
 compoundetli any like it, or whosoever 
 putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall 
 even be cut off from his people," Exodus 
 30 : 23 to 33. Moses at onoe could monopolize 
 the hair oil trade, under this Revelation. 
 
 Take another: " So they brought the 
 people down unto the water, and the Lord 
 said unto Gideon. Every one that lappeth 
 of the water with his tongue, as a dog lap- 
 peth, him shalt thou set by himself; like- 
 wise every one who boweth down on his 
 knees to drink," Judges 7: 5. This was to 
 test the bravery of the men, and of the 
 whole number who went down to drink, 
 but three hundred lapped like dogs, and 
 the Lord chose these for his army, and with 
 these ho routed the Midianites'army, so the 
 history reads. In the Savior's ministry, 
 he and his disciples ran short of funds, 
 and the Lord directed Peter to go and 
 catch a fish and get a coin that he would flnd 
 in the fish's mouth, and pay the tax. And 
 after his resurrection he directs thm 
 where to cast their nets in order to gather 
 the fish. And the Bible critics, come to 
 me, and say, are not these big things for 
 the Son of God to be looking after? He 
 who possesses all power in heaven and in 
 earth, to be troubling his mind with? I 
 have to rueet all such silly attacks against 
 the Bible, and these are the petty criticisms 
 brought here by one who professes to be- 
 lieve Mie Bible, with which to try to over- 
 
 throw the truth of the Book of Mormon. 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the truth is, 
 as to all such matters, that life here 
 is made up of littles. God confirms men 
 in the faith of himself and his work by 
 the impress of his hand at times in these 
 things which seem to be of little account 
 or importance. And the m or the woman 
 who will not look for God's hand to be 
 manifest in these things which seem to 
 be (to strangers to the transaction) of 
 minor worth, may expect to pass through 
 life without observing the hand of Deity 
 in anything. Not because God is not great 
 in his attributes and his work, but because 
 man is a frail creature and weak in his ways. 
 We must learn to walk before we can run ; 
 and to know our letters before we can ex- 
 pect to take a lesson in geometry ; and so 
 in the dealing of God with us ; he lends 
 aid and comfort where such is required and 
 the man is humble enough in his heart to 
 receive it. And in the establishment of his 
 church and the superintending of his work, 
 he will deal with it as its strength and the 
 circumstances demand; so it has been 
 wherever he has had a church. 
 
 He again tries to make it appear thai 
 Smith was always boosting along his peo- 
 ple with false promises of gain, power, 
 etc., in this world. The statement is abso- 
 lutely the reverse of the facts ; he always 
 told them of the trials in the way to an ac- 
 ceptable life with God and in many instances 
 foretold the evils the church would fall into 
 and the consequences of the same. 
 
 He predicts in Book of Covenants, page 
 199 and 285, evil to come upon the entire 
 body because of wickedness, and this came 
 two years afterwards ; and on page 147, he 
 foretells his own death ; and on page 304 he 
 predicts the overthrow, or rejection, of 
 the entire church. And yet, these enemies 
 of his have said he kept his people together, 
 through flattery, deceit and false promises. 
 In September, 1831, in a revelation, is fore- 
 told his death, and the manner of it to wit: 
 "Shall fall by the shaft of death, like a 
 tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of 
 of lightning." Twelve years afterwards 
 at Carthage, 111., as the vivid shaft of light- 
 ning'smites the giant tree, so death overtook 
 him through th missile of the assassin's 
 bullet, and though as Lincoln and Garfield 
 he was struck down by the hands of the 
 wretch and coward, he died as the ancient 
 martyrs, because of his hope in Christ, and 
 his devotion to the good of the human race. 
 It is truth, God's word, that will either 
 exalt or condemn us at the last day, and let 
 no one imagine that his ignorance is to 
 cause a remission of his sins and land him 
 within the pearly gates. "If ye continue in 
 my words ye shall be my disciples indeed, 
 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
 shall make you free." Not on account of 
 their ignorance, but knowledge; the light 
 of the Spirit. "If we walk in the light as 
 God is in the light, we shall have fellowship 
 one with another, and the blood of Jesus 
 Christ cleanseth us from all sin." We ab- 
 solutely have no promise offered us for 
 
S46 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KJGLLKY 
 
 redemption from our sins on account of 
 ignorance, bur we must walk in the light. 
 Yet, every objection brought against tlie 
 divine work of the boy of Manchester, lias 
 been from the standpoint tliut he claimed 
 
 to be informed upon the question of religion. 
 And if he was a teacher sent from God and 
 knew whereof he affirmed, he could not 
 have been otherwise, than in the light. 
 (Tiiue called.) 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S FIFTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMTTN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMKX : Mr. Kelley has denied that 
 there ever was such a man as Thomas P. 
 Baldwin. That there ever was such an offi- 
 cer as Judge of Wayne County Court; that 
 Thomas P. Baldwin was Judge of Wayne 
 County Court in 1833. We rea'd the affida- 
 vit of S. B. Mclntyre, a lawyer of over 
 thirty years practice in Palmyra, and a res- 
 ident of Palmyra for fifty-six years, stat- 
 ing I. There was such a man, a lawyer in 
 Palmyra, stating also his wife's name, and 
 the name of his step-children and his own 
 child. II. That he was Judge from 1830 to 
 1835, Judge of Wayne County Court. III. 
 That he has examined his commission 
 as Judge of Wayne County Court. IV. 
 That he has seen documents in the 
 <'lerk's office that he signed as Judge of 
 Wayne County. We offered an affidavit of 
 his step-son stating there was such a man ; 
 that he married his mother, giving his 
 daughter's name, date of his death, stating 
 that he was Judge of Wayne County Court 
 from 1830 to 1835; that he has seen his com- 
 mission as such. We read a certificate of 
 the very man who answered Kelley 's letter 
 explaining how he made the mistake, stat- 
 ing that the records show that T. P. Bald- 
 win was Judge of Wayne County Court; 
 that his commission as such is before him 
 as he writes ; stating the date of the first 
 trial on which he officiated as Judge of 
 Wayne County Court; and the date of the 
 lat t trial on which he officiated as such. 
 Had my opponent possessed common sense, 
 lie would have given up. But with a stu- 
 pidity that is miraculous, he arose and 
 stolidly denied that there was such a. man ; 
 such an office, and that there was such a 
 judge of Wayne County Court. I could 
 
 Eity my opponent if his lack of honesty in 
 is acts were not so flagrant. 
 His letter from Whitrner is a dodge. 
 Whitmer does not say a word about punc- 
 tuation in it. That is dropped. His state- 
 ment about capital letters is a dodge. Gil- 
 bert stated that proper names began with 
 capitals generally. He stated that sen- 
 tences did not. Whitmer says that the 
 capital letters are part of the original writ- 
 ing. He does not say what capital letters. 
 Will Whitmer lay the manuscript before 
 
 an impartial committee, in the presence of 
 J. H. Gilbert, and attempt to show that the 
 manuscript, as it came from the hands of 
 Smith and Cowdery, was punctuated, or 
 that its sentences, as it came from their 
 hands, were commenced with capitals? A a 
 to Kelley's attacks on Maj. Gilbert's char- 
 acter, they are. beneath contempt. Maj. 
 Gilbert concluded probably that persons 
 who would falsify his language are not 
 worthy of reply. 
 
 He attempts to bolster up Cowdery's tes- 
 timony to the Book of Mormon by denying 
 that he ever recanted his testimony. In a 
 song published in Mormon works in 1838-40 
 occurs this doggerel : 
 
 " Or prove that Christ was not the Lord 
 "Because that Peter cursed and swore, 
 " Or Book of Mormon not his word 
 "Because denied by Oliver" (Olivorel!) 
 If Cowdery never repudiated his testi- 
 mony, why did Mormons in their sengs 
 declare that he did? As to Whitmer's 
 testimony, we have shown its ridiculous 
 character, its fabrications, contradictions, 
 and falsehoods. We read Smith's denun- 
 ciation of him. Smith's statement that he 
 was excluded from the Church for crime. 
 That he plotted robbery, and carried on the 
 plot by lying. The act of exclusion ia 
 signed by Bigdon and 83 other Mormons, 
 denouncing him for lying, counterfeiting, 
 stealing, and being connected with a gang 
 of criminals of the blackest dye. In the 
 Elders' Journal, No. 3 of the date of July, 
 1838, page 46, is an official document, 
 adopted by the Mormon Church in the Far 
 West excluding David Whitmer and Oliver 
 Cowdery for embezzling money put in their 
 hands to purchase land for tao Church. 
 They had the land bought for the Church, 
 with the money of the Church, deeded 
 to themselves, and tried to compel the 
 Church to pay them several times the price 
 they had paid for it even when bought 
 with the money of the Church and for 
 the Church. Such is the character of 
 Cowdery and Whitmer according to the 
 official declaration of the Mormon Church, 
 as published in their official organ. This is 
 Mormon testimony to Whitmer's character. 
 We read the statement that Whitmer said 
 that he saw no angel but a Mr. Angel. He 
 has been bought up. He wants to be leader 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DESATE. 
 
 In a new Mormon faction. His family have 
 had good positions given to them. As soon 
 as this was done he could renew his testi- 
 mony and exaggerate it into nonsense. 
 Kelley last night read that if Joe allowed 
 any one to see what he found he would be 
 destroyed. His mother says she saw the 
 breast-plate and the interpreters, and 
 nobody " kilt." Whitmer says he saw and 
 handled the interpreters, and nobody 
 "hurted." Looked through them. The 
 Book of Mormon says, it is death to any 
 one who looked through the interpreters 
 without a command. Whitmer is living 
 yet. Joe was not to use the scheme to make 
 money. Did not he die worth over one 
 hundred thousand dollars? Was not he 
 rich? Did not he make money out of it? 
 The angel in Revelations did not restore 
 the Gospel ; he preached what had never 
 been lost. The Spirit of Truth is in the 
 Church now ; but how? Not in the mirac- 
 ulous power. Zechariah, in vision saw a 
 young man go out to measure Jerusalem, 
 and one angel said to another, "Go speak 
 to this young man." That means Joe 
 Smith, because he was a young man. O, 
 twaddle ! Such are his prophecies. I care 
 not how he reads Isaiah ix. It says the 
 remnant of Israel shall come from Assyria, 
 not Amerira. 1 Corinthians xv. says the 
 "natural" was first the "spiritual" after- 
 wards. Joe interpolates into Genesis a 
 statement that the spiritual was first, the 
 natural afterwards. Corinthians does not 
 contradict Genesis, it contradicts what Joe 
 interpolates into Genesis. Joe's inspiration 
 in the Book of Mormon conflicts with inspir- 
 ation in the Inspired Translation. But the 
 most wonderful thing is Kelley's assertion 
 that Nephite writers used originals, that dif- 
 fered from ours, and quoted from them. We 
 reply, 1. Book of Mormon copied the blun- 
 ders of King James' version in scores of 
 cases. 2. There never were any Nephites. 
 3. There never was any original of the Book 
 of Mormon, except Rigdon's revamping of 
 Spaulding's manuscript. In quoting 1 John, 
 ii:29, my apponent read, "But the anoint- 
 ing which you have received of him abides 
 in you and you need not that any one teach 
 you. But as the same anointing teaches 
 you all things and is truth" he saw that 
 it contradicted his theory and taught Camp- 
 bellism, for it taught that truth, the truth, 
 taught them all things. He deliberately 
 changed it, and read "the Spirit of truth 
 is the Spirit of truth and is no lie," making 
 nonsense, for if one is " Spirit of truth" the 
 other ought to be, and is "no Spirit of lie." 
 His own passage proves" that it is the truth 
 and not the miraculous power of the Holy 
 Spirit that teaches believers all things. I 
 did not ask why the Book of Abraham had 
 no witnesses, but why the parchment 
 revelation of John had none. It caps the 
 climax of cheek and folly, when Kelley 
 gravely tells us that he has examined the 
 two translations of the papyrus, that of the 
 French scholar, and the fraud of Joe Smith, 
 called the " Book of Abraham," pretending 
 to be a translation made by inspiration ; and 
 
 he, yes hf, Kelley, that knows as much of 
 Egyptian hieroglyphics as he does of the 
 language spoken in Jupiter has decided 
 that Joe was right and the French scholar 
 was wrong! What next! 
 
 The Holy Ghost does say there is but one 
 immersion to Christians, just as there is one 
 God one faith. John does say that the 
 baptism in water is one baptism and the 
 baptism in Spirit another baptism. There 
 are two elements and two baptisms. The 
 one baptism in the Church is in water. 
 Holy Spirit baptism is not in the Church or 
 a baptism to Christians. Kelley may give 
 the lie direct to the Holy Spirit as long as 
 he pleases. It stands there. I read Joe 
 Smith's idea of God. If he was Brighamite 
 I read Brighamite ideas of God. I did nob 
 read a word from an Utah Mormon. I read 
 what was said in Nauvoo and published in 
 Nauvoo and before Joe's death. I again 
 denounce as a deliberate untruth the state- 
 ment that I say that nobody can learn any- 
 thing about God. I say they can learn 
 through his word. When pressed with the 
 demand for a miracle my opponent declares 
 there is no converting power in miracles. 
 This is what I have contended, and he has 
 denounced it as repudiating the power of 
 God. He says the law of the Lord converts. 
 That is what I have contended, and he has 
 denounced it as repudiating the power of 
 God's Spirit, and talked of the dead letter. 
 But the most amusing thing was when he 
 forgot that he had said that the word of 
 God converts, and asserted that the Gospel 
 alone could not be God's power, for if it 
 were, if a man read it he would be converted 
 whether he believed it or not! That caps 
 the climax of Mormon wisdom. It stands 
 alone in its grandeur. But he has found 
 two miracles : I. A Mormon girl predicted 
 the destruction of Pekin six months before 
 Ryder read it in the paper. When we 
 remember that the destruction was months 
 before Ryder read it in the paper, the 
 miracle becomes baseless. Show that Mor- 
 mon leaders did not know it before the 
 prediction, for months had elapsed between 
 the prediction so called and the event. 
 II. Healing Mrs. Johnson. I can cite scores 
 of cases where physicians have done a* 
 much as Smith did. By strong will and 
 mesmeric control they have caused persons 
 to use what were supposed to be helpless 
 limbs; and if it was mere lack of use 
 that ailed them, the disease having left, 
 they continued to use them. An incident 
 happened in Hubbard, Trumbull County, 
 the same year that Smith healed Mrs 
 Johnson, that beat Smith all hollow. A 
 man who had been bed-ridden from rheu- 
 matism, got so that he could hobble with 
 crutches. He went on crutches three years. 
 One day in passing a nest of young pigs, 
 he punched one with the spike in the end 
 of one of his crutches. It squealed, and 
 the old sow, a monstrous, ferocious brute, 
 started for him, open-mouthed, uttering 
 fearful sounds of rage. He threw to one 
 side his crutches, ran like a quarter-hors> 
 to a fence and dashed over it, and never 
 
343 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 used a crutch again till the day of his death. 
 That old sow beat Joe all hollow. She 
 healed two legs. He healed only one arm. 
 Both were healed in the same way, a shock 
 compelling the use of what only needed an 
 effort to use. 
 
 Having examined the revelations of Mor- 
 monism we propose now to inquire if the 
 authors and surroundings were befitting 
 the "fullness of the Gospel" the last and 
 highest dispensation vouchsafed to men. 
 God chose a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, 
 a Samuel, a John the Baptist, a Paul, and 
 gave Christianity to the world by Hi* Son. 
 After giving Christianity by his Son be 
 would not select a Baalam, a Saul, king or 
 Israel, a Jonah or a Caiaphas to give to the 
 world the ''fullness of the Gospel." Mrs. 
 Eaton, wife of Dr. Horace Eaton who was 
 for nearly forty years pastor of the Pres- 
 byterian church 'in Palmyra, a lady of the 
 highest character who knew intimately the 
 acquaintance, schoolmates and associates of 
 the Smiths, declares : 
 
 "As far as Mormonism was connected with Its reputed 
 author Joseph Smith, always called Joe Smith, it had 
 its origin in the brain and heart of a deceitful, ignorant 
 mother. Joe Smith's mother moved in the lower walks 
 of life, but she had a kind of mental power which her 
 eon shared. With both, the imagination was the com- 
 manding faculty . It was vain but vivid. To it were 
 subordinated conscience, reason and truth. Both 
 mother and son were noted for a habit of extravagant 
 assertion. They would look a listener full in the eye 
 and without confusion or blanching they would manu- 
 facture startling statements, reciting stories, the warp 
 and woof of which was-falsehood." 
 
 Let any one read that mass of lies, ridic- 
 ulous yarns and tomfoolery, Mrs. Smith's 
 Life of Joe, and they will conclude that 
 Mrs. Eaton draws it mildly in her state- 
 ment. 
 
 "Was an inconsistency pointed out, nothing daunted 
 a subterfuge was always at hand. One old man who 
 knew them said to me, 'You could not face them down, 
 they would lie and stick to it.' Mrs. Smith used to go 
 to the houses of the village and do family washings. 
 But if the articles were left to dry on the lines, and were 
 not secured by their owners before midnight, the 
 washer was often the winner. In these depredations 
 she was assisted by her bora who favored, in like 
 manner, poultry yards and grain bins. Her son Joe 
 never worked save at 'chopping bees' and raisings and 
 then whiskey was the impetus and reward. The 
 mother of the high priest of Mormonism was super- 
 stitious to the last degree." 
 
 Any one who reads her ridiculous stuff in 
 her Life of Joe will see that this statement 
 is literally true. 
 
 "The very air she breathed was full of familiar 
 spirits that peeped and wizards that muttered. She 
 turned many a penny by tracing in the lines of the open 
 palm the fortune of the inquirer. All ominous signs 
 were heeded. No work was commenced on Friday. 
 The moon over the left shoulder portended a calamity. 
 The breaking of a mirror, death. Even in Vermont, 
 before moving to New York, while Joe was a child, 
 Mrs. Smith's mind was made up that he should be a 
 prophet. The weak father agreed that Joe was the 
 
 genus" of the family and would be a prophet." 
 
 We have narrated already that Joe's 
 father and mother were foremost among 
 the fanatical followers of a pretender in 
 Vermont who claimed miraculous powers 
 and to be a Messiah. This suggested to 
 Mrs. Smith the idea of making Joe a 
 prophet. 
 
 " So it was established that Joe wai to be a prophet 
 To such an extent did the mother impress this idea 
 upon the boy that all the instincts of childhood were 
 repressed. He rarely laughed or smiled, his looks and 
 
 thoughts were downward bent He rarely engaged in 
 demonstrHtions of fun, since they would not be in keep- 
 ing with the professed dignity of his exalted avocation 
 His mother aided and inspired him in every scheme ot 
 duplicity and cunning. All acquainted with the facts, 
 agree that the evil spirit of Mormonism first dwelt in 
 Joe Smith's mother. Bad books had much to do with 
 the origin of Mormonism. Joe could read, he could 
 not write. His two standard volumes in childhood 
 were the 'Autobiography of Stephen Burroughs,' the 
 clerical scoundrel, whose career he so closely imitated, 
 and the 'Autobiography of Kidd, the Pirate. 1 In later 
 boyhood or early manhood, he was a great reader of 
 the Koran, so like in some respects his own fraud, the 
 Book of Mormon. He was a great admirer of Moham- 
 med. He read Paine' s 'Age of Reason," and was a glib 
 talker of its infidel vulgarity. So Mormonism began 
 in a compound of superstition, infidelity, and villainy. 
 
 "In 1823 while his father was digging a well for Wil- 
 lard Chase, a stone of cloudy quartz, sinaularly resemb- 
 ling a child's foot was thrown out Joe, who was loaf- 
 ing around, stole this stone from Mr. Chase's children. 
 This stone became the acorn of the Mormon oak. It 
 was the famous peep-stone of the Palmyra ^eer. The 
 Urim and Thummim of Mormonism, with which Joe 
 did most certainly divine. Instructed by his mother 
 he immediately set up a claim of miraculous power." 
 
 Mrs. Smith afterwards tried to get a sin- 
 gular stone from a neighbor's children to 
 use herself. 
 
 "In a kneeling position, with a bandage over his 
 eyes so luminous was the light without it with the 
 stone in a large white stove pipe hat, and this hat in 
 front of his face, Joe saw things unutterable. He could 
 reveal where stolen property could be found, for who 
 ought to know so well as he, and his family. He could 
 tell where wandering animals were, for the loafing hab- 
 its of the family enabled them to know. Soon he saw 
 caskets of gems, pots of gold, hid by Spaniards, and 
 his favorite hero, Capt. Kidd. (One can see where the 
 idea of buried treasure originated in reading the tale 
 of Kidd's buried treasures.) Untold wealth was in 
 neighboring woods and fields. Digging became the 
 order of the night, and sleep the order of the day. 
 Father and brothers, vagabonds, neighbors, all who 
 could be hired with cider, strong drink, or deluded 
 with extravagant lying promises, were organized into 
 a digging phalanx. They sallied forth in the darkness, 
 a gang of loafing, worthless men, accompanied with a 
 gang of low, worthless, lewd women. Solemn cere- 
 monies prefaced the work. Not a sod was turned un- 
 til Joe's mystic wand, the witch hazel rod, guided by 
 the sacred stone, pointed out the spot. Entire silence 
 was one condition of success. When hours of digging 
 had passed away, and the answering thud on the 
 priceless pot or chest, was about to break on the ear, 
 some one always spoke and broke the spell, and the 
 treasures were spirited away, and had to be found by 
 magic rites, and dug for again. Thus matters went on 
 for several years." 
 
 The operations of the gang extended from 
 Palmyra to Harmony, in Pennsylvania, and 
 Hartwicke, Otsego county, New York, the 
 extreme points being over one hundred 
 miles apart. 
 
 "Nearly every farm in Smith's neighborhood had 
 several holes in it, that the gang dug. Many can be 
 seen to-day. Sensible people paid no attention to them 
 except to comment with disgust Lovers of the mirac- 
 ulous, however, commented and talked. The excava- 
 tions were visited. The newspapers took the matter up 
 and ridiculed it. All this added to the notoriety of the 
 Manchester seer, and his stolen peep stone." 
 
 Pomeroy Tucker of Palmyra, New York, 
 who knew the Smith's from the time they 
 came to New York, in 1815, until they left 
 in 1830; and who knew Joe intimately, 
 states that Joe Smith, Senior, ran a little 
 beer shop in Palmyra, for a year or two, 
 and then squatted on a piece of land belong- 
 ing to some minor heirs. The Smith's did 
 but little in the way of clearing, fencing or 
 tilling. They erected a hovel, and then 
 some additional hovels as out houses. Their 
 farming was done in a slovenly, half-way, 
 profitless manner. They eked out a living 
 by selling cord wood, black ash baskets, 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 349 
 
 birch brooms, maple sugar, and cakes and 
 root beer, on public days, like the Indians 
 on the reservation near them. Most of 
 their time was spent in trapping musk rats, 
 fishing, hunting, digging-out vvoodchucks, 
 and loafing around stores and shops in the 
 village. Joe usually lead in all this, never 
 doing any of the labor himself. 
 
 This idleness was noticed by neighbors, 
 who coupled with it loss of property, and 
 became more careful about their cribs and 
 coops. Their neighbors regarded them as 
 an illiterate, whiskey-drinking, shiftless, 
 irreligious people, Joe being the laziest and 
 most worthless of the lot. From twelve to 
 twenty, he was known as a dull-eyed, flaxen 
 haired, prevaricating boy, noted only for 
 his indolent, vagabondish character, and 
 his habits of exaggeration, and untruthful- 
 ness. Taciturnity was among his character- 
 istic idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke 
 to anyone outside of his intimate associates, 
 except when first addressed by another ; 
 and then, in consequence of his extrava- 
 gancies of statement, his word was received 
 with least confidence by those who knew 
 him best. He could utter themost palpable 
 exaggerations, marvellous absurdities with 
 the most apparent gravity and sincerity. 
 He nevertheless evinced the rapid develope- 
 mentof a thinking, evil-brewing, plodding, 
 mental composition, largely given to the 
 invention of low cunning schemes of mis- 
 chief and deception, and false and myster- 
 ious pretensions. In his mental composi- 
 tion, secretiveness and amativeness were 
 enormous, and conscientiousness was left 
 out. Tucker describes Joe's reading as 
 Mrs. Eaton describes it. He adds that he 
 used to dilate on the prophecies, when in 
 the presence of his ignorant superstitious 
 associates, and Jthat his explanations 
 were often disgusting and blasphemous. 
 He says, that he contended that all religions 
 were delusions, and the Bible a fable. 
 This agrees with the statement of Dr. John 
 Stafford, a schoolmate, who says he was a 
 great reader and admirer of Paine, and an 
 open talker of his infidelity. Tucker 
 relates the money-digging folly and knav- 
 ery as Mrs. Eaton describes it. To this we 
 add the statement of fifty-one citizens of 
 Palmyra, and they include the best people 
 of Palmyra : 
 
 " December 4, 1833. 
 
 " We the undersigned have been acquainted with 
 the Smith family for a number of years, while they 
 reside i near this place, and we have no hesitation in 
 saying that we consider them destitute of that moral 
 character, which ought to entitle them to the confi- 
 dence of any community. They were particularly 
 famous for visionary projects, spent mnch time in dig- 
 gmg for money which they pretended was hid in the 
 earth, and to this day large excavations may be seen 
 in the earth, not far from their residence, where they 
 used to spend their time digging for hidden treasures. 
 Joseph, senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular 
 considered destitute of moral character, and addicted 
 to vicious habits. In reference to all with whom we 
 are acquainted, who have embraced Mormonism, from 
 this neighborhood, we are compelled to say, that they 
 are visionary, and most of them destitute of moral 
 character, and without influence in the community, 
 and this may account for their being allowed to go on 
 with their imposture unnoticed. It was not supposed 
 that any of them were possessed of sufficient character 
 or influence, to make any one believe in their book, or 
 
 sentiments, and we know not of a single individual In 
 this vicinity, who puts the least confidence in their 
 pretended revelations." 
 
 Eleven citizens of Manchester, and most 
 of them schoolmates of Joe Smith, signed 
 this statement : 
 
 '.'u V ? th ^ un<J er8igned, being personally acqufli->ted 
 with the family of Joseph Smith, Senior; with n >m 
 the celebrated Golden Bible originated, state that tney 
 were not only a lazy, indolent set of men, but they wera 
 also intemperate, and their word was not depended 
 on, and^that we are truly glad to dispense with their 
 
 Peter Ingersoll testifies to the old man's 
 lies and manoeuvres to dupe him. He tells 
 us how Joe's father-in-law upbraided him 
 wif,h tears, for stealing his daughter, and 
 with his vicious worthless life, and that 
 Joe confessed that all of his use of the stone 
 Avas a lying fraud and promised to reform. 
 He tells also how Joe told him after he be- 
 gan to tell that he had found the plates 
 that it was all a hoax, but he had got the 
 
 d d fools fixed, and he would carry out 
 
 the fun. 
 
 William Stafford testifies to the lies and 
 the yarns of the Smith's about caves full of 
 gold and precious articles and how they dug 
 for them. He tells of the tomfoolery of 
 old Joe and young Joe in digging. At last 
 they got him to let them have a black 
 wether, a very fat one, to use in their tom- 
 foolery. They cut its throat, and then led 
 it around in a circle, and then dug but 
 failed. The Smiths, however, had mutton 
 without stealing it. Willard Chase testi- 
 fies to the worthlessness and lies of the 
 Smiths, and their gang ; and to the lies and 
 tricks of young Joe, in particular. P. Chase 
 testifies that they were an intemperate, 
 lying, worthless set. That they scarcely 
 ever told two stories alike in regard to the 
 Book of Mormon. David Stafford testifies 
 that Joseph Smith, sen., was a liar, a 
 drunkard and a thief; and that Joe, jun., 
 was like him. He testifies to seeing them 
 return from stealing excursions with stolen 
 mutton. Barton Stafford testifies to Joe's 
 getting drunk, and having his shirt torh off 
 of him, and his wife leading him home, af- 
 ter he had pretended he had found his 
 golden Bible. Henry Harris testifies that 
 Joe's oath was rejected by a jury as un- 
 worthy of belief and that the whole set 
 were intemperate and liars and worthless 
 money diggers. Mrs. Abigail Harris testi- 
 fies to old Mrs. Smith's lies and tricks to 
 get money, and about the Gold Bible. Ros- 
 well Nichols testifies to their lies, dis- 
 honesty, and the tricks of the Smiths. 
 Joshua Stafford testifies to the same. 
 Joseph Capron tells of their lies, tricks and 
 tomfooleries. 
 
 To this might be added the testimony of 
 the people in Susquehanna county, 'Pa. 
 where Joe lived while pretending to trans- 
 late, telling of his lies, his profanity, and 
 trying to seduce his hired girl, his declara- 
 tion that adultery was no crime. 
 
 In 1880 William Bryant testified: "I 
 knew Joe Smith personally to some extent. 
 I saw him frequently. I knew well his 
 reputation. " 
 loose in 
 
 i irequentiy. i Knew well his 
 ion . He was a lazy, drinking fellow, 
 his habits in every way." Danford 
 
850 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Booth says, "Smith's reputation was bad." 
 Orrin Bead, "I knew the Smith's, but did 
 not associate with them ; they were too low 
 to associate with. There was no truth in 
 them." Samantha Payne testifies: 
 
 "She was a schoolmate of Smith. His reputation 
 wnsbad; he was regarded aa a worthless, shiftless 
 fellow, a braggadocio and a blackguard. The mother 
 of Joseph Smith was regarded as a thief by her neigh- 
 bors. She was exceedingly superstitious and addicted 
 to lying, as were all of the family. She once fame to 
 my mother to get a stone the children had found, of 
 curious shape. She wanted to use it as a peepstone. 
 Mother would not trust her to look around the house 
 for it. The Smith's dug for money on nearly every 
 farm for miles around ; their excavations can be seen 
 to-day. Some are on the farm on which I now live. 
 The digging was done at night with most absurd 
 superstitious acts. It was done by a gnng of men and 
 women of low reputation. They told runny absurd 
 to rics about it. After Smith came back from Penn- 
 
 sylvarHn his followers dng a cave In a hillside not far 
 from here. They conducted the work of getting up 
 Mormon ism in it. I was in it once. It can be seen to- 
 day. The present owner of the farm, Mr. Miner, dug 
 out the cave, which had fallen In. The cave hart a 
 large, heavy plank door and a padlock on it. The 
 neighbors broke it open one night, and found in it a 
 barrel of flour, some mutton, some sheep pelts, and 
 two sides of leather." 
 
 Ezra Pierce testifies to the digging for 
 money, their lying and laziness, and the 
 low gang that were engaged in it. Dr. 
 Mclntyre, who was their physician, testi- 
 fies that Joseph Smith, senior, was a drunk- 
 ard, a liar and a thief, and his house a 
 perfect brothel. That Joe got drunk, stole 
 sugar, got beaten for it, and told the doctor 
 who dressed his bruises that he had a fight 
 with the devil. Yea, verily he had! 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SIXTH SPEECH; 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: The consummation of the 
 offense of Joseph Smith in the minds of his 
 opposers was, and is, that he was an un- 
 learned boy. Was not reared in their theo- 
 logical institutions. What right has this 
 man to know anything? they reasoned. It 
 is the old story which the self-wise could 
 not understand in the first age of Christi- 
 anity. "How knoweth this man letters 
 having never learned ?" This is the thought 
 when fully brought out: How did Joseph 
 Smith know so much when he had never 
 been to school? Had not attended our col- 
 lege? Why, they say, he even pretended 
 to translate the Bible; our Bible. This 
 perfect book. Oh ! what sacrilege. The 
 rascal ! Now, my friends, I want your atten- 
 tion for a moment while I expose this hypo- 
 critical cant, so commonly indulged in by 
 our opposers. In the first place let me ask 
 you, what made this our Bible to the exclu- 
 sion of other people? Was it given to us? 
 No; all of you know that there is not even 
 a single Gentile writer or writing included 
 within its pages. It contains God's will as 
 revealed to the Jews, and hence the Jewish 
 Bible, if belonging to any particular class ; 
 as the prophet Ezekiel declared, "Thestick 
 of Ju(tah." Ezek. 37:19. We received it as 
 handed down after the time when they were 
 scattered as a nation, and have tried by our 
 wise men and scholars to translate it from 
 their languages, the Hebrew and Greek, 
 into ours. But in doing this our scholars 
 do not agree as to many things, absolutely 
 disagree, and have been warring for years ; 
 not only upon the translation from the orig- 
 inal, but actually as to what in fact was or 
 is original. And not only as to words, but 
 sentences; verses; entire books. And there 
 
 has not only been a revision of the transla- 
 tion into our language, but of the Greek 
 text itself. The oldest manuscripts extant 
 are only referred back to the fourth century 
 by scholars, unless we accept the claim 
 made for a few of the New Testament writ- 
 ings, the Sinaitic, discovered less than forty 
 years ago, which itis claimed may be traced 
 back to the beginning of the third century. 
 As to these originals there is a disagree, 
 ment in many things. St. Jerome, in his 
 commentary on the 40th chapter of Ezekiel 
 says: "When we translate the Hebrew 
 words into Latin we are sometimes guided 
 by conjecture; 1 ' and he makes frequent 
 mention of the additions, corrections and 
 subtractions made in the version of the 
 Septuagint by Origin. Again he says : "It 
 is mere superstition to assert, as some authors 
 do, that the Hebrew text which we have at 
 present is not corrupted in any place, and 
 that there is no fault, nor any thing left out, 
 and that we must indisputably follow it at 
 all times." Dupin, in his church history, 
 speaking of the differences found to exist 
 in the original manuscripts, says: " There 
 are differences in the punctuation, about 
 the consonants, and \vho\ewords and verses, 
 which show that let them be never so dili- 
 gent, it is impossible but some faults will 
 slip in, either in the copying or printing of 
 a work." And then it is charged that the 
 boldness of some transcribers of theseorigi- 
 nalswassuch that they "ventured to stri ke 
 out, ADD, or change some words which they 
 thought necessary to be omitted, added or 
 changed." 
 
 The original manuscripts were tran- 
 scribed and handed down by the same per- 
 sons whom Braden termed "Papists," and 
 refused to receive their plain historical 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 851 
 
 statements as evidence that the doctrine of 
 the laying on of hands was practiced and 
 preached by the apostles, and Iranded down 
 by exaiuples of practice to the second and 
 third centuries thereafter. Is it enough 
 for him to answer these plain historical 
 facts by simply charging them with Pa- 
 pacy? It is not a fact in the first place that 
 Papacy, as it is commonly understood, then 
 existed ; but if it did, it would likely be as 
 proper to look to it for a correct history of 
 2>ractices in the church as for a correct his- 
 tory of the teachings in the church which 
 must come through the same parties. Yet 
 li ^ gets his perfect laiv, the constitution, the 
 New Testament, through this papal line as 
 it. is termed. And to prove his New Testa- 
 .lieut is the perfect law he quotes James 
 1:25, "But whoso looketh into the perfect 
 law of liberty," etc. Why does he say 
 this perfect law was the New Testament as 
 delivered by the apostles? Does he not 
 know that much of the New Testament was 
 not yet written? This, as I have before 
 shown, was in the year A. D. 60. Long 
 before the gospel of Luke was written ; 
 I e fore the letters to Timothy, Titus, the 
 <Jv>lossians, the Hebrew churches, the 2nd 
 and 3rd Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of 
 John, of Jude and the Revelation were 
 ever in existence, or even thought of, per- 
 haps, and yet it is held up to this audience 
 to show the law was perfect in the sense, 
 that God would give no more revelations 
 to the human family. Why? The Psalm- 
 ist, as I have quoted to you, said hundreds 
 of years before this, "The law of the Lord 
 is perfect converting the soul." Did he 
 mean that God would for that reason speak 
 no more unto the human family, neither iu 
 the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century? Not at all. 
 But that God is perfect and his law must 
 be perfect, whether we have it all, or a part; 
 whatever we have is perfect, if not changed 
 by designing men after having been 
 revealed. That law is given to man as 
 Isaiah says, 28 : 10, " Precept upon precept, 
 line upon line, here a little and there a lit- 
 tle." And this is the view taken in the 
 writings of Paul. " For I am not ashamed 
 of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power 
 of God unto salvation to the Jew first, and 
 also to the Greek, for therein is the righte- 
 ousness of God revealed." Does he mean 
 all revealed, so that Jesus could no more 
 communicate anything that was good 
 or beneficial to the world? No, sir. For, 
 nearly the whole of our New Testament 
 was written after this language of the apos- 
 tle was sent to the saints at Corinth. 
 
 The apostle in the next part of the sen- 
 tance is the interpreter: " From faith to 
 faith." It "is revealed from faith to faith." 
 As men have faith to advance in the divine 
 life; and this is in harmony with the 
 whole tenor of the New Testament teach- 
 ings. Now turn back to your argument 
 upon this subject where you held that the 
 Apostles were the constitution makers, the 
 framers, and look down the line again. My 
 position was that they were simply the 
 publishers, the preachers of God's law as 
 
 he delivered it to them. This harmonizes 
 with the entire text, " revealed from faith 
 to faith;" "hath committed the word of 
 reconciliation to us ;" " Whereunto I am 
 ordained a preacher, and an apostle, a 
 teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." 
 
 ' A minister," etc. " Go teach all nations." 
 "Teaching them toobserveall things what- 
 soever I have commanded you." That I 
 have commanded you ; and, notwithstand- 
 ing this former commanding it was neces- 
 sary that they be further commanded as 
 they proceeded in the divine work, and in- 
 struction was given " from faith to faith.,' 
 
 Now I call you back to the reference 
 of the translation of the Bible by Mr. 
 Smith, as he read some verses from 
 it to show how bad Smith was ; but 
 was there any bad things in the verses 
 which he read? Oh, no, simply because 
 it's Smith's translation, and Mr. Smith was 
 not college-bred ; he gave God the credit for 
 the work of translation ; that is the trouble. 
 I have shown you that the originals of the 
 Old and New Testament were to some 
 extent changed, and thereby much light 
 taken from the word of God. If you will 
 compare the Doway version with the King 
 James' version, you can easily determine 
 that, without going back to the Greek or 
 Hebrew ; and if this is a truth, and Mr. 
 Smith's translation throws light by re- 
 storing this, is it a bad thing, and should 
 we say he was sacrilegious ? 
 
 I told you from the outset that I was not 
 particular what translation we were to use 
 in tliis discussion, for I could prove my 
 faith by either well-attested one. All of 
 these translations harmonize in their prom- 
 inent and essential features when taken as 
 a whole. But at the same time this is true, 
 it is also true that on account of the inac- 
 curacies in the word, many things are ren- 
 dered dark until the entire line of inspired 
 writings upon them are examined, and few 
 men can so read and examine the Bible. 
 Hence, it is in God's wisdom to give us a 
 translation and correction. Remember, 
 correction also, so that it shall enlighten 
 the feet of those who would have otherwise 
 walked in the dark. My opponent claims 
 that Paul's words as to " baptism for the- 
 dead" "has always been considered by 
 scholars as a dark passage." And in his 
 affirmative question he admitted his church 
 would not even presume to take a position 
 on the God-head, because they were so 
 much in the dark, but not more so, lie 
 thought, than others ; yet Jesus says, "This 
 is life eternal, that they might know thee 
 the only true God and Jesus Christ whom 
 thou hast sent." According to this, he has 
 truly admitted salvation out of his Church. 
 It is necessary to know the Father and Son 
 to have life. And says the apostle ' If our 
 Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are 
 lost." Ignorance does not do here, they 
 must " walk in the light," as John 
 declares, and to do this one must have th 
 Comforter from on high. 
 
 My opponent should have told this 
 audience frankly that many ol tue correo- 
 
852 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ttons made by Mr. Smith's translation havo 
 since been endorsed by the first scholars of 
 the world. They did not know they were 
 confirrnimg him, however. Such a thought 
 would have amazed those high-toned 
 churchmen. Open to First Cor., 10: 24, 
 " Let no man seek his own, but every man 
 another's wealth." Here according to the 
 King James' translation we have to seek 
 other men's wealth. But it is corrected by 
 Mr. Smith forty years ago, to read "Seek 
 another's good ;" and although Mr. Smith 
 has been accused of trying to find law to 
 permit him to prey upon the property of 
 others, and persons have gone so far as to 
 pervert the plain teachings of the Book of 
 Covenants in order to try to prove the false 
 claim. But in 1881, the scholars of the 
 world, in their Revised Version of the New 
 Testament, correct the sentiment here to 
 read as Mr. Smith had corrected it forty 
 years before. The next point I will notice 
 is the idea which is carried in these hooks 
 which have perverted our teachings so 
 much, that we were "to suck the milk of 
 the Gentiles and take the whole country." 
 [Nothing is farther from the truth than this. 
 We are more clearly upon the record on this 
 point than any other church in America. 
 Our faith is as set forth in the Book of 
 Covenants, page 177: "Let no man break 
 the laws of the land ; be subject to the 
 powers that be ; (the government in which 
 we live); until He reigns, whose right it is 
 to reign, and subdues all enemies under 
 His feet." Who is this? Answer: Jesus 
 Christ. How long are we to conform to law 
 and be subjects ? Answer : till Jesus Christ 
 ehall come. We are not to take possession 
 of the kingdom then as some have foolishly 
 supposed ; but if we are Christ's children, 
 his saints, we will be given the kingdom 
 when becomes. Theprophet Daniel speak 7 
 ing of this says: "For the kingdom was 
 given to the saints of the most high." Is 
 this the hope which our enemies have so 
 shamefully misrepresented? Do not all the 
 followers of Jesus expect to share in this 
 final hope? 
 
 Now all of this talk about all religious 
 parties being destroyed except the Latter 
 Day Saints, and that they are to take the 
 earth, is had to stir up prejudice against us ; 
 there is no true foundation for it, nor never 
 was. 
 
 There has doubtless been found persons 
 among the Latter Day Saints who have at 
 times said foolish things and been, perhaps, 
 fanatical ; but is that any ground for these 
 grave charges against the body ? Is that 
 the way to decide upon the views, faith or 
 character of any other people, simply from 
 what some excited or evilly disposed mem- 
 ber may have said? This is the way in 
 which my opponent has sought to carry 
 on his side of the discussion from the first ; 
 to pick up all that he could find that has 
 ever been said by this one or that one, 
 either of those who had been cut off from 
 our society, or those who have ever been 
 bitter and unrelenting enemies, from pre- 
 judice, ignorance and superstition or other- 
 
 wise, and (ell to this audience. To gather 
 up all the foul newspaper stories that have 
 beeu published and insiduously circulated 
 against the Saints, and read them here for 
 evidence. 
 
 I showed fully from the beginning of this 
 discussion that such a course was not in any 
 sense justifiable; that no body of people 
 and no religion could be fairly or in any 
 sense correctly attested by any such course ; 
 that that was the way, to abuse, falsify, 
 wrong and slander people, but never to 
 ascertain what they really are, or what their 
 religion is. 
 
 I showed fully and effectually too, that if 
 Jesus and the apostles were tried in such a 
 way we would have to confess that they 
 in no sense would bear such iesp for tney 
 were berated, abused, slandered, while 
 living and since their deaths, althougn uvo, 
 eighteen hundred years have passed away 
 since the false statements were first circu- 
 lated. Jesus was no exception to the rule. 
 No upright man of prominence in God's 
 work has escaped, and from the very nature 
 of things. He who originates these lies is 
 the Devil, the evil one, who has ever gotten 
 up such stories and influenced men and 
 women to tell and circulate them, and could 
 it be supposed that he would not act like 
 himself in this age and dispensation of the 
 world? He is, as stated by Jesus, the 
 " father of lies," and of course will be car- 
 rying on his own work. But, says one, 
 these are not lies he has told about the 
 Latter Day Saints. That is just what the 
 
 Seople thought about the tales told against 
 esus and Paul. They thought they were 
 true stories. Where does the fault lie in 
 regard to this ? It is in pursuing a course 
 presumably for evidence, which will not 
 bring true evidence. 
 
 It is impossible to attain truth by seeking 
 to these tales and second and third handed 
 statements made in the absence of the 
 parties against whom they mitigate, and 
 for this reason Courts of Justice as I have 
 shown exclude them as vile and utterly un- 
 reliable. Truth cannot be gained in any 
 case in this way. 
 
 My opponent has taken a course in this 
 controversy by which he has disregarded 
 all rules of evidence. Broken every estab- 
 lished principle for eliciting truth. Has 
 violated with impunity the rules of law and 
 order established by our legislatures and 
 Judicial tribunals ; upheld and followed a 
 rule which in the past brought opprobrium 
 and disrepute against Jesus and the apos- 
 tles and their religion ; that caused the 
 martyrdom of the faithful in the first and 
 second centuries ; that put to the rack, starv- 
 ation and death, the good under the Refor- 
 mation, and caused the people to clamor for 
 the life of Joseph Smith, because he differed 
 with them in the matter of religion. It is 
 the matter of his work that I deprecate ; 
 it is the system of slander that I consider 
 most revolting and disgraceful. Accept 
 such a system of investigation and no man's 
 reputation and character is safe. I could 
 by following such a course sink into lasting 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 353 
 
 disgrace the Disciple, or any other church 
 with which I am acquainted. Not only 
 that, but most any public man, whether re- 
 ligious or otherwise ; and especially if he 
 has been unfortunate enough to have been 
 called to the work of leading- a reformation. 
 My opponent would be down at a single 
 stroke. Only a week ago there came into 
 my hands a newspaper circulating state- 
 ments about him that are as grave as these 
 he has charged against Joseph Smith. But 
 he will say they are false. Grant that they 
 are; how does that help the case? The 
 more false they are the more they are evi- 
 dence in my favor that I am right in my 
 positions of investigation in this contro- 
 versy. I wish to prove to him effectually that 
 his course in this discussion, in rehearsing 
 the statements of others for facts, is unjust- 
 ifiable and against all proper rules of de- 
 cency and propriety. Why should I en- 
 gage to meet a professed minister of the 
 gospel in discussion on agreed and written 
 rules providing for proper and respectful 
 controversy, and then be compelled to sit 
 and listen to the outrageous tales and sto- 
 ries, and the most harsh and unjust epi- 
 thets against my brethren, when I know 
 them to be nothing more than vile and re- 
 vengeful tales of slander? I will not just 
 make assertions about these published 
 statements, but prove that I am not trying 
 to deceive you as I pass along. The follow- 
 ing upon this point of my argument is from 
 the Table Rock Argus, a paper published at 
 Table Rock, Pawnee county, Nebraska. 
 
 "FALLS CITY JOURNAL: "This office has received a 
 pamphlet entitled, 'Ingersoll Unmasked,' by Clark 
 Braden. Braden requests us to advertise himself and 
 his pamphlet free, which is characteristic of the dead 
 beat. The Kearney Journal, Oakland Independent, 
 Omaha Watchman aiid a ft-w other exchanges, have 
 puffed this fraud, and we hope they will publish our 
 version of Braden Unmasked. We personally know 
 Clark Braden to be an unscrupulous liar. A number 
 of years ago, in Pawnee City, he villainously slandered 
 the character of Joshua K. Giddings, the old anti- 
 slavery hero, for which he was taken to account then 
 and there. Braden is a liar by nature, and a charlatan 
 by profession. He exhausted his resources for knavery 
 In this State, and is no longer recognized by his own 
 church, in the East. No respectable publishing house 
 would take Braden's pamphlet, and he was obliged to 
 piint it at his own expense and in his own name." 
 
 Upon this statement made in the Fallt 
 City Journal, the editor of the Argus said : 
 
 "The editor of the Argus received a similar pamphlet, 
 with the same request. From w'>at we can learn of Mr. 
 Braden he i* a scoundrel and vill.-un of the blackest 
 dye and is worthy of no endorsement nt the hands of 
 respectable publishers. Christianity evidently needs 
 no such defenders as Clark Braden, formerly of Pawnee 
 county, Nebra ka." 
 
 These are the published statements of men 
 now living, and doubtless my opponent will 
 say they are false and slanderous. But 
 that is not the point. I have read these to 
 show you that we cannot accept the man- 
 ner and woik of Mr. Braden, during this 
 discussion for argument. If these are 
 false, it proves my position true, without 
 a doubt; if true, all the assertions he has 
 made during this discussion and the pur- 
 ported evidence falls flatter still, and my 
 opponent is still discomfited. 
 
 I must say for myself, thst his style of 
 debate has been the most conspicuous 
 
 failure, that T have ever witnessed, so far 
 as overturning a peoples' faith is concerned. 
 Bo much, upon the kind of weapons used. 
 My opponent seems to have been consider- 
 ably chagrined over his effort last evening 1 , 
 about the punctuation and capitals used in 
 the original manuscript of the Book of 
 Mormon, and he endeavors to try to make 
 you believe I have changed my positions 
 upon this since I was at Wither. There is 
 not a word of truth in it. I hold the same 
 views now, as then, and have properly 
 stated them in both placs. Mr. J. H. (Gil- 
 bert has been fairly, fully and absolutely 
 caught in his attempts to break down the 
 religion of the Latter Day Saints. He 
 stated in my presence, and to other parties, 
 what I read to you. He in fact, knew noth- 
 ing when examined, against our people, or 
 against the truth of the Book of Mormon. 
 His statement was published, as I stated 
 last evening ; when it was learned that he 
 said he bad been misrepresented, W. H. 
 Kell-ey wrote to him asking him to point out 
 wherein; that he had published his 
 language as taken at the time, and if there 
 was a misunderstanding, he wished to 
 know wherein, and that if he had heen 
 mis-reported, it was unintentional. This 
 letter, Mr. Gilbert has never answered. He 
 cannot do it. And the examination of the 
 manuscript of the Book of Mormon and 
 answer of Mr. David Whitmer, effectually 
 squelches all affidavits, Gilbert is able to 
 make. The trouble with Gilbert is, he ran 
 with Tucker too long, and has things mixed. 
 It is enough comment on Mr. Gilberts' 
 statement, to say, that he is willing to com- 
 municate to Braden's side, and answer 
 questions, but not to mine. 
 
 Next, I was somewhat amused at the 
 manner of my opponent in dealing with 
 what he calls Mormon Miracles. He first 
 challenged me to produce a well attested, 
 miracle that ever took place in our church. 
 I soon furnished the cases out of his own 
 church's history. He cannot deny the 
 cases of healing and prophecy, so what 
 does he do? He turns skeptical all at once, 
 and works himself up to believe it was 
 done through exciting and natural causes. 
 Well, it was done. He cannot gainsay that, 
 and if he wants to believe it was by the same 
 power by which the old sow of which he 
 related the story, wrought, that is his own 
 business. But it seemed to me, it must 
 appear to himself, that he over reached the 
 mark a little. In order to tell a story to 
 ridicule and beat what actually took place 
 at the appeal of Joseph Smith for the 
 afflicted, through the name and grace of 
 Jesus Christ, he related a tale, which he 
 thinks beats Mr. Smith's miracles all to 
 pieces. It so happens that his tale of the 
 old sow, beats the reported miracles of 
 Peter, Paul, John and Jesus, just as effect- 
 ually as it does those of Joseph Smith. 
 Shall we conclude then, magnetism and 
 excitement did them all? Nonsense. But the 
 worst of all this is, that he should stand 
 before the audience and claim that the girl 
 had some way of knowing of the great fire 
 
854 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 At Pekin, of which the Spirit spoke, when 
 he has not one iota of evidence from his 
 own, or any side to base it upon. No such 
 ciaim could possibly be justly made, at 
 this time, when Ryder, their preacher, who 
 related it and all connected with it, who 
 saw, hearil and were acquainted with the 
 circumstances, are beyond the reach of an 
 interview. No, the ship had corne, but 
 Byder had not heard of it. That is Braden's 
 solution. In order to carry out his views 
 he deliberately makes out his own brother 
 ministers to be perfect ninnies, without the 
 faculty of criticising a simple thing, like 
 the time of the arrival of a vessel, when 
 they are depending upon a statement relat- 
 ing to the same on a matter of the highest 
 importance. Let nay opponent drop these 
 silly objections, and argue the question 
 under discussion. 
 
 Is the church lam representing here, in 
 name, principles, faith, doctrine, practices, 
 ordinances, organization and worship, a 
 complete shadow of the type that is reflected 
 in the New Testament? If it is, it is God's 
 church and accepted with him. Let the 
 word of God settle it; by this word are we 
 to be finally judged; not the stories told, 
 and let us be honest, whatever the result. 
 41 He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, 
 he hath both the Father and the Son." 
 
 But I will not allow my opponent's at- 
 tempt-to limit the spiritual gifts and the 
 spirit of revelation to the Apostolic age of 
 Christianity pass without noticing it again. 
 Jesus, instead of thus limiting the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit to the first century 
 of the Christian era, teaches on the con- 
 trary, that the comforter is to be given to 
 all who keep his commandments: "If ye 
 love me, keep my commandments. And I 
 will pray the Father, and he shall give you 
 another comforter, that he may abide with 
 you forever." John, 14:15, 16. '-Even the 
 spirit of truth which proceedath from the 
 Father, he shall testify of me." John 15:26. 
 
 " For he (the comforter) shall not-speak of 
 himself; but whatsoever he shall hear that 
 shall he speak ; and he will show you things 
 to come." John 16:16. Please observe: this 
 comforter that "speaks" and shows "things 
 to come," is not limited to the Apostles, 
 but promised to all who love the Lord and 
 who keep his commandments. So likewise 
 Jesus, after his resurrection, makes the 
 promise that "these signs shall follow them 
 that believe" the gospel, not only in the 
 first age of Christianity, but co-extensive 
 with the preaching of, belief in and obedi- 
 ence to the gospel, in "all the world." 
 Notice the salvation here promised on con- 
 dition of obedience to the gospel ; the con- 
 demnation pronounced on condition of not 
 obeying the gospel, and the signs promised 
 to follow the believer, areall equally unlim- 
 ited, so far as time is concerned. "He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
 whether in the first or the nineteeneh cen- 
 tury, "and he that believeth not shall be 
 condemned," whether in the first or in the 
 nineteenth century, "and these signs shall 
 follow them that believe," whether in the 
 
 first or the nineteenth century, so far as the 
 promise of Christ is concerned, in Mark 
 the 16th chapter. 
 
 So Peter, on Pentecost day, realizing the 
 fulfillment of the statement of Christ -in 
 his own experience and that of his breth- 
 ren, as found in Luke 24:49, "Behold I send 
 thepromise of my Father upon you" under 
 the inspirational influence of that Holy 
 Spirit received as promised, gives the ex- 
 tent and limit of that same promised Holy 
 Spirit to the beliaver in Christ. 
 
 Hence, to the 3,000 who on that day 
 enquired the conditions of salvation, Peter 
 said, " Llepentand be baptized, every one 
 of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
 for the promise is to you." Not to us the 
 Apostles onfy, and to the next generation 
 after you, "and to your children." But 
 Peter, as if foreseeing the objections to the 
 receiving of the Holy Ghost, would be 
 urged in later ages, does not limit the 
 "promise" to that generation, and the 
 next one, their children ; but proceeds 
 to extend it to "all, even as many as the 
 Lord our God shall call." All then that 
 vrill believe and obey 'the Gospel, even all 
 that are afar off, are called to the enjoyment 
 of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" here 
 promised. See Acts 2: 38, 39. So far as 
 the terms "Holy Ghost" and gift of the 
 Holy Ghost is concerned, Luke, another 
 of the inspired writers uses these two 
 phrases interchangably in Acts. 10: 44, 45. 
 The Spirit given to the disciples of Christ 
 on Pentecost, Peter urges, is the Spirit re- 
 ferred to by Joel, a Jewish prophet, quoting 
 him as authority, when reasoning with 
 those accepting the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures as valid authority. And he shows to 
 them that the Spirit there manifested, is 
 the same Spirit Joel referred to, but does not 
 say it was a full and complete fulfillment of 
 Joel's prophecy. The "gift" manifested 
 there, was " the gift of tongues, " a gift not 
 mentioned in Joel's prophecy. Joel says, the 
 old men are to dream dreams. How many of 
 the old men fell asleep on the day of Pente- 
 costand dreamed dreams? Joel says, " the 
 young men shall see visions." How many 
 of the young men had visions on the day of 
 Pentecost? Joel says, "the servants and 
 the handmaidens shall prophesy when the 
 Spirit is poured out." How many servants 
 and handmaidens prophesied at Pentecost? 
 Joel says that after the children of Israel are 
 gathered back to the land of their Fathers, 
 "afterward I will pour out my Spirit upon 
 all flesh." But the ultimate and complete 
 fulfillment of Joel's prediction will be real- 
 ized after Israel is gathered preparatory to 
 the coming of the Lord in glory, connected 
 with which will be the great and dreadful 
 day of the Lord, the turning of the sun into 
 darkness, and the moon into blood, evea 
 the day of the deliverance of the righteous 
 by the advent of Christ in glory. Joel 2: 
 28,32. Matthew 24th chapter: " Of this 
 Spirit then the believers in the Gospel are 
 entitled to in every age when the Gospel is 
 preached, believed and obeyed, to the end 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 355 
 
 of the world, according to these teachings 
 of Jesus and Peter." 
 
 Then shall we so interpret the language 
 of the apostle Paul in the 13th chapter of 
 First Corinthians as to contradict Jesus, the 
 Master, and the apostle Peter in relation to 
 the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts and 
 have him teach their limitation to the first 
 age of Christianity? No, Paul teaches that 
 they are essental to the edifying of the 
 church and the perfecting of ^the saints not 
 the perfecting of the law till "that which 
 is perfect is come." Paul is not contrasting 
 an imperfect LAW with a perfect one. The 
 contrast here is between the saints with the 
 gifts having an imperfect knowledge and 
 understanding of the things of the grat 
 hereafter this mortal state as compared 
 to the perfect condition and understanding 
 of things divine, when we reach the immor- 
 tal and perfect state. An imperfect con- 
 gregation church militant is contrasted 
 with the church triumphant and immortal. 
 Hence the language, "For we know in part, 
 and we prophesy in part. But when that 
 which is perfect, [perfect at the time when 
 Paul wrote the Corinthian letter not that 
 which will be perfect] is come, then that 
 which is in part shall be done away." 
 
 Therefore Paul does consistently with 
 these great facts, teach the Ephesians 
 that not only the nine gifts mentioned in 
 the letter to the Corinthians were given to 
 build up the church' till the day of perfec- 
 tion arrives, but that five other gifts, namely, 
 apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and 
 teachers, thus aggregating fourteen gifts of 
 the Spirit in all, were given "for the per- 
 fecting of the saints [not the law, that was 
 already perfect, see Ps. 19 ; James 1 : 25] for 
 the works of the ministry, for the edifying 
 of the body of Christ, till we all come to a 
 perfect man [not perfect law] to the 
 measure of the stature of the fullness of 
 Christ." (Not till we get a book made). 
 
 Christ, when Paul wrote this language, 
 was an immortal, resurrected being, and 
 these gifts being given "till" we all come 
 to the measure of the stature of the fullness 
 of Christ, who was then full in the wisdom 
 of God, these spiritual endowments are 
 essential to well being and edifying of his 
 church, till we reach the immortal state, 
 even the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 If the Ancient Church, with more scrip- 
 ture than we possess to-day, with all its 
 inspired apostles, prophets and other 
 officers, together with all the spiritual gifts, 
 only "saw through a glass darkly," when 
 
 trying to view the great future with its 
 rewards and hopes, what degree of perfec- 
 tion are we attaining to-day, with less 
 scripture, a less perfect law than they had, 
 and devoid of all Spiritual light by the 
 gifts? 
 
 Then, how consistently can the great 
 Apostle to the Gentiles, after showing to 
 the Corinthians "a more excellent way" 
 than to think all could be apostles, or all 
 could be prophets, or all were teachers, or 
 all be endowed with any one office or gift, 
 by showing them how God had distributed 
 the gifts among the different members of 
 the one body, as in the language: "God 
 hath set the members every one of them in. 
 the body as it pleased Him, "'(God): Change 
 and teach another thing? He could not 
 do so. He then proceeds to instruct the 
 saints that the gifts without charity would 
 avail nothing, but that charity and gifts 
 together would insure their reward, if faith- 
 ful to all the commands. 
 
 He then informs us that we are under 
 obligation to God, to seek to attain these 
 gifts, a Divine command twice repeated. 
 Thus " Covet earnestly the best gifts." 
 "Follow after charity, "and "desire spirit- 
 ual gifts." Yee, desirespiritual gifts, justas 
 long as we follow after charity. 
 
 " Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous 
 of Spiritual gifts, seek thai ye may excel to 
 the edifying of the Church." 
 
 " If a man think himself to be a prophet 
 or Spiritual, let him acknowledge that the 
 things which / write unto you, are the 
 commandments of God. 1 Cor. 12: 31, 14: 1: 
 12 and 37. 
 
 So writes this divinely inspired teacher, 
 Paul, in concluding this subjectof Spiritual 
 gifts, in this letter, addressed to "All, that 
 in everyplace call on the name of Jesus 
 Christ, both their Lord and ours." Chapter 
 1 : verse 2. 
 
 Since we are thus commanded to seek the 
 Spiritual- gifts in righteousner a, to the 
 edifying of the church, let us remember 
 that the Savior says: "He that hath my 
 commandments and keepeth them, he it is 
 that loveth me, and he that loveth me 
 shall beloved of my Father; and I will 
 love him, and ivill manifest my self to him." 
 John 14: 21. Let us then secure the love 
 of the Father and the Son by observing the 
 command to seek the gifts, along with all 
 the other commands, and also secure the 
 "manifestation " of Christ to us, as prom- 
 ised. 
 
 (Time expired). 
 
866 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SIXTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODKTlATOFS, TOADIES AND 
 
 C i.^ i LEMEN : Mormons liy to deny that 
 Smith began his course as seer by witching 
 for water with a witch hazel rod, and peep- 
 ing for stolen and lost articles and buried 
 treasures. Mrs. Smith in her life of Joe, 
 Biimiis that he did such work. The editor, 
 apostle Blair, admits that he did. Scores 
 of associates testify to the fact. They try 
 to deny that he dug for money, and superin- 
 tended a gang of knaves and dupes in such 
 work. His mother admits that he did. So 
 does apostle Blair, the editor. Scores tes- 
 tify to his spending years in such work. 
 That great excavations were made all over 
 the neighborhood and for miles around, ex- 
 tending from Palmyra, N. Y., to Har- 
 mony, Pa., and Hartwicke, N. Y. Many of 
 tliese excavations can be seen to-day. 
 "When the gang came to Kirtland they re- 
 newed the work of digging for treasure ancl 
 living witnesses can be cited who can point 
 out where they dug in Kirtland. Mormon- 
 ism began in .peeping with a stolen peep- 
 stone, and witching for water with a witch 
 hazel rod, and digging for years for buried 
 money. It began in superstition, lying and 
 fraud attended with thieving, drunkenness 
 and lewdness. The witching for water was a 
 lying fraud ; so was finding the plates and 
 translating. Peeping for lost property and 
 buried treasure with| the stolen ]peep-stone 
 was a fraud. So was the pretense of find- 
 ing plates and translating them. Digging 
 for buried treasures, seen with the stolen 
 peep-stone, was a lying fraud. So was the 
 tale of digging up plates and translating 
 them with a stolen peep-stone. We, on a 
 former occasion, exposed Joe's lies and con- 
 tradictory stories about his plates, and the 
 lies and contradictory stories of all connected 
 \yith the fraud. We could read Joe's own 
 statement of his casting the devil out of 
 Newell Knight in New York. Mrs. Smith 's 
 yarns of visions, miracles, etc., that attend- 
 ed their first meetings and their removal to 
 Ohio. One of Joe's unmarried sisters prov- 
 ing to beencienteitwas declared to be an im- 
 maculate conception, and a new Messiah 
 would be given to the world. Old citizens 
 of Palmyra and Manchester testify to hear- 
 ing such stuff' from Martin Harris, David 
 Whitmer and ^ther Mormons. The whole 
 affair was a strange compound of ignorance, 
 superstition^ lying, fraud, trickery, and 
 low cunning, managed by Joe, who was an 
 infidel, and was imitating his favorite char- 
 acters, the clerical impostor Stephen Bur- 
 roughs, and Mahammed. It would require 
 volumes to record the absurdities, the tricks 
 and lies of all connected with the fraud. 
 The low absurd character of the pretended 
 supernatural events connected with the 
 origin of Mormonism, shows its low vile 
 origin, and the low, ignorant character of 
 
 its originators. The most low and absurd 
 superstitions of Southern negroes were 
 eclipsed. 
 
 The real originator of Mormonis-m was 
 Sydney Rigdon, who only intended to use 
 Smith as his tool, to get the fraud before 
 the world, as a miracle and revelation, 
 through his stolen peep-stone. But Smith 
 
 E roved to be a deeper schemer than even 
 Ligdon. When Iligdon allowed Joe to go 
 before the world first, to usher in, and con- 
 duct the movements for months, as its 
 prophet, and came in only as a convert, he 
 gave away his chances to be leader. He 
 often tried in Kirtland, in Missouri, inNau- 
 voo, to get the coveted place of leader and 
 make Smith subordinate; but he had put 
 the citadel in Smith's hands and entered 
 only as a recruit, and Smith was too cunning 
 for him to succeed in ousting him. Smith 
 always held Rigdon in the position he as- 
 sumed when he embraced Mormonism open- 
 ly, that of a mere convert, and never 
 allowed him to assume his real position, 
 the author of the whole fraud ; and the one 
 who intended to be leader, and only in- 
 tended to allow Smith to act as author and 
 leader for a short time, in order to start 
 the fraud. Rigdon intended to use Smith 
 as a cat's paw to rake the roasted chestnuts 
 off of the stove of public censure and criti- 
 cism ; but the cat proved to be a shrewder 
 imp than even the one trying to use him. 
 He kept the chestnuts and threw to the 
 originator of the scheme, only the shells. 
 Rigdon's whole career in Mormonism was 
 an apish chattering and qnarrelling to 
 regain what he had given away. 
 Since the discussion began I have come in 
 
 Sossession of the following facts : James 
 effery, of Churchville, Harford Co. Mary- 
 land, in a statement dictated to Rev. Calvin 
 D. Wilson, in the presence of his wife, de- 
 clares : "Forty years ago I was in business 
 in St. Louis. The Mormons then had their 
 temple in Nauvoo, 111, I had business 
 transactions with them. I knew Sydney 
 Rigdon. He acted as general manager of 
 the business of the Mormons (with me). 
 Rigdou told me several times in his conver- 
 sations with me, that there was in the print- 
 ing office with which he was connected in 
 Ohio, a manuscript of the Rev. Spaulding's 
 tracing the origin of the Indian race from 
 the lost tribes of Israel. This manuscript 
 was in the office several years. He was fa- 
 miliar with it. Spaulding wanted it pub- 
 lished, but had not the means to pay for the 
 printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used 
 to look over the manuscript and read it on 
 Sundays ; Rigdon said Smith took the 
 manuscript and said, "I'll print it," *ud 
 he went off to Palmyra, N. Y." 
 
 On the 14th of September, 1844, Sydney 
 Iligdon, who was trying to us* urn Joe 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Smith's place as President and Prophet, 
 was called on by a committee of the iwe.ve 
 apostles. In the conversation with them, 
 he told them that they dare nor reject him. 
 If they did, he would reveal their secrets. 
 On the 15th and 16th Brigham Young and 
 others denounced him for such threats. 
 They rejected him and expelled him Sep- 
 tember 16th. 
 
 In an article in the "Times and Seasons," 
 cf May 1st, 1845, reprinted from the Kala- 
 znazoo Gazette, and signed E. M. Webb, 
 Rigdon is bitterly denounced for his expos- 
 ures of Mormonism. 
 
 In a conversation with Dr. Silas Shep- 
 pard, some time after his return to Pennsyl- 
 vania from Nauvoo, in response to Dr. 
 Sheppard's request that he would now, 
 since he had, as he declared to Dr. Shep- 
 pard, renounced all connection with Mor- 
 inonism forever, tell him, Dr. Sheppard, 
 the truth. In regard to the Book of Mormon. 
 Higdon replied, "Dr, Sheppard, my mouth 
 is forever sealed on that subject." 
 
 Rigdon lived for long years after this, in 
 ase. His family flourished in business. 
 He wrote much, would talK on all subjects 
 tmt Mormonism, and died, and as far as 
 the world knows "gave no sign." Observ- 
 ing neighbors think that he was a pension- 
 er of Mormonism, and that his family have 
 profited largely by selling his papers to the 
 Mormons, or in bribes to keep them a 
 secret. 
 
 Now let us collate the facts. I. Rigdon 
 becomes intimate with Mr. Jeffery, while 
 acting for the Mormons in business trans- 
 actions, II. Rigdon threatens the Mor- 
 mons in the Fall of 1844, that he would di- 
 vulge theirsecrets, if they reject him in his 
 attempt to be President. III. They reject 
 him. IV. On his way back East, and 
 while in St. Louis, he fulfills his threats, 
 and tells Mr. Jeffery that Spaulding's man- 
 uscript was taken toa printing office. That 
 he got it from the office. That he and 
 Smith examined it together. That he gave 
 it to Smith to publish. V. About the 
 same time Mormon papers are denouncing 
 him bitterly for his exposures. VI. A 
 change comes over the spirit of his dream. 
 He announces that he has renounced Mor- 
 monism forever, but that his mouth is for- 
 ever sealed in regard to matters that he had 
 been freely making public. 
 
 The key. to the matter is, Rigdon had 
 failed to get a party to follow him. He 
 could make nothing out of Mormonism. 
 He began to tell their secrets as he declared 
 they would. Mormon agents visited him. 
 They could not let him talk any more. 
 They offered him two alternatives." Money 
 and silence, or Danite vengeance. Rigdon 
 had sent Danites on their murderous errands 
 too often not to know what that meant. 
 He took the bribe, and his mouth was for- 
 ever sealed. He lived in ease, with no vis- 
 ible means of support. His family have 
 been successful, with no tangible means of 
 success. Rigdon iived on Mormon money, 
 paid to keep him silent. His family have 
 made a good thing out of it, in accepting 
 
 hush money. Rigdon lived for years, an 
 oatspokon atheist and infidel, and died one. 
 Like most Mormons who are not dupes, out 
 knaves he turned infidel, when the fraud 
 was no longer profitable. 
 
 Sidney Rigdon was like Joe Smith a lazy 
 youth noted for his extravagant, language, 
 stories and exaggerations and falsehoods. 
 He used to talk scepticism and was noved 
 for his fondness for debate. After he stole 
 the Spaulding manuscript he joined the 
 Baptist church. He told a marvellous ex- 
 perience and afterwards told the Baptist 
 Association when they were trying him that 
 it was all a lie. He manufactured it to get 
 into the church. He began preaching as 
 soon as he joined the church and soon began 
 to plot to oust the old pastor of the church 
 and get his place and came very near 
 ruining the church. Failing in this and 
 having lost the confidence of the Baptists 
 in Pennsylvania, be went to Ohio and 
 joined the church in Warren. After preach- 
 ing here for two years he returned to 
 Piltsburg. He remained here nearly two 
 years. He was expelled from the Baptist 
 chinch and preached a short time to his 
 malcontents in the court house. He resumed 
 working at his trade, a tanner, and began 
 to fix up the manuscript he had stolen from 
 the printing office. During this time he re- 
 sumed his .infidelity and talked it openly 
 and freely as old citizens of Pittsburgand 
 Pennsylvania testify. On a visit to a rela- 
 tive near where the author's father had 
 charge of a stone yard, he used to spend 
 hours in sitting near the author's father and 
 talking his doubts and scepticism. 
 
 In 1826, while he was living in Bainbridge, 
 Ohio, be was invited to preach the funeral 
 sermon of Warner Goodall in Mentor by the 
 Baptist church who knew him as brother- 
 in-law of Adamson Bentley, a well known 
 Baptist preacher, and that he had been a 
 Baptist preacher. He did so and was in- 
 vited to preach for the church. He laid to 
 one side his scepticism and preached for 
 them and went with the church into the 
 Disciple movement. As Baptist and Disci- 
 ple preacher he was noted for his spread- 
 eagle eloquence and ability to get up revi- 
 val excitements. He had been hurt in 
 youth and it left him with a tendency to 
 epileptic spells. He would often while 
 preaching, especially in revival excitements, 
 have such spells and see visions and swoon, 
 have trances, etc. This tendency caused 
 his preaching to be wild, visionary and 
 extravagant. He was regarded as a cun- 
 ning, ambitious schemer, noted for his 
 extravagant talk and actions, his exaggera- 
 tions and untruth, and as destitute of truth- 
 fulness and moral principle. His preaching 
 attracted the visionary and fanatical. H 
 carefully indoctrinated them with his ideas 
 while Smith was getting out his book. He 
 made a confident of P. P. Pratt who let his 
 brother Orson into the secret, and these 
 four, Smith, Rigdon and the Pratts, consti- 
 tuted the brains of Mormonism in the start. 
 Two were known to be infidels before they 
 went into Mormonism, the two originator* 
 
358 
 
 THfi BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Rigdon and Smith. The other two were 
 probably no better. 
 
 It; will be bootless for my opponent to 
 undertake to deny the statements of the 
 Palmyra and Manchester people. Since 
 entering on this debate the speaker has 
 visited Palmyra and obtained certificates of 
 Co'. E". B Dewy, Daniord Booth, Ezra 
 Pierce, Samantha Payne, M.G. Smith, J. H. 
 Gilbert, that the names attached to the 
 Palmyra and Manchester statements were 
 the names of real persons. That the char- 
 acter of ali for veracity was good. That 
 among the names were the best citizens of 
 Manchester and Palmyra. That a list of 
 better names could not have been obtained. 
 That the statements were the universal 
 opinion of all who knew Smith, his family 
 and associates. That such has ever been 
 the opinion and such is the opinion to-day. 
 Acquaintances have testified to the high 
 character of VVillard Chase, to the veracity 
 of Ingersoll and all others whose names are 
 attached to the affidavits published in 
 Howe's book. We have proved the affida- 
 vits to be genuine. 
 
 We have the statement of M. G. Smith 
 and survivors that they signed the state- 
 ments. It will do Mormons no good to 
 jabber " lies, frauds," etc. Since their sys- 
 tem is all lies and frauds, they judge other 
 persons by themselves No fact in history 
 can be more fully sustained by human evi- 
 dence than the low, dishonest trickery, 
 lying, fraudulent origin of Mormonism. It 
 began in fraud for gain, and was carried on 
 in fraud for gain. In Kirtland, Smith, 
 Rigdon and the leaders borrowed money, 
 bought, goods on credit, started a " wild cat 
 bank " without a charter, and without 
 capital, built houses, a big temple, laid out 
 lots, planned a great city, built mills, fac- 
 tories, tanneries, started a big land specula- 
 tion, paid more for land in 1834-5-6 than it 
 has ever been worth since, dressed like 
 princes, lived like nabobs, gulled their 
 dupes, swindled the public with their 
 fraudulent paper, and notes, until the 
 swindling bubble burst and left hundreds 
 defrauded and ruined. Rigdon and Smith 
 were arrested for banking without a charter 
 and were fined one thousand dollars each. 
 The printing office and other property were 
 sold to pay the execution. That night the 
 printing office, the Methodist church, an dan- 
 other building were set on fire. As a blind a 
 pretended attempt to fire the temple was 
 shown to the committee who investigated 
 the incendiarism. Rigdon and Smith fled 
 from Kirtland the 10th of January, 1838, in 
 the night, to eseape arrest for swindling, 
 and were chased by the officer's posse over 
 one hundred miles. This is one miracle 
 that Mormon leaders wrought in Kirtland. 
 They got large sums of money on credit, 
 and by fraudulent issues of w'ild-cat; and 
 succeeded in skipping out to Kirtland be- 
 tween two days, and escaped the officers of 
 justice and the penitentiary. That miracle 
 1 will admit. There are Mormon admis- 
 sions that corroborate these charges. P. 
 P. Pratt states that when Smith moved from 
 
 New York to Pennsylvania, his goods were 
 searched twice by an officer, Pratt pays, to 
 find the plates. As there could not be any 
 warrant obtained to search for the plates, 
 such an idea is absurd ; and as a search 
 warrant to look for stolen goods is the only 
 process under which an officer could search 
 his goods, they were searched for stolen 
 property. Mrs. Smith admits that officers 
 searched his father's house about the same 
 time. Smith says that he and Rigdon fled 
 for their lives in the night from Kirtland, 
 and were chased by assassians over one 
 hundred miles. As the people of Northern 
 Ohio do not do such deeds, they were 
 chased by officers to arrest them for swin- 
 dling. The^fraudulent swindling transact- 
 ions of Mormon leaders in Kirtland an* well 
 known. No one dares deny them in Kirt- 
 land. An eye witness told the speaker 
 this incident: Rigdon was preaching in 
 the temple one Sunday urging the people to 
 "give the devil his due to pay him it. his 
 own coin." A son of Belial arose aiid 
 shouted, "will the devil take the Morrrion 
 wild cat?" Though out of order the 
 question was pertinent. Mormon wild cat 
 was the currency of the father of lies, and 
 no one knew better than Rigdon what the 
 devil would accept, for no one was bet ter 
 acquaited with him. 
 
 In Missouri. Mormonism ran the same 
 course as in Kirtland. They filled all th 
 offices with Mormons, trampled under foof} 
 the rights of others and undertook to rule. 
 by violence. A revelation of Joe Smiih 
 taught them "Behold, it is written in my 
 laws they are forbidden to get in debt to 
 their enemies. But behold, it is not said at 
 any time that the Lord should not take what 
 he pleases and pay as seemeth him good." 
 (They can steal).' "Wherefore as ye are 
 agents*, and as ye are on the Lord's errand, 
 and whatsoever ye do according to the will 
 of the Lord is the Lord's business, and he 
 hath sent you to provide for his saints." 
 Arvard, Peck and Corrill testified before 
 judge King that they heard Smith justify 
 taking the property of the Gentiles. In the 
 same court Arvard, Hinkle and Rath burn. 
 testified to robbery by Mormons, under 
 their teachers, and with Smith's knowledge. 
 The Sunday before the disturbances in 
 Davis County, Smith said that all who 
 would not take up arms should be driven 
 out as enemies. Rigdon said they ought to 
 be set on horses and forced into the fight 
 with bayonets. Rigdon said their property 
 would he taken and given to those who 
 went. Smith told Robinson to whip those 
 who spoke against the presidency. Smith 
 declared that those who spoke against the 
 presidency should leave the country or die. 
 Slade testifies that Rigdon pledged a com- 
 pany to kill any one who should attempt tr> 
 desert the Mormons. Also that Rigdou 
 declared that a man had been murdered, 
 and that any one who told of it should be 
 killed. 
 
 Phelps testifies that Rigdon pledged a 
 company to kill deserters, and throw them 
 into the brush, and give them no burial 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 859 
 
 in turkey buzzards' guts. The infi- 
 delity and irreligion of these leaders can be 
 *een in their talk. Owen testifies that 
 
 Smith said that the militia were a d d 
 
 eet, and fiod would damn them, and that 
 God would not notice his cursing such a 
 
 d d set. Hinkle declares that Smith 
 
 said they were a d d mob, and he would 
 
 play hell with their applecarts. In the last 
 meeting: of the council in Nauvoo, which 
 fimith attended as Mayor, and while urging 
 them to destroy the "Expositor," Smith 
 cwore like a trooper, as the history of Han- 
 cock County shows. He was imitating his 
 early hero, Burroughs, his model Mahom- 
 nied" in playing religious impostor, although 
 an infidel, and when enraged would curse 
 and swear. Rigdon was an infidel impostor 
 also, and could talk as we have cited, and 
 act the ruffian and cut-throat. It will avail 
 Mormons nothing to deny these facts, for I 
 <)uote from a report of a Committee of the 
 United States Senate, and published as a 
 Government document and authority. Mor- 
 mons denounce such witnesses as liars, 
 although they were some of their own 
 leaders. The witnesses testify that Rigdon 
 and Smith were behind Arvard in organizing 
 the Danites, and that they knew and ap- 
 proved of their fiendish acts. Their own 
 declarations prove it. 
 
 Mormons have denounced as apostates, 
 Iligdon, the author of the fraud, and first 
 vice-president ; F. G. William, second vice- 
 president, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer 
 and Martin Harris the three witnesses; 
 Warren Parish, one of the first seventy; 
 Leonard Rich and Sylvester Smith, two of 
 the seven presidents of the first seventy; 
 J. F.Boynton and Luke Johnson, two of the 
 twelve apostles ; Stephen Burnett and Zerah 
 Oral of the seventy; W. A. Cowdery and 
 Cyrus Smaling, presiding high priests It 
 is safe to say that from the start in Kirtland 
 until they left Nauvoo, one-third of their 
 apostles, priests aud councillors have been 
 denounced as apostates. It prove? that 
 these leaders were knaves who went into it 
 to get power and gain, and when it was no 
 longer to their interest they renounced the 
 fraud. The worst exposures of Mormonisin 
 have been by its leaders, those highest in 
 authority. As we have shown the real 
 author of the system, exposed his work in 
 getting it up, and its fraudulent origin. A 
 system that has been abandoned by its 
 real author, and denounced by him as a 
 fraud, that has been denounced by one 
 third of Its leaders as a Iraud, and that has 
 been lead by scoundrels, it' the declaration 
 of the Church against these apostate leaders 
 be true, is a fraud of the vilest character. 
 We accept what such leaders say of it, and 
 what it says of them. It x is pot calling 
 kettle black. Villains have fallen out and 
 honest people learn the truth. 
 
 Mormonisin was gotten up for gain to its 
 infidel leaders. The Book of Doctrines and 
 Covenants says, " Whoso receiveth you re- 
 ceiveth me, and the same will feed you and 
 clothe you, and giveyou money, and he who 
 Joes not these thing's is not my disciple." 
 
 There you have it. You cannot be a disci- 
 ple unless you give money. You will be 
 damned if you do not. Again: "It must 
 needs be that ye save all the money that 
 ye can and gain all that ye can in right- 
 eousness." Again: "It is wisdom in me 
 that my servant Martin Harris should be 
 an example unto the church, in laying his 
 moneys before the bishop of the church. 
 And this is a law unto every man that com- 
 eth unto this land, to receive an inherit- 
 ance. And he shall do it with his money 
 as the law directs." Again : "And let all 
 the moneys that can be spared, it matter- 
 eth not unto me whether it be little or 
 much, be sent up into the land of Zion, 
 unto those I have appointed to receive it." 
 Again: "And let all preachers who have 
 no families who receive moneys, send it up 
 unto the bishop in Zion, or to the bishop iu 
 Kirtland, to be consecrated for the bring- 
 ing forth of the revelations, and the print- 
 ing thereof; and the establishing of Zion." 
 Again : "Behold this is my will, even ob- 
 taining moneys, even as I have com- 
 manded." Again: "He that sendeth up 
 moneys to the land of Zion shall receive an 
 inheritance in this world. His work shall 
 follow him also, a reward in the world to 
 come." Money, money, money. Again : 
 " I command thee that thou shalt not covet 
 thine own property, but impart it freely to 
 to printing of the Book of Mormon which 
 contains the truths of the world of God." 
 Yea verily. Impart a portion 9f thy prop- 
 erty, even a portion of thy lands, and all 
 save the support of thy family." Joe was not 
 to make gain out of the fraud, >we are told. 
 Listen: " It is meet that my servant Joseph 
 Smith should have a house built in which 
 to live and translate." And again : " It is 
 meet that my servant Sydney Rigdon should 
 live as it seemeth him good, inasmuch as 
 he keepeth my commandments." Again : 
 " Provide for him (Joe) food and raiment 
 and whatsoever heneedeth." Again : " In 
 corporeal labor thou (Joe) shalt not have 
 strength, for this is not thy calling." Joe 
 was born tired. Labor never could call 
 loud enough for him to hear. Read the 
 lying revelation of January 19th, 1841, in 
 which Joe is to have a tavern built for him 
 in which to make money, and it is to be his 
 and his children's forever. Oh, no, Joe 
 was not to make gain out of it. The apos- 
 tles had one Judas who carried the bag. 
 Mormons have their tithing arrangement, 
 and have their apostle who carries the bag. 
 My opponent is the lineal descendant and 
 successor of that apostle who held the bag. 
 Does he serve Mormonism for naught? 
 
 Mormonism began with a backslidden 
 infidel preacher, Solomon Spaulding. It 
 was taken up, by another back-slidden 
 infidel preacher, Sydney Rigdon. It was 
 given to the world by au admirer of Payne, 
 an infidel, Joe Smith. Its leaders have 
 largely infidels, who used the fraud to dupe 
 the silly for gain. When they abandon it, 
 they go out into infidelity. Rigdon lived a 
 confirmed infidel after he abandoned it, 
 and died aa atheist. Ib is meet that it 
 
SCO 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 should be defended in Kirtland by a re- 
 hash of infidel attacks on the Bible, when 
 its fraudulent, anti-scriptural character is 
 exposed. We have had bitter infidel 
 attacks on the origin of the Books of the 
 Bible, on the accuracy of its text, on the 
 character of inspired men, on its statements 
 and teachings. This has been applauded 
 by the infidels in the audience. They know 
 their man. they know the work he is doing, 
 he is doing their work. Moral on ism and 
 
 infidelity, like Herod and Pilate, make 
 friends to crucify the religion of Christ. My 
 opponent challenged me to debate what he 
 failed to meet in this debate. Will he, as 
 an honest infidel, affirm his attacks on the 
 Bible in debate. I will meet him then 
 under his true colors. It would be out of 
 order to reply to his infidelity, introduced 
 put of order in a debate, iu which 
 is the standard. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: The audience can readily 
 see the absurdity of my opponent's position 
 in claiming that ihePriesthood wasnotgiven 
 to the Christian ministry, and that there 
 never were put two High Priests of the 
 order of Melchizedek, viz., Melchizedek and 
 Christ. Moses says, ' the Lord your God 
 shall raise up a prophet like unto me." 
 This language points out the official char- 
 acter of Christ; that he was to te like 
 unto Moaes ; and it is emphatically stated 
 that Christ was a Melchizedek priest, and 
 for him to be like unto Moses, Moses also 
 must have been a Melchizedek priest. It is 
 definitely declared that he was a Priesfc. 
 My opponeut.confesses the truth when he 
 says that Moses was not an Aaronic priest; 
 but he then goes on and makes the ridicu- 
 lous statement that he was not a Melchiz- 
 edek priest either ; and when I pressed him 
 to the wall, showing there were only two 
 lines, he endeavored to answer by craft and 
 wit, saying that it did not follow because a 
 man was not an American, that he must be 
 a Irishman ; that he might be a Dutchman. 
 But in the case of the Priesthood, there is 
 no chance for a third party; there are but 
 two lines of priesthood mentioned in the 
 Bible at all ; hence, in this case it is either 
 the American or Irishman there is no 
 show for the Dutchman at all, if he wishes 
 to represent it in that way. My opponent 
 puts himself in the position of saying that 
 Moses was neither an Aaronic or Melchiz- 
 edek priest, but at the same time he must 
 admit that he was a priest. But the Bible 
 epeaks of but two kinds of priests, and 
 Moses must of necessity have belonged to 
 one line or the other, and he was an offici- 
 ating priest before an Aaronic priest was 
 ever heard of, hence, the logic comes with 
 all the force of certainty that lie was a Mel- 
 chizedek priest, and this effectually knocks 
 bis Dutchman out of line. 
 
 Christ as a Melchizedek High Priest 
 ordained a ministry set them apart con- 
 
 secrated them : that he might send therm 
 forth to preach. When he ordained them 
 he must have conferred on them the Mel* 
 chizedek priesthood, for Christ held thai 
 authority, and the office of an Apostle was 
 not in the Aaronic Priesthood. Men were 
 called in the same way to offices in the 
 Priesthood in the Christian dispensation, 
 that they were under the law, viz: by revela- 
 tion from God ; hence, Paul says, ''As God 
 hath distributed to every one, as the Lord 
 has called every one, so ordain I in all the 
 churches." Ordaining was the conferring 
 of the office of the Priesthood upon them. 
 Hence, when God spoke through the 
 prophets at Antioch, to separate Barna- 
 nas and Saul to the ministry, they did so 
 by the laying on of hands. Peter makes it 
 definite that the Melchizedek Priesthood 
 was in the Christian church. 
 
 " Ye are a Royal Priesthood." I Peter 2:9. 
 
 Melchizedek 'was king even on earth, and 
 Christ who holds the royal authority is an 
 Apostle, High Priest and King, and pre- 
 sides over his own House, the church. He 
 is to reign as king of kings and Lord of 
 Lords, holding the royal priesthood. 
 
 Ye are "an Holy Priesthood to offer up 
 spiritual sacrifices." 1 Peter 2:5. The 
 church of Christ was a holy one, and 
 "Royal Priesthood to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices." Yet my opponent has the 
 audacious assumption to assert that neither 
 the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood 
 were over conferred in the Christian church. 
 It is sheer nonsense and stupidity to talk 
 about a Priesthood and no priests, or priests 
 and no Priesthood. It was the belief in a 
 conferred authority in the Christian church 
 that gave rise to ecclesiastical conflicts all 
 along down from the Apostles to the pres- 
 ent day. It was in view of this that scores 
 of Episcopalian ministers in England went 
 to the Catholic church, and were re-baptized 
 and re-ordained, believing in the necessity 
 of authority in the church, and that if it 
 was to be found any where, so far as they 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 361 
 
 knew, it was among the Catholics. But 
 my opponent and his church, are all kings 
 and priests, anyway ; men and women, old 
 and young, with or without an ordination, 
 just as it suits their fancy, and to cap the 
 climax of absurdity, they imagine that they 
 are reigning now. Tertulian says. " It was 
 customary among heretics to confound the 
 offices of the clergy and laity together." 
 St. Jerome observes, "They (the early 
 Christians) reckoned that to be no church, 
 which had no priests." Eusebius says, 
 "Origin received the ordination to the 
 Priesthood, at Cesarea," page 243. Braden 
 further says that Christ abideth a priest 
 continually, therefore, no one could receive 
 the Melchizedek Priesthood after him. If 
 this position is true, then Christ was never 
 a Melchizedek High Priest, for Melchizedek, 
 who was before Christ in the earthly career 
 was made a High Priest continually: 
 4i Abideth a priest continually," says Paul. 
 Heb. 7:3. Jesus as I have shown is an 
 Apostle, and so abideth, yet we have many 
 others. But how is the church a Royal 
 Priesthood? By all of the people being 
 priests or kings? No; it is in the sense 
 expressed in Ex. 19 : 6 ; " Ye shall be unto 
 me a kingdom of priests, and an holy 
 nation." Yet all were not priests, but cer- 
 tain ones were consecrated to the office of 
 the Priesthood, and performed the services 
 of the same, and thus served the people. 
 They were called a kingdom of priests, 
 because they had the Priesthood and priests 
 among them; and it is in this same sense 
 that Peter called the church of God on 
 earth a " Royal Priesthood." Braden is 
 neither a king or a priest, as he has affirmed 
 before this audience; neither is any other 
 person in his church. 
 
 All of the sons of Zedekiah, king of Judah, 
 were not slain by the king of Babylon as 
 claimed by my opponent. The Bible does 
 not say all of them were slain. It states 
 that they slew the sons of Zedekiah before 
 his eyes. 2 Kings, 25:7. To have slain all 
 of his sons would have made Ezekiel a false 
 prophet; for he prophecied: "Thus saith 
 the Lord God ; I will take the highest 
 branch of the highestcedar, and will set it ; 
 I will crop off from the top of his young 
 twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon a 
 high mountain and eminent. In the moun- 
 tain of the height of Israel will I plant it. 
 Ezekiel 17:22; 23. 
 
 The cedar represents the kingdom of 
 Israel; the highest branch was the reign- 
 ing king, Zede>;iah ; the tender young twig, 
 represents one of tiie kings' sous, who was 
 to be placed "upon a high mountain (in a 
 goodly land) and eminent, and it shall 
 bring forth boughs and bear fruit and be a 
 goodly cedar," etc. 
 
 The prophet said on this continent, "Will 
 ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not 
 slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and 
 do you not behold that the seed of Zedekiah 
 is with us, and they wero driven out of 
 Jerusalem?" Mosiah 11:12, and Hele- 
 man 2:27. So Ezekiel's prophecy had its 
 fulfillment by one of Zedekiah ' sons coming 
 
 to America and aiding in establishing a 
 colony. 
 
 The church has been criticised as not 
 being after the apostolic pattern because it 
 has in its organization a chief Presiding 
 Apostle or High Priest or Presiding Elder, 
 over the whole church. But this is in har- 
 mony rather than in conflict with the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Dr. Wm. Smith says concerning the 
 apostle James, (the less). "From henceforth 
 we always find him equal, or in his own de- 
 partment superior, to the very Chiefest 
 apostles, Peter, John and Paul. For by this 
 time he had been appointed to preside over 
 the infant church in its most important 
 centre, in a position equivalent to that of 
 Bishop, [High Priest or President.] The 
 pre-eminence is evident throughout the 
 after history of the apostles." Smith's 
 Bible Dictionary, page 237. (Acts 12: 17 ; 
 15: 13, 19 ; 21: 18 ; and Gal. 2: 9.) 
 
 While Christ was on earth the apostles 
 disputed as to who would occupy the chief 
 seat after his death or ascension. Eusebious 
 informs us that James occupied the chief 
 seat, or that of President. Hence he pre- 
 sided at the conference in Jerusalem when 
 there was a large representation of the 
 church from abroad present, including 
 Peter, John aud Paul, and gave decision 
 upon the most important matters brought 
 before the conference. We have no history 
 of this apostle for ten years after the ascen- 
 sion of the Savior, when we find him pre- 
 siding at Jerusalem over the whole church, 
 and Peter, John and Paul recognize him in 
 that position. 
 
 But again, objects my opponent : "They, 
 have presidents, vice-presidents, counselors 
 presiding elders, etc., in their organization." 
 Not as gifts set in the church. These are 
 but appellative terms defining the right of 
 precedence in business orgoverment of offi- 
 cers of the same rank. For illustration: 
 The especial gifts to qualify one to preside 
 over the church is that of an Apostle and 
 Prophet ; but if the party possessing such 
 
 fifts was not chosen by the voice of the 
 ody to preside, he would not be called the 
 President, nor be President. If a person 
 was called by the voice of the body to act in 
 the office of President, when he did not 
 have the gifts belonging to that office, he 
 could not properly discharge the duties of 
 it, any more than an ignorant, and blind, 
 deaf and dumb man could fill properly the 
 office of President of the United States, 
 although he would be called President. 
 
 The apostle Paul referring to James, 
 Peter and John, calls them "piHars," 
 but pillars was not the designated title 
 of the especial gifts of these apostles 
 James pieaided at the conference at Je- 
 rusalem, and was therefore the Presi- 
 dent, and you can call him President James 
 and the term will convey the true idea of 
 the office he held in the church, that of an 
 Apostle, Prophet, or the Presiding Elder of 
 the entire church there, as he presided over 
 all other elders. 
 
 In my argument last evening I showed 
 
302 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 that the position was untenable and un- 
 scriptural that was held by many, viz., that 
 God held his lastintercourse with thehuman 
 family eighteen centuries ago, and that he 
 would no more speak to his children through 
 Inspired men ; for that he had himself de- 
 clared by the prophets that he would set 
 his hand the second time to recover Israel 
 and the dispersed of Judah, which time 
 was after the falling away from the truth 
 as it was established by Jesus and the apos- 
 tles, and to support this quoted to you some 
 twenty-three passages of Scripture directly 
 in point as proof; but lam met with the 
 accustomed dodge in reply, that they have 
 not the least application whatever to the 
 subject not the slightest; oh, no! My 
 opponent can goon with a loner statement 
 containing naught but confusion, I do not 
 say argument, for it is not, to show you 
 that all inspired men and all communica- 
 tion between God and man was limited to 
 the days of the apostles ; and he judges 
 it germain to the question, although he has 
 not a single passage from the word of God 
 to support the theory ; but if I take up pas- 
 sage after passage, writer after writer, 
 prophecy after,aprophecy, and read to you 
 that the Lord will have inspired servants 
 after that time, and "plead with them face 
 to face" communicate with them as with 
 Moses that he will send again his angel 
 with "the everlasting gospel to preach to 
 them that dwell on the earth to every 
 nation, kindred, tongue and people in the 
 hour of judgment and retribution in the 
 earth, and call upon his servants to make 
 known the same to the people; that as he 
 did in the days of Noah, the time of Lot, 
 and the first century of the Christian era. 
 so shall it be at his second coming, and that 
 in that time his hand shall be revealed, his 
 power manifest and his ensign lifted up for 
 the nations to behold, I am answered with: 
 ''They have not the slightest bearing upon 
 the question." No; very good talk upon 
 the question of the gathering of the Jews, 
 but no application here. Why has it not? 
 Simply because it has not; that is the wise 
 reason ottered, and you are expected to 
 swallow it, without knowing or asking the 
 reason why. The question under consider- 
 ation is, as to whether the church I am rep- 
 resenting is in fact the church of God and 
 accepted with him ; and it occurs to me to 
 be very applicablewhether hehas anything 
 to do with it or not. Whether it is estab- 
 lished in accordance with the prediction of 
 the prophets or not; whether his hand is 
 revealed in its establishment or not; and 
 whether the gospel of the kingdom, a gos- 
 pel containing God's word, the ancient faith 
 and the gifts of his Holy Spirit is preached 
 as a witness or not. 
 
 And he turns around and would feign 
 make you believe that some man was smart 
 enough to get all of this up; have perfect 
 arrangement and time with ajl of the pro- 
 phecies, and even preach the truth of God 
 In order to deceive the people, By this 
 method of assailing the faith he deliber- 
 ately throws away the rule laid down in 
 
 the Bible: "He that abideth in the doc- 
 trine of Christ he hath both the Father and 
 the Son." "He that is of God heareth 
 God's words; and "No man knoweth the 
 things of God but the Spiritof God." Thus 
 he stands convicted of discarding the stand- 
 ard and setting up for opposition to my 
 arguments the methods of ridicule, abuse, 
 slander and vituperation that Satan used 
 against the preaching of Noah ; that he 
 met Jesus, Peter and Paul with from the 
 outset of their work, and with which he so- 
 enraged the people of London that they 
 exultingly dragged Mr. Wesley through its 
 streets by the hair of the head in order to 
 ease their consciences. 
 
 That is one way of meeting men, but it is 
 not, nor never was the manner of him "who- 
 spake as never man spake ;" neither of his 
 servants in any age. Why? says my oppo- 
 nent Mohammed and the meanest men of 
 earth said some good things. What has 
 that to do with the rule laid down by Jesus 
 and his apostles as to trying his servants ? 
 I have asked you time and again if you 
 would abide by the word of God or discard 
 it and abide by your prejudices. If Moham- 
 med filled this rule and did, in his teach- 
 ings, abide in the doctrine of Christ, then 
 God was with him. and you cannot gainsay 
 the proposition so Iqng as you believe in the 
 teachings of Jesus. But Mohammed did 
 not abide in the doctrine of Christ; did not 
 even claim to; and consequently he was 
 not what he claimed to be when tried by 
 that rule, although he may have taught 
 many good things. Satan taught and quoted 
 from the Bible when he tempted Jesus, and 
 said, "It is written he shall give his an v, l 
 charge concerning thee ;" but here he stop- 
 ped ; he had taken a little Bible, bu' 'v-oufd 
 not abide in the remainder. Consequently 
 he was not of God. for he "abode not in the. 
 truth." 
 
 So Mr. Campbell had a little Bible and 
 he clung to that well: "baptism in water 
 for the remission of sins ;" wherever he got 
 it makes no difference, as to this contro- 
 versy ; the trouble with him was he stop- 
 ped there and failed to abide in the doctrine 
 of Christ; for he did not teach "the bap- 
 tism of the spirit." Paul also taught 
 besides this: "By one spirit are we all 
 baptized into one body." And John con- 
 firms it with: "For there are three that 
 bear record in heaven, the Father, the 
 Word and the Holy Ghost ; and these three 
 are one; And there are three that bear 
 witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water 
 and the Blood ; and these three agree in 
 one." 
 
 Now, if the church I represent does not 
 abide in the doctrine of Christ it is not 
 Jesus' church and not accepted with him, 
 as a church, although there may be good 
 men and women therein who are doing; 
 good and accepted with him that far. But 
 if its doctrines and teachings are in har- 
 mony with the doctrine of Christ, then we 
 are sowing the good seed of the kingdom, 
 and it is his church and accepted of him; 
 and it makes no difference whether there be 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 863 
 
 come bad men and those who take advan- 
 tage of the true faith to work evil or not. 
 The kingdom of heaven the church was 
 likened unto "a net cast into the sea that 
 should gather both the good and the bad." 
 And it ought not to surprise any one to find 
 in it some bad as well as good. Let me give 
 vou a further illustration: "Only a short 
 time ago I took up the "Truth Seeker," pub- 
 lished in New York, and read the account 
 of a Disciple preacher down here in Ohio, 
 who had been carrying on a religious meet- 
 ing with much success, but who, before the 
 close of the revival was taken by the officers 
 as a thief and a burglar. What fairness or 
 argument do you think it would prove for 
 me to hold up this example to you and say : 
 Ah ! yes. here is your Christianity and un- 
 der take to condemn his entire church by it. 
 So I might enumerate the instances by the 
 dozen in every church or denomination, 
 but what would it prove? Nothing what- 
 ever as against the denomination, unless I 
 further showed that this work was done in 
 carrying out the principles and faith of the 
 denomination. 
 
 In the first age of Christianity, many, 
 after receiving Jesus' words and faith, 
 turned away and brought forth in their 
 lives evil fruits ; turned to be thieves, and 
 liars, and adulterers, and general adepts of 
 crime and all manner of lasciviousness : as 
 witness the thief on the cross ; the traitor 
 of the twelve; the wicked of Corinth, 5 
 chapter, 1 Cor., who revealed in debauch- 
 ery and sin ; the polygamous followers of 
 Nicolas, one of the seven, chosen for his 
 wisdom, justice and being blessed with the 
 Holy Ghost. Acts 6, and Rev. 2:6 and 15. 
 The detestable things practiced in Tbya- 
 tira; the bigotry, selfishness and barreness 
 of the church of the Laodicean s ; and of 
 others of the churches of Asia, and it seems 
 that these were the only ones that came 
 near enough to the truth in the Revelator's 
 time to claim even a notice of instruction 
 from Jesus. 
 
 But by reason of this turning from the 
 faith and practicing evil of those who were 
 once in the faith shall I say, or will he say, 
 that therefore Jesus was a bad teacher. 
 Peter's doctrine's were not the truth and 
 Paul's exhortations and preaching were not 
 in harmony with morality and decency? 
 No, sir. Such a conclusion is monstrous, 
 illegitimate, absurd, unless I further goon, 
 and show that in carrying out these things 
 they were also abiding in the principles and 
 doctrines taught by these worthies. 
 
 Oh, but I must not make this argument, 
 he savs. Why? You are attacking the 
 Bible! Who is attacking the Bible? The 
 one that makes an argument in accordance 
 with the Bible, or the one who when his 
 argument is applied to the Bible is found to 
 be working against it? Throughout the dis- 
 cussion I have appealed to the Bible ami that 
 which harmonizes with Bible teachings for 
 my proofs. My opponent has from the out- 
 set refused to meet me upon this fair, true 
 and (if/reed ground of controversy, but 
 instead, has throughout the discussion from 
 
 the very first night, resorted for hi* argu- 
 ment to ridicule, methods of villifying, 
 slander, obscene remarks, old wives' tales, 
 fables, lying stories, which, although start- 
 ing from nothing, soon, like the story of the 
 " three black crows," when traced back are 
 found to be utterly foolish and ridiculous. 
 Take an illustration : I assisted in running 
 one of these stories down at* one time, 
 through a number of the very persons he 
 has mentioned as witnesses : Wrn. Bryant, 
 David Booth, Ezra Pierce, Orin Reed, Abel 
 Chase, Orlando Saunders, J. H. Gilbert, the 
 Jackaways, Dr. John Stafford of Rochester, 
 New York, and Thomas Taylor of Manches- 
 ter. Twelve persons who were cited as the 
 persons who knew about the truth of the 
 stories told on the Smiths. Tucker and 
 Howe in their published works against the 
 Mormons had cited some of these same 
 parties as persons who knew. And what 
 indeed, could you expect but that I should 
 be completely astonished, to find that not 
 a single one of these parties knew a single 
 material fact against a single one of the 
 Smith family, or Oliver Cowdery, Martin 
 Harris or David Whitmer, the parties who, 
 together with the Smiths, had been most 
 vilely assaulted and slandered. The story 
 of the digging for money and the cave will 
 illustrate what these witnesses knew. 
 When we first began to talk with Mr. 
 Bryan the said he did not himself know 
 anything about them, but they had a great 
 cave over there in the hill where they lived 
 and reveled all night. He did not know 
 just where himself but Mr. Booth and 
 Pierce could tell us all about it. But it is 
 no use to take the trouble to go and see 
 them said he, for you can just buy Tucker'a 
 work and get it all. However he directed 
 us to Mr. Booth's. Calling on Booth, he did 
 not know a single thing ; but said the cave 
 was there now, and they used to meet there, 
 or that was what was told ; he had never 
 seen the cave, but Squire Pierce knew all 
 about it. It was always "they," that 
 incomprehensible every body and nobody, 
 "they." Bryant, nor Booth nor none of 
 them could tell who " they " were, whether 
 Smiths, Cowder;ye, Harris, the Spaniaids 
 or who? But " they." We went to Squire 
 Pierce's: Oh, y<! he could tell us all 
 about it. He said be lived three miles from 
 them, that he puiVa-i sticks with Joe one 
 time, he knew. lit) twild tell us about the 
 cave, and digging lot money, and counter- 
 feiting, all about ft. '.The cave is right 
 over there in the hh.1 ; We still pressed 
 him for a particular lcta*\on; we told him 
 we wanted to go and see i 1 ? and look at the 
 "sheep bones." At this \S^e old man col- 
 lapsed. Said he could not find the place, 
 the cave had fallen in and t>\* sheep bones 
 were all buried. Not even the spot could 
 be found. But, he said, Abe! Chase was in 
 there once, and lie could give us the facts. 
 We went to this Chase; he aid, "No, I 
 never saw the cave, never sa v them dig 
 for money. " He sent us to Gilbert and the 
 Jackawayn. Gilbert did no< pretend to 
 know anything about it. We went to tb" 
 
884 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Jackaways; the Jackaways said, "Yes, 
 they dug for money. The large holes are 
 over therein the hill now." But, we asked, 
 who dug? "They; " they did not know who 
 "they" were, but the holes were over there 
 Jn the hill. What hill? we asked, the hill 
 Mr. Smith lived on? No, not where Mr. 
 Smith lived. How do you know the holes 
 were made while digging for money ? They 
 did not know that, but they did know 
 there were some holes over there that 
 looked as though they had been made by 
 some body digging, but the holes may have 
 been from some other cause. But Chase 
 did say his sister, Sally, had a stone through 
 which she claimed to see things, and he 
 thought that she could. Here is the truth 
 of the matter: it was the opponents of 
 Smith who claimed to see through the stone 
 and not Smith. This is the "black crow 
 story " duplicated. In this instance we 
 found there was a man by the name of 
 Smith once lived there. That was all. Mr. 
 Smith had the Urim and Thummiu 
 and never at any time pretended to 
 use, or that he could use or see things, 
 or divine or locate money, or property or 
 anything elHe through the stone baby's foot 
 of Sally Chase or anybody else. These are 
 all the scandalous lies and inventions of 
 the people. 
 
 Take the jumbled mess called affidavits 
 in Howe's book, the work which I have 
 proved beyond question to be composed of 
 false, garbled, perverted passages and state- 
 ments from our works, deliberately made 
 to deceive by some one, and what have we? 
 A thing from the very manner in which it 
 is written ; the contradictions, and the fact 
 that the originals were burned as soon as 
 these pretended copies were put in Howe's 
 book, that will prevent any man accepting 
 them who is honestly criticising the work 
 of Mr. Smith. Braden only read a small 
 portion of these pretended affidavits. Tho 
 whole wouid have floored him without a 
 notice or criticism from me. Peter Ingersoll 
 is made to say entirely too much; he was 
 acquainted with all the hog paths and sheep 
 tracks on the Smith farm ; the cows could 
 not be milked without Ingersoll's knowl- 
 edge; and he finds out that they are hiding 
 their cows in the woods to deceive, and 
 knew about other peoples' cows that were 
 hidden; yet in the same affidavit he says, 
 "I told him (Joseph) I would let him have 
 the money," and he presented Mr. Hale for 
 security. Mr. Hale presented for security, 
 yet he was far away in Pennsylvania and 
 Peter Ingersoll had never saw or heard of 
 him to this time, except through Joseph 
 Smith. But Smith would not take his 
 money, and then Ingersoll is made to say : 
 Smith told him, "I went to Palmyra and 
 met that damned fool Martin Harris, and 
 told him that I had a command to ask the 
 first honest man I met for fifty dollars in 
 money, and he gave it to me. 
 
 Then he is made to say : That he saw 
 William after they visited Waterloo and 
 William said, "we do better there than 
 here; we were too well known to do much 
 
 here." Then take the tale of the frock of 
 sand, the Canada Bible story, the toll gate- 
 story, the Sun story, raising chests of 
 money to the top of" the ground, the old 
 man's water-witching and contortions while- 
 Alvin his son witched, notwithstanding 
 Alvin had been dead then at least two- 
 years, all in this pretended affidavit. I 
 there a man under the Sun foolish enough, 
 to believe it? 
 
 Take Wm. Stafford's pretended statement 
 with regard to the "black sheep story," it 
 is even worse than that of Peter Ingersoll t 
 if possible. His own son Dr. Thomas Staf- 
 ford says : "I have heard that story, but it 
 js not true, I was living at home at that 
 time. They never stole a sheep from my 
 father I aru sure." Mr. Orlando Saunder's- 
 who proved to be the best acquainted with 
 the Smith family of any party living any- 
 where near Manchester or Palmyra, New- 
 York, being their near neighbor, says they 
 were honest, industrious and upright, and 
 the only thing that could be said truthfully 
 against them was that they were very poor 
 and worked for a living. And the Presby- 
 terian minister who went around for affida- 
 vits did not get a different story from him 
 either. 
 
 This Gilbert tried to get his brother, 
 Lorenzo Saunders, who was only 9 years of 
 age in 1830, to swear that he saw Sidney 
 Rigdon at Smiths' in 1827, and he refused 
 to make the statement; and yet, Braden 
 has reported it in this discussion as though 
 it was true and that he had his affidavit to- 
 this effect. I have noticed invariably one 
 thing during this discussion and that i* 
 that a story never loses in size after it 
 reaches Braden's hands, and although itia 
 but a mere rumor, he tells it with all the 
 avidity and positiveness that belongs to- 
 the statement of facts. 
 
 Then there is the long pretended state- 
 ment of Willard Chase which condemn* 
 itself if he would read it all, and so of 
 Parley Chase, David Stafford, Henry Harris, 
 Abigail and Lucy Harris, Joshua Stafford. 
 This Stafford family were whales to testify, 
 they, like Howe, were mad because some of 
 their relations were Latter Day Saints, and 
 they wanted to do something lest the people 
 might think they were leaning that way. 
 That would be such a disgrace, you know. 
 Then there is Nichols, Capron, Stoddard, 
 Ford, Th. P. Baldwin, yes, their disinter- 
 ested judge, mixed in with these slanderers 
 of Mr. Smith's family; when the same man 
 just before the removal of the family from 
 New York went and persuaded the old lady 
 Smith to come to his house and take care of 
 and nurse his wife through along sickness. 
 Then to cap the climax Braden introduces 
 his 51 witnesses, this Baldwin being one. 
 and makes them all say: "Martin Harris 
 was a man who had a handsome property 
 and in matters of business his word wa 
 considered good." Yet he has continually 
 assaulted this . same man's character 
 throughout this controversy. They did not 
 like Harris' religion, and that was all that 
 could be said against him ; but aa all of the 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 others of these wicked, false, corrupt and 
 slanderous statements tney are made to 
 Bay : "they were considered," so and so. 
 
 The following is the statement set out by 
 Braden's 51 witnesses: 
 
 " And in reference to all with whom we 
 were acquainted ; that have embraced Mor- 
 monism from this neighborhood; we are 
 compelled to say they were very visionary, 
 and most of them destitute of moral charac- 
 ter, and without influence in this commu- 
 nity ; and this may account why they were 
 permitted to go on with their impositions 
 undisturbed." 
 
 Did you ever hear such wise conclusions? 
 Because they were destitute of moral char- 
 acter and influence they were permitted to 
 go on undisturbed; but if they had had a 
 good moral character and a good influence 
 that neighborhood would have disturbed 
 them. Well, I think myself they would 
 have been, if these 51 men ever signed that 
 statement. This is on the same ground 
 that theCampbellites over about Hiram put 
 their claim for disturbing Smith and Rig- 
 don with tar and feathers, I suppose. Their 
 own history states Rigdon h&d a, good moral 
 influence. Next I turn to his new witness, 
 Jeffries, who got acquainted with Rigdon 
 in 1844, when Rigdon did the business for 
 the Mormons in Nau voo, so he says; but Rig- 
 don did not do the business for them 
 neither in 1844, 1843 or any other time when 
 they were in Nau voo. He was in poor health 
 when at Nauvoo, and did but little of any- 
 thing then, except to act as Postmaster, and 
 in 18-14 he lived in Pittsburg, and was in 
 charge of the church in Pittsburg in the year 
 1844. He never told Jeffries any such thing at 
 any time, and never at any time in his life 
 claimed or pretended to claim he ever knew 
 anything about Joseph Smith until after 
 October, 1830. I have read to you his own 
 published letters over his own signature; 
 not what his enemies said about him, and 
 he lived and died firm in the faith, claiming 
 that he was the proper bead of the church 
 after the death of the other two Presidents, 
 as he was the second counsellor to the 
 President. 
 
 Braden can not, as he states, bring old 
 citizens of Kirt land who will testify to his 
 stuff. I have challenged him from the first 
 to do so, and he has not put a single one on 
 the stand. He culled in one of his own 
 men, a Campbellite preacher, Mr. Moss, 
 who lives far away from Kirtland, and that 
 did him no good. I have lived in Kirtland 
 for nearly a year, and I have yet to meet 
 the first old citizen who knows anything 
 against the honesty of Rigdon, Harris, 
 Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery or David 
 Whitmer, and I have made it a point to 
 talk with all J have met on this subject; 
 and only last evening when he had made 
 the statement that he could prove so and 
 BO about these men, an old gentlemen who 
 was never in any way connected with the 
 Sain ts, came to me and sard, " It is a false- 
 hood. He can't do it. I have lived here 
 for fifty years, and was acquainted with 
 those men, and he slanders them." There 
 
 are men here who have heard these stories 
 and who can repeat them, but what 
 evidence is this ? I have heard stories too, 
 ever since I was ten years old, about Joseph 
 Smith and others, and usually they have 
 been proven to be false. If Braden is telling 
 the truth about what ho can prove here 
 about these men, why does he have to call 
 his audience, who do not agree with u>e 
 in religion, " Danites and clachers." because 
 they repudiate these false aad s'axiaerous 
 assertions ? 
 
 We have a Justice of the Peace here in 
 Kirtland, and if you want to iriake your 
 contest on that kind of evidence, we will 
 set an hour for the bringing of testimony 
 to-morrow, and bring our witnesses and 
 have them sworn. I am ready to present 
 witnesses with you on these p'oints. Buf~ 
 the Kirtland bank, that was a failure, hej 
 says. Was it the only one in Ohio at thatj 
 time that failed? No, there were dozens.! 
 It was in the time of the " wild cat'' bank-J 
 ing system in Ohio and other states, and! 
 the hard times which came on in 1636 and 
 1837-8, property sunk in values, and th< 
 banks \venc under everywhere. In th< 
 State of Illinois, where my father lived, 
 man could not get cash for labor at an; 
 price, and formerly well to do men could! 
 not meet their taxes even. In this time) 
 the Kirtland bank went with the others, 
 except, it did not swindle the poor. Besides 
 the hard times being against the Kirtland 
 bank, there was also an organized oppo- 
 sition to it by those opposed to the religion 
 of the Saints, which tended to much more 
 cripple it. The Saints when they came 
 here paid good prices for whatever they 
 bought; mortgaged their farms and lands 
 thus bought to secure the balance of the 
 purchase price on them in many instances, 
 and the hard times coming on, they were 
 forced to sacrifice their places and pay 
 their debts; this they did, and he thinks ib 
 was awful wicked. Does the subsequent 
 history of these people show that they 
 could not succeed in business as well as 
 other people? Notwithstanding the fact 
 that their properties were taken from them 
 by mobs, and they were driven from their 
 homes, the history shows they were equal 
 to all the emergencies, and in knowledge, 
 wealth, honesty, integrity of heart, and tho 
 true worship of God, they were the peers 
 of any other people. 
 
 Smith and Rigdon left Kirtland in 1837, 
 because continually harrassed by mobs and 
 conspirators, who were using every means 
 possible to injure them in person and prop- 
 erty. These conspirators even went so far 
 as to persuade other men into their work 
 who were honest in their intentions, but 
 who did -not realize the object and base 
 purposes of the conspirators until after- 
 wards. Crimes were permitted and charged 
 to the Sainta when they were perpetrated 
 by their enemies ; and years after, righ t here 
 in Kirtland, one of these enemies upon a pro- 
 fession of religion in a protracted meeting, 
 confessed to being the person who stole a 
 plow in the interest of their gang arid 
 
368 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 which was laid to one of the Saints, and 
 they even perjured themselves to convict 
 an innocent man, and made him suffer the 
 penalty because of his religion. A tool 
 chest was stolen" from one Hinds and laid 
 to the Saints, but a search warrant found it 
 in the loft of the minister wiio was working' 
 up this mob. All this evidence comes from 
 Braden's side. The Saints had to guard 
 the Temple night and day while they were 
 erecting it. and Buffered untold wrongs and 
 outrages by a people who ought to have 
 been rheir friends. For this, they hold no 
 malice however, knowing that the men 
 who did it, were as a rule deceived and put 
 up to the terrible work by a few unprin- 
 cipled leaders, who were always far out of 
 danger in the back ground. It was like it 
 was in the time of Jesus and the Apostles. 
 The self-constituted clergy and priests 
 urged the populace to blood and vengeance 
 and hence, Jesus says: "Father forgive 
 them for they know not what they do." 
 
 Braden charged this terrible work to infi- 
 dels, last night. How could he so insult 
 
 your good sense as to so deliberately mis- 
 represent that tragedy? It was the chiej 
 priests and rulers, who urged the people on; 
 the only avowed disbeliever in the Bibla 
 known to be present was Pilate ; and ha 
 persisted, "that he found no fault in Jesus," 
 and those pious pricsts(t) cried out : "Away 
 with this man and give us Marrabbas!" 
 But Pilate spoke to them urging again the 
 release of Jesus ; and these pious hypocrites 
 cried out, "Crucify him ! " "Crucify him ! " 
 Our infidel friends have enough sins of their 
 own to answer for, without piling upon 
 them the terrible crimes of religious bigots. 
 But my opponent ensnares himself which- 
 ever way he turns. He is as a man walking 
 in darkness, although supposed to be 
 learned after the rudiments of the world 
 and not after Christ. He has no word of 
 God to be a lamp to his feet and guide to his 
 pathway, because he denies the office work 
 of the oil, the unction, the Holy Spirit 
 that throws lisrht upon this word and gives 
 the proper understanding. 
 Time called. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMEN: In the discussion of this 
 question I have investigated, as duty de- 
 manded, thecharacter of Mormonism, and of 
 its originators and authors. I read the testi- 
 mony of persons of the highest character. 
 Unable to meet it, there was introduced 
 last night the lying abuse of an infidel 
 blackguard. It was read by a similar char- 
 acter. His Danite band of similar charac- 
 ters greeted it with their accustomed Dan- 
 Ite yells. It is what infidelity deals in. 
 The Book of Doctrines and Covenants de- 
 clares that the Saints will be equal with 
 Christ. It is blasphemy. Joe took from 
 the Book of Mormon his fool prophecy in 
 regard to himself, and with transcendent 
 blasphemy, put it in the Bible as the words 
 of the Almighty. I did not quote the pas- 
 sage about "inheritance by blood/' nor refer 
 to it in quoting the Book of Doctrines and 
 Covenants. I referred to two passages 
 preaching a crusade against the Missouri- 
 ans. He says Moses and Elias are angels. 
 Where does the Bible say so? Angels 
 assumed the form of men and were called 
 men. The angel in Revelations did not 
 ay "I am one of the prophets," but "a 
 fellow servant of the prophets." Mrs. Chase 
 had a peep-stone. That is one of Granny 
 (smith's lies, and she says it was Chase's 
 daughter, not his wife. As he was a minis-. 
 
 ter, neither is true. Gabriel and Elijah 
 are the same. Chapter and verse for it, il 
 you please. 
 
 "Baptize for the dead" is quoted. Baptisoi 
 is in the likeness of the burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ, a type of it. In imita- 
 tion of it. Paul says, "that the dead rise 
 your baptism shows." It is in imitation of 
 the dead, or death and resurrection of Christ. 
 Its resurrection from the water proves that 
 the dead are resurrected. It is "baptize in 
 in imitation of the dead, "or death of Christ. 
 The language in Matthew speaks of three 
 things in each case. Salvation of good trees, 
 salvation of the wheat, and baptism in the 
 Spirit. All these are for the good. Evil 
 trees, burning chaff and baptism in fire. 
 All for the evil. "You" includes both, 
 classes, just as when it is said God will re- 
 ward every man according to his works. 
 If Joe Smith knew enough to translate, he 
 could do so. As he was an ignoramus, the 
 talk about his translating and correcting 
 revelation is blasphemous nonsense. Emma 
 Smith, as her language is reported by Joe 
 III in "Life of Joseph the Seer," does de- 
 clare she saw the plates and handled them, 
 covered with a cloth. None but {.he three 
 were to see the plates in the way they did. 
 It does not say so, and is a paltry dodge. 
 Jacob and others saw God's representatives. 
 Hosea says Jacob wrestled with an angel. 
 
THE P.RADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 367 
 
 Isaiah says it was an angel that led Israel 
 in the wilderness. "No man hath seen God 
 at any time." 
 
 He cannot find in the Bible such a trickey, 
 selfish, jealous talk as we cited from the 
 Book of Doctrines and Covenants. My 
 opponent shows his ignorance in assuming 
 that "cut off" means death. In one case a 
 person was cut off for seven days. It 
 means separate from the congregation, 
 excommunication, and some times put to 
 death. He shows his infidel ignorance in 
 saying there was one small window in the 
 ark. .Gesenius says the word used means a 
 system of windows. Gilbert said there 
 were no capital letters at beginning of sen- 
 tences. He said nothing about capitals in 
 any other place. We know all about God 
 that he can know what God has revealed. 
 We know more, for we do not bury it and 
 obscure it under Joe Smith's materialism 
 and lying revelations. He finds persons 
 who were priests and officiated as priests 
 outside of the Aaronic priesthood, and 
 assumes that they were Melchezedek priests 
 because they were not Aaronic priests. 
 That is like assuming that a man must be 
 an Irishman because he is not an Ameri- 
 can. He might be a Dutchman. Let him 
 prove they were MelchezedeK priests. There 
 was Melchezedek and there was another 
 Christ. Only Melchezedek and another 
 Christ. 
 
 We have already exposed the violence and 
 intolerance exhibited by Mormonism. It 
 began in abuse of all who would not accept 
 the fraud, and has since been carried on by 
 violence, denunciation and villification of 
 all who opposed t. It began with abuse of all 
 who opposed it in New York. This was 
 carried to violence and plotting assassina- 
 tion in Kirtland. It culminated in the 
 Danite band, and assassination in Missouri, 
 and Nauvoo. Smith was notoriously quar- 
 relsome when intoxicated. Morman pil- 
 grims to New York can have pointed out to 
 them, by citizens of Manchester, the tree to 
 which he tied his father, when he flogged 
 him. He was taken to Painesville while in 
 Kirtland and tried for assault on hia 
 brother-in-law, Calvin Stoddard. He told 
 a dupe of his by the name of M. C. Davis, 
 that it was the will of the Lord that Gran- 
 dison Newell should be removed. His Dan- 
 ite with a young man who lived in Smith's 
 family, went to obey the revelation. The 
 Danite tool took aim at Newell in the bos- 
 om of his family, when his better nature 
 revolted at the horrid crime, this murder- 
 ous villainous, impostor bad sent him to do, 
 and Newell was spared. On another occa- 
 sion lie sent three Thugs under the leader- 
 ship of one Bump, to waylay Newell, and 
 murder him as he returned from Paines- 
 ville. They lay in wait with loaded guns 
 fur hours. Providentially, Newell took an- 
 other road, and escaped Joe's fiendish hate 
 again. 
 
 The spirit that actuated him in Kirt- 
 land can be seen in another fact. Mr. 
 William Smith one morning visited a Mor- 
 mon neighbor by the name of Cluff. He 
 
 observed a pike setting behind the door. On 
 inquiry he found that Mormons had been 
 provided with these murderous weapons, 
 to use on the Gentiles, and thatone or more 
 were in nearly every Mormon family in 
 Kirtland, and over 200 in all. AVhen Mr. 
 Cluff left he gave the pike to Mr. Smith. 
 Here it is. It is the pike used by the Irish 
 Catholic rebels in the Protestant massacre 
 of the last century. 
 
 We have cited the schemes of swindling 
 fraud and ruin that characterized Moi mon- 
 ism in Kirtland. It closed in bankrupny, 
 ruin and Incendiarism. It left Kirtland a 
 ruin strewed with wrecks. Land has not 
 been worth as much per acre in Kirtland 
 since the Mormon influx into Kirtland, aa 
 similar lands in neighboring towns. Mor- 
 monism left a stigma on Kirtland. Even 
 now, citizens of Lake county, and towng 
 about Kirtland, would look on a return of 
 Mormons to Kirtland as an incalculable 
 calamity. Mormonism became a stench VL 
 the nostrils of all decent people in north- 
 eastern Ohio, and its foul odor has not left: 
 its old haunts yet. Like the stench of the 
 spotted animal in the fields, every shower 
 of excitement on Mormonism causes it to 
 manifest its noisome odor. 
 
 While acting in his primitive, super- 
 natural capacity as watei-witch and money- 
 digger, Smith made the acquaintance of a 
 drunken vagabond by the name of Walters, 
 who had been a physician in Europe. This 
 person had learned in Europe the secret cf 
 Mesmerism or animal magnetism. This 
 was entirely unknown in America except 
 to a few in large cities, who had read 
 European papers. Smith learned this art, 
 and like all men with great passions, vital- 
 ity and physical force he was almost a 
 prodigy in his mesmeric power. All casting 
 out devils and raising the dead were merely 
 a display of his great mesmeric power. He 
 would select those he could throw into a 
 profound mesmeric trance. Persons ignor- 
 ant of the secret thought they were dead. 
 He would by passes bring them out of the 
 trance, and the ignorant supposed it was 
 a miracle, a resurrection. His supposed 
 cases of healing were merely displays of 
 this power, and are common now, and no 
 wonder. When the Mormons began in 
 Kirtland, they pretended to heal all sick 
 by laying on of hands. Some claimed 
 there was no use in persons bein<r sick, 
 that they should never see death. As two 
 of their leaders, F. G. Williams, who was 
 second vice-president, and one other, were 
 root-doctors; revelation allowed them to 
 use herbs. It was observed, however, that 
 when the present prophet was born, Jo* 
 had the best medical aid from the world he 
 could get. 
 
 A young man named Dota, about twenty 
 years old, was very active and zealou* 
 among them, and divinely commissioned 
 to preach. So firmly did ha believe 
 in Smith and Mormonism, and their 
 miraculous power, that he told one of 
 his family not? five weeks before his death, 
 that he would live a thousand years. Tea 
 
368 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 days before he died he was attacked with 
 inflammation of the bowels. No persuasion 
 of his parents, who were not Mormons, 
 could pursuade him to allow a physician to 
 be called. The elders called on him, en- 
 couraging him in his delusion, and telling 
 him he was getting better. Smith visited 
 him and protested against his having a 
 physician, and went through his mummer- 
 ies "over him, and told him he would get 
 well. When his parents brought a 
 physician a few hours before his death, the 
 physician told him his delusion had cost 
 him his life. He would live but a few hours. 
 Reason returned to the poor victim of Mor- 
 mon madness and the scoundrelly hypocrisy 
 of Smith, and the leaders. He exclaimed, 
 " What a mistake I have made! " He said 
 to a Mormon standing by, "This is a lesson. 
 I have learned by experience; you can 
 profit by it. With me it is " too late," and 
 died, a victim to Mormon folly and fraud. 
 An attempt was made to raise a child. 
 It was generally believed that they drugged 
 the child, intending it to recover from the 
 drug, and gave it a dose that killed it. Old 
 citizens can narrate scores of cases of delu- 
 sion and fraud in pretended miracles. 
 Smith and Rigdon once tried to heal Mr. 
 Wakefield of Willoughby, before a crowded 
 house in the temple, and announced that 
 he had been healed of lameness ; but he 
 was as much a cripple in five minutes as he 
 ever had been, and died one. Smith tried to 
 heal a decrepit hand of Elder Murdoch, and 
 failed. The failures compelled him to give up 
 that fraud. Smith announced at a conference 
 that some would see the Savior. He laid 
 hands on Elder Wight, mesmerizing him, 
 and Wight arose with a pale countenance, 
 fierce looks, and arms extended, shaking 
 form, leapt on a bench, and shrieked that 
 he saw Jesus. He laid hands on another, 
 who shuffled over the floor, his legs bent, 
 one shoulder elevated with his head resting 
 on it, his arms extended, hands clenched, 
 mouth pinched up like an "o," and his 
 countenance wild and ferocious. Smith 
 shouted, "Speak Bro. Harvy," but he could 
 not. Smith first said that it was the Spirit 
 of the Lord, but when persons cried out 
 that he was possessed of the devil, he 
 changed his mind and said it was the devil ; 
 and cast him out by removing the mes- 
 meric spell. Scores of such scenes can be 
 narrated by the old citizens of Kirtland. 
 Ridiculous attempts to confer spiritual 
 gifts, scenes of folly, frenzy and madness. 
 Imposture on the part of leaders, madness, 
 folly, and insanity on the part of the dupes. 
 Iligdon's conversion was effected by this 
 Bublime vision. After much prayer he was 
 wrapped in a vision, and to use his own 
 words: "To my astonishment I saw the 
 different orders of professing Christians 
 passing before me with their hearts exposed 
 to view, and they were as corrupt as cor- 
 ruption itself. 'The society to which I 
 belonged passed before me, and to my 
 astonishment it was as corrupt as the rest. 
 Last of all the little man (Cowdery). who 
 brought me the Book of Mormon, passed 
 
 before my eyes, with his heart open, and it 
 was as pure as an angel." This was a tes- 
 timony from God that the Book of Mormon 
 was a divine revelation. This was Rigdon's 
 lie, on which he based his pretendd con- 
 version to Mormonism. He went to New 
 York to see Smith, and arrange for the 
 carrying out of the scheme that he had 
 been concocting for years. Cowdery and 
 Harris and Whitmer stayed and held rue, t- 
 ings. Scenes of the most wild, frantic and 
 disgusting fanaticism ensued. They pre- 
 tended that the power to work miracles, 
 was about to be given to all who embraced 
 the new faith, and commenced communi- 
 cating the spirit by laying their hands on 
 the heads of the converts, which produced 
 an instantaneous prostration of body and 
 mind. Many fell on the floor, and would 
 lie for a long time apparently lifeless. 
 Women would fall on the floor, especially 
 young women, and utterly rega/nlees of 
 exposure of person. The sexes hiy around 
 promiscuously, and were laid to one side 
 promiscuously. The fit cajne on duri ig 
 prayer meetings, which were held nearly 
 every evening for weeks, xoung men and 
 women were pt-< iliarly subject to this 
 delirium. They would exhibit all apish 
 actions imaginable, making the most ridi- 
 culous grimaces, creeping on their hands 
 and feet on the frozen ground. A spectator 
 now present, declares he never saw any- 
 thing like it, except in the insane ward of 
 a poorhouse. Preaching to the Indians, 
 the Lamanites, converting the Lamanites 
 was the hobby of Mormonism at first. 
 Their converts would go through with all 
 modes of Indian warfare, knocking down, 
 scalping, ripping open, tearing out the 
 bowels, etc. At other times they would 
 run through the fields, get on stumps, and 
 preach to imaginary audiences, rush into 
 the water |and go through the pantomine 
 of immersion, etc. Many would have fits 
 of speaking in all Indian dialects. Again, 
 they would in the dead hour of night, >-un 
 over the hills and fields in pursuit of balls 
 of fire, light, etc. The Holy Spirit they 
 declared. Others would put the devil to 
 flight and chase him. One of the audience 
 saw three men, one a negro called black 
 Pete, each mounted on a stump on the hill, 
 north east of the post office, all (.reaching. 
 A waggish young man made a singular 
 noise, all jumped from their pulpit, and 
 dashed down the hill. Black Pete shout- 
 ing: "Here we go," and when he 
 slipped up, "O God, here we go." Cowdery 
 departed to convert the Lamanites, with 
 his Book of Mormon and miracles. The 
 young men in Kirtland all had a mania for 
 preaching to th* nations. They would 
 jump into the air as high as they could, 
 and pretend their commissions to preach 
 were handed down to them out of heaven. 
 These commissions were on parchment, 
 signed and sealed by Christ himself. 
 With such papers in their pockets, they 
 ran over the country, ranting, and calling 
 it preaching. At one time, they pretended 
 that an angel walked out on the water, and 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 869 
 
 held a light for th^ra to baptize. The boys 
 examined the water, and found a plank 
 just below the surface. They moved it, 
 and the next night the angel got a ducking, 
 and the boys chased him through the 
 stumps in the neighboring field. Mr. Moss, 
 the teacher, was called one day from his 
 school to see a young man in the upper 
 story of his father's shoe shop. He was 
 scaring* away the devil, by pointing his 
 finger at him, and shouting "Zit." Mr. 
 Moss tossed a shoe near him, and he dashed 
 headlong down stairs, and chased the 
 devil through a neighboring field. We 
 could continue these disgusting statements 
 for pages, and we have living witnesses 
 here to sustain our statements. What won- 
 der that Mormonism after making Kirtland 
 a bedlam of fanaticism, left covered with 
 infidel wrecks persons who scouted all 
 religion, because Mormonism was a hum- 
 bug. 
 
 Living witnesses for this scene can be 
 produced. We quote from Dewitt Miller of 
 Willoughby. In a log school in the town 
 of Willoughby, near Kirtland, Smith, after 
 a sermon explanatory of the nature of the 
 possession \>y devils the divine nature of 
 the power he should use in casting them 
 out, and the process of casting out devils, 
 proceeded to attempt to cast devils out of a 
 man named Ichabod Grand all, who lay on 
 his belly on the floor, groaning fearfully, 
 surrounded by a circle of Mormons on their 
 knees. Smith said he would give three 
 orders. First mild, second authorative, and 
 the third, such an order as would fetch the 
 devils sure pop. Smith in a loud gruff voice 
 issued his order. At the third order the 
 devil came out, not out of Crandall, but out 
 of a bag held by a man in the corner, near 
 the old stove, in the shape of a big black 
 cat. The cat tore around the house sqnall- 
 irig, the dogs took after it barking, the boys 
 yelling. The cat was chased up a tree. The 
 tree was cut down, the cat killed, and 
 Smith's devil was disposed of. The ridic- 
 ulous frauds practiced in attempting to 
 work miracles in and around Kirtland are 
 notorious. No wonder my opponent was 
 so shy of Kirtland miracles. He feared 
 that the attempt to walk on the water, and 
 the failure caused by the planks being 
 moved, would be brought out. What won- 
 der that Mormonism left Kirtland a wreck 
 religiously, and that the very name of Mor- 
 monism is a stench in North-Eastern Ohio, 
 and that Mormonism made Kirtland a 
 stench in the nostrils of all decency, and 
 sense. The cases of preaching from stumps, 
 chasing the devil, of the child, of Dota, of 
 Mr. Wakefield, of Murdoch, and scores of 
 other frauds and failures are too notorious 
 to be denied. 
 
 One of the idiotic torn fooleries of Kirtland 
 was speaking in different tongues. This 
 idiotic farce is still kept up by the Re-organ- 
 ized. It was practiced in the convention 
 last Spring. Mr. Higbee, once a Mormon 
 Elder, tells how David Patton, a Mormon 
 emissary, commanded him to arise and 
 peak in tongues. He faltered. "Speak as 
 
 you list," ordered Patton. He then gab- 
 bled words that Patton called a tongue. 
 Others gabbled in the same manner. Rey- 
 nolds Gaboon gave them this rule: "Make 
 some sound, continue to make sounds, the 
 Lord will make a language of it." Persons 
 would frequently sing in this gibberish in 
 a drawl or whine, they called a tune. They 
 said these songs would be sung when the 
 lost tribes appeared in Missouri. One of 
 the women who spoke in the convention in 
 Kirtland last Spring, drawled out, "Ah- 
 Pish-Kft-Ta," "Ah-Pish-Ke-Ta," those four 
 syllables over and over. That is the work 
 of the Spirit of God. Another eye witness 
 tells of this scene. A number of Elders and 
 Priests assembled in a room in Kirtland. 
 Smith exhorted them to exercise faith, and 
 some would see the Lord in person. He 
 declared the time was coming when no one 
 would be allowed to preach unless they 
 had seen the Lord. About as sensible as 
 my opponent's claim that all Mormon 
 preachers are called as Aaron was called, 
 and that they have miraculous power. 
 Soon he said to Rigdon, "Sydney, you have 
 seen the Lord." Sydney mounted Ahas- 
 uerus's horse and shouted, "I saw the 
 image of a man pass before my face, whose 
 locks were white and whose countenance 
 was exceeding fair, even surpassing all 
 beauty I ever beheld." Hiram Smith de- 
 clared that he had seen what Sydney had 
 seen. R. Copeland declared that he had 
 seen the temple of Zion filled with Saints, 
 the top covered with the glory of the Lord, 
 in the form of a cloud. Smith went around 
 the room laying his hands on the head of 
 each one, gabbling, "Ah man. Oh Son. 
 Ah man. Ah ne. commune, en halle goste, 
 en ha ben, en glai, hosanna, en holle goste, 
 en esac, melkin, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nephi, 
 Lehi, St. John." After the supper several 
 gabbled in tongues, and one sung a gibber- 
 ish to the tune of Bruce's address. Who 
 doubts that the Holy Spirit was given to 
 gabble such stuff, and that Mormon idiocy 
 is the "Fullness of the Gospel." A mis- 
 chievous youth, now a man of advanced 
 years, William, present in the audience, 
 used to speak in tongues in Mormon 
 meetings, as a practical joke on the breth- 
 ren. It was announced that he excelled 
 all others. The most wonderful display 
 of tongues in the Mormon dispensation 
 was the gibberish of this young man. Rig- 
 don declared that he spakein three tongues, 
 and interpreted his waggish gibberish in 
 strains of spread eagle, in which Ahasuerus' 
 horse cleft the clouds like Pegasus. Think 
 of a waggish Corinthian youth uttering 
 gibberish as a practical joke, and the in- 
 spired Paul announcing that he spake in 
 three tongues, and interpreted in a rhap- 
 sody of hi^h-fallutin. The Saints used to 
 have love feasts, in which wine was passed 
 around in buckets, each one helping him- 
 self to all he wanted, with gourd or dipper. 
 The old blesser, old Joe Smith, often got so 
 blessed drunk that he could not get out of 
 his chair. In an endowment meeting held 
 in the temple in 1836, wine was drank so 
 
870 
 
 TILE BE ADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 freely that several of the church official** 
 got beastly drunk. S. H. Smith, brother of 
 the prophet, staggered into the pulpit and 
 gave a revelation, Mormons claimed it was 
 a wonderful miracle that a man so drunk 
 could utter such a revelation ! ! Smith soon 
 got sick and spewed into a spittoon, and \V. 
 E. McLellan emptied it several times out of 
 the window. It was on this occasion that 
 one of the brethren, lying flat on his back 
 BO full of the spirit (of drunkenness) that he 
 could not sit up, hiccoughed out: "Now is 
 the time to see visions." Yea, verily it was. 
 He spake as spirits gave him utterance, but 
 not as the Spirit of God, who declares that 
 no drunkard shall inherit the Kingdom of 
 God. But for the sake of our common hu- 
 manity we forbear. Such was the character 
 of Mormonism under Joe Smith in Kirtland. 
 What wonder that decent people dread a 
 renewal of it as they would a pestilence of 
 pollution. What wonder that Kirtland has 
 been a wreck religiously. That it is full of 
 men and women who are at sea, believing 
 nothing, doubting all things. It is said 
 scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar 
 under his hide. In like manner scratch an 
 infidel in Kirtland, and you will find a 
 soured Mormon under his hide, or the 
 soured son of a Mormon. Judging from the 
 defense of Mormonism made in this debate, 
 and the applause of infitlels given to the in- 
 fidel attacks made on the Bible, Infidelity 
 and Mormonism are the same. 
 
 We propose now to cap the climax of Mor- 
 mon lying which reaches the sublime in its 
 colossal magnitude, with an extract of Joe 
 Smith's autobiography, telling what hap- 
 pened in Kirtland at the dedication of the 
 Temple. "Brother G. A. Smith arose and 
 began to prophesy, when a noise was heard 
 like a mighty rushing wind, which filled 
 the temple and all the congregation arose 
 simultaneously, being moved upon by an 
 irresistible power. Many began to speak in 
 tongues and to prophecy. Others saw glori- 
 ous visions, (as they had two barrel* of whis- 
 key with the heads knocked out, perhaps 
 some were in the condition of theSaint who 
 said, "Now is the time to see visions.") And 
 J beheld the Temple was filled with angels 
 which face I declared unto the congrega- 
 tion. The people of the neighborhood hear- 
 ing an unusual sound, and seeing a bright 
 light, like a pillar of fire, resting on the 
 Temple, were astonished at what was trans- 
 piring and came running together." There 
 is not a person who was at Kirtland that 
 day, or who was at the dedication, that 
 does not know that that statement is a 
 tissue of lies, made up out of whole cloth. 
 Yet we are asked to accept the colossal 
 liar that published to the world that mons- 
 trous lie concerning the dedication of the 
 Temple, as a prophet, and his lies as revela- 
 tions. The organization that was gotten up 
 by such a liar, and that publishes such lies, 
 that is based on and made up in all that is 
 peculiar to itself of such lies, is the true 
 church of (i!od and accepted of him. 
 
 My opponent argues in his last speech 
 that Moses was like Christ and as Christ 
 
 was a Melchezedek priest, Moses was one. 
 Unfortunately, the Bible says Moses was 
 like Christ as a prophet. "A prophet like 
 unto me." Not as a priest. It does not 
 say, A priest like unto me. He wants to 
 know to what priesthood my people belong. 
 We are Christian kings, not Melchezedek 
 kings or Aaronic kings ; Christian priests, 
 not Melchezedek or Aaronic priests, royal 
 priests unto God. He asserts thajt Christ 
 was a priest on earth. The Scriptures 
 declare, "If he (Christ) were on earth he 
 would not be a priest." Christ was not a 
 priest on earth. He began his priestly 
 office when he entered the holy of holies, 
 heaven. I shall spend no time over eccle- 
 siastical history. I can establish every 
 papal mummery by it, as he does his mum- 
 meries. He undertakes to off-set my expo- 
 sure of Joe Smith by citing an instance 
 where a Disciple preacher stole. Wicked 
 men may steal the livery of heaven to serve 
 the devil in. We see that done frequently. 
 We can believe that. But when you ask 
 us to believe that God, who cannot look on. 
 sin with the least allowance, deliberately 
 chose a water witching, peeping, money 
 hunting, lying, drinking, stealing, swear- 
 ing scoundrel, and by miracle clothed him 
 with the livery of inspiration, to give a 
 revelation and dispensation of religion to 
 the world, that stood related to the dispen- 
 sation of his own Son as the fullness of the 
 gospel, you insult decency and reason. 
 
 My opponent takes up the testimony of 
 the men and women of Palmyra and Man- 
 chester, and criticizes it He impudenty 
 plays witness and pettifogger. He manu- 
 factures evidence to suit his wants. He 
 tells us that he talked with persons in 
 Manchester and Palmyra. We read on the 
 first proposition the affidavits of Danford 
 Booth, Orrin Reed, Amanda Reed and J. H. 
 Gilbert, that the statements he read were 
 deliberate falsehoods. There were pre- 
 tended answers to questions never asked. 
 In other cases the pretended answer was 
 exactly the reverse of what they said. We 
 have impeached Kelley the witness with his 
 fabricated testimony. It is merely the man- 
 ufactured yarns of Kelley the pettifogger 
 that he impudently wants to foist in as 
 evidence. Samantha Payne testifies she 
 was in the cave. Had he driven over to 
 Mr. Miner's, Mr. Miner could have led him 
 to the cave. His yarn about Mrs. Chase 
 having a peep-stone is a fabrication of old 
 Granny Smith. His attacks on the affida- 
 vits are ridiculous. Peter Ingersoll would 
 let Joe have money and move him if he 
 would give his father-in-law as security. 
 That is incredible, for Joe's father-in-law- 
 was over one hundred and twenty miles 
 away. True, and they were going right to 
 his house. Ingersoll tells what Alvin did. 
 Alvin had been dead two years when he 
 testified. Yes, but he was living when what 
 Ingersoll narrated happened. Is not my 
 opponent ashamed of such stuff". Dr. John 
 Stafford never told him that his own fath- 
 er's affidavit in rv>arl to the black weth<>ir 
 was false. I will furnish Dr. Stafford 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 371 
 
 affidavit that it is true. I will furnish the 
 statements of Abel Chase and Loren- 
 zo Saunders. I will not manufac- 
 ture evidence and tell what a dozen 
 witnesses told. me. Think of the infinite 
 impudence of'E. L. Kelley's attacking men 
 who have been judges of State Courts, Con- 
 gressmen, leading business men, the best 
 citizens of Palmyra and -Manchester, men 
 whose shoes he is not fit to clean. It is as 
 impudent as the conduct of himself and 
 brother. On Sunday morning two Danites 
 made a raid on several oM people in Man- 
 chester. They refused to give their names, 
 tell who or what they were, or their busi- 
 ness. They asked questions, sneered at 
 the answers, laughed over them, disputed 
 them, insulted the ones on whom they had 
 forced their impudent presence, and bull- 
 dozed generally ; and then went off and 
 manufactured a report, that the persons 
 interviewed declare under solemn oath to 
 be a tissue of deliberate falsehoods. Such 
 
 is the character-of the course of Kelley the 
 witness and Kelley the pettifogger for Mor- 
 monism. It is in keeping with his client's 
 character. 
 
 In regard to Jeffery's evidence, we have 
 this to say. Mormon history shows that Rig- 
 don lived in Nauvoo and not in Pittsburg in 
 1843, until late in the year. That he did lead 
 in Mormon business. That in Sept. 1844, 
 he was in Nauvoo, trying to take Smith's 
 place. That he told the apostles, September 
 14th, 1844, that if they did not place him in 
 Smith's place, he would tell the secrets of 
 Mormonism. They rejected him. In the 
 Mormon official organ appeared bitter de- 
 nunciations of Rigdon for exposing Mor- 
 monism. It was precisely at this time that 
 Jeffery declares he told him what he nar- 
 rates in his testimony. Every fact in Mor- 
 mon history in regard to the matter corrob- 
 orates Jeffery's statement. Kelley's state-! 
 ment in his attempt to set it to one side are 
 flat contradictious of Mormon publications. 
 
 MR. KELLEY'S CLOSING SPEECHI 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND 
 GENTLEMKN: I appear before you this 
 time to conclude my work of the debate. I 
 have been gratified throughout the discus- 
 sion with the courtesy manifested by you 
 during the various sessions and the interest 
 taken in the arguments, and I shall have 
 been amply repaid for the time I have given 
 to it, if the investigation leads you to a 
 more thorough and fuller acquaintance with 
 God's word and toa closer observance of his 
 law and the obligations we all owe to each 
 other. 
 
 After noticing one or two statements just 
 made, I shall at once proceed with my argu- 
 ment and 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Reference has been made to the article 
 which I read last evening and a personal 
 attack made against me, (it is so unreason- 
 able, however, that no injury can result 
 from it, if intended) because I used that 
 article as a forcible illustration that my 
 .positions have been correct all of the time 
 while his have been false and deceptive ; I 
 had in vain cited him to the fact that his 
 course would, if correct, destroy the divine 
 claim of Moses and the prophets ; of not 
 only these, but the religion of Jesus and 
 the apostles. Had cited the fact that the 
 Reformers would be necessarily rejected by 
 such a rule and that the great Wesley would 
 be dishonored by its application ; that the 
 ministers of his own denomination would 
 fall equally with others, but it seems my 
 
 opponent never appreciated the enormity 
 of his course until I had brought the matter 
 home to him. Now he says I am an infidel 
 because I read it. But did he not force the 
 reading because of his blindness to tamer 
 illustrations? 
 
 With regard to the evidence I read taken 
 at Palmyra it was not my own publication, 
 but another party. So much for his com- 
 ment about my being a witness for myself. 
 But Dr. Thomas Stafford will not say what 
 Braden has said he would, nor has he ever 
 to my khowledge even hinted that he was 
 not correctly reported. 
 
 The ridiculous tale he tells about Joseph 
 Smith's speaking in tongues, which betook 
 out of Howe's book or from some one else 
 who got it there, is beneath the considera- 
 tion of any sensible man. Joseph Smith did 
 not profess even to have the gift of tongues. 
 That was not a part of the conferred favors 
 upon him. He was a prophet. Can't you 
 see the difference, Mr. Braden? 
 
 Again, wherever the Saints have been, 
 he says, they have left in their track, barren- 
 ness and desolation. Yes, as with the 
 Master of the house so with the household. 
 The Jews cast Jesus out of Jerusalem, an.4 
 ruin, desolation and death followed, and so 
 had he predicted. His children were cast 
 out of Kirtland and like results followed,' 
 and it had been also predicted that it would. 
 It was also afterwards told them that they 
 should find favor in the eyes of the people 
 if they kept the law of God, and right here 
 
372 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 In Kirtland I am now met .with suoh warm 
 friends (hat it has surprised my opponent, 
 and instead of carrying the people against 
 me, as he expected, as of old, he has turned 
 against this intelligent audience calling 
 them "Kelley 's clackers," etc. Nauvoo has 
 been referred to. Yes, the Saints were 
 driven from Nauvoo, and desolation fol- 
 lowed for the city. Is the lesson in our 
 favor or against us? Let every candid man 
 and woman answer for him or herself. But I 
 must not refer to the fact that Jerusalem in 
 its desolation is a mark of the habitation 
 of the favored of Cod under the prophets, 
 or my opponent will think I am attacking 
 the Bible. 
 
 Again, during the last night on the first 
 question, when he knew I had not the time 
 to reply to him, he dodged in and foamed 
 considerably, charging polygamy upon 
 Joseph Smith, the Seer, in the hope that he 
 might help his weak efforts in the minds 
 of those who could be easily prejudiced. 
 And sure enough one or two bit at it. What 
 a pile of evidence he brought forward. In 
 vain I had showed him that if Mr. Smith 
 did do something bad it would not hurtour 
 faith any more than the act of Peter when 
 "he cursed and swore," or that of Paul 
 and Barnabas when they fell out and would 
 not even travel the same road, injured the 
 pure principles of the gospel then. That 
 our faith was not in men but in Christ and 
 his doctrine. But no, he could never see 
 the argument ; but takes the stand and said 
 I compared Smith with Caiaphas aud. some 
 of the old Hebrew idolaters. I had never 
 used one of the names he mentioned, how- 
 ever ; I had compared with Moses the type 
 of Christ, with Abraham the father of the 
 faithful, with David the inspired Psalmist, 
 and Solomon the wise king, and many of 
 the early Christians. Then he puts on a 
 solemn look again and says I attack the 
 Bible. If I undertake to stand by it and 
 compare our faith with it in this contro- 
 versy, I attack it in his estimation ; yet it 
 is the agreed standard in this debate, and 
 have I not the right to compare witn the 
 standard? And when I compare and say 
 that my people by his own stories are as 
 good as those held out by the standard that 
 we accepted, he hollows out, "foul," "it's 
 not fair." The point is, if the argument 
 he uses to destroy the Book of Mormon will 
 also destroy the Bible if applied to that 
 book the argument is bad; not the Bible 
 bad, but the argument. Can you now see 
 the point? 
 
 Was Joseph Smith a polygamist? He 
 said he was. Where is his proof? He 
 cites the case of Mrs. Foster, an old trumped 
 up affair got up by a gang who tried to 
 blackmail JosepL Smith. Why did you not 
 read the full statement? It would have ex- 
 posed your scheme. I will read it from a 
 work published against our people. Smuck- 
 er's history of the Mormons, page 174: 
 
 "It is utterly Incredible that Joseph Smith, who, 
 rreat impostor that he was, never missed an opportun- 
 ity to denounce seducers and adulterers as unfit to en- 
 ter into his church, should have bren concerned di- 
 rectly or indirectly in proceedings like these, though 
 
 it is scarcely surprising: thflt when snoh stories hnvt 
 been circulated by men whom the "Prophet" had thwarted or 
 reprimanded, there should have been found some per- 
 sons willing to credit them." 
 
 These are the suggestions of Mr. Smucker 
 after sketching through the purported 
 tales connected with Martha Brotherton, 
 Mrs. Foster, et al. The so-called affidavits 
 referred to in this same Mrs. Foster affair, 
 after being brought before a court, having 
 no sympathies with Joseph Smith, were 
 after an examination, promptly dismissed 
 by the judge as being unworthy of notice, 
 and being "evidently gotten up to deceive 
 the people and slander Smith." 
 Mr. Smucker says again, page 379 : 
 "As the Mormon authorities positively deny that 
 Joseph Smith was guilty of the charge often alleged in 
 jnstiflcating his murder, it is a motive of caution in the 
 receipt of evidence, We must remember, too, that 
 Smith universally, in all his letters, revelations and 
 speeches denounced adultery and fornication. Subject 
 as all founders of religious systems are to calumny, we 
 cannot resist the doubt that there may have been misrep- 
 res ntation and exaggeration, both as to the character of 
 Joseph Smith and the cause of his untimely end. At any 
 rate, and under any circumstances, it is impossible to 
 justify the acts of his enemies, either in the persecu- 
 tion of his followers, or in the circumstances of his 
 death. The fanaticism that destroyed him is to be con- 
 demned quite as strongly as his own." 
 
 This is the open criticism of a man who 
 has carefully gone through all the published 
 stories with reference to these charges by 
 the Bennett's, Law's, Parishes', and in 
 Ford's History of Illinois, etc. And if an 
 able critic and enemy of Mr. Smith and his 
 religion, after an examination of these 
 things stands in doubt and feels that to 
 condemn would be unjustifiable, who shall 
 say it is in the least assumptious or fanati- 
 cal for his friends lo maintain that he was 
 innocent? Who will not say that we shall 
 not have even done our duty as men^ set- 
 ting aside the fact of being brethren, if we 
 shall fail to demand the proof and sift it 
 thoroughly, ere accepting this charge as true 
 against one of our fellow men, who cannot 
 be heard in his own behalf? 
 
 But Braden drinks in all these lying 
 statements and refuses to' accept of the 
 reasonable side. No; Smith was a polyg- 
 amist, he says ; but not one of the Smith 
 family ever went to Utah or into Polygamy. 
 His father died a monogamist at Nauvoo; 
 his brothers Don Carlos, Samuel Harrison 
 and Hyrum, died monogamists in Nauvoo ; 
 his only remaining brother, William B., 
 lives in Iowa where he has resided for years ; 
 his sisters all remained in the state of 111., 
 after his death, and the only survivor is 
 Mrs. Salisbuiy, a lady of the highest char- 
 acter, having an intelligent family, and her 
 husband one of the first men in Hancock 
 County, 111. His only children, Joseph, 
 Alexander H. and David H. are all mon- 
 ogamists; twoof them for the last eighteen 
 yeas being actively engaged in the min- 
 istry, and only two days ago the oldest, and 
 the one now President of the Church, was 
 called to Washington, Iowa, to address the 
 State Temperance Society, of which he is 
 the Vice-President. Joseph Smith's only 
 wife, Emma (Hale) Smith, refused to go to- 
 Utah, or with any faction of the church, 
 and as a true heroine, raised her children 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 373 
 
 in Nanvoo, 111., and has ever maintained 
 that her husband has been Jied about; 
 that he never had any wife but herself; 
 and that he was never married in any way 
 to any other woman than herself; and 
 that it is not true as hawked about by his 
 enemies, that she ever burned a revelation 
 of her husbands, or any paper purporting 
 to be such ; that, at her husband's death no 
 one mourned as his wife or widow but her; no 
 claim has ever been made by any woman to 
 her face that she was also a wife ; no claim 
 was ever made for any children but her 
 own, that they were his children ; and 
 that of a truth her husband has been mal- 
 igned by those who had in view a sinister 
 motive "to advance, by so misrepresenting 
 him. 
 
 Taking up the writings of Mr. Smith, 
 there is not a leaf, scrap, line or senti- 
 ment of his own writing, in the world 
 that in the least favors polygamy. On the 
 contrary, every sentiment referring to the 
 marriage relation, in the Book of Mormon, 
 Book of Doctrine and Covenents and the 
 Inspired Translation of the Bfble, the 
 works emanating from his own hands, 
 teaches monogamy. And in all his letters, 
 notices, press articles and publications, 
 sanctioned by him, monogamy is injoined 
 wherever marriage is referred to in such a 
 sense as to call forth an expression of his 
 views. 
 
 Mrs. C. V. Wait, in her history of Brig- 
 ham Young and his Harem, page 195, 
 says : "Lucy Decker, married to Brigham 
 Young, was the first wife in plurality, and 
 the first child in polygamy was Brigham 
 Heber, born to Brigham Young in 1847." 
 This marriage took place about two years 
 after Joseph Smith's death. But he says, 
 " there are women in Utah who claim to 
 have been married to Joseph Smith." But 
 how, and when? When he was living? 
 No; you cannot point to a woman who 
 made the claim while he was living. Years 
 after hs was dead you could find them 
 tnough. How were they married to him? 
 I will read the work of John Hyde, a Utah 
 Elder at one time, and who left them and 
 made an expose of their religion. He united 
 with that church in 1848, four years after 
 Smith's death. His book is the one where 
 Braden has sought for testimony. He says, 
 as to polygamy, page 87: 
 
 " Not only is It deemed proper to take the widowi of 
 gome good brother, but also to take fresh wives for 
 
 \ourdcad brother. There was a lady named P , 
 
 in Salt Lake, in 1854. who had heard of and loved Smith, 
 lie I ad been dead for ten years ; but that is nothing to 
 the wings of Mormon fai'h. She was desirous to be 
 sealed to him, although, 1 believe, she had a husband 
 still living in the Stales Brigham contented to act as 
 proxy or agent for Joseph Smith, and accordingly the in. 
 
 ten-sling ceremony wits performed. Mrs. P , good 
 
 soul, gave up all her property to the church, faithfully 
 be'icvint: Kho had joined the mim rors army of the 
 Smiths in general, under the special banner of the 
 Piophet Joseph." 
 
 This is sufficient without comment. 
 There can be little doubt in the mind of the 
 close thinker, that after the death of Josep^ 
 Smith, there was a studied effort made oi' 
 the part of Young, Kim ball and a few 
 
 others to connect the Prophet with polyg- 
 amy, if possible, in order to weigh in their 
 own behalf, in carrying out their schemes ; 
 and this scheme of marrying women to the 
 dead, was gotten up by them in order to 
 more perfectly carry forward the design. 
 
 After this piece of silly nonsense, of 
 marrying a woman to Brigham, (but osten- 
 sibly to the dead, who could utter no pro- 
 test,) had taken place, then Brigham would 
 tell them they were wives of Joseph Smith, 
 and they would so claim to the " brethren," 
 and so, the perversion of history was well- 
 nigh made complete, by this cunning. 
 Thus many good honest men and women 
 were deceived, and led to believe Joseph 
 Smith had more wives than one, because 
 they had not the courage, after passing 
 through Brigham Young's Endowment 
 House, to look these hypocrites in the face, 
 and ask them: When were you married 
 to him? Who officiated? Did you live in 
 his house or some dark corner? Where 
 are your children you had by Joseph 
 Smith? You seem to have plenty by Brig- 
 ham Young? Were you classed with the 
 mourning widow and children at Nauvoo, 
 at the time of his death? If not, why not? 
 Where is your marriage certificate? Why 
 did you not think it was necessary to have 
 one? 
 
 My friends, the stories of these people 
 are too absurd for honest men. No promi- 
 nent man's reputation is safe, if we accept 
 such as evidence. 
 
 But, he says he will prove it from our 
 own paper, the tiaints' Herald. Now, is it 
 not singular, that this evidence should be 
 in our paper, and we not know it? If as a 
 people, we claim all the time that Joseph 
 Smith was not in polygamy, or if he was, 
 we have never had evidence of it, are we 
 to be termed fantical upon this, when the 
 strongest evidence he says he can find, is in 
 our own church paper? It ought to strike 
 any sensible man that if such a thing as he 
 terms evidence, is in our church paper, and 
 at the same time as a people, we do not 
 believe the charge of polygamy, made 
 against Joseph Smith to be true, that we 
 must have some good reason for it. He 
 would hardly charge the body with either 
 ignorance, or a lack of sufficient courage to 
 admit that Mr. Smith was guilty, if we 
 had the proofs. Whether guilty or not, 
 does not injure our faith ; we say the charge 
 is false because we are convinced of it. 
 And my opponent after his unsuccessful 
 effort to destroy my faith with his own 
 choice of weapons, from whatever source 
 he could gather them, will hardly be able 
 to effectively turn my own against me. 
 Such a thing as attempting it, to say the 
 least, smacks highly of egotism, and is 
 utterly ridiculous. 
 
 I read in full what is said upon this ques- 
 tion in our paper at Wilber, and Mr. lira- 
 den knows it don't prove what he asserts, 
 if he can understand the English language 
 at all, in a matter wherein his prejudices 
 govern. 
 
 I will read what he claims as proving 
 
871 
 
 THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 that Joseph Smith was in polygamy and 
 received the purported polygamous Revela- 
 ation in Elder Mark's letter. Vol. I, page 
 26, Saints' Herald. 
 
 ' He said, it [polygamy] 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 
 vursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion 
 made to put it down. He said 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 1 must sever them 
 from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction, 
 There was much more said, but this was the sub- 
 stance." 
 
 This is Braden's strong hold, and my 
 friends be candid and examine it, and show 
 no favor to Joseph Smith in doing it, and 
 what have you? 
 
 1. That somebody was doing something 
 In the church not right Going into polyg- 
 amy. 
 
 2. "That it must be speedily put down." 
 Well, does that sound as though he wa 
 going to dilly-dally about the matter? 
 
 8. "That it was a cursed doctrine." 
 Does that sound as though he had received 
 a revelation endorsing it? He would have 
 struck at the revelation instead of the 
 doctrine. He referred to it as being the 
 doctrine practiced by David and Solomon. 
 And learned fifteen years before in the 
 Book of Mormon, page 116, that it was a 
 cursed doctrine. 
 
 4. " That he would go before the congre- 
 gation and proclaim against it. 1 ' Does that 
 sound like it was his revelation then, or 
 that he was guilty? 
 
 5: "That (Marks) must go into the High 
 Council, and he (Smith) would prefer 
 charges against those in transgression, 
 and (Marks) must sever them from the 
 church." 
 
 Does this sound like a man that was 
 guilty himself with the others? He to 
 prefer charges and have all the transgres- 
 sors cut off from the church. And yet, 
 Braden would have you believe that this 
 statement of Marks which he accepts as 
 correct (because it would bean insult to you 
 for him to introduce evidence on his side 
 which he did not accept as true) proves 
 Joseph Smith was into polygamy and re- 
 ceived a revelation endorsing it. Don't 
 anybody know that if Smith had received 
 a revelation endorsing polygamy, that they 
 could not have cut a man off from the 
 church for accepting it, until the church 
 had condemned the revelation ? 
 
 The very procedure directed by Joseph 
 Smith in this case destroys every presump- 
 tion of there being such a revelation in 
 existence at that time. This was, says 
 Elder Marks in the saiue letter, "but a few 
 days before his death." This seals the 
 matter then. I have traced Joseph Smith 
 with reference to this question from his 
 boyhood to within a few days of his death 
 with evidence that no man can deny, and 
 every word and act has been against poly- 
 gamy. Shall I go back on all this now and 
 ao-ept the undefined statement of Brigham 
 1 oung made eight years after this that he 
 
 "had a copy of the revelation?" Never. I 
 should thus wrong justice and the dead, and 
 so would any other man. 
 
 But he says Elder Sheen gave his testi- 
 mony. Does that prove it? I will read it, 
 page 27 : 
 
 "The Salt Lake apostles also excuse themselves by 
 saying Joseph Smith taught the spiritu 1 wife doctrine; 
 but this excuse is as weak as their excuse concerning 
 the ancient kings and patriarchs. Joseph Smith re- 
 pented of his connection with this doctrine and said 
 that it was of the devil. He caused the revelations on 
 that subject to be burned and when he voluntarily 
 came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms o'f 
 his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage 
 to die." 
 
 This is an argument of Sheen's ; he never 
 pretended to have had any knowledge of 
 his own. He was arguing from the accep- 
 ted statement of the Brighamites. Emma 
 Smith had been charged by them with burn- 
 ing the revelation on polygamy, and that 
 Joseph gave it to her to burn; and Elder 
 Sheen here argues from the premises that 
 if Joseph did this, he must have repented 
 of polygamy. Then he bases his argument 
 that it was a "cursed doctrine," upon the 
 statement made by Elder Marks in the let- 
 ter to which I have already referred. There 
 is absolutely no more evidence in this than 
 in the remarks of the lawyer after the wit- 
 nesses have given in their evidence. The 
 letter of Elder Marks was one thing he 
 based his argument upon, and the state- 
 ment of Brighana Young, "that Joseph gave 
 the revelation to Emma to burn and she 
 bnrned it," was the other. You and I can 
 argue and draw our conclusions upon the 
 statements as well and as truly as could 
 Elder Sheen. 
 
 But hold a moment. Elder Sheen had not 
 got all of the statements or evidence to this 
 time ; when that came there was another 
 tale altogether. 
 
 Mrs. Emma Smith is the next witness. 
 She says: "I never burned any revelation 
 of my husband's nor anything claiming to 
 be such. I would not have thought of doing 
 such a thing." Here it is. It has come 
 down to this, as to whether we will 
 believe Brigham Young on this point of the 
 revelation or the Elect Lady. For my part 
 I believe the lady. Braden prefers to be- 
 lieve Brigham. 
 
 Take with this the published statement 
 of Brigham Young in the Tabernacle in 
 Utah in 1856, that there was no child of 
 Joseph Smith's in Utah Territory (where 
 the only persons were who claimed to be his 
 wives) and you have polygamy knocked in 
 the head as to him, and the purported re- 
 velation is as the church has ever claimed, a 
 fraud and a forgery. Brigham Young him- 
 self said, on August 7Mi, 1852, reported in 
 his sermon in his own Journal of Discourses, 
 that no man in existence knew that he had 
 such a copy of a revelation till that day. 
 Yet Braden will ignore the plain clear line 
 of facts relating to Joseph Smith's views, 
 and drink in the lies of John C. Bennett, . 
 William Law, Joseph Foster, et al, who 
 got mad at Smith and tried to destroy his 
 character because "Smith in a publio 
 meeting exposed Bennett for kissing a Mrs. 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 375 
 
 Pratt over a picket fence." This picket 
 fence business Smith determined to break 
 up, and this is the reason that the nest of 
 these licentiates rebelled, and began a fu- 
 rious assault upon Joseph Smith. The 
 charge of his swearing in the Council at 
 at Nauvoo is a most infamous lie from this 
 same gang. But I will not take up further 
 time replying to such a charge. Every 
 sane man knows that Smith could never 
 have acted in this way, and retained the 
 confidence of his followers as he did all 
 through. This is the family, then, that 
 Braden has been so unjustifiably and ma- 
 liciously slandering and berating, even 
 speaking disrespectful of the girls of the 
 family. As foul a slander as was ever made 
 against any person. He has continually 
 misrepresented Mrs. Smith's history, and 
 now turned to vilifying the old lady herself, 
 just for the purpose of carrying out his 
 boast before he came here of making war 
 upon the Latter Day Saint's cause. " War 
 to the knife and the knife to the hilt." He has 
 avowed war, yet signed an agreement to 
 discuss for the purpose of eliciting truth, 
 and of having an honorable discussion. 
 Anything is honorable in "war to the knife 
 and the knife to the hilt," so he has 
 worked. Since he has boldly proclaimed 
 war against this church, I give him now 
 to understand that when he wants to 
 renew the attack my address is Kirdand, 
 Ohio. (Applause). 
 
 My opponent still claims that there were 
 only two Melehizedek priestf, that of Mel- 
 chizedek and Christ. But Christ was made 
 a priest, Paul says, " after theorrferof Mel- 
 chizedek." What kind of a line or order 
 would it be with only two priests in it? 
 
 I have already exposed the idea that 
 because Christ was a priest continually that 
 therefore he was the last. Melchizedek 
 before him as positively shown, is a priest 
 continually, and he is not the last. You 
 just as well take the ground that Jesus was 
 the last apostle, and that Peter, James and 
 John and all others were frauds because 
 he abides an apostle continually. 
 
 He is also "consecrated for evermore," to 
 be a priest; but does that do away with the 
 necessity of the priest's office being filled 
 again here on earth in the church. 
 
 John the Apostle was a priest, as well as 
 an apostle, so laid down by Polycrates. He 
 says: "John, that rested on the bosom of 
 our Lord, who was a priest that bore the 
 sacerdotal plate." Moses and Elijah and 
 Job and Isaiah and Jethro were priests. 
 Not of the Aaronic order, either, and must 
 have been of the higher priesthood. The 
 other is called the "lesser;" it would not 
 be the " lesser" if there were more than 
 two, nor spoken of in that way. Not least, 
 but lesser, signifying but two orders. 
 
 Upon this subject of priesthood, Smith, 
 in his Bible Dictionary, under the name 
 friext, says: "That the New Testament 
 writers recognize in Christ, the First-born, 
 the King, the Anointed, the Representa- 
 tive of the true primeval priesthood after 
 the order of Melchizedek, from which that 
 
 of Aaron, however necessary for the ti 
 is now seen to have been a deflection." 
 There having been a change under the law 
 there was a change in the priesthood ; buG 
 the change of the priesthood was not to 
 abolish any more than it was abolished 
 as long as Moses and Joshua held another 
 office than in the Aaronic line, at the same 
 time that the Aaronic was in force. And 
 there may come a time when there will be 
 no use for the Aaronic order, since it is a 
 deflection, but not till man is able to live in 
 a more perfect state than now. But of the 
 other it is "without beginning of days or 
 end of years;" and hence, continues for- 
 ever, and they who are priests therein, 
 and overcome the evils of life, retaining 
 the priesthood, are priests forever, neces- 
 sarily. John the Baptist evidently was 
 an Aaronic priest. But I must pass rapidly 
 on. 
 
 It must be apparent to everyone who has 
 attended this discussion, that it has not 
 been the object of my opponent to evince 
 truth and advance the right, touching the 
 faith of the Latter Day Saints, but that he 
 has continually manifested a morbid desire 
 to scandalize, falsify and misrepresent, and 
 has exhibited all the characteristics of 
 personal spile and pique toward the Latter 
 Day Saints. Accepting and using any kind 
 of warfare, jnst so he fancied it would heep 
 opprobrium upon the objects of his hate. 
 His desperate threat made before his arrival 
 in Kirtland, that he had declared eternal 
 war on the Latter Day Saint's cause ; "war 
 to the knife, and knife to the hilt," is his 
 Christian-like language he has endeavored 
 to carry out to the utmost. Anything has 
 been fair means with him. He has done his 
 utmost, but has been foiled and defeated in 
 his mad and desperate purpose. He has 
 not brought facts and argument, but tales, 
 scandal and ridicule and lying and blasphe- 
 mous assertions. Objecting to honorable 
 and true methods of debate, like the bird 
 called the turkey-buzzard, he has skimmed 
 the country from east to west for dead car- 
 casses, rotten and putrifying flesh in the 
 shape of gossip, slander, stories and scan- 
 dal circulated by lying hypocrites, black 
 legs and the licentious, because they had 
 nothing better with which to meet the 
 truth, has filled his craw, and night after 
 night has come and puked it out to this 
 audience as argument. No lie has been too 
 great, or scandal too low and contemptible, 
 for him to keep back. Not satisfied with 
 scandalizing honorable and worthy men, 
 but innocent women and girls are assailed 
 by his vile and slanderous tongue; and 
 when done with the living, hyena-like he 
 has entered the graves of the dead and. 
 gratified his hate by attacking their decay- 
 ing bones. All who slander and lie about 
 the Latter Day Saints, &te> first citizens and. 
 Christians with this holy Clark. All others 
 are liars and thieves and not worth believ-. 
 ing. When reminded that vituperation 
 and lying slanders are not argument, and 
 that, a similar line of tirade against the 
 Bible will destroy the institutions of Moses 
 
376 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 and the prophets, he has always called out, 
 you are attacking the Bible. 
 
 On this account only, I have been led the 
 past few evenings to use arguments that 
 would cut, and handle his matter according 
 to its rottenness ; and throughout, I have 
 been more than ever in my life before, con- 
 firmed in the belief, that Jesus meant truly 
 what he said, when he was accused of all 
 that was evil and abominable, and mal- 
 treated and scourged : "If they do this in 
 the green tree what will they do in the 
 dry?" If they have so abused the Master 
 of the House, what will they not do to the 
 Household? 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, the question is : 
 Is the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ 
 of Latter Day Saints, in fact the church of 
 God and accepted with him? 
 
 I have shown you : First. By Eph. 3d, 
 that the family of God take the name of 
 Jesus Christ, "of whom the whole family 
 in heaven and earth is named." Also, 
 that the children are called Saints, and 
 ought to be so known ; that we live in the 
 last times, and hence are Latter Day Saints 
 not Former Day Saints. That the church 
 was organized in 1830, was rejected in 1844, 
 and its ministry and members scattered, 
 and Re-organized in the year 1852. Hence 
 the church to-day is properly incorporated 
 under the laws of the United States, as the 
 Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter Day Saints. 
 
 2. I have shown that in faith and doc- 
 trine it is identical with the church in the 
 first century, established by Jesus and the 
 apostles. 
 
 3. That in organization it is with the 
 church of Christ in the first century, having 
 Apostles, Prophets, Seventy, (Evangelists,) 
 Bishops, High Priests, Elders, Priests, 
 Teachers, Deacons and Assistants. 
 
 4. That, as in the early church, there is 
 order and arrangement so that the mem- 
 bers in the body are regularly guided and 
 directed in their work, and that the officers 
 taking precedence under the law are also 
 known as Presidents, Apostles, High 
 Priests, Bishops, Presidents of Quorums, 
 and Presiding Elders, Priests, Teachers and 
 Deacons. 
 
 5. That as in the church Jesus estab- 
 lished there is faith, repentance, the ordi- 
 nances of baptism in water for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and the laying on of hands for 
 confirmation and the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
 the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, 
 and eternal judgment, which judgment is 
 for the purpose of rewarding all men accord- 
 ing to the deeds done in the body, and in 
 accordance witht the degree of good and evil 
 they shall have done. 
 
 6. That in organization there is also pro- 
 vision for an associate Presidency of three, 
 as was that of James, Peter and John under 
 the constitution, the New Testament, after 
 Jesus had ascended to Heaven. That when 
 he was here in person there were thirteen 
 apostles, and he presided, and being the 
 Son of God, I conclude that he could do so 
 without associates, but that afterwards, 
 
 Peter, James and John held the pre-eminent 
 right, and hence the apostle Paul refers to 
 them as "Pillars" in the church. 
 
 7. That besides the twelve which Jesus 
 chose whije here, he afterwards through the 
 manifestations of the Holy Spirit, chose 
 others of which we have record, to-wit: 
 Matthias, Acts 1 : 15-20 ; Barnabas and Paul, 
 Acts 13: 1-6 and 14; Andronicus and Junia, 
 Rom. 16:7; James, the Lord's brother, Gal. 
 1:19; and Sylvanus and Timotheus, 1 
 Thess. 1 : 2-6. 
 
 These, including Jesus who was an 
 apostle, shows a succession in the church of 
 these officers to the number of twenty-one. 
 Besides these there were prophets and 
 prophetesses in the New Testament church 
 as Agabus and the four daughters of Philip. 
 
 8. That the church was adorned in this 
 manner when John saw it go into the wil- 
 derness with the crown of twelve stars and 
 the Gospel light of theSon of Righteousness, 
 and that the same beautiful adornment and 
 working organization is revealed in the 
 order presented by the church to-day, and 
 that it is clothed with the same Gospel of 
 peace the way of life and immortality. 
 
 9. That the church has not only been re- 
 instated in organization and Gospel light, 
 but that in fact the gifts, powers, blessings, 
 graces, promises and "faith once delivered 
 to the Saints" are restored again and may 
 be enjoyed by all who will live godly in 
 Christ Jesus and seek after them. 
 
 10. That inspiration and the gift or bap- 
 tism of the Holy Spirit was not confined 
 to the first century, but that the promise 
 was to all, "even as many as the Lord 
 should call." And that truly "a manifesta- 
 tion of the Spirit is given to every man [in 
 the church of Jesus Christ] to profit with 
 all," and that it is thus "a spiritual house," 
 "a habitation of God through the Spirit," 
 when acceptable with him. "He that hath 
 my commandments and keepeththem, he it 
 is that loveth me, and my Father will love 
 him and we will come unto him and make 
 our abode with him." "He that abideth in 
 the doctrine of Christ he hath both the 
 Father and the Son." 
 
 Has my opponent showed a single thing 
 wherein we differed from the doctrine of 
 Christ? 
 
 All of you n?ust say no. He has been all 
 the time telling stories on Smith, Rigdon. 
 Whitmer, et aL, and rakingaround in the 
 dust of the Spauldlng story. But that story 
 is done. I have traced that tale to its very 
 seat. I found the manuscript for him, 
 showed him it was placed in the hands of 
 one of his "first citizens," Hulburt; that it 
 was then put into the hands of another of 
 his "first citizens," Howe ; that then these 
 two "first citizens" had said it did not read 
 as they expected and they did not use it ; 
 that afterwards they tried to make out it 
 was not the one, in order to protect their 
 "statements" of certain parties ; that they 
 were foiled in this because the one they had 
 was the one on parchment which purported 
 on its face to have been "Foun din a Cave; 1 ' 
 that Howe and Hulburt promised to returv 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 377 
 
 this to Mrs. Spaulding which, had they 
 done, it would have forever prohibited 
 them from claiming it was not the right 
 one, and that they broke their promise and 
 destroyed it; but they kept their statements 
 from trumped up persons who were bent 
 on sinking the Book of Mormon and publish- 
 ed them. That satisfies me on the Spauld- 
 ing tale forever. 
 I have not only showed you all of this 
 
 and the identity in faith, practices, ordin- 
 ances, organization and work of the church, 
 but that we were in fact sowing the word of 
 life, the good seed of the kingdom of God 
 which Jesus promised should bring forth 
 fruit "some an hundred fold, some sixty and 
 som thirty." I thank you, ladies and 
 gei t'emen, for your every courtesy and 
 attention. (Applause). 
 
 / hereby certify thai I have corrected and prepared the foregoing speeches of myzelf 
 without access to, or consultation with, those of Mr. Braden xhire the debate. Have read 
 the proofs of the name fnrinxli'd by the publishers, and that they Uave been set forth as 
 delivered in the discussion of the respective propositions. 
 
 E. L. 
 
 MR. BRADEN'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 
 
 GENTLEMEN MODKPATOBS, LADIKS AND 
 GENTLEMEN : We will merely notice the 
 frantic effort of my opponent to set to one 
 side the evidence that Joe Smith was author 
 of the revelation on polygamy. The facts 
 are these: In the first number of the official 
 organ of the He-organized Mormon faction 
 there appeared I. A statement in the first 
 and leading editorial written by Zenos H. 
 Gurley that Joseph was the author of that 
 revelation and was slain for his conduct in 
 the matter. Gurley was one of the Re-or- 
 ganizers, was a leader, and is to-day. II. 
 A statement by Isaac Sheen, one of the Re- 
 organizers, and a leader, one of the editors, 
 that Smith said that he was the author of 
 it and said that it caused all of his trou- 
 bles, and would cost him his life. Kelley 
 says Sheen retracted it. I deny it. He can- 
 not furnish one scrap of proof. III. Another 
 statement by W. H. Marks, another Re-or- 
 ganizer and editor, that while Smith was 
 prophet and his influence was omnipotent 
 in the church, polygamy prevailed to such 
 an extent that Marks declared t ho only way 
 to purify the church was todis-organize it ; 
 that Smith became alarmed and come to 
 Marks, whom he had been denouncing as 
 an apostate for opposing polygamy, to get 
 him to help stay the tide of infamy, believ- 
 ing that public feeling would drive Mor- 
 mons and polygamy out of the country. 
 These declarations stood unchallenged fif- 
 teen years. Now Mormons are trying to lie 
 out of them. 
 
 In the discussion of this question we 
 tested Mormonism by its teachings in regard 
 to the eight great elements of Christianity 
 laid down by Paul. I. One God. II One 
 
 Lord. III. One Spirit. IV. One faith. V. 
 One baptism. VI. One hope. VII. One 
 body. VIII. One name. We read from 
 the works of the Pratts and others that 
 were published before Smith's death, ap- 
 proved by him, and that were standards of 
 the Mormons, and that expressed what were 
 their universal sentiments - from their 
 papers published before his death, from his 
 own declarations published in their papers 
 arid from publications universally accepted 
 by them, and from the Book of Mormon, 
 declarations that God has a body like man, 
 is a material organism with all of man's 
 organs, even of eating, drinking, digest- 
 ing, evacuating, and procreating, and that 
 he uses them. That he procreated spirits, 
 and that spirits are procreated in heaven, 
 before inhabiting bodies, procreated for 
 them by men and women on earth. That 
 matter is self-existent and eternal, and that 
 God is the creature of matter. That he is 
 not infinite in knowledge and power, and 
 not everywhere present, but has been in- 
 creasing his attributes since he came into 
 being from matter, and will ever increase. 
 That all Saints will increase and become 
 Gods. That they will equal Christ. We 
 exposed the mate'rialism, idolatry and dis- 
 gusting sensuality of the system in its 
 teaching in regard to God and heaven. My 
 opponent tried to deny it. At last he ap- 
 
 E3aled to the figurative language of the 
 ible, literalizing it in the most gross man- 
 ner, assuming that God has literal hands, 
 feet, eyes, mouth, ears; that man is like 
 him in his physical organization, and though 
 he stopped short of announcing it, he logi- 
 cally endorsed all of the gross sensualism 
 
878 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 of the Pratts and Joe Smith. The Bible 
 declares that there is nothing to which God 
 can be likened. He is infinite everywhere 
 present, infinite in power and wisdom, not 
 finite in time, space, form or attributes. 
 The Mormon God has all of man's organs, 
 and as Pratt has it, eats, drinks, digests, 
 evacuates, procreates, just like man ; is an 
 idol of matter, a creature of matter, and 
 very finite, as all Saints will equal him, 
 surpass what he is now. Mormon ism is a 
 disgusting compound of materialism, sen- 
 sualism and idolatry, and as unlike the 
 Sure spirituality of .the teachings of the 
 ible as the system of the Hindoo Jugger- 
 naut. 
 
 We next exposed the blasphemy of the 
 system in regard lo the origin of our Savior's 
 spiritual nature. We showed that it denied 
 that he is our sole divine prophet, by 
 placing above his teachings in the Bible, 
 the Book of Mormon, and Joe Smith's lying 
 frauds, as ''the fullness of the Gospel." 
 That it denied that he is our sole divine 
 King, by placing above his law in the Bible, 
 Joe Smith's lying frauds as "th fullness of 
 the law of God." 
 
 We next showed that it was unscriptural 
 and false in every teaching in regard to the 
 Holy Spirit. It assumed that the only in- 
 fluence of the Spirit is the direct and mirac- 
 ulous influence, in opposition to the Scrip- 
 tures and common sense. The Scriptures 
 teach there are four powers of the Spirit. 
 The miraculous inspiration and revelation 
 and the converting, the sanctifying and 
 the indwelling power, and through the 
 truth. My opponent has denied this clear 
 teaching of reason and revelation, and 
 confounded all power exerted by the 
 Spirit, and claimed that all is miracu- 
 lous power. He has mis-applied prom- 
 ises of the miraculous power. He has 
 applied what was promised to the apostles, 
 miraculous power to qualify them for their 
 work, to all Christians. He, in flat contra- 
 diction of the word of God, applies the 
 promise of the baptism in the Spirit to all 
 Christians, and claims that it is in the 
 church now, in flat contradiction of God's 
 word, that declares thereis only one baptism 
 in the church, baptism in water. He has 
 absurdly tried to make one the baptism 
 in water and the baptism in the Spirit, 
 when John says men administer one ; Christ 
 alone administered the other. He does not 
 know the difference between immersion by 
 one Spirit, that is, by the command of one 
 Spirit, and immersion in the Spirit. Be- 
 tween born of the Spirit and immersion in 
 the Spirit; between renewal of the Spirit 
 and immersion in the Spirit. He does not 
 know the difference between the moral in- 
 fluence of the Spirit, through the word in 
 conversion and sanctification and the 
 miraculous power of the Spirit in inspira- 
 tion, spiritual gifts, miraculous powers, 
 immersion in the Spirit. He does not know 
 the difference between the indwelling of 
 the Spirit and the miraculous influence of 
 the Spirit. He reads instances of the mirac- 
 ulous influence of the Spirit, claims it for 
 
 all Christians, because he finds the Spirit 
 promised to all Christians, overlooking the 
 teaching of the Bible, that all Christians 
 receive the moral influence, the influ- 
 ence through the Iruth alone, and 
 that only those that God used to 
 do work requiring miraculous influ- 
 ence, received it. He absurdly assumes 
 that because some men whom God used for 
 purposes that required miraculous influence 
 received it, all Christians must have it, 
 overlooking the fact that they are not called 
 to such work, and do not need it. He flatly 
 contradicts Paul's teaching that there is a 
 better way than the exercise of the best 
 miraculous powers. That all miraculous 
 powers shall cease when they have accom- 
 plished their purpose, the completion of the 
 constitution of the church, the New Testa- 
 ment, and the organization of the church 
 under it. This clear, positive teaching of 
 God's word he rejects. He claims miracu- 
 lous powers and has utterly failed to furn- 
 ish one single proof of them. He might as 
 well claim creating power in his church. 
 His claim is as impudent as the claim of 
 his prophet, Joe Smith, to see money with 
 his peep-stone money that was never 
 found. We showed that not only does 
 Mormonism pervert the one faith, God's 
 word, but it blasphemously places above 
 the faith as "The fullness of the Gospel" the 
 lying frauds of Joe Smith and other de- 
 ceivers and visionary fanatics. We have 
 rung in our opponents ears the demand, 
 ''What need for new revelations? " Do 
 you say you have a truth that Christ's per- 
 fect Gospel did not give to the world ? Dare 
 you say that you express any truth better 
 than he and his apostles expressed it? This 
 question he dare not answer. It meets his 
 lying frauds at the threshold of the temple 
 o'f God, as the angel with flaming sword 
 met sinful man at the gate of Eden. 
 
 We next showed the false teachings of 
 his system in regard to the one baptism. 
 After admitting that immersion in water 
 was in the church, it gives the lie direct to 
 to the Holy Spirit, and asserts there is 
 also in the church, immersion in the Spirit, 
 when the Holy Spirit declares there is in 
 the church one immersion, as there is one 
 God, and teaches that immersion in water, 
 in the name of the Father. Son and Holy 
 Spirit, unto the remission of sins is the one 
 baptism that is in the church. We next 
 exposed the farce of baptism of the living 
 as proxies for tne dead, taught by Mormon- 
 nism. We asked how do the dead know 
 what the living proxy lias done? How 
 does the living proxy know whether the 
 dead has believed and repented. If the 
 dead have believed and repented, will they 
 stay in hell, because of the failure of some 
 living person to be baptized as proxy for 
 him? If the living is baptized and the 
 dead does not repent, what good in the 
 farcical blunder? These questions he lias 
 not noticed. 
 
 We exposed the materialistic, sen icsualist 
 nature of the teachings of Mormonism in 
 regard to the Millennium, and the final 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 379 
 
 reward of the righteous. Rigdon in his 
 gross literalizing of the figurative teaching 
 of the Bible, in regard to the future, made 
 nonsense out of them, and taught the most 
 absurd, extravagant, and gross materialis- 
 tic ideas of the Millenium and future life. 
 Sensible Mormons hide there ideas, as 
 they do his gross literal material teaching 
 in regard to God. 
 
 We next showed that Mormonism makes 
 a hideous monster of the one body. It dis- 
 cards the teaching of the New Testament, 
 that Mosaism with its Priesthood and 
 ritual is abrogated, and the simple church 
 of Christ has taken its place. It foists into 
 Christianity the Mosaic Priesthood, when 
 Christ's law declares that the law is 
 changed, the Priesthood is changed. It 
 gets up a fiction called the Melchezedek 
 Priesthood, when the Bible teaches that 
 there were but two Melchezedek and an- 
 other priest, Christ. Only two. This 
 fiction of two Priesthoods Aaronic and 
 Melchezedek in the church, has no more 
 founadation than the Catholic seven sacra- 
 ments. It ends in placing in the church 
 pretenders to all Spiritual gifts, when the 
 Bible teaches they have accomplished 
 their purpose, and ceased. It has presi- 
 dents, vice-presidents, a presidency, 
 twelve apostles, several seventies of 
 apostles, presidents of quorums of apostles, 
 quorums of apostles, presidents of tens, in 
 the seventies, councillors, high council- 
 lors, priests, and high priests, presidents of 
 stakes, bishops, presidents of bishops, 
 traveling elders, organizations of elders 
 and bishops, presidents and other officers 
 of such organizations, prophets, seers, 
 evangelists, revelators, translators, patri- 
 archs, and not even an inspired Mormon 
 can repeat all their lingo. This monstrosity 
 is the true church of God, like that Paul 
 addressed in Philiippi, when he wrote 
 " Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints, 
 Overseers and Servants of the church in 
 Philiippi." As much like it as a Hindoo 
 idol with a dozen heads, a hundred arms, 
 and as many feet as a millipede, is like the 
 human body as it came from the hands of 
 God. We next assailed the name. The 
 disciples were first called Christians at 
 Antioch, by the apostles, a true reading 
 declares. Mormons were called Latter Day 
 Saints at Kirtland, by Rigdon. The Holy 
 Spirit called the congregations " Churches 
 of God," " Churches of Christ." Mormons 
 called their monstrosity with its officers as 
 numerous as the devils cast out of the man 
 in the tombs "The Re-organized Church 
 of Jesua Christ of Latter Day Saints." 
 We have exposed the Book of Mormon. We 
 traced its origin in Spaulding's "Manu- 
 script Found." Proved by Rigdon himself 
 that he took it from the office, where Spaul- 
 ding sent it to be printed. That he re- 
 modelled it into a pretended revelation 
 by putting into it portions of the Bible 
 and his own notions. We have proved 
 that he gave it to Smith to publish to 
 the world as a pretended revelation, dug 
 from the earth and translated by his stolen 
 
 peep-stone. That he was seen at Smith's 
 and was absent often when engaged in this 
 work. That he preached its ideas and pre- 
 pared his congregations, converts, and cer- 
 tain preachers to receive it. That he pre- 
 dicted its coming. That Pratt went from 
 him to Smith, and came back to him. We 
 have exposed that transparent fraud, his 
 pretended conversion. We have exposed 
 the Rigdonisms on every page. We have 
 exposed its plagiarisms from King James' 
 translations. Its absurd imitation of the 
 brogue of the translators. Its quotations 
 of the New Testament, before it was writ- 
 ten. Its quotations of modern authors 
 hundreds of years before they lived. Its 
 adaptions of modern events. Its anachro- 
 nistas in speaking of modern things. Its 
 utter luck of one particle of evidence needed 
 to sustain an uninspired book. Its lack of 
 evidence needed to sustain an inspired 
 book. Its flat contradictions of the Bible 
 history, of the Bible teachings. Its scores 
 of self-contradictions and blunders. We 
 have showed the contradictions between 
 the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Be- 
 tween the Book of Mormon and the Inspired 
 Translation of Joe Smith. Between the 
 Inspired Translation and the Bible. Be- 
 tween the Inspired translation and the Book 
 of Doctrines and Covenants. Between the 
 Inspired Translation and Joe Smith's 
 preaching. Between the Inspired Trans- 
 lation in its different parts. We have 
 proved that the Mormon God has learned 
 printer's art, composition and grammar, 
 and has revised himself from title page to 
 finis; making seventeen changes on one 
 page and over five thousand in the book, 
 and changes that omit whole lines and 
 insert lines and entirely change the mean- 
 ing. We have showed the atrocious out- 
 rages on all grammar and composition in 
 all Mormon frauds called revelations. We 
 examined the Book of Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants and exposed its displays of trickery, 
 low cunning, avarice and selfishness, its 
 meaness, its flat contradictions of the Bible 
 in teachings and spirit. Its failure in pre- 
 dictions, its gross blunder. We exposed 
 the gross absurd and uuscriptural charac- 
 ter of Smith's lie about the ordination of 
 himself and Cowdery, by John the Baptist. 
 As this is the corner stone of Mormonism, 
 my opponent abandoned all hope of his sys- 
 tem, when he dodged defending this lie of 
 Smith. We showed it contradicted the 
 Bible in fourteen particulars. We showed 
 that Joe lacked every evidence of a prophet. 
 He never uttered what must have been a 
 revelation. He never prophecied. He 
 never wrought a miracle. All such claims 
 are transparant frauds. We then examined 
 Smith's antecedents, we exposed the low, 
 dishonest, lying character of the family, its 
 career and associates. We showed that 
 Smith was lazy, a liar, a drunkard, a thief. 
 That he was noted for his lies, all through 
 his career, and for his tricks, fraud and de- 
 ception. In New York, in Pennsylvania, 
 in Ohio, in Missouri, in Illinois. He began 
 witching for water, a lying fraud. Peep- 
 
380 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 ing for lostarticles. A lying- fraud. Point- 
 ing out buried treasures. A lying fraud. 
 Digging for them. A lying fraud. His 
 pretended fac simile of what was on th3 
 plates was a lying fraud. So were his pre- 
 tended plates. His pretended translation 
 of the Book of Abraham was a lying fraud, 
 h'o was his pretended translation of pre- 
 tended plates, the Book of Mormon. He ad- 
 mitted that he never had any plates. That 
 it was all a hoax. The witnesses repudiated 
 their testimony. Mormons excluded them 
 as liars and criminals of the blackest dye. 
 We showed the innumerable lies and con- 
 tradictory stories, that Smith and all con- 
 nected with the fraud, told, showing that 
 it was a clumsy fraud, gotten up by ignor- 
 ant knaves. 
 
 We exposed Joe's lying tricks of casting 
 out devils in New York. We showed that 
 all his powers was a remarkable power- as 
 ps3'chologist, or mesmerist, and that as 
 people knew nothing of this power then, 
 they mistook it for supernatural power, as 
 ignorant people so mistake the same power 
 in Spiritism. We traced Smith's career in 
 Kirtland, and that of Mormon leaders. 
 Their lies, frauds, swindles, that ruined 
 hundreds and compelled them to flee the 
 country to escape the penitentiary. We 
 exposed their career of violence, fraud, 
 murder, assassination, swearing and vil- 
 lainy in Missouri. We exposed their career 
 of similar villainy in Illinois. We proved 
 that Smith was a swindler and cheat, and 
 liar and villain wherever he lived. We 
 proved that nearly one-third of the leaders 
 of Mormonism have abandoned it,, and de- 
 nounced it as a fraud. That Rigdon, the 
 author, did so. We proved that Joe Smith 
 was the author of the revelation on 
 polygamy, and that Mormons have no 
 more right to reject that than the Book 
 of Mormon. We took up the career of Mor- 
 monism as a religion, in Kirtland. We 
 exposed its fanaticism, madness and im- 
 morality. We exposed Smith's attempts 
 at assassination. His frauds called speak- 
 ing with tongues. We exposed the lies, 
 tricks and. deceptions enacted to carry out 
 the fraud in Kirtland. We showed that 
 the Book of Commandments published in 
 Independence, Missouri, was changed, re- 
 vised, and patched up until the Book of 
 Doctrines and Covenants is no more like it 
 than Catholicism is like Apostolic Chris- 
 tianity. These revelations were uttered by 
 Joe by inspiration, published in the "Morn- 
 ing and Evening Star" as revelations. 
 Published as revelations in the Book of 
 Commandments. Then so re-modelled in 
 the Book of Doctrines and Covenants that 
 (he printers who set up the first book would 
 uot recognize the second. 
 
 AVe charge Mormonism with blasphemy 
 and presumption. It claims to act under 
 the infallible inspiration of God, and work 
 miracles. Book of Doctrines and Cove- 
 nants. Its emissaries are pledged by the 
 game authority to work miracles when it 
 is demanded of them. Mormons profess to 
 have intercourse with angels, that they fre- 
 
 quently see them and have intercourse with 
 them. Mormonism clarms to be the only 
 true church, and that all others will be 
 damned. Mormonism taught that God 
 would send down a city from heaven, the 
 New Jerusalem, into Missouri and that all 
 Saints were to gather there under fear of 
 divine wrath. Afterward they gathered 
 under the same pretended revelation at 
 Nauvoo. The prophecies about Missouri 
 have all failed. Mormonism places its pre- 
 tended revelations above the New Testa- 
 ment. That contained only the Gospel, 
 their frauds contained the "Fullness of the 
 Gospel." Mormonism threatens all who 
 only accept the Bible and reject it with 
 eternal damnation. Mormonism changes 
 the terms of salvation laid down in God's 
 word. God's word teaches that if men 
 accept it and live it out in life they will be 
 saved. Mormonism teaches that they must 
 accept its frauds al^o, and even place them 
 above the Gospel of Christ as the "fullness 
 of the Gospel." We showed from the Book 
 of Doctrines and Covenants that Mormonism 
 is a scheme for enriching its knavish leaders. 
 Mormonism teaches resistance to evil. 
 Smith did so in his revelations. So does 
 the Book of Mormon. 
 
 Mormonism, like spiritism and the animal 
 excitements of negroes, mistakes abnormal, 
 unhealthy frenzy for the work of the Spirit. 
 It mistakes mere frenzy and nervous mes- 
 meric excitement for the influence of the 
 Spirit of God. Such delusion has ever 
 led to frenzy, madness, crime and pol- 
 lution. It did in Mormon excitements 
 in Kirtland. It did in Missouri, Nauvoo. 
 Spiritual wifery and polygamy are only the 
 the inevitable results of such ideas of the 
 work of the Spirit as Mormonism teaches. 
 Infidelity works with Mormouism for two 
 reasons. It attempts to make out that 
 Mormonism has as much evidence as Chris- 
 tianity. If men can be led to believe this and 
 that Mormonism is the perfection of Christi- 
 anity they will reject such a hum bug as Mor- 
 monism and rejectChristianity also. It wants 
 to load Christianity with Mormonism to 
 destroy Christianity. Again, when Mor- 
 monism is exposed it betrays its infidelity. 
 It assails Christianity and the infidel wolf 
 recognizes his brother wolf in sheep's 
 clothing. No one fact connected with this 
 debate has been more apparent than that. 
 My opponent's infidelity will stare the 
 reader of the debate in the face in nearly 
 every speech. 
 
 The ease with which this fraud has been 
 exposed, exploded in this debate will be a 
 standing proof of the difference between it 
 and Christianity. No such assaults can be 
 made on Christ or on his teachings. The 
 Bible is a wonderful part of the world's 
 history, and has evidences that no other 
 book has. It does not stand out apart from 
 the world's history, like Gulliver's Travels, 
 or the Book of Mormon. The discussion 
 will illustrate the difference between the 
 genuine, the Bible, and the counterfeit, the 
 Book of Mormon. Mormonism re-hashes and 
 even exaggerates infidel falsehoods about 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 381 
 
 the purity or the text of the Bible. That 
 lias been done in this debate. Any decent 
 infidel would denounce as an ignoramus a 
 person who would make such chnrges as 
 have been made in this debate. When the 
 vile character of the prophet and leaders 
 have been exposed, it eclipses Ingersoll in 
 his infidel attacks on the character of the 
 Bible personages. Every unfair mis-repre- 
 sentation and sneer of infidelity 'has been 
 repeated here. When its pretended mir- 
 acles are exposed, it assails with more 
 than infidel falsehood those of the Bible. 
 That has been done in this debate. Sneers 
 have been thrown out about "Jonah swal- 
 lowing the whale. " Yet this infidel system 
 is the "Fullness of the Gospel." Its organ- 
 ization is the only true Church of God now 
 on earth. Its infidel emissaries have the 
 miraculous power of Spirit, can work mir- 
 acles give revelations, and those who 
 believe the Bible, and defend it, are apos- 
 tates from the Bible ; because they do not 
 accept the lying frauds of these infidels. 
 Infidelity recognizes its ally wherever 
 Mormonism rears its head. There is never 
 a debate with Mormonism, that infidelity 
 in the place does not hurrah for the Mormon. 
 Mormonism had its origin in a scheme of 
 a backslidden doubting preacher, todeceive 
 the world, in pretending that he had dug a 
 manuscript from the earth and translated it; 
 that he migfej get money out of it. Some 
 think that his stupid plagiarism of Bible 
 style was in tended as a deli berate caricature 
 of the Bible,, This intended fraud was stolen 
 by a back-sjidden sceptical preacher who 
 blasphemously plagiarized the ideas and 
 language of the Bible to re-model it into 
 a pretended revelation, to make a " big 
 thing out of it." It was given to the world 
 by an infidel, an admirer of Paine, who 
 was duping the superstitious and ig- 
 
 norant with pretences to witch for water, 
 peep for lost treasures, etc. It has displayed 
 its infidelity and hostility to the Bible all 
 through its course. If an error of Mormon- 
 ism was exposed it retorted with an infidel 
 attack on the Bible. It assails the Bible 
 to revenge the exposure that friends of the 
 Bible have made of its fraudulent charac- 
 ter. When we point out that it is destitute 
 of the evidence that an inspired book should 
 have, it re-hashes infidel falsehoods that 
 the books of the Bible are no better. It 
 asserts, in the face of all history, that the 
 Books of the New Testament were composed 
 two or three hundred years alter Christ. 
 
 Mormonism isa hodjr'e- podge of Mosaism, 
 Mahommedanism, Methodism, Episcopa- 
 lianism, Catholicism, Campbellism, Rigdon- 
 ism, Smithism and Prattism, Infidelity, 
 Mesmeric Power and Devilism. Infidelity 
 was its father, ignorance and superstition 
 was its mother, and like Milton's whoredom 
 of Satan and Sin, the monstrous progeny 
 has been death. 
 
 All who accept the Bible and believe that 
 the Scriptures are given by inspiration, and 
 are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for 
 correction, for instruction in righteousness, 
 and that by the Scriptures all children of 
 God are made perfect, and thoroughly fur- 
 nished unto all good works, will reject this 
 monster Mormonisra. All who accept 
 Jesus as the only Divine Prophet, source 
 of all teaching, their only Divine King, 
 source of all law, will reject the back- 
 slidden, doubting Solomon Spaulding, the 
 unpiincipled, infidel Sydney Rigdon, the 
 scoundrelly infidel pretender of Manchester, 
 Joe Smith, with his stolen peep-stone. They 
 will accept the one God, one Lord, one Spirit, 
 one faith, one baptism, one hope, one body, 
 one name of the religion of Christ. 
 
 I hereby certify that my speeches appear in this book just as 1 furnished them to the 
 printer, ivithoiit any restrictions whatever. I read all the proofs myself, and my speeches 
 are pi intcd just as \ 1 directed, without any chanye or t ash ivlion. 
 
 CLAEK BE AD EN. 
 
882 
 
 TIIE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 "KIRTLAND, OHIO, February 22, 1884. 
 "JfAJ. J. IT. GTT.BKKT, 
 
 "Dear Sir: Kelley assailed your statement that the 
 manuscript of the Honk of Mormon lacked punctu- 
 ation as it came to yon. 
 
 He got a telegram from David Whitmer, who claims 
 that he has the original manuscript that it is punctu- 
 ated. 
 
 Will you please answer these queries: 
 
 I. As the manuscript was handed to you was it 
 punctuated? If it was, to what extent? 
 
 II. Were the sentences commenced with capital let- 
 ters. If so, to what extent ? 
 
 III. Weie there mis-spelled words? Were they 
 frequent? 
 
 IV. Did you correct grammatical blunders to any 
 extent? 
 
 Please to answer these queries, stating the facts in 
 each case. Return questions, and answers. You 
 can append your statement to this. Do not fail to do 
 this, as Kelley has read what he wrote in "Saint's 
 Herald," which is the reverse of what you told me. 
 Answer as soon as you can. "Youis, 
 
 " CLARK BRADEN." 
 
 " PALMYRA, February 27, 1884. 
 "MR. BRADEN, 
 "Dear Sir: Answer to questions 
 
 I. " Not a punctuation maik of any kind from be- 
 ginning to end of manuscript. 
 
 II. ''Sentences were not commenced with capitals: 
 If they had been there would not have been so much 
 difficulty in punctuation. 
 
 III. "The spelling was good. The word "travail" 
 occurred twice in one "form" and was spoiled "travel" 
 in both instances, The copyist evidently not knowing 
 the meaning of the word; and furthermore, Cowdery 
 looked over the manuscript when the proof was read. 
 
 IV. " We were not allowed to correct any grammati- 
 cal errors. 
 
 "If Mr. Whiimer claims that he has the manuscript 
 that I used in setting up the Mormon Bibl, and that 
 it is punctuated and the sentences begin with a capital, 
 I say it has been altered since it left my hands, or that 
 he lias not got the original. 
 
 " Mr. Kelley mis-repiesented me In every important 
 particular iu his article published in the " Saint's 
 Herald" of Mano, Illinois. Jf Mr. Kelley has to 
 resort to falsehood and mis-representation to defend 
 Mormnnism, he had better leave them and become an 
 houebt man if possible. " Yours truly, 
 
 (Signed) J. H. GILBERT." 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 "STATE OP NEW YORK,) 
 Wayne County. j SB< 
 
 "Samuel J. Mclntyre being duly sworn, eays: 
 Since 1851, have been an attorney and Counselor prac- 
 tising in all the Courts of this State, and in the United 
 States Courts. During all my life I have resided in 
 the village of Palmyra, in this county, except from 
 August 1*2 to September 1865, when I was in the army, 
 and am fifty-six years of age. 
 
 " I have been shown a letter of inquiry from Mr. 
 Clark Biaden of Kirtland, Ohio, and requested to 
 answer the inquiries therein, as to Thomas P. Baldwin 
 and his holding the office of Judge of Wayne County in 
 1833. Was also informed of the fact that our County 
 Clerk had written to a Mr. Kelley, that uo such person 
 was Judge of Wayne County Court. 
 
 "To properly understand the matter, and perhaps 
 explain the mistakes that have been made, let me pre- 
 face, by stating that since the change in the constitu- 
 tion of the State in 1816, which took effect January 1, 
 1847, we have but one County Judge, and two "side 
 Judges," who are entitled "'Justices of sessions." 
 These two-side judges, are justices of the peace elected 
 to the position of Justices of sessions. They sit with 
 the County Judge in criminal trials, and form with 
 him the Court of sessions. The County Judge is also 
 elected. 
 
 This constitution of 184(1, made a radical change 
 In the Judiciary all over the Stale, and of all Courts. 
 
 " Before the constitution of 1846, there were appointed 
 in each County five judges of County Courts, one of 
 Whom was designated as first judge of the County, 
 who presided at the Sessions. The other four sat with 
 him as associated Judges. The first Judge was en- 
 titled First Judge of Wayne County Courts, and the 
 others were entitled Judges of Wayne County Courts. 
 Each of these Judges was appointed by the Governor, 
 and confirmed by the Senate, and held office for five 
 years. This was the order of things at the organiza- 
 tion of this County in 1823. 
 
 "I find by the records in Wayne County Clerk's office 
 which I have examined and also by the examination 
 of authentic histories of Wayne County, that in Febru- 
 ary 1830 William Sisson was appointed 'First Judge of 
 Wayne County Courts' and that he held the office until 
 Februaiy 1835 when he was re-appointed; and that 
 during the same time Russell Whipple, Daniel Eddy, 
 Thomas P. Baldwin and David Arne, jr., were Judges 
 of Wayne County Courts and acted as such trom Febru- 
 ary 1830 to February 1835. The records of the Courts 
 on file in the Wayne County Clerk's office at Lyons, 
 New Tork, show them to have acted as such during 
 this time. On file in said office are the appointments 
 of these gentlemen to these offices under the hand of 
 the Governor of the State (or rather of Enos T. Throop 
 who was then acting Governor) with the Seal of the 
 State attached. Certified copies of these papers can 
 be obtained at any time from the Clerk of Wayne 
 County. 
 
 "Either of these Judges of Wayne County Courts had 
 the jurisdiction to take affidavits and acknowledge- 
 ments. 
 
 "The Wayne County Courts in which these Jndges 
 pat was the Court of Common Pleas for the trial of 
 civil matters of small amount, and hearing argument 
 of appeals from judgments rendered by Justices of the 
 Peace; and the Court of Sessions for the trial of 
 criminal matters where the punishment was lowerthan 
 imprisonment for life; also all five ofthfse Judges sat 
 with the Circuit Judge when he held a Court of Oyer 
 and Terminer in the County which is a Criminal Court 
 at whi''h a Grand Jury sat and found indictments, and 
 the Oyer and Terminer tried the criminal cases of a 
 higher grade and all criminal cases that were not 
 ordered by it to be tried at the Sessions. 
 
 "Therefore the propriety of the titles 'Judges of 
 Wayne County Courts,' and not as now simply 'County 
 Judge.' 
 
 "Thomas P. Baldwin was a lawyer and for a long 
 time held the office of Commissioner of Deeds having 
 authority to take affidavits and acknowledgements. 
 In my practice I have seen a very large number of 
 documents signed by him as Commissioner of Deeds 
 and some as 'Judge of Wayne County Courts,' and in all 
 cases l.e signed his name of "Th. P. Baldwin.' His 
 oaths of office on file in Wayne County Clerk's office 
 are all so signed. 
 
 "After all this it is perhaps unnecessary to say that 
 such a man as Thomas P. Baldwin lived and moved 
 and had his being in Wayne county. Although young 
 myself at the time spoken of I very well recollect the 
 man. He was spoken of as 'Judge Baldwin' and 'Tom 
 Baldwin.' His daughter (now Mrs. Breck of Gn enfield, 
 Massachusetts, near Springfield, Massachusetts) was 
 here on a visit but a month ago to her half brother, 
 William H. Cuylerof this place. 
 
 "Her father, Thos. P. Baldwin, married the widow 
 of William Howe Cuyler who had two sons, Geo. W. 
 Cuyler formerly President of the First National Bank 
 of this place who is now dead, and Wm. H. Cuyler now 
 living here. By this marriage there was the child 
 Mary Baldwin, new Mrs. Breck. The widow of George 
 W. Cuyler now lives in the place where Judge Baldwiu 
 formerly lived in this village. 
 
 "The letter of Mr. Braden was handed to me yester- 
 day, and being very much surprised at learning from 
 It that our County Clerk had written a letter containing 
 such a mistake as to the judgeship of Thomas P. 
 Baldwin, while on an errand to Lyons to-day I took 
 pains to investigate and found that the letter of Mr. 
 Kelley had been turned over to a young man in the 
 office by the name of Van Marten who was utterly 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 883 
 
 Ignorant of the changes of our judiciary and judicial 
 system and knew of no Judges of Wayne County Courts 
 except the County Judge of the present day or since 
 1816. 1 asked him to make a certificate of the facts 
 after examining the records and documents and sead 
 to me, and hope to receive the same in time to accom- 
 pany this. 
 
 "I have made this statement in a narrative form 
 rather than in the strict form of a deposition as I 
 thought it would be more easily understood. 
 
 "(Signed) S. B. MclNTYRK. 
 "Sworn to before me, February 27, 1884. 
 
 "(Signed) T. W. COLLINS. 
 
 "Wayne County Judge. 
 
 STATE OF NEW YOUK,) a , 
 WAYNE COUNTY. j s " 
 
 ''William H. Cuyler of the village of Palmyra, New 
 York, being duly sworn says, I am 72 years old, and 
 have resided in this village all my life. I am the son 
 of Major Wm. Howe Cuyler who was killed in the war 
 Of 181'2. 
 
 "After my father's* death, my mother married Thomas 
 P. Baldwin and by him had one daughter, Mary, now 
 Mrs. Breck of Greenfield. Mass.." 
 
 " The wife of Joseph Smith, the father of the Mormon, 
 nursed my mother at the birth of Mary Baldwin. I at- 
 tended school with Joseph Smith the Mormon, and his 
 brothers particularly Alvin and William." 
 
 " Thomas P. Baldwin was a lawyer, held the office of 
 Oommissii ner of deeds for a long time, arid was one of 
 the judges of Wayne County Courts from 1830 10 1835, 
 being appointed to the posi ion by Enos T. Throop, the 
 Lieutenant Governor of the State then acting as Gov- 
 ernor, as the Governor Martin Van Buren resigned in 
 1529, on being appointed Secretary of State umder Pres- 
 ident Jackson. 
 
 "My step-father always sigmed his name *Th. P. 
 Baldwin'. He died early in the year 1858 at Greene 
 Bay, Wisconsin and was buried there.' 
 
 "(Signed) W. T. CUYtKE." 
 " Sworn to before me February 27th, 1881. 
 
 " (Signed) T. W. COLLINS. 
 
 " Wayne County Judge." 
 
 LYONS, NEW YORK, February 27th, 1881. 
 
 "I, J. M. Van Marten. Sp cial Deputy Clerk of Wayne 
 County, New York, do hereby certify that on or about 
 February 1, 1884, and February 7, 188t, there were re- 
 ceived at this office two letters, which are hereto 
 attached, and in reply to the inquiry in the first letter, 
 and to the first enquiry in the second letter, I replied 
 substantially that no person named Thomas P.Baldwin 
 was a judge of the County Courts of Wayne County, 
 New York in 1833 or 1834, and that David Arne, Jr., was 
 Wayne County Judge. When I made those statements 
 I supposed the office of County Judge was always the 
 same.in title and jurisdiction, as it is at present,t.e.,one 
 County Judge and two side judges, called Justices of 
 Sessions. 
 
 "But I find upon Investigation that prior to 184fi, at 
 which time the new State Constitution went into effect, 
 there was appointed by the Governor and confirmed by 
 the Senate one person with the title of First Judge of 
 the County, and four others 'Associate Judges,' who 
 were each called " Judge of Wayne County Courts." I 
 find by the records of this office that Thomas P. Bald- 
 win of Palmyra and David Eddy of Marion, were on 
 the 10th day of February, 1830. duly appointed by the 
 Governor of the State of New York and confirmed by 
 the Senate "Judges of the County Courts of the County 
 of Wayne." Their commission is on file in this office, 
 and it now lies before me. It was filed February 15th, 
 1830. I also find by the records of this office that the 
 said Thomas P. Baldwin sat and acted as such Judge 
 of Wyne County Courts during the years 1830, 1831, 
 1832, 1833 and 1834, the first Court at which he acted 
 commencing June 14, 1830, and the last Court, Septem- 
 ber 8, 1834. I also find that prior to 1830 and after 1834 
 he was a Commissioner of Deeds in the town of Palmyra, 
 in this County, and find his signature as such to a 
 number of documents. In each case his signature is 
 writtenthus: "Th. P. Baldwin." 
 
 " He was a practising attorney at the time of the or- 
 gani?ation of this County in 18.23, as I find by the list of 
 attorneys and their signatures on file in this office of 
 that date. I also certify that David Arne, Jr. was for a 
 long time an associate Judge of the same rank and title 
 as said Baldwin and acted as such Judge at the same 
 time with Baldwin I further find by the records of 
 this office that William Sisson was the first Judge of the 
 Courts of Wayne County from January, 1830, to Feb. 
 ruary, 1836. When he was re-appointed as such judge. 
 During that time the following were associate Judges, 
 having the title of Judges of Courts of Wayne County, 
 
 viz: Thomas P. Baldwin. Daniel Eddy, Russell Whip- 
 pie, and Dvid Arne, Jr. And I will al>o add that at 
 that time the oath of office was not always adminis- 
 tered by the County rierk. 
 
 "(Signed) M. J. VAN MARTEN, 
 
 "Special Deputy Clerk." 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Evidence taken in open Court before 
 S. C. Carpenter, Esq., justice of the peace 
 in and for the township of Kirtland, Lake 
 county, Ohio, Lorenzo Fay, reporter. Taken 
 on the 8th day of March, 1884, upon the 
 matter of the faith and practices of the 
 Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter Day Saints, and the reputation and 
 moral character of certain of the promi- 
 nent men of the church as existing in Kirt- 
 land, Ohio, and elsewhere, between the 
 years of 1830 and 1844, by mutual agreement. 
 PRESENT : 
 
 Elder Clark Braden, representing the 
 Disciple Church. 
 
 Elder E. L. Kelley, representing Church 
 of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 
 J. J. Moss being produced, first being 
 duly sworn, testified as follows : 
 
 EXAMINED BY MR. BRADEN. 
 
 Q. Mr. Moss may state the time when he 
 was teaching school here and the appear- 
 ance of three Mormon preachers here, his 
 attending meetings. What the facts are? 
 A. I commenced teaching school in Kirt- 
 land, in the old red school house, just across 
 the bridge that goes from the post-office on 
 the road to Chardon on the right hand side, 
 in the fall of 1830. The week that I com- 
 menced my school three Mormon preachers 
 came from York State. If any one can tell 
 me the time of the month I can get at the 
 time. Two of these preachers I recollect, 
 the other I do not. Parley Pratt and Oliver 
 Cowdery I recollect. In the course of the 
 winter I attended their meetings. The 
 things that were stated last night in refer- 
 ence to the things that took place here are 
 correct. On the side hill across the flat, 
 east of the present mill at night, Black 
 Pete and two white men went from a meet- 
 ing in a log house on the flat and got up on 
 to stumps, and were preaching to imaginary 
 audiences. 
 
 John Taueur and myself were at the foot 
 of the hill. John Taneur came from the 
 State of New York with me, and when I 
 took a school at the flats he took a school in 
 the Newell district. He put his hands to 
 his mouth and made an awful screech, when 
 they all jumped from the stumps. The two 
 white men ran angling down the hill, and 
 black Pete ran straight down on the snow 
 and ice, crying out, "Here we go, here we 
 go." His feet slipped from under him, and 
 as his seat struck the ground he sang out, 
 "Oh God, here we go." He went back into 
 the house, and they had some tomahawk- 
 ing, scalping and ripping up the bowels, 
 and Indian talk ; and that was the scene 
 that night. I saw Black Pete in the orchard 
 on the left hand side of the road from the 
 post-office as you go to Mentor, or where the 
 
884 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 road now goes to Painesville, There was 
 but one house on that corner then ; the 
 orchard was just back of that house. Black 
 Pete chased the Devil sometimes, and some- 
 time^ the Devil was chasing him around 
 the stumps and apple trees. That I saw. 
 I was called out of my school in to theshoe- 
 maker's shop of Mr. Cahoon I do not 
 remember his first name right by the side 
 of wy school house. I left my school in 
 charge of one of my largest scholars, went 
 out after he called. I found his eldest son, 
 I do not remember his first name, fighting 
 with the Devil. I seems when I got in he 
 had got a little the advantage of the Devil, 
 and had him under, but still the Devil was 
 trying to steal a march on him. He acted 
 like a crazy man as much as anything else, 
 and would say, "there you come; I see 
 you," And when the Devil got pretty close 
 to him he would jab bis fingers at him and 
 say, "Zick ! Zick!" I went to my school 
 room and called in eight or ten ot my larg- 
 est scholars, some young men and some 
 young women, to witness the scene. He 
 got the Devil at last in the corner where 
 there was someold boots and shoes, jabbing 
 his fingers at him "Zick ! Zick !" I slipped 
 behind the scholars and got my foot behind 
 an old shoe, and when the Devil was com- 
 ing again I suddenly shoved it before him. 
 He jumped about two feet high and ran 
 down stairs out into the field, just back of 
 the school house, and there was quite a 
 number of stumps, and the Devil was after 
 him ; he dodged first around one stump aud 
 then another. 
 
 I believe I was the first person, with a 
 young man, whose name I have forgotten, 
 who was present when they took what 
 was cilled the sacrament up at the Morley 
 house. They were in the habit of turning 
 every body out of the door when they par- 
 took of the bread and wine, putting blankets 
 up at the windows, shutting off the sight 
 from without. They started a regular 
 pow-wow, and when they got well going, 
 then they opened the door and let us all 
 come in again. A young man and myself 
 made it up that we would stay in unless 
 they took us out by force. The young man 
 got asleep, and I had a dumb evil and 
 could not talk; but they did not carry us 
 out but went on with the sacrament. The 
 poor-house in Portage County, Ohio, where 
 there were half a dozen insane and idiotic 
 persons, was the best comparison of any- 
 thing to the scene that night. And if I had 
 had my cloak on I would have stolen the 
 wine and carried it home to see whether it 
 was drugged or not. 
 
 By Mr. Kelley : Q. I would like to know 
 whether those three preachers, including 
 Oliver Cowdery, were at the pow-wow ? 
 A. I do not think they were. I told them 
 in the public meetings and on the street, 
 that that was from the Devil, the Spirit of 
 God had nothing to do with it. Some time 
 after they got a revelation from Joseph 
 Smith, and he said such conduct was from 
 the Devil, and then they quit their per- 
 formances. They believed him but they 
 
 would not believe me. They held meetings 
 at the Morley Farm a good deal, and they 
 used to invite people that came from abroad 
 to stay all night, and it so happened by ac- 
 cident or some other cause, that all that 
 stayed overnight were immersed by the 
 Mormons before noon the next day, and 
 after awhile they got to inviting some of 
 the citi/.ens of the vicinity to stay all night. 
 Home of them I knew were bitterly opposed 
 the day before, and they were immersed 
 before noon. I made up'my mind I wanted 
 to stay all night. I asked some people who 
 lived in the neighborhood how it happened 
 "you did not believe in Mormonism yester- 
 day and to-day you are a Mormon ?" They 
 said "Oh! If you had seen what I have 
 seen, and heard what I have heard, you 
 would believe as well as I." " What have 
 you seen aud heard?" "I can't tell." I 
 then began to wear a lontf facie, stopped 
 arguing against the Mormons either on the 
 street or in their meetings. So I got an in- 
 vitation to stay all night, and that was 
 what I was after. They came to me at the 
 close of the meeting aud said that there 
 were so many that had come from abroad, 
 and asked me if I would not wait till the 
 next night. Before the third night came, 
 Matthew Clapp, of Mentor, came all the 
 way from there to see if he could not save 
 me from Mormonism, and he cried over me 
 and shed tears till he wrought upon my 
 feelings and I told him what I was at, but 
 I enjoined it upon him to keep it to himself 
 until I got to stay there all night ; but he 
 told it, and before the third night came it 
 got out ; and I did not get a chance to stay 
 there another night. And it was found out 
 why 1 was wearing my long face, and that 
 what I wanted to stay there for was to see 
 if they had got angels there that appeared 
 in the night that caused everyone that the 
 angels appeared to go to the water the next 
 day. 
 
 I stated that T had studied the black art, 
 and leger-de-main once, and I knew just how 
 those things were done. I can appear to 
 you in a dark room or on a dark night as a 
 living pillar of fire. That got noised all 
 over the country, and that was the last of 
 their inviting anybody to stay over night. 
 The angel that held the lamp to baptize I 
 did not see. I heard of it when I came to 
 my school in the morning. 
 
 There is one thing more that I will state 
 and then I think I am done with every- 
 thing that is personal. In one of these 
 meetings there was a young married woman 
 that I was perfectly satisfied was making 
 her own calculation to get the power and 
 fall into my lap. I watched for it, aud was 
 looking for it and finally it came, and she 
 came down with the power right into my 
 lap, but she got up quicker than she came 
 down. I guess the Mormons never knew 
 how she got up so quick. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MB. KELLEY: 
 
 Question. Who was it fell in your lap? 
 Answer. I could not give the name now. 
 
 Q. When did you say that was? A. It 
 was in the winter of 1830-31. 
 
THE BRADEX AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 385 
 
 Q. Who was present at the time the lady 
 fell into your lap? A. I could not tell 
 that. 
 
 Q. What was Mr. Morley's first name? 
 A. I can not tell that. 
 
 Q. Who did you tell that you supposed 
 they had angels there? A. I told a good 
 many people; I told Mr. Riggs who kept 
 the hotel, and Squire Moss and Mr. Jones, 
 who lived at the foot of the hill on therokd 
 that goes to Chardon, and Mr. Howe that 
 lived opposite the school-house, and b*B 
 wife. 
 
 Q, Why did you tell them that they 
 kept angels there? A. Because I got that 
 into my head. 
 
 Q. How did you know they had angftls 
 there? A. I did not say I knew it. 
 
 Q. What did you say they kept angels 
 for then ? A. I 'did not tell them it was 
 so. 
 
 Q. Who was It that Invited you to stay 
 there the first night? A. I cannot tell that 
 now. It is fifty-three years ago. 
 
 Q. Was this before or after Mr. Morley 
 united with the church? A. The Mormon 
 church you mean, I suppose? 
 Q. Yes, sir. A. It was after. 
 Q. What citizens do you know, who staid 
 over night and were* baptized the next 
 day? A. I do not remember any of their 
 names now. 
 
 Q,. Can't you give one? A. No. 
 Q. How do you know it was the first 
 time they staid over night? A. I did not 
 say it was the first time they staid all 
 night. I said they were invited to stay 
 over night. 
 
 Q. You do not know but that they had 
 been to the preaching a number of times 
 before that? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Why did you think staying over all 
 night, had anything to do with it? A. Be- 
 cause they that stayed over all night, most 
 all joined. 
 
 Q. What were the namea of some that 
 were baptized ? A. I cannot give you the 
 names. 
 
 . Q. You say that a short time after that 
 Mr. Smith received a revelation thatit was 
 all from the Devil A. Yes, sir, that was in 
 the year 1830-1831. 
 
 And after they got that revelation there 
 was no more scenes of that kind. A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. How long were you here? A, Five 
 months. 
 
 Q. And that time was the time that they 
 received a revelation of Joseph Smith ? A. 
 Yes, sir, they got that revelation at the time 
 I was teaching school here. That was not 
 the revelation I took out of Martin Harris's 
 hat. 
 
 Q. How long before had the members you 
 spoke of being in those conditions been 
 members of some church? A. That I could 
 not tell you. 
 
 Q. Was the Morley family all the mem- 
 bers of the Christian church that joined the 
 Saints ? A. I did not know how many taere 
 \vie. 
 
 Q. Did not they have that same falling 
 down before the preachers came. When 
 they belonged under the Disciple faith? A. 
 I cannot tell. 
 
 Q. How long before this had they been 
 members of the Disciple church? A. I do 
 not know how long they had been members ; 
 they were members when I came here, all 
 of them. 
 
 Q. Was there any of our ministers around 
 or about here when the Cahoon boy was 
 acting as he was? A. No, sir, I think 
 Cahoon had been ordained to some office in 
 the church ; I am pretty sure he was. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear any of our preach- 
 ers endorse such actions as that as being 
 according to our faith? A. I do not know 
 as I did? they were about here and knew 
 as it was going on. 
 
 Q. Which ones were about here? A. 
 Why, all three of them that came from 
 York State. They were preaching around 
 the country and were here occasionally 
 when the things were going on. 
 
 Q. What time of day was it when the 
 sacrament meeting took place? A. It was at 
 night. 
 
 Q. How did they partake of the sacra- 
 ment at the meeting? A. Passed bread and 
 wine just as other folks do. 
 
 Q. How did they pass it? A. They passed* 
 it to the different members. 
 
 Q. Who passed it? A. I do not know 
 whether they were called deacons or what 
 kind of officers. 
 
 Q. What did they do previous to passing 
 this? A. They gave thanks once or twice, 
 and then they gave it to the members, and 
 passed it around similar to the Disciples. 
 I have no recollection, but it was the same 
 as I have seen it, and if I had my cloak on I 
 would have carried off the wine. 
 
 Q. Do you think that would have been 
 right? A. Yes. That would have been 
 just as proper as to carry oft' the revelation. 
 
 Q. Do you not know that it is the law of 
 the church that they cannot use any wine 
 except it is new wine? A. I do not know 
 anything about it. 
 
 Q. Did you not know that they could not 
 cast people out of the Sacrament? A. I 
 know they did. I have seen them put 
 people out. 
 
 Q. What did they doit for. Because they 
 were making a noise? A. I do not know ! 
 may be you can tell. 
 
 Q,. Did you not hear me read out of the 
 Book of Mormon that they should not cast 
 any one out of their sacrament meetings? 
 A. I did not know what you read. I know 
 what they did there. 
 
 Q. You did not know any of our minis- 
 ters that were there? A. No sir. I did 
 not know any. 
 
 Q. Now that girl that dropped In your 
 lap. Had she been a member of the Dis- 
 ciple church? A. She was not a girl, sh 
 was a young married woman. 
 
 Q. You can remember how she lo*" ^ 
 but cannot remember whethershe v 
 a member of your church? A. N 
 
THE BKADEJN AND KEI/LEY DEBATE. 
 
 O. How long: did you know her? A. 
 Well I think I had known her four or five 
 weeks at the meeting's. I think I knew 
 her only at the meetings. 
 
 Q,. Who was presiding at the meeting at 
 the time the woman fell into your lap? A. 
 Idonot know who was presiding at the time. 
 
 Q. What made her get up so quick when 
 Bhe fell? A. That is my business. 
 
 Q. How often did you hear Parley Pratt 
 and Oliver Cowdery preach Mr. Moss? A. 
 That I could not tell. 
 
 Q Did you hear them a number of times? 
 A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. Did these preachers endorse any such 
 actions that you say were practiced from 
 time to time while they were about here? 
 And did they endorse any such actions to 
 you? A. No sir. 
 
 Q. Did they teach any such principles? 
 A. They said it was the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Q. Then they did endorse those actions, 
 and they told you those actions were the 
 Holy Ghost? A. If endorse and declare 
 are the same, and if actions are the HoJy 
 Spirit, then they'endorsed it. 
 
 Q,. When was that? A. I could not tell 
 you. 
 
 Q. Did you hear any of those preachers 
 declare that the falling down performances 
 in the meeting was the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit? A. Cahoon said so in the 
 Bhoe shop. 
 
 Q. Did you hear them after that revela- 
 tion came, preach against the falling down 
 power? A. I heard the officers speak 
 against it in private. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see their revelation? A. 
 What revelation ? 
 
 Q,. The one Joseph Smith gave in regard 
 to the falling down power? A. No sir. 
 
 Q. Can you identify that revelation if you 
 heard what was in it? A. I never heard it 
 but they said they had got a revelation that 
 the falfdown power was of the devil. 
 
 Q. Was all this transaction denounced as 
 from the devil? A. That is what they said. 
 
 Q. You understand that? A. I did at 
 the time. 
 
 Q,. Why have you been telling it then as 
 the practice of the church now ? A. I did 
 not do it. 
 
 Q,. Why did you bring it into this con- 
 troversy? A. I did not bring it into con- 
 troversy, I was only telling what happened 
 that year. 
 
 Q,. It is just something that occurred by 
 members that came out of the Disciple 
 Church? A. Some of them were Disciples 
 and some of them were Methodists. 
 
 Q. Was he a member of the Church? I 
 mean Black Pete. A. He attended their 
 meetings. 
 
 Q. Did you see him partake of the sacra- 
 ment? A. I think I did. I could not swear to 
 that positively. 
 
 Q,. How old was Black Pele? A. He was 
 about 20 to 25 somewhere. He was the one 
 that was on the stump. 
 
 Q, What other preachers did you say 
 were on the stump ? A. I do no know their 
 names. 
 
 Q. Was it either Pratt or Cowdery? A. 
 It was neither. 
 
 Q. What is your business? A. Preaching. 
 
 Q. In what Church or Society ? A. The 
 Disciples or Christians. 
 
 Q. Were you ever here after you left in 
 the early part of 1831? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When? A. I cannot tell the time it 
 was; after the temple was finished.. 
 
 Q. Did you ever meet any of (\ir preach- 
 ers after the year 1831 ? A. Yes, sir. I 
 have had more debates with them than I 
 have fingers and toes. 
 
 Q. Who did you debate with? A.I can- 
 not give the names. I debated with one in 
 Akron, N. Y., and one in Cincinnati. 
 
 Q. How long did you debate with them? 
 A. Sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. 
 
 Q,. Were they public debates? A. Yes, 
 sir, public debates of course, but I do not 
 remember the length of time. 
 
 Q,. Can you not remember a single one? 
 A. I cannot remember one man. 
 
 Q. Did you know Joseph Smith when he 
 was here? A. I never saw him but once. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know anything bad about 
 him. A. No, sir. 
 
 Q,. Know anything about Parly Pratt 
 bad? A. No, sir. 
 
 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN : 
 
 Q,. Did the Disciples ever to your know- 
 ledge, in any meeting, allow such things as 
 you witnessed? A. No, sir. 
 
 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY: 
 
 Q. When were you in a Mormon meeting? 
 A. The first time was in the Fall of 1830, I 
 am sure. I cannot tell the last time. 
 
 Q,, Did they call themselves Mormons? 
 A. I thing they did. 
 
 Q. Are you as positive of that as you are 
 of any other statement you made? A. I 
 will answer it emphatically that I am just 
 as positive of that as I am of anything that 
 I have said to-day, that they called them- 
 selves Mormons. I think I could go to 
 Pittsfield, Ills., and bring members of the 
 Mormon Church, that they will testify that 
 they called themselves 'Mormons in my 
 presence. 
 
 Q. What else did they call themselves at 
 that time? A. I have no recollection of 
 anything but Latter Day Saints. 
 
 Q,. Did they call themselves Latter Day 
 Saints at that time? A. I think they did. 
 
 Q! Are you positive of that? A. No, I 
 am not positive of that. 
 
 Q. Are you positive that they called the 
 Church the Mormon Church then? A. I 
 am positive that I never heard them call it 
 the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter Day Saints until I heard it at this 
 debate. That was the first. 
 
 Q. Now I will ask you if you were ever 
 with those persons while they were mem- 
 bers of the Disciple Church, and do you say 
 you never saw them get into any of those 
 freaks at the Christian Church at any time? 
 A. No sir. 
 
 Q. Were you ever In the Christian 
 Church with them? A. No sir. 
 
 Q. Then you did not know what they did 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE, 
 
 887 
 
 \vhile they were Christians? A. You warn 
 to know whether I had any association 
 with them before I knew them as Mormons, 
 J answer, no. Those persons united with 
 the Mormon Church so soon after I came 
 here that I had no association with them 
 at all. 
 
 Q,. Elder Moss, do you know how those 
 parties acted while members of ihe Chris- 
 tian Church? A. How many times do you 
 want it answered. 
 
 By the Court: Yes, answer it. 
 
 A. I had no association with them before 
 they were Mormons. 
 
 Q,. You did not know then but what they 
 acted in the same manner of falling down 
 and receiving the power before they came 
 into what they termed the Saint's Church. 
 A. I have answered it three times. 
 
 Q. You do not know but what they had 
 acted that way ; do you, or do you not. A. 
 I have answered that question three times. 
 I had no association with them at all before 
 they were Mormons. 
 
 Q. Did you think that the Devil was 
 present when that fellow said " Zick? " A. 
 I don't know as I did. 
 
 Q. Why did you say it was all of the 
 Hevil then, for? A. Because it was all 
 Devilish things. 
 
 Q. Afterwards a revelation came to you 
 that it was of the Devil? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 BE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MB. BRADEN : 
 
 Q. You may state Mr. Moss, what Mar- 
 tin Harris said to you about seeing the 
 Devil? A. He said he saw the Devil and 
 he looked like a jackass, and he had hair 
 like a mouse. I was present, there were 
 from twenty-five to thirty persons present. 
 It was in that brick house down on the 
 flats. 
 
 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY : 
 
 Q. When was that? A. I could not tell. 
 
 Q,. Who was there? A. Some of them 
 were people of the world, and some of 
 them were Disciples. 
 
 Q. You had an argument, did you not? 
 A. Well, the general conversation was of 
 the Latter Lay Saints or Mormons, and 
 that the Book of Mormon was a new revel- 
 ation. 
 
 Q,. Did he claim tnat the general form of 
 the Devil was like'a jackass? A. I did not 
 ask him that question. I did not hear him 
 say. 
 
 Q. How did he come to state that? A. 
 I do not know. 
 
 Q. Was that in December or in the 
 Spring of 1831 ? A. It was the first visit he 
 make here, it was the winter of 1830-31. 
 
 Q. What was it that brought the expres- 
 sion out? A. I don't know. 
 
 Q,. Did Martin Harris give that as a part 
 of his faith, or was it a joke. Was he 
 giving it as a joke? A. I do not think he 
 was. 
 
 Q,. He was giving his experience the 
 reason he came to speak of it? A. That 
 was what called it out, the general conver- 
 
 sation in reference to the truth of the Book 
 of Mormon, and revelations, and as an 
 evidence that he had revelations, he stated 
 that the Devil appeared to him. 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Moss did you hear Martin 
 state that he had received revelations from 
 the Lord, or make such a claim, or receive 
 personal revelations from the Lord? A. He 
 said he saw the Devilj he was giving us as 
 an evidence of revelation or vision that he 
 had seen the Devil. 
 
 Q. Were not the people running on him? 
 A. I do not think they were, it was one of 
 his revelations that the Lord had revealed 
 to him. 
 
 Q. Did people laugh at him? A. I do 
 not think there was any laughing, I do not 
 remember. There may have been some 
 laughing at one side. There was no laugh- 
 ing out loud. I am sure. But I smiled 
 some out of one corner of my mouth. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Martin Harris 
 preach ? A. No sir, I have heard him talk 
 sometimes. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Sydney Rigdon 
 preach ? A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Parly Pratt 
 preach? A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q,. Did you suspect they were into some- 
 thing they ought not to be in? A No, sir. 
 
 By the Court : 
 
 Q. Did Martin Harris carry that idea as 
 a fact that the Devil was always in such a 
 form as a jackass? A. I had no thought 
 at the time that Martin Harris told that 
 story to convey the idea that the jackass 
 was the real form of his Satanic Majesty. 
 
 BY MR. KELLEY: 
 
 Q. Did you know the exact language that 
 Martin Harris used? A. I do. The lan- 
 guage was that he looked like a jackass. 
 
 Q. The idea from what he said did you 
 take it that the Devil himself in his own 
 region, in his own place, lived like a jack- 
 ass? A. I did not get any such idea as that ; 
 that was the form in which he appeared to 
 him. 
 
 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN: 
 
 Q. Who immersed you, Mr. Moss? A. 
 Sydney Rigdon, September, 1829. 
 
 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY : 
 
 Q. At that time did you suspect that he 
 was into anything he ought not to be? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 (Signed :) J. J. Moss. 
 
 STATE OF OHIO, > 
 Lake County, f 88 ' 
 
 Subscribed in my presence and sworn to 
 before me this 13th day of March, A. D. 
 1884, at Willoughby in said county. 
 
 (Signed:) J. C. WARD [SEAL.] 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 William Smith, being produced and first 
 being duly sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 EXAMINED BY MR. BRADEN : 
 
 Q. Mr. Smith, will you please state hoTf 
 you came by that pike? A. Mr. duff gava 
 it to me. 
 
888 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Q. What was he religiously? A. He was 
 a Mormon. 
 
 Q. State the facts about the pike and how 
 you came by it? A. Mr. Cluff wasaneigh- 
 ' bor of mine, and we exchanged work. I 
 called on him for settlement, and discovered 
 the pike In a corner by the door. I asked 
 him what that was for. He said about the 
 time the Methodist meeting house was 
 burned we were afraid of being mobbed, 
 and we armed ourselves for self-defense. 
 I said if I had it I would make a reamer 
 out of it, and when he left he gave it to me. 
 
 Q,. You may state next, Mr. Smith, whether 
 you attended the meetings of the Saints 
 during the winter of 1830-31, and what you 
 saw? A. I have attended the meetings at 
 Mr. Morley's, I think the given name is 
 Isaac. The buildings were upon a little 
 flat, and if my memory serves me, when 
 the people began to come there they put 
 up a log cabin or small addition to the house 
 part. I am sure I have attended those 
 meetings, and my first attendance was 
 when it began to be generally noised around 
 that there was strange things done, and 
 we young folks were curious to see what it 
 was. 
 
 Q. You may state about the falling and 
 what you saw in the meeting? A. I at- 
 tended three or four at Isaac Morley's in the 
 evening. I have heard Black Pete, as we 
 called him, as he went over the hills halloa- 
 ing and making strange noises, and the 
 common report was that he was speaking 
 in tongues and making speeches. And in 
 the house I have seen young men and wo- 
 men seemingly unconscious and the folks 
 said they had lain so for two days and they 
 were there on their beds and nobody tried 
 to prevent us looking at them, but we were 
 not allowed to go into the room. That is 
 all I have got to say with regard to the 
 meeting. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MB. KELLEY: 
 
 Q. Have you been in those meetings ? 
 A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. Have you seen any display of power 
 In the meetings? A. I have seen people 
 lose their consciousness and fall off from 
 their seats. 
 
 Q,. Any other performances aside from 
 this? A. No other performances in the 
 congregation except those I have stated to 
 you. 
 
 Q. Now was there any other performances 
 or anything of that kind? A. Black Pete 
 used to make a noise like Indians but I can 
 not say how he made it. It was made close 
 to me sometimes in the dark and sometimes 
 in the moonlight. Report said it was Black 
 Pete, I say we all thought so. 
 
 HE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN : 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen them jump up in 
 the air and go through the performance of 
 scalping and so on? A. I never did, sir. 
 
 Q,. You may state next about your speak- 
 ing in tongues, and Sidney Rigdon inter- 
 preting? A. Shall I answer thai question 
 by itself or shall I go farther back ? 
 
 Q. Did you ever speak in tongues and did 
 any man interpret it? A. I do not think, 
 sir, I ever spoke in tongues. I made some 
 kind of a language. 
 
 Q. Did any man ever pretend to interpret 
 it? A. Yes, sir, Sidney Rigdon. 
 
 Q. You may describe the circumstances 
 connected with it. Tll what you did and 
 what he did. A. The first that I ever heard 
 of what was acknowledged to be a speaking 
 with tongues was at a gathering a little 
 West of here on this bank, not far from 
 the house where old father Smalley used to 
 live. lean not think of the man's name. 
 People were in the habit of having what 
 they called feasts and we would commonly 
 have a short address as opening of the 
 feasts, and the address would be from a 
 text something like this, "And we shall 
 have a feast of fat things. Wine on the 
 lees well refined." I have quoted one of 
 the texts. They generally had two pails 
 of wine. It was called a feast. We had 
 a tin cup and when the audience was 
 convened and a speech made then with 
 a cup in each pail they passed around 
 the pails, the women on one side of 
 the house and the men on the other, and 
 we had as much wine as we wanted. 
 Then we had a hymn and sometimes prayer. 
 Then the wine would be passed around 
 again, and then we would have cakes and 
 wine and the outside people not wishing to 
 sponge would take doughnuts in their 
 pockets from their homes and everybody 
 had access to them and was welcomed to 
 what they wanted. After the cakes and 
 wine had been passed it was the season 
 then to speak with tongues and I spoke with 
 the rest. Of course I heard the rest of them 
 and I made such noises as the rest of them 
 did ; and somehow or other the story ob- 
 tained that I had the power to speak with 
 tongues. They had a meeting I think in 
 an old log house on the Ayer's place. That 
 was the first time, I think, I ever heard 
 Rigdon interpret the unknown tongues. I 
 talked in unknown tongues and others 
 talked and he interpreted my speech. And 
 allowing that Sidney interpreted what I 
 said I never made so fine a speech in my 
 life. Sidney said I had got beyond him. I 
 have spoken a good many times before 
 Rigdon and Smith. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see the patriarch Joseph ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see the patriarch Joseph 
 at any of these feasts when you thought ha 
 was under the influence of wine? A. I will 
 say I could not tell. The old gentleman 
 took a place in the corner. I do not know 
 as I ever saw him set anywhere else when 
 sitting at a feast, only in a corner. I do 
 not know that I ever saw him leave his 
 position. 
 
 Q. From Mr. Smith's appearance what 
 was your belief with reference to his con- 
 dition as to intoxication when you were at 
 those feasts? A. I would not say thai ht> 
 was intoxicated. 
 
 Q,. At the time Mr. Smith was sitting IK 
 tho corner did ho apj-e^r to be iutoxicateJ? 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 389 
 
 A. I could not form any conclusion from 
 the looks of the man. 
 
 Q,. Did you know anything about their 
 digging for treasure or money in this 
 vicinity? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When was that done? A. I will fix 
 the time if somebody will tell me when 
 this temple was plastered. I burned the 
 lime to plaster the inside of the temple for 
 a man that belonged to the Church ; that 
 man's name I cannot think of. I was 
 -working for him by the month, and he set 
 me to do that kind of work, and that was 
 the hardest part of my month's work; the 
 digging was done on what is now Mr. Try- 
 on's farm. 
 
 BY THE COURT : 
 
 Q. What kind of treasure were you dig- 
 ding for? A. You will get the idea better 
 to tell you how the man'dug. 
 
 Q. Was it minerals of any kind or money 
 treasure? A. I do not remember that the 
 man told me what to dig for. But he took 
 a little leather bag and he told me to dig. 
 I would dig down about as deep as my 
 shoulders and the water would come in, 
 and then he would go there and set this 
 way ( stooping over and looking toward 
 the floor ) a little leather bag, a little 
 bigger than my thumb, but not as big as a 
 broom handle; there was something in the 
 bag that the man was very choice of, and 
 lie kept it in a secure place. He would hold 
 the staring up to his eyes, and the bag would 
 begin to vibrate, and whichever way it 
 swayed the farthest that is the way he 
 would dig. Then if we did not find any- 
 thing he would use the bag again, and 
 whichever way it swayed the farthest they 
 would dig the farthest in that direction. 
 
 BY MB. 
 
 Q. You did not know what he was dig- 
 .ging for, did you, Mr. Smith. A. No, sir. 
 
 BY MB. BBADEN : 
 
 Q. Were there any other cases of digging 
 that you know of? A. Yes, sir. There 
 was an old lady that belonged to the Church, 
 a widow IPetingail, that had a vision that 
 there wau money buried on a hog-back 
 corered with hemlock. Mr. Campbell 
 brought her along the road near tomy shop. 
 when she pointed out the place she had 
 emi in her vision, and they dug there. 
 
 CIIOSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY: 
 
 (J,. They were digging for money there? 
 A. They were digging for money. 
 
 (I. Were any of the Church officials 
 (In that, Mr. Smith? A. Nobody but the 
 old. lady, I think. 
 
 Q,. You did not know whether the man 
 yc u was working for was digging for money 
 07 not? A. His term was tills, that it was 
 a trdasure. 
 
 Q. Were any of the people around helping 
 him? A. 1 could not say. 
 
 Q. Now don't you know that he was not 
 digging under the direction of the Church? 
 A. I don't know anything about it. I will 
 eay this, that we burned lime for the 
 
 Church, and some of them were there for 
 lime twice a day, and there were a good 
 many there that thought there was treasure 
 there. I did not think there was any sanc- 
 tion of the Church. 
 
 Q. Did you not know of any person dig- 
 ging for money here before the Saints came? 
 A. No, I don't know that there was. 
 
 Q,. What was this gentleman's name that 
 you were working for? A. I do not remem- 
 ber, he was an old gentleman. He was a 
 man who had lost his wife. He had found 
 a treasure, and it is true that he did dis- 
 cover a bank of horse bone lime. 
 
 Q,. Was he a Mormon? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How long had he belonged to the 
 church? A. Indeed, sir, I do not know. 
 
 Q. Now Mr. Smith give me your opinion, 
 whether or not it was a kind of freak of bis 
 and he said something there that he thought 
 he could see, and it was his eccentricity 
 that you may find over the country, or was 
 it anything according to his faith? A. I 
 do not think I can form any opinion now. 
 
 Q. Did you think at the time it was his 
 religion that made him do it? A. I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. Did not that report about money 
 being buried make others dig besides the 
 Saints? A. I never heard of them digging; 
 my impression is there was some digging 
 done where Mr. Smalley lived. 
 
 Q. Who was that digging down there 
 where Mr. Smalley lived? A. Idon'tknow 
 anything about it, but report said Martin 
 Harris caused it to be done. 
 
 Q. I will ask you to state with regard to 
 these feasts, Mr. Smith, if they were not 
 wedding feasts? A. No, sir. When they 
 first started out they were attended weekly. 
 It seemed to be a little expensive, so they 
 did not have them quite so often. I think 
 they had a gallon of wine or two, and they 
 dis-continued having them weekly and had 
 them semi-monthly. 
 
 Was this a sacrament meeting? A. Oh, 
 no! It was a feast. 
 
 Q. Did you belong to the church then? 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever unite with them? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. They never ever cast anybody out? 
 A. No, sir, they had attractions that called 
 young folks in. 
 
 Q. Did you see any immoral things in 
 their meetings? A. "Not immoral ; but I 
 have seen them jolly. They acted as though 
 they felt good. 
 
 Q. Did you taste of the wine? A. Yes, I 
 drank with the rest of them. 
 
 Q. How many glasses did you generally 
 drink? A. About two; we were all of us 
 young folks, and we behaved ourselves 
 well. There was no bad conduct at the 
 feast, and we had a good time. 
 
 Q. At the time you speak of speaking in. 
 tongues you had heard them speak in 
 tongues at their meetings? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And your speaking was the represen 
 tation of these sounds. A. I heard unknown 
 tongues and I thought I could imitate 
 them. 
 
890 
 
 THE BRHDEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Q. And when Sydney interpreted you 
 you do not know but what he actually in- 
 terpreted ? A. Sydney Rigdon said I spoke 
 three languages. That iny best language 
 was Nephite. 
 
 Q. I will ask you to state the first time 
 that you have heard anybody speak in 
 tongues ? A. I think it was here in Kirt- 
 land. 
 
 Q, Do you know the first man in the 
 Church^ that was ever reported to have 
 Bp>ken in tongues? A. No, sir. I do not. 
 
 Q. You know it was some time after the 
 church was organized before they professed 
 to have that gift, do you not? A. Really I 
 do not know when the church was organ- 
 ized. I know when the feasts were held, 
 and about the time and it might have been 
 the same season when they were plastering 
 the temple. I cannot say I first took the 
 thought from young boys getting up on a 
 stump and speaking in tongues. 
 
 Q. Those cases where they seemed to fall 
 Over was it not sometimes from fainting 
 through over-crowded houses, or something 
 like that? A. I never saw it any where else. 
 They were wholly unconscious, and some 
 roguish' boys would stick a pin into the 
 arm and there was no manifestation of sen- 
 sation. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know of such occur- 
 rences in any other church? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did not such action occur in the 
 Christian church ? A. I do not know that 
 they ever did in the Christian church. 
 
 Q. What is your business Mr. Smith ? A. 
 Nothing ! I have no business. 
 
 Q. Are you a minister? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What church are you a member of? 
 A. I am a member of the Christian church. 
 
 Q. You were quite well acquainted with 
 Joseph Smith, the old gentleman? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did they try to force you into their 
 religion ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Were Joseph Smith and Sydney Rig- 
 don dishonest men ? A. I do not know but 
 what they were all right. 
 
 Q. Was this club or pike ever used by any 
 of our people? A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q,. Do you know how many they had 
 made? A. I do not know but they had those 
 three and Mr. Cluff said we armed our- 
 selves. 
 
 Q,. At that time had not a number of the 
 Saints left here? A. I could not answer that. 
 He was going away, and that was the reason 
 he said ne did not want it? 
 
 Q. Had not a number gone before the 
 church was burned? A. I cannot remem- 
 ber about that. 
 
 Q,. Did you ever know Joseph Smith, or 
 Oliver Cowdery, or Martin Harris to do 
 any immoral thing? A. No, I never did. 
 I never saw any of these things done. I 
 never heard any complaint about Sydney 
 Rigdon here in Kirtland. Oliver Cow- 
 dery'a name was not so good, and Martin 
 Harris was a good honest soul as you would 
 wish to be with. Some said he was a little 
 visionary. I heard him challenge Bro. 
 
 Moss here in the street for a debate, and 
 Bro. Moss would not go in. 
 
 Q. I will now ask you, Mr. 'Smith, if 
 sometime during the year directly after 
 the temple was built, if there was not some* 
 members cut off for these peculiar freaks ? 
 A. Tt might have been, done, but I have no 
 recollection of it. 
 
 Q. Did not you know the Parishes? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Perhaps you know of their being 
 severed from the Church? A. I remember 
 the name of the Parishes, as not a name to 
 be desired. I cannot remember what was 
 done with them. 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Smith, have you told the 
 worst you know about trie people and their 
 worship. Personally have you told the 
 worst you know about the people, commonly 
 called the Mormons, while they were here? 
 A. I have, and I could satisfy you that the 
 Mormons called themselves Mormons. 
 
 Q. In regard to their acts, or their immoral 
 acts, or what they did as to immoral con- 
 duct, do you personally know anything that 
 would be derogatory to the Mormon char- 
 acter? A. I do not know chat I have told 
 the worst, I know I have tried to answer 
 these questions. 
 
 Q,. Are you afraid that if they should 
 come back they would injure anybody? 
 A. I would not like to have them come 
 back. We kept our doors all locked, and 
 somebody tipped over a smoke house and 
 carried off nine hams. I did not know it 
 was Mormons though. I say honestly^this, 
 I am afraid we should get the same impres- 
 sion that we did before. I would not like 
 to have them carry on as they did before. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether it was them? 
 A. No, sir, I say I do not. 
 
 Q. Are there others that lived around 
 there then? A. Mr. Harmon and myself, 
 that is about all I know of. 
 
 Q. Now, were you here last Spring when? 
 the Latter Day Saints were here? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You met with them here, and talked 
 in, their meeting? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q,. Did not you say, you welcomed them 
 back? A. No, sir. "Not to my recollection. 
 I will tell you the first remark I did make 
 when Uncle Wm. Smith had been speak- 
 ing. He was a little older than myself, and 
 I arose and said. Wra. Smith had better 
 continue that subject a little longer, and 
 then I said I think you are all wrong. 
 
 Q. Did you learn anything bad at that 
 convention? A. No, I did not learn any- 
 thing bad. I heard some foolish stories 
 though. 
 
 Q,. You hear things similar to what you 
 hear in any testimony meeting? A. I will 
 refer to one or two assertions of marvellous 
 interpositions of Divine power raising the 
 dead and healing the sick. 
 
 Q. You simply thought they were foolish 
 becauseyoudidnotnot believesuch things? 
 A. That was all. 
 
 Q. You would not have been in their 
 meetings if you had thought them bad dur- 
 
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 891 
 
 Ing the time of the convention? A. Mr, 
 Joseph Smith made the best temperance 
 lecture that I have ever heard, and I 
 " warmed " to him as the German's say. 
 He said "I would like to see the Garfleld 
 farm." I said " Why don't you get into 
 some old wagon and go there?" He said 
 " I would like to go to-morrow," and E said 
 " I would come over and take him there ; " 
 and I came over and we went down there. 
 I had a good ride with Joseph, and brought 
 him back again ; and the brethren thought 
 it some thing wonderful. They said " Did 
 he convert you?" I said I have been past 
 praying for, for years. It was our good 
 friend Mr. Blair that asked me the question. 
 
 BE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN: 
 
 Q. Is it your recollection or your impres- 
 sion, Mr. Smith, that you have heard of trie 
 sealing of women to men here in Kirtland, 
 and the sealing of Nancy Rigdon to Joseph 
 Smith? A. My impression is I have. 
 
 Q. You have heard it spoken of and 
 talked of here? A. My impression is I 
 have. 
 
 HE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLEY : 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear it talked of while 
 the Saints lived here? A. I say I have 
 heard it talked of. My impression is that 
 I have heard it talked of here in Kirtland, 
 and that the story obtained that the diffi- 
 culty between Joseph Smith and Sydney 
 Rigdon was in consequence of the wish or 
 the manifestation on the part of Joseph 
 Smith that Rigdon's daughter Nancy should 
 be sealed to him. 
 
 Q. Will you say that was between Joseph 
 Smith and Rigdon, and that it was a diffi- 
 culty occurred here in Kirtland. Who did 
 you hear talk about their having trouble 
 herein Kirtland? A. I cannot tell. 
 
 Q. Was it any of the Saints? A. I can 
 not tell you that. 
 
 Q. Do you not know, Mr. Smith, that 
 there was not any report of any such thing 
 as that as of Nancy Rigdon being sealed to 
 Joseph Smith while the Saints were here 
 in Kirtland? A. My impression is that 
 that report was here in Kirtland. I went 
 to school with Athalia Rigdon, and there 
 was talk among the boys about sealing. I 
 think there was difficulty between Joseph 
 Smith and Rigdon with reference to having 
 Rigdon's daughter sealed to Smith. I would 
 not positively say it was so ; that is my 
 impression. 
 
 Q. How old was Nancy Rigdon at that 
 time? A. I do not know ; I went to school 
 with Athalia Rigdon. 
 
 Q. How old was she? A. I cannot tell. 
 Nor can I tell how old I was. Nancy Rigdon 
 was the oldest. I do not know how much 
 older than Athalia. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear any of them talk 
 about sealing? A. Yes, I am positive 
 that I heard that language used among the 
 boys. 
 
 Q. Did they not talk about the sealing of 
 the Holy Spirit? Is not that what you 
 heard them talk about? A. No, the seal- 
 ing was in some way or other with the 
 
 women. My impression is that I have heard 
 that story of the quarrel between Rigdon 
 and Smith talked of here in Kirtland. 
 
 Q. Is it not probable that they were talk- 
 ing those things after they went to Nauvoo. 
 You got it mixed. A. It may be, but I give 
 you my best recollection. 
 
 (Signed :) WM. S. SMITH. 
 
 STATE OF OHIO, \ 
 Lake County. / bs * 
 
 Subscribed by Wm. 8. Smith, and sworn 
 to before me this 15th day of March, A. D, 
 1884, at Willoughby. 
 
 (Signed) J. C. WARD, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 APPENDIX, No. 2. 
 
 EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES PRODUCED ON TUB 
 PART OF E. L. KELLEY. 
 
 REUBEN P. HARMON, being duly 
 sworn, testifies as follows : 
 
 Q. What is your age Mr. Harmon? A. I 
 am 69 years old. 
 
 Q. How long have you lived in the vicin- 
 ity of Kirtland? A. I came to Kirtland 
 in the year 1822; I have been absent part of 
 the time in the South, perhaps six years 
 during that time; part of the time here and 
 part of the time in the South. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with Martin 
 Harris while he lived here? A. I was, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with his reputa- 
 tion for truth and veracity when he lived 
 here? A. I was. 
 
 Q. State what that was. A. It was good, 
 so far as I knew, sir. 
 
 Q. What was his reputation for honesty ? 
 A. He frequently came to my house, and 
 very frequently stayed overnight; some- 
 times two or three days. . 
 
 Q. How often d id you see him, and for how 
 many years did you know him? A. Iknew 
 him most of the time until he went west to 
 Salt Lake or Utah. 
 
 Q. About how many years ago was that? 
 A. It is a good many years, and I would 
 have to figure up from the dates. It is 
 quite a number of years ago. 
 
 Q. What was his general reputation for 
 honesty. A. I have never heard his char- 
 acter for honesty questioned by any one. 
 
 Q,. Were you personally acquainted with 
 Oliver Cowdery. A. I was but not as inti- 
 mately as with Martin Harris. 
 
 Q.. How long did he live here? A. I 
 should think about six years, but I am not 
 positive. 
 
 <4. Did you know what his general repu- 
 tation for truth and veracity in the neigh- 
 borhood was at the time he lived here? A. 
 I did, and the whole Cowdery family ; Ol- 
 iver Cowdery's reputation was good. 
 
 Q. Did David Whitmer live here, or did 
 you know him? A. I did, and I never 
 heard anything against him. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with Joseph 
 Smith? A. I was acquainted with him. 
 
 Q. You may state anything you know 
 
892 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 about his conduct as being bad. A. I never 
 knew any thing bad about him. 
 
 Q. How long were you acquainted with 
 him. A. Well, I can't give the dates. It 
 might trouble me to give dates. From the 
 time he came here till he went West. 
 
 Q. Did you know what his reputation was 
 
 as to truth and veracity in this place at the 
 
 time? A. I had opportunity of knowing it. 
 
 Q,. Did you know ? A. "Yes, sir, I did 
 
 know. 
 
 Q. What was that reputation? A. I re- 
 garded that it was good. 
 
 Q. What was his reputation for honesty? 
 State that. A. I never heard it questioned. 
 Q. Did you belong to the church? A. I 
 did not belong to any church. 
 
 Q. Now I will ask you to state with re- 
 gard to the people known as Mormons, 
 or Latter Day Saints, who lived here .at 
 that time. What was their general char- 
 acter au compared with people of other 
 neighborhoods, Mr. Harmon? Just state 
 how the people here compared with people 
 in other places. A. If I was to state what 
 I know, I would say that I had no right to 
 question- their honesty. I have heard re- 
 ports, but I do not know anything against 
 them. 
 
 Q. Mr. Harmon, was Mr. Harris's word 
 always considered reliable in matters of re- 
 ligion ? or did he tell big yarns and won- 
 derful stories? A. He held ideas that I did 
 not agree with. 
 
 Q. Well did he not tell extravagant 
 stories of wonderful visions of sights and 
 sounds? A. I never heard him tell many 
 stories. With regard to his testimony 
 about seeing the plates, and Joseph Smith, 
 and the method of translation, some might 
 think them extravagant stories. 
 
 Q. Would you regard his statements as 
 visionary? A. I would, that is some of 
 them. 
 
 Q,. I will ask you, Mr. Harmon, if these 
 stories that you regarded as visionary, were 
 stories about visions, and whether that is 
 the reason you call them so? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q, Were his stories any more extravagant 
 than others have stated with regard to vis- 
 ions, etc., in your estimation? A. About 
 the same. John Wesley makes more ex- 
 travagant expressions than I ever heard 
 Harris make, as found in his work. 
 
 Q. Do you set Martin Harris with the rest 
 of them ? Was he honest? A. I always 
 must regard him as being honest with re- 
 gard to the Book of Mormon and its 
 translation ; and I do not know but that he 
 was honest in his visions. I think that he 
 was honest in his visions. 
 
 Q. Did you know Sidney Rigdon ? and 
 when did you first know him? A. I think 
 I knew Sidney Rigdon in 1828 or 1829. He 
 was then preaching in Mentor; preaching 
 what we call Disciple doctrine. He came 
 to my father's and held meetings in his 
 barn, and babtized quite a number. 
 
 Q. How long afterwards did you know 
 him? A. I knew him all through. Most 
 of the time till he left Kirtland. 
 Q. What was his reputation for truth 
 
 and veracity in this vicinity? A. I never 
 heard it questioned. 
 
 Q. What was his character other than 
 for truth and veracity? A. I shall have to 
 go into the description of the man. I heard 
 him preach a funeral sermon in 1829. I 
 heard him preach frequently after that. He 
 is a man, I should judge, who had acquired 
 a classical education. I would regard him 
 as a good English scholar, and. perhaps, as 
 well versed in the Bible and history as any 
 other man that I ever heard speak ; having 
 read Grecian and Roman history, he fre- 
 quently used descriptions from these auth- 
 ors. He was eloquent in language, and an 
 excellent speaker, and carried an audience 
 with him. He established a church in Men- 
 tor, also came and held a revival in Kirt- 
 land. The meeting-house, a one-story build- 
 ing, was completed in Mentor at the time 
 when Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt 
 came on here. I heard Sidney Rigdon the 
 last speech that he made while he officiated 
 as a Disciple preacher. He said he had 
 been mistaken all his life-time, and he quit 
 preaching and went into Mr. Morley's field 
 and went to plowing. Worked at common 
 labor for some time, until he took up the 
 Latter Day Saint doctrine aud began to 
 preach it. He did not go to preaching righ t 
 away after he left the Disciple church. I 
 heard him make the remark that he never 
 expected to speak in public again. There 
 was quite a church of the Disciples herein 
 Kirtland, and he carried a portion of them 
 with him into the Latter Day Saints' church. 
 He preached that doctrine from that time 
 on until he left here. I considered him a 
 good Latter Day Saint member. 
 
 Q. What is your opinion from what you 
 saw and heard of him, in regard to "the 
 story that he was connected with Joseph 
 Smith in getting up the Book of Mormon? 
 A. I never could make out in my ov 
 mind that Mr. Rigdon ever had anything 
 to do with the getting up of the Book of 
 Mormon. 
 
 Q. Do you think there was an opportunity 
 for Mr. Rigdon to have had access to 
 Spaulding's manuscript at the time the 
 Book of Mormon was gotten up? A. At 
 that time he was preaching in Mentor. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear him state his own 
 views as to whether he ever had any con- 
 nection with Smith and the Spaulding 
 story, as it was charged to nim? A. I heard 
 him make this remark in his last speech 
 that he made to the public here. He said, 
 "It was a thing that I never thought of 
 until Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt 
 introduced it to me." When all of these 
 stories first started about his having been 
 connected with Smith, and the getting up 
 of the Book of Mormon, they were first cir- 
 culated by a man by the name of Hurlbut. 
 He raised a little contribution in order to 
 go to New York state, and inquire into the 
 matter. He was a man of bad character, 
 and I think he had been connected with 
 the Latter Day Saint Church. We made 
 up a contribution and sent him back to 
 Palmyra to investigate the charade'- ox' ch 
 
THE BBADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 893 
 
 Smith family, and the means of their ac- 
 quiring the Book of Mormon. He went on 
 and got affidavits. The meeting was held 
 in the Presbyterian church. 
 
 Q. Were you in the meeting and one of 
 the parties who helped to send him? A. 
 Yes, sir ; but I will say, however, that Sid- 
 ney l?i<rdon at the time he made his last 
 speech here, said that he knew nothing 
 about the Book of Mormon until it was pre- 
 sented to him by Oliver Cowdery and 
 Parley Pratt. I never heard of theSpauld- 
 ing story until it was sprung on me. 
 
 Q. Did you know anything about Hul- 
 burt getting the manuscript? A. No, sir. 
 We sent him to get the affidavits. He got 
 the most of them in Palmyra. The principal 
 ones are in a book that I have over here. 
 
 Q. Is it the affidavits in Howe's book that 
 you refer to ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you know about these same par- 
 ties sending him to New York to get a man- 
 uscript? A. They sent him to gather all 
 the information he could about the Latter 
 Day Saint Church. 
 
 Q. Did he get the affidavits first, or the 
 manuscript? A. He did not get the man- 
 uscript at all, that I know of. I never saw 
 the manuscript. He said he saw a man 
 who had read the Book of Mormon, and 
 that he said that it resembled the manu- 
 script. 
 
 Q. Did you see him after he returned 
 from the widow of Solomon Spaulding, 
 where he went to get the manuscript? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q,. Were you ever in the Saints' meet- 
 Ings while they were held here in Kirtland? 
 A. Oh ! Yes, sir. 
 
 Q,. Did you ever see any thing disorderly or 
 unbecoming in them? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever attend any of the meet- 
 ings of the Disciple church? A. I was in 
 the meetings of the Disciples that were held 
 on Mr. Morley's farm. \ man by the name 
 of Billings preached. The first ceremony 
 that I remember witnessing was the wash- 
 ing of feet. It was in a little log building, 
 the Disciple church. It was while Mr. 
 Rigdon was preaching in Mentor. After- 
 wards I frequently went to their meetings 
 that were held on the Morley place. 
 
 Q,. Did you ever hear Rigdon shout or 
 anything of that kind ? A. I never heard 
 him make any other demonstration than a 
 plain address. 
 
 Q. When you attended the early meetings 
 of the Saints, how did they act? A. After 
 the discovery of the Book of Mormon there 
 were frequently meetings around here and 
 a large concourse of people attended them. 
 Many came out of curiosity. They had 
 singing and praying and a little preaching, 
 and sort of social meetings. 
 
 Q. Would any of the women or meu have 
 the power? A. This negro, Black Pete, 
 that they spoke of came here at an early 
 time with a man from Pennsylvania. I saw 
 him in that condition in a log building lying 
 on his back. 
 
 Q. Was he a member of the Latter Day 
 Suiut church ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see any one else in that 
 condition in their meetings? A. No, sir: 
 only this negro. He would jump up and 
 display a great deal of strength and activity. 
 
 Q. Was any of the ministers present. A. 
 I do not think there was. I did not hear of 
 any more of such performances after Joseph 
 Smith came here. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see anything of the kind 
 in the meetings held by Parley Pratt, Oliver 
 Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon, after Rigdon 
 united with the Saints? A. No. I have 
 heard them talk in tongues some, and heard 
 Joseph Smith interpret once. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see any one fall down in 
 their meetings after Joseph Smith came 
 here? A. No, sir, I did not. I attended 
 their large meetings, and when there was a 
 sacrament of cold water and bread. 
 
 Q. You were well acquainted with the 
 people, were you? A. Yes, eir. 
 
 Q. Tell us what you know about any one 
 of them having more wives than one? A. 
 If Martin Harris can be regarded as auth- 
 ority there was no such thing as polygamy 
 among them until they went to Salt Lake. 
 He told me so. There was nothing of the 
 kind here that I ever heard of. I have heard 
 them speak against polygamy. 
 
 Q. Would you be afraid that your prop- 
 erty would be insecure if the Latter Day 
 Saints were to come back here? A. No, I 
 never was afraid of my neighbors taking 
 my property, and I would not be of them. 
 REUBEN P. HARMON. 
 
 A. E. SANBOR^, having been produced 
 and duly sworn, testifies as follows : 
 
 Q. Mr. Sanborn, where do you live ? A. 
 I live about a mile East of here. 
 
 Q. How long have you lived here? A. 
 About 47 years. 
 
 Q,. Were you acquainted with the Latter 
 Day Saints at the time they lived here? A. 
 Yes, sir; and before they came here. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with Martin 
 Harris? A. Yes, sir, I was. 
 
 Q. Did you know his reputation for truth 
 and veracity in the neighborhood when, 
 he lived here? A. I never heard it ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 Q. Was his reputation good or bad? A. 
 It was good. Nobody disputed his word in 
 anything, unless it was his visionary sto- 
 ries. He was, to my mind, a little vision- 
 ary. 
 
 Q. You may state if it was not on account 
 of what he related about seeing the plates 
 that makes you think he was visionary. A. 
 Why, yes, I should think so. 
 
 Q! Were you personally acquainted with 
 Oliver Cowdery ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you personally acquainted with 
 Joseph Smith? A. Yes, sir. I was ac- 
 quainted with Joseph Smith. 
 
 Q. Do you know what his reputation was 
 for truth and veracity at the time he lived 
 here in this neighborhood? A. At the time 
 he lived here until the time he went west 
 (he went before I did) it was not ques- 
 tioned. I lived just across the street from 
 him in Nauvoo. 
 
894 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 Q. Yon may state all you know about him. 
 A. Well, I knew him to be a kind, gener- 
 ous and truthful neighbor; he was a very 
 kind man. 
 
 Q. What was his general moral charac- 
 ter? A. It was good. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with Sidney 
 Eigdon? A. Yes, sir. He lived pretty 
 close to Smith. Probably fifteen rods away. 
 
 Q,. What kind of a man was Iligdon ? 
 State as nearly as you can describe him ? A. 
 Well, he was quite a good looking man ; 
 would weigh about 200 pounds ; had rather 
 a round face, shortish countenance and 
 squeaking voice. For that reason I never 
 liked to hear him preach. Some called him 
 a good orator, but I did not. I never knew 
 anything about him but what was all right 
 as to character. 
 
 Q. What was his reputation for truth and 
 veracity? A. I never heard it questioned, 
 either here or in Nauvoo, and I lived there 
 close by him, and talked with him nearly 
 every week. 
 
 Q,. Did you know David Whitmer? A. 
 I do not recollect him. If he lived in 
 Kirtland I do not recollect him at all. 
 
 Q. Were you living at Nauvoo at the time 
 of Smith's death ? A. I Jived there until the 
 fall of 1840, and then I came back here to 
 Kirtland. 
 
 Q. Were you living here all the time the 
 Saints were here? A. Oh, no. They were 
 here when I came. This temple was built 
 in 1834. I came in the spring, and I think 
 it was dedicated in the spring of 1836. I 
 have been a little confounded. I supposed 
 the temple was dedicated when it was fin- 
 ished. This is all I recollect about it. I 
 came here the spring it was dedicated, 
 and think it was in 1836. 
 
 Q. What did you know of the people when 
 you lived here, if anything that was im- 
 moral? A. I do not know any thing. There 
 was some stealing going on at the time the 
 Mormons were here. It was laid on the 
 Mormons by some at the time ; but after- 
 wards there was a revival here in the Pres- 
 byterian church, in which the parties that 
 did the stealing owned to it. They were 
 Presbyterians. 
 
 Q,. State whether they were in the prac- 
 tice of polygamy here or not? A. Not that 
 I knew of. 
 
 Q. You would have known it if they had 
 been, would you not? A. I ought to, my 
 father was a Mormon. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MK. BRADEN : 
 
 Q. Mr. Harris' word and honor was re- 
 garded good in matters of business, but 
 when telling his religious experience you 
 thought h'm visionary? A. We rather 
 thought him visionary. 
 
 RE-DIBECT: 
 
 Q. During your acquaintance and Inti- 
 mate association with Sydney Rigdon, 
 what was your judgment with reference to 
 his being connected with the Book of Mor- 
 mon before its publication? A. I do not 
 know anything at all as to that. I had this 
 
 Anti-Mormon Book 40 years ago, but I cao 
 not find it now. 
 
 Q. Did you ever gather from any conver- 
 sation you had with Rigdon that he \va 
 connected in any way with the publication 
 of the Book of Mormon ? A. I never talked 
 with him anything about that. 
 
 Q. State what you know about the intro- 
 duction of polygamy into the church. A. 
 I attended meetings both in Nauvoo and 
 here in Kirtland, both in the evenings and 
 on the Sabbath, and I never heard anything 
 of polygamy at all until after Smith's 
 death. 
 
 A. E. SANBORN. 
 
 J. M. PLAISTED, being duly sworn, tes- 
 tifies as follows : 
 
 Q. Mr. Plaisted, how long have you lived 
 here in Kirtland? A. I have always lived 
 here. I was born in Kirtland. I was born 
 in 1831. 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with any of the 
 Latter Day Saints while they lived here? 
 A. I was well acquainted with Martin Har- 
 ris at the time he lived here. 
 
 Q. Do you know what his reputation for 
 truth and veracity was in the neighborhood 
 at the time? A. It was good. 
 
 Q. What was his general character as 
 to honesty? A. It was considered good. I 
 was well acquainted with him. Have lived 
 in the same house with him. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADEN : 
 
 Q. Was he noted for his extravagant 
 claims and extravagant stories in religion ? 
 A. Yes, sir. He always wanted io be 
 preaching. That seemed to be on his mind. 
 He understood the Bible first-rate and was 
 quoting Scripture a good deal of the time. 
 
 RE- DIRECT. 
 
 Q. Did it not arise from the fact that he 
 had told that he had seen the plates? A. 
 I think it did. 
 
 Q, He said he had seen the plates and 
 other people thought he had not? A. Yes, 
 sir; I have heard him say that the Lord 
 appeared to him. 
 
 Q,. In what manner did he say the Lord 
 appeared? A. I do not know as I can 
 state. I have told him that he would go 
 crazy if he did not quit talking on that SUD- 
 ject all the time. 
 
 (Signed) J. M. PLAISTED. 
 
 EZRA BOND, being duly sworn testifies 
 as follows : 
 
 Q. Mr. Bond, were you acquainted with 
 Sidney Rigdon ? A. Yes, sir ; I was. 
 
 Q. You may state at what time you be- 
 came acquainted with him? A. In the 
 year 1834. 
 
 Q. How long afterwards did you know 
 him? A. I could not state definitely, but 
 during the years of his sojourn here. I 
 think from the fall of 1834 to 1836. In fact, 
 until he left here. This has been my home 
 from that time until now. 
 
 Q. You may state if you know what his 
 reputation was for truth and veracity. A. 
 I cannot say. I was but a boy at that time, 
 eight years old. 
 
THE BRA DEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 895 
 
 Q. Were you acquainted with Martin 
 Harris? A. Yes, sir. In the years after, 
 while he resided here. 
 
 Q. What time was that? A. From 1834 
 until he left. I do not know when that 
 was. 
 
 Q. You frequently met him during the 
 time that he was here, did you? A. Yes, 
 Bir. 
 
 Q. Do you know what his reputation was 
 for truth and veracity in this neighborhood 
 while he lived here. A. He was considered a 
 truthful man. I have had some deal with 
 him, and always found he acted honest 
 and manly. That is my testimony in that 
 respect. He might have been liable to be 
 mistaken, but with no intention of telling 
 an untruth. 
 
 Q. The people did not believe his state- 
 rnent about seeing the plates and the 
 angel? A. No, sir. He was regarded as a 
 kind of an enthusiast, or monomaniac on 
 the religious question. 
 
 Q. Was he in the habit of making extrav- 
 agant statements? A. He was in the habit 
 of stating that the Lord had told him 
 this or that tiling. He seemed well versed 
 in the scriptures, and was over anxious to 
 give his opinions, and would talk to any 
 one who would listen to him. 
 
 Q. Were not his sayings thought extrava- 
 gant, because they pertained to visions, or 
 hearing the voice of the Lord? A. Yes. 
 People did not believe in such things. He 
 was regarded in business as an honest and 
 truthful man. I have known people that 
 knew him in New York state and here, 
 and that is the reputation they gave of him 
 regarding business. 
 
 Q. Mr. Bond, you have been in the Saints' 
 meetings here during the time of your liv- 
 ing here, have you not? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. State if you ever saw them fall down, 
 act senseless, or anything in that way ? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. How old were you in 1832? A. I was 
 born in 1826. I remember Sidney Rigdon 
 better than any one else, as he was their 
 foremost speaker. He spoke in the temple 
 & great deal. 
 
 (Signed) EZRA BOND. 
 
 F. C. RICH, being duly sworn testifies 
 as follows : 
 
 Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Rich? A. 
 In the city of Cfeveland. 
 
 Q. Did you ever live in Kirtland? A. 
 Yes, sir. I came here in 1831. 
 
 Q. Did you know, or were you acquainted 
 with Joseph Smith, Martin Harris and 
 Sidney Rigdon, or either of them? Did 
 you know their reputation for truth and 
 veracity in the neighborhood at the time 
 they lived here ? and were you acquainted 
 with their moral character? A. I knew 
 nothing against them. I was but a boy 
 however, but the outsiders persecuted them 
 on account of their religious views. 
 
 Q. You had an opportunity to know? A. 
 Yes, sir; my father was here in an early 
 day and was connected with the church. 
 
 Q. Were you in their meetings frequent- 
 ly? A. Yes, sir. Brought right, up in the 
 church. The first meeting I recollect very 
 much about was after the temple was fin- 
 ished. I attended meetings right along 
 after it was completed. I was too young 
 during its building to take any particular 
 notice outside. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see anything of an im- 
 moral tendency in themeetings? A. Noth- 
 ing that could be considered immoral. 
 They shouted Hosannah, and seemed to 
 enjoy their religion ; and, of course, got ex- 
 cited as other people do. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see them fall down and 
 go into fits, or anything of that kind? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. You may state what you know about 
 any of the leading men being temperate or 
 intemperate men; also in regard to their 
 swearing, or drinking, or anything of the 
 kind. A. They were men of good moral 
 habits and temperate. Men that did not 
 drink ardent spirits at any time. 
 
 Q. What time did you live here? A. I 
 lived in Kirtland from a boy 10 years old 
 until about ten years ago. I came here 
 before the temple was built. I never heard 
 of the spikes referred to before. 
 
 Q. Did your father ever have such a thing 
 as a spike; such as Braden has shown ? A. 
 I never saw any spike. I do not think he 
 required any. 
 
 Q. Mr. Rich, if the spikes had been very 
 common around would you not have been 
 -likely to have known it? A. I suppose I 
 should ; would have been very apt to, I 
 think. 
 
 Q. You may state whether they believed 
 in having more than one wife? A. I never 
 heard they were in favor of anything of the 
 kind here. 
 
 Q. You heard them talk with your father, 
 heard the elders preach, was in their meet- 
 ings, and mixed with them in all the affairs 
 of life; if there had been anything wrong 
 or bad in their teachings and habits would 
 you not have known it ? A.I am perfectly 
 satisfied that the church did not teach or 
 practice polygamy, or any other immoral 
 doctrine while they were in Kirtland. 
 
 (Signed) F. C. RICH. 
 
 S3. 
 
 STATE OF OHIO, \ , 
 COUNTY OP CUYAHOGA. j ' 
 
 The above named F. C. Rich, being duly 
 sworn, says that the foregoing statement to 
 which he has subscribed his name is true iu 
 substance and in fact. 
 
 (Signed) F. C. RICH. 
 
 Sworn to before me and subscribed in my 
 presence this 10th day of June, A. D. IfeSi. 
 (Signed) ALEX. ELMSLIE, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 I, 8. C. Carpenter, a Justice of the Peace 
 In and for the township of Kirtland, Lake 
 county. Ohio, do hereby certify that the 
 above named Reuben P. Harmon, A. E. 
 Sanboru Ezra Bond and J. M. Plaisted were 
 
cue 
 
 THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE. 
 
 by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, 
 the whole truth and nothing but the truth ; 
 that the foregoing depositions by them re- 
 spectively subscribed were reduced to writ- 
 ing by Mr. Fay in my presence on the 8th 
 day of March, A. D. 1884, atKirtland in the 
 county and state aforesaid ; and by said 
 witnesses respectively subscribed in my 
 presence. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set 
 my hand this llth day of June, A. D. 1884. 
 (Signed) S. C. CARPENTER, 
 
 Justice of the Peace. 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. 3. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO, March 1, 1884. 
 
 DAVID WHITMER, ESQ., RICHMOND, Mo., Dear Sir.- A. 
 person by the name of J. H. Gilbert, at Palmyra, N. Y., 
 claims, I am told, that he set the type for the Book of 
 Mormon and that there were no capital letters begin- 
 ning sentences and proper names In the printers' man- 
 uscript; and if there are any in now they have been 
 put in since. 
 
 Will vou please examine the manuscript In your 
 possession, which you claim to be the original of the 
 Book of Mormon, and ascertain as to whether there 
 are capital letters, and whether, If there are such, they 
 are In the original writing ? Or have they been placed 
 in since ? 
 
 Does the manuscript show any marks of having 
 passed through the printers' hands 7 You will oblige 
 by answering at once, as I desire to get the facts in the 
 matter. It is also claimed that Oliver Cowdery denied 
 his testimony. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 B. L. KELLEY. 
 APPENDIX NO. 4. 
 
 RICHMOND, Mo., March 3, 1884. 
 
 E. L. KBLLKY, Dear Sir.*- Yours of 1st received. In 
 answer to your first question. First, the capitals are in 
 the first writing: Second, they are the manuscripts 
 used by the printer and bear unmistakable evidence of 
 the printer's using them, as many of that profession 
 have attested. Oliver Cowdery never, to my knowl- 
 edge, denied any part of his testimony, on the contrary, 
 as I have done, protested against every fabrication 
 made by designing persons and parties and emphati- 
 cally testified, as written in the Book of Mormon, until 
 death which occurred in this place. His wife and child 
 yet living furnish one of the best pictures of a living 
 faith in what their father testified to before death, as 
 written in the Book of Mormon. 
 
 DAVID WHITMEB. 
 
 APPENDIX NO. 5. 
 
 TESTIMONIAL OF CITIZENS. 
 
 We, the undersigned cltiiens of Richmond, Ray 
 county, Missouri, where David Whitmer, 8r., has re- 
 tided since the year 1838, certify that we have been 
 
 long and intimately acquainted with him and know 
 him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of un- 
 doubted truth and veracity: 
 (Signed) 
 
 A W. D^niphan. 
 
 G. W. Dunn, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit 
 
 T. D. Woodson, President of Ray Co. Saving! 
 Bank. 
 
 J. T. Child, Editor of "The Conservator." 
 
 H. C. Garner, Cashier of Ray Co. Savings Bank. 
 
 W. A. Holman, County Treasurer. 
 
 J. S. Hughes, Banker, Richmond. 
 
 James Hughes, Banker, Richmond. 
 
 D. P. Whitmer, Attorney at Law. 
 
 Jas. W. Black, Attorney at Law. 
 
 L. C. Cantwell, Postmaster, Richmond. 
 
 George I. Wasson, Mayor. 
 
 Jas. A. Davis, County Collector. 
 
 C. J. Hughes, Probate Judge and Presiding Ju- 
 tice of Ray County Court. 
 
 George W. Trigg, County Clerk. 
 
 W. W. Mosby, Doctor of Medicine. 
 
 Thomas McGinnis, ex-Sheriff, Ray County. 
 
 J. P. Queseni>ery, Merchant. 
 
 W. R. Holman, Furniture Merchant. 
 
 Louis Slaughter, Recorder of Deeds. 
 
 Geo. W. Buchanan, M. D. 
 
 A. K. Reyburn. 
 Given at Richmond. Mo., this March 19th, 1881." 
 
 APPENDIX NO. 0. 
 
 KIRTLAND, OHIO, Jan. 81, 1884. 
 
 HON. CLERK OP COURTS, WAYNE COUNTY, N. Y , Dear 
 Sir: Will you please turn to your records and ascer- 
 tain for me information upon the following questions, 
 to-wit: 
 
 First, was there an officer In youT county In the yeari 
 1833 or 1834, by the name of Thorn as P. Baldwin, who 
 was a judge of the County Courts? 
 
 Second, was there an office of your county with 
 that title during the year 1833, or was his title, Judge 
 of Courts of Common Pleas ? 
 
 If it should take time to examine, or turn to your 
 records to asertain these facts, I will gladly remit to 
 you the expense of the trouble, if you will designate 
 the same by return mail. Very Truly. 
 
 E. L. KELLEY. 
 
 APPENDIX NO. 7. 
 
 KIRTLAND, OHIO, Jan. 81, 1884. 
 
 JOHN McGoNiGAt, ESQ., LYONS, N. Y., Dear Si-. 
 Yours of Feb. 1st, in answer to Inquiries is at hand. 
 
 Enclosed find fee, 50 cents, and 50 cents for troub- 
 ling: you additionally. 
 
 Can you tell me who was the Judge of your County 
 Court in the year 1833, if anybody T 
 
 Was there a Justice of the Peace in your county in 
 the year 1833 by the name of Fredrick Smith ? 
 
 You need not examine for either of these for any 
 other year except 1833 ; but I wish to be certain as to 
 this year, as the matter is an important one. 
 
 Thanking you for your prompt reply, and hoping 
 to again hear from you, I am, Very Truly, 
 
 E. L. KELLKY. 
 
 [For anwen to Nos. 6 and 7, see book.] 
 
 The matter set forth in Appendix 
 mutual consent. 
 
 'A, B, and C," and in Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, it by 
 
 E. L. KELLEY, 
 CLARK BRADEN. 
 
 Copyright, 1884, by CLABK BRADEN. 
 
INDEX 
 
 397 
 
 INDEX-CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface. 
 Agreement, 2; rules, 2; propositions, 2. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 Moderators, 3; reading of rules, 3; opening 
 of debate, 3. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's. First Speech. 
 First proposition: Is the Book of Mormon 
 of divine origin and its teachings en- 
 titled to the respect and belief of all 
 Christian people, 3; necessity for exam- 
 ination, 3; claims made for book, 4, 5; 
 personal witnesses, 5, object of book, 6; j 
 promise of knowledge of its truth, 6; i 
 proper standard of its trial, 6; character 
 of its teachings, 7. 
 
 Mr. Braden's First Speech. 
 His statement of differences between the 
 disputants, 8, 9; objections to opponent's 
 belief in general, 9, 10, 11; manner of 
 working of Holy Spirit, 12; promise of 
 Holy Spirit, 13.' 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Second Speech. 
 Others besides Jews entitled to God's com- 
 munication, 16; peopling of American 
 Continent, 16; Bible with reference to 
 people of American Continent, 16; loca- 
 tion of "other sheep," 17; the blessing of 
 Joseph, 18. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Second Speech. 
 Holy Spirit not a gift to all, 19; manner of 
 its bestowal, 19; purpose of miraculous 
 powers, 20; miraculous power not a part 
 of the gospel, 20; how long to remain, 21; 
 the "more excellent way," 21; Mormonism 
 reveals no new ideas, 22, 23. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Third Speech. 
 Joseph's land, 25; its people, 25; New 
 truths discovered by Mormonism, 26 ; com- 
 munication from God not shut off, 27; 
 America the promised land of thirty- 
 seventh chapter of Ezekiel, 27; marvelous 
 work to come forth at appointed time, 28; 
 Joseph's land again, 29; New Testament 
 Scriptures not sufficient, 29. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Third Speech. 
 Character of Joseph Smith examined, 31, 
 32, 33; America Joseph's land unnatural 
 interpretation of Joseph's blessing, 33; 
 human origin of the Book of Mormon, 33, 
 34; the Spalding Romance, 34, 35. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fourth Speech. 
 Joseph's blessing, 36; New Testament prom- 
 ises fulfilled in Book of Mormon, 36, 37; 
 who shall receive the Holy Ghost, 37, 38; 
 church of Christ a habitation of God 
 through the Spirit, 39; continuation of 
 miracles through the gifts, 39, 40; claim 
 that the Book of Mormon is an addition to 
 the Bible is examined, 40, 41. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fourth Speech. 
 Presentation of Spalding story continued, 
 42-45; Rigdon's part in the coming forth 
 of the Book of Mormon, 45-47. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fifth Speech. 
 Condition of society and education at the 
 coming forth of the Book of Mormon, 47, 
 48; information found in Book of Mormon, 
 49; doctrine of book, 49; historical evi- 
 dences favor teachings of the book, 50, 51. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fifth Speech. 
 Origin of the theory that Indians are Isra- 
 elites, 52; prophecies of the Bible exam- 
 ined, 52; powers of the Holy Spirit, 53, 
 54; Rigdon and Smith concocting their 
 scheme, 55, 56; Mrs. Harris interferes, 56. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Sixth Speech. 
 Disclaims credit for originating theory that 
 American aborigines were Israelites, 56; 
 historians and explorers with reference 
 to an American civilization, 56-58; Mr. 
 Braden's methods of scandalizing exam- 
 ined, 59, 60. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Sixth Speech. 
 American antiquities examined, 61 ; Solo- 
 mon Spalding an American antiquity en- 
 thusiast, 61; early history of Rigdon and 
 Harris, 61, 62; Spalding's object in writ- 
 ing his romance, 64 ; summary of evidence, 
 65-67. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Seventh Speech. 
 
 History of publication of Book of Mormon, 
 
 69; answer to Spalding Romance theory 
 
 of origin of Book of Mormon, 69, 70; 
 
 correct methods of judging men, 71, 72. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Seventh Speech. 
 The Spalding Romance again, 74; Mormon 
 chronology, 75-77. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Eighth Speech. 
 Character of Smiths defended, 78, 79; Bra- 
 den's alibi examined, 79-81; locating the 
 Spalding Romance, 82, 83. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Eighth Speech. 
 Mormon chronology continued, 84-88; ques- 
 tions for Mr. Kelley, 88, 89. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Ninth Speech. 
 Comparison of the Spalding Romance and 
 the Book of Mormon, 90, 91; Mormon, 
 chronology examined, 93, 94. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Ninth Speech. 
 Spalding wrote several manuscripts, 95; 
 analysis of the Book of Mormon, 97; all 
 good things in the Book of Mormon stolen 
 from Bible, 97; sins of Bible worthies ac- 
 counted for, 98; Joseph Smith's character 
 not defensible, 99. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Tenth Speech. 
 Early history of Sidney Rigdon, 100, 101; 
 internal evidences of the Book of Mormon 
 examined, 104-106. 
 
S98 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Mr. Braden's Tenth Speech. 
 Internal evidences examined, 107-112. 
 Mr. Kelley's Eleventh Speech. 
 'Further examination of the work of Howe, 
 113-115; what became of the Spalding 
 Romance, 116, 117. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Eleventh Speech. 
 Character of witnesses used in the Spalding 
 Manuscript Story defended, 118, 119; 
 construction of the Book of Mormon and 
 the authorship revealed by its language 
 and its theories, 120-122. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Twelfth Speech. 
 Testimony of witnesses against the Book of 
 Mormon examined, 123-125; with refer- 
 ence to Mr. Braden's questions, 126; de- 
 fense of the statements of the Book of 
 Mormon, 126-128. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Twelfth Speech. 
 Theology and statements of the Book of 
 Mormon examined, 128-130; Jaredite 
 boats, 131; actions of Joseph and Emma 
 Smith not in harmony with the prophecies 
 of the Book of Mormon, 132. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Thirteenth Speech. 
 Animus of the Spalding Story, 133; location 
 of the Spalding Romance at the time of 
 Mr. Howe's attack on the Book of Mor- 
 mon, 134; character of Howe's work in 
 general, 134, 135; Bible objections exam- 
 ined, 137, 138. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Thirteenth Speech. 
 Book of Mormon does away with the Bible, 
 140; contradicts the Bible, 140; mistakes 
 of the book, 140-142. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fourteenth Speech. 
 Answers arguments against doctrines of the 
 Book of Mormon, 143-146. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fourteenth Speech. 
 Inconsistencies and contradictions within 
 Book of Mormon itself, and the contra- 
 dictions of the Book of Mormon by the 
 revelations of Joseph Smith, 148-152. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fifteenth Speech. 
 Corroborative evidence for the Book of Mor- 
 mon, adduced from antiquarians and ex- 
 plorers, 154; construction of the boats 
 of Jared examined, 155; similarity of the 
 faith of the Latter Day Saints and of the 
 Campbellites examined, 155, 156; Book 
 of Mormon first on the ground with many 
 items of New World history, 156-158. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fifteenth Speech. 
 Character of Kelley's testimony assailed, 
 158; conflicting dates, 159; work of the 
 translating of the Book of Mormon shown 
 up, 159-162; claim made that the Book of 
 Mormon contradicts the Bible, 162. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Sixteenth Speech. 
 Probability of the ancient settlement of 
 America, 163; objections to the contents 
 
 of the book answered, 164-166; rejection 
 of the house of Israel examined, 168. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Sixteenth Speech. 
 Bible and Book of Mormon compared, 169, 
 170; necessary evidences to give prestige 
 to the book are wanting, 170, 171; Joseph 
 Smith's character called in question, 171, 
 172; the three witnesses examined, 172, 
 173; testimony of the eight witnesses ex- 
 amined, 174. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Seventeenth Speech. 
 Necessary developments in the restoration 
 of the gospel, 175, 176; time of the resto- 
 ration, 176-178; its manner, 178, 179. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Seventeenth Speech. 
 Further examination of the witnesses and 
 their testimony to the Book of Mormon, 
 180-183; Joseph Smith not a prophet, 183, 
 184. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Eighteenth Speech. 
 Objections to the character of the witnesses 
 and to the contents of the Book of Mor- 
 mon reviewed, 185-188; Book of Mormon 
 and the Bible compared, 189-191. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Eighteenth Speech. 
 Further examination of the characters and 
 acts of Rigdon, Smith, et al, and the 
 blunders in language and matter of the 
 Book of Mormon, 191-195. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Nineteenth Speech. 
 With reference to the prophecies contained 
 both in the Bible and the Book of Mor- 
 mon, 196, 197; teachings of the two books 
 proved to be agreeable to each other, 198, 
 199; peculiarities of phraseology con- 
 tained in Book of Mormon examined, 199; 
 accounts for personal differences between 
 Smith and David Whitmer and Oliver 
 Cowdery, 199; argument with reference to 
 typographical errors considered, 200; 
 process of translation examined, 201. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Nineteenth Speech. 
 Joseph Smith and his adventures with re- 
 gard to concubinage and plural wifery, 
 202-207. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Twentieth Speech. 
 The adduced evidence of Mr. Braden exam- 
 ined, 207; charge of polygamy given some 
 attention, 208; recapitulation and sum- 
 mary of evidence, 210-213. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Twentieth Speech. 
 Recapitulation and concluding summary on 
 first proposition, 215-219. 
 
 Mr. Braden's First Speech. 
 Second proposition: Is the church of which 
 I, Clark Braden, am a member, identical 
 in faith, organization, ordinances, teach- 
 ing, worship and practice, with the church 
 of Christ, as it was left comoleted and 
 perfected by the apostles of Christ, 220; 
 the word church defined, 220; inception 
 
INDEX 
 
 399 
 
 and continuation of the church, 220, 221; 
 the Holy Spirit and revelation, 221; items 
 of belief of the Christian Church, 221, 
 222; Paul's platform for Christian union, 
 222; analysis of this platform, 222-224. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's First Speech. 
 Proper basis of proof for a proposition of 
 this nature, 225; bestowal of the Holy 
 Spirit, working of miracles, revelation, 
 etc., a part of the work of the church of 
 Christ, 226; name of the church, 227; 
 apostasy and restoration, 228 ; what is the 
 church left perfected by the apostles, 229 ; 
 personal enjoyment of the Holy Ghost 
 promised, 230. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Second Speech. 
 Continuation of statement of the views of 
 the church he represents, 230-232; officers 
 of the church, 233; conversion not a mir- 
 acle, 233; Holy Ghost not promised to all, 
 234. 
 
 . Mr. Kelley's Second Speech. 
 Practices of the church in the first century, 
 234-238 ; Holy Ghost promised to all, 238 ; 
 purpose of the officers and gifts of the 
 church, 239. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Third Speech. 
 Explanation of the birth of the water and 
 of the Spirit, 242; the object of miraculous 
 power and miracles, 243; points out blun- 
 ders of Mr. Kelley, 243. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Third Speech. 
 Demoted to a comparison between the church 
 of which Mr. Braden is a member and the 
 New Testament church, 244-248. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fourth Speech. 
 Shows difference between the baptism of 
 water and the baptism of the Spirit, 249; 
 Holy Spirit to be received only by the im- 
 position of the hands of the apostles, 249; 
 length of time that miracles, apostles and 
 prophets were to continue in the church, 
 250 ; new revelations contrary to the word 
 of God, 251 ; difference between the church 
 under consideration and other churches 
 stated, 251 ; date of Christian baptism 
 considered, 252. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fourth Speech. 
 An examination of Mr. Braden's method of 
 interpreting scripture, 253-255; examina- 
 tion of the claim that the Christian Church 
 has apostles in it, 254, 255; Mr. Braden's 
 church can not get authority for its acts 
 in the Scriptures, 255; Mr. Braden's 
 church more presumptive than the Latter 
 Day Saints, 256; examination of the claim 
 that Mr. Campbell is a restorer and not 
 merely a reformer, 256, 257. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fifth Speech. 
 The commencement of the church, 258 ; office 
 work of the Holy Spirit, its baptism, re- 
 ception, etc., 258-260; source of authority 
 for preaching and other ministerial work, 
 
 260; is Campbellism the origin of Mor- 
 monism, 260-262. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fifth Speech. 
 Authority, by whom conferred, 263; church 
 building, 264; continuation of apostles, 
 264; law for the regulation of the church, 
 265; how officers in the church should be 
 called, 265 ; office work of the Holy Spirit, 
 265, 266; rights of individuals given by 
 the church, 266; Mr. Campbell's church 
 does not answer the description of a 
 restoration, 267. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Sixth Speech. 
 Compares the tendencies of the teachings of 
 the Christian Church and those of Latter 
 Day Saints, 268-270; submits a list of 
 questions, 270. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Sixth Speech. 
 Time of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, its 
 work, the "more excellent way," gifts, 
 apostles, and manifestations of the Spirit, 
 271-274; question of authority, 276; the 
 leadings of the Spirit to be relied upon, 
 277. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Seventh Speech. 
 Government of the church, the "more ex- 
 cellent way," the growth of the church, the 
 effect of the church upon the individual, 
 and upon the world, 278-280; Ananias a 
 special apostle, 280; an apostle only has 
 power to impart the Holy Spirit, 280. 
 
 Mr. .Kelley's Seventh Speech. 
 The interpretation of scripture, 283; the 
 Holy Ghost, 284; continuation of mirac- 
 ulous gifts, 284 ; number of times the law 
 is made perfect, or complete, 284 ; methods 
 of the Jews and of the Campbellites com- 
 pared, 285 ; the perfect law, 286 ; the ques- 
 tion of authority, 287; continued reve- 
 lation and the "more excellent way," 287; 
 gospel not first preached at Pentecost, 288. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Eighth Speech. 
 Closing speech and recapitulation on the 
 second proposition, 289-294. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Eighth Speech. 
 Closing speech and review of the second 
 proposition, 295-301. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's First Speech. 
 Third proposition: Is the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints in fact the church of God, and 
 accepted with him, 302; statement of the 
 faith and doctrine of the Latter Day 
 Saints 303; in harmony with the word of 
 God, abiding in the doctrine, founded by 
 the Christ in harmony with the promise, 
 303, 304; necessity for the church and ex- 
 amination of prophecies, 305; where is 
 the church and where is it impossible for 
 the church to exist, 306. 
 
 Mr. Braden's First Speech. 
 One God; one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, 
 
400 
 
 INDEX 
 
 one baptism, one hope, one body, one name, 
 a comparison of the teachings of the 
 Bible and of Mormonism with reference 
 to these, 307-311. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Second Speech. 
 Braden's positions on the "one God, one 
 Lord," etc., canvassed, 312-314; the apos- 
 tasy, 315; the restoration, 316, 317. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Second Speech. 
 Eevelations presented by the Latter Day 
 Saints examined, 318-322; garbling and 
 blasphemy of the Scriptures, 322. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Third Speech. 
 
 Joseph Smith's account of the restoration of 
 
 the gospel, 322-325; its harmony with the 
 
 Scriptures, 325, 326; continued revelation, 
 
 325-327; bestowal of the Holy Ghost, 326. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Third Speech. 
 A. further examination of the prophecies, 
 and the methods of the Latter Day Saints 
 and their inharmony with the Scriptures 
 and all good men, 328-330; Christ's pur- 
 ported work among the people on this 
 continent reviewed, 330; the restoration 
 of the priesthood examined, 330, 331. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fourth Speech. 
 Difference in the translations canvassed, 
 332; baptism of the Spirit again, 333; 
 officers of the church, 333; the priesthood 
 and church organization, 334 ; conception 
 of God and his character, 335; the pro- 
 duction of a miracle, 335; "those who 
 reject the Book of Mormon to suffer loss, 
 336. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fourth Speech. 
 
 A review of the prophecies of the Book of 
 Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, 
 337-340. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Fifth Speech. 
 
 Examines the attack on doctrines of bap- 
 tism of children, the ordinance of the 
 washing of feet, etc., 341; character of 
 the moral and doctrinal teachings of the 
 Doctrine and Covenants defended, 342; 
 stories of Joseph Smith refuted, 344 ; some 
 prophecies of the Doctrine and Covenants 
 presented, 345. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Fifth Speech. 
 Unreliability of the Mormon witnesses, 346, 
 347; restoration, 347; the doctrine of bap- 
 tism, 347; submits evidence to show the 
 ridiculous character of the operations of 
 the early men of the Latter Day Saints, 
 348-350. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Sixth Speech. 
 The Inspired Translation of the Scriptures 
 defended, 350-352; the trial of a system 
 by the stories circulated about the men 
 presenting it not proper, 352 ; stories with 
 reference to Mr. Braden's character pre- 
 sented, 353; the work of the Holy Spirit, 
 354; command to seek the gifts of the 
 Spirit, 355. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Sixth Speech. 
 An examination of the character of the lead- 
 ing Latter Day Saint ministers of early 
 date, 356-360; getting of money the basis 
 of their allegiance, 357-360. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Seventh Speech. 
 Priesthood authority examined into, 360, 
 361; necessity for continued revelation, 
 362; answer to the attacks of Mr. Braden 
 on the character of the ministry and 
 leaders of the Latter Day Saints, 364-366. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Seventh Speech. 
 Charges trickery, jealousy, swindling, fraud 
 of various natures, lying, stealing, and 
 fanaticism as accounting for the organiza- 
 tion of Mormonism, 366-370. 
 
 Mr. Kelley's Eighth Speech. 
 Closing speech of the affirmative on the last 
 proposition, reviewing methods of argu- 
 ment, character of testimony presented, 
 and doctrines established, 371-377. 
 
 Mr. Braden's Eighth Speech. 
 Closing speech of Mr. Braden on the third 
 proposition, being a defense of the meth- 
 ods of argument, the evidence, and a re- 
 capitulation thereof, 377-382. 
 
 Appendices. 
 
 Appendix A, 382; appendix B, 382; appendix 
 C, 383; appendix 2, 391; appendices 3, 4, 
 5, 6, 7, 396.