menu icon in the top, right corner of the screen.
icon above to close this box.
icon at the bottom of the screen below the browser—if you don't see it, swipe up to unhide it.
The Inquirer
- August 1850, pp. 187–89—first letter of Philalethes
- November 1850, pp. 261–63—second letter by Philalethes
- February 1851, pp. 44–46—letter to the editor from J. Richards
- March 1851, p. 67—Philalethes responds to J. Richards
- June 1851, pp. 139–40—John Richards presents additional notes
- July 1851, pp. 163–64—More from John Richards with a defense of JS
- August 1851, pp. 183–84—letter to the editor from Philalethes
- October 1851, pp. 236–37—letter to the editor from Dafydd Dywyed-y-Gwir
- January 1852, pp. 21–22—letter to the editor from Dafydd Dweyd-y-Gwir giving more details of the deceit of Mormonism, specifically forced testimonies.
- March 1852, pp. 67–68—Immorality of the Mormons in America—letter to the editor from X.Y.Z.
Inquirer, August 1850, pp. 187–89
Mormonism
The Mormon sect, or “The Saints,” has created quite a stir in recent years; so that their name is by now well-known enough throughout Wales and England. But the beginning of the sect is perhaps not so entirely familiar and it is hoped that it will not be thought inappropriate to publish the following brief account in The Inquirer. The facts were taken from Chambers’s Miscellany, Vol. 2, p. 26, and Rise, Progress, and Causes of Mormonism, by Professor J. B. Turner, New York, 1844. But as for the strange tales, and unfounded reports which are spread here and there by and about these people, it does not come within the purpose of the present article to take any notice of them. Nothing here will be reported but what seems to be on good authority. And if anyone sees, or if anyone thinks anything is wrongly reported, The Inquirer, unless it should change its custom, will be free to accept and publish the refutation.
Mormons is the name which is likely to continue to be given to the sect. They are so called from a work entitled the Book of Mormon, which they claim to have been given through inspiration and revelation. The Book of Mormon, which has been published two or three times in North America and once in England in 1841, had its origin as follows:
Some years ago, a young man by the name of Joseph Smith, founder, apostle, and prophet of the Mormons, was following the profession of money-digger in the United States. It appears it is a common belief in some of the states which are on the coast, that large sums of gold and silver have been hidden there under ground by the buccaneers, as well as later by men who hid them at the time of the revolution. Needy and cunning men would earn their living by professing that they could through sorcery show where the said treasures were hidden; and, according to the best evidence, Joseph Smith excelled among these money-diggers. While he was pursuing this work or similar, he received, as he tells his story himself, more than one revelation from heaven, regarding the different sects of the age. The first time, he had gone to a wood, and prayed there to God to show him which of all the Christian denominations he should respect and follow. At that time, he says, a bright light appeared above his head; he was taken up into the midst of it; and there he saw two angelic personages, who told him that all the sins were forgiven, that the whole world was going astray on the religious topics, and that the truth would be made known to him in good time. Another revelation of similar type informed Smith that the Indians of America were a remnant of the sons of Israel, and that prophets and men of inspiration had once lived among them, by whom divine writings had been put to keep in a safe place, lest they fall into the hands of the ungodly. A third revelation, which was made on the morning of the 22nd of September, 1832, informed Smith that the remaining writings were to be found in a cave on a high hill to the east of the main road from Palmyra, Wayne County, State of New York. Joseph went there, subsequently, to search, and as he says, he found a chest of stone containing plates as though of gold, about eight inches long, seven wide, and not quite as thick as a plate of common tin. On these plates was engraved the Book or Bible of Mormon, which was so called from the name of the man who was supposed to have written and hidden it. Smith was not permitted to take these gold plates away until he had learned the Egyptian language, in which language, or a recent dialect of it, the engraved book had been composed. Later, in September, 1827, it was judged that Smith was qualified to receive the gold plates; and he transcribed an English translation of what was engraved on them, which was published in the year 1830. This work made a great impression on the lower orders in the United States, and a sect was formed soon after with the name of “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” From the book of their credo they were most commonly called Mormons.
In the work of preparing, or at least of publishing these false revelations, Smith was helped by his father, and by men called Rigdon, Harris, and others. At first hardly any attention was paid to the deception; but when it was seen that the most ignorant part of the population were being charmed by it to the great detriment of their faith and their religious practices, the responsible citizens of Palmyra and Manchester, where the Smiths had previously lived, considered it their duty to proclaim what sort of men these were. Consequently, an affidavit was made by about 50 gentlemen of different callings and various ideas. What follows is a copy of that document:
“Palmyra, N.Y., Dec. 4, 1833.
“We, the undersigned, having known the Smith family for a number of years when they lived near this place, do not hesitate to say that we consider them devoid of that moral character which should merit the common trust. They had a particularly bad name for dreamlike fancies, they spent much of their time digging for money, which they claimed was hidden in the ground; and to this day many holes can be seen not far from their home, where they spent their time digging for hidden treasure. Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, in particular were considered completely devoid of moral character, and given to bad habits. Martin Harris had accumulated considerable property, and in matters of commerce his word was considered good; but on moral and religious subjects he was a complete dreamer; sometimes arguing for this, another time for something different. And as regards everyone we know who has embraced Mormonism in this community, we are bound to say that they are visionaries, bereft of moral character, and of no account with the general population. This is why they were permitted to continue with their sorcery unhindered. It was not thought that any of them had sufficient character and influence to bring one man to believe their book or their ideas; and we do not know one man in this community who places the least trust in the revelations they profess.” [Here follow the signatures of 51 persons.]
A similar testimony is recorded against the Smiths by the inhabitants of Manchester, who testify also that Cowdery and Whitmer, their helpers, are men completely undeserving of trust.
The religion these tricksters were offering to teach and spread in the world, seems to be a mixture of Christianity, taken from selected parts of the English Bible, and the empty imaginings of an unruly and uncultured mind. The Book of Mormon, on which the sect’s doctrines are based, is almost the same size as the Old Testament, and contains, to tell the truth, two different stories. The first part of the work is made up of the story of the Nephites, a part of the tribe of Joseph, who were thought to have emigrated from Jerusalem led by a prophet named Nephi, and been led in a miraculous way to America. It was from these Nephites, the story says, that the Indian nation was descended. Many years after their establishment, it is said also that they happened to get hold of old records of the Jaredites, a nation which had gone to perdition, and which came to America about the time of the building of the tower of Babel. What the various prophets revealed to the Jaredites and the Nephites, and direct divine statements about “my servant, Joseph Smith”, the latter-day Apostle, make up the content of the Book of Mormon.
The main purpose, if not the only purpose, of the deception was to elevate Joseph Smith to be the big chief and leader of the church; the other positions being filled by men who served his church, and partook of the spoils which came in through the sorcery. There are two different grades of ordained priests of the church.
1. The Melchizedek priesthood, or the High-priesthood, comprising High-priests and elders; 2. The lower priesthood, or the Aaronites, comprising bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons. The former are to preside in the spiritual matters of the church; the latter administer its sacraments, control its temporal messages. Three of the High-priests are appointed presidents, to preside over all the churches of the world, and they are called the First Presidency.
There are also vice-presidencies, presiding over towns and states, which are called Stakes; and the appointment of these Stakes in new areas in North America gave Mr. Smith a favorable opportunity, as he has noticed, to speculate in “town lots.”
The addresses of the Mormon preachers are full of references to the Christian writings and doctrines; which is quite liable to confuse and deceive the minds of their uneducated listeners; but if one looks into the impudent claims which form the basis of their system, it will be seen that they are remarkably odious and blasphemous. The writer has not had a chance to read the Book of Mormon, and he does not know if it has been published in Welsh or not. Reliable witnesses say that this book is full from the beginning to the end of notes of forgery and deception. The language of the Bible is borrowed or imitated throughout it all; and as regards words and names, it borrows from several modern languages, which shows that he who is taken to be writer of olden times is in possession of particular knowledge of the present age. The objection about the skin color of the red Indians, so different from that of the Jews, is removed by claiming that the color of their skin was changed miraculously as a punishment for their sins. Things are mentioned which, it is well known, had not been discovered until recent times; such as the compass, etc.
The prophet Nephi is made to say, in reference to the disturbance that was raised against him on the voyage towards America; “And it came to pass after they had let me free, that I took a compass, and it worked the way I desired it to.” This deceiver, as in other places, hangs himself by his ignorance. He must be ignorant of the fact that it was hundreds of years after the time attributed to Nephi that inclination of the needle toward the north was found out. Apart from that, he was quite ignorant of the true use of the compass in seamanship; otherwise, he would not make Nephi say, “and it [the compass] worked the way I desired it to.” Other notes of ignorance and forgery are revealed, which are just as obvious, such as, for example, that the Greek words Christ, Alpha, and Omega, are used in writing to the monoglot Hebrews, etc., with no reason in the world to do so, form the ignorance of the false author. But not to make the article too long—No advantage is given to Mormonism, nor any excuse for such deception as was noted, from recognizing that several of the writers against the Mormons (the American Methodists in particular) have revealed hardly less ignorance than they. The Book of Mormon must be left at present, and Mormonism too. Perhaps what has been written will be seen as quite enough for one issue of The Inquirer. An attempt will be made in a future article, if permission is granted, to return to the subject, in order to continue an account left half-finished, and complete, if possible, what was left deficient.
Philalethes
Inquirer, November 1850, pp. 261–63
https://
In the August issue (page 187) I gave a little of the history of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. There are many spelling mistakes to be seen in the printing of that article of mine: such as “ymfuddo, huddoliaeth, &c.” (and the 9th line from the bottom page 189) “oddiwrth anwybodaeth” instead of oddieithr, etc.,—for which I am unwilling to shoulder the responsibility. I hope for better justice this time at the hand of the publishers.
What is more important, no one has yet, as far as I know, tried to disprove the facts that I reported. Since I wrote, I have taken every opportunity that I could to research the subject further, but I have not yet discovered the least reason to doubt the truth of Professor Turner’s report nor the evidence that was presented regarding the moral character of Joseph Smith and his co-workers as men totally unworthy of trust. More exemplary testimonies of the same sort could easily be presented. Many other examples could be drawn from the Book of Mormon, as obvious marks of deceit and forgery. That book contains some passages from the Old Testament and the New, with little or no deviation from the authorized English translation. It is not necessary to learn the language of Egypt in order to be satisfied as to where Joseph obtained these passages.
The same authority whom I quoted in my previous article (Prof Turner) reports an incident which accounts in all probability for the beginning of the whole deceit; because, as I shall presently reveal, it appears that Joseph Smith was a man hardly capable of devising or writing even the idiotic stupidities of The Book of Mormon, especially those parts recounted as if they were history.
It appears there was a minister called Solomon Spaulding, who, after giving up his ministry, had taken to a mercantile calling in Cherry Vale, New York, where he fell into difficulties, failing in business in the year 1809. At this time, the burial mounds in North America were attracting a great deal of attention, and the research and argument about their purpose and date was not inconsiderable. It came to Spaulding’s mind that he might ease his straightened circumstances by writing a novel linking the mounds with the ten lost tribes of Israel. Some believed that it was they who had populated America. The name that Spaulding intended giving his work was “The Manuscript Found;” and in order to maintain the appearance of genuineness, he wrote it in the old style of the Hebrew writings. In 1812 the work was taken to a printer by the name of Lambdin who lived in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, but the author died before they could come to an agreement about publishing it. Lambdin also died in 1826. He had previously loaned the manuscript to a man by the name of Sidney Rigdon who, apparently, in partnership with his friend Joseph Smith, formed the plan of deceiving the world with it, instead of a new revelation. The manuscript served their purpose admirably, and of course they made such changes in it as were deemed necessary. That this was the true origin of the Book of Mormon is confirmed by Spaulding’s wife, brother, partner and many of his friends, who had heard him reading parts of the manuscript and who recognized many of the names and accounts in the Book of Mormon, as those that were contained in the manuscript. But there was great difficulty in believing that paper of any type could have been preserved over so many years as the story recounted; so, to avoid the problem, the saga of the “gold plates” was devised in addition—a conceit not unworthy of the ‘money-digger,’ Mr Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon was the prophet’s secretary. It must be remembered that only he, and a very few other men, had had the honor of seeing the aforementioned “plates.”
It might be considered excessive to say so much about the subject, were it not that the Mormon witchcraft has spread so far in North America and in Great Britain.
In 1831 Joseph Smith and his fellow workers settled on the banks of the Missouri River, but they were driven from there because of their disorderly behavior. They then went to Illinois, where they established a town along the Mississippi and called it Nauvoo. At some time, but not now, I shall attempt to describe the city and its strange ways. It was but a small village before the Mormons settled there. So many and so constant were the journeys of the Mormon pilgrims from different regions to this place that before the death of Smith it had become a large city, containing a magnificent temple and other superb buildings, and over seven thousand inhabitants; and about three thousand Saints living in the vicinity.
The following portrayal of Joseph Smith is given in Mr. Caswell’s book, who visited the city of the Mormons in 1842.
“I met Joseph Smith not far from his residence, and I was introduced to him. I had the honor of conversing in person with the man who is a prophet, a visionary, a merchant, a “revelator,” a president, an elder, an editor and the commander of the Nauvoo Militia. His appearance is awkward and uncouth, and his countenance displays a mixture of knave and dolt. He has big, fat hands and on one of his fingers he wears a heavy ring of gold, on which I saw writing. His dress was of a rough material, homespun, and around his white hat there was a small piece of black crêpe in mourning for his departed brother, Don Carlos Smith, late editor of the Times and Seasons; he is about 35 years old. I had no opportunity to look into his eyes, as he appears not to possess that mark of an honest man—a direct independent gaze. He led the way towards his house, with a large crowd walking with him, of elders, bishops, preachers, and ordinary Mormons. On our entering into his house, chairs were prepared for the prophet and myself to be seated, while the crowd of eager people remained standing, and looking on open mouthed. I offered a book to the prophet and asked him to decipher its contents. He asked me whether I had any idea what it contained. I replied that I thought it was a Greek psalter, but that I desired to hear his opinion. “No,” he said, “it ain’t Greek at all, except perhaps, a few words. What ain’t Greek is Egyptian, and what ain’t Egyptian is Greek.’ This book is very valuable. It’s a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Pointing to the capital letters at the start of each verse, he said, “them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics, and them which follows is the interpretation, etc. Them characters is like the letters which was engraved on the golden plates.”
At that the Mormons all around started to rejoice with me at the information and instruction I had received. “There,” they said, “we said so—we said our prophet would give you satisfaction. No one can interpret these mysteries like our prophet.” The mistake of taking a Greek psalter for an example of Egyptian hieroglyphics, is enough to prove how weak was Joseph Smith’s right to be an interpreter of mysteries.
In another section of the book, Mr. Caswell says a little about the man, things of which he was informed by plausible witnesses; but they refer to such scenes of drunkenness, indecency and blasphemy, that it would hardly be seemly to repeat them. Enough has been said, it seems to me, to show the public the character of a dangerous deceiver; and it should be enough to stop members of our diligent people from spending everything on a trust in the promises of such a man. Hundreds have by now, probably, had occasion to regret not having taken warning in time. Nauvoo was the new Jerusalem some years ago, while Joseph Smith was alive and living there. Now the Jerusalem has been moved further into the wilds of the West. The Mormon preachers throughout Wales and England used to describe Nauvoo, as “a land flowing with milk and honey,” and a place where God had commanded the building of a temple, to be a refuge for all mankind.
At least Joseph Smith definitely ordered this, as is apparent from the following quote from his writings. “Verily, verily I say unto you, let all my saints come from afar, and send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say unto them: ‘Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities. Those who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come. Bring with you the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth, and with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth, and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein, for there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fullness of the priesthood.’”
At present, neither time, nor, presumably, space allow me to add more, apart from recording a tragic event: namely that Joseph Smith, and his brother Hyrum, were murdered by an unruly mob on the 27th of June 1844, in Carthage, state of Illinois. Doubtless, it was the bad behavior and deeds of Smith and his supporters, which was the cause that roused the mob to this state of madness. Yet, it must cause sorrow and be deplored by all rational men, that such a bloody and cruel deed was committed. One consequence was that Joseph Smith was elevated, in the reckoning of his deluded followers, to the honor of martyrdom. And Mormonism is, rather, on the increase from that day until now.
Philalethes
Inquirer, February 1851, pp. 44–46
https://
Mormonism
A Few Notes on the Essays of “Philalethes,” Vol. 3, pages 187, 261
Mr. Inquirer,
Permit me to note a few of the many things I consider faulty in the above essays. I do not have a very keen eye, because I’m a child; but I know I see more now than I did last year; and that I have much work yet before I can see everything clearly and from afar as I would wish.
An error befell me in the first essay. Thank you for spotting it. There might be an error in this one. If there is; an error has occurred in the mind of greater men. I would wish to be errorless and without fault. What profits it a man to embrace heresy or deceit? I count him who convinces me of my failings the best of friends. It is evident that the children of Adam have factionalized remarkably by this time, as each one pleads his sect or creed, and disagrees with the other and with God. There are also those so zealous in their beliefs, that they do not consider reason to be necessary in hardly anything they embrace. Often because of things such as this, two or three types of stories are told about the same thing, and everyone is eager for everybody to believe the story as he tells it. Confronted with two or three contrasting stories about the same thing, I prefer to believe the most reasonable.
There is much said for and against Mormonism, along with the folk that profess it; much has also been written against the profession and the professors. And who amongst them speak in unison? Many of the Americans have written against the Saints; but, do Chambers’s Miscellany, J.B. Turner, and Hulbert, and others speak as one? No. Yet, one like the other bring their witnesses before us; and “truth-speaking” ones too, they say, and “responsible.”
Demand to see them, good fellow-countrymen, and you will find that the one opposes the other in many things. And where will be found the reasoning man who will accept such twisted evidence? No two truths can ever be contrary to one other; but to get liars to testify together on one point is not easy work.
But lest my prefacing be long, I draw the reader’s attention to the August 1850 issue, of The Inquirer) page 188, where it will be seen that—“the responsible citizens of Palyrma and Manchester have made out an affidavit that the Smith family is devoid of that moral character that deserves the trust of the commoner.” When was this oath taken? “When it was realized that the most ignorant section of the people was being beguiled by him (Smith) to the great detriment of their belief and religious practices.” The detriment of which religious practices? Those of the beguiled? Yes, but not in the main, for every man in general cares first and foremost for his own; then for that of his neighbors. These responsible citizens were Baptist and Presbyterian ministers, etc., deacons of the various American religious denominations, from whom Smith beguiled (if beguiled) many hundreds, which caused “great damage”, in profit and reputation of course. A man without a good character, indeed a “renowned bad man,” having such an influence on ignorant ones, so as to teach them to believe in Christ—to repent of their sins—that there is baptism for forgiveness in this age—and the Spirit of God is to be had by the laying on of hands—a healing Spirit—Prophetic—miraculous in this age. He made hundreds of thousands believe all this, and more! Let heaven and earth be amazed, the power of a man—lacking a good character. This is a reason for shame, as much as for “great damage.” If Smith were, in truth, “a renowned bad man,” the law of the land would have collared him; but it released him many times; and because of this it was decided to get him with lead bullets, by the power of gunpowder. They succeeded where the law had failed, in Carthage, June 27, 1844; he and his brother Hyrum were shot to death.
Martin Harris is also under the same misapprehension, but partly so; he is like a well drawing both salt and fresh water—“his word is considered good in business; but a dreamer in religious things.” Alas! a bad thing, perchance, that a man should be a dreamer! Joseph, son of Jacob, thou art being judged. Daniel and Joel also, blush. Peter, thou saidst that men would be dreamers in the latter days. Thou art the worst; what will become of thee?
See again, page 189.—“The main, if not the only purpose of the deceit was to raise Joseph Smith to be the big head and administrator of the church.” Seriously, is it not easy and childish to say deceit? Men are too apt to take many things for granted; because the fathers believed something, they will follow; as a consequence—“prove all things,” by fair trial, in the presence of God’s word and reason.
The above quote is also prophetic, if I am not mistaken. Who spoke the words? Philalethes. Is he a prophet? Come and see: he, or someone else, has prophesied; and has spoken against the continuance of the gift. Man beating his brother for believing the same thing that he does! Alas!
For the “compass and the Greek words,” see Capt. D. Jones’ review of the Rev. E. Roberts of Rhymney Lectures (to be had from the Saints where you wish for 4 pence) page 14.
See again the November Issue, page 261—“What is more important, no one has yet, as far as I know, tried to disprove the facts that I reported.” What? Is the fact that no one has yet tried to disprove, proof that there is no disproof? I cannot perceive the weight of a feather in this. Let the world look at it: if there is, show it to me. The facts (if worthy of the name) have been disproved many times, before and after coming to Britain; and some have been embarrassed for putting pen to paper about them.
See again, page 262.—“That a minister by the name of Spaulding had given up his ministry and become a merchant in Sherry Vale—become poor—thought to better himself through a novel and calling it ‘A Manuscript Found,’ containing the connection of the old mounds with the ten lost tribes of Israel.
According to the above phrases, it is evident that Spaulding’s purpose was to improve his own worldly circumstances at the cost of deceiving the world: (?) yet I did not hear that anyone found fault with him, despite his great and evil intention. He was allowed to live, as far as I know, unmocked and underided; he was allowed to die without his enemies taking his life from him, nor maligning him.
But lest anyone should believe that Spaulding’s old document is the root of the Book of Mormon, let him look at the content of Spaulding’s document; it connects “the old mounds, with the ten lost tribes of Israel.” The Book of Mormon does not do this. Ask for it and read it, dear Welsh; (its price is three shillings)—then you will see that the good authorities must have turned bad. It is said, further, that Rigdon was Smith’s secretary, and that it was he and a few others who had seen the gold plates. Rigdon was not the secretary, rather Oliver Cowdery. The Book of Mormon had been printed half a year before Rigdon saw Smith or the book for the first time.
The testimony of eleven people is in the book, that they saw and touched the plates: and that on them the contents of The Book of Mormon were carved: and that through the power of God they were translated by Smith, Jr., neither the name of Rigdon nor Smith the translator is there.
See again Mr. Caswell’s portrait of Smith.—“I met Joseph Smith not far from his residence, and I was introduced to him. I had the honor of conversing in person with the man who is a prophet, a visionary.—His appearance is awkward and uncouth, and his countenance displays a mixture of knave and dolt. I had no opportunity to look at his eyes, as he appears not to possess that mark of an honest man—a direct independent gaze.”
It appears to me there are too many sayings in the above quote to be all true; for how could Mr. Caswell look so long into Smith’s face and not see his eyes—to be able to draw such a portrait of him, and without seeing his eyes! If he can answer; let him answer me this.
Yes, he was not an honest man. To whom was he dishonest? Did he die in anyone’s debt? I readily admit, that a dishonest man would not look into the eyes of one to whom he is indebted as he would any other man, because of guilt; but Smith was not in Caswell’s debt, therefore he could look him in the face as any other man. I see that Caswell has said too much for his own good.
Be it known that Caswell’s purpose in going to Smith was to gather material for an Essay against him; Mr. Caswell admitted this himself.
I say this again, about Mr. Caswell’s words, that a Welsh proverb says this—“A man who is evil himself, sees only evil in others.” And Solomon, the wisest of men, that—“An evil man, from the evil treasures of the heart, brings out evil things.”
See again, in the matter of Smith’s murder, page 263,—“Doubtless, it was the bad behavior and deeds of Smith and his supporters, that was the cause that roused the mob to this state of madness.”
Now, if it was Smith’s badness that caused it, then Satan was divided against himself: how does his kingdom stand? But, on the other hand, if it was Smith’s goodness, which is more reasonable, that caused it, reason says, that Satan and his children would want his head down, lest his goodness conquer their badness.
Now I leave these points to the attention of the world. If I have erred, I would give thanks to be convinced. Doubtless it would be better for all to write against Smith’s principles than to treat him so ruthlessly. One might write against Moses, as a man; he was not without fault; Lot, also, David and Solomon and all. Who in the whole world receives edification through reading or writing about people’s faults? The faultless has not been born. If anyone says that I have claimed something here, without proving it, I offer that again, quietly, without any evil incentive.
Further, let it be remembered that Chambers, J. B. Turner, Caswell, and Hubert are enemies to Smith, and therefore their testimonies concerning him are unacceptable to every thinking man. The testimony of an enemy is not acceptable in a civil or religious court; why, therefore, should it be acceptable in Smith’s case? Would Philalethes accept the testimony of the scribes and the Pharisees regarding Christ? No; not likely. So, neither shall I.
Yours, humbly, etc.
J. Richards
Dinas
Inquirer, March 1851, p. 67
https://
Mormonism
(In answer to “J. R.”s Essay. Previous issue, Page 44.)
Mr. Editor,
A short story, as it happens, is what I have in answer to the “Observations” of J. Richards, of Dinas. Had J. R., or any other of the saints, offered to disprove the facts that I related, I would of course be bound either to defend the account, or else admit my mistake. But as nothing of the sort had even been suggested, and the facts of narrative remain hardly touched, and incontrovertible, as there is room to suppose, I thought perhaps it would be better not to tire your readers with an unnecessary defense.
J. R. claims that the writers who have given unfavorable accounts of Mormonism were contradicting each other. He has not presented as much as one example to reinforce his claim. Perhaps he expected your readers to believe him on his word only. In his impulsiveness he forgot to say whether he had ever read, or that he could read, the writings that he thus spoke about. How much worth, indeed, is his claim?
J.R., in truth, offers a reason why we should refuse the testimony of the citizens of Palmyra (in their affidavit) concerning Joseph Smith’s moral character. What, pray, is that reason? This is it; namely that the witnesses are “preachers and deacons with the different religious denominations”!! Henceforth, indeed, according to J. R.’s rule, no one’s testimony on the question should be believed, apart from unreligious men and Mormons.
For a similar reason, apparently, neither belief nor trust should be placed in the report that Mr. Caswell makes of that which took place before his eyes in his discussion with Joseph Smith!
Mr. C.’s previous opinion of Smith was unfavorable, therefore do not believe him. This is an abrupt means of deciding an argument, wouldn’t you say, reader?
Having given this many examples of the way the Mormons defend their opinion, and shut the mouths of opponents, here I finish with a word or two. I would not wish to do an injustice to J. R. nor anyone else. I would wish to speak as respectfully of the Mormons as truth and justice will allow. Without any disrespect, I note that the doctrine that mainly separates us bears much similarity to Catholicism. The difference between them appears to be that spiritual gifts are now being given through Joe Smith, and not through the Pope.
I do not agree with J.R. urging your readers to give their three shillings for The Book of Mormon.
I do not believe they will be more eager to buy it, from hearing that eleven totally unknown men’s names were put in the book, who testify that Joseph Smith’s story about the plates is all right. Quite credulous men are needed to trust in such weak evidence in a matter of such weight. If the eleven vouch for Joe Smith; who, pray, vouches for the eleven? The witnesses do not say how many of the plates they saw at the same time, neither that they understand the significance of the pictures carved on them, more than had they been the footprints of crows. No, nothing of the sort in the world; except only that Smith had shown them some plates, on which some pictures were carved, in the language of Egypt, or in the language of the man in the Moon, for all they knew of their significance, except that some spirit was saying to them that “all was by the power of God” and that Joe Smith’s word was right. And these are the witnesses that are appealed to over the revelation of The Book of Mormon.
I have read all of the Book. And I believe that no intelligent man that reads it deliberately and without prejudice can but be of the same opinion as myself, as to the obvious signs of deceit and forgery that are throughout it. If I have the spare time, and if it would be acceptable, you shall hear more from me in due course about Jos. Smith and The Book of Mormon.
Philalethes
Inquirer, June 1851, pp. 139–40
https://
Mormonism
Additional Notes on the Writings of Philalethes, Vol. 3
Mr. Inquirer,
I offer to be brief on all things I comment upon, and clear to all. Philalethes says in his first letter [August issue, page 187], “Nothing will be reported here but that which has an authoritative source.” The promise is good, but I see the performance as falling short of being worthy of the intention; and I shall attempt to explain this to my readers. Philalethes says that “Smith follows the calling of a money digger. Needy and cunning men will often earn their living by claiming they are able through sorcery, to show where such treasures are hidden; and according to the best evidence, Joseph Smith distinguished himself amongst these money diggers.” Now, “the good authority, the best evidence” belong to professed enemies. There is no proof here that Smith is a money digger, for neither the fact that there was a general belief in hidden treasures nor that there were pits beside Smith’s home, is proof that he was a money digger. Where is the man who saw Smith, the younger, spending as much as one whole day in his life, digging for money or hidden treasures of that sort? If such a man exists, let him present his name and his proof. The above quote distinguishes Smith among the cunning; but what is said about the same man in the November issue, page 261? This: “It appears that Joseph Smith was a man not capable of inventing or writing the idiotic stupidities of The Book of Mormon.” How could Smith be very cunning and without the ability to invent idiotic stupidities? The cunning can invent, but he who cannot invent idiotic stupidities, cannot be cunning. These two statements are clear contradictions to all who read them; and this is a powerful reason for believing the “good authority” to be, of necessity bad, and, therefore unworthy of the approval of rational beings. “He who digs a pit, falls into it.”
Concerning the first revelation that Smith received, P. says that Smith’s own story said: “when he saw a light above his head, he was taken up into its center and that the whole world is in error on the religious issues.” And that it was in a cave that the coffer that contained the plates was found and that Mormon was believed to have buried them there. Smith did not say such things. Lies like these are again a basis for believing the “authority” to be bad, and not good according to P.’s promise. If my testimony is doubted, that Smith’s account does not say the above things, quote the above statements from his account if you can.
See further, page 188, “The religion that this deceiver attempted to teach and spread in the world, seems to be a mixture of Christianity and the empty imaginings of an unruly and uncultured mind.” It may be seen that one part in three of this religion is Christianity and that equal parts are given to empty imaginings and an unruly and uncultured mind; but on page 189—“The speeches of the Mormon preachers are full of references to the Christian doctrine, which rather tends to confuse and deceive the minds of their uneducated listeners, but, if one looks into the insolent allegations which are the basis of their system, it will be seen that they are extraordinarily offensive and blasphemous.” Well, Mormonism is full of Christianity here; that’s good, surely. Oh! No, it is not Mormonism that is full of it, but the speeches of the preachers that are thus. Well, what are the sermons if not the expression of the heart? “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” says the Scripture; “and the Scripture cannot be broken.” And if the doctrine is full of Christianity, to where did the empty imaginings, etc. go?
Let P. answer, if he can. But, “there is a tendency in references to the Christian doctrine to confuse and deceive the minds of the uneducated.” Does this not tend to signify, in P.’s opinion, that the Christian doctrine is confusion and deceit? “If one looks into the insolent allegations which are the basis of their system, it will be seen that they are extremely offensive and blasphemous.” True that they are extraordinary according to the traditions of these times, but that they are extraordinarily offensive to reason and Scripture, is a matter not yet proven; there is not here yet even a single word, with proof. Pray, what can be offensive and blasphemous as a basis for the system? I have searched for it for six or seven years, without seeing it yet! Hundreds of thousands of others also have searched for it assiduously daily, yet without seeing it! But if P. saw it, all the easier for him to show it to me; I saw nothing offensive or blasphemous before God, nor anything but good within it. Let P. show it, if he can.
See further the November issue, page 261. “The authority that I previously quoted (Prof. Turner) tells of circumstances which account in all probability for the beginning of the whole deceit.” Well, what is so very probable? Oh! Nothing, except that J. Smith is somewhat incapable of inventing the idiotic stupidities of the Book of Mormon. Reader, turn to page 262, and you shall see a sentence again conflicting greatly with this one, namely the tale about the plates. P. says “an invention not unworthy of the gold digger Mr. Smith.” These comments have of necessity come from “an unruly and uncultured mind.” Castle building “in all probability” and tearing it down on a word only. See another castle, on page 263, built on “probably”. “Hundreds have by now, probably, had occasion to regret not having taken warning in time.” Oh! such a poor basis. Assume, resemblance, likelihood; probably! I say with the old Bard about this—
“Clearly a man will show From what rank is his root.”
Which book says that Nauvoo was the New Jerusalem while Smith was alive, and that it has now moved to the wilds of the west? That is a great miracle, but there is cause to fear that it is not true. What book says it, P.? Proof, not words only, lest you be no better than I; before you go on to talk more about Smith, etc., prove your assertions by fair reasoning.
Yours,
John Richards
Dinas
Inquirer, July 1851, pp. 163–64
https://
Mormonism
Answer to Philalethes’s Article, March Issue, page 67
Sir,
You said that I did not attempt to disprove the facts that you reported, and that the facts stand hardly touched. I did not promise to disprove them, because I did not see the need for such an undertaking since the facts (if they are worthy of the name) disprove each other; I offered to note some of the contradictory assertions; and I achieved my aim. I know that no civil court would approve assertions of the sort, and how can a religious person be expected to do so on far more important matters? You said that I had said that the Anti-Mormon writers had given an unfavorable account of Mormonism; true, I did testify this, and I still continue of the same mind. But I expect no one to believe me on my word alone, as you say: had that been so, why should I urge them to insist on looking to their books, promising that they would see that they contradict each other in many things; and had I not said this, you might easily have understood that it is not natural for anyone to give a favorable account of the objects of their hate; also, the affidavit itself is enough clear proof to whoever reads it, of disapproval to an extreme degree.
You said—“Perhaps J. R. expects your readers to believe him on his word alone.” “Perhaps” is a poor basis for an argument, the brother being without any.
Behold, some more examples of clear contradictions. Some “truthful and holy” men say that S. Spaulding is the true author of The Book of Mormon. Others that J. Smith made it, copying it from some plates, with his head in a hat, with the aid of a peepstone, etc. Some say it was written in New Salem, others that it was in Manchester, or Palmyra (a distance of about a thousand miles from New Salem). Some say that it was composed in, or before the year 1812; others that it was in 1827, or 1826; and this is the strange thing, all those who affirm the above things, are all holy and truthful, and irrefutable, and on oath—and how can this be? Impossible. If you would wish to have further examples turn back to your own writings, and you will find them to be, as I pointed out, obvious contradictions.
Why did you fault me concerning my reason for refusing the affidavit of the responsible citizens of Palmyra, etc.? I did not think, much less propose such a reason as the one you noted before all the world, and I presented the matter (which you called a reason) in italics, that was, so that it would be obvious, that their religious practices had suffered “great damage” through Smith, and that the natural consequences of great damage are, to take offense, to be enemies, and to revenge, if possible, that which was done for a purpose, when the affidavit was made. You said, also—“that for a similar reason Mr. Caswell’s description, of what took place before his eyes in his conversation with Smith, must be rejected.” Yes, Sir, similar, if similar is to compare ministers and elders in the religious denominations with a man who has admitted himself an enemy, and so blind that he cannot see his fellowman’s eyes, when they are right in front of his own eyes.
You complained that the Mormon way of settling a quarrel, shutting the mouths of their opponents and defending their belief, is an abrupt one. True, but is not best, the most abrupt?
“Form, for the wise, half a word,
Where the fool brings ten.”
If our way was unreasonable or unfair, you would have cause to complain, but proving that is as great a task as building a solid castle on perhaps, it is likely, in all likelihood, probably, “and similar things.”
Sir, I am completely convinced that Smith is completely innocent of all the accusations that have been and will be brought against him. My grounds for this are—1. That the accusers are enemies. 2. That their statements are incompatible with each other, and with reason. 3. That the law in America, despite all its efforts, has failed to find him guilty of anything. 4. That there are plenty of living witnesses, from among those who were in Smith’s company for years, who vouch for his innocence in all things. 5. I have received proof from God that the work started by Smith is work which God approves of, making new revelations about everything truly essential in this age, as of old. I can attest without equivocation; I heard, I saw, I delighted in them. What? See 1 Corinthians 12:14. Perhaps it will be said of this that it is irrelevant here, but if Smith is guilty, as is said by the enemies, neither I, nor thousands of others, would have been allowed by God to delight in his promises.
Your observation on the difference between Catholics and Mormons is very slight, but if the Catholics receive any sort of supernatural things from the Pope, they have a form of godliness; but as you do not receive them in any way, you are bereft of the form, not to mention the power of godliness.
You also said that some rather gullible men were needed to believe in the testimony about the plates, and that the evidence was poor on a matter of such weight. Pray, what is it that makes the evidence poor?Is it because they are men completely unknown to you; or because they are silent about what they know about the significance of the hieroglyphs; their silence about how many plates they saw or is it something else? I know that the men being “unknown” is not a weakness in the evidence, and “silence” is not a proof of ignorance; nor ignorance in some things being proof of ignorance in others; but you said that that they knew no more of the significance of the hieroglyphs than the language of the man in the moon; this is an assertion based on ignorance, or the evidence of enemies. But, you say that that there were some hieroglyphs on them, and that some spirit had said that all was by the power of God. Are the and some the same parts of speech? you said some plates, some carvings, some spirit; but this is not what the witnesses said. Why did you do them this wrong? It appears to me that either you have not read the Book of Mormon, or it is not your wish to treat the testimonies fairly.
The eleven do not speak on behalf of J. Smith, but they testify as to what they themselves saw, and felt, and that was on behalf of God. You implied your readiness to come to the field with more concerning J. Smith and the Book of Mormon. As far as J. Smith is concerned, he is dead, let him be; but if you have deceit and forgery from the Book of Mormon, I beg of you, show them clearly, so that the little ones, like us, the Saints, can see them and subsequently reject them. But remember, it is not deceit and forgery according to the opinions, beliefs, and traditions of the age that we promise to reject, but according to truth and reason.
Hoping you will remember this, I remain,
Yours faithfully,
John Richards
Dinas
Inquirer, August 1851, pp. 183–84
https://
Mormonism
Mr. Editor,
In the name of all fairness, you have given J. Richards enough rope. The way he has gone on, he could make comments forever, without shedding any new light on the matter. In my articles on Mormonism, which have by now been for nearly a year before your readers, I did not claim to report anything which had not already been published in English. I named at the time the authors from whom I had borrowed the facts which I reported; namely, the Works of Turner and Caswell and Chambers’ Miscellany. I said that they appeared to be “good authorities;” I say that again. And it is an irrefutable fact that the authors mentioned are generally considered to be intelligent, honest, and truthful men. It is unnecessary for me to go on about a fact that is acknowledged by you, Sir, and by a great number of your readers. I am very sorry to see that J. Richards’s ignorance on this matter, and his prejudice, and more than anything his arrogant inanity makes it futile for me to attempt to convince him of his transgression. Argue with a “professed” prophet—a man who thinks that he “knows the mysteries” by miraculous means—spare me from such a thing! Personally, I do not know much about the Saints; but I must confess that I half believe there to be some flaw of that sort, when I see J. R. offering assertions rather than reasons. Sometimes I thought the cause was the low opinion he had of the readers of The Inquirer, but I now see that the true cause is the high opinion (too high, I say) that he has of himself.
But be that as it may, this is how the argument stands. Neither J. R. nor anyone else dares to say that I did the least injustice to the authorities from whom I claimed to have borrowed. And therefore, as far as it pertains to me as author of the aforementioned articles on Mormonism, the matter can be left there.
But J. R. and the Mormons assert that the Authority is not good. They say that the citizens of Palmyra on oath should not be believed, nor Mr. Caswell in the report that he wrote of his conversation with Joseph Smith. Why so? Were not those who joined together to make the affidavit about the poor character of Joseph Smith and his family respectable men in Palmyra? J. R. acknowledges that they are deacons in the religious denominations in the place. J. R. maintains that these men have perjured themselves in order to wreak their jealousy and anger on Joseph Smith and his supporters!
Your readers well know that J. R. has not produced a single reason in the world for not giving credence to the testimony of the men of Palmyra and Mr. Caswell; unless one accepts, instead of reason, his own assertion only; namely that these witnesses are “professed enemies.” Whoever has testified negatively about the Mormons and proclaimed their deceit to the world, they are “professed enemies”, says J. R. Do not believe what they say they have seen and heard! Whatever the shortcomings of J. R., it is clear that he is in possession of an abundance of impudence.
He says, that he did not “promise to disprove the facts that I reported.” What he attempted was “to note a few contradictions,” as he called them. But how has he accomplished this objective? In an ingenious and unique way, it must be admitted—misapprehending what I have said and ascribing to me phrases and words that I did not use, and then, when he himself had made up a contradiction, attributing that to me. That was unfair and unwise of J. R. For example, I did not say—“that one part in three of the Mormon religion is Christianity;” neither—“that the speeches of Mormon preachers are full of Christianity;” and I am not accountable for what is gathered from sentences that I did not employ. J. R. should remember that such unfairness, without saying dishonesty, is obvious to any intelligent reader.
In the last issue, page 163, he thought it appropriate to give an account of contradictions made from time to time, by this one and that, here and there, about Joe Smith, the Book of Mormon, peepstone, and similar things. But what has this to do with my writings on Mormonism? This J. R. must be a very odd man. In the June issue, page 139, he asks—“Where is the man who saw Smith, the Younger, spend as much as one whole day in his life, digging for money, or for hidden treasures of that sort. If such a man exists, let him present his name and his proof.” Now, what if such a man presented himself and was to affirm the testimony of the citizens of Palmyra, would it not be said of him, in the same way as of them—“That man is a ‘professed enemy,’ do not believe him. But under the circumstances, it would be the same for J. R. to ask—Where is the man who saw Smith, the younger, for one whole day of his life, with one task greater than his companions? Let him present his name and his evidence. The one thing is as difficult as the other. J. R. condemns me for making use of the words “perhaps”, “probably”, “likely” and the like, when talking about things with a degree of uncertainty, more or less. What is the matter with the man? Does he want me to practice a deception, or use bombastic and blasphemous language?
J. R. complains that, in my article (March Issue) I have “done an injustice to the evidence about the plates.” But, pray, what injustice did I commit? I said “that I did not believe your readers would be more eager to buy the Book of Mormon, from hearing that eleven totally unknown men’s names were laid down in the book, who testify that Joseph Smith’s story about the plates is “all right” and that “"quite credulous men are needed to trust in such weak evidence in a matter of such weight.” Was this the injustice I committed?
I have often, since then, read the aforementioned evidence; namely that of the three main witnesses and that of the other eight, as it is printed, in English, at the start of the Book of Mormon—and read it carefully and as unprejudiced as I could—and I am bound to say, that I have found not one reason to retract what I said. It is a fact that cannot be denied that the testimony is wanting in some of the essential things. The witnesses do not claim that they have read, nor that they could read and understand what was written on the plates in question. J. R. confesses their silence on the subject. What injustice, therefore did I do them? It is indubitable that the sum and substance of what the witnesses say, the three main witnesses especially, Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris, is this; to wit, that they in a miraculous way, by means of the descent of an angel from heaven, had received certainty that the plates which contained the recorded history of the people of Nephi, etc., had been given and translated through the power of God. And on this, so as not to exhaust the patience of your readers, it is enough to note: that evidence of that sort requires corroboration. Without such corroboration it collapses to the ground—in the same way as J. R.’s assertion, page 164, that he has had proof from God, etc. I shall now desist.
Yours, etc., PHILALETHES
July 15, 1851
Inquirer, October 1851, pp. 236–37
https://
Mormonism
Mr. Editor,
Philalethes complains of the freedom you have granted John Richards, Dinas. They have both offered themselves to the judgment of the common people. All the readers of English newspapers agree with Philalethes. I have been a member of this faction, called Mormons, and would wish to do justice to religion. But let the world judge whether these things that J. R. is amazed about are religion.
TO J. R.
Not on a whim, nor with malice, do I direct these few lines to you, J. R., Dinas; but from a desire to convince you. You are either a man of weak thinking or a complete deceiver. You said that in your church there were prophets, speaking with tongues, the gift of interpretation of tongues, etc., and that you have “testimony,” etc. You said that you had been in their midst for some years and that you saw no disorder among them. I also will say that there are among them prophets—but they are the prophets of Baal: let the world judge. They prophesised in different places when the Cholera was in the neighboring countries to this kingdom, thus. A prophet would rise to his feet, he would stand stiffly as if he were under pressure, and his hands held out: and he would say, “I am declaring through my spirit that a plague will come among you, and that terrible destruction will fall on mankind. But I say to you, it shall not hurt any of you Saints, my chosen people. Be not afraid, it shall not touch any one of you: The Lord has declared it.” It was also preached in many places that there was no need for the Saints to fear the Cholera; that none of them would get it, and there was no need of a doctor for them.
The plague came; it struck one preacher; but he cried out, “doctor, doctor.” What! Doctor? Where is the prophet and his god now? The man died, and God (so he said) having guaranteed the opposite! Was it only he alone? No, no. In every neighborhood where there were Mormons, I, and you, J. R., heard the prophecy—if we admit the truth; and we saw also that neither the prophets nor their god, understood well the fate of man. All the prophesies were similar; I gave one as an example. (I pray you, as there are amongst you such fortune-tellers, say, who wrote this?) Before concluding this point, I ask, was this order or disorder?
We shall move on to the strange tongues. The ducks’ language is wat, wat, wat. The language of the cow, moo. But a Mormon can easily translate from a language more complicated than these. The Mormon language, “Co-lo-lo-losho co-lo-losho-lo saralamanos co-lo-losho-lo” –the Lord’s translation, it is said, declared, “Some of you will leave the Saints and be badly hurt.” I heard co-lo-lo-losho (the same words) being translated as “Be at prayer, for my spirit is being offered to you in abundance”. Now, was this order or disorder—translating the same words differently. All reason says that their holy spirit did not understand Welsh. I say the same thing, and I also offer a shilling to support him in a Welsh school. That will stop people continuing to mock him.—J. R. tell me, what language does your holy spirit understand?
Again, Mormon language, tara marra lal a fara marra marra la la fara marra; the Lord’s translation said, “There will be great increase amongst you, the honest in heart will flock in.” Tara marra lal a fara was translated at other times, “My dear children be faithful, and I will prepare room for you in Zion.” It appears that your holy spirit, J. R., speaks according to circumstances and events to satisfy the whims of deceitful men for profit. In this manner are employed ranks of garbled words, and there will be grimaces when the spirit takes over, until they begin to speak with cold voices, frightful and asinine. The weak will almost be prepared to believe that he is being deceived in what he sees, that they also possess asses’ heads.
This is how they pressure the feelings of the youth of our time, that they are under a moral center point and worthy to be of the same opinion as angels and archangels in the next world. I heard a lad of about nine years old crying out cadrach fadrach fadrach cadrach. The Lord’s president translated, saying, “Some of you do not believe, and that is why I said this.” I could not help but weep to see the young being conjured into a pagan religion of superstition.
Cease sending your blusters, etc., unproven before the world! My testimony is that your influence of the spirit is nonsense—only phantoms of the brain.
Mr. Editor, I shall conclude this time with only a few words, lest I tire your readers. You shall hear from me again, to give you a glimpse of “singing through the spirit,” “casting out of devils,” together with their testimony. J. R. knows that I have been very brief. He has no cause to thank me, as it was fear of your publication’s being damaged that prompted me.
David Tell-the-truth
[We would not publish the above letter, had not our Correspondent given us, in private, his proper name.—Editor.]
Inquirer, January 1852, pp. 21–22
https://
Mormon Deceit—Letter 2
Mr. Editor,
If you make room for the following lines, on Mormon “Testimony,” it will complete my initial objective. In their meetings, they get up one after the other from twenty to thirty, more or less, at different times. They give testimony similar to this: “I know that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ, and that there is no way to have eternal life except through this church.” At the end of every testimony, the whole crowd gives an “Amen” as one voice. Some of the more eloquent in their testimony add: “The Spirit of God is giving testimony along with my spirit, that Joe Smith is a prophet from God on high, and were he to require me to die, I would not deny a thing.”
It was the testimony of one woman which attracted my attention mostly. She had been a member with the Wesleyans for many years. One female neighbor advised her to join the Wesleyans again, saying that she had received the Spirit of God there. But, “No,” answered the Saint, “I have proof and I know that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ, etc., and that I have, by the laying on of hands, received God’s Holy Spirit.” It seems remarkable to me that there was no hole in her tongue, so much did she prattle. This lady was, if you wish, possessed of “singing through the spirit,” “the gift of interpretation,” and “speaking in tongues.” One might think by her proficiency each time in giving her testimony, that she had received so much of the spirit that she was compelled to stuff it into her pockets lest it be crushed. This, I believe, should be an adequate credential for heaven, she having received the spirit of two Gods!
If a brother or sister had not given testimony within a few weeks of their baptism, the officers would advise them to give testimony that they had received the spirit. “You too,” they say, “will understand bit by bit.” What coaxing there was, that they should improve. I heard young men give their testimony weakly at the request of these deceivers. I asked several of them how they could give such testimony. They replied, that the officers understood them, that they had received the spirit, and that in due course they would understand. Some of them emerged manfully from the pressures that man can place on man.
A man and woman were baptized; the man gave his testimony within a week of being baptized. But the wife, poor thing, had a great disappointment after pleading often for the bit of grace, there was none to be had. She complained to the president—he advised her to pray, and then she would be sure to receive it. She complained a second time, that nothing had been received after beseeching for weeks in prayer. This time the president changed his tune—he rebuked the woman severely, saying that he knew full well that she had received God’s spirit—that no one was wanted among the Saints who could not give testimony. That’s it! True the old saying,—It’s easier to catch the liar than the lame.
A young lad got to his feet to give testimony for the first time, having been deceived in the aforementioned manner. He testified that he knew he was in the church of Jesus Christ, etc. The lad spoke rather incoherently for the most part, but he received amen and amen, as was usual the first time.
One officer told me about his testimony, that he was in a prayer meeting after he had received of God’s spirit until he had to pray to God to remove it! There’s a pack for you on a man’s back with some sense in it—making him bend under it!
My fellow countrymen, did I wrong these men, in my previous letter, in saying that the greatest duty that a Mormon has is lying? No. I have only told the truth. Is it not clear that the weak are beguiled by them, to believe the things mentioned?
The officers (the deceivers) are promised a good situation in the Salt Lake Valley; crowns and jewels of different colours, according to their loyalty here. They can peel a little off the bone here. They offered me a share, if I agreed with them to announce that the lies are true.
These are the things brought before the world by J. Richards—a wolf in sheep’s clothing. These are the men who claim true faith; yes, and that they have certainty. Ask them; they will say that it is not right to argue about the truth of their beliefs, whatever the misconceptions and the foolishness—according to the advice of the Captain, with the apostles in agreement, for a rich reward beyond man’s understanding. Their beliefs fill them with a wild jubilation, that thousands of their fellow beings will be in brimstone-like fire with the demons; and they are free yonder in the Salt Lake—their heaven, where men at present are dying of starvation. A voice from heaven should have been enough to convince every living soul not to give credence to the proclamation, that the Jehovah has changed his mind; that his objective is no longer to be the happiness of his creatures; but that his limitless power is to be transferred to the Mormon Zion.
We read in the Holy Scriptures about a pack of scoundrels, who, even in the presence of judgment, are testifying, “Have we not cast out devils in thy name,” etc. But, “Depart,” says the Judge “depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I shall finish in wishing success to you, Mr. Editor, and to The Inquirer, in which I have had many a feast. Seeing the high erudition of your correspondents, I would not have dared enter the field, had it not been either for the ignorance of J. Richards or for his deceit.
I remain, etc.,
David Tell-the-truth
Inquirer, March 1852, pp. 67–68
https://
The Immorality of the Mormons in America
Mr. Inquirer,
If you consider the following story, from the News of the World, for January 25th, 1852, worthy of a corner of your Monthly, feel free to display it before the monolingual Welsh. I do not know how any ‘Saint’ can doubt the truth of what is presented to the world by such respectable witnesses as Utah Judge; and if they cannot doubt it, what can they expect to gain from continuing in so corrupt a communion—so savage, as the Report of the Utah judges shows it to be! But to the story –
“The Report of the judges of the State of Utah concerning the behavior of the Mormons is full of the loathsome account of the lasciviousness practiced by the elders of that faction. It should be read by the multitude who, even at the present time, are emigrating from Great Britain to join them. The following was taken from the Report”—
“We consider it a duty to assert, in this public declaration, that polygamy, or plurality of wives is admitted and practiced publicly in the State, under the patronage and in obedience to the direct orders of the church. So common is the practice that very few, if any, of the elders in this communion, have only one wife—which creates the monopoly—and which was especially hard on the officers who were sent to live there. The worthies of the church, whose example is eagerly followed by those of a lower rank, have, every one, many wives—some of them, as we are plausibly informed, and as we believe, as many as twenty or thirty; and Brigham Young, the president, even more than that. It is not uncommon to find two or more sisters married to the same man. This practice—which is considered to be and which is punished as a gross and shameful offence in every civilized country—has never been made a legal offense by a Mormon government; and if it were an offense in the eyes of the common law, the court would be unable to punish the wrong with Mormon jurors.”
The city of The Great Salt Lake lies on the journey overland to Oregon and California, and is an important place for emigrants to refresh their supplies, or to winter if they were caught by the chill of the season; but the anxiety caused by public threats and the behavior of the Mormon church and the people towards the citizens of the United States, when passing through, or discharging their duties there, are such that the emigrant avoids them if possible, and the resident submits without complaint. No one dares open his mouth against their illegal confiscation of properties, without feeling its effect on his freedom, his work, or his life. And in this way, on the land of the United States and in the broad embrace of its stars and stripes—which defends the rights of the citizen in every part of the civilized world—there is a locale where he dares not exercise his freedom as a citizen. We have heard that many of the gentiles (as there they call everyone who is not Mormon, or who has only one wife) have been convicted of petty offenses for two, five and ten years of hard labor on the highways, and a ball and chain on their legs, with no shelter at night but a pit dug in the ground, by their own hands. We saw one of these highways, cut out of the side of a mountain, and the pits far down at the bottom; but the approach of the federal officers was the cue to release and exile the transgressors to Texas.
“The New York National Police Gazette contains a heap of disgusting things about the behavior of this faction, by the Salt Lake. That paper’s reporter, when writing from Utah, says—“the pluralist wife system is fully accepted here. It is said that the President Young has ninety wives. A few days ago he drove along the highway, sixteen of them in a long carriage, and fourteen of them had a baby on the breast. It is said that Heber Kimball, one of the Triumvirate council, and the second person in the Trinity, had nearly as many as he—and among them are a mother and her two daughters. Every man can have as many wives as he can support, that is, after the women have been picked and chosen by the top men. One could fill whole pages with strange and disgusting things like this.
“It is a lamentable fact—at the present time, that there are many people leaving Britain, to join the Mormons, despite the revelations which are made regularly.”
So goes the story in the News of the World. I hope it will be read and considered by many a Welshman who is possibly on the verge of being lured by their deceit and fraud, and that he can be saved from falling into such a foul ditch—such shameless immorality—such filth beyond paganism! A mother and two daughters married to the same man—no, an animal, and not a man! Pagans, blush—humanity, hide your head in tears! Is the thing believable? Is it possible? Can all this take place under the name of religion! Mormons, Mormons,—hold on, slow down, consider where you stand, says
X. Y. Z.
