MORE MORMON.

NZ Truth, Issue 109, 20 July 1907, Page 8

MORE MORMON.

BRIGHAM YOUNG'S WORDS EXPLAINED.

What the Sect Really Believes.

(To the Editor of "Truth.")

In Brisbane —Truth,"' of 'June 30, on Mormonism, the following letter appeared :— Sir,— On May 26, "Truth had an article from the pen of Mr J. W. Barkus, purporting to. be an answer to my article / on the "Morrisite Murders," m which my answer is dubbed "rigmarole," and as "lying evidence," yet he goes no further. Mere assertions are not conclusive evidence. Now, instead of answering and showing where it is "rigmarole" and "lying evidence," he goes on by slinging more'l^-mud-," and callling the people' whom I represent, "filthy, immoral, and bloodthirsty." I certainly am included m my people, and I challenge Mr Barkus to show one single instance m my whole life that would prove me ''filthy, immoral, or bloodthirsty." He then goes on to bring up an argiument that was exploded years and years ago, showing from the sermons of Brigharo Young, and others, that WO tauight practices that were corrupt, and how does he do it ? Simply by QUOTING ISOLATED SENTENCES from sermons of the leading men of our church. I have challenged Mr Barkus to have read the whole sermons from which lie has quoted before the public, and prove, from the whole sermon that the doctrine he is trying- to fasten on ttie Mormon people, is taught therein. And I say again, he doesn't dare read them. Novs see how he goes at it. He Iquotes Brigham ' Young as saying : "What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so ? We will take them, I was going tp say, and cut off their tails two inches behind Ui?.ir ears. However, I will use a milder term, and say ''cut off their ears." But the next sentence did not suit him, so he left it out. It reads : "But instead of doing this we will try to cleanse them ; and will wash them with soap ; that will come well nigh taking off the hide ; we will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and wash them again until wo make them clean." Does that appear as threatening human life ? From that he would have you believe that Brigbam Young WAS A BLOODTHIRSTY MAN. Another instance from the siermon of Parley P. Pratt, he quotes : "My feelings -are with those who have spoken, decidedly and' firmly. So, I need not repeat tiro doom of these apostates. .It has 'been told here to-day.. They have been warned. It is too late m the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth." That is had enough, but see how it is done. On page 84, of the Journal of Discourses, published by our church, he takes the first sentencer-

-'My feelings are with- fcb'ose who ■Have spoken, decidedly and firmly." Now he skips to page 86, and gets this— "I need not repeat their doom, At has been told here to-day . ; .They have been warned." Then three paragraphs further on he finds this— "It is too late m the day for us to stop and inquire whether such, , an outcast has the truth.;Is that a fair way of REPRESENTING THE TEACHING of any ohuroh ? Does that show a Christian spirit ? Now, I will give you the part of the sermon that contains all the sentences, except the first. "Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, I, for one, would rather march out to-day and he shot down. Talk about liberty of conscience ! Have not men liberty of conscience here ? Yes, the Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, etc „ have here the liberty to worship God, m their own way, and so has every man m the world. People have the privilege of apostatizing from this church and worshipping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege to disturb the peace, nor endarilger life or liberty : that is the idea. If they will take that privilege, I need not repeat their dooms it has been told here to-day. They have been faithfully warned." Speaking of Gladdeus Bishop, he says: "He was disfellowshipped and RECEIVED ON HIS PROFESSIONS so often that the church at length refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of proof •! Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer, standing at the head of this dispensation ? Have we not proved the priesthood which he plaoed upon others by the command of God ? '•'I see no grounds then,, to prove or to investigate the calling of an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon the people. It is too late m day for us to stop and iniqoiire whether such an outcast has the truth. "We have proofs already developed, unfulfilled by us, unacted upon. There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain already than" our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations, to carry out. Aoid yet we are called upon to prove— what ? Whether an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago lias really j IMPROVED BY REASON OF 'AX3-E. •'■' 'You are going to be destroyed,' say they. 'Destruction awaits this city.' Well, what if we are ? We are as able to be destroyed as any people living. W!hat care we ' whether we are destroyed or not ? These old tabernacles will die of themselves if let alone."' Does that sound like taking life,; or that the church taught it ? Now, what do the Mormons Ib'elieve about "blood atonement ?" What is that doctrine ? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have been so often made, it is simply this. ;' Thorough the atonement of f Jesus Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws aod ordiua/nces of the Gospel. This salvation is twofold : General— That which, comes to all men, irrespective of a belief m Christ I; and Individual— that which man merits through his own acts through life, and by, obedience to the LAWS r AND ORDINANCES of the Gospel. But man may commit certain grievous sins — according to 'his light and knowledge— that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as lies m his power — for that sin, for j}he blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. -' Does Mr Barkus believe this doctrine'? If not, then I say that he does not believe m the true doctrine of the atonement of , Christ. This is the doctrine he is pleased to call "the blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer., who died for us. This is the doctri<ne taught, a<nd I 'believe it. This is the doctrine preached m those sermons that Mr Barkus has torn to 'pieces, and given isolated sentences from, m order to BLACKEN THE CHARACTER of a community of people who are striving to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, allowing all men the same privilege ; : who believe m being true, chaste, benevolent, honest, and virtuous, and m doing good to all men. I ask you lis that the spirit of Christianity ? Did our Saviour ever set you such an example ? I notice that these addresses were given m the Tabernacle, m the presence of 8000 people. Doesn't it seem strange that ; more people do not know more of these terrible doctrines, and don't you think that of 8000 people there would have been more than Mrs Sten- 1 house and five or six other who would have rejected such teaching ? No doubt Mr Barkus will call this "mush" ;• ♦■'APOLOGY FOR BLOOD iATONEMENT" ;• flying evidence" ; but then you know that it is a sign of weakness m aßgumenit when the argument has to resort to slander, ridicule, or low insinuations. If I cannot defend my belief without resorting to calumny, I shall for ever remain silent. I have given Mr Barkus the challenge to ha' 3 these sermons, from which he has culled his articles, read by some disinterested person, m some public place, that can be agreed upon, and I repeat that he does not dare do it, for they will not bear out his assertion. The reading of them would settle the matter for ever.— Yours respectfully, v?- JOHN P, NASH^ Gibb'on-stl < 6eti;.'.Brisbane l • June 14 A 1907a