YOUR SUBJECT LAST NIGHT
"If Christ should come to Chattanooga, where would He go?" Now, Brother Brougher, stand up. If He should come, where would He go? He commanded that His Gospel should be made free and His ministers should travel without purse or scrip. If He were hunting for His friends, would He call upon those who declare that His promises have fallen to the ground unfulfilled, and that the blessings do not follow the believers? He has placed Apostles and Prophets in the church, with a decree that they should remain until we all come to a unity of the faith. Would He call those His friends who declare "they are no longer needed and are not to remain until we all come to a unity of the faith?" He told the generation to whom He came (1800 years ago) that their great sin consisted in worshiping dead Prophets, while they persecuted those who believed in living oracles. Would He call on those who engage in the same business today? He never resorted to abuse for an argument. If He came would He love those who do? He was not a character assassin. Would He love those who are? But stay, we do not know where He would go, or whom He would call upon, because when He was here before, He said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance," and He might say that His mission was not entirely finished, and we cannot tell where He would go, but you might possibly see him.
Now, Brother Brougher, just a word. Did you ever listen to an argument against "Mormons" from the standpoint of Scripture and reason? No, you never have and you never will. Did it ever occur to you that it was a most cowardly ambition which induces you to attack a party in a place and at a time when retaliation would have been anything but decent? If so, will you grant us the privilege of defending ourselves from the pulpit and before that congregation which were so disgraced by your tirade on Sunday evening?
Now, in conclusion, let me say that we are not here to stir up strife, but we propose to defend ourselves whenever attacked; so I close, wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
BEN. E. RICH.
Chattanooga, Tenn., Dec. 25, 1899.
Rev. (?) J. Whitcomb Brougher, Chattanooga, Tenn.
My Dear Sir:—Your second installment of abuse, falsehood and misrepresentation, called "Is Mormonism Anti-Christian," I see, by the News of Jan. 1, was duly delivered, as per previous announcement. As some well-meaning people might take your performance in earnest, I hope you will take it in good part if I make a brief reply before the incident is closed. I am glad that this is a country of free speech, free thought, and religious liberty, even though narrow-minded religious bigots cannot comprehend this basic principle of our heaven-born government, and sometimes abuse it. American history tells us that during the revolutionary days of America's struggle for independence the British once had Gen. Marion and his little band of struggling patriots surrounded; that the British, in order to tantalize the starving patriots, fired wheat from their cannon into the American camp, and as I have authentic evidence of having descended from one of those hungry defenders of the flag, and also that I have proof, beyond truthful contradiction, that my progenitor was once a member of George Washington's body guard, I trust you will have no serious objections to my calling myself an American by birth, and entitled to a small portion of the freedom of speech and thought guaranteed to Americans by our constitution. Should there be any objections upon the possible ground that your progenitors possibly have been on the other side of that fight, I pray you to let family feuds, for this occasion at least, be buried. No people on earth love liberty and true Americanism more than my people, and no people realize to a greater extent that the favorite weapons brought against truth are, generally, ridicule and billingsgate; and in a vain attempt to successfully answer my former letter you liberally employed this unsavory method with the hope of laughing the case out of court. We have not been accustomed to throwing mud in order to bolster up our cause, but in this case, if I should stoop to a little ridicule, avoiding slush, I hope you and the public will pardon me. I understand from parties who witnessed your performance last Sunday night, that the recital of your little piece would have done much credit to a Punch and Judy show; but, shorn of its stagey effects and set in cold type, without even a moving picture accompaniment, I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not fully appreciate the force of your masterful (?) logic. I have no doubt that the thinking people of this city can, without any assistance, distinguish between inflated sophistic bombast, and logic; but a little airing and brushing always takes away the mold, removes the rubbish and gives things a more healthful appearance. Now, as the physician said to his patient, "just hold still, and I will not insert the knife deeper than is absolutely necessary."
You claim to be a true representative of the meek and lowly Master, who said He "came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." You are loud in condemning "us" as sinners; yet you said, in your letter to the News, announcing your attack upon me and my faith, that you were not here to convert the Latter-day Saints, that the work was not worth the candle. How very Christ-like! What a humble follower of the Lamb, and how faithfully you endeavor to follow the example of the Master, who said there was more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over ninety and nine that needed no repentance; but pardon me—I had forgotten that we are now living in modern times, and are told by such eminent divines as yourself that the Bible does not mean what it says.
In the same letter, mentioned above, you also declare you are not here for the purpose of proselyting, which means, of course, that you do not intend to waste your time by calling anyone to repentance. In view of this, may I ask, is your mission here simply to love Jesus for $1,800 per year, and not for a blessed cent less? Great man! Paul told Timothy that the time would come when they would heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and I suppose it becomes necessary, in order that these words might be fulfilled, for some one to be engaged in tickling ears, even though it becomes rather expensive. Of course I understand that the march of progression changes things, and perhaps this doctrine of Christ, that "the physician is not for the whole but for the sick," has evolved as completely as the Golden Rule, for we now have it, at least to a very large extent, "Do others or they will do you, and do it first." The theory is just the same as it used to be, but it is only, as you say, "symbolic or a figure of speech," the practical part having been done away with—"we have no need of thee."
Through force of habit (we presume), in your brief note to the News you again charged us with creeping into houses and leading captive silly women, laden with sins, etc. Knowing it impossible to furnish proof, you hide behind the miserable subterfuge that you have only time to sound the key of warning. Our challenge still holds good that you cannot point to a single instance.
You think it a shame and a disgrace that Chattanooga is the headquarters for our missionary work in the south, and no doubt if the solid element of this community, as you assert, thought likewise, you would favor and advocate burning us at the stake. However, as you are a newcomer here, I feel that you are excusable, in a measure, for this rash and un-American statement. We know, as well as you, like our Master and the Former Day Saints, we are not popular, and we can also take consolation that in the world's history non-conformists to popular opinion have always been placed in the selfsame category. For a good many years, over twenty, we have had our headquarters here, and it is strange that, before your advent, the good people of this city did not discover that we were a disgrace and a detriment to this city. During the time we have been located here we have been associated, in a business way, with not a few representative men of Chattanooga, and believe we enjoy their confidence as being honest, paying our bills, etc., and have heard no complaints of any of them missing their wives or daughters, or of any charge being lodged against any of our representatives of conduct unbecoming true ladies or gentlemen. Our expenditures in this city amount to something like $25,000 per year, and I may be excused for mentioning this item, in that you mentioned money on Sunday night in various ways. I wish briefly to explain this, knowing full well your ambition to misjudge and misrepresent us in this, as in other matters. We have laboring in this mission about 500 Elders, sometimes more and sometimes a little less, and in coming here they are called from the plow, the smithy, the work-bench, the machine shop, the counting room, the mine, and the various avocations of life. Some of them leave lucrative position, worth to them, in some instances, one or two thousand dollars per year, or more, while others again are the sons of poor widows and men of humble circumstances financially, but all willing to battle for the Gospel. Now, these men leave their homes, all that is dear to a human, and come among strangers, unto them, a strange land, to preach an unpopular doctrine; to be hated and despised, sometimes brutally treated, because of their convictions, traveling without purse or scrip, and depending upon God to raise up friends to give them a place to sleep and something to eat. These men give their time to the church free of charge, and pay their own expenses, such as clothing, railroad fare, literature, etc., necessary to carry on their work.
When an Elder arrives in this city he is assigned to his field of labor, and remains in the field usually from two to three years; when, in the course of his labors, it is necessary for him to have books, tracts, clothing, and other supplies, he sends here for us to send him these needed articles, while the money to pay for the same, if the Elder is unable to bear the expense himself, is forwarded here by relatives and friends, or in some cases by brothers and sisters in the church at his home. This explains how we dispose of money in this city.
Some of our Elders have been shot to death by mobs, some have been cruelly beaten, while others have died in the harness of natural causes.
Could you do as these men do for your religion?
Could you stand to be held up to the derision of the world, leave a comfortable home and work without a salary, derided by such men as yourself, and your mother charged with being worse than a harlot; all for the love of the Master's cause?
Some of our Elders now in the field were with the rough riders in the late war with Spain, others were with the Utah batteries in the Philippines, and some of them returned home about the time the call to arms was sounded, in just enough time to discard their Prince Albert coats and don the uniform of Uncle Sam.
Is this disloyalty? Could you do as much for your religion and your country?
We try to mind our own business, and if the good people of this city or any other place do not care to come out and hear me or any other Mormon Elder preach, that is their business. All I ask is fair play and nothing more. Giving the people an opportunity to hear the Gospel is a large part of the mission of a servant of God, and when it has been preached in all the world for a witness, then shall the end come, then will it be said, as it was said once before by our Master, "how oft would I have gathered you, but ye would not." I remember, too, that Jesus said: "Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat; while straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Christ also said that people would kill His disciples and think they were doing God's service, and that all who would follow Him must needs suffer persecution. Are you persecuted? Is it right to look for the true Church of Christ in popularity? When a church becomes popular and persecution ceases, one of the promises of our Savior ceases to be fulfilled, for persecution is one of the marks by which we are to know the true church, says the Bible. Don't you think it is time to begin to look for the cause of the trouble? What do you really sacrifice for the cause of the Master?
You misunderstand me when you try to make believe that I claim my arguments are new. They are old, very old, and are the same as those used by Paul and Peter. I hope you will not misrepresent me on that point again. They may not be Christian, in the accepted use of the term today, but, according to Scripture, they were accepted as Christian over 1,800 years ago.
I did not think I hit so hard when I asked for a chance to give my side of the story before your congregation; I have always been taught to hear both sides before passing judgment, and perhaps it might not be amiss to say here that it is somewhat of a custom among my people to loan, as you would put it, preachers of other denominations their churches, congregations, and a choir to sing for them. There would be no objection even to the Rev. Dr. Talmage, so lovingly quoted by you, preaching in our great Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, if he desired to do so, and be furnished with a congregation numbering thousands and a choir of 500 voices to sing for him. I thought your superior (?) Christianity would make you as fair and generous as the despised Mormons, but I see I overestimated you. Our large Tabernacle at Salt Lake City seats from ten to twelve thousand, our organ is second largest in the world, and our choir, as I stated above, consists of 500 voices.
We think our singers are of the best, as they were given the second prize at the world's fair (the first prize being carried off by the famous Welsh singers). No minister of good character has ever been denied a hearing in that building, and among the many who have occupied our famous pulpit I mention the following prominent churchmen, representing various denominations:
Bishop Kingsley, of Ohio. Rev. A. N. Fisher, of Nevada. Dr. Tiffany, of Iowa. Dr. Allen, of Wyoming. Rev. Hiram McKee, of Missouri. Dr. J. H. Vincent, of New York. Gen. Booth, of the Salvation Army, London. Mr. D. L. Moody. Dr. Reiner, of New York.
Perhaps these eminent divines would have been refused a hearing had the Mormon people been as narrow and contracted as some of their enemies.
When you advise your congregation not to go to hear us, is it not good proof that you are afraid to have your people find out the truth about us and learn the true nature of our faith?
As expected, you made no effort to expose the principles we teach from reason and the Scripture; you claim it would take a lifetime to expose the errors of Mormonism. Well, now, Brother, don't you think you are a little bit inconsistent? Did you not speak before you thought? Just think what would be accomplished if you could only prove Mormonism to be false. We are informed by our enemies, and they preach it to the people, that the very existence of our government and free institutions is threatened by this Mormon octopus, and often has it been pointed out, by preachers and politicians, that we already control four or five states, almost a sufficient number of senators to give us a balance of power in the United States senate. Then the Rev. T. C. Iliff, and other of our enemies, who are proselyting in Utah, say if it were not for our leaders we would be good people; and that it is our priestcraft that makes us bad; fully admitting that they think we have a soul to save. Don't you think you could afford to try and call us to repentance? Is it not worth the candle? Inasmuch as Dr. Iliff was in this city a few months back, lecturing on Mormonism, soliciting donations, is it not possible that some of Chattanooga's good people gave of their means to be used in converting us "heathens," and no doubt we were considered "worth the candle?" Would it not be well worth a man's life to prove Mormonism false, if it would save the nation from going to pieces and be the means of saving some 300,000 or 400,000 or more souls for Jesus? Ministers all over the country are crying that thousands are being won over to the Mormon faith every year, and would it not be worth the candle to check this mighty stream of human souls, which, as you say, "are going to certain destruction?"
As to Joseph Smith, you rehashed the same old stuff, which I have already answered, but I should have thought you would have remembered to tell the people, in your eagerness to be fair, what such men as Josiah Quincy, George Bancroft, the historian, and other prominent and well known men say. In another column we have taken pains to give a few sayings in our favor from men of undoubted veracity, but as they are not clippings from your style of authors perhaps they will not suit you.
However, they will go to show that there are two sides to this question, as well as every other question.
On the Book of Mormon you manufacture another Spaulding story with a hope of covering your defeat on this point, but we want to say to you here that the manuscript of Oberlin college is the very manuscript of which it was falsely said years ago furnished the inspiration for the Book of Mormon, and as President Fairchild said in his affidavit and account of the manuscript published in the New York World, the opponents of Mormonism will have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the Book of Mormon.
You admitted to two of our young men who called on you a few days ago, that you had never read anything about us except from our enemies. Solomon says he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise. How Solomon-like you are.
You felt very badly because I did not break the law, so you could prosecute me for teaching polygamy, didn't you? You remind me of a booby, who, in playing with his big brother, cried out, "Ma, he won't let me hit him." Solomon and David both sinned, we admit, but you took special pains not to tell the audience "when" they transgressed. But then this was necessary in order to keep your "clay brick" logic from going to pieces. Does the fact that God has a body, parts and passions, debar Him from being an intelligent being, omnipresent, etc.? The glory of God is intelligence, and He, being a real live God, and not a nonentity, would His materiality prohibit Him from controlling the intelligences for the just governing of His children and the universe? Let us look at your syllogism. "A brick is made of clay, a man is made of clay, therefore a man is a brick." Now let us construct one from the Bible, taking care to have our premises correct. "All sons are in the image of their fathers, Jesus was a Son, therefore He was in the 'express' image of His Father." Now, Brother Brougher, what was the image of His Father? Jesus had a body of flesh and bones—can you explain or ridicule it away? If the words "God is a spirit" mean that He has neither body, parts or passions, then are we to dispense with our body, parts and passions in order to worship Him in "spirit" and in truth? When you find some quotation in the Bible that suits your idea, you seem to be willing to take the words literally. If the symbolical or figurative parts of the Bible are so plain, why is there such a wide difference of opinion, among the learned even, as to its teachings? I remember that Peter declared that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." I do not mention this by way of belittling your great knowledge of interpretation and for calling me a fool for taking the book literally, but speak of it that the public might know how ignorant and how very little Peter really knew about how to read the Bible.
You say Mark 16: 16 is spurious, to justify yourself in not believing baptism to be essential to salvation, don't you? "Only believe and you shall be saved;" you may just as well say to the farmer, "only believe in planting and your crop will grow." But let us see where your declaration "that this part of the Bible is spurious" leads us. There are other passages of Scripture which say baptism is essential to salvation. Are they also spurious? John 3: 5 reports Jesus saying to Nicodemus, "except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Matthew says, 3: 13-15, that it was necessary for our Savior to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus also says, Matt. 28, in giving the Apostles their commissions to go to teach all nations, baptizing them that believe; and Paul also enumerates in Heb. 6 that baptism is a doctrine of Christ. We are told that it was necessary for Paul to be baptized, likewise the jailor, the people at Ephesus, the people at Samaria, the eunuch, and even a man as just as was Cornelius could not escape, and according to St. Luke, "some rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized." According to the practice generally in vogue, is it not about time for a revision of the Bible, that the offending parts may be cast out? Ought you not to use your potent influence to accomplish this end, as I contended in my former letter? You charge me falsely with misquoting Mark 16: 16, because I placed within the quotation an interpolation in brackets, and if this is misquoting I surely had no intention of doing so. Any school boy would have known that the words in brackets were mine. You say the passage does not mean what my interpolation indicated, but you failed to point out what it did mean. Look at it again, even if it is spurious and of no consequence. The words "belief" and "baptism" are placed on even terms by our Savior, and there is no other conclusion but that the believer must be baptized (unless it is one of your figures of speech). This being true, the unbeliever very naturally would not be baptized and be damned, as Christ says, in consequence of unbelief and nonconformity to this ordinance. Really, brother, over whose "shop" should the sign "All kinds of turning and twisting done here" be placed? I am perfectly willing to leave that to an intelligent public. You entertained your congregation last Sunday evening by relating to them a pretty fable about a jackass, who was in the woods braying. It was nicely related and caused much laughter and mirth; and no one could become offended by a jackass story; therefore, kindly allow me the same privilege, Brother Brougher, as I also have a jackass story.
"Once upon a time" there was a jackass who imagined he was preaching the same Gospel that was taught many hundreds of years ago; he stood before a large, fashionable congregation of people and started to bray. He opened his mouth and said: "Oh, money, oh, money, thy praises I'll sing; thou art my Savior, my God and my King; 'tis for thee that I preach, 'tis for thee that I pray, and make a collection twice each Sabbath day. Money's my creed, and I won't pray without it, the heavens are closed against those who doubt it This is the essence of popular religion, come regular to church and be plucked like a pigeon. I'll have carriages, horses, servants and all, I'm not going to foot it like Peter and Paul; neither, like John, feed on locusts and honey, so out with your purse and down with your money. I gather my knowledge from wisdom's great tree, and the whole of my trinity is D. D. and C.; dimes, dollars and cents are all that I crave, from the first step on earth to the brink of the grave. In the cold earth I may soon be laid low, to sleep with the just, that have gone long ago; I shall slumber in peace till the great resurrection, and be first on my legs to make a collection." Then he blessed the contribution boxes and the show closed.
Now, dear brother, don't you think that my jackass story equals yours, and contains a better moral? I am sure it is just as funny; so now we are even, on jackass stories, anyhow.
We see how careful the nations of the earth are in throwing their protecting arms around the principle of authority; how careful they are that all representatives acknowledged by them are endowed with proper authority from their respective governments. In this nation of ours no man has the right to initiate a foreigner into the government unless he be endowed with authority, beyond the question of a doubt; the government would undoubtedly punish any man who might read of a commission given to others, and then take the authority unto himself to initiate foreigners into the government of the United States.
We see the same careful protection thrown around the principle of authority throughout the different states of the union; throughout the different counties of the state, and throughout all the different cities of the various counties. All will admit that without this strict attention to authority, there would be no law, no order and no protection. Out of all known governments the great government of God, according to our opinion, is the only one that treats the principle of authority in a careless and reckless manner. Anciently a prophet of God, through the principle of revelation, called Aaron to the ministry; at a later period, an Apostle of Jesus Christ said that no man was to take this honor unto himself save he be called of God, as was Aaron. Yet men of our day will read where men were commissioned by Jesus Christ eighteen hundred years ago, with authority to initiate foreigners into the great government of God, and by virtue of that authority, given to others, they take the honor unto themselves; while declaring that the great God has sealed up the system of revelation; and through the heavens, as you say, being as brass above our heads, no man can be called, as was Aaron. In the face of all this, any man purchasing a Bible, which contains that commission once given to others, imagines he is called of God to preach the Gospel; and the result is we are living in a babel of confusion; God says "He is not the author of confusion."
Of course I realize these words of mine will have no weight upon you, but they may be read by some fair-minded, thinking man, who may stop, ponder and investigate.
By innuendo you advocated mob violence in your sermon last Sunday night. Do you think it was becoming to a man who professes to be a representative of the meek and lowly One whose mission was peace on earth and good will to man? In carefully looking over the history of this Mission for a number of years back and noting the number of mobbings to which our Elders have been subjected, and the number is not small, we find by careful comparison that 90 per cent of the mobbings have been led in person or inspired by so-called Christian ministers.
Do you think you were serving God on the Sabbath when you so nearly sanctioned brute force against a people who have never harmed you or any of the good people of Chattanooga? Do you really believe that such a course will make you popular with the liberty-loving and law-abiding population of your new home? Think over the matter carefully and perhaps you will admit you over-reached yourself a little.
You took for your text, "Answer a fool according to his folly." In closing allow me to respectfully present you with the words of our Master, "He who calleth his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire."
Respectfully,
Ben E. Rich.