Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Has prayer become just a burden to you? Is it just a custom–a ritual to be performed and a matter of very little concern, either with regard to its frequency, its regularity or its urgency? Or have you learned the secret of the preciousness of prayer–that it is indeed a great opportunity and not just an obligation. James wrote, “Ye receive not because ye ask not”, and it is probably not possible for man to understand now how truly great God’s blessings would undoubtedly be if his people would fervently and effectually ask according to his will. Indeed God would surely open the windows of heaven and pour us out blessings almost beyond our comprehension if all the mighty host of faithful, consecrated people who have the absolute right to call him “Father” would utilize to the fullest extent the great opportunity of prayer.

The real urgency of prayer can only be fully realized when we recognize the perfect wisdom of God and his supreme power, and when we comprehend our insignificance and our weakness. There are perhaps three attitudes that often prevail to hinder proper prayer and to rob us of the advantages of God’s full storehouse of blessings:

First there are those who rebel against prayer. It is actually offensive to them. To engage in prayer with fervency and regularity is to them a sign of weakness. Or in many cases it may be a sense of shame and embarrassment that causes them to revolt against the idea of expressing petitions to an unseen God.

Second, some decline prayer because of their feeling of sufficiency. They think that they “Can get this job done all by themselves.” The help of a supreme being is not needed according to their ideals. Confidence in their present health, wealth or credit rating surpasses their comprehension of dependence upon God.

Third, many of us probably neglect prayer just because we are completely unconcerned about it. We are neither for it nor against it. We would certainly not consciously oppose it, nor would we intentionally deny its value, but we just get busy with tasks, which seem more pressing, and, without deliberately renouncing prayer, we nevertheless join the ranks of those who simply do not pray. Perhaps for most of us this is the most dangerous attitude, and it is certainly most easily adopted. While we even stoutly advocate the right of the Christian to pray, while we fully understand in our mind the need for prayer and while we even fully intend to “continue in prayer”, (or, if we recognize that we have neglected it, we may definitely plan to resume it) yet we may be sucked into that vacuum caused by worldly concerns and ambitious desires, and therein we may soon find no place or time for prayer.

The seriousness of this situation may be observed many times in public prayers. By rote and by ritual prayers are said and the urgent demands of the very present time are forgotten while the same old phraseology of another decade is piously phrased. (By this I do not mean that it is wrong to pray for the same things day after day and even year after year, but it is wrong to just “say the same prayers” because we have learned them years ago and because we are too lazy or too unconcerned to be alert to the needs of this moment). Recently I was present when prayer regarding a certain urgent situation was requested and yet the one who led the closing prayer just went through that same old ritual: “Bless us as we separate to go to our separate places of abode, and if we have been faithful, give us a home in heaven when life on earth is done,” and he forgot entirely the urgent request that had been made not more than two or three minutes earlier! One time I had just closed a lesson in which I showed that the blood of Christ was not spilled at all, but that it was deliberately poured out for our redemption. Immediately a bright young man prayed, approximately, “Bless this cup which represents the blood of Jesus that was spilled for us”. Such carelessness indicates our lack of deep concern for the preciousness of prayer.

Perhaps it would be astonishing if we could take a secret ballot and find out how many Christians really pray at all except as they concur in the public prayers. Six days go by, filled with cares and concerns for the things of this world, but nothing has actually been said to God. Morning comes and we awaken to the urgency of work. Evening arrives and our mind is filled with concerns for play, for fun and for social contacts. Night closes its dark shadows about us and rest is needed so badly. Slumber closes our eyes and prayer was forgotten or at least postponed.

We spend a lot of money to conduct a gospel meeting or a vacation Bible school, and we put in a lot of time and energy to make such a success, but many times we fail to reach out and ask for the help that only the Lord can give. We wonder when we seem to have failed, when interest seems low, when few are converted, but we often need to realize that our failures are the result of negligence in prayer. Have you prayed lately for the man who breaks the bread of life to you and to others? Have you sincerely asked the Lord to so bless that “The word of the Lord may have free course?” Have you exercised your privilege of praying for those who “Watch for your soul? ” Have you asked God to give you wisdom so that you can know the truth more perfectly? Perhaps one of the most significant blessings we have is the opportunity to pray in secret–to pour out our requests to one who can hear us from the most remote corner of the world, and who will certainly hear us in time of joy or in time of sorrow, in time of tranquility and in time of turmoil. Let us be thankful that we can pray together in the assemblies of God’s people, but even more grateful should we be that we don’t have to wait for others to assemble with us, nor do we have to wait for a public place to become available for us. Alone with God, we can indeed have the closest contact with him.

To be “on praying terms with God” is truly the most precious privilege, and it is reserved for the true Christian. Let us all make it our own privilege, and then let us utilize it to the very fullest extent. (I intend to follow this with an article, “Prayer That Is Proper and Profitable.”

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 12-13
October 1961

By Earl Fly

I understand that the Firm Foundation editorial of August 29, 1961 says that Gospel Press does not solicit funds from churches and that those who had written and spoken about it “did not know what they were talking about relative to the activities of Gospel Press.”

Inasmuch as I was one of those who talked and wrote about its activities, I publish the following to set the record straight. I have the two original letters from Gospel Press, Inc., signed by Vice-President Paul Hunton.

When the Belmont Heights church in Tampa, Florida, received a letter from Gospel Press signed by Paul Hunton, postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, asking for a contribution from the church to Gospel Press, the brethren considered it in a business meeting conducted October 3, 1960. They instructed me to write the following letter, which was read and approved in a special meeting October 5, 1960.

“Mr. Paul Hunton 
Gospel Press, Inc. 
3813 Hillsboro Road 
Nashville 12, Tennessee

Dear brother Hunton:

“The Belmont Heights church received your letter postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, in which you request the fifth Sunday contribution in October for Gospel Press. The letter was read and discussed Monday night, October 3, in the regular business meeting of the church and the decision was made that I be authorized to write this letter to you, which was read and approved in a special called business meeting, Wednesday night, October 5.

“Some of the brethren here, Wendel Strickland, John Langford, Gerstle Slatton and others, remembered favorably your preaching in this area, and an interest was expressed to hear what you might have to say further about some questions regarding Gospel Press.

“The brethren here have always rejected and opposed church contributions to the Missionary Society to enable it to preach the gospel on the grounds that there is no Bible authority for it, that the church is sufficient to preach the gospel without contributing to and consequently working through human organizations. We believe that Gospel Press, with its Board and Chairman, President, Vice” President, is an exact parallel with this missionary society of yesteryear, which alienated brethren, divided churches, and resulted in a new denomination being born, namely, the Christian Church. For this reason the decision was made not to support Gospel Press in any way.

“We understand that Gospel Press publicly stated in its beginning that it would not solicit or accept church contributions. The brethren are interested to know the grounds for the change. It is also requested that you give Bible authority for church contributions to Gospel Press.

“The brethren here sincerely request your reply to these matters, which will be read to the brethren for consideration in a called business meeting.

Yours sincerely,

BELMONT HEIGHTS CHURCH OF CHRIST, By Earl Fly, Evangelist.”

The following letter, dated October 18, 1960, was signed and sent by Paul Hunton, via air-mail, to the Belmont Heights Church.

“Dear Brethren:

“When we mailed out the letter requesting contributions from the churches we assumed that everyone had read of the revised position of the Board of Directors of the Gospel Press. Contributions are now solicited from churches if the check is specifically for the advertising, tracts to be mailed out, or answering the inquiries. We never have and we do not now solicit funds from churches for salaries or other necessary expenses involved. These expenses are paid by individual contributions. It has been stated in our gospel papers that all contributions raised east of the Mississippi will be used only for the ads, tracts and answering inquiries. I should have stated this again in my letter to you.

“I hope this answers your questions and you will encourage the church to send a sizable contribution in October.

Yours very truly,

(signed) Paul Hunton,

Vice President.”

The reader will please notice that the second letter reaffirmed the intentions of the first to solicit contributions from churches, and I was personally asked to encourage the church to “send a sizable contribution in October.” Surely the Vice-President knew the policy of Gospel Press and the position of its board. If they have now ceased their solicitations for church contributions they owe us an explanation. What are their reasons for the newly revised position to not solicit churches, if this be their latest position when this article is published?

The indisputable facts in this article are published to keep the record straight.

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 1, 24
November 1961

By Luther G. Roberts

The scriptures furnish us completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet.1: 3; 1 Pet.4: 11). The organization of the church is in local churches, not in the church in the universal sense of the term. Each church is independent of every other one with its own elders and deacons and members (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; I Pet. 5: 1-2). There is no organization larger and none smaller than the local church in the New Testament.

There is no organization of churches found in the New Testament. Elders have jurisdiction only over the flock of which they are members. “Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit made you bishops” (Acts 20:28). “Tend the flock of God which is among you” (I Pet. 5:2).

There is a difference between organization and method. The divine church and human organizations both use methods. Note the following parallel:

Matt.28: 19, Teach. How? Organization– Local church? (1 Tim. 3:15), or Missionary Society?

I Tim.5: 16, Relieve. How? Organization –Local church? (Acts 6:1-6), or Benevolent Society?

The Issue, Then And Now

The issue was: Could churches of Christ build and support human institutions known as Missionary Societies through which churches preached the gospel?

The issue today is: Can churches of Christ build and support benevolent societies through which the churches can do their benevolent work? And; Can churches of Christ pool their funds in one local church (a centralized agency) through which to do their work of evangelism? Which shall it be: each church working independently of every other church under its own elders, or the churches pooling their resources in one central agency for that centralized agency to oversee and do the work? (Eph.3: 20-21).

The primary work of the church is spiritual, saving souls from sin (I Tim. 3:14-15; Eph. 3: 8- 11). This obligation rests on no other organized body of people on earth except the local church. Individuals can and should teach and preach the word, but no other organization is revealed in the New Testament to do this work except the local church or congregation (Phil. 1:1; 1:5; 4: 14-18). Congregations may cooperate in preaching the gospel, but each congregation acts concurrently and independently in their work according to the New Testament. “Churches may cooperate but each acts independently.” “Each church (is) God’s fully equipped organization for preaching the gospel.”

“In New Testament no two churches operated under ONE head.” The above three statements are quoted from H. Leo Boles, Sermon Outlines, 28).

Churches cooperated in supporting Paul in preaching the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor.11: 8-9). Each church sent directly to Paul as Philippi did (Phil. 4: 15-18). This is the way it should be done today. After stating that Philippi sent to Paul in Thessalonica, Brother Guy N. Woods said, “They also aided him later in Corinth. (2 Cor. 11:9).” He also said, “Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed; the brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today.” (Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 341). If all the churches were doing it this way today, 1961, there would be no division over this matter as there is.

No church sent its money through another church to preach the gospel through that church according to the New Testament. No church did its own work through another church, or another body of any kind, in the preaching of the gospel so far as the New Testament reveals. And we should be guided by what is revealed in the New Testament and not by what it does not reveal. The late brother H. Leo Boles stated in his treatise on the Eldership that there was no organization of churches in the New Testament.

The church also edifies or builds itself up in the faith (Eph. 4:11-16). The church, the local church, does this work of edification under its own elders and not by or through an outside organization (larger than the congregation), nor by an organization within the organization but smaller than the congregation. An organized Sunday School organization with its own officers within the congregation is an organization smaller than the congregation and is unauthorized. The church studying the Bible under its own elders in the congregation functioning as an organization, and it is the only organization authorized in the New Testament to do this work of edification of the church (Rom. 12:4-7; I Cor. 12:12-27).

How may the church do the benevolent work it is obligated to do? Should it be done by the congregation or by another organization outside the congregation? Those who believe in the all-sufficiency of the church contend that the church should do its own benevolent work under the God ordained organization, the local church or the congregation. The Jerusalem church took care of her own needy with no outside organization whatsoever (Acts 2:45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6). The distribution of the necessities was done by the local church through its members selected to do this work according to Acts 6: 1-6. The distribution was made on the basis of need and it was done by the church, not by some outside organization. On this point brother Woods said, “The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibilities of the Lord’s people” (Ibid., page 338).

When churches were unable to do their own work of benevolence, another church sent money (relief) to help them care for their own needy (Acts 11:27-30). This contribution was sent by the disciples at Antioch to brethren in Judaea. It was sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Sent to what elders? Elders where the brethren dwelt, and that was in Judaea. There were churches in Judaea (Gal. 1:22; I Thess. 2:14).

Some fourteen years later the churches of Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia sent relief to needy saints in Jerusalem. Read these passages carefully: I Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8 and 9. There was no organization except the local church, and the churches did not send through another church. And when the church in Jerusalem received the money, it was used for the relief of the needy saints in Jerusalem. They did not send it on to some other place. The relief was sent directly, not through another organization, not to another organization, nor through another church even. The benevolent work of the church is not to be done through human benevolent societies or organizations any more than the evangelistic work of the church is to be done through some missionary society. The church has no New Testament authority to contribute to any organization through which to do its work (2 John 9). “There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do” (1946– Guy N. Woods, Ibid., page 340f).

Brother Woods showed in the book Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary for 1946 that each church sent its funds by its own messenger to the elders of the church, and we quote him, “The order to give, like that to the Galatian churches, was delivered by Paul, but he did not wish to be made custodian of the offering, lest some one should attribute to him unworthy motives in the raising of it: ‘And when I arrive whomsoever ye shall appoint, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me.’ Thus each church was directed to name its own messenger to carry the offering to the poor saints in Jerusalem” (Ibid., page 351). Brother Woods was eminently right in this statement and proves it by the quotation of I Cor. 16:3. What the church at Corinth did in this matter the other churches did also, just as the church at Troas partook of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week the other churches did also. Brother Woods also said, with reference to this contribution, “It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering.” (Ibid., page 338). Of course, this being true, and it is, the contributions were not sent through some centralized agency, elders or otherwise.

However, at a later date, brother Woods felt called upon for some reason to write upon this same matter and strangely enough, he did not write as he did in the above publication. In discussing this same contribution in the Gospel Advocate, November 18, 1954, page 911, he says this: “Even more to the point are the following pertinent facts: (1) Brethren (plural) were selected by the churches (plural) to gather funds for the poor of Jerusalem. (Rom.15: 26; 2 Cor.8: 18-19, 22-23). These brethren were ‘chosen of the churches’ and are described as ‘messengers of the churches.”‘

Then, brother Woods asked a few questions about this contribution in the same article in the Advocate:

“(1) What did this group of men constitute who wers thus selected?” . . . “(3) Did this group chosen in the foregoing manner constitute an organization? ” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 18, 1954, page 911). These messengers did not constitute an organization according to brother Woods in 1946. He said then: “We point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organization methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; (emphasis mine–LGR) the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by the brethren specially appointed for the purpose” (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 340). Brother Woods asked another question in the same article in the Advocate in 1954, “It is alleged that when Paul arrived in Jerusalem with these funds that he gave them to the elders to disburse? If yes, where is the proof?” Why, the proof is brother Guy N. Woods of 1946. Here it is: “Concerning this contribution, see I Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:1, and 9:2). For another such contribution for the poor of Jerusalem, see Acts 11:27-30. It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering. This is the New Testament method of functioning. We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish it work.” (Annual Lesson Commentary, -1946, page 338). So, brother Woods in 1946 answered his questions asked in 1954. (Emphasis in above quotation mine–LGR.)

The church can make whatever provisions necessary to support, care for, its own needy, but there is no scriptural authority for it to organize another organization for this purpose. No church with New Testament sanction can become a brotherhood agency to care for the needy of all or of many churches, for there is no such authority in the New Testament. Why cannot the church do its work through a human organization or through the elders of a local church as a brotherhood agency? There is no command for such in the New Testament; there is no example of such in the New Testament; and there is no necessary inference for it there, just as there is none for instrumental music in worship. As I understand it, members of the churches of Christ claim to be guided by the New Testament in matters of faith and practice.

(The above article was originally printed in “Speaking As The Oracles of God”, a new paper edited by Brother Roberts in Oregon.)

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 22-24
October 1961

By Luther Blackmon

The Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons) are striving with a zeal that is commendable to further their cause. Having lived in the west where they are stronger and their influence more pronounced I feel that it will be profitable to the readers of Truth Magazine to know something of their system of error.

Their preachers or “elders” go, in pairs, from house to house seeking opportunity to teach their doctrine. I find no fault with this. It is the “what” and not the “how” of their teaching that I wish to notice. “Mormonism” is a system of infidelity. I realize that this is a strong statement, but I am not excited nor in a fit of temper, and before you decide that I am altogether wrong I bid you hear me through.

If these preachers have called on you, they doubtless gave you the impression that they believe the Bible to be the Word of God. This is only partly true. If you have a copy of their articles of faith which they usually hand to those on whom they call, you will observe that one of their articles reads about like this: “We believe that the Bible is the Word of God WHERE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” The Bible is the Word of God conditionally. The Book of Mormon is the Word of God unconditionally, without qualification. Just to give you an idea of the attitude Latter Day Saints have toward the Bible I submit a quotation from Orsen Pratt, one of their apostles. They have living apostles you know. When one of the twelve dies he is replaced by another. Note the quotation: “Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons, and even we do not know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that all those which we do know were written by inspiration. Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide. Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original.” Orsen Pratt’s Works, page 218. Remember that this was written by an “apostle.” This is what they really think of the Bible. Don’t argue the Bible with a Mormon. He doesn’t believe the Bible. Make him defend his prophet Joseph Smith’ and Smith’s inspired scriptures, namely, The “Book of Mormon,” “Doctrine and Covenants,” and the “Pearl of Great Price.” Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and told him where some plates were hidden upon which was written a revelation which he (Joseph) should translate. The translation is the “Book of Mormon.” As to the translation of the Book of Mormon I want to submit an interesting correspondence between my friend Geo. B. Curtis (now deceased) and Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith, a high ranking Mormon of Salt Lake City. This article from Brother Curtis is taken from “The Gospel Pilot” May 11, 1944. Read it.

THE BOOK OF MORMON AND
ITS WITNESSES

by Geo. B. Curtis

Mormonism must stand or fall by the Book of Mormon. The claimants for Mormonism say that an angel Moroni, presented a set of gold plates to Joseph Smith upon which were characters in reformed Egyptian. By the aid of two transparent stones, the Urim and the Thurnmin, Smith claimed to have translated the Egyptian characters into English. The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, testified that “an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates.” It has always been a matter of mystery to me why the angel brought the plates down from heaven to show them while, according to Smith, these same plates were already in his possession with stern commands from the Lord to guard them carefully or “I should be cut off.” How did the angel manage to bring them from heaven while they were in New York is a matter I’d like for some well informed Mormon to make clear to me.

Just how these plates figured in the translation of the Book of Mormon is another matter that the highest ranking Mormons of today cannot explain and continue to support their witnesses. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, has this to say about the translation of the Book of Mormon: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.” (Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. P. 12.) Let’s get the picture: (1) Joseph’s head in the hat, (2) All light excluded, (3) The seer stone in the hat, (4) The plates were not in the hat, ( 5 ) The plates could not have possibly been in sight of Smith, (6) The characters appeared upon what resembled parchment, ( 7 ) Hence, the Book of Mormon was not translated from the plates at all, but from “a piece of something resembling parchment.”

I presented this problem to the Mormon church at Salt Lake City a few weeks ago The answer coming from the “Office of Church History” is amusing in the extreme. But I shall let our correspondence tell the story. Letter No. 1:

“Box 421, Winslow, Arizona, September 13, 1943,

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: I understand that the Book of Mormon was translated in part from the plates found by Joseph Smith and in part by the use of a stone in the hands of Smith. Will you please inform me just where the translation from the plates ended and the translation with the stone began? I shall appreciate this information very much. Sincerely.”

I received the following reply.

“Dear Sir: Answering your question in relation to the translation of the Book of Mormon, wherein you ask which part of the plates was translated by the stone in the hands of Joseph Smith, and which part from the plates, I will say that I think you have become somewhat confused. The entire book was translated from the plates, and the information from Joseph Smith is that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, through the use of the Urim and Thummin. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I wrote to the headquarters of the Utah church again under date of February 4, 1944 as follows.

“Church of Latter Day Saints,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: Some weeks ago I wrote asking relative to the part of the Book of Mormon actually translated from the plates discovered by Joseph Smith. I received the answer that all the Book of Mormon was thus translated. Some few days ago I came into possession of Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. (1887) On page 12 of this booklet from one of the three witnesses I copy this statement: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was the principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation woul appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, 18S7, P. 12.)

If the above is true just how did the plates figure in any way in the translation? Was not Smith entirely cut off from the plates with his head in the hat and all light excluded? Does the translation in any way depend upon the plates? If so, how? Was the stone Smith used in the hat the Urim and Thummin? Were they not stones, instead of stone? Do Mormons generally accept Whitmer’s story as given above? If not, how do they credit his testimony as to the verity of the Book of Mormon? Yours in curiosity, Geo. B. Curtis.”

I received under date of February 7, 1944 the following reply:

“Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, all I have to say is to repeat what was said before. The only authentic information we have regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon comes from Joseph Smith himself, and that is that he translated the plates through the Urim and Thummim and by the Gift of God. I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.

I do not accept his story regarding how it was done. I do accept fully his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true. You make the most of it. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I answered under date of February 9, 1944 thus:

“Dear Mr. Smith. Thanks for the information contained in your letter received today. There are some things, however, upon which I wish further information. You state that, ‘I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.’ Would you mind, Mr. Smith, giving me your authority for such a statement? Mr. Whitmer differs from you on that matter. Hear him: “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father’s house in Fayette, Seneca County, N. Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.)

Now let’s see what Mr. Whitmer has to say concerning the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. “Joseph would put the seer stone into the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing . . . Thus the book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 12.)

Again you say, “1: do fully accept his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true.” Mr. Smith, why accept his testimony in the one point and reject an equally plain statement on the other?

Please do not think me over inquisitive in this matter. I want to know, I am not a Mormon, but I do not want to form any conclusion that is ungrounded. I think you will agree that here is a matter that needs reconciling. Curiously yours.”

Under date of February 15 I received the following:

“Dear Sir: Answering your question I may say, that there is no mistake and discrepancy needing attention. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

My reply: (February 18, 1944.)

“Dear Mr. Smith: Your one sentence communication received this morning and appreciated. You state, “There is no mistake and no discrepancy needing attention.” Remember Mr. Smith, your claim to have the truth on the side of Mormonism. The complete fabric of Mormonism must stand or fall with the “Book of Mormon.” To that you will readily agree. Here is the situation: David Whitmer says that Smith placed his head in a hat in which there was a stone; the hat was drawn closely about his face so as to exclude all light; a piece resembling parchment would appear on the stone with the characters and their English translation beneath; the gold plates not in use at all.

Joseph Fielding Smith says that he believes the testimony of Mr. Whitmer when he testifies that the angel of the Lord displayed to him, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris the plates, but that Mr. Whitmer’s testimony is false when he says that Joseph Smith used a hat and a stone, not stones, in translating the Book of Mormon. Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith says that Mr. Whitmer “was never present during the translation.” Mr. Whitmer says, “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.) I think, Mr. Smith, that you will agree that there is a discrepancy between you and one of your “star witnesses.” Will you kindly favor a poor “Gentile” with a better explanation than you have hitherto given. Again, curiously, Geo. B. Curtis.”

And here the matter of the head, the hat, the stone, the plates, the parchment, the Urim and Thummin rests until Mr. Smith or some other Mormon clears the matter. Could any sane man accept such a chain of evidence?

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp.16-19
October 1961