# Mormonism Exposed (Hancock)/Chapter 15

Assuming that the Bible is true, enough has been given to demonstrate the falsity of the Book of Mormon. Yet, that the strength of what has been presented may more readily be seen we purpose to consider, to some extent, the claims of Christianity as a system. This we need to do, if we would see the claims of the New Testament in their true light. In the investigation, hitherto, of theological positions, questions and systems, there has been to a great extent, a mere grappling with particles, rather than the handling of systems.
Theological discussions should be such as to bring before the people the merits of systems. When such is not the case, there is, as a rule, a contention over side issues. In such contentions, there is, to a great extent, a mere war of words. Those who are conscious of occupying the vantage ground of truth can well afford to avoid all appearances of hiding counsel by a multitude of words.
If Christianity is not, as a system, perfect and complete, it claims will have to be surrendered. Unhesitatingly we say, If in Christianity, as a system, we do not have perfection, the claims of the Bible will have to be surrendered. Perfection cannot be supplemented. It cannot admit of addition, subtraction, nor alteration. If in Christianity, as a system, we do not have perfection, it is an imperfect system. God designed the perfection of His people, and there is not a proposition more clearly set forth in the New Testament than this proposition: The divine arrangement was given in order to the perfection of all who would accept of the offered salvation. Christ prayed that His people might be made perfect in one, that is, in one institution—the institution of which Christ is the head. John 17: 20–23. Paul says the scriptures of inspiration were given ​that God's people might be perfected. II. Tim. 3: 16, 17.
If however, God depended upon an imperfect system to accomplish a perfect end, He did what no wise being would do. We must, hence, admit the perfection of the remedial system, as given by Christ, or accuse the Almighty of folly! We could not expect the Almighty to admit the incompleteness of His own perfection,, and the man that would argue such would be guilty of fearful presumption. We could not think of Christ as a perfect Savior, yet the author and head of an imperfect institution? God is, in the absolute, perfection, and his arrangements, in order to the end in view, are perfection. As we have seen, in Christ, God's arrangement reached its perfection. The institution of the Christ is a perfect institution with a perfect law, giving to man the perfect will of God. In order to man's redemption, we have in the institution of Christ, the perfection of God's infinite wisdom, infinite goodness, infinite love, infinite mercy and infinite power. What folly in man to seek anything beyond this! This perfection was not reached, and could not be till the perfection of God's arrangements in order to that end. Until the perfection, hence, of those arrangements, the church of Christ did not exist. To argue as Mormons do, and as the Book of Mormon teaches, the existence of the church of Christ under the law, is to argue in opposition to every truth and fact in the Bible, bearing upon this point. None but a false sytem could demand such. The reorganized branch of the Mormon family claim to oppose polygamy. In our recent debate with them we asked: "Did the true church of Christ exist with the Jews in the days of David and Solomon?" The answer was: "Yes." "Then," said I, "As the church of Christ anciently was a polygamous church, polygamy is a tenet of the true church of Christ. Therefore in opposing polygamy you oppose the principles of the true church. This surrenders the claims of your reorganized Church and admits the claims of the Utah branch." From this there was no escape.
​There are certain fundamentals, without which we cannot have a system of religion. These fundamentals are, the priest, the altar and the offering. From the beginning these have been the essentials in order that man might approach unto God. For an omission in these, Cain was rejected. The priests, altars, and offerings of former times were only shadowy. As typical institutions they answered this purpose. No type, however, could ever answer the purpose nor take the place of the antitype. With typical blood, a typical institution could be dedicated. Hence, with the blood of animals Moses dedicated the first Testament. With such blood, however, the perfect institution of God could not be dedicated. If it could have been there would have been no necessity for the death of Christ. Speaking of the dedication of the first covenant, and the tabernacle belonging thereto, Paul says: "It was, therefore, necessary that the patterns of heavenly things should thus be purified, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."—Heb. 9: 23. Again, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter the holy place through the blood of Jesus by a new and living way which he hath opened for us, passing through the veil (that is to say his flesh); and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith: as our hearts have been 'sprinkled' from the stain of an evil conscience, and our bodies have been washed with pure water."—Heb. 10: 17–22. This new and living way was opened through the offerings of Christ—opened after Christ was consecrated High Priest over the house of God. This was after his ascension to heaven. Heb. 8: 4. The perfecting of the arrangement in order to the opening of the perfect institution of God was through the sufferings of Christ. "And though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by suffering. And when his consecration was accomplished, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him."—Heb. 5: 8, 9.
Christ being the antitype of all former altars, priests and ​offerings, that were by the authority of God, in Him we have our altar, our priest, and our offering. It is, hence, that we cannot come to God except through Him. To argue as the Book of Mormon teaches, and as Mormon preachers contend, that the perfect institution of God existed in the typical arrangement is to show a woeful ignorance of the economy of grace. To argue the claims of the Book of Mormon one must be profoundly ignorant of or ignore the arrangement of God in Christ! Having demonstrated the fact that the Bible and the Book of Mormon can not be reconciled, we purpose a brief inquiry as to the origin of the Book of Mormon. That book claims to be, in the main, the history of two peoples, the Aboriginese of America. They were, it is claimed, the descendents of one Lehi, a Hebrew, who left Jerusalem about B. C. 600. This history, it is claimed, was written on metal plates, and in the Egyptian language. It is also claimed that Lehi brought with him from Jerusalem the metal plates that contained his family record written in the same language. It is also claimed that he brought with him, from Jerusalem, metal plates that contained the Jewish Scriptures and records down to about the time of the Babylonish captivity. It is also claimed that the northern portion of South America and Central Ameriea, were densely populated by Lehi's descendants, and that a highly Christian civiltzatlon existed there 1500 to 2000 years ago.
Orsan Pratt says: "In the Book of Mormon are given the names and locations of numerous cities of great magnitude, which flourished among the ancient nations of America. The northern portions of South America, and also Central A merica, were the most densely populated.—D. A., p. 32. The Book of Mormon claims that extensive records were kept by this people in which their history was written. P. 340: 10. It is also claimed by the Book of Mormon that these historical records were in the Egyptian language. P. 444: 89. It is also claimed by the Book of Mormon that the money of these ancient ​inhabitants of America was in gold and silver coins. P. 206: 38, 39. These claims of Mormonism call for a consideration of the following questions:
1. Did the Jews ever keep their records on metal plates?
2. Did the original inhabitants of Central America keep their records on metal plates?
3. Did the ancient inhabitants of Central America have a written language?
4. If any of those nations had a written language 1500 to 2000 years ago, was it the Egyptian language?
5. Did any of those nations have money in the shape of gold and siver coins?
6. Is there any evidence that any of the ancient inhabitants of Central America ever enjoyed a Christian civilization?
7. Were the engravings on those plates claimed to be found by Joseph Smith in the Egyptian language?
We are prepared to give an answer to all of these questions, but the answers demonstrate the falsity of the Book of Mormon. The following questions were propounded to a number of scholars of world-wide reputation:
1. Is it historically true that the Hebrews ever wrote on tablets or "plates of brass?"
2. If so, did they ever write in the Egyptian language?
3. Were the "five books of Moses" ever written upon such plates of brass?
4. Were the "law and the prophets" or any portion of them ever written in Egyptian?
To these questions William R. Harper, President Chicago University said: "To your first three questions I would give the answer, No. With regard to the fourth, the Pentateuch was transmitted in Coptic some time between the third and tenth centuries, A. D., but was never written in Egyptian before that time." Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., of the University of Chicago, said: "There is no such instance on record among the Hebrews nor among other nations about the Hebrews. No evidence that ​they ever did write in the Egyptian language." President James B. Angell, University of Michigan, said: "There is no evidence that the Hebrews kept their records upon plates or tablets of brass. There is no evidence whatever to show that the Pentateuch was ever written on such plates of brass." (Copied from "Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism.") The men who furnished the above answers represent the scholarship of the world. Their testimony establishes certain facts, namely,
1. The Hebrews never kept their records on tablets of brass.
2. No Hebrew records were ever kept on tablets of brass, nor any other substance, in the Egyptian language.
3. The Pentateuch was never written in the Egyptian language before 300 A. D.
The Book of Mormon opens with the statement that the language in which it was written was the Egyptian; and that such was the language of Lehi. Who was Lehi? A Hebrew, bred, born and reared in Jerusalem. The language of any man is his native tongue. Lehi, being a Jew, born and reared in Jerusalem, his language was the native tongue of the Jewish nation. We are, hence, to understand that the native tongue of the Hebrew nation was the Egyptian?! There is evidenced at the very threshold of Mormonism, either an ignorance inexcusable, or a design to deceive that is damnable.
Our second and third questions are: "Did the original inhabitants of Central America keep their records on metal plate?" and "Did they have a written language?" These questions we answer together. We are able to show the characters used in the writings of the inhabitants of Central America 1500 to 2000 years ago. They have been preserved in marble and stone, and will stand till the end of time, an irrefutable testimony to the falsity of the Book of Mormon. In the ruins of the ancient cities of Copan and Palenque, of Central America, we are told, "are found in abundance the strange hieroglyphics, the written language of the people who ​once inhabited those old cities." Over ruined doorways, arches, sides and backs of hideous idols, marble slabs and through the ruins of heathen temples these characters are to be seen. Mr. Short says: "The magnificent sculptured hieroglyphics which cover the sides and backs of these huge idols no doubt could tell the sealed story of Copan's greatness and the attributes of its many gods, were the keys once discovered. Everything is covered with these significant symbols, differing slightly from those at Palenque; but who will read them? In the court of the temple a solid block of stone six feet square and four feet high, resting on four globular stones, was sketched by Catherwood and pronounced an altar by Stephens. Sixteen figures in profile, with turbaned heads, breastplates and each seated crosslegged on hieroglyphic-like cushions, are sculptured in low relief, four figures being on each side of the block. The top of the altar is covered with thirty-six squares of hieroglyphics." American Ant. pp. 404, 405.