Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-12-19

Editor Trbune:--In reply to my ar
ticle in The Tribune Of Nov. 20. point
ing out, in response TO his public chal-
lenge, some of the great difficulties in
the way of accepting Nephi as an am
cient prophet OF God, and the Book of
Mormon as an ancient revelation from
God Elder Roberts begins by finding
fault with me for not writing over my
full signature. But the reasons he in
Inmates for my not doing so prove al
together too much, and hence, by II
logical maxim, prove nothing. For they
would prove that those great and high
minded statesmen Alexander Hamil-
ton, Chief Justice John JAY, and James
Madison, acted an unworthy part, and
were lacking In courage because, for
wise reasons, they conducted those
mastery discussions which made up
The Federalist, over an assumed name.
Then the sarcasms about the rehash-
Ing. by more recent writer's, Of AleXan-
der CampbelPs arguments against the
Book Of Mormon, are wasted on the
desert air." so far as / am concerned,
for ! have never seen any article or
treaties by Campbell ON the subject.
II would be quite easy to retort and
ivy 'AiuN ~ ~ WIZ AibA lOA N4' WI lAlAtio
of Orson Pratt, the more recent defend
ers OF the Book OF Mormon would be
without ammunition. But that style
OF arguing amounts 10 nothing.
Elder Roberts defense seems TO raise
new difficulties without really settling
any, although It Is ingenious and skill
full. on general principles, there Is no
reason why / should not accept the
writings of Neph and the Book Of
Mormon as readily as my opponent, II
they were true. But the reason why |
do not, Is because OF the extent and
variety of the evidence against them,
only a few points OF which can be dis
cussed In newspaper article. Since
my main object is to establish truth,
wish to treat Elder Roberts and his
arguments In fair and candid way.
Let US come now to the main prop
osition, which IL two fold: Elder Rob-
erts aflirms that Nephi was prophet
Of God living and writing about 600 u.
c.; and that the Book OF Mormon Is a
divine revelation.
The evidence compels me to deny
both of these propositions and to de-
clare that neither of them is true. Now
let us try to find some common ground
OH which we can stand. As such
ground, [ offer these two propositions
in reference to books In general, which
seem to me self-evident: First, any
book which processes 20 have been writ
ten In ancient times. and yet quotes
from authors not born until centuries
after, Is a spurious book.
Second, any book which processes To
he a divine revelation 10 the people of
the present time and yet reveals moth
ing which II did not appropriate from
some other book or source Of knowledge
already I'm the possession OF the people,
Is a spurious book. ! use the term
revelation" in its ordinary sense, as
referring to divine truth These are
two propositions which | think people
of all creeds can stand upon for |
think they contain nothing which Is
not self-evident The differences of
opinion VIII begin when We come TO
apply these two fundamental prncl-
pies. still. II IL my opponents privilege
10 dissent from these propositions, II
he thinks they are not self-evident. But
! think that careful, reasoning people
generally, Will accept them. Anyhow, /
take my stand upon them and proceed
to apply them.
THOSE QUOTATIONS.
&. AS to the alleged prophet Nephi
II it can be clearly shown that he
quoted passage after passage from the
New Testament writer's, who wore not
born for centuries after he claims to
have written, then the first fundament-
al principle is violated, and we have
demonstrative evidence that Nephi was
simply pretonder and his writings
are spurious.
In my former article referred spec