For more than a half-century the Mormon Church has been teaching its

doctrines. Wherever it has had an organization its practices have

been more or less subject to observation. It would seem, therefore,

that there should be little doubt as to the nature of the one, or the

effect and tendency of the other. Nor would there be much question

as to either were the doctrines of that church as fully proclaimed

elsewhere as they are in Utah; and were its practices everywhere as

transparent as they are in its strongholds. The publication and wide

circulation of the aforementioned defense of the Mormon Church is the

ground of our communication, in which we join hands with the authors of

the defense in "establishing a more perfect understanding respecting"

themselves and their religion. We could wish that some of the points

touched upon in their paper might have had more ample elucidation,

both as ministering to a better understanding on the part of residents

of non-Mormon communities, and as forestalling the necessity for

this review upon our part. But, since this defense obscures so much

that it is necessary for people to know, who would desire to form an

intelligent judgment concerning the Mormon Church, we discuss those

things alluded to in the "address" that seem to us of the gravest

importance.

It will be noted at the very outset that a supreme claim is made for

the Mormon Church. Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things

already revealed, fostering no virtues not already taught by Christian

churches, and exemplified in Christian lives, showing no superiority

of Christian ideals or of Christian character, contributing nothing

original to civic righteousness, to commercial integrity, to domestic

virtue, to reverence for God or to justice and mercy toward men--this

sect, whose activities are chiefly confined to a few countries already

Christianized, claims to be the only divinely authorized church of

Jesus Christ on the earth; its very name, so it is affirmed, being

given by divine revelation. In harmony with this claim it sets up a

wholly unbiblical test of salvation.

"Joseph Smith is a new witness for God; a prophet divinely

authorized to teach the Gospel and re-establish the church of Jesus

Christ on earth."--"New Witness for God." by B. H. Roberts.

"Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a prophet,

that he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon

is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of

anti-Christ."--Brigham Young, Millennial Star, volume 5, page 118.

"If plural marriage be unlawful, then is the whole plan of

salvation through the house of Israel a failure, and the entire

fabric of Christianity without foundation."--A compendium of the

doctrine of the Gospel published for missionaries. 1898.

"Q. What doth the Lord require of the people of the United States?

"A. He requires them to repent of all their sins and embrace the

message of salvation contained in the Book of Mormon, and be

baptized into this church, and prepare themselves for the coming of

the Lord.

"Q. What will be the consequence if they do not embrace the Book of

Mormon as a divine revelation?

"A. They will be destroyed from the land and sent down to

hell, like all other generations who have rejected a divine

message."--Orson Pratt in the Seer, page 215.

This claim naturally provokes a most searching investigation of the

grounds upon which it rests. When it appears that it involves the

eternal reprobation of those who finally reject it, there can be no

surprise that the claim is very sharply challenged. It is asserted that

"the high claim of the church--is declared in its title--the Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;" that "its name was prescribed by

Him whose church it is--Jesus, the Christ;" and that, "we affirm that,

through the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood

has been conferred upon men in the present age, and that under this

divine authority the Church of Jesus Christ has been organized." It

will be seen that the claim to exclusiveness involves the invalidity of

all the church ordinances, and of all ministerial functions, including

the right to solemnize marriages, as administered by the Christian

church from the second to the nineteenth century.

"It (Mormonism) is entirely unlike all plans and systems ever

invented by human authority; it has no likeness, connection or

fellowship with any of them; it speaks with divine authority, and

all nations, without an exception, are required to obey. He that

receives the message and endures to the end will be saved; he that

rejects it will be damned."--Pratt's Works, paper 1.

"These claims in behalf of Mormonism presuppose the destruction

of the primitive Christian church, a complete apostasy from the

Christian religion."--New Witness for God, preface, page 1.

"The very religion of modern Christianity is now about as great

a curse as can be inflicted upon its successors without doing

violence to their power of free agency. * * *"

"The modern Christians with the Bible in their hands are in as

gross darkness as the worshipers of Baal. The god they worship

is no more like the person of Christ or the person of man than

Baal was. Their order of church authorities and church gifts and

ordinances of healing and anointing are probably about as remote

from the apostolic pattern as the worship of Mohamet or Vishnu

is."--Spencer's letters, pages 119 and 120.

"The power to officiate in the ordinances of God has not been upon

the earth since the great apostasy until the present century.

Something like seventeen centuries have passed away since the

authority was last on the eastern hemisphere to administer in any

of the ordinances of God. During that long period marriages have

been celebrated according to the customs of human government by

uninspired men, holding no authority from God, consequently all

their marriages, like their baptisms, are illegal before the Lord.

Point out to us a husband and wife that God has joined together

from the second century of the Christian era until the nineteenth,

if you can. Such a phenomenon cannot be found among Christians or

Jews, Mohammedans or Pagans."--Orson Pratt in the Star, page 48.

The further significance of this claim is seen when one considers

that it denies that the Christian church has represented Christ in

the last seventeen centuries. And this denial stands in face of the

testimony that Christian people have borne to Him, the martyrdoms they

have suffered to carry His message to benighted peoples, the charities

they have organized, the great reforms they have fostered, the general

progress of mankind which they, chiefly, have promoted, and the saintly

lives nurtured under the teaching of the Christian church. Surely

the claim to exclusive divine authorization must rest upon proofs so

clear and convincing that no sincere seeker after truth would question

their conclusiveness. But no such proofs are presented. Here is the

fundamental weakness of the whole system for which this astonishing

claim is made--it presents no credentials that would make good a claim

to even be numbered among the churches which represent Christ; much

less to the only church of Christ on the earth.

It would naturally be expected that, in a communication intended to

really enlighten mankind concerning the Mormon faith as the only true

religion--the statement of doctrine would be both full and luminous.

But in the "Address" it is exceedingly brief--so brief, in fact, that

one is driven to the conclusion that, as a basis upon which a candid

judgment might be framed, it not only leaves much to be desired, but is

positively misleading.

As to divine revelation, it declares "The theology of our church is

the theology taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology

of Scripture and reason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of

ancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely-inspired acts

and utterances in ages past, but also declares that God now speaks

to man in this final Gospel dispensation." Under this declaration

lies the claim of the Mormon Church--constantly insisted upon in its

congregations here and in surrounding regions--that the "Book of

Mormon," "The Doctrine and Covenants," the "Pearl of Great Price,"

together with the "Living oracles,"--i.e., certain members of the

priesthood--are divinely inspired, and are, therefore, of equal

authority with the Bible. This claim, a knowledge of which is so

necessary to even a tolerable understanding of their system of belief,

is not plainly and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine

contained in the "Address," but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in

their teachings in Mormon communities.

"The commissioned officers of the church form one part of its

motive force. The other is the continual revelation of the will of

God to his people. Without the first, disorder and confusion would

prevail; without the second, stagnation and death."

"Written revelation is comprised in the four books of Scripture

accepted by the church in this dispensation--the Bible, the Book of

Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. *

* * As far as these revelations are adapted to present conditions,

they are binding on the church today."--Young Men's Improvement

Association Manual, 1901-2.

"The Book of Mormon claims to be a divinely inspired record,

written by a succession of prophets who inhabited ancient America.

It professes to be revealed to the present generation for the

salvation of all who will receive it and for the overthrow

and damnation of all nations who reject it. * * The nature of

the message in the Book of Mormon is such that if true no one

can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can be

saved and receive it. Therefore, every soul in all the world is

equally interested in ascertaining its truth or falsity."--Orson

Pratt--Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, page 1.

"Q. Has God given many revelations to men?

"A. Yes, a great number.

"Q. Where have we any account of his doing so?

"A. In the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and

Covenants and other publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-Day Saints."--Children's Catechism, chapter 3.

"Many hundreds of the servants of God among the Latter-Day Saints

keep journals of their travels, and of the miracles which pass

under their observation. Hence the Acts of the Apostles of the

nineteenth century are recorded as well as the Acts of those in the

first century; and the miracles recorded in the latter-day Acts are

just as worthy of being believed as the miracles recorded in the

former-day Acts."--Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, page

80.

"The word 'oracle' is instructive. It is derived from the Latin

'Ora,' meaning the mouth. It means, therefore, those whose

authoritative teachings are by spoken word as well as by pen and

their word takes precedence with their own generation over that

which has been written by any previous authority. * * * Their

authority also includes the right to interpret the Scriptural

writings of previous dispensations. For in case of doubt as to what

the law of God is, final appeal is made to the living oracles,

who interpret through the authority of the priesthood and the

inspiration of the Holy Ghost."--Manual, 1901-2, part I, page 81.

"The standard works of the church form our written authority and

doctrine, but they are by no means our only sources of information

and instruction on the theology of the church. We believe that God

is as willing today as he ever has been to reveal his mind and will

to men, and that he does so though chosen and appointed channels.

We rely, therefore, on the teachings of the living oracles of God

as of equal validity with the doctrines of the living word, and

the men in chief authority being acknowledged and accepted by the

church as prophets and revelators, and as being in possession of

the power of the holy priesthood," etc.--The Articles of Faith, by

Talmage, page 5.

"The living oracles that exist in the true church possess and

exercise the power of discrimination between obsolete and active

commandments. Whenever it is necessary that a decision be made as

to the present application of a commandment, or the interpretation

of Scripture, the matter is referred to the living oracles and

their decision is final. There is no dissipation of energy; no

doubt or indecision. * * * The living oracles are a motive force

to the church in the fact that they are, as the name implies,

mouthpieces of God to his people."--Manual, 1901-2, pages 64-65.

As to the doctrine of Deity, the "Address" declares: "We believe in

the God-head, comprising the three individual personages, Father, Son

and Holy Ghost." As this declaration stands here, it will not perhaps

suggest Tritheism or Materialism to Christians unfamiliar with Mormon

theological terms. But when the full doctrine of the Deity, as taught

in Mormon congregations, is known, it will at once be seen that no

Christian can accept it. In fact, the Mormon Church teaches that God

the Father has a material body of flesh and bones; that Adam is the

God of the human race; that this Adam-God was physically begotten by

another God; that the Gods were once as we are now; that there is a

great multiplicity of Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically begotten

by the Heavenly Father of Mary, His wife; that, as we have a Heavenly

Father, so also we have a Heavenly Mother; that Jesus Himself was

married, and was probably a polygamist--at least so it has been printed

in their publications and taught among their people; and that the Holy

Spirit is of material substance, capable of actual transmission from

one person to another.

"We know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature

perfect men; each of them possesses a material body, infinitely

pure and perfect, and attended by a transcendant glory, yet a body

of flesh and bones."--Talmage, Articles of Faith, page 41. See also

Doctrine and Covenants, chapter cxxx, 22d verse.

"Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the

fact of his materiality; indeed, an immaterial being, under which

meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of

God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction of

terms."--Talmage, Articles of Faith, page 42.

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint

and sinner: When our Father Adam came into the garden he came into

it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with

him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the

Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written

and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with

whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christian

or non-professing Christian, must hear it, and will hear it, sooner

or later. * * *

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had

begotten him in his own likeness; he was not begotten by the Holy

Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family;

and when he took a tabernacle it was begotten by his father in

heaven after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel and

the rest of the sons and daughters of Eve. I could tell you much

more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy

would be nothing to it in the estimation of the superstitious and

over-righteous of mankind. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten

by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden. And who is

our Father in Heaven."--Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,

volume 1, pages 50-1.

"Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we Mormons are

ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young,

to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No,

friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you

see any change coming over our countenance when this doctrine is

named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of

grasping the largeness and extent of the universe, the grandeur of

existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress,

should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of

understanding as to call it in question at all."--Roberts, The

Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pages 42-3.

"Q. Are there more Gods than one?

"A. Yes, many."--Catechism for Children, page 13.

"We believe in the plurality of Gods."--Roberts, Mormon Doctrines

of Deity, page 11.

"In the beginning the head of the Gods called a council of Gods,

and they came together to concoct a plan to create the world and

the people in it."--Joseph Smith, quoted by Roberts in Mormon

Doctrine of Deity, page 229.

"Without going into the full investigation of the history and

excellency of God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in this

article, let us reflect that Jesus Christ as lord of lords and

king of kings must have a noble race in the heavens or upon the

earth, or else he can never be as great in power, dominion, might

and authority as the Scriptures declare. But hear: The mystery is

solved. John says: 'And I looked and lo, a lamb stood on Mount

Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having his

father's name written on their foreheads.' Their father's name;

bless me. That is God. Well done for Mormonism--144,000 Gods among

the tribes of Israel and two living Gods and the Holy Ghost for

this world. Such knowledge is too wonderful for men, unless they

possess the spirit of Gods."--President Taylor, quoted by Roberts

in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 253.

"If none but Gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children,

it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the

father of our spirits, became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ

according to the flesh. The fleshy body of Jesus required a mother

as well as a father. Therefore, the father and mother of Jesus

according to the flesh must have been associated together in the

capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been

for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father.

"As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so he, before

the world began, begat his spirit; as the body required an earthly

mother, so his spirit required a heavenly mother. As God associated

in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise

he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly

things being in the likeness of heavenly things, and that which is

temporal being the likeness of that which is eternal. Or, in other

words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of

the laws of generation in heaven."--Orson Pratt in The Seer, page

159.

Eliza R. Snow, the Mormon high priestess and poetess, gives voice to

these doctrines in her famous "Invocation; or, the Eternal Mother and

Father."

Most of us have heard it in the Tabernacle; many, however, have not

understood its teachings. We quote two stanzas:

"In the Heavens are parents single?

No; the thought makes reason stare;

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I've a mother there."

"When I leave this frail existence--

When I lay this mortal by;

Father, mother, may I meet you

In your royal court on high."

--Latter-day Saints Hymnal.

"Obedience will the same bright garland weave

As it has done for your great mother Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life

She'd been the first, or tenth, or fifteenth wife?

What did she care, when in her lowest state

Whether by fools considered small, or great?

'Twas all the same to her--she proved her worth;

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of the earth."

--Eliza R. Snow's Poems.

"If the men and women are the children of God, sons and daughters

of heavenly parents, fashioned in their image, endowed with their

attributes and destined to become like them in perfection, why

should it startle the world to be told that there is a mother as

well as a father in heaven. It is reasonable, philosophical and,

like all truth, invulnerable."--Address in Tabernacle, summer of

1906, Apostle Whitney

"The father of our spirits has only been doing that which his

progenitors did before him. Each succeeding generation of Gods

follow the example of the preceding one; each generation have their

wives, who raise up from the fruit of their loins immortal spirits;

when their families become numerous, they organize new worlds for

them, after the pattern set before them. They place their families

upon the same, who fall as the inhabitants of previous worlds have

fallen. They are re-redeemed. The inhabitants of each world have

their own personal father, whose attributes they worship, and in so

doing all the worlds worship the same God, dwelling in all of his

fullness in the personages who are the fathers of each." Seer, 135.

"Did the Savior of the world consider it his duty to fulfill all

righteousness? And if the Savior of the world found it his duty to

fulfill all righteousness to obey a command of far less importance

than that of multiplying his race, would he not find it his duty

to join with the race of the faithful ones in replenishing the

earth?"--Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II, page 79.

"'He shall see his seed.' If he has no seed how could he see it?

'And who shall declare his generation?' If he had no generation who

could declare it?"--Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II,

page 80.

"We say it was Jesus Christ who was married (at Cana) to the

Marys and Martha, whereby he could see his seed before he was

crucified."--Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II.

"Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in the

Scriptures concerning the wives of Jesus. One thing is certain:

that there were several holy women who greatly loved Jesus, such

as Mary and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene; Jesus greatly

loved them and associated with them much; and when he arose from

the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses,

the apostles, he appeared first to these women, or at least to

one of them, namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be very natural

for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear

wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the

acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these

beloved women were his wives. Indeed, the Psalmist David prophesies

in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. 'Kings'

daughters were among thine honorable wives; upon thy right hand

did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold of Ophir."--Apostle Orson

Pratt in The Seer, page 159.

Concerning the doctrine of man it is declared: "We hold that man is

verily the child of God, formed in His image, endowed with divine

attributes. * * * We believe in the pre-existence of man as a spirit,

and in a future state of individual existence, in which every soul

shall find its place, as determined by justice and mercy, with

opportunities of endless progression in the varied conditions of

eternity." This statement cannot be said to fairly represent the

precepts of the Mormon Church at this point. For, in addition to the

above, they believe and teach in their own congregations: That, "As man

is, God once was: As God is, man may be;" that man's disobedience of

the first commandment given was commendable, and was the source out of

which his chief glory shall arise; that the image of God in which he

was made is the material one; that the brightest glory possible to him

can be reached only through polygamous living here or hereafter; and

that the eternally continued power of procreation forms the basis of

this glory.

"The belief of the Latter-day Saints regarding the personality of

God and our relationship to him has been crystallized by President

Lorenzo Snow into the aphorism, one of the most expressive in

the language: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'

No statement could set forth more clearly the nature of God's

exaltation and man's destiny."--Manual, 1901-2, part I, page 17.

"We shall now proceed to show from new revelations that the saints

are to have equal knowledge with the Father and the Son * * * The

fullness of all truth in us will make us Gods, equal in all things

with the personages of the Father and the Son; and we could not

be otherwise than equal, for he is the same God who dwells in us

that dwells in them. Instead of dwelling in two tabernacles under

the names of Father and Son, he will then dwell in the additional

tabernacles of the saints. And wherever he dwells in fulness,

there would necessarily be equality in wisdom, power, glory and

dominion."--Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 121.

"Thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material

universe--that is, the earth and all the other planets and worlds,

as an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not

away. They will also continue to organize people and redeem and

perfect other systems which are now in the womb of chaos, and thus

go on increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child

of God which now exists upon earth will possess more dominions,

more property, more subjects and more power and glory than is

possessed by Jesus Christ or by his Father; while at the same time

Jesus Christ and his Father will have their dominions, kingdoms

and subjects increased in proportion."--Parley P. Pratt, quoted by

Roberts in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 257.

"They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such

a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of

Jesus Christ, and to possess immortal flesh and bones, in which

they will still eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing,

play on musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet,

or from system to system; being Gods or saints of God, endowed with

the same powers, attributes and capacities that their Heavenly

Father and Jesus Christ possess."--Parley P. Pratt, quoted by

Roberts in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 257.

"They who have obeyed the laws of the Gospel received the Holy

Ghost, obtained and honored the priesthood and lived lives of

righteousness, remaining faithful in spite of persecution and

earthly tribulation, shall be admitted to the celestial glory. Here

they will enjoy the personal presence and gory of the Father and

the Son; they will be kings and priests of the most high, those in

the highest degree of this glory shall have thrones, dominion and

endless increase; they shall be Gods creating and governing worlds

and peopling them with their offspring."--Manual, 1901-2, part I,

page 52.

"God always attached a special and honorable distinction to males

and females engaged in the sacred system of plurality according

to the conditions he laid down for them to observe."--Spencer's

Letters, page 195.

"Their great duty was to become the progenitors of the human

family--to prepare mortal tabernacles for God's immortal children.

It was Adam's privilege and duty to become the patriarch of this

earth--the parent of all its inhabitants. In this great labor and

destiny his wife, Eve, was to be associated with him. Before them

was a future of endless glory, happiness and power, to be gained

through the great principle of parentage. To attain this glory,

present sorrow, pain and difficulty would have to be experienced

and overcome. The other law was negative and prohibitive: 'Of the

tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat.' If the

fall was essential and it was a part of God's design that a law be

broken in order that man might be subject to sin and death, this

latter law was well adapted for the purpose. For the consequences

of the breaking of this law were such as to fit in with the designs

of God, and the breach of the law would not apparently interfere

with the accomplishment of any high destiny. If either law was to

be broken, it was far better that this negative one be broken than

the other.

"Eve was deceived and tempted. * * * She told Adam what she had

done and he fully realized the consequences of her act. It meant

that he and she could no longer remain together; that they must

move in different spheres--he in the higher, she in the lower--she

should be cast out of the garden and he should remain. * * * But

he remembered that Eve had been given him as an eternal companion.

He remembered the great commandment: Be fruitful and multiply and

replenish the earth. This he could not obey, for Eve, his wife,

was to be separated from him forever. He was therefore under the

necessity of deciding which was the greater and more important

commandment of the two--the negative one: Thou shalt not eat of

the tree; or the positive one: Thou shalt multiply and replenish

the earth. And he decided wisely--he would break the negative

commandment and keep the positive one."--Manual, 1901-2, Part 1,

pages 39-41.

"Marriage thus becomes one of the chief means of man's exaltation

and glory in the world to come, whereby he may have endless

increase of eternal lives and attain at length to the power of

the God-head. It was this glorious doctrine in connection with

the baptism, redemption and sealing for the dead, that was the

uppermost theme of the Prophet Joseph during the last two years

or more of his life."--A Brief History of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Apostle George Q. Cannon, page 138,

published 1893.

"I would here say that the promise made to Abraham and to all

who are heirs of the same promise through faith extends to all

generations in this life and to all generations to come forever

and ever. That is, Abraham and Sarah will continue to multiply not

only in this world, but in all the worlds to come. And the same is

true of all the sons and daughters that obtain the fulness of the

promise made to Abraham. * * * Will the resurrection return you a

mere female acquaintance that is not to be the wife of your bosom

in eternity? No; God forbid; but it will restore you the wife of

your bosom, immortalized, who shall bear children from your own

loins in all the worlds to come, and that without pain or sorrow

in travail. This, sir, was couched in the promise of Abraham; this

makes the promise great."--Spencer's Letters, pages 204-5.

"Each pair the Eve and Adam of some world,

Perchance unborn, un orbited and unwhirled."

(Where they shall) "reign as queens and kings,

Where endless union endless increase brings."

--Apostle Whitney, Elijah, pp. 103-4.

"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and

be married for eternity while in this probation, by the power and

authority of the holy priesthood, they will cease to increase

when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the

resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority

of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing

the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have

children in the celestial glory. * * * In the celestial glory there

are three degrees or heavens, and in order to obtain the highest,

a man must enter into this order of the priesthood, and if he does

not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is

the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."--Quoted in

Young Men's Improvement Manual from Joseph Smith, Mill. Star, page

108.

"I wish to be perfectly understood here. Let it be remembered that

the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that man, that is his spirit, is

the offspring of Deity; not in any mythical sense, but actually. *

* * Instead of the God-given power of procreation being one of the

chief things that is to pass away, it is one of the chief means of

man's exaltation and glory in that great eternity which like an

endless vista stretches out before him. * * * Through that law, in

connection with an observance of all the other laws of the Gospel,

man will yet attain unto the power of the God-head, and like his

Father--God--his chief glory will be to bring to pass the eternal

life and happiness of his posterity."--Roberts, New Witness for

God, page 461.

"The devil and his angels having forfeited in their first estate

all right to enter a second with bodies of flesh and bones, and

having lost the privilege of marrying and propagating their

species, feel maliciously wicked and envious against the sons of

men who kept their first estate and now are in the enjoyment of the

second, marrying and increasing their families or kingdoms."--Orson

Pratt in The Seer, page 79.

"Parents for the want of that holy and pure affection which

exists in the bosom of the righteous, not only destroy their own

happiness, but impress their own degraded and unlawful passions

upon the constitution of their offspring. It is for this reason

that God will not permit the fallen angels to multiply. It is

for this reason that God has ordained marriage for the righteous

only. It is for this reason that God will put a final stop to

the multiplication of the wicked after this life. It is for this

reason that none but those who have kept the celestial law will be

permitted to multiply after the resurrection. It is for this reason

that God has so ordained that the righteous shall have a plurality

of wives; for they alone are prepared to beget and bring forth

offspring whose bodies and spirits, partaking of the nature of the

parents, are pure and lovely, and will manifest, as they increase

in years, those heaven-born excellencies so necessary to lead them

to happiness and eternal life."--Orson Pratt in The Seer, pages

157-8.

The "Address" has somewhat to say regarding the holy priesthood,

but what is said affords one unacquainted with the church but

little idea of the relation which this order sustains to the whole

ecclesiastical system. In reality everything centers here. Admit the

church's contention for its priesthood and you have yielded the most

essential things which it claims. "We affirm that, to administer in the

ordinances of the Gospel, authority must be given of God; and that this

authority is the power of the holy priesthood. We affirm that, through

the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood has been

conferred upon men in the present age, and that, under this divine

authority, the Church of Christ has been organized." So it is declared,

but the teaching of the church on this most important doctrine is not

herein candidly set forth. The appended extracts will show that the

basis for the exercise of arbitrary power of its membership lies in

the church's claim for the "holy priesthood," and that their power

extends not only to things spiritual, but to secular matters as well.

Furthermore, it will be seen that when once the church's claim for

its priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters

logically follows. The members of the priesthood claim the special

power to interpret scriptures, and the president of the church, who is

also chief of the high priesthood, is the prophet, seer and revelator

of God to the church and to the world.

If it was the purpose of the leaders to keep the mass of the membership

under such control as would effectually destroy all liberty of action,

and would curb that freedom of thought to which all responsible people

are entitled, then it is difficult to see how any better scheme for

achieving that purpose could have been devised than the Mormon doctrine

of the "holy priesthood." Given a people who endorse its high claims

and submit to them, and you have a community which is under the

tyranny of arbitrary rulership. That such power should be provided for

in any system, civil or ecclesiastical, and should not be used, is

incompatible with the known facts in human nature. That the full power

of the Mormon priesthood is exercised is not a matter of doubt among

well-informed people.

"I shall then define priesthood to be that order of authoritative

intelligences by which God regulates, controls, enlightens,

blesses or curses, saves or condemns all beings. To it under God

all things are subservient in righteousness, whether in heaven or

hell."--Spencer's Letters, page 94.

"Men who hold the priesthood possess divine authority thus to act

for God; and by possessing part of God's power they are in reality

part of God. * * * Men who honor the priesthood in them, honor God,

and those who reject it, reject God."--New Witness for God, page

187.

"The priesthood is the authority delegated to men to act in the

name of God, and to have those acts approved of him. Whatever is

done by this authority is as if God himself had done it. The one

holding the priesthood becomes an agent of the Lord. * * * The

curse of God on Cain, the flood, the rejection and dispersion

of Israel, the destruction of Jerusalem--these are all typical

instances of the judgments of God following the lack of reverence

for his priesthood. * * * Faith in the priesthood in general must

be supplemented by a specific faith in those who hold the keys of

the priesthood and preside in its various organizations, Priesthood

without presidency would be unorganized and lacking in efficiency.

* * * We cannot honor the priesthood if we do not honor those who

hold its keys. They are indeed the living oracles of our time,

and the voice of inspiration from them is as the voice of God to

us."--Manual, 1901-2, part I, pages 81, 82.

"There is also a tendency among the youth, and I am sorry to

say among some of the older ones, to show but little regard for

the sacredness of the holy priesthood. What I mean by the holy

priesthood is that authority which God has delegated to man by

which he may speak the will of God as though the angels were here

to speak it themselves; by which men are empowered to bind on

earth and it shall be bound in heaven, and to loose on earth and

it shall be loosed in heaven; by which the words of men spoken in

the exercise of that power become the word of the Lord, the law of

God, unto the people scripture and divine commands. It is therefore

not good that the Latter-day Saints and the children of Latter-day

Saints should treat lightly this sacred principle of authority

which has been revealed from the heavens in the dispensation in

which we live. It is the authority by which the Lord Almighty

governs his people, and by it in time to come he will govern the

nations of the world."--Report of seventy-second conference, page

2, October 4-6, 1901.

"Before all lands in east or west

We love the land of Zion best;

With God's choice gifts 'tis teeming.

There, prophets, seers, as of old

The mysteries of heaven unfold.

Through holy priesthood streaming."

--Sunday School Hymnal, No. 61.

One other observation must be made before leave is taken of this

part of the defense before the world. It touches a matter which in

importance dwarfs everything mentioned in the "Address." Apparently

the foundation of the Mormon Church is in the "Book of Mormon," the

"Doctrine and Covenants," the "Pearl of Great Price," and the testimony

of the "Living Oracles," delivered from time to time. But whoever digs

down to the lowermost foundation will find that, at last, everything

rests upon the reported visions of Joseph Smith. When any matter of

vital importance is presented for the belief of mankind, if that

matter, either in its nature or the circumstances attending it, lies

very much outside the ordinary, a due regard for human intelligence

demands that whatever testimony is produced in support of it shall

be buttressed by corroborative evidence. But here we have a system

of religion which claims sole authority as being alone divinely

accredited. It asks for the acceptance of mankind on the ground of

being so accredited. It anathematizes all who finally reject it. Yet

this religion, making such an astonishing claim, is founded upon the

unsupported assertion of a young person whose probity was not yet so

well established that his naked word would be taken concerning any

matter transcending ordinary observation and experience; and that

assertion touches supernatural appearances, and messages which, if

true, are of the most profound importance to mankind, and yet that

assertion is wholly without corroborating evidence. We are asked to

believe that, after seventeen centuries of apostasy on the part of his

church, and 1700 years of silence on his own part, God broke this long

silence at last with a message to a hitherto unbelieving world, which

would determine the destiny of mankind, but that he so discredited

human intelligence as to send that all-important message by an

ambassador without credentials.

In short, the Mormon Church has not yet given the world any

satisfactory evidence that the foundation upon which it rests its

enormous claim entitles that claim to any serious consideration. Here

is the fatal destitution of the whole system. And no defense that can

be set up for the doctrines or practices of the church, or for its

history, or for the character of its people, however strong or adroit

that defense may be, can veil their mortal weakness.

Attention is called in the "Address" to plural marriages and polygamous

living. We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of

plural marriage has been discontinued in the Mormon Church, since no

records of such marriages are kept by the church that are accessible

to the public. That there have been instances of such marriages, even

since the agreement of the church to discontinue them, we know; that

they cannot be celebrated without the sanction of the church, through

accredited officials, is unquestioned; that, so far as the public

knowledge goes, no officials who may have celebrated such marriages

have been disciplined therefor, is certain. The doctrine of plural

marriage yet appears in the accepted standards of the church unchanged,

in face of the promise made by the president of the church that the

Woodruff manifesto should be printed, in the later editions of such

standards. That the practice is not now as open or as common as in

the days of Brigham Young may be conceded. But that it is, at most,

suspended by church decree, and not abrogated, is well understood here.

No denial was made of the practice of polygamous living. The "Address"

admits that authoritative figures officially collected show 897 such

male polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that later reports are not

quoted leads to the reasonable belief that since that date the number

of male polygamists has not diminished, but rather has increased.

But even if this conclusion is not valid, these figures given have a

very grave significance. We have this condition before us: In a sect,

numbering at the outside some 400,000 souls, many of whom--half or

more--are children or mere adherents, at the very least 2,691 persons

are living in polygamy. This would be true if each of the 897 male

polygamists had only two consorts; but, since in many cases there

are more than two, the whole number of persons living in polygamy is

considerably larger than the figures just named would indicate. It

seems quite probable that far more than 1,800 families in this sect

are polygamous families. All of these people are living in violation

of the law. Each one of them has a circle of relatives and friends,

most of whom will not only condone, but will sympathize with the

criminal. These people are rearing children, a majority of whom have

been born under ban of the law. Moreover, they are now maintaining

their relations against the decree of the church, as interpreted under

oath by the church leaders, and yet none of them have been subjected to

church discipline for polygamous living. What must reasonable people

think of it when such a condition is approved and sustained by a church

claiming to be the only church of Christ in the earth--a church strong

enough to control all conditions in the state, political, social and

civil?

Toleration of these criminals, mercy and charity toward them, is

claimed on the ground: First, that toleration has been shown them in

the past. It is even said that the "toleration under which the practice

of plural marriage became firmly established binds the United States

and its people, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of

mercy and wisdom, to the exercise and patience and charity in dealing

with this question." Second, that wisdom in dealing with the matter

in the future prescribes it. But to this it must be replied that the

"toleration" of former years was not the toleration of choice, but the

endurance of a reprobated condition while there were no adequate means

at hand to correct it. And, in the next place, when the church insists

upon the doctrine of polygamy as divinely revealed and enjoined; when

the governing body of the church publicly honors those who practice it;

when its chief officials openly, and with mutual approbation therefor,

live in it; when the officials studiously refrain from any public

act in restraint of it--when all this is true, we must hold it to be

doubtful whether the practice of polygamous living ever will die out

under any system of toleration. And thoughtful people will conclude,

in the light of these facts, that the only mercy and charity which is

logical is that which will, with a strong hand, defend society at large

from the taint of such flagitious precepts, examples and practices.

Wisdom does not prescribe toleration toward other unlawful conduct; nor

does experience show that such a method of dealing with offenders is

so conspicuously successful in restraining crime as to encourage that

policy. In addition to this, when we consider the fact that men have

lived in polygamous relations here for years without the fact being

generally acknowledged, or even known; when the church teaches the

doctrine of polygamy as a divinely-revealed "principle," such precept

being supplemented by the powerful example of its highest officials;

and when the president of the church makes a virtue of his contumacy

in this regard, we must be pardoned if we declare that no sufficient

evidence that polygamous living is dying out, or is likely to die out,

has yet been produced.

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me.

I will command my people; otherwise they shall harken unto these

things"--(that is, revelations forbidding polygamy). "Thus we see

that a man among the Nephites, by the law of God had no right to

take more than one wife, unless the Lord should command, for the

purpose of raising up seed unto himself. Without such a command

they were strictly limited to the one-wife doctrine. * * * So it is

in this Church of Latter-day Saints; every man is strictly limited

to one wife, unless the Lord, through the president and prophet of

the church, gives a revelation permitting him to take more."--Orson

Pratt in The Seer, page 30.

"For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant;

and if you abide not that covenant then are you damned; for no one

can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. *

* * And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood, if any

man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first

give her consent; and if he espouse the second and they are virgins

and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; for he cannot

commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to none else;

and if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot

commit adultery, for they belong unto him; and they are given unto

him--therefore, he is justified."--Doctrine and Covenants, chapter

132.

"From the foregoing revelation given through Joseph the Seer, it

will be seen that God has actually commanded some of his servants

to take more wives. * * Showing still further that, if they refuse

to obey this command after having the law revealed to them, they

should be damned. This revelation, then, makes it a matter of

conscience among all the Latter-day Saints; and they embrace it as

a part and portion of their religion, and verily believe that they

cannot be saved and reject it."--Orson Pratt in The Seer, January,

1853, page 14.

"Who would suppose that any man in this land of religious liberty

would presume to say to his fellowman that he had no right to take

such steps as he thought necessary to escape damnation. Or that

congress would enact a law that would present the alternative to

religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they

should attempt to obey a law of God which would deliver them from

damnation."--Epistle of the first presidency, October 6, 1885.

In a signed article written by Brigham H. Roberts, one of the first

seven presidents of the seventies of the Mormon Church, for the

Improvement Era of May, 1898, are found the following statements as the

conclusion of an argument on the righteousness of polygamy:

"Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the plural

marriage custom of the ancient patriarchs, prophets and kings

of Israel, it is not at all to be wondered at that, in the

dispensation of the fulness of time, in which he has promised

restitution of all things, God should again establish that system

of marriage. And the fact of God's approval of plural marriage

in ancient times is a complete defense of the righteousness of

the marriage system introduced by revelation through the prophet,

Joseph Smith.

"Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered, then Abraham,

Jacob, and the prophets who practiced it would not be allowed

an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, and if polygamy is not

adultery, then it cannot be classed as a sin at all.

"It appears to the writer that modern Christians must either

learn to tolerate polygamy or give up forever the glorious hope

of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which he approves, and so

strikingly approves, must be not only not bad, but positively good,

pure and holy."--Improvement Era, May, 1898, pages 472, 475, 478,

482.

We quote from the poem written by Apostle Orson Whitney to the Women of

the Everlasting Covenant:

"Up with the guardian of social purity,

The marriage system of futurity--

Asylum of reform and penitence;--

God-given home to homeless innocence;

And down with wayward Rome's economy,

Parent of nameless ills, monogamy;

Concomitant of empire crushing vice,

Immolating virtue at the shrine of price,

Let innocence no more be child of shame;

Let nature's needs the laws of nature frame;

Let marriage vows be honorable in all,

Untrammelled by a monogamic wall

Of selfishness and rank hypocrisy,

The gift of Pagan aristocracy."

--Apostle Whitney's Poems.

The declaration made by B. H. Roberts concerning his determination to

continue his polygamous living is of a piece with that made under oath

by President Joseph Smith and Apostle F. M. Lyman. Mr. Roberts said:

"These women have stood by me. They are good and true women. The

law has said that I shall part from them. * * * But the law cannot

free me from the obligations assumed before it spoke." (It spoke

before he was born.) "No power can do that; even were the church

that sanctioned these marriages and performed the ceremonies to

turn its back upon us and say that the marriage is not valid now

and that I must give these good and loyal women up--I will be

damned if I would."--Case of B. H. Roberts of Utah, page 13.

Considerable space has been devoted in the "Address" to a defense

of the loyalty of the Mormon Church to civil government. It is not

recalled that any Christian church in this country has found itself

under a like necessity, for the teachings and practices of the

Christian churches have never been such as to raise an issue between

church authority and allegiance to civil statutes. "Gentiles" will bear

willing testimony to the fact that the Mormon people, as a body, are by

no means naturally disposed to contest civil ordinances.

But it must be clear to all that there is much in their surroundings

to contravene their obedience to civil government. We may pass by the

history of the church's conflict with the federal government, which is

yet well remembered, and may mention these facts as bearing upon the

point now under consideration: That the most honored leaders of the

church in the past have made an issue between the civil power on the

one hand the church authority on the other; that the president of the

church today, reverenced by his people as God's deputy on the earth,

is living in outlawry; that a number of his chosen associates in the

governing body of the church are lawbreakers; that many of the most

responsible officers of the church, next to those just referred to, are

proscribed by the law; that honors are conspicuously accorded by the

highest authority in the church to persons who have the taint of this

lawlessness upon them; that these offenders against civil government

are not called to account by any church authority for their offenses.

Such conduct on the part of the leaders cannot be said to stimulate

respect for civil authority, but it must be held to be a stronger

deterrent to obedience to the laws of society. So that whatever credit

the Mormon people may have as a law-abiding people can scarcely be

shared by the governing body of the church, since the weight of their

precepts and example is wholly against the validity of any claim to

such credit.

This review is issued that the real doctrines, practices and general

spirit of the Mormon Church may be known. Whatever the intent of the

"Address" may have been, the effect of it will certainly be to deceive

all readers who are not intimately acquainted with the teachings and

practices of the Mormon Church. We are not unmindful of the fact that

we shall be charged with persecution and misrepresentation in issuing

this review. But the publication of the truth can hardly be called

persecution, and if there be any charge of misrepresentation it must

lie against the leaders of the Mormon Church, whose own utterances

we have quoted as sustaining what has herein been said about their

teachings.

That there may be no misunderstanding of our contention in this paper,

we, in conclusion, very frankly declare that not only is the "Address

to the World" misleading to the general public, but also that the

teachings of the Mormon Church in Gentile communities and through its

missionaries are deceptive; that the policy of the Mormon leaders is

to keep the people in entire subjection to the priesthood, and that so

these leaders seek to control political, commercial and educational

conditions in Utah; that their moral influence where such control is

maintained is neither complimentary to or commensurate with their

power; that their influence is not only subversive of civil authority,

but also of reverence for God; that these leaders associate Joseph

Smith in dignity and honor with the most eminent of mortals, if not

indeed with Christ Himself; that they claim for Brigham Young and

Joseph Smith and other "living oracles" the same obedience that is

claimed for the very word of God; that whatever spirituality is found

in the lives of individual members of the Mormon Church exists in spite

of the examples and precepts of their leaders; that the difficulty in

the enforcement of the civil law, wherever it affects the practice of

polygamous living, is well nigh unsurmountable; that the practice of

polygamous living was never held in higher esteem by the governing body

of the church than now; that until the practices of the present leaders

of the Mormon Church are radically changed there can be no peace

between them and pure Christianity; and that until the doctrines of the

church are radically modified it can never establish a claim to be even

a part of the church of Jesus Christ.

III.

ANSWER TO MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION'S REVIEW.

ELDER B.H. ROBERTS

FOREWORD.

The following Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of

the Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to

the World, was delivered in a speech at two meetings of the Mutual

Improvement Association conference, Sunday afternoon and evening, June

9, 1907, in the "Mormon Tabernacle," Salt Lake City, Utah, before an

audience of between four and five thousand people. The speaker expected

to close his remarks with the afternoon meeting, and therefore omitted

certain matters that were intended to be discussed at the time the

subject to which they were related was presented in the afternoon, but

which, for lack of time, as he then supposed, went over to the evening

session. He was urged by those in charge of the Conference to continue

his remarks in the evening session, which he did. In this printed copy

of the speech, some of the remarks in the evening are brought over

into their proper place, and connected with the subjects to which they

most properly belong, and that were treated in the afternoon. Also the

speaker has added some items that were outlined in his notes prepared

for the occasion, but not used either in the afternoon or evening. In

order that such new matter might be designated it is placed in brackets.

III.

Today, my brethren and sisters, we convert this pulpit into a forum,

from which we propose a defense both of our faith and the Church. Nor

do we violate any of the proprieties in this change, because when truth

is to be defended and injustice resented, then "all place a temple, and

all seasons summer."

The occasion to which we address ourselves this afternoon arises out

of these circumstances: At the late general conference of the Church,

the First Presidency issued to the world an address. Submitting it to

the general conference, it was approved and endorsed by the Saints

assembled, so that it became an address of the Church of Christ to

the world. Of course, as we might have anticipated, this address met

with adverse criticism, and finally there was formulated against

it an alleged review by the Ministerial Association of evangelical

ministers in the state of Utah. Represented in that association are

the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran,

Christian (Campbellite) and regular Episcopal churches--so that

practically the whole of Protestant Christendom is represented by these

ministers who challenge the correctness and the candor of the address

issued by the Church to the world.

In our consideration of their review we will suppose the

representatives of these churches present, sitting right here

[indicating a place close by the stand] in a body. And I wish they were

so present, because there is nothing like talking it out face to face

with these gentlemen; and I doubt not but their presence in a body

would be quite an inspiration to one in discussing the document they

have submitted to us. Having, then, before us the circumstances out of

which this occasion arises, let us proceed to our task.

The first charge or criticism of the address of the Church made by

these gentlemen is to the effect that the doctrines of the Church are

not as fully proclaimed elsewhere as in Utah; all through the review,

in fact, runs the innuendo that the Church deceitfully teaches one

doctrine at home and another abroad, and that the address obscures much

that is necessary to an intelligent judgment of "Mormonism." Hence

these gentlemen propose to help the world to a fuller presentation of

"Mormon" doctrine and practice, as set forth in their review of our

address.

Right here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The

document they have issued quotes very copiously from our published

Church works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they

rely for this larger, fuller proclamation of "Mormonism?" I find quoted

the _Millennial Star,_ the _Journal of Discourses,_ the _Seer_ (by

Orson Pratt), the _Improvement Era,_ the _Manuals_ of the Young Men's

Mutual Improvement Associations, _Orson Spencer's Letters,_ Epistles

of the First Presidency of the Church, Talmage's _Articles of Faith,_

and last, and of course least, some of my own works. Now where is the

_Millennial Star_ published? In Liverpool, England. Where were the

_Journals of Discourses_ published? In Liverpool, England. Where was

the _Seer_ published? In Washington, D.C. Does it not occur to you,

gentlemen, since these are the works on which you chiefly rely for

your larger view of "Mormon" doctrine, that we have published them

elsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The _Improvement Era,_

of course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two thousand copies of

it are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts and to

scatter everywhere in the world. So with _Orson Spencer's Letters:_

so with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which

more presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them

very freely, and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad,

and from them they learn the doctrines of "Mormonism." So that your

practical charge that we preach one set of doctrines and principles in

Utah, and quite another in the world, and that we are trying to play

the double game of having one doctrine for home consumption and another

for proclamation abroad, is as shallow as it is untrue.

One other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from

the _Seer_ which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal

action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was

repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation.

There was a long article published in the _Deseret News_ on the 23rd

of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and

Twelve setting forth that this work--the _Seer_--together with some

other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that

document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the

work of this noted apostle, they say:

"But the _Seer,_ the _Great First Cause,_ the article in the

_Millennial Star,_ of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain

doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown,

so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may

not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where

these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes,

or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

And yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must

believe, since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are

ministers of the truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long

quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a

work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine

and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and

over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be

found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of

Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All

else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority,

containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of

the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church

does not stand.

"Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding

your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the

inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness

of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We

merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing

for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit

of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which

circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances

at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into

account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is

too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk

linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking

sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions,

and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and

having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position,

may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and

stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's

Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and thy word be made known

now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a

wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained,

and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.

In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration,

shall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the

illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have

today all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries.

These books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God,

Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches

running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time.

But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by

apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian

Church, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved

these Scriptures--the New Testament. The Christian world up to this

time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all

that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several

books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal

authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament.

And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only

that which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be

absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church

of Christ.

We move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You

say of us, that "Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things

already revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or

to justice and mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only

authorized church of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical

test of salvation."

Gentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the "Mormon"

Church, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an "unbiblical test

of salvation." I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim

made for Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine

message, with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now,

just for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that

claim to be true, is the test we apply, at all, much less "wholly,"

unbiblical? May one reject God's message and stand uncondemned before

God? Assuredly not. What was the example Jesus set? This: "He that

believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not

shall be damned." He was but proclaiming the message that God had given

to him, and he laid down this principle as connected with the authority

and commission he had bestowed upon the apostles when sending them into

the world: "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth

me receiveth him that sent me." What do we do, when we proclaim the

divine message with which the Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned to

the world but just apply this same principle? Nothing more than this,

and of course we could do nothing less. As I remarked a moment ago, you

may refuse, as you do, to believe this message and testimony, but you

cannot say in truth that there is anything unbiblical in the principles

on which we proceed to make this declaration to the world: and, by the

way, don't you claim the same thing for your message? If you don't,

what does your message amount to? Are you not ministers of Jesus

Christ? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can men

reject you and your doctrine and your message and still be secure in

the favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand you as

false teachers, untrue servants--not representatives of the Master. You

are weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not gather

again, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity. You are

talking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism of

this kind.

Now we are told that because of the claims of "Mormonism" it provokes

searching investigation, for the reason that "it involves eternal

reprobation of those who finally reject it." Gentlemen, have you not

juggled here a little with words? And is it not just possible that

a wrong impression may go out from your view of our Address, rather

than from the Address itself? Is there such a thing in "Mormonism"

as eternal reprobation as generally understood in the theological

terminology of the world? With the single exception of those who come

to know the truth and then so far sin against it that they have no

power of repentance nor desire for forgiveness--the sons of perdition,

which all our works teach will be comparatively few in number--does not

"Mormonism," aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation to all

the children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently;

but the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is

"provoked" because the claim of the "Mormon" Church to being the only

authorized Church of Christ, "involves the validity of all the Church

ordinances and of all ministerial functions, including the right to

solemnize marriages as administered by the Christian Church from the

second to the nineteenth century." Here we are approaching solid

ground of controversy. "Mormonism" does deny that divine authority

exists in the churches of the world, the churches of men, miscalled

Christian churches. We do not blanch from the position. We proclaim

it; although we do not wish to do so in any offensive way, but we have

to be witnesses for the truth. And God has revealed that to be the

truth. "Mormonism" is in the world because their was a real necessity

for its coming into the world. It did not come into existence through

theological disputations, because of differences of views about

baptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these

things; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy

from God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization,

and the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the

institutions and systems of men, consequently there was need of divine

authority being again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the

gospel of Christ given to the world. It is our pride that "Mormonism"

is this restored gospel and Church of Christ.

I notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this

Ministerial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a

branch of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this

attitude of the "Mormon" Church, for the reason that in one of the

Homilies of his church; in the Homily on the _Perils of Idolatry,_ it

is expressly stated that "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned,

all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable

idolatry, most detested by God, and damnable to man, for 800 years and

more." (_Perils of Idolatry_, p. 3). Certainly "Mormonism" does not

proclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor do we declare its

universality more emphatically, but I presume we are offensive to the

representatives of this particular church, the Episcopal, because we

include him and his organization as among those who are in the apostasy

and who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on him

or his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the

Christian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England

under the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory,

and we do have this advantage, _viz_.:

That if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the

restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine

authority, the resumption of present-day and continuous revelation

from God. So we are in an infinitely better position, as to the

reasonableness of our attitude, than are those who proclaim this

apostasy and yet are without a renewal of a dispensation of the gospel

to the world.

There is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review,

a misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the

reviewers set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority

in their churches, and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for

centuries in the earth, but they say that our attitude involves the

validity of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize

marriages. They are not, I take it, responsible for the headlines of

their review as they appeared in the public press, but in order to make

the attitude of the "Mormon" Church as offensive as it could be made,

the headline said, "Gentile Marriage Ordinances Illegal Before God."

Now in justice to us I think this matter should have been put fairly,

and the exact status of the matter given. It should have appeared that

we regard marriage as a civil as well as a religious contract, and

our attitude with reference to divine things nowhere involves us in a

contradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil contract, nor

as a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine favor

and blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any way,

in thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that

marriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or

by the authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage

covenant beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have

been a little more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our

position upon this question. Allow me to do it for them.

Turning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be

found:

"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these:

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows,

performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that

are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of

promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all

eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment

through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on

the earth to hold this power * * * are of no efficacy, virtue,

or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all

contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are

dead."

Again,

"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of

men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name,

whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith

the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are

dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your

God.

"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things

are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man

marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by

my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world,

and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when

they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they

are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

So far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it

relates only to denying their validity after the resurrection--not this

side of it; and, gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because

you yourselves, in performing the marriage ceremony, say, "I pronounce

you man and wife until death does you part." I think you ought not

to take offense at what we say on this subject--we say your marriage

ceremonies are of no binding effect in and after the resurrection, you

make no pretensions of marrying for eternity. The fact is, you scorn

and ridicule it. Before leaving this group of propositions with which

I am dealing, I desire to say respecting this question of universal

apostasy from the Christian faith--we can sustain the truth of that

declaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of the

religious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no

anxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into

an argument on the justification of our attitude.

But, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference

between your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and

the existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out

of those respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there

is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved except

the name of Jesus Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be

acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that

those who do not accept this gospel cannot receive the benefits of its

salvation? Now then, after two thousand years of proselyting in the

world, under the most favorable circumstances, what is the sum total of

your achievements? Why, less than one-third of the inhabitants of the

earth are even nominally Christians! and what is your attitude toward

God's children whom you have not converted. Why, that they are lost.

That is the inevitable result of your attitude and doctrine. Or else

you must say that men can be saved without the gospel of Christ. Now

the difference between your position and ours is simply this:

The proposition that you present to the world at large, we present

to you as well as to the rest of mankind--and you don't like your

own medicine--with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one

that goes far towards establishing the divine origin of this great

latter-day work; the exception is this: that whereas, your attitude and

principles condemn the great bulk of the human family to everlasting

perdition--and I am going to talk to you about perdition in a little

while, and point out what you mean by it--while you consign to eternal

perdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's children, we proclaim

an "everlasting gospel," one that shall not only walk beside men

through this life but through all the ages that are to come. You say

in your review that we "contribute nothing to reverence for God, or

to justice or mercy toward men." Well, here is one little item that

"Mormonism" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold

that in any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten

thousand years hence, or ten million years hence--we hold that when an

intelligence, a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate

the law of God, but that it profiteth everything to yield obedience

to that law, and repentance takes hold of him, and he stretches out

his hands toward God--through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the hand of

God will find the man's hand and bring him unto salvation. That is the

difference between us, and I leave you to judge which smacks most of

the inspiration and truth of heaven.

We take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by

you, gentlemen, that the "Mormon" Church denies that the Christian

churches have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding

Christian martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches

have fostered, the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly

promoted. I wish to explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with

reference to this interregnum between the apostasy and the restoration

of that gospel in the nineteenth century, through our prophet.

Our position is this: While there was this universal apostasy, while

the Church of Christ as an organization was destroyed, and replaced

by the churches of men, yet just as when the sun goes down, there

still remains light in the sky--so, too, notwithstanding this apostasy

from the Church, there still were left fragments of truth among the

children of men, and some measure of truth thank God, through his

mercy, has always remained with man, not only with Christians but with

all God's children. He has not left himself in any of the ages of the

world without his witnesses, and he has sanctified all generations

of men with some measure of the truth; therefore, when we proclaim

this apostasy from the Christian religion and the destruction of the

Church of Christ, it does not follow that we hold that all truth, that

all virtue, had departed from the world, or that God had absolutely

withdrawn from his creation. Not so. The light of truth burned in the

bosom of good men; but it does not follow that because these fragments

of truth remained there was necessarily the organized Church of Christ

and divine authority in the world. These fragments of the truth could

remain in the so-called Christian parts of the world, as we now know

them to exist in what is called the heathen world. Relative to the

reforms you claim that your churches have fostered and the progress

of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted, you are aware,

gentlemen, that there is a certain class of thinkers among you--I mean

in the Christian world, not among "Mormons"--you are aware that there

is a school of thinkers among men who will tell you to your teeth, and

they will come very nearly proving the truth of it, that such progress

in civilization, in science, in arts, as the world has made in past

ages, has not been made _because_ of your churches, but _in spite_ of

them. They hold that your organizations have been found quite as often

against the progress of truth as standing in support of it. Taking the

whole time range into account, from the close of the second to the

opening of the nineteenth century, it would puzzle you to meet their

evidence and argument.

It is claimed that the brevity of our Address not only leaves much to

be desired, but that it is "positively misleading."

First, our reviewers claim that the address is misleading on the

subject of revelation. Still these reviewers are able to quote from

the Address as follows: "The theology of our Church is the theology

taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology of Scripture and

reason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture,

and the binding force of divinely inspired acts and utterances in ages

past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel

dispensation." That seems quite explicit to me. But, commenting upon

the passage, the reviewers say:

"Under this declaration lies the claim of the 'Mormon'

Church--constantly insisted upon in its congregation here and in

surrounding regions--that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and

Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, together with the living

oracles--_i.e._, certain members of the priesthood--are divinely

inspired and are, therefore, of equal authority with the Bible.

This claim, a knowledge of which is so necessary to even a

tolerable understanding of their system of belief, is not plainly

and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine contained

in the Address, but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in their

teachings in 'Mormon' communities."

Now, be honest, gentlemen, is it not repeated everywhere with just as

much emphasis as in "Mormon" communities in Utah? Isn't it a universal

proclamation that we make to the world? You know it is, and you prove

that it is from the very works you quote to establish the fact that we

believe in that doctrine, and which are of world-wide circulation. It

was a vile effort at misrepresentation on your part to make it appear

otherwise. But on the subject of revelation, let us go to the Address

itself. What is said upon the subject of revelation is found on pages

three and four, and fourteen and fifteen: "Our religion is founded

on the revelations of God," * * * "It," [the Church of Christ] "not

only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding

force of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also

declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation."

At page 14 of the Address this is said:

_"_It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such

a desire [i.e., to live in peace with our fellow citizens] is

impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of

their faith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient

times; that the priesthood of the Church constitute a body of

men who have each for himself, in the sphere in which he moves,

special right to such revelation; that the president of the Church

is recognized as the only person through whom divine communication

will come as law and doctrine to the religious body; that such

revelation may come at any time, upon any subject, spiritual or

temporal, as God wills; and finally that, in the mind of every

faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in whatsoever it

counsels, advises, or commands, is paramount."

Now, gentlemen, will you tell me how we could be more frank or explicit

on the subject of revelation? And when you charge that in this document

we have not dealt candidly with the subject of revelation, why did you

not quote this passage I have just read, with the other passages that

you have quoted? Were you not trying to do a little misleading on your

own account? Did you deal quite fairly with the Address when you failed

to quote this very explicit passage just read?

Complaint is made about our belief in "Living Oracles" in the Church,

_i.e._, certain members of the priesthood who are divinely inspired,

and who may interpret the revelations and the laws of the Church.

Well, gentlemen, why do you complain of that? Books do not make

churches. How came we by the ancient scriptures? The Old and the

New Testament, I mean. We are instructed in the Scriptures that no

scripture is of private interpretation, but that "holy men of God spake

as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost," hence your Old Testament

and your New Testament. They came into existence exactly in the same

way that our scripture is coming into existence. The living oracles

make scripture; scriptures do not make living oracles. And that is what

is the matter with you, gentlemen; you have been relying upon books

instead of relying upon the fountain source of all wisdom, truth and

knowledge, the inspiration and revelation of God to the human soul.

You are book-made teachers, rather than God-made teachers. That is

the difference between the living oracles in the Church of Christ and

those who speak as the Scribes and Pharisees were wont to speak. The

people in ancient times were able to discern the difference; for they

said of Jesus that he spoke as one having authority, and not as the

Scribes and the Pharisees. We are in harmony with the whole course of

God's dealings with his children in this matter of developing his word

in his Church. Yes, we have living oracles in the Church, thank God;

and when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost their utterances

are the very word of God; and when the teachings and discourses of the

elders of the Church shall have been sifted and tried in the fire of

time, much that they have said will prove to be scripture, and thus the

Church of Christ of this dispensation shall make scriptures, just as

the Church of Christ of former dispensations has done.

Now I read to you another passage from this review. Complaint is made

against our address upon the ground that it treats very briefly--all

too briefly, the doctrines of the Church. I do not know but what it

is open to just criticism on that ground; for our doctrines are but

stated, as you may say, in headlines. I presume the Presidency of the

Church did not think the occasion called for an elaborate exposition of

the principles of our faith, with chapter and verse given for warrant

of the authority on which they rested. But the Church had been under

the fire of severe criticism for a period of four years or more. Its

doctrines had been assailed, the practices of its people had been

misrepresented, their character traduced, and their "whole course of

conduct reprobated and condemned." Taking these circumstances under

advisement, the Presidency of the Church thought, I presume, the time

propitious for an utterance which would in outline tell the world what

we believed, and correct the misunderstanding that obtained respecting

our past history and present position. The address was not designed,

as I understand it, to be a complete exposition of our faith, but a

declaration of our present attitude.

On the doctrine of the Godhead these Christian gentlemen, our

reviewers, think that the statement of the Address to the effect

that we believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual

personages--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--is a declaration that will not

perhaps suggest Tritheism or materialism to Christians unfamiliar with

"Mormon" "theological terms." "But," they continue, "when the full

doctrine of the Deity, as taught in 'Mormon' congregations, is known,

it will at once be seen that no Christian can accept it. In fact," they

say, "the 'Mormon' Church teaches that God the Father has a material

body of flesh and bone; that Adam is the God of the human race; that

this Adam-God was physically begotten by another God; that the Gods

were once as we are now; that there is a great multiplicity of Gods;

that Jesus Christ was physically begotten by the heavenly Father of

Mary, his wife; that as we have a heavenly Father, so also we have a

heavenly mother; that Jesus himself was married, and was probably a

polygamist."

Let me say, in treating this group of statements, that these gentlemen

nowhere support these allegations by citations from our authoritative

works that the Church accepts as binding in doctrine; but they do

quote the commentaries of men, which often express only individual

opinions. I might dismiss this group of charges against the "Mormon"

Church, therefore, by this statement of the case: the Church is not

bound to defend any doctrine that is not explicitly found in the works

of the Church setting forth authoritatively her doctrines. But I do

not propose to dismiss the charges in any such fashion. I propose to

grapple with them, and meet them, I trust to your satisfaction and to

the satisfaction of these gentlemen.

First, as to God having a body of flesh and bone--being a material

personage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural,

unphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose

of this discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that

God is a spirit inhabiting a body of flesh and bone--an exalted, a

perfected man, if you will--the statement of the belief of these

reviewers as to the nature of God. And, by the way, they are so nearly

at one upon this doctrine, that the Church of England's creed, the

statement of the Episcopal church on the doctrine, will be acceptable,

I doubt not, to them all. On this subject these gentlemen hold: "There

is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body"--and that

term "body," by the way, does not mean to deny that God has a body in

fashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not material.

Continuing then--"without body, parts or passions; of infinite power,

wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both

visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three

Persons of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Ghost."

Of Jesus the creed says:

"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from

everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one

substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the

blessed virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect

natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined

together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ

very God and very Man."

Again:

"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body,

with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of

man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth,

until he return to judge all men at the last day."

Mark what is said here of Jesus. You say that "the Godhead and manhood"

in Jesus "were joined together in one person," that is, his spirit and

his body are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you

this question: Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then

is not God an exalted man according to your creed? Listen--and this is

your belief as expressed in your creed--"Christ did truly rise again

from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things

appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended

into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the

last day."

According to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved

into some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout

the universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial,

resurrected personage, a united spirit and body; and "The Godhead,

and Manhood" that are united in the Christ--the humanity and the

divinity--are "never to be divided." He is recognized and worshiped by

you, gentlemen, as "very God and very man." This, of course, scarcely

meets the description of the first paragraph of the creed used here,

where God is declared to be not matter, that is "without body, parts or

passions." But then that contradiction is your affair, your trouble,

not ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the fact that the

second part of your creed leads you closely to the "Mormon" doctrine

that God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to your

creed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his

return to judge all men at the last day.

And now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture

which says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, "and the

express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of

a person the Christ is, who "possessed all the fulness of the Godhead

bodily;" and who, when he declared that all power in heaven and in

earth had been given unto him, and he was in the act of sending his

disciples into all the world to teach and baptize in the authority of

the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--was a resurrected, immortal man, of

spirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the scripture teaches that

the Son was the express image of the Father's person, we conclude that

the Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, just as the

Son, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that "such as the

Father is, such is the Son;" and of course, it follows that, such as

the Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of

spirit, flesh and bone, united in one person, "very God and very man,"

just as Jesus is. And there are two separate personages, each distinct

from the other in person, two individuals, but both of the same divine

nature; and if two separate personages, individuals, may participate in

the one divine nature, it logically follows that a larger number than

two or three may participate in that nature. And hence the Scriptures

represent in many places the existence of a plurality of divine

personages, how many we do not know, and it does not matter. But we

hear of God saying, "Let us make man in our image; the man has become

as one of us, knowing good and evil;" "God standeth in the congregation

of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said Ye are

Gods, and all of you are children of the most High." The last a passage

of the Psalms, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification of

his own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel,

Michael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what

more fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the

great, presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants;

and the one with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What

sacrilege is there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should

be so?

Of your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will

say nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if

you expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines.

One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that

we believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen,

honestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for

him to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his

body grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth

of the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman;

that through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and

guided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in

your philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother,

but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father?

Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people,

there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having

a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our

faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother

as well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn

of ours on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's

soul, and which was given to this world through the inspired mind of

Eliza R. Snow; the hymn is known to us as "O My Father."

In the Scripture we read: "We have had fathers of the flesh, and we

did give them reverence, shall we not much rather be subject to the

Father of spirits and live?" So that we know we have had a father to

our spirits; but because we hold that the spirits of men have also a

mother in heaven, as well as a father, behold these reviewers complain

against us. Now, observe the peculiar position of these critics: It is

all right for Jesus to have a mother; but it is all wrong for him to

have a father. On the other hand, it is all right for men's spirits to

have a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our doctrine of

their also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in the world

is the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your views,

or the kind of beings with which you people heaven. One of your own

number, however, has thrown some light upon that subject, and has so

classified you--saving me the trouble--as to enable us to understand to

some extent your peculiar views. I have a book here that I am going to

use in this controversy. It is a new one. I got it three days ago, and

have read it nearly through in order to be prepared for this occasion.

It is the work of Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, and it

is a treatise on the _New Theology,_ just now much talked of in Europe.

He describes ministers of the gospel and gives them the classification

referred to a moment since, and which I think must needs be all right,

since it comes from a minister. He takes the average business man of

England, naming him "John Smith," for convenience, and he says this

about John:

"John Smith, with whom we used to go to school, and who has since

developed into a stolid British man of business, with few ideas

and a tendency toward conservatism--John is a stalwart, honest,

commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never

prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. His wife and

children go to church on Sundays. John seldom goes himself, because

it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended

to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting

any daring flights. He has a good-natured contempt for clergymen

in general, because he feels somewhat that, like women, they have

to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not

count for much in the ordinary affairs of life, they are a sort of

a third sex."

Now, ladies, I ask you to remember, in passing, that I am reading

the words of somebody else; their are not my words. The phrase

"half-fictitious reverence" is not mine. I think we ought to have real

reverence for women; no fictitious reverence at all.

The ministers are here in this passage described as "a sort of third

sex," and I am inclined to think that is right; for when a man in one

case objects to a person having a father, and in another case considers

it altogether unholy for persons to have a mother, I do not know how

else to classify him but as "a sort of third sex"-kind of a man.

There seems to be objection in the review to the idea of the marriage

relation existing in heaven and subsisting between divine beings.

Loud complaint is made, if you hold that the intelligences of heaven

obey the law of marriage. Let me ask you, Christian gentlemen, Who

instituted marriage? You will answer, God. Is it holy or unholy? Did

God institute an unholy thing and command men to engage in it? You will

have to say that marriage is holy, since God instituted it. Very good.

Then if it is holy, how do you make it out that it will be unholy for

divine personages to practice it? Is it not just as good for divine

personages as for you imperfect men? Can it be that your ideas of the

relationship of the sexes are so impure that you must needs regard that

association as so unholy as to be unworthy of divine beings? Let me

read to you what a great English author--Jeremy Taylor--says on this

subject of, marriage:

"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and

fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful

bee, it builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower,

and labors and unites into societies and republics, and sends out

colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps

order, and exercises many virtues and promotes the interest of

mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the

present constitution of the world."

Now, you prate to us about our belief, or the belief of some of us at

least, that divine personages are in this holy relationship. But tell

me what it is that has been the great civilizing force of this and all

other ages? What is it that best tempers man, and fits him for the

society of his fellows and for holy communion with God? There is no

force within the experience of man, that is so beneficial or ennobling

to him as the love and devotion of a pure, good woman; and for woman

there is nothing that is so sanctifying as the love of an upright,

honorable man, whose arm protects her and whose love shields her from

the evils of the world. These relations, blessed with the pledges of

their affection in off-spring, complete the circle of man's happiness,

and greatness, and exaltation of spirit in this world. It is the

civilizing force that stands pre-eminent above all others. And that

which sanctifies man here in this world may be trusted not to degrade

him in the eternities that are to come, but, on the contrary, will

contribute to his exaltation and his eternal glory. That is our faith,

at least, and we would not change it for all the sexless, hermaphrodite

existences that your warped minds paint in such glowing colors.

We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the

divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that

we believe that "as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may

become." The world usually shouts "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" at one

when he talks of such a possibility. But the world moves, I am happy to

say. Just now, in England, especially, there is a thought-revolution

under way. Some have declared that in importance and extent it is as

great as was the revolution of the sixteenth century, led by Martin

Luther. The present recognized leader of this movement is the Rev.

R. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, London, whose book I referred

to a moment ago. This "New Theology," so-called, has the outspoken

support of the _Christian Commonwealth,_ of London, a publication

of wide influence. A "Society for the Encouragement of Progressive

Religious Thought" has been organized to champion the ideas of the

"New Theology." Mr. Campbell numbers among his champions Dr. John

Clifford, the leading figure in the English Baptist church, also Dr.

R. F. Horton, chairman of the London Congregational Union. In America,

his sympathizers and opponents seem to be equally numerous. Mr. W. T.

Stead, of the _Review of Reviews,_ compares the present theological

ardor in London with that which marked Alexandria in the days of

Athanasius, "when fishmongers at their stalls discussed the doctrine of

the trinity." The strife of tongues has reached even to Germany, where

Prof. Harnack, the eminent theologian, interprets it as a proof that

the "formal theology of the creeds [your creeds, gentlemen,] is being

gradually displaced by the vital theology of experience."

I want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is

making its way among all churches. It is' not an organized movement.

No one appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as

being one of those pulsations of the "cosmic mind" which moves over the

people at intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be

astonished at the fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great

number of people who are accepting it as the "theology of experience."

Its fundamental principle is the recognition of the identity between

human nature and the divine nature.

In proof of it, I submit the following passages:

"Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the

representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the

fact that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost

sight of its own fundamental, the divineness of man." (Rev. R. J.

Campbell, in _Hibbert Journal,_ April, 1907, p. 487.)

"When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief,

let us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that

until he becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to

his help and share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of

the Christ incarnate for the redemption of the world." (_Ibid,_ p.

493.)

"The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence

of God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe

man to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the

self-manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real

distinction between humanity and the Deity.

"Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it

is limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should

be interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it

reverences Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, 'but so are we.'

* * * Every man is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of

the eternal Christ. * * * The new theology * * * is the gospel of

the humanity of God and the divinity of man." (Campbell, _London

Daily Mail,_ quoted in _Current Literature,_ April, 1907.)

"I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power

which produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus

becomes my gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I

say to myself, God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth

about myself I shall find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the

humanity was divinity and divinity humanity. * * * But you make

him only a man! No, reader, I do not. I make him the only man, and

there is a difference. We have only seen perfect manhood once,

and that was the manhood of Jesus. The rest of us have got to get

there. * * * We have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on

putting humanity and Deity into two separate categories.

"Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God."

Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older

Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in

man--God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of

difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional

orthodoxy on the other. The latter would restrict the description

'God manifest in the flesh' to Jesus alone; the new theology would

extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain

that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as it

ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and

significance to the earthly mission of Jesus--he came to show us

what we potentially are." (_The New_ _Theology,_ Campbell, pp. 82,

83.)

There is much more to the same effect, which I now pass.

I am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr.

Campbell--from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers

sway the religious thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the

thoughts of many more people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir

Oliver Lodge, who says in the _Hibbert Journal,_ one of the foremost

publications in the world on the subject of theology and philosophy,

with reference to the divinity of Jesus, and the identity of the divine

and human nature:

"The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers

and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though

still assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath

reality, that the notion of a God revealed in human form--born,

suffering, tormented, killed--has been utterly incredible. 'A

crucified prophet, yes; but a crucified God! I shudder at the

blasphemy,' is a known quotation which I cannot now verify; yet

that apparent blasphemy is the soul of Christianity. It calls

upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an executed God.

* * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is a God.

Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) 'The divinity of

Jesus' is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be

illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified

by the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it

can be freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and

can be recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of

Jesus, (Mark you--'the divinity of Jesus') and of all other noble

and saintly souls, in so far as they too have been inflamed by

a spark of Divinity--in so far as they too can be recognized as

manifestations of the Divine." (_Hibbert Journal_ for April, 1906,

pp. 654-5.)

That is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, "the

divinity of Jesus," and the divinity of "all other noble and saintly

souls"--the kinship of men and God. That is "Mormonism," and it was

proclaimed by the great prophet of the nineteenth century, half a

century before these modern minds were awakened to its grandeur and

to its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it running in the earth to

be glorified, for in it I recognize the very root principle of all

religion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with all

that is pure, uplifting and divine.

Now, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this "New

Theology;" but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord

with the principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The

doctrine of the immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the

universe and the divinity of man, instead of its having its origin

some fifteen or twenty years ago, and now finding expression in the

beautiful diction of Mr. Campbell and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it

was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at least over seventy years

ago. Concerning the immanence of God, he taught the following in 1832:

He first represents that the spirit of Christ is "in all and through

all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth." Then he adds:

"This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the

light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As

also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power

thereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars, and

the power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also, and

the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the

light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who

enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth

your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence

of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all

things; which giveth life to all things; which is the law by which

all things are governed; even the power of God who sitteth upon his

throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all

things."

The prophet further declared, in 1833, that "the elements are eternal,

and spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy.

The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of

God, even temples."

Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we

cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment

of the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental

principles of it are concerned--the immanence of God in the world,

and the identity of the race of man and divine beings--there can be

no question as to their accuracy. And those Christian people who are

not accepting these ideas are not moving forward with the far-flung

thought-line of God's revelations on these matters.

We next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the

reviewers that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine

is not candidly set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long

line of quotations, most of them from the _Seer,_ upon the subject of

priesthood; and insist that the priesthood involves the possession and

exercise of arbitrary power in all things, in things both spiritual

and temporal. I read to you a passage or two from the Address on the

subject of priesthood that you may see the injustice of this charge:

"We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the

authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the

power of the holy priesthood.

"We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages,

the holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age,

and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been

organized."

The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remark--but without

returning to quote again from the Address--"so it is declared; but

the teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein

candidly set forth." Then why did not you reviewers go to another part

of the document where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote

that? Following the fragment you do quote occurs this passage which

declares the express purposes for which the priesthood was given:

"We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching

of the gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered Israel,

and the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord."

But you reviewers say this "power extends not only to things spiritual,

but to secular matters as well." Within certain limitations, granted;

and the acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which

you charge with being uncandid. Here is the passage:

"That the Church claims the right to counsel and advise her members

in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is admitted. Leading

Church officials, men of practical experience in pioneer life,

have aided the people in establishing settlements throughout

the inter-mountain west, and have given them, gratuitously, the

benefit of their broader knowledge of things, through counsel and

direction, which the people have followed to their advantage; and

both the wisdom of the leaders and the good sense of the people

are vindicated in the results achieved. All this has been done

without the exercise of arbitrary power. It has resulted from wise

counsels, persuasively given and willingly followed."

But you insist that there is "tyranny and arbitrary ruler-ship" over

a community which indorses the priesthood's high claims. I deny the

existence of such tyranny as a fact among the "Mormon" people who

indorse the priesthood's high claims; and I deny the existence of

arbitrary power as a doctrine of the Church, and so does the Address

which you pretend to review. Here is the passage:

"We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church" [why

didn't you gentlemen quote that]; "and this because its government

is moral government purely, and its forces are applied through

kindness, reason, and persuasion. Government by consent of the

governed is the rule of the Church."

Following is a summary of the word of the Lord, setting forth the

principles on which the Church government is to be administered:

"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the

powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled

nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they

may be conferred upon men, it is true; but when they undertake to

cover their sins, or gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or

exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of

the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit

of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the

priesthood or the authority of that man. No power or influence

can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only

by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and

by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall

greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile."

Gentlemen, those are our principles. Why didn't you quote them fairly

and fully, instead of charging arbitrary power, when it is expressly

denied by what we regard as the very word of God? Honestly, now, did

you deal fairly with us when you came to this part of your review? But,

you say, "given the power of the 'Mormon' priesthood, that it should

not be used is incompatible with the known facts of human nature."

Well, if it does attempt arbitrary power, it will be in violation of

our principles, and not in harmony with them; and that fact furnishes

a basis for the correction of any abuses that may arise. And while it

is true that here and there, throughout a long experience, there may

have been individual instances of the exercise of arbitrary rule in the

Church, yet speaking for the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints, as a whole, I challenge you to duplicate the same

honorable conduct anywhere within the experience of men, where those

entrusted with power have so uniformly abstained from abusing it while

exercising the functions of government. The Latter-day Saints love

their leaders, living and dead, and not without cause, I assure you;

for these men have labored in season and out of season, persuading,

counseling, advising, and guarding the interests of their people with

an unselfishness that tells us something of the love of God, and that

without effort at personal aggrandizement or enrichment. The lives and

labors of the priesthood are a vindication of its divine origin and

spirit.

The review further says that when once "the Church's claim for its

priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters

logically follows." But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact,

or at least admit it in some form, that the address you were reviewing

_emphatically excepted out of its jurisdiction the sphere of civil

government?_ You could have edified those whom you are so anxious to

enlighten with such passages as these:

"The laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the

Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."