That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the

Church, has been promulgated for the state. Such laws and revelations

as have been given are solely for the government of the Church. On the

subject of the relations of the Church and the State the Address says:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to

the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the

non-interference of church authority in political matters; and

the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the

performance of his political duties. If, at any time, there has

been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in

violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church.

"We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:

"The absolute separation of church and state;

"No domination of the state by the Church;

"No church interference with the functions of the state;

"No state interference with the functions of the church, or with

the free exercise of religion;

"The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of

ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;

"The equality of all churches before the law."

Again I read from the review, and this time I deal with a passage

which the reviewers themselves say "dwarfs everything mentioned in the

Address." We shall see what comes of it:

"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 never 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 corroborative evidence."

Gentlemen--Christian gentlemen--you who are such sticklers for

candor--have you spoken truly here, and in a matter which you say

dwarfs everything else mentioned in the Address? What of the testimony

of three certain witnesses, who claim that they stood with Joseph

Smith wrapt in open vision, in the light of day; who give their most

solemn asseveration that a holy angel came into their presence on

that occasion, laid before them certain ancient documents, turned

over the leaves, conversed with them, and at the same time they heard

the voice of God saying that the translation of the Book of Mormon by

Joseph Smith was true, and commanded them to bear witness of it to

all the world--which they did, over their own signatures, and that

testimony is printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon? What of

the testimony of eight other witnesses, to whom Joseph Smith handed

the book of plates, and they handled and hefted them, and passed them

one to the other, and examined the engravings thereon; and they gave

their testimony to the world to this effect, which testimony has been

published with every edition of the Book of Mormon given to the world.

Did you overlook this corroborative testimony? Is it true that you

gave so slight attention to the subject you were reviewing that you

could make a misstatement of the kind just mentioned? Were you so

unacquainted with it? Must we think you so dull? If we acquit you of

stupidity, what then? Must we not think of you as uttering falsehood?

What of the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, who stood wrapt in vision in

the Kirtland temple with Joseph Smith? And of Sidney Rigdon, wrapt in

vision with Joseph Smith, from which resulted their conjoint testimony

concerning that grandest of revelations ever given to man on the

doctrine of the future degrees of glory in which men will live in the

eternities? I do not desire to use harsh language; I will not say that

you wilfully, maliciously, ponderously and atrociously lied; because

while all that might be true, one would be accused of harshness if he

said it; but I will say that you have economized the truth, and you may

settle it with your own consciences.

Our subject increases in interest as you get into it, and perhaps it is

well it is so, else your interest might falter. We come now to a very

interesting topic--that of polygamy. This is the darling theme of the

reviewers, and so we will not slight it by saying nothing about it. I

had best read what they say on this point:

"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 ever since the agreement of the Church to discontinue

them, we know; that they cannot be celebrated without the sanction

of the Church 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."

Throughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not

quite candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that

in the State of Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it,

who does not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints has stopped the practice of, or sanctioning and performing

plural marriages. I am of the opinion that everybody is settled in his

conviction in relation to that matter.

It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved

in the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church.

No proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and

variety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this

description. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's

manifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was

given that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the

law, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition

was not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by

refraining from contracting such marriages within the United States

would not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto.

The matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the

conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages

in all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is

not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United

States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general

conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world.

Hence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were

everywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view

that that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement

to discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural

marriages within the United States--when that view was persisted in, I

say, there was but one thing left, and that was to conclude that such

persons were out of harmony with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles

held that view; they were declared by their associates to be out of

harmony with their brethren in these matters, they tendered their

resignations which were accepted; and since that time there has been

no question in the Church, or out of it, as to where the Church stands

on the subject of discontinuing plural marriages, and I do not believe

that there is any doubt on that subject existing in the minds of the

gentlemen who formulated this review.

In confirmation of this I submit the letter of resignation of John W.

Taylor:

"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905.

"_To the Council of the Twelve Apostles_:

"DEAR BRETHREN:--I hereby tender to you my resignation as a member

of the council of the twelve apostles, as it is clear to me that I

have been out of harmony with you on some very important matters

which have apparently brought reproach upon the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I wish to state in the first place that I have not violated the

laws of the United States, nor of the State of Utah, in relation

to polygamous or plural marriages; also that the authorities of

the Church have not directed or authorized me to do so, or to do

anything contrary to the rules of the Church as adopted by that

body.

"But I find that I have been out of harmony with the said

authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued

by President Woodruff and adopted by the general conference, on

October 6, 1890, and also as to the meaning of the last clause

of the petition for amnesty to President Benjamin Harrison in

December, 1891. I have always believed that the government of the

United States had jurisdiction only with its own boundaries, and

that the term 'laws of the land' in the manifesto meant merely

the laws of the United States. I find now that this opinion is

different to that expressed by the Church authorities, who have

declared that the prohibition against plural marriages extended to

every place and to every part of the Church. It is doubtless true

that this view of the matter has been given by President Woodruff

and others, but I have never taken that as binding upon me or the

Church, because it [such interpretation] was never presented for

adoption by 'common consent,' as was the manifesto itself, and I

have disputed its authority as a law or a rule of the Church.

"I acknowledge that I received a request from President Joseph F.

Smith, by letter, to appear as a witness in the Reed Smoot case

before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections, but I

declined to do so because, while I recognized his right to direct

me in Church affairs, I did not think his authority extended to

civil affairs to the extent that I should expose my family concerns

and be questioned and be held up to public ignominy as some of my

brethren were before that body, and I still hold the same views

upon that matter.

"Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these

subjects, and I have been called in question concerning them, I

now submit to their discipline, and, to save further controversy,

tender this my resignation, and hope for such clemency in my case

as they may deem right and just and merciful.

"Your brother,

(Signed) "JOHN W. TAYLOR."

The explanation accompanying the resignation of Elder Cowley was of

similar import.

Another complaint of our reviewers is that polygamy is only abrogated

as to practice, and that belief in the divinity of the principle is

still held by the Latter-day Saints.

Well, gentlemen, what of it? Whose business is it? Do you hold that you

may enter the sacred precincts of the mind and uproot our opinions?

Your law gives you the right to punish overt acts; but you have no

law and no right to enter the domain of conscience and interfere with

what is held there as the truth. Hands off here! Our belief is our

own. We have a right to our opinions. If you don't believe them, that

is nothing to us, we do. And if you have not succeeded in converting

us, we can't help that. You have got all you deserve out of this

controversy on our marriage system. Properly this was a question which

belonged to the dominion of reason, scripture and polemics. You should

have convinced us, as ministers of Christ, from the word of God and

from the nature of the things involved, that the principle itself was

untrue. But you were not content to leave it to the arbitrament of

discussion and reason; you must needs play upon the prejudices of the

masses and induce them to belabor Congress with their petitions until

your inimical legislation was put upon the statute books; and the

crusade against the practice of our marriage system was declared, and

those who practiced it were raided with unabated vigor for years. We

yielded at last to superior force, not to your arguments, because we

successfully met them. You remember the occasion, do you not, of the

chaplain of the Senate of the United States coming to this very forum,

and here discussing the question, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?"

That your champion was vanquished in the contest is evidenced from

the fact that we publish as a campaign document both sides of

the Pratt-Newman discussion. If you have not convinced us of the

incorrectness of our principles, it must be because of the lameness of

your reasoning, the weakness of your argument, and you must be content

with the result so long as we do not carry into practice that principle

which we believe. We have a right to our belief in that or any other

doctrine as abstract principles, whether our belief suits you or not,

and we have the right to freely express that belief, and if you don't

like it, you may go hang.

Again the review says: "No denial is made of the practice of polygamous

living. The 'Address' admits that authoritative figures officially

collected show 897 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

increased."

It is true the address brings down the figures no further than 897 in

1902; but the address does say "and many of these have since passed

away." Besides, there was a statement made upon the floor of the Senate

of the United States, based upon official figures, to the effect that

the number had been reduced to at least 500. Here is the passage:

"Careful statistics have been taken and preserved, and will be

found in the testimony, which show that this number has gradually

decreased until there was at the time the testimony closed [before

the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections having in charge

the Smoot case] not to exceed five hundred such households in

existence."--(_Congressional Record,_ p. 3269.)

Now, gentlemen, here was an opportunity for you to exercise a little

generosity instead of juggling with alleged conditions in Utah, so

as to express your belief that these cases of polygamous living have

increased rather than diminished, you could have called attention to

what were the facts in the case--that it was said upon the floor of the

Senate of the United States that the reduction had been to 500, and

that time would soon obliterate this question from among our problems.

Let us discuss for a moment this subject of polygamous living. It is

doubtless a difficult problem. It has been difficult for some few men

to discern the line of duty in the matter; but, thank God, the most of

our brethren have not found it difficult to determine what their duty

was in the premises. Notwithstanding that through interpretations the

meaning of the Manifesto has been made to cover polygamous living as

well as new marriages; and logically, however much it may have been

misunderstood, that conclusion was inevitable; and it is conceded that

the law of the land forbids the continuance of these relations--yet,

in the face of these conditions, men have concluded that their moral

obligations to; their families demanded that they should be true to

the relationships into which they had entered in good faith, and under

what they regarded as the sanctions of the law of God. You, gentlemen

of the Ministerial Association do me the honor to quote some words of

mine uttered seven years ago, while in attendance upon Congress, and

trying to maintain the seat that had been given me by the suffrages

of the people of my state. I wish now to repeat what I said then,

though in better form, because the words I uttered at that time were

somewhat garbled, by the report made of them--not intentionally

garbled, by Mr. Arthur McEwen, who reported them. I will say that for

him, because I believe it, and he is since and recently dead. But so

far as I am concerned, I stand exactly where I did seven years ago,

namely, that though the Church proclaimed against the continuance of

that relationship contracted under her sanctions, though the state by

statute proclaimed against it, neither Church nor state can dissolve

the moral obligations I feel I am under to discharge what I regard as

a moral duty. I ask you, gentlemen, to consider this proposition. What

prompts this adherence to these relationships by myself and other men

in our Church? You must concede that the most of those involved in

these relations have passed middle life. They have entered upon the

period of the "sere and yellow leaf." You cannot say their conduct is

prompted by passion or lust; "for the heyday in the blood is cooled

and waits upon the judgment." What is it then that prompts so many men

and women in the "Mormon" Church to remain true to those relations

entered upon in plural marriage? They look into each other's faces--the

bloom of youth has passed, the brightness of the eye is somewhat

dimmed, the suppleness of the form has passed away. But these men and

women have lived their lives under circumstances that tend to endear

men and women to each other. The trials of life, even under ordinary

circumstances, result in that; but when what they regard as oppression

and danger surround them, it is calculated all the more to draw them

more closely to each other in their affections. These men and women

have endured all sorts of trials for each other in addition to the

ordinary trials of life. They, as well as monogamists, have stood

hands clasped by open graves, and have known the purifying effects of

great sorrows. In addition to such experiences, many of the men have

endured exile and imprisonment, and wives have been exiled from their

homes, their kindred and their friends, and have cast their lot among

strangers, rather than to sever the ties by which they were bound to

their husbands; and back of it all stood the conviction that they were

doing God's service--upholding a principle that he had revealed, and

entrusted to them for vindication and making it honorable among men.

These are facts well known in this community. These men and women were

not of the criminal element: their conduct was not prompted by a desire

to defy law; they were acting and are acting now from the highest and

noblest motives--religious conviction of duty. And so I say, for one

of this number--for myself--I stand exactly as I have always stood

upon this question of fulfilling the obligation these relationships

have imposed; and I shall, so far as possible, still respond to the

dictates of honor. I shall read my duty by the light of that conscience

God gives me--I shall respond to the voice of love and honor, and you

reviewers may make the most of it.

[You will say, such an attitude is inconsistent with the utterances

of the Church leaders before the courts, and especially before the

Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. So be it then. It is

an inconsistency that has the promptings of honor back of it, and

under such circumstances, for one, I shall trust God to forgive such

inconsistency.]

It is said by you gentlemen that no apology can white-wash the outlawry

of Joseph F. Smith. Gentlemen, his conduct needs no apology, his honor

needs no vindication, his position needs no defense; it needs only to

be stated. And as you have not stated it, I will; or, what is better,

I will let him state it for himself. On a recent occasion, before the

court in this city, President Smith said these noble words:

"In the tacit, general understanding that was had in 1890, and the

years subsequent thereto, regarding what were classed as the old

cases of cohabitation, I have appreciated the magnanimity of the

American people in not enforcing a policy that in their minds was

unnecessarily harsh, but which assigned the settlement of this

difficult problem to the onward progress of time.

"Since the years 1890 a large percentage of the polygamous families

have ceased to exist, until now the number within the jurisdiction

of this court is small, and marriages in violation of the law have

been and now are prohibited. In view of this situation, which has

fixed with certainty a result that can easily be measured up, the

family relations in the old cases of that time have been generally

left undisturbed.

"So far as my own case is concerned, I, like others who had entered

into solemn religious obligations, sought to the best of my ability

to comply with all requirements pertaining to the trying position

in which we were placed. I have felt secure in the protection of

that magnanimous sentiment which was extended as an olive branch

in 1890 and subsequent years to those old cases of plural family

relationships which came within its purview, as did mine.

"When I accepted the manifesto issued by President Woodruff I did

not understand that I would be expected to abandon and discard my

wives. Knowing the sacred covenants and obligations which I had

assumed by reason of these marriages, I have conscientiously tried

to discharge the responsibilities attending them without being

offensive to anyone. I have never flaunted my family relations

before the public, nor have I felt a spirit of defiance against

the law; but, on the contrary, I have always desired to be a

law-abiding citizen.

"In considering the trying position in which I have been placed, I

trust that your honor will exercise such leniency in your sentence

as law and justice will permit."

I say that Joseph F. Smith's position needs only to be stated to

the world, and the manhood of America will applaud his attitude,

long-haired ministerial associations and short-haired women's

organizations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But what is the use of talking in this strain to you gentlemen? This

is a question for statesmen, and you cannot be accused of possessing

any of those qualities. That, however, is perhaps your misfortune, not

your fault. When I take into account the intellectual and physical

capital with which you start in life, I sometimes marvel that you have

done so well. Your vocation is not always left to your own choice.

The position is frequently chosen for you by your parents, having

in view your physical and intellectual endowments. The ministry is

generally recognized as a genteel sort of profession. It promises a

certain social standing. It secures you from the dust and sweat and

physical toil of a mechanic's life, and from the brain-sweat of secular

professional life and struggle. It takes you out of the turmoil of

trade and commerce, and out of the fierce contests of political life,

and from the dangers of a career in army and in navy. Then, you know,

as a class you were not physically strong; a larger proportion of your

number are consumptives, neurotics, anemics, paranoiacs, and the like,

than in any other of the professions; and so this genteel profession is

quite frequently selected for you by your parents, and for the reasons

here set forth. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I am

dealing with you as a class. After your calling is selected for you,

you pass into the schools, colleges and universities, and there you

follow a rather kid-glove course of study. You will not need much of

mathematics, so you pay little attention to that subject; you will need

more of _belles lettres,_ of moral and metaphysical philosophy, of

languages and rhetoric, and eloquence. So your studies run along those

lines, and after completing this course you step from your colleges

into pulpits to instruct the world, at the same time knowing less about

that world than any other class of men whatsoever. Then, going into

that world, you are soon sequestrated into a very narrow portion of

it. As a rule, you have to deal most with christenings, with weddings,

with funerals; but you shine most at social functions, more especially

at pink teas. So that, all things considered, neither by your original

endowments nor by your environments nor by your training are you

prepared to meet the broad questions that concern humanity.

As was stated in the passage I read from Mr. Campbell's book a while

ago, your class "do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of

life." On practical questions you are relegated to the rear, and your

influence in community life grows less and ever less with the passing

years. Do you think I overstate the case? Then let me quote to you

what one of your own number says of you--again Mr. Campbell in his

up-to-date book before quoted. Before giving the quotation, however,

let me disclaim the existence of any personal animosity towards you.

All that I say is meant in the very best of feeling. I speak not from

malice concerning you, but from experience. I have been meeting your

class, gentlemen, for now thirty years; and have had controversies of

various kinds with it during that time, and I know you as a class quite

thoroughly. I speak from experience, not malice, and comparing you as a

class with other classes of men whom I have known, it is just a plain,

solemn truth that you are, as a class, narrow, bigoted, intolerant,

petty; and I say that in the very best of feeling. And now the

passage of Mr. Campbell's book. Speaking of the decline of organized

Christianity and its ministry, he says:

"For a generation or more in every part of Christendom there has

been a steady drift away from organized religion as represented

by the churches, and the question is being seriously asked

whether Christianity can much longer hold its own. Protestant

controversialists frequently draw attention to the decline of

church-going in Latin countries as evidence of the decay of

sacerdotalism, particularly in the church of Rome. But outside

Latin countries it is not one whit more noticeable in the church

of Rome than in any other church. The masses of the people on

the one hand and the cultured classes on the other are becoming

increasingly alienated from the religion of the churches. A London

daily paper made a religious census some years ago and demonstrated

that about one-fifth of the population of the metropolis attended

public worship, and this was a generous estimate. Women, who are

more emotional, more reverent, and more amenable to external

authority than men, usually form the majority of the worshipers

at an ordinary service. Mr. Charles Booth in his great work on

the _Life and Labor of the People in London_ asserts that the

churches are practically without influence of any kind on the

communal life. This I believe to be an exaggeration, but it

will hardly be denied that the average working, business, or

professional man looks upon the churches almost with indifference.

In many cases this indifference passes into hostility or contempt.

Intelligent men take little notice of preacher and sermons, and the

theologically-minded layman is such a rarity as to be note-worthy.

Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that much of the

moral earnestness of the nation and of social redemptive effort

exists outside the churches altogether. * * * The plain, bald fact

remains that the churches as such are counting for less and less

in civilization in general and our own nation in particular. One

of the ablest of our rising young members of parliament, a man

of strong religious convictions and social sympathies, recently

declared that we were witnessing the melancholy spectacle of a

whole civilization breaking away from the faith out of which it

grew."

As I remarked, I desired to read that passage to you, that you may know

that my charge that the people are slipping away from the influences

of the churches and the ministry was not inconsiderately made. Of

course, the decline in the influence of the churches marks also the

decline in the influence of the ministry, hence the pertinency of

this quotation. What is said by this authority concerning conditions

in England is equally and more emphatically true of our own country

than it is of England. That is, the decline of the influence of the

ministry and churches in the United States is more marked than in

England. Ministers, then, don't count for much when it comes to dealing

with practical questions. And the conditions that have and do exist

in Utah, and that come down to us out of a remarkable past connected

with our former plural marriages are practical questions. Questions

for statesmen, not for sectarian priests and their trundle-bed notion

of things. It is a question for men of blood and brains, and when it

was referred to such a body of men not long since--the Senate of the

United States--they at least refused to take the radical steps you

suggested. Through four long years you raked the country as with a

fine-toothed comb to gather up your evidence and to convince the United

States Senate that they ought to follow your dictation, to assail the

Latter-day Saints, and to break up and terrify, as a few years ago

our community was broken up and terrified by a severe, rigid and, I

may say, cruel administration of this law against polygamous living;

and after you have done your best, submitted your evidence--employed

the best counsel you could find, and after you have awakened all the

prejudices to which you could appeal, the court has turned you down,

gentlemen! You could not move that body to adopt your view of the case.

I made some remarks this afternoon upon the subject of the toleration

for those conditions respecting polygamous living that have come to us

out of the past. I do not desire to be understood as standing in any

defiant attitude against the public sentiment of our state or of our

nation. The fact of the matter is, these ministerial friends of ours

are disposed to make mountains out of mole-hills, and are representing

to the world as conditions existing here things that do not exist.

The Latter-day Saints are not a law-defying body of people, but on

the contrary they have manifested an obedience and respect for law,

and you shall find no better order or a more universal acquiescence

in and obedience to law than you find here in the settlements of the

Latter-day Saints. We believe in law and in order and in being subject

to kings and presidents, in honoring and magnifying the law; but the

conditions here in Utah are unusual in respect of this one matter of

polygamous living. The conditions, however, are well understood by our

non-"Mormon" friends; and but for the agitation of these ministerial

meddlers and a few disreputable and disgruntled politicians, the

peculiar conditions which confront the community, and in which some

of the best men of the community are involved, would go to their

settlement along the lines in which they are being settled, namely:

by the termination of these relations in death as, one by one, the

parties pass out of existence to the grave. Now, in order to convince

you that I am right in this view of the case I shall read an extract

from the testimony of a prominent citizen of our state, a non-"Mormon,"

who I believe, better than anyone else, in the testimony he gave

before the committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, in the

Smoot case, described conditions in Utah as they are. He analyzed the

situation here and told the truth in respect of it. I shall read his

testimony--never mind who he is just for the present, but let me read

to you what he said before the committee. Keep in mind that he is a

non-"Mormon" and one not at all prejudiced in favor of the Latter-day

Saints:

_"The Chairman_ said: Will you state why it is that those who live

in polygamous cohabitation today are not prosecuted?

_"The witness:_ I will do so as well as I can, and I simply state

here the views, as I know them, of what are termed the 'old guard'

of the Liberal party, Republicans and Democrats, who fought the

Church party in the days when it was a power. Those men have felt,

and still feel, that if the Church will only stop new plural

marriages and will allow this matter to die out and pass away, they

will not interfere with them. First of all, of course we want peace

in Utah. We would like to be like the rest of the country. We want

to make of it a state like the states of the rest of the Union.

We want the 'Mormon' people to be like the rest of the American

people; but we realize that there is a condition there which the

people of the east do not--and, I presume, cannot--understand.

You cannot make people who have been brought up under our system

of government and our system of marriage believe that folks can

sincerely and honestly believe that it is right to have more than

one wife, and yet those people believe it. They are a God-fearing

people, and it has been a part of their faith and their life.

"Now, to the eastern people their manner of living is looked upon

as immoral. Of course it is, viewed from their standpoint. Viewed

from the standpoint of a 'Mormon' it is not. The 'Mormon' wives

are as sincere in polygamy as the 'Mormon' men, and they have no

more hesitation in declaring that they are one of several wives of

a man than a good woman in the east has in declaring that she is

the single wife of a man. There is that condition. There are those

people--

_"Senator Hopkins_ interrupted to say: Do you mean to say that a

'Mormon' woman will as readily become a plural wife as she would a

first wife?

_"The witness:_ Those who are sincere in the 'Mormon' faith--who

are good "Mormons," so called--I think would just as readily become

plural wives (that has been my experience) as they would become

the first wife. That condition exists. There is a question for

statesmen to solve."

You will remember that is what I said to these ministerial gentlemen

this afternoon. The witness continued:

"We have not known what was best to do. It has been discussed, and

people would say that such and such a man ought to be prosecuted.

Then they would consider whether anything would be gained; whether

we would not delay instead of hastening the time that we hope to

live to see; whether the institution would not flourish by reason

of what they would term persecution. And so, notwithstanding a

protest has been sent down here to you, I will say to you the

people have acquiesced in the condition that exists.

_"Mr. Van Colt,_ an Attorney: You mean the Gentiles?

_"The witness:_ Yes, the Gentiles."

The witness who gave that testimony was Judge O. W. Powers, and you

know, and all Utah knows, that he spoke the truth.

Mr. J. Martin Miller writing to the _Newark_ (New Jersey) _News,_

represents Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds as holding the views expressed in

the accompanying quotation on conditions in Utah:

"I found a very prominent former Newarker, in the person of Rabbi

Louis G. Reynolds, of the Synagogue B'nai Israel here. He was rabbi

of the Oheb Shalem Synagogue, Newark, from 1892 to '96.

"There is a Jewish population of about 500 in Salt Lake City, said

Rabbi Reynolds. Aside from that particular feature of their creed,

polygamy, I think the 'Mormons' are a very good people. Everything

indicates that polygamy is dying out and that the Church means to

obey the law. Aside from polygamy, I am of the opinion that in

morals the 'Mormons' will average higher than the Gentiles who live

here. The records show that the 'Mormons' furnish a very small

quota of the vice of the city. As a rule, they are a temperate

people. If Senator Smoot is unseated, would the influence of the

'Mormons' in the state and nation be diminished? I inquired. Not

in the least; it would make them feel their persecution more than

now and cause them to have less faith in the fairness of the

government. They know the government cannot be fooled to any great

extent, and that polygamy must go. Now that the tendency on the

part of the 'Mormons' is to abandon polygamy, the purposes of the

government in making better Americans of the 'Mormon' people than

they are now will be better subserved by allowing the influential

men among the 'Mormons' to help the government bring about the

desired end. I say this with Senator Smoot in mind, and in view

of the believed fact among every class in Utah that he is not a

polygamist. He is one of the most level-headed businessmen in Utah,

and is exceedingly popular with all classes. Polygamy was deeply

rooted. The people for the most part were born in it. Why humiliate

these innocent victims by persecuting them unnecessarily when

they show an inclination to rid themselves and the country of the

blot? The United States is a conciliatory and humane government. I

was born in Russia and can appreciate this government. It is the

kind of a government that begets loyalty in its subjects. Will

these erring children of Utah, who in all probability are not

now contracting any new polygamous marriages, be better citizens

if they are hounded and misrepresented by agitators, or if they

are fairly but firmly dealt with by the government and given a

reasonable chance to prove their good intentions and their good

citizenship? There is a very strong element throughout the country

that takes absolutely no stock in this ecclesiastical warfare that

is being made from Salt Lake City against the 'Mormons.' It has

been plainly demonstrated very recently in the case of one minister

here who carried on a bitter crusade, that was worse than a waste

of energy, that such methods are reactive in the extreme."

These statements are thoughtful and fair; and no one acquainted with

existing conditions can doubt their truthfulness.

And why have they, and why do they, the non-"Mormons," acquiesce in

these conditions, and tacitly consent that this question should be

settled by the grave. First, because they recognize the honesty and

the purity of the lives of the people who are involved in the "Mormon"

system of marriage; and they know that it was the promptings of a

religious duty that involved them in that system, and not criminal

instincts nor worldly or ungodly lust.

That is what they know to begin with--and that the people in these

mountains were contending for the persistence--and they hoped the

triumph--of what to them was a religious principle. That is why

honorable non-"Mormons" respect honorable and upright "Mormons" who

are doing their duty as God gives them the light to see that duty.

And, moreover, their minds doubtless go back to the settlement of this

question by the Constitutional convention of this state of which,

perhaps some of you will remember, I was a member. The people of the

United States, speaking through the Congress of the United States,

demanded of the people of Utah, as a condition precedent to statehood,

that their Constitution should provide "That polygamous or plural

marriages are forever prohibited." When the Constitutional convention

met that proposition--desiring to meet it in good faith, they not

only made the constitutional declaration that polygamous or plural

marriages should forever be prohibited, but they also in order to make

that effective, took the territorial law--which was but a copy of the

Congressional law, which defined "polygamous or plural marriages" and

prescribed for that offense the penalties, the fines and imprisonments,

and which also defined polygamous living and prescribed its penalties.

The constitutional convention, I say, took that enactment and cut it

square in two, adopting the part that defined the offense of polygamous

or plural marriages, and prescribed its punishments, and made it,

with its penalties, part of the Constitution; but the part of the law

relating to polygamous living or unlawful cohabitation, they left out

entirely. The question was brought up on the floor of the convention,

and debated in open session. The leader of this movement, who advocated

the adoption of this part of the law for the Constitution--for it

was rather an unusual proceeding in constitution making, intended,

however, in good part, to meet a very unusual condition; the question

was put to him in substance: If you thus cut the law in two, and

prohibit polygamous or plural marriages but say nothing about unlawful

cohabitation or polygamous living, will not the inference be--will

not the conclusion be, that you do not intend to include unlawful

cohabitation in the offenses defined and made punishable under this

constitutional provision? The answer was that such would be the

implication--that the intent was to leave the offense out. That was

not only the inference, but it was the understanding--say what men

will--in that convention. The record bears out the statement I make of

it, because it was not done in a corner, or in the dark, it was out

in the open, and some of those who now join you reverend gentlemen in

this agitation against men who are seeking, under hard conditions, to

respond to the promptings of duty and conscience--some of those who now

join you in your clamor, were parties to and sanctioned that settlement

in the constitutional convention. [1]

[Footnote 1: This subject is discussed circumstantially and at length

in my reply to Senator Kearns' U.S. senate speech,--"Defense of the

Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 209-218.]

The subject of "Mormon" loyalty is briefly discussed in this review,

and apparently the only way you reviewers could meet the treatment

of the subject was by a sneer. You say, "It is not recalled that

any Christian Church in this country has found itself under a like

necessity." That is, to avow and defend its loyalty to the government.

Very true, gentlemen, but do you recall that any other church that has

been assailed with misrepresentation and charges of disloyalty as the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been? And so, being

assailed, we necessarily make defense. I pass the rest that could

be said on that subject, excepting this, that when you refer to the

conflict we had with the general government during territorial days,

I take you to witness that the controversy was not of our making, but

it was the result in part of your sectarian agitation, your arousing

a popular sentiment, exercising church influence upon Congress which

led that body to enact laws against a principle of our religion. We

contested those laws for every inch of the ground, until the court

of final appeal pronounced judgment on the controversy. Was not that

our right? And does it necessarily involve us in or leave us open to

the charge of disloyalty, because we thus contended for religious

freedom--the right to practice what to us was part of our religion? Let

us remind you, gentlemen, that had the people of the first Christian

age, and the people of the sixteenth century followed your idea of

immediately surrendering when religious principle was attacked, there

would have been no Christian religion at all, there would have been no

such thing as Protestant sects. We contested the grounds legally, and

fought as hard as we could for a religious principle; that is the head

and front of our offending.

These gentlemen Reviewers express two fears. One is that they will

be charged, because of issuing this review, with misrepresentation.

Well, I don't wonder at that, and I think we have proven that you

have misrepresented. But they also fear that we will charge them with

persecution. Gentlemen, we acquit you of the intention of persecution.

When the Revs. Phineas Ewing, Dixon, Cavanaugh, Hunter, Bogart, Isaac

McCoy, Riley, Pixley, Woods and others carried on an agitation in

Missouri against "Mormonism" and the "Mormons" that resulted in burning

hundreds of our homes and driving our people--including women and

children, remember--to bivouac out in the wilderness at an inclement

season of the year; when the mob incited by these reverends, your

prototypes, gentlemen, laid waste our fields and gardens, stripped

our people of their earthly possessions, keeping up that agitation

until twelve thousand or fifteen thousand people were driven from the

state of Missouri, dispossessed of several hundred thousand acres of

land--two hundred and fifty thousand acres, to be exact--which they

had entered, and rendered them homeless--we might call, we do call,

that persecution. When the Rev. Mr. Levi Williams led the mob that

shot to death Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith in Carthage

prison, and when the Rev. Mr. Thomas S. Brockman led the forces against

Nauvoo, after the great body of the people had withdrawn from that

city, and expelled the aged, the widow and the fatherless, and laid

waste the property of the people--we think we are justified in calling

that persecution, of which right reverend gentlemen were the chief

instigators. And when in this territory some years ago one wave of

agitation followed another, of which your class, and some of you, were

chief movers, until a reign of terror was produced, and a regime was

established under which men guilty at most of a misdemeanor, could

nevertheless be imprisoned for a term of years covering a lifetime,

and fined to the exhaustion of all they possessed, under the beautiful

scheme of segregating the offense into numerous counts in each

indictment; and when in that reign of terror women were compelled to

clasp their little ones to their breasts and go out among strangers,

exiled from their homes--we might be inclined to call that persecution.

But our experience has been such that we scorn to call such attacks as

this review of yours persecution. It does not rise, gentlemen, I assure

you, to that bad eminence. So we acquit you of any intent in your

review to persecute us. You need not fear that such a charge will be

made, we are not so thin-skinned as all that. Besides, gentlemen, your

power is no longer equal to your malice, and so we do not believe you

will ever be able to persecute us again.

And now I want to turn "reviewer" myself a while. I want to review some

things which the ministers of the association before us stand for, at

least some of them stand for what I shall refer to; and I only regret

that we can't take up each one in turn and examine his doctrines. But

we all proceed, as far as we can, on this occasion. I turn "reviewer"

because I want to show our young people who are represented here, that

these gentlemen, standing for such principles as their church creeds

represent are scarcely in a position to make an assault upon our

doctrines on any score of inconsistency or repulsiveness; and second,

by placing our doctrine in contrast with theirs, I desire to show the

youth of Israel, whose representatives are here, the greatness and

grandeur and the divinity of those principles for which their fathers

have stood, and for which we stand, for the ensign given into the hands

of our fathers we will sustain and carry to still greater heights of

success.

Of the doctrine of the Godhead, taught and advocated by the sectarian

world, I have already said something and pointed out the inconsistency

of these ministers, holding Jesus to be divine--nay more, to be Deity,

and yet proclaiming against our views of God being a personage of

tabernacle, a personage of flesh and bone as well as of spirit--in a

word, an exalted, a perfected man--Christ Jesus resurrected from the

dead and possessing all power in heaven and in earth. I shall leave

them, of course, to patch up the contradictions of their creeds on that

subject, I am not concerned about them.

And now, to turn to another portion of the creed, held at least by the

Presbyterian ministers before us, and by some other members of the

Ministerial Association--our reviewers. I read from the Westminster

Confession of Faith, chapter iii, section 3.

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some

men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others

foreordained to everlasting death.

"Sec. 4.--These angels and men, thus predestinated and

foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and

their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either

increased or diminished.

"Sec. 5.--Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God,

before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his

eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good

pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting

glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight

of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any

other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving him

thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."

Now listen to this:

"Sec. 7.--The rest of mankind, God was pleased according to the

unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or

withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign

power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to

dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious

justice."

That is to say, that though all mankind be sinners, and it must be

conceded that all men sin, yet out of this mass of sinners some are

rescued from the consequences of that sin by the pure grace of God,

and without any co-operating act of theirs, they are rescued from

the consequence of that sin by the decree of God. Whereas, others of

that mass of sinners, by the decree of God, are relegated eternally

to condemnation, to reprobation, and what that means we shall see

presently--but in the face of this doctrine, where appears the justice

of God, or mercy of God either? But the end is not yet.

"Sec. 4 (chapter x.) Others not elected, although they may be

called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common

operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ,

and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men not professing the

Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they

ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of

nature and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert

and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

Now, on these sections from the Presbyterian creed, I read to you the

comment of a very high authority in that church who deals with this

creed, the Rev. A. A. Hodge. This work is designed for the schools

and colleges of the Presbyterian church. This is his comment on the

articles of the creed:

"This section * * * teaches the following propositions: That the

non-elect will certainly fail of salvation. * * * That the diligent

profession and honest practice of neither natural religion, nor

of any other religion than pure Christianity, can in the least

avail or promote the salvation of the soul, is evident from the

essential principles of the gospel. * * * That in the case of sane

adult persons a knowledge of Christ and a voluntary acceptance of

him is essential in order to a personal interest in his salvation.

* * * * God has certainly revealed no purpose to save any except

those who hearing the gospel, obey. * * * Whatever lies beyond this

circle of sanctified means is unrevealed, unpromised, uncovenanted.

The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable

exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, and going down

to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being

saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after 1,800 years, a

possibility illustrated by no example."

That means, then, that the great bulk of God's children have been

created only that they may be food for the flames of the sectarian

hell, because orthodox Christian sects allow of no means of salvation

beyond the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel in this world.

But we shall not arrive at an understanding and the enormity of these

creeds--we shall have no conception of their abomination until we learn

something about the sectarian idea of hell and the continuation of the

punishment of those who do not accept Christ. Those who have not heard

of Christ are, by these creeds, placed in the same category as those

who have heard of him, who have heard his gospel and rejected it; for

they neither are nor can be, according to the teachings of orthodox

Christianity, subjects of salvation.

But before taking that matter up, let me read to you another section

from the creed:

Sec. 111, (chapter 10.) "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are

regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh

when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect

persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the

ministry of the Word."

This has been a very troublesome part of the creed to our Presbyterian

friends. It has been understood to at least imply the possibility

of some infants not being among the elect and therefore subject to

damnation, just like the non-elect who grow up to maturity, a view most

shocking to most people including--to their honor be it said--most

Presbyterians. The interpretation of this section of the creed by the

Presbyterian church is, that "all infants are among the elect!" If this

was the thought in the minds who wrote the creed, what a pity they

did not say, "All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved

by Christ," instead of saying "elect infants," etc. What a world of

controversy it would have saved!

However, gentlemen, your interpretation is that all infants are of

the elect, and therefore saved, and I will accept your interpretation

because I believe you have a right to your own interpretation. But

say, by the way of whisper, and in confidence, I can make it extremely

interesting, if not difficult for you to make good your interpretation

both by reason of the implication that must fairly be conceded exists

in the language of the section against your contention, as also from

very respectable authorities I can quote, on the history of the

controversy. But we let that pass, and will concede your right to say

what your creed means. Especially so since, the abomination of your

creed may be established without pressing this point. Why should you

Presbyterians be so particular to declare against the damnation of

infants, when the promulgation of the doctrine of the damnation of a

good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as outrageous as the

damnation of an innocent babe?

In some respects of the case it is even worse. Here we will say, is a

man who throughout his life has made every effort to realize in his

living the lofty ideal of possessing "clean hands and a pure heart;"

who entertains only aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only

that are honorable; who in the relationships of life, as son, brother,

husband, father and citizen, discharges with reasonable fidelity,

all his duties in these relations, and, as nearly as a man can while

under the effects of the fall, and pestered with human inclinations to

perversity, leads what is recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not

of the elect, this man is doomed eternally, and his struggling for the

attainment of his lofty ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in

the way of warding off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the

elect, and hence must perish everlastingly.

The questions here being considered were once presented to Dr.

Francis L. Patten, president of Princeton university, and a stalwart

Presbyterian defender of the creed, in a rather unique, not to say

personal manner, by a correspondent of one of our great eastern

journals, and as it helps one to get a view of the doctrines here

considered from close range, I quote it:

Interviewer: "But if it would be unjust to take an infant from

the world and resign it to everlasting torture, is it not equally

unjust that those of us who have lived and suffered and struggled

with life's battles should be eternally doomed because we happen

not to be among the elect? Is it fair or just, or consistent, with

the workings of a religion built upon a foundation of eternal love,

that some of us shall be born into the world under a spiritual ban,

compelled to go through the battle, with the certainty of no reward

for honors or efforts, predestined for hell, as the elect, for no

effort or worth of their own, are predestined for heaven? That is

the doctrine of election, is it not?"

"That is the doctrine of election," repeated Dr. Patten. "And you

believe it?"

"I do," was the prompt response, "wholly and unreservedly."

"And you think it just?"

"I think it is not for me to pass judgment upon the working of God."

Is that a fair answer, or artful dodging?

Again the interviewer asked:

"Do you believe there may be near and dear ones of yours, reaching

out, perhaps, for all that is noblest and best in life, struggling

each day to gain the mastery over self, striving to attain purity

of purpose to conquer weakness and inferior motives, who, when it

is all over and the battle has been won, and won hard, will be cast

into everlasting torment because they weren't lucky enough to be

elected before they were born?"

"I have never had the question brought before me in that way," Dr.

Patten replied evasively. "But it is before you now," I persisted.

"Well," replied the doctor, slowly, "I should say that any one who

could strive so hard after the good must be one of the elect." "The

extracts from the Confession of Faith dispose of that theory," I

said. 'Good works do not avail unless one has been chosen.'"

That sounds very like the reasoning of Jonathan Edwards on the subject

of infant damnation and baptism, when he said that an infant, if one of

the elect, would have the opportunity for baptism; and that while all

infants who were baptized would not be saved, all who were not baptized

were damned, as they could not have been of the elect!

But, as I remarked awhile ago, no one can begin to appreciate the

abomination of these creeds, these doctrines, until he has some

conception of what is meant by orthodox damnation. Now here is a

picture of God's wrath and vengeance upon men. It is a passage,--a

noted one--taken from the works of the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and

he is addressing himself to sinners. Now, I cannot help but believe

that though men are sinners--notwithstanding that fact--I cannot help

but believe that God still has some compassion in his heart for his

children, sinners though they be. Indeed, if that be not true, then it

seems to me despair must settle down like a black pall upon humanity;

for if God loves only those who have remained without sin, how very

few of his children he loves! While God cannot look upon _sin_ with

the least degree of allowance, I believe that he can have and does

have infinite compassion for the sinner. He will never call your sin

"righteousness." He will never compound a sin and say that it is less

than it is. Always and everywhere God's law will stand pronounced

against sin; but while he stands thus committed irrevocably against

sin in all its forms, I believe that his heart goes out in compassion

to men who sin, and he will save them from their sins as soon as

they repent. When they repent he will forgive, and you will find,

my friends, that the forgiveness of God is effective; it is worth

something. It will blot out the sin, and cause it to be no more held

against one who has repented. But now to this description of damnation

by Edwards, who as I think gives quite a contrary view of God from that

I have been presenting:

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds

a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and

is dreadfully provoked. * * * You are ten thousand times more

abominable in his eyes than the most hateful, venomous serpent is

in ours. * * * You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of

divine wrath flashing about it. * * * If you cry to God to pity

you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case that

he will only tread you under foot. * * * He will crush out your

blood and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments so

as to stain all his raiment."

What think you of this picture of God, who is supposed to be a God of

infinite compassion, youth of Israel? Was it not about time, since

these conceptions here set forth by Edwards sprang from the creeds

of men--was it not about time when such beliefs prevailed, that some

messenger should come from heaven declaring that such creeds are an

abomination in the sight of God?

Let us go on:

"Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering,

and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they

will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen!"

I believe that is cruel. I think they ought to show us such places at

least; so that if we had the disposition we could possibly avoid them.

Of all the mean things on earth, that can be done, it seems to me,

would be to lead one along the path where the pitfalls are covered. I

would not like to believe that such a thing as that could exist in the

moral economy of God.

Again:

"Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead and to tend

downward with great weight and pressure toward hell; and, if God

should let you go, you would immediately sink, and swiftly descend

and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution,

and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all

your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you,

and keep you out of hell than a spider's web would have to stop

a falling rock. * * * The wrath of God is like great waters that

are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise

higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the

stream is stopped the more rapid and mighty is its course when

once it is let loose. Thus it will be with you that are in an

unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might and

majesty and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified

upon you in the ineffable strength of your torments; you shall be

tormented in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of

the Lamb; and, when you shall be in this state of suffering, the

glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful

spectacle that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the

Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and

adore that great power and majesty."

Elsewhere it is said in effect that the saintly souls in heaven

will not be troubled over the misfortunes and sufferings of the

damned, but their very sufferings will increase the happiness of

the glorified saints. The Lord deliver us from all such conceptions

of either God or the saints.

Again I quote:

"It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this

fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must

suffer it to all eternity; there will be no end to this exquisite,

horrible misery; when you look forward you shall see a long

forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up

your thoughts and amaze your soul!"

Well, we stand amazed now, that anyone could have such conceptions of

God and such treatment of his children as this. But to continue the

quotation:

"You will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, and

end, any mitigation, any rest at all; you will know certainly that

you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in

wrestling and conflicting with this Almighty, merciless vengeance;

and then, when you have so done, when so many ages have actually

been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but

a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be

infinite."

That is what awaits those who are not of the elect; that is the fate

that awaits the heathen, and without hope of redemption. Again I say,

young people, youth of Israel, if God should ever speak to man at a

time when such ideas obtained, when such creeds and teachings were in

existence, would not the first word uttered be one repudiating these

creeds and the institutions, the organizations, built upon these

foundations, these creeds of men? Would not God's first word denounce

these creeds as an abomination? Of course, it would. Humanity in its

sober senses would be disappointed else. Joseph Smith was entirely

right--or rather God was. The first thing needful was to brush aside

the rubbish of the creeds that traduce the character of God and banish

all the qualities of mercy and justice from the attributes of God,

and his moral government of the world. Hence this message called

"Mormonism"--this message from God--began with a denunciation of these

creeds. God said they were an abomination in his sight, and I do not

doubt it one moment. How could they be otherwise?

One of the best things that can be said about our "reviewers" here

before us, is that they are better than their creeds. They do not

say much about them. They know the people don't believe them; and a

preacher's influence among men is in exact proportion to the distance

he leaves these creeds behind him--to the depth of oblivion in which

he buries them. I am tempted to believe some times that our reviewers,

bad as they are--I mean that as a pleasantry--they are still too good

to believe these creeds. What if they do, at their ordination, have to

declare that they adopt the creed as their faith! I still believe that

down in their hearts they do not believe them! "Well," one may say,

"this may be a tribute to their goodness of heart, but what of their

sincerity, what of their honesty?" I hope the inquirer will not press

that point, I refer it to the gentlemen most immediately concerned--to

our reviewers. The fact is, speaking of these matters in a general

way--light, thank God! has come into the world and dispelled the gloomy

prospects of the future as pictured by these creeds of men. It is a

great relief to the world, brought about, to a large extent, by the

revelations of God to Joseph Smith.

Part of the complaint of our Reviewers is to the effect that

"Mormonism" adds no "spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already

revealed;" that "Mormonism" contributes nothing "to reverence for God,

or to justice and mercy toward men." The complete answer to all this

is the fact that "Mormonism" enthrones again in the conceptions of men

the true doctrine in respect of God. It enthrones in the conceptions of

men the God of the Bible. It proclaims once more the high station of

man; in that it recognizes and proclaims him the brother of the Lord

Jesus Christ; as being of the same nature as Jesus and his Father; it

opens up the pathway of progress, and points to the possibility of man

rising to the same exaltation, and participating in the same glory

as Jesus Christ and the Father. It banishes the injustice which the

creeds of men would fix in the moral and spiritual economy of God, and

unfolds anew to the conceptions of men the fact that, while God stands

forever committed against sin, his love and compassion for his children

endure forever, that his gospel is an everlasting gospel. "Mormonism"

teaches to the world a larger hope than it before knew. It proclaims

the possibility of salvation for all the children of men, and that so

long as time endures the gospel will endure; that so long as men can be

brought to repentance, the means of their salvation shall be at hand in

the gospel of Jesus Christ. These are some things that "Mormonism" does

for the world. These are some of the doctrines which it has proclaimed

and emphasized, and which are finding their way among and are being

accepted by the children of men. Moreover, the elements are so forming

that it will yet be possible for a nation to be born to the knowledge

of the gospel in a day. "Mormonism" is not going to fail. This work has

taken such root and hold in the world that it cannot be moved. We have

passed the day when we stand in any danger from persecution by violent

means. We stand today largely secure from the natural effects of the

misrepresentations that you gentlemen of the Ministerial association

fulminate against us. This Church of Christ is beginning to come unto

its own. I hear in fancy the tramping of thousands upon thousands of

the servants of God among the nations of the earth, making proclamation

of these grand truths of the gospel. I hear men casting up accounts,

and searching out the "where" and the "whence" of the truths they have

learned in this generation; and as they go on with the reckoning,

they will find that these truths were revealed from God, of which his

Church, and also we ourselves have the high honor of being witnesses.

Youth of Israel, be proud of the station which God has given you.

Be fervent in faith; be high-minded in your aspirations, for there

remaineth for Zion a glory, a development, a recognition in this

world that shall more than repay our fathers for all the scenes of

turmoil, strife and labor through which they passed in establishing and

maintaining this great work. They shall have joy in their posterity,

too; for we, their sons, will carry the burdens laid upon them; and

Zion shall triumph; and the gospel shall be proclaimed and accepted;

and the children of men shall be saved; and God shall be glorified.

[And now a parting word respecting our conference "Address" and this

ministerial review of it. The "Address" was conservative in tone,

truthful in statement, conciliatory in spirit, and intended to form

a basis of a right understanding of the attitude of the Church. It

explained the past; it expressed the intention of strict adherence

to its obligation to discontinue plural marriages--and with that, in

time, would pass away polygamous living--and declared its intention

to abstain from interference in politics. That this was the spirit

and intent of the "Address" cannot be questioned by those who have

read it. It was a fair basis of understanding and settlement of our

local difficulties. And in what spirit was it met, at least by this

Ministerial association? By pretended distrust of its most solemn

asseverations; by misrepresentation and unfair criticism; by sly

innuendo of evil intentions on our part; by a hunting for a basis, not

of justice, reconciliation and friendship, but the hunting of a basis

for future agitation, turmoil and strife; and for what? Sectarian and

political advantage, is the only answer; unless you add sectarian hate

of a rival institution. What can "Mormons" do in the presence of such

conditions? I can tell you what one "Mormon" will do. He will teach

these reviewing gentlemen that the reviews will not be all on one side.

That he himself will turn reviewer. And so far as the theological part

of the controversy is concerned, these gentlemen shall have war if

they want it--war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt, and that on

every platform in the state. "Mormonism" here can hold its own. It does

not have to apologize for its doctrines nor repudiate its principles.

Its representatives stand ready, willing and able to vindicate its

doctrines; and they have some knowledge of the nonsense and weakness of

the reviewers' creeds. Pardon our seeming boastings, gentlemen, but in

the language of Paul, "ye have compelled us."

Turning from you reviewers to all the people of the state of Utah,

I can say to them irrespective of their creeds or political faith,

that I have the utmost confidence in their fairness, in their native

sense of justice, and love of square dealing; in their manhood and

love of honor. And I know that they know that this local agitation by

the Ministerial association, and disgruntled politicians, who cannot

ride into seats of political preferment by virtue of the exercise of

Church influence in politics, which they feign to denounce, but which

they would gladly use to their own advantage, could they but fawn or

frighten it into supporting them--I say I know that the people of Utah

know that this agitation is unjust; conceived in spite and vengeance;

brought forth of malice; and nurtured by hate. No conditions existing

in Utah justify it. The spectres that are conjured up from the vasty

deep to give warrant to this unseeming agitation are but foul creations

of diseased animals, phantoms of disordered imaginations.

Fellow citizens of Utah, in my humble judgment, if we have regard

to those things which concern our welfare, our well-being at home,

our standing abroad, our interests in all that concerns us, we will

discourage these agitators, and say, as we can say, to the troubled

waves of our social and civil strife, "peace, be still."]

PART III.

Joseph Smith's Doctrines Vindicated.

FOREWORD.

The discourses which make up Part III, deal with some of the doctrines

advanced in the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and in his

discourses, which at the time they were brought forth subjected him

to the cry of "false prophet," and even of "fallen prophet" on the

part of some of his former disciples, "pagan" and "blasphemy." Slowly,

however, with the passing of successive decades, and building up a new

and a less offensive terminology than the Prophet knew, a change has

come over the religious and philosophical thought of the world, until

today many of those doctrines advanced by Joseph Smith, the "Mormon"

Prophet--without any intention of doing so, and indeed without any

knowledge that they were doing so--are now being taught by leading

minds and in some of our very highest institutions of learning. It is

to point out this startling fact that the following three discourses

are presented.

I.

THE FIRST MESSAGE OF MORMONISM VINDICATED.

A discourse in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday afternoon, August

8, 1909. Reported by F. W. Otterstrom. The National Annual Encampment

Of the Grand Army of the Republic was held in Salt Lake City in August,

1909, and many of the veterans of that organization were present at the

Tabernacle services on the occasion of this discourse being delivered

and hence the reference to them in the closing paragraphs.

I.

I presume, my brethren and sisters, that a very large portion of this

magnificent audience is made up of those who are strangers within the

gates of our city; and I doubt not but what, prompted by curiosity and

interest, our friends are here in the hope of learning something about

the faith of the Latter-day Saints whom, perhaps, many of them regard

as a strange people. For my own part, if I could, I would like to

respond to this curiosity or interest of our friends, by setting forth

what message Mormonism has for them and for the world. I would like to

speak, if I could, the choicest word that we have for them and mankind;

but I stand appalled at the task that such a proposition presents to

me, and I frankly confess my own inability to meet such an issue unless

there shall be divine assistance rendered and God shall help by the

inspiration of his Spirit. If he help, then of course we shall not

fail; and if we do not fail, then to him let us accord praise and honor

and glory, since success will be through his help.

In order to get this message of ours before you, my friends, it is

necessary to refer to a little history connected with this movement

called Mormonism. Perhaps many of you are aware of the fact--since

many of you are well advanced in years--many of you are acquainted

with the fact that in the early decades of the nineteenth century

there was great agitation in respect of religion throughout the United

States and parts of Europe; but more especially in that part of our own

country known as the Western Reserve--northern Ohio; also in western

New York; and the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. In these sections

of our country there seemed to be a great spiritual awakening--or,

at least, so it was regarded at that time--and religious excitement

existed everywhere. It existed to such an extent in some localities

that even the ordinary pursuits of industry were interrupted while

people assembled in great camp meetings to hear noted ministers exhort

and expound in respect of religion. This great religious revival

extended into western New York where the family of Joseph Smith lived,

near Palmyra, in that state. His family had been religiously inclined

for generations before his birth; and when this religious agitation

of which I am speaking reached Palmyra, the family of Joseph Smith

was affected by it. This young man, then about fifteen years of age,

was also influenced by it; but his mind was sore troubled because of

the divisions and contentions existing among the various sects of

religion. There were cries of "Lo here" and "Lo there," as to Christ

and religion; and even when union revival meetings were held, and the

time came for the converts made by united effort to divide off into the

various sects, then much of the good feeling that had prevailed seemed

to be dissipated, and contentions and jealousies predominated. This

young man, Joseph Smith, observed these divisions, and it seems as if

the question of Paul to the schismatically inclined Corinthians reached

him, asking this stern question: "Is Christ divided?" Will God teach

one group of men one set of principles and order of church government

and ordinances, and then teach another principles diametrically

opposed? Is God the author of confusion?" And there was borne in upon

his soul the thought that all was not well with the religions world. In

the midst of these reflections he came upon the Scripture which after

a fashion may be regarded as one of the historical corner stones of

Mormonism, namely: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who

giveth liberally to all men and upbraideth not, and it shall be given

him."

JOSEPH SMITH'S FIRST VISION.

Joseph Smith informs us that this Scripture became, to his soul, the

very voice of God. In the light of it he reviewed the situation, and

finally came to this conclusion, that if ever man was perplexed he

was; if ever man lacked wisdom, he lacked it; if any man knew not what

to do, he was that person. He had confidence in the Scriptures. The

teachings of a sainted mother and of a Christian father had instilled

that faith into his heart; and hence he decided, in child-like

confidence, to go to God with this query: "Which out of all these sects

is right? Which the true Church of Christ? Which shall I join?" Having

concluded to put these questions to the Infinite Mind--to God--he

retired to a grove not far removed from his father's house--still

standing, by the way, unmarred by the hand of man. On attempting to

engage in prayer, however, he found himself overcome by a spirit of

darkness, and his tongue bound that he could not utter his thought.

As he was about to abandon himself to seeming destruction, he beheld

descending towards him a great, white pillar of light, and as it rested

upon him the darkness was dispelled, and lo! in the midst of the light,

which exceeded the brightness of the sun at noon-day, he beheld two

personages, resembling each other; and one calling him by name, and

pointing to the other, said:

"_Joseph, this is my beloved Son; hear Him_."

It speaks well for the intellectual texture of this boy's mind, that

in the midst of these unusual circumstances he could still hold to the

great thought that had brought him to this issue; and to the presence

in which he stood. To the person to whom he was directed Joseph Smith

put the question: "Which of these sects is thy church, and which shall

I join?"

Now, my friends, bear, I pray you, for a moment, with the seeming

harshness of the reply that was made to that great inquiry. The

personage whom he addressed said to him in reply, that all the churches

were wrong; that he must join none of them; that their creeds were an

abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that

they drew near to him with their lips but their hearts were far from

him; that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men, "having

a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof." He was again

expressly commanded to go not after them, at the same time receiving a

promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be

made known unto him.

That was a tremendous message to deliver to a world that supposed

itself to be living in the full blaze of Christian glory! It was enough

to appall the stoutest heart to be called upon to deliver it! But, my

friends, Mormonism would have no right to existence unless such was

the condition of the world. Of churches and creeds there were already

enough; and unless there was some great, fundamental reason why a new

message should be sent to the world, then Mormonism has no right to

exist at all.

The vision closed, and the boy went with it to his friends, and out of

it has grown what the world calls Mormonism. Now, let us talk about the

substance of this vision a little while and see if we can not soften

the seeming harshness with which this message of Mormonism begins: "The

churches are wrong." But, my friends, the people then living were not

responsible for those conditions. They had inherited them. Generations

ago men had transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, broken

the everlasting covenant of the gospel, and formulated creeds which

failed to grasp or record truly the central truths of the gospel of

Jesus Christ, the nature of God, the relationship of man to Deity, or

the purpose of man's earth existence. The false notions and doctrines

that obtained respecting these matters our generation inherited from

preceding generations. It was a case of the fathers "eating sour

grapes, and the children's teeth being set on edge."

"CREEDS ARE AN ABOMINATION."

"The creeds are an abomination, and the professors are all corrupt!"

That is a severe arraignment of Christendom. Do we mean by it that

the whole of Christendom is corrupt? That virtue was fled? Of course,

in a certain sense, all men have sinned, and come short of the glory

of God. There is none that doeth wholly good, no, not one. All flesh

is corrupt before God, in that it has in it an inclination to evil--a

concupiscence to sinful ways. But that is not the matter in question

here. No, my friends, we do not mean to say that all Christendom is

corrupt, or that virtue has fled from the earth. I pray you regard the

language more closely: "The creeds are an abomination;" the "professors

are corrupt;" they "teach for doctrine the commandments of men." It

is the professors that are alluded to here as being "corrupt," not

necessarily the _confessors,_ of the creeds; the "professors" the

"teachers" of the creeds are corrupt. What, then, do you arraign the

whole Christian ministry as being corrupt? By no means. We are ready

to believe that many of them like their followers are men who strive

earnestly for the truth, and desire the uplifting of humanity; but

those who, in the ages gone by, could formulate such creeds as exist

in Christendom, expressing such beliefs about God and about man, and

the relationship of God to man; those who could formulate creeds that

would eternally damn innocent infants; or that could forever close the

doors of mercy against the vast majority of the children of God--as

well those who have died in ignorance of revealed truth, as those

who died in the knowledge of it but rejected it--in the awful dogmas

of eternal punishment--men who could formulate such creeds as these

certainly had minds that had gone awry, that were "corrupted," so they

would not or could not see the truth. So you see the harshness of this

message of ours narrows down considerably when you get to analyzing it.

These creed-formulators were teaching for doctrine the commandments of

men; they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were

far removed from him, they had reduced religion to forms of godliness

merely. The ground had to be cleared of the theological rubbish that

had accumulated through the ages, that the living rocks might appear,

on which God should found his Church in very deed; and thus our message

had to begin with this declaration concerning the status of Christendom.

GOD'S FIRST MESSAGE CONFIRMED.

Now something singular has happened in our time, in our day, within

the past few years, and more especially within the past year. Ninety

years have passed away since this first message of God though Joseph

Smith was given to the world declaring the churches wrong; but, mark

you, we did not sit in judgment upon the world's creeds and religions

and religious teachers. We have not assumed to do that. Neither did

Joseph Smith, he confessed his own inability to judge the matter, hence

he went to God for wisdom. We think it would have been beyond the

capacity of human wisdom to determine which of the sects or churches

were acceptable to God; Or say which was his Church; but God was

competent to sit in judgment, and he sat in judgment, and announced

the conclusion, and made Joseph Smith and the Church of Christ, that

grew out of his message--God made them the heralds of this judgment

of his to the inhabitants of the earth. But, to return to what I was

about to remark,--after ninety years have elapsed, something remarkable

occurs, and that is a wonderful confirmation of this seemingly harsh

message with which our prophet began his life's work. There is at

present going on in the great Catholic church--that church which holds

within her communion more than one half of all the Christians of the

world--within her great organization is going on what is called the

"Modernist" movement. That movement, briefly told is this: a demand

is made on the part of many of her scholars and theologians for wider

intellectual liberty, and that the church shall come out of the

darkness of the creeds and symbols of the dark ages and live in harmony

with the new truths that have been developed through the inspiration

of God operating upon the minds of modern men, of our present-day

scientists and philosophers. In order to be exact in the statement of

the matter, permit me to read to you something of the program that

is suggested by this modernist movement within the Catholic church;

and let no one esteem it as a light thing, as a mere "crackling of

thorns beneath the pot." Rome does not so regard it, I can tell you.

We are assured by a writer in the _North American Review_ for June of

this year that this revolution within the Church of Rome is one of

the mightiest revolutions since that one led by Martin Luther in the

sixteenth century. The Catholic church has already noted the importance

that she attaches to it by issuing what is known as the "Encyclical

Letter on Modernism" by the present pope of the Roman church, a

document filling about one hundred printed pages, in which the errors,

or supposed errors, of the modernists are detailed and reviewed from

the standpoint of the orthodox within the Catholic church. In each

diocese a "committee of vigilance" is appointed to keep watch that

whether in pamphlet, or book, or speech, any prelate or curate of the

church should presume to be in sympathy with this movement, he might

be instantly reported and silenced. Some of the most gifted men within

the church have been driven into retirement from official life; others

have been silenced; some have been dismissed from chairs of instruction

in Catholic institutions of learning; and everywhere the bishops

are called upon to exercise the utmost vigilance to keep down the

throbbing, intellectual life of this movement.

Newman Smyth in _Scribners_ for February of the present year gives the

following account of the vatican's efforts at suppression of modernism:

"The vatican has succeeded in putting out a few scholarly

periodicals; in their places others more popular have appeared.

It has persuaded some enlightened teachers to relapse into the

obedience of silence for a season, yet without actual recantation

of their opinions; others it has forced to stand by their own

conscientious intelligence before the whole world. It has

prohibited the publication of some Italian magazines, only to

increase their circulation. It forbade the faithful to read the

'Program of the Modernists,' and a new and enlarged edition was

called for by the public. It enjoined the Bavarian bishops to see

to it that the people read the 'catechism and good books,' and it

obtained from the civil authority of Innsbruck the confiscation of

a lecture by a modernist professor of canonical law, only to cause

forty-three editions of it to be issued within a short time, and to

lead many thousand liberal German students to organize a strike in

behalf of the freedom of academic teaching. The index of prohibited

writings increases; but it cannot keep up with the modernist press.

In short, the Encyclical Pascendi, which aimed to destroy by a blow

a heresy of the schools, has succeeded in creating a literature

of it for the people. It commands the utmost vigilance in every

diocese in searching out modernist ideas; and in Rome itself, under

the very shadow of the vatican, a scientific-religious publishing

society has been established, and its issues, increasing in power

as well as in number, are now to be found scattered through many

lands.

"Besides all this, account should be taken of the number of secular

journals which are in sympathy, more or less avowed, with the

modernists. An ecclesiastical authority which in former times

could bind peoples and humble kings, has yet to show whether it is

mightier than the power of a free press in a free state."

To the Encyclical letter that was issued by Pope Pius, the modernists

themselves have made a most bold and fearless answer, and have

published it, in connection with the Pope's Encyclical to the world.

(See "Program of Modernism," Putman's Sons, 1908.) This movement,

by the way, is described as "a clear call for the rejuvenation of

Roman Catholicism." The modernists believe that the church, the Roman

Catholic church, can harmonize its teachings with the thought of this

present age, that the most ancient church can survive by becoming the

most modern. The ambitious designs of the modernists may further be

learned by the following questions they propound, and answers they make

to them:

"At this moment (1908) pregnant with all sorts of moral revolution,

when the intellectual world, still alienated from Christ and his

Church, progresses in a hundred ways towards some undefinable

renewal of spirit, we ask ourselves frankly, Is there in the

Catholic church, in that great organism in which the religious

spirit of the gospel has come to embody itself--is there a power

of conquest or simply a conservative instinct? Does she still

hide in the secret complexities of her wonderful organization,

capacities for winning adherents, or is her vitality threatened

by the germs of a speedy decay? Is her mission henceforth to be

limited to a suspicious vigilance over the rude and simple faith of

her rapidly-dwindling followers, or will she rouse herself to the

reacquisition of that social influence which she has lost through

long years of listless self-isolation? For ourselves we have long

since answered this critical question. We have ever watched the

aspirations of the contemporary mind with sympathetic interest; our

hearts have beaten in unison with its glowing enthusiasm for the

new ideals of universal brotherhood; and we have seen in all its

movements the symptoms of a glorious revival of religion. * * *

Speaking the language of our age and thinking its thought we have

tried to bring it into touch with the teachings of Catholicism,

that through such contact their profound mutual affinities might

be made evident. We cannot believe that the church will ultimately

reject our program as mischievous."

I only want to present these statements to you and ask this question:

Why is this rejuvenation of the Catholic church demanded? Why this

demand to forsake symbol and creed of the middle ages in order to

come into harmony with modern truth as it has been developed by

modern thought and science? Do not the questions pre-suppose that the

church complained against is wrong in creed and doctrine and attitude

towards progress? I may not go further into a discussion of this

Catholic situation, because I want to call your attention to still more

startling things in the Protestant world, especially in our own country.

REFORM IN PROTESTANTISM.

There has been running through the current numbers of the

_Cosmopolitan_ magazine a series of articles by Harold Bolce on the

trend of university teaching in America. Some two years ago, Mr. Bolce

blocked out an itinerary for himself, having no less an object than

a visit to leading universities throughout the United States, with a

view to becoming acquainted with the trend of university teaching,

and more especially with reference to economic, social, philosophical

and religious subjects. As a result of that investigation he reports

his visit through four articles of this magazine. I shall call your

attention to what is said simply upon the trend of religious teaching

within the universities. I read the following extracts from the August

number of the _Cosmopolitan._ The article is prefaced with a note from

the editor in which he says:

"It has been shown in the series of articles beginning with

'Blasting at the Rock of Ages' that our great universities

repudiate the dogma and orthodox of the established church and

proclaim a new religion divested of Biblical and church creed.

Why do the most profound scholars in our institutions of learning

undertake this revolutionary work? What do they hope to accomplish?

* * * The answer is here. The schoolmen have placed Christianity

in a scholars' crucible. They are determined upon reducing sacred

institutions to scientific tests. The college men approach the

subject with the greatest reverence. It is false to characterize

them as atheists or iconoclasts. They assert that what we need is

not less of God but more of God. They prophesy the introduction

into the world of a system of belief superior to the Christianity

of the ages."

Such is the editorial conception of the trend of teaching in our

universities, on this subject, with Mr. Bolce's articles before them.

And now from the article itself. I read the following:

"Instead of living in harmony with God, the church, the colleges

say, has set up a celestial czar, a conception which has been

an injury to man, because it has given him a sense of weakness,

inferiority and fear."

That is the arraignment of the colleges against the teachings of the

churches as to their conceptions of God. Now mark you, "The colleges

say that the church, through its fear of new truth, has at all times

been an obstacle to progress." Is not that a remarkable thing to say

of the church of Jesus Christ that in reality ought to be in the very

vanguard in the pursuit of truth and in the conservation of it?

"Dr. Andrew D. White, formerly President of Cornell university,

says that the church in its apprehension of the progress of

learning persecuted Roger Bacon, and by so doing did more harm to

Christianity and the world than has been done as a result of all

the efforts of all the atheists who have ever lived."

"Professor Borden P. Bowne, of Boston university, Professor Frank

Sargent Hoffman of Union College, and scores of others, say that

the church is the last to come into the possession of truth;

that it often lags behind, even in the matter of the progressive

conscience of the time; that it has had to recede from its position

in every field of science; and that it is still receding and

must continue to make way for the progress of truth in spiritual

matters. For many professors assert that the church, as revealed by

the outcry over the disclosures of what the universities teach, is

still engaged in the effort to strangle thought.

"And as the opposition to truth, as it is claimed, is still the

role of religious bodies, the inescapable duty of unfettered

institutions of learning is to give the world a new revelation."

Joseph Smith proclaimed that need ninety years before these professors

awoke to the realization of the need of a new revelation.

But to continue:

"The professors believe that civilization is under the domination

of many false doctrines, and that the fact that these are held

sacred is no reason why they should be preserved."

Not only do these professors--scores of them, remember--hold that the

church is wrong now, but they hold that it has been wrong for ages.

Listen to this:

"The present crusade of the colleges is surcharged with the

conviction that the churches and church thought are not only behind

the times but that they have, throughout the centuries, been an

obstacle to human advance, and are even now the last barrier

keeping man out of his true spiritual kingdom. They say that man

has earned the right to know the truth, the truth that it will

make him free; and that man's ignorance of his power in a world

of spirit, where he could, if he would, be master, with all the

harmony, health, happiness and abundance that that mastery implies,

is the secret of the centuries of travail, hatred, wars and crimes

that have cursed the world."

I shall trouble you to read but one more extract:

"This, then, is the announced justification of the college

arraignment of many cherished institutions. The old indictment

drawn up by irreverent critics against the church, is repeated

with a new force and a new meaning. It is pointed out that it

was religious Jerusalem, not pagan Rome, that clamored for the

crucifixion. Motley and Draper and other historians have been cited

in support of the teaching that the church in many ages murdered

more people than it saved: And these victims were burned alive,

strangled or beheaded, not for crimes committed, but in some cases

for reading the Scriptures, or looking askance at a graven image,

or smiling at an idolatrous procession as it passed. * * *

"But the college men are not blind to what the church has

accomplished. In this phase of the subject they are peculiarly

catholic. But it is taught now in practically all the departments

of philosophy in the great universities that a new revelation is

quickening this age, and that it is not only the right but the

duty of the colleges to stand, if they can, as interpreters of the

acceptable year of the Lord. Prof. R. M. Wenley of the University

of Michigan teaches that we have every reason to anticipate great

changes in Christianity. The world of thought is in progress of

such profound alteration that orthodox belief can scarcely escape

the transforming effects of the new idea of God. Hundreds of

thousands of young men and young women in America are coming under

the influence of the new university philosophy, and instead of

being apologetic for the teaching that the God of the colleges is

greater than the God of the church, the university philosophers

look forward with composure and even elation to the ultimate

surrender of what they regard as discredited beliefs."

In relation to the methods adopted by the churches for imparting

religious truths, and enforcing religious living--the revival method

more especially; and be it remembered that of late years many of the

extravagances of this method have been eliminated since the boyhood

days of Joseph Smith. Of this method of the churches, Mr. Bolce

represents the universities as holding the following view:

"Professor Boris Sidis of the Pathological Institute of New York,

who recently concluded a series of psychological experiments

at Harvard, is ruthlessly arrayed against popular religion as

expressed in revivals, and his findings have been endorsed by

Prof. William James in an introduction to the former's published

report. If there is in American university teaching a more

fearless doctrine than the following as put forth by Prof. Sidis

and countenanced by Harvard's leading philosopher, I have not yet

encountered it: 'Well may President Jordan of Stanford university

exclaim: 'Whisky, cocaine and alcohol bring temporary insanity, and

so does a revival of religion--one of those religious revivals in

which men lose their reason and self-control. This is simply a form

of drunkenness no more worthy Of respect than the drunkenness that

lies in the gutter!'"

"Professor Jordan," comments the Harvard psychologist as a result

of his investigations, "was too mild in his expression. Religious

revivalism is a social blame; it is more dangerous to the life of

society than drunkenness. As a sot, man falls below the brute; as a

revivalist he sinks lower than the sot."--(_Cosmopolitan_ for July,

1909.)

Now, my friends, after that, do not complain of harshness in the

message that Joseph Smith was commissioned to give to the world ninety

years ago? He never said anything nearly so harsh as the American

universities are now saying about the churches. It seems to me as if

God had called from the high seats of learning throughout our land

the most intellectual class in the world to confirm the truth of the

message of His prophet.

The world despised the word of an unlearned youth upon this subject,

albeit coming with a message from God--from the Highest Intelligence.

What will they say now to the testimony of the learned--which confirms

the message of Joseph Smith?

WHAT MORMONISM AFFIRMS.

I do not want to take all the time, however, in discussing this

negative part of our message. I desire to say something affirmatively,

something that will dispel the gloom that this first part of our

message is likely to impress upon the minds of those who contemplate

it. In the affirmative part of our message we come to you with these

glad tidings: God has again spoken. He has renewed, so to speak,

official relationships with the world. At that time when men supposed

that God had spoken His last word in revelation; at that time, when it

was supposed angels would no more visit the earth; at that time when

men concluded that the volume of revelation was completed and forever

closed--in the very darkest hour of these great errors, lo, the heavens

open! angels visit the earth; the American volume of Scripture, the

Book of Mormon, the Scripture, of the old inhabitants of America,

before they fell into anarchy and barbarism, when they were learned and

enlightened, when they had communion with God and Christ, and received

the gospel--their record is brought forth to be a witness for God; a

witness to His justice, to His mercy; it came as a protest against

the dark and awful thought that God could possibly leave a hemisphere

to perish in ignorance of his mind and of his will, and of the gospel

of Jesus Christ! In the moment when these thoughts had crystallized

into dogma, God brushed them aside, renewed revelation, gave a new

dispensation of the gospel to the children of men, restored divine

authority, re-established the Church of Christ, deposited with her his

revealed truth, and gave her commission to make proclamation of it to

all the inhabitants of the earth--"to every nation, and kindred, and

tongue and people;" giving warning that the kingdom of God was at hand.

Our message comes then with the announcement of these great truths; and

Mormonism is this restored gospel of the Christ, this re-established

Church of Christ, or nothing. It is not a new gospel, my friends, not

a new religion. But the old gospel, the old religion and the Church of

Christ coming forth under a new dispensation. We, equally with you of

other Christian persuasions, believe there is no other name given under

heaven whereby men may be saved except the name of Jesus of Nazareth,

Jesus the Christ. Therefore to us there can be but the one true gospel

and one true Church. Not only this, but our message goes further. It

comes to you with the glad tidings that God is still in the world, not

apart from it, not standing aloof in unsympathetic observation of the

creation of his hands--but he is in it. What men name divine immanence.

His spirit permeates all the elements. "He is in the sun, the light

of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was created. He is in

the moon, and the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which

it was made." Also he is in the many blazing suns that we call fixed

stars, and the power by which they were created. He is "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." That is,

to say, God through and by his Spirit is immanent in the world--in

his world--the universe. The elements--the stuffs we call matter are

eternal: and element united with spirit may attain to a fulness of

joy; when separated they can not attain to a fulness of glory, nor

answer the end of their existence. In this view "the elements are the

very tabernacle of God;" or, as some of your scientists put it, "the

material universe is but the garment of God." Under that garment is the

living, throbbing, sympathetic God, in whom we live, and move, and have

our being.

God is in his world reconciling it unto himself, and working out his

sovereign will. But chiefly God by his Spirit may be in man, if man

will but have it so. Yea, man may be, and often is "the tabernacle of

God, even temples." There may be such an indwelling of God in man that

God is very near to him and not afar off. Your life, my friends, and

mine, may touch the life of God; his rich spiritual grace and life may

pour into our poor lives, making them rich in deed--who, then, shall

talk of failure! But let us see clearly here.

While our message proclaims God to be immanent in the world by his

Spirit, and pre-eminently so in man--yet also does our message proclaim

God to be a person. God, my friends, with the Latter-day Saints, is not

a mere abstraction, an empty word without objective reality; a merely

spiritual essence or influence; but, on the contrary, God is a person

in the sense that he is an individual. He is revealed to us through

Jesus Christ. We believe in that revelation of God that is to be read

in the life and character of the Nazarene--the Lord Jesus Christ. To us

he is the very image and likeness of God; nay, as the Christ was and

now is, so God is! The Christ you remember stood in his resurrected

immortal body before his disciples, out on the Mount in Galilee, where

he had appointed a meeting with them. As he stood there, in all the

glory of a resurrected, immortal personage, no more subject to death,

he said to them: "All power is given unto me, in earth and in heaven.

Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe

all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo! I am with you

always to the end of the world." As the Christ thus stood before his

disciples he was God manifested in the flesh. And as the Son is, so we

are assured, is the Father--a glorious mighty intelligence of tangible

reality, as much so as the Christ was there on the mount in all his

resurrected glory--a being whose heart throbs in sympathy with his

children. For his children! Yes, friends; this Mormon message bids us

proclaim that the children of men are also the children of God, essence

of his essence, and nature of his nature. Our message proclaims man

divine, as also it proclaims God human--God and man of one and the same

race! But God relatively to man, perfect; man, fallen and imperfect

in his present estate, yet an heir of salvation and a child of God

destined to become like his Father and Elder Brother, the Christ. You

see I was right in saying that God is no mere abstraction with us, but

a real personal being with whom we sustain very definite relations--the

relation of child to father, with all the sympathies that grow out of

the conception of that relationship.

IMMORTALITY OF MAN.

One other thing that our message is burdened with is the immortality

of man--a proper immortality, not merely and alone a continuation of

conscious being after death, not merely a prolongation of life, but a

pre-existence of life and intelligence before we tabernacled in the

flesh. Our habitation was with God before we came to this earth. In our

first, primeval childhood we lived in his presence, and have come forth

from his presence merely to gain an experience in the midst of the

conditions that prevail in this world of ours. We believe in and teach

the immortality of man; an immortality that stretches backward before

birth as well as forward after death.

Our message also proclaims the persistence of the individual. There

is something in you, my friends, according to this Mormon message to

the world--there is something in all of us, that was not created: and

that will not die. Something that is indestructible and uncreatable; a

something that must live, because it can not be destroyed--the soul,

the intelligence of man. That entity, that intelligence--_you_--will

not be absorbed, and lose its identity. _You,_ friend, as an

intelligence, and as a man shall live through all eternities. _You,_

friend, shall accumulate experiences and grow in grace and knowledge,

and power, and might and dominion, until _you_ attain unto something

that is worthy to be called divine--a son of God indeed!

On the day that you, our visitors, members of the Grand Army of the

Republic--on the day that you parade the streets of our city, our Zion,

and we shall note you as you go by--perhaps, with feeble footsteps and

bowed forms, not with the elastic step of youth as when you responded

to your country's call when the great Republic was in danger!--We

shall look upon you on that day and note, perhaps, in our thought, the

contrast. We shall think of you, my friends, in sympathetic mood; and

we shall contemplate the time when these aged forms of yours shall

put on immortality--when even these bodies shall give forth in the

resurrection the vital elements essential to the manifestation of

your spirits, in all the eternities to come. Our message, friends,

reaffirms the reality of the resurrection from the dead. We are

commissioned to say that though a man die, yet shall he live, and that

eternally. Christ is our warrant for the reality of the resurrection

of all men. You, then shall live again--aye and in immortal youth,

and possessed of all the high powers of a glorious manhood. You will

meet again the comrades and the old commanders beyond the heights, to

hold your camp-fires and recount the glories of your victories for the

preservation of our great nation. We shall think of you in this spirit

as you march by, and our sympathies will go out to you, but we shall

regard you as the children of God--immortal men! not only in history,

but in reality. And what may not be accomplished in eternity, friends,

under these circumstances? What may we not all accomplish in such a

state as our gospel gives hope to believe in, through Jesus Christ our

Lord? Think of eternity in which to live, with God for your friend,

with good men for your associates, and eternity in which to work out

the problems of existence--eternity!--its shining plane stretching

out illimitably before you--I say, what may you not hope to achieve?

At least development, intellectual, spiritual; at least growth, moral

growth--soul growth, until at last, citizenship in the kingdom of God,

sonship to God, and brotherhood with all divine Intelligences.

You see, then, my friends, this message of Mormonism, beginning so

harshly, to what music it leads us! to what harmonies! We stand here,

with you, panoplied in this faith, in these hopes, in this spirit

of charity for the world. Our message is optimistic; we have glad

tidings for the world, not a message of dole and damnation, but of

assurance, of hope, and encouragement, an uplifting message. Mormonism

proclaims the coming of a brighter day for the world--the long-promised

millennium with the reign of the Christ--

"The morning breaks, the shadows flee!

Lo, Zion's standard is unfurled!

The dawning of a brighter day

Majestic rises on the world.

"The clouds of error disappear

Before the rays of truth divine;

The glory, bursting from afar,

Wide o'er the nations soon will shine."

God grant it, for Christ's sake. Amen.

II.

OTHER DOCTRINES OF JOSEPH SMITH VINDICATED BY COLLEGES.

I.

Men the Avatars of God. [1]

[Footnote 1: The word avatar comes from the Sanskrit word _avatara,_

and in Hindu mythology meant an incarnation; a manifestation of Deity.

This discourse was delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Nov. 21,

1909.]

Early in the month of August, of the year 1909, I had the pleasure

of addressing a congregation from this stand; and when the remarks I

made on that occasion were published, those who had the publication

in charge entitled them, "The Message of 'Mormonism.'" In part the

remarks covered a review of a series of articles published in the

_Cosmopolitan Magazine_ during the early summer months, in which Mr.

Harold Bolce gave the result of a two years' itinerary through the

universities of the United States, pointing out the trend of religious

and philosophical thought among the professors of these universities.

On that occasion I called attention to the fact that the first great

message that Joseph Smith delivered to the world: namely, that all the

churches were wrong, and their creeds an abomination unto the Lord,

received wonderful confirmation from the utterances of these professors

quoted in the articles I name. That occasion in August did not warrant

a complete or exhaustive review of these articles, nor did it afford

the opportunity, for sheer lack of time, to indicate all or even the

chief points at which modern educated thought sustained utterances of

the great modern prophet. It is this theme which I desire to renew and

discuss on the present occasion.

The question which I now propose to take up will prove to you, I think,

that it is useless for the world to decry some of the fundamental

doctrines announced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, on the ground that

they were the utterances of an uneducated, obscure and ignorant

youth--since, I believe, I shall be able to show you that from some

of the highest seats of learning in the land there comes pronounced

confirmation of many things our prophet taught; and hence that his

utterances on the doctrine to be considered were not born of ignorance,

but of inspiration from God.

In the _Cosmopolitan_ for July, 1909, in the editorial review of Mr.

Bolce's article, is this utterance:

"Many university teachers, while subscribing to doctrines akin to

those of Christian Science, New Thought, and the Emanuel movement,

are in favor of studying the forces of the spiritual world in a

cold, scientific manner. Orthodox Christian dogma is regarded as

at variance with its own principles and is interpreted in a new

and revolutionary light. The professors' philosophy is purged of

mysticism and blind faith. By moving their young students, they

believe they will move the world, and so they are directing their

energies to the scientific interpretation of those forces which are

marvelously transforming our contemporary age."

Mr. Bolce himself, in further explanation of the attitude of many

of the educators in the universities, represents Professor James

C. Monaghan, recently of Notre Dame University, and formerly of

the University of Wisconsin, as telling his classes, in regard to

the adage "there is room at the top," that there is no top, "that

progress--particularly spiritual progress--is eternal." The Latter-day

Saints will readily recognize that statement as in harmony with

"Mormon" doctrine. Continuing, Mr. Bolce says:

"Friends of the college philosophers insist that if there is a gulf

between them and the people, it is because the masses have not yet

crossed over into the life of progress and spiritual liberty. It is

simply that the professors from the standpoint of their followers,

are inviting mankind again into the fields to which the prophets

beckoned the world centuries ago. The choice, it is declared, is

either backward to the brute, or forward to the superman."

I think that the Latter-day Saints will also recognize in that a note

of "Mormonism"--because they believe that whatever man may be today,

whatever his excellence may be--even the excellence of the most highly

developed men--we believe that there are heights beyond those which he

has now attained, to which it is possible for him to mount.

I merely wanted to read those two paragraphs for the purpose of

presenting the attitude of the professors, in a general way, in regard

to the creeds of men and the existing Christian Churches. I now call

your attention to some few doctrines that our prophet taught in respect

of man. Of course, you who are familiar with Christian teaching of

three-quarters of a century ago, will recall the fact that it was quite

customary to represent man as a quite inferior, insignificant, poor

worm of the dust; and the phraseology applied to him was that he was a

creature "conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity." Referring to these

ideas as something engrafted upon Christianity, yet foreign to its

genius, Professor G. H. Howison of the University of California, in his

contribution to the book _Conceptions of God_ (1902) and speaking of

those who hold and taught such views, says:

"Their monotonous theme was the inevitable greatness of the Supreme

Being and the utter littleness of man. Their tradition lay like a

pall upon the human spirit--nay, it lies upon it to this day, and

it smothers now, as it smothered then, the voice that answers there

to the call of Jesus." (p. 96.)

When the prophet proceeded with the deliverance of his message to the

world, he departed from this view as to the essential baseness of the

nature of man, and proceeded to proclaim him to be a son of God, not

only through some means of adoption, but by the very nature of him.

He proclaimed him to be an eternal intelligence as to his spirit, and

that after the experience of the resurrection from the dead, he would

be an immortal personage, a prince of heaven, an heir to all that God

possesses, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ, capable of infinite

progress and of amazing possibilities. On one occasion--to be more

specific, in 1844--while discoursing upon the subject of man and his

spirit, he propounded this question:

"The mind of man, the immortal spirit--where did it come from?

All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it

in the beginning, but it is not so. The very idea lessens man in

my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear

it, all ye ends of the world! for God has told me so. If you don't

believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. * * * We

say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so?

It is correct enough, but who told you that man did not exist in

like manner, upon the same principle? God made a tabernacle and

put man's spirit in it, and it became a living soul. * * * * It

does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man; it

says God made man out of the earth and put in him Adam's spirit,

and so became a living soul. The mind or the intelligence which

man possesses is co-eternal with God himself. * * * God himself

does not create himself. Intelligence is eternal, and exists upon a

self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there

is no creation about it. The spirit of man is not a created being,

it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity."