Concerning the criticisms that have been made of this speech--one

of which extended through seven columns of as vapid and flaccid an

aggregation of words, words, words as it has ever been my lot to wade

through--I only care to notice one, that is the alleged harshness

of some of my utterances. The conclusion is reached that some of my

words were unbecoming both my calling and the place in which they

were delivered. In answer I only wish to say that the propriety of

one's expressions is governed very largely by the task one has before

him. Even the Son of God, when he had occasion to denounce falsehood

and reprove deceivers, no longer used the gentle tones by which he

comforted the sorrowful or encouraged those bowed down in weakness;

but he used language suited to the task before him. To the scribes and

Pharisees, who were hounding himself and his friends to their death,

and as a preliminary to that purpose were seeking to embitter the minds

of the populace, he said:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like

unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,

but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within

ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and

Pharisees, hypocrites because ye build the tombs of the prophets,

and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had

been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers

with them in the blood of the Prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses

unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed

the Prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers. Ye

serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation

of hell?"

I think I have not gone beyond this worthy example in anything I have

said in this speech; and for the sacredness of the building in which

my remarks were made, I in no way feel that there was a desecration,

since when the task before one is to defend the innocent against

misrepresentation, and denounce calumniators, then "all place a temple,

and all seasons summer."

II.

Answer to Kearns.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: On the 28th day of February, last,

the then senior senator from the State of Utah delivered an address

in the senate chamber of the United States, in which an attack was

made upon the Mormon Church and against the best interests of the

State of Utah. The speech was cunningly planned and adroitly phrased;

and with the prestige of a senator of the United States behind it,

among the masses of the people of the United States, uninformed of the

true conditions existing in Utah, its effect will be misleading and

mischievous. It is because of these opinions that I have formed of

the speech that I think it a proper subject for this occasion, that

our own people, at least, should be put upon their guard against the

mischievous effects of this deliverance.

I regret extremely that the speech was not answered upon the floor of

the senate of the United States. The gentleman upon whom that duty

properly rested may have had good and sufficient reasons for remaining

silent. It is not for me to say. But when I think of the serious

charges that are made, and the cunning with which those charges, false

though they be, are sustained, I can conceive of no combination of

circumstances that would justify the now senior senator from Utah for

being silent on that occasion. The suggestion of friends may be a good

thing to listen to sometimes; but occasions can arise--and this, in my

judgment, was one of them--when the call of duty should lead one to

reject the counsel of well-meaning but perhaps ill-informed friends,

and the cold calculations of over caution. It might be possible, of

course, that a reply such as one might desire to make, could not be

made on the spur of the moment; but ten minutes devoted to denouncing

the falsehoods of that speech, and the unmasking of the man who uttered

it, would have had a beneficial effect upon the public mind, and would

have been more effective than any reply that can now be made. Anything

that may be said from this platform, or any other in Utah, or anything

that may be said in the future upon the floor of the senate chamber,

will not have the effect that an emphatic denial of the charges would

have had while the gentleman who made them was still a senator of the

United States.[A] That opportunity, however, is lost. All that may

be done, here in Utah, at least, is to point out to our youth the

untruthfulness of these charges, and disclose the sophistry by which

an attempt is made to sustain them. I account myself fortunate in

having an opportunity to undertake such a task before this magnificent

assembly.

[Footnote A: For Senator Smoot it is said that he followed his advisors

among the senators, and that the event of retaining his seat by a vote

rejecting the resolution to declare that seat vacant, is a vindication

of his silence. The senator is, of course, entitled to that view of the

case, but to what extent retaining his seat was due to his silence in

the foregoing occasion is a value that can never be determined; and it

does not matter now that the event has ended so happily for the senator

and for Utah.]

AUTHORSHIP OF THE KEARNS' SPEECH.

Before proceeding to the speech itself, I want to say a word or two

in relation to its authorship. It will go without saying that the

ex-senator who stands responsible for it is not its author. Those of

us who chance to be acquainted with the dullness of his mind and the

density of his ignorance know very well that his mind never conceived

the speech; nor did he fashion the polished and falsely eloquent

sentences devoted to so bad a cause. Those of us who served with him in

the Constitutional convention of this state painfully remembering the

very few occasions on which he sought to express himself upon the floor

of that convention hall, can never believe for a moment that he is

the author of the speech. Those who were present in the Tabernacle in

Salt Lake City on the occasion when the President of the United States

honored that city and the state with his presence, and who saw this now

ex-senator when he addressed that assembly, with hands thrust deep into

his pockets, with stomach thrown forward, and head thrown back, and in

nasal tones only becoming a retired pugilist--and heard him say in the

opening sentence of his speech, "We Americans ain't born to nuthin',

but we git there just the same" (Laughter); and who had no better taste

than to make the visit of the chief executive of this nation to our

state the occasion of a partisan harangue, know very well that he is

not the author of this senate speech. He is only the author of this

speech in the sense that he has adopted it. This speech is his only in

the sense that he bought it. I shall not undertake to describe all the

contempt I feel for a man who occupies the high station of a senator of

the United States, and who consents to repeat, parrot-like, the bought

phrases fashioned by another mind. Jewelry in a swine's snout is as

nothing to this.

THE BOUGHT FABRIC OF ANOTHER'S RHETORIC.

I glory in that pride, which would prefer to stand in tatters, though

the biting winds of winter might nip one, rather than to be dressed in

the cast-off clothing or the borrowed furs of a prince; so also I would

glory in silence rather than to arise in my place in so august a body

as the United States senate and repeat as mine the speech conceived

and written by another, though its eloquence rivaled that of a Pitt, a

Chatham or a Webster. Indeed the more eloquent the speech the deeper

must be the embarrassment--the shame. But here I pause, though I had

the language of a Solomon or a Shakespeare I should never be able to

express my contempt for the senator who would consent to appear clothed

in the borrowed or bought fabric of another's rhetoric. We may dismiss

the ex-senator right here, so far as thinking that he had anything to

do with this speech more than the reading of it.

I wish now to say a word in regard to the spirit in which I propose to

discuss this speech. I believe in the amenities of debate. There is

nothing quite so joyous as to witness a debate when the differences

discussed are honest differences, when opponents are honorable and

talented men. I think I may be pardoned, altogether excused, in fact,

from any exhibition of egotism, if I say that I take some pride in the

reputation I think I have in this state for fairness in debate, and

respectful treatment of my opponents. But the amenities of debate do

not require me to say that my opponent's statements are true when I

know them to be false; or that his argument is good and sound when I

know it to be the merest sophistry; or that his motives are patriotic

when I know them to be selfish and revengeful. Therefore, when I meet

and have to deal with such a speech as the one before me, it is not to

be expected that I shall handle it with gloves, and I promise you I

shall not.

THE QUESTION OF COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES.

I now come to the speech itself; my reply will follow the order of

the topics set forth in the speech, with very slight exceptions; and

by reason of following the order of topics laid down in the speech,

I come first of all to the consideration of the pledges under which

Utah obtained statehood--the compact between the State of Utah and the

United States.

Of that long conflict that raged in Utah from early days down to

the year 1890 I need not speak. You are familiar with its history.

You know that the foundation facts of that controversy are these:

that the Latter-day Saints believed a revelation had been given in

which was made known, first of all, the eternity of the marriage

covenant, with the permission and I may say injunction, under certain

circumstances, for good men to have a plurality of wives. You know of

the successive enactments of Congress, made at the demand of sectarian

clamor throughout the United States against this practice. You know

how these successive acts brought to bear hardships upon the Church,

until at last we were relieved from the responsibility and obligation

of maintaining in practice that plural marriage system, by the issuance

of the Manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff in 1890. You know upon

that step being taken, that the bitterness of feeling that had hitherto

existed subsided; and there began to be manifested a desire that the

old Church and anti-Church political parties should be disbanded, and

that here in Utah, as in the other states of the Union, the people

should divide according to their political convictions to one or the

other of the great national political parties. These movements finally

resulted in the passage of an Enabling Act, authorizing the election

of a Constitutional convention for the purpose of framing a state

government. This convention met in the spring of 1895, and was the

instrument through which so far as the people of Utah are concerned,

the compact between the State of Utah and the United States was made.

When it is necessary to establish what a given compact is, instead of

calling to mind this man's opinion, and that man's opinion of it, why

not go to the compact itself, and after considering it give it a fair

interpretation? That is the method of treatment that I have proposed to

myself, and consequently I am going to that compact. The Enabling act

contained this clause, which was the crystallized demand of the people

of the United States upon the people of Utah:

"And said convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable,

without the consent of the United States and the people of said

state:

"First, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be

secure, and that no inhabitant of said state shall be molested in

person on account of his or her mode of religious worship; provided

that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

That is what the people of the United States demanded of the people

of Utah through the voice of the national Congress--nothing more than

that, nothing less than that. Polygamous or plural marriages are to

be forever prohibited. That is the demand of the people of the United

States.

That being the demand, what was the response to it on the part of the

people of Utah, speaking through the Constitutional convention? This

was the response:

ORDINANCE.

"The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent

of the United States and the people of the state:

"First, perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed.

No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or

property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but

polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

You will observe that the convention incorporated in this provision the

very language of the Enabling act.

That was the demand, and that the response to the demand. But it

was not all of the response. There was something more. After this

declaration had been made, towards the conclusion of the work of the

convention, when that part of the Constitution called the "Schedule"

was introduced (and by the way, in order that you may understand that

I have clear knowledge of these matters from personal participation in

them, I may say that I was a member of the committee on "Schedule"),

Mr. Varian, a member from Salt Lake county, called the attention of

the convention to the fact that while we had made this declaration

against "polygamous or plural marriages," he held, and very rightly,

too, that it was not self-operating, and provided no penalties for its

violation; but was merely a declaration, and he doubted if it would be

sufficient to meet the expectations of the people of the United States.

He therefore recommended a certain course now to be described. You

perhaps will remember that our territorial Legislature of 1892 enacted

what was virtually the Edmunds-Tucker law. They followed very closely

the congressional enactment. Now, said Mr. Varian, in substance,

your Legislature enacted practically the law of Congress against

these offenses; that being the case, it expresses the willingness of

your legislators to meet the demands of the country on this subject.

Therefore, let us take so much of this territorial enactment as defines

"polygamy, or plural marriage," and provides for the punishment

thereof, and make it a provision in this Constitution, operating

without any further legislation. Then the people of the United States

will know that you mean really to prohibit "polygamous or plural

marriages" against which you make your declaration in the ordinance. In

pursuance of this proposition he introduced this resolution:

"The act of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the territory

of Utah, entitled, 'An act to punish polygamy and other kindred

offenses,' approved Feb. 4, A. D. 1892, in so far as the same

defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to

be in force in the State of Utah."

Mr. Varian was of the opinion that since this territorial enactment

invaded the field already occupied by congressional enactment it was

void, and that when Utah became a state the territorial law would not

be in force in the state, and of course the congressional enactments

applicable to the territory would cease to be operative upon the

attainment of statehood; hence he thought it necessary to make this

constitutional provision against "polygamous or plural marriages."

But the part of the territorial law relating to polygamous living or

"unlawful cohabitation"--to use the phrase of the law itself--was

not made part of the Constitution of this state. And why? Because

the demand made by the people of the United States did not reach to

that condition. The demand was only: "provided polygamous or plural

marriages are forever prohibited." There were other lawyers in the

constitutional convention who contested Mr. Varian's opinion, and

insisted that this law of the territory would be operative in the

state, and therefore there was no need of adopting his amendment;

whereupon a protracted and earnest debate took place, in the course

of which it was pointed out to Mr. Varian that he had cut this old

territorial law in two; he had taken the part that defined and

prohibited "polygamy or plural marriages" and made it part of the

Constitution, but he had left out the part of the law relating to

unlawful cohabitation, and the effect of such action by implication

would be to repeal that part of the territorial law defining and

punishing unlawful cohabitation. In the course of the argument made on

that point in the convention the following took place:

Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask you [Mr. Varian] a question.

The gentleman will agree with me that your [his] amendment will

repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?"

Mr. Varian [answering Mr. Evans]--No; there is nothing to repeal.

If you want the other kindred offenses [dealt with], my answer is,

prohibit them by law under penalties. * * * *

Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask one question. Suppose the

act of 1892 were valid? (i. e., the territorial law dealing with

polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, polygamous living, is referred

to)--

Mr. Varian--If the law were valid I should not then introduce--

Mr. Evans (Weber)--Wouldn't it then repeal everything except the

polygamy?

Mr. Varian--If the law were valid it might repeal by implication,

although repeals by implication are not favored.[A]

[Footnote A: Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. ii, p. 1748.]

Mr. Varian's resolution was adopted and became part of the

Constitution, so that in the matter of compact between Utah and the

United States on the subject of polygamy [i. e., polygamous marrying]

our response went even beyond the demand of the people of the United

States as voiced in the Enabling act authorizing us to establish a

state government, in that we not only adopted the very language of the

enabling act, but accepted the definition of polygamy and provided the

punishment, prescribed for that offense by Congress; but no demand was

made and no action was taken respecting unlawful cohabitation; nor did

it in any manner enter into Utah's compact with the United States.[B]

[Footnote B: Mr. Varian held views in harmony with what he said in the

discussion on the floor of the Constitutional Convention even before

that Convention assembled in the spring of 1895, for at the Territorial

Bar Association of Utah, in January of that year, Mr. Varian, then a

member-elect of the Constitutional Convention, said, on referring to

statehood for Utah:

"In accordance with the general convictions of civilized men and

the spirit of free institutions, religious liberty will be fully

secured by the organic law and a prohibition against plural or

polygamous marriages adopted in deference to the suggestion by

Congress. Whether it shall ever be stricken from the Constitution

will depend solely upon the future temper and will of the people.

It will be observed that the actual polygamous status, or living

with two or more women as wives, known in Utah as a criminal

offense termed "unlawful cohabitation," is not referred to in the

proviso of the Enabling Act. Whether the Constitution builders will

content themselves with prohibiting polygamous marriages, or will

go further and prescribe the polygamous association also will be

developed in time."

And time developed the fact that the Constitutional Convention took no

action whatsoever in relation to polygamous living, nor was any attempt

made to deal with that phase of the question since the convention

conceived that it had done its full duty, all that was required of

it, by the Enabling Act, by "Forever prohibiting plural or polygamous

marriages."]

Now, understand me, I am not taking the ground that unlawful

cohabitation--"polygamous living"--as it has come to be called--is not

now contrary to the law in Utah. That it is under the ban of the law

is known to every one. But it became so because our state Legislature,

after the constitutional convention had settled this vexed question

upon the terms here pointed out--our state Legislature (and why I have

never yet understood) proceeded to unsettle what had been settled in

that convention, picked up the part of the old territorial law that had

been discarded by the convention and enacted it with the rest of the

code prepared by the special code commission.

Hence unlawful cohabitation is under the ban by our state enactment;

and I am not arguing that polygamous living is not against the law,

and am not attempting to justify any one in the violation of that

law. I am now merely pointing out the fact that in our compact with

the government of the United States disruption of marital relations

coming down to us out of the past constituted no part of that compact.

The terms of the compact are here in the Enabling act and in the

Constitution, and may be read and known of all men.

That compact was not made between the Mormon Church leaders, as claimed

by Mr. Kearns' adopted speech, and the United States government, but

between the people of the United States acting through Congress and

the chief executive of the nation, and the people of Utah, acting

through their representatives in the Constitutional convention. Utah's

Constitutional convention sought earnestly to meet the demands made

upon our people by the nation. The chief executive of the nation

by accepting the Constitution we had formed and proclaiming Utah's

admission into the Union, said we had succeeded in meeting those

demands. To undertake now to read into that compact something that was

not demanded by the Enabling act, and not conceded by the convention,

that is not expressly found in its terms, and not fairly to be implied

from them, is infamous. Yet that is what is constantly sought to be

done, and we have all sorts of extravagant claims made as to what the

Mormon Church leaders pledged in order to obtain statehood--the compact

they made with the nation, and how the Mormon Church has broken it, but

never a word do we hear as to the compact itself. The Mormon Church

leaders made no pledges to obtain statehood, except as in common with

all the people of the state they accepted and ratified the compact

implied in the Enabling act and the provision in the Utah Constitution

forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages and providing

penalties for that offense. The Mormon Church officials pleaded for

amnesty for their people, it is true, but amelioration of the hard

conditions which a cruel enforcement of the law imposed, not statehood,

was the object of their petition.

The foregoing, then, was the compact between the State of Utah and

the United States. The question now is, Has it been violated by the

State of Utah or by the United States. Certainly not by the latter;

and I affirm, with absolute confidence that the affirmation cannot be

successfully contradicted, that the compact has not been violated by

the State, or the people of Utah. On the contrary, I hold that the

compact, such as it was, has been absolutely fulfilled. In this opinion

I am sustained by the views of a very distinguished member of the House

of Representatives, who discussed the subject somewhat at length on the

floor of the House when the Roberts case was considered by that body.

It was urged in the report of the special committee which investigated

the right of the Representative from Utah to his seat in the House,

that "his election as a Representative is an explicit and offensive

violation of the 'understanding' by which Utah was admitted as a state."

This "understanding" and the "compact" were discussed on the floor of

the House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following

language:

"I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the

authority for the proposition that the United States government

can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before

a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it,

exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over

the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it

oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act,

although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that

exists between the States and the general government by reason of

this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under

this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding'

which is based on--what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it

was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these

times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing

between the States and the general government. I knew that the

theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I

have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865.

More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic

and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle--the blue and

the grey, brethren all--rendered up their lives that that infamous

proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the

dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it

ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please

of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract

existing between a State and the United States."

Discussing the question of "compact" further, Mr. Littlefield said:

"Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or

contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between

the State and the general government. They do not stand in the

position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was

to become a State was fully performed when she became a State.

The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the

condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the

condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists.

"What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said

convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and

the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was

a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the

admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is

gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved

in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of

the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of

Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of

Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has

not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for

the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory

is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely

without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any

writer to stand upon."

With Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between

Utah and the United States having been violated, it has been fulfilled.

Utah has made no effort to repeal the Constitutional provision forever

prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages. On the contrary, her State

Legislature has even re-enacted the part of the old Congressional and

Territorial law that had been ignored by the Constitutional convention,

defining and punishing polygamous living--that is, "unlawful

cohabitation."

OF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MONARCHY.

Passing from the matter of the compact which the speech to which I am

replying falsely charges over and over again that we have violated, I

come to the accusation and false charges made against the Mormon Church.

Whoever constructed this speech made the central idea of it, the

existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch" in the State of Utah. The

"monarchy" is the Mormon Church; the "monarch" is the President of that

Church. In order that you may know I am not mistaken, I shall read to

you a quotation from the speech on this point:

"Under these several men (the Church Presidents) the social

autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time

it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the

original Joseph or under Brigham Young. * * * I want you to know

that this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality

of men immediately established and has maintained for the mass of

its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its

rulers to regal authority and splendor * * * the chief among them

has the dignity of a monarch. * * * In all this social system each

Apostle has his great part. He is inseparable from it. He wields

now, as does the minister at court, such part of power as the

monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation

that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order

that he may become the ruler."

There is much more to the same effect, but this is enough to show you

that the existence of both a "monarchy" and a "monarch" are charged as

existing in the Church organization and in its president.

I wish to call your attention to the fact that this is mere assumption.

There is no "monarchy" and there is no "monarch" in the Mormon Church.

It is a fundamental, constitutional, and I might say institutional

principle in the Church that all things in the Church shall be done

by common consent of the Church; (Doc. & Cov. sec. xxvi) and so long

as that remains the great underlying principle of the government--and

largely even of administrative functions,--of the Church of Jesus

Christ, I ask you where the principle of monarchy can come in?

Furthermore it is expressly provided that no officer of the Church

can occupy a place in any of the general or local quorums of the

Church, only as he is sustained and accepted by the members of the

several divisions of the Church named. (Doc. & Cov. xx: 65.) Moreover,

elections, which give the opportunity to get rid of undesirable

officers, are more frequent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, than in any other system of ecclesiastical government known to

men. Will you tell me how a monarchy can exist in the face of these

fundamental truths? I would like to see some explanation of that.

Again, the President of the Church is no "monarch." Yet let me read to

you how he is described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech:

"Under these several men [successive Presidents of the Church] the

social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present

time it is probably at as high a point as it every reached under

the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The President of the

Church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His home consists

of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded

by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. In

addition to this he has an official residence of historic character

near to the office which he occupies as President. When he travels

he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really

servitors. When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler

among his subjects."

Can any of you recognize President Joseph F. Smith in that description?

I cannot boast of an extremely intimate acquaintance with President

Smith's domestic life, or his financial status; but it has been my

good fortune to know him personally some 30 years. I know something

of the severe economy and frugality which he practices. I know his

homes are but cottages, without the grandeur here given them. I know

that his family lives in economy and frugality, and that every tree,

evergreen, shrub, or flowering plant, or plat of grass about any one of

his cottage homes was planted by his own hands or the labor of his sons

and wives. I do know that. And though he does now occupy an historic

building, owned, not by Joseph F. Smith, but by the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is more for the convenience of the

people and those who have business with him that he dwells there than

because of any "regal" or extravagant tastes that he himself possesses,

and in that "official residence" he lives the simplest of lives. I know

at least seven of his sons who have arrived at manhood's estate, and

I know that they live by daily toil, as my sons and your sons do, as

the sons of all the common people do, and occupying no very exalted

positions in the industrial or business world, although they are

capable, honest and hard working young men. One of them has assisted

me in my office work as stenographer for three years. Don't you think

if President Smith really affected this "regal state," "lorded" it

over the people as he is here represented as doing, and lived in this

"series of villas of sufficient exclusiveness" that he would undertake

to elevate these sons of his and all his family above this toil in

which they are engaged?

The description presents a false picture. I brand it as such. It

represents rather the style and state in which the writer of Mr.

Kearns' speech would live if he possessed the opportunities he believes

President Smith possesses, rather than the manner of President Smith's

living. Especially as to the villas of "sufficient exclusiveness."

Again, while President Smith, as we believe, has received a divine

appointment to the station he holds, he is dependent for his

continuance in that office, as he was dependent for his elevation to

it, upon the votes of the people. He is subject to the laws of the

Church, as much so as you or I; and a special provision is made in the

laws of God for a tribunal before which, for acts of irregularity and

unrighteousness, he can be called to account, testimony taken against

him, and if his offenses are of sufficiently serious a nature he may be

dismissed from his high office, and excommunicated from the Church; and

the revelation which provides these arrangements concerning him says

that the decision of the court in question is the end of controversy

in his case. I know that some men, in their over-zeal to exalt the

office of President of the Church have advanced extravagant ideas upon

the subject such as saying that no complaint must be made of those

occupying that position; that the people must go on performing their

daily duties without question, and then if the President should do

wrong, God would look after him. Such teachings have now and then been

heard; but I call your attention to the fact that the Church Of God

is greater than any one man within that Church, however exalted his

station may be; that the Lord has provided means by which the Church

can correct every man within it, and can-dismiss the unworthy from

power. That right is resident in the Church of Christ; and the Church

don't have to wait till God kills off unworthy servants before a wrong

can be righted. The power exists within the Church to correct any

evil, of whatever name or nature, that may arise within it, and that

without disrupting the Church, or creating anarchy, but all things are

to be done in order, and as God has appointed them. I could give you

references to the Doctrine and Covenants covering all these points,

but it is a matter of such common knowledge among you that it is not

necessary.

Again, the decisions of the First Presidency of the Church are not

final in relation to matters of administration and government in the

Church, if such decisions are made in unrighteousness, but from such

decisions of the First Presidency appeals lie to the general assembly

of all the quorums of the Priesthood, which constitute the highest

spiritual authority in the Church, that is, all the quorums of the

Priesthood are greater than any one quorum, even though it should be

the First Presidency. (Doc. and Cov. sec. 107). Neither "monarchy" nor

"monarch" can exist where these principles are recognized, as they are

recognized in the Church.

OF THE CHURCH TITHING SYSTEM AND ALLEGED COMMERCIALISM.

The Church government rests purely and solely upon moral authority. Let

me explain. Authority is represented in government as of two kinds. Our

writers on government tell us that one is "effective authority" and

the other is "moral authority." You see effective authority operative

in the various governments of man, in kingdoms, empires and republics;

their authority rests on force, on compulsion. But moral authority

rests on persuasion, not upon compulsion or force. "The action of

God," says one, "upon man is moral and moral only. By constituting man

free, he has refused to exercise effective authority over him, and an

ecclesiastic or politic society claiming divine authority must exercise

moral authority only; for the moment it exercises compulsion it ceases

to represent God and resolves itself into effective authority which is

human, all human, and not at all divine," (Baring-Gold). The government

of the Church of Latter-day Saints is such a moral government as is

here described. It rests on moral authority only. I read to you from

one of the revelations:

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue

of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by

gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

"By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the

soul without hypocrisy, and without guile."

This is the spirit of the authority underlying this ecclesiastical

institution that is described as a "monarchy!"

Having laid the foundation for his argument in this assumption of

the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch," the author of Mr.

Kearns' speech weaves around it all sorts of fallacies, a few of

which I shall examine. It is charged that the Church is a business

corporation rather than a Church, and is establishing a monopoly in

business, and threatens, as some gigantic trust might threaten, the

industries of this intermountain region. This is not true. It is true

that the Church has invested some of its means in various corporations

and enterprises. In so doing it has manifested, as I think, profound

wisdom. It has long been regarded as a wise policy in establishing

endowments for charitable purposes to invest the original donations

given by the generously inclined, and use only the interest upon them

for the charitable purpose, and thus place the charity upon a basis

sure to prolong its life of usefulness. I say that is a policy of good

sense, and good judgment; and that is what is done and no more than

that when the Trustee-in-Trust of the Mormon Church invests Mormon

Church tithes in business enterprises. But the Church holdings in the

various corporations where the investments are made are not sufficient

to dominate those institutions or to establish them as trusts in the

industrial affairs of the state. Charitable, educational and missionary

work are the purposes to which the revenue of the Church is directly

devoted. In proof of this let me call your attention to the work in

which the Church is engaged, and in which our tithes are consumed.

We teach, as you all know, the principle of gathering to our people.

Wherever the gospel is preached the cry goes with it, "Come out of

Babylon, oh ye, my people, that ye partake not of her sins and receive

not of her plagues." And inasmuch as there is a gathering, must there

not also be made some provision to care for the people who come to us?

Must we not provide some way for them to gain a foothold in the land if

they are to become inhabitants of Zion? Most assuredly; and so part of

our tithe funds go into colonizing enterprises that provide a means of

obtaining homes for the people. This is done not only in the interests

of those who come to us from afar, but in the interests also of those

who grow up in our own old centers of population and find the need of

enlarged opportunities.

The Church has to sustain publication houses in various parts of the

world, and they are maintained, in part, by the general funds of the

Church.

We have churches to build in all the wards and stakes of Zion; and

while I know, as you know, that part of that expense is met by

the people, outside of their tithing, part of it is also met by

appropriation from the general funds of the Church.

Temples have been built, and not only built, but maintained. We have

four of these magnificent structures now in the State of Utah, and

others are in contemplation in other lands where our people are settled.

We have a missionary system to support; and while it is true the

missionary meets his own expenses largely, yet the Church from its

general funds provides for his return to his home and here and there

assistance is rendered where it becomes absolutely necessary.

The Church has its employees to pay; while there is no organization

in the world where so much of free labor is given to it--especially

in the matter of its preaching ministry--as in the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church does of course require all the

time and talent of some of its servants, and when that is the case it

necessarily has to remunerate them for their services.

A Church school system has been founded and must be maintained; and

this is a much larger enterprise than many suppose it to be. We

sustain, and chiefly from the general funds of the Church, the Brigham

Young university, Provo, Utah; the Latter-day Saints' University, Salt

Lake City, Utah; the Brigham Young college, Logan, Utah; the Weber

Stake academy, Ogden, Utah; the Juarez Stake academy, Juarez, Mexico;

the Snow academy, Ephraim, Utah; the Ricks academy, Rexburg, Ida.; The

Thatcher academy, Thatcher, Ariz.; the Fielding academy, Paris, Idaho;

the Cassia Stake Academy, Oakley, Idaho; the Emery Stake academy,

Castle Dale, Utah; the St. Johns Stake academy, St. Johns, Arizona; the

Snowflake Stake academy, Snowflake, Arizona; the Uintah Stake academy,

Vernal, Utah; the Beaver Branch B. Y. University, Beaver, Utah.

If you suppose that this school system does not make large drafts upon

the general funds of the Church paid in by you and all of us, you are

very much mistaken.

Again, the Church has erected a magnificent hospital in Salt Lake City,

the best in the west, and that chiefly from the general funds of the

Church, and it will have to be maintained and doubtless enlarged in the

same way.

In addition to all this there is the maintenance of the poor, who

are always with us, and who are always welcomed into the Church of

Christ, though the maintenance and care of them always has been and is

now a heavy draft upon the resources of the Church, but it is borne

cheerfully since the love and care of the Church for the poor is one

of the evidences of her divinity. When men came to the Son of God

anciently and demanded to know "Art thou the Messiah, or must we look

for another?" Jesus said, "Go and tell those who sent you that the

sick are healed, that the blind see, that the lame walk;" and then, I

think most glorious of all, he said, "And to the poor the Gospel is

preached." And so in this dispensation of the fulness of times, one of

the signs of the work's divinity is that it has preached the gospel to

the poor, has gathered them from the nations of the earth, has tried to

teach them how to sustain themselves, but where that has been out of

their power the Church has nourished and supported them from its tithes

and its free-will fast offerings, so that the cry of the poor does not

reach the ears of the God of Sabbaoth from the midst of the saints.

After the author of this Kearns' adopted speech had recalled the fact

that Mormons looked upon this part of their work with pride, he says

that in some of the institutions established by the state for the

maintenance of the poor, notwithstanding Mormon pride in care of their

poor, there are some Mormon poor in those institutions. Well, what of

it? Have not the Mormons as well as other citizens a right to such

assistance? It is conceded even in the speech under consideration that

the Mormons pay half the taxes (and they pay much more than half) out

of which the infirmaries with other state institutions are sustained.

But notwithstanding there may be some few Mormons in these state

institutions, it still remains true that the Mormon Church does much

for the poor, and that this charitable work is a heavy draft upon her

revenues.

It is falsely represented in this speech that the tithes of the Church

are the personal income of the Trustee-in-Trust of the Church.

I know there are many here who, when I make that announcement, will

doubtless think, surely Mr. Roberts must be mistaken; a charge so

absurd as that would certainly not be made on the floor of the United

States senate. But I will read you the charge:

"Independent of these business concerns, he [President Smith] is in

receipt of an income like unto that which a royal family derives

from a national treasury. One-tenth of all the annual earnings of

all the Mormons in the world flows to him. These funds amount to

the sum of $1,600,000 annually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000,

which is one-quarter of the entire taxable wealth of the State of

Utah. It is the same as if he owned, individually, in addition

to all his visible enterprises, one-quarter of the wealth of the

state, and derived from it 5 per cent of income without taxation

and without discount. * * * With an income of 5 per cent upon

one-quarter of the entire assessed valuation of the State of Utah

today, how long will it take this monarch, with his constantly

increasing demands for revenue, to absorb the productive power so

their he shall be receiving an income of 5 per cent upon one-half

the property, and then upon all of the property of the state? This

is worse than the farming taxes under the old French kings. Will

Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?"

I say that a meaner falsehood could not be uttered than is uttered in

those sentences. And it was not done in ignorance. It was done with

the intent to deceive the people of the United States, to awaken their

bitterness against the great majority of the people in this state,

and to represent the Mormons as subservient to a monarch, to a tyrant

living in grandeur and upon the profits of their earnings, and was

intended to work mischief towards the people of this state. I need not

deny the falsehood--you all know the charge to be untrue--that the

funds which flow into the hands of the Trustee-in-Trust are but trust

funds. Not one dollar belongs to him personally. These funds are used

for the various purposes that we have just been considering.

Again, this speech falsely represents that the "government money" is

tithed. I shall have to read the passage from the speech in which the

charge occurs in order to get you to believe that, I know. So here it

is:

"It will astound you to know that every dollar of United States

money paid to any servant of the government who is a Mormon is

tithed for the benefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus

paid he gets $100 to swell his grandeur. This is also true of money

paid out of the public treasury of the State of Utah to Mormon

officials."

Nor is the end yet:

"But what is worst of all, the monarch dips into the sacred public

school fund and extracts from every Mormon teacher one-tenth of

his or her earnings and uses it for his unaccounted purposes; and,

by means of these purposes and the power which they constitute, he

defies the laws of his state, the sentiment of his country, and is

waging war of nullification on the public school system, so dear to

the American people."

And that is not all:

"In all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to

voluntary gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters

connected legitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are

against the tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from

individuals the moneys which they ought not to spare from family

needs, and which they do not wish to spare."

Then tell me why they spare it? That is my question. The tithes that

are paid by Mormons are voluntary donations to carry on the work of the

Church, and the Church possesses no power by which it can coerce man,

woman or child to the payment of tithes. Will you tell me when a man

was ever excommunicated solely because he did not pay his tithes. Is

there any such case?

But to proceed with the proof that this speech charges that government

money is tithed:

"My comment and criticism relate to the power of a monarch whose

tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys paid by the

government are considered the property of the government's servant

until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary tribute,

with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the

monarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs,

which are not a part of either religion or charity."

Can straight-out lying or any other description of lying whatsoever

beat this? Not from the regions of the lowest hell can come a spirit

more damned in falsehood than the author of this speech, and a senator

of the United States sank lower than the author of the falsehood by

repeating it from his place in the senate chamber.

One man works for the government; another teaches school. When such

employees receive money for the Compensation of their services

that money, of course, belongs to them. They own it. It is not

government money. The farmer who digs and delves in the earth for his

compensation, and who by virtue of his toil and going into partnership

with nature--with the soil and the rain and the sunshine--produces his

crop and sells it in the market, and holds the cash in his hand--I say

that money is no more completely the farmer's than is the money earned

by the government employee and the school teacher, theirs. It will go

without saying that the school teacher and the government employee have

just as much right to devote a portion of their income in the work of

the church of their choice as has the farmer to contribute from his

income to a like purpose. This part of the speech is an infamous appeal

to the prejudices of the people of the United States, and is based on

falsehood absolutely.

I might, if it would not take too long, enter into those paragraphs

of the speech which by wonderful twisting and turning undertake to

make it appear that the Gentiles also are made to bear the burden of

this tithing system--this alleged "ecclesiastical tax, levied upon the

people of the state," but it would require too long a discussion, and

so I shall pass it. Besides it is a proposition too absurd for serious

consideration.

A DESCRIPTION OF THE AUTHOR OF SENATOR KEARNS' SPEECH. [A]

[Footnote A: In the paragraphs under this heading are described

the character and lightening like political changes of a certain

politician, whom Senator Kearns employed upon his personal anti-Mormon

newspaper, published in Salt Lake City; and who, it is quite generally

conceded, wrote the Kearns Senate Speech.]

These several clauses of the speech just considered indicate better

than any others that I have found, the probable authorship of the

speech; and I want to talk about that just five minutes.

The man who can utter such bald-faced falsehoods as these is the kind

of man who could believe with the Republicans at one time that the

foreign importer of goods paid our tariff taxes, and then later could

join with the Democrats and conclude, after all, that it must be the

consumer who pays the tax.

Such a person as wrote that speech could be one who, sent from a

Democratic convention, held in one of the states, to the national

Democratic convention, could enthusiastically wire back from the far

east that he was well pleased with the Democratic platform and nominee,

that the thing for Democrats to do was to "get together and stay

together," and then could come home and, hearing the chink of silver,

interpret it as a call to him to assist in the organization of a new

party that should work for the defeat of the Democratic nominee and the

Democratic policies.

The kind of man who wrote that speech could perform any inconsistency

in the most consistent manner. I warrant you that he is one who could

eat his cake and yet have it; who could let go and hold on at the

same time; he could run with the hare and yet bark with the hounds;

if he were only a physical, equestrian acrobat, as he is a mental

acrobat, he could perform a feat up to the present time regarded as

impossible--that is, he could ride at the same time two horses going in

opposite directions, whereas it has been quite universally held that

if a man rides more than one horse at a time the horses must go in the

same direction.

The author of that speech is like one of old, who, however, shall be

nameless, because his name is never mentioned in polite society, he

can, I warrant you, "quote Scripture to his purpose, aye, and clothe

his naked villainy with old odd ends stolen out of holy writ, and seem

a saint when most he plays the devil."

The author of that speech might be one who in the hour of his greatest

need when on trial, in a way, before the people of the community where

he dwelt, would solicit--or have solicited for him--and receive the

assistance of a powerful friend in whom the people had confidence;

a friend who hoped for his future, and who believed at the time,

this possible author of the speech in question was being unfairly

dealt with, and hence gave him a certificate which rehabilitated his

reputation, and saved him from condemnation by the people; and after

receiving such magnanimous treatment, dealt out to him in a spirit of

mercy and generosity, this possible author could turn and smite the

hand that blessed him, and bark, cur-like, at the heels of the one who

did him the greatest kindness? Such an one as this might have written

the speech which Senator Kearns adopted and took to the senate chamber

of the United States for its christening.

OF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MENACE TO GENTILE INDUSTRIES.

It is falsely alleged in this Kearns adopted speech that the Mormon

Church is a menace to Gentile industries in the state excepting

mining and smelting, and even these, it charges, are threatened with

extermination on certain conditions:

"Let it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the

property of Utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the

president of the Church, and that at his instance any industry, any

institution within the state, could be destroyed, except the mining

and smelting industry. Even this industry his personal and Church

organ has attacked with a threat of extermination by the courts,

or by additional legislation, if the smelters do not meet the view

expressed by the Church organ."

The charge that the smelters are threatened with extermination by the

courts is refuted by the very article from the Deseret News the senator

quotes in support of this supposed threat. The facts briefly stated

are these: In the south end of Salt Lake valley, near to Salt Lake

City, are a number of smelters that daily belch out volumes of smoke

and deadly fumes which are injuring the interests of the farmers in

that locality, and threaten in time to desolate the southern suburbs

of Salt Lake City. The demand is that this evil shall be remedied, or

else, of course, that the cause of the difficulty be removed, and now

the proposition in the _News_ which is not at all what Senator Kearns'

adopted speech makes it out to be:

"The _Deseret News_ has counseled peace, consideration for the

smelter people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor

toward a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper

lines, and arbitration instead of litigation. But it really seems

now as though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin

will come to the agricultural pursuits of Salt Lake county, while

the city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. If

the companies that control those works will not or can not dispose

of the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks,

the fires will have to be banked and the nuisance suppressed. We

do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. We are of

opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that

efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay."

The other part of the senator's assertion on this point of the Mormon

Church being a menace to Gentile industry I really would not consider

were it not for the fact that others are taking up the refrain and

publishing such pipe dreams as this:

"But if this is the purpose [i. e. to drive out the Gentiles],

several things ought to be kept in mind. The first one is that most

of the wealth of Utah has been created by Gentiles. The Saints

were not opulent when the Gentiles came in force to Utah. Except

for the money that the Gentiles have paid the Saints for labor

and supplies, the Saints would not be very opulent now; again,

if something like a holy war is meditated against Gentiles, they

will neither lay down now nor run away. It would not take much of

a crusade to cause the Gentiles of Salt Lake to light their homes

with coal oil, to walk rather than ride on the street cars, to

trade only with Gentile merchants, to employ only Gentile help--in

short to closely imitate what the Saints are doing by them now.

Do the chiefs of the Church desire to precipitate this state of

affairs?"

I should think not. We may have had our differences with our Gentile

neighbors and friends, but we should be exceedingly sorry to part with

them. No, indeed; we would rather see them increase than diminish; ride

in street-cars than see them walk; and burn electric lights rather than

tallow dips, or coal oil.

But to be serious, isolation for Mormonism is neither possible nor

desirable. Here in Utah and the intermountain west our faith must teach

its doctrines, and here our people so exemplify its principles that

those who come in contact with them shall yet respect both the religion

and those who accept it, and practice it. Mormons have no disposition

at all to be unfriendly to Gentiles; and in refutation of the charge

that Mormons are unfriendly towards Gentile industries and business, I

call your attention to the fact that in the great and varied mercantile

business of our state, in our commerce, in the banking business, in

mining and smelting, our Gentile friends have become wonderfully

prosperous, a condition that could not have been realized under

circumstances described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech. There has been

formed no opposition against Gentiles looking to their injury; and I

feel safe in saying there will be none.

THE MORMON AND POLITICS.

Now I come to the most interesting part of the speech, that which most

becomes the now ex-senator to make. It is more worthy of himself. You

observe I said the "ex-senator;" thank the Lord for the "ex!"

It is charged in the speech that the Mormon Church is in politics. I

read you the passage:

"Through these channels of social and business relations they

[the Mormon leaders] can spread the knowledge of their political

desires without appearing obtrusively in politics. When the end

of their desire is accomplished they affect to wash their hands

of all responsibility by denying that they engaged in political

activities. Superficial persons, and those desiring to accept

this argument, are convinced by it. But never, in the palmy days

of Brigham Young, was there a more complete political tyranny

than is exercised by the present president of the Mormon Church

and his apostles. * * * Parties are nothing to these men except

as parties may be used by them. So long as there is a Republican

administration and Congress, they will lead their followers to

support Republican tickets; but if by any chance the Democratic

party should control this government with a prospect of continuance

in power, you would see a gradual veering around under the

direction of the Mormon leaders. When Republicans are in power the

Republican leaders of the Mormon people are in evidence and the

Democratic leaders are in retirement."

I plead not guilty to the charge of Mormon Democrats being in

retirement--speaking for one Democrat, at least; and I know my own case

is paralleled by many other cases of leading Mormon Democrats; we are

never in retirement. We are always in evidence, much to the disgust,

perhaps, of some people; nevertheless, when the drum sounds the war

spirit is on, and we are in the fight; and expect to be in the fights

of the future. I shall leave our Republican friends to plead their own

case, knowing very well their ability to do so.

THE PERSONAL CASE OF EX-SENATOR KEARNS.

The ex-senator very courageously declared that he would not pass by

his own case; and I am glad he did not, because there are some very

interesting items in it that I shall be pleased to consider, and it

constitutes him a very picturesque figure for at least one brief

moment. First of all, I want to call your attention to the fact that

this man admits that he was elected to the senate by Church influence.

He claims a sort of a "far off" kind of friendship with President

Snow. It certainly must have been very "far off," I can't make out the

affinities on which it was based. It certainly did not arise out of any

similarity of tastes, or anything in the compatibility of temperament

between the two men, for the poles are not farther apart than the

natures of these men. This is what the ex-senator says concerning his

election:

"For some reason he [President Snow] did not oppose my election

to the senate. Every other candidate for the place had sought his

favor; it came to me without price or solicitation on my part. The

friends and mouthpieces of some of the present leaders have been

mean enough to charge that I bought the senatorship from Lorenzo

Snow, President of their own Church. Here and now I denounce the

calumny against that old man, whose unsought and unbought favor

came to me in that contest. * * * I was elected. After all their

trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the very

means which they had basely invoked."

There is more of it, but this is enough, I think, to constitute the

admission that Mr. Kearns was elected, according to his view of it,

by Church influence. Either to affirm or deny this claim is not my

purpose. But mark further what Mr. Kearns says:

"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self respect

after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured

and the object which the Church monarchy intends to achieve."

Then I put to him this question: "Why did you for four long years

in dishonor retain the seat that came to you by these--according to

your description--dishonorable methods?" The gentleman's speech comes

four years too late to have any grace in it. If the next day after

his election, knowing then as thoroughly as he knows now, the means

and methods by which he secured that election--if at that time he had

published to the people of Utah and to the people of the United States

something like this:

"I discover that I have been elected by the influence of the Mormon

Church leaders. That influence was unsought by me, but I cannot afford

to accept a seat in the senate of the United States procured by methods

so injurious to the state, so disturbing to our peace. I therefore

lay down the honor that this Legislature would put upon me; for if I

go to the senate of the United States I must go unfettered by such

obligations as would be implied by my accepting this position given

me under such circumstances." If, I say, the gentleman four years ago

had taken a position of that kind all men would have had some respect

for him, and for his denunciation of the exercise of Church influence

in political affairs. But after sitting in the high place of honor for

four long years, enjoying the benefits of Church influence, then in the

last days of his senatorial term to stand up and repudiate the means by

which he says he was helped into that high station--it all comes with

very poor grace from him, and places his wrath against the exercise of

Church influence in politics under strong suspicion of hypocrisy. He

stands as one who has received stolen goods, and with great generosity

to himself appropriated these goods to his own use; they directly

or indirectly clothed him, perhaps, and fed him, or ministered to

his vanity; then after thoroughly exhausting the stolen goods and

the proceeds from them, he arises in a spirit of lofty morality and

denounces the means--if not the thieves--by which they were brought to

him. What would be your thought of such an one?

What excuse does the now ex-senator make for thus appropriating the

high honors of a senatorship that came to him by reason of his election

by Church influence? This is what he offers as his excuse:

"I have served with you four years, and have sought in a modest

way to make a credible record here. I have learned something of

the grandeur and dignity of the senate, something of its ideals,

which I could not know before coming here. I say to you, my fellow

senators, that this place of power is infinitely more magnificent

than I dreamed when I first thought of occupying a seat here. But

were it thrice as great as I now know it to be, and were I back

in that old time of struggle in Utah, when I was seeking for this

honor, I would not permit the volunteered friendship of President

Snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one atom of

the Church monarch's favor."

A little later in the speech he also says:

"My ideals have grown with my term of service in this body, and I

believe that the man who would render here the highest service to

his country must be careful to attain to this place by the purest

civic path that mortal feet can tread."

I am happy to learn that this gentleman's ideals have grown. There was

much need of such a growth, surely. But what a lofty morality breathes

through these sentences! It is very impressive in view of what I am

going to call your attention to presently. I want to reveal to you the

character of this man. I will read again:

"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self-respect,

after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured

and the objects which the Church monarch intends to achieve."

Mark that! And yet Mr. Kearns managed to retain his seat for four

long years, after he had learned by what means it had come to him;

and allowed his self-respect, meantime, to take care of itself.

I suggest also that had his term of office extended four years

longer--notwithstanding what he has learned about the honor and dignity

of a United States senatorship, he would doubtless have continued to

hold on to his "honors," through those four long, troubled years of

"dishonor." I would like to know what development of ideas between

the time of his election and the expiration of his term of office was

possible concerning the mischief of Church interference in politics

that could so wonderfully open the eyes of this ex-senator to the

iniquity of the methods by which his election was procured? Why, from

away back in territorial days, for forty-five years, this question of

the relation of Church and state has been debated in Utah, and we have

learned every lesson it seems to me there is to learn on the subject;

and yet, after the long controversy, it took four years in the senate

of the United States for this man to discover the wondrous iniquity of

receiving Church influence in an election to the senate of the United

States! But I have observed in several other of our experiences in the

State of Utah that for some mysterious reason politicians never can see

the mischief there is in the use of Church influence unless they can't

get it, Or they suspect it is being used for the interests of "the

other fellow."

But to return to our ex-senator. He says:

"No man can retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect

after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured

and the objects which the Church monarchy intends to achieve. Some

of my critics will say that I relinquish that which I could not

hold. I will not pause to discuss that point further than to say

that if I had chosen to adopt the policy with the present monarch

of the Church which his friends and mouthpieces say I did adopt

with the king who is dead, it might have been possible to retain

this place of honor with dishonor."

You have seen Mr. Kearns--this semblance of a man that in nothing

resembles a senator--rise in his place and attitudinize to fit the

phrases of his adopted speech before the gaze of this great nation

while he denounced the use of Church influence in politics; and now

you hear him say that if he had only adopted the methods charged

against him in obtaining his first election with the present "Church

monarch," he might have retained this honorable seat in the senate

"with dishonor." Would he solicit Church influence? the influence of

the President of the Church, for his re-election? Certainly not! Such a

thing never entered his politically pious mind! _Yet, knowing full well

the seriousness of the charge I make, I say to this great audience and

would say it to the people of the United States if my voice could reach

them, and that upon my word of honor, that this man, ex-Senator Kearns,

notwithstanding all his lofty utterances, both directly and indirectly,

too, sought that very influence for re-election which now he affects to

scorn. He, by personal application to President Joseph F. Smith, sought

it in the City of Washington, when President Smith was there to testify

before the Senate committee on privileges and elections. He sought for

that influence in Salt Lake City, sought it personally of the President

of the Church, and received the grand reply, "We are not in politics."

He sought Church influence indirectly, through what was intended to be

the good offices of a fellow senator, whose influence rests upon the

same basis as his own, the influence of wealth. Not only once did he

thus seek it, but on several occasions. Yet he stands in his place in

the Senate and declares that "No man can retain this seat from Utah and

retain his self-respect after he discovers the methods by which his

election is procured and the objects which the Church monarch intends

to achieve!" Still, while in possession of all the knowledge he has now

as to the methods and objects of the Mormon Church leaders, Mr. Kearns

sought that influence which he says even to be the innocent recipient

of would be dishonor!_

_In what light does this man now stand before the people of this state

and of the United States? To say that his course was one of lying and

hypocrisy would but faintly describe it; but these terms, weak as they

are, may be thrust into the very throat of him, "as deep as to the

lungs." Let him pluck them out if he can!_

_Not only did Mr. Kearns seek Church influence in order to encompass

his own re-election, but the Tribune war made upon the Mormon Church

was begun and carried forward in his interests; in the hope that the

present leaders of the Church could be frightened into supporting him

for re-dec-lion. I thank God that he found those whom he could not

frighten; whatever else comes of it, I thank the Lord for that._

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF EX-SENATOR KEARNS.

In concluding his adopted speech the ex-senator suggests a remedy for

all our Utah ills; and of course there is none of us who would question

his ability to tell the senate just what ought to be done to a state

that will no longer have Mr. Kearns for its senator.

The recommendation in substance is this:

Notice must be served upon the Church leaders that they must live

within the law. That notice was received a long time ago; and the

Mormon Church leaders not only received the notice, but acquiesced

in it, too. Prest. Wilford Woodruff received an inspired word that

relieved the Church of the burden of maintaining in practice a

principle which before then had been regarded as a duty to maintain,

in practice as well as in faith. Thus the way was opened for the

Mormon leaders to make a concession to the sentiment of the people of

the United States, and to the laws of Congress. It is realized by the

Mormon leaders also that even if they could they cannot with profit

nor to the advantage of the community treat with defiance those laws

of the state which prohibit polygamous living. But while that is the

case, those involved in that system of marriage which was taught as

a divine institution for more than a generation in Utah, have the

common rights that belong to those who enjoy the privileges of our

free institutions, including home rule, and the administration of the

law according to the sentiments of the people where they reside, just

as they have the right to be tried by juries of the vicinage where

it is alleged the laws are broken. If that local, popular sentiment

shall decide that it would be against public policy and the welfare

of a large class of the community to rigidly enforce those laws, then

I say they are entitled to that clemency. It is for that very reason

that home rule in government is so precious a boon, and so necessary to

the preservation of the liberties of the people. It is not just that

those involved in the Mormon marriage system shall be put in jeopardy

of fines and imprisonment by a contemptible spotter and spy, merely an

employee of the lowest sensational paper in the United States, the very

worst of yellow journals. They have a right to be free from that kind

of oppression, and to be subject to the law as administered in harmony

with the American spirit of law administration.

COMMENT OF THE EX-SENATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

Some one will say, however, that there are violators of the law in

Utah; and that, too, in relation to new marriages since the issuance

of the Manifesto, and since the admission of the state into the Union.

If that be true, if all that is claimed in relation to it be true,

(but that is not admitted,) then why not execute the law against

those who have violated it, and who have broken, so far as they are

concerned, the pledge that was given by the state on this subject? Why

not prosecute them, and not attempt to do what Edmund Burke a long time

ago declared he knew not the method of, namely, to draw an indictment

against, an entire people? In other states are not the laws violated?

And who is held responsible for that violation? The whole community

who are not parties to the violation 'of the law? No; the absurdity

of that appears upon the face of it. Why should the people of Utah

be judged by a standard different from that by which would be judged

the people of Ohio, or the people of Pennsylvania, or the people of

Montana? From the first Utah has suffered from this kind of treatment.

Every murder that was committed in the community in early days was

charged to the "Mormon" Church. When there was a hanging in Montana, or

a throat cutting in Nevada, or a lynching bee in Wyoming, the parties

concerned were the ones indicted and compelled to bear the burden of

their awful crime; but if such a thing happened in Utah, the "Mormon"

Church must be involved. And so now in these alleged violations of the

law concerning polygamous marriages, the Church is made a party to the

transgressions of individuals.

I say that the State of Utah has kept the compact that she made with

the people of the United States. When she said as she did say in her

Constitution that polygamous or plural marriages shall forever be

prohibited and provided for the punishment of such crimes, the State

of Utah could not guarantee that every one would obey the law, any

more than the inhabitants of Arizona, when they say through the law

that horse thieves shall be imprisoned, can engage that a horse shall

never again be stolen in that territory, and no horse thief ever

escape. What they do mean to say is that if such a crime is committed,

and the parties are arraigned under the processes of the law, they

shall meet the just penalty of their acts under the law. That is alt

they are pledged to do. And so I say concerning those in Utah who may

violate the laws, they are amenable to the laws of the state, and if

brought before the courts, and the evidence is sufficient, there can

be no doubt but they will be punished. But those who are accused of

crime have a right to the protection of the forms and processes of the

law; and they can not be hailed before a judge and cast into prison

merely because sensational charges are made against them in sensational

anti-Mormon newspapers; or because Madames Rumor and Neighborhood

Gossip say they are guilty as charged. Let the men guilty of violation

of the law bear their own burdens.

The people of Utah have neither lot nor part in their offense; and it

is an infamy, the like of which is not matched elsewhere in our nation,

to attempt to throw the responsibility of their wrong doing upon the

great mass of the citizens of Utah, upon the state, or upon the Mormon

Church, when they are not parties to their crimes. So long as there

is no attempt to change or annul the compact that the people of Utah

entered into with the people of the United States, which compact is

found consummated in the Constitution of our state, as demanded by the

terms of the Enabling act, and so long as no effort is made to shield

those who violate the law, so long the people of Utah are keeping their

pledges.

Now a few words in conclusion. We find ourselves a very cosmopolitan

community in Utah, gathered from all parts of the world, of all sects

and persuasions in religion, of all parties in politics, engaged in

all of the common avocations of life, from cultivating the soil to

delving in the bowels of the earth for its precious ores, its coals

and its oils. We inhabit a state the industries of which are varied

and profitable; and if it were not for this apparently irrepressible

conflict concerning social and religious matters, we might by united

effort make of this old "Dead Sea State" a very live and splendid

commonwealth, where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens

besides those now on the ground, could find homes where they would

enjoy more cloudless days during a year than in any other state of the

Union; homes where they might cultivate soil the most fruitful in our

great country; homes where they might enjoy an atmosphere that thrills

the human system like glorious wine, giving life, health and vitality

to men. We might rear here a splendid manhood and womanhood, and have

peace and contentment, and show the world how good and how pleasant

it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. All this is possible,

notwithstanding our varied religious faiths and our various political

convictions. And it does seem to me that the time has come when the

wise and conservative citizens of our state of all religions and of all

political parties should take counsel together and see if this glorious

result to which I have pointed cannot be attained; for when knaves

conspire, wise men should counsel together.

A while ago I told you that isolation for the Mormon people is both

impossible and undesirable. The idea of the withdrawal of our Gentile

population is nonsense, and not upon the program. It is equally true

that the Latter-day Saints, come what may, will not surrender their

religious faith. That cannot be done. Our Gentile friends must learn

to tolerate us, notwithstanding what they may regard as the absurdity

of our religious belief. On the other hand, Mormons recognize their

amenability to the laws of the state, and we say to them--at least

I utter it as my personal conviction--that Mormons hold themselves

amenable to the laws of the state, and if their friends and neighbors

in the vicinity where they respectively reside are offended at their

conduct, taking generously into account the past from which some of

our obligations (I will not say troubles) come, why then there is

nothing for it but submission to the law as interpreted by the courts

and by the people in the vicinity where we reside. I say, under these

conditions, our Gentile friends must learn to tolerate us, as we are

willing to tolerate them. The great bulk of our Gentile friends came to

these mountain valleys because of the financial prospects they saw here

spread out before them. They came here to establish homes, to enjoy the

climate, to regain health, in some instances, and to possess with their

fellow citizens, though Mormons, a goodly land. They are not interested

in Mormon polemics. They care not a fig, in the main, for the Mormon

religion. Then why not say to those who are a disturbing element and

making false charges not only against the Mormons but against the

state false charges which we have been considering here tonight, in

the speech of the man who was, unhappily, a United States senator from

Utah, and whose personal newspaper day after day vomits the bitterness

Of hate against the greater part of the community--why not say to these

disturbing elements, as God says to the sea, "Hither to shalt thou

come, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"

If Mormons and Gentiles in their treatment of each other will adopt

this spirit, and such a course as is here suggested is pursued, there

is a glorious future for Utah; and I am not at all despondent. It is

my faith that as a commonwealth we shall attain to the high destiny

that we have held in our hopes for our beloved Utah. I believe that

wise counsels will at last prevail. I believe the time will come when

our citizens will dwell together in peace and unity. That is my fixed

faith, and what little I may be able to do I intend shall be done for

the accomplishment of so desirable an object.

With all my heart I thank you for this splendid hearing.[A]

[Footnote A: Throughout the speaker was frequently and loudly applauded

by his great audience.]

Part II.

Book of Mormon Controversial questions.

I.

The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon.

FOREWORD.

Of late years the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated

is a subject that has been much discussed. Through a misconception,

as I think, in relation to the part taken in the work of translation

by the Urim-Thummim, it is charged by anti-Mormon writers from first

to last, that the verbal errors and errors in grammar which occur in

the translation must be assigned to the Lord--a thing unthinkable.

The popular understanding among the Latter-day Saints of the manner

in which the translation was wrought out by means of Urim-Thummim has

been such as to attribute the errors of the translation to equivalent

errors in the Nephite original, which, it is held, were brought over

literally and arbitrarily into the English translation--a thing most

absurd. In view of these conditions the question arises, can such an

explanation of the manner of translating the book be given as not to

attribute either directly or indirectly these verbal and grammatical

errors to the Lord, or to their existence in the original record from

which the translation was made; and at the same time preserve as true

and not inconsistent with reason, the statements that have been made,

respecting the manner of the translation, by Martin Harris and David

Whitmer, two of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The writer

is of the opinion that this may be done, and it is to such a task that

the following papers are devoted.

I am not unmindful of the fact that this subject is treated in the

Young Men's Manuals of 1903-1906; but here the subject is more fully

considered, and in a manner quite distinct since some of the papers are

controversial and have a value quite apart from the mere affirmative

treatment in the Manuals.

I may be pardoned for urging these papers on the attention of the

ministry of the Church, especially the foreign ministry, since I

believe that the theory here advanced concerning the translation of

the Nephite record is the only one at the same time tenable and in

accordance with the statements made by those who, after the Prophet

Joseph Smith, had the best opportunity of knowing in what manner

Urim-Thummim aided in the marvelous work. The value of the Manual

theory of translation will appear in the brief discussion on the Book

of Mormon which appears in this series of papers.

I.

The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon.[A]

[Footnote A: From the Y. M. M. I. A. Manual (Senior), 1905-6]

Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the prophet

himself has said but little. "Through the medium of the Urim and

Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God,"[B] is

the most extended published statement made by him upon the subject.

Of the Urim and Thummim he says: "With the record was found a curious

instrument which the ancients called a 'Urim and Thummim,' which

consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a

breastplate."[C]

[Footnote B: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]

[Footnote C: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]

Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,

and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of translation

at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of

Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet

Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the

means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'Holy

Interpreters.'"[D] This is all he has left on record on the manner of

translating the book.[E]

[Footnote D: Book of Mosiah viii: 13.]

[Footnote E: The above statement was made by Oliver Cowdery at a

special conference held at Kanesville, Iowa, Oct. 21, 1948. It was

first published in the Deseret News of April 13, 1859: Bishop Reuben

Miller, who was present at the meeting, reported Cowdery's remarks.]

David Whitmer, another of the Three Witnesses, is more specific on this

subject. After describing the means the prophet employed to exclude the

light from the "Seer Stone," he says: "In the darkness the Spiritual

light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would

appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would

appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph

would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal

scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to

see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character

with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was

translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man."[A]

[Footnote A: From "An Address to all Believers in Christ," by David

Whitmer, "A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,"

published at Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12.]

There will appear between this statement of David Whitmer's and what is

said both by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery a seeming contradiction.

Joseph and Oliver both say the translation was done by means of

the Urim and Thummim, which is described by Joseph as being "two

transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate;"

while David Whitmer says that the translation was made by means of a

"Seer Stone." The apparent contradiction is cleared up, however, by a

statement made by Martin Harris, another of the Three Witnesses. He

said that the prophet possessed a "Seer Stone," by which he was enabled

to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience

he then [i. e., at the time Harris was acting as his scribe] used the

Seer Stone. * * * * Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in

appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with

the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much

resembling spectacles, only they were larger.[B]

[Footnote B: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol.

XLIV., p. 87.]

The "Seer Stone" referred to here was a chocolate colored, somewhat

egg-shaped stone which the prophet found while digging a well in

company with his brother Hyrum.[C] It possessed some of the qualities

of a Urim and Thummim since by means of it as described above as well

as by means of the "Interpreters" found with the Nephite record, Joseph

was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.[D]

[Footnote C: Cannon's Life of Joseph Smith, p. 56.]

[Footnote D: Nearly all the anti-Mormon works dealing with the coming

forth of the Book of Mormon speak of the "Seer Stone" and reiterate the

falsehood that the prophet stole it from the children of Willard Chase,

for who Joseph and Hyrum were digging a well.]

Another account of the manner of translating the record, purporting

to have been given by David Whitmer, and published in the Kansas City

Journal of June 5, 1881, says:

"He [meaning Joseph Smith] had two small stones of a chocolate

color, nearly egg-shape, and perfectly smooth, but not transparent,

called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did

not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters

to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light,

and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on

which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the

top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English,

which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly

as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence

written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would

remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from

sight to be replaced by another line."

It is evident that there are inaccuracies in the above statement, due

doubtless, to the carelessness of the reporter of the Journal, who

has confused what Mr. Whitmer said of the Seer Stone and the Urim and

Thummim. If he meant to describe the Urim and Thummim or "Interpreters"

given to Joseph Smith with the plates--as seems to be the case--then

the reporter is wrong in saying that they were chocolate color and

not transparent; for the "Interpreters" given to the prophet with the

plates, as we have seen by his own description; were "two transparent

stones." If the reporter meant to describe the "Seer Stone"--which is

not likely--he would be right in saying it was of a chocolate color,

and egg-shaped, but wrong in saying there were two such stones.

Martin Harris' description of the manner of translating while he was

the amanuensis of the prophet is as follows:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by

the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say

'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear

and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it

remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it

was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."[A]

[Footnote A: Statement of martin Harris, to Edward Stevenson, Mill.

Star, Vol. XLIV, pp. 86, 87.]

On one occasion Harris sought to test the genuineness of the prophet's

procedure in the matter of translation, as follows:

"Martin said that after continued translation they would become

weary and would go down to the river and exercise in throwing

stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion.

Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for

translating, and on resuming their labors of translation Martin

put in place [of the Seer Stone] the stone that he had found.

He said that the prophet remained silent unusually and intently

gazing in darkness, no trace of the usual sentence appearing. Much

surprised, Joseph exclaimed: 'Martin! what is the matter? all is as

dark as Egypt.' Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the prophet

asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths

of fools, who had told him that the prophet had learned those

sentences and was merely repeating them."[A]

[Footnote A: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol.

XLIV, pp. 78, 79; 86, 87.]

The sum of the whole matter, then, concerning the manner of translating

the sacred record of the Nephites, according to the testimony of

the only witnesses competent to testify in the matter, is: With the

Nephite record was deposited a curious instrument, consisting of two

transparent stones, set in the rim of a bow, somewhat resembling

spectacles, but larger, called by the ancient Hebrews "Urim and

Thummim," but by the Nephites "Interpreters." In addition to these

"Interpreters" the prophet Joseph had a "Seer Stone," possessed of

similar qualities to the Urim and Thummim; that the prophet sometimes

used one and sometimes the other of these sacred instruments in the

work of translation; that whether the "Interpreters" or the "Seer

Stone" was used the Nephite characters with the English interpretation

appeared in the sacred instrument; that the prophet would pronounce the

English translation to his scribe, which when correctly written would

disappear, and the other characters with their interpretation take

their place, and so on until the work was completed.

It should not be supposed, however, that this translation, though

accomplished by means of the "Interpreters" and "Seer Stone," as

stated above, was merely a mechanical process; that no faith, or

mental or spiritual effort was required on the prophet's part; that

the instruments did all, while he who used them did nothing but look

and repeat mechanically what he saw, as one might look into a mirror,

and say what objects in the room he saw reflected there. Much has been

written upon this manner of translating the Nephite record, by those

who have opposed the Book of Mormon, and chiefly in a sneering way.

On the manner of translation they have bottomed much of--not their

argument, but their ridicule--against the record; and as in another

part of this volume I am to meet what they consider their argument, and

what I know to be their ridicule, I consider here a few other facts

connected with the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, which

are extremely important, as they furnish a basis upon which can be

successfully answered all the objections that are urged, based on the

manner in which the translation was accomplished, and also as to errors

in grammar, the use of modern words, western New York phrases, and

other defects of language which it is admitted are to be found in the

Book of Mormon, especially in the first edition.

I repeat, then, that the translation of the Book of Mormon by means

of the "Interpreters" and "Seer Stone," was not merely a mechanical

process, but required the utmost concentration of mental and spiritual

force possessed by the prophet, in order to exercise the gift of

translation through the means of the sacred instruments provided for

that work. Fortunately we have the most perfect evidence of the fact,

though it could be inferred, from the general truth that God sets no

premium upon mental and spiritual laziness; for whatever means God may

have provided to assist man to arrive at the truth, He has always made

it necessary for man to couple with those means his utmost endeavor of

mind and heart. So much in the way of reflection; now as to the facts

referred to.

In his "Address to All Believers in Christ," David Whitmer says:

"At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate he would

look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was

spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind

dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make

him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this

condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently

humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation.

Now we see how very strict the Lord is, and how he requires the

heart of man to be just right in his sight before he can receive

revelation from him."[A]

[Footnote A: Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 30.]

In a statement to Wm. H. Kelley, G. A. Blakeslee, of Gallen, Michigan,

under date of September 15th, 1882, David Whitmer said of Joseph Smith

and the necessity of his humility and faithfulness while translating

the Book of Mormon:

"He was a religious and straightforward man. He had to be; for

he was illiterate and he could do nothing of himself. He had to

trust in God. He could not translate unless he was humble and

possessed the right feelings towards everyone. To illustrate so

you can see. One morning when he was getting ready to continue the

translation, something went wrong about the house and he was put

out about it. Something that Emma, his wife, had done. Oliver and

I went up stairs and Joseph came up soon after to continue the

translation, but he could not do anything. He could not translate

a single syllable. He went down stairs, out into the orchard, and

made supplication to the Lord; was gone about an hour--came back to

the house, asked Emma's forgiveness and then came up stairs where

we were and then the translation went on all right. He could do

nothing save he was humble and faithful."[B]

[Footnote B: Braden and Kelley Debate on Divine Origin of Book of

Mormon, p. 186. The above debate took place in 1884, several years

before the death of David Whitmer, and the statement from which the

above is taken was quoted in full.]

The manner of translation is so far described by David Whitmer and

Martin Harris, who received their information necessarily from Joseph

Smith, and doubtless it is substantially correct, except in so far as

their statements may have created the impression that the translation

was a mere mechanical process; and this is certainly corrected in part

at least by what David Whitmer has said relative to the frame of mind

Joseph must be in before he could translate. But we have more important

evidence to consider on this subject of translation than these

statements of David Whitmer. In the course of the work of translation

Oliver Cowdery desired the gift of translation to be conferred upon

him, and God promised to grant it to him in the following terms:

"Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as

the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely

shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask

in faith, with an honest heart believing that you shall receive

a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are

ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which have

been spoken by the manifestation of my spirit. Yea, behold, I

will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost,

which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart,

Now, behold, this is the Spirit of revelation; behold this is the

Spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the

Red Sea on dry ground. * * * * Ask that you may know the mysteries

of God, and that you may translate and receive knowledge from all

those ancient records which have been hid up, that are sacred, and

according to your faith shall it be unto you."[C]

[Footnote C: Doc. & Cov., Sec. viii.]

In attempting to exercise this gift of translation, however, Oliver

Cowdery failed; and in a revelation upon the subject the Lord explained

the cause of his failure to translate:

"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would

give it [i. e., the gift of translation] unto you, when you took no

thought save it was to ask me; but, behold. I say unto you, that

you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be

right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn

within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right; but if it be

not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a

stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which

is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred Save it

be given you from me."[D]

[Footnote D: Doc. & Cov., Sec. ix]

While this is not a description of the manner in which Joseph Smith

translated the Book of Mormon, it is, nevertheless, the Lord's

description of how another man was to exercise the gift of translation;

and doubtless it describes the manner in which Joseph Smith did

exercise it, and the manner in which he translated the Book of Mormon.

That is, the Prophet Joseph Smith looked into the "interpreters" or

"Seer Stone," saw there by the power of God and the gift to him, the

ancient Nephite characters, and by bending every power of his mind

to know the meaning thereof, the interpretation wrought out in his

mind by his effort-by studying it out in his mind, to use the Lord's

phrase--was reflected in the sacred instrument there to remain until

correctly written by the scribe.

In further proof that translation was not a merely mechanical process

with the Prophet Joseph, I call attention to the evident thought and

study he bestowed upon the work of translating the rolls of papyrus

found with the Egyptian mummies, purchased by the Saints in Kirtland,

of Michael H. Chandler, about the 6th of July, 1835. "Soon after this,"

says the prophet, "with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I

commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,

and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings

of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt,"[A] etc. Speaking

in his history of the latter part of July, he says: "The remainder of

this month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the

Book of Abraham and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language."[B]

In his journal entry for November 26, 1835, is the following: "Spent

the day in translating the Egyptian characters from the papyrus,

though suffering with a severe cold."[C] Under date of December 16th,

this: "I exhibited and explained the Egyptian characters to them

[Elders M'Lellin and Young], and explained many things concerning

the dealings of God with the ancients, and the formation of the

planetary system."[D] Thus he continued from time to time to work upon

this translation, which was not published until 1842, in the "Times

and Seasons," beginning in number nine of volume three. It should

be remembered in connection with this "preparing an alphabet" and

"arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language" that the prophet still

had in his possession the "Seer Stone" (or at least Oliver Cowdery had

it, for on completing the translation of the Book of Mormon the prophet

gave the Seer Stone into Oliver Cowdery's keeping, (David Whitmer's

Address to All Believers, page 32), which he had used sometimes in the

translation of the Book of Mormon, yet it seems from the circumstances

named that he had to bend all the energies of his intellectual powers

to obtain a translation of the Egyptian characters.

[Footnote A: History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 236.]

[Footnote B: Ibid, p. 238.]

[Footnote C: Ibid, p. 320.]

[Footnote D: Ibid, p. 334.]

There can be no doubt either but what the interpretation thus obtained

was expressed in such language as the prophet could command, in such

phraseology as he was master of and common to the time and locality

where he lived; modified, of course, by the application of that

phraseology to facts and ideas in the Nephite Scriptures he was

translating--ideas new to him in many respects, and above the ordinary

level of the prophet's thinking; and also the phraseology was superior

to that he ordinarily used, because of the inspiration of God that was

upon him.

This view of the translation of the Nephite record accounts for the

fact that the Book of Mormon, though a translation of an ancient

record, is, nevertheless, given in English idiom of the period and

locality in which the prophet lived; and in the faulty English,

moreover, both as to composition, phraseology, and grammar, of a

person of Joseph Smith's limited education; and also accounts for the

same-ness of phraseology and literary style which runs through the

whole volume.

Nor are we without authority of high standing in these views for the

verbal style of inspired writers. In "The Annotated Bible," published

by the "Religious Tract Society," London, 1859, the following occurs in

relation to the explanation of the words "prophet" and "prophecy:"

"That the prophets were more than foretellers of things future is

apparent from their history as well as from their writings. It

must also be remembered that, although prophecy contains many very

circumstantial allusions to particular facts and individuals, yet

these are referred to chiefly on account of their relation to those

great, general principles with which it has to do. Prophecy is

God's voice, speaking to us respecting that great struggle which

has been and is going on in this world between good and evil.

"The divine communications were made to the prophets in divers

manners; God seems sometimes to have spoken to them in audible

voice; occasionally appearing in human form. At other times he

employed the ministry of angels, or made known his purposes by

dreams. But he most frequently revealed his truth to the prophets

by producing that supernatural state of the sentient, intellectual,

and moral faculties which the Scriptures call 'vision.' Hence

prophetic announcements are often called 'visions,' i. e. things

seen; and the prophets themselves are called 'seers.'

"Although the visions which the prophet beheld and the predictions

of the future which he announced were wholly announced by the

divine Spirit, yet the form of the communication, the imagery in

which it is clothed, the illustrations by which it is cleared up

and impressed, the symbols employed to bring it more graphically

before the mind--in short, all that may be considered as its

garb and dress, depends upon the education, habits, association,

feelings and the whole mental, intellectual and spiritual character

of the prophet. Hence the style of some is purer, more sententious,

more ornate, or more sublime than others."

Also the Reverend Joseph Armitage Robinson, D. D. Dean of Westminster

and Chaplain of King Edward VII of England, respecting the manner in

which the message of the Old Testament was received and communicated to

man, as late as 1905, said:

"The message of the Old Testament was not written by the divine

hand, nor dictated by an outward compulsion; it was planted in the

hearts of men, and made to grow in a fruitful soil. And then they

were required to express it in their own language, after their

natural methods, and in accordance with the stage of knowledge

which their time had reached. Their human faculties were purified

and quickened by the divine Spirit; but they spoke to their time

in the language of their time; they spoke a spiritual message,

accommodated to the experience of their age, a message of faith in

God, and of righteousness as demanded by a righteous God."[A]

[Footnote A: From a report of the Dean's Lecture, as published in the

_St. Louis Globe-Democrat,_ Sunday, March 19, 1905.]