Chapter 9

That is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, "the divinity of Jesus," and the divinity of "all other noble and saintly souls"â€”the kinship of men and God. That is "Mormonism," and it was proclaimed by the great prophet of the nineteenth century, half a century before these modern minds were awakened to its grandeur and to its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it running in the earth to be glorified, for in it I recognize the very root principle of all religion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with all that is pure, uplifting and divine.

Now, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this "New Theology;" but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord with the principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The doctrine of the immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the universe and the divinity of man, instead of its having its origin some fifteen or twenty years ago, and now finding expression in the beautiful diction of Mr. Campbell and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at least over seventy years ago. Concerning the immanence of God, he taught the following in 1832: He first represents that the spirit of Christ is "in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth." Then he adds:

"This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth life to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed; even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."

The prophet further declared, in 1833, that "the elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples."

Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment of the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental principles of it are concernedâ€”the immanence of God in the world, and the identity of the race of man and divine beingsâ€”there can be no question as to their accuracy. And those Christian people who are not accepting these ideas are not moving forward with the far-flung thought-line of God's revelations on these matters.

We next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the reviewers that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine is not candidly set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long line of quotations, most of them from theSeer,upon the subject of priesthood; and insist that the priesthood involves the possession and exercise of arbitrary power in all things, in things both spiritual and temporal. I read to you a passage or two from the Address on the subject of priesthood that you may see the injustice of this charge:

"We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the power of the holy priesthood."We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age, and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been organized."

"We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the power of the holy priesthood.

"We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age, and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been organized."

The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remarkâ€”but without returning to quote again from the Addressâ€”"so it is declared; but the teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein candidly set forth." Then why did not you reviewers go to another part of the document where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote that? Following the fragment you do quote occurs this passage which declares the express purposes for which the priesthood was given:

"We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching of the gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered Israel, and the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord."

But you reviewers say this "power extends not only to things spiritual, but to secular matters as well." Within certain limitations, granted; and the acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which you charge with being uncandid. Here is the passage:

"That the Church claims the right to counsel and advise her members in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is admitted. Leading Church officials, men of practical experience in pioneer life, have aided the people in establishing settlements throughout the inter-mountain west, and have given them, gratuitously, the benefit of their broader knowledge of things, through counsel and direction, which the people have followed to their advantage; and both the wisdom of the leaders and the good sense of the people are vindicated in the results achieved. All this has been done without the exercise of arbitrary power. It has resulted from wise counsels, persuasively given and willingly followed."

But you insist that there is "tyranny and arbitrary ruler-ship" over a community which indorses the priesthood's high claims. I deny the existence of such tyranny as a fact among the "Mormon" people who indorse the priesthood's high claims; and I deny the existence of arbitrary power as a doctrine of the Church, and so does the Address which you pretend to review. Here is the passage:

"We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church" [why didn't you gentlemen quote that]; "and this because its government is moral government purely, and its forces are applied through kindness, reason, and persuasion. Government by consent of the governed is the rule of the Church."

Following is a summary of the word of the Lord, setting forth the principles on which the Church government is to be administered:

"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon men, it is true; but when they undertake to cover their sins, or gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile."

Gentlemen, those are our principles. Why didn't you quote them fairly and fully, instead of charging arbitrary power, when it is expressly denied by what we regard as the very word of God? Honestly, now, did you deal fairly with us when you came to this part of your review? But, you say, "given the power of the 'Mormon' priesthood, that it should not be used is incompatible with the known facts of human nature." Well, if it does attempt arbitrary power, it will be in violation of our principles, and not in harmony with them; and that fact furnishes a basis for the correction of any abuses that may arise. And while it is true that here and there, throughout a long experience, there may have been individual instances of the exercise of arbitrary rule in the Church, yet speaking for the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a whole, I challenge you to duplicate the same honorable conduct anywhere within the experience of men, where those entrusted with power have so uniformly abstained from abusing it while exercising the functions of government. The Latter-day Saints love their leaders, living and dead, and not without cause, I assure you; for these men have labored in season and out of season, persuading, counseling, advising, and guarding the interests of their people with an unselfishness that tells us something of the love of God, and that without effort at personal aggrandizement or enrichment. The lives and labors of the priesthood are a vindication of its divine origin and spirit.

The review further says that when once "the Church's claim for its priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters logically follows." But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact, or at least admit it in some form, that the address you were reviewingemphatically excepted out of its jurisdiction the sphere of civil government?You could have edified those whom you are so anxious to enlighten with such passages as these:

"The laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."

That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the Church, has been promulgated for the state. Such laws and revelations as have been given are solely for the government of the Church. On the subject of the relations of the Church and the State the Address says:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church."We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:"The absolute separation of church and state;"No domination of the state by the Church;"No church interference with the functions of the state;"No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion;"The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;"The equality of all churches before the law."

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

"The absolute separation of church and state;

"No domination of the state by the Church;

"No church interference with the functions of the state;

"No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion;

"The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;

"The equality of all churches before the law."

Again I read from the review, and this time I deal with a passage which the reviewers themselves say "dwarfs everything mentioned in the Address." We shall see what comes of it:

"Apparently the foundation of the 'Mormon' Church is in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the testimony of the living oracles delivered from time to time. But whoever digs down to the lowermost foundation will find that, at last, everything rests upon the reported visions of Joseph Smith. When any matter of vital importance is presented for the belief of mankind, if that matter, either in its nature or the circumstances attending it, lies very much outside the ordinary, a due regard for human intelligence demands that, whatever testimony is produced in support of it shall be buttressed by corroborative evidence. But here we have a system of religion which claims sole authority as being alone divinely accredited. It asks for the acceptance of mankind on the ground of being so accredited. It anathematizes all who finally reject it. Yet this religion, making such an astonishing claim, is founded upon the unsupported assertion of a young person whose probity was never so well established that his naked word would be taken concerning any matter transcending ordinary observation and experience; and that assertion touches supernatural appearances, and messages which, if true, are of the most profound importance to mankind; and yet that assertion is wholly without corroborative evidence."

Gentlemenâ€”Christian gentlemenâ€”you who are such sticklers for candorâ€”have you spoken truly here, and in a matter which you say dwarfs everything else mentioned in the Address? What of the testimony of three certain witnesses, who claim that they stood with Joseph Smith wrapt in open vision, in the light of day; who give their most solemn asseveration that a holy angel came into their presence on that occasion, laid before them certain ancient documents, turned over the leaves, conversed with them, and at the same time they heard the voice of God saying that the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith was true, and commanded them to bear witness of it to all the worldâ€”which they did, over their own signatures, and that testimony is printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon? What of the testimony of eight other witnesses, to whom Joseph Smith handed the book of plates, and they handled and hefted them, and passed them one to the other, and examined the engravings thereon; and they gave their testimony to the world to this effect, which testimony has been published with every edition of the Book of Mormon given to the world. Did you overlook this corroborative testimony? Is it true that you gave so slight attention to the subject you were reviewing that you could make a misstatement of the kind just mentioned? Were you so unacquainted with it? Must we think you so dull? If we acquit you of stupidity, what then? Must we not think of you as uttering falsehood? What of the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, who stood wrapt in vision in the Kirtland temple with Joseph Smith? And of Sidney Rigdon, wrapt in vision with Joseph Smith, from which resulted their conjoint testimony concerning that grandest of revelations ever given to man on the doctrine of the future degrees of glory in which men will live in the eternities? I do not desire to use harsh language; I will not say that you wilfully, maliciously, ponderously and atrociously lied; because while all that might be true, one would be accused of harshness if he said it; but I will say that you have economized the truth, and you may settle it with your own consciences.

Our subject increases in interest as you get into it, and perhaps it is well it is so, else your interest might falter. We come now to a very interesting topicâ€”that of polygamy. This is the darling theme of the reviewers, and so we will not slight it by saying nothing about it. I had best read what they say on this point:

"We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of plural marriage has been discontinued in the 'Mormon' Church, since no records of such marriages are kept by the Church that are accessible to the public. That there have been instances of such marriages ever since the agreement of the Church to discontinue them, we know; that they cannot be celebrated without the sanction of the Church accredited officials, is unquestioned; that, so far as the public knowledge goes, no officials who may have celebrated such marriages have been disciplined therefor is certain."

Throughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not quite candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that in the State of Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it, who does not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped the practice of, or sanctioning and performing plural marriages. I am of the opinion that everybody is settled in his conviction in relation to that matter.

It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved in the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church. No proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and variety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this description. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's manifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was given that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the law, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition was not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by refraining from contracting such marriages within the United States would not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto. The matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages in all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world. Hence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were everywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view that that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement to discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural marriages within the United Statesâ€”when that view was persisted in, I say, there was but one thing left, and that was to conclude that such persons were out of harmony with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles held that view; they were declared by their associates to be out of harmony with their brethren in these matters, they tendered their resignations which were accepted; and since that time there has been no question in the Church, or out of it, as to where the Church stands on the subject of discontinuing plural marriages, and I do not believe that there is any doubt on that subject existing in the minds of the gentlemen who formulated this review.

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

"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905."To the Council of the Twelve Apostles:"DEAR BRETHREN:â€”I hereby tender to you my resignation as a member of the council of the twelve apostles, as it is clear to me that I have been out of harmony with you on some very important matters which have apparently brought reproach upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."I wish to state in the first place that I have not violated the laws of the United States, nor of the State of Utah, in relation to polygamous or plural marriages; also that the authorities of the Church have not directed or authorized me to do so, or to do anything contrary to the rules of the Church as adopted by that body."But I find that I have been out of harmony with the said authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the general conference, on October 6, 1890, and also as to the meaning of the last clause of the petition for amnesty to President Benjamin Harrison in December, 1891. I have always believed that the government of the United States had jurisdiction only with its own boundaries, and that the term 'laws of the land' in the manifesto meant merely the laws of the United States. I find now that this opinion is different to that expressed by the Church authorities, who have declared that the prohibition against plural marriages extended to every place and to every part of the Church. It is doubtless true that this view of the matter has been given by President Woodruff and others, but I have never taken that as binding upon me or the Church, because it [such interpretation] was never presented for adoption by 'common consent,' as was the manifesto itself, and I have disputed its authority as a law or a rule of the Church."I acknowledge that I received a request from President Joseph F. Smith, by letter, to appear as a witness in the Reed Smoot case before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections, but I declined to do so because, while I recognized his right to direct me in Church affairs, I did not think his authority extended to civil affairs to the extent that I should expose my family concerns and be questioned and be held up to public ignominy as some of my brethren were before that body, and I still hold the same views upon that matter."Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these subjects, and I have been called in question concerning them, I now submit to their discipline, and, to save further controversy, tender this my resignation, and hope for such clemency in my case as they may deem right and just and merciful."Your brother,(Signed) "JOHN W. TAYLOR."

"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905.

"To the Council of the Twelve Apostles:

"DEAR BRETHREN:â€”I hereby tender to you my resignation as a member of the council of the twelve apostles, as it is clear to me that I have been out of harmony with you on some very important matters which have apparently brought reproach upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I wish to state in the first place that I have not violated the laws of the United States, nor of the State of Utah, in relation to polygamous or plural marriages; also that the authorities of the Church have not directed or authorized me to do so, or to do anything contrary to the rules of the Church as adopted by that body.

"But I find that I have been out of harmony with the said authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the general conference, on October 6, 1890, and also as to the meaning of the last clause of the petition for amnesty to President Benjamin Harrison in December, 1891. I have always believed that the government of the United States had jurisdiction only with its own boundaries, and that the term 'laws of the land' in the manifesto meant merely the laws of the United States. I find now that this opinion is different to that expressed by the Church authorities, who have declared that the prohibition against plural marriages extended to every place and to every part of the Church. It is doubtless true that this view of the matter has been given by President Woodruff and others, but I have never taken that as binding upon me or the Church, because it [such interpretation] was never presented for adoption by 'common consent,' as was the manifesto itself, and I have disputed its authority as a law or a rule of the Church.

"I acknowledge that I received a request from President Joseph F. Smith, by letter, to appear as a witness in the Reed Smoot case before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections, but I declined to do so because, while I recognized his right to direct me in Church affairs, I did not think his authority extended to civil affairs to the extent that I should expose my family concerns and be questioned and be held up to public ignominy as some of my brethren were before that body, and I still hold the same views upon that matter.

"Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these subjects, and I have been called in question concerning them, I now submit to their discipline, and, to save further controversy, tender this my resignation, and hope for such clemency in my case as they may deem right and just and merciful.

"Your brother,

(Signed) "JOHN W. TAYLOR."

The explanation accompanying the resignation of Elder Cowley was of similar import.

Another complaint of our reviewers is that polygamy is only abrogated as to practice, and that belief in the divinity of the principle is still held by the Latter-day Saints.

Well, gentlemen, what of it? Whose business is it? Do you hold that you may enter the sacred precincts of the mind and uproot our opinions? Your law gives you the right to punish overt acts; but you have no law and no right to enter the domain of conscience and interfere with what is held there as the truth. Hands off here! Our belief is our own. We have a right to our opinions. If you don't believe them, that is nothing to us, we do. And if you have not succeeded in converting us, we can't help that. You have got all you deserve out of this controversy on our marriage system. Properly this was a question which belonged to the dominion of reason, scripture and polemics. You should have convinced us, as ministers of Christ, from the word of God and from the nature of the things involved, that the principle itself was untrue. But you were not content to leave it to the arbitrament of discussion and reason; you must needs play upon the prejudices of the masses and induce them to belabor Congress with their petitions until your inimical legislation was put upon the statute books; and the crusade against the practice of our marriage system was declared, and those who practiced it were raided with unabated vigor for years. We yielded at last to superior force, not to your arguments, because we successfully met them. You remember the occasion, do you not, of the chaplain of the Senate of the United States coming to this very forum, and here discussing the question, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" That your champion was vanquished in the contest is evidenced from the fact that we publish as a campaign document both sides of the Pratt-Newman discussion. If you have not convinced us of the incorrectness of our principles, it must be because of the lameness of your reasoning, the weakness of your argument, and you must be content with the result so long as we do not carry into practice that principle which we believe. We have a right to our belief in that or any other doctrine as abstract principles, whether our belief suits you or not, and we have the right to freely express that belief, and if you don't like it, you may go hang.

Again the review says: "No denial is made of the practice of polygamous living. The 'Address' admits that authoritative figures officially collected show 897 male polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that later reports are not quoted leads to the reasonable belief that since that date the number of male polygamists has not diminished but rather increased."

It is true the address brings down the figures no further than 897 in 1902; but the address does say "and many of these have since passed away." Besides, there was a statement made upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, based upon official figures, to the effect that the number had been reduced to at least 500. Here is the passage:

"Careful statistics have been taken and preserved, and will be found in the testimony, which show that this number has gradually decreased until there was at the time the testimony closed [before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections having in charge the Smoot case] not to exceed five hundred such households in existence."â€”(Congressional Record,p. 3269.)

Now, gentlemen, here was an opportunity for you to exercise a little generosity instead of juggling with alleged conditions in Utah, so as to express your belief that these cases of polygamous living have increased rather than diminished, you could have called attention to what were the facts in the caseâ€”that it was said upon the floor of the Senate of the United States that the reduction had been to 500, and that time would soon obliterate this question from among our problems.

Let us discuss for a moment this subject of polygamous living. It is doubtless a difficult problem. It has been difficult for some few men to discern the line of duty in the matter; but, thank God, the most of our brethren have not found it difficult to determine what their duty was in the premises. Notwithstanding that through interpretations the meaning of the Manifesto has been made to cover polygamous living as well as new marriages; and logically, however much it may have been misunderstood, that conclusion was inevitable; and it is conceded that the law of the land forbids the continuance of these relationsâ€”yet, in the face of these conditions, men have concluded that their moral obligations to; their families demanded that they should be true to the relationships into which they had entered in good faith, and under what they regarded as the sanctions of the law of God. You, gentlemen of the Ministerial Association do me the honor to quote some words of mine uttered seven years ago, while in attendance upon Congress, and trying to maintain the seat that had been given me by the suffrages of the people of my state. I wish now to repeat what I said then, though in better form, because the words I uttered at that time were somewhat garbled, by the report made of themâ€”not intentionally garbled, by Mr. Arthur McEwen, who reported them. I will say that for him, because I believe it, and he is since and recently dead. But so far as I am concerned, I stand exactly where I did seven years ago, namely, that though the Church proclaimed against the continuance of that relationship contracted under her sanctions, though the state by statute proclaimed against it, neither Church nor state can dissolve the moral obligations I feel I am under to discharge what I regard as a moral duty. I ask you, gentlemen, to consider this proposition. What prompts this adherence to these relationships by myself and other men in our Church? You must concede that the most of those involved in these relations have passed middle life. They have entered upon the period of the "sere and yellow leaf." You cannot say their conduct is prompted by passion or lust; "for the heyday in the blood is cooled and waits upon the judgment." What is it then that prompts so many men and women in the "Mormon" Church to remain true to those relations entered upon in plural marriage? They look into each other's facesâ€”the bloom of youth has passed, the brightness of the eye is somewhat dimmed, the suppleness of the form has passed away. But these men and women have lived their lives under circumstances that tend to endear men and women to each other. The trials of life, even under ordinary circumstances, result in that; but when what they regard as oppression and danger surround them, it is calculated all the more to draw them more closely to each other in their affections. These men and women have endured all sorts of trials for each other in addition to the ordinary trials of life. They, as well as monogamists, have stood hands clasped by open graves, and have known the purifying effects of great sorrows. In addition to such experiences, many of the men have endured exile and imprisonment, and wives have been exiled from their homes, their kindred and their friends, and have cast their lot among strangers, rather than to sever the ties by which they were bound to their husbands; and back of it all stood the conviction that they were doing God's serviceâ€”upholding a principle that he had revealed, and entrusted to them for vindication and making it honorable among men. These are facts well known in this community. These men and women were not of the criminal element: their conduct was not prompted by a desire to defy law; they were acting and are acting now from the highest and noblest motivesâ€”religious conviction of duty. And so I say, for one of this numberâ€”for myselfâ€”I stand exactly as I have always stood upon this question of fulfilling the obligation these relationships have imposed; and I shall, so far as possible, still respond to the dictates of honor. I shall read my duty by the light of that conscience God gives meâ€”I shall respond to the voice of love and honor, and you reviewers may make the most of it.

[You will say, such an attitude is inconsistent with the utterances of the Church leaders before the courts, and especially before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. So be it then. It is an inconsistency that has the promptings of honor back of it, and under such circumstances, for one, I shall trust God to forgive such inconsistency.]

It is said by you gentlemen that no apology can white-wash the outlawry of Joseph F. Smith. Gentlemen, his conduct needs no apology, his honor needs no vindication, his position needs no defense; it needs only to be stated. And as you have not stated it, I will; or, what is better, I will let him state it for himself. On a recent occasion, before the court in this city, President Smith said these noble words:

"In the tacit, general understanding that was had in 1890, and the years subsequent thereto, regarding what were classed as the old cases of cohabitation, I have appreciated the magnanimity of the American people in not enforcing a policy that in their minds was unnecessarily harsh, but which assigned the settlement of this difficult problem to the onward progress of time."Since the years 1890 a large percentage of the polygamous families have ceased to exist, until now the number within the jurisdiction of this court is small, and marriages in violation of the law have been and now are prohibited. In view of this situation, which has fixed with certainty a result that can easily be measured up, the family relations in the old cases of that time have been generally left undisturbed."So far as my own case is concerned, I, like others who had entered into solemn religious obligations, sought to the best of my ability to comply with all requirements pertaining to the trying position in which we were placed. I have felt secure in the protection of that magnanimous sentiment which was extended as an olive branch in 1890 and subsequent years to those old cases of plural family relationships which came within its purview, as did mine."When I accepted the manifesto issued by President Woodruff I did not understand that I would be expected to abandon and discard my wives. Knowing the sacred covenants and obligations which I had assumed by reason of these marriages, I have conscientiously tried to discharge the responsibilities attending them without being offensive to anyone. I have never flaunted my family relations before the public, nor have I felt a spirit of defiance against the law; but, on the contrary, I have always desired to be a law-abiding citizen."In considering the trying position in which I have been placed, I trust that your honor will exercise such leniency in your sentence as law and justice will permit."

"Since the years 1890 a large percentage of the polygamous families have ceased to exist, until now the number within the jurisdiction of this court is small, and marriages in violation of the law have been and now are prohibited. In view of this situation, which has fixed with certainty a result that can easily be measured up, the family relations in the old cases of that time have been generally left undisturbed.

"So far as my own case is concerned, I, like others who had entered into solemn religious obligations, sought to the best of my ability to comply with all requirements pertaining to the trying position in which we were placed. I have felt secure in the protection of that magnanimous sentiment which was extended as an olive branch in 1890 and subsequent years to those old cases of plural family relationships which came within its purview, as did mine.

"When I accepted the manifesto issued by President Woodruff I did not understand that I would be expected to abandon and discard my wives. Knowing the sacred covenants and obligations which I had assumed by reason of these marriages, I have conscientiously tried to discharge the responsibilities attending them without being offensive to anyone. I have never flaunted my family relations before the public, nor have I felt a spirit of defiance against the law; but, on the contrary, I have always desired to be a law-abiding citizen.

"In considering the trying position in which I have been placed, I trust that your honor will exercise such leniency in your sentence as law and justice will permit."

I say that Joseph F. Smith's position needs only to be stated to the world, and the manhood of America will applaud his attitude, long-haired ministerial associations and short-haired women's organizations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But what is the use of talking in this strain to you gentlemen? This is a question for statesmen, and you cannot be accused of possessing any of those qualities. That, however, is perhaps your misfortune, not your fault. When I take into account the intellectual and physical capital with which you start in life, I sometimes marvel that you have done so well. Your vocation is not always left to your own choice. The position is frequently chosen for you by your parents, having in view your physical and intellectual endowments. The ministry is generally recognized as a genteel sort of profession. It promises a certain social standing. It secures you from the dust and sweat and physical toil of a mechanic's life, and from the brain-sweat of secular professional life and struggle. It takes you out of the turmoil of trade and commerce, and out of the fierce contests of political life, and from the dangers of a career in army and in navy. Then, you know, as a class you were not physically strong; a larger proportion of your number are consumptives, neurotics, anemics, paranoiacs, and the like, than in any other of the professions; and so this genteel profession is quite frequently selected for you by your parents, and for the reasons here set forth. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I am dealing with you as a class. After your calling is selected for you, you pass into the schools, colleges and universities, and there you follow a rather kid-glove course of study. You will not need much of mathematics, so you pay little attention to that subject; you will need more ofbelles lettres,of moral and metaphysical philosophy, of languages and rhetoric, and eloquence. So your studies run along those lines, and after completing this course you step from your colleges into pulpits to instruct the world, at the same time knowing less about that world than any other class of men whatsoever. Then, going into that world, you are soon sequestrated into a very narrow portion of it. As a rule, you have to deal most with christenings, with weddings, with funerals; but you shine most at social functions, more especially at pink teas. So that, all things considered, neither by your original endowments nor by your environments nor by your training are you prepared to meet the broad questions that concern humanity.

As was stated in the passage I read from Mr. Campbell's book a while ago, your class "do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of life." On practical questions you are relegated to the rear, and your influence in community life grows less and ever less with the passing years. Do you think I overstate the case? Then let me quote to you what one of your own number says of youâ€”again Mr. Campbell in his up-to-date book before quoted. Before giving the quotation, however, let me disclaim the existence of any personal animosity towards you. All that I say is meant in the very best of feeling. I speak not from malice concerning you, but from experience. I have been meeting your class, gentlemen, for now thirty years; and have had controversies of various kinds with it during that time, and I know you as a class quite thoroughly. I speak from experience, not malice, and comparing you as a class with other classes of men whom I have known, it is just a plain, solemn truth that you are, as a class, narrow, bigoted, intolerant, petty; and I say that in the very best of feeling. And now the passage of Mr. Campbell's book. Speaking of the decline of organized Christianity and its ministry, he says:

"For a generation or more in every part of Christendom there has been a steady drift away from organized religion as represented by the churches, and the question is being seriously asked whether Christianity can much longer hold its own. Protestant controversialists frequently draw attention to the decline of church-going in Latin countries as evidence of the decay of sacerdotalism, particularly in the church of Rome. But outside Latin countries it is not one whit more noticeable in the church of Rome than in any other church. The masses of the people on the one hand and the cultured classes on the other are becoming increasingly alienated from the religion of the churches. A London daily paper made a religious census some years ago and demonstrated that about one-fifth of the population of the metropolis attended public worship, and this was a generous estimate. Women, who are more emotional, more reverent, and more amenable to external authority than men, usually form the majority of the worshipers at an ordinary service. Mr. Charles Booth in his great work on theLife and Labor of the People in Londonasserts that the churches are practically without influence of any kind on the communal life. This I believe to be an exaggeration, but it will hardly be denied that the average working, business, or professional man looks upon the churches almost with indifference. In many cases this indifference passes into hostility or contempt. Intelligent men take little notice of preacher and sermons, and the theologically-minded layman is such a rarity as to be note-worthy. Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that much of the moral earnestness of the nation and of social redemptive effort exists outside the churches altogether. * * * The plain, bald fact remains that the churches as such are counting for less and less in civilization in general and our own nation in particular. One of the ablest of our rising young members of parliament, a man of strong religious convictions and social sympathies, recently declared that we were witnessing the melancholy spectacle of a whole civilization breaking away from the faith out of which it grew."

As I remarked, I desired to read that passage to you, that you may know that my charge that the people are slipping away from the influences of the churches and the ministry was not inconsiderately made. Of course, the decline in the influence of the churches marks also the decline in the influence of the ministry, hence the pertinency of this quotation. What is said by this authority concerning conditions in England is equally and more emphatically true of our own country than it is of England. That is, the decline of the influence of the ministry and churches in the United States is more marked than in England. Ministers, then, don't count for much when it comes to dealing with practical questions. And the conditions that have and do exist in Utah, and that come down to us out of a remarkable past connected with our former plural marriages are practical questions. Questions for statesmen, not for sectarian priests and their trundle-bed notion of things. It is a question for men of blood and brains, and when it was referred to such a body of men not long sinceâ€”the Senate of the United Statesâ€”they at least refused to take the radical steps you suggested. Through four long years you raked the country as with a fine-toothed comb to gather up your evidence and to convince the United States Senate that they ought to follow your dictation, to assail the Latter-day Saints, and to break up and terrify, as a few years ago our community was broken up and terrified by a severe, rigid and, I may say, cruel administration of this law against polygamous living; and after you have done your best, submitted your evidenceâ€”employed the best counsel you could find, and after you have awakened all the prejudices to which you could appeal, the court has turned you down, gentlemen! You could not move that body to adopt your view of the case.

I made some remarks this afternoon upon the subject of the toleration for those conditions respecting polygamous living that have come to us out of the past. I do not desire to be understood as standing in any defiant attitude against the public sentiment of our state or of our nation. The fact of the matter is, these ministerial friends of ours are disposed to make mountains out of mole-hills, and are representing to the world as conditions existing here things that do not exist. The Latter-day Saints are not a law-defying body of people, but on the contrary they have manifested an obedience and respect for law, and you shall find no better order or a more universal acquiescence in and obedience to law than you find here in the settlements of the Latter-day Saints. We believe in law and in order and in being subject to kings and presidents, in honoring and magnifying the law; but the conditions here in Utah are unusual in respect of this one matter of polygamous living. The conditions, however, are well understood by our non-"Mormon" friends; and but for the agitation of these ministerial meddlers and a few disreputable and disgruntled politicians, the peculiar conditions which confront the community, and in which some of the best men of the community are involved, would go to their settlement along the lines in which they are being settled, namely: by the termination of these relations in death as, one by one, the parties pass out of existence to the grave. Now, in order to convince you that I am right in this view of the case I shall read an extract from the testimony of a prominent citizen of our state, a non-"Mormon," who I believe, better than anyone else, in the testimony he gave before the committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, in the Smoot case, described conditions in Utah as they are. He analyzed the situation here and told the truth in respect of it. I shall read his testimonyâ€”never mind who he is just for the present, but let me read to you what he said before the committee. Keep in mind that he is a non-"Mormon" and one not at all prejudiced in favor of the Latter-day Saints:

"The Chairmansaid: Will you state why it is that those who live in polygamous cohabitation today are not prosecuted?"The witness:I will do so as well as I can, and I simply state here the views, as I know them, of what are termed the 'old guard' of the Liberal party, Republicans and Democrats, who fought the Church party in the days when it was a power. Those men have felt, and still feel, that if the Church will only stop new plural marriages and will allow this matter to die out and pass away, they will not interfere with them. First of all, of course we want peace in Utah. We would like to be like the rest of the country. We want to make of it a state like the states of the rest of the Union. We want the 'Mormon' people to be like the rest of the American people; but we realize that there is a condition there which the people of the east do notâ€”and, I presume, cannotâ€”understand. You cannot make people who have been brought up under our system of government and our system of marriage believe that folks can sincerely and honestly believe that it is right to have more than one wife, and yet those people believe it. They are a God-fearing people, and it has been a part of their faith and their life."Now, to the eastern people their manner of living is looked upon as immoral. Of course it is, viewed from their standpoint. Viewed from the standpoint of a 'Mormon' it is not. The 'Mormon' wives are as sincere in polygamy as the 'Mormon' men, and they have no more hesitation in declaring that they are one of several wives of a man than a good woman in the east has in declaring that she is the single wife of a man. There is that condition. There are those peopleâ€”"Senator Hopkinsinterrupted to say: Do you mean to say that a 'Mormon' woman will as readily become a plural wife as she would a first wife?"The witness:Those who are sincere in the 'Mormon' faithâ€”who are good "Mormons," so calledâ€”I think would just as readily become plural wives (that has been my experience) as they would become the first wife. That condition exists. There is a question for statesmen to solve."

"The Chairmansaid: Will you state why it is that those who live in polygamous cohabitation today are not prosecuted?

"The witness:I will do so as well as I can, and I simply state here the views, as I know them, of what are termed the 'old guard' of the Liberal party, Republicans and Democrats, who fought the Church party in the days when it was a power. Those men have felt, and still feel, that if the Church will only stop new plural marriages and will allow this matter to die out and pass away, they will not interfere with them. First of all, of course we want peace in Utah. We would like to be like the rest of the country. We want to make of it a state like the states of the rest of the Union. We want the 'Mormon' people to be like the rest of the American people; but we realize that there is a condition there which the people of the east do notâ€”and, I presume, cannotâ€”understand. You cannot make people who have been brought up under our system of government and our system of marriage believe that folks can sincerely and honestly believe that it is right to have more than one wife, and yet those people believe it. They are a God-fearing people, and it has been a part of their faith and their life.

"Now, to the eastern people their manner of living is looked upon as immoral. Of course it is, viewed from their standpoint. Viewed from the standpoint of a 'Mormon' it is not. The 'Mormon' wives are as sincere in polygamy as the 'Mormon' men, and they have no more hesitation in declaring that they are one of several wives of a man than a good woman in the east has in declaring that she is the single wife of a man. There is that condition. There are those peopleâ€”

"Senator Hopkinsinterrupted to say: Do you mean to say that a 'Mormon' woman will as readily become a plural wife as she would a first wife?

"The witness:Those who are sincere in the 'Mormon' faithâ€”who are good "Mormons," so calledâ€”I think would just as readily become plural wives (that has been my experience) as they would become the first wife. That condition exists. There is a question for statesmen to solve."

You will remember that is what I said to these ministerial gentlemen this afternoon. The witness continued:

"We have not known what was best to do. It has been discussed, and people would say that such and such a man ought to be prosecuted. Then they would consider whether anything would be gained; whether we would not delay instead of hastening the time that we hope to live to see; whether the institution would not flourish by reason of what they would term persecution. And so, notwithstanding a protest has been sent down here to you, I will say to you the people have acquiesced in the condition that exists."Mr. Van Colt,an Attorney: You mean the Gentiles?"The witness:Yes, the Gentiles."

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

"The witness:Yes, the Gentiles."

The witness who gave that testimony was Judge O. W. Powers, and you know, and all Utah knows, that he spoke the truth.

Mr. J. Martin Miller writing to theNewark(New Jersey)News,represents Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds as holding the views expressed in the accompanying quotation on conditions in Utah:

"I found a very prominent former Newarker, in the person of Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds, of the Synagogue B'nai Israel here. He was rabbi of the Oheb Shalem Synagogue, Newark, from 1892 to '96."There is a Jewish population of about 500 in Salt Lake City, said Rabbi Reynolds. Aside from that particular feature of their creed, polygamy, I think the 'Mormons' are a very good people. Everything indicates that polygamy is dying out and that the Church means to obey the law. Aside from polygamy, I am of the opinion that in morals the 'Mormons' will average higher than the Gentiles who live here. The records show that the 'Mormons' furnish a very small quota of the vice of the city. As a rule, they are a temperate people. If Senator Smoot is unseated, would the influence of the 'Mormons' in the state and nation be diminished? I inquired. Not in the least; it would make them feel their persecution more than now and cause them to have less faith in the fairness of the government. They know the government cannot be fooled to any great extent, and that polygamy must go. Now that the tendency on the part of the 'Mormons' is to abandon polygamy, the purposes of the government in making better Americans of the 'Mormon' people than they are now will be better subserved by allowing the influential men among the 'Mormons' to help the government bring about the desired end. I say this with Senator Smoot in mind, and in view of the believed fact among every class in Utah that he is not a polygamist. He is one of the most level-headed businessmen in Utah, and is exceedingly popular with all classes. Polygamy was deeply rooted. The people for the most part were born in it. Why humiliate these innocent victims by persecuting them unnecessarily when they show an inclination to rid themselves and the country of the blot? The United States is a conciliatory and humane government. I was born in Russia and can appreciate this government. It is the kind of a government that begets loyalty in its subjects. Will these erring children of Utah, who in all probability are not now contracting any new polygamous marriages, be better citizens if they are hounded and misrepresented by agitators, or if they are fairly but firmly dealt with by the government and given a reasonable chance to prove their good intentions and their good citizenship? There is a very strong element throughout the country that takes absolutely no stock in this ecclesiastical warfare that is being made from Salt Lake City against the 'Mormons.' It has been plainly demonstrated very recently in the case of one minister here who carried on a bitter crusade, that was worse than a waste of energy, that such methods are reactive in the extreme."

"I found a very prominent former Newarker, in the person of Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds, of the Synagogue B'nai Israel here. He was rabbi of the Oheb Shalem Synagogue, Newark, from 1892 to '96.

"There is a Jewish population of about 500 in Salt Lake City, said Rabbi Reynolds. Aside from that particular feature of their creed, polygamy, I think the 'Mormons' are a very good people. Everything indicates that polygamy is dying out and that the Church means to obey the law. Aside from polygamy, I am of the opinion that in morals the 'Mormons' will average higher than the Gentiles who live here. The records show that the 'Mormons' furnish a very small quota of the vice of the city. As a rule, they are a temperate people. If Senator Smoot is unseated, would the influence of the 'Mormons' in the state and nation be diminished? I inquired. Not in the least; it would make them feel their persecution more than now and cause them to have less faith in the fairness of the government. They know the government cannot be fooled to any great extent, and that polygamy must go. Now that the tendency on the part of the 'Mormons' is to abandon polygamy, the purposes of the government in making better Americans of the 'Mormon' people than they are now will be better subserved by allowing the influential men among the 'Mormons' to help the government bring about the desired end. I say this with Senator Smoot in mind, and in view of the believed fact among every class in Utah that he is not a polygamist. He is one of the most level-headed businessmen in Utah, and is exceedingly popular with all classes. Polygamy was deeply rooted. The people for the most part were born in it. Why humiliate these innocent victims by persecuting them unnecessarily when they show an inclination to rid themselves and the country of the blot? The United States is a conciliatory and humane government. I was born in Russia and can appreciate this government. It is the kind of a government that begets loyalty in its subjects. Will these erring children of Utah, who in all probability are not now contracting any new polygamous marriages, be better citizens if they are hounded and misrepresented by agitators, or if they are fairly but firmly dealt with by the government and given a reasonable chance to prove their good intentions and their good citizenship? There is a very strong element throughout the country that takes absolutely no stock in this ecclesiastical warfare that is being made from Salt Lake City against the 'Mormons.' It has been plainly demonstrated very recently in the case of one minister here who carried on a bitter crusade, that was worse than a waste of energy, that such methods are reactive in the extreme."

These statements are thoughtful and fair; and no one acquainted with existing conditions can doubt their truthfulness.

And why have they, and why do they, the non-"Mormons," acquiesce in these conditions, and tacitly consent that this question should be settled by the grave. First, because they recognize the honesty and the purity of the lives of the people who are involved in the "Mormon" system of marriage; and they know that it was the promptings of a religious duty that involved them in that system, and not criminal instincts nor worldly or ungodly lust.

That is what they know to begin withâ€”and that the people in these mountains were contending for the persistenceâ€”and they hoped the triumphâ€”of what to them was a religious principle. That is why honorable non-"Mormons" respect honorable and upright "Mormons" who are doing their duty as God gives them the light to see that duty. And, moreover, their minds doubtless go back to the settlement of this question by the Constitutional convention of this state of which, perhaps some of you will remember, I was a member. The people of the United States, speaking through the Congress of the United States, demanded of the people of Utah, as a condition precedent to statehood, that their Constitution should provide "That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." When the Constitutional convention met that propositionâ€”desiring to meet it in good faith, they not only made the constitutional declaration that polygamous or plural marriages should forever be prohibited, but they also in order to make that effective, took the territorial lawâ€”which was but a copy of the Congressional law, which defined "polygamous or plural marriages" and prescribed for that offense the penalties, the fines and imprisonments, and which also defined polygamous living and prescribed its penalties.

The constitutional convention, I say, took that enactment and cut it square in two, adopting the part that defined the offense of polygamous or plural marriages, and prescribed its punishments, and made it, with its penalties, part of the Constitution; but the part of the law relating to polygamous living or unlawful cohabitation, they left out entirely. The question was brought up on the floor of the convention, and debated in open session. The leader of this movement, who advocated the adoption of this part of the law for the Constitutionâ€”for it was rather an unusual proceeding in constitution making, intended, however, in good part, to meet a very unusual condition; the question was put to him in substance: If you thus cut the law in two, and prohibit polygamous or plural marriages but say nothing about unlawful cohabitation or polygamous living, will not the inference beâ€”will not the conclusion be, that you do not intend to include unlawful cohabitation in the offenses defined and made punishable under this constitutional provision? The answer was that such would be the implicationâ€”that the intent was to leave the offense out. That was not only the inference, but it was the understandingâ€”say what men willâ€”in that convention. The record bears out the statement I make of it, because it was not done in a corner, or in the dark, it was out in the open, and some of those who now join you reverend gentlemen in this agitation against men who are seeking, under hard conditions, to respond to the promptings of duty and conscienceâ€”some of those who now join you in your clamor, were parties to and sanctioned that settlement in the constitutional convention.[1]

[Footnote 1: This subject is discussed circumstantially and at length in my reply to Senator Kearns' U.S. senate speech,â€”"Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 209-218.]

The subject of "Mormon" loyalty is briefly discussed in this review, and apparently the only way you reviewers could meet the treatment of the subject was by a sneer. You say, "It is not recalled that any Christian Church in this country has found itself under a like necessity." That is, to avow and defend its loyalty to the government. Very true, gentlemen, but do you recall that any other church that has been assailed with misrepresentation and charges of disloyalty as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been? And so, being assailed, we necessarily make defense. I pass the rest that could be said on that subject, excepting this, that when you refer to the conflict we had with the general government during territorial days, I take you to witness that the controversy was not of our making, but it was the result in part of your sectarian agitation, your arousing a popular sentiment, exercising church influence upon Congress which led that body to enact laws against a principle of our religion. We contested those laws for every inch of the ground, until the court of final appeal pronounced judgment on the controversy. Was not that our right? And does it necessarily involve us in or leave us open to the charge of disloyalty, because we thus contended for religious freedomâ€”the right to practice what to us was part of our religion? Let us remind you, gentlemen, that had the people of the first Christian age, and the people of the sixteenth century followed your idea of immediately surrendering when religious principle was attacked, there would have been no Christian religion at all, there would have been no such thing as Protestant sects. We contested the grounds legally, and fought as hard as we could for a religious principle; that is the head and front of our offending.

These gentlemen Reviewers express two fears. One is that they will be charged, because of issuing this review, with misrepresentation. Well, I don't wonder at that, and I think we have proven that you have misrepresented. But they also fear that we will charge them with persecution. Gentlemen, we acquit you of the intention of persecution. When the Revs. Phineas Ewing, Dixon, Cavanaugh, Hunter, Bogart, Isaac McCoy, Riley, Pixley, Woods and others carried on an agitation in Missouri against "Mormonism" and the "Mormons" that resulted in burning hundreds of our homes and driving our peopleâ€”including women and children, rememberâ€”to bivouac out in the wilderness at an inclement season of the year; when the mob incited by these reverends, your prototypes, gentlemen, laid waste our fields and gardens, stripped our people of their earthly possessions, keeping up that agitation until twelve thousand or fifteen thousand people were driven from the state of Missouri, dispossessed of several hundred thousand acres of landâ€”two hundred and fifty thousand acres, to be exactâ€”which they had entered, and rendered them homelessâ€”we might call, we do call, that persecution. When the Rev. Mr. Levi Williams led the mob that shot to death Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith in Carthage prison, and when the Rev. Mr. Thomas S. Brockman led the forces against Nauvoo, after the great body of the people had withdrawn from that city, and expelled the aged, the widow and the fatherless, and laid waste the property of the peopleâ€”we think we are justified in calling that persecution, of which right reverend gentlemen were the chief instigators. And when in this territory some years ago one wave of agitation followed another, of which your class, and some of you, were chief movers, until a reign of terror was produced, and a regime was established under which men guilty at most of a misdemeanor, could nevertheless be imprisoned for a term of years covering a lifetime, and fined to the exhaustion of all they possessed, under the beautiful scheme of segregating the offense into numerous counts in each indictment; and when in that reign of terror women were compelled to clasp their little ones to their breasts and go out among strangers, exiled from their homesâ€”we might be inclined to call that persecution. But our experience has been such that we scorn to call such attacks as this review of yours persecution. It does not rise, gentlemen, I assure you, to that bad eminence. So we acquit you of any intent in your review to persecute us. You need not fear that such a charge will be made, we are not so thin-skinned as all that. Besides, gentlemen, your power is no longer equal to your malice, and so we do not believe you will ever be able to persecute us again.

And now I want to turn "reviewer" myself a while. I want to review some things which the ministers of the association before us stand for, at least some of them stand for what I shall refer to; and I only regret that we can't take up each one in turn and examine his doctrines. But we all proceed, as far as we can, on this occasion. I turn "reviewer" because I want to show our young people who are represented here, that these gentlemen, standing for such principles as their church creeds represent are scarcely in a position to make an assault upon our doctrines on any score of inconsistency or repulsiveness; and second, by placing our doctrine in contrast with theirs, I desire to show the youth of Israel, whose representatives are here, the greatness and grandeur and the divinity of those principles for which their fathers have stood, and for which we stand, for the ensign given into the hands of our fathers we will sustain and carry to still greater heights of success.

Of the doctrine of the Godhead, taught and advocated by the sectarian world, I have already said something and pointed out the inconsistency of these ministers, holding Jesus to be divineâ€”nay more, to be Deity, and yet proclaiming against our views of God being a personage of tabernacle, a personage of flesh and bone as well as of spiritâ€”in a word, an exalted, a perfected manâ€”Christ Jesus resurrected from the dead and possessing all power in heaven and in earth. I shall leave them, of course, to patch up the contradictions of their creeds on that subject, I am not concerned about them.

And now, to turn to another portion of the creed, held at least by the Presbyterian ministers before us, and by some other members of the Ministerial Associationâ€”our reviewers. I read from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter iii, section 3.

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."Sec. 4.â€”These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished."Sec. 5.â€”Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

"Sec. 4.â€”These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

"Sec. 5.â€”Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."

Now listen to this:

"Sec. 7.â€”The rest of mankind, God was pleased according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."

That is to say, that though all mankind be sinners, and it must be conceded that all men sin, yet out of this mass of sinners some are rescued from the consequences of that sin by the pure grace of God, and without any co-operating act of theirs, they are rescued from the consequence of that sin by the decree of God. Whereas, others of that mass of sinners, by the decree of God, are relegated eternally to condemnation, to reprobation, and what that means we shall see presentlyâ€”but in the face of this doctrine, where appears the justice of God, or mercy of God either? But the end is not yet.

"Sec. 4 (chapter x.) Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

Now, on these sections from the Presbyterian creed, I read to you the comment of a very high authority in that church who deals with this creed, the Rev. A. A. Hodge. This work is designed for the schools and colleges of the Presbyterian church. This is his comment on the articles of the creed:

"This section * * * teaches the following propositions: That the non-elect will certainly fail of salvation. * * * That the diligent profession and honest practice of neither natural religion, nor of any other religion than pure Christianity, can in the least avail or promote the salvation of the soul, is evident from the essential principles of the gospel. * * * That in the case of sane adult persons a knowledge of Christ and a voluntary acceptance of him is essential in order to a personal interest in his salvation. * * * * God has certainly revealed no purpose to save any except those who hearing the gospel, obey. * * * Whatever lies beyond this circle of sanctified means is unrevealed, unpromised, uncovenanted. The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, and going down to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after 1,800 years, a possibility illustrated by no example."

That means, then, that the great bulk of God's children have been created only that they may be food for the flames of the sectarian hell, because orthodox Christian sects allow of no means of salvation beyond the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel in this world. But we shall not arrive at an understanding and the enormity of these creedsâ€”we shall have no conception of their abomination until we learn something about the sectarian idea of hell and the continuation of the punishment of those who do not accept Christ. Those who have not heard of Christ are, by these creeds, placed in the same category as those who have heard of him, who have heard his gospel and rejected it; for they neither are nor can be, according to the teachings of orthodox Christianity, subjects of salvation.

But before taking that matter up, let me read to you another section from the creed:

Sec. 111, (chapter 10.) "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

This has been a very troublesome part of the creed to our Presbyterian friends. It has been understood to at least imply the possibility of some infants not being among the elect and therefore subject to damnation, just like the non-elect who grow up to maturity, a view most shocking to most people includingâ€”to their honor be it saidâ€”most Presbyterians. The interpretation of this section of the creed by the Presbyterian church is, that "all infants are among the elect!" If this was the thought in the minds who wrote the creed, what a pity they did not say, "All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ," instead of saying "elect infants," etc. What a world of controversy it would have saved!

However, gentlemen, your interpretation is that all infants are of the elect, and therefore saved, and I will accept your interpretation because I believe you have a right to your own interpretation. But say, by the way of whisper, and in confidence, I can make it extremely interesting, if not difficult for you to make good your interpretation both by reason of the implication that must fairly be conceded exists in the language of the section against your contention, as also from very respectable authorities I can quote, on the history of the controversy. But we let that pass, and will concede your right to say what your creed means. Especially so since, the abomination of your creed may be established without pressing this point. Why should you Presbyterians be so particular to declare against the damnation of infants, when the promulgation of the doctrine of the damnation of a good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as outrageous as the damnation of an innocent babe?

In some respects of the case it is even worse. Here we will say, is a man who throughout his life has made every effort to realize in his living the lofty ideal of possessing "clean hands and a pure heart;" who entertains only aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only that are honorable; who in the relationships of life, as son, brother, husband, father and citizen, discharges with reasonable fidelity, all his duties in these relations, and, as nearly as a man can while under the effects of the fall, and pestered with human inclinations to perversity, leads what is recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not of the elect, this man is doomed eternally, and his struggling for the attainment of his lofty ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in the way of warding off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the elect, and hence must perish everlastingly.

The questions here being considered were once presented to Dr. Francis L. Patten, president of Princeton university, and a stalwart Presbyterian defender of the creed, in a rather unique, not to say personal manner, by a correspondent of one of our great eastern journals, and as it helps one to get a view of the doctrines here considered from close range, I quote it:

Interviewer: "But if it would be unjust to take an infant from the world and resign it to everlasting torture, is it not equally unjust that those of us who have lived and suffered and struggled with life's battles should be eternally doomed because we happen not to be among the elect? Is it fair or just, or consistent, with the workings of a religion built upon a foundation of eternal love, that some of us shall be born into the world under a spiritual ban, compelled to go through the battle, with the certainty of no reward for honors or efforts, predestined for hell, as the elect, for no effort or worth of their own, are predestined for heaven? That is the doctrine of election, is it not?""That is the doctrine of election," repeated Dr. Patten. "And you believe it?""I do," was the prompt response, "wholly and unreservedly.""And you think it just?""I think it is not for me to pass judgment upon the working of God."

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

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

"And you think it just?"

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

Is that a fair answer, or artful dodging?

Again the interviewer asked:

"Do you believe there may be near and dear ones of yours, reaching out, perhaps, for all that is noblest and best in life, struggling each day to gain the mastery over self, striving to attain purity of purpose to conquer weakness and inferior motives, who, when it is all over and the battle has been won, and won hard, will be cast into everlasting torment because they weren't lucky enough to be elected before they were born?""I have never had the question brought before me in that way," Dr. Patten replied evasively. "But it is before you now," I persisted. "Well," replied the doctor, slowly, "I should say that any one who could strive so hard after the good must be one of the elect." "The extracts from the Confession of Faith dispose of that theory," I said. 'Good works do not avail unless one has been chosen.'"

"I have never had the question brought before me in that way," Dr. Patten replied evasively. "But it is before you now," I persisted. "Well," replied the doctor, slowly, "I should say that any one who could strive so hard after the good must be one of the elect." "The extracts from the Confession of Faith dispose of that theory," I said. 'Good works do not avail unless one has been chosen.'"

That sounds very like the reasoning of Jonathan Edwards on the subject of infant damnation and baptism, when he said that an infant, if one of the elect, would have the opportunity for baptism; and that while all infants who were baptized would not be saved, all who were not baptized were damned, as they could not have been of the elect!

But, as I remarked awhile ago, no one can begin to appreciate the abomination of these creeds, these doctrines, until he has some conception of what is meant by orthodox damnation. Now here is a picture of God's wrath and vengeance upon men. It is a passage,â€”a noted oneâ€”taken from the works of the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and he is addressing himself to sinners. Now, I cannot help but believe that though men are sinnersâ€”notwithstanding that factâ€”I cannot help but believe that God still has some compassion in his heart for his children, sinners though they be. Indeed, if that be not true, then it seems to me despair must settle down like a black pall upon humanity; for if God loves only those who have remained without sin, how very few of his children he loves! While God cannot look uponsinwith the least degree of allowance, I believe that he can have and does have infinite compassion for the sinner. He will never call your sin "righteousness." He will never compound a sin and say that it is less than it is. Always and everywhere God's law will stand pronounced against sin; but while he stands thus committed irrevocably against sin in all its forms, I believe that his heart goes out in compassion to men who sin, and he will save them from their sins as soon as they repent. When they repent he will forgive, and you will find, my friends, that the forgiveness of God is effective; it is worth something. It will blot out the sin, and cause it to be no more held against one who has repented. But now to this description of damnation by Edwards, who as I think gives quite a contrary view of God from that I have been presenting:

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. * * * You are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most hateful, venomous serpent is in ours. * * * You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it. * * * If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case that he will only tread you under foot. * * * He will crush out your blood and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments so as to stain all his raiment."

What think you of this picture of God, who is supposed to be a God of infinite compassion, youth of Israel? Was it not about time, since these conceptions here set forth by Edwards sprang from the creeds of menâ€”was it not about time when such beliefs prevailed, that some messenger should come from heaven declaring that such creeds are an abomination in the sight of God?

Let us go on:

"Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen!"

I believe that is cruel. I think they ought to show us such places at least; so that if we had the disposition we could possibly avoid them. Of all the mean things on earth, that can be done, it seems to me, would be to lead one along the path where the pitfalls are covered. I would not like to believe that such a thing as that could exist in the moral economy of God.

Again:

"Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead and to tend downward with great weight and pressure toward hell; and, if God should let you go, you would immediately sink, and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you, and keep you out of hell than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. * * * The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped the more rapid and mighty is its course when once it is let loose. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might and majesty and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you in the ineffable strength of your torments; you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and, when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty."Elsewhere it is said in effect that the saintly souls in heaven will not be troubled over the misfortunes and sufferings of the damned, but their very sufferings will increase the happiness of the glorified saints. The Lord deliver us from all such conceptions of either God or the saints.

Elsewhere it is said in effect that the saintly souls in heaven will not be troubled over the misfortunes and sufferings of the damned, but their very sufferings will increase the happiness of the glorified saints. The Lord deliver us from all such conceptions of either God or the saints.

Again I quote:

"It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity; there will be no end to this exquisite, horrible misery; when you look forward you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts and amaze your soul!"

Well, we stand amazed now, that anyone could have such conceptions of God and such treatment of his children as this. But to continue the quotation:

"You will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, and end, any mitigation, any rest at all; you will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this Almighty, merciless vengeance; and then, when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite."

That is what awaits those who are not of the elect; that is the fate that awaits the heathen, and without hope of redemption. Again I say, young people, youth of Israel, if God should ever speak to man at a time when such ideas obtained, when such creeds and teachings were in existence, would not the first word uttered be one repudiating these creeds and the institutions, the organizations, built upon these foundations, these creeds of men? Would not God's first word denounce these creeds as an abomination? Of course, it would. Humanity in its sober senses would be disappointed else. Joseph Smith was entirely rightâ€”or rather God was. The first thing needful was to brush aside the rubbish of the creeds that traduce the character of God and banish all the qualities of mercy and justice from the attributes of God, and his moral government of the world. Hence this message called "Mormonism"â€”this message from Godâ€”began with a denunciation of these creeds. God said they were an abomination in his sight, and I do not doubt it one moment. How could they be otherwise?

One of the best things that can be said about our "reviewers" here before us, is that they are better than their creeds. They do not say much about them. They know the people don't believe them; and a preacher's influence among men is in exact proportion to the distance he leaves these creeds behind himâ€”to the depth of oblivion in which he buries them. I am tempted to believe some times that our reviewers, bad as they areâ€”I mean that as a pleasantryâ€”they are still too good to believe these creeds. What if they do, at their ordination, have to declare that they adopt the creed as their faith! I still believe that down in their hearts they do not believe them! "Well," one may say, "this may be a tribute to their goodness of heart, but what of their sincerity, what of their honesty?" I hope the inquirer will not press that point, I refer it to the gentlemen most immediately concernedâ€”to our reviewers. The fact is, speaking of these matters in a general wayâ€”light, thank God! has come into the world and dispelled the gloomy prospects of the future as pictured by these creeds of men. It is a great relief to the world, brought about, to a large extent, by the revelations of God to Joseph Smith.

Back to Index Next