{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_47730/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_47730","id":"gutenberg_47730","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47730","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Latter Day Saint churches","Latter Day Saints"],"text":"DEFENSE OF THE FAITH\n                        AND THE SAINTS\n\n\n                              BY\n                         B. H. ROBERTS\n\n                           AUTHOR OF\n                          The Gospel\n                Outlines of Ecclesiastical History\n                     New Witness for God\n                   Mormon Doctrine of Deity\n                           Etc., Etc.\n\n\n                           VOLUME I.\n\n\n                        Salt Lake City\n                             1907\n\n\n\nGENERAL FOREWORD.\n\nFifteen years ago, in announcing what was then a list of prospective\nbooks, the writer declared his intention to publish a \"Scrap Book,\"\npromising that it should be a choice selection of his miscellaneous\nwritings, and mentioned as among the probable articles, Corianton, a\nBook of Mormon story; Mariam, a story of Zarahemla; Spirit Promptings,\netc., etc., all which are here recalled as foreshadowing the author's\nintention at that time. About then, however, the writer's energies\nbegan to be devoted more exclusively to doctrinal and historical\nthemes, and one circumstance after another arose which called him to\nthe defense of the Mormon faith and the Mormon people, so that the\ncharacter of his literary efforts were turned away from the line of\npurpose fiction work he had proposed to himself. But the scrap-book,\nnevertheless, became a possibility through the multiplication of the\ndefensive articles, though its character would be changed, owing the\nchange in the writer's line of work. Through the years have elapsed\nsince the \"Scrap Book\" idea was first entertained as a depository of\nthe author's miscellaneous writings, a great mass of material in the\nform of discourses and papers, contributed to magazines and newspapers\nhas accumulated and it is from this mass of materials that following\ncollection of articles has been chosen; and as there is still much\nmaterial on hand, and the end of the writer's work is not yet in\nsight, he has ventured to call this Volume I, indicating by that the\nprobability that other volumes in time will follow, if the writer is\nnot mistaken in his judgment as to the demand for such publications.\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nGENERAL FOREWORD\n\n\nPART I\n\nPOSITION AND DEFENSE\n\n\nI.\n\nMORMONISM.\n\nA paper submitted to the Parliament of Religions at the World's\nColumbian Exposition, at Chicago, 1903\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE CHRISTIAN SECTS: THE DOCTRINE OF\nTWO CHURCHES ONLY.\n\nAn Address delivered at the Seventy-sixth Annual Conference of the\nChurch in April, 1906\n\n\nIII.\n\nSOME RECENT LITERATURE ON MORMONISM\n\nI. \"The Founder of Mormonism\" (Riley)\n\nII. \"The Mormon Prophet\" (Dougal)\n\nIII. \"The Lions of the Lord\" (Wilson)\n\n\nIV.\n\nA BRIEF DEFENSE OF THE MORMON PEOPLE\n\nI. Eastern Eulogy of Mormon's System (\"M\")\n\nII. Defense of the Mormon People against \"M's\" Attack\n\n\nV.\n\nWHICH OF THE SECTS HAS PERSECUTED MORMONISM MOST?\n\nI. A Letter to D. A. Holcomb, Esq\n\nII. Views of a Jewish Rabbi (Reynolds)\n\nIII. Bishop Scanlan's Attitude\n\n\nVI.\n\nHOW!\n\nA Discourse delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, 1903, replying to\ncertain strictures by the Presbyterian General Assembly, convened in\nLos Angeles, 1903\n\n\nVII.\n\nRELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN AMERICA.\n\nI. The Relations of the Church to the State\n\nII. Jefferson's Contribution to Religious Liberty in America\n\n\nVIII.\n\nCONDITIONS IN UTAH--1905.\n\nI. Speech of Hon. Thomas Kearns in the Senate of the United States\n\nII. Answer to Senator Kearns\n\n\nPART II.\n\nBOOK OF MORMON CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS.\n\n\nI.\n\nTHE MANNER OF TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nI. The Manner of Translation\n\nII. Accounting for Evident Transcriptions of Bible Passages in the\nTranslation of the Nephite Record\n\nIII. Answer to Questions Respecting the \"Manual Theory\" of Translating\nthe Book of Mormon\n\nIV. Correspondence on the Subject of the \"Manual Theory\" of Translation\n\n\nII.\n\nA BRIEF DEBATE ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nI. The Objector's First Paper\n\nII. The First Reply\n\nIII. The Objector's Second Paper\n\nIV. The Second Reply\n\n\nIII.\n\n\"THE FIFTH GOSPEL\"\n\nA Reply to Rev. Wm. M. Paden's Criticism of Third Nephi,--the \"Fifth\nGospel\"\n\n\nIV.\n\nMORMON VIEWS OF AMERICA.\n\nI. A Prophetic Incident\n\nII. America the Land of Zion and of Joseph\n\n\nPART III.\n\nHISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL PAPERS.\n\n\nI.\n\nTHE LORD'S DAY.\n\nA justification for Regarding the First Day of the Week as the\nChristian Sabbath, or \"The Lord's Day\"\n\n\nII.\n\nANGLICAN ORDERS--DECISION OF LEO XIII CONSIDERED--THE PROTESTANT\nDILEMMA.\n\nA Consideration of the Question of Divine Authority\n\n\nIII.\n\nREFORMATION OR REVOLUTION?\n\nA Study of the Great Sixteenth Century Movement Led by Martin Luther,\nand Others\n\n\nIV.\n\nREVELATION AND INSPIRATION.\n\nA correction of some misapprehensions that arose concerning Mormon\nviews on the subjects of Revelation and Inspiration during the hearings\nhad in the \"Smoot Case\" before the United States Senate Committee on\nPrivileges and Elections, 1903-1907\n\n\n\nPart I.\n\nPosition and Defense.\n\n\n\nI.\n\nMORMONISM.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following paper was prepared by the writer for presentation at the\nParliament of Religions, held at the World's Columbian Exposition,\nChicago, 1893. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not\ninvited to participate in the proceedings of that Parliament, although\nMormonism is the most distinctively American religious movement yet\ndeveloped in our country; and as such the position and doctrine of\nthe Church should have been of special interest in such a gathering\nas the Parliament purported to be. Learning that the Church would not\nbe invited to the Parliament, under a sense of duty to make known\nthe faith and message to the world, her presiding authorities sought\nopportunity for a hearing from the Parliament platform. After much\nsolicitation and persistent urging as to the right of the Church to\na hearing in such a gathering, a reluctant consent was finally given\nfor a presentation of the following paper. But after this consent was\ngiven, a very unworthy effort was made by the President and chairman\nof the Parliament to side-track the paper by asking the representative\nof the Church to read it in one of the auxiliary departments of the\nParliament,--namely, the Scientific Department, which meetings were\nheld in a room capable of accommodating about fifty hearers, and\npresided over by Mr. Mervin Marie Snell. In response to that suggestion\nthe writer, who had the honor to the representative of the Church to\nthe Parliament, replied that such a hearing as could be had in Hall\nIII (Scientific Department of the Parliament) was not the kind of\nhearing the Mormon Church had asked for or could accept. She had asked\nto speak from the same platform from which the great religious faiths\nhad spoken--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism--from the platform\nof Columbus Hall, where her position and principles could be compared\nand contrasted with the viewpoint and doctrines of other religions,\nby the enlightened thought of the age. The officers in charge of the\nParliament, however, refused to change the terms on which a hearing\ncould be obtained for Mormonism, and the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints had the distinction of being refused a hearing in the\nWorld's Parliament of Religions.\n\nI.\n\n\"MORMONISM.\"\n\nOne of the most instructive as well as the most important religious\nmovements of the nineteenth century is the rise of what the world\nhas learned to call \"Mormonism.\" In an age which believed that\nGod's voice would no more be heard giving revelation; that said the\nvolume of scripture was completed and forever closed; that declared\nangels would no more visit the earth to communicate the divine will;\nand that sedulously taught that all miracles had ceased--the world\nbeholds a religion arising based upon these forces that men had been\ntaught to believe had forever become inactive. True, it has met with\nmany obstacles in consequence of making these rejected stones of\nancient Christianity the chief corner stones of its structure; but\nnotwithstanding the fierceness of the opposition it has aroused, it is\nnow so firmly established that it claims the respectful attention of\nthe world.\n\nNew religions, when struggling for existence in the face of adversity,\nwith few followers and no influence, may expect to be treated with\nsilent contempt by the supposedly orthodox; but when a religion has\nfought its way through all opposition to a position of influence, and\ncounts within its pale hundreds of thousands of sincere and intelligent\nfollowers, it gives proof that its doctrines contain some measure\nof truth at least, and by reason of that fact, has a claim upon the\nrespect and thoughtful consideration of mankind.\n\nSuch is the position of \"Mormonism.\" Sixty-three years ago [A] the\nChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized with but\nsix members, in the State of New York. That organization was effected\nin a log room not more than fourteen feet square, by men who made no\npretensions to ecclesiastical scholarship, but claimed to be directed\nby divine revelation. It could but be expected that the great Christian\nsects, by which the new church was surrounded, and that considered\nthemselves strongly entrenched behind a fullness of religious\ntruth--would scoff at the pretensions of these men. But when, after\na lapse of sixty-three years, the work having so humble an origin is\nstill in existence with a membership of over three hundred thousand,\nit is time the scoffing ceased and earnest attention be given to its\npretensions, especially when account is taken of its history between\nthe two points indicated--its origin and present standing.\n\n[Footnote A: This was written in 1893.]\n\nWithin that period it has fallen to the lot of the \"Mormon\" Church\nto make more history than any other religious denomination of modern\ntimes. Ridicule has laughed at it; Satire has mocked it; Bigotry has\nrefused to hear its defense; Hatred has slandered it; Intolerance has\narmed the red, right hind of persecution against it; the Government\nof the United States has seized upon and escheated its property; Mob\nViolence has opposed its promulgation by murdering its missionaries\nand driving its devotees from city to city, from county to county,\nfrom state to state; and the Civil Authorities refusing the protection\nguaranteed alike in state and national constitutions, at last permitted\nthose who accepted its faith to be exiled from their native country.\n\n\"Mormonism,\" however, has survived not only the violence which murdered\nits prophets, burned the houses of the Saints, laid waste their fields\nand destroyed their temples, but also an exodus which, for the distance\ncovered and the dangers encountered, has not a parallel in ancient or\nmodern history. Its followers settling in a desert land a thousand\nmiles from the frontiers of civilization, like drilled cohorts made\nwar upon the sterile elements of the inter-Rocky Mountain region, and\nlike magic there sprang into existence, as the result of their untiring\nefforts and divine blessing, cities, towns, hamlets; temples, churches,\nschoolhouses; peaceful homes surrounded by fruitful fields and\ngardens and orchards, which, with the peace and good order everywhere\nprevailing, challenge the admiration of all who become acquainted with\nthe Saints and the land they inhabit.\n\nMeantime, the Elders of the Church, full of sublime faith and trust in\nGod, without purse or scrip, have visited nearly all the nations of the\nearth and have preached the gospel to them. Not, perhaps, with that\nnice skill and polish which refined education in renowned institutions\nof learning may give, but in the power and demonstration of God's Holy\nSpirit; and nearly every nation under the whole heaven has given to the\nnew faith some of its sons and daughters. By reason of this missionary\nwork \"Mormonism\" is becoming recognized in the earth as one of the\npotent religious forces of the age, and as such claims the right to\nbe heard in this Parliament, in giving expression to its faith and\ndistinguishing characteristics.\n\n\"Mormonism,\" like all religions which have any hold either upon the\nintelligence or affections of men, has, as its foundation principle,\nfaith in God, the Creator of heaven and earth and the Power by\nwhich they are sustained. But \"Mormonism\" not only believes in this\nfundamental truth of all religions, but it has another belief equal\nunto it, viz., that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and who through the\natonement made by him on Calvary, is the Savior of the world. These two\npersonages and the Holy Ghost, that divine Spirit which bears, record\nof God and operates throughout the universe as his witness and agent,\nconstitute the God-head--the Holy Trinity, the Grand Presidency of\nheaven and earth. In attributes, in purpose, in will, these three are\none; perfectly united in mind and action.\n\nTo this great Presidency, \"Mormonism\" teaches that man owes praise,\nadoration, and as best of all worship--obedience; for submission of\nthe mind and the will to God, is alone true worship. Such a result\nas this can only be obtained through faith, for he who cometh thus\nto God must believe that he is. But the evidences of God's existence\nare so overwhelming that none shall be able to find an excuse for\nunbelief. Such evidences are to be found in the works of God as seen\nin the works of nature. The orderly procession of the seasons proclaim\nit; and when man uplifts his eyes from earth to the dome of heaven\nstretched above him, he beholds, like the Psalmist, the evidences of\nGod's existence and of his majesty and glory. The unbroken line of\ntestimony of prophets and righteous men as recorded in the Jewish\nScriptures, both in the old and New Testament, bear witness of it.\nBut to this testimony, the common inheritance of all Christendom,\n\"Mormonism\" adds special evidences of its own. It has prophets, who,\nthrough righteousness and faith, coupled with the grace of God, have\nstood in his presence, heard his voice, and beheld in part, his glory.\nThey bear record that God lives, and that Jesus is the Christ; and that\ntestimony, like the ancient prophets, they have sealed with their blood.\n\nTo the volume of Jewish scripture \"Mormonism\" adds a volume equal in\nbulk and equal in importance to the New Testament--the Book of Mormon.\nThis book is an abridgement of more extensive records kept by the\nancient inhabitants of the western hemisphere, the existence of which\nwas revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith by the ministry of an angel\nand translated by him into the English language by means of the Urim\nand Thummim hidden with the golden plates upon which the record was\nengraven.\n\nFrom this new volume of scripture we learn that the mercies and favors\nof God are not confined to the inhabitants of the eastern hemisphere;\nbut he of whom it is said that he is \"no respecter of persons,\" had\nregard for the races of men who inhabited the western half of the\nworld. He raised up wise men and prophets among them to whom he\nrevealed his will, made known his purposes concerning the creation of\nman, and taught him the way of life. Previous to the coming of the\nSon of God in the flesh, their prophets taught this ancient people as\nIsaiah, Jeremiah and others taught the Jews, to look forward to the\ncoming of Messiah, to make an atonement for the sins of the world.\nAnd when Jesus had completed his mission to the Jews in Palestine, in\nfulfilment of his own prophecy which says, \"I lay down my life for\nthe sheep; and other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them\nalso I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be\none fold and one shepherd,\"--in fulfilment of this, I say, he visited\nthe land of America, revealed himself to the people, taught the same\ndivine truths which warmed the hearts and purified the lives of men of\ngood will in Palestine; gave them the same ordinances of salvation;\nand organized the church in their midst for their instruction in\nrighteousness.\n\nOf these things their poets sang, their prophets wrote; and when,\nthrough wickedness, anarchy overthrew their civilization, righteous men\nhid away their records that in the last days they might come forth and\nbe united with the testimony of prophets and men of God who had lived\nin other lands; to the end that the evidences of God's existence, the\nMessiahship of Jesus Christ, and the truth of the gospel might be so\nincreased that unbelief would have no excuse for its infidelity; and\nthat they who scoff at faith might be reproved and learn to believe.\n\nOne thing has occurred to me while in attendance at this Parliament\nwhich has raised in importance the humble part allotted to me in it;\nand that is, while we have heard from this platform voices from all\nnations and races of men--voices from Asia, from Europe, from Africa\nand the islands of the sea; we have had voices from the dead religions\nand the living religions, and they have united in saying that in all\nthese lands and in all ages God has not left himself without witnesses\namong them, but has raised up prophets among them who taught them at\nleast some measure of the truth--perhaps all they could accept and\nincorporate in their lives. But where is the voice to tell us that God\nremembered the races and nations which flourished for ages throughout\nthis whole western hemisphere before Europeans discovered it? Races\nthat had attained a high state of civilization, too, as proclaimed by\nthe ruins of their temples and cities. Are we to suppose that they\nwere without God while all the rest of mankind found him? Perish the\nthought. If no other voice is to be heard proclaiming that God was just\nand merciful to these races, and that he revealed himself to them--then\nlet the pleasing task be mine, and here in this august presence I\nproclaim the revelation of their record which bears witness of God's\ngoodness to them; and that record is the Book of Mormon.\n\nA word further in regard to that book. Men have usually satisfied\nthemselves as to its origin by accepting that flimsiest of all theories\nthat it was the production of one Rev. Solomon Spaulding, who wrote it\nas a romance. This theory of its origin, without any investigation, has\ngenerally satisfied those who have heard it. In 1886, however, the long\nlost manuscript of the Rev. Mr. Spaulding unexpectedly came to light,\nhas been identified beyond the peradventure of a doubt, and is now in\nthe possession of President James H. Fairchild of Oberlin College,\nOhio, or rather is in the museum of that institution for the inspection\nof all. It has been published by the Church, every word of it, with\neven the erasures made by its author so far as they can be deciphered,\nand lo there is not an incident, not a circumstance, not a proper\nname either of place or person, nor any similarity of construction or\npurpose common to the Book of Mormon and Mr. Spaulding's production.\nPresident Fairchild himself says that whatever theory shall be put\nforth for the origin of the Book of Mormon, the Spaulding theory must\nbe abandoned.\n\nBy accepting the records of the ancient peoples of America the\n\"Mormons\" have double the amount of evidence for the existence of God\nand the truth of the gospel that other people possess; and since faith\nmust ever have its foundation in evidence, the enlarged evidences\naccepted by \"Mormons\" must account for that mightier faith which both\ntheir sufferings and their works proclaim they possess.\n\nIn \"Mormon\" theology the atonement of Jesus Christ redeems all mankind\nfrom the consequences of Adam's transgression, irrespective of their\nbelief or unbelief, their obedience or their disobedience, their\nrighteousness or their unrighteousness. It is manifestly evident that\nthe \"Fall of Adam\" was essential to the accomplishment of the divine\npurposes of God in the earth-life of man; which earth-life was designed\nfor man's progress in that eternal existence which unquestionably is\nhis. But being a necessity from the nature of things, an essential to\nthe production of those conditions which would place man in a state of\nprobation, in which he might gain those experiences, demonstrate that\nfidelity, and acquire the strength that shall make him both worthy of,\nand able to bear, that eternal weight of glory designed of God for\nthose able to overcome the evils of earth-life--its temptations and\nsins--the \"Fall of Adam,\" I say, being necessary to bring to pass the\nconditions of this earth probation for man, it is but just that there\nshould be some means of free and universal redemption from the effects\nof it. For while man, may be held accountable for his personal conduct\nunder given conditions that do not take from him his freedom, nor the\npower to will and to do what is required, he may not in justice be held\naccountable for the existence of necessary conditions that establish\nthe state of probation under which he consents to work. Free and\nuniversal redemption, therefore, is provided for man from those effects\nthat result from necessity; and hence the Church teaches that \"men will\nbe punished for their own Sins and not for Adam's transgressions.\" [A]\n\n[Footnote A: A slight alteration has been made in this paragraph since\nthe publication of this article in the _Improvement Era_.]\n\nBut quite apart from the transgression of Adam is man's individual\nviolations of the laws of righteousness--violations of the laws of\nGod in which man's agency is exercised; for he sins at times wilfully\nand wantonly; knowing the right, he dares to do wrong. Here justice\nhas a claim upon him and may demand the payment of the penalty to the\nuttermost. But the mercy of God as well as his justice is active, and\noffers redemption from the consequences of individual transgressions on\nthe condition of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.\n\nThese laws are not intricate, baffling the understanding. The\nordinances are neither numerous nor difficult of performance; but in\nthe plan of man's salvation, as in all other works of Deity, simplicity\nmarks its outlines and efficiency justifies its adoption. The laws and\nordinances referred to have not for their chief object the propitiation\nof the anger of God as the old Pagan ordinances of religion had;\nbut on the contrary, by their nature and operation, they affect the\ncharacter of man, and are calculated to so purify and exalt his nature\nas to prepare him to dwell in endless felicity in the presence and\ncompanionship of his Maker.\n\nOf necessity Faith in God and in this plan of salvation is of first\nimportance, and must be an active principle in the mind, for without it\nmen would consider themselves under no obligation to yield obedience\nto any ordinance whatsoever. The reason the infidel does not repent,\nor perform any other act of obedience, is because he has or pretends\nto have no faith in the existence of God. As from the rising sun there\nbeams those rays of light which streak the heavens with glory, so from\nfaith spring those acts of obedience required in the gospel of Jesus\nChrist. First among these acts is repentance, which consists not alone\nin deep and heartfelt sorrow for sin, but coupled with it must be a\nfirm determination of amendment of conduct. It must be a godly sorrow\nworking a reformation of life. Following repentance comes baptism in\nwater by which men take on them the name of Christ, through which\nordinance also they receive, when it is preceded by faith and true\nrepentance, forgiveness of sins. But even after a remission of sins,\nsuch is the weakness of human nature that man is not able to stand by\nhis own strength, he needs divine aid: hence, God has ordained that\nthrough the ordinance of confirmation by the laying on of hands, the\nHoly Ghost shall be imparted unto man as a comforter and guide, and by\ngiving heed to his voice man shall overcome the old inclinations to\nevil, and at last so purify and sanctify himself that he will be worthy\nto dwell in the presence of his God.\n\nAs a further means of grace, the Church of Jesus Christ recognizes\nthe sacrament of the Lord's Supper, by which men may frequently renew\ntheir covenant with God and witness to each other that they are willing\nto take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, gratefully remember the\natonement he has made for them, express a willingness to keep his\ncommandments, and by doing so draw to themselves a constant renewal of\nthe Spirit of God.\n\nFew and simple as these ordinances are, the Church teaches that in\norder to be of effect they must be administered by divine authority. No\nman can take the honor upon himself to administer in things pertaining\nto God. He must be called by direct revelation from God, or be\ncommissioned by a divinely authorized power. Here is where \"Mormonism\"\ncomes in conflict with all Christendom. Men even in the early centuries\nof the Christian era having transgressed the laws, changed the\nordinances, broke the covenant, and lost divine authority to administer\nthe of Jesus Christ--though the letter of the Gospel remained in part\nwith the world in the writings of the ancient Apostles--there arose a\nnecessity for the re-opening of the heavens and a restoration of that\npriesthood which alone can administer the ordinances of salvation.\n\nThat is the significance of the revelations of God and the visitation\nof angels to Joseph Smith. To him was revealed anew the gospel, to\nhim was committed a new dispensation of it, and angels bestowed upon\nhim the apostleship, the fullness of all priesthood which God gives\nto man in the earth, and by its power Joseph Smith and those to whom\nhe transmitted authority preached the gospel. By the power of that\npriesthood they organized the Church of Christ never more to be\ndestroyed; sustained and upheld by that power the Church has outlived\nall the opposition arrayed against it, and stands today planted\nimpregnably upon the eternal foundations of truth.\n\nBut notwithstanding the absence of the gospel and the authority to\nadminister its ordinances, the children of God living through those\ndark ages will not be deprived of its saving powers. That must be a\nvery contracted view of the great plan of human redemption which would\nconfine its operations to the brief span of man's existence in this\nlife. \"Mormonism\" holds no such view. On the contrary, it teaches\nthat the gospel is everlasting; that it walks beside man throughout\neternity; and means for its application to him have been provided by\nthe mercy of God. It may be that \"Mormonism\" does not stand alone in\nthis broad conception of the application of the gospel to our race;\nbut while others are speculating as to whether it is possible or not\nfor man to attain unto repentance and forgiveness of sins in his\nfuture existence, \"Mormonism\" is erecting temples to the name of the\nMost High, and within their sacred walls the Saints are vicariously\nperforming the ordinances of salvation for those who have passed from\nthe earth when the gospel and authority to administer it were not among\nthe children of men. Such is the conception that Mormonism holds and\nteaches of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its application to mankind;\nand surely one may see in this conception the fullness of that glorious\nscripture which says: God, our Savior, would have all men to be saved,\nand come unto the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:3, 4.)\n\nIf asked what the distinguishing characteristics of \"Mormonism\" are, I\nshould answer:\n\nThe acceptance of Jesus Christ as the full and complete revelation of\nGod to man, in person and in attributes; that as Jesus was and is,--for\nto us he still lives, a resurrected, glorified man--so is God, the\nFather--a perfected man. This is only saying that as \"the Son is, so\nalso is the Father.\"\n\nThe belief that the spirit of man is in very deed the child of God--his\noffspring; that men in reality are brothers to Jesus Christ, and to\neach other.\n\nA more pronounced faith than is possessed by other people in the\nimminence of God in the world and in men, through the medium of the\ndivine spirit.\n\nA positive belief in present and continuous revelation.\n\nA broader conception of God's treatment of men in the matter of\nrevealing himself and his purposes to them.\n\nAcknowledging an inspired priesthood, authorized to direct the affairs\nof, and instruct the Church.\n\nThe possession of a living faith which lays hold of all the promises\nmade in the gospel of Jesus Christ; personal communion with God through\nthe Holy Spirit, and enjoyment of all the spiritual gifts and graces\ngranted to the saints in any age of the world.\n\nIf asked what special benefits \"Mormonism\" has conferred upon mankind,\nmy answer would be: 1st. That it presents to the world the fullness\nof the gospel, with the authority to administer its ordinances; that\nthrough obedience to it men may attain unto all those gifts, graces and\npowers known to the ancient saints. It assures them that God in his\nrelationship to men, is the same today as he was nineteen centuries\nago, that the gospel is the same now as it ever was, and all spiritual\ngraces and powers that man ever attained to he may possess today. 2nd.\nThat in the testimony of modern prophets and saints the evidences of\nGod's existence and the truth of the gospel are so enlarged that the\nunbelief which today distresses the religious world and limits the\nextension of Christianity would be swept away. 3rd. That in the Book\nof Mormon there is evidence of the authorship of the Jewish scripture\nof which Christendom in the face of modern criticism--commonly called\nthe \"Higher Criticism\"--stands much in need. That criticism, as is\nwell known, is not directed so much to textual errors which may have\nfound their way into the great collection of sacred books, as it is to\nutterly destroy the authorship and all idea of the divine inspiration\nof them. This modern criticism has decided that Moses is not the\nauthor of the Pentateuch, and indeed, the authorship not only of the\nPentateuch but of nearly all the prophets and even the books of the New\nTestament is unsettled in the minds of many. The Book of Mormon gives\nan account of a colony of Israelites that left Palestine six hundred\nyears before Christ, which colony carried with it a copy of the law of\nMoses and the writings of the Prophets down to the days of Jeremiah.\nThese scriptures they preserved with great care, handing them down from\ngeneration to generation, and from them both they and their descendants\nlearned of the hand dealings of God with his children in ancient times.\nWhen the civilization of these people on the Western Hemisphere was\noverthrown, and their records in order to preserve them were hidden by\nrighteous men, the truths which their fathers had learned from them\nwere preserved--though somewhat distorted--in their traditions. Thus is\naccounted for the knowledge of the creation, the flood, the coming of\nthe Messiah, which Europeans found among the races inhabiting America\nat the time of its discovery. Portions of the ancient Jewish Scriptures\nwhich these colonists brought with them to America were transcribed\ninto the Book of Mormon, and there they stand in the translations\nthat have been made of it to testify not only to the existence of the\nwritings of Moses and the other prophets at least six hundred years\nbefore Christ, but to testify also that the records which have come\ndown to us from the Jews are substantially correct. More important as\nconfirming the accuracy and inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, more\npotent to silence the new forms of unbelief which have arisen in modern\ntimes, more powerful to confirm the faith of believers in God's word is\nthis new volume of scripture--the voice of nations of people who sought\nand found God--than all the newly deciphered hieroglyphics of Egypt, or\nthe still more recent evidences that come from the ancient cities of\nAssyria: and for this reason we make bold to invite the attention of\nour Christian brethren to the consideration of this New Witness for God.\n\nBesides preaching the Gospel for the salvation of men, \"Mormonism\" has\nan especial mission, viz: to prepare the earth for the coming and reign\nof Messiah. This mission authorizes the servants of God to warn mankind\nof the judgments which shall precede that appearing, and to call upon\nall men to repent of their sins, that they may escape the threatened\ncalamities. This preparatory work includes the gathering together of\nthe dispersed tribes of Israel and placing them in possession of the\nlands which God, by covenant, gave to their fathers. It contemplates\nthe erection of a great city upon this continent of America to be\ncalled \"Zion,\" the abode of the pure in heart, from whence the law of\nGod shall go forth to all the world. It contemplates the restoration of\nthe Jews to the city of their forefathers, the rebuilding of Jerusalem,\nfrom whence shall go forth the word of the Lord.\n\nThen shall the earth rest from its wickedness, as all the prophets have\npredicted; then shall peace and truth and righteousness spread over\nall the world, and all the tribes and kindreds of men shall know how\npleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.\n\nSplendid as this consummation is, \"Mormonism,\" instructed by divine\nwisdom, looks even beyond it, and contemplates the time when this earth\nshall receive even a fuller redemption, and become a celestial sphere,\nthe abode of resurrected, celestial beings forever, who shall dwell\nalways in the presence of God.\n\nIn conclusion, let me say that \"Mormonism\" accepts and includes within\nits boundary-lines all truth. It is progressive and is destined\nto become the religion of the age. Within it is scope for all the\nintelligence that shall flow unto it. \"Within its atmosphere is room\nfor every intellectual wing.\" It does not, as some have supposed,\nthrive best where ignorance is most profound, nor does it depend\nupon superstition and ignorance for its existence and perpetuity. It\npossesses within itself principles of native strength that will enable\nit to weather every storm, outlive all hatred born of ignorance and\nprejudice; and it will yet prove itself to be what indeed it is, the\ngospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God unto Salvation to all those\nwho believe and obey it, the Church of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\nII.\n\nTHE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE CHRISTIAN SECTS: THE DOCTRINE OF\nTWO CHURCHES ONLY.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following is an address delivered at the seventy-sixth Annual\nConference of the Church, held at Salt Lake City, in April, 1906. The\nremarks consider two very important statements in our authoritative\nbooks. The first one is found in the Pearl of Great Price, where the\nprophet Joseph states what the answer to his question was, when asking\nthe Lord which of the sects was the true Church, and which he should\njoin. Of that incident he said:\n\n    \"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all\n    wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their\n    creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were\n    all corrupt:\"\n\nThe second statement is in the Book of Mormon, where the declaration is\nmade that,\n\n    \"There are, save two churches only; the one is the church of the\n    Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore,\n    whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God, belongeth to\n    that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is\n    the whore of all the earth.\"\n\nThe first of these statements, it is claimed, not only \"unchurches\nall Christians,\" but proclaims the universal corruption of individual\nChristians. The second statement is generally supposed to stigmatize\nthe Church of Rome as the church of the devil. Both these questions are\nconsidered in the article which follows.\n\nII.\n\nTHE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE CHRISTIAN SECTS: THE DOCTRINE OF\nTWO CHURCHES ONLY.\n\nAmong the things important for the Saints of God to understand, among\nthe things important for the world to understand respecting the\nLatter-day Saints, is the relationship that we sustain to the religious\nworld; and I do not know that there is anything to which I could devote\nthe few minutes at my disposal to better advantage than in pointing out\nthat relationship, if I can obtain, through your faith and mine, the\nliberty that comes from the possession of the Spirit of the Lord.\n\nThe first revelation that the Lord gave to the Prophet Joseph Smith\nhad a bearing upon this subject. You remember that the Prophet went\nto the Lord to ascertain which of all the sects of religion was his\nchurch, desiring, of course, to unite himself with that church which\nthe Lord would designate as his. In reply to that question the Lord,\nin substance, said that all the sects were wrong; that he did not\nacknowledge them as his church; \"their creeds were an abomination in\nhis sight; those professors were all corrupt;\" [A] and the Prophet was\ntold that he must join none of them, but was promised that in due time\nhe would be used as God's instrument in the establishment of the Church\nof Christ in the earth.\n\n[Footnote A: The assertion, \"those professors were all corrupt,\" must\nnot be taken as referring to the whole body of Christians; but rather\nas referring to the teachers of their creeds--the \"professors;\" that\nterm not being used in the sense of \"confessors\" of the creeds, who\nmerely accept their doctrine from the teachings of the \"professors.\"\nThis interpretation is justified from the immediate context of the\npassage: \"They (the professors) draw near to me with their lips,\nbut their hearts are far from me; they (the \"professors\") teach for\ndoctrine the commandments of men.\" This context clearly proves that\nthe charge of \"corruption\" is limited at least to the teachers, to\nthe \"professors,\" not to the whole body of Christians. Moreover, I\nam convinced myself that the declaration is still further limited\nto the \"professors\" who founded and by that act taught to the world\nthe creeds that are an abomination in the sight of God--a fact not\nat all difficult of belief, or proof, upon an analysis of the creeds\nthemselves. And those who originally could form such conceptions of\nGod and man and the purposes of human existence, as the creeds teach,\nwere certainly men of warped understandings, men of perverted or\ncorrupted minds. But as to the whole body of Christians, we know that\nthere were at the time of the opening of this new dispensation of the\nGospel, and now, many who were not only not corrupt, except for the\nordinary weaknesses or \"corruption\" of our human nature,--but virtuous,\nhungering and thirsting after righteousness, seeking after God, and\nhindered from finding him only by the abominable creeds formulated by\nthe \"professors\" of the passage here considered.]\n\nBecause of this great revelation, by which the errors of ages were\nswept aside and the ground cleared for the re-establishment of the\nChurch of Christ among men, it has placed us, in a way, in an attitude\nof antagonism to the religious world. We have been resisted to some\nextent because of this attitude of antagonism; and it is quite possible\nthat we ourselves have not understood the true relationship in which\nwe stand to the religious world, by more or less of misapprehension\nrespecting this great revelation. I rejoice in the plainness and\nemphasis of this revelation, because from it I am made to realize\nthat there is a very important reason for the existence of the work\nwith which we are identified. I am glad to know that \"Mormonism\" did\nnot come into existence because its founders chanced to disagree with\nprevailing notions about the form or object of baptism; that it did not\ncome into existence through a disagreement as to the character of the\ngovernment of the Church. From the revelation referred to I learn that\n\"Mormonism\" came into existence because there was an absolute necessity\nfor a new dispensation of the gospel, a re-establishment of the Church\nof Christ among men. The gospel had been corrupted; its ordinances\nhad been changed; its laws transgressed its truths so far lost to the\nchildren of men that it rendered this new dispensation of the gospel\nof Christ--miscalled \"Mormonism\"--necessary. I say that I rejoice in\nthe fact that \"Mormonism\" came into the world, and exists in the world\ntoday, because the world stood and stands in sore need of it. But does\nthis re-establishment of the Church of Christ, this new dispensation\nof the gospel, which we have received, make our relationship to the\nchildren of men one of unfriendliness? I answer, No. On the contrary\nour relationship to men is one of absolute friendliness, and we are\nanxious to do the world good. We ought to understand that. We do\nunderstand it. And it is important that the world should understand\nit, that they may come to regard us in our true light, as friends of\nhumanity, and not enemies.\n\nIf you will look through some of the revelations given in the early\nhistory of the church, you will find that from time to time the Lord\nwas under the necessity of correcting the ideas of the brethren\nrespecting their attitude towards religious world. The Lord said to\nMartin Harris, by of correction:\n\n    \"Thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the\n    mountains, and upon every high place, and among people that thou\n    shalt be permitted to see. And thou do it with all humility,\n    trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. And of tenets thou\n    shall not talk, but thou shall declare repentance and faith on the\n    Savior, and remission of sin by baptism and by fire, yea, even the\n    Holy Ghost.\"\n\nThe Prophet also from time to time found it necessary to correct the\nElders of the Church in respect of their attacks upon other churches.\nAt Kirtland, in 1836, when many of the Elders were upon the eve of\ntaking their departure for their fields of labor, he instructed them as\nfollows:\n\n    \"While waiting [for the Sacrament] I made the following remarks:\n    The time that we were required to tarry in Kirtland to be endowed\n    would be fulfilled in a few days, and then the Elders would go\n    forth, and each stand for himself . . . . to go in all meekness, in\n    sobriety, and preach Christ and him crucified; not to contend with\n    others on account of their faith or systems of religion, but pursue\n    a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment; and all\n    who observe it not, will pull down persecution upon their heads,\n    while those who do, shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost;\n    this I pronounced as a prophesy.\" [A]\n\n[Footnote A: History of the Church, vol. II, p. 431.]\n\nIn other words, because the Lord has opened the heavens and has given\na new dispensation of the gospel, it does not follow that his servants\nor his people are to be contentious; that they are to make war upon\nother people for holding different views respecting religion. Hence\nthis caution to the Elders of the Church that they should not contend\nagainst other churches, make war upon their tenets, or revile even the\nrevilers.\n\nAt an earlier date still, the Lord had said to Oliver Cowdery and David\nWhitmer:\n\n    \"If you have not faith, hope and charity, you can do nothing.\n    Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil. Take\n    upon you the name of Christ, and speak the truth in soberness.\" [A]\n\n[Footnote A: Doc. & Cov. Sec. 18, 19-21.]\n\n    \"The church of the devil\" here alluded to, I understand to mean\n    not any particular church among men, or any one sect of religion,\n    but something larger than that--something that includes within its\n    boundaries all evil wherever it may be found; as well in schools of\n    philosophy as in Christian sects; as well in systems of ethics as\n    in systems of religion--something that includes the whole empire of\n    Satan--what I shall call \"The Kingdom of Evil.\"\n\nThis descriptive phrase, \"the church of the devil,\" is also used in\nthe Book of Mormon; and while in attendance at a conference in one of\nthe border stakes of Zion, a question was propounded to me in relation\nto its meaning. The passage occurs in the writings of the first Nephi.\nAn angel of the Lord is represented as saying to Nephi, \"Behold, there\nare save two churches only: the one is the church of the Lamb of God,\nand the other is the church of the devil.\" The question submitted to me\nwas, \"Is the Catholic church the church here referred to--the church of\nthe devil?\" \"Well,\" said I, in answer, \"I would not like to take that\nposition, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands\nthat I might not then be able to classify.\" So far as the Catholic\nchurch is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth,\nnay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other\ndivisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue in\nthe Roman Catholic church as there is in Protestant Christendom; and I\nam sure there is more strength.\n\nI would not like; therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the\nchurch of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all\nof the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom\ncombined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the\nBuddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of\nMohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by\ndeists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book\nof Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context--with\nthe chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter\nin which the expression is found--then, I think, those who study it in\nthat manner will be forced to the conclusion that the prophet here has\nin mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom,\nbut he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and\nperhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we\nuse the term \"the Kingdom of Evil\" as Constituting the church of the\ndevil, in proof of which I submit the following passage from the Book\nof Mormon---covering both the text and the context on the subject:\n\n    1. And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken\n    unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself\n    unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking\n    away of their stumbling blocks;\n\n    2. And if they harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God,\n    they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father [Lehi; an\n    Israelite]; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel;\n    and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land for ever;\n    they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of\n    Israel shall no more be confounded;\n\n    3. And that great pit which hath been digged for them, by that\n    great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his\n    children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell;\n    yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction\n    of men, shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter\n    destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the\n    soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end;\n\n    4. For behold, this is according to the captivity of the devil, and\n    also according to the justice of God, upon all those who will work\n    wickedness and abomination before him.\n\n    5. And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying,\n    Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent, it shall be well with\n    them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord\n    unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard, that whoso\n    repenteth not, must perish;\n\n    6. Therefore, wo, be unto the Gentiles, if it so be that they\n    harden their hearts against the Lamb of God;\n\n    7. For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work\n    a great and a marvellous work among the children of men; a work\n    which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other;\n    either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal,\n    or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts\n    and the blindness of their minds, unto their being brought down\n    into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and\n    spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I\n    have spoken.\n\n    8. And it came to pass that when the angel had spoken these words,\n    he said unto me, Rememberest thou the covenants of the Father unto\n    the house of Israel? I said unto him, Yea. And it came to pass that\n    he said unto me, look, and behold that great and abominable church,\n    which is the mother of abominations, whose foundation is the devil.\n    And he said unto me, behold there are, save two churches only; the\n    one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church\n    of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the\n    Lamb of God, belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of\n    abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.\n\n    47. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all\n    the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over\n    all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.\n\n    48. And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of\n    God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and\n    abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless,\n    I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God,\n    were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon\n    the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the\n    great whore whom I saw.\n\n    49. And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of\n    abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all\n    the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against\n    the Lamb of God.\n\n    50. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the\n    Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of\n    the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who Were\n    scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with\n    righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.\n\n    51. And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was\n    poured out upon the great and abominable church, insomuch that\n    there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and\n    kindreds of the earth, and as there began to be wars and rumors\n    of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of\n    abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold, the wrath of\n    God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these\n    things:\n\n    17. And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out\n    upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable\n    church of all the earth, whose foundation is the devil, then, at\n    that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the\n    way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his\n    people, who are of the house of Israel.\n\nI understand the injunction to Oliver Cowdery to \"contend against no\nchurch, save it be the church of the devil,\" to mean that he should\ncontend against evil, against untruth, against all combinations of\nwicked men. They constitute the church of the devil, the kingdom\nof evil, a federation of unrighteousness; and the servants of God\nhave a right to contend against that which is evil, let it appear\nwhere it will, in Catholic or in Protestant Christendom, among the\nphilosophical societies of deists and atheists, and even within\nthe Church of Christ, if, unhappily, it should make its appearance\nthere. But, let it be understood, we are not brought necessarily into\nantagonism with the various sects of Christianity as such. So far as\nthey have retained fragments of Christian truth--and each of them has\nsome measure of truth--that far they are acceptable unto the Lord;\nand it would be poor policy for us to contend against them without\ndiscrimination. Wherever we find truth, whether it exists in complete\nform or only in fragments, we recognize that truth as part of that\nsacred whole of which the Church of Jesus Christ is the custodian;\nand I repeat that our relationship to the religious world is not one\nthat calls for the denunciation of sectarian churches as composing the\nchurch of the devil. All that makes for untruth, for unrighteousness\nconstitutes the kingdom of evil--the church of the devil. All that\nmakes for truth, for righteousness, is of God; it constitutes the\nkingdom of righteousness--the empire of Jehovah; and, in a certain\nsense at least, constitutes the Church of Christ. With the latter--the\nkingdom of righteousness--we have no warfare. On the contrary both the\nspirit of the Lord's commandments to his servants and the dictates\nof right reason would suggest that we seek to enlarge this kingdom\nof righteousness both by recognizing such truths as it possesses and\nseeking the friendship and co-operation of the righteous men and women\nwho constitute its membership.\n\nRunning parallel with these thoughts, I may be pardoned if I call your\nattention to a remark I made in one of these general conferences some\ntime ago, to the effect that when misrepresentations are made of us,\nor of our faith, or when persecution arises against us, it must not\nembitter our minds, or make us feel hateful toward our fellowmen, or\nlead us to regard the whole world as our enemies. We must keep the\nsweetness of our own disposition. The language of the Savior wherein he\nsays, \"Marvel not if the world hate you: it hated me before it hated\nyou, if you were of the world, the world would love its own,\" etc., I\ncontended then and believe now that the truth of that declaration will\nbe more plainly seen if we read it in this way: \"Marvel not if the\nworldly hate you.\" If the ungodly, if those who make and love a lie--if\nsuch classes as these hate you, marvel not; for they were the classes\nthat hated the Christ and the light and truth that he brought into the\nworld, because their deeds were evil, and his light and truth were a\nreproof to their evil ways. And as we say concerning the \"Kingdom of\nEvil,\" so we say with reference to those who hate the truth and make\nwar upon the righteous, they are not of any one cult, or confined to\nany one sect or division of the religious world, but, unhappily, are\nfound here and there among all classes of people, among all Christian\nsects, among all religions and sects of philosophy. We ought to rightly\ndivide, not only the word of truth, but the wicked and the ungodly from\nthose who in common with us are seeking to know God and to keep his\ncommandments. And there are millions who are hungering and thirsting\nfor that knowledge; and we from time to time shall find them and lead\nthem into God's temple of truth, where they shall be satisfied at the\nfeast that the Lord is preparing for all those who hunger and thirst\nafter righteousness.\n\nThe purpose of the Lord in instituting his Church in the earth is very\nbeautifully set forth in one of the revelations in the D&C, as follows:\n\n    \"If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my\n    Church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my Church, but\n    I say this to build up my Church. Therefore, whosoever belongeth\n    to my Church need not fear for such shall inherit the kingdom\n    of heaven. But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my\n    commandments, but build up churches unto themselves to get gain,\n    yea, all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of devil;\n    yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will\n    disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.\"\n\nFrom this it very clearly appears that the purpose of God in the\nintroduction of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times was not to\ndestroy any truth that existed in the world, but to add to that truth,\nto increase it, and to draw together all truth and develop it into a\nbeautiful system which men may rest contented, knowing God and their\nrelationship to him, knowing of the future and their relation to that\nfuture.\n\nWe should present our message to the world in spirit of peace, charity\nand longsuffering; and avoid contention; for as our Book of Mormon\ntells us, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of God. I\nwould the world could understand the unselfishness of our motives in\npresenting the gospel of Jesus Christ to them; if they could only know\nthat our only desire was that they should come to a knowledge of the\ngreat principles of truth that are so comforting to us; that we desire\ntheir repentance and acceptance of the fullness of the truth, only that\nthey might find favor with God, and share in our hopes of that eternal\nlife which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began--if our\nfellowmen could be made to understand that this is our only purpose,\nit seems to me that many of the barriers that now separate us from\nour fellowmen would be broken down, and we would be able to reach the\nhearts of the people. I believe that as time passes and we become\nwiser in the methods of work we adopt, we will do that more and more,\ncausing not only hundreds of thousands but millions of our Father's\nchildren to partake of those great blessings that the Gospel has\nbrought to us. To make known these truths and cause the children of\nmen to participate in the blessings that we ourselves enjoy, we yearly\nsend hundreds of our Elders to the various nations of the earth. They\nsacrifice the pleasant associations of home, the society of wives and\nchildren, parents and friends; they sacrifice professional advantages\nand business opportunities; and sometimes sacrifice health and even\nlife itself to proclaim to the world the truth which God has made known\nto us--enduring the world's reproach and contumely, because the world\ndoes not understand them nor their message; and there is still need,\nof the prayer on our part, \"Father, forgive them, they know not what\nthey do.\" For the benefit of those who have passed away from the earth\nwithout a knowledge of the great truths and saving power of the gospel\nof Christ, we rear costly temples, whose spires pierce the skies of our\nbeloved Utah; and within them at great sacrifice of time and means, the\nsaints of God assemble to apply the principles and ordinances of the\neverlasting gospel to those who have passed away without the privilege\nof accepting them while upon the earth. A more completely unselfish\nwork than this does not exist among men. On every hand the work of God\nbears the stamp of unselfishness upon it. Our Book of Mormon says:\n\"The laborers in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for\nmoney, they shall perish.\" So through all the communications of God to\nhis people shines the glorious principle of absolute unselfishness.\nNot only is it to be found in the words of our books, but a like\ntestimony is written in the works of the Latter-day Saints--in their\nactions. Everywhere unselfishness abounds in the Church of Christ,\nboth in theory and practice. Now, if we can only get the people of the\nworld to understand this fact of unselfishness--this very genius of\nMormonism--if they could be made to know that Mormonism is here to do\ngood, to raise mankind from the low levels on which men are content\nto walk to the higher planes where God would have them walk, that\nthey might have sweet fellowship with God, much of our difficulty in\npreaching the gospel would disappear. May the Lord hasten the day when\nthe world shall know the Saints and the work of God better.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nSOME RECENT LITERATURE ON MORMONISM.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following brief discussion of Mr. I. Woodbridge Riley's work, is\nan address delivered at the Seventy-fourth Semi-Annual Conference of\nthe Church, held in Salt Lake City, Oct. 5, 1903. Mr. Riley's book of\n446 pages is a well written thesis on the \"Founder of Mormonism,\" and\nwas published in 1902. It is a psychological study of Joseph Smith the\nProphet. The purpose of the work is set forth in the author's preface,\nas follows:\n\n    \"The aim of this work is to examine Joseph Smith's character and\n    achievements from the standpoint of recent psychology. Sectarians\n    and phrenologists, spiritualists and mesmerists have variously\n    interpreted his more or less abnormal performances,--it remains for\n    the psychologist to have a try at them.\"\n\nThe work also has an introductory preface by Professor George Trumbull\nLadd, of Yale University, in which Mr. Riley's essay is very highly\npraised. Indeed, the work was offered to the Philosophical Faculty of\nYale University as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and\nbefore this the matter of the essay had been utilized in 1898 for a\nMaster of Arts thesis, under the title of \"Metaphysics of Mormonism,\"\nso that from these circumstances we may venture the remark that Mr.\nRiley's book is of a highly scientific character, at least in its\nliterary structure, and has already attracted some considerable notice\nin the world.\n\nI.\n\n\"THE FOUNDER OF MORMONISM.\"\n\nSome of you perhaps are aware of the fact that I have been giving some\nattention of late to the literature on Mormonism; not only that which\nwe ourselves publish, but that also which is Published by others. The\npublications on Mormonism during the last five years, I believe, are\nmore numerous than in any twenty years previous to that time. The last\nfive years have witnessed an awakening of thought upon our religion.\nMore, and ever more attention is being given to it. More newspaper\narticles, more magazine articles, more volumes--some of them quite\npretentious--have been written on Mormonism than ever before, and\nindicate the universal interest taken in the subject. The books and\nmagazine articles have been written from various standpoints, some of\nthem in the old spirit of bitterness, and some of them are intended\nto be written in a spirit of fairness. Yet I marvel at their author's\nideas of fairness. One work, written by a noted professor, pretending\nto be an impartial history, and issued by one of the first publishing\nhouses in the United States, with the view, evidently, of establishing\na standard history of Mormonism, gives full credence to everything\nthat has been said against us, but the author frequently cautions his\nreaders against quotations he makes from our own works--and yet that\nbook is put forth as an impartial history of Mormonism! Some have\nattempted to write from a philosophical standpoint, but with the result\nthat they plainly manifest that they have not yet reached foundation\nprinciples upon which they can satisfactorily account for Joseph\nSmith, the Prophet, and the great work he accomplished. When I see\nmen shifting their grounds, and advancing first one theory and then,\nanother to account for Mormonism, and there is confusion among them,\nuncertainty, indecision--I know that the citadel of our mighty faith\nis secure from harm from their attacks; that Mormonism cannot fall a\nvictim to their philosophies or their arguments.\n\nLet me, for a little while, draw your attention to at least one of\nthe so-called philosophical solutions of Mormonism, a scientific\naccounting for Joseph Smith. The work I allude to was offered to Yale\nUniversity as a thesis upon which the author hoped to secure, and I\nthink he did secure, the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy. He candidly\nconfesses that it is an effort to account for Joseph Smith upon some\nother hypothesis than that he was a conscious fraud, bent on deceiving\nmankind. When an intelligent man makes such an announcement as that, I\nknow, and you know, that the theories heretofore advanced to account\nfor Joseph Smith, are unsatisfactory; that they are efforts which\nhave failed. The theory that Joseph Smith was a conscious fraud, an\nimposter, has fallen to the ground. The charges frequently made and\npersistently urged that Mormonism had its origin in deception and\nconscious fraud have failed of their purpose. The floods of falsehood\nwith which some men have sought to overwhelm Mormonism have not\naccomplished the end proposed. The Latter-day Saints, after more than\nthree-quarters of a century of existence, stand above all the floods\nof falsehood that have been belched out against them. The work of God\nhas not broken down, it has survived; and the Saints smilingly pity\nthose who would make use of such contemptible means with which to\ncombat the truth of Almighty God. Now, however, we are to be treated\nphilosophically. And the philosophy that is advanced is, unconscious\nhallucination in the mind of Joseph Smith; partly unconscious and\npartly conscious possession of hypnotic power, by which the minds of\nthose around him were dominated and made to see things which in reality\nhad no existence; and while the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and\nothers testify of visions and voices from God honestly enough, still as\na matter of fact those revelations had really no objective existence,\nbut were mental hallucinations. And as for Joseph Smith, he was\ndeceived by epileptic conditions.\n\nThe author I am considering is at great pains to trace the ancestry\nof the Prophet, pointing out their mental peculiarities and supposed\ndefects, leading up to the conclusion that these defects of mind in\nhis ancestors culminated in epilepsy in Joseph Smith. And hence, we\nhave as the explanation of Mormonism, epileptic fits in its Prophet,\nwhose hallucinations are honestly mistaken for inspired visions, with\npartly conscious and partly unconscious hypnotic power over others! And\nthis theory is presented seriously to one of the first institutions of\nlearning in America as a rational explanation of how Mormonism came\ninto existence!\n\nErnest Renan, the French philosopher, when considering a similar\nhypothesis to account for the Lord Jesus Christ, overthrew all that\nkind of sophistry with this simple statement:\n\n    \"It has never been given to the mere aberrations of the human mind\n    to result in the establishment of permanent institutions that\n    influence any considerable number of people.\"\n\nIn other words, the dreams and hallucinations of the epileptic end\nin mere dreams and hallucinations; they never crystallize into great\nsystems of philosophy or into rational religious institutions. They\nnever crystallize into great organizations capable of perpetuating that\nphilosophy and that religion in the world. No matter how nearly genius\nmay be allied to madness, it must remain genius and not degenerate to\nmadness if it exercises any permanent influence over the minds of men.\n\nIt is a pleasure to find one's conclusions sustained by men of\nrecognized ability in any line of work on which they have specialized,\nand in respect of which they are regarded as authorities. In such\nmanner I find the views, above set forth sustained by one eminent in\nthe domain of nervous diseases and psychiatry, Charles L. Dana, the\nwriter of text books on the foregoing subject, text books used in all\nthe great colleges and universities of our country, that give attention\nto the subject. Following is his definition of paranoia, a disease\nclosely allied to that to which Mr. Riley assumes Joseph Smith was\nsubject. [A]\n\n[Footnote A: This paragraph and the two quotations following have been\nadded since the above remarks were published as part of the proceedings\nof the conference.]\n\n    \"Paranoia is a chronic psychosis characterized by the development\n    gradually and soon after maturity of systematized delusions\n    without other serious disturbances of the mind, and without much\n    tendency to dementia. * * * With some the systematized idea takes a\n    religious turn, and the patient thinks he has some divine mission\n    or has received some inspiration from God; or the idea may take\n    a devotional turn and the patient become an acetic. It is not,\n    however, to be assumed that all promoters of new religions and\n    novel social ideas are paranoiacs. Many of these are simply the\n    natural developments, ignorance and a somewhat emotional and\n    unbalanced temperament. The characteristic of the paranoiac is that\n    his work is ineffective, his influence brief and trivial, his\n    ideas really too absurd and impractical for even ignorant men to\n    receive. I do not class successful prophets and organizers like\n    Joseph Smith, or great apostles of social reforms like Rousseau as\n    paranoiacs. Insane minds are not creative, but are weak, and lack\n    persistence in purpose or powers of execution.\" [A]\n\n[Footnote A: Chas. Loomis Dana, Text Book of Nervous Diseases and\nPsychiatry, 6th Edition, pp. 649-50.]\n\n    \"A certain rather small percentage of epileptics become either\n    demented or insane. True epilepsy is not compatible with\n    extraordinary intellectual endowments. Caesar, Napoleon, Peter the\n    Great, and other geniuses may have had some symptomatic fits, but\n    not idiopathic epilepsy.\" [B]\n\n[Footnote B: Chas. L. Dana, A. M. M. D., Text Book of Nervous Diseases,\n3rd edition, p. 408.]\n\nThere is much glamor of sophistry, which may be taken for profound\nreason and argument, in the work to which I am calling your attention.\nBut one word answers this \"philosophical\" accounting for our Prophet.\nThe work accomplished by him, the institutions he founded, destroy\nthe whole fabric of premises and argument on which this theory is\nbased. Great as was the Prophet Joseph Smith--and he was great; to him\nmore than to any other man of modern times was it given to look deep\ninto the things that are; to comprehend the heavens and the laws that\nobtain there; to understand the earth, its history, and its mission. He\nlooked into the deep things of God--always, be it remembered, by the\ninspiration of God--and out of the rich treasure of divine knowledge he\nbrought forth things both new and old for the instruction of our race,\nthe like of which, in some respects, had not been known in previous\ndispensations. Hence I repeat that Joseph Smith was great; but great\nas he was, rising up and towering far above him is the work that he\naccomplished through divine guidance; that work is infinitely greater\nthan the prophet--greater than all the prophets connected with it. Its\nconsistency, its permanency, its power, its institutions, contradict\nthe hallucination theory advanced to account for its origin.\n\nLet us look at this work for a moment. If one could but draw it clearly\nin outline, and present it in its originality and greatness, it would\nbe its own witness of its divinity, for in all things it transcends the\nmere wit of man. Take the Church organization for illustration; and\nlook at it with reference to its being an assemblage of means to the\naccomplishment of an end. As I understand the Church of Christ, its\nmission is two-fold; first, it is to proclaim the truth; second, it is\nto perfect those who receive the truth. I think these two things cover,\nin a general way, the entire mission of the Church. Is its organization\ncompetent to attain those two mighty ends? Let us see; and first as to\nthe proclamation of the truth--the work really of the foreign ministry.\nWhat provision has God made for that? He has in his Church, first of\nall Twelve Special Witnesses, the Twelve Apostles, who were chosen\nin the first instance, by the Three Special Witnesses to the Book of\nMormon. I remark in passing that there is a peculiar fitness in the\nTwelve Apostles--the Twelve Special Witnesses being chosen by those\nwho had been made Witnesses for God by the great vision and revelation\nhe had given them concerning the absolute truth and correctness of the\nBook of Mormon. Upon these Twelve Apostles rests the responsibility\nof being witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ in all the world. That\nis their special, peculiar calling. You can see, however, if you take\ninto account the extent of their field of labor--for it encompasses\nthe whole round world--that twelve men would not be adequate to meet\nall the requirements of the foreign ministry. God knew this, and hence\nhe called into existence other special witnesses, to labor under the\ndirection of these Twelve, they holding the keys to open the door of\nthe gospel to all the nations of the earth; for all must hear it, from\nthe greatest to the least. The Twelve, I say, hold the keys of this\nforeign ministry; and hence whenever there has been an opening of\nthe door of the gospel to a foreign nation, one or more of these men\nholding the keys have been sent to do it. It was for this reason that\nHeber C. Kimball, one of the Twelve Apostles, was sent to Great Britain\nin 1837, to open the door of the gospel in that land; why Elder John\nTaylor was sent to France and Germany; why Elder Lorenzo Snow was sent\nto Italy and Switzerland; why Erastus Snow was sent to the Scandinavian\ncountries; why Parley P. Pratt went to Chili and opened the door of the\ngospel to the South American republics; why, more recently, Elder Heber\nJ. Grant was sent to Japan to open a mission. The Twelve, then, hold\nthe keys of this ministry, and upon them devolves this responsibility\nof opening the door of salvation to the nations. But after them, other\nwitnesses are chosen. These are the seventy apostles, or special\nwitnesses, the assistants of the Twelve; under whose directions they\nlabor. At first, two quorums of Seventy only were organized; but\nwith the promise of the Prophet that as the work should expand other\nquorums would be organized, not only till seven times seven quorums\nshould be brought into existence, but until seventy times seven; \"aye,\"\nsaid he, \"until there shall be a hundred and forty and four thousand\nseventies chosen, if the work of the ministry shall require it.\" So we\nhave continued organizing quorums of Seventy, to labor in the foreign\nministry, until now we have one hundred and forty-three quorums in the\nChurch--a body of nearly ten thousand men. They are special witnesses\nof the name of Christ in all the world, and when their numbers are\nconsidered, together with the privilege we have of increasing them, you\ncan see that ample provision is made, in this respect, for the work of\nthe foreign ministry.\n\nBut now let us consider their organization for a moment. Sixty-three\nmembers with seven presidents, when the quorum is complete, constitute\na quorum. Suppose you were to send an entire quorum of Seventy bodily\ninto the world--I hope that will be done some day--you could break\nthat quorum into groups of ten. You could send with each group a\npresident. It should be remembered here that these presidents are\nequal in authority. The council of a quorum of Seventy is made up\nof seven presidents, not one president and six counsellors--but\nseven presidents, equal in authority. For the sake of order in\nadministration, however, the right of initiative and presidency in\nthe council is recognized as being vested in the senior member by\nordination, not of age. And this principle is observed not only in\nthe case of the first or senior president, but all down the line in\nthe First Council, and in all quorum councils of the Seventies. By\nthis simple arrangement all confusion as to the right of presidency\nis obviated; for no sooner does the council of a quorum, or any part\nthereof, meet, in any part of the world than each president knows at\nonce upon whom the responsibility of initiative rests. But to return\nto the groups of ten into which the quorum can be divided, with a\npresident for each group. You could break each group of ten into\nfive pairs, and scatter them out among the people, to bear effectual\nwitness of the truth of the gospel under the provision of the law of\nthe gospel; for it is the law of the gospel, one may say, for the\nElders to travel two and two, mainly for the reason, I suppose, that\nGod has declared that he would establish, his word in the mouth of two\nor three witnesses; and it is good when bearing testimony to the world\nthat there should be the legal number of witnesses provided for in the\nlaw of God. Moreover, there is a very much needed companionship and\nsympathy provided for when the Elders travel two and two; and they are\na protection one to the other. You could scatter these groups of ten\nin one or more states or countries; and they could occasionally meet\nin group conferences, exchange experiences, give advice and counsel;\nafter which refreshing they could again divide into pairs, scatter\nand so continue their ministry. Occasionally the seven groups of the\nquorum could be brought together in general quorum conference, to take\ncounsel for making their ministry more and ever more effectual: to\nreadjust methods; to plan new campaigns; to strengthen each other by a\nmutual exchange of experiences and sympathy; and do whatever else their\ncombined wisdom, helped by the inspiration of the Lord, would suggest\nas right and proper to do in the furtherance of their high aim in\nbringing to pass the salvation of men. Such are the possibilities of a\nquorum of Seventy. It may become a veritable flying column of witnesses\nfor God, sweeping the earth with the testimony of Jesus, and calling\nthe inhabitants of the earth unto repentance! Can you think of this\nbeautiful arrangement for the foreign ministry as having its origin in\nthe alleged epileptic hallucinations of a man? Such a conception is\npalpably absurd, and utterly revolting to reason.\n\nTurn now for a moment to the home ministry of the Church, and what have\nyou? You have your stake organization, with its Presidency of three\npresiding High Priests, aided in their counsels and labors by the High\nCouncil of the stake, consisting of twelve High Priests. This council\nalso constitutes a judicial body for the settlement of difficulties\nthat may not be satisfactorily adjusted in the Bishop's courts. It is,\nhowever, an ecclesiastical court of original as well as of appellate\njurisdiction. You have a Bishopric in the respective wards of the\nChurch, constituting the local presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood,\nwith quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons to aid them in the work\nof their ministry. The Deacons take care of the house of the Lord,\nand are to be assistants to the Teachers when occasion requires. The\nTeachers are the watchmen upon the towers of Zion, and it is their\nbusiness to see that there is no iniquity in the Church--no backbiting,\nno faultfinding, and that the members attend to their religious duties.\nThe Priests' duty is to visit the homes of the people and instruct\nthem in the gospel. Where they have sons or daughters who will not be\namenable to the instructions of parents, the priests with very great\npropriety could be invited to meet with and teach them the sublime\ntruths of the gospel. In addition to these officers of the wards and\nthe stakes, there is in each stake a quorum of High Priests, and one\nor more quorums of Elders. These constitute the standing ministry in\nthe stakes of Zion, and are authorized to teach the gospel, to warn\nall men against evil, and to invite and persuade all men to come\nunto Christ. These are the provisions made for the home ministry, in\nthe Church organization proper. Time will not admit reference to the\nauxiliary organizations--the Sabbath schools, Improvement associations,\nRelief societies, Primary societies, and Religion classes. But from\nthe fireside of the people to the public assembly of worship; from the\ncradle to the grave, every provision is made for carrying on the work\nof the ministry, at home, instructing the Saints in the things of God,\ninviting all to come unto Christ; the object of the Church being to\nlift to higher, and ever higher levels the lives of the Saints of God,\nuntil they shall become perfect men and women in Christ Jesus the Lord.\nSuch are the arrangements, in brief, for the home ministry.\n\nNotwithstanding the clear distinction between the foreign ministry\nand the home ministry, the lines that separate them may be crossed\non occasion. You remember how Paul compares the Church of Christ to\nthe body of a man, and insists that every member and every organ is\nnecessary to the perfect working of that organism; that the head cannot\nsay to the feet, I have no need of thee; neither can the feet say to\nthe head, I have no need of thee; nor the hand to the eye, I have no\nneed of thee; all the members of the body, he argues, are necessary.\nNow, what would you think of a body that possessed a right hand and\nleft hand, yet the right hand would not at need come to the help of\nthe left hand; or the left hand refuse to come to the aid of the right\nhand? You expect the two hands and arms of a man's body to help each\nother, under the direction of the intelligence of the mind. And so in\nthe Church of Christ: the home ministry and the foreign ministry cross\nthe line of separation as occasion requires, and come to the assistance\nof one another in accomplishing the purposes of God. Sometimes the\nofficers who are particularly charged with the foreign ministry help at\nhome; the home ministry sometimes help in the foreign ministry; but all\nwork harmoniously together.\n\nRising above both these great divisions of the Priesthood, the home\nministry and the foreign ministry, stands, as the keystone in the arch,\nthe Presidency of the Church, having control over both departments,\nand directing the work of God in all the world. No branch of the\nChurch, however remote, is beyond their oversight. No Elder, let him be\ntravelling where he will, is outside the pale of their authority. Talk\nof catholicity being one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, as\nour Catholic friends sometimes do, they shall find here in the Church\nof Christ a catholicity equal at least to their own claims. The Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church universal; and the\nPresident of the Church holds universal jurisdiction. Moreover, as\nProphet, Seer and Revelator of the Church he is the source through\nwhich God speaks, not only to this people, not only to the Church of\nChrist, but to all the inhabitants of the earth, and God will hold them\naccountable for the use they make of the words he shall speak through\nhis appointed mouthpiece. Do not think that this man's authority is\nlimited to this Church alone. All the inhabitants of the earth are\nchildren of God, and he will deliver his word unto them through his\nprophet. I rather like the idea that all the inhabitants of the earth\nbelong to us--they are God's children, though some of them are in\nrebellion and will not heed the commandments of their Father just\nnow. But here in the Church of Christ is the center of ecclesiastical\ngovernment. Here shine forth those rays of light that will grow\nbrighter and brighter until all the inhabitants of the earth are\nenlightened by them.\n\nNow, what do you think of this effort of philosophy, as set forth by\nMr. Riley, to account for Mormonism? How insipid, how foolish, how\ninadequate are the theories of men to account for the organization of\nthis Church! The Church is its own witness! As the stars, \"singing\never as they shine, proclaim the hand that made them is divine,\"\nso, too, this work,--the restored latter-day gospel--the Church of\nChrist--proclaims that it has a divine origin, and that there is in it\na divine power working out the purposes of God. Then let the imitators\ngo on. Let them choose \"apostles,\" if they want to--and some of them\nhave them; let them have \"seventies,\" if they want to, and some of them\nhave them; let them accept this doctrine and that doctrine until they\nshall have the complete organization and the complete doctrine in form,\nif they want to; but there is one thing they never can get, worlds\nwithout end, and that is the spirit of this work, which gives it life\nand power. This work will always be distinguished from the works of\nmen, in that there will be imminent in it the Spirit of God working his\nsovereign will. And that is something they cannot imitate.\n\nMy brethren and sisters, I rejoice in the truth. I rejoice in the\ngospel of Jesus Christ. It satisfies me completely. It responds to the\nhungering of my spirit. It meets the demands also of my intellectual\nnature. And as I see the growth of intelligence among men, an increase\nof scientific knowledge, a broader understanding of the universe, a\ncomprehension of the extent and grandeur of the works of God, I see in\nMormonism that which rises up to meet this enlarged knowledge of men.\nMormonism teaches man that he is a child of God; it tells him that he\nhas in him divine elements that partake of the nature of God; that\nafter the resurrection he will live forever; and that he may go on\nfrom one degree of excellence unto another until he shall attain unto\nsomething that is truly great, worthy of a God to give, and worthy of a\nson of God to receive.\n\nI rejoice in these truths. They cannot be accounted for by any theory\nthat refers their origin to hallucinations of an epileptic's mind: They\nare too substantial, too grand, too rational, too sublime, too soul\ninspiring, to have any such contemptible origin. Their own intrinsic\nvalue--their own self evident truth--the institution to which they are\ncommitted as to a sacred depository for the benefit of mankind--The\nChurch--all this proclaims their divine origin.\n\nNOTE. At the close of the above remarks, President Joseph F. Smith\narose and said:\n\n\"While I realize, as you all do, doubtless, that it may be wholly\nunnecessary for me to say what I am going to say, yet I feel prompted\nto say it, and let it go for what it is worth. I have been delighted\nwith the most excellent discourse that we have listened to; but I\ndesire to say that it is a wonderful revelation to the Latter-day\nSaints, and especially to those who were familiar with the Prophet\nJoseph Smith, to learn in these latter days that he was an epileptic! I\nwill simply remark, God be praised, that there are so many still living\nwho knew the Prophet Joseph well, and who are in a position to bear\ntestimony, to the truth that no such condition [as that suggested in\nMr. Riley's hypothesis] ever existed in the man. He was never troubled\nwith epilepsy. Of course, this may be unnecessary to say, after this\nfallacious, foolish, nonsensical theory--this \"fried froth\"--gotten\nup by vain philosophers to account for something they would like to\ndestroy from off the face of the earth, but are impotent to do it.\"\n\nFOREWORD.\n\n\"The Mormon Prophet,\" is by Lily Dougall, author of \"The Mermaid,\" \"The\nZeitgeist,\" \"The Madonna of a Day,\" \"Beggars All,\" etc. The review\nof the book which follows was written at the request of the editor\nof the \"New York Times Saturday Review,\" and appeared in that paper,\nimpression of September 23, 1899.\n\nII.\n\n\"THE MORMON PROPHET.\"\n\nIt was expected that sooner or later some attempt would be made to\nexplain Joseph Smith, the \"Mormon Prophet.\" Such was his character,\nsuch the importance of the religion he founded, so remarkable and\nthrilling the history of his people, that he could not be ignored.\n\nAlready of biographies there have been many, some written from the\nside of sympathy and belief in his prophetic calling; more from the\nstandpoint of the polemic contemner. Even fiction before now has found\nincidents in his career and elements in his character that promised\nmaterial for its purpose. But the fiction in the main has been \"sorry\nstuff,\" utterly contemptible from its distortion of facts and sickening\nin its childish efforts to deny the Mormon leader or his people any\nhonesty of purpose, uprightness of intention, or praise for what they\nhave achieved. The latest work of Miss Lily Dougall, \"The Mormon\nProphet,\" however, does not belong to that class of fiction. Here,\nat least, we have a strong, clear-cut, purpose story, lofty in tone;\nits incidents easily within the lines of probability, and singularly\nfree from the vulgarity of nearly all the writers of fiction who have\nmade their work at any point touch Mormonism. It is an honest effort\nto account for Joseph Smith and his work; and, I may add, without\ndepreciating any one worthy of consideration, that it enjoys the\ndistinction of being about the first honest effort in the department of\nfiction to account for the Mormon Prophet. This, it must be explained,\nis not said in approval of the entire book or its purpose, but is said\nof the story as unobjectionable fiction and the honesty of effort upon\nthe part of the authoress to solve what must have been to her, and what\nis to the world, a difficult problem.\n\nThat Miss Dougall writes from intimate acquaintance with the early\nhistory of the Mormons is apparent on every page; that she has followed\nthe order of events, all acquainted with the history of our people well\nknow; and if, as she explains in her preface, she has taken \"necessary\nliberty with incidents,\" those that she has used have not been\nviolently wrested, and those invented have not been much out of harmony\nwith the facts of history.\n\nThe point at which her work is vulnerable is the point of view\nfrom which she treats her subject. In studying the character and\nachievements of Joseph Smith, she was evidently not ready to accept him\nas a prophet truly inspired of God, nor could she accept the theory\nof \"conscious invention\" as a reasonable explanation of his life's\nwork; for, had that been the source of his efforts in rounding a\nreligion, \"it would not have left sufficient power to carry him through\npersecution, in which his life hung in the balance and his cause\nappeared to be lost;\" nor could she believe \"that the class of earnest\nmen who constituted the rank and file of his early following would\nhave been so long deceived by a deliberate hypocrite.\" \"It appears to\nme,\" she explains \"more likely that Smith was genuinely deluded by\nthe automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain, and that\nyielding to these, he became confirmed in the hysterical temperament\nwhich always adds to delusion self-deception, and to self-deception,\nhalf-conscious fraud.\" She calls to aid of her theory--and with marked\nskill, be it said--the inclination of the times toward superstition.\n\"In his day,\" she remarks, \"it was necessary to reject a marvel or\nadmit its spiritual significance; granting the honest delusion as to\nhis vision and his book, his only choice lay between counting himself\nthe sport of devils or the agent of heaven; an optimistic temperament\ncast the die.\"\n\nThis is Miss Dougall's point of view in the treatment of her subject,\nand it is utterly untenable. The facts in which Mormonism had its\norigin are of such a character that they cannot be resolved into\ndelusion or mistake. Either they were truth or conscious, Simon-pure\ninvention. It is not possible to place the matter on middle ground.\nJoseph Smith was either a true prophet or a conscious fraud or villain.\nHad his religion found its origin in the visions of his own mind,\nwithout any connection with material objects, as was the case with\nEmanuel Sweedenborg, then there would have been room for Miss Dougall's\ntheory; but the facts in which Mormonism had its origin had to do with\nquite a different order of things. The ancient record of America,\nrevealed to Joseph Smith by an angel, and which was finally given into\nhis keeping to translate, was no visionary book--no mere creation of an\noverwrought brain but actual substance, sensible to touch as to sight,\nconsisting of golden plates, with length, breadth, and thickness.\nEach plate was about seven by eight inches in dimension, and somewhat\nthinner than common tin; the whole bound together by rings made a\nvolume some six inches in thickness. These plates Joseph Smith claimed\nto have handled, and during the time they were in his possession--some\ntwo years--he frequently removed them from place to place in the most\nmatter-of-fact way. Others saw and handled them, also, not only the\nthree men to whom the angel Moroni exhibited them, and whose testimony\naccompanies every Book of Mormon published, but eight other men, whose\ntestimony is also published in every Book of Mormon, testify that\nJoseph Smith showed the plates to them; that they saw and handled\nthem, and examined the characters engraven thereon. It cannot be said\nthat Joseph Smith and these men were self-deceived in such things; not\neven the \"automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain,\"\ncould delude itself in such matters. The Book of Mormon plates had an\nexistence, and Joseph Smith and others who testified to the fact saw\nand handled them, or they were conscious frauds and lied and conspired\nto deceive.\n\nSo with many other manifestations which the claims to have received.\nMany of them consisted of and conversations with resurrected\npersonages--men of flesh and bone--who laid their hands upon the head\nof Joseph Smith and others who were with him. There was no chance for\nself-delusion or mistake to enter into such transactions, and no theory\nbased upon the idea of Joseph Smith being \"confirmed in the hysterical\ntemperament\" can explain away these stubborn facts, however well\nintentioned or skilfully worked out.\n\nIt is to be regretted that Miss Dougall has not extended her studies\nof Mormonism beyond the Nauvoo period; had she done so she would have\nescaped some errors that now appear in her work, such as treating\nseriously the story of the Danite organization, which never had any\nexistence by reason of any sanction given it by Church authorities. Nor\nwould she have assumed so largely the ignorance of early converts of\nMormonism, upon which she depends strongly for the working out of her\ntheory Joseph Smith's character. Here in Utah, in the past, we have had\nwith us very many of those early converts to Mormonism; some of them\nare still with us, and could Miss Dougall have met them she would have\nfound them people of rather superior intelligence and character, and\nnot at all the ignorant and superstitious persons they are generally\nsupposed to have been. Nor would she have committed the blunder of\nsaying that Mormons revered but one prophet. While it is doubtless true\nthat Joseph Smith will always hold a pre-eminence among the prophets in\nthe Church, yet the Mormons believe that all the men who have succeeded\nhim in the Presidency of the Church have held the same keys of\nauthority, possessed the same rights, and exercised the same prophetic\npowers that were exercised by him.\n\nIn conclusion, let me say, it has been suggested that certain \"claims\nmade for the early followers of Joseph Smith were later repudiated\nby members of the sect.\" That is not true, so far as the Church\nis concerned. What individual members scattered over the country\nformerly occupied by the Saints, but over whom the Church has no\njurisdiction--what they may have repudiated of Joseph Smith's early or\neven later teachings we cannot, of course, say; but for the Church,\nit can be said that not one of the early claims or teachings of the\nProphet Joseph Smith has ever been repudiated, nor is there any\ninstitution or doctrine of the Church, which did not arise from his\nteachings; for all of which he is morally responsible. Such changes\nas have taken place are but the natural developments of that which he\nfounded.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThis review of Mr. Harry Leon Wilson's book was submitted to several\neastern papers for publication, but was not accepted by any of them.\nThe refusal of the article by the several eastern publications to\nwhich it was submitted illustrates in a way the difficulties which\nthe Mormon people have now for a long time met with in correcting the\nmisrepresentations made of them, and from which they have suffered\nso much. Here was a book of no small pretentious the work of a\npopular author, pretending to deal with the historical facts and\ncharacter of a great people much in the public eye, and very much\nmaligned and seriously misrepresented by the writer of \"The Lions.\"\nYet no correction of this misrepresentation would be allowed by the\npublications to which this review was submitted. Mr. Wilson's book had\na wide circulation, and every consideration of fairness demanded that\nthe people suffering from its falsehoods should be heard if they asked\nfor that hearing and presented their case in a proper spirit, and in a\nliterary style suitable for such a controversy. Of the suitableness of\nthe article I shall leave the reader to judge. After being rejected by\neastern papers, it was finally published in the Deseret Evening News of\nOctober 5th, 1903.\n\nIII.\n\n\"THE LIONS OF THE LORD.\"\n\nI have just read the \"Lions of the Lord,\" by Harry Leon Wilson. An\nextended friendly review of it in a leading Utah paper volunteers the\nstatement that \"Mr. Wilson gained his principal information during a\nfew weeks' visit in Salt Lake last fall, and some time spent over the\nSchroeder Mormon library, now in Iowa.\" No one can doubt the accuracy\nof the statement; the treatment of the theme bears every evidence of\nthe author's hasty and shallow thought upon the subject with which he\nattempts to deal. But he \"spent some time over the Schroeder Mormon\nlibrary;\" yes, and what is more, he was undoubtedly \"coached\" by Mr.\nSchroeder while at work in the library; for the salacious fiction which\nthat \"gentleman\" of unsavory reputation in Utah used to serve up to the\ndelectation of the readers of his \"Lucifer's Lantern\" is altogether too\nevident in Mr. Wilson's book, and justly entitled him to recognition as\ncollaborator with Mr. Wilson in its production.\n\nSince inadvertently the source of the author's inspiration and\ninformation is disclosed, a word respecting Mr. Schroeder, the\nshould-be-recognized collaborator of Mr. Wilson, becomes necessary\nin this review. Mr. Schroeder is known to fame in Utah first as a\nlawyer who stands under the recorded public censure of the Supreme\nCourt of the state of Utah for unprofessional conduct, as is witnessed\nin the tenth volume of the Utah Reports of the Supreme Court of the\nstate. Secondly he is known locally as the collector of a library on\nMormonism, in which prominence and preference is given to anti-Mormon\nworks redolent of that putridity so delectable to men of debased\nnatures and perverted tastes. Thirdly, and perhaps most prominently,\nhe is known as the author, proprietor, and publisher of \"Lucifer's\nLantern,\" that may be described as an intermittent periodical-now some\ntime since happily defunct--most worthy of its title and its author. It\nis into such hands Mr. Wilson unfortunately fell, and by such a person\nhe was evidently \"coached,\" in his study of Mormonism.\n\nThe evidence of all this, apart from the inadvertent admission of\nthe friendly Utah reviewer, is to be found in the identity of the\nsewer-stench that attaches to the work of both; in the use of the\nsame materials; and the adoption of similar methods. As for instance:\nA somewhat eccentric writer in the early days of the Mormon Church\ncharacterized a number of the prominent Church leaders under what\nwas to him descriptive titles, such as Brigham Young, \"Lion of\nthe Lord;\" Wilford Woodruff, \"Banner of the Gospel;\" John Taylor,\n\"Champion of Liberty.\" This evidently appealed to the erratic and\nfantastical intellect of Mr. Schroeder, and led him to adopt as the\ntitle of his intermittent, and now defunct anti-Mormon periodical,\n\"Lucifer's Lantern;\" and on the title page of the last number of the\n\"Lantern\" he gratuitously invents for Lorenzo Snow, then President of\nthe Mormon Church, the descriptive title--as he supposes--\"Boss of\nJehovah's Buckler.\" Now, Mr. Wilson having his attention directed to\nthe descriptive title of early leading Mormon Elders invented by the\naforesaid eccentric, though friendly writer, conceived the idea of\nmaking the chief character of his story of the number of those who had\nreceived such titles, and hence confers upon \"Joel Rae,\" the character\nin his book about whom he centers all the horrors of his gruesome\ntale, the blasphemous title--\"Lute of the Holy Ghost!\" Or was it Mr.\nSchroeder; for one dreads to think that a man of the order of talents\nof Mr. Wilson could stoop to the low blasphemy of such a performance;\nwhile it is altogether in accordance both with the principles and\npractice of his should-be-acknowledged collaborator, Mr. Shroeder;\nfor blatant atheism was and is the latter's pride and boast; and he\nwas wont, as we have seen by his use of it in \"Lucifer's Lantern,\" to\nascribe fanciful titles to leading Mormons.\n\nA word, in headlines, as to the story itself; that it is possessed of\ndramatic force, and literary merit will go without saying when it is\nknown that its author is also the author of \"The Spenders.\" That it\ndeals with elements capable of being so combined as to produce the most\nintense human interest will be conceded when I say that it treats of\nreligious fanaticism--the faith--\"fanatic faith,\" that\n\n  \"Once wedded fast\n  To some dear idol,\n  Hugs it to the last;\"\n\nof love--the theme of the ages, the one theme ever old and ever\nnew--the theme perennial; with human passions and ambitions, the desire\nfor that most deceitful end of all human ambitions--the desire for\nsanctity while living, and a reputation for holiness when dead. These\nthe elements of the story; and now the incidents:\n\nJoel Rae, \"bred in the word and the truth\" of Mormonism, if not born\nin it, returns to Nauvoo from a mission just upon the time that the\nlast remnant of the Saints have departed from that ill-fated city. He\nfinds that the home of his parents in the outskirts of Nauvoo has been\ndestroyed by mobs; and that his aged father and mother were driven into\nNauvoo, where they are for the time under the protection of an apostate\nfamily; that his fiancee, with her family, has turned from the faith,\nand she is only awaiting his arrival to ascertain if he will join her\nin her apostasy. This he refuses to do, and with his parents prepares\nto follow his expatriated people in their great westward movement.\nWhile being ferried over the Mississippi, the aged father of young\nRae--the son not being present--is pitched into the river by ruffian\nhands and is drowned; his aged mother dies from the shock of the\nhorrible murder; and young Rae, made desperate by those events, becomes\na \"Son of Dan,\" a supposed secret society of the blood and thunder\norder, oath-bound to \"support the First Presidency of the Church of,\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in all things, right or wrong!\"\nHe forms one of the band of pioneers which Brigham Young led to the\nSalt Lake valley in 1847, and gives numerous evidences of increasing\nfanaticism, much to the delight of the Mormon leaders, which delight\nis here and there expressed in silly, blasphemous sentences of which\nthe following is a fair sample: \"When that young man [Rae] gets all het\nup with the Holy Ghost, the Angel of the Lord just has to give down!\"\nIn the new home of the Saints young Rae does his full share of both\nmanual and spiritual labor. In the latter he succeeded too well since\nhe preached better, worked more seeming miracles, and prophesied more\nthan the other \"Lions of the Lord.\" Brigham declares him \"soul proud,\"\nand sends him to the Missouri river in 1857 to bring in the handcart\ncompanies, in which expedition he witnesses enough distress and misery\nto humble the most \"soul proud\" man alive, since the sufferings of\nthe handcart companies from cold, famine and over toil is the result\nof his own bad judgement in starting late in the season. Arriving in\nSalt Lake, however, his fanatical preaching starts a \"reformation,\"\ni. e., an outburst of wild fanaticism attended upon by murders, and\nvoluntary submissions to secret executions, to atone for the commission\nof the more heinous sins. Rae's fanaticism makes him a participant in\nthe Mountain Meadows massacre in which it falls to his lot to kill the\nyoung militia captain--Grimway--who had assisted Rae to leave Nauvoo,\nand who subsequently married the woman to whom Rae was betrothed.\nShe, too, was with the emigrants attacked at Mountain Meadows, and\nRae, after killing her husband, saw her murdered and scalped by an\nIndian. From the number of emigrants doomed to death Rae rescued a\nwhite-haired boy and the little daughter of his one-time betrothed\nwife, Prudence Corson. The boy he leaves at Hamblin's ranch, whence he\nescapes, swearing vengeance against Rae, whom he saw kill the father\nof the little girl--Prudence Grimway. The girl Prudence--named after\nher mother--Rae leaves at a neighboring ranch, claiming her as his own\nchild, for whom he will later return. Haunted by the memories of the\nawful slaughter of the gentile emigrants at Mountain Meadows, he goes\nnorth, actively participates in the resistance to the United States'\narmy under Albert Sidney Johnston, then entering Utah, but is disgusted\nwith the final submission of Brigham Young to United States authority,\nand takes up his abode in a new settlement far to the south of Salt\nLake City, and not far from the Mountain Meadows. Here his life of\npenance begins. In a spirit of self-sacrifice he marries a woman with\nbut one hand, and a disfigured face. The hand she lost by having it\nfrozen while pushing a hand cart in the belated company Rae had led to\nUtah years before. He also married another woman--a poor half-starved,\ncast off wife of a prominent Mormon Bishop; and later still, another\nwife, a shallow-witted, talkative creature who is a cross indeed to\nthe \"man of many sorrows.\" He takes under his protection also a poor\nimbecile man, the victim of a horrible, and unnameable mutilation;\nand a woman who had gone insane because her husband married another\nwife. The wives, to his honor be it said, were such in name only. This\ncollection of the woebegone, with the child Prudence added, make up the\nRae household. The girl Prudence becomes beautiful, of course, and is\nmuch sought by men of middle life already possessed of many wives, no\nless a personage than Brigham Young being among the number; and it is\nrepresented that the latter \"suitor\" had but to send word in advance\nto the foster father of his intention to marry the girl on his next\njourney south, in order to close the matrimonial incident, except the\nformal word-ceremony, and taking away the bride! But Miss Prudence had\nvisited Salt Lake, and while there witnessed the performance at the\ntheater of \"Romeo and Juliet,\" which is sufficient to give her ideas of\nlove and matrimony all her own. The balcony scene much impressed her;\nand ever afterwards became her ideal of expressed love. A few years of\ndreaming on the part of the maiden, and a few years of silent suffering\non the part of Joel Rae, now the \"little man of sorrows,\" then the\nlad of the Meadows, Ruel Follett, who escaped from Hamblin's ranch\nswearing vengeance on Rae and two other participants in the massacre,\nreturns, seeking his revenge. He is now a young man, handsome, brave,\nstrong, aggressive. But he is baffled in his mission of retribution.\nTwo of the murderers he seeks are already dead some time since, and\nRae is so pitifully weak and distraught by the haunting memories of\nthat awful butchery that young Follett cannot find the heart to kill\nhim; besides there is Prudence, who loves the \"little man of sorrows\"\nwith true filial affection. The upshot of it all is that young Follett\nleaves to time the duty of taking off Rae--an event that cannot be long\ndeferred, since the little man is fast hastening to the end of his\nearthly career; and meantime Follett insidiously woos Prudence, and\nwins her love; while she makes an unsuccessful effort to convert him to\nMormonism. In all their readings, and conversations upon the Book of\nMormon and other subjects connected with the Mormon religion, Follett\nis given an easy victory over the poor girl by the employment of covert\nsneers, slightly concealed sarcasms and tender ridicule. Meantime\nJoel Rae has lost his faith in Mormonism; he discovers that polygamy\nis wrong; the Saints abandoned of God; and on the occasion of Brigham\nYoung paying his annual visit to the settlement where Rae lives, he\ntells the prophet and the people his discoveries. Anticipating the\nvengeance of the \"Sons of Dan,\" Rae flies to the cross and cairn of\nstones erected on the site of the Mountain Meadows massacre, that he\nmay die--according to orthodox dramatic canons--at the place where\nhis awful crime was committed. He is followed by Prudence and young\nFollett, who come up to him at the cross erected by Gentile hands on\nthe site of the massacre, where, in company with two Indians, they\nwatched him peacefully pass away in a rather protracted death scene,\nto the accompaniment of an Indian tom-tom drum, and notwithstanding\none of the redmen waves before his eyes the yellow scalp-lock which\nyears before he had seen reeking with blood snatched from the head\nof the woman he loved. Young Follett and Prudence, as soon as the\n\"little man of sorrows\" is buried, leave for the east with a passing\nwagon train, and having been married by Rae a few minutes before his\ndeath, the reader is left to infer that they \"lived happily ever\nafter,\" in some eastern city, far, far away from fanatical Mormons,\nand their wickedness, where only monogamous marriages obtain, and\nconjugal happiness is never disturbed by the haunting fears of marital\ninfidelities, or polygamy, simultaneous or consecutive.\n\nI have been at the pains to give this rather full synopsis of the\nstory, that my readers may be witnesses of the fact that Mr. Wilson has\ncertainly massed enough of gruesome materials to furnish to repletion\nseveral chambers of horrors. Far be it from me to suggest that so\nprominent an author has stooped to the methods of yellow-backed,\nten-cent novelists of a quarter of a century ago, in the matter at\nleast of the quality and mass of incidents to be woven into story.\nThis glance at the incidents of the story also reveals the opportunity\nthey will afford the author for gathering into one view the bigotry,\nignorance, weakness, fanaticism, and wickedness of individual Mormons,\nall to be interwoven with the mockery, sarcasm, ridicule, ribaldry,\ninnuendo and insults of their enemies.\n\nAnd now, as to the treatment of the theme. The author of the \"Lions of\nthe Lord\" in his opening chapter--the prettiest piece of descriptive\nwriting in the book--has drawn heavily upon, if he has not actually\nplagiarized from, the lecture of the late General Thomas L. Kane, of\nPhiladelphia, delivered before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania,\non March 26, 1850. Mr. Wilson heads his first chapter \"The Dead City,\"\nmeaning Nauvoo after the departure of the last of the Mormons. Mr.\nKane opens his Lecture under the caption \"The Deserted City,\" meaning\nNauvoo after the departure of the last of the Mormons. Mr. Wilson makes\nhis hero, Joel Rae, enter the \"dead city\" in \"September.\" Mr. Kane\nenters \"the deserted city\" late in the \"autumn.\" Mr. Wilson's hero\n\"from a skiff in mid-river\" views the temple on the hill top; presently\n\"landing at the wharf, he was stunned by the hush of the streets.\" Mr.\nKane \"procured a skiff,\" and rowing across the river, \"landed at the\nchief wharf of the city. No one met me there. I looked and saw no one.\nI could hear no one move, though the quiet everywhere was such that I\ncould hear the flies buzz.\"\n\nThe closeness with which Mr. Wilson follows Mr. Kane's beautifully\ndescriptive passages, however, will best be seen and appreciated when\nplaced in parallel paragraphs, as follows:\n\n[Left column:] Mr. Wilson. \"The Dead City.\"\n\n[Right column:] Mr. Kane. \"The Deserted City.\"\n\n[Wilson] \"The city without life lay handsomely along a river in the\nearly sunlight of a September morning.....From the half-circle around\nwhich the broad river bent its moody current, the neat houses, set in\ncool green gardens, were terraced up the high hill, and from the summit\nof this a stately marble temple, glittering of newness, towered far\nabove them in placid benediction.\"\n\n[Kane] \"Half encircled by the bend of the river, a beautiful city lay\nglittering in the fresh [autumn] morning sun; its bright new dwellings,\nset in cool green gardens, ranging up around a stately dome shaped hill\nwhich was crowned by a noble marble edifice, whose high tapering spire\nwas radiant with white and gold.\"\n\n[Wilson] \"Mile after mile the streets lay silent, along the river\nfront, up to the hilltop, and beyond into the level....And when they\nhad run their length, and the outlying fields were reached, there, too,\nthe same brooding spell-and the land stretched away in the hush and\nhaze.\"\n\n[Kane] \"The city appeared to cover several miles; and beyond it, in the\nbackground, there rolled off a fair country, checquered by the careful\nlines of fruitful husbandry.\"\n\n[Wilson] \"The yellow grain, heavy-headed with richness, lay beaten down\nand rotting, for there were no reapers. The city, it seemed, had died\ncalmly, painlessly, drowsily, as if overcome by sleep.\"\n\n[Kane] \"Fields upon fields of heavy headed yellow grain lay rotting\nungathered upon the ground. No one was at hand to take in their rich\nharvest. As far as the eye could reach, they stretched away, they\nsleeping, too, in the hazy air of autumn.\"\n\n[Wilson]: \"He started wonderingly up a street that led from the i\nwaterside. . . . He was now passing empty workshops, hesitating door\nafter door with ever mounting alarm. . . . . Growing bolder, he tried\nsome of the doors and found them to yield. . . . . He passed an\nempty rode walk, the hemp strewn about, as if the workers had left\nhurriedly. He peered curiously at idle looms and deserted spinning\nwheels--deserted apparently but the instant before he came. . . He\nentered a carpenter's shop. On the bench was an unfinished door, a\nplane where it had been shoved half the length of its edge, the fresh\npine shaving still curling over the side. . . . . He turned into a\nbaker's shop and saw freshly chopped kindling piled against the oven,\nand dough actually on the kneading tray. In a tanner's vat he found\nfresh bark. In a blacksmith's shod he entered next the fire was out,\nbut there was coal headed beside the forge, with the ladling pool and\nthe crooked water horn, and on the anvil was a horseshoe that had\ncooled before it was finished.\"\n\n[Kane] \"I walked through the solitary streets. . . . I went about\nunchecked. I went into empty workshops, ropewalks and smithies.\n\n[Kane] The spinner's wheel was idle; the carpenter had gone from his\nwork bench and shavings, his unfinished sash and casing.\n\n[Kane] Fresh bark was in the tanner's vat, and the fresh chopped\nlightwood stood piled against the baker's oven.\n\n[Kane] The blacksmith shop was cold, but his coal heap, and lading\npool, and crooked water horn were all there as if he had just gone off\nfor a holiday.\"\n\n[Wilson] \"He entered one of the gardens, clinking the gate-latch loudly\nafter him, but no one challenged. He drew a drink from the Well with\nits loud rattling chain and clumsy water-bucket, but no one called.\nAt the door of the house he pounded, and at last flung it open with\nall the noise he could make. Still his hungry ears fed on nothing but\nsinister echoes, and barren husks of his clamour. There was no curt\nvoice of a man, no quick questioning tread of a woman. There were dead\nwhite ashes on the hearth, and the silence was grimly kept by the dumb\nhousehold gods.\"\n\n[Kane] \"If I went into the gardens, linking the wicket latch after me,\nto pull the marigolds, heart's ease and lady slippers and draw a drink\nwith the water-sodden bucket and its noisy chain, or knocked off with\nmy stick the tall headed dahlias and sunflowers, hunting over the beds\nfor cucumbers and love-apples; no one called out to me from any open\nwindow, or dog sprang forward to bark alarm. I could have supposed\nthe people hidden in their houses, but the doors were unfastened; and\nwhen at last I timidly entered them, I found dead ashes white upon the\nhearth, and had to tread a-tip-toe as if walking down the aisles of a\ncountry church.\"\n\nMr. Wilson certainly has a remarkably similar taste to that of\nColonel Kane for flowers and gardens. Young Rae meets Prudence in the\ngardens--now observe:\n\n[Left column:] Mr. Wilson.\n\n[Right column:] Mr. Kane.\n\n[Wilson] \"He ran to her--over beds of marigolds, heart's ease and lady\nslippers, through a row of drowsy looking heavy headed dahlias, and\npassed other withering flowers, all but choked out by the rank garden\ngrowths of late summer.\"\n\n[Kane] \"If I went into the gardens. . . to pull the marigolds, heart's\nease and lady slippers, . . . or knock off the tall, heavy headed\ndahlias and the sunflowers, hunting over the beds for cucumbers and\nlove-apples--no one called out to me.\"\n\nAfter Mr. Wilson had followed General Kane in the matter of flowers\nso closely, one marvels that he did not go with him as far as the\n\"sunflowers and love-apples;\" but General Kane was hunting \"over beds\nof cucumbers,\" and perhaps the author of the \"Lions of the Lord\" found\nthat his taste for vegetables did not run so closely with the General's\nin the vegetable line as in the matter of flowers. But seriously, does\nnot the code of ethics in literature require that our rising young\nauthor should either have the grace to put these descriptive passages\nin quotation marks, or else frankly give the source whence he draws\nthe prettiest bits of description in his much-vaunted book? In the\nevent of the work reaching a second edition, I suggest that he adopt\nthe whole of General Kane's description of \"The Deserted City,\" for\nhis opening chapter; for beautiful as his own is, it but shines with\na borrowed light, and when compared with the General's it appears to\ngreat disadvantage.\n\nA word as to the purpose of the \"Lions of the Lord;\" for Mr. Wilson's\nperformance must be classified with the \"purpose novel.\" Undoubtedly\nthere is such a thing as instructive fiction, and the \"purpose\nnovel\" has its place as one of the agencies which contribute to the\nenlightenment of humanity. But if it takes hold of our respect it must\nbe, in harmony with the truth--though fiction, it must speak truly; and\nkeep within the probabilities of the subject in hand. Or, to slightly\nparaphrase an utterance in Mr. Wilson's preface, if the writer now\nand again has to divine certain things that do not show--yet must\nbe--surely this must not be less than truth. For a writer of \"purpose\nfiction\" to do other than this is to make himself as much liable to\ncensure as the historian who would pervert the truth which he is in\nhonor bound to state whether it fits in with his personal theories or\nnot. In his preface, Mr. Wilson informs us that he designed to make\na tale from his observations of western life in Salt Lake and Utah;\nbut in his search for things on which to found his fiction he was so\ndismayed by facts so much more thrilling than any fiction he might have\nimagined, that he turned from his first purpose in order \"to try to\ntell what had really been.\" \"In this story then,\" says he, \"the things\nthat are strangest have most truth. The make-believe is hardly more\nthan a cement to join the queerly wrought stones of fact that were\nfound ready.\" Hence we are to be turned from considering his work as\nfiction in order to regard it as truth.\n\nIt is exactly at this point that I arraign Mr. Wilson before the bar of\npublic opinion, and tell him that what he represents as true I denounce\nas false; and this quite apart from any books from which he has\nparaphrased much of the matter he weaves into his story. The trouble\nis that the sources whence he makes his deductions are as untrue in\ntheir statements as his paraphrases of them are. Mr. Wilson is as one\nwho walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there\nthe worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten\nfruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every\norchard; bringing this to us he says: \"This is the fruit of yonder\norchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is\nready for the burning.\" Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons\nand tons of beautiful, luscious fruit, as pleasing to the eye as it\nwould be agreeable to the palate, remaining in the orchard to which he\ndoes not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of\nthe orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were\ngathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens\nof fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also\nto call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that\nstill remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgement on the\norchard? I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or\nso bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there\nare no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly,\nintemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that\nsome in their over-zeal have lacked judgement; and that in times of\nexcitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders\nhave given utterance to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to\nlearn that it is just in a writer of history or of \"purpose fiction,\"\nthat \"must speak truly,\" to make a collection of these things and\nrepresent them as of the essence of that faith against which said\nwriter draws an indictment.\n\n\"No one would measure the belief of Christians,\" says a truly great\nwriter, \"by certain statements in the Fathers, nor judge the moral\nprinciples of Roman Catholics by prurient quotations from the casuists;\nnor yet estimate Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early\nsuccessors of Luther, nor Calvanists by the burning of Servitus. In\nsuch cases the general standpoint of the times has to taken into\naccount.\" (Edeshiem's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, preface,\npage 8.)\n\nA long time ago the great Edmund Burke, in his defense of the rashness\nexpressed in both speech and action some of our patriots of the\nAmerican Revolution period, said: \"It is not fair to judge of the\ntemper or the disposition of any man or set of men when they are\ncomposed and at rest from their conduct or their expressions in a\nstate of disturbance and irritation.\" The justice of Burke's assertion\nhas never been questioned, and without any wresting whatsoever it may\nbe applied to Mormon leaders who sometimes spoke and acted under the\nrecollection of rank injustice perpetrated against themselves and their\npeople; or rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted.\n\nMr. Wilson's book is a false indictment against Mormonism, and\nagainst the leading characters of the Mormon Church. The speeches he\nrepresents as falling from their lips, could never be recognized in\nthe utterances of Mormons, either among the leaders, or the rank and\nfile. The blasphemous phraseology was never heard in Mormon camps or\npulpits. Such expressions as \"When that young man gets all het up with\nthe Holy Ghost, the angel of the Lord just has to give down;\" or \"Lord,\nwhat won't Brother Brigham do when the Holy Ghost gets a strangle-holt\non him?\" are blasphemies utterly impossible to the Mormon mind. Such\nexpressions as the following, represented as coming from Brigham Young:\n\"The Lute of the Holy Ghost will now say a word of farewell from our\npioneers to those who must stay behind,\" is equally impossible; and\nso are many other speeches which he puts into the mouths of leading\ncharacters of the Mormon Church. Even this blasphemous phrase-name\ngiven to Joel Rae--\"Lute of the Holy Ghost\"--is not original with Mr.\nWilson. It was a cognomen given to Ephraem Syrus, \"the greatest man,\"\nsays Andrew D. White, author of \"A History of the Warfare of Science\nwith Theology in Christendom,\"--\"the greatest man of the old Syrian\nChurch, widely known as the 'Lute of the Holy Ghost.'\" [A]\n\n[Footnote A: Vol. I, p. 92 of work named in text.]\n\nThe most serious injustice Mr. Wilson does the Mormon people, however,\nthe thing in which he most departs from the facts established, not\nonly by history but by the decisions of the United States courts in\nUtah, is in that he makes the awful crime of the massacre of emigrants\nat Mountain Meadows, in 1857, the crime of the Mormon Church. Over\nand over again in fact he makes that charge, and represents his chief\ncharacter, \"Joel Rae,\" as seeking to take upon himself the sins of the\n\"Church\" for committing that crime; and in one place represents him as\nsaying: \"For fifteen years I have lain in hell for the work this Church\ndid at Mountain Meadows.\" To bear false witness against one's neighbor\neven in matters that may be trivial, is a contemptible crime; but\nwhen in bearing false witness the charge is that of murder, wholesale\nmurder, and that under circumstances the most revolting and horrible,\nthe crime then of bearing false witness rises above the merely\ncontemptible, and to be seen in its true enormity, must be regarded as\nbearing a due proportion to the crime charged. That is, next to being\nguilty of the crime itself must be the crime of falsely charging it\nto the innocent. I care nothing for the fact that the predecessors of\nMr. Wilson, in works of fiction on the West have made similar charges.\nHe will not be justified in following their evil example. A man of\nhis standing in the world of letters, starting out to \"try to tell\nwhat had really been,\" to write fiction that must speak \"no less than\ntruth\"--he was under obligations both to himself and the people to whom\nhis message should go, to investigate all the facts, and speak truly in\nharmony with them in every case.\n\nIt is not necessary here to enter into any argument or even produce\nthe evidence that the Mormon Church was in no wise responsible, in\nno wise connected with the awful butchery at Mountain Meadows. The\nevidence of these things appear upon the very surface of our history\nin Utah, and also in decisions of United States judges who would only\nhave been too happy to have implicated the Mormon Church officials\nin that awful crime if it had been possible. In fact they tried to\nso fix the responsibility, and failed. But it is enough here to tell\nMr. Wilson, that he has Committed an act of injustice for which I\nwould not like to stand responsible at the judgement bar of God; I am\nconfident that he will be driven to the necessity of choosing between\nthese alternatives: either that he has consciously spoken contrary to\ntruth in the matter; or else he has given merely surface consideration\nto one side of the subject only which he represents himself as having\nconsidered profoundly; in either event Mr. Wilson has assumed a most\nserious responsibility.\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nA BRIEF DEFENSE OF THE MORMON PEOPLE.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nIn the year 1903, Mr. L. C. Bateman, one of the editors of the\n\"Lewiston (Maine) Journal\" visited Salt Lake City and other parts\nof Utah. He formed a favorable impression of the Mormon people, and\ntheir progress in all that makes for civilization. The result of his\nobservations while in Utah Mr. Bateman published in his paper, the\n\"Lewiston (Maine) Journal.\" This article attracted the attention of\nthe _Deseret News_, which made some favorable comment upon its general\nfairness. Observing this, a non-Mormon resident of Salt Lake City wrote\nthe \"Journal,\" protesting against the letter published by its editorial\nstaff correspondent, saying that such treatment of the \"Mormon\nquestion\" was harmful in that it gave encouragement to Mormonism. The\ncommunication of \"M\" was sent to this writer--who met Mr. Bateman,\nduring his visit to Utah--with the request that he make answer to it,\nwhich he did under the title \"A Brief Defense of the Mormon People,\"\nwhich was published in the \"Journal.\" Of the success of this answer Mr.\nBateman, the editor of the \"Journal,\" wrote as follows:\n\nLEWISTON, MAINE, Oct. 4, 1903.\n\n_My Dear Mr. Roberts:_\n\nPermit me to congratulate you on the magnificent and overwhelming reply\nthat you made to my critic \"M.\" from Salt Lake. It is one of the finest\nand most crushing things that we have printed for years. I could easily\nhave replied to \"M\" myself, and made him an object of ridicule, but I\nthought it would be better to have the reply come from a Mormon. My\noriginal article neither endorsed nor condemned. I merely told facts\nand the truth as I saw them. And I personally am an agnostic. It is\nonly from that class that you can get justice.\n\nThis article of yours will create a profound impression all over New\nEngland. It is so complete and conclusive that I anticipate nothing\nmore from the \"jaundiced\" \"M.\" I send you copy of Journal.\n\nYours cordially,\n\nL. C. BATEMAN.\n\nI.\n\nEastern Eulogy of Mormons' System.\n\n_To Editors of the Lewiston Journal:_\n\nThe _Deseret News_ of Salt Lake City, which is the official organ of\nthe Mormon priesthood, in its issue of Aug. 6th, contains an editorial\nexpressing its great satisfaction over the recent eulogistic article in\nthe _Journal,_ on the merits of the Mormons and their peculiar system,\nby the Journal's representative, Mr. L. C. Bateman.\n\nHaving lived in Utah for over twenty-five years, striving with other\nlaw-abiding citizens to establish here the same American ideas which\nare accepted as fundamental in the other states of the Union, I have\nhad ample opportunity to study the Mormon system and its fruits. And I\nam prepared to say that, while I have never had anything but the utmost\ngood will for the masses of the Mormon people, I am forced to join with\nother careful students in declaring that from a social, civil, and\nmoral standpoint, no language is strong enough to set forth the evil\nfruits of the Mormon system.\n\nBased on polygamy, how could the system be otherwise than rotten? Its\ncentral idea of government being that of priesthood rule, how could\nit be otherwise than anti-American? Having been founded and organized\nby a man as corrupt and immoral as the multiplied testimony of Joseph\nSmith's acquaintances and neighbors proves that he was, how could it be\notherwise than mischievous and immoral in its tendencies and results?\nOn the part of loyal Americans who have studied the Mormon system here\non the ground for years, there is no difference of opinion about the\ninherent badness of the system and of its fruits, although many, unduly\ninfluenced by what they consider business policy, are reluctant to say\nmuch about it.\n\nSome fifteen years ago, Mr. James Barclay, a member of the English\nParliament, spent three days in Salt Lake City studying Mormonism.\nHe surrendered himself to the control of the Mormon leaders. He was\ndined at the Amelia Palace, at that time the residence of the Mormon\npresident, and attended other receptions in his honor at prominent\nMormon residences. He saw everything through Mormon spectacles.\nWhen he went back to London, he published in the popular Nineteenth\nCentury Magazine, a most glowing eulogy of the Mormon system. The\nMormon leaders had been so successful with their hospitality scheme,\nthat the Hon. Mr. Barclay had nothing but praise for those who were\npushing forward their law-defying system of polygamy and nothing but\ncondemnation for those who were trying to enforce the righteous laws of\nthe land against it.\n\nThe Journal's representative seems to have seen things much as the Hon.\nMr. Barclay. However, that may be, the Mormons have palmed off upon\nhim, as they did on Mr. Barclay, those old yarns about their changing\nthe barren desert of this valley into a blooming garden, and about\n\"the persecutions\" from which they have suffered in Utah. The first of\nthese old chestnuts was laid on the shelf years ago here in the west,\nbecause there is no truth in it. There never was any barren desert\nin this valley, for it has always been one of the best-watered, most\neasily cultivated and productive valleys west of the Mississippi. The\nMormons raised bountiful crops of grain the very first year of their\narrival. The difficulty of securing a crop here in this fertile valley\nwith its mild and equable climate, was very small in comparison with\nthe difficulties encountered by the first settlers of New England along\nthe bleak Atlantic shore. Furthermore, what a mercy it would have\nbeen to our whole country if Utah had remained unsettled for another\ntwenty-five years, if then it could have been occupied by law-abiding\nAmericans in sympathy with American civilization, such men as have\nbuilt up the noble states of Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas.\n\nThe Journal's representative says: \"But even here they were not safe\nfrom the persecutions of their enemies.\" That fictitious yarn has been\nworked off on many a foreigner. But we did not suppose it possible\nto catch an American newspaperman with such a bare hook as that. The\nMormons had this territory almost exclusively to themselves for about\ntwenty-five years, and did practically as they pleased from 1847 until\n1882, when the first Edmunds Law called them to a halt. The terrible\n\"persecutions\" complained of consist simply in this and nothing more,\nnamely, that the Mormons were asked, and after some thirty-five years\nwere required, to obey just the same laws which all other people and\nother religious bodies have always obeyed in this country. But the\nMormon leaders have left nothing undone to make the people under\nthem believe, and all outsiders whom they could influence, that the\nenforcement of these righteous laws which are obeyed by the American\npeople generally, was \"persecution.\"\n\nBut here is another paragraph from the article under discussion, which\nshows that the Journal's correspondent was as completely imposed upon\nas was the Hon. Mr. Barclay. He says, as quoted by the _Deseret News:_\n\n    \"The only charge that can be laid at their doors today is that they\n    refuse to desert their wives that they married in good faith (!)\n    And they are right. To turn these women out of doors to subsist at\n    the hands of charity would be a vastly worse crime in the eyes of\n    God and decent-minded men than to make the provision for them that\n    they are now doing.\"\n\nThe law-breaking polygamists could not have stated their case more\nsatisfactorily to themselves. But what is the matter with the Journal's\nrepresentative? Of course, he knows that polygamy is an atrocious crime\nin this country, and has been so considered since our government was\nfounded. Why, then, does he talk about committing the crime of polygamy\n\"in good faith?\" As well talk about committing the crime of bank\nrobbing \"in good faith.\" Indeed, it would not be difficult to show that\nbank-robbery, bad as it is, does less harm to society than polygamy.\n\nFurthermore none of the opponents of polygamy have ever asked that\nplural wives should be \"turned out of doors.\" Nobody has objected\nto having plural wives and their children kindly provided for\nby the men who placed them in their unlawful position. But the\nlaw-abiding citizens of Utah and the Federal Government also make\na wide distinction between providing for these plural wives and\ntheir children, and providing these same plural wives with children.\nThe whole difficulty grows out of the fact that the men who were\nliving with plural wives before Utah became a State still persist in\nmaintaining the old polygamous relations with these women, and that,\ntoo, in the face of the solemn pledges to the United States government\nthat if granted amnesty and statehood they would forthwith abandon\nall polygamous relations of every kind. Over ten years have passed\nsince amnesty was granted by the government on the above condition,\nand yet all over the State men are living in polygamy the same as\nbefore statehood. The president of the Mormon Church, with his five\nwives, encourages these law-breakers by his example, and then tries\nto belittle the offense by claiming that the number of men living in\npolygamy is quite small, not over 756. The _Deseret News_ at first\ndenied that there are any such cases, but was forced to admit that\nit was mistaken. It then tried to belittle the matter by claiming\nthat there were only 1,543 such cases! Suppose someone should argue\nthat Maine is a good moral State because it contains only 1,543 bank\nrobbers! Of course the _News_ naturally underestimates the number.\n\nIn the closing paragraph of the article in the Journal occurs the\nfollowing statement: \"Common justice and common honesty, however,\nrequire him (the writer) to say that aside from the one peculiar\nfeature of polygamy, he fails to see wherein the Mormon religion, is\nnot just as pure as the different forms to which we are accustomed in\nthe East.\"\n\nNo one who is acquainted with the fundamental doctrines of Mormonism\nand with the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion would make\nany such sweeping and misleading statement as that.\n\nMormonism holds and teaches the heathen doctrine of polytheism, the\ndoctrine of many gods. (Pratt's Key to Theology, Chap. vi.) It teaches\nthat Adam is God \"and the only God with whom we have to do.\" (Brigham\nYoung in Journal of Discourses, Vol. I, page 50.) It makes belief in\nthe alleged divine mission and authority of that most immoral and\nwicked man, Joseph Smith, a fundamental doctrine of its religious\nsystem. (Brigham Young in Millennial Star Vol. v, page 118.)\n\nIt teaches that the coarse and vulgar men who make up the Mormon\npriesthood must be obeyed by the people because they possess divine\nauthority, and that those who reject the commands of this bogus\npriesthood reject God. (Elder Roberts' New Witness for God, page 187.)\n\nIt teaches that Jesus Christ, the Divine Savior of the world, was\na polygamist, and many other horrible doctrines which are utterly\nrepugnant to the pure and lofty morality of the Christian religion.\n\nThe Mormons have lived in five different states, namely, Ohio,\nMissouri, Illinois, Iowa and Utah. If their system is as pure morally\nand as patriotic as it is claimed to be, how does it happen that\ntheir sojourn in each of those states was characterized by continued\nand increasing conflict with the established government and laws of\nthose states and of the United States, while the great Christian\ndenominations lived in peace and harmony under those same laws? The\nMormon Church will enjoy similar peace and harmony whenever its\npriesthood ceases to interfere with civil affairs, and sets the example\nof obeying the laws of the land as loyally as they have always been\nobeyed by the great Christian denominations generally.\n\nM.\n\nSalt Lake City, Aug. 19, 1903.\n\nII.\n\nA Brief Defense of the Mormon People.\n\n_To Editors of Lewiston, Maine, Journal:--_\n\nAn old Spanish proverb has it that \"A lie will travel a league, while\nTruth is getting on his boots.\" Truth, however, has this advantage over\nhis nimble-footed opponent, viz., his boots once on he runs and is not\nweary, he walks and faints not; and at the last he wins. The progress\nof Truth, in other words, is irresistible and overwhelming, and his\ntriumph over falsehood is as inevitable as the decrees of fate.\n\nIn no instance in human experience are the above truths more clearly\ndemonstrated than in the history of Mormonism. From the beginning of\nits existence falsehood in the form of misrepresentation and malicious\nslander has been in the field against it. Early and late and viciously\nthe liars of this world have sought to overwhelm it as with a flood.\nMeantime, however, Truth has not been idle. Steadily and gloriously\nMormonism and the people who have accepted it have lived down the\nmisrepresentations of their traducers, and today stand proudly erect,\nunmoved by the efforts which falsehood has made to destroy them. This\nfailure of falsehood to destroy the object at which it has levelled its\nheaviest ordnance is naturally aggravating to those who have employed\nit; and very naturally they show that annoyance. As an instance of this\nfact I refer to your Salt Lake correspondent \"M,\" whose communication\nunder the title \"Eastern Eulogy of Mormons' System,\" appeared in your\nissue of September 6th. \"M\" is somewhat grieved, not to say indignant,\nthat the _Journal's_ representative, Mr. L. C. Bateman, should have\nspoken a word of praise for the Mormons and for what they have achieved\nby their faith, industry and frugality, and informs the _Journal_\nthat what he calls Mr. Bateman's eulogistic article called forth\nan editorial in the Deseret News, the official organ of the Mormon\npriesthood, expressing great satisfaction on the appearance of the\naforesaid article. But what's to be done? Men of intelligence come to\nUtah; they are cosmopolitan, they understand human affairs and human\nnature; and many of them--among them evidently your representative,\nwhose article is the cause of \"M's\" displeasure--are men accustomed\nto collecting evidence, sifting it on the spot, and forming their own\nconclusions. They find that the facts they see and investigate do not\nwarrant the misrepresentations they have heard concerning Mormonism and\nthe Mormons. They say that in their communications to the press, in\nmagazine articles, and sometimes in books. They are honest enough to\ntell the truth as they find it; and refuse to look at facts--the things\nwhich are--through the jaundiced eyes of a bigoted sectarian priest, or\nthrough the eyes of a disappointed, and very likely disgruntled, scurvy\npolitician. Then they are abused by those to whose interests it is to\nkeep up a false impression concerning Mormonism and the Mormons, or\nwhose malice is gratified by misrepresenting them. Then it is charged\nthat they have been imposed upon by representations of \"the wily Mormon\nleaders;\" or they have been \"wined and dined,\" and hoodwinked; or else\nthey have sold their talents to the Mormon \"priesthood for money.\"\nOnly let a man, whatever his intelligence or character, or national\nstanding, from President Eliot of Harvard to your representative--only\nlet him pursue his investigations of Mormonism and Mormons beyond\nthe lurid tales of hack drivers, bent on gratifying the morbid love\nin human nature for the unusual and the horrible; or let him push\nhis inquiry beyond sectarian interpretation of the Mormon faith, and\nsectarian misrepresentation of the Mormon people, and he is doomed to\nbe catalogued as a weak dupe, or a paid agent of the Mormon Church.\n\nBut however annoying it may be to Mormon traducers, the day is gone\nby when their fulminations can be accepted as sober truth. Mormonism\nis no longer isolated from the world. It is in daily contact with the\ngreat stream of travel which crosses the continent, in which stream\nis to be found some of the first and greatest characters of our own\ncountry and of the world; not merely the seekers of pleasure, or the\nrestless curious; but educators, literati, public lecturers, editors,\nscientists, and statesmen. Attracted by the wonderful things they have\nheard of Utah and the Mormons, they stop to inquire, they meet with\nunexpected conditions, with facts undreamed of, they investigate, are\nconvinced that the world has been misled in the impressions it has\nformed concerning the Mormon faith and the Mormon people; and thus they\nbecome witnesses against the traducers of that maligned people. Our\ntraducers may not like this, but it is true. They have made lies their\nrefuge, and under falsehood have they hid themselves; but their bed is\nshorter than that a man can stretch himself on it, and the covering\nnarrower than that he can wrap himself in it. This much in general. Now\nto be more specific; and especially to cover in the evidence I quote\nthe silly attempt of your Salt Lake correspondent \"M\" to deny credit\nto the Mormons for having redeemed a desert and given a wilderness to\ncivilization.\n\nYour correspondent refers to the credit accorded the Mormons for this\nas \"an old chestnut\" which has been laid on the shelf years ago here in\nthe West, because there is no truth in it! \"There never was any barren\ndesert,\" he says, \"in this valley, for it has always been one of the\nbest watered, most easily cultivated and productive valleys west of the\nMississippi!\" It is rather an unfortunate circumstance that a man who\nclaims to have been a careful student of Mormonism and who has lived\nfor over twenty-five years in Utah, should include in his criticism\nof the Journal's representative's article an untruth so palpable, a\nfalsehood so easy of refutation, a statement which so bluntly comes\nin contact with the common knowledge of all the people of the United\nStates. How the Salt Lake Valley was regarded by the pioneers who came\ninto it in 1847 may be learned from the following quotation from their\nutterances:\n\n    \"My mother was heart-broken because there were no trees to be seen.\n    I do not remember a tree that could be called a tree.\" Statement of\n    Clara Decker Young, one of the women of the first pioneer company.\n    (Bancroft's History of Utah, page 261.)\n\n    \"The ground was so dry that they found it necessary to irrigate it\n    before plowing, some plows having been broken.\" (_Ibid._)\n\nTheir first impressions of the valley, Lorenzo Young says, were most\ndisheartening. But for the two or three cottonwood trees, not a green\nthing was in sight. And Brigham speaks almost pathetically of the\ndestruction of the willows and wild roses growing on the banks of City\nCreek, destroyed because the channels must be changed, and leaving\nnothing to vary the scenery but rugged mountains, the sage brush and\nthe sunflower. The ground was covered with millions of black crickets\nwhich the Indians were harvesting for their winter food. (_Ibid, page\n262._)\n\n    \"When we arrived in this valley we found it a barren desert, and\n    a barren desert it was. We saw no mark of the white man. We found\n    a few naked Indians who would eat a pint of roasted crickets for\n    their dinner.\" (Statement of Wilford Woodruff, \"Utah Pioneers,\"\n    page 24.)\n\nThe late Apostle Erastus Snow, who, with Orson Pratt, was the first\nman of the pioneers to enter the valley, in a discourse during the\ncelebration of the thirty-third anniversary of the entrance of the\npioneers into the Salt Lake valley, says:\n\n    \"And when the Pioneers found it [this valley], it was well nigh\n    purified by the lapse of time and the desolation of ages, and the\n    wickedness of its ancient inhabitants was well nigh obliterated,\n    though the curse of barrenness and desolation still existed. I\n    remarked yesterday, on looking at the decorations of this building,\n    that to make the work complete that part which so truthfully\n    represents this desert land in 1847, the sagebrush and the other\n    growth of the desert should be sprinkled with black crickets,\n    and, perched in some prominent position, some gulls looking down\n    eagerly upon them; which would remind us of those early days when\n    the Pioneers and early settlers grappled with the difficulties of\n    the desert land; when the untamed savage was scarcely an enemy or\n    a hindrance in our pathway compared with the destructive winged\n    insects, the crickets and grasshoppers which would come in myriads\n    to devour the tender crops. For the first two seasons it seemed\n    as though the crickets and grasshoppers would consume every green\n    thing, and after they had commenced their depredations to such\n    an extent that to all human appearance the last vestige of the\n    products of the field and garden would be eaten up, large flocks\n    of gulls came to the relief of the farmer, lighting down upon the\n    fields and covering them as with a white sheet, and they fell\n    to devouring the insects. When they had filled and gorged their\n    stomachs, they would vomit them up and then fill themselves again,\n    and again vomit, and thus they ate and devoured until the fields\n    were cleared of those destructive insects, and the crops saved. *\n    * * * Many doubted, as to whether we could subsist our colonies in\n    this country at all, and whether grain would mature. James Bridger,\n    the well-known mountaineer, who had inter-married with the Snakes\n    [Indians], and had a trading post which still bears his name,\n    Fort Bridger, when he met President Brigham Young at the Pioneer\n    camp on the Big Sandy, about the last of June, and learned our\n    destination to be the valley of the Great Salt Lake, he gave us a\n    general outline and description of this country over which he had\n    roamed with the Indians in his hunting and trapping excursions,\n    and expressed grave doubts whether corn could be produced at all\n    in these mountains, he having made experiments in many places with\n    a few seeds, which had failed to mature. So sanguine was he that\n    it could not be done that he proffered to give a thousand dollars\n    for the first ear of corn raised in the valley of the Great Salt\n    Lake, or the valley of the Utah outlet, as he termed it, meaning\n    the valley between Utah lake and Salt Lake. President Young replied\n    to him, 'Wait a little and we will show you.'\" (The Utah Pioneers,\n    pages 41-43.)\n\nNor is the fact of Salt Lake valley's desolation witnessed by the\ntestimony of Mormons alone. Howard Stansbury, Captain of the Corps of\nTopographical Engineers, U.S. Army, in 1852, says:\n\n    \"One of the most unpleasant characteristics of the whole country,\n    is the entire absence of trees from the landscape. The weary\n    traveller plods along, exposed to the full blaze of one eternal\n    sunshine, day after day, and week after week, his eye resting upon\n    naught but interminable plains, bold and naked hills, or bold and\n    rugged mountains; the shady grove, the babbling brook, the dense\n    and solemn forest are things unknown here; and should he by chance\n    light upon some solitary cotton-wood, or pitch his tent amid some\n    stunted willows, the opportunity is hailed with joy, as one of\n    unusual good fortune. The studding, therefore, of this beautiful\n    city [referring to Salt Lake City] with noble trees, will render\n    it, by contrast with the surrounding regions, a second 'Diamond of\n    the Desert.'\" (Stansbury's Report, page 129.)\n\nAgain, Lieutenant J. W. Gunnison of the Topographical Engineers,\nwriting in 1853, said:\n\n    \"It [the Salt Lake Valley] is isolated from habitable grounds;\n    having inhospitable tracts to the North and South, and the\n    untimbered slope of the Rocky Mountains, nearly a thousand miles\n    wide, on the east, and nearly a thousand miles of arid salt deserts\n    on the west, broken up by frequent ridges of sterile mountains.\n    The Great Basin is * * * over four thousand feet above the ocean.\n    * * * It is a desert in character. * * * In the interior, fresh\n    water becomes scarce, for these hills do not collect sufficient\n    snow in winter * * * * to water the plains; and the consequence\n    follows that these tracts are parched and arid, and frequently so\n    impregnated with alkali as to make them unfit for vegetable life.\n    * * * The land around Salt Lake is flat, and rises imperceptibly\n    on the south and west, * * * and is a soft and sandy barren,\n    irreclaimable for agricultural purposes. On the north the tract\n    is narrow, and the springs bursting out near the surface of the\n    water, the grounds cannot be irrigated.\" (\"The Mormons,\" by J. W.\n    Gunnison, pages 14, 15, 16.)\n\nThese descriptions of Utah. Valley warrant Utah's Historian, Bishop\nOrson F. Whitney, in giving the splendid pen picture he writes of the\nvalley on the arrival of the Pioneers, in saying:\n\n    \"It was no Garden of Hesperides upon which the Pioneers gazed\n    that memorable morning of July 24, 1847. Aside from its scenic\n    splendor, which was indeed glorious, magnificent, there was little\n    to invite and much to repel in the prospect presented to their\n    view. A broad and barren plain, hemmed in by mountains, blistering\n    in the rays of the midsummer sun. No waving fields, no swaying\n    forests, no verdant meadows to rest and refresh the weary eye,\n    but on all sides a seemingly interminable waste of sagebrush,\n    bespangled with sunflowers--the paradise of the lizard, the\n    cricket and the rattle snake. Less than half way across the baked\n    and burning valley, dividing it in twain--as if the vast bowl,\n    in the intense heat of the Master Potter's fires, in process of\n    formation had cracked asunder--a narrow river, turbid and shallow,\n    from south to north in many a serpentine curve, sweeps on its\n    sinuous way. Beyond, a broad lake, the river's goal, dotted with\n    mountain islands; its briny waters shimmering in the sunlight\n    like a silver shield. From the mountains, snow-capped, seamy and\n    craggy, lifting their kingly heads to be crowned by the golden sun,\n    flow limpid, laughing streams, cold and crystal clear, leaping,\n    dashing, foaming, flashing, from rock to glen, from peak to plain.\n    But the fresh canyon streams are far and few, and the arid waste\n    they water, glistening with beds of salt and soda pools of deadly\n    alkali, scarcely allowing them to reach the river, but midway well\n    nigh swallows and absorbs them in the thirsty sands. These, the\n    oak-brush, the squaw-berry, and other scant growths, with here\n    and there a tree casting its lone shadow on hill or in valley; a\n    wire-grass swamp, a few acres of withered bunch-grass, and the\n    lazily waving willows and wild-rose bushes, fringing the distant\n    streams, the only green thing visible. Silence and desolation\n    reign. A silence unbroken, save by the cricket's ceaseless chirp,\n    the roar of the mountain torrent or the whir and twitter of\n    the passing bird. A desolation of centuries, where earth seems\n    heaven-forsaken, where Hermit Nature, watching, waiting, weeps and\n    worships God amid eternal solitudes.\" (History of Utah, Vol. I.,\n    pages 325-6.)\n\nThe Mormons whom your Salt Lake Correspondent admits had the territory\nof Utah almost exclusively to themselves for about twenty-five years,\nconverted the desert wilderness described in the foregoing quotations\ninto a fruitful land, and redeemed it from savagery to civilization. By\nthe creation of an irrigation system they demonstrated that the desert\nlands of the intermountain region could be converted into fruitful\nfields, and thus became Pioneers, not alone of Utah, but of the entire\nintermountain region, and became founders of modern irrigation farming,\nwhich now is developing into a great national movement, that looks to\nthe reclamation of an extent of country beside which the extent of\nancient empires becomes insignificant; and happy millions will yet\npartake of the blessings first disclosed as possible by the example\nin irrigation set by the Mormon people. And all such silly falsehoods\nand misrepresentations as those uttered by your jaundice-minded\ncorrespondent, can never rob them of the high honor accorded them by\nthe nation for the part they have performed in so great and notable and\nfar reaching enterprises.\n\nYour correspondent represents himself as having lived in Utah for over\ntwenty-five years; and also as having had ample opportunity to study\nthe \"Mormon system\" and its fruits, and then says:\n\n    \"I am forced to join with other careful students in declaring that\n    from a social, civil and moral standpoint, no language is strong\n    enough to set forth the evil fruits of the \"Mormon system.\" Based\n    on polygamy, how could the system be otherwise than rotten? Its\n    central idea of government being that of priesthood rule, how\n    could it be otherwise than anti-American? Having been founded\n    and organized by a man as corrupt and immoral as the multiplied\n    statements of Joseph Smith's acquaintances and neighbors prove that\n    he was, how could it be otherwise than mischievous and immoral in\n    its tendencies and results?\"\n\nReally, after thinking of a man living in Utah for twenty-five years\nwith exceptional opportunities to study the \"Mormon system,\" one\nbecomes quite disheartened when he witnesses such an exhibition of\nstupidity in apprehending, or a willingness to misrepresent as is\nexhibited in the foregoing quotation. First, if your correspondent had\nintelligence to understand the most simple proposition, he never would\nhave made the statement that Mormonism is based on polygamy. Mormonism\nexisted ten years and had spread through nearly all the states of the\nAmerican Union, into Canada and Great Britain, before plural marriage\nwas ever introduced into the Church. And notwithstanding that under\nthe requirements of the laws of the land, the Church has discontinued\nthe authorization of plural marriages, Mormonism still survives--much\nto the chagrin of such characters as your correspondent, and the\nMormon Church was never more alive or prosperous than it is today.\nThe doctrine of the rightfulness of plural marriage is in every sense\nbut an incident in the \"Mormon system\" rather than a basic principle.\nSalvation in the Mormon religion is not made to depend upon a plurality\nof wives. On the contrary it teaches that either man or woman can\nbe saved without marriage at all. That those in monogamous marriage\nrelations may be saved, but it also is a fact that it has taught that\nmen with a plurality of wives, if they have taken them under the\nsanction of God's law--a law which existed in the days of the Bible\npatriarchs as well as in these last days by special dispensation\nthrough Joseph Smith--may also be saved. Mormonism does teach, however,\nthat marriage is essential to man's exaltation and progress in his\nsaved condition, and that special blessings doubtless attended those\nwho entered into plural marriage relations within the conditions and\nlimitations referred to a moment since, but to regard plural marriages\nas the basis of Mormonism is not only ridiculous but an absolute\nmisrepresentation of our faith.\n\nEqually absurd and untrue is your correspondent's second implied\ncharge, viz., that the central idea of Mormon government is priesthood\nrule, therefore \"how could it be otherwise than anti-American?\"\nThe gentleman leaves us in the mists here. What does he mean? Is\nit anti-American to have priesthood rule in an ecclesiastical\ninstitution--in a Church? What kind of rule would he have but that of a\npriesthood rule in such organizations? If it is anti-American to have\npriesthood rule in a church organization, then every church in the land\nis anti-American. But if the gentleman protests that this is not what\nhe meant, but that he meant priesthood rule in civil government, then\nI must say to him that there is no ecclesiastical institution in all\nour land that in its doctrines more clearly recognizes the separation\nof the Church from the State than does the Mormon Church. In proof of\nwhich I quote on that head the following from an authoritative work on\nthe doctrine of the Mormon Church:\n\n    \"We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are\n    amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless\n    their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights\n    and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law\n    has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind\n    the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private\n    devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but\n    never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress\n    the freedom of the soul. * * * * We do not believe it just to\n    mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one\n    religious society is fostered, and another proscribed in its\n    spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members as\n    citizens, denied.\" (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134.)\n\nAgain, in a revelation given as early as 1831, the Lord said to the\nChurch:\n\n    \"Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws\n    of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth.\"\n\nThat is, the revelations received were given for the government of\nthe Church, not for the laws of the state; to instruct the saints in\ntheir religious duties and privileges, not to interfere with them in\nthe exercise of their civil rights, nor to dictate to them in their\npolitical actions. This doctrine has been affirmed over and over again\nby the present officials of the Mormon Church. And as for the exercise\nof \"priesthood rule\" in practice in political affairs, in all good\nconscience and form both observation and experience: I can say that\nthere is less of it chargeable to the Mormon Church officials than to\nministers of any other denominations whatsoever in our land. And no\nother people of our land have suffered so much from mingling religious\ninfluence in political affairs, as have the Mormon people. Nearly\nevery Legislative enactment, either state or national, has been the\ndirect result of the exercise of sectarian ministerial influence upon\nlegislators, state and national, as also have been nearly all the acts\nof mob violence perpetrated against the same people which resulted in\ntheir expulsion from Missouri and Illinois.\n\nYour correspondent says that the multiplied statements of Joseph\nSmith's acquaintances and neighbors prove that he was was immoral\nand corrupt, and that since Mormonism has such an origin he wants\nto know \"how it could be otherwise than mischievous and immoral in\nits tendencies and results.\" Your correspondent here assumes that\nJoseph Smith was immoral and corrupt, and hence his system can be\nnone other than mischievous and evil in its tendencies. \"But,\" it\nwill be said, \"his premise rests upon the alleged testimony of\nJoseph Smith's acquaintances and neighbors.\" What acquaintances and\nneighbors? Of course if you eliminate from this list all those who\nknew Joseph Smith best, his friends and followers, who so far believed\nin him and his honor and integrity as a man and prophet of God that\nthey sacrificed their own good name, together with property and all\nearthly prospects in accepting the doctrine he taught, and then rely\nalone for a description of his character upon the testimony of his\npersecutors and revilers led on by bigoted priests who hounded him\nthrough fourteen years of his troubled life, until they succeeded in\nbringing about his murder in cold blood at Carthage, Illinois, why,\nof course; I suppose that such testimony could be said to prove that\nhe was immoral and corrupt. But under such methods of proving things\nhow would the immaculate life and character of the Son of God himself\nstand before the world? Jesus would be proved to be a wine-bibber, an\nassociate of sinners and publicans, one who went about the country in\nthe companionship of women of questionable character, an imposter who\nwas so in league with Satan that he cast out devils by the power of\nBeelzebub, an agitator disturbing the peace, a leader of seditions,\na perverter of laws and customs, and who at the last was fittingly\ncrucified between two thieves after being condemned under due forms\nof law, and who attracted to him a following that could be regarded\nas the off-scourings of despised Galilee, and who were so vile as to\nsteal his dead body from the tomb by night, and then put in circulation\nthe story that he had risen bodily from the dead! From such a basis as\nthis, all of which can be established \"by the multiplied testimony\"\nof the Savior's \"acquaintances and neighbors,\" we could, with your\ncorrespondent exclaim, \"how could the system\" emanating from such a\nfounder \"be otherwise than mischievous and immoral in its tendencies\nand results?\"\n\nIt would be easy to prove that from the beginning of Mormonism until\nnow there are many men of wide reputation, men of national repute\nand high character, who have testified of the purity of life and\nhonorable conduct of Joseph Smith and the general honesty and high\nmoral character of his following. But it is impossible to quote such\ntestimony because of the necessary limits of this communication, and\nit is not necessary because the premise from which your correspondent\nstarts is utterly untenable and foolish.\n\nYour correspondent scoffs at the idea that Mormons married their\nplural wives in good faith, and that it would now be a crime to\nabandon them, and declares that your representative could as well have\ntalked about \"committing the crime of bank robbing in good faith.\" The\ngentleman rushes a little too quickly to his conclusion. Things he\nputs in comparison are altogether unlike. It is a truth to begin with\nthat the Mormon people accepted the doctrine of plural marriage as a\nrevelation and commandment from God; and they did marry their wives\nunder what they considered divine sanction, in good faith, believing\nthat they were protected in the practice of a religious principle\nby the constitution of their country, which specifically prohibited\nthe passage of laws \"respecting an establishment of religion, or\nprohibiting the free exercise thereof.\" Furthermore, this doctrine was\nsanctioned by the practice of the Bible patriarchs, whom the Son of\nGod himself upheld in his teaching as the very favorites of heaven,\nwhom God had made his own especial witnesses of the truths he would\nteach mankind. It was well on to half a century before the Supreme\nCourt of the United States had finally decided at all points the\nconstitutionality of the several acts of Congress against the exercise\nof this religious doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, during which\ntime a whole generation had lived in the practice of it, believing\nabsolutely in its righteousness, in its divinity in fact, and it is not\ndifficult to understand how men under such circumstances married their\nwives in good faith.\n\nMoreover, when this matter was finally settled by the adoption of our\nState Constitution, the enabling act passed by Congress only demanded\non this subject of polygamy that the constitutional convention should\nprovide by ordinance \"irrevocably without the consent of the United\nStates and the people of said state, * * * * that no inhabitant of\nsaid state should be molested in person or property on account of his\nor her mode of religious worship: _provided that polygamous or plural\nmarriages are forever prohibited.\"_ It will be observed that there is\nno demand made in this for the abandonment of plural marriage relations\nalready established under the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage.\nNothing is required on that head, but that for the future there\nshall be a prohibition of \"polygamous marriages.\" The action of the\nconstitutional convention was in harmony with this demand of the people\nof the United States, and the ordinance in our state constitution\nwas adopted in such form and spirit that while future polygamous or\nplural marriages, were forever prohibited, it contemplated leaving\nundisturbed the already existing plural marriage relations. Under\nthese circumstances I do not hesitate to say that for Mormon men to\nabandon the wives they had taken in good faith, who had been induced\nto accept that relationship under religious persuasion and conviction,\nwould be both cowardly and criminal in the eyes of God and all good and\nrespectable men.\n\nYour correspondent undertakes to make much of the fact that\n\n    \"The Mormons have lived in five different states. * * * * If their\n    system is as pure morally and as patriotic as it is claimed to\n    be, how does it happen that their sojourn in each of these states\n    was characterized by continued and increased conflict with the\n    established government and laws of these states and of the United\n    States while the great Christian denominations live in peace and\n    harmony under those same laws?\"\n\nThe gentleman would have shown better judgement than to have propounded\nsuch a question as that. The Latter-day Saints suffered persecution\nin both New York and Ohio, they were driven several times from their\nhomes in Missouri, and finally driven in a body--some twelve thousand\nin number--from that state into Illinois, and later between twenty and\nthirty thousand of them were driven from the state of Illinois. The\ngentleman should remember that this all happened before plural marriage\nwas practiced in the Church [except in Nauvoo, where, in the last\nyears of his life, it was introduced by the prophet, but it was known\nbut by a few, and was neither the cause of his martyrdom nor of the\nsubsequent expulsion of his people]; and Mormons may defy not only your\ncorrespondent but the whole world to instance any case where they were\npersecuted or driven from their homes or murdered (as scores of them\nwere) for violation of the laws of the land in those states. And there\nis yet to arise within these states or in the United States, however\nmuch he may despise the Mormons and their faith, an apologist who is\nbold enough to undertake the justification of those states in their\ntreatment of the Mormons, save only, perhaps, your correspondent, and\nhe only by cowardly imputation and innuendo.\n\n_Salt Lake City, Utah, Sept. 26, 1903._\n\n\n\nV.\n\nWHICH OF THE SECTS HAS OPPOSED MORMONISM MOST?\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThis is a question frequently asked, but I do not remember that an\nanswer has been ever before put in print. It would be easy to record\nthe names of the ministers and the Christian sects to which they\nbelonged who began the agitation in Missouri which resulted in such\ndisgraceful scenes of mob-violence, robbery and murder, and the final\nexpulsion of from twelve to fifteen thousand people from their homes\nand the state. It would only be a matter of time and space to set\ndown the names of the ministers and the sects they represented, who\nbegan and continued that abominable campaign of slander and falsehood\nwhich terminated in the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and the\nexpulsion of more than twenty thousand Latter-day Saints from the\nconfines of the United States. But is it worth while? Is it not enough\nto say that so-called ministers of the gospel quite generally took the\nleading part in this opposition. They headed bands of men who burned\nthe homes of our people; they sat on drumhead militia court-martials\nto try Joseph Smith, and condemned him to be shot in the public square\nat Far West; it was a sectarian minister who led the mob that murdered\nJoseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage prison; it was a somewhat noted\npreacher who led the mob forces against Nauvoo and expelled the aged,\nthe weak and helpless from that city after the great bulk of the\nMormon people had departed into the western wilderness in search of\nnew homes. So we might continue all down the line of our experience.\nThe mobbings in the southern states have quite generally been led by\nso-called ministers of the gospel; as also all the unfriendly agitation\nin Utah and elsewhere. But it isn't worth while to dwell too long in\nour thought on these matters, or to take them too seriously. God has a\nreward that will be ample for all those who have suffered martyrdom in\nhis cause, and those who have assailed it he doubtless will remember\nin his own time and way, and we need not wish them any harm, and we\ndo not. If we could affect them in any way it would be to mitigate\ntheir difficulties. For a man to carry with him through eternity the\nrecollection of an injustice he has inflicted upon the innocent; to\nbe compelled always to remember a murder committed, must of itself be\na terrible punishment. So I say if we could affect the persecutors of\nthe Saints in any way it would be to mitigate their sufferings, not\nto increase them. We will try not to remember the wrongs of Missouri;\nand will try to forget the fate of Nauvoo. We will remember only that\nin those troublous days there were noble men, and women too, who\nbefriended our people and who did what they could to make light their\nburdens and ease their sorrows--God bless them!\n\nWhich of the Sects Have Opposed Mormonism Most.\n\nSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, Aug. 8, 1903.\n\n_D. A. Holcomb, Esq., Dunlap, Iowa._\n\nDEAR SIR:--Your letter of the 21st ult., addressed to President Joseph\nF. Smith and Counselors, asking \"which one of the religious societies\nhas opposed the faith and doctrine of the Church the most,\" etc., has\nbeen handed to me by President Smith, with a request that I answer your\nquestions.\n\nIn the first place I call your attention to the fact that it is not\na matter of astonishment or of any great amount of anxiety to us\nthat the churches of this world oppose the Church of Christ. It has\nbecome a matter of course from our point of view, and really under the\ncircumstances we do not see how it could be otherwise, for the first\nword of the Lord to Joseph Smith was to the effect that the churches of\nthe world were all wrong, that is, in error; that their professors of\nreligion drew near to the Lord with their lips while their hearts were\nfar from him; that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men,\nand Joseph Smith was commanded to join none of them, for God did not\nacknowledge them as his Church or kingdom. After such a declaration the\ngood will of sectarian Christendom was naturally out of the question,\nyet, of course, the truth had to be told. The theological rubbish that\nhad accumulated for ages had to be swept away that the rocks of truth\nmight be made bare for the erection of that structure, the Temple of\nGod--the Church of Christ.\n\nAs to which of the several churches has been most opposed to the faith\nand doctrines of the Church it would be difficult to say definitely,\nexcept to say that up to the present time the Catholic Church has\nnot manifested any hostility' in any way as an organization. A few\nindividual Catholic prelates have had their fling at us, but I think\nthey have not passed resolutions against our organization, chiefly\nfor the reason, as I think, that we have done but little work as yet\nin Catholic countries; and then, too, it is quite possible that the\nCatholic clergy count us as one among the many protestant sects, and\nthink us no worse than the rest of what they consider the \"separated\nbrethren.\" As for the Protestant brood, you may take the Methodists,\nPresbyterians, Baptists, Campbellites, and Josephites as the most\nactive of our opponents, judging from the fulminations they reel off\nagainst us in the form of resolutions and petitions to Congress asking\nthat we be \"suppressed\" or \"crushed.\" It would be difficult to say\nwhich of these is the most opposed. I think I am safe in saying they\nare all about equally bitter, but thank the Lord there is no proportion\nbetween their bitterness and their power to do us injury. The rest of\nthe Protestant sects give us but little trouble, at least in any formal\nway, and the opposition expressed in frantic resolutions by those I\nhave named merely serve to make matters interesting and keep Mormonism\nwell to the fore in public attention; and as for \"annoyance\"--well,\nit is hardly worth while being annoyed. Have you not read the golden\nwords, \"We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth?\" and\nthat other saying, equally comforting to those who are called upon\nto face the wrath of men for the kingdom of heaven's sake, \"Surely\nthe wrath of men shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou\nrestrain?\" So we are very comfortable, thank you, and not worried and\nnot \"annoyed\" and not hurt by the opposition of men. We have the truth\nand rejoice in it, and intend to make it known just as far as it is\npossible for us to proclaim it. In our view those who oppose it, pass\nresolutions against our faith and ourselves, are but God's advertising\nagents, to present to the attention of the world the thing which he has\nplanted in the earth; and we amuse ourselves sometimes by thinking what\na surprised lot of fellows those sanctimonious divines who \"resolute\"\nagainst us with such vigor will be when they wake up and discover that\nthey have helped instead of hindered God's work; but as for being\n\"annoyed\"--pshaw!\n\nVery truly yours.\n\nB. H. ROBERTS.\n\n* * * * * * * * * *\n\nLooking through an old scrap book the other day, I found in it a\nclipping from the \"Newark (New Jersey) News,\" containing a letter\nfrom Salt Lake City, by J. Martin Miller, which describes in a very\nadmirable way the attitude of a Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Bishop\ntoward the Mormon people, and as their attitude is one of fairness I\ntake pleasure in recording the evidence of it here. Mr. Miller's letter\nto the \"Newark News\" was written about two months before my letter to\nMr. Holcomb--in June, 1903:\n\nVIEWS OF RABBI REYNOLDS.\n\n    \"I found a very prominent former Newarker, in the person of Rabbi\n    Louis G. Reynolds, of the Synagogue B'nai Israel here [in Salt Lake\n    City]. He was rabbi of the Oheb Shalom Synagogue, Newark, from 1892\n    to 1896.\"\n\n    \"There is a Jewish population of about 500 in Salt Lake City,\" said\n    Rabbi Reynolds? \"Aside from that particular feature of their creed,\n    polygamy, I think the Mormons are a very good people. Everything\n    indicates that polygamy is dying out and that the Church means to\n    obey the law. Aside from polygamy, I am of the opinion that in\n    morals the Mormons will average higher than the Gentiles who live\n    here. The records show that the Mormons furnish a very small quota\n    of the vice of the city. As a rule, they are a temperate people.\n    'If Senator Smoot is unseated, would the influence of the Mormons\n    in the state and the nation be diminished?' I inquired. 'Not in the\n    least; it would make them feel their persecution more than now and\n    cause them to have less faith in the fairness of the government.\n    They know the government cannot be fooled to any great extent and\n    that polygamy must go. Now that the tendency on the part of the\n    Mormons is to abandon polygamy, the purposes of the government in\n    making better Americans of the Mormon people than they are now\n    will be better subserved by allowing the influential men among\n    the Mormons to help the government bring about the desired end. I\n    say this with Senator Smoot in mind, and in view of the believed\n    fact among every class in Utah that he is not a polygamist. He\n    is one of the most level-headed business men in Utah, and is\n    exceedingly popular with all classes. Polygamy was deeply rooted.\n    The people for the most part were born in it. Why humiliate these\n    innocent victims by persecuting them unnecessarily when they show\n    an inclination to rid themselves and the county of the blot? The\n    United States is a conciliatory and humane government. I was born\n    in Russia and can appreciate this government. It is the kind of a\n    government that begets loyalty in its subjects. Will these erring\n    Children of Utah, who in all probability are not now contracting\n    any new polygamous marriages, be better citizens if they are\n    hounded and misrepresented by agitators, or if they are fairly\n    but firmly dealt with by the government and given a reasonable\n    chance to prove their good intentions and their good citizenship?\n    There is a very strong element throughout the county that takes\n    absolutely no stock in this ecclesiastical warfare that is being\n    made from Salt Lake City against the Mormons. It has been plainly\n    demonstrated very recently in the case of one minister here who\n    carried on a bitter crusade, that was worse than a waste of energy,\n    that such methods are re-active in the extreme.\"\n\nBISHOP SCANLAN'S ATTITUDE.\n\n    \"That veteran old priest, Bishop Scanlan, who has charge of all of\n    Utah and the eastern half of Nevada for the Catholic church, has\n    visited every remote corner of Utah during the 30 years he has been\n    here. 'I have found the Mormon people a gentle and kindly disposed\n    people. I have never been insulted once. I have been obliged to\n    visit places where there are no hotels and wherever I have stopped\n    at private houses the people have always felt offended if I offered\n    to pay them for the keep of myself and my horse.' 'Have you ever\n    felt the need of a revolver?' I asked. 'I never owned one in my\n    life.' Pointing up to the crucifix, the bishop said: 'That is the\n    only weapon I have ever carried. The Catholic church has 10,000\n    communicants in Utah at the present time.' I do not see your name,\n    bishop, on protests and other papers that some of the ministers\n    here are active in circulating. 'No, I never join in anything of\n    that kind. My mission here is not to make war among the Mormon\n    people, or any other people, but rather to be the bearer of the\n    message of peace and good will toward all men. If there is any law\n    to be enforced, I leave that for my government to do.\"\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n\"HOW.\"\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe subject treated under this title, \"How,\" is an address delivered\nin the Salt Lake City Tabernacle on Sunday, May 31, 1903, in\none of the sessions of the Young Men's and Young Ladies' Mutual\nImprovement Associations Annual Conferences. The associations are\nauxiliary organizations in the Church of the Latter-day Saints for\nthe improvement of the youth. In May of the above year, the General\nAssembly of the Presbyterian Church was appointed to convene in Los\nAngeles. A large number of ministers of this persuasion from eastern\nstates made it a point to pass through Salt Lake City _en route_ for\nLos Angeles, and the Ministerial Association of Utah, an organization\ncomprised of Protestant ministers of all the Evangelical Churches\nin the State, made it their business to call the attention of such\nvisiting ministers to the \"Mormon Question,\" and invited their\nco-operation against the Mormon Church. As preliminary to this action\non their part they published two pamphlets, one under the title,\n\"Claims of Mormons to be Considered Seriously.\" This pamphlet pretended\nto give a brief history of the origin of the Mormon Church, and\ndeclared that the Prophet Joseph Smith was considered by his neighbors\nto be a character who was \"low, unworthy, of bad repute in general, and\nthat he was especially unworthy of confidence.\" It was a re-hash of the\nsilly stories that sprang up in western New York and that are utterly\nunreliable, and which, while the Prophet lived in New York, could never\nbe established against him, though every possible effort to do so was\nmade.\n\nThe second pamphlet was entitled \"Temple Mormonism.\" The chief\npurpose of this pamphlet was evidently to prove that Mormonism was an\noath-bound secret organization, \"for the encouragement and protection\nof polygamous living.\" These pamphlets were distributed to the one\nthousand Presbyterian ministers who are said to have passed through\nSalt Lake at that time. It was the intention also to have them\npresented to the Presbyterian Assembly in Los Angeles, and I believe\nthey were so presented. Later they were to be presented to the Baptist\nConvention to be held that year in Buffalo, New York; also to the\nCongregational Conference at Portland, Oregon, and then to the W. C.\nT. U., to the Y. M. C. A. and W. C. A. conventions of that year; and\nfinally to the Inter-Denominational Association of Women. Whatever\nbecame of the presentation of these pamphlets to the respective\norganizations other than the Presbyterian Assembly, I do not know;\nbut their presentation to the gathered Presbyterian ministers at Los\nAngels doubtless had the desired effect, for it resulted in some very\nheated speeches upon the subject of Mormonism, more especially in one\ndelivered by Dr. Charles L. Thompson of New York, secretary of the\nAssembly, who, in the course of a speech widely heralded through the\nsecular press of the country, said--and this was the report of the\nspeech according to the dispatches--of Mormonism:\n\n    \"It is not to be educated, not to be civilized, not to be\n    reformed--it must be crushed. No other organization is so perfect\n    as the Mormon Church except the German Army. This describes\n    Mormonism. Its empty promises deceive. Relentlessly it fastens its\n    victims in its loathsome glue. It has one vulnerable point. It is\n    not to be reformed. It is to be crushed. Dr. Richard L. Ely has\n    declared that there is nothing comparable to its system except the\n    German Army. * * * * Beware the Octopus. There is one moment in\n    which to seize it, says Victor Hugo. It is when it thrusts forth\n    its head. It has done it. Its high priest claims a senator's chair\n    in Washington. Now is the time to strike. Perhaps to miss it now is\n    to be lost.\"\n\nCommenting on this speech, the dispatches said:\n\n    \"No speaker who has thus far appeared before the Presbyterian\n    General Assembly has aroused so much enthusiasm as Dr. Chas. L.\n    Thompson. His references to Mormonism were especially bitter, and\n    brought out great applause from his audience.\"\n\nIt is this speech that is commented upon in the remarks which follow.\n\nHOW.\n\nMy Brethren and Sisters--I arise this afternoon to announce a great\ndisappointment. By reference to your printed programs you will see that\nPresident Joseph F. Smith was chosen to make an address this afternoon,\nbut he insists upon my taking his place. I tried to dissuade him from\nmaking the change, but he insisted upon it, and as he has the final\nword in such matters, I respond cheerfully to his request, and ask you,\nas soon as possible, to banish the remembrance of your disappointment\nand assist me by your faith and prayers, that what I may say may be\nfitting to this occasion, and prompted by the Spirit of the Lord.\n\nI think I shall venture to take a text, but not from the Bible. My text\nwill be one that I have made \"out of my own head.\" Perhaps that will\naccount for its being so brief. It consists of one word only, and that\none word is, \"How?\"\n\nAway back in 1832, on the occasion of a number of elders being\nassembled in Kirtland, desiring to know the will of the Lord concerning\nthemselves, and in what manner they should spend their time pending\nthe commencement of a conference which had been called, the Lord said\nthrough his Prophet:\n\n    \"I give unto you a commandment, that you shall teach one another\n    the doctrine of the kingdom; teach ye diligently, and my grace\n    shall attend you, that ye may be instructed more perfectly in\n    theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all\n    things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for\n    you to understand; of things both in heaven and in the earth, and\n    under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things\n    which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things\n    which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations,\n    and the judgments which are on the land, and a knowledge also of\n    countries and kingdoms, that ye may be prepared in all things when\n    I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have\n    called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 88: 77-81.]\n\nFrom this you will observe that the elders of the Church were commanded\nto enter a very extensive field in search of knowledge. Indeed, I\ncannot think of anything pertaining to things that lie within the\nscope or power of man's investigation that is not included within this\ncommandment to search for knowledge. Among other things, you will\nobserve that the elders are to make themselves acquainted with \"things\nwhich have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to\npass; with things which are at home, and things which are abroad.\" I\nsee in that a commandment to keep informed as to current events; and,\nin my opinion, this commandment can be made to apply not only to the\nelders in Ohio, to whom it was directly given, but to all those who may\nbe called upon to perform a similar labor, that of representing the\nwork of God to the inhabitants of the earth. That responsibility rests\nupon the young men who hold the priesthood in the Church today, and\nhence, this commandment applies to them. It applies to the members of\nthe Mutual Improvement Associations; for one of the chief objects in\nview, when the organization of Improvement Associations was effected,\nwas the preparation of our young men to become exponents of the gospel\nof Jesus Christ, especially as revealed in the dispensation of that\ngospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith. No knowledge can be of more\nimportance to the young man who expects to engage in this work than\nthe knowledge of current events, and prevailing ideas in the world on\nreligion; especially those current events which have a more or less\ndirect relation to the great work of the last days--to Mormonism, in\nother words.\n\nOf late, there have been a number of important things taking place that\nhave a direct relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day\nSaints, among which is the passing of resolutions antagonistic to\nMormonism, by the Presbyterian General Assembly, convened during the\npast week in Los Angeles, California. The ministers of the Presbyterian\nChurch met in solemn conclave to consider the interests of their\nown church, and, incidentally, I suppose, to look a little after\nthe welfare of ours. One proposition before those assembled divines\nwas very extraordinary. So extraordinary, in fact, that it may be\nconsidered astonishing. It was nothing more nor less than a plan to\n\"crush Mormonism.\" I think we are interested in a proposition of that\nkind. Intensely interested; and hence my text of one word, \"How?\" That\nis, how is the \"Crushing of Mormonism\" to be effected? What means are\nto be invoked? What process followed? Fortunately for us, who naturally\nhave so much anxiety respecting the matter, one of the speakers before\nthe Presbyterian assembly brought forward a plan through which the\n\"crushing\" is to be accomplished. This was Doctor-that is, Doctor\nof Divinity, you will understand--Charles L. Thompson, of New York.\nWe are informed by the dispatches which reported in part \"his great\ndiscourse,\" that he was the speaker who aroused the most enthusiasm in\nthe assembly, and that his references to Mormonism were \"especially\nbitter,\" and brought out great applause from his audience. He is\nreported to have said that \"Mormonism is not to be educated, not to be\ncivilized, not to be reformed. It must be crushed.\" This the climax of\nwhat is called his \"great discourse;\" surely it must have been a great\ndiscourse to have such a climax as that, and to receive such applause\nfrom such a body of divines!\n\nBut how do you suppose the crushing is to be accomplished? Now listen!\nThe Revelation Mr. Thompson compares the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints to a great octopus. The octopus, as you know, is an\nanimal very difficult to kill; but the gentleman remembered that Victor\nHugo, in his \"Toilers of the Sea,\" had said that even the octopus had\na vulnerable point. \"There is one moment in which to seize it--it\nis when it thrusts forth its head. Then is the time to strike.\" The\nreverend gentleman then concludes that the Mormon octopus has thrust\nforth its head. \"Its high priest,\" said he, \"claims a senator's chair\nin Washington. Now is the time to strike. Perhaps to miss it now, is to\nbe lost.\"\n\nWonderful wisdom! worthy of a great divine! a mighty climax to a great\nsermon! Seriously, however, a most perfect example of an anti-climax;\n\"a most lame and impotent conclusion,\" more ridiculous than the\nfable of the mountain laboring, to bring forth a mouse! If my voice\ncould reach the reverend gentleman, I would inform him that there\nis not even the charm of novelty in what he recommended. We have\nheard something like this before. Why, within my own recollection,\nI can remember something like that having been proposed as a means\nof crushing Mormonism. Way down deep in the innermost recesses of my\nsub-consciousness, I have a recollection of suggestions made in like\nspirit, about the year 1898. This Doctor of Divinity's thundering\nfulmination against Mormonism, when I hear him pronounce it, has\nsomething familiar about it. In fact it has all the monotony of the\nrefrain of some old familiar song. Much was said about an octopus,\ntoo, and about it thrusting forth its head, at the time to which I\nrefer, 1898. Then its \"High Priest,\" it was said, claimed a seat in\nthe lower house of Congress, when a certain gentleman by the name of\nRoberts was elected to Congress from the State of Utah. They said,\nthen, that the octopus was putting forth its head; then was the time\nto strike; to fail then would be to be lost; so they induced the House\nof Representatives to strike, by excluding the gentleman from the seat\nto which he had been legally elected, and for which he possessed, as\nwas admitted, every constitutional qualification. But I have never\nheard that the achievement, which was accomplished at the cost of an\noutrageous violation of the constitution of our country, affected the\nMormon Church. What effect did that illegal act of Congress have on\nMormonism? About as much effect as a mosquito alighting on the moon\nwould have on that sphere. The \"Mormon\" octopus survived that awful\nblow! And even the gentleman who was denied his seat, I am informed,\nsurvived also; and I have not heard that his shadow has grown less\nbecause of that experience. And should the agitation against Senator\nReed Smoot result in his expulsion from the Senate of the United\nStates--a thing which is as unlikely as it is unjust--I verily believe\nthat Mormonism would survive even that blow. The trouble with our\nreverend friends is, that they persist in mistaking always the head of\nthe octopus, and hence never strike it.\n\nIt is not my purpose to discuss the issues raised between the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and this Los Angeles Presbyterian\nAssembly, in a spirit of retaliation. I do not intend to answer railing\nwith railing, nor do I wish to revile those by whom we are reviled. I\nunderstand the law of the gospel of Christ to be that we should not\nbe overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Besides, patience\nis one of Mormonism's chief virtues. But all this does not mean that\nwe shall not have an appreciation of our own rights and liberties\nunder the constitution and institutions of our country; nor does it\nprevent us from pointing out the unjust conduct of our assailants; nor\ndebar us from making protest, in proper spirit, against their proposed\ninvasions of our rights; nor blind us to the absurdity of their plans\nfor our destruction. But we will not abuse our traducers, nor revile\nthem because they revile us. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints occupies a position so exalted that it may smile at\nthe efforts of men who propose to \"crush\" it. Especially by such means\nas those proposed by the Reverend Doctor Thompson. The resolutions of\nthe Presbyterian Assembly, at Los Angeles, its fulminations against\nthe Church of Christ, are all shafts that fall broken and harmless at\nthe feet of the people of God. There is one passage of Byron's \"Childe\nHarold\" with which I have always been deeply impressed, as setting\nforth the dignity and exaltation of God in his relation to those who\ndoubt the reality of his revelations, seek to prove them myths, and\nblaspheme his name. It is where the poet refers to the character and\nworks of Voltaire and Gibbon. Concluding his reflections upon these two\nreally great men, he says:\n\n  They were gigantic minds, and their steep aim\n  Was, Titan-like, on daring doubts to pile\n  Thoughts which should call down thunder, and the flame\n  Of heaven, again assailed, if heaven the while\n  On man and man's research could deign do more than smile.\n\nIn like exalted station stands the Church of Christ today. The Bride,\nthe Lamb's Wife, has no fear of her enemies. She stands too near the\nBridegroom, too near his glorious coming, too near the holy, visible\nunion with him, which is to be eternal, to fear the vain ravings of\nmodern priests of Baal.\n\nLet us examine more thoroughly, however, the proposition of this\nReverend Doctor Thompson, and find out, if we can, how the Christian\ngentleman really proposes to proceed with his crushing process. Be\nit remembered he lays down the doctrine that \"Mormonism is not to be\neducated, not to be civilized, not to be reformed!\" Then how will\nhe proceed? He decides to eliminate educational methods, civilizing\nmethods, and reform methods. After eliminating these, what method has\nhe left for crushing Mormonism? None but force--brute force; and force\nin the last analysis means either mobs or armies. Can it be that a body\nof \"divines,\" \"ministers of Jesus Christ,\" living in the twentieth\ncentury of the Christian era, are ready to recommend the throwing aside\nof all legitimate methods of dealing with a body of people supposed to\nbe in error on matters of religion, and leave it to be justly inferred\nthat they favor the employment of force to accomplish that which only\nlove and goodwill toward men should undertake? Have we been correctly\ninformed by the dispatches which say that the man who recommended such\nprocedure is the one who was most applauded by the assembled ministers\nof Jesus Christ? Can it be that we are living in an age that boasts of\nits Christian civilization? Or, \"by some devilish cantrip slight,\" have\nwe been carried back to the dark ages, when the rack, and thumbscrews,\nand gibbets, were the agencies through which men's theological opinions\nand religious principles were corrected? The ages when reluctant\nvictims were dragged to the foot of the altar, and made to burn incense\nat orthodox shrines, though the heart abhorred and disclaimed the\nsacrilegious act of the hand?\n\nFor the instruction of those who would favor the abandonment of what\nare recognized as Christian and civilized methods of dealing with\nthose supposed to entertain erroneous religious principles, let us see\nwhat effect physical force and persecution has had upon Mormonism in\nthe past. From the commencement, those who have been engaged in God's\nwork in these last days have suffered violence, and it will be well to\nascertain the results of these methods. From the first announcement\nJoseph Smith made of a revelation from God, until now, there has not\nbeen lacking those who have favored the crushing of Mormonism. They\nattempted to beat down the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith by\nforce of ridicule, at first, and slander and misrepresentation. When\nthe Nephite record, the Book of Mormon, was placed in his hands for\ntranslation, mobs frequently attempted to wrest that sacred record\nfrom his custody. Failing in that, they tried to prevent it from being\nprinted, and even so far succeeded in frightening Mr. Grandin, of\nPalmyra, who had engaged to publish it, that he at one time suspended\nwork upon it. When that difficulty was overcome, and the book was\nfinally printed, then mass meetings were held and resolutions passed in\nthe vicinity, urging the people not to purchase the Book of Mormon or\nto read it; but, in spite of these efforts, the first edition of the\nBook of Mormon was disposed of and read by the people. When the Church\nwas organized, the rage of its opponents increased, and persecution\nafter persecution followed each other in rapid succession in New York,\nOhio, Missouri, and Illinois, and hundreds perished in the unholy\nwarfare waged against the Church of Christ. Finally, the opposition\nconcentrated its hatred upon the earthly head of the Church--the\nProphet Joseph Smith. Time and time again was he hailed before judges,\nand, singularly enough, was always acquitted; up to the day of his\ndeath at the hands of a mob, he was never condemned by the courts of\nhis country. His enemies were forced to the conclusion, and they said\nit, and they acted it: \"The law cannot reach this man; powder and ball\nmust.\"\n\nActuated by the same spirit of hatred that was rampant in this very\nPresbyterian Assembly at Los Angeles, mob forces of western Illinois\ncame to the conclusion that Mormonism was not to be educated, not to be\ncivilized, not to be reformed, \"it must be crushed;\" and they flattered\nthemselves that, if this master spirit of Mormonism, Joseph Smith\ncould only be crushed, then there would be an end to Mormonism; for\nit was supposed that this man was then the head of the \"octopus\"--its\nvulnerable point. This must be struck, to miss it would be to lose! So\nthey struck; cruelly, murderously struck. But what of the effect on\nMormonism? Did the \"octopus\" die? No. There was momentary confusion, it\nis true; and profound sorrow. It could not be otherwise. But Mormonism\ndid not die. It survived that truly awful shock. The fact is that the\nwork which the Prophet Joseph Smith did, under divine guidance, was\ngreater than the man; good, great, and necessary as he was to that\nwhich, under God, he wrought, yet, as the heavens stand above and are\nhigher than the earth, so the work of God which Joseph Smith brought\nforth, stands above and is higher, and greater, and more enduring\nthan he. Hence, it did not fail when he fell a martyr by the old\nwell-curb at Carthage jail. It not only survived, but gained somewhat\nof strength from the blood of its chief martyr. It was some time a\nChristian aphorism, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the\nchurch. It proved to be so in this case; and after the first moment\nof confusion was passed, those in whose hearts the spirit of hatred\nhad been fostered, discovered that they had, as some of them said,\n\"scorched, not killed,\" the \"octopus.\" Presently, they saw arising\nfrom the body what they took to be another head, Brigham Young. He\ndealt with the problems that arose before his people in a spirit most\nmasterful, and with ability most astonishing. He conducted an exodus\nthe most wonderful of modern times, and safely planted his people a\nthousand miles beyond the frontiers of the United States, where he laid\nthe foundation of our present commonwealth of Utah, and incidentally\nmade possible the settlement of the whole intermountain region of the\nUnited States. The desire to strike this head, in many quarters, was\nquite as ardent as it had been to strike Joseph Smith; but, happily,\nhe was beyond reach. From a distance, however, the sectarian harpies,\nwho were the predecessors of the Presbyterian divines assembled at\nLos Angeles, croaked in chorus, \"only wait till the head of this\n'octopus,' Brigham Young, dies, and then Mormonism will succumb by\nreason of disintegrating forces, for it cannot be that the system will\nproduce another genius such as this wonderful man.\" In the course of\ntime, the wing of the angel of Death struck this most shining mark,\nBrigham Young; but Mormonism lived on. Not only lived, but extended its\nborders, deepened its foundations, and, year by year, has grown more\nterrible to the distorted vision of sectarian priests, alike jealous of\nits success and fearful of its influence upon their crumbling creeds.\n\nSince the death of Brigham Young, I do not remember that anyone has\naccredited the ruling force in Mormonism to any individual leader. Of\nlate, its enemies have been speaking of the genius and power of the\nMormon Church organization. Mr. Thompson himself quotes Dr. Richard\nT. Ely as declaring \"there is nothing comparable to the organization\nof the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, except the German\narmy.\" A declaration of that sort is encouraging. It indicates growth.\nIt is no longer some individual leader that is the secret of Mormon\nsuccess. It is the institution itself. That is what we have been\ntelling our opponents right along, and it is gratifying to observe that\nthey are beginning to understand that it is an institution, and not an\nindividual, with which they have to deal; an organization, not a man.\nI am not quite satisfied, however with the comparison that is made of\nit to the German army. I think the German army is not comparable at all\nwith the perfection in strength, and in all that makes for excellence,\nin the Church of Christ, as a means to an end, but I have not time to\ndiscuss that here.\n\nI see by the headlines of the daily press of our city that a\n\"Declaration of War\" is made between the Presbyterians and the Mormons.\nI wonder sometimes what kind of a Rip Van Winkle sleep the writers of\ndispatch headlines, and Presbyterians as well, have been indulging in\nall these years, when they say that a declaration of war has just been\nmade. That declaration was made over eighty years ago, when the Lord\nAlmighty revealed himself in person to Joseph Smith, and in answer to\nhis inquiry, \"Which of all these contending sects are right, and which\nshall I join,\" he was told that God acknowledged none of them as his\nchurch or kingdom; That they drew near to God with their lips, while\ntheir hearts were far removed from him; that they taught for doctrine\nthe commandments of men; that they had the form of godliness, but\ndenied the power thereof; that their creeds were an abomination in his\nsight.\n\nSuch, in substance, was God's first message to the world through his\ngreat modern prophet. It is in the nature of a declaration of war, not\nupon the Presbyterians, however; nor upon Methodists; nor Catholics;\nnor upon men at all; but upon error; upon false creeds; upon false\nreligions; upon hypocrisies clothed in religious garb,--a declaration\nof war upon all untruth, and it is useless to hope for peace with the\nsectarian Christian sects, when Mormonism bears in its hands such a\nmessage as this. It is a harsh message, but a true one; we are not\nresponsible for it. We do not pretend to have sat in judgment upon the\ncreeds of men. No man has the right to sit in judgment upon the creed\nof another. Joseph Smith did not sit in judgment upon the creeds of\nChristendom. On the contrary, he confessed his inability to do so.\nHis youth, his inexperience, his lack of judgment, all proclaim him\nunfitted for such an office. The fact that he inquired of God for\nwisdom to know which of the sects he should regard as the very Church\nof Christ was self-confessed inability to judge in the matter. Hence,\nJoseph Smith did not pass judgment upon the sects of Christendom; but\nGod did. He was competent to judge. He formulated the decision which\nit became Joseph Smith's duty to announce, and which it is now the\nChurch's duty to continue proclaiming. The message, I repeat, is a bold\none; but in the very boldness and greatness of such a declaration,\nwe may see something of the Divine Majesty. It became necessary to\nsweep aside the rubbish of theological dogma, and doctrines which\nhad accumulated through the ages, and make bare the rocks of truth,\non which to lay anew the foundations of the work of God. Singularly\nenough, our Presbyterian friends, especially, seem to be rendering\nus valuable assistance in the work of confirming as true the message\nof God to the world, whereof we, with them, are made witnesses. We\nwilling witnesses, they reluctant ones; we conscious witnesses, they\nunconscious ones; we witnesses of good will, they of strife. What\nI mean is this: the Lord declared that sectarian creeds were an\nabomination unto him; and of all abominable creeds, I know of none\nquite so abominable as this same Presbyterian creed. So abominable is\nit--so against all sense of even human conception of justice and mercy,\nthat the Presbyterian Assembly at Los Angeles was found devoting its\nbest efforts to reform it. But that very effort to reform it proclaims\nits errancy, and, I take the liberty of adding, its abomination also.\nWhile we cannot enter into anything like a detailed examination of\nthat creed, allow me to call your attention to one or two points in it\nwhich clearly brings it within the descriptive term used by the Lord\nin the revelation to Joseph Smith. That is, sectarian creeds are an\nabomination in his sight. Take the following sections from chapter III\nof their creed on \"God's Eternal Decrees:\"\n\n    Section III.--By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his\n    glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life,\n    and others foreordained to everlasting death.\n\n    Section IV.--These angels and men, thus predestined and\n    foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and\n    their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either\n    increased or diminished.\n\n    Section V.--Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God,\n    before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his\n    eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good\n    pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting\n    glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight\n    of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any\n    other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him\n    thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.\n\nI call attention especially to the fact that those elected to\nsalvation owe that election to God's mere free grace and love, without\nany foresight, on the part of God, of their faith or good works or\nperseverance in either of them. The election is an act of the arbitrary\nwill of God. In fact, the Presbyterians' own explanation of this\npart of the creed is: Election to salvation \"is not conditioned upon\nforeseen faith or good works or perseverance, but that in each case it\nrests upon sovereign grace and personal love according to the secret\ncounsel of his [God's] will.\" No wonder that Raban, Bishop of Mayence,\nwhen writing to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, when this same doctrine\nwas rising in the church, said: \"To what purpose shall I labor in the\nservice of God? If I and predestined to death, I shall never escape\nfrom it; and if I am predestined to life, even though I do wickedly, I\nshall, no doubt, arrive at eternal rest!\"\n\nThe rank absurdity of this doctrine was justly satirized by burns in\nthe opening stanza of his \"Holy Willie's Prayer:\"\n\n  \"O, Thou wha in the heavens dost dwell,\n  Wha, as it pleaseth best thysel',\n  Sends ane to heaven and ten to hell\n  A' for thy glory,\n  An' no for ony guid or ill\n  They've done afore thee.\"\n\nIn application of this principle of election and reprobation to\nmankind, those who founded it had to meet the difficult problems as\nto how it would affect that very great portion of mankind who died in\ninfancy; and, however heartless the men of those times may appear to\nus of modern days, it must be said of them that they had at least the\ncourage of their convictions; and they said in Chapter X of the creed:\n\n    Section III.--Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and\n    saved by Christ through the spirit, who worketh when, and where,\n    and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are\n    incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.\n\nThe very use of the expression \"elect infants\" implied that there were\ninfants not elect, whose fate, in all reason, under this creed, would\nbe the same as that of adults, who were not of the elect; and hence,\nthe popular understanding that the Presbyterian creed implied the\ndamnation of infants; and it should be remembered, in this connection,\nthat the Presbyterian idea of damnation is an ever-lasting punishment\nin hell from which there is no hope of deliverance. This implication\nas to infants was not denied, for a long time, by those who accepted\nthe creed; but, being oppressed with the apparent injustice of the\ndamnation of innocent babes because not among the elect, Presbyterians\nbegan to offer the explanation, early in our last century, that they\nbelieved all infants dying in infancy were elect; and such has been the\nagitation upon that question, both within and without the Presbyterian\nchurch, that at last the assembly at Los Angeles, authorized to speak\nfor the Presbyterian church, declares, in effect, that their belief is\nthat all infants dying in infancy are of the elect. This is certainly\nvery gracious on their part. It makes one feel a little more easy\nregarding the fate of innocent babes, now that we know that children\ndying in infancy, according to the reformed Presbyterian creed, are\namong the elect! Still we cannot but deplore the fact that many\nthousands of mothers, within the membership of the Presbyterian church,\neven, have mourned their innocent babes dying in infancy as among the\nprobably eternally lost; but it is refreshing to see the indication of\nprogress even among our Presbyterian friends, and it is to be hoped\nthat the light will continue to grow in their minds, until they shall\nnot only see the impropriety of leaving the salvation of infants dying\nin infancy, in doubt, but shall correct, also, this other abominable\npart of their creed respecting election in general. The amendment of\nthe creed respecting the fate of infants helps it but a very little.\nThe damnation of a good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as\noutrageous as the damnation of an innocent babe. In some respects of\nthe case, it is even worse. Here, we will say, is a man who throughout\nhis life has made every effort to realize, in his living, the lofty\nideal of possessing \"clean hands and a pure heart;\" who entertains only\naspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only that are honorable;\nwho in the relationships of life, as son, brother, husband, father, and\ncitizen, discharges, with reasonable fidelity, all his duties in these\nrelations, and, as nearly as man can while under the effects of the\nfall and pestered with human inclinations to perversity, leads what is\nrecognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not of the elect, this man is\ndoomed eternally, and his struggling for the attainment of his lofty\nideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in the way of warding\noff damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the elect, and hence\nmust perish everlastingly. That such conclusion is forced upon those\naccepting the Presbyterian creed, is evidenced from chapter X, Section\nIV of that creed:\n\n    Section IV.--Others not elected, although they may be called by\n    the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of\n    the Spirit, [i. e., awakened aspirations for righteousness] yet\n    they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved,\n    much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in\n    any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their\n    lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion\n    they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very\n    pernicious, and to be detested.\n\nThat is to say, however righteous or honorable men may be, and though\nthey accept, as far as in them lies the power, the Christian faith,\nyet, if not among the elect, their doom is sealed, and that doom is\neverlasting damnation from the comfortable presence of God! I suggest\nthat our friends consider their creed again, and pass a resolution that\nall such men as the supposed righteous man just now described are, of\nthe elect, as well as infants dying in infancy.\n\nEqually necessary is it that they should reform their creed with\nreference to the fate of the heathen. For, in the application of\nthe principle laid down in the section of the creed last quoted is\nrelegated to eternal damnation all \"men not professing the Christian\nreligion.\" In explaining the application of this section of the\ncreed to such persons, in an authoritative work on Presbyterianism,\n(\"Commentary of the Confession of Faith with Questions for Theological\nStudents and Bible Classes,\" by the Rev. A. A. Hodge, D. D.,) it is\nsaid:\n\n    The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable\n    exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, and going down\n    to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being\n    saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after eighteen hundred\n    years, a possibility illustrated by no example.\n\nWhen it is remembered that of the population of the earth at present,\nafter two thousand years of Christianity, less than one-third of the\npopulation of the world is even nominally Christian, while more than\ntwo-thirds are outside of any form of Christianity whatsoever; and when\nit is further remembered that in past ages the proportion of Christians\nto the population of the world has been very much less than this;\nand when it is further remembered that, in Presbyterian ideas of the\ngospel, there are no means by which the gospel may be applied except in\nthis present life, and those who fail to receive the gospel here are\neternally lost, we are not much surprised at the infidel who draws the\nconclusion, when contemplating the doctrines of this abominable creed,\nthat, if this creed be true, then God, when he created the human race,\nwas but creating, in the main, fuel for the flames of hell out of human\nsouls! Is it any wonder, if other creeds of divided Christendom contain\nsimilar doctrines, or other doctrines which as flagrantly violate\nevery conception of the relative claims of mercy and justice, that God\ndeclared the creeds of men an abomination in his sight? I told you in\nthe beginning of my remarks that I would not have time to examine even\nthis one creed in detail, but could only point out one or two items\nthat would tend to demonstrate the truth of the Lord's revelation to\nJoseph Smith respecting the abomination of the creeds of men; and,\nhaving done this, I must stop, as our time has expired. But I cannot\nclose these remarks in any other than in a hopeful spirit. I say again,\nit is encouraging to see our Presbyterian friends amending their creed;\nand I sincerely trust that the light which has apparently begun to dawn\nupon their minds will grow brighter and brighter unto the perfect day;\nuntil they will not only change their creed respecting the fate of\ninfants, but will go on adding line upon line and precept upon precept,\nhere and there eliminating that which is so glaringly abominable, until\nat last they shall be so accustomed to the light of truth that they\nwill be able to look upon the fullness thereof as it is revealed in the\ngospel of Jesus Christ in these last days, through the Prophet Joseph\nSmith.\n\nThe Lord bless you, and also the Presbyterians, in the name of Jesus\nChrist. Amen.\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nRelations of Church and State: Religious Liberty in America.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe writer was asked to speak upon \"The Relations of the Church to\nthe State\" at a \"Silver Banquet\" given at the Knutsford Hotel in May,\n1895. The Utah State Constitutional Convention had recently adjourned;\nand a very widely attended Convention in the interest of the free and\nunlimited coinage of silver by the government of the United States had\njust come to a close; the banquet at which the writer's remarks were\nmade was given in honor of the members of that Convention.\n\nThere were present, among many other notable guests, Governor Rickards,\nof Montana, Ex-Governor Alva Adams, of Colorado, Senator Clark of\nWyoming, Governor McConnell of Idaho, Ex-Congressman Bartine of\nNevada, General Thomas J. Clunie of California, General Penrose, then\nin command at Fort Douglas, Utah, Governor Prince of New Mexico, Hon.\nWharton Barker of Pennsylvania. Among the gentlemen of note from Utah\nwere Governor Caleb B. West, Mayor Baskin, then Congressman, afterwards\nSenator, Joseph L. Rawlins, and Judge C. C. Goodwin, toast-master.\n\nThe question of the relations of the Church and the State had lung\nbeen debated in Utah, and now that Utah was upon the eve of beginning\nher career as a sovereign state in the American Union, the subject\nwas of considerable interest, locally, largely because it had been\nvery generally charged that in Utah there was grave danger, if not of\na union of Church and State, then of state domination by the Mormon\nChurch, and doubtless the subject and speaker were chosen for these\nreasons.\n\nI.\n\n\"The Relation of the Church to the State.\"\n\nThe speaker was introduced by Judge Goodwin, Toast-Master, who said:\n\n    \"The committee that prepared this programme, having an idea that\n    something would be needed to bring men back to sober thoughts,\n    after Governor McConnell's speech, [\"Is There Any Light?\" was\n    Governor McConnell's subject] made the next sentiment, \"Church and\n    State,\" and they put down as the speaker Utah's most eloquent son.\n    It gives me extreme pleasure to introduce to you the Hon. B. H.\n    Roberts.\"\n\nMr. Roberts spoke as follows:\n\nHonorable Toast-Master and Gentlemen--I think for the first time in\nmy life I appreciate the feelings of the young shepherd, David, when\nIsrael's proud king placed upon him his own plated armor; gave him a\nshield and a great spear with which to fight Goliath. David said: \"I\ncannot go with these; for I have not proved them.\" He appeared before\nhis antagonist in the simple garb of the shepherd, with his sling and\na few smooth stones. And so, after the very flattering introduction\nthat has been given me by the honorable toast-master of the evening, I\nfeel myself unworthy to bear the honored title that he has given me. I\ndisclaim it altogether and say in simple truth, I am not an orator, I\nam not eloquent, but, as you all know, \"a plain, blunt man,\" capable\nonly of speaking those things that you already know. I therefore most\nhumbly beg to disclaim the proud place that the introduction of the\ntoast-master would assign me.\n\nWhen I was informed that I would be expected to speak upon this staid,\nand I may say threadbare subject, \"Church and State,\" it appeared\nto me that the committee who had arranged this programme had gone\nsomewhat out of the way in selecting such a subject; but I defer to\ntheir judgement and am willing to say it is all right, but ask that you\ngentlemen of the banquet will not hold me responsible for inviting your\n\"sober\" consideration to such a theme in the midst of such temptations\nto be otherwise than sober.\n\nThere are three relations which the church and the state may sustain\nto each other. First, the state may dominate the church; second,\nthe church may dominate the state; and, third, church and state may\noccupy separate spheres, and be absolutely divorced the one from the\nother. Those who argue for the rightfulness of the first relationship\nwill tell you that the state is not within the church, but the church\nis within the state; they will tell you that it is the state which\nrules the land, that wages war, that levies taxes and governs at\nleast the external destinies of the citizen, and that whenever the\nreligious creeds cease to be individual and result in associations,\nthose organizations come within the proper cognizance and authority\nof the state; and that the state has a right to draw the lines of\necclesiastical policy, and to fix the constitution of the church as\nknowing what is best for the general society.\n\nThose who contend for the second relationship--that the church should\ndictate to the state--argue that the church, as the representative\nof the divine authority, is also the superior authority; that indeed\nthe state itself is but an outgrowth of that superior authority; that\nas the moon but reflects the light of the sun, so the state borrows\nwhatsoever of authority it possesses from the spiritual authority--the\nchurch. Furthermore, they insist that in the matter of chronological\norder itself, the church antedates the state; it is the first society,\nprimitive and eternal, and hence has the true sovereignty; that the\nstate is properly but the instrument of the church to execute the\ndivine decrees.\n\nThose who contend that the church and state should exist separately,\nrecognize the great truth that the church and the state have\nindependent and different spheres. There is no proper connection\nbetween the two, and no necessity exists for interference one with\nthe other. They contend that the church should exist unnoticed by the\nstate; that religious creeds should approximate or separate according\nto the inclinations of the church members.\n\nMankind by the test of experience, has learned the relative value of\nthese several relationships which may exist between the church and\nthe state, and now, in the light of that experience, let me consider\nthe virtues and vices of each. For the purpose of illustration I need\ngo no further back than the time when Constantine became the patron\nof the Christian religion and elevated the sect from the condition\nof a persecuted society to the state religion of the great empire.\nHe invited the Christian ministers to his court, gave them a seat at\nhis table in the palace, loaded them with honors and riches, but was\ncareful himself to draw the line of ecclesiastical policy and pattern\nthe church organization very much after the constitution of the civil\ngovernment of Rome. As a reward for these favors the ministry of\nthe church stood in humble attitude at the foot of the throne. They\noverlooked the shortcomings of their great patron, guilty of putting\nto death without just cause a wife, a son, and in violation of his\nplighted faith, his brother-in-law.\n\nThere is another period in church history where the state becomes the\npatron of the church and dominated it. That occurred during the great\n\"reformation\" of the sixteenth century when Henry VIII, displeased\nbecause the pope of Rome refused to sever the bond of marriage\nbetween himself and the faithful Catherine of Aragon, took affairs\necclesiastical within his own realm into his own hands and founded a\nstate church. In this period of history we find repeated just what\nwas done in the case of Constantine. Notwithstanding the cruelties,\nthe debauchees and the murders of Henry the ministers of Christ still\nawarded to him the title, \"Defender of the Faith.\"\n\nI mention these circumstances because they exhibit the vice of the\nstate dominating a church. That vice consists in this, that such a\nrelationship bridles the tongues of God's ministers, who are commanded\nto reprove sin in high places and demand the same moral standard of\nthe prince that is demanded of the pauper. Whenever the ministry of a\nchurch stands in dread of the temporal power, when by it they may be\nunfrocked, it will be a rare thing indeed to find men of sufficient\nmoral courage to be true to the divine commandment in preaching and\nexecuting the word of God; hence the mischief of state domination of\nthe church.\n\nOne of the wise men of the east, Aesop, tells the story of a camel who\nin the midst of a terrible storm on the desert, begged his Arabian\nmaster to allow him the privilege of putting his head within the tent\nout of the storm. The indulgent master granted his request, but no\nsooner did the camel get his head into the tern than he crowded in his\nshoulders also, and then the whole huge bulk of his body, and, turning\nabout, he kicked his master out of the tent into the storm. So did\nthe Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil power in the Roman\nempire. Papal Rome rose upon the ruins of pagan Rome, and for centuries\nruled the nations with a rod of iron. The evils growing out of the\nchurch dictating the state are to be read in that period of darkness\nwhich covered our earth from the fifth to the sixteenth centuries.\n\nIt is not necessary for me in detail to point out those evils. It will\nbe sufficient if I call your attention in a general way to the vice\narising from this relationship. That vice consists in this--that such\na relationship between church and state tends to debase and weaken the\nministry of Christ. All ministers of the gospel are not equal to the\nvirtue of their great Master. When the evil prince of this world stood\nbefore the Lamb of God and, with a master hand, drew aside the curtain\nwhich covered the glory of the nations and pointed to them in all their\nsplendor and wealth, and said, \"All these will I give thee, only fall\ndown and worship me;\" the divine man could look the tempter in the face\nand say: \"Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship\nthe Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.\" The ministers of the\nchurch today are not tempted to this extent. The arch-enemy of men's\nsouls knows too well that it is not necessary. From the back door of\nthe parsonage our ministers may see enough to seduce them from the work\nof the Divine Master; yea, so much of the yellow gold of this earth as\nmay be clutched thus in the hand may sometimes be sufficient for their\nseduction.\n\nWhen you make it possible for the state to dominate the church, such\nis the glamor and sheen of temporal power that men are willing and do\nforget the glories of eternity that they may revel in the pleasures\nand powers of this world for a season. Hence it becomes necessary to\npreserve the integrity of God's ministry that you separate the church\nso far from the state as to make the dictation of the latter by the\nformer impossible, and thus lessen the temptation of the ministry to\nneglect the things of heaven in order to dabble in the affairs of state.\n\nI have already said that those who contend for the separation of church\nand state recognize separate spheres for those two powers to operate\nin. This idea, I may say, had its second birth in the great revolution\nof the sixteenth century, sometimes called the \"Reformation.\" John\nCalvin was a leader in that doctrine in his day. John Knox followed\nhim, and there was a hot contest in the old world for the maintenance\nof this doctrine--not for the good of the state so much as for the good\nof the church--for these champions held that in order for the ministers\nof God to perform well and faithfully their duties they must be removed\nfrom fear of interference of kings and potentates.\n\nBut the most interesting period of the struggle for the separation\nof church and state is to be found in the history of the founding of\nour own great nation. After the war of the American revolution the\nstatesmen of that period were confronted with the work of forming a\ngovernment for our country. There were men who contended that God\nought to be put in the Constitution, and an establishment of religion\ninstituted. But the revolutionary fathers looked over the whole land\nand found that the people were divided beyond the hope of union into\none great and united church; and that to make a state church out of\nany one of the sects would be an act of injustice to all the rest--a\nthing they were unwilling to perpetrate; and they solved the problem by\ncrystallizing this doctrine of separation of church and state in that\ndeclaration written in the constitution of our land, which says:\n\n    \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of\n    religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\"\n\nAnd thus we travel the circle of human experience and come back at\nlast to stand face to face with the grand doctrine taught by the great\nfounder of the Christian church, who, on the occasion of men seeking to\nembroil him in a conflict with the civil powers of this world, said:\n\n    \"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the\n    things which are God's.\"\n\nThat declaration, falling from the lips of him who spoke as never man\nspake, and that declaration in the American constitution, have as their\nsource the same inspiration.\n\nIn years that are past, in the hearts of many, there existed a fear\nthat here in Utah we should be confronted with this question of the\nrelation of church and state; and to state it frankly I may say that\nthe fear that there would be a violation of this American principle\nrespecting the separation of church and state has been one of the\ncauses which has delayed so long the act of justice to the people of\nUtah--her admission into the American Union.\n\nI want to say to these honored guests of ours, so soon to separate from\nus and go back to their homes, that you may tell your people that here\nin Utah we have solved the problem; and that which we have written in\nour state constitution, and which we mean to keep inviolate, is in\nharmony with what is written in the great national Constitution of our\ncountry.\n\nThere is one phase of this question which I think sometimes is not\nsufficiently considered; and that is that it is not always the fault of\nthe church that there is a union of church and state or ecclesiastical\ninterference in political and civil affairs. There are politicians and\npolitical parties who are not above fawning and crawling at the feet\nof ecclesiastical influence. Somehow or other the calamities attendant\nupon ecclesiastical interference in politics never appear to them\nuntil that influence is exercised in behalf of the \"other fellow\" or\nthe other political party. Let our politicians stand erect, let our\npolitical parties resent ecclesiastical influence when exerted in their\nbehalf as they would resent it when exercised against them, and I\npromise you that in the new state of Utah we shall have no difficulty\ngrowing out of ecclesiastical domination of our political affairs.\n\nYou are extremely patient with me in these rather extended remarks\nof mine, but I am done with my subject proper. If, however, you will\nstill be patient with me, there are a few words that I wish to say to\nthe gentlemen who constitute the Silver Convention, that has now so\nhappily, and as I believe so effectually, accomplished the purposes\nfor which it was convened. I know not, gentlemen, whether ever before\nyou have felt the inspiration that comes from contemplation of a\nmissionary enterprise; but it seems to me that if a cause righteous and\njust is necessary to give true inspiration to men, then, indeed, how\nthat inspiration ought to shine forth from you in word and in action.\nTo labor in the interests of the toiling masses is worthy of laudable\nAmbition's highest aspirations.\n\nAnd now may I not say for you, though but a layman, and looking upon\nyou and your work from the ranks of the people, may I not invoke the\npower divine for you, saying, What in them is dark, illumine; what is\nlow, raise and support; that to the height of this great argument they\nmay assert the patriotism of their intentions, and justify the demand\nthat we all make, that silver shall be restored to its place in the\nmonetary system of the United States.\n\nJudge Goodwin (toast-master)--A few of you who read the Bible\n(laughter) will remember that when David said that the work set before\nhim was too great for him to perform, he still had the sling under\nhis sheepskin, with which he slew Goliath, and when my friend, in his\nnative and honest modesty, said that too much had been perhaps expected\nof him, I knew he had the sling.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following remarks were prepared for a Jefferson dinner, at the\nCommercial Club rooms in Salt Lake City, in April, 1907; and afterwards\npublished in the Salt Lake Herald, of May 14th.\n\nThe question of the relations of church and state, or rather the\nquestion of the domination of the state by the church, was still\nagitated in Utah. The Mormon Church at its Annual Conference in April\nof the above year had issued an \"_Address to the World_\" in which its\nattitude on the question was once more stated, and stated with greater\nclearness and emphasis than ever before.\n\nIt was in the expectation that some reference would be made to this\nlocal question that the subject of the following address was selected.\nIn order that the attitude of the Mormon Church with reference to the\nrelations of the church and the state may be present to the readers'\nmind, while considering the following paper. I quote that part of the\naforesaid Address upon the subject:\n\n    \"In answer to the charge of disloyalty, founded upon alleged\n    secret obligations against our government, we declare to all men\n    that there is nothing treasonable or disloyal in any ordinance,\n    ceremony, or ritual of the Church.\n\n    \"The overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and\n    state; domination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical\n    interference with the political freedom and rights of the\n    citizen,--all such things are contrary to the principles and policy\n    of the Church, and directly at variance with the oft-repeated\n    declarations of its chief presiding authorities and of the Church\n    itself, speaking through its general conferences. The doctrine of\n    the Church on the subject of government, stands as follows:\n\n    \"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and\n    magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.\"\n\nSuch is our acknowledgement of duty to civil governments. Again:\n\n    \"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers\n    and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as\n    will administer law in equity and justice should be sought for and\n    upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic), or the will of\n    the sovereign.\n\n    \"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil\n    government; whereby one religious society is fostered and another\n    proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights\n    of its members, as citizens, denied.\"\n\nWith reference to the laws of the Church, it is expressly said:\n\n    \"Be subject to the powers that be until he comes whose right it is\n    to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.\n\n    \"'Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws\n    of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth.\"\n\nThat is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the\nChurch, has been promulgated for the State. Such laws and revelations\nas have been given are solely for the government of the Church.\n\nThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine\nof the separation of church and state; the non-interference of\nchurch authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and\nindependence of the individual in the performance of his political\nduties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this\ndoctrine, it has been in violation of the well settled principles and\npolicy of the Church.\n\nWe declare that from principle and policy, we favor:\n\nThe absolute separation of church and state;\n\nNo domination of the state by the church;\n\nNo church interference with the functions of the state;\n\nNo state interference with the functions of the church, or with the\nfree exercise of religion;\n\nThe absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of\necclesiastical authority in political affairs;\n\nThe equality of all churches before the law.\n\nThe reaffirmation of this doctrine and policy, however, is predicated\nupon the express understanding that politics in the states where our\npeople reside, shall be conducted as in other parts of the Union;\nthat there shall be no interference by the State with the Church, nor\nwith the free exercise of religion. Should political parties make\nwar upon the Church, or menace the civil, political, or religious\nrights of its members as such,--against a policy of that kind, by\nany political party of set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent\nright of self-preservation for the Church, and her right and duty to\ncall upon her children, and upon all who love justice, and desire the\nperpetuation of religious liberty, to come to her aid, to stand with\nher until the danger shall have passed. And this, openly, submitting\nthe justice of our cause to the enlightened judgement of our fellow\nmen, should such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace\nand confidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of\nall religions.\n\nII.\n\nJefferson's Contribution to Religious Liberty in America.\n\nOn the plain headstone that marks the grave of Thomas Jefferson, after\nhis name are these words:\n\n            Author\n    of the Declaration of\n    AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE,\n             of\n   The Statute of Virginia\n  For Religious Freedom, and\n   Father of the University\n         of Virginia.\n\nThis inscription Mr. Jefferson himself wrote out. It evidently\nindicates what he regarded as the three most worthy achievements of\nhis life; and when it is seen that next to being the author of the\nDeclaration of American Independence, he prides himself on being the\nauthor of this \"Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom,\" your\ncommittee may be pardoned, I think, for placing on the program for\nthis evening the subject I am all too briefly to discuss--Jefferson's\ncontribution to religious freedom in America.\n\nMen in their less serious moods may jest as they please at religion,\nbut after all it is the most serious business of life. No really great\nmind is dead to its influence. And at some time or other in their\nexperience, men who are great of soul seek to understand the truths\nreligion teaches, and seldom are they disappointed in her lessons.\nDisappointed, indeed, would we have been had Jefferson taken no\ninterest in so great a subject: one which so nearly concerns human\nhappiness, and so largely affects the peace and well being of society.\nBoth the texture of Jefferson's mind and his environment, however,\nwere such as to make the subject one of profound interest to him. When\nhe appeared at William and Mary college at 17 years of age, we are\ntold that he possessed the three essential qualities of the successful\nstudent, namely, \"perfect health, good habits and an inquiring mind.\"\nFortunately for him, Dr. William Small was professor of mathematics in\nthe college, and for a time he also filled the chair of philosophy. In\nhis capacity of teacher and outside college companion of Jefferson,\nProfessor Small doubtless did much that influenced the development of\nthe future statesman's mind. He is described as a man of enlightened\nunderstanding, but it is also said that he was \"not too orthodox in his\nopinions.\" But that is a circumstance scarcely to be regretted when\nthe orthodoxy of that day is taken into account, for I am inclined to\nthink that the further one was removed from that orthodoxy the nearer\nhe might be to God.\n\nThere are two acts in the life of Jefferson to which I shall allude,\nand which I think will sufficiently demonstrate the profound interest\nhe had in the subject of religion. The first is the writing of a letter\nto his nephew, Peter Carr, on the subject of that young man's religious\nstudies. He urges him to a thorough and candid investigation of the\nsubject of religion without regard to consequences. If young Carr's\ninvestigation ended in the conviction that there was no God, Jefferson\nwas of opinion that his young relative would still find incentives to\nvirtue in the comfort and pleasantness of its practice, and in the love\nof others it would procure for him. If on the other hand he should find\nreason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that he was acting\nunder the divine approval--and I think the idea which follows has never\nbeen sufficiently emphasized--the fact of that divine approval would be\n\"a vast additional incitement\" to the practice of virtue. If he should\nfind that Jesus was also a God, the student would derive comfort by the\nbelief in his aid and love. Reason was the only oracle given him of\nheaven, and he was not responsible for the \"rightness\" of his decision,\nbut he would be responsible for the \"uprightness\" of it.\n\nThe other incident alluded to is Jefferson's complication of the\nfour-fold text of the \"Life and Morals of Jesus,\" consisting of\nselected texts from the four evangelists. I mean by \"four-fold\ncompilation\" that he cut the passages respectively from Greek, Latin,\nFrench and English copies of the New Testament. For the \"teachings of\nJesus\" he selected \"only those passages whose style and spirit proved\nthem genuine, and his own.\" This compilation was his own effort to\n\"knock down the artificial scaffolding reared to mask from view the\nsimple structure of Jesus.\" And of the teaching of Jesus thus set\nforth, he said:\n\n    \"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen;\n    it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to\n    say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.\"\n\nI am not claiming that the Christianity of Jefferson was orthodox.\nHis correspondence with Dr. Priestly, and his open admiration for the\nteaching of Dr. Channing fix the nature of his belief in the founder of\nChristianity. I refer to these matters merely to show that to the mind\nof this remarkable man religion was a subject of profound interest and\nrespect; and also to suggest that it was really the religious nature of\nthe man that prompted the part he took in securing religious freedom\nin the commonwealth of Virginia, and through that circumstance, with\nanother to be mentioned later, aided mightily in securing religious\nfreedom in America.\n\nChiefly upon New England has been fixed the odium of religious\nintolerance in our country; but human nature in the eighteenth century\nwas pretty much of the same sort of stuff throughout the British\ncolonies; at least the difference was not so very great between New\nEngland and Virginia so far as it found expression in religious\nintolerance; for if in New England the people could be fined, whipped\nor put in the stocks for not going to church--in Virginia they could\nbe punished for going to the wrong one, while Baptists, Presbyterians\nand Quakers were compelled to pay tithes to a church they did not\nattend. If in New England the people could be compelled to stay awake\nand refrain from smiling while in church, no matter how tedious or\nridiculous the sermons were--in Virginia justices of the peace were\ncommitting Quakers to the pillory for keeping their hats on in church.\nIf in Massachusetts, at one time it was a capital offense to celebrate\nmass--in Virginia heresy was punishable by burning at the stake. If in\nMassachusetts the Church of England services could not be performed,\nnor baptism administered by immersion, nor a company of men pray with\ntheir hats on--in Virginia denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was\npunishable by three years imprisonment, and Unitarians were legally\ndeprived of the custody of their children on the ground that people\nholding to the belief in the unity of God were unfit to be intrusted\nwith the rearing of their own children! If in New England the spirit of\nreligious intolerance was more severe--in Virginia it endured longer;\nfor while in the former place the fight for religious freedom was won\nby the middle of the eighteenth century, it was not until nearly the\nclose of that century that it was won in the latter. Religious freedom\nwas not established in Virginia until the final adoption, in 1786, of\nJefferson's statute for that purpose. The statute was presented in the\nhouse of burgesses in 1776, and the main clause was as follows:\n\n    \"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious\n    worship, ministry, or place whatsoever; nor shall be enforced,\n    restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor shall\n    otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief;\n    but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,\n    their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall in no\n    wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.\"\n\nSuch an enactment as is here proposed seems now so reasonable to us, so\ncommonplace in its justice, that we marvel that it was not unanimously\nand immediately passed by the house of burgesses. But after twenty-five\ndays of debate, which Jefferson himself characterized as \"desperate\ncontests,\" the utmost of achievement at that time was the repeal of\nthe statute which imposed penalties for going to the wrong church and\ncompelling dissenters to pay tithes. Not until nine years more had\npassed--years of bitterness and strife and noble effort on the part of\nJefferson and his liberal associates, could Virginia be brought to a\nsettlement of her religious problems by the adoption of the foregoing\nproposed enactment.\n\nThis statute, so far as in him lay the power, Jefferson tried to make\na sort of English bill of rights. At least I judge so from the nature\nof one of the paragraphs of the statute, and which is well worth the\ntrouble to read.\n\n    \"And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the\n    people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no\n    power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted\n    with power equal to our own, and that, therefore, to declare this\n    act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to\n    declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the\n    natural rights of mankind; and that if any act shall be hereafter\n    passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act\n    will be an infringement of natural right.\"\n\nOf course, as Mr. Jefferson himself realized, the state legislature\ncould not bind succeeding legislatures from altering or amending this\nstatute, but undoubtedly there was a moral force that went with what\nwas there set down in the statute. At any rate the passing of this act\nwas a final settlement of the question. Never since those days has it\nbeen disturbed, and finally those principles were adopted in every\nstate of the American union.\n\nThe principle upon which Jefferson acted in securing religious freedom\nin Virginia--though expressed in language used some years after the\nconflict in Virginia had closed--is set forth as follows:\n\n    \"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself\n    to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may,\n    by change of circumstances, become his own.\"\n\nThe arguments by which Jefferson sustained the justice of the Virginia\nstatute, though commonplace to us now, are worth repeating in part,\nsince occasional reference to fundamental principles is beneficial.\nOpinion, he declared to be something with which government had nothing\nto do; government was no more competent to prescribe beliefs than\nmedicine, and constraint made hypocrites, not converts. Error alone\nneeded support of government; truth could stand by itself. Subject\nopinion to coercion, and you make fallible men, governed by bad\npassions, by private as well as public reasons, your inquisitors, and\neven if desirable, uniformity is unattainable.\n\n\"Millions of innocent men, women and children,\" he said, \"since the\nintroduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,\nimprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What\nhas been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools, and\nthe other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the\nearth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of\npeople; that these profess probably a thousand different systems of\nreligion; that ours is but one of that thousand; that if there be but\none right, and ours that one, we would wish to see the nine hundred\nand ninety-nine wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But\nagainst such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and\npersuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these,\nfree inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge\nit, while we refuse it ourselves.\"\n\nJefferson's contribution to religious freedom in America was not\nlimited to the drafting and finally securing the passage of the\nVirginia statute on the subject. Although it must be admitted that his\nfurther contribution to religious freedom in America resulted from\nindirect, rather than from direct means. After the war of independence\nclosed, and the founders of the great republic met in convention\nto form a more perfect union and a more efficient government, this\nprinciple of religious freedom was finally included among the\nprovisions of that constitution, under which we have now had one\nhundred and twenty years of national life. It expressly provides that\n\n    \"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any\n    office or public trust under the United States.\"\n\nAlso that\n\n    \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of\n    religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\"\n\nJefferson was in France during the formation of the Constitution,\nand therefore could have had but little to do directly with its\nformation, but it must be remembered that some years before--1776--he\nhad written what will always be regarded as the preface to our\nConstitution, namely, the immortal Declaration of Independence. When\nin that instrument Jefferson declared as self-evident truth that all\nmen are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with an\ninalienable right to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness; and\nthat to secure these rights governments were instituted among men,\nderiving their just powers from the consent of the governed--he set in\norder the foundation principles of all our liberties, religious as well\nas civil. After the adoption of that declaration and its maintenance\nby a successful appeal to the dreadful arbitrament of war, it was\ninevitable that the religious liberties now secured by constitutional\nprovision in every state of the union, and in the national constitution\nas well, should come. That Jefferson contributed to this general result\nmore, perhaps, than any other American statesman, as well as being the\nleading factor in the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia,\nwill not be disputed.\n\nThis American religious liberty which sets the church free from the\ninterference of the civil authority, carries with it as a corollary\nthe freedom of the state from the interference of ecclesiastical\nauthority--it results in the absolute separation of the church and the\nstate. Great as religious freedom is, and in my estimation above all\nprice, yet the other half of our American system--the freedom of the\nstate from ecclesiastical domination, is of equal value, and equally\nnecessary to our peace and the security of both church and state. It is\nclaimed by high authority that one-half of the wars of Europe and half\nthe troubles that have vexed European states from the early centuries\nof the Christian era down to the nineteenth century, have arisen from\ntheological differences or from the rival claims of church and state.\nThank God, the United States under the national Constitution has no\npart in such a record as that! The comparative peace and freedom\nfrom religious strife that has obtained in our own country, through\nmore than a century of religious freedom, vindicates the wisdom\nof our system, which has led to the happiest results. A few years\nago--1891--these results were described by a gentleman of commanding\ninfluence, both in literature and in the civil affairs of his own\ncountry, and who now holds the exalted station of British ambassador to\nour government at Washington, Mr. James Bryce. Listen to his words:\n\n    \"There are no quarrels of churches and sects. Judah does not vex\n    Ephraim, nor Ephraim envy Judah. No established church looks\n    down scornfully upon dissenters from the height of its titles\n    and endowments, and talks of them as hindrances in the way of\n    its work. No dissenters pursue an established church in a spirit\n    of watchful jealousy, nor agitate for its overthrow. One is not\n    offended by the contrast between the theory and the practice of a\n    religion of peace, between professions of universal affection in\n    pulpit addresses and forms of prayer, and the acrimony of clerical\n    controversialists. Still less, of course, is there that sharp\n    opposition and antagonism of Christians and anti-Christians which\n    lacerates the private as well as public life of France. Rivalry\n    between sects appears only in the innocent form of the planting\n    of new churches and raising of funds for missionary objects,\n    while most of the Protestant denominations, including the four\n    most numerous, constantly fraternize in charitable work. Between\n    Roman Catholics and Protestants there is little hostility, and\n    sometimes co-operation for a philanthropic purpose. The skeptic is\n    no longer under a social ban, and discussions on the essentials\n    of Christianity and of theism are conducted with good temper.\n    There is not a country in the world where Frederick the Great's\n    principle, that everyone should be allowed to go to heaven in his\n    own way, is so fully applied. This sense of religious peace as\n    well as religious freedom all around one, is soothing to the weary\n    European, and contributes not a little to sweeten the lives of\n    ordinary people.\"\n\nI am aware, ladies and gentlemen, that I am trespassing on your\nvaluable time, but bear with me while I make brief reference to local\nconditions. It may be said that in Utah we have not participated in\nthis peace and tranquility described as characteristic of America by\nMr. Bryce. That here there has been to some extent church domination\nof the state; ecclesiastical interference in civil affairs; and I am\nnot prepared to make unqualified denial of those charges. But I do\nfeel free to say that it is my conviction that we have entered upon a\nperiod in our experience in Utah, when we shall fully participate in\nthe general peace that results from the American doctrine of religious\nand political freedom, and the separation of church and state. The\nrecent authoritative utterances of the dominant Church in Utah is the\nfact on which I base this hope of mine. Full acquiescence in this\nAmerican system of the relations of church and state are set forth\nin that utterance with greater emphasis than ever before. It commits\nthe dominant Church irrevocably to the doctrine of \"non-interference\nof church authority in political matters; the absolute freedom and\nindependence of the individual in the performance of his political\nduties.\" And then it makes this emphatic declaration that \"if at any\ntime there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been\nin violation of the well settled principles and policy of the Church.\"\nOf course I know there are those who doubt the good faith of this late\nofficial utterance of the Church, but it is preposterous to assume\nthat this religious organization would dare, before the world and its\nown people, to enter upon such a system of deliberate deception and\nhypocrisy as it would be involved in if its late official utterance be\nnot honest.\n\nBut even if it were conceivable that duplicity was the deliberate\nintention of the church or its chief authorities, I should still be\nhopeful of the outcome, and that the outcome would be hastened by this\nlast official utterance. And these are my reasons: The questions of\nreligious freedom, and the relations of church and state are settled\nonce for all in this country. The right of the individual to be\npolitically free is crystallized into accomplished fact; and so dear\nto the individual is that right, so jealously is it guarded by the\npolitical community as a condition fundamental to the preservation\nof the American spirit of manhood, and national well-being that it\nstands absolutely in no danger of being sacrificed, either to the\ncunning of priests or the influence of a church, however powerful. If\nthe dominant Church, so emphatically committed to the support of this\nAmerican system, should attempt to play double--it would, and could\nonly, mean ruin and disruption to the Church. As an organization it\nmight survive every opposing force, but it could not survive the double\ndealing in which it would be involved if its last official utterance on\nthe subject of non-interference in politics is not put forth in good\nfaith. Should its leaders chicane in this matter it would mean severest\ncensure of public opinion; bitterness and resentment and rebellion in\nits own membership; loss of respect and influence of all kinds, both\nin the Church and in the state; in a word, such a course would spell\ndisaster. Intelligent men must know these things; and, giving the\nChurch leaders, and the Church membership credit for at least ordinary\nintelligence, one must believe them honest as to what they have\ncommitted themselves to in their last official utterance. And by an\nhonest adherence to the principles in that utterance, I feel confident\nthat in Utah we shall share in the tranquility which in respect to\nthese questions obtains everywhere else in America.\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\n\"Conditions in Utah.\" 1905.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThis speech of Senator Kearns' on \"Conditions in Utah\", created\nwidespread interest at the time it was read in the Senate House, viz.,\non the 28th of February, 1905. It was quite universally commented\nupon by the press of the country, and generally to the disparagement\nof Utah, and the Mormon people. The consensus of opinion expressed\nin the newspapers who took for granted the statements of the speech\nas representing the facts in the case, are clearly set forth in an\nEditorial of the \"New York Globe.\"\n\n    \"The Mormon church has broken both the letter and the spirit of the\n    contract into which it entered when the Territory was admitted as a\n    state. Polygamous cohabitation exists with the implied sanction of\n    the church, and the hierarchy has become a huge political machine\n    whose purpose is to control Utah for its own purposes, and, what is\n    more ominous, the adjacent States and Territories. Never in Brigham\n    Young's time was Mormonism more of a political and moral menace\n    than it is today.\"\n\nThis conclusion might be quite logical, if the statements of Senator\nKearns were true. All I ask is that after reading the speech of the\nSenator, the reader will suspend his judgement of the case until he\nshall have read the answer to it.\n\nI.\n\nSpeech of the Hon. Thomas Kearns in the Senate of the United\nStates.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: From the Congressional Record.]\n\nThe President pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the\nresolution submitted by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dubois], which will\nbe read.\n\nThe Secretary read the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. Dubois, as\nfollows:\n\n_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is hereby,\nauthorized and instructed to prepare and report to the Senate within\nthirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress a joint\nresolution of the two Houses of Congress proposing to the several\nStates amendments to the Constitution of the United States which shall\nprovide, in substance, for the prohibition and punishment of polygamous\nmarriages and plural cohabitation contracted or practiced within the\nUnited States and in every place subject to the jurisdiction of the\nUnited States; and which shall, in substance, also require all persons\ntaking office under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or\nof any State, to take and subscribe an oath that he or she is not, and\nwill not be, a member or adherent of any organization whatever the\nlaws, rules, or nature of which organization require him or her to\ndisregard his or her duty to support and maintain the Constitution and\nlaws of the United States and of the several States.\n\nMr. Kearns. Mr. President, I will not permit this occasion to pass\nwithout saying, with brevity and such clearness as I can command, what\nit seems to me should be said by a Senator, under these circumstances,\nbefore leaving public life. Something is due to the State which has\nhonored me; something is due to the record which I have endeavored\nto maintain honorably before the world and something, by way of\ninformation, is due to the Senate and the country.\n\nUtah, the newest of the States, to me the best beloved of all the\nStates, appears to be the only one concerning which there is a serious\nconflict. I was not born in Utah, but I have spent all the years of\nmy manhood there, and I love the commonwealth and its people. In what\nI say there is malice toward none, and I hope to make it just to\nall. If the present day does not accept my statements and appreciate\nmy motives, I can only trust that time will prove more gentle and\nthat in the future those who care to revert to these remarks will\nknow that they are animated purely by a hope to bring about a better\nunderstanding between Utah and this great nation.\n\nUtah was admitted to statehood after, and because of, a long series of\npledges exacted from the Mormon leaders, the like of which had never\nbefore been known in American history. Except for those pledges, the\nsentiment of the United States would never have assented to Utah's\nadmission. Except for the belief on the part of Congress and the\ncountry that the extraordinary power which abides in that State would\nmaintain these pledges, Utah would not have been admitted. There is\nevery reason to believe that the President who signed the bill would\nhave vetoed it if he had not been convinced that the pledges made would\nbe kept.\n\nTHE PLEDGES.\n\nAs a citizen of the State and a witness to the events and words which\nconstitute those pledges, as a Senator of the United States, I give my\nword of honor to you that I believed that these pledges consisted of\nthe following propositions:\n\nFirst. That the Mormon leaders would live within the laws pertaining to\nplural marriage and the continued plural marriage relation, and that\nthey would enforce this obligation upon all of their followers, under\npenalty of disfellowship.\n\nSecond. That the leaders of the Mormon Church would no longer exercise\npolitical sway, and that their followers would be free and would\nexercise their freedom in politics, in business, and in social affairs.\n\nAs a citizen and a Senator I give my word of honor to you that I\nbelieved that these pledges would be kept in the spirit in which\nCongress and the country accepted them, and that there would never be\nany violation, evasion, denial, or equivocation concerning them.\n\nI appeal to such members of this body as were in either House of\nCongress during the years 1890 to 1896, if it was not their belief\nat that time that the foregoing were the pledges and that they would\nbe kept; and I respectfully insist that every Senator here who was a\nmember of either House at that time would have refused to vote for\nUtah's admission unless he had firmly believed as I have stated.\n\n1. Utah secured her statehood by a solemn compact made by the Mormon\nleaders in behalf of themselves and their people.\n\n2. That compact has been broken willfully and frequently.\n\n3. No apostle of the Mormon Church has publicly protested against that\nviolation.\n\nI know the gravity of the utterances that I have just made. I know what\nare the probable consequences to myself. But I have pondered long and\nearnestly upon the subject and have come to the conclusion that duty to\nthe innocent people of my State and that obligation to the Senate and\nthe country require that I shall clearly define my attitude.\n\nRELIGION NOT INVOLVED.\n\nThis is no quarrel with religion. This is no assault upon any man's\nfaith. This is rather the reverence toward the inherent right of all\nmen to believe as they please, which separates religious faith from\nirreligious practice. The Mormon people have a system of their own,\nsomewhat complex, and gathered from the mysticisms of all the ages. It\ndoes not appeal to most men; but in its purely theological domain it is\ntheirs, and I respect it as their religion and them as its believers.\n\nThe trouble arises now, as it has frequently arisen in the past, from\nthe fact that some of the accidental leaders of the movement since the\nfirst zealot founder have sought to make of this religion not only a\nsystem of morals, sometimes quite original in themselves, but also a\nsystem of social relation, a system of finance, a system of commerce,\nand a system of politics.\n\nTHE SOCIAL ASPECT.\n\nI dismiss the religion with my profound respect; if it can comfort\nthem, I would not, if I could, disturb it. Coming to the social aspect\nof the society, it is apparent that the great founder sought first\nto establish equality among men, and then to draw from those equal\nranks a special class, who were permitted to practice polygamy and\nto whom special privileges were accorded in their association with\nthe consecrated temples and the administration of mystic ordinances\ntherein. The polygamous group, or cult as it may be called, soon became\nthe ruling factor in the organization; and it may be observed that\never since the founding of the church almost every man of prominence\nin the community has belonged to this order. It was so in the time of\nthe martyrs, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were killed at Carthage jail\nin Illinois, and both of whom were polygamists, although it was denied\nat the time. There were living until recently, and perhaps there are\nliving now, women who testified that they were married in polygamy to\none or the other of these two men, Joseph having the larger number. It\nhas been so ever since and is so today, that nearly every man of the\ngoverning class has been or is a polygamist.\n\nBrigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith, and he set up a kind of kingly\nrulership, not unbecoming to a man of his vast empire-building power.\nThe Mormons have been taught to revere Joseph Smith as a direct prophet\nfrom God. He saw the face of the All Father. He held communion with\nthe Son. The Holy Ghost was his constant companion. He settled every\nquestion, however trivial, by revelation from Almighty God. But Brigham\nwas different. While claiming a divine right of leadership, he worked\nout his great mission by palpable and material means. I do not know\nthat he ever pretended to have received a revelation from the time\nthat he left Nauvoo until he reached the shores of the Dead Sea, nor\nthrough all the thirty years of his leadership there. He seemed to\nregard his people as children who had to be led through their serious\ncalamities by holding out to them the glittering thought of divine\nguardianship. So firmly did Brigham establish the social order in\nUtah that all of the people were equal, except the governing body.\nThis may be said to consist of the president and his two counsellors,\nthey three constituting the first presidency; the twelve apostles;\nthe presiding bishopric, consisting of three men, the chief bishops\nof the church but much lower in rank than the apostles; the seven\npresidents of seventies, who are, under the apostles, the subordinate\nhead of the missionary service of the church; and the presiding\npatriarch. These altogether constitute a body of twenty-six men. There\nare local authorities in the different stakes of Zion, as they are\ncalled, corresponding to counties in a State, but with these it is not\nnecessary to deal.\n\nPractically all of these men under Brigham Young were polygamists. They\nconstituted what one of their number once called the \"elite class\" of\nthe community. To attain this rank one usually had to show ability, and\nattaining the rank he was quite certain to enter into or extend his\nalready existing plural-marriage relations. These rulers were looked\nupon with great reverence. Brigham Young, besides being a prophet of\nGod, as they believed, had led them through the greatest march of the\nages. His nod became almost superhuman in its significance. His frown\nwas as terrible to them as the wrath of God. He upheld all the members\nof the polygamistic and governing class by his favoritism toward\nthem. He supremely, and they subordinately, ruled the community as if\nthey were a king and a house of peers, with no house of commons. Not\nelsewhere in the United States, and not in any foreign country where\ncivilization dwells, has there been such a complete mastery of man over\nmodern men. The subordinates and the mass would perform the slightest\nwill of Brigham Young. When he was not present the mass would perform\nthe will of any of the subordinates speaking in his name. Below this\nprivileged class stood the common mass. It had its various gradations\nof title, but, with the exception of rare instances of personal power,\nthere was equality in the mass. For instance, as business was a part of\ntheir system, the local religious authority in some remote part might\nbe the business subordinate of some other man of less ecclesiastical\nrank, with the result that this peculiar intermingling kept them all\npractically upon one level of social order; and the man who made adobes\nunder the hot sun of the desert through all the week might still be\nthe religious superior of the richest man in the local community,\nand they met on terms of equality and friendship. Their children\nmight intermarry, the difference in wealth being countervailed by a\ndifference in ecclesiastical authority.\n\nIt was a strange social system, this, with Brigham Young and his\ncoterie of advisers, to the number of twenty-six, standing at the head,\nself-perpetuating, the chief being able to select constantly to fill\nthe ranks as they might be depleted by death; and all these ruling over\none solid mass of equal caste who thought that the rulers were animated\nby divine revelation, holding the right to govern in all things on\nearth and with authority extending into heaven.\n\nSo firmly entrenched was their social system that when Brigham Young\npassed away his various successors who came in time to his place by\naccident of seniority of service found ample opportunity without\ndifficulty to perpetuate this system and to maintain their social\nautocracy. As the matter has appeared so fully before the country, I\nwill not speak further of the method of succession, but will merely\ncall to your minds that after Brigham Young came John Taylor, then\nWilford Woodruff, then Lorenzo Snow, then Joseph F. Smith, the present\nruler.\n\nUnder these several men the social autocracy has had its varying\nfortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as\nit ever reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The\npresident of the church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His\nhome consists of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and\nsurrounded by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness.\nIn addition to this he has an official residence of historic character\nnear to the office which he occupies as president. When he travels he\nis usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really servitors.\nWhen he attends social functions he appears like a ruler among his\nsubjects. And in this respect I am not speaking of Mormon associations\nalone, for there are many Gentiles in and out of Utah who seem to take\ndelight in paying this extraordinary deference.\n\nIf I have seemed to speak at length upon this mere social phase it\nhas not been without a definite purpose. I want you to know how\nthis religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality of\nmen, immediately established and has maintained for the mass of its\nadherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its rulers\nto regal authority and splendor. Understanding how the chief among them\nhas the dignity of a monarch in their social relations, you will better\nunderstand the business and political autocracy which he has been able\nto establish.\n\nIn all this social system each apostle has his great part. He is\ninseparable from it. He wields now, as does a minister at court, such\npart of the power as the monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his\nhope and expectation that he will outlive those who are his seniors in\nrank in order that he may become the ruler.\n\nTherefore, if there be evil in this social relation as I have portrayed\nit, every apostle is responsible for a part of that evil. They enjoy\nthe honors of the social class; they help to exert the tyranny over the\nsubjugated mass. Those of you who do me the honor to follow my remarks\nwill realize how close is the relation between the apostles and the\npresident, and that the apostle is a responsible part of the governing\npower. While I may speak of the president of the church segregated from\nhis associates and as the monarch, it must be understood constantly\nthat he maintains his power by the support of the apostles, who keep\nthe mass in order and in subjugation to his will, expressed through\nthem.\n\nTHE BUSINESS MONOPOLY.\n\nWhatever may have been its origin or excuse, the business power of the\npresident of the church and of the select class which he admits into\nbusiness relations with him is now a practical monopoly, or is rapidly\nbecoming a monopoly, of everything that he touches. I want to call your\nattention to the extraordinary list of worldly concerns in which this\nspiritual leader holds official position. The situation is more amazing\nwhen you are advised that this man came to his presidency purely by\naccident, namely, the death of his seniors in rank; that he had never\nknown any business ability, and that he comes to the presidency and\nthe directorship of the various corporations solely because he is\npresident of the church. He is already reputed to be a wealthy man, and\nhis statement would seem to indicate that he has large holdings in the\nvarious corporations with which he is associated, although previous to\nhis accession to the presidency of the church he made a kind of proud\nboast among his people of his poverty.\n\nHe conducts railways, street-car lines, power and light companies,\ncoal mines, salt works, sugar factories, shoe factories, mercantile\nhouses, drug stores, newspapers, magazines, theaters, and almost every\nconceivable kind of business, and in all of these, inasmuch as he is\nthe dominant factor by virtue of his being the prophet of God, he\nasserts indisputable sway. It is considered an evidence of deference to\nhim, and good standing in the church, for his hundreds of thousands of\nfollowers to patronize exclusively the institutions which he controls.\n\nAnd this fact alone, without any business ability on his part, but\nwith capable subordinate guidance for his enterprises, insures their\nsuccess, and danger and possible ruin for every competitive enterprise.\nIndependent of these business concerns, he is in receipt of an income\nlike unto that which a royal family derives from a national treasury.\nOne-tenth of all the annual earnings of all the Mormons in all the\nworld flows to him. These funds amount to the sum of $1,600,000\nannually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000, which is one-quarter of\nthe entire taxable wealth of the State of Utah. It is the same as if\nhe owned, individually, in addition to all his visible enterprises,\none-quarter of all the wealth of the State and derived from it 5 per\ncent of income without taxation and without discount. The hopelessness\nof contending in a business way with this autocrat must be perfectly\napparent to your minds. The original purpose of this vast tithe,\nas often stated by speakers for the church, was the maintenance of\nthe poor, the building of meetinghouses, etc. Today the tithes are\ntransmuted, in the localities where they are paid, into cash, and\nthey flow into the treasury of the head of the church. No account is\nmade, or ever has been made, of these tithes. The president expends\nthem according to his own will and pleasure, and with no examination\nof his accounts, except by those few men whom he selects for that\npurpose and whom he rewards for their zeal and secrecy. Shortly after\nthe settlement of the Mormon Church property question with the United\nStates the church issued a series of bonds, amounting approximately\nto $1,000,000, which were taken by financial institutions. This was\nprobably to wipe out a debt which had accumulated during a long period\nof controversy with the nation. But since, and including the year 1897,\nwhich was about the time of the issue of the bonds, approximately\n$9,000,000 have been paid as tithes. If any of the bonds are still\noutstanding, it is manifestly because the president of the church\ndesires for reasons of his own to have an existing indebtedness.\n\nIt will astound you to know that every dollar of United States money\npaid to any servant of the Government who is a Mormon is tithed for the\nbenefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus paid he gets $100 to\nswell his grandeur. This is also true of money paid out of the public\ntreasury of the State of Utah to Mormon officials. But what is worst of\nall, the monarch dips into the sacred public school fund and extracts\nfrom every Mormon teacher one-tenth of his or her earnings and uses\nit for his unaccounted purposes; and, by means of these purposes and\nthe power which they constitute, he defies the laws of his State, the\nsentiment of his country, and is waging war of nullification on the\npublic school system, so dear to the American people. No right-thinking\nman will oppose any person as a servant of the nation or the State or\nas a teacher in the public schools on account of religious faith. As I\nhave before remarked, this is no war upon the religion of the Mormons;\nand I am only calling attention to the monstrous manner in which this\nmonarch invades all the provinces of human life and endeavors to secure\nhis rapacious ends.\n\nIn all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to voluntary\ngifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters connected\nlegitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are against the\ntyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from individuals the\nmoneys which they ought not to spare from family needs, and which they\ndo not wish to spare; my comment and criticism relate to the power of\na monarch whose tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys\npaid by the Government are considered the property of the Government's\nservant until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary\ntribute, with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the\nmonarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs, which\nare not a part of either religion or charity.\n\nWith an income of 5 per cent upon one-quarter of the entire assessed\nvaluation of the State of Utah today, how long will it take this\nmonarch, with his constantly increasing demands for revenue, to so\nabsorb the productive power that he shall be receiving an income of 5\nper cent upon one-half the property, and then upon all of the property\nof the State? This is worse than the farming of taxes under the old\nFrench Kings. Will Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?\n\nThe view which the people of the United States entertained on this\nsubject forty years ago was shown by the act of Congress in 1862, in\nwhich a provision, directed particularly against the Mormon Church,\ndeclared that no church in a Territory of the United States should\nhave in excess of $50,000 of wealth outside of the property used for\npurposes of worship. It is evident that as early as that time the\npernicious effects of a system which used the name of God and the\nauthority of religion to dominate in commerce and finance were fully\nrecognized.\n\nThis immense tithing fund is gathered directly from Mormons, but\nthe burden falls in some degree upon Gentiles also. Gentiles are in\nbusiness and suffer by competition with the tithe-supported business\nenterprises. Gentiles are large employers of Mormon labor; and as\nthat labor must pay one-tenth of its earnings to support competitive\nconcerns, the Gentile employer must pay, indirectly at least, the tithe\nwhich may be utilized to compete with, and even ruin, him in business.\n\nAnd in return it should be noted that Mormon institutions do not employ\nGentiles except in rare cases of necessity. The reason is obvious:\nGentiles do not take as kindly to the tithing system as do the Mormons.\n\nThe Mormon citizen of Utah has additional disadvantages. After paying\none-tenth of all his earnings as a tithe offering, he is called upon to\nerect and maintain the meetinghouses and other edifices of the church;\nhe is called upon to donate to the poor fund in his ward, through\nhis local Bishop; he is called upon to sustain the Women's Relief\nSociety, whose purpose is to care for the poor and to minister to the\nsick; he is called upon to pay his share of the expense for the 2,500\nmissionaries of the church who are constantly kept in the field without\ndrawing upon the general funds of the church. When all this is done,\nit is found that, in defiance of the old and deserved boast of the\npredecessors of the present president, there are some Mormons in the\npoorhouses of Utah, and these are sustained by the public taxes derived\nfrom the Gentiles and Mormons alike.\n\nBroadly speaking, the Gentiles compose 35 per cent of the population\nand pay one-half of the taxes of Utah. In the long run they carry their\nshare of all these great charges.\n\nThe almost unbearable community burden which is thus inflicted must be\nvisible to your minds without argument from me.\n\nLet it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the property\nof Utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the president of the\nchurch, and that at his instance any industry, any institution, within\nthe State, could be destroyed except the mining and smelting industry.\nEven this industry his personal and church organ has attacked with a\nthreat of extermination by the courts, or by additional legislation, if\nthe smelters do not meet the view expressed by the church organ.\n\nMr. President, I ask to have read at this point an editorial from the\nDeseret Evening News of October 31, 1904, which I send to the desk.\n\nThe President pro tempore. The Secretary will read as requested.\n\nThe Secretary read as follows:\n\n    DESERET EVENING NEWS.\n\n    [Organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]\n\n    SALT LAKE CITY, October 31, 1904.\n\n    AWAY WITH THE NUISANCE.\n\n    The people of Salt Lake City are waking up to the realization\n    of the trouble of which our cousins out in the country are\n    complaining. The sulphurous fumes which have been tasted by many\n    folks here, particularly late at night, are not only those of a\n    partisan nature emanating from the smokestacks of the slanderers\n    and maligners, but are treats bestowed upon our citizens by the\n    smelters, and are samples of the goods, or rather evils, which\n    farmers and horticulturists have been burdened with so long.\n    Complaints have come to us from some of the best people of the\n    city, of different faiths and parties, that the air has been laden\n    with sulphurous fumes that can not only be felt in the throat,\n    but tasted in the mouth, and they rest upon the city at night,\n    appearing like a thin fog.\n\n    The fact is this smelter smoke will have to go; there is no mistake\n    about that. If the smelters can not consume it, they will have to\n    close up. This fair county must not be devastated and this city\n    must not be rendered unhealthful by any such a nuisance as that\n    which has been borne with now for a long time. The evasive policy\n    that has been pursued, the tantalizing treatment toward the farmers\n    who have vainly sought for redress, the destruction that has come\n    upon vegetation and upon live stock, and now the choking fumes that\n    reach this city all demand some practical remedy in place of the\n    shilly-shally of the past.\n\n    The Deseret News has counseled peace, consideration for the smelter\n    people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor toward\n    a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper lines,\n    and arbitration instead-of litigation. But it really seems now as\n    though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin will\n    come to the agricultural pursuits of Salt Lake County, while the\n    city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. If the\n    companies that control those works will not or can not dispose of\n    the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks,\n    the fires will have to be banked and the nuisance suppressed. We\n    do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. We are of\n    opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that\n    efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay.\n\n    It looks as if the courts will have to be appealed to to obtain\n    compensation or damages already inflicted. Also that they will have\n    to be applied to for injunctions against the continuance of the\n    cause of the trouble. We think there is law enough now to proceed\n    under. But if that is not the case, then legislation must be had\n    to fully cover the ground. Litigation will have to come first,\n    legislation afterwards. However that may be, temporizing with\n    the evil will not do. Patience has ceased to be a virtue in this\n    matter. The conviction is fastening itself upon the public mind\n    that no active steps are intended by the responsible parties, but\n    simply a policy of delay. They must be taught that this will not\n    answer the purpose, and that the injured people will not be fooled\n    in that way. The smelter smoke must go. And it must not go in the\n    old way.\n\n    The proposition to put the matter in the hands of experts chosen\n    by the complainants is not to be seriously considered. The onus\n    is upon the smelter men; they are the offenders, and they must\n    take the steps necessary to remove the cause of complaint, and\n    also reimburse those who have been injured. We do not ask anything\n    unreasonable. We join with those of our citizens who intend that\n    this beautiful part of our lovely State shall not be laid waste,\n    even if the only cure is the suppression of the destroying cause.\n    This may as well be understood first as last. Unless practical\n    measures are adopted to abate the evil, active proceedings will\n    have to be taken and pushed to the utmost to remove entirely the\n    root and branch and trunk and body of this tree of destruction.\n    The people affected are deeply in earnest, and they certainly mean\n    business.\n\nMr. Kearns. Mr. President, I must not burden you with too many details,\nbut in order for you to see how complete is the business power of this\nman I will cite you to one case. The Great Salt Lake is estimated to\ncontain 14,000,000,000 tons of salt. Probably salt can be made cheaper\non the shores of this lake than anywhere else in the world. Nearly all\nits shore line is adaptable for salt gardens. The president of the\nchurch is interested in a large salt monopoly which has gathered in the\nvarious smaller enterprises. He is president of a railroad which runs\nfrom the salt gardens to Salt Lake City, connecting there with trunk\nlines. It costs to manufacture the salt and place it on board the cars\n75 cents per ton. He receives for it $5 and $6 per ton. His company and\nits subsidiary corporation are probably capitalized at three-quarters\nof a million dollars, and upon this large sum he is able to pay\ndividends of 8 or 10 per cent.\n\nNot long since two men, who for many years had been tithe payers and\nloyal members of the church, undertook to establish a salt garden\nalong the line of a trunk railway. One of them was a large dealer in\nsalt, and proposed to extend his trade by making the salt and reaching\nterritory prohibited to him by the church price of salt; the other was\nthe owner of the land upon which it was proposed to establish the salt\ngarden. These men formed a corporation, put in pumping stations and\nflumes, and the corporation became indebted to one of the financial\ninstitutions over which the church exercises considerable influence.\nThen the president of the church sent for them. There is scarcely an\ninstance on record where a message of this kind failed of its purpose.\nThese men went to meet the prophet, seer, and revelator of God, as they\nsupposed, but he had laid aside his robes of sanctity for the moment\nand he was a plain, unadorned, aggressive, if not an able, business\nman. He first denounced them for interfering with a business which he\nhad made peculiarly his own; and, when they protested that they had no\nintention to interfere with his trade, but were seeking new markets, he\ndeclared in a voice of thunderous passion that if they did not cease\nwith their projected enterprise, he would crush them. They escaped from\nhis presence feeling like courtiers repulsed from the foot of a king's\nthrone, and then surveyed their enterprise. If they stopped, they would\nlose all the money invested and their enterprise would possibly be sold\nout to their creditors; if they went on and invested more money, the\npresident had the power, as he had threatened, to crush them. Not only\ncould he ruin their enterprise, but he could ostracize them socially\nand could make of them marked and shunned men in the community where\nthey had always been respected.\n\nIs there menace in this system? To me it seems like a great danger to\nall the people who are now affected, and therefore of great danger to\nthe people of the United States, because the power of this monarchy\nwithin the Republic is constantly extending. If it be an evil, every\napostle is in part responsible for this tyrannical course. He helped to\nelect the president; he does the president's bidding, and shares in the\nadvantages of that tyranny.\n\nI did not call the social system a violation of the pledges to the\ncountry, but I do affirm that the business tyranny of Mormon leaders is\nan express violation of the covenant made, for they do not leave their\nfollowers free in secular affairs. They tyrannize over them, and their\ntyranny spreads even to the Gentiles. In all this I charge that every\napostle is a party to the wrong and to the violation. Although I speak\nof the president of the church as the leader, the monarch in fact,\nevery apostle is one of his ministers, one of his creators, and also\none of his creatures, and possibly his successor; and the whole system\ndepends upon the manner in which the apostles and the other leaders\nshall support the chief leader. As no apostle has ever protested\nagainst this system, but has, by every means in his power, encouraged\nit, he can not escape his share of the responsibility for it. It is an\nevil; they aid it. It is a violation of the pledge upon which statehood\nwas granted; they profit by it.\n\nTHE POLITICAL AUTOCRACY.\n\nI pass now to the political aspect of this hierarchy, as some call it,\nbut this monarchy as I choose to term it.\n\nI have previously called your attention to the social and business\npowers, monopolies, autocracies, exercised by the leaders. Through\nthese channels of social and business relations they can spread the\nknowledge of their political desires without appearing obtrusively in\npolitics. When the end of their desire is accomplished, they affect to\nwash their hands of all responsibility by denying that they engaged\nin political activities. Superficial persons, and those desiring to\naccept this argument, are convinced by it. But never, in the palmy days\nof Brigham Young, was there a more complete political tyranny than\nis exercised by the present president of the Mormon Church and his\napostles, who are merely awaiting the time when by the death of their\nseniors in rank they may become president, and select some other man to\nhold the apostleship in their place--as they now hold it in behalf of\nthe ruling monarch.\n\nIn this statement I merely call your attention to what a perfect\nsystem of ecclesiastical government is maintained by these presidents\nand apostles; and I do not need to more than indicate to you what\na wondrous aid their ecclesiastical government can be, and is, in\naccomplishing their political purposes.\n\nParties are nothing to these leaders, except as parties may be used by\nthem. So long as there is Republican administration and Congress, they\nwill lead their followers to support Republican tickets; but if, by\nany chance, the Democratic party should control this Government, with\na prospect of continuance in power, you would see a gradual veering\naround under the direction of the Mormon leaders. When Republicans are\nin power the Republican leaders of the Mormon people are in evidence\nand the Democratic leaders are in retirement. If the Democracy were\nin power, the Republican leaders of the Mormon people would go into\nretirement and Democrats would appear in their places. No man can be\nelected to either House of Congress against their wish. I will not\ntrespass upon your patience long enough to recite the innumerable\ncircumstances that prove this assertion, but will merely refer to\nenough instances to illustrate the method. In 1897, at the session of\nthe legislature which was to elect a Senator, and which was composed of\nsixty Democrats and three Republicans, Moses Thatcher was the favored\ncandidate of the Democracy in the State. He had been an apostle of the\nMormon Church, but had been deposed because he was out of harmony with\nthe leaders. The Hon. Joseph L. Rawlins was a rival candidate, but not\nstrongly so at first. He was encouraged by the church leaders in every\nway; and finally, when his strength had been advanced sufficiently to\nneed but one vote, a Mormon Republican was promptly moved over into\nthe Democratic column and he was elected by the joint assembly. I\ndo not charge that Hon. Joseph L. Rawlins, who occupied a seat with\ndistinguished honor in this great body for six years, had any improper\nbargain with the church, or any knowledge of the secret methods by\nwhich his election was being compassed; but he was elected under the\ndirection of the leaders of the church because they desired to defeat\nand further humiliate a deposed apostle.\n\nI will not ignore my own case. During nearly three years I have waited\nthis great hour of justice in which I could answer the malignant\nfalsehood and abuse which has been heaped upon a man who is dead and\ncan not answer, and upon myself, a living man willing to wait the time\nfor answer. Lorenzo Snow, a very aged man, was president of the church\nwhen I was elected to the Senate. He had reached that advanced time\nof life, being over eighty, when men abide largely in the thoughts\nof their youth. He was my friend in that distant way which sometimes\nexists without close acquaintanceship, our friendship (if I may term it\nsuch) having arisen from the events attendant upon Utah's struggle for\nstatehood. For some reason he did not oppose my election to the Senate.\nEvery other candidate for the place had sought his favor; it came to me\nwithout price or solicitation on my part. The friends and mouthpieces\nof some of the present leaders have been base enough to charge that\nI bought the Senatorship from Lorenzo Snow, president of their own\nchurch. Here and now I denounce the calumny against that old man, whose\nunsought and unbought favor came to me in that contest. That I ever\npaid him one dollar of money, or asked him to influence legislators\nof his faith, is as cruel a falsehood as ever came from human lips.\nSo far as I am concerned he held his power with clean hands, and I\nwould protect the memory of this dead man against all the abuse and\nmisrepresentation which might be heaped upon him by those who were his\nadherents during life, but who now attack his fame in order that they\nmay pay the greater deference to the present king.\n\nYou must know that in that day we were but five years old as a State.\nOur political conditions were and had been greatly unsettled. The\npurpose of the church to rule in politics had not yet been made so\nmanifest and determined. Lorenzo Snow held his office for a brief\ntime--about two years. What he did in that office pertaining to my\nelection I here and now distinctly assume as my burden, for no man\nshall with impunity use his hatred of me to defame Lorenzo Snow and\ndishonor his memory to his living and loving descendants.\n\nAs for myself, I am willing to take the Senate and the country into my\nconfidence, and make a part of the eternal records of the Senate, for\nsuch of my friends as may care to read, the vindication of my course\nto my posterity. I had an ambition, and not an improper one, to sit in\nthe Senate of the United States. My competitors had longer experience\nin politics and may have understood more of the peculiar situation in\nthe State. They sought what is known as church influence. I sought to\nobtain this place by purely political means. I was elected. After all\ntheir trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the\nvery means which they had basely invoked. I have served with you four\nyears, and have sought in a modest way to make a creditable record\nhere. I have learned something of the grandeur and dignity of the\nSenate, something of its ideals, which I could not know before coming\nhere. I say to you, my fellow Senators, that this place of power is\ninfinitely more magnificent than I dreamed when I first thought of\noccupying a seat here. But were it thrice as great as I now know it to\nbe, and were I back in that old time of struggle in Utah, when I was\nseeking for this honor, I would not permit the volunteered friendship\nof President Snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one\natom of the church monarch's favor. My ideals have grown with my term\nof service in this body, and I believe that the man who would render\nhere the highest service to his country must be careful to attain to\nthis place by the purest civic path that mortal feet can tread.\n\nI have said enough to indicate that for my own part I never\ncountenanced, nor knowingly condoned, the intrusion of the church\nmonarchy into secular affairs. And I have said enough to those who know\nme to prove for all time that, so far as I am concerned, my election\nhere was as honorable as that of any man who sits in this chamber; and\nyet I have said enough that all men may know that rather than have a\ndead man's memory defamed on my account, I will make his cause my own\nand will fight for the honor which he is not on earth to defend. This\nwill not suit the friends and mouthpieces of the present rulers, but I\nhave no desire to satisfy or conciliate them; and in leaving this part\nof the question, I avenge President Snow sufficiently by saying that\nthese men did not dare to offend his desire nor dispute his will while\nhe was living, and only grew brave when they could cry: \"Lorenzo, the\nking, is dead! Long live Joseph, the king!\"\n\nAs a Senator I have sought to fulfill my duty to the people of this\ncountry. I am about to retire from this place of dignity. No man\ncan retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect after he\ndiscovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects\nwhich the church monarchy intends to achieve. Some of my critics will\nsay that I relinquished that which I could not hold. I will not pause\nto discuss that point further than to say that if I had chosen to adopt\nthe policy with the present monarch of the church, which his friends\nand mouthpieces say I did adopt with the king who is dead, it might\nhave been possible to retain this place of honor with dishonor.\n\nEvery apostle is a part of this terrible power, which can make and\nunmake at its mysterious will and pleasure. Early in 1902 warning had\nbeen publicly uttered in the State against the continued manifestation\nof church power in politics. The period of unsettled conditions during\nwhich I was elected had ended and we had opportunity to see the manner\nin which the church monarch was resuming his forbidden sway; and we had\noccasion to know the indignant feelings entertained by the people of\nthe United States when they contemplated the flagrant breaking of the\npledge given to the country to secure the admission of Utah. I myself,\nafter conference with distinguished men at Washington, journeyed to\nUtah and presented a solemn protest and warning to the leaders of the\nchurch against the dangerous exercise of their political power. I\ndid it to repay a debt which I owed to Utah, and not for any selfish\nreason. I knew that from the day I uttered that warning the leaders of\nthe Mormon Church would hate and pursue me for the purpose of wreaking\ntheir vengeance. But as the consequences of their misconduct, their\npledge breaking would fall upon all of the people of the State, upon\nthe innocent more severely than upon the guilty, I felt that I must\nassert my love and gratitude to the State, even though my warning\nshould lead to my own destruction by these autocrats. If there had\nbeen one desire in my heart to effect a conjunction with this church\nmonarchy, if I had been willing to retain office as its gift, I would\nnot have taken this step, for I knew its consequences. I began in that\nhour my effort to restore to the people of Utah the safety and the\npolitical freedom which are their right, and I shall continue it while\nI live until the fight is won.\n\nThe disdain with which that message was received was final proof of\nthe contempt in which that church monarchy holds the Senate and the\npeople of the United States, and of the disregard in which the church\nmonarchy holds the pledges which it made in order to obtain the power\nof statehood.\n\nThey do not need to utter explicit instructions in order to assert\ntheir demand. The methods of conveying information of their desire\nare numerous and sufficiently effective, as is proved by results. To\nshow how completely all ordinary political conditions, as they obtain\nelsewhere in the United States, are without account in Utah, I have but\nto cite you to the fact that after the recent election, which gave 57\nmembers out of 63 on joint ballot to the Republican party, and when the\nquestion of my successor became a matter of great anxiety to numerous\naspirants for this place, the discussion was not concerning the fitness\nof candidates, nor the political popularity of the various gentlemen\nwho composed that waiting list, nor the pledges of the legislators, but\nwas limited to the question as to who could stand best with the church\nmonarchy; as to whom it would like to use in this position; as to who\nwould make for the extension of its ambitions and power in the United\nStates.\n\nTHE MORMON MARRIAGE RELATION.\n\nAnd now I come to a subject concerning which the people of the United\nStates are greatly aroused. It is known that there have been plural\nmarriages among the Mormon people, by the sanction of high authorities\nin this church monarchy, since the solemn promise was made to the\ncountry that plural marriages should end. It is well known that the\nplural marriage relations have been continued defiantly, according to\nthe will and pleasure of those who had formerly violated the law, and\nfor whose obedience to law the church monarchy pledged the faith and\nhonor of its leaders and followers alike in order to obtain statehood.\nThe pledge was made repeatedly, as stated in an earlier part of these\nremarks, that all of the Mormon people would come within the law. They\nhave not done so. The church monarch is known to be living in defiance\nof the laws of God and man, and in defiance of the covenant made with\nthe country, upon which amnesty by the President, and statehood by the\nPresident and the Congress, were granted.\n\nI charge that every apostle is in large part responsible for this\ncondition, so deplorable in its effects upon the people of Utah and\nso antagonistic to the institutions of this country. Every apostle is\ndirected by the law-breaking church monarch. Every apostle teaches by\nexample and precept to the Mormon people that this church monarch is a\nprophet of God, to offend or criticise whom is a sin in the sight of\nthe Almighty. Every apostle helps to appoint to office and sustain the\nseven presidents of seventies, who are below them in dignity, and they\nare directly responsible for them and their method of life.\n\nIt is quite evident that the church monarchy is endeavoring to\nre-establish the rule of a polygamous class over the mass of the Mormon\npeople. Of the apostles not practicing polygamy there is at most only\nthree or four men constituting the quorum of which this could be\ntruthfully said. Special reasons may exist in some particular case why\na man in this class has not entered into such relation.\n\nTHE GENERAL SITUATION.\n\nBriefly reviewing the matters which I have offered here, and the\nlogical deductions therefrom, I maintain the following propositions:\n\nWe set aside the religion of the Mormon people as sacred from assault.\n\nOutside of religion the Mormons as a community are ruled by a special\nprivileged class, constituting what I call the church monarchy.\n\nThis monarchy pledged the country that there would be no more\nviolations of law and no more defiance of the sentiment of the United\nStates regarding polygamy and the plural marriage relation.\n\nThis monarchy pledged the United States that it would refrain from\ncontrolling its subjects in secular affairs.\n\nEvery member of this monarchy is responsible for the system of\ngovernment and for the acts of the monarchy, since (as shown in the\ncases of the deposed apostle, Moses Thatcher, and others) the man who\nis not in accord with the system is dropped from the ruling class.\n\nThis monarchy sets up a regal social order within this Republic.\n\nThis monarchy monopolizes the business of one commonwealth and is\nrapidly reaching into others.\n\nThis monarchy takes practically all the surplus product of the toil of\nits subjects for its own purpose, and makes no account to anyone on\nearth of its immense secret fund.\n\nThis monarchy rules all politics in Utah, and is rapidly extending its\ndominion into other States and Territories.\n\nThis monarchy permits its favorites to enter into polygamy and to\nmaintain polygamous relations, and it protects them from prosecution by\nits political power.\n\nLately no effort has been made to punish any of these people by\nthe local law. On the contrary, the ruling monarch has continued\nto grow in power, wealth, and importance. He sits upon innumerable\nboards of directors, among others that of the Union Pacific Railway,\nwhere he joins upon terms of fraternity with the great financial and\ntransportation magnates of the United States, who hold him in their\ncouncils because his power to benefit or to injure their possessions\nmust be taken into account.\n\nI charge that no apostle has ever protested publicly against the\ncontinuation of this sovereign authority over the Mormon kingdom.\n\nWithin a few months past the last apostle elected to the quorum was a\npolygamist--Charles W. Penrose--and his law-breaking career is well\nknown. Previous to 1889 Penrose was living publicly with three wives.\nUnder false pretenses to President Cleveland he obtained amnesty for\nhis past offenses. He represented that he had but two wives, and that\nhe married his second wife in 1862, while it was generally known that\nhe took a third wife just prior to 1888. He promised to obey the law\nin the future, and to urge others to do so; yet after that amnesty,\nobtained by concealing his third marriage from President Cleveland,\nhe continued living with his three wives. His action in this matter\nhas been notorious. He has publicly defended this kind of law-breaking\non the false pretense that there was a tacit understanding with the\nAmerican Congress and people, when Utah was admitted, that these\npolygamists might continue to live as they had been living.\n\nAnd it was this traitor to his country's laws, this unrepentant knave\nand cheat of the nation's mercy, this defamer of Congress and the\npeople, that was elected to the apostleship to help govern the church,\nand through the church the State.\n\nIs it not demonstrated that Utah is an abnormal State? Our problem is\nvast and complex. I have endeavored to simplify it so that the Senate\nand the country may readily grasp the questions at issue.\n\nTHE REMEDY.\n\nWill this great body, will the Government of the United States, go on\nunheedingly while this church monarchy multiplies its purposes and\nmultiplies its power? Has the nation so little regard for its own\ndignity and the safety of its institutions and its people that it will\npermit a church monarch like Joseph F. Smith to defy the laws of the\ncountry, and to override the law and to overrule the administrators of\nthe law in his own State of Utah?\n\nWhat shall the Americans of that Commonwealth do if the people of the\nUnited States do not heed their cry?\n\nThe vast majority of the Mormon people are law-abiding, industrious,\nsober, and thrifty. They make good citizens in every respect except\nas they are dominated by this monarchy, which speaks to them in the\nname of God and governs them in the spirit of Mammon. Any remedy\nfor existing evils which would injure the mass of the Mormon people\nwould be most deplorable. I believe that they would loosen the chains\nwhich they wear if it were possible. I think that many of them pay\nblood-money tithes simply to avoid social ostracism and business\ndestruction. I believe that many of them do the political will of the\nchurch monarch because they are led to believe that the safety of the\nchurch monarchy is necessary in order that the mass may preserve the\nright to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. The\nchurch monopoly, by its various agencies is usually able to uprear the\ninjured and innocent mass of the Mormon people as a barrier to protect\nthe members of that monarchy from public vengeance.\n\nIt is the duty of this great body--the Senate of the United States--to\nserve notice on this church monarch and his apostles that they must\nlive within the law; that the nation is supreme; that the institutions\nof his country must prevail throughout the land; and that the compact\nupon which statehood was granted must be preserved inviolate.\n\nMay heaven grant that this may be effective and that the church\nmonarchy in Utah may be taught that it must relinquish its grasp.\n\nI would not, for my life, that injury should come to the innocent mass\nof the people of Utah; I would not that any right of theirs should be\nlost, but that the right of all should be preserved to all.\n\nIf the Senate will apply this remedy and the alien monarchy still\nproves defiant, it will be for others than myself to suggest a course\nof action consistent with the dignity of the country.\n\nIn the meantime we of Utah who have no sympathy with the-now clearly\ndefined purpose of this church monopoly will wage our battle for\nindividual freedom, to lift the State to a proud position in the\nsisterhood, to preserve the compact which was made with the country,\nbelieving that behind the brave citizens in Utah who are warring\nagainst this alien monarchy stands the sentiment and power of eighty\ntwo millions of our fellow-citizens.\n\nII.\n\nForeword.\n\nThis speech was delivered in the Provo Tabernacle on the evening of\nMarch 14, 1905, in the presence of upwards of two thousand five hundred\npeople, and the report of it was taken by Mr. Arthur Winter. When\nthe speech was first published in full in the _Deseret Evening News_\nof March 25, 1905, the following explanatory note preceded it by the\nwriter:\n\nA report of this speech in a local paper [the _Salt Lake Tribune_]\ncontained many verbal inaccuracies and crudities which in many\ncases were the reporter's, not mine. It is too much to expect that\nextemporaneous speech will be free from verbal and rhetorical errors,\nand I do not claim that the speech as delivered at Provo was free from\nsuch defects. In the speech as here reported by Mr. Arthur Winter, some\nof these crudities have been eliminated so far as they could be and\nstill retain the structure and spirit of what was said. One item has\nbeen added: a passage relating to the alleged threats against Gentile\nindustries in the State of Utah.\n\nConcerning the criticisms that have been made of this speech--one\nof which extended through seven columns of as vapid and flaccid an\naggregation of words, words, words as it has ever been my lot to wade\nthrough--I only care to notice one, that is the alleged harshness\nof some of my utterances. The conclusion is reached that some of my\nwords were unbecoming both my calling and the place in which they\nwere delivered. In answer I only wish to say that the propriety of\none's expressions is governed very largely by the task one has before\nhim. Even the Son of God, when he had occasion to denounce falsehood\nand reprove deceivers, no longer used the gentle tones by which he\ncomforted the sorrowful or encouraged those bowed down in weakness;\nbut he used language suited to the task before him. To the scribes and\nPharisees, who were hounding himself and his friends to their death,\nand as a preliminary to that purpose were seeking to embitter the minds\nof the populace, he said:\n\n    \"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like\n    unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,\n    but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.\n    Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within\n    ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and\n    Pharisees, hypocrites because ye build the tombs of the prophets,\n    and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had\n    been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers\n    with them in the blood of the Prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses\n    unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed\n    the Prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers. Ye\n    serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation\n    of hell?\"\n\nI think I have not gone beyond this worthy example in anything I have\nsaid in this speech; and for the sacredness of the building in which\nmy remarks were made, I in no way feel that there was a desecration,\nsince when the task before one is to defend the innocent against\nmisrepresentation, and denounce calumniators, then \"all place a temple,\nand all seasons summer.\"\n\nII.\n\nAnswer to Kearns.\n\nMr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: On the 28th day of February, last,\nthe then senior senator from the State of Utah delivered an address\nin the senate chamber of the United States, in which an attack was\nmade upon the Mormon Church and against the best interests of the\nState of Utah. The speech was cunningly planned and adroitly phrased;\nand with the prestige of a senator of the United States behind it,\namong the masses of the people of the United States, uninformed of the\ntrue conditions existing in Utah, its effect will be misleading and\nmischievous. It is because of these opinions that I have formed of\nthe speech that I think it a proper subject for this occasion, that\nour own people, at least, should be put upon their guard against the\nmischievous effects of this deliverance.\n\nI regret extremely that the speech was not answered upon the floor of\nthe senate of the United States. The gentleman upon whom that duty\nproperly rested may have had good and sufficient reasons for remaining\nsilent. It is not for me to say. But when I think of the serious\ncharges that are made, and the cunning with which those charges, false\nthough they be, are sustained, I can conceive of no combination of\ncircumstances that would justify the now senior senator from Utah for\nbeing silent on that occasion. The suggestion of friends may be a good\nthing to listen to sometimes; but occasions can arise--and this, in my\njudgment, was one of them--when the call of duty should lead one to\nreject the counsel of well-meaning but perhaps ill-informed friends,\nand the cold calculations of over caution. It might be possible, of\ncourse, that a reply such as one might desire to make, could not be\nmade on the spur of the moment; but ten minutes devoted to denouncing\nthe falsehoods of that speech, and the unmasking of the man who uttered\nit, would have had a beneficial effect upon the public mind, and would\nhave been more effective than any reply that can now be made. Anything\nthat may be said from this platform, or any other in Utah, or anything\nthat may be said in the future upon the floor of the senate chamber,\nwill not have the effect that an emphatic denial of the charges would\nhave had while the gentleman who made them was still a senator of the\nUnited States.[A] That opportunity, however, is lost. All that may\nbe done, here in Utah, at least, is to point out to our youth the\nuntruthfulness of these charges, and disclose the sophistry by which\nan attempt is made to sustain them. I account myself fortunate in\nhaving an opportunity to undertake such a task before this magnificent\nassembly.\n\n[Footnote A: For Senator Smoot it is said that he followed his advisors\namong the senators, and that the event of retaining his seat by a vote\nrejecting the resolution to declare that seat vacant, is a vindication\nof his silence. The senator is, of course, entitled to that view of the\ncase, but to what extent retaining his seat was due to his silence in\nthe foregoing occasion is a value that can never be determined; and it\ndoes not matter now that the event has ended so happily for the senator\nand for Utah.]\n\nAUTHORSHIP OF THE KEARNS' SPEECH.\n\nBefore proceeding to the speech itself, I want to say a word or two\nin relation to its authorship. It will go without saying that the\nex-senator who stands responsible for it is not its author. Those of\nus who chance to be acquainted with the dullness of his mind and the\ndensity of his ignorance know very well that his mind never conceived\nthe speech; nor did he fashion the polished and falsely eloquent\nsentences devoted to so bad a cause. Those of us who served with him in\nthe Constitutional convention of this state painfully remembering the\nvery few occasions on which he sought to express himself upon the floor\nof that convention hall, can never believe for a moment that he is\nthe author of the speech. Those who were present in the Tabernacle in\nSalt Lake City on the occasion when the President of the United States\nhonored that city and the state with his presence, and who saw this now\nex-senator when he addressed that assembly, with hands thrust deep into\nhis pockets, with stomach thrown forward, and head thrown back, and in\nnasal tones only becoming a retired pugilist--and heard him say in the\nopening sentence of his speech, \"We Americans ain't born to nuthin',\nbut we git there just the same\" (Laughter); and who had no better taste\nthan to make the visit of the chief executive of this nation to our\nstate the occasion of a partisan harangue, know very well that he is\nnot the author of this senate speech. He is only the author of this\nspeech in the sense that he has adopted it. This speech is his only in\nthe sense that he bought it. I shall not undertake to describe all the\ncontempt I feel for a man who occupies the high station of a senator of\nthe United States, and who consents to repeat, parrot-like, the bought\nphrases fashioned by another mind. Jewelry in a swine's snout is as\nnothing to this.\n\nTHE BOUGHT FABRIC OF ANOTHER'S RHETORIC.\n\nI glory in that pride, which would prefer to stand in tatters, though\nthe biting winds of winter might nip one, rather than to be dressed in\nthe cast-off clothing or the borrowed furs of a prince; so also I would\nglory in silence rather than to arise in my place in so august a body\nas the United States senate and repeat as mine the speech conceived\nand written by another, though its eloquence rivaled that of a Pitt, a\nChatham or a Webster. Indeed the more eloquent the speech the deeper\nmust be the embarrassment--the shame. But here I pause, though I had\nthe language of a Solomon or a Shakespeare I should never be able to\nexpress my contempt for the senator who would consent to appear clothed\nin the borrowed or bought fabric of another's rhetoric. We may dismiss\nthe ex-senator right here, so far as thinking that he had anything to\ndo with this speech more than the reading of it.\n\nI wish now to say a word in regard to the spirit in which I propose to\ndiscuss this speech. I believe in the amenities of debate. There is\nnothing quite so joyous as to witness a debate when the differences\ndiscussed are honest differences, when opponents are honorable and\ntalented men. I think I may be pardoned, altogether excused, in fact,\nfrom any exhibition of egotism, if I say that I take some pride in the\nreputation I think I have in this state for fairness in debate, and\nrespectful treatment of my opponents. But the amenities of debate do\nnot require me to say that my opponent's statements are true when I\nknow them to be false; or that his argument is good and sound when I\nknow it to be the merest sophistry; or that his motives are patriotic\nwhen I know them to be selfish and revengeful. Therefore, when I meet\nand have to deal with such a speech as the one before me, it is not to\nbe expected that I shall handle it with gloves, and I promise you I\nshall not.\n\nTHE QUESTION OF COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES.\n\nI now come to the speech itself; my reply will follow the order of\nthe topics set forth in the speech, with very slight exceptions; and\nby reason of following the order of topics laid down in the speech,\nI come first of all to the consideration of the pledges under which\nUtah obtained statehood--the compact between the State of Utah and the\nUnited States.\n\nOf that long conflict that raged in Utah from early days down to\nthe year 1890 I need not speak. You are familiar with its history.\nYou know that the foundation facts of that controversy are these:\nthat the Latter-day Saints believed a revelation had been given in\nwhich was made known, first of all, the eternity of the marriage\ncovenant, with the permission and I may say injunction, under certain\ncircumstances, for good men to have a plurality of wives. You know of\nthe successive enactments of Congress, made at the demand of sectarian\nclamor throughout the United States against this practice. You know\nhow these successive acts brought to bear hardships upon the Church,\nuntil at last we were relieved from the responsibility and obligation\nof maintaining in practice that plural marriage system, by the issuance\nof the Manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff in 1890. You know upon\nthat step being taken, that the bitterness of feeling that had hitherto\nexisted subsided; and there began to be manifested a desire that the\nold Church and anti-Church political parties should be disbanded, and\nthat here in Utah, as in the other states of the Union, the people\nshould divide according to their political convictions to one or the\nother of the great national political parties. These movements finally\nresulted in the passage of an Enabling Act, authorizing the election\nof a Constitutional convention for the purpose of framing a state\ngovernment. This convention met in the spring of 1895, and was the\ninstrument through which so far as the people of Utah are concerned,\nthe compact between the State of Utah and the United States was made.\n\nWhen it is necessary to establish what a given compact is, instead of\ncalling to mind this man's opinion, and that man's opinion of it, why\nnot go to the compact itself, and after considering it give it a fair\ninterpretation? That is the method of treatment that I have proposed to\nmyself, and consequently I am going to that compact. The Enabling act\ncontained this clause, which was the crystallized demand of the people\nof the United States upon the people of Utah:\n\n    \"And said convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable,\n    without the consent of the United States and the people of said\n    state:\n\n    \"First, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be\n    secure, and that no inhabitant of said state shall be molested in\n    person on account of his or her mode of religious worship; provided\n    that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.\"\n\nThat is what the people of the United States demanded of the people\nof Utah through the voice of the national Congress--nothing more than\nthat, nothing less than that. Polygamous or plural marriages are to\nbe forever prohibited. That is the demand of the people of the United\nStates.\n\nThat being the demand, what was the response to it on the part of the\npeople of Utah, speaking through the Constitutional convention? This\nwas the response:\n\n    ORDINANCE.\n\n    \"The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent\n    of the United States and the people of the state:\n\n    \"First, perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed.\n    No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or\n    property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but\n    polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.\"\n\nYou will observe that the convention incorporated in this provision the\nvery language of the Enabling act.\n\nThat was the demand, and that the response to the demand. But it\nwas not all of the response. There was something more. After this\ndeclaration had been made, towards the conclusion of the work of the\nconvention, when that part of the Constitution called the \"Schedule\"\nwas introduced (and by the way, in order that you may understand that\nI have clear knowledge of these matters from personal participation in\nthem, I may say that I was a member of the committee on \"Schedule\"),\nMr. Varian, a member from Salt Lake county, called the attention of\nthe convention to the fact that while we had made this declaration\nagainst \"polygamous or plural marriages,\" he held, and very rightly,\ntoo, that it was not self-operating, and provided no penalties for its\nviolation; but was merely a declaration, and he doubted if it would be\nsufficient to meet the expectations of the people of the United States.\nHe therefore recommended a certain course now to be described. You\nperhaps will remember that our territorial Legislature of 1892 enacted\nwhat was virtually the Edmunds-Tucker law. They followed very closely\nthe congressional enactment. Now, said Mr. Varian, in substance,\nyour Legislature enacted practically the law of Congress against\nthese offenses; that being the case, it expresses the willingness of\nyour legislators to meet the demands of the country on this subject.\nTherefore, let us take so much of this territorial enactment as defines\n\"polygamy, or plural marriage,\" and provides for the punishment\nthereof, and make it a provision in this Constitution, operating\nwithout any further legislation. Then the people of the United States\nwill know that you mean really to prohibit \"polygamous or plural\nmarriages\" against which you make your declaration in the ordinance. In\npursuance of this proposition he introduced this resolution:\n\n    \"The act of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the territory\n    of Utah, entitled, 'An act to punish polygamy and other kindred\n    offenses,' approved Feb. 4, A. D. 1892, in so far as the same\n    defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to\n    be in force in the State of Utah.\"\n\nMr. Varian was of the opinion that since this territorial enactment\ninvaded the field already occupied by congressional enactment it was\nvoid, and that when Utah became a state the territorial law would not\nbe in force in the state, and of course the congressional enactments\napplicable to the territory would cease to be operative upon the\nattainment of statehood; hence he thought it necessary to make this\nconstitutional provision against \"polygamous or plural marriages.\"\nBut the part of the territorial law relating to polygamous living or\n\"unlawful cohabitation\"--to use the phrase of the law itself--was\nnot made part of the Constitution of this state. And why? Because\nthe demand made by the people of the United States did not reach to\nthat condition. The demand was only: \"provided polygamous or plural\nmarriages are forever prohibited.\" There were other lawyers in the\nconstitutional convention who contested Mr. Varian's opinion, and\ninsisted that this law of the territory would be operative in the\nstate, and therefore there was no need of adopting his amendment;\nwhereupon a protracted and earnest debate took place, in the course\nof which it was pointed out to Mr. Varian that he had cut this old\nterritorial law in two; he had taken the part that defined and\nprohibited \"polygamy or plural marriages\" and made it part of the\nConstitution, but he had left out the part of the law relating to\nunlawful cohabitation, and the effect of such action by implication\nwould be to repeal that part of the territorial law defining and\npunishing unlawful cohabitation. In the course of the argument made on\nthat point in the convention the following took place:\n\n    Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask you [Mr. Varian] a question.\n    The gentleman will agree with me that your [his] amendment will\n    repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?\"\n\n    Mr. Varian [answering Mr. Evans]--No; there is nothing to repeal.\n    If you want the other kindred offenses [dealt with], my answer is,\n    prohibit them by law under penalties. * * * *\n\n    Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask one question. Suppose the\n    act of 1892 were valid? (i. e., the territorial law dealing with\n    polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, polygamous living, is referred\n    to)--\n\n    Mr. Varian--If the law were valid I should not then introduce--\n\n    Mr. Evans (Weber)--Wouldn't it then repeal everything except the\n    polygamy?\n\n    Mr. Varian--If the law were valid it might repeal by implication,\n    although repeals by implication are not favored.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. ii, p. 1748.]\n\nMr. Varian's resolution was adopted and became part of the\nConstitution, so that in the matter of compact between Utah and the\nUnited States on the subject of polygamy [i. e., polygamous marrying]\nour response went even beyond the demand of the people of the United\nStates as voiced in the Enabling act authorizing us to establish a\nstate government, in that we not only adopted the very language of the\nenabling act, but accepted the definition of polygamy and provided the\npunishment, prescribed for that offense by Congress; but no demand was\nmade and no action was taken respecting unlawful cohabitation; nor did\nit in any manner enter into Utah's compact with the United States.[B]\n\n[Footnote B: Mr. Varian held views in harmony with what he said in the\ndiscussion on the floor of the Constitutional Convention even before\nthat Convention assembled in the spring of 1895, for at the Territorial\nBar Association of Utah, in January of that year, Mr. Varian, then a\nmember-elect of the Constitutional Convention, said, on referring to\nstatehood for Utah:\n\n    \"In accordance with the general convictions of civilized men and\n    the spirit of free institutions, religious liberty will be fully\n    secured by the organic law and a prohibition against plural or\n    polygamous marriages adopted in deference to the suggestion by\n    Congress. Whether it shall ever be stricken from the Constitution\n    will depend solely upon the future temper and will of the people.\n    It will be observed that the actual polygamous status, or living\n    with two or more women as wives, known in Utah as a criminal\n    offense termed \"unlawful cohabitation,\" is not referred to in the\n    proviso of the Enabling Act. Whether the Constitution builders will\n    content themselves with prohibiting polygamous marriages, or will\n    go further and prescribe the polygamous association also will be\n    developed in time.\"\n\nAnd time developed the fact that the Constitutional Convention took no\naction whatsoever in relation to polygamous living, nor was any attempt\nmade to deal with that phase of the question since the convention\nconceived that it had done its full duty, all that was required of\nit, by the Enabling Act, by \"Forever prohibiting plural or polygamous\nmarriages.\"]\n\nNow, understand me, I am not taking the ground that unlawful\ncohabitation--\"polygamous living\"--as it has come to be called--is not\nnow contrary to the law in Utah. That it is under the ban of the law\nis known to every one. But it became so because our state Legislature,\nafter the constitutional convention had settled this vexed question\nupon the terms here pointed out--our state Legislature (and why I have\nnever yet understood) proceeded to unsettle what had been settled in\nthat convention, picked up the part of the old territorial law that had\nbeen discarded by the convention and enacted it with the rest of the\ncode prepared by the special code commission.\n\nHence unlawful cohabitation is under the ban by our state enactment;\nand I am not arguing that polygamous living is not against the law,\nand am not attempting to justify any one in the violation of that\nlaw. I am now merely pointing out the fact that in our compact with\nthe government of the United States disruption of marital relations\ncoming down to us out of the past constituted no part of that compact.\nThe terms of the compact are here in the Enabling act and in the\nConstitution, and may be read and known of all men.\n\nThat compact was not made between the Mormon Church leaders, as claimed\nby Mr. Kearns' adopted speech, and the United States government, but\nbetween the people of the United States acting through Congress and\nthe chief executive of the nation, and the people of Utah, acting\nthrough their representatives in the Constitutional convention. Utah's\nConstitutional convention sought earnestly to meet the demands made\nupon our people by the nation. The chief executive of the nation\nby accepting the Constitution we had formed and proclaiming Utah's\nadmission into the Union, said we had succeeded in meeting those\ndemands. To undertake now to read into that compact something that was\nnot demanded by the Enabling act, and not conceded by the convention,\nthat is not expressly found in its terms, and not fairly to be implied\nfrom them, is infamous. Yet that is what is constantly sought to be\ndone, and we have all sorts of extravagant claims made as to what the\nMormon Church leaders pledged in order to obtain statehood--the compact\nthey made with the nation, and how the Mormon Church has broken it, but\nnever a word do we hear as to the compact itself. The Mormon Church\nleaders made no pledges to obtain statehood, except as in common with\nall the people of the state they accepted and ratified the compact\nimplied in the Enabling act and the provision in the Utah Constitution\nforever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages and providing\npenalties for that offense. The Mormon Church officials pleaded for\namnesty for their people, it is true, but amelioration of the hard\nconditions which a cruel enforcement of the law imposed, not statehood,\nwas the object of their petition.\n\nThe foregoing, then, was the compact between the State of Utah and\nthe United States. The question now is, Has it been violated by the\nState of Utah or by the United States. Certainly not by the latter;\nand I affirm, with absolute confidence that the affirmation cannot be\nsuccessfully contradicted, that the compact has not been violated by\nthe State, or the people of Utah. On the contrary, I hold that the\ncompact, such as it was, has been absolutely fulfilled. In this opinion\nI am sustained by the views of a very distinguished member of the House\nof Representatives, who discussed the subject somewhat at length on the\nfloor of the House when the Roberts case was considered by that body.\nIt was urged in the report of the special committee which investigated\nthe right of the Representative from Utah to his seat in the House,\nthat \"his election as a Representative is an explicit and offensive\nviolation of the 'understanding' by which Utah was admitted as a state.\"\n\nThis \"understanding\" and the \"compact\" were discussed on the floor of\nthe House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following\nlanguage:\n\n    \"I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the\n    authority for the proposition that the United States government\n    can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before\n    a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it,\n    exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over\n    the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it\n    oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act,\n    although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that\n    exists between the States and the general government by reason of\n    this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under\n    this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding'\n    which is based on--what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it\n    was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these\n    times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing\n    between the States and the general government. I knew that the\n    theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I\n    have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865.\n    More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic\n    and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle--the blue and\n    the grey, brethren all--rendered up their lives that that infamous\n    proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the\n    dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it\n    ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please\n    of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract\n    existing between a State and the United States.\"\n\nDiscussing the question of \"compact\" further, Mr. Littlefield said:\n\n    \"Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or\n    contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between\n    the State and the general government. They do not stand in the\n    position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was\n    to become a State was fully performed when she became a State.\n    The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the\n    condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the\n    condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists.\n\n    \"What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said\n    convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and\n    the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was\n    a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the\n    admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is\n    gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved\n    in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of\n    the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of\n    Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of\n    Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has\n    not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for\n    the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory\n    is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely\n    without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any\n    writer to stand upon.\"\n\nWith Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between\nUtah and the United States having been violated, it has been fulfilled.\nUtah has made no effort to repeal the Constitutional provision forever\nprohibiting polygamous or plural marriages. On the contrary, her State\nLegislature has even re-enacted the part of the old Congressional and\nTerritorial law that had been ignored by the Constitutional convention,\ndefining and punishing polygamous living--that is, \"unlawful\ncohabitation.\"\n\nOF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MONARCHY.\n\nPassing from the matter of the compact which the speech to which I am\nreplying falsely charges over and over again that we have violated, I\ncome to the accusation and false charges made against the Mormon Church.\n\nWhoever constructed this speech made the central idea of it, the\nexistence of a \"monarchy\" and a \"monarch\" in the State of Utah. The\n\"monarchy\" is the Mormon Church; the \"monarch\" is the President of that\nChurch. In order that you may know I am not mistaken, I shall read to\nyou a quotation from the speech on this point:\n\n    \"Under these several men (the Church Presidents) the social\n    autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time\n    it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the\n    original Joseph or under Brigham Young. * * * I want you to know\n    that this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality\n    of men immediately established and has maintained for the mass of\n    its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its\n    rulers to regal authority and splendor * * * the chief among them\n    has the dignity of a monarch. * * * In all this social system each\n    Apostle has his great part. He is inseparable from it. He wields\n    now, as does the minister at court, such part of power as the\n    monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation\n    that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order\n    that he may become the ruler.\"\n\nThere is much more to the same effect, but this is enough to show you\nthat the existence of both a \"monarchy\" and a \"monarch\" are charged as\nexisting in the Church organization and in its president.\n\nI wish to call your attention to the fact that this is mere assumption.\nThere is no \"monarchy\" and there is no \"monarch\" in the Mormon Church.\nIt is a fundamental, constitutional, and I might say institutional\nprinciple in the Church that all things in the Church shall be done\nby common consent of the Church; (Doc. & Cov. sec. xxvi) and so long\nas that remains the great underlying principle of the government--and\nlargely even of administrative functions,--of the Church of Jesus\nChrist, I ask you where the principle of monarchy can come in?\nFurthermore it is expressly provided that no officer of the Church\ncan occupy a place in any of the general or local quorums of the\nChurch, only as he is sustained and accepted by the members of the\nseveral divisions of the Church named. (Doc. & Cov. xx: 65.) Moreover,\nelections, which give the opportunity to get rid of undesirable\nofficers, are more frequent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day\nSaints, than in any other system of ecclesiastical government known to\nmen. Will you tell me how a monarchy can exist in the face of these\nfundamental truths? I would like to see some explanation of that.\n\nAgain, the President of the Church is no \"monarch.\" Yet let me read to\nyou how he is described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech:\n\n    \"Under these several men [successive Presidents of the Church] the\n    social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present\n    time it is probably at as high a point as it every reached under\n    the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The President of the\n    Church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His home consists\n    of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded\n    by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. In\n    addition to this he has an official residence of historic character\n    near to the office which he occupies as President. When he travels\n    he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really\n    servitors. When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler\n    among his subjects.\"\n\nCan any of you recognize President Joseph F. Smith in that description?\nI cannot boast of an extremely intimate acquaintance with President\nSmith's domestic life, or his financial status; but it has been my\ngood fortune to know him personally some 30 years. I know something\nof the severe economy and frugality which he practices. I know his\nhomes are but cottages, without the grandeur here given them. I know\nthat his family lives in economy and frugality, and that every tree,\nevergreen, shrub, or flowering plant, or plat of grass about any one of\nhis cottage homes was planted by his own hands or the labor of his sons\nand wives. I do know that. And though he does now occupy an historic\nbuilding, owned, not by Joseph F. Smith, but by the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints, it is more for the convenience of the\npeople and those who have business with him that he dwells there than\nbecause of any \"regal\" or extravagant tastes that he himself possesses,\nand in that \"official residence\" he lives the simplest of lives. I know\nat least seven of his sons who have arrived at manhood's estate, and\nI know that they live by daily toil, as my sons and your sons do, as\nthe sons of all the common people do, and occupying no very exalted\npositions in the industrial or business world, although they are\ncapable, honest and hard working young men. One of them has assisted\nme in my office work as stenographer for three years. Don't you think\nif President Smith really affected this \"regal state,\" \"lorded\" it\nover the people as he is here represented as doing, and lived in this\n\"series of villas of sufficient exclusiveness\" that he would undertake\nto elevate these sons of his and all his family above this toil in\nwhich they are engaged?\n\nThe description presents a false picture. I brand it as such. It\nrepresents rather the style and state in which the writer of Mr.\nKearns' speech would live if he possessed the opportunities he believes\nPresident Smith possesses, rather than the manner of President Smith's\nliving. Especially as to the villas of \"sufficient exclusiveness.\"\n\nAgain, while President Smith, as we believe, has received a divine\nappointment to the station he holds, he is dependent for his\ncontinuance in that office, as he was dependent for his elevation to\nit, upon the votes of the people. He is subject to the laws of the\nChurch, as much so as you or I; and a special provision is made in the\nlaws of God for a tribunal before which, for acts of irregularity and\nunrighteousness, he can be called to account, testimony taken against\nhim, and if his offenses are of sufficiently serious a nature he may be\ndismissed from his high office, and excommunicated from the Church; and\nthe revelation which provides these arrangements concerning him says\nthat the decision of the court in question is the end of controversy\nin his case. I know that some men, in their over-zeal to exalt the\noffice of President of the Church have advanced extravagant ideas upon\nthe subject such as saying that no complaint must be made of those\noccupying that position; that the people must go on performing their\ndaily duties without question, and then if the President should do\nwrong, God would look after him. Such teachings have now and then been\nheard; but I call your attention to the fact that the Church Of God\nis greater than any one man within that Church, however exalted his\nstation may be; that the Lord has provided means by which the Church\ncan correct every man within it, and can-dismiss the unworthy from\npower. That right is resident in the Church of Christ; and the Church\ndon't have to wait till God kills off unworthy servants before a wrong\ncan be righted. The power exists within the Church to correct any\nevil, of whatever name or nature, that may arise within it, and that\nwithout disrupting the Church, or creating anarchy, but all things are\nto be done in order, and as God has appointed them. I could give you\nreferences to the Doctrine and Covenants covering all these points,\nbut it is a matter of such common knowledge among you that it is not\nnecessary.\n\nAgain, the decisions of the First Presidency of the Church are not\nfinal in relation to matters of administration and government in the\nChurch, if such decisions are made in unrighteousness, but from such\ndecisions of the First Presidency appeals lie to the general assembly\nof all the quorums of the Priesthood, which constitute the highest\nspiritual authority in the Church, that is, all the quorums of the\nPriesthood are greater than any one quorum, even though it should be\nthe First Presidency. (Doc. and Cov. sec. 107). Neither \"monarchy\" nor\n\"monarch\" can exist where these principles are recognized, as they are\nrecognized in the Church.\n\nOF THE CHURCH TITHING SYSTEM AND ALLEGED COMMERCIALISM.\n\nThe Church government rests purely and solely upon moral authority. Let\nme explain. Authority is represented in government as of two kinds. Our\nwriters on government tell us that one is \"effective authority\" and\nthe other is \"moral authority.\" You see effective authority operative\nin the various governments of man, in kingdoms, empires and republics;\ntheir authority rests on force, on compulsion. But moral authority\nrests on persuasion, not upon compulsion or force. \"The action of\nGod,\" says one, \"upon man is moral and moral only. By constituting man\nfree, he has refused to exercise effective authority over him, and an\necclesiastic or politic society claiming divine authority must exercise\nmoral authority only; for the moment it exercises compulsion it ceases\nto represent God and resolves itself into effective authority which is\nhuman, all human, and not at all divine,\" (Baring-Gold). The government\nof the Church of Latter-day Saints is such a moral government as is\nhere described. It rests on moral authority only. I read to you from\none of the revelations:\n\n    \"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue\n    of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by\n    gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned;\n\n    \"By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the\n    soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.\"\n\nThis is the spirit of the authority underlying this ecclesiastical\ninstitution that is described as a \"monarchy!\"\n\nHaving laid the foundation for his argument in this assumption of\nthe existence of a \"monarchy\" and a \"monarch,\" the author of Mr.\nKearns' speech weaves around it all sorts of fallacies, a few of\nwhich I shall examine. It is charged that the Church is a business\ncorporation rather than a Church, and is establishing a monopoly in\nbusiness, and threatens, as some gigantic trust might threaten, the\nindustries of this intermountain region. This is not true. It is true\nthat the Church has invested some of its means in various corporations\nand enterprises. In so doing it has manifested, as I think, profound\nwisdom. It has long been regarded as a wise policy in establishing\nendowments for charitable purposes to invest the original donations\ngiven by the generously inclined, and use only the interest upon them\nfor the charitable purpose, and thus place the charity upon a basis\nsure to prolong its life of usefulness. I say that is a policy of good\nsense, and good judgment; and that is what is done and no more than\nthat when the Trustee-in-Trust of the Mormon Church invests Mormon\nChurch tithes in business enterprises. But the Church holdings in the\nvarious corporations where the investments are made are not sufficient\nto dominate those institutions or to establish them as trusts in the\nindustrial affairs of the state. Charitable, educational and missionary\nwork are the purposes to which the revenue of the Church is directly\ndevoted. In proof of this let me call your attention to the work in\nwhich the Church is engaged, and in which our tithes are consumed.\n\nWe teach, as you all know, the principle of gathering to our people.\nWherever the gospel is preached the cry goes with it, \"Come out of\nBabylon, oh ye, my people, that ye partake not of her sins and receive\nnot of her plagues.\" And inasmuch as there is a gathering, must there\nnot also be made some provision to care for the people who come to us?\nMust we not provide some way for them to gain a foothold in the land if\nthey are to become inhabitants of Zion? Most assuredly; and so part of\nour tithe funds go into colonizing enterprises that provide a means of\nobtaining homes for the people. This is done not only in the interests\nof those who come to us from afar, but in the interests also of those\nwho grow up in our own old centers of population and find the need of\nenlarged opportunities.\n\nThe Church has to sustain publication houses in various parts of the\nworld, and they are maintained, in part, by the general funds of the\nChurch.\n\nWe have churches to build in all the wards and stakes of Zion; and\nwhile I know, as you know, that part of that expense is met by\nthe people, outside of their tithing, part of it is also met by\nappropriation from the general funds of the Church.\n\nTemples have been built, and not only built, but maintained. We have\nfour of these magnificent structures now in the State of Utah, and\nothers are in contemplation in other lands where our people are settled.\n\nWe have a missionary system to support; and while it is true the\nmissionary meets his own expenses largely, yet the Church from its\ngeneral funds provides for his return to his home and here and there\nassistance is rendered where it becomes absolutely necessary.\n\nThe Church has its employees to pay; while there is no organization\nin the world where so much of free labor is given to it--especially\nin the matter of its preaching ministry--as in the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints, the Church does of course require all the\ntime and talent of some of its servants, and when that is the case it\nnecessarily has to remunerate them for their services.\n\nA Church school system has been founded and must be maintained; and\nthis is a much larger enterprise than many suppose it to be. We\nsustain, and chiefly from the general funds of the Church, the Brigham\nYoung university, Provo, Utah; the Latter-day Saints' University, Salt\nLake City, Utah; the Brigham Young college, Logan, Utah; the Weber\nStake academy, Ogden, Utah; the Juarez Stake academy, Juarez, Mexico;\nthe Snow academy, Ephraim, Utah; the Ricks academy, Rexburg, Ida.; The\nThatcher academy, Thatcher, Ariz.; the Fielding academy, Paris, Idaho;\nthe Cassia Stake Academy, Oakley, Idaho; the Emery Stake academy,\nCastle Dale, Utah; the St. Johns Stake academy, St. Johns, Arizona; the\nSnowflake Stake academy, Snowflake, Arizona; the Uintah Stake academy,\nVernal, Utah; the Beaver Branch B. Y. University, Beaver, Utah.\n\nIf you suppose that this school system does not make large drafts upon\nthe general funds of the Church paid in by you and all of us, you are\nvery much mistaken.\n\nAgain, the Church has erected a magnificent hospital in Salt Lake City,\nthe best in the west, and that chiefly from the general funds of the\nChurch, and it will have to be maintained and doubtless enlarged in the\nsame way.\n\nIn addition to all this there is the maintenance of the poor, who\nare always with us, and who are always welcomed into the Church of\nChrist, though the maintenance and care of them always has been and is\nnow a heavy draft upon the resources of the Church, but it is borne\ncheerfully since the love and care of the Church for the poor is one\nof the evidences of her divinity. When men came to the Son of God\nanciently and demanded to know \"Art thou the Messiah, or must we look\nfor another?\" Jesus said, \"Go and tell those who sent you that the\nsick are healed, that the blind see, that the lame walk;\" and then, I\nthink most glorious of all, he said, \"And to the poor the Gospel is\npreached.\" And so in this dispensation of the fulness of times, one of\nthe signs of the work's divinity is that it has preached the gospel to\nthe poor, has gathered them from the nations of the earth, has tried to\nteach them how to sustain themselves, but where that has been out of\ntheir power the Church has nourished and supported them from its tithes\nand its free-will fast offerings, so that the cry of the poor does not\nreach the ears of the God of Sabbaoth from the midst of the saints.\n\nAfter the author of this Kearns' adopted speech had recalled the fact\nthat Mormons looked upon this part of their work with pride, he says\nthat in some of the institutions established by the state for the\nmaintenance of the poor, notwithstanding Mormon pride in care of their\npoor, there are some Mormon poor in those institutions. Well, what of\nit? Have not the Mormons as well as other citizens a right to such\nassistance? It is conceded even in the speech under consideration that\nthe Mormons pay half the taxes (and they pay much more than half) out\nof which the infirmaries with other state institutions are sustained.\nBut notwithstanding there may be some few Mormons in these state\ninstitutions, it still remains true that the Mormon Church does much\nfor the poor, and that this charitable work is a heavy draft upon her\nrevenues.\n\nIt is falsely represented in this speech that the tithes of the Church\nare the personal income of the Trustee-in-Trust of the Church.\n\nI know there are many here who, when I make that announcement, will\ndoubtless think, surely Mr. Roberts must be mistaken; a charge so\nabsurd as that would certainly not be made on the floor of the United\nStates senate. But I will read you the charge:\n\n    \"Independent of these business concerns, he [President Smith] is in\n    receipt of an income like unto that which a royal family derives\n    from a national treasury. One-tenth of all the annual earnings of\n    all the Mormons in the world flows to him. These funds amount to\n    the sum of $1,600,000 annually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000,\n    which is one-quarter of the entire taxable wealth of the State of\n    Utah. It is the same as if he owned, individually, in addition\n    to all his visible enterprises, one-quarter of the wealth of the\n    state, and derived from it 5 per cent of income without taxation\n    and without discount. * * * With an income of 5 per cent upon\n    one-quarter of the entire assessed valuation of the State of Utah\n    today, how long will it take this monarch, with his constantly\n    increasing demands for revenue, to absorb the productive power so\n    their he shall be receiving an income of 5 per cent upon one-half\n    the property, and then upon all of the property of the state? This\n    is worse than the farming taxes under the old French kings. Will\n    Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?\"\n\nI say that a meaner falsehood could not be uttered than is uttered in\nthose sentences. And it was not done in ignorance. It was done with\nthe intent to deceive the people of the United States, to awaken their\nbitterness against the great majority of the people in this state,\nand to represent the Mormons as subservient to a monarch, to a tyrant\nliving in grandeur and upon the profits of their earnings, and was\nintended to work mischief towards the people of this state. I need not\ndeny the falsehood--you all know the charge to be untrue--that the\nfunds which flow into the hands of the Trustee-in-Trust are but trust\nfunds. Not one dollar belongs to him personally. These funds are used\nfor the various purposes that we have just been considering.\n\nAgain, this speech falsely represents that the \"government money\" is\ntithed. I shall have to read the passage from the speech in which the\ncharge occurs in order to get you to believe that, I know. So here it\nis:\n\n    \"It will astound you to know that every dollar of United States\n    money paid to any servant of the government who is a Mormon is\n    tithed for the benefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus\n    paid he gets $100 to swell his grandeur. This is also true of money\n    paid out of the public treasury of the State of Utah to Mormon\n    officials.\"\n\nNor is the end yet:\n\n    \"But what is worst of all, the monarch dips into the sacred public\n    school fund and extracts from every Mormon teacher one-tenth of\n    his or her earnings and uses it for his unaccounted purposes; and,\n    by means of these purposes and the power which they constitute, he\n    defies the laws of his state, the sentiment of his country, and is\n    waging war of nullification on the public school system, so dear to\n    the American people.\"\n\nAnd that is not all:\n\n    \"In all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to\n    voluntary gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters\n    connected legitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are\n    against the tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from\n    individuals the moneys which they ought not to spare from family\n    needs, and which they do not wish to spare.\"\n\nThen tell me why they spare it? That is my question. The tithes that\nare paid by Mormons are voluntary donations to carry on the work of the\nChurch, and the Church possesses no power by which it can coerce man,\nwoman or child to the payment of tithes. Will you tell me when a man\nwas ever excommunicated solely because he did not pay his tithes. Is\nthere any such case?\n\nBut to proceed with the proof that this speech charges that government\nmoney is tithed:\n\n    \"My comment and criticism relate to the power of a monarch whose\n    tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys paid by the\n    government are considered the property of the government's servant\n    until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary tribute,\n    with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the\n    monarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs,\n    which are not a part of either religion or charity.\"\n\nCan straight-out lying or any other description of lying whatsoever\nbeat this? Not from the regions of the lowest hell can come a spirit\nmore damned in falsehood than the author of this speech, and a senator\nof the United States sank lower than the author of the falsehood by\nrepeating it from his place in the senate chamber.\n\nOne man works for the government; another teaches school. When such\nemployees receive money for the Compensation of their services\nthat money, of course, belongs to them. They own it. It is not\ngovernment money. The farmer who digs and delves in the earth for his\ncompensation, and who by virtue of his toil and going into partnership\nwith nature--with the soil and the rain and the sunshine--produces his\ncrop and sells it in the market, and holds the cash in his hand--I say\nthat money is no more completely the farmer's than is the money earned\nby the government employee and the school teacher, theirs. It will go\nwithout saying that the school teacher and the government employee have\njust as much right to devote a portion of their income in the work of\nthe church of their choice as has the farmer to contribute from his\nincome to a like purpose. This part of the speech is an infamous appeal\nto the prejudices of the people of the United States, and is based on\nfalsehood absolutely.\n\nI might, if it would not take too long, enter into those paragraphs\nof the speech which by wonderful twisting and turning undertake to\nmake it appear that the Gentiles also are made to bear the burden of\nthis tithing system--this alleged \"ecclesiastical tax, levied upon the\npeople of the state,\" but it would require too long a discussion, and\nso I shall pass it. Besides it is a proposition too absurd for serious\nconsideration.\n\nA DESCRIPTION OF THE AUTHOR OF SENATOR KEARNS' SPEECH. [A]\n\n[Footnote A: In the paragraphs under this heading are described\nthe character and lightening like political changes of a certain\npolitician, whom Senator Kearns employed upon his personal anti-Mormon\nnewspaper, published in Salt Lake City; and who, it is quite generally\nconceded, wrote the Kearns Senate Speech.]\n\nThese several clauses of the speech just considered indicate better\nthan any others that I have found, the probable authorship of the\nspeech; and I want to talk about that just five minutes.\n\nThe man who can utter such bald-faced falsehoods as these is the kind\nof man who could believe with the Republicans at one time that the\nforeign importer of goods paid our tariff taxes, and then later could\njoin with the Democrats and conclude, after all, that it must be the\nconsumer who pays the tax.\n\nSuch a person as wrote that speech could be one who, sent from a\nDemocratic convention, held in one of the states, to the national\nDemocratic convention, could enthusiastically wire back from the far\neast that he was well pleased with the Democratic platform and nominee,\nthat the thing for Democrats to do was to \"get together and stay\ntogether,\" and then could come home and, hearing the chink of silver,\ninterpret it as a call to him to assist in the organization of a new\nparty that should work for the defeat of the Democratic nominee and the\nDemocratic policies.\n\nThe kind of man who wrote that speech could perform any inconsistency\nin the most consistent manner. I warrant you that he is one who could\neat his cake and yet have it; who could let go and hold on at the\nsame time; he could run with the hare and yet bark with the hounds;\nif he were only a physical, equestrian acrobat, as he is a mental\nacrobat, he could perform a feat up to the present time regarded as\nimpossible--that is, he could ride at the same time two horses going in\nopposite directions, whereas it has been quite universally held that\nif a man rides more than one horse at a time the horses must go in the\nsame direction.\n\nThe author of that speech is like one of old, who, however, shall be\nnameless, because his name is never mentioned in polite society, he\ncan, I warrant you, \"quote Scripture to his purpose, aye, and clothe\nhis naked villainy with old odd ends stolen out of holy writ, and seem\na saint when most he plays the devil.\"\n\nThe author of that speech might be one who in the hour of his greatest\nneed when on trial, in a way, before the people of the community where\nhe dwelt, would solicit--or have solicited for him--and receive the\nassistance of a powerful friend in whom the people had confidence;\na friend who hoped for his future, and who believed at the time,\nthis possible author of the speech in question was being unfairly\ndealt with, and hence gave him a certificate which rehabilitated his\nreputation, and saved him from condemnation by the people; and after\nreceiving such magnanimous treatment, dealt out to him in a spirit of\nmercy and generosity, this possible author could turn and smite the\nhand that blessed him, and bark, cur-like, at the heels of the one who\ndid him the greatest kindness? Such an one as this might have written\nthe speech which Senator Kearns adopted and took to the senate chamber\nof the United States for its christening.\n\nOF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MENACE TO GENTILE INDUSTRIES.\n\nIt is falsely alleged in this Kearns adopted speech that the Mormon\nChurch is a menace to Gentile industries in the state excepting\nmining and smelting, and even these, it charges, are threatened with\nextermination on certain conditions:\n\n    \"Let it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the\n    property of Utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the\n    president of the Church, and that at his instance any industry, any\n    institution within the state, could be destroyed, except the mining\n    and smelting industry. Even this industry his personal and Church\n    organ has attacked with a threat of extermination by the courts,\n    or by additional legislation, if the smelters do not meet the view\n    expressed by the Church organ.\"\n\nThe charge that the smelters are threatened with extermination by the\ncourts is refuted by the very article from the Deseret News the senator\nquotes in support of this supposed threat. The facts briefly stated\nare these: In the south end of Salt Lake valley, near to Salt Lake\nCity, are a number of smelters that daily belch out volumes of smoke\nand deadly fumes which are injuring the interests of the farmers in\nthat locality, and threaten in time to desolate the southern suburbs\nof Salt Lake City. The demand is that this evil shall be remedied, or\nelse, of course, that the cause of the difficulty be removed, and now\nthe proposition in the _News_ which is not at all what Senator Kearns'\nadopted speech makes it out to be:\n\n    \"The _Deseret News_ has counseled peace, consideration for the\n    smelter people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor\n    toward a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper\n    lines, and arbitration instead of litigation. But it really seems\n    now as though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin\n    will come to the agricultural pursuits of Salt Lake county, while\n    the city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. If\n    the companies that control those works will not or can not dispose\n    of the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks,\n    the fires will have to be banked and the nuisance suppressed. We\n    do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. We are of\n    opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that\n    efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay.\"\n\nThe other part of the senator's assertion on this point of the Mormon\nChurch being a menace to Gentile industry I really would not consider\nwere it not for the fact that others are taking up the refrain and\npublishing such pipe dreams as this:\n\n    \"But if this is the purpose [i. e. to drive out the Gentiles],\n    several things ought to be kept in mind. The first one is that most\n    of the wealth of Utah has been created by Gentiles. The Saints\n    were not opulent when the Gentiles came in force to Utah. Except\n    for the money that the Gentiles have paid the Saints for labor\n    and supplies, the Saints would not be very opulent now; again,\n    if something like a holy war is meditated against Gentiles, they\n    will neither lay down now nor run away. It would not take much of\n    a crusade to cause the Gentiles of Salt Lake to light their homes\n    with coal oil, to walk rather than ride on the street cars, to\n    trade only with Gentile merchants, to employ only Gentile help--in\n    short to closely imitate what the Saints are doing by them now.\n    Do the chiefs of the Church desire to precipitate this state of\n    affairs?\"\n\nI should think not. We may have had our differences with our Gentile\nneighbors and friends, but we should be exceedingly sorry to part with\nthem. No, indeed; we would rather see them increase than diminish; ride\nin street-cars than see them walk; and burn electric lights rather than\ntallow dips, or coal oil.\n\nBut to be serious, isolation for Mormonism is neither possible nor\ndesirable. Here in Utah and the intermountain west our faith must teach\nits doctrines, and here our people so exemplify its principles that\nthose who come in contact with them shall yet respect both the religion\nand those who accept it, and practice it. Mormons have no disposition\nat all to be unfriendly to Gentiles; and in refutation of the charge\nthat Mormons are unfriendly towards Gentile industries and business, I\ncall your attention to the fact that in the great and varied mercantile\nbusiness of our state, in our commerce, in the banking business, in\nmining and smelting, our Gentile friends have become wonderfully\nprosperous, a condition that could not have been realized under\ncircumstances described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech. There has been\nformed no opposition against Gentiles looking to their injury; and I\nfeel safe in saying there will be none.\n\nTHE MORMON AND POLITICS.\n\nNow I come to the most interesting part of the speech, that which most\nbecomes the now ex-senator to make. It is more worthy of himself. You\nobserve I said the \"ex-senator;\" thank the Lord for the \"ex!\"\n\nIt is charged in the speech that the Mormon Church is in politics. I\nread you the passage:\n\n    \"Through these channels of social and business relations they\n    [the Mormon leaders] can spread the knowledge of their political\n    desires without appearing obtrusively in politics. When the end\n    of their desire is accomplished they affect to wash their hands\n    of all responsibility by denying that they engaged in political\n    activities. Superficial persons, and those desiring to accept\n    this argument, are convinced by it. But never, in the palmy days\n    of Brigham Young, was there a more complete political tyranny\n    than is exercised by the present president of the Mormon Church\n    and his apostles. * * * Parties are nothing to these men except\n    as parties may be used by them. So long as there is a Republican\n    administration and Congress, they will lead their followers to\n    support Republican tickets; but if by any chance the Democratic\n    party should control this government with a prospect of continuance\n    in power, you would see a gradual veering around under the\n    direction of the Mormon leaders. When Republicans are in power the\n    Republican leaders of the Mormon people are in evidence and the\n    Democratic leaders are in retirement.\"\n\nI plead not guilty to the charge of Mormon Democrats being in\nretirement--speaking for one Democrat, at least; and I know my own case\nis paralleled by many other cases of leading Mormon Democrats; we are\nnever in retirement. We are always in evidence, much to the disgust,\nperhaps, of some people; nevertheless, when the drum sounds the war\nspirit is on, and we are in the fight; and expect to be in the fights\nof the future. I shall leave our Republican friends to plead their own\ncase, knowing very well their ability to do so.\n\nTHE PERSONAL CASE OF EX-SENATOR KEARNS.\n\nThe ex-senator very courageously declared that he would not pass by\nhis own case; and I am glad he did not, because there are some very\ninteresting items in it that I shall be pleased to consider, and it\nconstitutes him a very picturesque figure for at least one brief\nmoment. First of all, I want to call your attention to the fact that\nthis man admits that he was elected to the senate by Church influence.\n\nHe claims a sort of a \"far off\" kind of friendship with President\nSnow. It certainly must have been very \"far off,\" I can't make out the\naffinities on which it was based. It certainly did not arise out of any\nsimilarity of tastes, or anything in the compatibility of temperament\nbetween the two men, for the poles are not farther apart than the\nnatures of these men. This is what the ex-senator says concerning his\nelection:\n\n    \"For some reason he [President Snow] did not oppose my election\n    to the senate. Every other candidate for the place had sought his\n    favor; it came to me without price or solicitation on my part. The\n    friends and mouthpieces of some of the present leaders have been\n    mean enough to charge that I bought the senatorship from Lorenzo\n    Snow, President of their own Church. Here and now I denounce the\n    calumny against that old man, whose unsought and unbought favor\n    came to me in that contest. * * * I was elected. After all their\n    trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the very\n    means which they had basely invoked.\"\n\nThere is more of it, but this is enough, I think, to constitute the\nadmission that Mr. Kearns was elected, according to his view of it,\nby Church influence. Either to affirm or deny this claim is not my\npurpose. But mark further what Mr. Kearns says:\n\n    \"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self respect\n    after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured\n    and the object which the Church monarchy intends to achieve.\"\n\nThen I put to him this question: \"Why did you for four long years\nin dishonor retain the seat that came to you by these--according to\nyour description--dishonorable methods?\" The gentleman's speech comes\nfour years too late to have any grace in it. If the next day after\nhis election, knowing then as thoroughly as he knows now, the means\nand methods by which he secured that election--if at that time he had\npublished to the people of Utah and to the people of the United States\nsomething like this:\n\n\"I discover that I have been elected by the influence of the Mormon\nChurch leaders. That influence was unsought by me, but I cannot afford\nto accept a seat in the senate of the United States procured by methods\nso injurious to the state, so disturbing to our peace. I therefore\nlay down the honor that this Legislature would put upon me; for if I\ngo to the senate of the United States I must go unfettered by such\nobligations as would be implied by my accepting this position given\nme under such circumstances.\" If, I say, the gentleman four years ago\nhad taken a position of that kind all men would have had some respect\nfor him, and for his denunciation of the exercise of Church influence\nin political affairs. But after sitting in the high place of honor for\nfour long years, enjoying the benefits of Church influence, then in the\nlast days of his senatorial term to stand up and repudiate the means by\nwhich he says he was helped into that high station--it all comes with\nvery poor grace from him, and places his wrath against the exercise of\nChurch influence in politics under strong suspicion of hypocrisy. He\nstands as one who has received stolen goods, and with great generosity\nto himself appropriated these goods to his own use; they directly\nor indirectly clothed him, perhaps, and fed him, or ministered to\nhis vanity; then after thoroughly exhausting the stolen goods and\nthe proceeds from them, he arises in a spirit of lofty morality and\ndenounces the means--if not the thieves--by which they were brought to\nhim. What would be your thought of such an one?\n\nWhat excuse does the now ex-senator make for thus appropriating the\nhigh honors of a senatorship that came to him by reason of his election\nby Church influence? This is what he offers as his excuse:\n\n    \"I have served with you four years, and have sought in a modest\n    way to make a credible record here. I have learned something of\n    the grandeur and dignity of the senate, something of its ideals,\n    which I could not know before coming here. I say to you, my fellow\n    senators, that this place of power is infinitely more magnificent\n    than I dreamed when I first thought of occupying a seat here. But\n    were it thrice as great as I now know it to be, and were I back\n    in that old time of struggle in Utah, when I was seeking for this\n    honor, I would not permit the volunteered friendship of President\n    Snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one atom of\n    the Church monarch's favor.\"\n\nA little later in the speech he also says:\n\n    \"My ideals have grown with my term of service in this body, and I\n    believe that the man who would render here the highest service to\n    his country must be careful to attain to this place by the purest\n    civic path that mortal feet can tread.\"\n\nI am happy to learn that this gentleman's ideals have grown. There was\nmuch need of such a growth, surely. But what a lofty morality breathes\nthrough these sentences! It is very impressive in view of what I am\ngoing to call your attention to presently. I want to reveal to you the\ncharacter of this man. I will read again:\n\n    \"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self-respect,\n    after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured\n    and the objects which the Church monarch intends to achieve.\"\n\nMark that! And yet Mr. Kearns managed to retain his seat for four\nlong years, after he had learned by what means it had come to him;\nand allowed his self-respect, meantime, to take care of itself.\nI suggest also that had his term of office extended four years\nlonger--notwithstanding what he has learned about the honor and dignity\nof a United States senatorship, he would doubtless have continued to\nhold on to his \"honors,\" through those four long, troubled years of\n\"dishonor.\" I would like to know what development of ideas between\nthe time of his election and the expiration of his term of office was\npossible concerning the mischief of Church interference in politics\nthat could so wonderfully open the eyes of this ex-senator to the\niniquity of the methods by which his election was procured? Why, from\naway back in territorial days, for forty-five years, this question of\nthe relation of Church and state has been debated in Utah, and we have\nlearned every lesson it seems to me there is to learn on the subject;\nand yet, after the long controversy, it took four years in the senate\nof the United States for this man to discover the wondrous iniquity of\nreceiving Church influence in an election to the senate of the United\nStates! But I have observed in several other of our experiences in the\nState of Utah that for some mysterious reason politicians never can see\nthe mischief there is in the use of Church influence unless they can't\nget it, Or they suspect it is being used for the interests of \"the\nother fellow.\"\n\nBut to return to our ex-senator. He says:\n\n    \"No man can retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect\n    after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured\n    and the objects which the Church monarchy intends to achieve. Some\n    of my critics will say that I relinquish that which I could not\n    hold. I will not pause to discuss that point further than to say\n    that if I had chosen to adopt the policy with the present monarch\n    of the Church which his friends and mouthpieces say I did adopt\n    with the king who is dead, it might have been possible to retain\n    this place of honor with dishonor.\"\n\nYou have seen Mr. Kearns--this semblance of a man that in nothing\nresembles a senator--rise in his place and attitudinize to fit the\nphrases of his adopted speech before the gaze of this great nation\nwhile he denounced the use of Church influence in politics; and now\nyou hear him say that if he had only adopted the methods charged\nagainst him in obtaining his first election with the present \"Church\nmonarch,\" he might have retained this honorable seat in the senate\n\"with dishonor.\" Would he solicit Church influence? the influence of\nthe President of the Church, for his re-election? Certainly not! Such a\nthing never entered his politically pious mind! _Yet, knowing full well\nthe seriousness of the charge I make, I say to this great audience and\nwould say it to the people of the United States if my voice could reach\nthem, and that upon my word of honor, that this man, ex-Senator Kearns,\nnotwithstanding all his lofty utterances, both directly and indirectly,\ntoo, sought that very influence for re-election which now he affects to\nscorn. He, by personal application to President Joseph F. Smith, sought\nit in the City of Washington, when President Smith was there to testify\nbefore the Senate committee on privileges and elections. He sought for\nthat influence in Salt Lake City, sought it personally of the President\nof the Church, and received the grand reply, \"We are not in politics.\"\nHe sought Church influence indirectly, through what was intended to be\nthe good offices of a fellow senator, whose influence rests upon the\nsame basis as his own, the influence of wealth. Not only once did he\nthus seek it, but on several occasions. Yet he stands in his place in\nthe Senate and declares that \"No man can retain this seat from Utah and\nretain his self-respect after he discovers the methods by which his\nelection is procured and the objects which the Church monarch intends\nto achieve!\" Still, while in possession of all the knowledge he has now\nas to the methods and objects of the Mormon Church leaders, Mr. Kearns\nsought that influence which he says even to be the innocent recipient\nof would be dishonor!_\n\n_In what light does this man now stand before the people of this state\nand of the United States? To say that his course was one of lying and\nhypocrisy would but faintly describe it; but these terms, weak as they\nare, may be thrust into the very throat of him, \"as deep as to the\nlungs.\" Let him pluck them out if he can!_\n\n_Not only did Mr. Kearns seek Church influence in order to encompass\nhis own re-election, but the Tribune war made upon the Mormon Church\nwas begun and carried forward in his interests; in the hope that the\npresent leaders of the Church could be frightened into supporting him\nfor re-dec-lion. I thank God that he found those whom he could not\nfrighten; whatever else comes of it, I thank the Lord for that._\n\nTHE RECOMMENDATIONS OF EX-SENATOR KEARNS.\n\nIn concluding his adopted speech the ex-senator suggests a remedy for\nall our Utah ills; and of course there is none of us who would question\nhis ability to tell the senate just what ought to be done to a state\nthat will no longer have Mr. Kearns for its senator.\n\nThe recommendation in substance is this:\n\nNotice must be served upon the Church leaders that they must live\nwithin the law. That notice was received a long time ago; and the\nMormon Church leaders not only received the notice, but acquiesced\nin it, too. Prest. Wilford Woodruff received an inspired word that\nrelieved the Church of the burden of maintaining in practice a\nprinciple which before then had been regarded as a duty to maintain,\nin practice as well as in faith. Thus the way was opened for the\nMormon leaders to make a concession to the sentiment of the people of\nthe United States, and to the laws of Congress. It is realized by the\nMormon leaders also that even if they could they cannot with profit\nnor to the advantage of the community treat with defiance those laws\nof the state which prohibit polygamous living. But while that is the\ncase, those involved in that system of marriage which was taught as\na divine institution for more than a generation in Utah, have the\ncommon rights that belong to those who enjoy the privileges of our\nfree institutions, including home rule, and the administration of the\nlaw according to the sentiments of the people where they reside, just\nas they have the right to be tried by juries of the vicinage where\nit is alleged the laws are broken. If that local, popular sentiment\nshall decide that it would be against public policy and the welfare\nof a large class of the community to rigidly enforce those laws, then\nI say they are entitled to that clemency. It is for that very reason\nthat home rule in government is so precious a boon, and so necessary to\nthe preservation of the liberties of the people. It is not just that\nthose involved in the Mormon marriage system shall be put in jeopardy\nof fines and imprisonment by a contemptible spotter and spy, merely an\nemployee of the lowest sensational paper in the United States, the very\nworst of yellow journals. They have a right to be free from that kind\nof oppression, and to be subject to the law as administered in harmony\nwith the American spirit of law administration.\n\nCOMMENT OF THE EX-SENATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS.\n\nSome one will say, however, that there are violators of the law in\nUtah; and that, too, in relation to new marriages since the issuance\nof the Manifesto, and since the admission of the state into the Union.\nIf that be true, if all that is claimed in relation to it be true,\n(but that is not admitted,) then why not execute the law against\nthose who have violated it, and who have broken, so far as they are\nconcerned, the pledge that was given by the state on this subject? Why\nnot prosecute them, and not attempt to do what Edmund Burke a long time\nago declared he knew not the method of, namely, to draw an indictment\nagainst, an entire people? In other states are not the laws violated?\nAnd who is held responsible for that violation? The whole community\nwho are not parties to the violation 'of the law? No; the absurdity\nof that appears upon the face of it. Why should the people of Utah\nbe judged by a standard different from that by which would be judged\nthe people of Ohio, or the people of Pennsylvania, or the people of\nMontana? From the first Utah has suffered from this kind of treatment.\nEvery murder that was committed in the community in early days was\ncharged to the \"Mormon\" Church. When there was a hanging in Montana, or\na throat cutting in Nevada, or a lynching bee in Wyoming, the parties\nconcerned were the ones indicted and compelled to bear the burden of\ntheir awful crime; but if such a thing happened in Utah, the \"Mormon\"\nChurch must be involved. And so now in these alleged violations of the\nlaw concerning polygamous marriages, the Church is made a party to the\ntransgressions of individuals.\n\nI say that the State of Utah has kept the compact that she made with\nthe people of the United States. When she said as she did say in her\nConstitution that polygamous or plural marriages shall forever be\nprohibited and provided for the punishment of such crimes, the State\nof Utah could not guarantee that every one would obey the law, any\nmore than the inhabitants of Arizona, when they say through the law\nthat horse thieves shall be imprisoned, can engage that a horse shall\nnever again be stolen in that territory, and no horse thief ever\nescape. What they do mean to say is that if such a crime is committed,\nand the parties are arraigned under the processes of the law, they\nshall meet the just penalty of their acts under the law. That is alt\nthey are pledged to do. And so I say concerning those in Utah who may\nviolate the laws, they are amenable to the laws of the state, and if\nbrought before the courts, and the evidence is sufficient, there can\nbe no doubt but they will be punished. But those who are accused of\ncrime have a right to the protection of the forms and processes of the\nlaw; and they can not be hailed before a judge and cast into prison\nmerely because sensational charges are made against them in sensational\nanti-Mormon newspapers; or because Madames Rumor and Neighborhood\nGossip say they are guilty as charged. Let the men guilty of violation\nof the law bear their own burdens.\n\nThe people of Utah have neither lot nor part in their offense; and it\nis an infamy, the like of which is not matched elsewhere in our nation,\nto attempt to throw the responsibility of their wrong doing upon the\ngreat mass of the citizens of Utah, upon the state, or upon the Mormon\nChurch, when they are not parties to their crimes. So long as there\nis no attempt to change or annul the compact that the people of Utah\nentered into with the people of the United States, which compact is\nfound consummated in the Constitution of our state, as demanded by the\nterms of the Enabling act, and so long as no effort is made to shield\nthose who violate the law, so long the people of Utah are keeping their\npledges.\n\nNow a few words in conclusion. We find ourselves a very cosmopolitan\ncommunity in Utah, gathered from all parts of the world, of all sects\nand persuasions in religion, of all parties in politics, engaged in\nall of the common avocations of life, from cultivating the soil to\ndelving in the bowels of the earth for its precious ores, its coals\nand its oils. We inhabit a state the industries of which are varied\nand profitable; and if it were not for this apparently irrepressible\nconflict concerning social and religious matters, we might by united\neffort make of this old \"Dead Sea State\" a very live and splendid\ncommonwealth, where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens\nbesides those now on the ground, could find homes where they would\nenjoy more cloudless days during a year than in any other state of the\nUnion; homes where they might cultivate soil the most fruitful in our\ngreat country; homes where they might enjoy an atmosphere that thrills\nthe human system like glorious wine, giving life, health and vitality\nto men. We might rear here a splendid manhood and womanhood, and have\npeace and contentment, and show the world how good and how pleasant\nit is for brethren to dwell together in unity. All this is possible,\nnotwithstanding our varied religious faiths and our various political\nconvictions. And it does seem to me that the time has come when the\nwise and conservative citizens of our state of all religions and of all\npolitical parties should take counsel together and see if this glorious\nresult to which I have pointed cannot be attained; for when knaves\nconspire, wise men should counsel together.\n\nA while ago I told you that isolation for the Mormon people is both\nimpossible and undesirable. The idea of the withdrawal of our Gentile\npopulation is nonsense, and not upon the program. It is equally true\nthat the Latter-day Saints, come what may, will not surrender their\nreligious faith. That cannot be done. Our Gentile friends must learn\nto tolerate us, notwithstanding what they may regard as the absurdity\nof our religious belief. On the other hand, Mormons recognize their\namenability to the laws of the state, and we say to them--at least\nI utter it as my personal conviction--that Mormons hold themselves\namenable to the laws of the state, and if their friends and neighbors\nin the vicinity where they respectively reside are offended at their\nconduct, taking generously into account the past from which some of\nour obligations (I will not say troubles) come, why then there is\nnothing for it but submission to the law as interpreted by the courts\nand by the people in the vicinity where we reside. I say, under these\nconditions, our Gentile friends must learn to tolerate us, as we are\nwilling to tolerate them. The great bulk of our Gentile friends came to\nthese mountain valleys because of the financial prospects they saw here\nspread out before them. They came here to establish homes, to enjoy the\nclimate, to regain health, in some instances, and to possess with their\nfellow citizens, though Mormons, a goodly land. They are not interested\nin Mormon polemics. They care not a fig, in the main, for the Mormon\nreligion. Then why not say to those who are a disturbing element and\nmaking false charges not only against the Mormons but against the\nstate false charges which we have been considering here tonight, in\nthe speech of the man who was, unhappily, a United States senator from\nUtah, and whose personal newspaper day after day vomits the bitterness\nOf hate against the greater part of the community--why not say to these\ndisturbing elements, as God says to the sea, \"Hither to shalt thou\ncome, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?\"\n\nIf Mormons and Gentiles in their treatment of each other will adopt\nthis spirit, and such a course as is here suggested is pursued, there\nis a glorious future for Utah; and I am not at all despondent. It is\nmy faith that as a commonwealth we shall attain to the high destiny\nthat we have held in our hopes for our beloved Utah. I believe that\nwise counsels will at last prevail. I believe the time will come when\nour citizens will dwell together in peace and unity. That is my fixed\nfaith, and what little I may be able to do I intend shall be done for\nthe accomplishment of so desirable an object.\n\nWith all my heart I thank you for this splendid hearing.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Throughout the speaker was frequently and loudly applauded\nby his great audience.]\n\n\n\nPart II.\n\nBook of Mormon Controversial questions.\n\n\n\nI.\n\nThe Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nOf late years the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated\nis a subject that has been much discussed. Through a misconception,\nas I think, in relation to the part taken in the work of translation\nby the Urim-Thummim, it is charged by anti-Mormon writers from first\nto last, that the verbal errors and errors in grammar which occur in\nthe translation must be assigned to the Lord--a thing unthinkable.\nThe popular understanding among the Latter-day Saints of the manner\nin which the translation was wrought out by means of Urim-Thummim has\nbeen such as to attribute the errors of the translation to equivalent\nerrors in the Nephite original, which, it is held, were brought over\nliterally and arbitrarily into the English translation--a thing most\nabsurd. In view of these conditions the question arises, can such an\nexplanation of the manner of translating the book be given as not to\nattribute either directly or indirectly these verbal and grammatical\nerrors to the Lord, or to their existence in the original record from\nwhich the translation was made; and at the same time preserve as true\nand not inconsistent with reason, the statements that have been made,\nrespecting the manner of the translation, by Martin Harris and David\nWhitmer, two of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The writer\nis of the opinion that this may be done, and it is to such a task that\nthe following papers are devoted.\n\nI am not unmindful of the fact that this subject is treated in the\nYoung Men's Manuals of 1903-1906; but here the subject is more fully\nconsidered, and in a manner quite distinct since some of the papers are\ncontroversial and have a value quite apart from the mere affirmative\ntreatment in the Manuals.\n\nI may be pardoned for urging these papers on the attention of the\nministry of the Church, especially the foreign ministry, since I\nbelieve that the theory here advanced concerning the translation of\nthe Nephite record is the only one at the same time tenable and in\naccordance with the statements made by those who, after the Prophet\nJoseph Smith, had the best opportunity of knowing in what manner\nUrim-Thummim aided in the marvelous work. The value of the Manual\ntheory of translation will appear in the brief discussion on the Book\nof Mormon which appears in this series of papers.\n\nI.\n\nThe Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: From the Y. M. M. I. A. Manual (Senior), 1905-6]\n\nRelative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the prophet\nhimself has said but little. \"Through the medium of the Urim and\nThummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God,\"[B] is\nthe most extended published statement made by him upon the subject.\nOf the Urim and Thummim he says: \"With the record was found a curious\ninstrument which the ancients called a 'Urim and Thummim,' which\nconsisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a\nbreastplate.\"[C]\n\n[Footnote B: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]\n\n[Footnote C: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]\n\nOliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,\nand the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of translation\nat which he assisted: \"I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of\nMormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet\nJoseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the\nmeans of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'Holy\nInterpreters.'\"[D] This is all he has left on record on the manner of\ntranslating the book.[E]\n\n[Footnote D: Book of Mosiah viii: 13.]\n\n[Footnote E: The above statement was made by Oliver Cowdery at a\nspecial conference held at Kanesville, Iowa, Oct. 21, 1948. It was\nfirst published in the Deseret News of April 13, 1859: Bishop Reuben\nMiller, who was present at the meeting, reported Cowdery's remarks.]\n\nDavid Whitmer, another of the Three Witnesses, is more specific on this\nsubject. After describing the means the prophet employed to exclude the\nlight from the \"Seer Stone,\" he says: \"In the darkness the Spiritual\nlight would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would\nappear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would\nappear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph\nwould read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal\nscribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to\nsee if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character\nwith the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was\ntranslated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: From \"An Address to all Believers in Christ,\" by David\nWhitmer, \"A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,\"\npublished at Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12.]\n\nThere will appear between this statement of David Whitmer's and what is\nsaid both by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery a seeming contradiction.\nJoseph and Oliver both say the translation was done by means of\nthe Urim and Thummim, which is described by Joseph as being \"two\ntransparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate;\"\nwhile David Whitmer says that the translation was made by means of a\n\"Seer Stone.\" The apparent contradiction is cleared up, however, by a\nstatement made by Martin Harris, another of the Three Witnesses. He\nsaid that the prophet possessed a \"Seer Stone,\" by which he was enabled\nto translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience\nhe then [i. e., at the time Harris was acting as his scribe] used the\nSeer Stone. * * * * Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in\nappearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with\nthe plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much\nresembling spectacles, only they were larger.[B]\n\n[Footnote B: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol.\nXLIV., p. 87.]\n\nThe \"Seer Stone\" referred to here was a chocolate colored, somewhat\negg-shaped stone which the prophet found while digging a well in\ncompany with his brother Hyrum.[C] It possessed some of the qualities\nof a Urim and Thummim since by means of it as described above as well\nas by means of the \"Interpreters\" found with the Nephite record, Joseph\nwas able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.[D]\n\n[Footnote C: Cannon's Life of Joseph Smith, p. 56.]\n\n[Footnote D: Nearly all the anti-Mormon works dealing with the coming\nforth of the Book of Mormon speak of the \"Seer Stone\" and reiterate the\nfalsehood that the prophet stole it from the children of Willard Chase,\nfor who Joseph and Hyrum were digging a well.]\n\nAnother account of the manner of translating the record, purporting\nto have been given by David Whitmer, and published in the Kansas City\nJournal of June 5, 1881, says:\n\n    \"He [meaning Joseph Smith] had two small stones of a chocolate\n    color, nearly egg-shape, and perfectly smooth, but not transparent,\n    called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did\n    not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters\n    to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light,\n    and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on\n    which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the\n    top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English,\n    which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly\n    as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence\n    written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would\n    remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from\n    sight to be replaced by another line.\"\n\nIt is evident that there are inaccuracies in the above statement, due\ndoubtless, to the carelessness of the reporter of the Journal, who\nhas confused what Mr. Whitmer said of the Seer Stone and the Urim and\nThummim. If he meant to describe the Urim and Thummim or \"Interpreters\"\ngiven to Joseph Smith with the plates--as seems to be the case--then\nthe reporter is wrong in saying that they were chocolate color and\nnot transparent; for the \"Interpreters\" given to the prophet with the\nplates, as we have seen by his own description; were \"two transparent\nstones.\" If the reporter meant to describe the \"Seer Stone\"--which is\nnot likely--he would be right in saying it was of a chocolate color,\nand egg-shaped, but wrong in saying there were two such stones.\n\nMartin Harris' description of the manner of translating while he was\nthe amanuensis of the prophet is as follows:\n\n    \"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by\n    the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say\n    'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear\n    and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it\n    remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it\n    was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Statement of martin Harris, to Edward Stevenson, Mill.\nStar, Vol. XLIV, pp. 86, 87.]\n\nOn one occasion Harris sought to test the genuineness of the prophet's\nprocedure in the matter of translation, as follows:\n\n    \"Martin said that after continued translation they would become\n    weary and would go down to the river and exercise in throwing\n    stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion.\n    Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for\n    translating, and on resuming their labors of translation Martin\n    put in place [of the Seer Stone] the stone that he had found.\n    He said that the prophet remained silent unusually and intently\n    gazing in darkness, no trace of the usual sentence appearing. Much\n    surprised, Joseph exclaimed: 'Martin! what is the matter? all is as\n    dark as Egypt.' Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the prophet\n    asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths\n    of fools, who had told him that the prophet had learned those\n    sentences and was merely repeating them.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol.\nXLIV, pp. 78, 79; 86, 87.]\n\nThe sum of the whole matter, then, concerning the manner of translating\nthe sacred record of the Nephites, according to the testimony of\nthe only witnesses competent to testify in the matter, is: With the\nNephite record was deposited a curious instrument, consisting of two\ntransparent stones, set in the rim of a bow, somewhat resembling\nspectacles, but larger, called by the ancient Hebrews \"Urim and\nThummim,\" but by the Nephites \"Interpreters.\" In addition to these\n\"Interpreters\" the prophet Joseph had a \"Seer Stone,\" possessed of\nsimilar qualities to the Urim and Thummim; that the prophet sometimes\nused one and sometimes the other of these sacred instruments in the\nwork of translation; that whether the \"Interpreters\" or the \"Seer\nStone\" was used the Nephite characters with the English interpretation\nappeared in the sacred instrument; that the prophet would pronounce the\nEnglish translation to his scribe, which when correctly written would\ndisappear, and the other characters with their interpretation take\ntheir place, and so on until the work was completed.\n\nIt should not be supposed, however, that this translation, though\naccomplished by means of the \"Interpreters\" and \"Seer Stone,\" as\nstated above, was merely a mechanical process; that no faith, or\nmental or spiritual effort was required on the prophet's part; that\nthe instruments did all, while he who used them did nothing but look\nand repeat mechanically what he saw, as one might look into a mirror,\nand say what objects in the room he saw reflected there. Much has been\nwritten upon this manner of translating the Nephite record, by those\nwho have opposed the Book of Mormon, and chiefly in a sneering way.\nOn the manner of translation they have bottomed much of--not their\nargument, but their ridicule--against the record; and as in another\npart of this volume I am to meet what they consider their argument, and\nwhat I know to be their ridicule, I consider here a few other facts\nconnected with the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, which\nare extremely important, as they furnish a basis upon which can be\nsuccessfully answered all the objections that are urged, based on the\nmanner in which the translation was accomplished, and also as to errors\nin grammar, the use of modern words, western New York phrases, and\nother defects of language which it is admitted are to be found in the\nBook of Mormon, especially in the first edition.\n\nI repeat, then, that the translation of the Book of Mormon by means\nof the \"Interpreters\" and \"Seer Stone,\" was not merely a mechanical\nprocess, but required the utmost concentration of mental and spiritual\nforce possessed by the prophet, in order to exercise the gift of\ntranslation through the means of the sacred instruments provided for\nthat work. Fortunately we have the most perfect evidence of the fact,\nthough it could be inferred, from the general truth that God sets no\npremium upon mental and spiritual laziness; for whatever means God may\nhave provided to assist man to arrive at the truth, He has always made\nit necessary for man to couple with those means his utmost endeavor of\nmind and heart. So much in the way of reflection; now as to the facts\nreferred to.\n\nIn his \"Address to All Believers in Christ,\" David Whitmer says:\n\n    \"At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate he would\n    look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was\n    spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind\n    dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make\n    him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this\n    condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently\n    humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation.\n    Now we see how very strict the Lord is, and how he requires the\n    heart of man to be just right in his sight before he can receive\n    revelation from him.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 30.]\n\nIn a statement to Wm. H. Kelley, G. A. Blakeslee, of Gallen, Michigan,\nunder date of September 15th, 1882, David Whitmer said of Joseph Smith\nand the necessity of his humility and faithfulness while translating\nthe Book of Mormon:\n\n    \"He was a religious and straightforward man. He had to be; for\n    he was illiterate and he could do nothing of himself. He had to\n    trust in God. He could not translate unless he was humble and\n    possessed the right feelings towards everyone. To illustrate so\n    you can see. One morning when he was getting ready to continue the\n    translation, something went wrong about the house and he was put\n    out about it. Something that Emma, his wife, had done. Oliver and\n    I went up stairs and Joseph came up soon after to continue the\n    translation, but he could not do anything. He could not translate\n    a single syllable. He went down stairs, out into the orchard, and\n    made supplication to the Lord; was gone about an hour--came back to\n    the house, asked Emma's forgiveness and then came up stairs where\n    we were and then the translation went on all right. He could do\n    nothing save he was humble and faithful.\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: Braden and Kelley Debate on Divine Origin of Book of\nMormon, p. 186. The above debate took place in 1884, several years\nbefore the death of David Whitmer, and the statement from which the\nabove is taken was quoted in full.]\n\nThe manner of translation is so far described by David Whitmer and\nMartin Harris, who received their information necessarily from Joseph\nSmith, and doubtless it is substantially correct, except in so far as\ntheir statements may have created the impression that the translation\nwas a mere mechanical process; and this is certainly corrected in part\nat least by what David Whitmer has said relative to the frame of mind\nJoseph must be in before he could translate. But we have more important\nevidence to consider on this subject of translation than these\nstatements of David Whitmer. In the course of the work of translation\nOliver Cowdery desired the gift of translation to be conferred upon\nhim, and God promised to grant it to him in the following terms:\n\n    \"Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as\n    the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely\n    shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask\n    in faith, with an honest heart believing that you shall receive\n    a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are\n    ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which have\n    been spoken by the manifestation of my spirit. Yea, behold, I\n    will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost,\n    which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart,\n    Now, behold, this is the Spirit of revelation; behold this is the\n    Spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the\n    Red Sea on dry ground. * * * * Ask that you may know the mysteries\n    of God, and that you may translate and receive knowledge from all\n    those ancient records which have been hid up, that are sacred, and\n    according to your faith shall it be unto you.\"[C]\n\n[Footnote C: Doc. & Cov., Sec. viii.]\n\nIn attempting to exercise this gift of translation, however, Oliver\nCowdery failed; and in a revelation upon the subject the Lord explained\nthe cause of his failure to translate:\n\n    \"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would\n    give it [i. e., the gift of translation] unto you, when you took no\n    thought save it was to ask me; but, behold. I say unto you, that\n    you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be\n    right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn\n    within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right; but if it be\n    not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a\n    stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which\n    is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred Save it\n    be given you from me.\"[D]\n\n[Footnote D: Doc. & Cov., Sec. ix]\n\nWhile this is not a description of the manner in which Joseph Smith\ntranslated the Book of Mormon, it is, nevertheless, the Lord's\ndescription of how another man was to exercise the gift of translation;\nand doubtless it describes the manner in which Joseph Smith did\nexercise it, and the manner in which he translated the Book of Mormon.\nThat is, the Prophet Joseph Smith looked into the \"interpreters\" or\n\"Seer Stone,\" saw there by the power of God and the gift to him, the\nancient Nephite characters, and by bending every power of his mind\nto know the meaning thereof, the interpretation wrought out in his\nmind by his effort-by studying it out in his mind, to use the Lord's\nphrase--was reflected in the sacred instrument there to remain until\ncorrectly written by the scribe.\n\nIn further proof that translation was not a merely mechanical process\nwith the Prophet Joseph, I call attention to the evident thought and\nstudy he bestowed upon the work of translating the rolls of papyrus\nfound with the Egyptian mummies, purchased by the Saints in Kirtland,\nof Michael H. Chandler, about the 6th of July, 1835. \"Soon after this,\"\nsays the prophet, \"with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I\ncommenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,\nand much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings\nof Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt,\"[A] etc. Speaking\nin his history of the latter part of July, he says: \"The remainder of\nthis month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the\nBook of Abraham and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language.\"[B]\nIn his journal entry for November 26, 1835, is the following: \"Spent\nthe day in translating the Egyptian characters from the papyrus,\nthough suffering with a severe cold.\"[C] Under date of December 16th,\nthis: \"I exhibited and explained the Egyptian characters to them\n[Elders M'Lellin and Young], and explained many things concerning\nthe dealings of God with the ancients, and the formation of the\nplanetary system.\"[D] Thus he continued from time to time to work upon\nthis translation, which was not published until 1842, in the \"Times\nand Seasons,\" beginning in number nine of volume three. It should\nbe remembered in connection with this \"preparing an alphabet\" and\n\"arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language\" that the prophet still\nhad in his possession the \"Seer Stone\" (or at least Oliver Cowdery had\nit, for on completing the translation of the Book of Mormon the prophet\ngave the Seer Stone into Oliver Cowdery's keeping, (David Whitmer's\nAddress to All Believers, page 32), which he had used sometimes in the\ntranslation of the Book of Mormon, yet it seems from the circumstances\nnamed that he had to bend all the energies of his intellectual powers\nto obtain a translation of the Egyptian characters.\n\n[Footnote A: History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 236.]\n\n[Footnote B: Ibid, p. 238.]\n\n[Footnote C: Ibid, p. 320.]\n\n[Footnote D: Ibid, p. 334.]\n\nThere can be no doubt either but what the interpretation thus obtained\nwas expressed in such language as the prophet could command, in such\nphraseology as he was master of and common to the time and locality\nwhere he lived; modified, of course, by the application of that\nphraseology to facts and ideas in the Nephite Scriptures he was\ntranslating--ideas new to him in many respects, and above the ordinary\nlevel of the prophet's thinking; and also the phraseology was superior\nto that he ordinarily used, because of the inspiration of God that was\nupon him.\n\nThis view of the translation of the Nephite record accounts for the\nfact that the Book of Mormon, though a translation of an ancient\nrecord, is, nevertheless, given in English idiom of the period and\nlocality in which the prophet lived; and in the faulty English,\nmoreover, both as to composition, phraseology, and grammar, of a\nperson of Joseph Smith's limited education; and also accounts for the\nsame-ness of phraseology and literary style which runs through the\nwhole volume.\n\nNor are we without authority of high standing in these views for the\nverbal style of inspired writers. In \"The Annotated Bible,\" published\nby the \"Religious Tract Society,\" London, 1859, the following occurs in\nrelation to the explanation of the words \"prophet\" and \"prophecy:\"\n\n    \"That the prophets were more than foretellers of things future is\n    apparent from their history as well as from their writings. It\n    must also be remembered that, although prophecy contains many very\n    circumstantial allusions to particular facts and individuals, yet\n    these are referred to chiefly on account of their relation to those\n    great, general principles with which it has to do. Prophecy is\n    God's voice, speaking to us respecting that great struggle which\n    has been and is going on in this world between good and evil.\n\n    \"The divine communications were made to the prophets in divers\n    manners; God seems sometimes to have spoken to them in audible\n    voice; occasionally appearing in human form. At other times he\n    employed the ministry of angels, or made known his purposes by\n    dreams. But he most frequently revealed his truth to the prophets\n    by producing that supernatural state of the sentient, intellectual,\n    and moral faculties which the Scriptures call 'vision.' Hence\n    prophetic announcements are often called 'visions,' i. e. things\n    seen; and the prophets themselves are called 'seers.'\n\n    \"Although the visions which the prophet beheld and the predictions\n    of the future which he announced were wholly announced by the\n    divine Spirit, yet the form of the communication, the imagery in\n    which it is clothed, the illustrations by which it is cleared up\n    and impressed, the symbols employed to bring it more graphically\n    before the mind--in short, all that may be considered as its\n    garb and dress, depends upon the education, habits, association,\n    feelings and the whole mental, intellectual and spiritual character\n    of the prophet. Hence the style of some is purer, more sententious,\n    more ornate, or more sublime than others.\"\n\nAlso the Reverend Joseph Armitage Robinson, D. D. Dean of Westminster\nand Chaplain of King Edward VII of England, respecting the manner in\nwhich the message of the Old Testament was received and communicated to\nman, as late as 1905, said:\n\n    \"The message of the Old Testament was not written by the divine\n    hand, nor dictated by an outward compulsion; it was planted in the\n    hearts of men, and made to grow in a fruitful soil. And then they\n    were required to express it in their own language, after their\n    natural methods, and in accordance with the stage of knowledge\n    which their time had reached. Their human faculties were purified\n    and quickened by the divine Spirit; but they spoke to their time\n    in the language of their time; they spoke a spiritual message,\n    accommodated to the experience of their age, a message of faith in\n    God, and of righteousness as demanded by a righteous God.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: From a report of the Dean's Lecture, as published in the\n_St. Louis Globe-Democrat,_ Sunday, March 19, 1905.]\n\nBecause a writer or speaker is under the inspiration of God it does\nnot follow that in giving expression to what the Lord puts into his\nheart he will always do so in grammatical terms, any more than the\northography of an inspired writer will always be accurate. We have\nmany illustrations of this fact among the inspired men that we have\nknown in the Church of Jesus Christ in these last days. Those of us\nwho have listened to the utterances of Prophets and Apostles cannot\ndoubt of their inspiration, and at the same time some of those who\nhave been most inspired have been inaccurate in the use of our English\nlanguage. The same seems true of the ancient Apostles also. The writer\nof the Acts, at the conclusion of a synopsis of a discourse which he\nascribes to Peter, says, \"Now, when they [the Jews] saw the boldness\nof Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant\nmen,[A] they marveled.\" The commentators upon this passage say that\nthe listening Jews perceived that Peter and John were uninstructed\nin the learning of the Jewish schools, and were of the common sort\nof men, untrained in teaching.[B] And again, \"Their language and\narguments prove that they were untaught in the Rabbinical learning of\nthe Jewish schools.\"[C] But in what way could the Jews have discerned\nthe ignorance and absence of learning in Peter and John except through\nthe imperfections of their language? And yet those imperfections in\nlanguage may not be urged in evidence of the absence of inspiration\nin the two apostles. Surely with God it must be that the matter is of\nmore consequence than the form in which it is expressed; the thought of\nmore moment than the word; it is the spirit that giveth life, not the\nletter. \"He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What\nis the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.\"[D]\n\n[Footnote A: Acts iv: 13.]\n\n[Footnote B: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary, Acts iv: 13.]\n\n[Footnote C: International Commentary of the New Testament, Acts iv.]\n\n[Footnote D: Jeremiah xxiii: 28.]\n\nThe view of the manner of translating the Book of Mormon here set forth\nfurnishes the basis of justification for those verbal changes and\ngrammatical corrections which have been made since the first edition\nissued from the press; and would furnish justification for making many\nmore verbal and grammatical corrections in the book: for if, as here\nset forth, the meaning of the Nephite characters was given to Joseph\nSmith in such faulty English as he, an uneducated man, could command,\nwhile every detail and shade of thought should be strictly preserved,\nthere can be no reasonable ground for objection to the correction\nof mere verbal errors and grammatical construction. There can be no\nreasonable doubt that had Joseph Smith been a finished English scholar\nand the facts and ideas represented by the Nephite characters upon the\nplates had been given him by inspiration of God through the Urim and\nThummim, those ideas would have been expressed in correct English; but\nas he was not a finished English scholar, he had to give expression\nto those facts and ideas in such language as he could command, and\nthat was faulty English, which the prophet himself and those who have\nsucceeded him as custodians of the word of God have had and now have a\nperfect right to correct.\n\nII.\n\nAccounting For Evident Transcriptions of Bible Passages in the\nTranslation of the Nephite Record.\n\nIt is objected to the Book of Mormon that there are found in it whole\nchapters, besides many minor quotations from King James's English\ntranslation of the Bible. Since these chapters and passages in some\ncases follow the \"authorized English version\" verbatim, and closely\nresemble it in others; and as it is well known that in translating\nfrom one language into another almost infinite variety of expression\nis possible, the question arises, how is it that Joseph Smith, in\ntranslating from the Nephite plates by divine assistance, follows so\nclosely an independent translation made in the ordinary way, by dint\nof scholarship and patient labor, and by diligent comparison of former\ntranslations.\n\nNearly all the Anti-Mormon writers raise this objection, though perhaps\nJohn Hyde,[A] 1857, makes the most of it. Following him the Revelation\nM. T. Lamb,[B] 1887, and last, but not least, Linn,[C] 1902.\n\n[Footnote A: Hyde's \"Mormonism,\" Chapters 9, 10, 11.]\n\n[Footnote B: \"Golden Bible,\" Chapter 7.]\n\n[Footnote C: Linn's \"Story of the Mormons,\" Chapter 11.]\n\nThis objection was most carefully and intelligently stated recently\n(October 22, 1903), by Mr. H. Chamberlain, of Spencer, Iowa, U. S. A.,\nin a letter of inquiry on the subject to President Joseph F. Smith, of\nSalt Lake City, in the course of which he said:\n\n    \"I find that Christ in quoting to the people on this side of\n    the water, the third and fourth chapters of Malachi, quotes,\n    according to the Book of Mormon, in the identical text of King\n    James' version, not missing a word. I find chapters of Isaiah\n    quoted practically in the same way. I find that in many instances,\n    in his talks with the people, and to his disciples here, he used\n    the identical language of King James' version, not omitting the\n    words supplied by the translators. Now, I know that no two parties\n    will take the same manuscript and make translations of a matter\n    contained therein, and the language of the two translators be\n    alike; indeed, the language employed by the two parties will widely\n    differ. These translations are from different manuscripts, and from\n    different languages, and still it appears in the Book of Mormon as\n    King James' translation. I can conceive of no other way in which\n    such a coincidence could have occurred, within the range of human\n    experience, except where one writing is copied from another, and\n    then it takes the utmost care to get them exactly alike, word for\n    word, and letter for letter as this is. * * * * * Now, what I\n    want to know is, how do you as a Church account for these things\n    appearing in the Book of Mormon in the identical language of King\n    James' version, when we know his version is faulty, and the same\n    translators could not have made it twice alike themselves? Did\n    Joseph copy it from the Bible, or did the Lord adopt this identical\n    language in revealing it to Joseph?\"[D]\n\n[Footnote D: _Improvement Era,_ Vol. viii, 1904, pp. 180, 181.]\n\nThis communication was referred to the writer by President Smith for an\nanswer, from which I quote:\n\n    The difficulty which you point out of course has been recognized\n    by believers in the Book of Mormon, but I do not know that I can\n    say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which\n    could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject. Each\n    one has been left to settle the matter upon the lines which seem\n    most reasonable to him; as a matter of fact, though our opponents\n    have frequently called attention to the difficulty in question,\n    it has not occasioned any particular anxiety in the minds of our\n    own people. Accepting the overwhelming evidences that exist for\n    the truth of the Book of Mormon, we have regarded that difficulty,\n    with some others, as of minor importance which would in time be\n    satisfactorily settled. Still, I realize the reasonableness of\n    the objection that may be urged against the Book of Mormon from\n    the point of view from which you present it, and realize that it\n    constitutes a real difficulty, and one, too, in which we have no\n    word from the Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who were immediately\n    associated with him in bringing forth the Nephite record, to aid us\n    in a solution of the matter. We are left, therefore, very largely\n    to conjecture, based on the facts in the case, which facts are most\n    tersely put in your esteemed communication; viz.:\n\n    First. It is a fact that a number of passages in the Book of\n    Mormon, verses and whole chapters, run closely parallel in matter\n    and phraseology with passages in Isaiah, Malachi and some parts of\n    the New Testament.\n\n    Second. It is a fact that no two persons will take the same\n    manuscript and make translations from one language into another,\n    and the language of the two translations be alike.\n\n    Third. It is a fact that the translations of the words of Isaiah,\n    of Malachi, and the words of the Savior, in the Book of Mormon, are\n    generally supposed to be independent translations from different\n    manuscripts or records and from different languages.\n\n    Then, of course, comes your question: how can the strange fact be\n    accounted for, viz., that the 'translation in the Book of Mormon\n    Corresponding to Isaiah, Malachi and the words of the Savior, are\n    in the language of King James' translation?\n\n    Of course, you will remember that according to the Book of Mormon,\n    the Nephite colony carried with them to America so much Of the Old\n    Testament as was in existence at the time of their departure from\n    Jerusalem (600 years B.C.). The prophecy of Malachi, chapters 3 and\n    4, quoted in the Book of Mormon, was supplied by the Savior, and\n    that the Nephites engraved portions of these scriptures in their\n    records, and this both in the Hebrew, and what the Nephites called\n    the reformed Egyptian. I simply mention this in passing, that you\n    may remember afresh how these passages came to be in the Nephite\n    record, and that you may remember that the Nephites had the Jewish\n    scriptures in much the same form as they were to be found in Judea,\n    600 B.C. When the Savior came to the western world and appeared to\n    the Nephites, he had the same message to present to them that he\n    had presented in Palestine; the same ordinances of the gospel to\n    establish, a similar church organization to found, and the same\n    ethical principles to teach. The manner of the Savior's teaching\n    would doubtless lead him to present these great truths in the same\n    forms of expression he had used in teaching the Jews, so that in\n    substance what he had taught as his doctrines in Judea he would\n    repeat in America. This is mentioned also, by the way, that it may\n    appear reasonable to you that in a general manner the Savior must\n    have taught the people in the western hemisphere substantially\n    the same things that he taught the people in Palestine. With\n    this remembered, I think we find a solution of the difficulty\n    you present in the following way: When Joseph Smith saw that the\n    Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi,\n    or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared\n    these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding\n    that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our\n    English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you\n    refer.\n\n    It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph\n    Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters\n    through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts\n    and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and\n    when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely paralleled\n    passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of\n    our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except\n    for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which\n    here and there make the Book of Mormon passages superior in sense\n    and clearness. Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a\n    conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one; and indeed the\n    only one which satisfactorily disposes of the difficulty you point\n    out.\n\nSuch was the answer made to Mr. Chamberlain's inquiries, and as the\nreader will doubtless be interested to know how this answer was\nreceived by this intelligent, un-prejudiced gentleman, I quote the\nfollowing from his letter in response to the explanation.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: The correspondence in full is to be found in the\n_Improvement Era_ for January, 1904, pp. 197-196.]\n\n    \"Of course, I realize that if the Book of Mormon was not just\n    what it purported to be, the whole fabric [of Mormonism] must\n    fall to the ground, so far as being an inspired religion, and\n    would then only be worth what good one could get out of it as the\n    best organization or controlled religion on earth; * * * * upon\n    studying the Book of Mormon, I, of course, found these portions of\n    King James' version of our Bible, and judging it by the applied\n    law of human experience, as we lawyers learn to judge everything,\n    I could account for it in no other way, than that Joseph Smith\n    copied it therefrom, and I am free to say that your reasons for\n    his so doing are not only probable, but the only solution that can\n    be given. * * * * * I believe and think that your suggestion is\n    the only theory upon which it is possible to advocate its divine\n    character. It seems to me that God, so far as I know, has never\n    supplied man with what he already possessed, and Joseph Smith\n    already had language with which to express his ideas, and all that\n    was required in addition from God was, that he furnish him with\n    the thought, and then let him express it in his own language. I\n    never could for a moment believe that God is interested in placing\n    his approval on King James' translators' style of translating, nor\n    upon the composition of the English language therein adopted. I\n    do not see wherein your theory. detracts in any manner from the\n    value of the Book of Mormon, as an inspired work acknowledged by\n    God as authentic, nor makes more impracticable the manner of its\n    introduction.\"\n\nIII.\n\nAnswers to Questions Respecting the Manual Theory of Translating the\nBook of Mormon.\n\nI.\n\nA number of questions from their correspondents have been submitted\nto the writer, by the Editors of the _Era_ respecting the manner of\ntranslating the Book of Mormon, as set forth in the Senior Manual for\n1905-6.\n\nIn one communication, a president of an association, an aid in a M. I.\nA. Stake Board, and a bishop's counselor, join in saying:\n\n    We are not able to harmonize the theory of translation presented in\n    our Manual with the testimony of the Three Witnesses, especially\n    Harris and Whitmer. We are not able either to harmonize the\n    theory of the Manual with the following passages of scripture\n    regarding the interpreters: Ether 3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-18; Mosiah\n    28:11-15;D&C Section 130:8-10.\n\nTo answer the matter in the above quotation, it is necessary to ask:\nWhat is the Manual theory of translating the Nephite record? It is a\ntheory based upon the only statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith\non the subject, _viz.,_ \"Through the medium of Urim and Thummim _I_\ntranslated the record by the gift and power of God;\"[A] and the Lord's\nown description of the manner of translating in general by means of\nUrim and Thummim, contained in his revelation to Oliver Cowdery in the\nDoctrine and Covenants, sections viii and ix.\n\n[Footnote A: Wentworth's Letter, Mill. Star, vol. 9, page 118.]\n\nThat is the only theory the Manual has upon the subject. The foregoing\nquotation from the prophet is all he has said with reference to the\nmanner of the translation, and we could wish that all other persons,\nnecessarily less informed upon the subject than the prophet himself,\nhad been content to leave the matter where he left it. In this,\nhowever; they did not follow his wise example; but must needs undertake\nto describe the manner of the translation; and, from such description\nhas arisen the idea that the Urim and Thummim did all, in the work of\nthe translation, the prophet, nothing; except to read to his amanuensis\nwhat he saw reflected in the seer-stone or Urim and Thummim, which the\ninstruments, and not the prophet, had translated. The men responsible\nfor those statements, on which said theory rests, are David Whitmer and\nMartin Harris. The former says:\n\n    A piece of something resembling parchment did appear, (i. e., in\n    Urim and Thummim), and on that appeared the writing, one character\n    at a time would appear, and under it was the translation in\n    English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Brother\n    Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and then it was\n    written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was\n    correct; then it would disappear and another character with the\n    translation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by\n    the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, page\n12.]\n\nWe have no statement at first hand from Martin Harris at all, only the\nstatement of another, Edward Stevenson, as to what he heard Martin say\nwas the manner of translation. This was as follows:\n\n    \"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear, and were read by\n    the prophet, and written by Martin, and when finished he would say\n    \"written,\" and if correctly written that sentence would disappear,\n    and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly, it\n    remained until corrected so that the translation was just as it was\n    engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Millennial Star, vol. 24, page 86-87.]\n\nThese statements have led to the assumption of the theory, I repeat,\nthat the Urim and Thummim did the translating, not Joseph the Seer.\nAccordingly, it is held that the translation was a mechanical,\narbitrary, transliteration; a word for word bringing over from the\nNephite language into the English language, a literal interpretation\nof the record. The prophet, therefore, it is urged, was in no way\nresponsible for the language of the translation, it was not his, but\nthe divine instrument's, and if there are errors of grammar, or faults\nof diction, (modern words for which in the nature of things there could\nbe no exact equivalents in an ancient language) New England localisms,\nmodern phrases from the English translation of Hebrew scripture, and\nother sources--all these must have been in the original Nephite record,\nsay the advocates of this theory, and are arbitrarily brought over into\nthe English language.\n\nThis theory of translation led opponents of the Book of Mormon and\nsome who were not opponents of it, but sincere investigators of its\nclaims--to suggest certain difficulties involved in such a theory of\ntranslation.\n\nFirst. The impossibility of such a thing as a word-for-word bringing\nover from one language into another. Such a procedure could only result\nin producing an unintelligible jargon--a fact well known by those who\nare at all acquainted with translation.\n\nSecond. The fact that the language of the English translation of the\nNephite record is in the English idiom, and diction of the period and\nlocality when and where the translation took place, and is evidently\nbut little influenced by any attempt to follow the idiom of an ancient\nlanguage.\n\nThird. The fact that such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the\ntranslation are just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in\nthe work of one unlearned in the English language.\n\nFrom this data the following argument proceeds: It is impossible that\nthe alleged translation, whether by divine or human media, could be\na word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the\nEnglish; and if the translation is not such a word-for-word bringing\nover affair, then it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is\nresponsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors. If the Book\nof Mormon is a real translation instead of a word-for-word bringing\nover from one language into another, and it is insisted that the divine\ninstrument, Urim and Thummim, did all, and the prophet nothing--at\nleast nothing more than to read off the translation made by Urim and\nThummim--then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in\ngrammar and diction as did occur. But this is to assign responsibility\nfor errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to\nassigning such errors to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say\nblasphemous. Also, if it be contended that the language of the Book of\nMormon, word for word, and letter for letter, was given to the prophet\nby direct inspiration of God, acting upon his mind, then again God is\nmade responsible for the language errors in the Book of Mormon--a thing\nunthinkable.\n\nRather than ascribe these errors to Deity, either through direct or\nindirect means, men will reject the claims of the Book of Mormon; and,\nsince the verbal errors in the Book of Mormon are such as one ignorant\nof the English language would make, the temptation is strong, in the\nminds of those not yet converted to its truth, to assign to the Book of\nMormon an altogether human origin.\n\nIn the presence of these considerations, it is but natural to ask,\n\"Is there no way by which such a conclusion may be avoided?\" Most\nassuredly. Set aside the theory based upon the statements made by David\nWhitmer and Martin Harris, (mark you, _I say the theory_ based on these\nstatements, not necessarily the statements themselves) and accept the\nmore reasonable theory based upon what the Lord has said upon the\nsubject in sections viii and ix of the Doctrine and Covenants, where,\nin describing how Oliver Cowdery might translate by means of Urim and\nThummim, the Lord said:\n\n    \"I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost\n    which shall come upon you, and it shall dwell in your heart.\"\n\nThen, Oliver only having partially succeeded, and that to a very\nlimited extent, in his effort to translate, the Lord, in explaining his\nfailure, said:\n\n    \"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would\n    give it [i. e., the power to translate] unto you, when you took no\n    thought, save it was to ask me; but, behold, I say unto you, that\n    you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be\n    right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn\n    within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right; but if it\n    be not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a\n    stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which\n    is wrong.\"\n\nThis is the Lord's description of how Oliver Cowdery _could_ have\ntranslated with the aid of Urim and Thummim (see context of the\nrevelation quoted), and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph\nSmith _did_ translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and\nThummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that\nUrim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of\ntranslating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied\ninterpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis. This\ndescription in the D&C implies great mental effort; of working out the\ntranslation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that\nthe translation is correct. In all this, Urim and Thummim are helpful.\nThey are an aid doubtless to concentration of mind. They may have\nheld at the time just the characters to be translated at the moment,\nand excluded all others; the translation thought out in the seer's\nmind may also have been reflected in the interpreters and held there\nuntil recorded by the amanuensis, all of which would be incalculably\nhelpful. But since the translation is thought out in the mind of the\nseer, it must be thought out in such thought-signs as are at his\ncommand, expressed in such speech-forms as he is master of; for, man\nthinks, and can only think coherently, in language; and, necessarily,\nin such language as he knows. If his knowledge of the language in which\nhe thinks and speaks is imperfect, his diction and grammar will be\ndefective. That errors of grammar and faults in diction do exist in\nthe Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first\nedition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors\nmay be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected\nin a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the\nerrors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction\nof the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result\nfrom inefficient proofreading, or referring them to the mischievous\ndisposition of the \"typos,\" or the unfriendliness of the publishing\nhouse. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of\nthe web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed\nas typographical. Indeed the first edition of the Book of Mormon is\nsingularly free from typographical errors.\n\nIn the presence of these facts, only one solution to the difficulties\npresents itself, and that is the solution suggested in the Manual,\nviz., that the translator is responsible for the verbal and grammatical\nerrors, in the translation; as it is said of the original Nephite\nrecord, so let us-say of the translation of that record, \"If there\nbe faults, they are the faults of man;\" not of God, either mediately\nor immediately. Nor does this solution of the difficulties presented\ncast any reflections upon Joseph the Seer. It was no fault of his that\nhis knowledge in the English language was so imperfect. His imperfect\nknowledge was due entirely to his limited opportunity to acquire such\nknowledge; to environment, not at all to neglect of opportunities or to\nmental laziness.\n\nBut it is objected that this theory unsettles former conceptions of the\npart taken by Urim and Thummim, in the work of translation. It upsets\nsomewhat the marvelous that has been associated with the translation of\nthe Nephite record. \"Shall we understand,\" writes with some feeling one\nobjector, \"that Urim and Thummim are not what they hitherto purported\nto be?\" and cites somewhat indefinitely the testimony of the Three\nWitnesses; refers, but not definitely, to the _History of the Church,_\nand to a sermon by Brigham Young; also to the following passages in\nthe Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants: Mosiah 28:11-15; Ether\n3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-19; Doctrine and Covenants, section 130. We assure\nthis writer and other correspondents of the _Era_ that there is no\nconflict between the Manual theory of translation and these passages\nof scripture. The strongest passage cited as suggesting a conflict is\nMosiah 28:13-16, as follows:\n\n    \"And now he translated them (i. e., the Jaredite records) by the\n    means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of\n    a bow.\n\n    \"Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed\n    down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting\n    languages; * * * * And whosoever has these things, is called seer,\n    after the manner of old times.\"\n\nEmphasizing and insisting upon a rigid construction of the words, \"Now\nthese things were handed down * * * for the purpose of interpreting\nlanguages,\" may seem to fix the power of interpretation in the divine\ninstruments, not in the seer; but when these words are considered\nin connection with all that one may learn upon the subject, we know\nbetter than to insist upon a severely rigid construction. It should be\nobserved in the opening sentence of the very passage quoted that these\nwords occur:\n\n    \"And _he_ [Mosiah] translated them [the Jaredite records] by means\n    of those two stones, which were fastened to two rims of a bow.\"\n\nIn other words, Mosiah, the seer, did the translating, aided by Urim\nand Thummim; it was not the Urim and Thummim that did it, aided by\nMosiah.\n\nMoreover, the theory that the interpreters did the translating, not\nthe seer aided by them, is in conflict with the Lord's description\nof translation by means of Urim and Thummim; and if old conceptions\nrespecting the part performed by Urim and Thummim are in conflict with\nGod's description of translation, then the sooner we are rid of such\nconceptions the better.\n\n\"We are not able,\" say some of these objectors, \"to harmonize the\ntheory of translation, presented in our Manual, with the testimony of\nthe Three Witnesses.\" The testimony of the Three Witnesses respecting\nthe translation of the record, mentioned in the foregoing, is simply\nthis: \"We also know that they have been translated by the gift and\npower of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us.\"\n\nThis goes no further than the Prophet's description, already quoted.\nThe only thing Oliver Cowdery ever said, outside of the official\ntestimony of the Three Witnesses, was:\n\n    \"I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few\n    pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he\n    translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of Urim and\n    Thummim.\"\n\nThis is all that he has said on the subject, and that is in harmony,\nit will be observed with what the Prophet Joseph Smith said, and at no\npoint contradicts the view of translation set forth in the Manual.\n\nThere remains, however, the statement of Whitmer and Harris, and it\nis claimed that the Manual theory of translation cannot be harmonized\nwith what they have said. If that were true, and the Manual theory is\nmore in harmony with what God has said upon the subject than what they\nhave said, then all the worse for their theory--\"yea, let God be true\nbut every man a liar!\" And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those\nwho stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and\nHarris have chanced to say on the subject of translation--What about\nthe Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants?\nAre they not interested in vindicating that description? I care very\nlittle, comparatively, for what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said\nabout the subject. I care everything for what the Lord has said about\nit. Whence did the two witnesses in question obtain such knowledge as\nthey had about the manner of translation? Undoubtedly, from the Prophet\nJoseph; for they claim no revelation from the Lord upon the subject.\nAnd this knowledge they did not announce until in the later years of\ntheir lives; nothing was said about it, by them, until long after the\ndeath of the Prophet. They doubtless have given their recollection\nof what the Prophet had told them about the manner of translating;\nbut experience and observation both teach us that there may be a wide\ndifference between what is really said to men, and their recollection\nof it--their impressions about it; especially when that recollection or\nimpression is not formulated into written statement until long years\nafterwards.\n\nAt the same time, it is proper to say, as the Manual suggests, that\nthere is no necessary conflict between the statements of these\ntwo Witnesses and the Manual theory of translation. They say the\nNephite characters, to be translated, appeared in Urim and Thummim.\nWe say that may be true, or the Prophet may have looked through the\ninterpreters--since they were transparent stones--and thus have seen\nthe characters. They say the interpretation appeared in English,\nunder the Nephite characters in Urim and Thummim; we say, if so, then\nthat interpretation, after being wrought out in the Prophet's mind,\nwas reflected into Urim and Thummim and held visible there until\nwritten. The English interpretation was a reflex from the Prophet's\nmind. (And may it not be that the peculiar quality of the Urim and\nThummim was to reflect _thought,_ especially God-given or inspired\nthought, as other substances reflect objects?) All this is possible,\nand is not in conflict with what either the Prophet or Oliver Cowdery\nsaid upon the subject; nor in conflict with the Lord's description of\ntranslation. But to insist that the translation of the Book of Mormon\nwas an arbitrary piece of mechanical work, wrought out by transparent\nstones rather than in the inspired mind of the Prophet, is in conflict\nwith the Lord's description of translation, and all the reasonable\nconclusions that may be drawn from the known facts in the case. This\ntheory--the Manual theory--accepted, accounting for errors in grammar\nand faulty diction, as pointed out in chapter vii, Part I of Manual,\nand in chapter xlvii of the Manual, Part III, is easy.\n\nIt is asked, however, \"Shall we understand that Urim and Thummim are\nnot what they have hitherto purported to be?\" By no means; if by\n\"purported to be,\" is meant what the seers, Mosiah of the Book of\nMormon, and Joseph Smith said of them. The former said of them that\n\"he translated by means of them\"--i. e., they were an aid to him in\ntranslating. Joseph the seer said that \"through the medium\" of Urim and\nThummim, _he_ translated the Nephite record--i. e., they were an aid to\nhim in the work of translation. But if by \"purported to be\" is meant\nthat the Urim and Thummim did the _mental_ work of translating--that\nthe instrument did everything, and the Prophet nothing, except to read\noff what the instrument interpreted--then the sooner that theory is\nabandoned the better; there is nothing in the word of God, or right\nreason, to warrant it; it is utterly untenable, and affords no rational\nexplanation of the difficulties arising from the existence of verbal\nand grammatical errors in the translation of the Nephite record.\n\nBut the question is asked, \"Why bring these matters up at all?\" \"I\nseriously question the expediency of any theory, beyond the facts that\nare definitely known and attested, to explain the details of the coming\nforth of the Book of Mormon,\" says one _Era_ correspondent. So say we\nall. I wish Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, and those who have worked out\ntheories based upon their statements, had left the whole matter where\nthe Prophet Joseph left it; but this they failed to do. Then opponents\ntook up the question, and insisted that the theory of translation,\nhitherto commonly accepted, requires us to charge all the faults in\ndiction and errors in grammar to the Lord; and also urge that we have\nno right, under this theory of translation, to change a single word of\nthe translation, and some Latter-day Saints take the same view.\n\nThe correspondent last quoted also says: \"It is enough for me to\nknow that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph\nSmith, by the gift and power of God, through the means of the Urim\nand Thummim.\" The present writer might join in that simple, bigoted\nrefrain, and say--\"for me, too.\" But what of those for whom it is\nnot enough? What of the many young men in the Church who hear the\nobjections urged by the opponents of the Book of Mormon, based upon\nthe hitherto popular conception of the manner in which the translation\nwas accomplished--what of them? What of the earnest inquirers, in the\nworld, whose knowledge of languages, and of translation, teaches them\nthat the hitherto popular conception of the translation of the Book of\nMormon is an absurdity, not to say an impossibility--what of them? What\nof the elders in the mission field who are constantly coming in contact\nwith these questions involved in the manner of translating the Book of\nMormon, and are asking--as they have been asking for years--for some\nrational explanation of these matters--what of them? It is not enough,\nin the presence of the controversies that have arisen out of Messrs.\nWhitmer and Harris's unfortunate partial explanations, to say that the\nBook of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and that is\nenough for one to know.\n\nIt is not a question involving merely the wisdom or unwisdom of\nsetting up a \"theory\" of the manner in which the translation of the\nBook of Mormon was accomplished. A \"theory\" already existed, based\nupon the statements of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, which, as generally\nunderstood, was untenable. This had to be corrected; and the truth, so\nfar as possible, ascertained and expounded. It was not the desire to\ncreate a new theory respecting the translation of the Book of Mormon\nthat prompted the writer of the Manual to advance such explanations\nas are there made. Indeed, the theory set forth in the Manual did not\noriginate with him. The difficulties involved in the hitherto commonly\naccepted theory of translation have long been recognized by Book of\nMormon students; and often have been the subject of conversation\nbetween this writer and Elder George Reynolds, President Anthon H.\nLund, members of the Manual committee, and others; and this writer by\nno means regards himself as the originator of what is sometimes called\nthe new theory of the Book of Mormon translation.\n\nMeantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints\nthat the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to\nliterary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism;\nfor our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of\nsacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will\nescape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it\nshould escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It\nis a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the\nkeenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who\naccept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that\nit will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated,\nthe greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world;\nlet the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will\nremain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose\nthat they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture\nby the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as\nto what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is\npresented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints\nare anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are\nmade to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these\nobjections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable\nexplanations possible, given. This is what, in an unpretentious way,\nis attempted in the Manual. The position there taken is intended to be\nnot destructive, but constructive; not iconoclastic, but conservative;\nnot negative, but positive; and the writer is of opinion that time will\nvindicate the correctness of the views therein set forth.\n\nII.\n\nI find it necessary to refer again to the matter of a \"literal\ntranslation\"--a word-for-word bringing over from one language into\nanother, a thing which is practically impossible, if sense is to be\nexpressed. Reference is again made to this subject because it seems\nto be the most stubborn obstacle in the way of the acceptance of the\n\"Manual theory.\"\n\n[IMAGE (SEE HTML FILE): GREEK AND ENGLISH TEXT OF LUKE]\n\nSince writing the fore part of this article, a so-called \"literal\ntranslation\" of the Greek New Testament has fallen into my hands,\nextracts from which I think will help to illustrate the point at issue.\nIt should be remembered in what is to follow, that this \"literal\ntranslation\" is only approximately so. The publishers themselves say,\n\"We give the Greek text with an interlinear translation _as literal\nas may be to be useful.\"_ To show that the \"literal translation\" is\nnot and cannot be literal, it is only necessary to call attention to a\nfew facts which the publishers of the Greek text and its translation\nthemselves call attention to; namely, The word \"master\" is used in\nthe authorized version (our common English version) to translate\nsix different Greek words, all bearing different shades of meaning.\nThe word \"judgment\" stands for eight different Greek words in the\noriginal. Of particles, \"be\" represents twelve different words; \"but,\"\neleven; \"for,\" eighteen; \"in,\" fifteen; \"of,\" thirteen; and \"on,\"\nnine; and so with many other words. Where these facts obtain, to talk\nof \"literal translation\" is to talk of literal nonsense. Still, this\nso-called \"literal translation\" will be of assistance to us in this\ninvestigation, and I hope also somewhat convincing for the contention\nmade here, and in the Manual, respecting the nature of the translation\nof the Book of Mormon.\n\nI give on the foregoing page the photograph of an entire page from the\nGreek New Testament. It will be observed that the Greek is given, and\nunder each Greek word an English equivalent, \"as literal as may be to\nbe useful.\" Remember, not absolutely literal; and in the margin is the\ntranslation of our common English version.\n\nNow, for purposes of comparison, I give Paul's account of himself\nbefore King Agrippa from the so-called Greek \"literal translation,\" and\nNephi's account of himself taken from the Book of Mormon.\n\n    PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.\n\n    And Agrippa to Paul said, it is allowed thee for thyself to speak.\n    Then Paul made a defense, stretching out the hand: Concerning\n    all of which I am accused by Jews, King Agrippa, I esteem myself\n    happy being about to make defense before thee today, especially\n    acquainted being thou of all the among Jews customs and also\n    questions; wherefore I beseech thee patiently to hear me. The then\n    manner of life my from youth, which from commencement was among my\n    nation in Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who before knew me from the\n    first, if they would bear witness that according to the strictest\n    sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now for hope of thee\n    to the Father's promise made by God, I stand being judged, to which\n    our twelve tribes intently night and day serving hope to arrive;\n    concerning which hope I am accused, O King Agrippa, by the Jews.\n    Why incredible is it judged by you if God dead raises? I indeed\n    therefore thought in myself to the name of Jesus the Nazarine I\n    ought many things contrary to do.\n\n    NEPHI'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.\n\n    I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was\n    taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen\n    many afflictions in the course of my days--nevertheless, having\n    been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a\n    great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore\n    I make a record of my proceedings in my day; yea, I make a record\n    in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the\n    Jews, and the language of the Egyptians. And I know that the record\n    which I make, is true; and I make it according to my knowledge.\n    For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the\n    reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, (my father Lehi, having dwelt at\n    Jerusalem in all his days;) and in that same year there came many\n    prophets prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the\n    great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.\n\nIn order that it may be seen that the difference between even an\napproximately \"literal translation,\" and the translation of the Book of\nMormon, holds good in other forms of composition as well as personal\nnarrative, I place the following doctrinal explanations before the\nreader for purpose of comparison:\n\n    THE DOCTRINE OF PREACHING TO THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. PETER.\n\n    For better, doing good, if wills the will of God, to suffer, than\n    doing evil; because indeed Christ once for sins suffered, just\n    for unjust, that us he might bring to God; having been put to\n    death in flesh, but made alive by the spirit, in which also to the\n    imprisoned spirits having gone he preached, disobeyed sometimes,\n    when once was waiting the of God long suffering in the days of Noe,\n    being prepared ark, into which few, that is eight souls, were saved\n    through water, which also us figure now saves baptism, not of flesh\n    a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good demand towards\n    God, by resurrection of Jesus Christ who is at right hand of God,\n    gone into heaven, having been subjected to him, angels, authorities\n    and powers.\n\n    DOCTRINE OF THE FALL OF ADAM.--LEHI.\n\n    And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have\n    fallen; but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all\n    things which were created must have remained in the, same state\n    [in] which they were, after they were created; and they must\n    have remained forever and had no end. And they would have had\n    no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of\n    innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good,\n    for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the\n    wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be;\n    and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in\n    the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from\n    the fall.\n\nThis will doubtless be sufficient to show the difference between\na somewhat \"literal translation\" and one which is evidently not a\n\"literal,\" or word-for-word bringing over from one language into\nanother. The difference between the two things as indicated here is\nvery great. Still not so great as it would be if we were in possession\nof a real \"literal translation.\" One other thing also should be\nremembered; namely, that however sharp the difference is between\na somewhat \"literal translation\" of the Greek and the translation\nof the Book of Mormon, a \"literal translation\" from the Nephite\nreformed Egyptian language would undoubtedly indicate a still sharper\ndifference, for the reason that our English idiom undoubtedly conforms\nmore readily to the Greek than it would to the Nephite language; so\nthat, great as the differences are in the foregoing illustrations,\nthey would be still more sharply defined if the Book of Mormon were\na word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the\nEnglish--if such a thing were possible. Enough, however, is here\napparent to make it plain that the Book of Mormon is not a \"literal\ntranslation\" from the Nephite language, that is, in the sense of being\nbrought over word for word and letter for letter from the Nephite into\nthe English. The translation of the Book of Mormon is English in idiom,\nand the idiom of the time and locality where it was produced, as all\nmust know who read it, and especially those who have read the first\nedition of it. It having been determined, then, that the translation of\nthe Book of Mormon is in English idiom, the question remains, Whose is\nit? The Urim and Thummim's, the Lord's, or is it Joseph Smith's? And\nwho is responsible for its palpable errors? The Lord, or man? With that\nquestion in mind, read the following few sample passages from among\nmany that might be quoted of like character from the first edition.\nSpeaking of Urim and Thummim the following occurs:\n\n    \"And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in\n    them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had\n    not ought, and he should perish; * * * * but a seer can know of\n    things which has past, and also of things which is to come * * *\n    and hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not\n    known shall be made known by them.\" (Page 173.)\n\n    \"Blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled\n    to be humble.\" (Page 314.)\n\n    \"Little children doth have words given unto them many times which\n    doth confound the wise and the learned.\" (Page 315.)\n\n    \"But they had fell into great errors, for they would not observe to\n    keep the commandments of God.\" (Page 310.)\n\n    \"Have mercy on me, who art in the gall of bitterness and art\n    encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.\" (Page 325.)\n\n    \"I have always retained in remembrance their captivity, yea, and ye\n    also had ought to retain in remembrance, as I have their captivity;\n    * * * for ye had ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye\n    shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land;\n    and ye had ought to know also that inasmuch as ye shall not keep\n    the commandments of God, ye shall be cut off from his presence.\"\n    (Page 326.)\n\n    \"Behold I say unto you, that it is him that surely shall come to\n    take away the sins of the world.\" (Page 333.)\n\n    \"My son, do not risk one more offense against your God* * * which\n    ye hath hitherto risked to commit sin; * * * for that which ye doth\n    send out shall return unto you again.\" (Page 337.)\n\n    \"And thus ended the record of Alma, which was wrote upon the plates\n    of Nephi.\" (Page 347.)\n\n    \"And this shall be your language in them days: But behold your days\n    of probation is past.\"\n\nAre these flagrant errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say\nso is to invite ridicule. The thoughts, the doctrines, are well\nenough; but the awkward, ungrammatical expression of the thoughts is,\ndoubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge of the\nEnglish language,[A] for which lack of knowledge he is not one whit\nblameable, since his lack of education was due entirely to his want of\nopportunity for acquiring learning. And, moreover, the errors are just\nsuch errors as one circumstanced as the translator was, would make.\nAgain, I say for the translation, what Moroni says for the original\nNephite record: \"If there be errors, they are the errors of man,\" not\nGod's errors. Let us rid ourselves of the reproach of charging error,\neven though it be of forms of expression, unto God, in whom and in\nwhose ways there are no errors at all.\n\n[Footnote A: Of course, inefficient proof-reading, and the fact that\nthe publishing firm from whose press issued the first edition of the\nBook of Mormon was unfriendly to it, and, therefore, careless in its\nwork, and, perhaps, even mischievously disposed towards it, may account\nfor some of the verbal and grammatical errors of the first edition.\nOn the probability of this being the case, the writer of the Manual\nsaid in that work: \"The fact that the Book of Mormon was published in\na country town, on a hand press, and by persons unfamiliar with book\nmaking, and the proofs were read by Oliver Cowdery, who was entirely\nwithout experience in such work, will account for many errors, verbal\nand grammatical. The further fact that the employees, at the printing\nestablishment where the book was published, were unfriendly to it, and\nwere more anxious to make it appear ridiculous than to turn out a good\njob, may account for other errors that crept into the first edition.\nBut after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors\nare so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot\nbe explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work\nwas published.\"--_Manual_, page 494-5.]\n\nOne correspondent to the _Era,_ after making some objections to the\n\"Manual theory\" of the translation of the Book of Mormon, closes his\ncommunication with the following _post script:_\n\n    \"P.S.--We don't think the writer of the Manual should answer this.\n    Give us better authority.\"\n\nIt would have pleased the writer of the Manual had the Editor of the\n_Era_ thought proper to have referred these questions concerning\nthe translation of the Book of Mormon to someone else--to better\nauthority--and there are many better authorities; but the Editors have\nseen proper to refer the questions to the Manual writer, and they have\nreceived such consideration as he is able to give them, within the\ncompass of this article. Since the questions were referred to him,\nhowever, the _Deseret News_ editorially has taken up the subject, and\nI am very pleased with the opportunity of presenting to this _post\nscript_ writer the better authority for which he longs; but he may be\ndisappointed in the fact that the _News_ writer sees this matter of\ntranslation substantially in the same light in which it was presented\nby the Manual:\n\n    A CURRENT QUESTION.\n\n    \"We have received from one of the wards in Idaho the following\n    question, which we are requested to answer through the columns of\n    the _Deseret News._ As it does not relate to any local matter which\n    would come under the immediate jurisdiction of the ward or stake\n    authorities, and is a subject that is receiving much attention just\n    now, we will respond to the desire of our friend on this matter, as\n    we are able. The question asked is as follows:\n\n    \"'Did Joseph Smith the Prophet, in translating the Book of Mormon,\n    use his own language in translating the book into the English\n    language, or did he use what appeared to him in the Urim and\n    Thummim as the interpretation of the Nephite characters, and would\n    it pass away before it was correctly written?'\n\n    \"We are of the opinion that the Manual for 1905-1906, prepared as\n    a guide to the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association in the\n    study of the Book of Mormon, will give a sufficient answer. But\n    there is some conflict of opinion, in consequence of statements\n    purporting to have been made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris,\n    concerning the manner in which the Prophet Joseph obtained the\n    interpretation of the characters inscribed upon the metallic\n    plates, which were in \"reformed Egyptian\" hieroglyphics. The idea\n    conveyed by those statements was that when the Prophet Joseph\n    looked into the Urim and Thummim he saw the characters that were\n    on the plates, and underneath them their meaning in the English\n    language, and that when reading them to the scribe who wrote for\n    him, the line would not disappear and another take its place unless\n    it was copied correctly.\n\n    \"The history of the Prophet Joseph Smith, prepared from his\n    diary, does not afford that information, nor do we know of\n    anything authentic as coming from him which gives a description or\n    explanation of the manner of translation of the Nephite record. One\n    thing, however, is very clear to us, and that is, that whether in\n    prophecy or preaching or translating, the man inspired of God is\n    not simply a talking machine, but one who is divinely impressed and\n    enlightened, and whose understanding is quickened and enlarged, but\n    who still possesses all his faculties and the free agency which God\n    has given to all mankind.\n\n    \"If all that was necessary for the Seer was to look into the\n    instrument given to him as an aid in the work of translation, there\n    would have been no real necessity for his possession of the plates,\n    which he had to guard with such care. And if every word in English\n    was supplied to him in the way supposed, it is not likely that any\n    errors either in grammar or composition would be seen. We have\n    not the slightest doubt that with the aid of those stones, and by\n    the gift and power of God, Joseph was able to read the characters\n    on the plates and understand their full significance, and that he\n    expressed that in the ordinary language to which he was accustomed\n    and according to his knowledge in the use of it, just as a person\n    who translates anything from an ancient or modern language, the\n    understanding of which he obtains by the ordinary means, and who\n    would give it in English, according to the usual phraseology to\n    which he was accustomed.\n\n    \"The prophets of old who spoke and wrote 'as moved upon by the\n    Holy Ghost,' though inspired by the same spirit, expressed that\n    which was given to them in their own way and with those distinctive\n    peculiarities they each possessed. They were not acted upon against\n    their own will, or as automatons. As Paul has it, 'The spirits of\n    the prophets are subject to the prophets.' Any one who has enjoyed\n    the spirit of revelation, either in prophecy, in testimony, in\n    preaching, in interpretation of tongues, or in other spiritual\n    gifts, knows what it is to receive light and truth by the power of\n    God, which he speaks in his own language and in his own manner-and\n    style. He who has not been thus inspired, may not be able to\n    understand how the meaning of the characters on the plates was made\n    clear to the translator so that he could express it in his own\n    language.\n\n    \"But the important fact in this important matter is, that Joseph\n    Smith really received these ancient records, containing much of\n    the history of this continent and an account of the dealings of\n    God with the early inhabitants thereof; that he translated them\n    into the English language; and that, according to the testimony\n    of the three witnesses--Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin\n    Harris--the voice of the Lord declared that they were translated\n    \"by the gift and power of God,\" and therefore they were translated\n    correctly. As to the exact _modus operandi,_ there is nothing on\n    record that we know of as coming from the Prophet himself.\n\n    \"The great truth remains, that we have the Book of Mormon, written\n    in simple language, and that such imperfections as may be found in\n    it are, as it declares itself, 'the mistakes of men,' and these\n    are simply errors of language, of such small importance that the\n    meaning is not obscured, but whoever reads may also understand.\n    It gives a plain and succinct account of the manner in which\n    this continent was peopled in early times, shows the origin of\n    the present tribes of so-called Indians, unfolds the purposes of\n    the Almighty concerning this hemisphere, expounds the principles\n    of the everlasting gospel, by obedience to which mankind may be\n    saved, and testifies that Jesus of Nazareth was in very deed the\n    Son of the Eternal God and the Redeemer of the world. These great\n    truths are invaluable, and the question concerning the exact\n    manner of the translation of the Book is comparatively of little\n    moment.\"--_Deseret Evening News,_ January 31, 1906.\n\nI think it proper at this point, also, to say, by way of personal\nexplanation, and perhaps to some extent by way of defense against\nunkind criticisms that have been made of the writer of the Manual,\nbecause of the theory of translation therein advanced--I think it\nproper to say, I repeat, that the present writer did not upon his\nown responsibility, and without consultation with those somewhat the\nguardians of these matters, set forth the theory of the Manual on the\ntranslation of the Book of Mormon. Chapter VII of the Manual, the one\nsetting forth the Manual theory of translation, was submitted to the\nFirst Presidency, and several of the Apostles met together to consider\nthe chapter, and to listen to the reasons which, in the writer's\nopinion, demanded that such an explanation of the translation should\nbe given. After listening to Chapter VII, and hearing the reasons for\nmaking such explanations therein contained, it was moved and carried\nthat such chapter be published in the Manual, and it was published\naccordingly.\n\nThis statement is not made with a view of making the First Presidency\nand the Twelve, who were present and voted upon the subject,\nresponsible for the ideas advanced; the motion then taken carried with\nit no such consequences. It meant only that the brethren then consulted\nwere willing that the present writer should publish those views in the\nYoung Men's Manual; but primarily he, the writer, stands responsible\nfor the views there expressed--a responsibility, by the way, which he\nis very willing to carry; but he is anxious to have the Latter-day\nSaints understand, and especially the young men in Israel, that in\nsetting forth the Manual theory of translating the Book of Mormon, the\nwriter was not seeking to gratify his personal vanity by advancing some\nnovel theory, and pushing it to the front regardless of the opinions of\nothers, or the general interests of the work. The same correspondent\nalso says:\n\n    \"The theory of the Manual is having a bad effect upon our best Book\n    of Mormon students.\"\n\nWith all due respect to the gentleman's opinion, I desire to say to him\nthat he is entirely mistaken. The \"Manual theory\" of translation is\nhaving no such effect; but, on the contrary, Book of Mormon students\neverywhere are rejoicing in the fact that the \"Manual theory\" of\ntranslation gives them a rational defense against the criticisms that\nare urged against the faulty language of the English translation of\nthat book. Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been\neliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason\nwhy every one of those that remain should not be eliminated, since it\nis the thought, the facts of the book, that one should be concerned in\npreserving, not the forms in which they happen to be cast. There is no\ngood reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in\nthe English language as they now have in the French, the German, the\nSwedish and the Danish, and (since the recent revision of it) in the\nHawaiian; for in these translations, it has not been thought necessary\nto perpetuate the English errors; nor do I believe it necessary to\nperpetuate them in our English editions. By making merely verbal\nchanges, and changes in grammatical construction, without changing the\nshade of a single idea or statement, changes that could be legitimately\nauthorized by the President of the Church--who is the recognized law\ngiver in Israel, and guardian of the written word--the Book of Mormon\ncould be made a classic in English, and the present writer hopes that\nhe will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.\n\nIV.\n\nINTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MANUAL THEORY OF\nTRANSLATION.\n\nApril 28, 1906.\n\n_President B. H. Roberts, Salt Lake City:_\n\nDEAR BROTHER:--As a subscriber to the _Era_ I have also received\nthe _Manual_ from year to year, and I have perused them with much\ninterest. I have carefully studied the lessons or chapters pertaining\nto the translation of the Book of Mormon, and have read your articles,\npublished in the recent numbers of the _Era,_ written as a defense of\nyour theory of translation as set forth in the _Manual._\n\nIt is not my intention to enter into any controversy with you in\nrelation to this theory, this would be presumptuous on my part. Neither\ndo I want to criticize, but inasmuch as we have no _sure_ authority,\nno word left us from the Prophet, neither anything revealed putting\nthis matter beyond a doubt, the field is open for theorizing. I would\nreadily accept your theory with just one amendment, and to propose that\namendment I write you these lines. While reading one of your articles,\na thought was suggested to me like this: May it not have been that\nthe Prophet _did see,_ as related, through the Urim and Thummim the\ntranslation of each sentence from the plates into the English language,\nbut in a so-called word for work or literal translation; and from this\nodd rendering, it became his task to put the sentence into readable\nEnglish? Taking this view of it, we can account for how the language of\nthe Book of Mormon is in part _modern_ and in part decidedly ancient.\nThe Prophet having used partly the words as they appeared, and, in\norder to put it into proper form, used or supplied words of his own.\nThis will account for all errors, and place the responsibility for\nthem where it must belong, with man and not with God. It would give\ndue importance and credit to the sacred instruments, and would leave\nample scope for the Prophet to exercise his own mental powers. It would\nmake the statements of Martin Harris and David Whitmer in relation to\nthe translation substantially correct, and it would also be in perfect\nharmony with what the Lord made known to Oliver Cowdery in relation to\nthe mode of translation.\n\nI don't know, of course, what objections you may see to this idea, but\nshall be pleased, if you are not too busy to do so, if you will write\nme a line in relation to it.\n\nWith kind regards, your brother,\n\n----------\n\nTHE REPLY.\n\nSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, June 1, 1906.\n\nDEAR BROTHER:--Your esteemed favor of April 28th duly to hand, and\ncontents read with pleasure; but have not found opportunity to write\nyou on the subject of your letter until now. The solution you suggest\nas to difficulties involved in the alleged manner of translating the\nBook of Mormon have been urged upon my attention by others, but,\nunfortunately, not always in the clear and temperate spirit of your\ncommunication. I have several letters before me now asking if the\nsupposition you suggest is not tenable, and would it not relieve us\nof whatever remains of difficulties, after accepting the chief ideas\nadvanced in the _Manual_ theory of translation. I have had a number of\nconversations with others on the same subject, and it may interest you\nto know that one of the prominent professors in one of our principal\nChurch institutions of learning very earnestly entertains the same\ntheory.\n\nYour theory is so clearly and completely stated in your letter that it\nneed not be restated by me. All you ask is my opinion of it.\n\nFrankly, then, in the first place, I cannot see that it helps us out of\nour difficulties at all. In the second place, it still involves us in\nthe absurdity of supposing some kind of intellectual or mental force in\nthe transparent stones of the Urim and Thummim. And in the third place,\nall the supposed harmonizing effect of your suggestion is already found\nin the _Manual_ theory of translation.\n\nOf course, however, the whole point at issue in my consideration of\nyour suggestion, is the probability of its being true; for if we can\nbut get at the truth of the matter for once, all other considerations,\nin time will take care of themselves,--the difficulties in which\nit might seemingly involve us, the harmonizing of all seeming\ninconsistencies, all seeming conflict of testimonies of the uncritical\npersons who were honored of God in bringing forth the work, etc. So\nnow, as to the probability of the truth of your suggestion.\n\nFirst, I must demur somewhat to your remark that we have nothing\n\"revealed putting this matter beyond a doubt;\" I am rather inclined\nto think we have. The more I think of the Lord's revelation to Oliver\nCowdery describing the manner in which he might have exercised the gift\nof translation by means of Urim and Thummim, had his faith not failed\nhim (Doc. and Cov. secs viii, ix), the more I am convinced that we have\nthe Lord's description of the manner in which translation by means\nof Urim and Thummim is accomplished. That is the word of the Lord,\nto which all theories must conform, whatever becomes of merely human\ntestimonies. Now with this as the premise, I hold that it is clear that\nthe power which stands between the Nephite characters seen through the\nUrim and Thummim, and the English translation of these, is the inspired\nmind of the Prophet Joseph Smith; and not any intellectual or mental\npower in the transparent stones of the divine instrument. To suppose\nthat Urim and Thummim, by some means, and necessarily it must have been\nintellectual means, some mental process, made a transliteration from\nthe Nephite characters in exact though awkward and often meaningless\nEnglish equivalents, which Joseph Smith constructs into his unlearned,\nyet plainly understood English, (your theory) is to transcend all\nhuman experience and knowledge which God has revealed, and lands us\nback into the midst of all the difficulties from which we are trying\nto escape. To explain: It nowhere appears from anything which man has\ndiscovered, or that God has revealed, that there is any substance,\nfrom street mud to radium, from a mountain to an atom, or an electron,\naside from _mind,_ that possesses intellectual or mental force, the\nonly force conceivable as translating the thought crystallized in the\nsymbols of one language, into thought crystallized into the symbols\nof another language--intellectual or mental force alone, I say, must\nbe supposed to be capable of doing such work as that. If the Urim and\nThummim possessed that intellectual power it must have been conferred\nupon it of God, and under that supposition, we are brought face to face\nagain with all our old difficulties, chief of which is the question:\nIf God created such an instrument, and conferred upon it the power to\ngive a transliteration of the Nephite characters, how is it that he\ndid not give it the power to translate the meaning into reasonable and\nreadable, not to say perfect English, at first hand, and relieve us of\nthe awkward supposition that the instrument possessed the mental power\nto make the literal translation of words from the Nephite language into\nanother--and which Joseph Smith was left to construct into imperfect\nEnglish? What would be gained by the adoption of this cumbersome and,\npardon me, I think, untenable theory? And again, what occasion for it,\nwhen we have the more simple and reasonable theory of the _Manual_\nwhich is in accord with what God has revealed upon the subject, and\nnot necessarily contradictory of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have\nsaid upon the subject? In order that this may appear, I restate the\n_Manual_ theory: The Prophet saw the Nephite characters in the Urim and\nThummim; through strenuous mental effort, the exercise of faith and\nthe operation of the inspiration of God upon his mind, he obtained the\nthought represented by the Nephite characters, understood them in the\nNephite characters, understood them in the Nephite language, and then\nexpressed the understanding, the thought, in such language as he was\nmaster of; which language, as his mind by mental processes arranged it,\nwas reflected and held to his vision in Urim and Thummim until written\nby his amanuensis. That leaves all the factors involved in the work of\ntranslation in their true relation: The Urim and Thummim an _aid_ to\nthe Prophet in the work, yet not necessarily, and contrary to human\nexperience and knowledge revealed of God, endowed with intellectual\npower; the mind of the Prophet, touched through his faith by the\ninspiration of God, the chief factor; the testimony of Messrs. Harris\nand Whitmer that both Nephite characters and the English translation\nappeared in the Urim and Thummim, undisturbed and unimpaired.\n\nThat I believe to be the truth of the matter, so far as it may be\nascertained, and the certainty of it grows apace. The compromise\nsuggestion you make--you recognize the fact, of course, that it is\npurely conjecture--I do not think can stand, but it indicates an\nadvancement from the old untenable theory. That old theory cannot\nbe successfully maintained; that is, the Urim and Thummim did the\ntranslating, the Prophet, nothing beyond repeating what he saw\nreflected in that instrument; that God directly or indirectly is\nresponsible for the verbal and grammatical errors of translation.\nTo advance such a theory before intelligent and educated people is\nto unnecessarily invite ridicule, and make of those who advocate it\ncandidates for contempt.\n\nSince receiving your letter I have received a communication from Ann\nArbor, Michigan, written by Brother Francis W. Kirkham, of Provo, the\nbody of which is as follows:\n\n    \"A paper on 'Mormonism' was recently read before the seminary class\n    in American History at this university. The writer was very fair,\n    and I believe tried to be impartial. In the paper the manner of the\n    interpretation of the Book of Mormon as described by Martin Harris\n    was brought to its only logical conclusion. Our professor stopped\n    the reader and asked if 'Joseph Smith had made the statement which\n    seemed so incredulous.'\n\n    \"'I am not sure,' was the reply, 'yet this appears to be the Mormon\n    explanation of the manner of interpretation.'\n\n    \"Later I gave copies of the last _Manual_ to both our professor\n    and my fellow classmate. Both myself and another Mormon boy who\n    listened to the paper, heartily wished that the correspondents you\n    found it necessary to answer in the last two numbers of the Era\n    had been seated in the room. We believe a cure would have been the\n    result.\"\n\nDesiring something more in detail on this circumstance, Edward H.\nAnderson, assistant Editor of the _Era,_ wrote to Elder Kirkham for\nfurther particulars. Following is the body of the letter received in\nreply to this request:\n\n    \"The paper was on Mormonism. In discussing the Book of Mormon,\n    the reader followed largely the argument of Mr. Frank Pierce in\n    a number of the _American Archaeologist._ [I can get the exact\n    reference when I return to Ann Arbor.] I did not read the article\n    in full, but it quoted from the writings of Martin Harris, and\n    others. Mr. Pierce claimed he gave the Mormon account of the\n    interpretation of the golden plates, which is, he said, that Joseph\n    Smith, Jr., saw the exact words he was to write in the transparent\n    stone spectacles and that the words would not disappear until the\n    scribe had written them exactly as the Lord had given them. Mr.\n    Pierce also gave the testimony of the printer of the original\n    edition of the Book of Mormon in which he testified that the\n    'Smiths' would not allow him to change the manuscript in the least,\n    although he was aware of its crudeness.\n\n    \"When the reader of the paper had made the above assertions\n    concerning the interpretation of the Book of Mormon, our professor\n    spoke up and said: 'Are you sure Joseph Smith said this was the\n    manner of the interpretation?' 'No,' was the reply, I am not\n    sure.' 'Well,' continued our professor, 'It is very important\n    that we know, for, if Joseph Smith did make the assertions you\n    speak of, there seems to me but one logical conclusion, either the\n    Lord intentionally made all the mistakes of the first edition and\n    colored the writings with the provincialisms of New York state, or,\n    that the Lord was unable to speak correctly or use other than the\n    phrases and mannerisms of the locality in which Joseph Smith lived.\n\n    \"I wrote to Elder B. H. Roberts the letter because we regret\n    it, because we realize that the Martin Harris theory of the\n    interpretation is contrary to common sense and reason.\"\n\nIt is no use resisting the matter, the old theory must be abandoned. It\ncould only come into existence and remain so long and now be clung to\nby some so tenaciously because our fathers and our people in the past\nand now were and are uncritical.[A] They have been and are now--and\nto their honor be it said--more concerned with the fact of the divine\norigin of the Book of Mormon and the great work it introduced than\nto the _modus operandi_ of its translation. Overwhelmed by a divine\ntestimony of its truth they have paid little attention to the precise\nmanner by which it was brought forth. It is doubtful if the Prophet\nJoseph himself was conscious of the mental and spiritual processes of\ntranslation. It was not his part in the great work to distinguish all\nthe minutiae of the process by which the word of God came to him. It was\nhis higher and nobler part to feel and know the word of God in his own\nsoul; to receive that word through the aids and means provided of God,\nand to proclaim that word of God to the world, leaving to others the\nless important task of expounding it, unifying its parts, harmonizing\nit with previous revelations, proving it true, analyzing it, defending\nit when assailed. And in the process of attending to the part of the\nwork of God the Prophet left to us, we meet with the necessity of\nexplaining the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, so far as it\ncan be ascertained, in order to defend the book from assaults made upon\nit by mocking unbelievers. One could wish that our own people would\napproach the consideration of the matter with less feeling and more\nreason than they do; for the whole effort on the part of those who put\nforth the _Manual_ theory of translation is merely to ascertain the\ntruth respecting the matter, and with the view of finding a basis from\nwhich the work may be successfully defended and advocated.\n\n[Footnote A: \"It is no use trying to twist facts to suit theories\nderived from a past which was destitute of the knowledge we now\npossess; what we have to do is to adjust our theories to suit the\nfacts.\"_--Hibbert Journal,_ April, 1907, page 197.]\n\nThese latter reflections bring to mind some observations I remember\nto have read some time ago in the philosophical works of John Fiske\nrespecting two classes of disciples or partisans in the world of\nreligious and philosophical opinion, which I think with profit may be\nreproduced here. By the way, I see the passage I refer to occurs in\nthe introduction to _Fiske's Work,_ written by Josiah Boyce, and is as\nfollows:\n\n    \"Disciples and partisans, in the world of religious and\n    philosophical opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the\n    disciples pure and simple,--people who fall under the spell of a\n    person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth\n    consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and\n    ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such\n    disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching\n    to get a popular hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder\n    than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend:\n    for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely\n    to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly\n    be the whole truth. No man ought to be merely a faithful disciple\n    of any other man. Yes, no man ought to be a mere disciple even of\n    himself. We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus\n    enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of\n    the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense.\n    They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.\n\n    \"On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort. They are\n    men who have been attracted to a new doctrine by the fact that it\n    gave expression, in a novel way, to some large and deep interest\n    which had already grown up in themselves, and which had already\n    come, more or less independently, to their own consciousness. They\n    thus bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal\n    contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters\n    their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields\n    springs up in their soil, and bears fruit,--thirty, sixty, an\n    hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such,\n    men are the disciples that it is worth while for a master to have.\n    Disciples of the first sort often become, as Schopenhauer said,\n    mere magnifying mirrors wherein one sees enlarged, all the defects\n    of a doctrine. Disciples of the second sort co-operate in the works\n    of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples\n    than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept\n    to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder\n    stages of development.\"\n\nI believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second\nsort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for\nthoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some\nof its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that\ndevelopment. Not half--not one-hundredth part--not a thousandth part of\nthat which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded,\neither to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has\nscarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of\nthe great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the\nweeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give\nit more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship\nshall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with\nthe necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in\nsustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of\nthe great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere\nrepetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works\nof the Spirit, until \"they help to give to the truth received a more\nforceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages\nof its development.\" Another has said:\n\n    \"The ultimate Truth, no doubt, is one; but Truth as it enters the\n    world through human lips is always involved in temporary forms,\n    which subsequent experience enlarges or corrects. No historic\n    religion, therefore, can ever claim finality; and the work of\n    religious founders is not so much to create systems of thought as\n    to impart those impulses of moral endeavor and spiritual affection\n    which the Christian sums up under the term \"life.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Hibbert Journal, April, 1906, p. 503]\n\nYou see once having got started, I have gone beyond the inquiries\nof your letter, though I hope not unprofitably so. And, by the way,\nsince there are a number who are inclined to the view of the manner\nof translation suggested by you, is there any objection in your mind,\nto publishing this correspondence as a part of the very interesting\nconsideration now being given to the subject of which it treats?[B]\n\n[Footnote B: No objection was made to the suggestion, and hence the\nletters were published.]\n\nVery truly yours,\n\nB. H. ROBERTS.\n\n\n\nII.\n\nA Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following brief discussion on the Book of Mormon, while very\nlimited in its scope, will doubtless be of interest as illustrating\nthe manner in which answer can be made to objections urged against the\nAmerican scriptures on the ground of imperfections in grammar, modern\nphraseology, New York localisms, apparent transcripts from King James'\ntranslation from the Bible, etc. Also the discussion may indicate\nhow helpless one would be in defending the Book of Mormon from such\ncriticism as is made in \"M's\" papers, in the absence of such a theory\nof translation as is set forth in the Young Men's Improvement Manual\nand in the series of papers preceding this brief discussion.\n\nThe writer disclaims having issued a \"challenge to the world,\" or\nto anybody in it, to debate the question of the divine authenticity\nof the Book of Mormon in his remarks in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on\nthe 8th of November, 1903, or at any other time. The remarks on that\noccasion merely dealt with what the writer considers a prophetic page\nin the Book of Mormon, page 122 of the current edition, and which is as\nfollows:\n\n    II NEPHI.\n\n    \"2. For behold, I say unto you, That as many of the Gentiles as\n    will repent, are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many\n    of the Jews as will not repent, shall be cast off; for the Lord\n    covenanteth with none, save it be with them that repent and believe\n    in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.\n\n    \"3. And now, I would prophecy somewhat more concerning the Jews and\n    the Gentiles. For after the book of which I have spoken shall come\n    forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up again unto\n    the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which\n    are written; and they shall carry them forth unto the remnant of\n    our seed.\n\n    \"4. And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how\n    that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of\n    the Jews.\n\n    \"5. And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them;\n    wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their\n    fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had\n    among their fathers.\n\n    \"6. And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is\n    a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of\n    darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations\n    shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and\n    delightsome people.\n\n    \"7. And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered,\n    also shall begin to believe in Christ; and they shall begin to\n    gather in upon the face of the land; and as many as shall believe\n    in Christ, shall also become a delightsome people.\n\n    \"8. And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his\n    work, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring\n    about the restoration of his people upon the earth.\n\n    \"9. And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and\n    reprove with equity, for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite\n    the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his\n    lips shall he slay the wicked;\n\n    \"10. For the time speedily cometh, that the Lord God shall cause a\n    great division among the people; and the wicked will he destroy;\n    and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must\n    destroy the wicked by fire.\n\n    \"11. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and\n    faithfulness the girdle of his reins.\n\n    \"12. And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb, and the [End of\n    page].\"\n\nHere on this one page are at least five very striking prophecies:\n\n1. Many shall believe the Book of Mormon: a thing which seemed most\nimprobable when the book was in course of publication.\n\n2. They will carry it to the Lamanites--American Indians;\n\n3. The Lamanites by that means will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ,\ncome to a knowledge of their fathers, will rejoice in the truth, and\nfinally become a delightsome people;\n\n4. The Jews, after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, will begin\nto believe in Christ, and begin to gather to the lands of their\nfathers--Palestine.\n\n5. The work of the Lord on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon will\nbegin among all nations, in order to bring to pass the restoration of\nIsrael in the earth.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: These prophecies and their fulfillment are considered at\nlength in the Y. M. M I. A. Manual for the year 1904-6, No. 9; which\ntreatise will also be found in the writer's \"New Witness for God,\" Vol.\nII, now soon to go to press.]\n\nIn the discourse which treated of this \"prophetic page\" the writer\nexpressed the opinion that these prophecies and their direct and\nremarkable fulfillment could not be accounted for on any other\nhypothesis than that the writer of them was inspired of God. And this\nwas construed into the \"Challenge to the World\" referred to in the\nfollowing papers. If the writer's remarks could fairly be considered\nas a challenge, then surely these prophecies and the question of\ntheir fulfillment should have been the main subject of discussion;\nbut consideration of them forms scarcely any part of the debate which\nfollows, they are almost ignored, and quite other questions are the\nsubject of the debate; for which however, the writer is in no way\nresponsible.\n\nI.\n\nThe Objector's First Paper.\n\n(_Salt Lake City Tribune,_ Nov. 22, 1903.)\n\n_Editor Tribune_:--According to the newspaper reports, Elder B. H.\nRoberts, in his Tabernacle address Sunday, November 8th, threw out a\nsweeping challenge to the world to show that the Book of Mormon is not\nof divine origin and authority.\n\nSince Elder Roberts, on the occasion above referred to, confined his\nattention mainly to the writings of the alleged Prophet Nephi, we will\ndo the same. Now the following are some of the difficulties Elder\nRoberts will have to explain before he can make any headway toward\nsetting aside the intelligent belief of the American people generally\nthat the Book of Mormon in general and the books of Nephi in particular\nare fictitious books:\n\nTHE \"PROPHET\" NEPHI.\n\n1. The alleged Prophet Nephi claims to have lived and written between\n500 and 600 B.C. For he tells us in chapter 1 and 10 of the first book\nthat his father was living in Jerusalem in the first year of the reign\nof Zedekiah, king of Judah, which reign began not far from 600 B.C.\nThis professed prophet Nephi pretends to give a summary of the records\nmade by his father Lehi, about that date, and also \"an account of my\nproceedings in my days.\" Now the first difficulty for Elder Roberts\nto remove is this: How could a writer, claiming to live at that time,\nmake repeated quotations from the writings of Christ's Apostles, who\nwere not born until nearly 600 years after the time when Nephi wrote?\nYet this pretended prophet Nephi quotes passage after passage from the\nwritings of Christ's apostles Matthew and John and Paul, and also from\nthe writings of the evangelist Luke, and from the words of the Apostle\nPeter, which Christian writers were born about the beginning of the\nChristian era. Just take two or three examples of Nephi's quotations,\nmade at least 500 years before the writers were born from whom he\nquotes: In I Nephi 10:8, we read these words, so familiar to English\nBible readers: \"Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there\nstandeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I,\nwhose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.\" This is a direct\nquotation from the gospel of John 1:26-7, and also from Matthew 3:1.\n\nOn the same page in Nephi are several quotations from the writings of\nPaul, in the 11th of Romans, about the olive tree, and the \"branches\nbroken off,\" with others \"grafted in.\" In I Nephi iii:20 we find the\nexpression, \"which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy\nprophets * * * since the world began.\" These are the words of Peter\nas recorded by Luke in Acts iii:21. The above is an illustration of\nthe way in which this alleged Prophet Nephi quotes from the writers of\nthe New Testament. This is fraud No. 1, exposing the false claims of\nNephi, who pretends to write between 500 and 600 years B.C. and yet\nquotes from the New Testament writers who were not born until over 500\nyears later. The Old Testament prophets were genuine. They did, by the\nhelp of God, foretell many important future events. But none of them\npretended to be able, either by the help of God, or their own agility,\nto quote passage after passage from writings that did not exist, and\nfrom authors that had not been born. It remained for the favorite\nprophet of Elder B. H. Roberts, the robust and agile Nephi, to perform\nthis feat, beyond the reach of God's genuine prophets.\n\nQUOTES FROM SHAKESPEARE.\n\n2. This alleged Prophet Nephi, pretending to write between 500 and 600\nB.C., actually quotes from Shakespeare! This beats the genuine prophets\nof the Old Testament even worse than before, and shows that, on a\nprophetic long jump, this elastic Nephi could easily take the cake. In\nII Nephi i:14, he is writing down the words of his father Lehi, and\nrepresents him as saying, \"hear the words of a trembling parent, whose\nlimbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent gave, from whence no\ntraveler can return.\"\n\nEvery reader of Shakespeare will recognize the last phrase as taken, in\nsubstance, from a sentence in Hamlet's soliloquy. This great Prophet\nNephi (writing, be it remembered, between 500 and 600 B.C.) had\nprobably loaned his copy of Shakespeare to a neighbor and attempted to\nquote from memory, getting about as near the original as the average\nMormon prophet generally does, for example, when attempting to quote\nthe scriptures from memory. Here is fraud No. 2 perpetrated by this\npretended prophet Nephi, from which Elder Roberts must vindicate his\nhero, or else leave us to conclude, as facts seem to show, that the\nwriter of these books of Nephi was quite a modern deceiver.\n\n3. This brings us to another serious difficulty which we ask Elder\nRoberts to elucidate before we can accept his theory that Nephi was a\nprophet of God, and that the book of Mormon is a divine revelation.\nThis alleged Prophet Nephi, professing to write between 500 and 600\nB.C., quotes many long passages from a book which did not come into\nexistence until the seventeenth century of the Christian era. We\nrefer to the King James English version of the Bible, which was first\npublished in 1611 A. D. Now, perhaps Elder Roberts can tell us how this\nfellow Nephi, pretending to write in the sixth century before Christ,\ncould quote hundreds of passages, about three hundred, from the New\nTestament alone, and whole chapters from our English version of the\nBible, which did not come into existence for more than 2000 years after\nhe wrote!\n\nThis stuffed Prophet Nephi gives himself completely away in the very\nfirst chapter, and shows that he is a very modern writer by using such\nwell-known expressions as these from our English Bible: \"Pillar of\nfire,\" Exodus xiv:24; \"Filled with the spirit,\" Ephesians v:18; \"Great\nand marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty,\" Revelation xv:3.\nThese hundreds of passages, and these whole chapters in II Nephi and\nelsewhere, from our English Bible, be it observed, are quoted not from\nthe original, which would not help the matter, for the original of\nthe New Testament did not exist; but they are quoted from the English\ntranslation of 1611, mistakes and all, even to the filling in of the\npeculiar gaps in the way suggested by the English translators.\n\nNow, these hundreds of verbatim quotations, and these whole chapters\nfrom our English Bible, which claim to be quoted over 2000 years before\nit was written, should make it quite clear, even to the average mind,\nthat this pretended Nephi instead of being an ancient prophet was a\nvery modern one, a pious deceiver and falsifier, living about 1829\nof our era. But, perhaps, Elder Roberts can explain it all, and show\nus how this modern deceiver in the nineteenth century was an ancient\nprophet of God 600 B.C.\n\nGIVES HIMSELF AWAY.\n\n4. This alleged Prophet Nephi gives himself away even worse in the 31st\nchapter of the second book by forgetting that he was pretending to\nwrite in the sixth century before Christ and treating the baptism of\nChrist as actual history, which it really was. He not only refers to\nit in the past tense, but actually indulges in a regular camp-meeting\nexhortation to the \"brethren,\" exhorting them, in accordance with the\nrevival style of 1828, to \"repent of their sins,\" and \"follow their\nLord and Savior down into the water,\" promising that after that they\nshall have \"the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nThis is deception No. 4, and shows that Sidney Rigdon Nephi, in 1828,\nforgetting that he was an ancient prophet living six centuries before\nChrist, broke loose in his regular old camp-meeting style, and just\n\"whooped up\" the brethren, without his deceiver's mask. Nephi, a\ndivinely inspired prophet of God! Holy Moses, preserve us! If Nephi,\nwith the above record, or the godless fellow who personated him,\ndeserves honor as a prophet, then great injustice was done to Boss\nTweed in not electing him President of the American Bible Society. For\nclearly he had more religion than this alleged Prophet Nephi with his\nconscienceless deception in connection with sacred things.\n\nCome, Brother Roberts, if you can't back up that other alleged prophet,\nJoseph Smith, with something more substantial, something less imaginary\nand fictitious than these pretended prophetic writings of Nephi, from\nwhich we have been quoting, then you better drop Nephi as a prophet and\nfall back on Coriantumr, Shiz or Robinson Crusoe.\n\nWHAT IS NEW IN IT?\n\n5. If the Book of Mormon, as Elder Roberts claims, is a revelation from\nGod, what moral or religious truth does it reveal which we did not know\nbefore? Not one item. If Elder Roberts will point me to one solitary\nitem of moral or spiritual truth in the whole Book of Mormon which it\ndid not take, directly or indirectly, from the Bible, I will present\nhim with a five-dollar Stetson hat. I know it cannot be done, for it\nhas been attempted in vain again and again. What sense is there in\ncalling the Book of Mormon a revelation from God, when it took from the\nBible the only moral truth it contains, and is shown on its face to be\na counterfeit book?\n\nNow, a few words about the pretended prophecies of the wonderful\nNephi, which Elder Roberts claims have been fulfilled. Here is the way\nin which prophecies are made and fulfilled in the Book of Mormon: It\neither takes the historic record in the New Testament, using the very\nwords of Scripture, tries to push this history back hundreds of years\nand then falsely claims it to be prophetic; or else it deliberately\nappropriates the genuine prophecies of the Old Testament. Then, after\nmutilating these prophecies more or less, with its peculiar Sidney\nRigdon phraseology and most abominable grammar, it attempts to palm off\nthese prophecies as original! The prophecy about the restoration of the\nJews to their own land, which Elder Roberts quotes from second Nephi,\nand thinks is so wonderful, is simply a case of downright plagiarism.\nThe conversion of the Jews and their restoration to their own land is\nrepeatedly foretold by the Old Testament prophets, in such passages\nas Jeremiah xxx:3; Ezekiel xxxvii:21; Amos ix:15, and others. Yet the\nwriter of this book of Nephi does not hesitate to take these prophecies\nfrom the Bible, modify their language, and then try to palm them off as\nhis own.\n\nAs for the two pretended prophecies referred to by Mr. Roberts, in II\nNephi xxx:3, that \"Many shall believe the words which are written,\"\nand that \"They shall carry them forth to the remnant of our seed,\"\nthe first is not a prophecy at all, but the simple statement of a\nwell-known historical fact, yet perverted by the attempt to make it\nbolster up this modern book. In saying that it is the statement of a\nhistorical fact, we mean this: The Book of Mormon, as shown above, is\nmade up of hundreds upon hundreds of Bible phrases and verses, and many\nwhole chapters taken from our English Bible. As a matter of course,\nthese Bible quotations which form such a large per cent of the Book\nof Mormon, are accepted and believed by the 400 millions who make up\nChristendom.\n\nThe other passage Mr. Roberts misreads and misinterprets by making \"the\nremnant of our seed\" refer to the Lamanites. Then he assumes, without\none item of proof, that the Lamanites are the same as our Indians.\nAccording to Nephi, the Lamanites were the descendants of his brother\nLaman, and were consequently Jews, for Laman was a Jew. Now Ridpath,\nthe American historian, in the second paragraph of his history of the\nUnited States, sums up the evidence concerning the connection between\nthe Indians and the Jews in this one sentence: \"The notion that the\nIndians are descendants of the Israelites is absurd.\"\n\nFurthermore, the writer of the book of Nephi jumbles up his own history\nand contradicts himself in appearing to make \"the remnant of our seed\"\nrefer to the Lamanites, as in 2 Nephi xxx:6. Nephi writes as a Jew, and\nhis seed or the \"remnant\" of it, will inevitably be Jews and Nephites,\nand not Lamanites. The latter descended from Laman and not from Nephi,\nand hence could not be the \"remnant\" of Nephi.\n\nBut what is the use of talking seriously about the Nephites and the\nLamanites when no such people ever existed in this country except in\nthe wild imagination of the writer of a piece of fictitious stuff,\nout of which this Book of Mormon was manufactured. The Nephites and\nLamanites never had one whit more reality than the peculiar inhabitants\nof the famous island of Lilliput, as described by that model Mormon\nhistorian, Lemuel Gulliver, whom Dean Swift portrays.\n\nNOT AN ANCIENT BOOK.\n\nAbundant proof has been given above that the Book of Mormon is not an\nancient, but a very modern book, and not only a modern book, but a\nmodern imposition by pretending to be an ancient book and revelation\nfrom God, when it reveals nothing in the way of moral truth which it\ndid not steal from the Bible.\n\nWe are sorry to see a man of Mr. Roberts' ability fooling away his time\nand thought in the useless attempt to bolster up as a divine revelation\nthat which the intelligent reading millions of the American people are\npersuaded is fabrication. If the fact that 200,000 people, more or\nless, believe in the Book of Mormon, proves that a false book is a true\none, then Mrs. Eddy's book far outranks the Book of Mormon in merit,\nfor her 'book has a million supporters. But Mr. Roberts is correct in\none statement, namely: that if the Book of Mormon is a false book, then\nit would follow that \"the great prophet of the Latter-day movement is\na fraud.\" Well, if there is any one fact which is generally accepted\nand believed by the reading, thinking millions of this country, without\nregard to party or creed, it is that Joseph Smith was not a prophet.\nAnd they believe this because of the abundant and varied evidence in\nregard to his life and conduct.\n\nIf Mr. Roberts is really in earnest in desiring to know the actual\norigin of the Book of Mormon, the character of the men who manufactured\nit and the kind of pretenders they were, socially and morally, let\nhim read the first eleven chapters of the \"Origin and Progress of\nMormonism,\" by that well-informed and reliable historian, Pomeroy\nTucker of Palmyra, New York. He was well acquainted with Martin Harris,\nOliver Cowdery and other Mormon leaders of that early time, and was for\na dozen years near neighbor to the founder of Mormonism and all his\nfamily. Mr. Tucker was the editor and proprietor of the Wayne Sentinel,\non whose press the first edition of the Book of Mormon was printed,\nMr. Tucker himself correcting the proof sheets. His book was published\nby D. Appleton & Co., New York, in 1867. Mr. Tucker sets forth the\ncharacter of the false prophet and those associated with the latter at\nthat time from personal acquaintance and knowledge, and his book has\nbeen generally accepted as thoroughly honest and reliable.\n\nTHE DILEMMA.\n\nNow if Mr. Roberts can read the facts as set forth in Mr. Tucker's\nbook, which have been confirmed by scores of reliable witnesses also\nacquainted with the facts, and still stand up in public and declare\nit to be his belief that Nephi was a prophet of God and the Book of\nMormon is a revelation from God, he will force the general public to\nconclude rather that he is not a sincere man, or else that his peculiar\ntraining prevents him from distinguishing between true reasoning and\nfalse, between facts and fiction, between honesty and fraud, between\ntrue revelation and that which is counterfeit. Because the facts in Mr.\nTucker's book, confirmed by scores of witnesses of worthy character,\nhave been amply sufficient to convince the reading, thinking,\ntruth-loving millions of the American people generally that the Book\nof Mormon is fiction in pretending that a part of it was written 2400\nand the rest 1500 years ago, when the proof that it is a modern book is\nshown on almost every page. The facts in Mr. Tucker's book have also\nconvinced the American people generally that the alleged prophet was\nnot a prophet.\n\nThe above has been written with entire good will, in the interests of\ntruth and historic facts. And when Mr. Roberts squarely meets the above\ndifficulties, contradictions and absurdities in the Book of Mormon, not\nby wordy evasion and logical hair-splitting, however ingenious, but in\na way that shall be satisfactory not only to his own mind but also to\nintelligent, reasoning, truth-loving minds generally, then perhaps he\nwill be entitled to issue another sweeping challenge in behalf of a\nbook which the American people generally, without regard to party or\ncreed, believe to be a fabrication._M_.\n\nSalt Lake City, November 18, 1903.\n\nII.\n\nThe First Reply.\n\n(_Salt Lake Tribune,_ Nov. 29, 1903.)\n\n_Editor Tribune:_--If any words of mine in the remarks made in the\nTabernacle on the 8th of November could be construed into a \"challenge\"\nto a public discussion of the Book of Mormon--as the writers of\nheadlines on some of the morning papers seem to think they could\nbe--when the challenge was accepted, the courtesy of debate would\ncertainly require that the acceptance of the challenge should be\notherwise than from ambush. I mean that I am entitled to know the\nname of my opponent, that I may judge somewhat of his character and\nstanding. And why should the gentleman remain in cog? Is he ashamed to\nbe known as engaging in such a discussion? Or is it a precaution he\ntakes so that if his argument does not rise to the expectation of his\nfriends, he may remain unknown behind the mystery of a single initial.\nIf the first supposition be true, it is a difficulty he could easily\nhave avoided; if the second suggestion be the true reason for his\nremaining unknown, he is to be commended for his cunning. I need say\nnothing of his courage.\n\nWhen on Saturday my attention was called to the editorial announcement\nthat the alleged \"challenge\" had been accepted, and an article against\nthe Book of Mormon would appear in _The Tribune's_ Sunday issue, I\nremarked to a friend that I thought I could write an answer to the\nmuch heralded article without seeing it; and when on Sunday I read\nthe Unknown's production I felt I had not been over-confident in the\nassertion, so closely has he followed in the well-beaten, not to\nsay worn out, path of anti-Mormon argument. What a world of trouble\nAlexander Campbell would have saved many inferior disputants had he\nonly stereotyped the objections he urged against the Book of Mormon in\n1831! They then could have pointed to his utterances and said: \"Them's\nmy arguments.\" For from the days of Mr. Campbell until now, anti-Mormon\ngeniuses have but rehashed the great man's arguments, with a uniform\ndecadence in their strength, in proportion to the distance in time from\nwhich they are removed from him who first fashioned them. But now to\nthe Unknown's \"arguments.\"\n\nTHE TIME OF WRITING.\n\n1. The Unknown states the fact that Nephi wrote between 600 and 500\nB.C. and then presents what he calls the first difficulty that I am to\novercome. \"How can a writer,\" he asks, \"claiming to live at that time\nmake repeated quotations from the writings of Christ's Apostles who\nwere not born until 600 years after the time when Nephi wrote?\" He then\ncharges that Nephi quotes \"passage after passage\" from the writings of\nChrist's apostles, Matthew, John, Paul, Luke, Peter, etc.; and gives\nwhat he calls just \"two or three examples\" of such quotations. The\ngentleman very much overstates the difficulty he presents, by making\nit appear that the alleged quotations are very numerous, when the fact\nis that the two or three cases he cites virtually exhaust the alleged\nquoted passages so far as the New Testament is concerned. In order that\nyour readers may see how flimsy the charge here made is, I set down the\nquotations in question. (a) Nephi, describing his father's vision of\nthe future coming of the Messiah, says: \"And he spake also concerning a\nprophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the\nLord; yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness, 'Prepare\nye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth\none among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe's\nlatchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning\nthis thing.\" To make this appear as a plagiarism from the New Testament\nthe Unknown puts together two passages: (1) \"I baptize with water; but\nthere standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who, coming\nafter me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy\nto unloose,\" (John i:26, 27). (2) \"In those days came John the Baptist,\npreaching in the wilderness of Judea\" (Matthew iii). Of course, the\nstory of the man who said he could prove that the Bible commanded\nevery one to hang himself may be commonplace; but it illustrates the\nmethods of the Unknown in making out his case of plagiarism. The proof\nwas supplied in this way: He quoted the passage, \"and Judas went out\nand hanged himself.\" Then from another passage, from another book, he\nquoted these words, \"Go thou and do likewise.\" It must be remembered\nthat the Nephites carried with them into the wilderness the Jewish\nscriptures, and Lehi was doubtless familiar with the prediction of\nIsaiah concerning this same prophet that should go before our Lord\nto prepare the way before him, translated in our English version as\nfollows: \"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye\nthe way of the Lord, make straight in the desert an highway for our\nGod.\" (Isaiah xl:3.) Is it more remarkable that the Lord should reveal\nto Lehi what the voice in the wilderness should cry than that he should\nreveal it to Isaiah? With reference to the Unknown's charge that on\nthe same page quoted above, Nephi makes \"several quotations from the\nwritings of Paul in the xi. of Romans, about the 'olive tree,' and the\n'branches broken off, with others grafted in,'\" etc., the gentleman,\nif acquainted with the prophets of Israel ought to know that this\nsimile is not original with Paul; but that the ancient prophets used\nit in illustration of Israel and the judgments that should come upon\nthe people. Moreover, in addition to our books of Jewish scriptures\nthe Nephites had some of the writings of the other prophets of Israel,\nnotably the book of Zenos, in which was given at great length this\nsimile of the tame olive tree and the branches being broken off and\nothers grafted in, etc., from which book, unquestionably, Nephi\nobtained his ideas.\n\nQUOTATION FROM PETER.\n\nThe Unknown charges that Nephi quoted from the words of Peter, which\nI give here, followed by the passage from Nephi. Peter: \"Whom the\nheaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which\nGod hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world\nbegan.\" Nephi: \"Behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these\nrecords, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our\nfathers; and also that we may preserve unto them the words which have\nbeen spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been\ndelivered unto them by the spirit and power of God, since the world\nbegan, even down unto the present time.\" The omissions that are made in\norder to bring words together to establish the charge of plagiarism,\nwill exhibit to what straits the Unknown is driven to make out his case.\n\nOne other thing the Unknown seems to have overlooked, viz., that the\nBook of Mormon is a translation of the ideas and prophecies of men\nderiving their knowledge concerning the Messiah and things associated\nwith his life either from the old Jewish scriptures, which were in\ntheir possession, or from the revelations of God direct to them; and\nthat the translator, Joseph Smith, being more or less familiar with New\nTestament and Old Testament expressions, in making the translation, at\ntimes used Bible phraseology in representing ideas akin to those found\nin Jewish scriptures. See also my remarks under heading No. 3, where\nthis defense is more fully stated.\n\nTHE SHAKESPEAREAN QUOTATION.\n\n2. The Unknown fairly revels in the thought that he has Lehi quoting\nShakespeare many generations before our great English poet was born;\nand indulges in the sarcasms which Campbell and more than a score of\nanti-Mormon writers have indulged in who have mimicked his phraseology.\nNow the fact is there are two passages in Job which could easily have\nsupplied both Shakespeare and Lehi with the idea of that country \"from\nwhose bourn no traveler returns.\" That this may appear I give the\npassages from Shakespeare, Job and Lehi. It should be remembered always\nthat the Nephites had the Jewish scriptures with them, including the\nbook of Job; hence Lehi could have obtained his idea from the same\nsource whence Shakespeare obtained his.\n\n_Shakespeare:_ \"That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler\nreturns.\"\n\n_Job:_ \"Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go\nwhence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow\nof death.\" (Job x:20, 21.) \"When a few years are come, then I shall go\nthe way whence I shall not return.\" (Job xvi:22.)\n\nLehi: \"Hear the words of a parent whose limbs ye must soon lay down in\nthe cold and silent grave from whence no traveler can return.\"\n\nIt will be observed that the passage from the Book of Mormon follows\nJob more closely than it does Shakespeare both in thought and diction;\nand this for the reason, doubtless, that Lehi had been impressed with\nJob's idea of going to the land whence he would not return, and Joseph\nSmith, being familiar with Job, and very likely not familiar with\nShakespeare, when he came to Lehi's thought, expressed it nearly in\nJob's phraseology.\n\nFROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n3. The Unknown asks me again how it is that Nephi, living in the sixth\ncentury B.C., can quote numerous passages, about \"three hundred from\nthe New Testament alone, and whole chapters from our English version of\nthe Bible, which did not come into existence for more than 2,000 years\nafter he wrote.\" When the Unknown says that there are three hundred\nquotations from the New Testament alone in the writings of Nephi, if\nhe meant that, he simply makes a colossal misrepresentation, for there\nis no such number of passages in Nephi from the New Testament alone,\nnor, in fact, in the whole Book of Mormon. But as I think he must have\nmeant this assertion to apply to the whole Book of Mormon, I will take\nno advantage of his misstatement as to confining that number to Nephi,\nbut will meet the larger question as to all these passages in the Book\nof Mormon which parallel passages in both the Old and New Testament.\nBecause Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the\ninspiration of God and the aid of the Urim and Thummim, it is generally\nsupposed that this translation occasioned the Prophet no mental or\nspiritual effort, that it was purely mechanical; in fact, that the\ninstrument did all and the Prophet nothing, than which a greater\nmistake could not be made. All the circumstances connected with the\nwork of translation clearly prove that it caused the Prophet the utmost\nexertion, mental and spiritual, of which he was capable, and that\nwhile he obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters, he\nwas left to express those ideas in such language as he was master of.\nThis, it is conceded, was faulty; hence here and there verbal defects\nin the English translation of the Nephite record. Now when the Prophet\nperceived from the Nephite records that Isaiah was being quoted; or\nwhen the Savior was represented as giving instructions in doctrine and\nmoral precepts of the same general character as those given in Judea,\nJoseph Smith undoubtedly turned to those parts of the Bible where\nhe found a translation substantially correct, of those things which\nwere referred to in the Nephite records, and adopted so much of that\ntranslation as expressed the truths common to both records; and since\nour English version of the Jewish scriptures was the one the Prophet\nused in such instances, we have the Bible phraseology of which the\nUnknown complains, and of which this, in the judgment of the writer, is\nthe adequate explanation to all of that class of his objections.\n\n4. What the Unknown describes as Nephi giving himself away is based\non my unknown friend's inability to comprehend a very simple fact. He\nsays that in the 31st chapter of the second book of Nephi, the writer,\nforgetting that he was pretending to write in the sixth century B.C.,\ntreats the baptism of Christ as actual history. That is, he holds,\nthe writer changes from prophecy to narrative. The fact is that some\ntime previous to this (see I Nephi, chapter 11) the baptism of Jesus\nhad been shown in vision to Nephi, hence to him had become as an\naccomplished fact, after which, according to this chapter quoted by\nthe Unknown, the voice of the Son of God (then a pre-existent Spirit)\ncame unto Nephi, saying \"He that is baptized in my name, to him will\nthe Father give the Holy Ghost like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and\ndo the things which ye have seen me (i. e., in vision) do.\" Now Nephi,\nwith this in mind, points out to his brothers in the next verse how, by\nfollowing their Lord and Savior down into the water, \"according to his\nword\" (i. e., given previously in Nephi's vision) promises them that\nthey shall then receive the Holy Ghost. All of which considerations\ndemonstrate that the gentleman has not understood the chapter over\nwhich he grows vulgarly hilarious by such expressions as \"whooped up,\"\n\"Holy Moses, preserve us!\" and his reference to \"Boss Tweed.\"\n\nNO NEW TRUTH\n\n5. The next charge of the Unknown is that the Book of Mormon makes\nknown no moral or religious truth, no \"not one item,\" and then the\ngentleman resorts to a thing which to say the least of it looks\nstrangely out of place in a discussion of this description, and reminds\none of the methods of a low order of politicians, who, when unable to\nmaintain their part of a controversy by reason, arrogantly offer a bet,\nusually at large odds, that their side will prevail; and if the wager\nfor any cause be not taken, with turkey-cock pride they strut about,\nas if they had demonstrated the truth of their contention. Now I do\nnot know what our Unknown friend would regard as a spiritual or moral\ntruth, but here is at least one that I commend to his consideration:\n\"Fools mock, but they shall mourn.\" It is quite original to the Book\nof Mormon, as are the other quotations which follow, but I will not\ntrouble the gentleman for his hat, even though it be a Stetson, as up\nto date I have been able to clothe my own head without an effort to\nwin wagers or prizes. Whoever the Unknown may be it stands out pretty\nclearly from his article that he is not familiar with great moral and\nreligious questions. He seems not to be aware that the Jews for many\nages have been asking this same question of the Christian, i. e., they\ndemand to know what moral and religious truth Jesus taught the world\nthat was not already taught by Jewish rabbis; and no later than in\nthe October number of the _Open Court,_ a famous rabbi parallels the\nchoicest moral aphorisms of Christ's teachings with quotations from\nthe Talmud; while there has not arisen within the last two centuries\nan anti-Christian disputant, but who makes the same claims in behalf\nof the moral and spiritual teachings of Buddha; and not only do they\nclaim that Christ's moral truths were borrowed from more ancient\nteachers, but that the principal events of his life also, from his\nbirth of a virgin to his resurrection as a God, were stolen from myths\nconcerning Old World heroes and teachings. When Messiah came to the New\nWorld, he had the same announcements to make concerning himself, and\nhis relations to the world; the same ethical and spiritual doctrines\nto teach; and as he had been accustomed to state these doctrines in\nbrief, aphoristic sentences while in Judea, it is not strange that\nthe same things were given to the Nephites, in their language, much\nin the same order; which Joseph Smith, observing, and finding these\ntruths substantially stated in our English Bible, adopted, where he\ncould do so consistently, the language of that book. Still there are\ncertain statements of moral and spiritual ideas that the Unknown will\nfind it difficult to parallel from the Bible, a few examples of which\nI here give: \"Wickedness never was happiness.\" \"The Lord giveth no\ncommandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for\nthem that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.\"\n\"I give unto men weaknesses that they may be humble, and my grace is\nsufficient for all men that humble themselves before me.\" Then let the\ngentleman take into consideration the exclusiveness of the Jews, and\nof the Christians also, for matter of that, and then contemplate the\nfollowing passage which breathes such a spirit of universal charity\nand joins the hands of all the great moral teachers among all nations\ninto one splendid brotherhood: \"The Lord doth grant unto all nations,\nof their own nation and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom,\nall that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that\nthe Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and\ntrue.\" Then let the Unknown parallel from the Bible the following great\nspiritual truth from the Book of Mormon: \"Adam fell that men might be;\nand men are that they might have joy.\" A sentence which tells, as it is\ntold nowhere else, the purpose of man's existence. The limits of this\narticle preclude the mention of historical and doctrinal truths which\nthe Book of Mormon makes known to the world. Also, consideration of\nthe gentleman's efforts to explain away the existence and force of the\nprophecies in the Book of Mormon to which I alluded in my Tabernacle\ndiscourse, and which may be found at page 122 of the current edition\nof the Book of Mormon. I esteem what he has there said of so little\nimportance that I shall pass it without comment as its weakness and\ninaccuracy will be apparent to all who read it. Indeed at this point\nthe gentleman makes it quite clear that he is not familiar with the\nbook he attempts to criticise. In trying to make it appear that Nephi\n\"jumbles up his own history and contradicts himself\" the Unknown\nastonishes us with the statement that Nephi was a Jew, and learnedly\ntells us that his seed or the remnant of it will inevitably be Jews\nand Nephites and not Lamanites, and hence the prophecies concerning\nthe Lamanites could not apply to the remnant of Nephi's seed. As a\nmatter of fact Lehi, and hence all of his sons, were of the tribe of\nManasseh, and Nephi was speaking with reference to both his own and his\nbrother Laman's descendants of whom the Indians are the remnant. When\nI reached this part of the gentleman's production I thought I was not\nonly entitled to know who it was I was to meet in discussion, but also\nto have an opponent who at least was acquainted with the subject.\n\nAS TO \"SORROW.\"\n\nA word as to the \"sorrow\" which the gentleman experiences when he\nsees a man of my \"ability\" (shades of flattery, leave us!) \"fooling\naway his time and thought in the useless attempt to bolster up as a\ndivine revelation that which the intelligent millions of the American\npeople are persuaded is fabrication!\" What a jewel was lost to the\nanti-Christians of the first or second century by the Unknown being\nborn in the nineteenth, instead of the first century! What an eloquent\nappeal he could have made, for instance, to the misguided Paul, who\nwasted his thought and time in an effort (I will not say useless one)\nto bolster up such a delusion as the Christian religion was at that\ntime thought to be! A delusion which the intelligent millions of\ncivilized Rome regarded as the vilest of all deceptions. Again, how\nostentatiously the Unknown could have said to Paul, if the latter was\nreally in earnest to know the character of the men who originated this\nChristian delusion, that he could learn it from some of the historical\nfacts and the accepted rumors current at that time about Messiah and\nhis immediate followers. From such sources he could have learned that\nChrist was a blasphemer, a disturber of the peace, a menace to the\nauthority of Rome, the consort of vile Galilean peasants, an associate\nand sympathizer with women of questionable reputation, and who, at\nlast, for the peace and good order of the community in which he lived,\nwas duly crucified between two thieves. He was buried and his sepulcher\nguarded, but his vile associates bribed the soldier guards, stole\nhis body, and then gave it out that he was risen from the dead; and\non these falsehoods arose the fabric known as the Christian church!\nThere would be no resisting such an appeal as this if only some one\nhad arisen with the intelligence to have advanced it. Undoubtedly Paul\nwould have ceased his labors, and perhaps Christianity itself would\nnot have survived such an attack, and hence many anti-Christians may\nregret that this Unknown gentleman did not live in the period when his\nservices would have been so effective. But since the Unknown, through\nno fault of his, however, missed his opportunity in that age, he\nexerts his abilities in this, and appealingly says to me, if I would\nknow the real \"truth about the Book of Mormon, and the character of\nthe men who manufactured it,\" I should read the \"'Origin and Progress\nof Mormonism,' by that well-informed and reliable historian, Pomroy\nTucker!\" Shades of primer days, not to say days of the bib and rattle!\nAfter nearly a century of existence, despite the efforts of its enemies\nto destroy it, after surviving as Mormonism has all the floods of\nfalsehood and absurdity hurled upon it, are we now to turn back to what\nPomroy Tucker has said in order to get the \"exact truth\" concerning\nMormonism and the character of the men who brought it forth? I must\ninform the Unknown, whatever he may think of me, that I must suppose\nmyself utterly incorrigible, for I have read Pomroy Tucker years ago,\nand also recently, and if he will call on me I will point out to him\nseveral score of other anti-Mormon writers I have read, of like ilk\nwith Tucker, and yet I am not reclaimed. Deliberately and proudly, I\ntake my stand with the people whom these writers have maligned, and\nwhose doctrines and history they misrepresent, and announce my absolute\nfaith--notwithstanding even the argument of the Unknown--in the\ndivinity of the Book of Mormon. Respectfully, B.H. ROBERTS.\n\nSalt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 27, 1903.\n\nIII.\n\nThe Objector's Second Paper Against the Book of Mormon.\n\n_(Salt Lake Tribune,_ Dec. 6, 1903.)\n\n_Editor Tribune:--_In reply to my article in _The Tribune_ of November\n22nd, pointing out, in response to his public challenge, some of the\ngreat difficulties in the way of accepting Nephi as an ancient prophet\nof God, and the Book of Mormon as an ancient revelation from God,\nElder Roberts begins by finding fault with me for not writing over my\nfull signature. But the reasons he intimates for my not doing so prove\naltogether too much, and hence, by a logical maxim, prove nothing. For\nthey would prove that those great and high-minded statesmen, Alexander\nHamilton, Chief Justice John Jay, and James Madison, acted an unworthy\npart, and were lacking in courage because, for wise reasons, they\nconducted those masterly discussions which made up The Federalist, over\nan assumed name.\n\nThen the sarcasms about the rehashing by more recent writers, of\nAlexander Campbell's arguments against the Book of Mormon, are \"wasted\non the desert air,\" so far as I am concerned, for I have never seen\nany article or treatise by Campbell on the subject. It would be quite\neasy to retort and say that if it were not for the writings of Orson\nPratt, the more recent defenders of the Book of Mormon would be without\nammunition. But that style of arguing amounts to nothing.\n\nElder Roberts' defense seems to raise new difficulties without really\nsettling any, although it is ingenious and skillful. On general\nprinciples, there is no reason why I should not accept the writings\nof Nephi and the Book of Mormon as readily as my opponent, if they\nwere true. But the reason why I do not, is because of the extent and\nvariety of the evidence against them, only a few points of which can be\ndiscussed in a newspaper article. Since my main object is to establish\ntruth, I wish to treat Elder Roberts and his argument in a fair and\ncandid way.\n\nLet us come now to the main proposition, which is twofold: Elder\nRoberts affirms that Nephi was a prophet of God, living and writing\nabout 600 B.C.; and that the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation.\n\nThe evidence compels me to deny both of these propositions and to\ndeclare that neither of them is true. Now let us try to find some\ncommon ground on which we can stand. As such ground, I offer these\ntwo propositions in reference to books in general, which seem to me\nself-evident:\n\nFirst, any book which professes to have been written in ancient times,\nand yet quotes from authors not born until centuries after, is a\nspurious book.\n\nSecond, any book which professes to be a divine revelation to the\npeople of the present time, and yet reveals nothing, which it did not\nappropriate from some other book or source of knowledge already in the\npossession of the people, is a spurious book.\n\nI use the term \"revelation\" in its ordinary sense, as referring to\ndivine truth. These are two propositions which I think people of all\ncreeds can stand upon, for I think they contain nothing which is not\nself-evident. The differences of opinion will begin when we come to\napply these two fundamental principles. Still, it is my opponent's\nprivilege to dissent from these propositions, if he thinks they are not\nself-evident. But I think that careful, reasoning people generally,\nwill accept them. Anyhow, I take my stand upon them and proceed to\napply them.\n\nTHOSE QUOTATIONS.\n\n1. As to the alleged Prophet Nephi. If it can be clearly shown that he\nquoted passage after passage from the New Testament writers, who were\nnot born for centuries after he claims to have written, then the first\nfundamental principle is violated, and we have demonstrative evidence\nthat Nephi was simply a pretender, and his writings are spurious.\n\nIn my former article I referred specially to three direct quotations\nby Nephi, from the New Testament writers, taken from Acts iii:21, John\ni:26-27, and Romans xi:17-24, and found in I Nephi iii:20, x:8, and\nx:12-14. I also, under discussion of the third point, referred to two\nother quotations from Ephesians v:18, and Revelations xv:3. It did not\nseem necessary to quote other passages, for I deemed these sufficient\nto establish the point.\n\nThe words in I Nephi x:8, \"For there standeth one among you whom ye\nknow not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not\nworthy to unloose\" is a clear plagiarism from John i:26-27, which\nreads: \"But there standeth one among you, whom ye know not, He it is\nwho coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am\nnot worthy to unloose.\"\n\nThe first part of Nephi x:8, is: \"Yea, even he should go forth and cry\nin the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths\nstraight.\" This is quoted from Matthew iii:3. The reference of Elder\nRoberts to Isaiah x:3, from which the thinks Nephi might have quoted,\ninstead of from Matthew, is irrelevant, because, while the two passages\nare somewhat similar, the phraseology is different, and the careless\nNephi failed to help my opponent out of the difficulty, for he quotes\nfrom Matthew and not from Isaiah, demonstrating what a smart fellow he\nwas by quoting from an author that hadn't been born!\n\nSo Elder Roberts' reference to the fact that the olive tree is used\nfiguratively by some of the Old Testament prophets is irrelevant,\nbecause Nephi quotes Paul's exact phrases, and does not quote from\nthe prophets. Now, in reference to these quotations by Nephi from the\nNew Testament writers, Elder Roberts says: \"The gentleman very much\noverstates the difficulty he presents, by making it appear that the\nalleged quotations are very numerous, when the fact is that the two of\nthree cases he cites virtually exhaust the alleged quoted passages so\nfar as the New Testament is concerned.\"\n\nI am not a little surprised at such a statement, as Elder Roberts\nrather prides himself on his knowledge of the Book Of Mormon, and in\nhis article, near the close of his discussion of the fifth point,\nlaments that he is obliged to carry on this discussion with an opponent\nwho does not seem to be much acquainted with the subject. Well, my\nfriend, I don't boast about my knowledge or superiority to other men;\nI don't assume \"to know it all.\" But I think I know enough about the\nBook of Mormon to prevent me from making any such careless and utterly\ninaccurate statements as the above, \"that the two or three cases he\ncites virtually exhaust the alleged quoted passages.\" Verily, I begin\nto wonder whether my friend has ever read the books of Nephi through!\nIf he will now follow me for a little, perhaps he may learn something\nnew about them. Let us see whether \"two or three passages exhaust the\nquotations.\" In my former article I referred to five quotations from\nthe New Testament writers. Let us go on with the count:\n\n6. In Nephi v:18, the expression, \"all nations, kindreds, tongues and\npeople,\" is from Revelations xiv:6.\n\n7. In Nephi x:17, the words, \"by the power of the Holy Ghost,\" are from\nRomans xv:13.\n\n8. \"For he is the same, yesterday, today and forever,\" in Nephi x:18,\nis taken from Hebrews xiii:8.\n\n9. The words, \"caught away in the Spirit of the Lord,\" are from Acts\nvii:39.\n\n10. In Nephi xi:21, \"Behold the Lamb of God,\" is from John i:36.\n\n11. In Nephi xi:27, the words, \"and after he was baptized, I beheld the\nheavens open, and the Holy Ghost came down out of heaven, and abode\nupon him in the form of a dove,\" are taken from Matthew iii:16, and\nfrom John i:32.\n\n12. In Nephi xi:35, the strange expression, \"the twelve apostles of the\nLamb,\" is taken from the only place in the world where it originated,\nRevelation xxi:14.\n\n13. In Nephi xi:22, the words, \"Yea, it is the love of God which\nsheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men,\" are taken\nfrom Romans v:5.\n\n14. In Nephi xii:11, \"And the angel said unto me, These are made white\nin the blood of the Lamb,\" is from Revelations vii:14.\n\n15. In Nephi xiv:1, the repeated expressions, \"mother of abominations\"\nand \"mother of harlots,\" are taken from Revelation xvii:5.\n\nThese fifteen quotations have been taken from the first fourteen\nchapters of I Nephi, leaving eight chapters more in this book and\nthirty-three chapters in II Nephi for other quotations. I have jotted\ndown on the fly-leaf of my copy of the Book of Mormon forty-four\ndifferent quotations from the New Testament writers by this alleged\nprophet. These quotations are largely in the Sidney Rigdon-Nephi style\nof inaccuracy. Nephi is just about as inaccurate in quoting scripture\nas in quoting Shakespeare. Then a large per cent of the language in\nthe books of Nephi is a mere paraphrase, and often a parody, of the\nlanguage of the New Testament. I have quoted nothing from III Nephi,\nwhose thirty chapters and sixty-eight pages are largely in the direct\nlanguage of the New Testament, three whole chapters being quoted,\nalthough the New Testament was not written for fifty years afterward.\nI have not quoted from this book, for I understood Elder Roberts to be\nreferring to the first two books.\n\nThe explanation of Elder Roberts that Nephi had a vision of Christ some\nfifty years before, which made Christ real to him, is no explanation\nof the fact that there are eight quotations from three New Testament\nwriters in II Nephi 31.\n\nAS TO SHAKESPEARE.\n\n2. Concerning Nephi's quotation from Shakespeare, Elder Roberts thinks\nhe has found a way of escape for Nephi from this fatal blunder.\nHe cites a passage from Job from which he thinks Nephi might have\nquoted, for he says \"the Nephites had the Jewish Scriptures with\nthem, including the book of Job.\" But now observe that this suggested\nescape for this ancient prophet is out of the Nephite frying-pan into\nthe Lamanite fire. For Shakespeare died in 1616, and the King James\nEnglish version of the Bible was published in 1611. Now, so far as the\nargument against the ancient Nephite is concerned, what difference does\nit make whether he quoted from Shakespeare or our English version of\nJob, which is the one Elder Roberts alludes to, and which is the only\none containing any resemblance either to the passage in Nephi or in\nShakespeare. The only way, therefore, to lift Nephi out of this fatal\nsituation is for Elder Roberts to show that he had, in addition to the\nJewish Scriptures, a copy of our English Bible with him back there in\nthe wilderness 600 B.C., or else a copy of Shakespeare. Or else let Mr.\nRoberts agree with me, according to the evidence, that Mr. Nephi was\nsimply a very modern gentleman from New York or Pennsylvania, having in\nhis possession both the Bible and Shakespeare, and then the difficulty\nis solved.\n\nSECOND PROPOSITION.\n\nNow we come to the second proposition which is, that the Book of Mormon\nis a divine revelation to the people of the present time. A large\npart of what has been said in proof of the spurious character of the\nbooks of Nephi applies to the Book of Mormon as a whole. But there are\noverwhelming special difficulties in the way of accepting it as a new\nand divine revelation, only three or four of which I can now briefly\ntouch upon.\n\n1. The book claims that the plates, from which it was translated by\nJoseph Smith, were sealed up and hidden in the hill of Cumorah, New\nYork, about 400 A. D. No one upon this continent ever saw these plates\nprepared by Mormon except himself and his son, Moroni. They were\nprepared specially for the people of our time, in this country. After\nbeing hidden about 1400 years Joseph Smith claims that the angel Moroni\ncame and disclosed them to him. And the wonderful revelation contained\nin the plates, about \"the restoration to the earth of the everlasting\ngospel,\" Elder Roberts says Joseph Smith translated \"by means of the\ninspiration of God and the aid of Urim and Thummim.\" And, behold, when\nwe come to read this wonderful new revelation and this new everlasting\ngospel which it discloses, we find that it is simply a feeble and\ndiluted imitation of the Bible revelation and the gospel which had\nalready been in the possession of the Christian people of this country\nfor over two hundred years, and in the possession of their ancestors\nfor over twelve hundred years.\n\nIf this duplicate, pretended revelation had been brought out among\nthe benighted people of China or India, or some other heathen country\nwho were without these Bible teachings, it would not have been such\na complete \"give away.\" But, with a great flourish of trumpets, to\ngive to the Christian people of this country a weak and poor copy of\nthe revelation and the gospel whose bright and radiant original had\nbeen in their possession for hundreds of years, seems to me so absurd,\nand so transparent as a deceiving scheme, I do not wonder that the\noverwhelming majority of intelligent people utterly reject it. And just\nbecause this book, while so loftily pretending to be a new and divine\nrevelation, reveals absolutely nothing which the people did not have\nbefore in much better form, how can we avoid concluding that it is a\ncounterfeit book? I will attend presently to the specimens of new truth\nwhich Elder Roberts finds in it.\n\n2. There are at least twelve persons, worthy and reliable so far\nas I can discover, who testify that the substance of this Book of\nMormon, with all its queer names of places and persons, its strange\nhistory, its battles and slaughters, its continual imitation of Bible\nphraseology, they had heard read several years prior to the publication\nof this book, from a religious romance. It was in this romance that\nthe Nephites and Lamanites originated, and also the pretended ancient\nbooks of Nephi, Alma, Mosiah, Mormon and the rest. I can find no-proof\nwhatever that the above peoples and books ever existed except in the\nimagination of the writer of the religious romance. And I have never\nbeen able to see why the testimony of the above twelve witnesses, who\nhad nothing to gain by their testimony, should be arbitrarily brushed\naside, and the testimony of the eleven interested witnesses, who\ndeclare that they saw and \"hefted\" the plates, should be gulped down at\none swallow. Even if they did see the plates, that proves absolutely\nnothing essential to the case. They were all ignorant men, and knew\nnothing about what was written on the plates. Other men saw the famous\nKinderhook plates, but what of it?\n\n3. The Book of Mormon, though sealed up and hidden away about 400\nA.D., is filled up, from beginning to end, with the phraseology of our\nEnglish Bible. Not only that, it contains hundreds upon hundreds of the\nexact phrases and sentences, and about twenty whole chapters from our\nEnglish Bible which was not published for about twelve hundred years\nafter the Book was hidden away. In my former article, I intended to\nstate that there are in the Book of Mormon about 300 quotations from\nthe New Testament, and I am obliged to Elder Roberts for interpreting\nmy meaning in that way, for I did not intend to say that the two books\nof Nephi contain so many quotations.\n\nA VITAL POINT.\n\nNow we come to a vital point. I asked Elder Roberts to explain how the\nabove quotations could possibly have been made if the Book of Mormon\nis honest in its claim of being an ancient book. And here is his\nexplanation:\n\n\"Because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the\ninspiration of God and the aid of Urim and Thummim, it is generally\nsupposed that this translation occasioned the prophet no mental or\nspiritual effort, that it was purely mechanical; in fact, that the\ninstrument did all and the prophet nothing, than which a greater\nmistake could not be made. * * * Now when the prophet perceived from\nthe Nephite records that Isaiah was being quoted, or when the Savior\nwas represented as giving instructions in doctrine and moral precepts\nof the same general character as those given in Judea, Joseph Smith\nundoubtedly turned to those parts of the Bible where he found a\ntranslation, substantially correct, of those things which were referred\nto in the Nephite records, and adopted so much of that translation as\nexpressed the truths common to both records.\"\n\nNow, it seems to me that the above defense and explanation of Elder\nRoberts are fatal to his position and that of the defenders of the book\ngenerally, that it is a thoroughly accurate translation of the Nephite\nplates, \"by means of the inspiration of God and the aid of Urim and\nThummim.\" And it seems fatal for two reasons:\n\nFirst--This defense places Mr. Roberts in opposition to his own\nwitnesses. For two of the famous \"three witnesses\" wholly differ from\nMr. Roberts as to the method of translating the plates, and point out\nthat Joseph Smith had nothing whatever to do except simply to read the\nEnglish sentences as they appeared in translation. Martin Harris says:\n\n\"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by\nthe prophet and written by Martin, and when finished, he would say\n'written,' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and\nanother appear in its place; but if not correctly written it remained\nuntil corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on\nthe plates.\"\n\nHere is the testimony also of David Whitmer, another of the three\nwitnesses. After stating that Joseph put the seer stone into a hat,\nhe says: \"A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and\non that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear,\nand under it was the translation in English. Brother Joseph would read\noff the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and\nwhen it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it\nwere correct, then it would disappear and another character with the\ninterpretation would appear.\"\n\nNothing is said by these witnesses about any Urim and Thummim. That was\nevidently an afterthought. Nothing is said about any great mental and\nspiritual effort on Joseph's part.\n\nSecond--The above defense seems to me fatal to Elder Roberts' position,\nbecause if Joseph Smith turned aside to quote from our English Bible,\nas Elder Roberts admits that he did, then what was to prevent him\nfrom putting into the Book of Mormon, when it suited him, quotations\nfrom other English books, from Shakespeare, from books on geography\nand history? What prevented him from putting into the Book of Mormon\nthe peculiar and well-known views of Sidney Rigdon, with which the\nbook is saturated? What prevented him from putting in his own views?\nUndoubtedly, that is just what he did, for the book gives abundant\nevidence of being a modern compilation, and the evidence that it is\nan ancient book utterly fails. The statement and admission of Elder\nRoberts give us all the light we need as to its modern origin and\nspurious character.\n\nJust a few words now as to the specimens of new truth from the Book of\nMormon, of which Elder Roberts presented six:\n\nFirst--\"Fools mock, but they shall mourn.\" I see nothing new about\nthat. Everybody mourns sooner or later, and fools with the rest. In\nProverbs xiv:9, we read: \"Fools make a mock of sin.\"\n\nSecond--\"Wickedness never was happiness.\" I think the prophet Isaiah\nexpresses this idea far better when he says in lvii:21, \"There is no\npeace, saith my God, to the wicked.\"\n\nThird--\"The Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save\nhe shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing\nwhich he commandeth.\" Certainly that is not new truth. The very fact\nthat God gives us commandments implies that the way will be open for us\nto keep them. Perhaps it was suggested by I Cor. x:13.\n\nFourth--\"I give unto men weaknesses that they may be humble, and my\ngrace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me.\"\nThis idea seems to have been appropriated from II Cor. xii:9: \"And he\nsaid unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made\nperfect in weakness.\"\n\nFifth--\"The Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and\ntongue, to teach his word.\" I do not quote the rest of this verse,\nfor I think this first statement is not true. Many nations are in the\ndarkness of heathendom and do not teach the word of God.\n\nSixth--\"Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have\njoy.\" I think both statements in that sentence are wholly untrue. Adam\nfell because he disobeyed God and became a sinner. Two-thirds of the\nhuman race are in heathenish darkness, sufferers from cruelty, want,\noppression and idolatry and without joy.\n\nIn conclusion, I am sorry to spoil my opponent's concluding paragraph,\nfor I admit that it is well written. But it seems to me illogical,\nfor in expressing his regret that I could not have lived in the days\nof Paul, so that those opposed to Paul and the Christians might have\navailed themselves of my suggestions, he has to class me with the\nanti-Christians. In this he is illogical, for I do not belong to that\nclass. Suppose that I should express regret that he did not live in the\neighteenth century, so as to help the infidels of that day in their\ncontest with Bishop Butler and the other great Christian scholars of\nthat time. My supposition would be illogical, for my opponent does not\nbelong to the infidel class. Now, I have tried to treat my opponent\nand his arguments with fairness and in a kindly way. I certainly have\nnothing but good will toward him and to all who are sincere in their\nopinions. Unless some new phase of the subject should come up I see no\nreason why I should continue the discussion any further. _M_.\n\nSalt Lake City, Dec. 4, 1903.\n\nIV.\n\nThe Second Reply.\n\n_Editor Tribune:_--The most impressive thing in the second\ncommunication of the Unknown \"M\" is its very striking difference\nof spirit as compared with the first. His arrogance, if not his\nconfidence, seems to have left him, and he writes in a spirit more\nin harmony with the nature of the subject. I congratulate him upon\nthe improvement. When a book which is sacred to tens of thousand of\nintelligent people, and which is accepted by them as a revelation from\nGod, is to be criticised, a decent regard for propriety requires that\nit should be discussed in a respectful manner, and all the more so if\nthe critic regards those who accept the book as deceived, and would\nlead them from their delusion.\n\nIn this connection also I desire to say a word on an incidental matter\non which the Unknown lays some stress, viz., that \"the reading,\nthinking, truth-loving millions of this country\" have come to the\nconclusion that the Book of Mormon is fiction. This carries with it\nthe idea that these \"millions\" have examined the Book of Mormon and\nintelligently judged it to be fiction--an impression most erroneous,\nfor out of the ninety millions of the people of our country it is safe\nto say not more than two or three millions have ever read the Book\nof Mormon, this in the most superficial manner, and with their minds\nprejudiced by the misrepresentations made concerning it. In fact,\nbecause of these misrepresentations, contempt has preceded examination,\na circumstance which keeps men ignorant of the Book of Mormon. This\nmuch to remind the reader that there is no force in the appeal of the\nUnknown to the supposed condemnation of the Book of Mormon by \"the\nreading, thinking, truth-loving millions of this country.\"\n\nTWO CANONS OF CRITICISM.\n\nAt this point the gentleman proceeds with a show of orderly argument\nto lay down what he considers two self-evident canons of criticism on\nwhich he takes his stand in repeating his objections to the Book of\nMormon: The first of these he states in the following terms: \"Any book\nwhich professes to have been written in ancient times and yet quotes\nfrom authors not born until centuries after, is a spurious book.\"\nThis canon of criticism, however serviceable when applied to books in\ngeneral, can in no sense be made to do service against the Book of\nMormon. When he formulated his canon of criticism, as throughout the\ndiscussion, the Unknown fails to recognize the fact that while the\nBook of Mormon is an ancient book, it is largely a prophetic book; and\nthe strongest complaint that can be made against it along the line of\nthe Unknown's criticism is that some of its prophecies are here and\nthere translated in phraseology somewhat similar to that of writers\nliving subsequent to the period in which it was written. In explanation\nof this fact I have urged that the translator, Joseph Smith, being\nacquainted with the New Testament writings, and his diction influenced\nby the phraseology of those writers, sometimes expressed the thoughts\nand predictions of the ancient writers in New Testament phrases. So\nthat the question at issue at this point of the discussion is, first,\nwhether the ancient writers in the Book of Mormon could have been\nacquainted with the events, to them then future, found in the Book\nof Mormon, and is the theory reasonable that in translating their\nstatement of these events Joseph Smith's diction would be influenced by\nthe phraseology of the New Testament? In dealing with the question of\nthe New Testament phraseology in the Book of Mormon it is Joseph Smith\nthat the Unknown has to deal with, not Nephi; with the translator, not\nwith the original writer. A distinction which he persistently refuses\nto recognize.\n\nA PROPHETIC HISTORY.\n\nAnd now as to the point whether the writers of the Book of Mormon could\nbe acquainted with the events, ideas and doctrines which Joseph Smith\ntranslated here and there in New Testament phraseology. The Unknown\nappears ignorant of the great truth that prophecy is but history\nreversed. He forgets that known unto God are all his works and words\nfrom the beginning to the end, and that he has at various times made\nknown future events in the clearest manner to his prophets who, under\nthe inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have recorded them. The Prophet\nIsaiah, 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, foretold that celebrated\nruler's name; declared that he should subdue kingdoms, including\nBabylon, set free the people of God, held in bondage there and rebuild\nthe House of the Lord at Jerusalem. And all this as clearly as the\nhistorians could write it after the events themselves took place.\nTo Daniel he revealed the rise, fall and succession of the leading\nempires and nations of the world, even to the time of the establishment\nof God's kingdom in power to hold universal sway in the later days,\nan event not yet fulfilled. To the prophets of Israel nearly every\nimportant event in the life of the Savior was made known, and that,\ntoo, in the language of accomplished fact--a complaint often made\nagainst the prophecies of the Book of Mormon. They foretold that he\nwould be born of a virgin; that his name would signify \"God with us;\"\nthat Bethlehem would be the place of his birth; that he would sojourn\nin Egypt with his parents; that he would reside in Nazareth, for \"he\nshall be called a Nazarene;\" that a messenger would prepare the way\nbefore him; that he should ride in triumph into Jerusalem upon a colt,\nthe foal of an ass; that he would be afflicted and despised; that he\nwould be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; that he would be\ndespised and rejected of men; that men would turn their faces from him\nto his affliction; that he would be esteemed as stricken and smitten of\nGod; that he would be wounded for our transgression, bruised for our\niniquities; that the chastisement of men would be laid upon him, and\nby his stripes would they be healed; that upon him would God lay the\niniquity of us all; that for the transgressions of God's people would\nhe be stricken; that he would be oppressed and afflicted, yet open not\nhis mouth; that as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so would he be\nsilent before his judges; that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces\nof silver; that men would divide his raiment and cast lots for his\nvesture; that they would give him gall and vinegar to drink; that not\na bone of him should be broken; that he should be taken from prison\nand from judgment, and be cut out of the land of the living; that he\nwould make his grave with the wicked and the rich in his death; but\nnotwithstanding this he should not see corruption (i. e., his body\ndecay), and that on the third day following his death he should rise\ntriumphant from the grave. All this and much more was foretold by the\nancient Hebrew prophets concerning the Messiah [and most of it told in\nthe language of accomplished fact.] This is prophetic history. In like\nmanner to the Nephites his prophetic history was made known, and is\nfound in the Book of Mormon in some instances in greater plainness than\nin the Old Testament, because the Nephite scriptures have not passed\nthrough the hands of an Aristobulus, a Philo and other rabbis, who by\ninterpretation or elimination have taken away some of the plain and\nprecious parts of the Jewish scriptures. Surely if the Lord revealed to\nthe Jewish prophets these leading events in the history of the Savior\nages before the Messiah's birth, it ought not to be thought a strange\nthing (especially by those who believe in the fact of revelation) if\nGod imparted the same knowledge to the Nephite prophets. In fact it is\nbut reasonable to suppose that if God gave them revelations at all he\nwould do so upon this very subject.\n\nOF \"FATAL\" OBJECTIONS.\n\nThere remains to be considered under this head only this question.\nIs it a fatal objection to the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith,\nfinding the prophetic history of the Savior in the Nephite record,\ntranslated it in phraseology here and there found in the New Testament?\nOr in the language of accomplished fact. My contention is that it\ncannot be considered a fatal objection, or even a serious difficulty,\nespecially when one considers upon what slight similarity the Unknown\nseizes to make good his objection. For example, where he tries to make\nit appear that I was in error when saying that the several passages he\nhad already quoted practically exhausted the instances of New Testament\nphraseology in the writings of Nephi, he gave us such cases as these:\n\nNephi--Lehi prophesied that \"these plates of brass should go forth unto\nall nations, kindreds, tongues and people who were of his seed.\"\n\nRevelations--An angel should bring forth the gospel to be preached \"to\nevery nation and kindred and tongue and people.\"\n\nNephi--For he is the same yesterday, today and forever.\n\nHebrews--Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.\n\nNephi--I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord.\n\nActs---The Spirit of the Lord caught Philip that the eunuch saw him no\nmore.\n\n\"In Nephi xiv:1,\" says the Unknown, \"the repeated expression \"mother\nof abominations\" and \"mother of harlots\" are taken from Revelations\nxvi:5.\" I here quote Nephi, xiv:1: \"And it shall come to pass that if\nthe Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he\nshall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very\ndeed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks.\" After reading it\nI wondered where the Unknown found in it his \"mother of abominations\"\nand the \"mother of harlots.\" Of course, the gentleman may have given\nthe wrong reference, and I will not press his errors too hard upon him,\nbut how ridiculous to urge the rejection of the Book of Mormon on so\nflimsy an argument, even if he should find somewhere else his \"mother\nof abominations\" or his \"mother of harlots.\"\n\nTHE \"VITAL POINT.\"\n\nPassing over some intervening matter in order to consider this whole\nquestion of translation together, I next refer to what the Unknown says\nunder the heading, \"A Vital Point.\" I accounted for the imperfections\nof the language of the Book of Mormon on the ground that while the\ntranslator obtained his ideas from the Nephite record, he was left\nto express that thought in such language as he was master of, and\nas he was uneducated, that language was here and there faulty, and\nI accounted for the existence of some passages of the Bible in the\nBook of Mormon by saying that where Joseph Smith found in the Nephite\nrecords quotations from Jewish scriptures which the Nephites had with\nthem or when the teachings of Messiah in their order followed his\nteachings to be found in the New Testament, Joseph Smith adopted, when\nhe could do so consistently, the language of our English Bible. This\nthe Unknown considers is \"vital,\" and he holds that these quotations\nwould not be found in this translation of the Nephite record if the\nBook of Mormon is honest in its claim of being an ancient book.\nHe urges that if Joseph Smith could thus incorporate these quoted\npassages, then there is nothing to hinder him putting into the Book of\nMormon, when it suited him, quotations from other English books, from\nShakespeare, from books of geography and history, and the peculiar\nviews of Sidney Rigdon, with which the book is saturated, or his own\nviews; and this, he claims, is just what he did. Well, of course,\nthere is nothing that would prevent Joseph Smith from following a\ncourse of this kind if he was the unmitigated impostor and scoundrel\nthat the Unknown tries to make him appear to be, but that is just\nwhat Joseph Smith was not; and hence his own honesty and integrity\nprevented his putting in quotations from the Bible or any other book\nexcept just what the facts and statements in the Nephite records\njustified him in adopting. And as for the views of Sidney Rigdon being\nincorporated in it, that is impossible, since it is a well-established,\nincontrovertible, historical fact that Sidney Rigdon never saw either\nJoseph Smith or the Book of Mormon until six months after the book had\nbeen published.\n\nOF THE MANNER OF TRANSLATION.\n\nThe Unknown thinks I run counter to the statement of Martin Harris\nand David Whitmer as to the manner in which the Book of Mormon was\ntranslated, as he claims that in their testimony there is nothing said\nabout Urim and Thummim, and nothing is said about \"any great, mental\nand spiritual effort on Joseph's part\" in obtaining the translation.\nTrue, there is nothing in the statement of Whitmer and Harris quoted\nby the Unknown to that effect, but there abounds in the historical\nincidents connected with the coming forth of the Book plenty of\nevidence that the translation was not mechanical, and in the very\nbook of David Whitmer's, quoted by the Unknown, it is stated that the\nprophet had to be in a very exalted mental and spiritual state of mind\nbefore he could exercise his gift of translation. But we have a better\ndescription of the manner of translation than that given by Whitmer or\nHarris. In the course of translation Oliver Cowdery became desirous to\ntranslate, and in a revelation the Lord promised him that power.\n\n\"Yea, behold I will tell you (i. e., the interpretation) in your mind,\nand in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you, and\nwhich shall dwell in your heart.\" Oliver made the attempt to translate\nand failed; whereupon the Lord in a subsequent revelation gave this as\nthe reason of his failure: \"Behold you have not understood; you have\nsupposed that I would give it (i. e., the translation) unto you, when\nyou took no thought save it was to ask me; but behold, I say unto you,\nthat you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it\nbe right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn\nwithin you; therefore you shall feel that it is right, but if it be not\nright, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor\nof thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong;\ntherefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you\nfrom me.\" (Doc. and Cov., Sections 8 and 9.)\n\nThis is the Lord's description of how Oliver could have translated had\nhe persevered, and beyond question it is the manner in which Joseph\nSmith did translate. This is sufficient to establish the fact that the\nUnknown is speaking upon a subject with which he has but a very slight\nacquaintance, and further I may not enter into it here, because of the\nnecessary limits of this article.\n\nSECOND CRITICISM\n\nHaving disposed of the question relating to translation, I take up the\nUnknown's second canon of criticism, which he states in these terms:\n\n    \"Any book which professes to be a divine revelation to the people\n    of the present time, and yet reveals nothing which it does not\n    appropriate from some other book or sources of knowledge already in\n    the possession of the people, is a spurious book.\"\n\nThe Book of Mormon reveals the fact that there existed two great\ncivilizations on the American continent. The first was established\nby a colony which left the valley of the Euphrates in very ancient\ntimes, established themselves in the North American continent, and\nin time grew to be a great nation far advanced in civilization.\nThis race passed through all the vicissitudes incident to national\nexistence; periods of prosperity, times of disaster; periods of great\nrighteousness, when prophets with their divine message influenced the\npeople to keep the commandments of God, followed by long periods of\nmoral and spiritual depression, and ultimately succumbed to the fate\nwhich overtakes all nations that depart from truth and righteousness.\nThe second civilization resulted from two colonies which came from\nJudea; one led by Lehi, landing in South America; the other colony\nwas led by Mulek, who escaped from Palestine after the overthrow of\nJerusalem by the Babylonians. This colony landed in North America.\nThese colonies subsequently united and formed one great nation. This\nnation, like others, followed the beaten track of the history of other\nnations. In periods of righteousness they advanced in civilization.\nThey had their prophets, philosophers, statesmen, patriots, traitors,\nand passed through all the experiences incident to national existence.\nTheir history is the poet's moral of all human tales:\n\n  \"'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past:\n  First freedom, and then glory--when that fails,\n  Wealth, vice, corruption--barbarism at last;\n  And history with all her volumes vast hath but one page!\"\n\nAfter he had completed his ministry in Judea, the resurrected Messiah\nappeared among the Nephites, in fulfillment of his promise to their\nfathers by the prophets. He announced his divinity, taught them the\ngospel, conferred divine authority upon certain men whom He chose among\nthem, authorized the establishment of the Church for their instruction\nand development in righteousness. He taught them every moral truth\nwhich He had imparted to those living on the eastern hemisphere. He\nfulfilled all the prophecies relating to him up to this point in the\nJewish scriptures, which their fathers had carried with them from\nJerusalem. He assured them of the reality of life beyond the grave,\nand, in a word, planted here the whole system of truth which makes for\nthe salvation of men, and is called the fulness of the everlasting\ngospel. The Book of Mormon gives a voice to the ruined cities and\nhalf buried monuments upon this land of America. It confirms all the\nrevealed truths made known in the Jewish scriptures. In sustaining the\ntruth, inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is\nmore valuable than a thousand Rosetta Stones; it is superior to all the\nclay tablet libraries found in old Babylon and Egypt; it is the voice\nof sleeping nations speaking as from the dust of ages, bearing witness\nto the existence of God, the divinity of Messiah, and to the truth\nof the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation. It vindicates the\njustice of God in that it reveals the fact that he did not leave untold\nmillions of people to perish on this western hemisphere without the\nknowledge of God and the means of salvation. It banishes from the minds\nof men that narrow, sectarian dogma of an apostate Christendom which\nundertakes to limit the word of God to the few books contained in the\nBible. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon contradicts that equally\nerroneous sectarian notion that God had ceased to give revelations to\nmen and had spoken for the last time to his children. And yet in the\npresence of this array of great facts and truths which the Book of\nMormon makes known, and which are made known nowhere else (and the half\nhas not been told here), men of the order of intellect of this Unknown\ncritic stand chattering like parrots about there being nothing new or\nof value in the Book of Mormon, and seek to cast discredit upon it by\ntheir carping criticisms upon the defects of the language in which\nit is translated, and because its translator has couched some of its\nglorious truths in the New Testament phraseology familiar to him. How\npuerile all such criticism seems, and how refreshing it is to hear God\nsaying, \"He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully, for\nwhat is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord,\" (Jeremiah xxiii:28).\nThe letter still killeth. It is the spirit that giveth life.\n\nTHE SPAULDING THEORY.\n\nIn the background of the Unknown's discussion one may see the influence\nof what is called the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of\nMormon, and in his second communication he indirectly refers to it by\nsaying that \"there are at least twelve persons, worthy and reliable so\nfar as I can discover, who testify that the substance of this Book of\nMormon, with all its queer names of places and persons, its strange\nhistory, its battles and slaughters, its continual imitation of Bible\nphraseology, they had heard several years prior to the publication of\nthis book, from a religious romance (The Spaulding Story). It was in\nthis romance that the Nephites and Lamanites originated, and also the\npretended ancient books of Nephi, Alma, Mosiah and Mormon,\" etc. And\nlater the gentleman says that he cannot see why the testimony of these\ntwelve witnesses should not be received, etc. In all this the gentleman\nshows what a \"back number\" he is in the mater of controversy relating\nto the Book of Mormon. He seems not aware of the fact that Spaulding's\nmanuscript has been found and published now these several years,\nand is safely lodged in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. There\nappears upon this manuscript the endorsement of Aaron Wright, Oliver\nSmith, John N. Miller and D. P. Hurlburt (who, by the way, are among\nthe twelve witnesses to whom \"M\" alludes) as being the very manuscript\nfrom which they affirmed that the Book of Mormon had been written.\nAnd now comes L. L. Rice, an anti-slavery editor, for many year state\nprinter of Columbus, Ohio, who says: \"Two things are true concerning\nthis manuscript. * * * * * First, it is a genuine writing of Solomon\nSpaulding, and second, it is not the original of the Book of Mormon. *\n* * * It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the\nMormon Bible (Book of Mormon) would spend his time in getting up so\nshallow a story as this.\" While President James H. Fairchild of Oberlin\nCollege says over his own signature: \"Mr. Rice, myself and others\ncompared it (the Spaulding manuscript) with the Book of Mormon, and\ncould detect no resemblance between the two in general or in detail.\nThere seems to be no name or incident common to the two. * * * * * Some\nother explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found.\"\nThe truth of President Fairchild's statement can be verified by any one\nwho will compare the two.\n\nNEPHI AND SHAKESPEARE.\n\nThe Unknown has certainly plunged into the fog respecting his alleged\nconnection between Nephi and Shakespeare, and by some sort of mental\ncontortion utterly inexplicable, has arrived at the conclusion that we\nmust suppose that Nephi had a copy of our English Bible as well as the\nJewish scriptures, and also a copy of Shakespeare, in order to account\nfor the passage in the Book of Mormon which he alleges is a quotation\nfrom the English poet. I must come to the rescue of the Unknown in this\nmatter: I begin to have some degree of commiseration for him in his\nmental struggle to comprehend even this very simple matter. Attend,\nthen: Lehi lived in Judea in the seventh and sixth century, B.C. He\nwas acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, including the book of Job,\nand when he departed from Jerusalem for the western world his colony\ntook with them those same scriptures. Through them he became familiar\nin the Hebrew with Job's--\"Let me alone, that I may take comfort a\nlittle before I go whence I shall not return.\" Also Job's--\"When a few\nyears are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return.\"\nWhen Lehi's own hour of departure hence had come, impressed with this\nsolemn thought of Job's, he gave expression to it in Hebrew. The saying\nwas recorded by his son Nephi in the Egyptian characters employed by\nhim in making his record. Observe that we have traced these ideas\nof the \"land whence I shall not return\" into the Nephite records\nwithout the aid of the English Bible or Shakespeare. When Joseph Smith\ncame to this thought in Nephi, the thought, mark you, he translated\nit into the English, and being familiar with the book of Job, his\ntranslation followed somewhat the phraseology of Job in our English\nversion. Shakespeare nowhere appears in all this, and if he did, if\nJoseph Smith had expressed this old Hebrew and Nephite thought in\nShakespeare's exact phraseology instead of that of our English version\nof Job it would have been no valid objection to the Book of Mormon,\nfor Shakespeare died in 1616, and the English version of the Bible was\npublished in 1611, only five years before the poet's death! Are we to\ninfer from this that \"M\" thinks Shakespeare had no English Bible from\nwhich to paraphrase this passage? If so--and I can see nothing else in\nhis reference to these dates--then I would inform the gentleman that\nas there were brave men before Agamemnon, so were there English Bibles\nbefore the 1611 edition; Wycliff's English Bible, 1380-1384; Tyndale's\nEnglish translation, 1530; Miles Coverdale's English translation,\n1535, dedicated to Henry VIII, and for a time issued under the royal\nsanction. From any of these versions Shakespeare could have paraphrased\nJob's words.\n\nThe Unknown seems somewhat distressed in his efforts to account for the\nfew original and moral religious truths, I quoted him from the Book\nof Mormon. Especially \"Fools mock, but they shall mourn.\" He \"sees\nnothing new in that,\" since in Proverbs it is said \"fools make a mock\nof sin.\" True, but it appears from the context where the Book of Mormon\npassage occurs that the particular \"fools\" the writer had in mind were\nthose who mocked at righteousness and truth, and hence he predicts that\nthey shall come to grief; while Solomon's \"fools\" mock at sin, and the\nconsequences are not stated, at least not in that passage. I trust,\nhowever, the Unknown will not worry over much. The star of hope may yet\nappear above life's horizon for him. The javelin-like sentence, \"Fools\nmock, but they shall mourn,\" is immediately followed by \"My grace is\nsufficient for the meek;\" and it appears to me if this discussion\ncontinues through a few more papers, and there should continue to be\nmanifested as much difference between each succeeding communication of\n\"M's\" as there is between the arrogance of his first letter and the\nhumility of his second, in time I am sure he would be prepared to enter\na contest even with Moses for the distinction of being the meekest of\nmen.\n\nAs to the rest that \"M\" says of these matters, the limits of this\nwriting preclude further comment. Neither is it necessary, for it is\nall as shallow, not to say as silly, as what he says upon the passage\nhere criticised.\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nJust a word in conclusion, not to the Unknown, but to the readers of\nthese papers. I would have them remember that in this discussion the\nevidence that can be marshaled to sustain the truth of the Book of\nMormon has not yet been presented. The manner in which the discussion\nbegan made this impossible. There was before the reader no evidence on\nthe positive side concerning the Book of Mormon when the discussion\nbegan, and the paper of Unknown was on the negative side of the\nquestion. A proper discussion of the Book of Mormon would require\nthat we who affirm its divine origin should have the opportunity of\npresenting the affirmative evidence, followed by an argument against\nthat evidence, with answer and rejoinder to follow. All of which, of\ncourse, are in no way a complaint as to the present opportunities\npresented to the writer by _The Tribune,_ as to him has been extended\nequal opportunity and courtesy with his opponent, for which I desire\nto express my appreciation. I am satisfied with this discussion, but\nmerely desire to call attention to the enforced limits of its scope.\nRespectfully yours, B.H. ROBERTS.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\"The Fifth Gospel.\"\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe occasion which gave rise to the following discourse, delivered\nin the Granite Stake Tabernacle, Sunday evening, May 29th, 1904, is\nsufficiently explained in the body of the text. The discourse deals\nonly with one of three of Rev. Paden's discourses delivered against the\nBook of Mormon, and that the third--\"Gospels Apocryphal and Real.\" Of\nthat discourse nothing here need be said, as a full synopsis of it is\ngiven in the text of the answer to it. But there may be some curiosity\nto know something of the other discourses of Mr. Paden's against the\nIII Nephi--the \"Fifth Gospel.\" In the first discourse a general charge\nof plagiarism from the Bible was made, the claim being that material\nfor the most valuable parts was to be found in the Gospel or Revelation\nof St. John in the Psalms, and in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.\n\"His general conclusion was,\" according to the published synopsis of\nthe discourse--furnished by Dr. Paden to the press quoted--\"that there\nwas nothing in the book to indicate that it was inspired, except as it\nwas plagiarized from the Bible.\"\n\nIn Dr. Paden's second discourse the charge of plagiarism was emphasized\nand amplified; and the further charges made that the book lacked in\n\"local color.\" \"We find almost nothing,\" he said, \"which would fit\nwith a tropical climate; in fact the general description would better\ncoincide with Pennsylvania or New York. * * * * The whole attempt\nto account for the vagaries of Nephite geography, or its seeming\ndisagreement or failure to connect with tropical South America, is an\nexposition of the weakness of the claim made by the Book of Nephi and\nthe whole Book of Mormon to be a trustworthy document. Indeed the whole\nhistory and make-up of the story seems to indicate a determination to\nput its claims beyond the touch of realistic teaching.\"\n\nI mention here these points in the discourses of Dr. Paden, in order\nto direct the reader's attention to the fact that these with other\nobjections urged by this gentleman in the discourses referred to, are\nconsidered, in part, in preceding papers of this book, and at length in\nmy treatise on the Book of Mormon in the Young Men's Manual for 1905-6,\nand will also be found in \"New Witnesses for God,\" Vol. II, soon to\nissue from the press; and for the reason that they are considered in\nthose works they are not reviewed here.\n\n\"Fifth Gospel.\"\n\nDuring the month of March of the present year a sectarian minister of\nhigh standing in our community preached several discourses in Salt Lake\nCity--three, I think--against the third book of Nephi, contained in the\nBook of Mormon. This third Nephi the reverend gentleman has happily\ncalled the \"Fifth Gospel.\" I am sorry that descriptive term did not\noccur to me, or to some other Elder in Israel. Had I coined the title\nI should have been very proud of it, for I think it a most fortunate\none. Of course, the other four gospels are contained in our Hebrew\nscriptures. They are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We\nspeak of them as the four gospels. And this reverend gentleman refers\nto III Nephi as the \"Fifth Gospel.\" I call it the \"American Gospel,\"\nfor I so regard it. Of course, after stating the title the gentleman\nthen questions the book's right to it. The subject of his three\ndiscourses is the consideration of the question whether this Nephite\nbook is worthy to be classed at all with the four gospels of the Hebrew\nscriptures. He decides the question on the negative.\n\nI shall not attempt in the remarks I make tonight to deal with all\nthree of the gentleman's discourses. I shall content myself with\nalluding to one, and that the third, called \"Gospels, Apocryphal and\nReal.\" A word of explanation about the term \"apocryphal gospels.\"\nDuring the first and second centuries of the Christian era there was a\nworld of myth and legend that grew out of the history of the Savior.\nThe four gospels leave undescribed, as you know, his infancy and\nyouth. Between the time his earthly guardians took up their residence\nat Nazareth in his infancy to the time when he commenced his public\nministry--in all that period we get but one glimpse of him, that was\nwhen he was twelve years of age, and then we learn of him being in the\ntemple disputing with the doctors--doctors of philosophy and doctors\nof theology--both asking and answering questions. What sober history\nfailed to record fable and legend sought to supply, hence we have a\ncollection of books called the Apocryphal New Testament, that deals\nwith him and his sojourn in Egypt and in his childhood days called the\nGospel of the Infancy, two books; the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, a\nnumber of epistles--about fifteen or twenty books, all told. They are\nso extravagant in statement, so wonder-creating in their nature, that\nthey are generally discredited by Christians and called \"apocryphal\"\nbooks about Jesus and the early days of Christianity. Our reverend\nfriend classes the \"Fifth Gospel\" with this order of apocryphal books,\nand says that it deserves no higher rank than those books to which I\nhave here briefly alluded.\n\nI shall at this point read to you the synopsis of the reverend\ngentleman's discourse; and while the synopsis cannot be so satisfactory\nas the whole discourse would be, still I think likely he has mentioned\nhis chief objections to the book in the synopsis, as I am informed that\nhe himself prepared it for the public press; so that what I quote is\nhis own representation of the discourse, and doubtless contains all the\npoints he scored against our III Nephi.\n\n    SYNOPSIS OF DR. PADEN'S DISCOURSE.\n\n    \"'Gospels Apocryphal and Real,' was the title of Dr. William M.\n    Paden's sermon last night. It was in a way a continuation of his\n    sermons on the book of Nephi, and again a large congregation\n    assembled to hear him. He first gave an account of the apocryphal\n    gospels of the infancy, Nicodemus, the birth of the virgin, and\n    others. These he compared and classed with the gospel according\n    to Nephi, which he had explained and dealt with the two preceding\n    Sundays. Much in these so-called gospels anyone could quote or\n    gather from the real gospels; the greater part of the rest of the\n    matter, of the rest that is not [so] copied, anyone could write.\n    After this Dr. Paden went on to speak of the manner in which our\n    real gospels added something of real worth to the pictures of\n    Christ. Thus Matthew improved on Mark, Luke on Matthew and Mark,\n    and John on them all. Does III Nephi add anything worth while to\n    the picture? he asked. Luke gives us the story of the prodigal,\n    John the story of the good Samaritan. Matthew has given us many\n    parables. What does Nephi add which deserves to be classed with\n    such revelations? How does it come that this so-called fifth gospel\n    gives us no new parables? One real, original parable of the class\n    that is found in the gospel according to Matthew would give it the\n    necessary standing. One grand new chapter like the 15th of Luke,\n    or the 3rd of John, would be as great a surprise in this gospel\n    according to Nephi as a Psalm like the 23rd would be in the early\n    part of the Book of Mormon.\n\n    \"Concerning the authenticity of the would-be fifth gospel, Dr.\n    Paden made use of a very appropriate and telling simile. He said\n    the question is not where do men say they got it, but, is it gold?\n    These four nuggets, (i. e., the four Hebrew gospels), are gold. If\n    your supposed nugget is not, it matters little where you got it;\n    your father and grandfather may have been mistaken--you must submit\n    to the gold test.\"\n\nTHE QUESTION STATED.\n\nYou will observe that the primary consideration in the reverend\ngentleman's discourse is, Does III Nephi add anything to the picture of\nChrist? Is our Christian knowledge increased by it? It is that question\nthat I propose to consider.\n\nTo begin with, I answer the question in the affirmative, and most\nemphatically say, Yes, III Nephi does add something to the pictures of\nChrist, and does add something to our testimony of Christian knowledge.\nI marvel that the gentleman should have propounded such a question in\nthe face of the facts which stand out so prominently in III Nephi. I\nshould have thought that one great truth, that is announced in III\nNephi, would have arrested his attention, namely, the one truth that\nJesus appeared in this western world and so ministered to a people\nthat two great continents, to be filled subsequently with nations of\npeople, might come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the gospel of\nsalvation which he taught,--I should have thought that one fact would\nhave been a complete answer to the gentleman's inquiry. The fact that\nthe justice and mercy of God in our conception are broadened by this\ngreat truth adds considerable to our Christian treasury of knowledge.\nFor instead of God's mercy and the labors of his Son being confined to\nthe eastern hemisphere, we learn from this Fifth Gospel that God sent\nhis Son on a special mission to those inhabiting this western world,\nand that he presented to them the same great truths upon which his\ngospel is based that he had presented to those of the eastern world;\nand that, moreover, while here he gave the Nephites the information\nthat his labors in Judea and among them were not all the labors he was\nrequired to perform in the interest of humanity and their salvation,\nbut that he must make his way to the lost tribes of Israel and declare\nhimself and his message also to them. Thus the horizon of Christ's\nmission and labor is enlarged beyond anything that can be learned from\nthe four gospels, and the knowledge can only be found in the Fifth\nGospel--the third book of Nephi.\n\nThat, however, is too general a view of the subject to be content\nwith. I propose getting into closer quarters with this matter, and\nenquiring into it in some detail. First let me call your attention to\nthe conditions existing at the opening of this Fifth Gospel. It opens\nwith the ninety-first year of the reign of the Judges--a time which\ncorresponds to our year one of the Christian era. At that time the\nNephites everywhere were more or less expectant of the birth of the\nSon of God, for the Lord had not left himself without witnesses among\nthe ancient inhabitants of this great land, but as in Judea, he raised\nup prophets who foretold the coming of Messiah and the conditions that\nwould attend upon his birth into the world. Some five years before the\nopening of this period we are to consider, a Lamanite prophet appeared\namong the Nephites and prophesied in a marvelous manner concerning\nevents nearing the doors of the people, declaring that within five\nyears from the time he spoke there should be given a sign unto the\npeople of this western world that Messiah had been born. That sign\nshould be the continuance of the light of day through two days and a\nnight; that though the sun should sink as usual beyond the western\nhorizon the light of day should still continue through all the time of\nnight; the sun should rise again on the morrow according to his order,\nand they should know that there had been this strange phenomenon of\ncontinuous light, notwithstanding the absence of the sun; and a new\nstar should appear also.\n\nDoes that add anything to the picture in the career of Messiah? Is it\nnothing that the inhabitants of the western world should see in the\nheavens a most beautiful sign that Jesus had been born, and by that\nsign, in the fulfillment of the prediction that had been made by the\nprophets, they should receive from God a testimony that his Son had\ncome into the world to bring to pass the redemption of the race? I\nthink it adds a beautiful picture in the life of Jesus Christ, and one\non which the four gospels are silent.\n\nThis same prophet predicted also the signs that should attend upon\nMessiah's death; for through prophesy the Nephites had been made\nacquainted with the fact that though Jesus was the Son of God, yet\nmust he die and be buried in order that he might by that act meet the\njust claims of inexorable law under which mankind were banished from\nthe presence of God and made subject to death. This Lamanite prophet,\nSamuel, declared that during the time that the Son of God should be\nimmolated upon the cross this western hemisphere should be mightily\nshaken by the throes of physical nature; that great valleys should\nundergo upheaval and be thrown into mountains; that many high places\nand mountains should be shaken down; that many parts of the land should\nsink and the sea cover them; that-some cities would thus be destroyed;\nin other cases great mountains of earth should cover wicked cities\nfrom the sight of God; and thus should there be upheaval, cataclysm,\nearthquakes and tempests, fierce and vivid lightnings, and all the\nelements should give witness that the Son of God was undergoing the\npains of death. Moreover, that this period of cataclysms and changes\nin the earth should be followed by three days of intense and complete\ndarkness, until men should be unable to see, being deprived of the\nlight of the sun so precious to man and so necessary to life.\n\nBoth these events--the signs of Messiah's birth and the signs of his\ndeath--were given as foretold.\n\nI pause again to ask this reverend gentleman if the signs of Messiah's\ndeath on this continent do not add something to the picture of Christ's\nlife.\n\nIn passing, let me call your attention to this fact also: I think I\nsee something very beautiful and appropriate in these marvelous signs.\nI think it is fitting that he who is described in the four gospels\nas well as in the fifth as the \"Light and Life of the world,\" should\nhave his entrance into earth life proclaimed by a night in which there\nshould be no darkness, and that a new star for a season should appear\nin the heavens, to be a witness to the people that \"the life and light\"\nwhich was to bring life and light to mankind had indeed come into the\nworld. And equally appropriate is it that when he who is described as\nthe Life and Light of the world is laid low in death, the world should\nhave the testimony of light eclipsed. I see a beautiful appropriateness\nin these signs, and in them I see added pictures in the life and career\nof the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nOne other thing--which, however, I can only throw in sight--is this:\nThe traditions held by the native American races prove the fact that\nsomething like this described in the Book of Mormon-these cataclysms\nand the darkness which followed--was vividly remembered by the ancients\nand is apparent in the traditions of the native Americans. For example,\nMr. Bancroft, the great compiler of native traditions and myths, after\nspeaking concerning native traditions about the flood, creation, the\nbuilding of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues and the\ndispersion of mankind, and of a certain revision that took place in the\nnative calendar, says:\n\n    \"One hundred and sixteen years after this regulation or invention\n    of the Toltec calendar, the sun and moon were eclipsed, the earth\n    shook, and the rocks were rent asunder, and many other things\n    and signs happened. This was in the year Ce Calli, which, the\n    chronology being reduced to our system, proves to be the same date\n    that Christ our Lord suffered\"--33 A. D.\n\nAgain, speaking of a certain division made in the Quiche kingdom,\nBancroft, quoting from the History of Guatemala by the native author,\nJuarros, says:\n\n    \"This division was made when three suns were seen, which has caused\n    some to think that it took place on the day of the birth of our\n    Redeemer, a day on which, it is commonly believed that such a\n    meteor was seen.\"\n\nThe day when three suns appeared would doubtless figuratively and\nvery clearly express the time when they had two days and one night of\ncontinuous light on the continent.\n\nAgain, Nadaillac, in his Prehistoric America, after speaking of certain\ncreation and flood traditions, adds:\n\n    \"Other traditions allude to convulsions of nature, to inundations,\n    profound disturbances, to terrible deluges in the midst of which\n    mountains and volcanoes suddenly rose up.\"\n\nI now turn to a passage I shall read to you from III Nephi, describing\nthe appearance of Jesus on this land. After these cataclysms had taken\nplace a company of men, women and children in the land Bountiful,\nnumbering some 2,500 souls, were assembled together near a temple that\nhad escaped destruction, and they were speaking of the great events of\nthe recent past and the change that was apparent in the whole face of\nthe land. As they were speaking of these signs that had been given of\nMessiah's birth and death, and conversing concerning Messiah himself,\nthey heard a voice. What was said they could not at first determine,\nand whence the voice came they could not tell. It grew, however, more\nand still more distinct, until at last, they heard the voice say:\n\n    \"Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have\n    glorified my name: hear ye him.\n\n    \"And it came to pass as they understood, they cast their eyes up\n    again towards heaven and behold, they saw a man descending out of\n    heaven: and he was clothed in a white robe, and he came down and\n    stood in the midst of them, and the eyes of the whole multitude\n    were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even\n    one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was\n    an angel that had appeared unto them.\n\n    \"And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake\n    unto the people, saying:\n\n    \"Behold, I am Jesus, whom the prophets testified shall come into\n    the world:\n\n    \"And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; I have drunk\n    out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have\n    glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in\n    which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the\n    beginning.\n\n    \"And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, the\n    whole multitude fell to the earth, for they remembered that it had\n    been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto\n    them after his ascension into heaven.\"\n\nThis reverend gentleman, whom I am reviewing, complains that III Nephi,\nor the Fifth Gospel, adds no new parable to the collection of parables\nwe have in the four gospels. But can any man read this simple yet\nsublime account of Messiah appearing to the inhabitants of this western\nworld, and then say the Fifth Gospel adds nothing to the treasury of\nChristian knowledge? Is there, I ask you, any parable, or any hundred\nparables, that could be given that would be equal to these grand\nrevelations concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and his mission to this\nwestern hemisphere?\n\nComplaint is also made that in his subsequent teachings Messiah merely\nrepeated the ideas, and for that matter the words of his sermon on\nthe mount; so wanting in originality, claim those who object to the\nBook of Mormon, were the authors of the book that they could not trust\nthemselves to give Jesus the opportunity of preaching an original\ndiscourse to the inhabitants of this western part of the world. I ask\nthese Christian objectors to consider just this: Suppose the Book of\nMormon were not in existence at all; suppose that we begin to reflect\non the empires and nations which beyond all question did occupy this\nland of America in ancient times, and were civilized, intelligent\npeople--God's children; suppose that it began to occur to some of our\nChristian friends that it would have been a grand idea if the Son\nof God had come and made proclamation of the gospel to a people who\nwere destined to be for so many centuries separated from the eastern\nhemisphere, where the gospel had been planted. Now then, suppose these\nconditions, and suppose further that Jesus came here, what would be the\nnature of his mission? What should he first do? What truth do these\nChristian critics hold to be the most important truth to mankind? Would\nit not be the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world,\nthe one who is to bring life and immortality to light through the\nGospel? Would not that be the most important thing to have declared?\nI believe all Christians must necessarily say yes. Well, that is just\nwhat happened. The voice of God broke the stillness of this western\nworld, and said to a company of people, \"This is my beloved Son, in\nwhom I am well pleased; hear ye him.\" Then Jesus stands forth and\ndeclares himself and his mission. The most important truth that the\nChristian mind, at least, can conceive! The Fifth Gospel starts with\nthat sublime, important truth. Then after that, what would be the next\nmost important thing? Would it not be to teach man his moral duty?\nHis relationship to God and to the Savior having been fixed by the\nfirst revelation, what next? Why, the ethics of the gospel of Christ,\nthe moral law, which is to take the place of the old law, Christian\nprinciples for right living. And so Messiah starts out with the same\ndoctrines that he taught upon the mount. Now, there are not wanting\nrespectable Christian authorities for the assertion that that discourse\ncalled the sermon on the mount was not a single discourse, but that\ninto it was crowded from the recollection of the Apostles all the great\nethical truths that Jesus had taught from time to time, and that here\nthey are grouped together and appear as one discourse. Moreover, the\nSavior declared to the Nephites while he was yet with them that these\ntruths which he had been teaching them were the same that he had taught\nin Judea. \"Behold,\" said he, in the course of his explanations, \"ye\nhave heard the things which I have taught before I ascended unto my\nFather.\"\n\nBut in answer to these complaints that the Book of Mormon adds nothing\nnew to the treasury of our Christian knowledge, I want to show you,\nthough I shall have to do it briefly, that the Book of Mormon version\nof these ethical doctrines of Jesus Christ does throw some additional\nlight upon this sermon on the mount.\n\nRight here I must complain just a little of the gentleman,\nnotwithstanding I believe he intended to be fair.\n\nSpeaking of this version of the sermon on the mount in the Book of\nMormon, I think he sneeringly asserts that there is \"one new beatitude\nadded.\" And that is, the first verse in the Savior's discourse to the\nNephites opens with this statement--which was given to the multitude\nafter he had chosen twelve special disciples to be teachers of his\ngospel:\n\n    \"Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these\n    twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and\n    to be your servants.\"\n\nThe gentleman says that is a new beatitude. Well, is there any proper\ncomplaint to be made against that? Suppose Jesus had said to a\nmultitude in Judea, when he presented the Twelve Apostles before them,\nsince he was going to bestow upon them, not only divine authority\nto act in his name, but was going to accompany them always by the\npresence of his Spirit--would it have been out of place or an improper\n\"beatitude\" if he had said to the multitude, \"Blessed are ye if ye\nshall hearken unto the words that these Twelve shall say unto you\"? It\nis scarcely becoming in a Christian minister to make light of God's\nrequest of a multitude that they shall have respect unto the teachings\nof his servants, and tells them that they shall be blessed if they\nhearken unto them.\n\nBut to continue. The first beatitude as given in Matthew is as follows:\n\n    \"Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of\n    heaven.\"\n\nA very beautiful, terse expression, and no doubt true. But in III Nephi\nit stands thus:\n\n    \"Blessed are the poor in spirit _who come unto me;_ for theirs is\n    the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nIt is not enough for men to be poor in spirit. Not on that hinges\nsalvation. A man can be poor in spirit and still fail of salvation. But\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit _who come unto me;_ for theirs is the\nkingdom of heaven.\"\n\nI think that throws a little light upon the sermon on the mount that is\nworthy the consideration of this Christian clergyman.\n\nAnother expression in the sermon on the mount in our English version of\nthe New Testament, is:\n\n    \"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness;\n    for they shall be filled.\"\n\nFilled with what? Well, the Book of Mormon version of it is:\n\n    \"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; for\n    they shall be filled _with the Holy Ghost.\"_\n\nThat is more definite, is it not?\n\nBut now I come to a more important point, where more light, and light\nthat is very necessary, is added to this sermon on the mount. I\ncommence reading from Matthew vi:24.\n\n    \"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and\n    love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the\n    other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.\n\n    \"Therefore, I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye\n    shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye\n    shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than\n    raiment?\"\n\nThat is a passage of scripture against which infidels have leveled\ntheir sarcasms ever since it was written. They have denounced it as\ninstruction utterly impractical; as false in theory, as it would be\nimpossible in practice; and as giving the evidence that Jesus was\na mere idle dreamer, not a practical reformer. For, say they, this\ndoctrine of taking no thought of the morrow, and taking no thought\nrespecting food and raiment, if applied to the world's affairs, would\nturn the wheels of progress backward, and plunge the world into a state\nof barbarism. There could be no civilization under such conditions,\nthey argue; and man would go back to the condition of the savage. I\nhave never heard a Christian argument against that assault that has\nbeen an answer to it. But I find the key to the situation in this Book\nof Mormon version of the passage. It throws a flood of light upon\nthis matter that makes the defense of the doctrine of Christ not only\npossible but easy. The Book of Mormon tells me that those words were\nnot addressed to the multitude, nor are they to be followed by all the\nmembers of the Church, nor by the people of the world generally. Jesus\nconfined that instruction in America to twelve men whom he chose from\namong his disciples, and especially commissioned to go and preach the\ngospel; and to so completely dedicate themselves unto the Lord that\nthey would give no thought to temporal things, but put heart and soul\ninto the work of their ministry, and their Father in heaven, who knew\nthey had need of food and raiment, would open up the way for them, to\nobtain such things as they needed, even as he clothed the lilies or\ncared for the birds of the air. Thus limited, that doctrine is all\nright, is it not? And as Jesus turned from the multitude to deliver\nthis doctrine especially adapted to the Twelve here in America, so,\ndoubtless, if we had the fullness of the truth as delivered in Judea I\nbelieve he would be represented as confining those remarks unto the men\nwhom he had specially called into the ministry in that land.\n\nSo I say the Fifth Gospel places in our hands the means of meeting the\nscoffs of the unbeliever, and vindicates the doctrines of Jesus Christ\nas reasonable now that we have the word of the Lord rightly divided.\n\nI cannot leave this passage without calling your attention to the\nclosing sentence of the sixth chapter of Matthew: \"Sufficient unto\nthe day is the evil thereof.\" In III Nephi it stands: \"Sufficient is\nthe day unto the evil thereof.\" In the first instance you note that\nthe evil is made sufficient for the day. The fifth gospel has it that\nthe day is made sufficient for the evil. Don't you think that is\nbetter? Three learned commentators say of that sentence, as it stands\nin Matthew: \"An admirable practical maxim, better rendered in our\nversion (King James' translation) than in any other, not excepting\nthe preceding English ones. Every day brings its own cares, and to\nanticipate is only to double them.\" If they can thus speak in high\npraise of the saying of the Savior as it stands in Matthew, how much\nmore reason they would have for praising it as it is found in III Nephi.\n\nI will now read to you a passage which Elder Francis M. Lyman read\nat one of the public meetings of our recent general conference, and\nwhich first suggested to me the thought of taking up this reverend\ngentleman's discourse for the purpose of showing, at least to our\nyoung people, that there was something in the Fifth Gospel worth while\nconsidering; that it adds something to our Christian knowledge. Jesus\ngiving instruction to the Nephite disciples, says:\n\n    \"Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through\n    your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise\n    shall ye baptize them; behold, ye shall go down and stand in the\n    water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.\n\n    \"And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling\n    them by name:\n\n    \"Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the\n    name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.\n\n    \"And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again\n    out of the water.\"\n\nIf we had only been so fortunate as to have had such an explicit\nstatement as this in our four gospels, or in one of them, what a world\nof contention would have been avoided, what a world of Christian\npersecution of Christians would have been avoided, and what unity and\nharmony there would have been upon a great Christian ordinance upon\nwhich Christians are now unhappily divided. Aside from this statement\nand the revelations that God has given in these days, there is nothing\nthat definitely instructs the world on the subject of how baptism shall\nbe administered. Jesus came to the disciples after his resurrection\nand said to them, \"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the\nname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" Of course,\nfor some two or three hundred years we have the custom of the Saints\nas an interpretation of the manner of baptism, and that is, they were\nimmersed; but since Jesus had not specified the manner in which the\nordinance was to be administered, men began to wonder after awhile if\nbaptism could not be performed in some other way than immersion, and so\nthey adopted the method of sprinkling, or of pouring the water on the\nperson. And from that departure from the true gospel grew up the varied\nmethods of baptism as we have them today. The Greeks still immerse,\nand they immerse three times--once in the name of the Father, once in\nthe name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. We have\nan American sect who hit upon what I suppose they consider a happy\nthought, and that is, that baptism must not only be thrice performed,\nbut that the candidate must be pushed face downward into the water;\nfor, say they, would you have people going into the kingdom backwards?\nOf the Protestant sects, some sprinkle and some pour water on the\ncandidate; and one prominent minister, the late Henry Ward Beecher,\nreduced the ordinance to the mere act of moistening the hand and\nplacing it upon the brow of the candidate, and called that baptism! The\ngreat Catholic Church, backed by its \"tradition\" and its scholarship,\ninsists that sprinkling is a proper method of baptism. And so the world\nis divided on this great ordinance, which all confess is the visible\nsign of entrance into the fold of Christ--part of our birth into the\nkingdom of God.\n\nWhat parable, what dozen parables, could be so precious in their\nimportance to the Christian world as this explicit statement of how the\nordinance of baptism shall be administered, if they would but accept it!\n\nIn addition to this doctrine of baptism you will find (though I shall\nnot take time to point it out at length on this occasion) in the\nFifth Gospel instructions given by the Savior on the subject of the\nSacrament and the purposes for which it was given, which afterwards\nwere crystalized in the prayer of consecration of the emblems, and\nbecause they are so crystalized, and therefore briefer, I shall read\nthat instruction to you as it is found in the prayer. The prophet is\nexplaining how the Sacrament was administered after the people received\nthis institution from Jesus:\n\n    \"And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in\n    the name of Christ, saying:\n\n    \"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son\n    Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of\n    all those who partake of it, that they may eat in the remembrance\n    of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal\n    Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy\n    Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he\n    hath given them, that they may always have his spirit to be with\n    them. Amen.\"\n\nIf the four gospels had contained the instructions of Jesus Christ on\nthis subject as found in the Fifth Gospel, and finally crystalized\nthose instructions into this beautiful and appropriate prayer of\nconsecration, the Christian world would have escaped one of its\nbitterest religious controversies, and the Roman Catholic church today\nwould not ask men to be so untrue to their intellectual consciousness\nas to believe that the wafer which they place upon the tongue of the\ncommunicant is the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus Christ.\nOn the other hand, the Protestant world would not be divided and\nsubdivided, upon this question, but they would have instruction which\nwould enable them to properly hold the great atonement of Jesus Christ\nin true and objective remembrance in the Sacrament.\n\nI undertake to say now that there cannot be produced from the\nliterature of the world, sacred or profane, a prayer that is the equal\nof this prayer of consecration, excepting only the Lord's prayer. With\nthat exception, this prayer, for completeness, for a succession of\nsolemn thoughts, fitly spoken, and crystalized into a form from which\nyou can take nothing and to which you can add nothing without marring\nit, stands alone; and it adds something to our Christian knowledge. It\nis an important item of Christian instruction and doctrine, and one\nthat the world much needs; you will find its scattered rays in the\nFifth Gospel, in the form I have quoted it, it is given by Moroni.\n\nNow, I must pass on hurriedly. There is a singular passage of scripture\nin John, the 10th chapter and 16th verse, which rather puzzles\nexpounders of the scripture.\n\n    \"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I\n    must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one\n    fold, and one shepherd.\"\n\nAsk the Christian ministers to explain this passage, and they always\nanswer that Jesus had in mind the Gentiles. If so, how do you harmonize\nthis fact, which I now point out to you, with that statement, namely:\nJesus was once passing through a crowded street and a woman of Canaan,\nof race upon whom the displeasure of God had fallen in very ancient\ntimes,--perhaps their spirits warranted just the conditions that\nthey came into this world to meet. This woman, of this race, came to\nJesus, asking that he would heal her child, but he heeded her not. Her\nimportuning attracted unpleasant attention, and so the Apostles said\nto him, \"Master, send her away; for she troubleth us.\" He said, _\"I am\nnot sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\"_ Therefore,\nwhen he said, \"Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them\nalso I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,\" he had reference\nto some branch of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles; for\nas he explains, I think, in this Fifth Gospel, the Gentiles should\nreceive the gospel through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit in\nhis servants, and not by his personal ministry to them. His personal\nministry was confined to the house of Israel. In this Fifth Gospel we\nlearn that Jesus told the Nephites that they were the people he had\nin mind when he uttered this singular scripture we are considering;\nbut his disciples in Judea understood him not; and because of\nstiffneckedness and unbelief Jesus was commanded of the Father to say\nno more to them upon the subject.\n\nDo not these facts throw some light upon our knowledge of Christian\ntruth?\n\nMoreover, in this same connection, Jesus informed his Nephite auditors\nthat not only would he minister to them, but so soon as he was through\nwith his ministrations to them, behold, he would go to the lost tribes\nof the house of Israel and minister to them also. He spoke as follows:\n\n    \"And verily, verily, I say unto you, that I have other sheep, which\n    are not of this land; neither of the land of Jerusalem; neither in\n    any part of that land round about, whither I have been to minister.\n    For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my\n    voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them. But\n    I have received a commandment of the Father, that I shall go unto\n    them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered\n    among my sheep that there may be one fold, and one shepherd;\n    therefore I go to show myself unto them. And I command you that ye\n    shall write these sayings, after I am gone, that if it so be that\n    my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me, and been with me\n    in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may\n    receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other\n    tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall\n    write, shall be kept, and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles,\n    the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the\n    face of the earth, because of their unbelief, may be brought in,\n    or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer. And then I\n    will gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then\n    will I fulfill the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the\n    people of the house of Israel.\"\n\nAgain, in his discourse on this occasion, Jesus takes up the matter of\nthe Gentiles, who in time should come to this land and take possession\nof it for the falling away of the Nephites was predicted, and the fact\nof the coming of the Gentile races to this land was made known to the\nNephite people. The Lord Jesus took occasion to say that the Gentiles\nshould be greatly blessed upon this land, and should be fortified\nagainst all other nations; and if they would not reject the gospel that\nshould be brought forth amongst them, great would be the blessings of\nthe Lord upon the Gentiles; that they should be numbered with the house\nof Israel, and should assist in building up the New Jerusalem upon this\ncontinent. I quote these several important passages:\n\n    \"And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in\n    and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them, of me and of the\n    Father. * * * * But if the Gentiles will repent, and return unto\n    me, saith the Lord, behold they shall be numbered among my people,\n    O house of Israel; * * * * And behold, this people (descendants\n    of the Nephites addressed) will I establish in this land unto the\n    fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and\n    it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in\n    the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.\n    Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying, A prophet shall the\n    Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me,\n    him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.\n    And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that\n    prophet, and who will not repent and come unto my beloved Son, them\n    will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel; and I will\n    execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen,\n    such as they have not heard. But if they will repent, and hearken\n    unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my\n    church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant, and be\n    numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given\n    this land for their inheritance. And they shall assist my people,\n    the remnant of Jacob, and also, as many of the house of Israel as\n    shall come that they may build a city, which shall be called the\n    New Jerusalem; and then shall they assist my people that they may\n    be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land,\n    in unto the New Jerusalem. And then shall the power of heaven come\n    down among them; and I also will be in the midst.\"\n\nAll this is contained in the Fifth Gospel. It contains, you will\nsee, these promises of deep and mighty import to the Gentile races,\na promise that they might become as fathers and mothers to the house\nof Israel, and so great should be their reward and blessing that they\nshould be completely identified with the Israel of God upon this land,\nand join in building up Zion--that Zion from which Isaiah declared the\nlaw should go forth in the last days, while the word of the Lord should\ngo forth from Jerusalem; indicating the two capitals on the earth, one\nin the eastern and one in the western hemisphere. But if, on the other\nhand, the Gentiles should reject the gospel of Christ and no longer\nhonor the God of this land, who is declared to be Jesus Christ, then\nthe hand of God would be upon them, and that in judgment; and that,\nproud, great and strong as they are, yet should they be humbled.\n\nSo that this Fifth Gospel deals not only with the past, but it\ndeals with the present and with the future, and sounds this note of\nwarning to the Gentile nations upon the promised land of America.\nNotwithstanding the strength and pride and power of these nations in\nthese days of their glory, the Fifth Gospel warns them that they hold\ntheir proud stations upon the condition of their faithfulness to God\nand their receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is worthy of God to\nreveal the conditions upon which the nations of the western world in\npride of place may hold their stations among the nations of the earth;\nand it is a matter worthy the consideration of these nations to give\nheed to such a warning. Let no nation think itself beyond the power\nof God; for it is not. Imperial Rome was as confident of her ability\nto perpetuate her power as any nation of the western world is today;\nand he who would have dared to suggest that Rome could be humbled,\nand pass away as a dream of the night, would doubtless have been\nthought wanting in patriotism; yet Rome was humbled. The half-naked\nhordes from the woods and plains of Germany reveled in the palaces of\nthe Caesars. Romans in their pride were wont to say of the Coliseum\nin which Christians had suffered martyrdom at the hands of brute men\nand brute beasts, merely to grace a Roman holiday: \"While stands the\nColiseum, Rome stands, when falls the Coliseum, Rome falls; when Rome,\nthe world!\" The Coliseum stands in ruins. Rome, as an empire, is only\na name held in memory by history. But the world fell not when Rome\nfell; and as it has been in the past, so, too, it may be in the future.\nIf God's conditions are not complied with, then as a potsherd will he\nbreak that nation that rises up in proud rebellion against him. This\nis God's earth. It is his by right of proprietorship, for he created\nit; and by various means is he and not man guiding its destinies. Those\nwho hold power and authority in it hold it in trust from him, and only\nin trust; and the nation that is unfaithful to that trust must account\nto God for it. Hence I conclude that this warning that comes from the\nFifth Gospel, is important; it announces a mighty, a solemn truth,\nan awful warning, to which ministers of any faith, and the nations\naddressed, will do well to take heed.\n\nNow, a word in conclusion about the \"gold test\" that our ministerial\nfriend proposes to apply to the Fifth Gospel. I think the gentleman\nputs that forth for a special reason, and that in doing so he exhibits\na weakness on his part. He says \"The question is not, where do men say\nthey get it, but, is it gold.\" Well, but it is also important to know\nwhere men got it, and we can establish that so far beyond all question,\nand can sustain it by testimony that has not only not been impeached,\nbut is unimpeachable. The question: \"Where do men say they got it\" is\nimportant. The \"how\" and the \"where\" men got it is part of the evidence\nof its truth, which this gentleman dodges by saying that it does not\nmatter where the Fifth Gospel came from. But having just hinted at\nthe importance of this matter of where and how it came, I will set\nall that aside and declare my willingness as one of the believers in\nthe Book of Mormon to see it submitted--as perforce it must be--to\nthe \"assay test.\" Is it gold? Are these important truths we have been\nconsidering this evening, wherein the welfare of half the world is\nconcerned, gold or dross? Is the light which it throws upon the word\nof God contained in the Four Gospels, of importance? Is the fact that\nJesus visited this western world and announced the saving power of his\ngospel in such a manner that millions would come to the knowledge of\nsalvation a golden truth? Is the solemn warning to the Gentile nations\ninhabiting the western world worth while considering? May it not be\ngolden, especially if heeded? I shall leave you to answer that. But I\nwant to suggest an improvement on the gentleman's simile--this \"assay\ntest\" of his. Although he praises it so highly himself in the synopsis\nhe gave to the papers of his discourse, I think it could be improved.\nThe question is not so much as to whether in the Four Gospels or in\nthe Fifth, all is gold, but is there gold in them. I do not think the\nFour Gospels are without alloy. In other words I do not think the Four\nGospels are perfect. I believe there are imperfections in them, in\nforms of expression and in the fact that they do not convey all that\nJesus both taught and did; at best they are fragmentary. St. John\ninforms us in his gospel that if all the things that Jesus had done\nand taught were written, the world itself would hardly contain the\nbooks. We have not the full reports of Messiah's discourses. The full\nand absolute pure word of God just as it fell from the lips of the\nSavior, is not in the Four Gospels. For the most part we have but the\nrecollections of the evangelists of what Jesus both said and did. Only\nthose who read the Greek--and unfortunately they are very few--may\nread even the Four Gospels in the language in which the Apostles wrote\nthem. But we have translations of these records, and each time they are\ntranslated a dilution takes place. The force of what is said becomes\nin the translation somewhat abated as all know who are acquainted with\noriginal records which they may compare with translations. So with\nthis Book of Nephi that comes to us in an abridged form. It is not the\noriginal book of Nephi; it is Mormon's abridgement of that book. He\nhas condensed it, and in doing so has doubtless given us less perfect\naccounts of Christ's mission to the Nephites than would be found in\nthe original Book of Nephi, the real Fifth Gospel. That is to say, we\nhave not all the surrounding circumstances or all the utterances of the\nSavior, or of the men it represents as speaking. Then we have not even\nMormon's original abridgement of Nephi's book, but the Prophet Joseph's\ntranslation of Mormon's abridgement, and that, it is admitted, in his\nimperfect English. So that the whole Five Gospels are fragmentary and\ntainted with imperfections and limitations as all things are that pass\nthrough human hands; but containing, nevertheless, God's precious\ntruths; and some of these are found in the Fifth Gospel as well as in\nthe four Hebrew Gospels; and to me the truths of the Fifth or Nephite\nGospel are as precious and important as are those of the Four Gospels.\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nMormon Views of America.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe Book of Mormon teaches that the two American continents are a\npromised land, consecrated to righteousness and to liberty, and\nespecially dedicated to the seed of the Patriarch Joseph, son of Jacob,\nof Bible fame, and to the Gentile races, who shall in the last days be\ngathered to the land as well as the descendants of Joseph. When the\nJaredite colony was directed to take its departure from the valley of\nthe Euphrates, the Lord promised to go before them and direct them to\n\"land which is choice above all the land of the earth.\" After beginning\nthe journey the Lord would not permit them to stop short of that land\nof promise; \"but he would that they should come forth even unto the\nland of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the\nLord God had preserved for a righteous people; and he [the Lord] had\nsworn unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land\nof promise, from that time hence forth and forever, should serve him,\nthe true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of\nhis wrath shall come upon them. . . . . Behold this is a choice land,\nand whatsoever nation shall possess it, shall be free from bondage, and\nfrom captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will\nbut serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.\"\n\nThis colony of Jaredites was brought to the north continent of the\nWestern hemisphere--to North America.\n\nSo, too, when the Lord was leading from Jerusalem the colony of Lehi\nhe promised them that inasmuch as they would keep his commandments he\nwould lead them to a land of promise, \"to a land which he had prepared\nfor them, a land which is choice above all other lands.\"\n\nAfter arriving upon this land of promise, (and their colony landed in\nSouth America), the Prophet Lehi said to his sons:\n\n    \"Notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of\n    promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which\n    the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the\n    inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land\n    unto me, and to my children forever; and also all those who should\n    be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore,\n    I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which\n    is in me, that there shall none come into this land, save they\n    shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is\n    consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they\n    shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given,\n    it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall\n    never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of\n    iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound, cursed shall be the land\n    for their sakes; but unto the righteous it shall be blessed for\n    ever. . . . . But behold, this land, saith God, shall be a land of\n    thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.\n    And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and\n    there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the\n    Gentiles; And I will fortify this land against all other nations;\n    and he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God; for he\n    that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord,\n    the King of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto\n    them for ever, that hear my words. . . . . Wherefore, he that\n    fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free,\n    both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the\n    whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me,\n    saith our God.\"\n\nMoreover, the Book of Mormon represents this land of America as the\nplace of a \"Holy City\" to be called \"New Jerusalem,\" that shall be\nbuilt upon \"this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for\nwhich things there has been a type; for as Joseph brought his father\ndown into the land of Egypt, even so he died there; wherefore the Lord\nbrought a remnant of the seed of Joseph out of the land of Jerusalem,\nthat he might be merciful unto the seed of Joseph, that they should\nperish not, even as he was merciful unto the father of Joseph, that he\nshould perish not; wherefore the remnant of the house of Joseph shall\nbe built [established] upon this land; and it shall be a land of their\ninheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like\nunto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until\nthe end come, when the earth shall pass away. And there shall be a new\nheaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old, save the\nold have passed away, and all things have become new.\" (Ether xii.)\n\nThese quotations indicate the views Mormons necessarily hold respecting\nthe land of America; to them it is a land of promise, a sacred\nland, dedicated to righteousness, and to liberty, therefore to free\ninstitutions which alone may preserve the liberties and the rights of\nmen.\n\nThis belief in the sacredness of the land, this knowledge of the\ndivine purposes concerning it, coupled with the fact that Mormons\nbelieve that God inspired the founders of the now great and dominating\nnation, the United States, to establish the Constitution under which\nthe government of the United States subsists and which guarantees both\nreligious and civil liberty to all its people; the belief also that the\nLord has given unto it an unparalleled national prosperity and power\nto enforce the divine decrees concerning this land--all this lays the\nfoundation for purest patriotism, for unwavering loyalty to these free\ninstitutions and to the power that guarantees their perpetuity, the\ngovernment of the United States.\n\nThe first article under this title was written for the \"Contributor,\"\nVol. X, No. 7, May, 1899: The second is a discourse delivered in the\nSalt Lake tabernacle, Sunday afternoon, March 24, 1907. Reported by F.\nW. Otterstrom.\n\nI.\n\nA Prophetic Incident.\n\nIn the April number of the Century, 1899, is a well-written and\nprofusely illustrated article on the Inauguration of Washington, by\nClarence Winthrop Bowen. Among the illustrations is a facsimile of\nthe page of the Bible on which Washington laid his hand while taking\nthe oath of office, and it is to this that I wish specially to call\nattention.\n\nIt was Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, one of the committee of five\nappointed to draft the Declaration of Independence, who administered\nthe oath of office to Washington. \"Just before the oath was to be\nadministered,\" says Mr. Bowen, \"it was discovered that no Bible was in\nFederal Hall. Luckily Livingston, a Grand Master of Free Masons, knew\nthat there was one at St. John's Lodge in the City Assembly Room near\nby--St. John's Lodge was the third oldest lodge in the United States,\nby the way--and a messenger was dispatched to borrow the Bible.\n\nIn further describing the solemn ceremonies of that occasion the\n_Century_ article says:\n\n    \"Secretary Otis of the Senate held before him (Washington) a red\n    velvet cushion, upon which rested the open Bible of St. John's\n    Lodge. 'You do solemnly swear,' said Livingston, 'that you will\n    faithfully execute the office of President of the United States\n    and will, to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and\n    defend the Constitution of the United States.' 'I do solemnly\n    swear,' said Washington, 'that I will faithfully execute the\n    office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of\n    my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the\n    United States.' He then bowed his head and kissed the sacred book,\n    and with the deepest feeling uttered the words, 'So help me God!\"\n\nThe page of the Bible which Washington kissed, and on which his hand\nrested while taking the oath, is indicated in the Bible of St. John's\nLodge by the leaf being turned down. A copper plate engraving is on the\nopposite page, illustrating the blessings of Zebulun and Issachar, as\npronounced upon them by the Patriarch Jacob in Genesis xlix, thirteenth\nand fourteenth verses respectively. The page on which Washington's\nhand rested contains part of chapter forty-nine of Genesis, beginning\nwith the thirteenth verse; and also part of the fiftieth chapter down\nto verse eight, inclusive. The particular thing which struck me as\nbeing a remarkable circumstance is that the page indicated contains\nthe blessing of Jacob upon the head of his favorite son, Joseph, which\nreads as follows:\n\n    \"22. Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well,\n    whose branches run over the wall.\n\n    \"23. The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and\n    hated him.\n\n    \"24. But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were\n    made strong, by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence\n    is the shepherd the stone of Israel).\n\n    \"25. Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee, and by\n    the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above,\n    blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts\n    and of the womb.\n\n    \"26. The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings\n    of my progenitors, unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills;\n    they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head\n    of him that was separated from his brethren.\"\n\nTo the Latter-day Saints the blessing of Joseph has a particular\nsignificance, for the reason that they, more than any other people,\nare familiar with his descendants, and the blessing promised them in\nwhich also they hope to participate. The Book of Mormon is a history,\nchiefly, of the descendants of Joseph; and in the mighty nations which\nhave peopled the American continent, the Latter-day Saints see, in\npart, the fulfillment of the great blessings pronounced upon his head.\n\nThe brass plates which were taken by the colony of Lehi from Jerusalem,\nand which they brought with them to America, contained a genealogy and\nfrom that Lehi learned he was a descendant of Joseph. Nephi describes\nthe matter thus:\n\n    \"And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the\n    plates of brass, a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew he\n    was a descendant of Joseph; yea even that Joseph who was the son of\n    Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand\n    of the Lord, that he might preserve his father Jacob, and all his\n    household from perishing with famine.\"--I Nephi v:14.\n\nIn the early wanderings of the above named colony, before it had left\nthe wilderness of Arabia for America, the Lord in speaking with Nephi,\nsaid to him:\n\n    \"Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast\n    sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. And in as much as ye\n    shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a\n    land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you,\n    yea a land, which is choice above all other lands.\"--I Nephi ii:19,\n    20.\n\nEven after this time the land to which this colony was being led, and\nupon which it finally located, was spoken of among them as the land of\npromise. When the Messiah appeared among the descendants of this colony\nin America, which he did after his resurrection and shortly after he\nleft his disciples in Jerusalem, he referred to these people being\ndescendants of Joseph and also to this land of promise which they had\nreceived. He chose twelve apostles on the continent of America as he\nhad chosen a like number in Judea to be special witnesses for him, and\nin a conversation he had with them he said:\n\n    \"Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are\n    a remnant of the house of Joseph, and behold, this is the land\n    [America] of your inheritance; and the father hath given it unto\n    you. And not at any time hath the father given me commandment that\n    I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . .\n    This much did the father command me, that I should tell unto them:\n    that other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I\n    must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one\n    fold and one shepherd. . . . And verily, I say unto you, that ye\n    are they of whom I said other sheep I have who are not of this\n    fold,\" etc.--III Nephi xv:11-22.\n\nNothing can be clearer than that the family of Lehi and his posterity,\nwhich grew into a mighty people, a great nation upon the continent of\nAmerica, were descendants of Joseph, the son of Jacob. And now let us\nconsider this fact in connection with the blessing pronounced upon\nthe head of Joseph by his father Jacob; but before doing so I wish to\ncall attention to the blessing which Moses also pronounced upon the\ndescendants of Joseph just previous to his death; it is recorded in\nDeuteronomy, chapter xxxiii.\n\n    \"And of Joseph he said: Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the\n    precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that\n    croucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the\n    sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the\n    chief things of the ancient mountains and for the precious things\n    of the everlasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth\n    and the fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt\n    in the bush, let the blessing come upon the top of the head of him\n    that was separated from his brethren.\"\n\nIt will be observed both in this blessing pronounced upon Joseph by\nMoses and in the one given him of Jacob, that special stress is laid\nupon the excellent character of the land to be inhabited by Joseph.\nJacob said his own blessings had prevailed (i. e., were more extended,\nmore excellent) above the blessings of his progenitors, unto the\nutmost bounds of the everlasting hills--his inheritance was to be more\nextended than that given to his progenitors, and all those blessings he\ngave unto Joseph, and his land was to be blessed with the blessings of\nheaven and earth; with blessings of the breast and of the womb. While\nMoses tells us that his land shall be blessed with the precious fruits\nbrought forth by the sun, with the precious things of the everlasting\nhills, with the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof.\nAll this leads us to believe that the land to be inhabited by the\ndescendants of Joseph is to be a rich, fruitful and therefore a choice\nland; more excellent than that given to his brethren.\n\nNow look, I pray you, upon the continent of America, North and South.\nConsider its varied climate, embracing as it does the torrid zone near\nthe center of it, and then extending to the frigid zones north and\nsouth. Think of its vast wealth and variety of fruits and flowers,\ngrains and vegetables; the bread fruits, figs, limes, oranges, bananas,\npine apples, dates, rice, maize and other fruits and vegetables of the\ntropics too numerous to enumerate; and with them remember the hardier\nfruits and grains and vegetation of the colder climates. Call to mind\nthe mighty forests, inhabited by an infinite variety of birds and\nbeasts. Remember its extensive plains, the llanos of the South and the\ngreat rolling prairies and plains of the North, capable of sustaining\ninnumerable herds of sheep and cattle and horses. Forget not the\nprecious things of the chief mountains, the wealth of the everlasting\nhills--the gold, the silver, the lead, the copper, the iron, the\ninexhaustible coal fields, the underground petroleum lakes, the\nprecious stones. Think of the great rivers that afford easy entrance\ninto the interior of this mighty continent--the great high-ways of\ncommerce; view from the mountain tops the splendid harbors which abound\nalong the shores; remember the fruitful seas surrounding these blessed\ncontinents, and, as all these things are called to mind, tell me, is\nnot the land of Joseph blessed with the precious things of the earth\nand the fulness thereof? With the precious fruits brought forth by the\nsun and the precious things of the everlasting hills, and with the\nprecious things of the deep?\n\nBut not only were the descendants of Joseph to be blessed with a goodly\nland, and an abundance of the good and precious things of the earth,\nbut they were to be blessed also with the \"precious things of heaven;\"\naccording-to Moses, and according to Jacob, Joseph was to be helped\nby the God of his fathers, who would bless him with the \"blessings of\nheaven above.\" What may more appropriately be regarded as \"blessings of\nheaven above,\" the \"precious things of heaven,\" than the revelations of\nGod, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Surely nothing! And according\nto the Book of Mormon the descendants of Joseph on the continent of\nAmerica had both. They carried with them from Jerusalem the writings of\nMoses and the prophets whom the Lord raised up to Israel up to the time\nof their departure for America. Furthermore, the Lord sent prophets\namong them to teach them the way of truth, to admonish them of their\nsins, to warn them of approaching calamity when their iniquity required\nthe chastening hand of Almighty God to correct it, that peradventure\nsome would repent. Then after his resurrection the Son of God came\namong them, taught them the fulness of the gospel and organized his\nChurch in their midst--truly then the descendants of Joseph were\nblessed with the \"precious things of heaven,\" and they preserved the\nwords of their prophets and teachings of the Messiah in their records;\nand these things, in part, have come to us in the Book of Mormon.\n\nAgain, the family of Lehi was but a part and a very small part of\nthe descendants of Joseph; the greater number of his descendants\nremained in Judea until, in connection with the ten tribes, and\nforming a part of that body of people, they were led away. But when\nLehi and his colony left Jerusalem and planted themselves in America,\nthe figure used by Jacob in blessing Joseph, was completed--Joseph\nwas indeed \"a fruitful bough by a well whose branches ran over the\nwall.\" And though the great nations which sprang into existence on\nthe American continent, consisting in the main of his posterity, have\nbeen destroyed, and broken up, until nothing is left of them but a few\nwandering tribes and the ruins of their once grand civilization--still\nmany millions of them have been very faithful to the Lord and his truth\nin the days of their probation, and have doubtless died with a lively\nhope of a glorious resurrection.\n\nThus in very many particulars the blessing of Joseph has been realized\nby his posterity upon the land given to them of the Lord--the continent\nof America--both North and South. And if any one should doubt the\ntruth of what is here stated; if he should regard the Book of Mormon\nas being untrue, and insist that the aborigines of America are not the\ndescendants of Joseph, then we may ask when, where, and in what way\nhave the blessings pronounced upon the head of Joseph been fulfilled.\n\nBut what seems singular in connection with these promises made to\nJoseph and the account of their partial fulfilment in a portion of\nhis posterity inhabiting America is, that after the nations, composed\nlargely of his descendants, had been destroyed and other peoples from\nEurope--among whom, however, were also large numbers of the descendants\nof Joseph through the loins of Ephraim[A] had taken possession of the\nland, at the formal inauguration of that government whose mission it\nis to control the destiny of the great continent of America--the land\nof Joseph--the very first executive chosen for that nation, when being\nsworn to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of this land\nwhich God had inspired men to frame, he placed his hand upon the very\npage of the Bible containing the blessing pronounced upon the head of\nJoseph by the Patriarch Jacob, and kissed it in token that he swore by\nGod's holy word that he would preserve inviolate the constitution which\nGod prepared for this land![B]\n\n[Footnote A: The great majority of the patriarchal blessings given to\nthe Latter-day Saints so far, proclaim them to be the descendants of\nJoseph through his son Ephraim.]\n\n[Footnote B: It is well known that the Mormon people regard the\nestablishment of the Constitution and Government of the United States\nas a divine act. In one of the revelations of God to the Church through\nJoseph Smith it is said:\n\n\"And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their\nenemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for\nredress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers\nand are in authority over you, according to the laws and constitution\nof the people which I have suffered to be established, and should\nbe maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according\nto just and holy principles, that every man may act in doctrine and\nprinciple pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I\nhave given unto him that every man may be accountable for his own sins\nin the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should\nbe in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established\nthe Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised\nup unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of\nblood.\" (Doc. & Cov. p. 357)]\n\nWill men call this merely coincidence? Strange coincidence indeed it\nis, if that be all that it is. Observe that the forty-ninth chapter of\nGenesis is near the very first leaves of the Bible, and in laying the\nbook open upon a velvet cushion for the use of one about to make solemn\noath upon it, it would naturally be parted near the middle of the\nvolume and not parted at the first few leaves.\n\nLet others believe all this to be coincidence if they choose, but for\nmy own part there is too much that is significant to assign it to\nthat class of phenomena so conveniently disposed of by calling them\ncoincidents. And I believe that the men who opened the old Masonic\nBible at the page containing the blessing of Joseph were unwittingly\nguided by the powers of heaven, and that the act heralded an era big\nwith promise for the descendants of Joseph--the establishment of\na government under which they would eventually attain to the full\nenjoyment of all that was pronounced upon their great progenitor by the\ninspired patriarchs, Jacob and Moses.\n\nII.\n\nAmerica the Land of Zion and of Joseph.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Discourse delivered March 24, 1907, in the Tabernacle,\nSalt Lake City.]\n\nBetween the fore part of September and the closing days of the month\nof December of last year, it was my privilege to travel in all about\n11,000 miles, chiefly within the confines of the United States. I\ncrossed the state of Nevada twice, and zigzagged back and forth through\nthe territory of Arizona, through parts of Texas and the northern part\nof Mexico, making in that journey something over 3,000 miles, chiefly\nwithin what is known as the arid region of America; and really, during\nthat time, I was almost ready to conclude that the whole of America\nmust be \"arid region,\" so vast it was. Shortly after this it was my\nprivilege to go down the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains en route\nfor the Atlantic sea board, and of course came in contact with more\n\"arid region.\" In the eastern part of Colorado, however, and in central\nNebraska we began to go into a region of our country that is fertile,\nwhere field joins field, and where there is one perpetual succession\nof cornfields, meadows, pastures, gardens and orchards, with here and\nthere prosperous railroad towns and farming villages. We rode a whole\nday through such a country; and when we retired to rest we knew that\nthe express train would all night long be plunging through just such\nfertile lands as we had looked upon during the day, and all the next\nday it would be the same--and then some. This fertile section of the\ncountry was so vast that we forgot the arid region, and were ready to\ndeclare that the whole of America must be fertile. Then in eastern\nOhio we began entering the manufacturing region of our country, and\nthence eastward through the whole extent of Pennsylvania, where we were\nseldom out of sight of the smoke stacks and furnaces of manufacturing\nestablishments, and as we would cross the rivers or run parallel with\nthem we could see acres and acres of coal barges and other craft of\ninland commerce, while the scream of the locomotives, the whistle of\nthe factories, and ringing of bells were constantly in one's ears. So\nextensive was this manufacturing region that we began to think that the\nwhole of America must be given up to manufactures. Everywhere we went\nthere were evidences of prosperity in the land. Our journey extended\nnot only through the central eastern states, but up into New England,\nup into Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and\nthence down the Atlantic seaboard as far as Florida; thence northward\nand westward through the southern states; and, as I say, everywhere we\nfound prosperity abounding. We people in the west--living in the midst\nof a world of really undeveloped resources, where life is strenuous,\nand where the increase of wealth is so great--are apt to think that our\nsection of the Union has a greater prosperity than other parts of it;\nbut great as our own prosperity in the west is, I assure you it is not\ngreater than the prosperity to be found in other parts of our country.\n\nI desire to call your attention to some of the features of a marvelous\nprosperity that now exists in the United States. Perhaps the truest\ncriterion of the real prosperity of a nation such as ours, can\nbest be ascertained by taking into account the prosperity of the\nagricultural interests of the country. If in that industry our people\nare prosperous you may rest assured that all other branches of industry\nare prosperous. From a very valuable collection of statistics published\nby Mr. Richard H. Edmonds, the editor of \"The Manufacturers' Record,\"\nBaltimore, I quote the following facts:\n\n\"In 1870 the value of farm property within the United States amounted\nto 8,900 millions of dollars.\" Of course, all that those figures convey\nto your mind or to mine is simply the thought that it represents an\nexceedingly great value; for we have not yet learned to think in\nbillions. In the year 1905 the 8,900 millions had increased to over\n26,000 millions of value. The number of people engaged in agriculture\nin 1870 was 5,992,000; but in 1905 the number engaged in that industry\nhad increased to 11,500,000 people. The value of farm products in 1870\namounted to 1,958 millions, while in 1906 it had increased to more than\n7,000 millions. The value of agricultural products, per capita, of the\nentire population, will interest you, and aid you to appreciate the\ngreat increase of prosperity that has been made in this industry: In\n1870 the value of the agricultural products, per capita, was $50, but\nin 1906 it had advanced to $82 per capita.\n\nIn Louisiana and Texas alone there are over 600,000 acres of land\nthat are annually given to rice culture with irrigation, resulting in\nthis: that whereas these lands, now so fruitful, 25 years ago were\nonly worth from 25 to 50 cents per acre; their value is now from $50\nto $75 and even $100 per acre. This wonderful transformation in values\nhas arisen through adopting a system of irrigation, chiefly by tapping\nunderground streams and bringing them to the surface. Nor is this the\nonly means of redeeming the land. In many parts of the south we found\nthat large areas of swamp lands were being systematically drained, and\nby this system of drainage the valuation of these lands is increased as\nmuch as the Texas lands are' by irrigation. Needless to say that this\nreclamation of lands has greatly increased the prosperity of the South.\n\nThere are other things that might be noted indicating the increasing\nprosperity of our country. Take for instance the item of railroads:\nIn 1830 there were but 23 miles of railroad in the United States. In\nthe year 1906, however, there are--of main lines--more than 223,000\nmiles; and if you take into account the double tracking and spur lines\nthe mileage is increased by 90,000 miles, making the total mileage of\nrailroads in the United States 313,000 miles, constructed since 1830.\nIn the matter of coal and iron the United States outstrips the world.\nExpert examination discloses the fact that the coal fields within\nthe United States cover an area of 356,000 square miles, as against\n10,000 square miles in Great Britain; 1,800 square miles in Germany,\nand 51,000 square miles for all of Europe. The single state of West\nVirginia, as also Kentucky, has more than 50 per cent more coal area\nthan Great Britain. What is true of coal is equally true of our wealth\nin iron. The United States produces more than half of all the iron\nproduct of the world. The same is true as to steel. You may judge of\nthe advancement in these industries by the following figures: In 1880\nthe product of steel was 1,247,000 tons, whereas in 1905 it amounted to\nmore than 20,000 millions of tons. In the matter of cotton the United\nStates produces 80 per cent of all the cotton in the world. The annual\noutput of that product amounts to 2,000 millions of dollars per annum,\na value greater than the output of all the gold and silver mines of the\nworld annually. Petroleum: In 1860 there were produced only 500,000\nbarrels, whereas in the year 1905 there were produced over 134,000,000\nof barrels.\n\nNow as to population: Our present population is said to be about\n85,000,000 of people. If the influx of population shall continue at its\npresent ratio, by the middle of the twentieth century there will be\nupwards of 200,000,000 of people within the United States. \"The boys\nand the younger men of today,\" suggests Mr. Edmunds, \"will be active\nbusiness men of that period.\" Commenting on the ability of the United\nStates to support that and even a much larger population, our authority\nsays:\n\n    \"In area the United States covers 3,000,000 square miles, with an\n    average of less than 26 persons to the mile. Settled as densely\n    as France, we could accommodate 570,000,000 people; as densely as\n    Great Britain and Ireland, we would have over 1,000,000,000 people.\n    Or compare our capabilities with the density of population in such\n    states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, or all New England. In Pennsylvania\n    the average number of people to the square mile in 1900 was 140.\n    At this average for the whole country we should have a population\n    of 420,000,000--certainly Pennsylvania is not overcrowded. Ohio\n    has 102 people to the square mile, and New England an average of\n    90. On the basis of Ohio's average the United States would have\n    over 300,000,000, and on the New England average 270,000,000\n    people. So great is the extent of our agricultural land that with\n    the continued improvement in farming methods now going on, with\n    the reclamation of our overflowed lands, and the extension of\n    irrigation in regions formerly regarded as forever doomed to the\n    cactus and sage brush, with the development of scientific forestry,\n    too long neglected, but still capable of saving our timber reserves\n    and protecting the sources of our rivers, we can so build up our\n    farming interests as to provide an ample food supply for as great\n    a multitude as the future seems sure to give us. With resources\n    for the creation of industries, the development of mining, the\n    extension of railroads, and the enlargement of trade and commerce\n    at home and abroad, we are abundantly blessed. Nature has lavished\n    her riches upon this country as upon no other, as far as human\n    knowledge has yet discovered.\"\n\nI have hastened over the items, reading hurriedly, because I did not\nwish to weary you with details; but the author from whom I quote these\nstatements suggests that we ought to remember that while we are justly\nproud of the progress made by the United States, yet in considering\nthe future and in contemplating the almost limitless potentialities\nof our own country, as compared with the past, \"we must remember that\nMexico and South America, and Canada are running rivalry with us in the\nexpansion of industry;\" and I would add with resources second only,\nperhaps, to our own.\n\nBy this time you are asking yourselves the question, I fancy, what\ninterest have these considerations of the resources and the prosperity\nof America for an audience assembled upon the Sabbath day to worship\nGod and to be instructed more especially in relation to spiritual\nmatters? I desire as best I may to show you what connection there is\nbetween what I have said and the purpose for which you have assembled\non this occasion. We are here, as was suggested in the prayer offered\nat the opening of our services, to have our faith in God's great\nlatter-day work strengthened, and the chief desire I have in my heart,\nis to think and speak along lines that will tend to increase our faith.\n\nThe journey through the land of America just referred to, resulted in\nmy having a higher appreciation of the land of my adoption than I have\never before entertained. Her majestic rivers, her magnificent mountain\nranges, her fertile valleys, and even her desert wastes, seem dearer\nto me than ever before; and this not alone on account of the evidences\nof her prosperity which could be seen on every hand; not on account\nalone of contemplating her free institutions, or the patriotism of her\npeople, and the general prevalence of peace and justice that obtain\nin the land--not alone for these things (though not inconsiderable\nin themselves) did we find our love for America increased. Part of\nthat increased regard was occasioned by our reflections upon the\ndestiny of America; upon the decrees of God respecting the land, and\nthe relationship which the Latter-day Saints sustain to these western\ncontinents, their mission upon them--this had something to do with\nincreasing our regard for America.\n\nAnd now, by what, perhaps, you will consider indirect means, let me\ncall your attention to some things which perhaps have not always been\nunderstood in their fulness even by the Latter-day Saints, in respect\nto this great, this choice land of America. You will easily remember,\nwhen I refer to him, that great character of the Old Testament\nscriptures, Joseph, the son of Jacob, one of the noblest characters of\neither sacred or profane history. In his boyhood the Lord by inspired\ndreams indicated to him a prominence in Israel. One dream pictured\nhimself and brethren in the harvest field, setting up sheaves, and as\nhe set his sheaf on end the sheaves of his brethren bowed in obeisance\nto his sheaf. He told the dream to his brethren, and they said: \"Shalt\nthou indeed reign over us?\" And they were angry with him. Again the\nlad dreamed, and he saw that the sun and the moon and 11 stars did\nobeisance to him, and he told the dream unto his father. \"What,\" said\nthe aged patriarch, \"shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed\ncome to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?\" Notwithstanding his\nevident vexation the old patriarch was wise enough to observe that\nthere was inspiration in this dream of the lad's. In course of time,\nas you know, Joseph was sold into bondage and was taken to Egypt, and\nthere through a pathway of sorrow and trial the Lord led him to great\neminence in the nation of Egypt, made him indeed the savior of Egypt,\nfor by inspired dreams he was forewarned of the famine and was able to\nprovide for it, so that while there was distress and famine in every\nother country, there was corn in Egypt. In due time his brothers came\nto purchase the corn and bowed down in the presence of Joseph, and\ndoubtless, in part, but only in part, the dream of his boyhood days\nwas fulfilled. In time, too, his father came into Egypt and conferred\nupon him a father's blessing. Jacob also blessed the sons of Joseph,\nManasseh and Ephraim, conferring great and mighty blessings upon them,\nand claiming them as his own. And when Jacob came to bless his son,\nJoseph, in connection with the rest of the tribes of Israel, he gave\nhim a blessing that excels the blessings of the other princes in the\nhouse of Israel. Listen to it:\n\n    \"Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well: whose\n    branches run over the wall: The archers have sorely grieved him\n    and shot at him, and hated him: but his bow abode in strength and\n    the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty\n    God of Jacob; even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee;\n    and by the Almighty who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven\n    above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the\n    breasts and of the womb: the blessings of thy father have prevailed\n    above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the\n    everlasting hills: They shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the\n    crown of the head of him that was separated from his brethren.\"\n\nWhen Moses bestowed his blessings upon the tribes of Israel, he, too,\npronounced a special blessing upon the head of Joseph. Mark it:\n\n    \"Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of\n    heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that croucheth beneath, and\n    for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the\n    precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of\n    the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting\n    hills, and for the precious things of the earth, and fulness\n    thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush; let\n    the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the\n    head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like\n    the firstlings of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of\n    the unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the\n    ends of the earth; and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and\n    they are the thousands of Manasseh.\"\n\nI have said on other occasions, and I repeat it here, that the blessing\npronounced upon Joseph by both Jacob and Moses, not only exceeds the\nblessing of any other one of the princes of Israel, but it is greater\nthan all the other blessings upon the princes of Israel combined.\nIn the first place a double portion is given to him in Israel, two\ntribes to represent him instead of one. His two sons, Ephraim and\nManasseh, were made the heads of tribes, Ephraim being given the\ngreater prominence, and receiving the rights of the first born. When\nJoseph saw the intent of the patriarch to confer the greater blessing\nupon his younger son he sought to stay it, and called the attention of\nhis father to the fact that Manasseh was the elder son. The patriarch\nreplied: \"I know it, my son;\" and referring to Manasseh, he said: \"He\nshall also become a people, and he also shall be great, but his younger\nbrother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude\nof nations . . . . and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.\" Indeed Jacob\nthat day bestowed the birthright of Israel upon Ephraim in place of\nReuben, his firstborn son; and that is why subsequent prophets were\nwont to represent God as saying, \"I am a father to Israel and Ephraim\nis my first born.\" Let me tell you how that came about. Reuben, Jacob's\neldest son, defiled his father's wife Bilhah, and for that awful crime\nlost his station in Israel as the first born. And now the writer of\nFirst Chronicles:\n\n    \"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the\n    firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his\n    birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel:\n    and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright (i. e.\n    after Reuben). For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him\n    came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's.\"\n\nEphraim received that birthright as already stated, and the blessings\nand rights thereof are his.\n\nNow let us consider these great blessings pronounced upon the head\nof Joseph, and I pray you remember how particularly the extent and\ngrandeur of the land of Joseph are described in these blessings.\n\nThe blessings of Jacob had \"prevailed above,\" (i. e. exceeded)\nthe blessings of his progenitors, \"unto the utmost bounds of the\neverlasting hills;\" and these greater blessings the patriarch declared\nshould be \"on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him\nthat was separated from his brethren.\" Joseph was to be as a fruitful\nbough whose branches run over the wall, indicating a largeness and\nfruitfulness that would exceed the other tribes in Israel. Moses is\nmore explicit as to the character of the land Joseph should possess:\n\"Blessed of the Lord be his land for the precious things of heaven\"--is\nreference here made to the revelations of God that shall be given on\nthe land of Joseph, does it contemplate a knowledge of the gospel of\nChrist that shall be had on the land in \"the precious things of heaven\"\nfor which the land shall be noted? Again \"Blessed of the Lord be his\nland . . . . for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun; . . .\n. for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious\nthings of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth\nand the fulness thereof, and for the good will of Him that dwelt in the\nbush,\" that is, for the good will of God who appeared unto Moses in\nthe burning bush, this allusion is obvious; so that Joseph's land is\nto be under God's good will in addition to all the natural advantages\nit is to possess. Joseph, too, is to be the power that shall \"push the\npeople together to the ends of the earth;\" a declaration which, when\nconsidered in connection with the many promises of God that he who\nscattered Israel will gather him again, and keep him as a shepherd does\nhis flock, \"For I, the Lord, am a Father to Israel and Ephraim is my\nfirst born\"--a declaration I say which is significant of prominence for\nJoseph in the work of the gathering of Israel in the last days.\n\nAnd now I submit to you the question: Where is the evidence of the\nfulfilment of these great promises of God to Joseph? The world seems to\nhave lost sight of this chief prince in Israel, this man holding the\nbirthright. Where is that land of his described by Moses and Jacob,\nso far more extensive and richer in resources than old Canaan--to\nreach which perhaps Joseph's branches run over the wall? Where in the\nhistory of the world is the account of the fulfilment of the blessings\npronounced upon Joseph by his father?\n\nAll the tribes of Israel, save Judah only, are lost to the knowledge\nof the world, and Judah is known chiefly for the things that he has\nsuffered, and not for the realization of those blessings that were\npronounced upon him by his father. Can it be that those special\nblessings pronounced upon the head of Joseph by the Lord have failed?\nHave the promises of Jehovah gone for naught? Well, so far as any\nknowledge the world has to the contrary these promises of God to this\npatriarch have failed. But it happens that the Latter-day Saints know\nthat those promises have not failed. They have been fulfilled in\npart, and what remains will be gloriously fulfilled. Your choir, this\nafternoon sang:\n\n  \"An angel from on high\n  The long, long silence broke;\n  Descending from the sky these\n  Gracious words he spoke:\n  Lo! in Cumorah's lonely hill\n  A sacred record lies concealed.\n\n  \"It speaks of Joseph's seed,\n  And makes the remnant known\n  Of nations long since dead\n  Who once had dwelt alone.\n  The fulness of the gospel, too,\n  Its pages will reveal to view.\"\n\nThe hymn has reference, of course, to the coming forth of the Book of\nMormon, and the knowledge it reveals to the world concerning America\nand the nations that have inhabited it. Her ancient inhabitants in\npart sprang from a colony of Israelites who left Jerusalem about six\nhundred years B.C. That colony was made up of the descendants of\nJoseph. One family, Ishmael's, being the descendants of Ephraim, and\nthe family of Lehi being of the tribe of Manasseh. Here in America\nthis colony--descendants of the Patriarch Joseph--grew into kingdoms,\nrepublics, and empires, taking possession of this goodly land of\nAmerica and occupying it both in the south continent and in the north\ncontinent. Their kingdoms and empires rivaled in greatness and in\ncivilization some of the contemporary empires and kingdoms of the old\nworld. Here flourished cities that evidently equaled in extent and\ngrandeur Nineveh and Tyre and Sidon. From Joseph's seed in America\nthere came a race of statesmen, warriors, and prophets rivaling the\nstatesmen and warriors and prophets of the old world contemporary with\nthem. Here the tribe of Joseph enjoyed not only the blessings of the\nearth, the boundless resources of his promised land, the continents of\nAmerica, but here, too, his descendants received the fulness of the\ngospel of Jesus Christ, and were favored, after Messiah's resurrection,\nwith a personal visitation from the Son of God himself, who taught them\nthe gospel, gave to them a church organization, deposited the revealed\ntruth of God with it, and gave that Church commandment to teach the\ngospel, and perfect the lives of those who received it. Then followed\nthe golden age of America, reference to which is frequently made in the\nnative traditions. For 200 years a reign of righteousness prevailed,\nduring which time there was a rich harvest of souls unto God through\nthe gospel of Jesus Christ. The land was blessed \"with the precious\nthings of heaven,\" truly.\n\nBecause of the things, then, that befell the descendants of Joseph in\nthis promised land of America, which things are made known in our Book\nof Mormon, the Latter-day Saints, at least, know that the promises of\nthe Lord to the house of Joseph have not failed--and a hundredth part\nof their fulfilment I have not been able even to indicate. And but\nfor the partial fulfilment of God's promises to Joseph in the land of\nAmerica, the world would be compelled to admit that the promises, the\nblessings pronounced upon the head of Joseph had failed; for surely\nnowhere else in the world have they been fulfilled. They were promises\nthat could not have been fulfilled in a corner, they are too large for\nthat. I call upon the Bible scholarship of the world to tell us where\nthese great promises of God to Joseph have been kept--so far as the\nwheels of time have brought their fulfilment due--if not in America.\nAnd if it shall be contended that the time for Joseph to realize his\npromises has not yet arrived--for the failure of them, since they were\ngiven under inspiration of God, is unthinkable--then where can they\nbe fulfilled save in America? What land so well corresponds to that\ndescribed both by Jacob and Moses as the inheritance of Joseph? And\nwhat events in history, what movements among the people of the earth,\noutside of those with which the Latter-day Saints are connected, give\npromise of the fulfilment of Joseph's blessings?\n\nThe blessings of Joseph, however, even with all that has been made\nknown through the Book of Mormon, have been realized only in part.\nMuch remains to be fulfilled. There is in store yet much more glory,\nmuch more honor, for this branch of the house of Israel, this tribe\nwhich holds the right to lead in the gathering, and in the salvation\nof Israel, in whom is lodged the right and the power to \"push the\npeople (Israel) together to the ends of the earth--and they are the ten\nthousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh.\"\n\nAllow me to call your attention to a singular circumstance. We believe\nthat the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored in our day, and is\nbeing preached in all the world; for its message is not confined to\nAmerica. It is said in the scripture that predicts its restoration by\nan angel, in the hour of God's judgment--that it is to be preached to\nevery nation, and kindred, and tongue and people (Revelation xiv:6,\n7); to Gentile and Jew, to bond and free--all are to have this gospel\nproclaimed to them in the due time of the Lord; but the dispensation\nof the fulness of times is a period when the blessings of God shall\nespecially turn upon the house of Israel. So that while there is a\nmessage in the restored gospel for all mankind, there is something\nspecial in it for the house of Israel. It is the gathering dispensation\nof the gospel, in which \"all things will be gathered together in one,\"\neven in Christ. This gospel, then, is proclaimed to all the nations\nof the earth, and what happens? Its message fell upon the ears of our\nfathers and mothers; some were in this nation, some in that. It was\nthe case of taking one of a city and two of a family out of which\nto form a people. They were not convinced of the truth by eloquence\nor argument, or logic, but there was something in the very sound of\nthe gospel congenial to the souls of our fathers as soon as they\nheard it, and they responded to its message; they laid hold of its\nprinciples by a spiritual power, and they loved them better than they\nloved the honors and applause of the world. When they heard the gospel\nproclaimed it had in it a familiar sound like the refrain of some only\nhalf-forgotten song. It was congenial to their souls. Was it not an\nunconscious awakening of spirit-recollections; the recurrence to the\nsoul of principles familiar to it in the pre-existent estate, when the\nspirit dwelt with the heavenly Father in the mansions of the blessed?\nThe thought may be illustrated by an incident that occurred in one of\nthe early frontier wars between the Indians and the British settlers\nof our country. In 1764, after several years of intermittent border\nwarfare, Colonel Boquet was sent from Fort Pitt, against the Indian\ntribes located in the Ohio valley, with instructions to bring them to\nterms. The British commander pitilessly pursued the Indians to their\nvery homes, refusing to listen to parleys until the spirit of the\nnative tribes was subdued and they were ready to accept such terms as\nhe chose to dictate. One of these terms was that all the whites held\ncaptive by the Indians should be brought in and surrendered. This was\nacceded to, and some three hundred captives were brought to the British\nencampment. It was a pathetic scene which attended this event. Some of\nthe captives had been held for years by the Indians, some of them as\nlong as nine years. Those who had been captured in their childhood had\nforgotten the very language of their race. One instance is related of\na mother who recognized her child among the captives surrendered to\nColonel Boquet, but the child gave no sign of recognizing the mother,\nand in tears she complained to the colonel that the daughter she had so\noften sung to sleep in her arms had forgotten her. \"Sing the song to\nher that you used to sing when she was a child,\" said the commander.\nShe did so, and \"with a passionate flood of tears\" the daughter rushed\nto the mother's arms. So it was with the proclamation of the gospel\nto our fathers. God was merely having sung to them again the songs\nof the home in heaven, in the preaching of the gospel. It stirred in\ntheir souls half recollections of by-gone ages, and with tears of joy\nat those awakened soul-recollections they sought again their Father's\nhouse, the Church of Christ. Our fathers loved the gospel, I say, more\nthan their station in society, or the approval of their kindred; and\nhence they cast in their lot with a despised people. For the most part\nthey remained true to that awakening which came to their souls through\nthe preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They gathered out from the\nnations of the earth, and came to the land of Zion. And now something\npeculiar happens. The patriarchs of the Church place their hands upon\nthe heads of these people, and under the inspiration of God, earnestly\nsought, these men--in the exercise of their holy office--pronounce\nthose who are thus gathered to be, not only of the house of Israel,\nbut, in the main, as belonging to the tribe of Ephraim. There is\nsomething beautifully fitting in this circumstance; something that\ngoes a long way towards establishing its truth. Certainly the tribe to\nwhom is given the right of the first born should be gathered first.\nTo the first born is given the work of gathering the people from the\nnations of the earth; he holds the keys of authority and power in the\nordinances of the gospel, especially as pertaining to the patriarchal\norder, and hence he is gathered first. Where? To the land of Joseph, to\nthe promised inheritance of that patriarch and his seed, to the land of\nZion, here to raise the standard of Israel, the ensign of peace to the\nworld, through the proclamation of the gospel of peace. Here in this\nchosen land Joseph, through Ephraim, erects the temples of his God,\nand calls all Israel to come and participate in the blessings that are\nbeing restored to his father's house.\n\nIn one of the revelations in our Doctrine and Covenants (sec. 123)\nwe are assured that Israel in the north countries shall come in\nremembrance before the Lord, \"And their prophets shall hear his voice\nand shall no longer stay themselves. . . . And they shall bring forth\ntheir rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim my servants. And the\nboundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence.\nAnd there shall they fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion,\nby the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim;\nand they shall be filled with songs of everlasting joy. Behold, this is\nthe blessing of the Everlasting God upon the tribes of Israel, and the\nricher blessings upon the head of Ephraim and his fellows.\"\n\nThus the tribe on which was bestowed the birthright in Israel, is being\ngathered to the land promised him of God, to the land, choice above\nall other lands in the earth, to the land of Joseph. And here stands\nJoseph in the midst of his temples in that promised land, waiting to\nbestow blessings upon the other tribes of Israel. Joseph's dreams of\nthe sheaves of his brethren doing obeisance to his sheaf: and the sun\nand the moon and the eleven stars making obeisance to him shall have,\nhere in his own promised land--in these two American continents--a\nlarger fulfilment than they did in Egypt, when his brothers bowed\nbefore Joseph, ruler of Egypt. For here in the land of Joseph shall his\ntribe of Ephraim, holding the birthright in Israel, stand to receive\nthe gathering tribes of his father's house, and they shall \"fall down\"\nbefore Joseph--do \"obeisance to him,\" in the language of the dreams;\nbut not that they may be humiliated, or oppressed, but that they may be\n\"crowned with glory, by the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the\nchildren of Ephraim, and they shall be filled with songs of everlasting\njoy.\" God does not humiliate in order to oppress; such humility as\nhe requires is that he may exalt. Joseph's brethren in their blind\njealousy of him mistook the meaning of his dreams. Those dreams while\nthey were a prophecy of Joseph's prominence in Israel, also were\na prophecy of saving and blessing unto Israel, not of tyrannical\ndomination or usurpation of the rights of the other brothers or\ntribes; and as Joseph's mission in Egypt resulted in preserving Israel\n\"a posterity in the earth,\" and of saving the lives of his father's\nhousehold, \"by a great deliverance;\" (Genesis xlv:5, 7), so his mission\nin the last days, in his own land of Zion, shall culminate in a much\nlarger way in the salvation of Israel.\n\nTHE GENTILES TO HAVE AN INHERITANCE IN AMERICA.\n\nWhile there are especial blessings for the tribes of Joseph on the\nland of Zion, let us not lose sight of the fact that others, too, have\nrights and promises in relation to it. Let not the seed of Joseph\ncultivate any spirit of exclusiveness in respect of the land of Zion.\nHe especially is in the world for the world's good. He must endure\ncontact with the world, with the Gentile world as well as with Israel.\nHe, in some way, seems to be the link between the Gentiles and Israel.\nWhen the Lord made known unto Lehi that this land of America should be\nhis, as an inheritance, it being the land that had been promised by\nJacob and Moses unto Joseph and his seed, the Lord, after describing\nhow he would make of the Gentiles nursing fathers and mothers unto\nIsrael, and how the Gentiles would bless Israel upon this land, then he\nsays (referring to North and South America):\n\n    \"This land, saith God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and\n    the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land. And this land shall be\n    a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings\n    upon the land who shall rise up unto the Gentiles; and I will\n    fortify this land against all other nations, and he that fighteth\n    against Zion [this whole land of America] shall perish, saith God;\n    and he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish. Wherefore\n    I will consecrate this land unto thy [Lehi's] seed and they [the\n    Gentiles] who shall be numbered among thy seed forever, for the\n    land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God, unto\n    me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell\n    thereon, that they shall worship me, saith God.\"\n\nThe foregoing are the promises of the Lord unto the descendants of\nJoseph and unto the Gentiles who shall be united with them in the\npossession of the land of America.\n\nJesus also, during his ministry among the Nephites, after his\nresurrection, made some remarkable promises and predictions respecting\nthe prosperity and freedom and power of the Gentiles in the land of\nAmerica on condition of their righteousness, and their obedience to the\n\"God of the land,\" who is declared to be Jesus Christ. They equally\nwith the house of Joseph on the conditions named, are promised an\ninheritance in the goodly land; and lot and part in the building of\nan holy city upon it, to be called Zion, a new Jerusalem, where the\nrighteousness of God shall abound, and from which light and truth shall\nemanate to bless the world. These things are testified of at length in\nthe twentieth and twenty-first chapters of the Third Nephi; also in the\nwritings of Moroni in the Book of Ether, where a rather solemn warning\nis given to the Gentiles respecting the decrees of God concerning this\nland of Joseph--this land of promise unto the Gentiles as well as unto\nthe descendants of Joseph. Moroni, in speaking of America, says:\n\n    \"This is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore\n    he that possesses it shall serve God, or he shall be swept off;\n    for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the\n    fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are\n    swept off. . . Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation\n    shall possess it, shall be free from bondage, and from captivity,\n    and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the\n    God of the land, who is Jesus Christ. . . . And this cometh unto\n    you O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God, that ye\n    may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness\n    comes, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God\n    upon you, as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.\"\n\nWEBSTER'S CONCEPTION OF AMERICA.\n\nDid our own great Webster catch something of this old Nephite\ninspiration when, speaking something like twenty-two years after\nthe first publication of the Book of Mormon (Feb. 22, 1852, to be\nprecise--and before the New York Historical Society)--he said, in his\nown matchless eloquence:\n\n    \"Unborn ages and visions of glory crowd upon my soul, the\n    realization of all which, however, is in the hands and good\n    pleasure of Almighty God; but, under his divine blessing, it will\n    be dependent on the character and the virtues of ourselves, and of\n    our posterity. If classical history has been found to be, is now,\n    and shall continue to be, the concomitant of free institutions, and\n    of popular eloquence, what a field is opening to us for another\n    Herodotus, another Thucydides, and another Livy!\n\n    \"And let me say, gentlemen, that if we and our posterity shall be\n    true to the Christian religion--if we and they shall live always\n    in the fear of God, and shall respect his commandments--if we and\n    they shall maintain just, moral sentiments, and such conscientious\n    convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life--we may\n    have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country;\n    and if we maintain those institutions of government and that\n    political union, exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all\n    former examples of political associations, we may be sure of one\n    thing--that, while our country furnishing materials for a thousand\n    masters of the historic art, it will afford no topic for a Gibbon.\n    It will have no Decline and Fall. It will go on prospering and to\n    prosper.\n\n    \"But if we and our posterity reject religious instruction and\n    authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the\n    injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political\n    constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden\n    a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in\n    profound obscurity. Should that catastrophe happen, let it have no\n    history! Let the horrible narrative never be written! Let its fate\n    be like that of the lost books of Livy, which no human eye shall\n    ever read; or the missing pleiad, of which no man can ever know\n    more than that it is lost, and lost forever!\"\n\nAnd now, I invite your attention to the remarks I made in the\ncommencement of this discourse--to the prosperity of the land,\nembracing both North and South America, to the extent and grandeur\nof it, and I ask you, does it not fulfil better than any other part\nof the earth, better than any other continent or continents--does\nit not better answer the description of Moses and of Jacob, when\nthey described the land that should be the inheritance of the great\nPatriarch Joseph, than any other land does? Most assuredly.\n\nVIEWS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH.\n\nWhen the Book of Mormon was revealed and it became known that the\nAmericas were precious lands of promise, and that God had such a high\ndestiny for the two continents as is described in the Book of Mormon,\nthat among other things America was the place where the Zion of God\nshould be built in the last days, the brethren in those early days\nvery naturally became anxious to know where the city of Zion would\nbe located. After much striving for the knowledge, the place of Zion\nwas at last revealed to them. The Lord indicated the place for the\ncommencement of the building of Zion, and the place for the temple upon\nwhich the glory of God should rest by day and by night. This place\nwas declared to be near Independence, Jackson county, Missouri. The\nsite for the temple and the land around about was dedicated under the\nsupervision of the prophet, and the Saints in the eastern states were\ncommanded to gather to this place. They did so, and lived there some\nthree years when their enemies rose up against them and expelled them\nfrom the land under circumstances of great cruelty and hardship. The\nSaints, who had been driven from their homes, accounted themselves\nexiles from Zion, and there was much disappointment in Israel because,\napparently, the promises of God had failed them; for they looked\nforward to an unbroken possession of the land, notwithstanding the\nword of the Lord to the contrary. (See Introduction to Volume III of\nthe History of the Church, pp. xxxii-xxxix.) Shortly after this, three\nyears later, a still further removal was made into the counties of\nnorthern Missouri, and finally, as you know, the entire Church was\nexpelled from the state of Missouri and had to take refuge in Illinois.\nThe prophet with his usual activity began the establishment of stakes\nof Zion in Illinois, especially at Nauvoo and vicinity. Meantime the\nSaints were questioning much concerning Zion, and the privilege of\ndwelling therein. At the April conference, preceding his martyrdom,\nthe prophet alluded to these disappointments, and he spoke of Zion at\nconsiderable length. I want to read to you his words on that occasion.\nThe Saints had too narrow a conception of Zion, and of the purpose of\nGod with reference to her; and hence the prophet, in the course of his\nremarks, said:\n\n    \"You know there has been a great discussion in relation to Zion,\n    where it is, and where the gathering of the dispensation is, which\n    I am now going to tell you. The prophets have spoken and written\n    upon it, but I will make a proclamation that will cover a broader\n    ground. The whole of America is Zion itself, from north to south,\n    and is described by the prophets who declared that it is Zion,\n    where the mountain of the Lord shall be, and it shall be in the\n    center of the land. I have received instructions from the Lord\n    that from henceforth wherever the elders of Israel shall build up\n    churches and branches unto the Lord, throughout the states [having\n    reference to the United States, of course] there shall be a stake\n    of Zion. In the great cities, as Boston, New York, etc., there\n    shall be stakes. It is a glorious proclamation, and I reserved it\n    to the last, and designed it to be understood that this work shall\n    commence after the washings and anointings, and endowments have\n    been performed here [i. e., in Nauvoo].\"\n\nAt the same conference Hyrum Smith, brother of the prophet, said:\n\n    \"The gathering will continue here [i. e., Nauvoo] until the temple\n    is so far finished that the elders can get their endowments; and\n    after that the gathering will be from the nations to North and\n    South America, which is the land of Zion. The gathering from the\n    old countries will always be to headquarters.\"\n\nShortly after this President Brigham Young, then of the Twelve\nApostles, addressing himself to Reuben Headlock, president of the\nBritish mission, said:\n\n    \"A word with you privately. Brother Joseph said last conference\n    that Zion included North and South America, and after the temple is\n    done (completed), and the elders endowed, they could spread abroad\n    and build up cities all over the United States, but at present we\n    are not to preach this doctrine; nay, hold your tongue.\"\n\nThe martyrdom of the prophet and the exodus to the mountains consequent\nupon that martyrdom made it impossible to carry out this policy of\nbuilding up stakes of Zion in Boston, New York and other eastern\ncities. The Church, found that it had all it could do in establishing\nitself in these valleys of the Rocky mountains, where it might fulfil\nthe predictions of the prophet of this dispensation, to the effect\nthat the Saints would become a great and powerful people in the midst\nof the Rocky mountains. Sometimes, however, I have wondered if we\nhave not too much set our hearts upon these valleys, upon this state\nof Utah and these surrounding states; and if--like the Saints in the\nearlier history of the Church, when inhabiting Jackson county, we have\nnot limited our conceptions of Zion by lines that are altogether too\nnarrow. Last fall, as I journeyed through the eastern states, through\nNew England, and in the south, and realizing that in the southern\nstates there are more than 10,000 of our people, and in the Eastern\nStates mission more than 3,000, and in the Northern States mission\na still-greater number than in the Eastern States, I wondered if it\nwould not be possible to establish stakes of Zion in the eastern and\nsouthern states as well as in Canada, in Mexico, in Oregon, in Arizona,\nor Colorado. Would it not be just as legitimate to establish stakes of\nZion in South Carolina, in Florida, in Vermont or New York, as it is\nto establish stakes of Zion in these other places I have named? The\nwhole land of America, the two great continents, is Zion, the land of\nJoseph; and I believe that the elements are forming, that God is so\ntempering the minds of men, so making them receptive of the truth,\nthat by a strong, intelligent proclamation of the gospel, that God has\nentrusted to His Church, it may become possible for stakes of Zion to\nbe established all over this land. I feel the truth of that. I believe\nthe time has come, not only for an industrial expansion in America, a\nmighty increase in material prosperity, but a corresponding increase in\nspiritual life. In other words an era has dawned upon us favorable to\nthe establishment of Zion. Let us not, I pray you, confine our feelings\nand views respecting Zion to limits that are too narrow for the genius\nOf this great work of God. If anyone has supposed that the prosperity\nand success of this work called Mormonism depends upon the Latter-day\nSaints retaining political control of Salt Lake or any other city; of\nthis state of Utah or any other state, or group of states, his views\ndo not rise to meet the grandeur of God's great Latter-day work. Our\nwork is to preach the gospel; and to so preach it that its principles\nwill leaven the whole mass of modern religious and philosophical\nthought; to so preach it that it shall influence the lives of men in\nall the world. No petty, political scheme can be said to be any part\nof the great Later-day work which God has established in the earth.\nThat work is broad as eternity; it is deep as the love of God, and\nconcerns the salvation of all the children of men. Our religion is in\nthe earth to benefit and bless and uplift mankind. Our Church is not\nthe Church of Jesus Christ for the United States, or for American. It\nis truly the catholic (i. e., the universal) Church, the Church of the\nwhole world; but, as I have already urged throughout this discourse,\nthe Latter-day Saints hold a peculiar relationship to America, being\nmainly of the seed of Joseph, through the loins of Ephraim, and having\na special mission as to this land, and to the other tribes of Israel.\nAnd now if the Saints would only lift their eyes from the ground, and\nlook northward and southward and eastward and westward and realize\nthat these two continents of America, by the promise of God, are the\ninheritance of Joseph, the sons of Joseph, the children of Ephraim,\nthey would be, so imbued with the spirit of their great ancestor that\nthey would take possession of their inheritance in the name of God, by\nthe proclamation of their principles. They would make a conquest of the\nland of Zion. Amen.\n\n\n\nPart III.\n\nHistorical and Doctrinal Papers.\n\n\n\nI.\n\nThe Lord's Day.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nIt may be thought by some that the following papers scarcely come\nproperly under the title \"The Defense of the Faith and the Saints,\"\nand yet in a way they do. The article on \"The Lord's Day\" is a\njustification or defense of the practice of worshiping on the first day\nof the week instead of the seventh. The article on \"Anglican Orders\" is\na setting forth and a justification of the attitude of the Church of\nLatter-day Saints in respect of divine authority. While the historical\narticle, \"Reformation or Revolution\" is a defense of the position of\nthe Church respecting the character of the great sixteenth century\nmovement to the effect that it was a revolution, not a reformation,\nat least not in the sense that it restored primitive Christianity,\nand therefore there was a necessity for the subsequent movement known\nas Mormonism, involving, as it does, the restoration of the Gospel of\nJesus Christ to the world. The article, \"Revelation and Inspiration,\"\nis a defense of the Church against some imputations put upon her\nbecause of the testimony of some of the high Church officials before\nthe United States Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, in\nthe case of Reed Smoot. Thus, I think, all these articles, while not\nso directly connected with the \"Defense of the Faith and the Saints\"\nas the articles that have preceded them, they will, nevertheless,\nsufficiently come within what the title of this book suggests as to\nwarrant their being published here.\n\nI. The Lord's Day.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: An article in the _Improvement Era,_ Vol. I, No. I, 1897.]\n\n_A justification for the regarding the first day of the week as the\nChristian Sabbath, or \"The Lord's Day.\"_\n\nFrom Elder George W. Crockwell, laboring in Sioux City, Iowa, we\nrecently received a letter in which occurs the following:\n\n    \"There are a great many Seventh-day Adventists in this city, and\n    in talking on the gospel with them I have been unable to confute\n    their arguments, to my satisfaction, against our worshiping on the\n    first day of the week. In reading the scriptures I find only the\n    following passages that in any way refer to the matter, but they\n    are not conclusive: John 20:19-26; Acts 2:1; Acts 20:6, 7; I Cor.\n    16:1, 2; Rev. 1:10; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 6:5; II Cor. 5:17; Eph.\n    2:15. Any information you may give me will be thankfully received;\n    and allow me to suggest that a tract covering this question would\n    undoubtedly be of material assistance to Elders laboring in\n    sections of the country containing Adventists.\"\n\nSeventh-day Adventists constitute a religious sect whose chief\ncharacteristics are that they believe in the personal and glorious\ncoming of the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the holy day of worship\nappointed of God is the seventh day of the week instead of the first.\nHence their name--Seventh-day Adventists.\n\nOwing to the fact that modern Christians deny the continuation of\nrevelation after the days of the apostles, and as they cannot point to\nany direct revelation, or positive apostolic institution in the New\nTestament by which the first day of the week was substituted for the\nold Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day, which Jesus during his lifetime\nhonored by observing, the Adventists have other Christians at somewhat\nof a disadvantage in this controversy. The Elders of the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, need not be embarrassed\nby the arguments of Adventists, since the Church of Christ in this\nlast dispensation has the warrant of God's word, by direct revelation,\nfor keeping holy the Lord's day, that is, the first day of the week,\nas a day Of public worship and thanksgiving, a holy Sabbath unto the\nLord. It is not our intention, however, to avoid a discussion of the\nquestion by thus placing it on entirely new ground, and making the\nsuccess of the issue depend upon one's ability to make it clear that\nGod has given such a revelation, although that is a position that can\nbe consistently taken by our Elders. But we desire to point out the\nevidence we have (1) from the New Testament, and (2) from the practice\nof the early Christian church, for observing the first day of the week\nas a day of public worship, sanctified and set apart as the Lord's\nday. By doing so we shall be able to show at least that there is a\nvery strong probability that the change from the seventh to the first\nday of the week was made by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, after his\nresurrection; that it was perpetuated by his apostles and the early\nChristian church; and then, in conclusion, shall cite the revelation\nreferred to which, to the Latter-day Saints, changes this \"probability\"\ninto fact and confirms with divine sanction our custom of worshiping on\nthe first day of the week. By pursuing this course we shall draw the\nstrong probability to be derived from the scriptures and the practice\nof the early church to the support of the revelation referred to, while\nthe revelation, as already indicated, will transform the \"probability\"\nof the New Testament scriptures into positive fact.\n\nWe begin with the arguments to be derived from the New Testament:\n\nIt is related in John's gospel that on \"the first day of the week,\"\nMary Magdalene, early in the morning, met the Lord Jesus, after his\nresurrection, and conversed with him. This she told the disciples.\n\"Then the same evening, _being the first day of the week,_ when the\ndoors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the\nJews, came Jesus, and stood in their midst and saith unto them, Peace\nbe unto you. * * * As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And\nwhen he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive\nye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted\nunto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained\" (John\nxx:19-23).\n\nThomas, of the Twelve, was not present at this meeting nor would he\nbelieve the account delivered to him of it by his fellow apostles, but\ndeclared he must see the print of the nails in the Master's hands, and\nthrust his hands into his sides before he could believe. _\"And after\neight days,\"_ which of course brings us to the first day of the week,\n\"again his disciples were within and Thomas with them; then came Jesus,\nthe door being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto\nyou\" (John 20:26). He then dispelled the doubts of Thomas, and did many\nother things which are not written.\n\nLet this much be held in mind from the above: Jesus arose from the dead\non the first day of the week and appeared to his disciples when they\nwere assembled together. Then, \"after eight days,\" which brings us\nagain to the first day of the week, his disciples were again assembled,\nand he appeared unto them. We have no account of his appearing to any\none in the interval, a significant fact; and one which makes it easy\nto believe that the second meeting on the first day of the week was\nappointed by the Lord himself, and since all that he did on this and\nother occasions was not written (John xx:30 and Ch. xxi:25), it is not\nimpossible, nor even improbable, that he then sanctified this day, and\nappointed it as a holy day, to be observed as sacred by his followers.\nThis view is sustained by the continued practice of the apostles in\nmeeting on the first day of the week.\n\nIt is a significant fact that the day of Pentecost, upon which day\nthe apostles received their spiritual endowment by the outpouring of\nthe Holy Ghost, \"that year fell on the first day of the week.\" [A]\n\"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they _were all with one\naccord in one place\"_ (Acts ii:1). They received the outpouring of the\nHoly Ghost, and publicly preached the gospel and administered baptism.\nThis assembling together on the first day of the week was doubtless in\ncontinuation of that new order of things with respect to the Sabbath\nwhich Jesus had ordained.\n\n[Footnote A: See Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett & Abbot's\nedition, Vol. II: Art. Lord's Day, p. 1677. Also Bramhall's works, Vol.\nV: p. 51, Oxford Ed., Discourse on the Sabbath and Lord's Day.]\n\nMany years after Pentecost, in giving the account of Paul's journey\nfrom Philippi to Troas, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles says\nthat the journey was accomplished in five days; and at Troas the\napostolic party abode seven days; _\"and upon the first day of the\nweek,_ when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached\nunto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech\nuntil midnight\" (Acts xx:4-7).\n\nAgain: Paul sends the following instructions to the Saints at\nCorinth--and it is to be seen from the passage itself that he had given\nthe same instructions to the churches of Galatia: \"Now, concerning the\ncollection for the Saints, as I have given order to the churches of\nGalatia, even so do ye. _Upon the first day of the week_ let every one\nof you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no\ngatherings [i. e., collections] when I come\" (1 Cor. xvi:1,2).\n\nThese passages prove very clearly that the custom of meeting together\nfor acts of public worship and the preaching of the gospel was firmly\nestablished in apostolic times, and since that is the case it doubtless\nwas ordered by Messiah's own appointment. Surely the apostles would not\npresume to establish such an order of things without divine sanction.\nWithin the life time of the last of the apostles, too, this Christian\nSabbath had received its name--\"the Lord's Day.\" John's statement--\"I\nwas in the spirit on _the Lord's Day,_ and heard behind me a great\nvoice,\" etc., can have reference to no other thing than the fact that\non the first day of the week which had come to be known by them as\n\"the Lord's Day,\" John was in the spirit. \"The general consent, both\nof Christian antiquity and modern divines, has referred it to be the\nweekly festival of our Lord's resurrection, and identified it with 'the\nfirst day of the week,' on which he rose; with the patristical 'eighth\nday,' or day which is both the first and the eighth; in fact with the\n_'Solis Dies'_ or 'Sunday,' of every age of the church.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II; p. 1676.]\n\nFollowing is the argument of a very respectable authority upon these\nNew Testament passages, and it seems to us decidedly strong:\n\n    \"As the death of Christ made atonement for sin and symbolized the\n    death of his church to the world, so did his resurrection mark the\n    beginning of a new spiritual life, or, in the words of Paul, 'a new\n    creation in Christ Jesus.' This new creation was the higher renewal\n    of that first one which sin had marred; and therefore we find the\n    disciples, from that very day, celebrating _the first day of the\n    week_ as the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day, on which he met for\n    worship and fellowship. These assemblies began on that very evening\n    when the risen Lord entered the chamber where the eleven apostles\n    had met with doors shut for fear of the Jews, saluted them with the\n    blessing of peace, showed them his wounded body, and ate bread with\n    them; and then breathing his spirit upon them he repeated their\n    commission, to preach the gospel to every creature, and to baptize\n    all believers, conferred on them the power to work miracles, and\n    gave them the authority of remitting and retaining sins. Such was\n    the first meeting of the apostolic church on the first Lord's day.\n    And after eight days again his disciples were within, the doors\n    being shut as before, when Jesus stood again in their midst, with\n    the salutation of 'peace,' and satisfied the doubts of Thomas, with\n    the tangible proof of his resurrection.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Student's Eccl. Hist. (Philip Smith, B.A.) Vol. I: pp. 21,\n22.]\n\nThe same authority continues the argument in a foot note thus:\n\n    \"The meetings of the disciples on each eighth day have the more\n    force as an argument from the very fact of their being only\n    incidentally recorded. The correspondence of the _interval_ with\n    the week, and the distinction of the _day_ from the old Sabbath,\n    are facts which admit of no other explanation; and all doubt is\n    removed by Paul's plain allusion to the meetings of the disciples\n    on the first day of the week, and by the testimony of the heathen\n    as well as Christian writers to the practice from the earliest age\n    of the church. John in mentioning the day as a season of spiritual\n    ecstasy, in which Christ appeared to him and showed him the worship\n    of the heavenly temple, expressly calls it by the name which it has\n    always borne in the church, 'the Lord's Day.'\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: The Student's Eccl. Hist. Vol. 1: P. 22, Note.]\n\nThese arguments may be further strengthened by the following\nconsiderations: When the Jews were stickling for a very strict\nobservance of the old Sabbath, Jesus, with some spirit, replied that\n\"the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.\" And\nfurthermore gave them to understand that \"the Son of Man is Lord also\nof the Sabbath,\" (Mark ii:27, 28). It follows then that since Jesus is\nLord of the Sabbath, it would clearly be within the province of his\nauthority to change the old Mosaic institution of the Sabbath if he so\nelected. Paul in his day said: \"If any man be in Christ he is a new\ncreature; old things are passed away; behold all things have become\nnew\" (II Cor. v:17). Again in his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle\nrepresents Christ as \"having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even\nthe law of commandments contained in ordinances.\" And again in his\nletter to the Colossians:\n\n    \"And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your\n    flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all\n    trespasses; blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that war\n    against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,\n    nailing it to the cross. * * * Let no man therefore judge you in\n    meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon,\n    or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come\" (Col.\n    ii: 13-17).\n\nFrom this it is clear that many things in the law of Moses being\nfulfilled in Christ were done away, or changed to conform to the law of\nthe gospel; and to say the very least of the argument set forth up to\nthis point, it is very probable that the Sabbath was among those things\nso changed.\n\nTurn we now to the argument to be derived from the custom of the\nprimitive church:\n\nNext to the New Testament writers Clement of Rome, a companion of the\napostles, is most relied upon as stating correctly early Christian\npractices, and in his epistle to the Corinthians, speaking of things\ncommanded of Christ, he says:\n\n    \"Now the offerings and ministrations he commanded to be performed\n    with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at\n    fixed times and seasons. And when and by whom he would have them\n    performed he himself fixed by his supreme will: that all things\n    being done with piety according to his pleasure might be acceptable\n    to his will. They therefore that make their offerings at the\n    appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed; for while they follow\n    the instructions of the Master they cannot go wrong.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Clement's Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 40. We use\nRev. Geo. A. Jackson's translation of the passage.]\n\nFrom this it, appears that Jesus himself did fix set \"times and\nseasons\" for \"offerings and ministrations,\" as well also by \"whom\"\nas \"when\" they should be performed, and that, too, according to \"his\nsupreme will.\" This represents the Lord as having arranged matters\nin the church--including \"times and seasons\" for \"offerings and\nadministrations\"--more definitely than any of the New Testament writers\ncredit him with doing. Is it unreasonable to think that among these was\nthe transition from the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord's Day?\n\nIn the Epistle of Barnabas, written in the early part of the second\ncentury, it is said by that writer, speaking of the Christian custom\nas pertaining to the Sabbath: \"We keep the eighth day unto gladness,\nin the which Jesus also rose from the dead, and after that he had been\nmanifested, ascended into heaven.\" (Epist. Barnabas, Ch. 15.)\n\nThe younger Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, in describing the\ncustom of the Christians to his friend, Trajan, the Roman emperor, says:\n\n    \"They were accustomed on _a stated day_ to meet before daylight,\n    and repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a God, and to\n    bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of not committing any\n    wickedness; * * * after which it was their custom to separate and\n    to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless, meal [the Sacrament?]\n    from which last practice they desisted, after the publication of my\n    edict.\"[B]\n\n[Footnote B: Pliny's letter to Trajan and the emperor's reply will be\nfound in full in Roberts' \"New Witness for God,\" Vol. I, pp. 54-57.]\n\nIt is only claimed for this passage that it proves that the Christians\nhad a _stated day_ on which they met for the worship of God, and the\nrenewal of religious covenants; and doubtless that stated day was the\neighth day of the week mentioned by Barnabas, and which corresponds\nwith the \"first day\" of the week mentioned by the New Testament writers.\n\nJustin Martyr, one of the most learned and highly esteemed of the\napostolic fathers, is very clear upon this subject. He says, writing in\nthe first half of the second century, almost within shouting distance\nof the inspired apostles:\n\n    \"In all our obligations we bless the Maker of all things, through\n    his son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost, and on the day\n    which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of\n    all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of\n    the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as\n    we have time. Then the reader concludes, and the president verbally\n    instructs and exhorts us to the imitation of those excellent\n    things. Then we all arise together and offer up our prayers. And,\n    as I said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is\n    brought and wine and water, and the president in like manner offers\n    up prayers and thanksgiving with all his strength, and the people\n    give their assent by saying, amen. * * * But Sunday is the day on\n    which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day\n    on which God when he changed the darkness and matter, made the\n    world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the\n    dead: for the day before that of Saturn he was crucified, and on\n    the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and\n    disciples and taught them these things which we have given to you\n    also for your consideration\" (I Apology, Ch. 67).\n\nWe have not the space to further examine the testimony of the fathers,\nnor is it necessary. Sufficient has been quoted to show that in that\nage immediately succeeding the apostles, the practice, which seems to\nhave begun even under the immediate supervision of the Lord himself,\nwas firmly established in the early church. The learned writer in\nSmith's Dictionary of the Bible, Rev. James Augustus Hessev, who there\ntreats this subject, says:\n\n    The result of our examination of the principal writers of the\n    two centuries after the death of St. John are as follows: The\n    Lord's day (a name which has now come out more prominently; and\n    is connected more explicitly with our Lord's resurrection than\n    before) existed during these two centuries as part and parcel of\n    apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. * * * Our design\n    does not necessarily lead us to do more than to state facts; but\n    if the facts be allowed to speak for themselves, they indicate\n    that the Lord's day is a purely Christian institution, sanctioned\n    by. apostolic practice, mentioned in apostolic writings, and so\n    possessed of whatever divine authority all apostolic ordinances and\n    doctrines (which are not obviously temporary, or were not abrogated\n    by the apostles themselves) can be supposed to possess\" (Vol. II,\n    page 1679).\n\nYet after all this is admitted, and the strength of the argument is\nvery great in my judgment, it must still be confessed that it falls\nsomewhat short of being absolutely conclusive. It cannot be made out\nclearly and positively that Jesus or the apostles by direct, official\naction authorized the observance of the first day of the week as a day\nof public worship, dedicated to the service of God, and designed to\ntake the place of the Jewish Sabbath. The most that can be claimed for\nthe evidence here adduced--and it is the strongest if not all that can\nbe marshalled in support of the proposition is that it is _probable_\nthat such a change was instituted. Revelation Baden Powel, professor of\ngeometry at Oxford University, states the case as it stands most truly.\nHe says:\n\n    \"To those Christians who look to the written word as the sole\n    authority for anything claiming apostolic or divine sanction, it\n    becomes peculiarly important to observe that the New Testament\n    evidence of the observance of the Lord's day amounts merely to the\n    recorded fact that the disciples did assemble on the first day of\n    the week, and the _probable_ application of the designation of the\n    Lord's day to that day.\"[A]\n\n[Footnote A: Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. Art. Lord's\nDay.]\n\nThat Catholics regard what is written in the New Testament as\ninsufficient to justify them in the observance of the first day of\nthe week instead of the seventh is evident from the fact that they\nappeal to the tradition of the church or \"the unwritten word of God\"\nin justification of their practice, and upbraid Protestants for their\nrejection of the authority of tradition, which alone, in their view,\njustifies the change from the seventh to the first. The author of\nthe Catholic work, \"End of Religious Controversy,\" after citing the\nscripture commanding the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath,\nthen says:\n\n    \"Yet with all this weight of scripture authority for keeping the\n    Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make\n    this a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first\n    day of the week, or Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing\n    this? None whatever, except the unwritten word, or tradition of the\n    Catholic church; which declares that the Apostles made the change\n    in honor of Christ's resurrection and the descent of the Holy Ghost\n    on that day of the week\" (End of Religious Controversy, letter 11).\n\nIt is this element of uncertainty in the evidence, and the consequent\ninconclusiveness in the argument that those who contend for the seventh\nday as the Sabbath of the Lord take advantage of; but, as stated in the\nbeginning, the Latter-day Saints need not share the embarrassment that\nother Christians generally feel over the question, for the Lord has set\nthe matter at rest by a revelation in the last days to his church. In a\nrevelation to his servant Joseph Smith, given in August, 1831, he said:\n\n    \"Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in\n    righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.\n    And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the\n    world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy\n    sacraments upon my holy day; _for verily this is a day appointed\n    unto you_ to rest from your labors and to pay thy devotions unto\n    the Most High. Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in\n    righteousness on all days and at all times; but remember that\n    _on this the Lord's day thou shalt offer thine oblations and\n    thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy\n    brethren and unto the Lord._ And on this day thou shalt do none\n    other thing only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart\n    that thy fasting may be perfect, or in other words that thy joy may\n    be full\" (Doc. & Cov. xlix:8-13).\n\nThis is in clear allusion to the first day of the week; and thus the\nmatter is set at rest. The observance of the \"Lord's day\" as the\nday sacred to the worship of Almighty God, so far as the Latter-day\nSaints are concerned, does not rest upon the \"probability\" that it was\nof divine or apostolic institution, as is the case with Protestant\nChristendom; nor does it rest upon the \"tradition\" of the church that\nit was of apostolic institution, as is the case with the Catholic\nchurch; but the observance of that day comes to the Church of Christ by\ndirect appointment of the Lord by revelation to the head of the church\nin this dispensation; and that revelation transforms the \"probability,\"\nthat the first day of the week was substituted for the old Jewish\nSabbath, into a certainty.\n\nIn conclusion, let us ask our young Latter-day Saints to observe with\nwhat solemnity God hath dedicated this day, and set it apart for\nthe worship of the Lord; and how strictly he hath prohibited other\noccupation than this on that day; and so much as our \"certainty\"\noutstrips the \"probability\" of other Christians that the \"Lord's day\"\nis the proper day for public worship, so let our strict observance of\nit outstrip theirs.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: At the Seventy-seventh Annual Conference of the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in the Tabernacle, Salt\nLake City, Utah, April 5, 6, 7, 1907, Anthon H. Lund of the First\nPresidency of the Church, speaking on this subject of the Sabbath Day\nand justifying the practice of the Church in observing the first day of\nthe week as our Christian Sabbath, employed among other arguments the\nfollowing:\n\n    \"It is impossible for all to keep the Sabbath day at the very same\n    time all over the globe. If all the people lived on one longitude\n    or meridian they could keep it at the same time, but as they\n    are now scattered around the globe, there is a great difference\n    in time. For instance, children went to Sunday School in New\n    Zealand yesterday at half past two o'clock. It was Saturday to us;\n    [President Lund made these remarks on Sunday forenoon.] it was\n    ten o'clock Sunday morning to them. The children on the Hawaiian\n    Islands will go to Sunday School about one o'clock today, and it\n    will be ten o'clock then for them. Thus, at a given time it may be\n    Sunday for one set of people and Saturday for people in another\n    place. The teachers in the Hawaiian Sunday School might say today\n    to the children, 'Your brethren in New Zealand met yesterday,\n    when it was twelve o'clock here, in their Sunday School,' and\n    the children would likely say, 'Why, they have Sunday School on\n    a Saturday!' The line which divides the time, or which indicates\n    where day begins, is an arbitrary one made by men for the sake of\n    convenience. It is located the very best place that it could be,\n    because there are very few inhabitants that the line will strike.\n    It passes over the Pacific Ocean, and in order that no island\n    shall have Saturday on one side and Sunday on the other, they have\n    turned the line around the groups in the Pacific Ocean, so that\n    those pertaining to the same country, under the same government,\n    may have the same day; but this is all an arbitrary arrangement.\n    If, then, the Lord accepted the devotions of those who worshiped\n    Him yesterday, calling the day Sunday, and accepts the worship of\n    those living a short distance eastward who call today Sunday, the\n    important question seems to be, not so much the exact time as the\n    fact that one day in every seven is set apart to be a day of rest.\"]\n\n\n\nII.\n\nAnglican Orders.--Decision of Leo XIII Considered.--The Protestant\nDilemma.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: This article was offered to the press of Cincinnati,\nOhio, soon after Leo XIII promulgated his decision on the subject of\nAnglican orders, when the discussion of the subject was at its height,\nand declined by them, for reasons obvious to the Latter-day Saints. It\nsubsequently appeared in the _Deseret News_ of November 7th, 1896.]\n\n_A Consideration of the Question of Divine Authority._\n\n_Preliminary Statement._\n\nIn the month of June, 1896, something of a sensation was created in\nEngland in respect of an expressed desire for a closer union between\nthe Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The desire was\nvoiced in the form of a statement by Mr. William Ewart Gladstone,\ncommunicated through the Archbishop of York. The question of unity\namong the Christian churches had been agitated in several quarters in\nthat year, and the Pope had addressed a letter to the English people in\nfact appealing to them to return to the Church of Rome, and it is said\na movement \"having for its purpose the same general result, had been\ngoing on for some time among clergymen and laymen who belonged to one\nsection of the Anglican church.\" Lord Halifax, who was the chairman of\na great Anglican organization, under the title of the English Church\nUnion, had been prominent in this movement, and had several interviews\nwith the Pope and his counselors, seeking \"to ascertain how far Rome\non the one hand and the English church on the other were willing to\nadvance toward a basis of union. One of the questions which came up\nfor discussion was that of the validity of Anglican orders; that\nis, whether Rome would or could recognize the right of an Anglican\nclergyman to seek, as such, admission to the clerical order in the\nRoman church, if any change of opinion should lead him that way.\" And\nthus the question of the validity of Anglican orders became a subject\nof formal investigation by the authorities at the Vatican.\n\nMr. Gladstone's position upon the subject is best stated by himself:\n\n    \"The one controversy which, according to my deep conviction,\n    overshadows and, in the last resort, absorbs all others, is the\n    controversy between Faith and Unbelief. . . . . . This historical\n    transmission of the truth by a visible church with an ordained\n    constitution is a matter of profound importance, according to the\n    belief and practice of fully three-fourths of Christendom. In\n    these three-fourths I include the Anglican churches, which are\n    probably required in order to make them up. It is surely better\n    for the Roman and also the Oriental [Greek] church to find the\n    churches of the Anglican succession standing side by side with\n    them in the assertion of what they deem an important Christian\n    principle than to be obliged to regard them as mere pretenders in\n    this belief and _pro tanto_ reduce the cloud of witnesses willing\n    and desirous to testify on behalf of the principle. . . . I may\n    add that my political life has brought me much into contact with\n    those independent religious communities which supply an important\n    religious factor in the religious life of Great Britain, and which,\n    speaking generally, while they decline to own the authority, either\n    of the Roman or the National Church, yet still allow to what they\n    know as the established religion no inconsiderable hold upon their\n    sympathies. In conclusion, it is not for me to say what will be the\n    upshot of the proceedings now in progress at Rome. But be their\n    issue what it may, there is, in my view, no room for doubt as to\n    the attitude which has been taken by the actual head of the Roman\n    Catholic church in regard to them. It seems to me an attitude in\n    the largest sense paternal, and while it will probably stand among\n    the latest recollections of my lifetime, it will ever be cherished\n    with cordial sentiments of reverence, of gratitude, and of high\n    appreciation.\" (Story of Gladstone's Life, (McCarthy) pp. 414-416.)\n\nThis attitude of the great English Statesman brought upon his head a\nstorm of indignation, not to say anathema from nonconforming churches,\nand in reply to one of those ministers, he said:\n\n    \"The Church of Rome recognizes as valid (when regularly\n    performed) baptism conferred in your communion and ours. By this\n    acknowledgment I think that Christianity is strengthened in face\n    of non-Christians. For baptism read orders (for the purpose of the\n    argument), and the same proposition applies, though unhappily in\n    this case only to us, not to you. No harm that I can see is done\n    to any one else. The settlement of this matter is a thing of the\n    likelihood of which I cannot even form an opinion. But I honor the\n    Pope in the matter, as it is my duty to honor every man who acts as\n    best he can with the spirit of courage, truth and love.\" (The Life\n    of Gladstone, page 419).\n\nThe first response from Rome to Mr. Gladstone's letter contained\nnothing decisive and final upon the subject of the Anglican orders,\nthough his holiness made it clear that on the part of Rome there could\nbe no compromise of religion or principles, and later in the year he\nissued the decision which is the subject of the following paper, in\nwhich his holiness held that Anglican orders were \"absolutely invalid.\"\nThe consequences of which decision are discussed in the paper following.\n\n_Pope Leo's Decision on Anglican Orders._\n\nThe decision of Pope Leo XIII in respect to the invalidity of\nAnglican Orders, appears to be creating not only a very great amount\nof discussion through the columns of the religious press but also\nconsiderable ill-feeling. The \"Religious Telescope\" for example,\npublished at Dayton, Ohio, in its issue of the 14th of October, 1896,\nunder the caption \"Absolutely Invalid,\" says:\n\n    \"This is the decision of Pope Leo XIII respecting all ordinations\n    under the Anglican rule. After a long study of the subject he\n    has confirmed the decision of his predecessors in regard to this\n    matter. His decision sets aside all ordinations outside of the\n    Roman Catholic Church as absolutely invalid.\n\n    \"So there we have it: all ministers of the Lutheran, the Episcopal,\n    the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, in short, all\n    Protestant churches--are posing under false ordination vows!\n    So his holiness declares! And is he not infallible? Is it not\n    impossible for him to make a mistake? Is he not the successor of\n    St. Peter--Christ's vicegerent on earth? Does he not hold the keys\n    of the kingdom of heaven? Does not that aged, decrepit old man, Leo\n    XIII, now in his dotage, have the power to bind and to loose--to\n    admit into or shut out from heaven whomsoever he will? Does any\n    Protestant minister or layman doubt this? Perish the thought! How\n    will this august decision handed down from the Vatican affect the\n    ministry of the Protestant churches? In our judgment only about as\n    sensibly as a puff of the Pope's breath would have affected the St.\n    Louis cyclone when in the height of its fury.\n\n    \"They will go right on preaching the unsearchable riches of\n    the gospel of Christ in demonstration of the spirit and power\n    of the Lord Jesus, as heretofore, leaving the pope and his\n    liberty-destroying church polity and superstitions to work out\n    their own destruction by demonstrating their disastrous effects on\n    human progress as they have done and are still doing in Mexico,\n    Spain, Central and South America, and in every Roman Catholic\n    dominated country in the world.\"\n\nThis is scarcely the spirit in which one would expect to see a subject\nof so grave importance treated. Sarcasm and ridicule doubtless\nhave their place even in polemics, but it is only as they may be\nincidentally used that they can be of force. One could no more think\nof succeeding in an argument on a serious question by using them\nexclusively, than he would think of making a hearty meal on condiments\nalone.\n\nThat the subject of the Apostolic letter of Leo XIII is a serious one,\nno one will deny. That it calls for earnest thought and not sarcasm\nand ridicule, admits of no doubt. It involves the question of divine\nauthority in the Protestant ministry and churches; and, for that\nmatter, the divine authority of the church of Rome itself. For, if the\nalleged successor of St. Peter, by a method of reasoning satisfactory\nto himself and his council, arrives at what the Protestants of this\ngeneration will regard as a startling conclusion, viz., that their\nministry and churches are without divine authority, the Protestants\nwill reply in kind. They will revive the charges brought against the\nchurch of Rome during the revolt from the pope's authority in that\nwonderful sixteenth century revolution miscalled the \"Reformation.\"\nThey will proclaim him the Anti-Christ of New Testament scripture;\ncharge upon the church of Rome complete apostasy from primitive\nChristianity; and accuse all those continuing in communion with her\nas being idolaters and pagans. Such a rejoinder on the part of the\nProtestants is inevitable, since it is only on the ground that the\nchurch of Rome was become a corrupt church, in complete apostasy and\ndispossessed of divine authority, that the so-called \"Reformation\" of\nthe sixteenth century, or the existence of Protestant churches today\ncan be justified.\n\nWhy is the unity of the Christian churches broken? Why does there exist\na Roman Catholic church and numerous Protestant churches? Because the\nProtestants of the sixteenth century believed that the church of Rome\nwas in a state of apostasy from true Christianity, and hence they came\nout from her dominion; revolted against and rejected her authority,\nwhile the church of Rome, on her part, regarded the Protestants of the\nsame century as heretics, as renegade children, apostates. That there\nhas been no change in the attitude of the respective parties to this\ngreat controversy since one first denounced the other as \"an heretic,\"\nand the other replied with the charge of \"anti-Christ,\" is emphasized\nby this latest utterance of the bishop of Rome, in which he declares\nthat \"ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been\nand are absolutely null and utterly void.\"\n\nThis question of possessing divine authority goes right down to the\nfoundations of Christianity. No one will attempt to say that a man\nhas a right to act in the name of Jesus Christ without authority from\nhim to do so. If it required direct authority from God to handle the\nsacred utensils of God's sanctuary in the wilderness, and to care\nfor the Ark of the Covenant, and for touching these things without\nauthority, one was smitten with death (see Numbers chapter iv, and\nSamuel vi: 3); if it required divine authority to burn incense before\nthe altar in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and for usurping the\npriest's office and attempting without divine authority to burn incense\none was cursed of God with leprosy, even though a king (II Chronicles\nxxvi); if it required divine authority to cast out devils, and certain\nones in attempting to cast them out without having authority to so\ncommand them, were leaped upon by the evil spirits and prevailed\nagainst (Acts xix); if, I say, it required divine authority to do these\nseveral things, how reasonable it is to conclude that it will more\nabundantly require divine appointment, or delegated power from God to\nmake proclamation of the gospel and administer its ordinances. As the\nsacraments of the Christian religion are of infinitely more importance\nthan the handling of sacred utensils, touching the Ark of the Covenant,\nburning incense or casting out devils, so, too, it is to be expected\nthat God will be all the more careful to entrust their administration\nonly to those having a divine commission.\n\nTo say, as the bishop of Rome does say, that the \"ordinations carried\nout according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null\nand utterly void,\" is, of course, to deny to the English clergy divine\nauthority. To deny them divine authority by saying that their orders\nare and have been null and void, is to say that their administration\nof the Christian sacraments through all the years that have elapsed\nsince the church in England revolted against the authority of the pope,\nhave been useless. And if Rome denies the validity of the church of\nEngland orders, it may be taken for granted that she will deny the\nvalidity of the orders of all other churches separated from her; for\nof all the churches separated from the Roman See the church of England\nhas most nearly conformed to, or what would be more accurate to say,\ndeparted the least from the ritual of the old church. In plain terms\nthe church of Rome holds all churches that have separated from her,\nand all churches that have sprung into existence from the churches\nso separated, as being without authority from God, and regards their\nministry as a disorderly crowd.\n\nI know there are a class of Protestant churchmen, who seek to satisfy\nthemselves on this question of divine authority by claiming that it\nhas come down to them on lines independent of the church of Rome. But,\nunfortunately for this contention the church of England herself and\nthe other Protestants cut off not only the source of divine authority\nthat might be claimed as coming from the church of Rome, but also every\nother source from which that authority could spring. In her great\nhomily on the \"Perils of Idolatry\" the church of England says: \"Laity\nand clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have\nbeen drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable\nto man, for eight hundred years and more\" (Perils of Idolatry, page\n3). By making this charge against all Christendom one is unable to\nsee how the Church of England can make any claim whatsoever of divine\nauthority; for, if all Christendom was plunged into this awful abyss of\napostasy for eight hundred years and more, no divine authority survived\nthat period.\n\nNor is the Church of England the only Protestant authority which makes\nthis charge of universal apostasy from primitive Christianity. John\nWesley, in making an explanation of the cessation of scriptural gifts\namong Christians, says:\n\n    \"It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy\n    Spirit [speaking of I Corinthians xii] were common in the church\n    for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after\n    that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a\n    Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian\n    cause thereby heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in\n    general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this\n    time they (the spiritual gifts) almost totally ceased; very few\n    instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has\n    been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because\n    all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake,\n    not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christians. The real\n    cause of it was that the love of many, almost all, Christians\n    so-called was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the spirit\n    of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of man when he came\n    to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon earth. This\n    was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost\n    were no longer to be found in the Christian church--_because the\n    Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form\n    left\"_ (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii, sermon 89, pp. 26, 27).\n\nIf the Christians were turned heathen again, and only had a dead,\nform of religion left, like the other heathens, it will be extremely\ndifficult for the followers of Mr. Wesley, and those who have received\nwhatsoever of authority they possess from him, to point out just where\ntheir divine authority came from since their great leader proclaims\nthis entire corruption of the Christian church. If on the one hand the\nCatholic church denies to Protestant Christendom the possession of\ndivine authority, and if, on the other hand, Protestants declare the\nuniversal corruption and apostasy of mediaeval Christianity in order\nto justify the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and\ntheir own existence as so-called reformed churches, then there is no\npossible channel through which they can claim that divine authority to\nadminister the ordinances of the gospel has come down to them; unless\nthey shall claim that the heavens have again been opened and a new\ndispensation of the gospel, including as it would, divine authority,\nhas been committed to them. Not one of all the Protestant sects claims\nthat such a new revelation has been given, and as every other source\nfrom which divine authority could come is cut off by them, there is\nleft but one conclusion to come to and that is that they are without\ndivine authority, and hence their administrations of the Christian\nsacraments are vain.\n\nThe position of the Catholic church is more logically consistent than\nthat of Protestants; for she insists that there has been an unbroken\nline of authority and divine mission through the succession of her\nbishops, and more especially through the succession of the bishops\nof Rome from St. Peter to Leo XIII. But the church of Rome is asking\nus to believe too much when she demands that we shall believe that\nGod's authority has come down to modern times through the corrupted\nline of the Catholic priesthood. One has only to become acquainted\nwith the melancholy history of the Roman popes to be convinced of\nthe impossibility of God acknowledging them as the line down which\nhe has transmitted the power to speak and act in his name. One need\nonly contrast the spirit of humility which characterized the Apostles\nand Elders of the Church of Christ with the worldly pride, ambition\nand wickedness of the popes of Rome, to see how far the latter have\ndeparted from the standard of character established by the lives of\nthe former, and one need only contrast the beautiful simplicity of the\nprinciples and ordinances of the early Christian church, as described\nin the New Testament, with the canon-law and the elaborate ceremonial\nof the Catholic church to see how wide a departure has been made from\nthe religion given to the world by the great peasant teacher of Judea.\n\nThe fact is, this controversy precipitated on the religious world by\nthe decision of Pope Leo XIII, in respect to Anglican Orders, brings\nus face to face with the great truth prophesied of in holy scripture,\nto-wit: The universal apostasy from the Christian religion. Men have\ntransgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the covenant\nof the gospel of Christ (Isaiah xiv: 4-6). Of themselves men have\narisen speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them\n(Acts xx: 28-30). The time came when men would no longer endure sound\ndoctrine, but after their own lusts heaped teachers to themselves\nhaving itching ears, and those teachers have turned their ears away\nfrom the truth unto fables (II Timothy iv). False teachers arose among\nthe people who privily brought in damnable heresies, even denying the\nLord that bought them, and many have followed their pernicious ways,\nby reason of whom the way of truth has been evil spoken of (II Peter\nii). The great falling away predicted by the Apostle of the Gentiles\nwhich was to precede the glorious coming of the Son of God in the\nclouds of heaven with power and glory, has come to pass. That man of\nsin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all\nthat is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth\nin the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, (II Thess. ii)\nhas had and is having his rule and reign in the earth, and men have\nbeen made to bow down to him and may continue to be compelled to bow\ndown to him until, as predicted in holy writ, the Lord shall destroy\nhim with the brightness of his coming. The New Testament scriptures\nare replete with predictions of this great apostasy from the Christian\nreligion, and one may see in the facts of ecclesiastical history,\nthat the whole Christian world, \"laity and clergy,\" to use again the\nlanguage of the Church of England, \"learned and unlearned, all ages\nand sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most\ndetested by God and damnable to man.\" The actual changes, also, wrought\nin the Christian religion by the additions to and corruption of its\nordinances make it clear that men have transgressed the laws, changed\nthe ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant of the religion of\nJesus Christ.\n\nUnder these circumstances the only way that divine authority can be\nrestored to the earth is by God re-opening the heavens and giving\na new dispensation of the gospel to the children of men, including\nas it would divine authority to preach its doctrines and administer\nits ordinances. Great and urgent as the necessity for such a new\ndispensation of the gospel is, men need not look to either the\nCatholic church or the Protestant sects for such a proclamation.\nThe former, in addition to claiming that there has been an unbroken\nline of divine authority through its priesthood, rejects the idea of\nrevelation subsequent to the alleged closing of the New Testament canon\nof scripture. The latter, though declaring the apostate condition of\nmediaeval Christendom, not only make no claim that the gospel of Jesus\nChrist, including divine authority, was restored by revelation to the\nleaders of the sixteenth century \"Reformation,\" but also spurn the idea\nthat there has been or can be any revelation subsequent to what they\nterm the closing of the New Testament canon of scripture.\n\nOut of all the religious teachers of modern times there is but one who\nhas had the boldness to claim the restoration of divine authority and a\ndispensation of the gospel by means of a new revelation from God; and\nthat is the first Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day\nSaints, Joseph Smith. He claimed to have received revelation from God;\nthe visitation of angels, who conferred upon him a holy Priesthood, a\ndivine commission, by virtue of which he was appointed to preach the\nGospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on earth. If this\nman's pretensions to such divine appointment are scoffed at, it is no\nmore than was accorded the pretensions of Apostles and Prophets of\nGod in former dispensations. If he is derided for his humble origin,\nand the lowly station from which he was called to the work of God,\nso, too, were the ancient Apostles and Prophets, and even the Son of\nGod himself. If this message has been very generally rejected and he\nhimself was despised of men, persecuted, hated, and at last slain for\nthe word of God and the testimony of Jesus, what is all this but the\nsame treatment that has been accorded to the accredited servants of\nGod in nearly all ages of the world? If his followers have suffered\nridicule, oppression and persecution, what is this but the same fate\nthat has overtaken the Saints of God in nearly all ages of the world?\nAll this will not affect the truth or untruth of his statements any\nmore than like treatment affected the truth or untruth of the claims of\nother inspired servants of God. The truth is that the claims of Joseph\nSmith, in view of the great Christian controversy that has been going\non for centuries, and just now emphasized by the recent decision of\nPope Leo XIII, respecting Anglican Orders, and the discussion it has\nprovoked, are more consistent than the claims of any of the Protestant\nreformers. For the great apostate condition of Christendom in mediaeval\ntimes being a reality, the only way there could be a restoration of\nthat which was lost by that apostasy would be by a new dispensation of\nthe gospel being committed to men by means of a new revelation; and\nherein is the strength of the position of Joseph Smith, and the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, under God's direction he\norganized.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nReformation or Revolution? [A]\n\n[Footnote A: A discourse delivered at Payson, Utah, July 8, 1894]\n\n_A study of the great sixteenth century movement led by Martin Luther\nand others._\n\nThe theme announced deals with a period of-history and with events\ngreat in their importance to modern civilization. The reason why I am\ncalled to discuss this great movement of the sixteenth century, called\nthe \"Reformation,\" grows out of what I have published upon the subject\nin the \"Outlines of Ecclesiastical History.\" That great movement\nwhich many historians call the \"Reformation,\" and which is generally\naccepted, at least by Protestant Christendom, as such, I have called\nin the work named a \"revolution,\" and I am asked to state the reasons\nI have for considering that movement a revolution, rather than a\nreformation. I wish to say, however, that my affirmation that it was a\n\"revolution\" was carefully qualified. This is my statement:\n\n    \"It is absurd to say that the revolution of the sixteenth century\n    was a reformation, if by that it is meant that it re-established\n    the primitive doctrines of Christianity, purified the morals of the\n    people, or gave birth to a better ecclesiastical government, it did\n    no such thing.\"\n\nThat is my statement, but it is sufficiently direct, notwithstanding\nthe qualification, to make it come in direct antagonism with what the\nfriends of, the sixteenth century movement claim for it.\n\nMilner, the great writer of church history, says:\n\n    \"The Reformation is a work which well deserves its name, because it\n    builded up as well as pulled down, and presented the church with a\n    new fabric as well as demolished the old.\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, it did not do what Dr. Milner here claims for\nit. It is quite evident that it did not destroy \"the old fabric,\" by\nwhich he means the Roman Catholic church, for that church is still\nin existence today. It stands foursquare to all the winds that blow\nupon it, and today has a wider influence than it possessed when the\n\"Reformers\" first assailed it; for what it lost in northern Europe it\ncertainly has regained in the New World.\n\nDr. D'Aubigne says:\n\n    \"The Reformation was quite the opposite of a revolt, it was the\n    establishment of the principles of primitive Christianity; it is\n    a regenerative movement with respect to all that was destined to\n    revive a conservative movement as regards all that will exist\n    forever.\"\n\nIt was this claim made for the \"Reformation\" that led me into that\ninvestigation of the subject which resulted in the conclusion that the\n\"Reformation,\" so-called, did not re-establish primitive Christianity.\n\nM. Guizot, in his History of Civilization, says:\n\n    \"The friends and partisans of the Reformation have endeavored to\n    account for it by the desire of effectually reforming the abuses\n    of the church. They have represented it as a redress of religious\n    grievances, as an enterprise conceived and executed with the sole\n    design of re-constituting the church in its primitive purity.\"\n\nM. Guizot does not allow that claim.\n\nIt seems to me a problem easy of solution as to whether this revolution\nof the sixteenth century restored primitive Christianity or not;\nand the method by which that solution can be attained would be by\ncomparing the doctrines of Protestant Christendom with the doctrines\nof primitive Christianity. Protestants, you must understand, claim\nthat in consequence of gross abuses which entered the church in\nthe early centuries of its existence, the spirit of the gospel was\ndeparted from, the church government was corrupted, and by engrafting\nupon Christianity pagan rites, pagan ceremonies and pagan philosophy,\nthe fair face of Christianity was defaced by these innovations. It\nis claimed by Protestants that the movement led by Martin Luther,\nMelancthon and Zwingle, and after them by Calvin, Knox and others, got\nrid of the pagan rites and ceremonies fastened upon Christianity and\nrestored it to its primitive forms and to its primitive simplicity and\npurity. The way to prove whether that be true or false is to compare\nthe teachings of Protestantism with primitive Christianity.\n\nI shall not take occasion to enter into a consideration of primitive\nChristianity in any great detail for, I take it, that this audience is\nwell informed upon that subject, and only a general and brief review of\nthe leading features of primitive Christianity will be necessary for\nthe comparison I propose.\n\nPrimitive Christianity taught first, faith in God, as all wise, all\npowerful, all merciful; who by the power of his intelligence created\nthe earth and the heavens. It taught faith in Jesus Christ, as the\nson of God who became the Savior of mankind; in whom was embodied\nall the attributes of his father, who possessed the same power\nwith his Father, in whom the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily,\nand who was the express image and likeness of his Father--in other\nwords was \"God manifested in the flesh,\" that men might approach him\nand become acquainted with Deity by becoming acquainted with him.\nPrimitive Christianity taught also the existence of the Holy Ghost,\nand that these three constituted one grand presidency or God-head, to\nwhom all shall submit in humble reverence, as the great governing,\ncontrolling power of our world. Primitive Christianity taught that man\nby disobedience to the commandments of God, became fallen, lost; and\nthat to vindicate the transgressed law of almighty God, an infinite\nsacrifice must be made; by which the law of God would be vindicated and\nmercy have claim upon those who live under the transgression of the\nlaw. Primitive Christianity taught that Jesus Christ made this infinite\natonement, and that by him and through him life and immortality was\nbrought to light, and that men were released from the consequences of\nAdam's transgression through the atonement of Jesus Christ; that, \"as\nin Adam, all die, so in Christ should all be made alive,\" the atonement\nbeing as broad as the transgression which brought death into the world.\n\nPrimitive Christianity taught also that in consequence of this\nredemption wrought out by Jesus Christ, he became the \"law-giver\"\nto the children of men; and that in order to have applied to them\nthe atonement of Jesus Christ, so that it results, not only in a\nredemption from the transgression of Adam, but also in a pardon for\ntheir individual sins. It makes perfect and absolute obedience to Jesus\nChrist the condition of this salvation. That this obedience is demanded\nby the gospel is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament.\nWhen Jesus Christ was closing that beautiful discourse to his disciples\non the mount, he said:\n\n    \"Whosoever heareth these saying of mine and doeth them not, is\n    like unto a man that builds his house upon the sands, and when the\n    floods come and the winds beat upon that house, it fails, and great\n    is the fall thereof. But whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,\n    and doeth them, is like unto the man who builds his house upon a\n    rock; then when the rains descend and the winds beat upon that\n    house, it falls not, because it is founded on the rock.\"\n\nPaul, in speaking of this subject, says that \"Jesus being made perfect,\nbecame the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him.\" When\nJesus himself commissioned his Apostles to go and preach the gospel,\nhe commanded them to go into all the world, preach the gospel to\nevery creature, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had\ncommanded them.\n\nFrom all these Scriptures, then, I gather this one great truth, that\n\"The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe\nand obey it.\"\n\nIt is equally clear that the conditions of salvation, as outlined\nin the gospel, are that men must have faith in God, faith in Jesus\nChrist, faith in the Holy Ghost, faith in the gospel. Not because God\nhas arbitrarily fixed faith as one of the conditions of salvation, but\nbecause from the very nature of things, faith is the first principle\nof the gospel, because it is the incentive to all action and the\nfoundation of all righteousness. If men possess no faith in the gospel,\nit follows as the night follows the day, that they will not obey it.\nWhy is it that the atheists or the infidels do not obey the gospel?\nSimply for the reason that they do not believe in God; they do not\nbelieve in Christ; they do not believe the gospel, hence they refuse\nto repent or do any other act that is required in the gospel. It is,\ntherefore, because of the nature of things that faith is one of the\nconditions of salvation. And hence the Apostle said: \"He that cometh to\nGod must believe that he is,\" that is, that he exists.\n\nRepentance also is one of the conditions of salvation. This principle\nof primitive Christianity has been more or less misunderstood by being\ninterpreted to mean \"do penance,\" imitating, to some extent at least,\nthe barbarians who imagined that by inflicting wounds upon themselves,\nby cutting and slashing themselves with knives or by submitting to\nother tortures, they might propitiate the anger of Deity, as if God\ncould have delight in the physical suffering or the mental anguish of\nhis children! The beautiful gospel of Jesus Christ required not this;\nbut it did require heartfelt sorrow for sin accompanied by a fixed\ndetermination and an actual amendment of conduct--turning away from\ntransgression. The spirit of repentance was embodied in this remark:\n\"Let him that stole steal no more.\"\n\nPrimitive Christianity taught also that men, by baptism, could receive\na remission of their sins, their past transgressions could be blotted\nout, the record made clean. It taught baptism for the remission of\nsins, but recognizing that man, by his own strength, is unequal to\nthe task of subduing himself and bringing his will into subjection\nto the righteous will of God, it brought to him the strength of the\nAlmighty in the gift of the Holy Ghost; that man, through the strength\nof God, being added to his own strength, might, \"overcome the flesh,\nthe world and the devil.\" This power he received through the ordinance\nof laying on of hands. The Christian was thus equipped for the battle\nfor righteousness. The warfare was not over with obedience to these\nordinances, it was just begun. By obedience to the ordinances I have\nnamed men did not become full grown men in Christ Jesus. They were\nthen only \"born\" into the church, they were but babes, and now must\ngrow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, learning \"line upon\nline, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little,\" going on\n\"from faith to faith, until the perfect day;\" \"adding to their faith,\nvirtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance\npatience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and\nto brotherly kindness charity.\" And thus by these steps Christianity in\nits primitive forms led men towards God.\n\nIn order to promulgate this gospel, the church was organized. It was\norganized with Apostles, with Prophets, with Seventies and Bishops,\nwith Pastors, Teachers and Deacons. This organization was given to\nedify the Saints, to bring about a unity of faith and a knowledge of\nthe Son of God. It was designed to continue until the Saints were\nperfected in their faith, and had arrived \"unto the measure of the\nstature of the fulness of Christ.\"\n\nI should also say that primitive Christianity brought to those who\nreceived it many precious and outward manifestations of the Holy Ghost.\nWhen occasion required, they were able to speak in tongues, exercise\nthe gift of prophecy, receive revelation, have inspired dreams,\ninterpret tongues, heal the sick. Through it they enjoyed the gift of\nthe discernment of spirits, wisdom, knowledge, faith. These are the\ngifts, these the powers, these the graces which attended upon primitive\nChristianity.\n\nAnd now the question before us is, Did the revolution of the sixteenth\ncentury which brought into existence Protestant Christianity restore\nto the children of men this primitive Christianity, as it is\ndescribed in the New Testament? It would be a task requiring too much\ntime to consider the whole twenty-eight articles of the Augsburgh\nConfession--the formal expression of what Protestant Christianity\nwas in the days of its first founders. Nor indeed is it necessary in\norder to arrive at a just conclusion upon the question proposed. The\nconsideration of a few leading items will be sufficient to establish\nthe fact beyond the power of successful contradiction, that the\nsixteenth century revolution did not restore primitive Christianity.\n\nIn regard to the teachings of Protestant Christendom in respect of God,\nit is sufficient to say it accepts the Nicene creed, instead of the\ndoctrine of the New Testament. It is written in the scripture that man\nwas created in God's likeness; and if man was created in God's likeness\nthen God must be in the form of man. Instead of coming to the world\nwith that primitive Christian truth, emphasized as it was in primitive\nChristianity by the fact that Jesus Christ was pointed to as being the\nexpress image of his Father's person, Protestant Christendom clings\nto the old error of the Catholic church, that God is an incorporeal,\nthat is an immaterial substance; a being without body--i. e., without\nmateriality--without parts, without passions--accepting rather the\ntheory of pagan philosophers than the plain statements of primitive\nChristianity.[A] Instead of teaching that the Father was a personage,\nthe Son another personage, and the Holy Ghost another, each as distinct\nas any three personages on earth, and one only in moral and spiritual\nattributes, in power--constituting one Presidency or Godhead--they came\nwith the doctrine that these three personages are merged into but one\npersonage, and yet they remain three distinct personages!\n\n[Footnote A: See the writer's \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity,\" Chapter iv.]\n\nInstead of teaching that man must be absolutely obedient to the gospel\nin order to obtain salvation, Protestants taught that faith alone\nwithout works, is sufficient for salvation. And this was the chief\ncorner stone of Protestant theology; the point at which the Roman\nCatholic church and the Protestant church was most widely separated.\nThe Catholic church, recognizing the operation of God's grace upon man,\nand also the power of will in man, came to the reasonable conclusion\nthat man had it within their power to be obedient to the commandments\nof God, and that obedience united with the grace of God was the means\nof obtaining salvation; that man worked out his salvation both by\nfaith and works. Protestants, however, regarding only those spiritual\ninfluences which operate upon man, came to the conclusion that the\ngrace of God alone saved man, and that without any act on his part.\n\nThat I may convince you that I am not mistaken in what I say I will\nread to you some of the sayings of Luther upon this subject. \"The\nexcellent, invaluable and sole preparation for grace is the eternal\nelection and predestination of God.\" This doctrine stands in marked\ncontrast with the teaching of primitive Christianity. I hold that the\nNew Testament scriptures teach in great plainness that God would have\nall the children of men to be saved, and is willing that none should be\nlost. But according to the teachings of Martin Luther, and the great\nbody of Protestant Christendom, they would have us believe that there\nis a part of the great family of God predestined to eternal damnation;\nand, do what they will, they cannot be saved. Their die is cast, their\ndoom is sealed. They are reprobate, cast out from the affections and\nlove of God. They stand not within the pale of salvation. But the\ngospel of primitive Christianity was a voice of glad tidings to all\nmen, saying that they could be saved through faith and obedience. I\nread again from the words of Luther: \"On the side of man there is\nnothing that goes before grace, unless it be impotency, and even\nrebellion. We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous; but\nhaving become righteous, we do what is righteous.\" \"Since the fall of\nman free will is but an idle word, and every man does walk, and still\nsins mortally.\" \"A man who imagines to arrive at grace by doing all\nthat he is able to do, adds sin to sin, and is doubly guilty.\" \"That\nman is not justified who performs many works, but he who without works\nhas much faith in Christ.\" \"What gives peace to our conscience is\nthis--By faith our sins are no longer ours but Christ's, on whom God\nhas laid them all; and on the other hand, all Christ's righteousness\nbelongs to us, to whom God has given it.\" D'Aubigne says: \"The point\nwhich the reformer has most at heart (referring to Luther) in all his\nlabors, contests and dangers was the doctrine of justification by faith\nalone.\" This is the great Protestant doctrine, that by the act of faith\nall the righteousness of Jesus Christ is set down to our credit, and\nall our transgressions, all our sins, are placed upon the shoulders of\nJesus Christ, who carries them triumphantly away; and when we shall\nstand before the bar of God, we shall be judged, not according to the\nworks we have done in this life, not according to the \"deeds done in\nthe body,\" as primitive Christianity taught, but we shall be judged by\nthe righteousness of Jesus Christ, all of which will be credited to us\nby our act of faith. I could almost wish it were true, this doctrine!\nSalvation would seem so much more sure. But it is repulsive to reason,\nabsurd to the understanding, and contrary to the teachings of primitive\nChristianity.\n\nIn these doctrinal respects, then, the Protestant movement did not\nbring back Christianity. Did it bring it back in any other respect?\nDid it restore the spiritual gifts so characteristic of primitive\nChristianity? Did it bring back the gift of prophecy, and of\nrevelation; of speaking in tongues, and interpreting them? Did it bring\nback the power to heal the sick by the laying on of hands and the\nanointing with oil? Did it bring back the gift of faith, of knowledge,\nof wisdom, of discernment of spirits? No, it made no claim to these\npowers, but sought out excuses for the absence of them, and pleaded\nthat they were no longer needed; that they were given in the beginning\nmerely for the purpose of giving Christianity a start in the world and\nattesting its divine origin by the manifestation of miraculous gifts\namong its followers. No, the revolution of the sixteenth century did\nnot bring back these gifts and graces of primitive Christianity.\n\nDid it restore the primitive organization of the church? Did it give\nto the church Prophets, Seventies, Bishops, Priests, Teachers and\nDeacons, with the divine gifts and graces attendant upon these offices\nin the church in primitive times, including divine inspiration? Did\nthey make of the church a means, a channel of divine communication\nbetween the church and her Lord? No. On the contrary, Protestant\nChristianity has taught from the days of Luther till now, that Prophets\nand Apostles were no longer needed in the Church of Christ. It did\nnot restore the primitive Christian church organization; nor did it\neven restore the plain, simple first principles of the gospel, faith\nin the true God, repentance from sin, and the laying on of hands for\nthe reception of the Holy Ghost. It did not restore the principle of\nrevelation--Christianity's vital breath--the working force of the\nprimitive Christian church--the link that united her with God and made\nit possible for her to exist in actual spiritual life. On all these\nmatters the utmost confusion exists among Protestants, but in no sect\ncan these simple principles of primitive Christianity be found in their\nfulness and in the order in which they are taught in the New Testament.\nEven from this imperfect and rather hasty consideration of the question\nI think you will find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that\nthe sixteenth century movement did not restore primitive Christianity,\nand hence was not a reformation in that sense.\n\nWhat the movement in the sixteenth century really was may be best\nlearned by considering what it did. And now you must indulge me while I\ntake a brief retrospect of history.\n\nWhen that stupendous fabric, the western division of the Roman empire,\ncrumbled to pieces, in the later part of the fifth century, a reign of\ndarkness followed its downfall. The barbarian hosts from the north,\nlike the successive waves of the ocean, beating upon some decaying\ncliff, repeatedly rushed upon the old Roman civilization, until by\nsheer force of persistence in attack, they destroyed the great fabric\nof government which fills so large a space in the world's history. And\nwhen it fell, the enlightenment and civilization it had sustained in\nwestern Europe went with it. In the centuries that followed there arose\nthat great spiritual hierarchy, known as the Roman Catholic Church,\nthe head of which was recognized in the pope of Rome. The barbarian\ntribes which overthrew western Rome, in the days of their paganism,\nhad given unwonted veneration to their Druid priests and to the chief\nDruid they had accorded the power of a god. Hence it was easy for them\nto accept the idea that the chief bishop of the Christian church was\nGod's vicegerent on earth, and to honor him as they would honor God\nwas equally free from difficulty. The Roman pontiffs were not the men\nto refuse to take advantage of that superstition. They fostered it,\nand drew to themselves all the honor which before time the pagans had\naccorded to the chief priests in paganism. Hence it happens that the\npopes of Rome were able to draw to themselves all the power that was\nneeded to rule the nations with a rod of iron, and with impunity they\nplanted their feet upon the necks of temporal monarchs.\n\nWhen the eastern division of the great empire fell before the repeated\nattacks of the Turks; and that part of the old Roman political fabric\nwent to pieces, instead of darkness following its fall, it was an\nevent which brought light at least to western Europe; for when the\neastern Romans fled before their successful enemies, and came to\nwestern Europe, they brought in their hands the literature of ancient\nGreece, and the works of the ancient masters were translated into the\nEuropean languages. About that time, too, the art of printing had been\ninvented, so that this rich treasury of knowledge, locked up hitherto\nin the Greek language, was translated into the European languages, and\nthrough this marvelous invention of printing was brought within the\nreach of the people. The influence of that literature upon western\nminds was marvelous. They not only admired the beauty and the grace of\nthe diction, and enjoyed the legends and stories that were translated\nfor them, but they, too, began to feel aspirations to reach the same\nhigh intellectual development that the Greeks themselves had enjoyed;\nand wherever there is a love for intellectual development, the key is\nturned to the progress of a people. It proved to be so in this case.\n\nNot only did the influence of ancient Greek literature operate to bring\nabout the enlightenment of Europe, but other things co-operated to stir\nthe stagnant life of western nations. Vasco de Gama had discovered\na new route to India by way of the Cape of Good Hope. Christopher\nColumbus had plowed his way through the western sea, and had discovered\nAmerica. These two great events had a marvelous effect upon the life of\nEurope. Commerce was immediately enlarged. The comforts of life were\nmultiplied and became more common. They were placed within the reach\nof the common people. A general restlessness took possession of the\npeople. These two great events that I have named were preceded by other\ninfluences that were calculated to enlarge the liberties of the people\nof Europe. In the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, occurred\nthose remarkable movements in Europe called the Crusades--religious\nwar, waged for the purpose of recovering the holy land from the hands\nof the infidels as the Turks were called. It was a movement which\noriginated in the fact that Christian pilgrims going to visit the\nbirthplace of Messiah, and the sepulchre where he was supposed to have\nlain, were insulted and abused by the Turks, and this so incensed some\nof the Christians that an agitation started against the \"barbarians\"\nin the holy land. A religious fanatic, Peter the Hermit, a Catholic\nmonk, went through Europe preaching the crusade, and aroused the people\nagainst Turkish abuse of the Christians. The agitation attracted the\nattention and at last enlisted the sympathy of the pope and a number\nof the crowned heads of Europe, and everywhere the cry was heard \"God\nwills it,\" and the people of Europe sprang to arms to invade the east,\nand rescue the holy sepulchre from the infidels. It was a marvelous\nundertaking. Wave after wave of an invading host from Europe surged\nupon the east without avail, especially so long as the invaders were\nbut mobs of men, women and children, illy prepared to undertake a\ncampaign against so brave and hardy a people as the Saracens. Finally,\nhowever, these movements became great military undertakings, and the\neast and the west met in sharp and deadly conflict.\n\nOne of the many results of the crusades was to enlarge the liberty of\nthe common people of Europe. You must understand that a very peculiar\nstate of society existed in those times a state of society growing\nout of a preceding era of conquests. When barbarian kings invaded a\ncountry and conquered it, they held to the opinion that the title to\nall the land that was subdued inhered in the sovereign who had made\nthe conquest. He became the proprietor of the land won by the valor of\nhis armies, and claimed the right to parcel it out as he saw proper\nto his followers. The larger divisions were called baronies, and they\nwere subdivided by the barons to their subordinates and so on down\nto the common people. But those to whom the lands were thus parceled\nout held them upon the condition that they would contribute a certain\nnumber of men for military service, for a given time each year, and\nalso a certain amount of means annually. Thus grew up the feudal\ntenure of land, as it was called. It finally degenerated almost into\na system of slavery, at least for the common people who cultivated\nthe lands. The barons held in complete subjugation their vassals; and\nin turn the barons themselves were oppressed by the kings. But when\nthe kings and barons undertook the fitting out of expeditions for\nthe holy land, they had to dispose of some of their lands for that\npurpose. In some instances lands were sold outright to their vassals.\nThe king also began to accord to cities and towns certain political\nprivileges, on the condition that they would furnish means for carrying\non the crusades; and by these political privileges the liberties of\nthe inhabitants of cities became enlarged. Thus, all Europe was in a\nstate of fermentation; a restless activity had taken possession of\nall classes of society; and where activity abounds liberty is either\nenjoyed or is not far off. Rolling water cannot long remain impure, nor\ncan an active people long remain in a state of slavery.\n\nIn the meantime kings as well as scholars had become weary of the\ndomination of the old spiritual authority of the church. Scholars\nlonged to settle matters of history and the facts of science by means\nof investigation and reason rather than by the voice of ecclesiastical\nauthority as ignorant as it was deceptive; and kings became tired\nof holding barren scepters in their hands--and such their scepters\nwere so long as the spiritual authority of the priests was looked\nupon as superior to that of the king, and the popes, under a variety\nof pretenses, could invade their realms and tax their people. There\nwas, therefore, at least in the northern nations of Europe, a very\ngeneral desire for a change of some kind, and consequently when Martin\nLuther began preaching against the indulgences issued by Pope Leo X,\nand hawked about the country by John Tetzel,--when there was a spirit\nbold enough to say to the pope, \"Thou doest wrong,\" there were found\nmultitudes to applaud the act. Martin Luther, in the commencement of\nhis work, did not by any means contemplate the overthrow of the Roman\nCatholic church. He thought to eliminate some few of its abuses. He\nhimself remarked that he was astonished when he found that the pope was\nnot with him in his contention against Tetzel. But the agitation once\nset on foot, other differences arose on points of doctrine, especially\nupon the question of grace already considered. The breach grew wider\nand wider until at last it was too broad to be bridged over.\n\nWhen the theological discussion had reached the acute stage, there were\nprinces that were only too glad to take advantage of the agitation\nto wrest from their own necks the yoke of bondage that had been\nplaced there by the Roman pontiffs. In that agitation they saw their\nopportunity to be kings indeed, as well as kings in name; and hence\nLuther and his associates found themselves assisted by the princes and\nkings of northern Europe.\n\nIn order to show you that I am not mistaken in these views, I will read\nto you one or two extracts from works on that subject. My first is from\nSchiller's \"Thirty Years' War in Germany.\" On page 7 he says:\n\n    \"The Reformation is undoubtedly owing in a great measure to the\n    invincible power of truth, or of opinions which were held as\n    such. The abuses in the old church, the absurdity of many of\n    its doctrines, the extravagance of its inquisition, necessarily\n    revolted the tempers of men already half-won with the promise\n    of a better light, and favorably disposed them towards the new\n    doctrines. The charm of independence, the rich plunder of monastic\n    institutions, made the Reformation attractive to the eyes of\n    princes, and tended not a little to strengthen their inward\n    convictions. Nothing but political considerations would have\n    driven them to espouse it. Had not Charles V, in the intoxication\n    of success, made an attempt on the independence of the German\n    states, a Protestant league would scarcely have rushed to arms in\n    defense of freedom of belief. * * * Princes fought in self-defense\n    or for aggrandizement, while religious enthusiasm recruited their\n    armies and opened to them the treasures of their subjects. Of the\n    multitude who flocked to their standards, such as were not lured\n    by the hope of plunder, imagined they were fighting for the truth,\n    while in fact they were shedding their blood for the personal\n    objects of their princes.\"\n\nThe Protestant historian, Moshiem, with whom David Hume agrees, admits\nthat several of the principal agents in this revolution were actuated\nmore by the impulse of passion and views of interest than by a zeal for\ntrue religion (Maclaine's Moshiem, vol. iv, page 135). He had before\nthat acknowledged that King Gustavus introduced Lutheranism into Sweden\nin opposition to the clergy and bishops, not only as agreeable to the\ngenius and spirit of the gospel, but also as favorable to the temporal\nstate and political constitution of the Swedish dominions. He adds that\nChristian, who introduced the reformation into Denmark, was animated by\nno other motives than those of ambition and avarice. Grotius, another\nProtestant, testifies that it was sedition and violence which gave\nbirth to the \"Reformation\" in his own country--Holland. The same was\nthe case in France, Geneva and Scotland.\n\nM. Guizot says:\n\n    \"In my opinion the reformation neither was an accident, the result\n    of some casual circumstances, or some personal interests, nor\n    arose from unmingled views of religious improvement, the fruit of\n    Utopian humanity and truth. It had a more powerful cause than all\n    these; a general cause to which all the others were subordinate. It\n    was a vast effort made by the human mind to achieve its freedom;\n    it was a new-born desire which it felt to think and judge, freely\n    and independently, of facts and opinions which, till then, Europe\n    received, or was considered bound to receive from the hands of\n    authority. It was a great endeavor to emancipate human reason, and\n    to call things by their right names; it was an insurrection of the\n    human mind against the absolute power of spiritual order. Such, in\n    my opinion, was the true character and leading principle of the\n    reformation. * * * Not only was this the result of the reformation,\n    but it was content with this result. Whenever this was obtained no\n    other was sought for; so entirely was it the very foundation of\n    the event, its primitive and fundamental character! * * * I repeat\n    it; whenever the reformation attained this object, it accommodated\n    itself to every form of government and to every situation.\" (Hist.\n    Civilization, pp. 224-8.)\n\nWebster defines a revolution to be the act of renouncing the authority\nof a government; a revolt successfully or completely accomplished,\na fundamental change in political organization, or, I will add, in\nreligious organization; and in the light of the facts I have brought to\nyour attention I think this most nearly describes that great movement\nof the sixteenth century led by Luther and the German princes. But\nwhile I do not concede to it the dignity of a reformation, I would\nnot have you think therefore that I look upon the revolution as\nunimportant. Indeed, I regard it as one of the greatest events that has\nhappened since the founding of Christianity itself; and the results\naccomplished by it are far reaching and of vast importance to us.\n\nThe struggle began at first in an effort to obtain intellectual\nfreedom. It next included within the objects it designed to accomplish\nreligious freedom, and finally added to these two, civil liberty.\nA struggle for intellectual, religious and civil liberty must ever\nbe a grand thing, and this was what the revolution of the sixteenth\ncentury contended for. Not all at once. It came to it by degrees. Not\nobtaining all it demanded at the first, but working gradually towards\nit; and finally it was successful. Not always because of its efforts,\nbut sometimes in spite of its efforts. For there is no sadder truth\nin all history than this, that those who nobly struggled against the\noppression of the Catholic church, and demanded religious liberty for\nthemselves, fell into the error of being intolerant, and were not\nwilling to accord to others the very liberty that they demanded. Hence\nyou have a few sad pages of history filled with accounts of persecution\nfor opinion's sake on the part of the reformers themselves. This is\nsad, but the principle of liberty was afoot, and neither the mistakes\nof its friends nor the opposition of its foes could long successfully\noppose it. It went on from victory to victory, until it grew and\nblossomed into the present religious, intellectual and civil freedom\nthat the nations of Europe and America enjoy. This great movement led\nby brave men was the dawn before the coming of a greater day. You\nhave seen the dawn break over our eastern mountains. You know how the\nblackness gradually turns to grey, and how the grey brightens before\nthe approaching sun, until the whole heavens become golden; and you\nknow how still richer becomes that light when the sun in its fulness\nis seen above the mountain tops. So it was with this struggle in the\nsixteenth century. God then began a great work. The first grey streaks\nwere appearing above the hill-tops. The Lord was about to inaugurate a\ngreat work, \"a marvelous work and a wonder.\" He was about to bring full\nand complete religious liberty to the children of men, and not only\nfull and complete religious liberty, but a fulness of religious truth,\neven the fulness of the everlasting gospel. He began that work, the\ngreat dispensation of the last days in that struggle of the sixteenth\ncentury, and the light has been constantly growing brighter, until\nnow the sun has fully risen in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus\nChrist in the new dispensation of it revealed to that great modern\nProphet Joseph Smith. We who accept the new dispensation, strike hands\nwith the noble revolutionists of the sixteenth century, and acknowledge\nthem as brethren in the same great cause.\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nRevelation and Inspiration.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: A discourse delivered before the Young Men's and Young\nLadies' Mutual Improvement Associations, in the Granite Stake\nTabernacle, Sunday afternoon, Jan. 15, 1905.]\n\n_A correction of some misapprehensions that arose concerning Mormon\nviews on the subject of Revelation and Inspiration during the hearings\nhad in the \"Smoot Case\" before the United States Committee on\nPrivileges and Elections, 1903-1907._\n\nMy brethren and sisters, Plato, in his Timaeus, represents the\nphilosopher Socrates as urging one about to begin a discourse on the\nnature and origin of the universe to invoke the favor of the gods,\nto which Critias, who is the one selected to deliver the discourse,\nreplies that all men who are right minded always seek the favor of the\ngods upon their enterprises, and then he proceeds to pray that his\nefforts may be agreeable to the gods and intelligible to those who are\nto listen.\n\nOn this present occasion it is not my purpose to undertake the\ndiscussion of a subject either so lofty or so difficult as that which\nthe Greek had proposed to himself, and yet as I stand before you for\nthe purpose of addressing you, involuntarily, I am happy to say, my\nheart is uplifted to God in prayer that what I have to present on this\noccasion shall meet with the favor of God, and at the same time be\nintelligible and faith-promoting.\n\nI presume that all of us are more or less conscious of the fact that\nthe doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,\nhave been undergoing a very crucial test of late. Many principles\nfundamental to our faith have been the subject of investigation by\none of the leading committees of the senate of the United States--the\ncommittee on privileges and elections--a committee than which I\ndoubt if there is another superior to it in point of ability within\nthe whole range of the senate committees. It is composed of men who\nfrequently have to determine questions of law as well as of fact,\nand in consequence of that its members are chosen from among the\nmost distinguished lawyers of the senate; they are men of learning\nand wide experience, adroit in questions of logic, and capable of\npursuing to ultimate analysis any question that may be presented for\ntheir consideration. It is such a body of men before whom many of the\ndoctrines of Christ have been presented, discussed and thoroughly\nanalyzed.[A]\n\n[Footnote A: The committee alluded to consisted of Julius C. Burrows,\nof Michigan; Edmund W. Pettus of Alabama; James B Frazier, of\nTennessee; Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho; Chauncey M. Depew, of New York;\nLee S. Overman, of North Carolina. The above senators signed the\nCommittee's Report to the effect that Reed Smoot was not entitled to a\nseat in the Senate as a senator from the State of Utah.\n\nThe following senators, members of the committee, dissented from\nthe conclusion of the above majority members of the committee, and\npublished their views:\n\nJoseph B. Foraker, of Ohio; Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana; William\nP. Dillingham, of Vermont; A. J. Hopkins, of Illinois; P. C. Knox of\nPennsylvania.\n\nHappily the Senate refused to accept the conclusion of the majority of\nthe committee to the effect that Reed Smoot, Senator from Utah, was not\nentitled to a seat in the Senate of the United States.]\n\nThis the character of the committee conducting the investigation. The\nElders of the Church who have been called upon to state some of the\nprinciples of our faith and place interpretations upon them before\nthe committee, have been taken somewhat at a disadvantage. They\nhave been called upon to answer on the spur of the moment, without\nhaving opportunity to prepare their replies or weigh their words.\nTheir answers have been purely extemporaneous. Many of the questions\nhave been sprung upon them in the way of surprise; and those adroit\ninquisitors (I do not use that term in its evil sense), the senate\ncommittee, have purposely led them through a labyrinth of questions in\nthe hope finally of surprising them into some inconsistency. Yet on the\nwhole I think the Church has reason to congratulate herself upon the\npresentation of her doctrines even under these circumstances; and it\nis not difficult to believe that the brethren were sustained in their\nanswers by a spirit beyond their wisdom; that God blessed them in the\ntrial through which they passed.\n\nIt would be surprising, however, if in the course of so long an\ninvestigation, taken part in by so many, if the opposition did not at\ntimes gain some seeming advantage; if by some quip or quirk they did\nnot make inconsistencies appear in the answers of the brethren. I want\nto illustrate this and call the attention of the young people to some\nof these circumstances, for I have discovered, incidentally, that some\nof the catch-phrases that have been coined during this investigation\nare having more or less influence on the minds of our youth.\n\nFor example, during the investigation referred to, the question of our\nbelief in revelation was brought up. It is a matter of common knowledge\namong you, of course, that we believe in revelation from God to man.\nWe believe that the Lord has revealed himself in the day in which we\nlive; that a dispensation of the gospel has been given unto prophets in\nthis age of the world; that divine communication between the earth and\nthe heavens has been restored; that a channel of communication has been\npermanently established by and through which the mind and the will of\nGod may be made known to men. This truth, so commonplace with us, seems\na matter of seven days' wonder to the senate committee in question. In\nthe course of investigating this subject of revelation the idea was\ndeveloped that a law revealed from God, before it became binding upon\nthe Church, was submitted to the people in conference and they voted to\naccept or reject it. Then this question was asked:\n\n    \"Suppose a revelation is given to the Church, and the Church in\n    conference assembled rejects it by vote, what remains? Does it go\n    for nothing?\"\n\nTo which answer was made, in substance, that if the people rejected it,\nit would go for nothing for them--that is, so far as the people were\nconcerned.\n\nThen the questioning continues:\n\n    _\"Senator_--Then according to your faith the Lord submits his\n    decrees to the judgment of the people, and does not desire them to\n    be obeyed by anybody unless the people approve?\n\n    _\"Elder_--He desires them to be obeyed by everybody, but he lets\n    everybody do just as they please. * * * * *\n\n    _\"Senator_--You would, then, as I understand you, please to follow\n    the people, and not the Lord, under those circumstances. Is that\n    true?\n\n    _\"Elder_--The Lord has so ordered that when he appoints men, as\n    he did do in the revelations here [the revelations that had been\n    under discussion], and named the Apostles and the other general\n    authorities of the Church, he commanded that they be presented to\n    the Church and sustained or rejected, and whenever the Church has\n    rejected any man he has stepped aside.\n\n    _\"Senator_--A sort of veto power over the Lord! (Laughter).\"\n\nThis last remark is one of the catchy phrases which some of the youth\nof Israel are permitting themselves to be pleased with. \"A veto power\non God!\" We want to investigate that presently, and I think we will be\nable to discover that it is smart rather than profound.\n\nAgain, when the subject of the Manifesto (meaning that instrument\nthrough which plural marriages were discontinued in the Church) was\nunder discussion, one of the brethren chanced to remark that he\nassisted in framing the document for publication; whereupon this\ncolloquy took place:\n\n    _\"Senator_--I understand this Manifesto was inspired.\n\n    _\"Elder_--Yes.\n\n    _\"Senator_--That is your understanding of it?\n\n    _\"Elder_--My answer was that it was inspired.\n\n    _\"Senator_--And when it was handed to you it was an inspiration, as\n    you understand, from on high, was it not?\n\n    _\"Elder_--Yes.\n\n    _\"Senator_--What business had you to change it?\n\n    _\"Elder_--We did not change the meaning.\n\n    _\"Senator_--You have just stated you changed it.\n\n    _\"Elder_--Not the sense, sir. I did not say we changed the sense.\n\n    _\"Senator_--But you changed the phraseology?\n\n    _\"Elder_--We simply put it in shape for publication, corrected\n    possibly the grammar, and wrote it so that--\n\n    _\"Senator_--You mean to say that in an inspired communication from\n    the Almighty the grammar was bad, was it? You corrected the grammar\n    of the Almighty, did you?\"\n\nAnother \"smart\" saying which apparently appeals to the humor of some of\nour youth; and here and there you may hear now and then something said,\nin an irreverent manner, too, about the absurdity of correcting the\nAlmighty's grammar.\n\nOne other item: One of the Elders, pursued in the investigation by\none of the most adroit of the senators, finds it necessary to make a\ncorrection of one of his statements, whereupon this follows:\n\n    _\"Senator_--Have you had any revelation or commandment in regard to\n    the testimony you should give in this case?\n\n    _\"Elder_--No, sir.\n\n    _\"Senator_--There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?\n\n    _\"Elder_--As to the testimony I should give here?\n\n    _\"Senator_--As to the testimony you have given or are to give.\n\n    _\"Elder_--No; I do not know that I have, particularly--I came here\n    to answer the questions of the committee.\n\n    _\"Senator_--But I want to know whether you are answering them under\n    the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in\n    your human and uninspired capacity?\n\n    _\"Elder_--I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me\n    here as the Spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.\n\n    _\"Senator_--Do you mean to say that the Spirit of the Lord directs\n    you in your answers here?\n\n    _\"Elder_--I believe so.\n\n    _\"Senator_--You believe so?\n\n    _\"Elder_--Yes, sir.\n\n    _\"Senator_--Then in your belief, did the Spirit of the Lord direct\n    you to make the answer which you just took back and said was a\n    mistake?\n\n    \"(A pause and silence.) Well, if you cannot answer it I will not\n    press it.\"\n\nPreviously this senator had said to the Elder: \"Do you not think that\nin this hearing it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers\nso that in so important a matter you do not have to take back in two or\nthree minutes what you have said?\"\n\nThis is spoken of, according to reports that reach me, as a severe\nreproof administered by a \"worldling\" to one who believed himself to\nbe an inspired man, and more or less of comment is made upon this\ncircumstance, as upon the others I have named.\n\nNow, this brings before you, not all that is said, but some few things\nthat are said with reference to the investigation before the senate\ncommittee; and I think they touch questions of considerable interest on\nthe subject of revelation. It is this subject I propose to consider,\nespecially the effect these several incidents of the investigation have\nupon the subject of revelation. Let us now return and consider these\nquestions one by one.\n\nTo begin with, let us have an understanding about revelation itself.\nAs I understand it, \"revelation is the name of that act by which God\nmakes communication to men. Inspiration in the name of that influence,\nthat divine influence, which operates upon the minds of men under which\nthey may be said to receive divine guidance.\" The inspiration may be\nstrong or it may be weak. It may be so overpowering in its character\nthat the person for the time being loses largely his own individuality\nand becomes the mouthpiece of God, the organ through which the Divine\nspeaks to the children of men. There exists all degrees of inspiration,\nfrom human intelligence and wisdom slightly influenced up to that\nfulness of inspiration of which I have spoken. Revelations may be made\nfrom God to man in various ways. They may be made by God in his own\nproper person, speaking for himself. On such occasions I take it that\nthe revelation would be most perfect. I know of no more beautiful or\ncomplete illustration of such a perfect revelation than that great\nrevelation with which the dispensation of the fulness of times began,\nwhen God the Father and Jesus the Christ, stood revealed in the\npresence of Joseph Smith, when every veil was removed, and the glory\nof God extended throughout the forest in which the Prophet had prayed;\nwhen he heard the Father speak to him as one friend speaks to another,\nsaying: \"Joseph, this is my beloved Son; hear him.\" Then followed a\nconversation with this second divine personage, to whom he was thus so\nperfectly introduced, and from whom he received the light and knowledge\nthat laid the foundations of this great latter-day work. There was\nno imperfection whatsoever in that revelation; it was complete,\noverwhelming, and one of the most remarkable revelations that God\nhas deigned to give to the children of men. Revelations may be made,\nand have been made, by the visitation of angels, such as when Moroni\ncame and revealed the existence of the Nephite record, the American\nvolume of scripture, the Book of Mormon; and who afterwards from time\nto time, met with the Prophet of the last dispensation and gave him\nknowledge and information as to the manner in which the Church should\nbe organized, and how its affairs should be conducted. Then again,\nrevelations may come through the operations of the Holy Spirit upon the\nmind of man as when the Prophet Joseph took Urim and Thummim and with\nthem, and by their aid, under the influence of Holy Spirit, translated\nthe Book of Mormon into the English language. In a similar manner the\nLord influences the minds of his servants when preaching the gospel,\nand thus delivers his word to the Church and to the world.\n\nThrough all these various means God speaks, and it is our good fortune\nto be his witnesses, that he speaks in these various ways as well today\nas in ancient times.\n\nAfter giving many manifestations, and communicating much of his mind\nand will to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lord said to him, finally, with\nreference to the organization of the Church, that he must call together\nin a meeting several persons who had been baptized and submit the\nquestion to them as to whether or not they were willing that he and\nOliver Cowdery should proceed to organize the Church of Christ, and if\nthey would accept them as their spiritual leaders and teachers in the\nthings of God.\n\nI marvel at the condescension of God in this, and well may the world\nmarvel at his condescension in thus submitting a question of this\ncharacter to those who were to participate in it. But when I come to\nanalyze it and to comprehend it, I understand that God here recognizes\na great truth; recognizes also the dignity of his children, and gives\nrecognition to their rights and liberties in the premises. Mark you,\nwhen it comes to bestowing his power upon men, when he was selecting\nhis prophets, he chose whom he would. That was a matter between himself\nand them. Hence he gave the apostleship to Joseph Smith, to Oliver\nCowdery, and to David Whitmer, independently of anyone. But when\nthese men were to effect an organization and exercise that power and\nauthority upon others, then it must be with the consent of the others\nconcerned, and not otherwise. This is the great principle that the Lord\nrespected in the very inception of the great latter-day work, and which\nhe still recognizes in the government of his Church--the principle of\ncommon consent.\n\nIn this connection allow me for a moment to call your attention to\nthe very beautiful title of our Church, \"The Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints,\" it is called. Some might think the first half\nof the title, \"The Church of Jesus Christ,\" would be sufficient. So,\nindeed, it is, in a way. It is the Christ's Church--his by the price\nof his sacrifice. It is his as the depository of his truth. It is the\ninstitution he has called into existence, and unto which he has given\nthe mission of proclaiming the truth, and, in addition to that the\nmission of perfecting the lives of those who accept the truth. But it\nis not only \"The Church of Jesus Christ;\" it is \"The Church of the\nLatter-day Saints,\" also. It is _our_ Church, because we accept it,\nbecause we enter it of our own volition; it is therefore the Church\nof our choice. God has conferred upon his Church and our Church the\nright of being governed by common consent of the members thereof. It\nis this that astonishes our friends in Washington. They have been\nled to believe, by misrepresentation, that this organization called\n\"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints\" is an ironclad\ninstitution, a powerful tyranny, to whose authority there are no metes\nor bounds; in which there are no checks or balances of authority;\nan ecclesiastical hierarchy that dominates the people and destroys\nindividual liberty. Suddenly they are confronted with the fact that,\nso far from being a tyrannical institution, not only the officers but\nthe very revelations of God are submitted to the people for their\nacceptance! They then turn upon us and say: Then you presume to have a\n\"Veto power on God!\"\n\nNow, let us consider this matter for a few moments. But before doing\nso I call your attention to an utterance made in our own midst, less\nexcusable than the \"smart\" utterances of these astute senators, because\nthey doubtless are prompted in their remarks by ignorance of the\nsubject; but what I am about to read to you is not the utterance of an\nignorant mind, but rather that of a perverted one, because the writer\nknows better. Listen to this from a local daily paper:\n\n    \"According to the testimony given by high ecclesiastics at\n    Washington, a revelation from God is not binding upon humanity\n    until after it is voted upon and accepted by the Mormon people\n    in conference. What an astounding complexity, and what a narrow\n    bigotry are here presented! As taught by Mormon theology, there is\n    but one man on the earth at a time who is authorized to receive\n    and pronounce the will of God. That man is the president of the\n    Mormon Church. He receives a revelation containing commands,\n    to the children of men, obedience to which commands entitles\n    the individuals to celestial glory, and disobedience to which\n    commands consigns the individual to the loss of glory in the\n    hereafter. That revelation, however, is not in force until some\n    ten or twelve thousand people in the big Tabernacle at Salt Lake\n    City have voted affirmatively upon it, and then it becomes a law\n    for the fifteen hundred millions of human being upon the face\n    of the earth. In other words, sacrilegious as it seems, this\n    doctrine assumes that God don't know his own mind; in still other\n    words, his determinations are subject to revision by ten thousand\n    human creatures, who constitute a kind of supreme court, whose\n    conclusions are binding not only upon themselves, but upon hundreds\n    of millions of human beings who never heard of the man through whom\n    the law was promulgated, nor of the supreme court that sustained\n    it, nor of the law itself. If the Mormon conference approves God's\n    words, the one billion five hundred million other human creatures\n    are saved by it or damned by it, as the case may be; and if the\n    Mormon conference rejects it, the one billion five hundred millions\n    of other human creatures are not subject to it in any way, as it is\n    not a valid command from God Almighty. It is not God then who holds\n    the power of condemnation or of salvation; but it is the Mormon\n    conference which saves or damns the world of humanity at the whim\n    of that conference. Could absurdity go farther?\"\n\nI think not! Absurdity can scarcely go beyond that representation of\nthe matter. It is scarcely necessary for me to say to you that this\npresentation of the subject is not true. And yet I have positive\nknowledge that such a vain utterance as this has its influence among\nsome of the youth of the Church! No; the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints arrogates to herself no such powers as are here\ncharged. On the contrary, the following appears in the Book of Mormon,\nwith reference to God's course in making known his mind and will to the\nchildren of men:\n\n    \"I [the Lord] command all men, both in the east and in the west,\n    and in the north, and in the south, and in all the islands of the\n    sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for\n    out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world,\n    every man according to his works, according to that which is\n    written. For behold, I will speak unto the Jews, and they shall\n    write it; and I will also speak unto the other tribes of the house\n    of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I\n    will also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write\n    it.\"\n\nThen the Lord proceeds to tell how in the dispensation of the fulness\nof times he will bring together and unite in testimony the words that\nhe has spoken to these various peoples and nations.\n\nAgain, it is written in the same book:\n\n    \"Behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation\n    and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth\n    fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth\n    counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.\"\n\nThis is the Mormon theory of God's revelation to the children of men.\nWhile the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established\nfor the instruction of men; and is one of God's instrumentalities for\nmaking known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for\nsuch purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and\nprophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own\ntongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can\ncomprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found\nin the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that\nmeasure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism\nholds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all\nnations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct\nGod's children according to the conditions in the midst of which he\nfinds them. Hence it is not obnoxious to Mormonism to regard Confucius,\nthe great Chinese philosopher and moralist, as a servant of God,\ninspired to a certain degree by him to teach those great moral maxims\nwhich have governed those millions of God's children for lo! these\nmany centuries. It is willing to regard Gautama, Buddha as an inspired\nservant of God, teaching a measure of the truth, at least giving to\nthese people that twilight of truth by which they may somewhat see\ntheir way. So with the Arabian prophet, that wild spirit that turned\nthe Arabians from worshiping idols to a conception of the Creator of\nheaven and earth that was more excellent than their previous conception\nof Deity. And so the sages of Greece and of Rome. So the reformers\nof early Protestant times. Wherever God finds a soul sufficiently\nenlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo!\nhe makes of him a teacher of men. While the path of sensuality and\ndarkness may be that which most men tread, a few, to paraphrase the\nwords of a moral philosopher of high standing, have been led along the\nupward path; a few in all countries and generations have been wisdom\nseekers, or seekers of God. They have been so because the Divine Word\nof Wisdom has looked upon them, choosing them for the knowledge and\nservice of himself.\n\nIn the presence of such a magnificent conception of God's hand dealings\nwith his children in the matter of imparting divine truth to them as\nthis, is it not infamous for a man--one who poses, too, as knowing\nsomething of Mormonism--to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints as being so narrow and bigoted as to believe that\nthey legislate in their conferences in all spiritual matters for\nthe whole world; that all mankind must wait upon their action for a\nrevelation of God's truth; that God's word is given or withheld from\nmankind by their vote; that they have constituted themselves a sort\nof supreme court to determine what is or what is not God's word for\nthe one thousand five hundred millions of souls inhabiting the earth!\nIn concluding his utterance the editorial writer in question closed\nthe passage I quoted with the question, \"Could absurdity go further?\"\nI will close mine with the question, Can infamy go farther than his\nmisrepresentation of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints in respect to revelation?\n\nWhile it is held by the Church, nay, taught by the very revelations of\nGod themselves, that there is but one man at a time who is entitled to\nreceive revelations for the government and guidance of the Church--and\nthis in order to prevent confusion and conflict--still it is nowhere\nheld that this man is the only instrumentality through which God\nmay communicate his mind and will to the world. It is merely a law\noperative within the Church itself and does not at all concern the\nworld outside the Church organization.\n\nWhen the Church votes upon the acceptance of any revelation, whether\nit is one respecting doctrine or the appointment of officers, it acts\nfor itself alone. Its vote in no way concerns, either for their praise\nor their censure, the people outside of the Church. It is merely the\nexercise of a right conferred upon the Church in the very inception of\nits organization; for it is part of the law itself, that no rule or\nlaw shall be binding on the Church, and no officer shall hold position\nin the Church, but upon its own free consent. This is no new doctrine.\nIt is in strict harmony with God's moral government of the world. What\nmoral law may not men in their individual capacity reject? From the\nbeginning God's law stood. \"Thou shalt not kill.\" Yet Cain killed Abel\nand from that day to the present many men have violated this, God's\nlaw. And so with every law, whether given directly of God, or through\nhis servants the prophets. Man is by the nature of him a free moral\nagent; and that agency of his involves the liberty of violating the\nlaws of God as well as the liberty of respecting them. He is free to\naccept righteousness and attain heaven. He is equally free to follow\nafter wickedness and go to hell if he so elects, though he must not\ncomplain if he finds not there the joys and comforts of heaven. Agency\nor freedom that would mean less than this would mean nothing. It would\nbe neither freedom nor agency. What men may do in their individual\ncapacity the Church may do in its organized capacity with, of course,\nsimilar results to the institution; for if the time should come that\nthe Church in the exercise of those rights and that freedom which God\nin the beginning bestowed upon her should persistently reject his word\nand his servants until she became corrupted, God would repudiate and\ndisown her as his Church, just as he would reject and condemn a wicked\nman. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so\nfar, has received those revelations and those doctrines proposed to her\nas divine law by the Prophet of God; and also, in the main, those men\nwhom a divine inspiration has suggested as her officers.\n\nAn incident in the history of ancient Israel illustrates this doctrine\nof liberty enjoyed by the people of, God in their corporate capacity.\nFrom Moses to Samuel the children of Israel had been governed by a\nsuccession of judges, inspired men, appointed of God to be rulers or\nrather public servants in Israel, which government of inspired men\nappointed of God constituted a divine order of government, so that it\nmay be said that the people were governed of God. Finally, however,\nduring the administration of government by the judge, the prophet\nSamuel, the people grew weary of this form of government and clamored\nfor a king. They were ambitious of being like other people by whom they\nwere surrounded. They longed for the worldly pomp and circumstance and\nglamor of a kingdom. Samuel, the stern old prophet, zealous for his\nGod, withstood their demands, until at last the Lord spoke and said to\nhim: \"Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto\nthee; for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me, that\nI should not reign over them..... Now, therefore, hearken unto their\nvoice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner\nof the king that shall reign over them.\" (Samuel viii.) Samuel followed\nthe directions of the Lord, and pointed out to the people the disasters\nwhich would befall them if they adhered to their insistence for a king.\nAll to no purpose, however, a king they would have. God respected their\nright to have the kind of government they desired, though it involved\na rejection of himself--\"a veto upon God!\" Had not the grave and fair\nminded senator of Massachusetts--now unhappily departed this life since\ncoining the phrase here criticised--momentarily forgotten this very\ncelebrated incident in the history of ancient Israel, or if he had\ntaken time to think one moment upon the great principles underlying\nGod's moral government of the world, I feel reasonably satisfied that\nhe would never have fashioned that irreverent phrase, \"veto power on\nGod,\" certainly not to win the laughter and applause of those who were\npresent at its birth, or of those who, ape-like, repeat his unhappy\nphrase.\n\nBut I must not overlook another point involved in that part of the\ntestimony here being considered. Suppose a law is promulgated before\nthe Latter-day Saints--a revealed principle of truth is submitted for\ntheir acceptance--and then, in the exercise of that liberty, which God\nhas conferred upon his Church, they reject it. The question is then\nasked, \"What remains?\"\n\nWhy, the truth remains! The action of the Church has not affected that\nin the least. It is just as true as if the Church had accepted it.\nOur acceptance or rejection does not make or mar the truth; it simply\ndetermines our own relationship to that truth. If we reject the truth,\nthe truth still remains. And, moreover, it is my own faith that a\npeople who would reject the truth revealed of God to them would make no\nprogress until they repented and accepted the rejected truth. The truth\nremains--that is the answer to the senator's question. Human conduct\ndoes not affect the truth. As one of our own poets has said:\n\n  \"Though the heavens depart, and the earth's fountains burst,\n  Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,\n     Eternal, unchanged, evermore!\"\n\nTaking up now the other question--that of correcting the Almighty's\ngrammar.\n\nIn defining what I understand revelation to be, and the manner in\nwhich it may be communicated, I have already stated that when we\nhave a communication made directly from the Lord himself there is no\nimperfection whatever in that revelation. But when the Almighty uses\na man as an instrument through whom to communicate divine wisdom,\nthe manner in which that revelation is imparted to men may receive\na certain human coloring from the prophet through whom it comes. We\nknow this to be true, because we have the words of different prophets\nbefore us by which we may test the matter. We know, for instance, that\nthe message delivered to Israel through the Prophet Isaiah possesses\ndifferent characteristics from the message delivered through Jeremiah,\nor through Ezekiel, or through Amos. It seems that the inspiration of\nthe Lord need not necessarily destroy the personal characteristics of\nthe man making the communication to his fellowmen.\n\nTo illustrate what I mean: I remember one of my old teachers calling\nthe attention of our class to the fact, and demonstrating it, that\na ray of white light was not so simple a thing as we might think it\nto be. When you see a white ray of sunlight streaming through some\nwindow or other aperture into a dark room, you might think that the\nbar of white light consists simply of one white ray. But the teacher\nreferred to took a prism and caused such a ray of light to fall upon\nthat prism, and upon a dark screen opposite we discovered that the\nrays of light composing the white ray were separated into various\ncolors--blue, orange, red, green and the various other colors of the\nseveral rays that entered into and made the white ray; and as he went\non using one prism after another for this illustration, I discovered\nthat the sharpness and clearness with which the separation of these\nseveral rays were made depended somewhat upon the clearness and purity\nof the prism through which the light passed. And so in after years it\noccurred to me that this might be used to illustrate how the white ray\nof God's inspiration falling upon different men would receive different\nexpressions through them, according to the characteristics of those\nmen. So it is that Isaiah preserves his identity, Amos his, Ezekiel\nhis, and so on with the prophets of our own day. I suppose if the Lord\nhad revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to a man who had a\nperfect knowledge of the English language, a grammarian, and perfect\nin literary attainments, then no doubt we would have had a translation\nof the Book of Mormon without fault or blemish so far as the grammar\nis concerned; but it pleased God in his wisdom to appoint that mission\nto one who was not learned in the English language, whose use of the\nEnglish language was ungrammatical, through failing of opportunity to\nobtain the necessary instruction in his youthful days, and consequently\nwe find errors in grammar in the translation of the Book of Mormon,\nsuch as this: \"Whoredoms _is_ an abomination to the Lord.\" Marvelous,\nis it not? Ungrammatical--a plural subject and a singular verb! But\nwhat of the truth? You are not in doubt about that, are you? Does it\nmake the truth any more real or forcible to use grammatical terms\nin which to express it? Whoredoms _are_ an abomination to the Lord?\nWell, what is the essential thing in a revelation? The essential\nthing is the truth that it conveys; and it matters not whether you\nsay whoredoms _is_ an abomination or whoredoms _are_ an abomination\nto the Lord. The truth remains that whoredoms are abhorrent to God,\nand that is the main thing. Again, in the Doctrine and Covenants you\nfind this language: \"The Spirit and the body is the soul of man, and\nthe resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.\" Again a\nplural subject and a singular verb. But what boots it? The great thing\nthat mankind is concerned to know is the truth conveyed, that the soul\nof man is composed of spirit and body, and that it is the purpose of\nthe redemption to save and unite spirit and body in one individual,\nto exist through time and through all eternity. To still further\nillustrate, and to show you the flimsiness of this \"smart\" saying to\nwhich we are coming in a moment: Old Baron Swedenborg was regarded\nas a mystic. He was a learned man, but his lips were not attuned to\nthe perfect pronunciation of the English language. Occasionally he\nspoke in English, but it was always broken. He delighted apparently\nto contemplate the prophets of old Israel and the prophets of the\nNew Testament. In speaking of them the old man used to say in most\nsolemn earnestness, \"De vurld vas not worty of dem,\" and the audience\nsometimes laughed; but neither the laughter of the audience, nor the\nimperfection of pronunciation of the English words detracted from the\nsolemn truth that the old man uttered. And so any imperfection in mere\nutterance of a truth amounts to little or nothing. \"He that hath my\nword,\" saith the Lord, \"let him speak my word faithfully. For what is\nthe chaff to the wheat?\"\n\nNow, would it do any harm to take Swedenborg's broken English and make\nit smooth by pronouncing it with perfect accent. \"They were prophets\nof whom the world was not worthy?\" It does not hurt the truth, to so\nchange the expression of it, does it? Would it hurt the truth, the\nexpression of it, to say \"the spirit and the body _are_ the soul of\nman?\" Or \"whoredoms _are_ an abomination to the Lord?\" Why, no. So\nin this Manifesto issued by President Woodruff. What if there were\nimperfect, or ungrammatical sentences in it? What does the world\ncare about that in the last analysis of it? The great thing in the\ninstrument was, and the great truth that the Lord made known to the\nsoul of Wilford Woodruff was that it was necessary for the preservation\nof the Church, and the uninterrupted progress of her work that plural\nmarriages should be discontinued. Now, any expression containing that\ntruth was all that was necessary. And so there is nothing of weight in\nthe phrase \"correcting the grammar of the Almighty.\" We do not correct\nhis grammar. Perhaps the brethren made slight corrections in the\ngrammar of Wilford Woodruff. The grammar may be the prophet's the idea,\nthe truth, is God's.\n\nNow, the third point; the one about men being constantly under the\ninspiration of the Holy Spirit; so constantly under his inspiration\nthat all they say or do is an inspiration of God, that all their\nanswers to questions are in the nature of revelation.\n\nIs there anything in the Mormon doctrine that makes it necessary to\nbelieve that of men, even of high officials in the Church? No, there is\nnot. We know that they do not always speak under the direct inspiration\nof the Holy Spirit; for some men high in authority, aye Apostles, have\npreached discourses for which they were finally excommunicated from the\nChurch. They were not inspired in those instances, were they? Evidently\nnot. When you come to think of human weaknesses and imperfections, and\nhow difficult it is for men living under the effects of the Fall, and\nborne down with inherited tendencies also--when you think how extremely\ndifficult it is for even the best of men to rise above these things\nand walk in the sunlight of God's inspiration, in the fellowship of\nthe Holy Ghost, I think it is expecting too much to claim that every\nutterance is a divine inspiration. Men are exercised by a variety of\nemotions. Passions, selfish interests, prejudices, traditions, bear in\nupon the souls of men and tend to break up and mar the inspiration of\nthe Spirit of God in them. Blessed is the man who can rise above the\nhuman weaknesses and imperfections once in a while and commune with\nGod; and blessed are the people among whom he dwells; because if he can\ndo that he will return to them from such communing so strengthened and\nhelped that he will be an inspiration to all who touch the sphere of\nhis influence. I say happy is the man who once in awhile can ascend to\nthese spiritual heights and commune with God. It is about as much as\nyou can expect of men. But some of you perhaps will be calling to mind\na certain revelation in which this passage occurs:\n\n    \"Behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who are\n    ordained unto this Priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them\n    to go forth;\n\n    \"And this is an ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they\n    are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.\n\n    \"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost\n    shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the\n    mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice\n    of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.\"\n\nTrue, every word of it; and the word of these men, _when_ spoken under\nthe influence of the Holy Ghost, is indeed the word of God. But oh!\nhow frequently it is the case that men fail to connect with the divine\ninfluence and are unable to call it down into their souls to speak\nforth the words of life! I have already drawn your attention to the\nfact that the servants of God who minister to us are not always equal\nto this task; but there are times when you and I have listened to the\nwords of the servants of God, when the white light of God's inspiration\nrested upon them, and we needed no man to tell us that they spoke by\nthe power and influence of the Holy Ghost, that we were being taught of\nGod. But that is not always the case with respect of the preaching we\nhear.\n\nThe Lord has revealed this truth also:\n\n    \"Verily I say unto you, men should be anxiously engaged in a good\n    cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to\n    pass much righteousness; for the power is in them wherein they are\n    agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in\n    nowise lose their reward.\"\n\nSpeaking broadly, we may say there are three classes of intelligences\nthat should be recognized. First of all, the Divine Intelligence, that\nwhich comes directly or indirectly from the presence of God through\nhis Spirit. Then there is in every man an intelligent entity, the\n\"Ego,\" our scientists call it, I think; an entity without beginning and\nwithout end, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith;\na self-existent entity that has intelligence, self-consciousness,\nwill, and other forces, in and of itself. You need not doubt that; it\nis a self-evident truth. Look inward, investigate your own spirit,\nand you shall find it true. I need not call your attention in the\nway of argument to the fact that even wicked men possess this human\nintelligence. We know they do, and it is sometimes very perverse; also\nvery cunning, and not infrequently very powerful; and yet we know that\nsuch wicked persons are so far removed in their walk and conversation\nfrom God that the Spirit of the Lord is not with them. Then whence the\nsource of their power and their intelligence? It is native to them; and\nis self-existent, indestructible. Then again, there is the influence\nof the adversary of men's souls, he who seeks the destruction of men;\nhe who would pull men down to his level in rebellion against God. He\nhas influence in the world, and men are sometimes dominated by his\nthoughts, his motives, and are led into darkness and sin through his\npower. When Lucifer rebelled against the King of kings in heaven, he\nlost not existence; his intelligence was not destroyed; neither indeed\ncould it or he be annihilated; he remains to this day, and is still\npursuing his evil course.\n\nThese are the intelligences with whom we come in contact, with whom\nwe have to deal; and I take it to be one of the most important\nconsiderations that we make ourselves competent to distinguish between\nthe promptings of our own human intelligence, to know when it is the\nSpirit of the Lord that prompts, and when it is the adversary of men's\nsouls who approaches us and whispers his counsels in our ears.\n\nMeantime we should recognize the fact that we do many things of our\nown uninspired intelligence for the issues of which we ourselves are\nresponsible.\n\nMoreover, we ourselves should seek to do good things; for the power is\nin us to do good, if we will but set about it, even as the Lord has\nindicated in this revelation I have read on that subject. Many of our\nactions--shall I say nearly all our ordinary actions?--are prompted\nby this native intelligence. We take account of this and of that,\nand from the data before us we make up our judgment and act upon the\nprobabilities involved. That is the ordinary work-a-day guide by which\nwe walk. Then, of course, for the performance of extraordinary duties,\nfor the accomplishment of high purposes, the soul, conscious of its own\nlimitations, reaches out for help; deep calls to deep; the infinite\nin man seeks union with the infinite in God, and, on occasion, and\nwhen necessary for the achievement of God's purposes, we have reason\nto believe that the Lord deigns to communicate his mind and will unto\nmen. But the Lord evidently proposes that man shall act here largely\nupon his own intelligence, exercise his own agency, and develop the\npowers, intelligent and moral, that are within him. That is why men\nare here in this earth-probation. While I believe the Lord will help\nmen at need, I think it improper to assign every word and every act\nof theirs to an inspiration from the Lord; for if that were true, we\nwould have to acknowledge ourselves as being wholly taken possession of\nby the Lord, and not permitted to go to the right or to the left, but\nas he guided us. Needless to say that in that event there would be no\nerror in judgment, no blunders made. Where would human agency or human\nintelligence exist in the one case or be developed in the other under\nsuch circumstances? They would not exist. Hence I think it a reasonable\nconclusion to say that constant, never-varying inspiration is not a\nfactor in the administration of the affairs even of the Church; not\neven good men, no, not though they be prophets or other high officials\nof the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God. It\nis only occasionally and at need that God comes to their aid.\n\nUpon this subject I want to read what I think was a very wise admission\nonce made by Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, and father of\nPresident Joseph F. Smith. After the Prophet Joseph was compelled to\nflee from his enemies in Kirtland, Ohio, to Far West, Missouri, the\nword of the Lord was given to the effect that the honest in heart in\nKirtland should gather at Far West; whereupon a number of expedients\nwere suggested, or means by which the Saints should make the journey.\nThe High Council and Brother Hyrum Smith conceived the plan of moving\nthe Saints by the water course, by the Ohio, the Missouri and Grand\nrivers, since those streams were navigable; but the plan proposed by\nthem failed. Then the Seventies took up the matter--the First Council\nof Seventies--and their proposition was to organize a company that\nshould go overland to Missouri, by team and on foot. They developed\ntheir plans, and Hyrum Smith in the course of some remarks made at one\nof their meetings, is represented as having said that:\n\n    \"What he had done in reference to chartering a steamboat for the\n    purpose of removing the Church as a body, he had done according to\n    his own judgment, without reference to the testimony of the Spirit\n    of God; that he had recommended that course and had advised the\n    High Council and High Priests to adopt that measure, acting solely\n    upon his own wisdom; for it has seemed to him that the whole body\n    of the Church in Kirtland could be removed with less expense in the\n    way he had proposed than in any other. He said further that the\n    Saints had to act oftentimes upon their own responsibility, without\n    any reference to the testimony of the Spirit of God, in relation\n    to temporal affairs; that he had so acted that the plan of going\n    by water was approved by him, and that the failure of the scheme\n    was evidence in his mind that God did not approve of it.\" (The\n    foregoing is from the minutes of the said meeting.)\n\nI think this utterance of the Patriarch-Prophet of the Church gives\nvoice to the common sense view of inspiration, its operations upon\nme, and affairs of the Church. It is vain for men to claim divine\ninspiration for every move that is made in Church affairs. God makes\nno mistakes. He never errs in judgment. Whatever he does is done in\nperfect wisdom, and the final result either of a single act or a series\nof acts is always his vindication. So that whatsoever of unwisdom\nappears in the policy of his Church; whatsoever of defect appears in\nthe administration of her affairs, are not assignable to God, nor are\nthey the result of the operation of his inspiration upon the minds\nof men. Such unwisdom in policy, such defects in administration are\nreferable alone to men, whose knowledge is limited, whose foresight,\nwhen unhelped by divine inspiration, is imperfect, whose wisdom when\nbacked by no other intelligence than that native to their own spirits\nis halting, and whose judgment is burdened with many a defect. Men are\nresponsible for such blundering as may take place in the management of\nthis divine institution we call the Church of Christ.\n\nThat there have been unwise things done in the Church by good men,\nmen susceptible at times to the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we\nmay not question. Many instances in the history of the Church through\nthree quarters of a century prove it, and it would be a solecism to\nsay that God was the author of those unwise, not to say positively\nfoolish, things that have been done. For these things men must stand\nresponsible, not God.\n\nIt is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of\nGod in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first\nmen are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting\ntheir own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their\nsins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate\nthe influence of God from human affairs; I pause in doubt as to which\nextreme would be the worse.\n\nAfter these remarks I can hear some in their hearts ask, \"How, then,\nshall we attain to certainty? How are we to know when men speak and\nact under divine inspiration, and when by their own unaided human\nintelligence? When God gave the world inspired apostles and prophets\nand had established a divine institution for the instruction and\nguidance of men, we had fondly hoped that at last doubt and uncertainty\nhad been driven out of the minds of those who placed themselves under\nthe tutorship of such instructors and such a divine institution as\nthe Church of Christ; and that now we were placed in a position where\nan unerring finality might be attained on all questions involving\nhuman affairs and human conduct.\" So indeed, good friends, you have,\nin the Church of Christ, a means of attaining finality in regard to\nall those questions that concern your salvation. There is and can be\nno questioning or doubting concerning the essential principles of the\ngospel of Christ taught by his Church. Here we stand on the solid rock,\nnot on shifting sands. We can and do know the truth with reference to\nthe matters that concern our salvation; and God in the dispensation\nof the fulness of times, wherein he has decreed the completion of his\nwork with reference to the salvation of men and the redemption of the\nearth will never permit man's imperfections and unwisdom to thwart\nthe accomplishment of his great purposes. In these things we stand\nabsolutely secure. But with reference to matters involving merely\nquestions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do\nnot involve the great and central truths of the gospel--these afford a\nmargin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even\nof prophets and apostles, may be displayed; that they, in common with\nthe membership of the Church, may exercise their freedom and agency,\nand, of course, stand responsible, blamable or praiseable, according as\nthey acquit themselves well or ill in discharging those duties which\ndevolve upon them. In this connection let me say that it should not be\nmatter of surprise to any one that unwise things have been both said\nand done by some of the best men in the Church. On the contrary, it is\nmatter of congratulation to the Church that so little unwisdom has been\nmanifested by our brethren upon whom God has laid the heavy burdens of\nso great a work.\n\nAs to the matter of attaining certainty in human affairs, that is not\nto be expected. Is it indeed desirable? \"Know ye not that we walk by\nfaith and not by sight?\" is the language of Paul to the Saints in his\nday. By which token I infer that we are placed in this earth-probation\nto pass through just such experiences as those to which we seem born\nheirs. Is it not in part the meaning of life that we are here under\njust such conditions as prevail in order that we may learn the value of\nbetter things? Is not this very doubt of ours concerning the finality\nof things--finality which ever seems to elude our grasp--the means of\nour education? What mere automatons would we become if we found truth\nmachine-made and limited, that is to say, finite, instead of being\nas we now find it, infinite and elusive, and attainable only as we\nbeat it out on the anvil of our own experiences? Yet so far as men\nmay be furnished with the means of attaining to certainty concerning\nthe class of things of which we are speaking, the Saints of God are\nsupplied with that means. Their obedience to the gospel brings to\nthem the possession of the Holy Ghost, and it is Mormon doctrine that\n\"by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things.\"\n(Moroni.) This Spirit takes of the things of God and makes them known\nto men. By his testimony we may know that the Lord is God, that Jesus\nis the Christ, that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. By\nhim bearing witness to our spirits we can recognize the truth, and\nknow when men speak of themselves and when they speak as moved upon by\nthe Holy Spirit. But even with the possession of this Spirit to guide\nus into all truth, I pray you, nevertheless, not to look for finality\nin things, for you will look in vain. Intelligence, purity, truth,\nwill always remain with us relative terms and also relative qualities.\nAscend to what heights you may, ever beyond you will be other heights\nin respect of these things, and ever as you ascend more heights will\nappear, and it is doubtful if we shall ever attain the absolute in\nrespect of these qualities.[A] Our joy will be the joy of approximating\nthem, of attaining unto ever increasing excellence, without attaining\nthe absolute. It will be the joy of eternal progress. Something too\nmuch of this. Let me hasten to a word in conclusion.\n\n[Footnote A: Since the above discourse was delivered I have read the\nfollowing in the \"Hibbert Journal\" for April, 1907; and I feel that the\nthough is too well expressed to omit the quotation of it here:\n\n    \"A certain orientation is a necessary condition of fruitful\n    research: we must be sure of the direction even if we cannot see\n    the goal. Thus, as Laberthonniere says, there is a sense in which\n    those only can truly seek who have already found. \"Let us, then\n    seek as they seek who have to find, and let us find as they find\n    who still have to seek; for it is said: 'The man who has arrived\n    at the goal is but at the beginning.'\" [St. Augustine] He then\n    who thus conceives of religion will rid himself of that fallacy\n    of finality, and all that narrowness of vision and pettiness of\n    mind aptly described by the French writer as the tradition of the\n    little books that make God little, which vitiates popular religious\n    belief in the eyes of those who know enough to know how little\n    can be known. * * * Because the subject matter of religion is\n    Infinite we must look for no finality in religious ideas. Sure of\n    the direction, let us not delude ourselves by fancying we can see\n    the goal; our goal is but a beginning, as we find but to seek the\n    more.\"]\n\nI would like to come very near to you, if you will permit it, in\na heart to heart talk. I would like to stand in the relationship\nof an elder brother to you young men and young women of Israel for\na few moments; as a brother whose opportunities in the matter of\ninvestigating Mormonism have been rather exceptional, on account of\nthe lines of work I have followed. The books I have written have led\nme into a very close investigation of original documents respecting\nMormonism. Very much of the private correspondence between President\nBrigham Young and President John Taylor happened to pass through my\nhands, while engaged in writing the biography of the latter. I have had\nthe opportunity of consulting the private journals kept by these and\nother leading brethren of the Church, in which I have read utterances\nthey never expected to see daylight. Documents wherein they recorded\nthe secret things of their hearts, and their convictions concerning\nthe work of God. I gathered much comfort, and have been strengthened\nin my own faith by finding these men perfectly honest in thought and\nword respecting the work of God. Their most private utterances were in\nperfect harmony with the things which they proclaimed publicly. In this\nrespect I have found them pure gold. I speak of this not to boast, but\nin order that I may remind you of the simple fact that I have had these\nexceptional opportunities of investigating Mormonism, not from public\nutterances alone, but from behind the scenes, so to speak, where the\nskeletons would have appeared if there were skeletons in existence.\nAnd now, in the presence of these facts, and this opportunity afforded\nme, I want to say to you, my young brethren and sisters, that God has\nspoken in this age in which we live. He has revealed himself to the\nchildren of men, and has communicated a message to the world in what\nis called Mormonism. The book of Mormon is true. The great revelations\nthat underlie this latter day work are true. The revelations concerning\nthe nature of God and man, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the\nrevelations out of which has grown this organization which we call the\nChurch of Christ of Latter-day Saints, are verities.\n\nNow, following this testimony, I want to warn you against speaking\nlightly or slightingly of sacred things, or of the servants of God.\nIn nothing, perhaps, can you more offend God or grieve his Spirit.\nHave nothing to do, I pray you, with \"smart\" quips against the truth,\nhowever respectable their origin, or however popular or catchy their\nphraseology. I pray you give them no lodgment in your hearts. Remember\nwe live under the law of God.--Speak no evil of mine anointed; do my\nprophets no harm. And remember always that whatever the weaknesses and\nthe imperfections of men may be, whatever weaknesses they may have\nmanifested before the Church in the past, or may manifest before it in\nthe future (for the end is not yet), their weaknesses and imperfections\naffect not the truth that God has revealed. The Lord will vindicate his\ntruth, and at the last it will be found that\n\n  \"'Tis no avail to bargain, sneer, and nod,\n  And shrug the shoulder for reply to God.\"\n\nRemember also that ridicule is not argument; that a sneer, though it\nmay not be susceptible of an answer, is no refutation of the truth;\nthat though profane ribaldry may provoke a passing merriment, the\nprofaner's \"laugh is a poor exchange for Deity offended.\" I therefore\nadmonish you, as a friend and brother, to stand aloof from all these\nthings. Hold as sacred the truths of God; and hold in highest esteem,\nas indeed you may, those whom God has appointed to be his prophets,\napostles and servants.\n\n[THE END.]\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nSome apparent printer's errors have been silently corrected as seemed\nreasonable.","title":"Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 1 of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":148932}