{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52819/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52819","id":"gutenberg_52819","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52819","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Latter Day Saint churches","Latter Day Saints"],"text":"DEFENSE OF THE FAITH\n\nAND THE SAINTS\n\n\nBY\n\nB. H. ROBERTS\n\nAUTHOR OF\n\n\"The Gospel\"\n\n\"Outlines of Ecclesiastical History\"\n\n\"New Witness for God\"\n\n\"Mormon Doctrine of Deity\"\n\nEtc., Etc.\n\nVOLUME II.\n\n\nSalt Lake City\n\n1912\n\n\n\nGENERAL FOREWORD\n\nNo word of Preface is necessary to this Volume, except to say that\nin presenting it to his readers, the author feels that that he is\nfulfilling a promise made to them when Volume I of the series was\nissued.\n\nA word of explanation will be found as an introduction to each\nsubdivision of the book, which excludes the necessity of making any\nreference to such subdivisions in this General Forward.\n\nTHE AUTHOR.\n\nSalt Lake City, January, 1912.\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nGENERAL FOREWORD\n\n\nPart I.\n\nORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nSchroeder-Roberts' Debate.\n\nForeword.\n\nThe Appearing of Moroni.\n\nThe Book of Mormon.\n\nDescription of the Nephite Record.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nBy Theodore Schroeder.\n\nI.\n\nSolomon Spaulding and his first manuscript.\n\nSpaulding's rewritten manuscript.\n\nErroneous theories examined.\n\nII.\n\nHow about Sidney Rigdon?\n\nRigdon's prior religious dishonesty.\n\nRigdon had opportunity to steal the manuscript.\n\nRigdon's only denial analyzed.\n\nRigdon and Lambdin in 1815.\n\nRigdon exhibits Spaulding's manuscript.\n\nRigdon foreknows the coming and contents of the Book of Mormon.\n\nIII.\n\nFrom Rigdon to Smith via P. P. Pratt.\n\nRigdon visits Smith before Mormonism.\n\nThe conversion of Parley P. Pratt.\n\nRigdon's miraculous conversion.\n\nThe plagiarism clinched.\n\nIV.\n\nFor the love of gold, not God.\n\nConcluding comment.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nBy Brigham H. Roberts.\n\nI.\n\nJustifications for replying to Mr. Schroeder.\n\nPreliminary considerations.\n\nVarious classes of witnesses.\n\nConflicting theories of origin.\n\nMr. Schroeder's statement of his case.\n\nThe facts of the Spaulding manuscript.\n\nThe task of the present writer.\n\nThe enemies of the Prophet.\n\n\"Dr.\" Philastus Hurlburt.\n\nRev. Adamson Bently, et al.\n\nII.\n\nThe \"second\" Spaulding manuscript.\n\nThe failure of Howe's book.\n\nThe Conneaut witnesses.\n\nE. D. Howe discredited as a witness.\n\nThe Davidson statement.\n\nAlleged statement of Mrs. Davidson, formerly the wife of Solomon\nSpaulding.\n\nThe Haven-Davidson interview.\n\nMrs. Ellen E. Dickinson's repudiation of the Davidson statement.\n\nReverend John A. Clark and the Davidson statement.\n\nMutilation of the Haven-Davidson interview.\n\nMr. Schroeder and the Davidson statement.\n\nWhy Mr. Schroeder discredits the Spaulding witnesses.\n\nIII.\n\nThe connection of Sidney Rigdon with the Spaulding manuscript.\n\nOf Rigdon's alleged \"religious dishonesty.\"\n\nRigdon's opportunity to steal Spaulding's manuscript.\n\nDid Rigdon exhibit the Spaulding manuscript.\n\nDid Rigdon foreknown the coming and contents of the Book of Mormon?\n\nAlexander Campbell and the Book of Mormon in 1831.\n\nIV.\n\n\"The Angel of the Prairies.\"\n\nThe supposed meetings of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon before the\npublication of the Book of Mormon.\n\nOf the conversion of Pratt and Rigdon.\n\nThe denials of Rigdon.\n\nThe real origin of the Spaulding theory.\n\nThe motive for publishing the Book of Mormon.\n\nConcluding remarks.\n\n\nPart II.\n\nRECENT DISCUSSION OF MORMON AFFAIRS.\n\nForeword.\n\nI.\n\nAN ADDRESS.\n\nBy the Presidency of the Church.\n\nThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the world.\n\nII.\n\nREVIEW OF ADDRESS TO THE WORLD.\n\nBy the Ministerial Association.\n\nForeword.\n\nReview.\n\nIII.\n\nANSWER TO MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION'S REVIEW.\n\nBy B. H. Roberts.\n\nForeword.\n\nAnswer.\n\n\nPart III.\n\nJOSEPH SMITH'S DOCTRINES VINDICATED.\n\nForeword.\n\nI.\n\nTHE FIRST MESSAGE OF MORMONISM VINDICATED.\n\nJoseph Smith's first vision.\n\n\"Creeds are an abomination.\"\n\nGod's first message confirmed.\n\nReform in Protestantism.\n\nWhat Mormonism affirms.\n\nImmortality of man.\n\nII.\n\nOTHER DOCTRINES OF JOSEPH SMITH VINDICATED BY THE COLLEGES.\n\nI. Men the Avatars of God.\n\nII. The Existence of a Plurality of Divine Intelligences--Gods.\n\n\nPart IV.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS DISCOURSES.\n\nI.\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF MORMONISM; A SLANDER REFUTED.\n\nIntroductory.\n\nPeople judged by their laws.\n\nThe calling of Sidney Rigdon.\n\nA few days with the Prophet--Prayerfulness.\n\nWoman's place in Mormonism.\n\nGod's Herald of the Resurrection and Human Brotherhood--Woman.\n\nUnjust criticism answered.\n\nBy their works they shall be judged.\n\nII.\n\nERRONEOUS IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS--SOME THINGS THEY DO\nNOT BELIEVE.\n\nCatholic belief.\n\nFaith in the Godhead.\n\nErroneous reports.\n\nRevelation quoted.\n\nBelief in revelation.\n\nInspired utterances.\n\nRevealed word.\n\nGod's word is Truth.\n\nTestimony borne.\n\nIII.\n\nTHE THINGS OF GOD GREATER THAN MAN'S CONCEPTION OF THEM.\n\nDivine things misjudged.\n\nMarvelous work and a wonder.\n\nThe New Jerusalem.\n\nRestoration of Israel.\n\nLost tribes in the north.\n\nIsrael now gathering.\n\nPurposes of God will not fail.\n\nIV.\n\nMORMONISM AS A BODY OF DOCTRINE.\n\nIntroductory.\n\nMormon view of the universe.\n\nPhilosophy of Mormonism.\n\nSource of moral evil.\n\nThe place and mission of Christ in Mormon doctrine.\n\nV.\n\nPEACE.\n\nThe blessedness of peace.\n\nThe God of Battles.\n\nJustice the basis of peace.\n\nVI.\n\nTHE MYSTERIOUS HARMONIES OF THE GREAT REPUBLIC.\n\nIntroduction.\n\nThe miracle of American achievements.\n\nThe inspiration of the founders of the American Constitution.\n\nThe unique things in American government.\n\n\n\nPart I.\n\nOrigin of the Book of Mormon.\n\nSCHROEDER-ROBERTS DEBATE.\n\nPublished with the consent and by courtesy of the National American\nSociety,\n\nDavid I. Nelke, President.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following debate on the \"Origin of the Book of Mormon,\" came about\nin the following manner: The writer saw in the _Salt Lake Tribune_ two\nnumbers of Mr. Schroeder's article and observing the general trend\nof the argument felt that a prompt reply should appear in the same\npublication, that it might be read by the same people who would read\nMr. Schroeder's article. A letter was accordingly addressed to the\n_Tribune,_ to ascertain if that paper would publish a reply to Mr.\nSchroeder. The Editor answered that the _Tribune_ was reproducing the\narticle from the _American Historical Magazine,_ published in New York,\nand that perhaps its publishers would be pleased to receive a reply to\nMr. Schroeder. If the publishers of the _Historical Magazine_ accepted\nsuch an article, the _Tribune_ would then be willing to reproduce it,\nif the _Deseret News,_ the Mormon Church organ, would agree to publish\nMr. Schroeder's article.\n\nThis suggested a too complicated arrangement to suit the writer, hence\nhe dropped the matter with the _Tribune,_ and took it up with the\npublishers of the _American Historical Magazine,_ who gave place to his\nanswer to Mr. Schroeder in current numbers of that publication, 1908-9.\nAnd the writer has heard nothing from the _Tribune_ or Mr. Schroeder\nsince.\n\nAt the conclusion of the article on the \"Origin of the Book of Mormon,\"\nthe _Historical Magazine Company,_ Mr. David I. Nelke, President,\nannounced their willingness to publish in _Americana,_--which in the\nmeantime had succeeded the _American Historical Magazine_ a detailed\nhistory of the \"Mormon Church,\" if the writer would prepare it.\n\nThe History has been running in _Americana_ now for more than two and\na half years, and will continue until the History of the Church is\ncompleted up to date.\n\n    *    *    *    *    *    *\n\nAnd now a word as to the origin of the Book of Mormon before presenting\nthe discussion. It will be an advantage to the reader if he has before\nhim Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon. For our\npresent purpose the account the Prophet gives in his statement to Mr.\nJohn Wentworth, of Chicago, of the origin of the Book of Mormon is,\non account of its brevity and comprehensiveness, most suitable. After\ndetailing the events of his first vision, received in the Spring of\n1820, and the intervening three years, the Prophet comes to the Book of\nMormon part of his narrative:\n\n    THE APPEARING OF MORONI.\n\n    \"On the evening of the 21st of September, A. D. 1823, while I was\n    praying unto God and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious\n    promises of scripture, on a sudden a light like that of day, only\n    of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness, burst\n    into the room,--indeed the first sight was as though the house was\n    filled with consuming fire; the appearance producing a shock that\n    affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me\n    surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was\n    already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an\n    angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings that the covenant\n    which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled;\n    that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was\n    speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the gospel in\n    all its fulness to be preached in power unto all nations, that a\n    people might be prepared for the Millennial reign. I was informed\n    that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring\n    about some of His purposes in this glorious dispensation.\n\n    THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\n    \"I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this\n    country and shown who they were, and whence they came; a brief\n    sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments;\n    of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God\n    being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known to\n    me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were\n    engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that\n    had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times\n    the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received\n    many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory\n    of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the\n    morning of the 22d of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord\n    delivered the records into my hands.\n\n    DESCRIPTION OF THE NEPHITE RECORD.\n\n    \"These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance\n    of gold; each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long,\n    and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with\n    engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume\n    as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the\n    whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a\n    part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were\n    small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many\n    marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art\n    of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument,\n    which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted\n    of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to\n    a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I\n    translated the record by the gift and power of God.\n\n    \"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient\n    America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that\n    came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages, to\n    the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are\n    informed by these records that America in ancient times had been\n    inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first was called\n    Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second\n    race came directly from the City of Jerusalem, about six hundred\n    years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the\n    descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time\n    that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the\n    inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race\n    fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century [A.D.].\n    The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This\n    book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance upon this\n    continent after His resurrection; that He planted the gospel here\n    in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that\n    they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists;\n    the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances,\n    gifts, powers, and blessings, as were enjoyed on the Eastern\n    continent; that the people were cut off in consequence of their\n    transgressions; that the last of their prophets who existed among\n    them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies,\n    history, etc., and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should\n    come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of\n    the purposes of God in the last days.\"\n\nThe book issued from the press sometime in the month of March, 1830. [A]\n\n[Footnote A: For a more detailed account of the origin of the Book of\nMormon, see the writer's work, \"New Witnesses for God,\" Vol. II, chs.\niv and viii.]\n\nFrom the first appearance of Joseph Smith's account of the origin\nof the Book of Mormon, there was felt the need of a counter theory\nof origin. The first to respond to this \"felt\" need was Alexander\nCampbell, founder of the \"Disciples\" or \"Christian\" Church. He\nassigned the book's origin straight to Joseph Smith, whom he accused\nof conscious fraud in \"foisting it upon the public as a revelation.\"\nThis in 1831. Then came the Spaulding theory of origin by Hurlburt,\nHowe, _et al.,_ 1834; for which Mr. Campbell repudiated his first\ntheory of the Joseph Smith authorship. In 1899 Lily Dougall in \"The\nMormon Prophet,\" advanced her theory of the Prophet's \"self delusion,\"\n\"by the automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain.\" This\nwas supplemented in 1902 by Mr. I. Woodbridge Riley's theory of \"pure\nhallucination, honestly mistaken for inspired vision; with partly\nconscious and partly unconscious hypnotic powers over others.\" [B]\n\n[Footnote B: Both the Dougall and Riley theories are considered in Vol.\nI. of _Defense of the Faith and the Saints_, pp. 42-62; and the older\ntheories of the origin in _New Witness for God_, Vol. III, chas. xliv,\nxlv.]\n\nMr. Schroeder, however, will have none of these later theories; and\nalthough the finding of the Rev. Mr. Spauldings' \"Manuscript Found,\"\nby Professor Fairchild of Oberlin College, in 1884--details of which\nare given in the debate gave a serious set back to that theory, Mr.\nSchroeder deems the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of\nMormon the only tenable counter theory advanced, and assuming the\nexistence of another Spaulding manuscript _not found,_ and not likely\nto be found, he proceeds with his argument; to which I make answer,\nwith what success the reader must judge.\n\nB. H. ROBERTS.\n\nSalt Lake City, October, 1911.\n\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nBY THEODORE SCHROEDER\n\nI.\n\nEvery complete, critical discussion of the divine origin of the Book\nof Mormon naturally divides itself into three parts:--first, an\nexamination as to the sufficiency of the evidence adduced in support\nof its miraculous and divine origin; second, an examination of the\ninternal evidences of its origin, [1] such as its verbiage, its alleged\nhistory, chronology, archaeology, etc.; third, an accounting for its\nexistence by purely human agency and upon a rational basis, remembering\nthat Joseph Smith, the nominal founder and first prophet of Mormonism,\nwas probably too ignorant to have produced the whole volume unaided.\nUnder the last head, two theories have been advocated by non-Mormons.\nBy one of these, conscious fraud has been imputed to Smith, and by the\nother, psychic mysteries have been explored [2] in an effort to supplant\nthe conscious fraud by an unconscious self-deception.\n\n[Footnote 1: Valuable contributions to this study are Lamb's \"Golden\nBible\" and a pamphlet by Lamoni Call classifying two thousand\ncorrections in the inspired grammar of the first edition of the Book of\nMormon.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The best effort along this line is Riley's \"The Founder of\nMormonism.\" To me the conclusions are very unsatisfactory, because so\nmany material considerations were overlooked by that author.]\n\nIn 1834, four years after its first appearance, an effort was made to\nshow that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism from an unpublished novel\nof Solomon Spaulding. For a long time this seemed the accepted theory\nof all non-Mormons. In the past fifteen years, apparently following\nin the lead of President Fairchild of Oberlin College, [3] all but\ntwo of the numerous writers upon the subject have asserted that the\ntheory of the Spaulding manuscript origin of the Book of Mormon must be\nabandoned, and Mormons assert that only fools and knaves still profess\nbelief in it. [4] With these last conclusions I am compelled to disagree.\n\n[Footnote 3: President Fairchild, in the New York _Observer_ for\nFebruary 5, 1885, that being immediately after his discovery of the\nOberlin Manuscript, says: \"The theory of the origin of the Book of\nMormon in the traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably\nhave to be relinquished. * * * Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it\nwith the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the\ntwo in general or detail. * * * Some other explanation of the origin\nof the Book of Mormon must be found, if an explanation is required.\"\n(Reproduced in Whitney's \"History of Utah,\" 56. Talmage's \"Articles of\nFaith,\" 278.)\n\nTen years later Mr. Fairchild is not so brash in assuming the Oberlin\nManuscript to be the only Spaulding Manuscript, and he certifies\nonly that the Oberlin Manuscript \"is not the original of the Book\nof Mormon.\" (Letter dated Oct. 17, 1895, published in vol. lx.,\n_Millennial Star,_ p. 697, Nov. 3, 1898. Talmage's \"Articles of Faith,\"\n279.)\n\n_Fairchild's Latest Statement._--In 1900 President Fairchild wrote the\nRev. J. D. Nutting as follows:\n\n\"With regard to the manuscript of Mr. Spaulding now in the library of\nOberlin College, I have never stated, and know of no one who can state,\nthat it is the only manuscript which Spaulding wrote, or that it is\ncertainly the one which has been supposed to be the original of the\nBook of Mormon. The discovery of this MS. does not prove that there may\nnot have been another, which became the basis of the Book of Mormon.\nThe use which has been made of statements emanating from me as implying\nthe contrary of the above is entirely unwarranted.\n\n\"JAMES H. FAIRCHILD\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: The _Deseret News_ editorially says this on July 19, 1900:\n\"The discovery of the manuscript written by Mr. Spaulding, and its\ndeposit in the library at Oberlin College, O., * * * has so completely\ndemolished the theory once relied upon by superficial minds that the\nBook of Mormon was concocted from that manuscript, that it has been\nentirely abandoned by all opponents of Mormonism except the densely\nignorant or unscrupulously dishonest.\"\n\nAnd this on May 14, 1901:\n\n\"It is only the densely ignorant, the totally depraved and clergymen of\ndifferent denominations afflicted with anti-Mormon rabies who still use\nthe Spaulding story to account for the origin of the Book of Mormon.\"]\n\nIn setting forth my convictions and the reasons for them, I have\nundertaken nothing entirely new, but have only assigned myself the task\nof establishing as an historical fact what is now an abandoned and\nalmost forgotten theory. This will be done by marshaling in its support\na more complete array of the old evidences than has been heretofore\nmade and the addition of new circumstantial evidence not heretofore\nused in this connection.\n\nIt will be shown that Solomon Spaulding was much interested in American\nantiquities; that he wrote a novel entitled the \"Manuscript Found,\" in\nwhich he attempted to account for the existence of the American Indian\nby giving him an Israelitish origin; that the first incomplete outline\nof this story, with many features peculiar to itself and the Book of\nMormon, is now in the library of Oberlin College, and that while the\nstory as rewritten was in the hands of a prospective publisher, it\nwas stolen from the office under circumstances which caused Sidney\nRigdon, of early Mormon fame, to be suspected as the thief; that\nlater Rigdon, on two occasions, exhibited a similar manuscript which\nin one instance he declared had been written by Spaulding and left\nwith a printer for publication. It will be shown further that Rigdon\nhad opportunity to steal the manuscript and that he foreknew the\nforthcoming and the contents of the Book of Mormon; that through Parley\nP. Pratt, later one of the first Mormon apostles, a plain and certain\nconnection is traced between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, and that\nthey were friends between 1827 and 1830. To all this will be added very\nconclusive evidence of the identity of the distinguished features of\nSpaulding's \"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of Mormon. These facts,\ncoupled with Smith's admitted intellectual incapacity for producing the\nbook unaided, will close the argument upon this branch of the question,\nand it is hoped will convince all not in the meshes of Mormonism that\nthe Book of Mormon is a plagiarism. To those Mormons whose minds are\nuntainted by mysticism, who have the intelligence to weigh evidence\nand the courage to proclaim convictions opposed to accepted church\ntheories--to such Mormons, though not convinced that the evidence here\nreviewed amounts to a demonstration, it must be that this essay will\nyet furnish even to them a more believable and more probable theory of\nthe origin of the Book of Mormon than the one which involves a belief\nin undemonstrable miracles as well as matters entirely outside of all\nother experience of sane humans. Certainly the theory here advanced\nrequires for its belief the acceptance of less of improbable assumption\nthan does any other explanation offered. With this statement of what\nit is expected to accomplish we may proceed to review the evidence in\ndetail.\n\nSOLOMON SPAULDING AND HIS FIRST MANUSCRIPT.\n\nSolomon Spaulding was born in 1761 at Ashford, Conn., graduated from\nDartmouth in 1785, graduated in theology in 1787, and became an obscure\npreacher. The fact that Spaulding had become an infidel, [5] that in\nrewriting the first outline of his story he adopted, as he said, \"the\nold Scripture style\" to make it seem more ancient, [6] and the further\nfact that he told at least four persons at different times that his\nstory would some day be accepted as veritable history [7]--all of these,\ncombined with the peculiar product, tend to show that one motive for\nthe writing of this supposed novel may have been the author's desire\nto burlesque the Bible and furnish a practical demonstration of the\ngullibility of the masses.\n\n[Footnote 5: See Addendum to Spaulding Manuscript at Oberlin College\nand Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 283, 4, 6, 7.]\n\nWhile at Dartmouth College, Spaulding had as a classmate the\nsubsequently famous imposter and criminal, Stephen Burroughs, [8] which\nfact furnishes interesting material for reflection as to how far the\nsubsequent ill fame of Burroughs, coupled with personal acquaintance,\nmay have operated in Spaulding as a fruitful suggestion inducing this\nlabor as a means of securing fortune through fraud. If Spaulding\ndid not see the possibility of a new and profitable religion in his\n\"Manuscript Found,\" then he was more short-sighted than was a nephew\nof his named King. This nephew told one Hale, a schoolteacher, of his\nbelief that he could start a new religion out of this novel and make\nmoney thereby, at the same time briefly outlining a plan very similar\nto the one long afterward adopted by Smith, Rigdon and Company. If we\ncan place any confidence in the report of an interview between a Mormon\n\"elder\" and a nephew of Solomon Spaulding, then it would appear that\nin the opinion of the latter's brother Solomon Spaulding was not a man\nwho would be, by conscientious scruples, deterred from practicing such\na fraud, if believed profitable. [10] Be that as it may, Spaulding did\nhope by the sale of his literary production to make sufficient money to\nenable him to pay his debts. [11]\n\n[Footnote 8: \"Memoirs of Stephen Burroughs,\" p. 26, ed. of 1811, shows\nBurroughs to have entered Dartmouth in 1781, which must have been\nSpaulding's date of entry, he having graduated in 1785.]\n\n[Footnote 9: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 261.]\n\n[Footnote 10: xxxv. _Saints' Herald_, 820.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 285.]\n\nIn 1809 Solomon Spaulding and Henry Lake built and conducted a forge at\nSalem (now Conneaut), O., where, in 1812, the former made his second\nbusiness failure. [12]\n\n[Footnote 12: \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 443; Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\"\n279 and 282; \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 13.]\n\nSpaulding, being an invalid, possessed of a good education and habits\nof study, naturally took to literary work, which he probably commenced\nsoon after 1809, [13] and continued until his death in October, 1816.\nDuring this seven years he seems to have written several other\nmanuscripts [14] besides the two with which we are directly concerned.\n\n[Footnote 13: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 279; \"New Light on\nMormonism,\" 13-14.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 285; \"New Light on\nMormonism,\" 20.]\n\nNecessarily Spaulding's surroundings gave some direction to the course\nof his literary efforts. Environed as he was in a country where once\ndwelt the mound-builders, and having himself caused one of the mounds\nto be opened, with the resulting discovery of bones and relics of a\nsupposedly prehistoric civilization, [15] like thousands before him,\nhe was led to speculate upon the character of that civilization and\nthe origin of those ancient peoples. Josiah Priest, in his \"Wonders of\nNature and Providence\" (1824), quotes over forty authors, half of whom\nare Americans, and all of whom, prior to 1824, advocated an Israelitish\norigin of the American Indian. Some of these dated as far back as\nClavigaro, a Catholic priest in the seventeenth century.\n\n[Footnote 15: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 14.]\n\nIn Spaulding's first writing of his manuscript story, he pretended to\nfind a roll of parchment in a stone box within a cave. In the Latin\nlanguage, this contained an account of a party of Roman sea voyagers,\nwho, in the time of Constantine, were, by storms, drifted ashore on\nthe American continent. One of their number left this record of their\ntravels, of Indian wars and customs, which record Spaulding pretends to\nhave found and to translate. [16] How that resembles a synopsis of the\nBook of Mormon!\n\n[Footnote 16: \"The Manuscript Found.\" For Howe's synopsis see\n\"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288. Whitney's \"History of Utah,\" 49-51.]\n\nIn 1834, when E. D. Howe had in preparation his book, \"Mormonism\nUnveiled,\" wherein the Spaulding story was first exploited, this first\nmanuscript was given by Spaulding's family to D. P. Hurlburt, the agent\nof Howe. The Spaulding family, without having made any examination\nwhatever of the papers delivered to Hurlburt, seem always to have\nbelieved, [17] though without any evidence, that he received and sold\nto the Mormons the rewritten story entitled \"Manuscript Found,\" which\nwill be more fully discussed hereafter. From Howe this first manuscript\nstory went into the possession of one L. L. Rice, who bought out Howe's\nbusiness, and later, with other effects of Rice's, it was shipped to\nHonolulu, and there, in 1884, accidentally discovered by President\nJames H. Fairchild of Oberlin College. [18] This manuscript is now in\nthe Oberlin library, and has been published by two of the Mormon sects\nas being a refutation of the Spaulding origin of the Book of Mormon. It\ncan be such refutation only to those who mistake it for another story.\nHowe, in 1834, published a fair synopsis of the manuscript now at\nOberlin [19] and submitted the original to the witnesses who testified\nto the many points of identity between Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found\"\nand the Book of Mormon. These witnesses then (in 1834) recognized the\nmanuscript, secured by Hurlburt and now at Oberlin, as being one of\nSpaulding's, but not the one which they asserted was similar to the\nBook of Mormon. They further said that Spaulding had told them that he\nhad altered his original plan of writing by going farther back with his\ndates and writing in the old Scripture style, in order that his story\nmight appear more ancient. [20]\n\n[Footnote 17: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" by Mrs. Ellen F. Dickinson.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Publisher's Preface to \"The Manuscript Found,\" p. iv.\n_Deseret News_, 1886; Whitney's \"History of Utah,\" p. 49; Talmage's\n\"Articles of Faith,\" 278-9.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288; Whitney's \"History of\nUtah,\" 49.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288.]\n\nAccording to many witnesses, the re-written \"Manuscript Found\" (like\nthe Book of Mormon) was an attempt at imitating the literary style of\nthe Bible. So was the manuscript submitted to Patterson, according to\nhis own statement. [21] No such indications are found in the Oberlin\nmanuscript, which further evidences that it is not the manuscript of\nwhich the witnesses testified, and which Patterson says was submitted\nto him. The Oberlin manuscript also furnishes internal evidences of\nan improbability that it was ever submitted to a publisher by any man\nas sane and well educated as was Spaulding. The plot of the story is\nincomplete, and the manuscript is full of interlineations, alterations,\ncareless or phonetic spelling, and misused capital letters. These are\nall easily explainable consistently with Spaulding's erudition, if\nwe view the manuscript as a hasty and careless blocking out of his\nliterary work, but it is not in such a condition as would make him\nwilling to submit it to a publisher.\n\n[Footnote 21: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" by John E.\nPage, 7; \"Who wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 7; \"Mormonism Exposed,\" by\nWilliams.]\n\nIf we bear in mind that from the beginning it was asserted that this\nmanuscript now at Oberlin was not the one from which the Book of Mormon\nwas alleged to have been plagiarized, then President Fairchild's\nconclusion that it disproves such plagiarism of course becomes absurd\nand only demonstrates his ignorance of the early testimony upon\nwhich was asserted the connection of the Book of Mormon and another\nmanuscript. This also disposes of the Mormon argument most frequently\nurged against the theory here advocated.\n\nEither through like ignorance of the evidence of 1834 that this was not\nthe manuscript then being testified about, or through a willingness to\nplay upon the ignorance of others, the two leading sects of Mormons\nhave published this first manuscript as a refutation of a theory which\nno one ever advocated, viz.: That the manuscript now at Oberlin was\nthe thing from which Smith _et al._ plagiarized the Book of Mormon. In\nmy judgment, the publication of this first incomplete manuscript story\nfurnishes additional evidence that the rewritten story did constitute\nthe foundation of the Book of Mormon. When we remember what was said\nin 1834 as to the character of changes made in rewriting, and that\nthe rewritten story was revamped by Smith, Rigdon and Company, we are\nastonished at the number of similarities retained; as, for instance,\nthe finding of the story in a stone box, its translation into English,\nthe attempt to account for a portion of the population of this\ncontinent, the wars of extermination of two factions, the impossible\nslaughters of primitive warfare, and the physically impossible armies\nwhich were gathered without modern facilities of either transportation\nor the furnishing of supplies--the fact that after two rewritings, the\nsecond being by new authors, there should remain these very unusual\nfeatures, makes the discovery and publication of this first manuscript\nonly an additional evidence that the second one did furnish the basis\nof the Book of Mormon.\n\nBy always remembering these separate manuscripts and their different\nhistories, much seeming conflict of evidence can be explained, mistaken\nconclusions accounted for, and confusion avoided. The Mormons, in\ntheir publication of this first manuscript story, have labeled it\n\"The Manuscript Found,\" though no such title is discoverable anywhere\nupon or in the body of the manuscript in the Oberlin library. [22] The\nevident purpose of this is to further confound that first story with\nthe second or rewritten manuscript which it will be demonstrated really\nwas used in constructing the Book of Mormon, and which manuscript\nthe witnesses to be hereafter introduced described by that title.\nHaving traced to its final resting-place at Oberlin College the first\nmanuscript story, which had no direct connection with the Book of\nMormon and never was claimed to have such, let us now, if we can, trace\ninto the Book of Mormon Spaulding's rewritten story, entitled \"The\nManuscript Found.\"\n\n[Footnote 22: xxxv. _Saints' Herald,_ 130; \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 459.]\n\nSPAULDING'S REWRITTEN MANUSCRIPT.\n\nSpaulding commenced his writing about 1809, changing his plans while\nstill at Conneaut, that is, prior to 1812, [23] at which later date the\nrewritten story of \"The Manuscript Found\" was still incomplete. [24]\nIn 1812 Spaulding borrowed some money with which to go to Pittsburg,\nhoping there to get his novel published and thus make it possible\nfor him to pay his debts. [25] In Pittsburg Spaulding submitted his\nmanuscript to one Robert Patterson, then engaged in the publishing\nbusiness. [26] The exact date is not known but it is probable almost to\ncertainty that Spaulding would do this immediately upon his arrival\nin Pittsburg in 1812, since that was one of his definite purposes in\ngoing there. Spaulding's widow is reported as saying: \"At length the\nmanuscript was returned to the author, and soon after we removed to\nAmity, Washington County, Pa.\" [27] The return of the manuscript before\n1814, the date of the removal to Amity, is made additionally certain\nby the testimony of Redick McKee [28] and Joseph Miller. [29] This\nadditional evidence, especially that of the latter, makes it plain that\nSpaulding had his rewritten manuscript at Amity, thus demonstrating its\nreturn to Spaulding before the latter's removal from Pittsburg. The\nevidences of identity between the manuscript testified about as being\nat Amity, and Spaulding's rewritten story, leave no doubt. The review\nof this evidence of identity will be postponed until we come to review\nthe other evidences of identity between \"The Manuscript Found\" and the\nBook of Mormon.\n\n[Footnote 23: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 283.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 282-3.]\n\n[Footnote 26: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 16-17; \"History of the\nMormons,\" 43; \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 7.]\n\n[Footnote 27: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 252; \"Mormons' Own Book,\" 29;\n\"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 419; \"History of the Mormons,\" 43.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Washington (Pa.) _Reporter_ of April 21, 1869; \"Who Wrote\nthe Book of Mormon?\" 6.]\n\nIt is said that Patterson returned the manuscript to Spaulding with\nthe advice to \"polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out\nof it.\" [30] On behalf of Patterson it has been said that he directed\nits return unless the author would furnish ample security to guarantee\nthe expense of publishing, which we can readily believe to have been\nimpossible to the impecunious Spaulding. [31]\n\n[Footnote 30: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 238; _Magazine American\nHistory,_ June, 1882; _Scribner's Monthly,_ August, 1880; \"Prophet of\nPalmyra,\" 423.]\n\n[Footnote 31: \"Mormonism Exposed,\" by Williams, 16; \"Prophet of\nPalmyra,\" 455; \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" by John E.\nPage, 7.]\n\nAfter residing in Pittsburg two years, [32] the Spauldings moved to\nAmity in Washington County, Pa., where Solomon Spaulding and his\nreturned \"Manuscript Found\" again became the center of attraction\namong the commonplace neighborhood listeners, who did their loafing\nabout the Spaulding tavern. [33] Here the story was polished and\nfinished, [34] and from Amity Spaulding again journeyed to Pittsburg,\nin the hope in the second attempt of securing the publication of his\nstory, \"The Manuscript Found.\" [35] Spaulding's widow and daughter\nassert that at one time Patterson advised Spaulding \"to make out a\ntitle-page and preface.\" [36] That remark would seem most likely to\nhave been made after the finishing of the story, and I therefore feel\njustified in believing it to have been made after the second submission\nof the manuscript. Mrs. Spaulding-Davidson says this request was\nnever complied with, but for reasons which are unknown to her. In the\nlight of evidence to be hereafter reviewed, we are justified in an\ninference that one of the causes was a theft of the manuscript from the\npublisher's office, followed, perhaps, within a few weeks or months, by\nthe death of Spaulding, which occurred in October, 1816.\n\n[Footnote 32: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 287; \"Who Wrote the Book of\nMormon?\" 7.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 441, 442.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Reddick McKee in Washington (Pa.) _Reporter_, April 12,\n1869; \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 6.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 442-55.]\n\n[Footnote 36: \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 419-42; iii. _Millennial\nHarbinger_, about May 1839; Boston _Recorder_ during May 1839;\n\"Mormons' Own Book,\" 29.]\n\nERRONEOUS THEORIES EXAMINED.\n\nIt has been a theory among some that Joseph Smith himself secured the\nSpaulding manuscript from the house of William H. Sabine of Onondaga\nValley, N.Y., for whom Smith worked as a teamster in 1823. [37]\nAccording to another theory, Sidney Rigdon, while the \"Manuscript\nFound\" was at the printing office, copied it, the original being\nreturned to Spaulding. A third theory supposes Smith to have copied\nit while working for Sabine about 1823, leaving the original there. A\nfourth theory makes Spaulding copy his story for the publisher while\nkeeping the duplicate at home to be afterward cared for by the family.\nUnder all of these theories, the original of Spaulding's rewritten\nstory was delivered in 1833 to D. P. Hurlburt to be used by E. D. Howe\nin his then forthcoming book, \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" but, according\nto the Spaulding family, was by Hurlburt sold to the Mormons, and,\naccording to the Mormons, destroyed by Hurlburt because wholly unlike\nthe Book of Mormon. These theories can claim for themselves no greater\nweight than that, in the opinion of their several non-Mormon advocates,\nthey furnish a possible explanation as to the connecting link between\nSpaulding and Smith, but upon all essentials, except one, are without\nany evidence which involves the conclusion deduced from it, and not one\nof these theories is necessary as an explanation for the established\nfacts. The one element which has direct evidence in its support is the\nallegation that Spaulding's rewritten story of the \"Manuscript Found\"\nwas, after Spaulding's death, in the possession of his widow. That\nallegation rests upon the following statement of Spaulding's daughter,\nMrs. McKinstry, and the family belief in it without any additional\nevidence upon which to base that belief. She says:\n\n[Footnote 37: \"Hand Book on Mormonism,\" 3; \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" 47 and\n118.]\n\n    \"In 1816 my father died at Amity, Pa, and directly after his death\n    my mother and myself went to visit my mother's brother, William H.\n    Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga County, N Y. * * * We carried\n    our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk in\n    which my mother had placed my father's writings, which had been\n    preserved. I perfectly remember the appearance of this trunk, and\n    of looking at its contents. There were sermons and other papers,\n    and I saw a manuscript about an inch thick, closely written, tied\n    with some of the stories my father had written for me, one of which\n    he called the 'Frogs of Wyndham,' On the outside of this manuscript\n    were written the words, 'Manuscript Found.' I did not read it,\n    but looked through it and had it in my hands many times and saw\n    the names I had heard at Conneaut when my father read it to his\n    friends. I was about eleven years old at this time.\" [38]\n\n[Footnote 38: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" 238; _Magazine of American\nHistory,_ June, 1882; _Scribner's Monthly,_ August, 1880.]\n\nThe trunk remained at Sabine's until some time soon after 1820, [39]\nwhile in 1823 Smith is said to have worked for Sabine as a teamster,\nand almost certainly heard Spaulding's stories discussed as a matter\nof family history. If the rewritten story of Spaulding's \"Manuscript\nFound\" had been in the trunk at Sabine's while Smith worked there,\nwhich is doubtful, he might have stolen it or copied it, though the\nlatter is made almost impossible by Smith's inability to write, [40] and\nby his youth.\n\n[Footnote 40: ii _Journal of Discourses,_ 197.]\n\nAssuming, for the sake of argument, that it has been established that\nthe Book of Mormon is a plagiarism from 'Spaulding's rewritten story,\nthen we may still doubt that any of the above theories have sufficient\nevidence to warrant their acceptance as established facts. These\nvarious theories were all invented because of a supposed necessity of\naccounting for the alleged presence of the rewritten \"Manuscript Found\"\nin the trunk at Sabine's house after 1816, the date of Spaulding's\ndeath. If the \"Manuscript Found\" was never there, the theories\nconstructed to explain that fact must fall.\n\nThat the first outline of the story which is now at Oberlin was then\nin the trunk is certain, because Hurlburt, in 1834, found it there.\nIt is even possible that this first manuscript may at some time have\nbeen labeled \"Manuscript Found.\" But was the rewritten story ever in\nthe trunk at Sabine's? If not, Smith could neither have stolen it\nnor copied it, and, if never there, or if stolen by Smith, Hurlburt\ncould not have secured the rewritten manuscript and sold it to the\nMormons, as it has been charged he did do, while he gave only the first\nmanuscript to Howe, by whom he was employed to secure another. It may\nnot be amiss to here state that Howe never doubted Hurlburt's fidelity\nin this matter. [41]\n\n[Footnote 41: Under date of September 12, 1879, E.D. Howe wrote to\nR. Patterson saying, \"I am very certain he (Hurlburt) never had any\nManuscript Found to sell to anybody. Whatever Mormons may say, I think\nHurlburt was perfectly honest in all his transactions here.\" (Taken\nfrom a copy of the letter furnished by Patterson in his History of\nWashington County, Pa.)]\n\nThe great preponderance of the evidence is against the allegation\nthat the second manuscript was ever in the trunk at Sabine's. Mrs.\nMcKinstry's evidence does not establish the identity of Spaulding's\nrewritten \"Manuscript Found\" and the trunk manuscript. Such assertion\nof identity is contradicted by that more satisfactory evidence to be\nhereafter reviewed, and which shows that the rewritten manuscript\nwas stolen from the printing office before Spaulding's death; that\nthe latter suspected Rigdon of being the thief; the possession by\nRigdon of some such manuscript, and which, on one occasion, he\nsaid had been written by Spaulding; Rigdon's advance knowledge of\nthe forthcoming Book of Mormon and his sudden conversion after its\nappearance, and coupled with a very plain connection between Rigdon and\nSmith through Parley P. Pratt as intermediary. These conclusions and\nmuch of the evidence upon which they are based will contradict Mrs.\nMcKinstry's statement, if she meant by it to assert that the Sabine\ntrunk manuscript contained the names \"Mormon,\" \"Moroni,\" \"Lamanite,\"\nand \"Nephi,\" which names, it will be shown, occur in and only in the\nrewritten manuscript and the Book of Mormon.\n\nIn determining what weight to give to Mrs. McKinstry's statement as to\nthe contents of the trunk manuscript, several important facts must be\nkept in mind. Mrs. McKinstry made this statement in 1880, when she was\nseventy-four years of age. Her father died in October, 1816, very soon\nafter she and the trunk went to Sabine's at Hartwick, Onondaga County,\nN.Y., and there she \"many times\" had it in her hand. At the earliest\ndate this must have been in the fore part of 1817, and she tells us\nthat she was about eleven years old at this time. If, in 1817, she\nwas eleven years old, then, in 1812, when she, with her parents, left\nConneaut for Pittsburg, she could not have exceeded six years of age.\nAt the age of seventy-four Mrs. McKinstry testified that when she was\neleven years old she looked through, but did not read, a manuscript,\nyet saw the names she heard her father read at Conneaut, between 1810\nand 1812, when she was from four to six years old. That this woman, at\nseventy-four, should remember strange names, casually repeated in her\npresence, before her sixth year, and those names wholly unrelated to\nanything of direct consequence to her child life, is a feat of memory\ntoo extraordinary to give her uncorroborated statement any weight, as\nagainst valid contradictory conclusions drawn from established facts.\n\nFrom 1834, when this alleged plagiarism was first publicly charged,\nuntil the giving of Mrs. McKinstry's evidence in 1880, it had\nnecessarily been a matter of frequent discussion in the family circle\nthat the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism from her father's \"Manuscript\nFound,\" and always the identity of names must have been spoken of as\nthe connecting link in the chain of evidence proving the plagiarism,\nsince that identity of names was the principal item of evidence as it\nwas first argued and published in 1834. With like uniformity, it was\nfirmly believed (but as a mere matter of inference, be it remembered)\nthat Hurlburt secured from the trunk that second manuscript, which\ncontained these names. Hence it would be inferred by the Spaulding\nfamily that the trunk must have contained the names in question. This\nassociation of ideas through an almost infinite number of recurrences\nin mind became firmly impressed as a fixed fact during these forty-six\nyears of frequent repetition. It is not strange, therefore, if, after\nthese forty-six years, and with the failing memory of the age of\nseventy-four, Mrs. McKinstry should have forgotten the real origin\nof this association of ideas, and relate it back to the supposed\ninspection of the trunk manuscript and the Conneaut readings, honestly\nbelieving in her accuracy. In this conclusion Mormon authorities\nconcur. [42]\n\n[Footnote 42: \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" 29.]\n\nThe only other statement which has ever been claimed as evidence\nshowing Spaulding's rewritten manuscript to have been in the Sabine\ntrunk is one by his widow, Matilda Spaulding-Davidson. She says that\nbefore leaving Pittsburg for Amity, her husband's manuscript was\nreturned by the publishers. She seemingly remembers nothing of its\nsecond submission while her husband resided at Amity, or else those\nwho wrote and signed her statement didn't see fit to mention it. \"The\nManuscript then [after Mr. Spaulding's death in 1816] fell into my\nhands, and was preserved carefully. It has frequently been _examined by\nmy daughter,_ Mrs. McKinstry of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside,\nand by other friends.\" [43]\n\n[Footnote 43: Boston _Daily Advertiser,_ copied in iii. _Millennial\nHarbinger,_ May, 1839; \"Mormons' Own Book,\" 28; Boston _Recorder,_ May,\n1839; \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 417.]\n\nBy what follows, she makes it plain that the \"other friends\" referred\nto are the Conneaut neighbors, whose examination was made prior\nto 1812, and not at Sabine's. That she herself never examined the\nSabine trunk manuscript so as to speak upon the matter of identity of\nmanuscripts from personal knowledge, is apparent from several facts.\nFirst, although writing an argumentative article, the strongest part\nof which would have been her personal testimony as to some point of\nidentity between the trunk manuscript and the Book of Mormon, she\nmentioned none such as being within her own knowledge. In the absence\nof personal knowledge, she repeats as a justification of her belief\nthe evidence of Conneaut witnesses as to the identity of her husband's\n\"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of Mormon. Even upon the question of\nthe existence of any manuscript in the Sabine trunk, she seems not to\nrely upon any personal inspection of the trunk manuscript, but with an\napparent intention of putting the responsibility for her statement upon\nthe inspection of her daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, speaks of the latter's\ninspection, while remaining silent as to whether or not she made any\ninspection of her own.\n\nThe argumentative style and the failure to distinguish between personal\nknowledge and argumentative inferences is all readily understood\nwhen the history of this statement is made known. It seems that two\npreachers, named D. R. Austin and John Storrs, are responsible for this\nletter. Mrs. Davidson never wrote it, but afterwards stated that \"in\nthe main\" it was true. [44] Even with her re-affirmance of the story as\npublished, we cannot give it evidentiary weight except in those matters\nwhere it is plain from the nature of things that she must have been\nspeaking from personal knowledge.\n\n[Footnote 44: _Quincy Whig,_ quoted in \"The Spaulding Story Examined\nand Exposed,\" 5, to be read in connection with \"Gleanings by the Way,\"\n261-7. On p. 22 of the \"Myth of the Manuscript Found\" this interview\nappears with the statement that the Boston _Recorder_ article was _in\nthe main true_ carefully omitted. For still more gross dishonesty see\n\"Apostle\" (afterward Prophet) John Taylor's lying perversion of this\nalleged interview as reported in his \"Three Nights' Public Discussion,\"\npp. 45 and 56. The dishonesty of the original publication of this\ninterview is pointed out in \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 261-4.]\n\nUpon the question as to whether or not Spaulding's rewritten\nmanuscript was in the possession of anybody but Rigdon at any time\nafter October, 1816, Mrs. Davidson's statement as published cannot\nin any sense whatever be considered as evidence. And since Mrs.\nMcKinstry's unsupported evidence, for the reasons already given, must\nbe considered as of such very infinitesimal weight, I conclude that\nthere is no believable evidence upon which to base the conclusion that\nthe \"Manuscript Found\" was ever returned to Spaulding after its second\nsubmission to Patterson, or was ever in the trunk at Sabine's, and\ntherefore, could not have been either copied or stolen by Smith. This\nalso answers one Mormon argument made against Rigdon's theft of the\nmanuscript from the printing office, which argument is always based\nupon the assumption that the original manuscript of the rewritten story\nwas in the Sabine trunk long after the time of the alleged theft by\nRigdon.\n\nII.\n\nWhen we digressed from the main lines of our argument, Spaulding's\nrewritten story had been traced into the hands of Robert Patterson, a\nPittsburg publisher, and this prior to Spaulding's death in October,\n1816. If the manuscript was never returned to Spaulding after its\nsecond submission to Patterson, then what became of it? John Miller,\nwho knew Spaulding at Amity, bailed him out of jail when confined\nfor debt, made his coffin for him, and helped lay him in his grave,\nsays Spaulding told him \"there was a man named Sidney Rigdon about\nthe office [of Patterson], and they thought he had stolen it\" [the\nmanuscript]. [45]\n\n[Footnote 45: Gregg's \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 442; (date, January 20,\n1882.) See also _Times and Seasons._]\n\nThe Rev. Cephus Dodd, a Presbyterian minister of Amity, Pa.,\nas well as a practicing physician, attended Spaulding at his last\nsickness. As early as 1832, when Mormonism was first attracting general\npublic attention, and two years prior to the publication of Howe's\nbook, in which Spaulding's story was first ventilated, this Mr. Dodd\ntook Mr. George M. French of Amity to Spaulding's grave, and there\nexpressed a positive belief that Sidney Rigdon was the agent who had\ntransformed Spaulding's manuscript into the Book of Mormon. The date\nis fixed by Mr. French through its proximity to his removal to Amity;\nhence the date given is probably correct. [46]\n\n[Footnote 46: \"History of Washington County, Pa.,\" by Patterson. \"Who\nWrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 10.]\n\nThe conclusion thus expressed by Mr. Dodd in advance of all public\ndiscussion or evidence is important, because of what is necessarily\nimplied in it. First, it involved a comparison between Spaulding's\nliterary production and the Book of Mormon, with a discovered\nsimilarity inducing conviction that the latter was a plagiarism from\nthe former. This comparison presupposes a knowledge of the contents\nof Spaulding's rewritten manuscript. The second and most important\ndeduction is to be made from the assertion that Sidney Rigdon was the\nconnecting link in the plagiarism. Such a conclusion must have had\na foundation in Mr. Dodd's mind, and could have arisen only if he\nwas possessed of personal knowledge of what he considered reliable\ninformation creating a conviction in his mind of the probability of\nSidney Rigdon's connection with the matter. This conclusion, if not\nmade on independent evidence, in all human probability had no less\nsignificant foundation than a confidence in the accuracy of Spaulding's\nexpressed suspicion to the effect that Rigdon had stolen the manuscript\nfrom the printing office. Thus accounted for, Dr. Dodd's statement has\nless force than if presumed to have been made on independent evidence,\nyet it confirms Joseph Miller's statement that Spaulding suspected\nRigdon, and that suspicion must be accounted for by those who deny\nRigdon's presence in Pittsburg prior to 1821.\n\nHOW ABOUT SIDNEY RIGDON?\n\nWas Spaulding's expressed suspicion that Rigdon had stolen his\nmanuscript from the printing office well founded? We can never know\nupon what evidence the accusation was made, but we may inquire into the\nprobative force of such new corroborative evidence as has been adduced\nsince Spaulding's death.\n\nSidney Rigdon was born February 19, 1793, in Piny Fork of Peter's\nCreek, Saint Clair Township, Allegheny County, Pa., [47] which place is\nvariously estimated at from six to twelve miles distant from Pittsburg.\nAt least until 1810, that being the date of the death of, his father,\nand his own eighteenth year, Rigdon remained on the farm with his\nparents. [48]\n\n[Footnote 47: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" by John E.\nPage, 7. Supplement 14, _Millennial Star,_ 42. \"Myth of the Manuscript\nFound,\" 24.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Supplement 14, _Millennial Star._ 42.]\n\nAccording to the Mormon account, Rigdon was licensed as a Baptist\npreacher fourteen years before becoming a Mormon. [49] This would make\nthe date 1816, the same year in October of which Spaulding died, it\nbeing Rigdon's twenty-fourth year, and the same year in which he stole\nfrom the publishing office of Patterson the manuscript of Spaulding,\nif the latter's suspicions shall prove well founded. A very opportune\ntime, be it observed, for the giving of attention to religious subjects.\n\n[Footnote 49: 35 _Saints' Herald,_ 130.]\n\nAccording to another account, and perhaps the more accurate one, Rigdon\njoined the Baptist Church May 31, 1817, [50] a Welsh clergyman, Rev.\nDavid Phillips, being his pastor. [51]. This church was located near\nwhere the neighboring hamlet of Library is now situated. Rigdon \"began\nto talk in public on religion soon after his admission to the church,\nprobably at his own instance, as there is no record of his license.\" [52]\n\n[Footnote 50: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 8. \"Myth of the\nManuscript Found,\" 24.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Supplement 14, _Millennial Star,_ 42 and 43.]\n\n[Footnote 52: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 9.]\n\nThe following year (1818) Rigdon left the farm and took up his\nresidence and the study of divinity with the Rev. Andrew Clark at\nSharon, Beaver County, Pa., [53] where, in March, 1819, he was licensed\nas a Baptist. [54] I am informed by Sidney Rigdon's son that in 1818\nhis father made a lengthy visit to Pittsburg. In May, 1819, Rigdon\nmoved to Warren, Trumbull County, O., where, in July, he took up his\nresidence with the Rev. Adamson Bentley, later of \"Disciple\" fame, [55]\nand was here ordained a regular Baptist preacher. [56] While thus\nsituated Rigdon met, and on June 12, 1820, married Phoebe Brooks, [57]\nwho was a sister to Mrs. Bently. [58] Rigdon continued his preaching\nhereabouts, not appearing to have any regular charge until February,\n1822. In November, 1821, he received a call from the First Baptist\nChurch of Pittsburg, which was accepted, active duties commencing\nFebruary, 1822, [59] and according to Joseph Smith ended August, 1824,\nat which time Rigdon was expelled for doctrinal error. [60] Another\naccount fixes the date of his being deposed as October 11, 1823. [61]\nThereupon Rigdon, Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott organized the\n\"Christian Church,\" otherwise known as \"Disciples\"--and, with his\nfollowing, Rigdon secured the courthouse in Pittsburg in which to do\nhis preaching, at the same time working as a journeyman tanner [62] with\nhis brother-in-law, Mr. Brooks. [63] Mr. Lambdin, through whom Rigdon\nis supposed to have secured access to the Spaulding manuscript, and of\nwhom more shall be written later on, died August 1, 1825, [64] and in\n1826 Rigdon returned to Bainbridge, Geauga County, O. [65] Here he soon\nmet Orson Hyde, who became a student of divinity at Mr. Rigdon's, with\na view, as Hyde says, of entering the ministry. Except for a little\n\"Campbellite\" preaching which he did under Rigdon's guidance, Hyde\nnever appears to have entered any ministry except the Mormon. In 1829\nHyde became a boarder of Rigdon's family, and in 1830 [66] he was almost\nmiraculously converted to Mormonism, and still later became one of the\nfirst \"Quorum\" of apostles in the Mormon Church. Rigdon died July 14,\n1876. [67]\n\n[Footnote 53: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 8, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 42 and 53.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 43.]\n\n[Footnote 56: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 9. Supplement 14,\n_Millenial Star_, 43.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 43.]\n\n[Footnote 58: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 12.]\n\n[Footnote 59: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" 4, by J.E.\nPage. \"Mormonism Exposed,\" 2 exact date, January 28, 1822.]\n\n[Footnote 60: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 43.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 8.]\n\n[Footnote 62: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 45.]\n\n[Footnote 63: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 64: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 7. \"Myth of the Manuscript\nFound,\" 26.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Supplement 14, _Millenial Star_, 44. _Times and Seasons_\n418.]\n\n[Footnote 66: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" 10.]\n\n[Footnote 67: _Historical Record_, 992. Bancroft's \"History of Utah,\"\n202]\n\nRIGDON'S PRIOR RELIGIOUS DISHONESTY.\n\nThere are two circumstances of the above narrative which need a little\nfurther elucidation, since the impressions which Rigdon made upon his\ndiscerning intimates during his earlier life may have some bearing upon\nthe force to be given to the circumstantial evidence concerning his\nafter life.\n\nAs to Rigdon's conversion to the Baptist Church so very soon after the\ntime when Spaulding expressed the suspicion that Rigdon had stolen his\nmanuscript, the Rev. Samuel Williams, in his \"Mormonism Exposed,\" says:\n\"He [Rigdon] professed to experience a change of heart when a young\nman, and proposed to join the church under the care of Elder David\nPhillips. But there was so much miracle about his conversion, and so\nmuch parade about his profession, that the pious and discerning pastor\nentertained serious doubts at the time in regard to the genuineness\nof the work. He was received, however, by the church and baptized\nby the pastor with some fears and doubts upon his mind. Very soon,\nDiotrephes-like, he began to put himself forward and seek pre-eminence,\nand was well-nigh supplanting the tried and faithful minister who\nhad reared and nursed and led the church for a long series of years.\nSo thoroughly convinced was Father Phillips by this time that he was\nnot possessed of the spirit of Christ, notwithstanding his miraculous\nconversion and flippant speech, that he declared his belief 'that as\nlong as he [Sidney Rigdon] should live, he would be a curse to the\nchurch of Christ.'\" [68]\n\n[Footnote 68: \"Mormonism Exposed,\" by Williams, copied in \"Who Wrote\nthe Book of Mormon?\" page 13.]\n\nConcerning Rigdon's expulsion or resignation from the Baptist Church,\nthe Mormons declare that it was caused by Rigdon's refusal to either\naccept or teach the doctrine of infant damnation. Dr. Winter, in the\ncourse of a historical notice of the First Baptist Church of Pittsburg,\nsays: \"When Holland Sumner dealt with Rigdon for his bad teachings,\nand said to him: 'Brother Rigdon, you never got into a Baptist church\nwithout relating your Christian experiences,' Rigdon replied: 'When\nI joined the church at Peter's Creek I knew I could not be admitted\nwithout an experience, so I made up one to suit the purpose; but it was\nall made up and was of no use, nor true.' This I have just copied from\nan old memorandum as taken from Sumner himself.\" [69]\n\n[Footnote 69: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 13. _Baptist Witness_\n(Pittsburg), January 1, 1875.]\n\nThe first of these accounts was published in 1842, the last in January,\n1875, and Rigdon lived until July 14, 1876. While one H. A. Dunlavy of\nLebanon, O., did, in the March number of the same paper, publish an\napology for Rigdon by way of answer to the article of Dr. Winter, yet\nneither Dunlavy nor Rigdon ever denied the facts alleged therein. We\nmust, therefore, accept the facts stated as true, and they fasten upon\nRigdon such religious dishonesty as establishes his willingness to be\na party to a religious fraud in kind like the one here charged against\nhim.\n\nThis, then, brings us to the question of what, if any, opportunity\nRigdon had for stealing Spaulding's manuscript from Patterson's\npublishing office.\n\nRIGDON HAD OPPORTUNITY TO STEAL THE MANUSCRIPT.\n\nIt has been frequently charged that Sidney Rigdon lived in Pittsburg\nand was connected with the Patterson printing office during 1815 and\n1816. To this charge Rigdon, under date Commerce (Ill.), May 27, 1839,\nmakes the following denial:\n\n    \"It is only necessary to say in relation to the whole story about\n    Spaulding's writings being in the hands of Mr. Patterson, who was\n    then in Pittsburg, and who is said to have kept a private printing\n    office, and my saying that I was connected with the same office,\n    etc., etc., is the most base of lies, without even the shadow\n    of truth. There was no man by the name of Patterson during my\n    residence in Pittsburg who had a printing office; what might have\n    been before I lived here, I know not. Mr. Robert Patterson, I was\n    told, had owned a printing office before I lived in that city, but\n    had been unfortunate in business and failed before my residence in\n    Pittsburg. This Mr. Patterson, who was a Presbyterian preacher,\n    I had a very slight acquaintance with during my residence there.\n    He was then acting under an agency in the book and stationery\n    business, and was the owner of no property of any kind, printing\n    office, or anything else during the time I resided in that city. If\n    I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and\n    his hopeful wife until Dr. P. Hurlburt wrote his lie about me, I\n    should be a liar like unto themselves.\" [70]\n\n[Footnote 70: \"Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" 11 and 12.\n\"History of the Mormons,\" 45 and 46. \"The Mormons,\" 34. \"Braden-Kelly\nDebate,\" 94. \"Plain Facts Showing the Falsehood and Folly of the Rev.\nC.S. Bush,\" p. 14 to 16.]\n\nThe evidence upon which is based the charge of Rigdon having a\npermanent residence in Pittsburg during the years in question, or his\nconnection with Patterson's printing office, is so unsatisfactory\nthat these issues must be found in favor of Rigdon's denial, even in\nspite of the fact that his evidence is discredited by reason of the\nconclusion as to his guilt, which is to be hereafter set forth, and his\npersonal interest.\n\nRigdon, it will be remembered, lived within from six to ten miles of\nPittsburg during the years in question. Pittsburg was the only town of\nconsequence, and the family's place of buying and selling. Rigdon would\nof necessity make many friends in the city, and it would not be strange\nif almost everybody knew him and he knew all of the prominent citizens.\nIn 1810 Pittsburg had only about 4,000 inhabitants, and in 1820 had but\n7,248.\n\nThe very prevalent notion as to Rigdon's connection with the Patterson\npublishing establishment must have had some origin, which, in all\nprobability, would be Rigdon's close friendship for some who were, in\nfact, connected with it. Upon this theory only can we account for such\na general impression. [71]\n\n[Footnote 71: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 11.]\n\nIt might be well, before entering upon that subject, to fix in our\nminds Patterson's business mutations. In 1812 Patterson was in the book\nbusiness in the firm of Patterson and Hopkins. They had then in their\nemploy one J. Harrison Lambdin, he being a lad of fourteen. January 1,\n1818, Lambdin was taken into the partnership of Patterson and Lambdin,\nwhich firm succeeded R. and J. Patterson. R. Patterson had in his\nemploy one Silas Engles as foreman printer and superintendent of the\nprinting business. As such, the latter decided upon the propriety, or\notherwise, of publishing manuscripts when offered. The partnership of\nPatterson and Lambdin \"had under its control the book store on Fourth\nStreet, a book bindery, a printing office (not newspaper, but job\noffice, under the name of Buttler and Lambdin), entrance on Diamond\nAlley, and a steam paper mill on the Allegheny (under the name of R.\nand J. Patterson).\" [72] Patterson and Lambdin continued in business\nuntil 1823. Lambdin died August 1, 1825, in his twenty-seventh year.\nSilas Engles died July 17, 1827, in his forty-sixth year. R. Patterson\ndied September 5, 1854, in his eighty-second year. [73]\n\n[Footnote 72: \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" 26. \"Who Wrote the Book\nof Mormon?\" 9.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 7 and 9. This covers all\nPatterson's migrations.]\n\nRIGDON'S ONLY DENIAL ANALYZED.\n\nLet us now analyze Mr. Rigdon's denial of 1839 as quoted above. Rigdon\nwas an educated man, a controversialist in religion, and at the date of\nthe denial he was also a lawyer. Therefore we are justified in holding\nhim in a strict accountability for all that is necessarily implied from\nwhat he says or omits to say, as we could not, in justice, do with a\nlayman.\n\nRigdon's first denial is of the \"Story about Spaulding's writing being\nin the hands of Patterson.\" This story is established by the evidence\nalready adduced and some besides, even to the satisfaction of most\nMormons.\n\nThe negative of this proposition Mr. Rigdon, if he was a stranger to\nthe office, as is claimed, could not possibly assert as a matter within\nhis own knowledge. If Rigdon had in his mind any fact upon which he\njustified this assertion, it could only have been a knowledge that\nthe manuscript was at the printing office of Buttler and Lambdin, not\nknowing that that office was controlled by Patterson.\n\nThe second denial in Rigdon's statement is: \"There was no man by the\nname of Patterson during my residence in Pittsburg who had a printing\noffice.\" The foregoing account of Patterson's business affairs is\nmade up from the information possessed by Patterson's family and an\nemployee. It must, therefore, be accepted as correct. Here again\nRigdon's denial can be accounted for by assuming his ignorance of\nPatterson's interest in the printing office known as Buttler and\nLambdin. Rigdon's son says Rigdon lived in Pittsburg in 1818. Church\nbiographers allege that he preached there regularly after January 28,\n1822. During 1818 and 1822 Patterson was in the printing business, and\nRigdon's statement must be deemed untrue.\n\nHowe, in his \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" [74] did, as early as 1834, charge\nthat Rigdon had been \"on intimate terms\" with Lambdin. This statement\nin many forms has been very often republished since, and between 1834\nand 1876, the year of Rigdon's death. During these forty-two years\nRigdon never recorded a denial. That fact may, therefore, be taken as\ntrue. If Rigdon was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, and Lambdin,\nat the time of that intimacy, as is clearly established and undenied,\nwas connected with Patterson in the publishing business, Rigdon, being\nintimate with him, must have known something of Patterson's business,\nand assuming his mental faculties unimpaired, he, in the statement\nunder consideration, must have told what he knew was untrue, justifying\nhimself by the apparent evidence in his favor that Patterson's printing\noffice was not run in his own name.\n\n[Footnote 74: p. 289]\n\nRigdon's third matter of denial relates to his own admission of a\nconnection with Patterson's printing establishment. This denial we must\naccept as true, since no one to whom he is alleged to have made the\nadmission has ever recorded his evidence, and the hearsay statements\nwithout certainty of origin are too indefinite to be entitled to weight.\n\nThis paragraph above quoted and thus analyzed absolutely denies nothing\nin the remotest degree essential to the real issues involved in the\ncharge of plagiarism under investigation, and is absolutely the only\nrecorded public denial ever made by Rigdon, though from 1834 to 1876\nhe was almost continually under the fire of this charge, reiterated in\nvarious forms and with varying proofs.\n\nRIGDON AND LAMBDIN IN 1815.\n\nHeretofore we have argued that by his silence Rigdon admitted his\nintimacy with Lambdin, successively Patterson's employee and partner\nfrom 1812 to 1823. The early writers all treated the intimacy between\nRigdon and Lambdin as a matter apparently too well known to need proof.\nYet we need not rely upon that, nor even Rigdon's failure to deny,\nsince more definite evidence has been preserved.\n\nMrs. R. J. Eichbaum, under date of Pittsburg, September 18, 1879,\nleaves us this very convincing statement:\n\n    \"My father, John Johnston, was postmaster at Pittsburg for about\n    eighteen years, from 1804 to 1822. My husband, William Eichbaumn,\n    succeeded him, and was postmaster for about eleven years, from 1822\n    to 1833. I was born August 25, 1792, and when I became old enough\n    I assisted my father in attending to the post office, and became\n    familiar with his duties. From 1811 to 1816 I was the regular\n    clerk in the office, assorting, making up, dispatching, opening,\n    and distributing the mails. Pittsburg was then a small town, and I\n    was well acquainted with all the stated visitors at the office who\n    called regularly for their mails. So meager at that time were the\n    mails that I could generally tell without looking whether or not\n    there was anything for such persons, though I would usually look\n    in order to satisfy them. I was married in 1815, and the next year\n    my connection with the office ceased, except during the absences\n    of my husband. I knew and distinctly remember Robert and Joseph\n    Patterson, J. Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles, and Sidney Rigdon.\n    I remember Rev. Mr. Spaulding, but simply as one who occasionally\n    called to inquire for letters. I remember there was an evident\n    intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. They very often came to the\n    office together. I particularly remember that they would thus come\n    during the hour on Sabbath afternoon when the office was required\n    to be open, and I remember feeling sure that Rev. Mr. Patterson\n    knew nothing of this, or he would have put a stop to it. I do not\n    know what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or\n    printing office, but am well assured he was frequently, if not\n    constantly, there for a large part of the time when I was clerk in\n    the post office. I recall Mr. Engles saying that 'Rigdon was always\n    hanging around the printing office.' He was connected with the\n    tannery before he became a preacher, though he may have continued\n    the business whilst preaching.\" [75]\n\n[Footnote 75: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 10-11.]\n\nWhile this does not establish that Sidney Rigdon had a permanent abode\nin Pittsburg, nor that he was connected with Patterson's printing\nestablishment, it yet explains why seemingly everybody who knew\nhim reached that conclusion. It also establishes beyond doubt his\nundeniable intimacy with Lambdin and Engles, and by reason thereof, his\npossible access to Spaulding's manuscript, and doubtless is one of the\ncircumstances leading Spaulding to suspect Rigdon of the theft.\n\nRIGDON EXHIBITS SPAULDING'S MANUSCRIPT.\n\nIt will be remembered that in 1822-3 Rigdon was a Baptist preacher\nin Pittsburg. The Rev. John Winter, M.D., one of the western\nPennsylvania's early preachers, was then (1822-3) a school teacher in\nPittsburg. Dr. Winter died at Sharon, Pa., in 1878.\n\nOn one occasion during this period (1822-3) Dr. Winter was in Rigdon's\nstudy when the latter took from his desk a large manuscript, and said,\nsubstantially, that a Presbyterian minister named Spaulding, whose\nhealth had failed, brought it to a printer to see if it would pay to\npublish it. \"It is a romance of the Bible.\" Dr. Winter did not read the\nmanuscript, nor think any more of the matter until the Book of Mormon\nappeared. It was thought by members of Dr. Winter's family that he had\ncommitted his recollections of this interview to writing, but none\ncould be found.\n\nThe authorities of Dr. Winter's statement are Rev. A. G. Kirk, to whom\nDr. Winter communicated it in a conversation had at New Brighton, Pa.,\nin 1870-1. The second authority is the Rev. A. J. Bonsall, a stepson of\nDr. Winter, and for twenty-three years pastor of the Baptist Church at\nRochester, Pa. To him the same story was often repeated by Dr. Winter.\nThe third authority is Mrs. W. Irvine, a daughter of Dr. Winter, in\n1881 resident at Sharon, Pa. Her statement has one or two details not\nalready given, so I quote:\n\n    \"I have frequently heard my father speak of Rigdon having\n    Spaulding's manuscript, and that he had gotten it from the printers\n    to read it as a curiosity; as such he showed it to father; and that\n    at the time Rigdon had no intention of making the use of it that he\n    afterwards did.\" [76]\n\n[Footnote 76: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 11-12. \"Braden-Kelly\nDebate,\" 42.]\n\nThus authenticated, Dr. Winter's statement may be given as much weight\nas though reduced to writing by himself.\n\nRIGDON FOREKNOWS THE COMING AND CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nThe Rev. Adamson Bentley (whose wife was sister to Mrs. Sidney Rigdon)\nwrote the following to Walter Scott under date of January 22, 1841:\n\n    \"I know that Sidney Rigdon told me that there was a book coming\n    out, the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold\n    plates, as much as two years before the Mormon book made its\n    appearance or had been heard of by me.\"\n\nThis statement was published in the _Millennial Harbinger_ for 1844,\nwith the following editorial note from Rev. Alexander Campbell:\n\n    \"The conversation alluded to in Brother Bentley's letter of 1841\n    was in my presence as well as his, and my recollection of it led\n    me, some two or three years ago, to interrogate Brother Bentley\n    touching his recollection of it, which accorded with mine in every\n    particular, except the year in which it occurred, he placing it in\n    the summer of 1827, I in the summer of 1826, Rigdon at the same\n    time observing that in the plates dug up in New York there was an\n    account, not only of the aborigines of this country, but also it\n    was stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this\n    country during the first century, just as we were preaching it in\n    the Western Reserve.\" [77]\n\n[Footnote 77: Besides _Millennial Harbinger_ 1844, p. 39, see \"Who\nWrote the Book of Mormon?\" 12 and 13. \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" 45.]\n\nIt will be remembered that Rigdon lived for a time at his\nbrother-in-law Bentley's house, and that it was Scott, Campbell, and\nRigdon who, in Pittsburg, organized the Disciple Church in 1824 or\n1825. The above statements were published in the _Millennial Harbinger_\nin 1844 (p. 39), twenty-two years before Rigdon's death, yet he never\npublished a denial to either. It seems that before that publication\nAdamson Bentley was orally making statements, probably to the same\neffect, which remained undenied by Rigdon, though he published a card\ndenouncing his brother-in-law. [78]\n\n[Footnote 78: _Evening and Morning Star,_ 301.]\n\nMrs. Amos Dunlap, a niece of Mrs. Rigdon, under date of Warren, O.,\nDecember 7, 1879, writes this:\n\n    \"When I was quite a child I visited Mr. Rigdon's family. He married\n    my aunt. They at that time lived at Bainbridge, O. [1826-7]. During\n    my visit Mr. Rigdon went to his bedroom and took from a trunk which\n    he kept locked, a certain manuscript. He came out into the other\n    room and seated himself by the fireplace and commenced reading it.\n    His wife at that moment came into the room and exclaimed: 'What,\n    are you studying that thing again?' or something to that effect.\n    She then added: 'I mean to burn that paper.' He said, 'No indeed,\n    you will not; this will be a great thing some day.' Whenever he was\n    reading this he was so completely occupied that he seemed entirely\n    unconscious of anything passing around him.\" [79]\n\n[Footnote 79: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 12. \"Braden-Kelly\nDebate,\" 45.]\n\nSince Rigdon never, in person or by anyone else, has claimed to\nhave written any such manuscript of his own, in the light of other\nevidence here adduced, we are warranted in believing that to have been\nSpaulding's \"Manuscript Found.\"\n\nThe Rev. D. Atwater, under date Mantua Station, O., April 26, 1873,\nthree years before Rigdon's death, writes this:\n\n    \"Soon after this the great Mormon defection came on us\n    [Disciples]. Sidney Rigdon preached for us, and notwithstanding\n    his extravagantly wild freaks, he was held in high repute by many.\n    For a few months before his professed conversion to Mormonism, it\n    was noticed that his wild, extravagant propensities had been more\n    marked. That he knew before of the coming of the Book of Mormon is\n    to me certain from what he said [during] the first of his visits at\n    my father's some years before. He gave a wonderful description of\n    the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America,\n    and said that they must have been made by the aborigines. He said\n    that there was a book to be published containing an account of\n    those things. He spoke of these in his eloquent, enthusiastic\n    style, as being a thing most extraordinary. Though a youth then,\n    I took him to task for expending so much enthusiasm on such a\n    subject, instead of things of the gospel.\" [80]\n\n[Footnote 80: \"Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve,\"\n239-240, copied in \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 13. \"Braden-Kelly\nDebate,\" 45.]\n\nOf this statement Rigdon never made a denial.\n\nDr. S. Rosa, under date of Painsville, O., June 3, 1841, writes, among\nother things, this:\n\n    \"In the early part of the year 1830, when the Book of Mormon\n    appeared, [and in November of which year Rigdon was converted],\n    either in May or June, I was in company with Sidney Rigdon, and\n    rode with him on horseback a few miles. Our conversation was\n    principally upon the subject of religion, as he was at that time\n    a very popular preacher of the denomination calling themselves\n    'Disciples' or Campbellites. He remarked to me that it was time for\n    a new religion to spring up; that mankind were all rife and ready\n    for it. I thought he alluded to the Campbellite doctrine. He said\n    it would not be long before something would make its appearance;\n    he also said that he thought of leaving Pennsylvania and should\n    be absent for some months. I asked him how long. He said it would\n    depend upon circumstances. I began to think a little strange of his\n    remarks, as he was a minister of the gospel. I left Ohio that fall\n    and went to the State of New York to visit my friends who lived in\n    Waterloo, not far from the mine of golden Bibles. In November I was\n    informed that my old neighbor, E. Partridge, and the Rev. Sidney\n    Rigdon, were in Waterloo, and that they both had become the dupes\n    of Joe Smith's necromancies. It then occurred to me that Rigdon's\n    new religion had made its appearance, and when I became informed\n    of the Spaulding manuscript, I was confirmed in the opinion that\n    Rigdon was at least accessory, if not the principal, in getting up\n    this farce.\" [81]\n\n[Footnote 81: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 317. \"Prophet of the Nineteenth\nCentury,\" 58. \"Early Days of Mormonism,\" 172-3.]\n\nThis last article was first published in book form in 1842, thirty-four\nyears before Rigdon's death, but never publicly denied or explained by\nhim. Whether this particular letter was published in the _Christian\nObserver_ and _Episcopal Recorder_ I cannot say, but other portions of\nthe same book evidently were, and received comment in a Mormon church\norgan. [82] This but emphasizes Rigdon's silence upon Dr. Rosa's letter.\n\n[Footnote 82: _Gospel Reflector_, 19.]\n\nIn Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" [83] it is said that Rigdon, during the\nincubation period of Mormonism between 1827 and 1830, preached new\nmatters of doctrine which were afterwards found to be inculcated in\nthe Mormon Bible. The evident purpose of all this was to prepare his\ncongregation for the acceptance of Mormonism, and the end was most\nsuccessfully achieved. Evidently this and the other circumstances\nshowing Rigdon's foreknowledge of the forthcoming Book of Mormon, all\ncombined with a guilty conscience, irresistibly impelled the making\nof an explanation tending to allay the suspicion that there was a\nconscious purpose in all such conduct. This defense is found in a\nrevelation to Sidney Rigdon, dated December 7, 1830, at the alleged\nfirst meeting between Rigdon and Smith, and within one month after the\nformer's conversion. The revelation, in part, says:\n\n[Footnote 83: Page 289. \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" 45.]\n\n    \"Behold thou was sent forth, even as John, _To prepare the way_\n    before me, and before Elijah which should come, _and thou knewest\n    it not_.\" [84]\n\n[Footnote 84: Section 35, \"Doctrine and Covenants.\" Supplement 14,\n_Millennial Star,_ 50. The exact date of this revelation is December\n7th. 1830, according to Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 107.]\n\nThat Rigdon did prepare the way we knew before the revelation informed\nus of it. That it was done unconsciously we cannot even now believe.\n\nEspecially in the light of the foregoing evidence, this revelation\nmust be construed as much more convincing proof of Rigdon's advance\nknowledge of the forthcoming Book of Mormon and its contents than even\na tacit admission.\n\nIt is practically an admission of guilty knowledge, coupled with a\ntransparent effort at warding off the inference of complicity in fraud\nby veiling the acts constituting the evidence in an assumed mysticism,\nwhich really deceives few aside from the mystic degenerate and the\nwilling victim who enters the fold for opportunities to \"fleece the\nflock of Christ.\"\n\nIII.\n\nFROM RIGDON TO SMITH _via_ P. P. PRATT.\n\nWhen to this evidence already adduced is added, as will be done,\nconclusive proof of the identity of the salient features of the Book\nof Mormon and Spaulding's rewritten \"Manuscript Found,\" it would seem\nthat the case of plagiarism through Rigdon's complicity is established\nbeyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon objector, however, insists that\nno possible connection between Rigdon and Smith has ever been shown\nto exist prior to 1830, and that, therefore, even if Rigdon did steal\nthe manuscript, Smith could not have obtained it for use as a help\nin preparing the Book of Mormon. It would seem as if the facts above\nrecited should, even if unaided by more direct evidence, raise an\nalmost conclusive presumption of the existence of an undiscovered\nconnection between the two. But we are not confined to an inference\nfrom such evidence alone. There are still more pointed evidentiary\ncircumstances to which we will now give attention.\n\nParley Parker Pratt was born at Burlington, Otsego County, N.Y.,\nApril 12, 1807, of parents who later resided at Canaan, Columbia\nCounty, N.Y. [85] During his sixth year (1813) he went to reside with\nhis father's sister, named Van Cott, [86] which name afterward became\nconspicuous in the early history of Utah. In 1826 Pratt spent a few\nmonths with an uncle in Wayne (formerly Ontario) County, N. Y. [87]\n\n[Footnote 85: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 17.]\n\n[Footnote 86: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 19.]\n\n[Footnote 87: \"Supplement 14, _Millennial Star_,\" 1.]\n\nThis, it will be remembered, is the same county in which Smith was at\nthat time gaining much newspaper notoriety as a \"peep-stone\" money\ndigger [88] through mention made of him in papers published in several\ncounties in southern New York and northern Pennsylvania. [89] While\nSmith was thus working the gullible of his neighborhood with his\nnecromancy, Pratt was a peddler, who, it is said, knew almost everybody\nin western New York. [90] At that time Ontario County took in all the\nterritory of several counties as now bounded, and in 1820 had only a\npopulation of 80,267. [91] Pratt, therefore, could hardly have helped\nknowing Smith's fame, which was such as at once to have suggested him\nas the star actor in any scheme of fraud requiring a prophet. In view\nof Pratt's subsequent connection with the Wells family, [92] who were\nSmith's neighbors and friends, [93] it is more than probable that he\nknew the Smiths personally in or prior to 1826, although, of course,\nthey would carefully guard the fact of such acquaintance from publicity\nas a most important secret.\n\n[Footnote 88: \"Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism,\" 27.]\n\n[Footnote 89: \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" 47.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \"Hand Book of Mormonism,\" 3.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Compendium, 11th Census.]\n\n[Footnote 92: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 37.]\n\n[Footnote 93: \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" by Lucy Smith, 101-2-3.]\n\nIn October of this year Pratt went to Ohio, locating at Amherst, thirty\nmiles west of Cleveland [94] and was also located fifty miles west of\nKirtland. [95] One of the temptations inducing Pratt's departure from\nNew York was to get to a country where, as he himself expresses it,\nthere is \"no law to sweep [away] all the hard earnings of years to pay\na small debt.\" [96] The ethical status of an average country peddler who\nis willing to leave his native state to avoid the payment of his \"small\ndebts\" furnishes a fertile immorality in which to plant the seeds of\nreligious imposture.\n\n[Footnote 94: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 27.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 50.]\n\n[Footnote 96: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 26.]\n\nIt will be remembered that it was also in 1826 that Rigdon went for a\nsecond time to reside in Ohio, where he became an itinerant \"Disciple\"\npreacher, laboring in the vicinity of Bainbridge, Mantua, Kirtland,\nMentor, Chester, New Lisbon, and Warren, [97] at some of which places\nRigdon had an unsavory reputation. [98] Rigdon and Pratt, therefore,\nwere in the same neighborhood in 1826, and undoubtedly met soon after.\nThe date of their first meeting is nowhere given, but may reasonably\nbe inferred from an address delivered by Parley P. Pratt in 1843 or\n'4. In this discourse Pratt tells of an occurrence which transpired\non his way to his future Ohio home, which occurrence furnishes the\nkey to his first connection with Mormonism. On his way he stopped at\na humble cottage, the name of whose occupant he carefully fails to\ngive. Here, while asleep (so he says), \"a messenger of a mild and\nintelligent countenance suddenly stood before me [Pratt], arrayed in\nrobes of dazzling splendor.\" According to Mormon theology, an angel\nis but an exalted man. [99] Of course Sidney Rigdon was an exalted\nman; why not, then, an angel? This angel claimed to hold the keys\nto the mysteries of this wonderful country, and took Pratt out to\nexhibit those mysteries to him. Pratt then had portrayed to his mind\nthe whole future of Mormonism; its cities, with inhabitants from all\nparts of the globe; its temples, with a yet unattained splendor;\nits present church organization was, with considerable definiteness\noutlined; its political ambition to establish a temporal kingdom of\nGod on the ruins of this government was set forth with quite as much\ndefiniteness as in the subsequent more publicly uttered, treasonable\nsermons. [100] I conclude from the exact manner in which this \"Angel of\nthe Prairies\" foreknew the ambitions, hopes, and future achievements\nof the Mormon Church and the similar admitted foreknowledge of Rigdon\nand the subsequently established connection between Rigdon, Pratt, and\nSmith, that the \"Angel of the Prairies\" who outlined to Pratt his then\ncontemplated and now executed religious fraud, was none other than\nSidney Rigdon himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure\nto give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with\nRigdon. [101]\n\n[Footnote 97: \"History of the Church,\" 149-150. (\"Josephite\".)]\n\n[Footnote 98: \"4 _Times and Seasons_,\" 209. Supplement 14, _Millennial\nStar,_ 45.]\n\n[Footnote 99: See Text for foot-notes, Nos. 106 to 109 herein. 6\n_Millennial Star_, 20. \"History of Mormonism,\" 154.]\n\n[Footnote 101: 20 _Millennial Star_, 33-36. _7 Deseret News_, 288-9. _7\nJournal of Discourses_, 53. _1 Journal of Discourses_, 230, and Sermons\ngenerally of this period. See also _Am. Hist. Mag._, July, 1906.]\n\nLambdin, who, by some, has been suspected of once having been Rigdon's\npartner in the contemplated fraud, died Aug. 1, 1825. Engles,\nPatterson's foreman, died July 17, 1827. Spaulding had died in 1816,\nand Robert Patterson, it seems, knew nothing personally of the contents\nof the Spaulding manuscript, [102] which fact Rigdon probably well knew\nthrough his intimate acquaintance with Lambdin. In September of 1827\nthe time was, therefore, as ripe as it was ever likely to be for active\npreparation in the matter of bringing forth the \"Book of Mormon,\" since\nprobably all those having any intimate knowledge of the \"Manuscript\nFound\" had conveniently died.\n\n[Footnote 102: \"Mormonism Exposed,\" by Williams. \"Who Wrote the Book of\nMormon?\" 7.]\n\nIn 1827 Pratt started back to New York for the purpose of getting\nmarried. Now, remember, this was nearly three years before the advent\nof Mormonism. Pratt reached the home of his aunt Van Cote July 4, 1827,\nand in his autobiography records a summary of a conversation with his\nfuture wife thus: \"I also opened my religious views to her and my\ndesire, which I sometimes had, to try and teach the red man.\" [103] In\nOctober, 1830, within a month after Pratt's professed conversion to\nMormonism, a revelation was received for Pratt, in which the Lord,\nthrough \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" directed Pratt to carry out this\nvery design. [104] The desire which Pratt thus expressed to his wife\nthree years before the advent of Mormonism was afterward and for a\nlong time the pet scheme of all Mormons. Pratt was married September\n9, 1827. [105] On September 22, 1827, a \"heavenly messenger\" appeared\nto Joseph Smith and unfolded to him the scheme of the Book of Mormon,\nand disclosed the whereabouts of the \"Golden Plates.\" [106] This\n\"heavenly messenger\" is called the Angel Moroni. According to Mormon\ntheology, \"God may use any beings he has made or that he pleases, and\ncall them his angels, or messengers.\" [107] \"God's angels and men are\nall of one species, one race, one great family.\" [108] \"God is a man\nlike unto yourselves; that is the great secret.\" [109] Why, of course!\n\"That is the great secret.\" God is but an \"exalted man,\" and may call\nParley Parker Pratt his angel. Parley Parker Pratt was the \"heavenly\nmessenger,\" the angel who, on that day (September 22, 1827), appeared\nto Joseph Smith and told him where were the golden plates, that is,\nSpaulding's \"Manuscript Found.\" Sidney Rigdon, for Smith's purposes,\nwas the \"exalted man,\" the \"God\" who sent this \"heavenly messenger\"\nParley Parker Pratt, just as the Mormon people now look upon Joseph\nSmith as the \"God to this people.\" [110] Now, watch the sequel, and no\ndoubt can remain.\n\n[Footnote 103: Pages 29 and 30.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Section 32, Doctrine and Covenants. Smith's God was,\nhowever, unfamiliar with governmental regulations of Indian affairs,\nso in spite of the revelation Pratt and Company were compelled by the\nUnited States Indian agent to leave the reservation. 5 _Journal of\nDiscourses,_ 199. Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 218-226. \"Gleanings by\nthe Way,\" 324.]\n\n[Footnote 105: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 30.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Supplement 14, _Millennial Star_, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 107: 5 _Journal of Discourses_, 141.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Key to Theology, 41, 5 _Millennial Star_, 20.]\n\n[Footnote 109: 5 _Times and Seasons_, 613. God an Exalted Man, 6\n_Journal of Discourses_, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 110: _Deseret News_, March 18, 1857, 13. See also _Deseret\nNews_ 179. Those most familiar with the psychology of dreams and the\ninfluence over them had by the experiences of waking life, will give\nconsiderable evidentiary weight to a dream of the prophet's father,\nin which there appeared to him a \"man with a peddler's budget on his\nback,\" such a peddler P. P. Pratt probably carried. This peddler of\nhis dreams flattered him, told him he had called seven times and this\nlast call had come to tell him what was the one thing essential to his\nsalvation, and then he awoke. (\"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" 74.)]\n\nSeptember 9, 1827, Pratt was married. On September 22, 1827, he was the\nangel who appeared to Smith, and in October he started back to Ohio,\nthe home of Rigdon. [111] Rigdon is now brought again upon the scene. He\npreaches in Pratt's neighborhood, converts him, the latter commences\npreaching, [112] evidently preparing for his part in the drama about to\nbe enacted.\n\n[Footnote 111: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 30.]\n\n[Footnote 112: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 31-33.]\n\nRIGDON VISITS SMITH BEFORE MORMONISM.\n\nThe work of revising the Spaulding manuscript, or, as \"Holy Joe\" calls\nit, the \"Translation of the Golden Plates,\" is begun. A mysterious\nstranger now appears at Smith's residence and holds private interviews\nwith the far-famed money-digger. For a considerable length of time no\nintimation of the name or the purpose of this personage transpired to\nthe public, or even to Smith's nearest neighbors. It was observed by\nsome of them that his visits were frequently repeated. [113] At about\nthis time Rigdon is away from his Ohio home on several long visits,\nreporting himself as having gone to Pittsburg. [114]\n\n[Footnote 113: \"Origin and Progress of Mormonism,\" 28. The author\nwas a native of Palmyra and read proof on the Book of Mormon. \"Hand\nBook of Mormonism,\" 3. This author lived thirty-two years in Palmyra.\nBraden-Kelly Debate, 46. Mother Lucy in \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\"\npp. 119, 120, 121, gives an account of a mysterious and unnamed\n\"stranger\" who came to their home with Joe at the time Harris had\nlost some of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. As a mere matter\nof kindness this \"stranger\" forced upon the \"Prophet\" his company for\na twenty mile walk through the woods at night, left a stage coach and\nwent out of his way to do it, and attended the interview with Harris\nnext day. An opportune time was this for Rigdon's presence. May 1, 1829,\nSec. 10, Doctrine and Covenants.]\n\n[Footnote 114: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 289, followed in \"Gleanings\nby the Way,\" 319. \"Prophet of the Nineteenth Century,\" 57. See also the\npointed statement of L. Rudolph, father-in-law to President Garfield,\nquoted in Braden-Kelly Debate, 45.]\n\nAbel Chase, a near neighbor of the Smiths, says: \"I saw Rigdon at\nSmith's at different times with considerable intervals between.\"\nLorenzo Saunders, another neighbor, testifies: \"I saw Rigdon at Smith's\nseveral times, and the first visit was more than two years before the\nBook appeared.\" J. H. McCauley, in his history of Franklin County,\nPa., states \"as a matter too well known to need argument, that Joseph\nSmith, the founder of Mormonism, and Sidney Rigdon were acquainted for\na considerable time before Mormonism was first heard of.\" [115]\n\n[Footnote 115: See Braden-Kelly Debate, 46, for three last statements.\nTucker in his \"Origin and Progress of Mormonism,\" p. 50, says Rigdon\nofficiated at the wedding of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale, but he fixes\ndate of wedding in November, 1829, when in fact it seems to have\noccurred January 18, 1828. (_Historical Record_, 363.) Tucker may\ntherefore have been misinformed. An alleged admission of Sidney Rigdon\nto James Jeffries that Spaulding's story was used, which is quoted in\nBraden-Kelly Debate, 42, I consider of doubtful value.]\n\nI have been able to find but one specific denial of Rigdon's\nacquaintance with Smith prior to the appearance of the Book of Mormon.\nThat denial comes from Katherine Salisbury, a sister of the \"Prophet\nJoseph,\" and is dated April 15, 1881, when she was nearly 68 years of\nage. She says that\n\n    \"Prior to the latter part of the year A. D. 1830, there was no\n    person who visited with, or was an acquaintance of, or called upon\n    the said family [of Smith], or any member thereof to my knowledge\n    by the name of Rigdon, nor was such person known to the family or\n    any member thereof to my knowledge, until the last part of the year\n    A. D. 1830, or the first part of the year 1831. I remember the time\n    when Sidney Rigdon came to my father's place, and that it was after\n    the removal of my father from Waterloo, N.Y., to Kirtland, O. That\n    this was in the year 1831.\" [116]\n\n[Footnote 116: \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" 34. Braden-Kelly Debate,\n100.]\n\nIn 1827 and 1828, when Rigdon's visits must have occurred, and his help\nwas needed in revamping Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found,\" this woman was\nfourteen or fifteen years of age. That Rigdon did visit at the Smiths'\nin New York State, December, 1830, is admitted, [117] and of this she\nseemingly remembers nothing. She has no recollection of Rigdon's coming\nto her father's or brother's house until after their removal to Ohio.\nMay she not also, either by design or otherwise, have forgotten visits\nmade by Rigdon to her New York home prior to the admitted, and, by her,\nforgotten one in December, 1830?\n\n[Footnote 117: Supplement 14 _Millennial Star,_ 49.]\n\nIn the same statement she avers that \"at the time of the publication\nof said Book [of Mormon], my brother Joseph Smith, Jr., lived in the\nfamily of my father in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, N.Y.,\nand that he had all of his life to this time made his home with the\nfamily.\"\n\nThe manuscript of the Book of Mormon was finished and the book\ncopyrighted by June 11, 1829._Millennial Star,_ 24. 118 Rigdon's help\nwould be most needed before this time, and from June, 1828, until June,\n1829, all and numerous revelations are dated \"Harmony, Pennsylvania,\"\nwhich, together with Smith's autobiography, shows that he did not all\nof his lifetime make his home with his parents, nor live at Manchester\nduring all of the most important period of Mormon incubation. The\nprobabilities are that Smith moved to Pennsylvania at this time, for\nthe very purpose of making it easier for Rigdon and Pratt, who lived in\nOhio, to furnish him the much needed help.\n\nThe admitted errors in Mrs. Salisbury's statement destroy its\nevidentiary value, and leave it clearly demonstrated by the other\nevidence adduced, that Rigdon visited Smith' several years before the\nappearance of the Book of Mormon.\n\nTHE CONVERSION OF PARLEY P. PRATT.\n\nIn the summer of 1830 the Book of Mormon came from the press, and the\ntime had come for Pratt and Rigdon to be astonished by its appearance.\nNow watch their maneuvers. That year Pratt left Ohio for a visit to New\nYork. Of this trip his autobiography records the following:\n\n    \"Landing in Buffalo, we [Pratt and wife] engaged our passage for\n    Albany in a canal boat, distance three hundred and sixty miles.\n    This, including board, cost all our money and some articles of\n    clothing.\"\n\nWould a mere desire to visit friends induce him to give up part of his\nclothing for passage money? Hardly; he was after larger game. But let\nus read on:\n\n    \"Arriving at Rochester, I informed my wife that, notwithstanding\n    our passage being paid through the whole distance, yet I must leave\n    the boat and leave her to pursue her passage to our friends, while\n    I would stop a while in this region. _Why, I did not know;_ but so\n    it was plainly manifest by the Spirit to me. I said to her: 'We\n    part for a season; go and visit our friends in our native place;\n    I will come soon, but how soon I know not, _for I have a work to\n    do in this region of country, and what it is or how long it will\n    take me to perform it, I know not;_ but I will come when it is\n    performed. My wife would have objected to this, but she had seen\n    the _Hand of God_ so plainly manifest in His dealings with me many\n    times that she dare not oppose the things manifest to me by His\n    Spirit. She therefore consented, and I accompanied her as far as\n    Newark, a small town upwards of a hundred miles from Buffalo, and\n    then took leave of her and of the boat.\"\n\n    \"It was early in the morning, just at the dawn of day. I walked ten\n    miles into the country [remember now he doesn't know where he is\n    going], and stopped with a Mr. Wells.\"\n\nThis was undoubtedly a member of the same Wells family of Macedon with\nwhom Joseph Smith had long been on terms of intimacy.[119] Pratt's\nautobiography continues:\n\n[Footnote 119: \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" by Lucy Smith, 101-103.\nProbably this refers to the home of Daniel H. Wells, afterward a\nprominent Mormon in Utah.]\n\n    \"I proposed to preach in the evening. Mr. Wells readily accompanied\n    me through the neighborhood to visit the people and circulate the\n    appointment.\"\n\n    \"We visited an old Baptist deacon by the name of Hamblin. After\n    hearing of our appointment for the evening, he began to tell of\n    _a book, a strange book, a very strange book_ in his possession,\n    which had just been published. I inquired of him how and where the\n    book was to be obtained. He promised me the perusal of it at his\n    house the next day, if I would call. I felt a strange interest in\n    the book. Next morning I called at his house, where, for the first\n    time, my eyes beheld the 'Book of Mormon,' that book of books.\"\n\nPratt says he opened it with eagerness and examined its contents.\n\"As I read, _the spirit of the Lord was upon me,_ and I knew and\ncomprehended that the book was true as plainly and as manifestly as a\nman comprehends and knows that he exists.\" [120]\n\n[Footnote 120: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 37-38.]\n\nPratt soon determined to see Smith, and, accordingly, visited Palmyra,\nwhere Hyrum Smith welcomed him to their house, and they spent the\nnight together. Joseph had not returned from Pennsylvania. One is led\nto wonder if Hyrum Smith would take in every inquisitive stranger as\nhis bedfellow. In the morning Pratt returned to fill his appointment\nto preach the doctrine of Alexander Campbell. Hyrum Smith presented\nPratt with a copy of the book, which the latter tells us he was glad to\nreceive, because he had not yet finished his reading of it. [121] Pratt\npreached the doctrines of the \"Disciples\" that night and the following\none, then returned to the Smith house, and from there went to the\nWhitmers in Seneca County, resting that night, and taking his Mormon\nbaptism the next day. On the next Sabbath Pratt attended a Mormon\nmeeting and preached a Mormon sermon at the house of one Burroughs. \"My\nwork was now completed, for which I took leave of my wife and the canal\nboat some two or three weeks before.\" [122]\n\n[Footnote 121: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 39-42.]\n\n[Footnote 122: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 43.]\n\nAbout the details and the order of events in such remarkable\noccurrences, there could not possibly be doubt or errors of memory.\nHad they actually transpired, these events would have been the most\nimportant in any eventful career, and would have been indelibly\nimpressed upon Pratt's memory. If, however, this marvelous tale is\nbut a falsehood told to conceal Pratt's real connection with a fraud,\nthen, it is quite possible that he and those associated with him should\nforget how the falsehood had been told at other times, and thus produce\ncontradictory statements.\n\nLet us, in the light of this comment, examine the foregoing account\nmore carefully. Evidently, in this account Pratt is desirous of\nconveying the impression that, as he had elsewhere expressed it, he\n\"was greatly prejudiced against the book.\" [123] However, in a sermon\ndelivered in 1856--thirty-two years before the publication of the\nautobiography--Pratt tells us he was converted before completing the\nreading of the Book of Mormon, or meeting a single true \"Saint.\" Here\nare his own words:\n\n[Footnote 123: Pratt's reply to Sunderland, copied in 45 _Saints'\nHerald,_ 61. \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" 32.]\n\n    \"I knew it was true, because it was light, and had come in\n    fulfillment of scripture; and _I bore testimony of its truth_\n    to the neighbors that came in _during the first day that I\n    sat reading_ it at the house of an old Baptist deacon named\n    Hamblin.\" [124]\n\n[Footnote 124: 5 _Journal of Discourses,_ 194. This Hamblin seems to\nhave emigrated to Wisconsin with Pratt, there became a Mormon and later\nhis son became implicated in the Mountain Meadow Massacre. See \"Jacob\nHamblin,\" p. 9, and books generally on Mountain Meadow Massacre.]\n\nOf course such a conversion was altogether too miraculous and sudden\nto preclude suspicion of Pratt's complicity in the fraud; hence it has\nusually been stated that the conversion did not, in fact, take place\nuntil much critical examination, and sometimes, it is said, after much\nsupplication to the Lord. In Joseph Smith's autobiography he puts the\ntime of conversion as during Pratt's visit to the Whitmers in Seneca\nCounty. Here are his words: \"_After_ listening to the testimony of the\n'witnesses' [at Whitmers, in Seneca County] and reading the 'Book,' he\nbecame convinced that it was of God.\" [125]\n\n[Footnote 125: Supplement 14 _Millennial Star_, 47.]\n\nThe \"prophet's\" mother, who, with the mother of the Danite, Orrin\nPorter Rockwell, was present at Pratt's alleged first visit to the\nSmith home, [126] has a third account of this conversion. Pratt,\naccording to the account above quoted from his sermon, had not yet\nseen the prophet, and had not yet finished reading the Book of Mormon,\nbut was already converted and had borne testimony to its truth. Now\nread Mother Lucy's account as published by Orson Pratt (Parley Pratt's\nbrother and his first miraculous convert) [127] and \"written by the\ndirection and under the inspection of the Prophet.\" [128]\n\n[Footnote 126: Pratt's Sermon, 5 _Journal of Discourses_, 194.]\n\n[Footnote 127: 7 _Journal of Discourses_, 177. Here Orson Pratt says\nhis conversion is due to certain information \"derived independent of\nwhat can be learned naturally by the natural man.\" See also supplement\n14, _Millennial Star,_ 49.]\n\n[Footnote 128: _Millennial Star,_ 169, 682.]\n\n    \"Just before my husband's return, as Joseph was about commencing\n    a discourse one Sunday morning, Parley P. Pratt came in very much\n    fatigued. He had _heard of us_ at some considerable distance, and\n    had traveled very fast in order to get there by meeting time, as\n    he wished to hear what we had to say, that he might be prepared to\n    show us our error. But when Joseph had finished his discourse, Mr.\n    Pratt arose and expressed his hearty concurrence in every sentiment\n    advanced. The following day he was baptized and ordained.\" [129]\n\n[Footnote 129: \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" 157, by Lucy Smith.]\n\nThis conversion is quite as miraculous and sudden as the one Pratt\ntells us about as having occurred at Deacon Hamblin's. The prophet's\nmother, Lucy Smith, who wrote this account, and the prophet himself,\nunder whose supervision it was written, must have been both present,\nand in this account related only what they pretended they themselves\nsaw. In contradiction of this, Pratt, in two different places, tells\nus that while at the Whitmers in Seneca County he was baptized and\nordained an elder by Oliver Cowdery, and that then he preached a\nMormon sermon, after which he went to visit his friends in Columbia\nCounty. On his return from Columbia County, over a month after he had\nbeen baptized, he for the first time saw Joseph Smith. [130] These\ndiscrepancies can be best accounted for by the explanation that they\nare different accounts of an event that never happened, and told to\nconceal one that did happen.\n\n[Footnote 130: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 43 and 46. 45 _Saints'\nHerald_, 61. \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" 33.]\n\nI understand that the Utah Mormon sect, after publishing \"Mother\nLucy's\" book, condemned it as containing errors, but never pointed out\nany. The \"Josephite\" sect of Mormons, however, republished it. It still\nremains that in telling what she pretended to have seen, she told the\nstory as at some time it had been agreed upon. Further, Lucy Smith\ncould not have written the book, bad as it was from a literary point of\nview. The statement that it was written under the direct supervision\nof the prophet, I, therefore, consider as literally true. That it\nwas published in 1853 by Orson Pratt and S. W. Richards, who had\nundoubtedly heard the stories corroborated many times and saw nothing\nerroneous in the book, is also significant, as is the further fact that\nit had been read by Saints four years before any errors were discovered.\n\nRIGDON'S MIRACULOUS CONVERSION.\n\nPratt having been converted, the next act of importance must, of\ncourse, be the conversion of Rigdon, and, so far as possible, the\ncongregation whose members he had so carefully prepared for the\nreception of Mormonism.\n\nPratt is still in New York State with Smith, it being October, 1830. He\nhas already converted his relatives. The Lord, by a revelation through\nJoseph Smith, [131] directs Pratt to go with Oliver Cowdery, Peter\nWhitmer, and Ziba Peterson \"unto the wilderness among the Lamanites\"\n(meaning the American Indians). Pratt, it will be remembered, had\nsold part of his clothing for passage money with which to travel in\nhis quest for the Book of Mormon. He was, therefore, ill prepared\nfor a winter trip to Ohio and Missouri. \"As soon as the revelation\nwas received, Emma Smith and several other sisters began to make\narrangements to furnish those who were set apart for the mission\nwith the necessary clothing, which was no easy task, as the most of\nit had to be manufactured out of the raw material.\" Pratt's wife was\ntaken to the Whitmers, [133] that she might not want while he was away\nConverting Indians and Rigdon. Thus situated, Pratt took leave of\nhis friends \"late in October and started on foot.\" [134] According to\nhis autobiography it was a hundred miles from Buffalo to Newark, ten\nmiles from Newark to Macedon, where lived the Wells family, [135] and\ntwenty-five miles from Palmyra to the Whitmers in Seneca County. [136]\nThe distance from Buffalo to Cleveland is given as two hundred\nmiles; [137] from Cleveland to Kirtland as thirty miles. [138] These\ndistances were no doubt given as they were believed to be according to\nthe roads as then traveled.\n\n[Footnote 131: Doctrine and Covenants, section 32. Supplement 14,\n_Millennial Star,_ 42. The date of this revelation was probably October\n17, 1830. Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 212.]\n\n[Footnote 132: \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" by Lucy Smith, 169.]\n\n[Footnote 133: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 49. 1 \"History of the\nChurch,\" 154.]\n\n[Footnote 134: 1 \"History of the Church,\" 154. \"Autobiography of P.P.\nPratt,\" 49.]\n\n[Footnote 135: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 37.]\n\n[Footnote 136: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 42.]\n\n[Footnote 137: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 36.]\n\n[Footnote 138: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 36.]\n\nAdding fifteen miles from the distance from Macedon to Palmyra, we find\nthe total distance to be traveled, all on foot, going from Whitmer's\nhome in Seneca County, N.Y., to Kirtland, O., is three hundred and\nseventy miles, \"preaching by the way,\" [139] even to Indians. [140] When\nwe remember the time of year and the almost certainty of inclement\nweather and the unimproved condition of the roads in that then wild\nwest, it could hardly be expected that Pratt, \"traveling on foot\"\nand preaching by the way, could reach Kirtland before the middle of\nNovember. Rigdon must have been converted in great haste, because, by\nthe end of November, he is already a Mormon visitor at Smith's home in\nNew York, and on December 7 is the recipient of a special revelation\nfrom God. [141] These conclusions accord with the diary of Lyman Wight,\nwho, being baptized on the same day as Rigdon, entered the fact as\non November 14, 1830. [142] These facts also confirm Howe's statement\nthat Rigdon was baptized on the second day after Pratt's arrival. [143]\nAnother authority conversant with the occurrence, and desiring to\nbe very exact, fixes the time as thirty-six hours after Pratt's\narrival. [144]\n\n[Footnote 139: \"Joseph Smith, the Prophet,\" 169, by Lucy Smith.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \"Autobiography of P.P. Pratt,\" 49. 1 \"History of the\nChurch,\" 154.]\n\n[Footnote 141: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 317. Howe's \"Mormonism\nUnveiled,\" 107. Doctrine and Covenants, Section 32.]\n\n[Footnote 142: 1 \"History of the Church,\" 154; see also Pratt's\nAutobiography, 50.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 104. \"Gleanings by the\nWay,\" 312.]\n\n[Footnote 144: H.H. Clapp in a letter to James T. Cobb.]\n\nThe Mormons are not all dull, and their cunning leaders readily saw\nthat it would be unwise to advertise the suddenness of this conversion,\nsince it might serve to identify the guilty conspirators. Therefore it\nis now represented that Pratt and Rigdon were at first in a state of\ngreat antagonism to Mormonism, which it took weeks to overcome. [145]\nThis cannot be, unless Pratt could walk three hundred and seventy miles\nin less than no time at all.\n\n[Footnote 145: Life of Sidney Rigdon in manuscript by his son, John\nRigdon. 1 \"History of the Church,\" 141. Supplement 14 _Millennial\nStar,_ 47-48. 4 _Times and Seasons,_ 290. 45 _Saints' Herald._ 61.]\n\nThe facts of this sudden conversion and the subsequent concealment of\nits precipitate character all reveal a guilt on the part of those who\nare conscious of having done some thing they wish to keep from the\nknowledge of others. Had this conversion been honestly miraculous,\nthere would have been no thought of concealment.\n\nNovember 14, 1830, the date of Rigdon's baptism, was Sunday, and of\ncourse the first Sunday after the arrival of Pratt. At their first\ninterview during this visit, Pratt requested and \"readily\" received\npermission to preach Mormonism in Rigdon's church. The prophet's\naccount says: [146]\n\n[Footnote 146: Supplement 14 _Millennial Star_, 47.]\n\n    \"At the conclusion [of Pratt's sermon] Elder Rigdon arose and\n    stated to the congregation that the information that they had\n    received was of an extraordinary character, and certainly demanded\n    their most serious consideration, and as the Apostle advised his\n    brethren to 'prove all things, and hold fast that which is good,'\n    so he would exhort his brethren to do likewise, and give the\n    matter a careful investigation, and not turn against it without\n    being fully convinced of its being an imposition, lest they should\n    possibly resist the truth. This was indeed generous on the part\n    of Elder Rigdon, and gave evidence of his entire freedom from any\n    sectarian bias.\"\n\nBut according to Elder Lyman Wight's diary and the other evidence\nhere adduced, Rigdon was already a convert. Why, then, all this false\nsuggestion and hypocritical cant about Rigdon's generosity and freedom\nfrom prejudice? There is but one answer, and that is, the authors of it\nare thereby attempting to conceal the real facts.\n\nOn December 7, 1830, and with due promptness, be it observed, Rigdon,\nthrough Smith, received a revelation making him (Rigdon) scribe to the\nprophet, and informing Rigdon how, all unconsciously to himself, he had\nbeen preparing the way for Mormonism. [147] This is speedily followed\nby another revelation, [148] in which Rigdon's Ohio home, where he so\ncarefully prepared the people for the reception of his new faith, is\ndesignated as the gathering place of the faithful, the promised land of\nthe \"Saints.\"\n\n[Footnote 147: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" 107. Doctrine and\nCovenants, Sec. 32. 7 _Journal of Discourses_ 372.]\n\n[Footnote 148: Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 37.]\n\nTHE PLAGIARISM CLINCHED.\n\nThus far we have established in a general way the existence and nature\nof Solomon Spaulding's rewritten \"Manuscript Found.\" By undenied\nevidence we have shown its theft from Patterson's printing office\nbefore Spaulding's death and under circumstances which made the latter\nsuspect Sidney Rigdon as the thief; that Rigdon, prior to this time,\nwas so intimate with the employees of that printing office as to give\nrise to a general belief that he was himself employed there, and beyond\nall question evidencing an intimacy such as afforded him opportunity\nto purloin the manuscript. By like uncontradicted evidence, we have\nshown Rigdon to have been in possession of a similar manuscript,\nthe existence of which is not explained by any other literary work\never done by him, and which, on one of the several occasions when he\nexhibited it, was said by him to have been written by Spaulding. We\nhave established a perfectly plain and probable connection between\nSmith and Rigdon through Parley P. Pratt, and such contradictory\nstatements as to the sudden and miraculous conversions of the two\nlatter as bring home with redoubled force the suspicion of a concealed\nmotive, such as a conspiracy in fraud would best explain. It now\nremains only to make more certain the points of identity between\nSpaulding's rewritten \"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of Mormon. When\nthis is done we will have established the plagiarism and convicted\nSmith, Rigdon, and Pratt as the conspirators who perpetrated the fraud.\nWith the identity of the distinguishing features in the \"Manuscript\nFound\" and Book of Mormon established, we will have demonstrated beyond\nall _reasonable_ doubt the very low origin of the Mormons' Book.\nSome day will be done a work of supererogation in making a critical\nexamination of the absurdities and contradictions upon which rest the\nclaim of divinity. Present space will only allow the completion of that\nbranch of the argument under consideration.\n\nBefore proceeding to the examination of the direct evidence, it will\nbe well to give an account of the discovery of this identity, the very\nspontaneity of which adds force to the evidence adduced. Spaulding,\nlike most authors, had a great fondness for his productions, and often\nread them to his friends. In 1832 or 1833, when Mormonism was fairly\nafloat, a Mormon preacher brought a copy of the Book of Mormon to\nConneaut or New Salem, as it was sometimes called, the very place where\nSpaulding wrote most of his \"Manuscript Found.\" A public meeting was\nappointed, in which the Book of Mormon was copiously read from and\ndiscussed by the elder. The historical part and style were immediately\nrecognized by many present, among them John Spaulding, brother to\nSolomon Spaulding. Being \"eminently pious,\" he was amazed and afflicted\nthat his brother's manuscript should have been perverted to so wicked\na purpose. With tear-filled eyes he arose in the meeting and expressed\nsorrow and regret that the writings of his sainted brother should\nbe used for a purpose so vile and shocking. So much excitement was\nproduced that a citizens' meeting appointed Dr. Philastus Hurlburt to\ngather the evidence which afterwards was published in Howe's \"Mormonism\nUnveiled.\" [149]\n\n[Footnote 149: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 252-3. \"Mormons' Own Book,\"\n29-30. \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 417. _et. seq._ Boston _Recorder,_ May,\n1839.]\n\nIn the first publication of Matilda Spaulding Davidson's letter,\nfrom which the above is gleaned, the words \"Mormon preacher\" in the\nmanuscript published over her name were, by the typesetter, converted\ninto \"woman preacher.\" Mormons at once undertook to impeach the\nstatement, not by denying the main features of the story of its value\nas an argument, but wholly upon the ground that Mormons never had a\n\"woman\" preacher. As the result of this criticism, it was shown to have\nbeen due solely to typographical error, [150] thus leaving the statement\nas corrected free from criticism upon this ground. The very spontaneity\nof this outburst and its surrounding circumstances absolutely preclude\nevery imputation of premeditation, every suspicion of personal\ninterest, and every impeachment based upon an assumed hatred of\nMormonism. Further, when we in addition remember that this occurrence\nwas comparatively close to the time when Spaulding read his manuscript\nto many of those present in this same audience, then this circumstance\nwill rightfully be accorded a very great evidentiary weight.\n\n[Footnote 150: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 264.]\n\nThe evidence gathered by Dr. Philastus Hurlburt pursuant to the\ncitizens' meeting of Conneaut was first published in Howe's \"Mormonism\nUnveiled,\" in 1834, and is the most important single collection of\noriginal evidence ever made upon this subject. We will first examine\nthat evidence in so far as it relates to the identity of Spaulding's\n\"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of Mormon, afterwards introducing such\ncorroborating evidence as may be at hand. Unless otherwise indicated,\nthe following evidence was taken before and published in 1834 by E. D.\nHowe in the nineteenth chapter of his \"Mormonism Unveiled.\" The first\nwitness introduced is John Spaulding who lived with his brother Solomon\nat Conneaut, O. Of a book his brother had been writing John Spaulding\nsays this:\n\n    \"The book he was writing was entitled 'Manuscript Found,' of which\n    he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the\n    first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American\n    Indians are the descendants of the Jew, or the lost tribes. It\n    gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem by land\n    and sea till they arrived in America under the command of _Nephi_\n    and _Lehi._ They afterwards had quarrels and contentions and\n    separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated\n    _Nephites_ and the other _Lamanites._ Cruel and bloody wars ensued,\n    in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in\n    large heaps, which caused the mounds so common in this country. The\n    arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view in order to\n    account for all the curious antiquities found in various parts of\n    North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon,\n    and, to my great surprise, I find _nearly all the same historical\n    matter, names, etc.,_ as they were in my brother's writings. I\n    well remember that he wrote in the old style and commenced about\n    every sentence with 'And it came to pass,' or 'Now it came to\n    pass,' the _same as in the Book of Mormon,_ and, according to my\n    best recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon\n    wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. By what means\n    it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr., I am unable to\n    determine.\n\n    \"JOHN SPAULDING.\"\n\nOur next witness is Martha Spaulding, wife of John Spaulding. She says:\n\n    \"I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding about twenty\n    years ago. I was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut;\n    he was then writing a historical novel, founded upon the first\n    settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and\n    warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines\n    of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of\n    Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The\n    lapse of time which has intervened prevents my recollecting but few\n    of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of _Nephi_\n    and _Lehi_ are yet fresh in my memory as being the principal\n    heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first\n    came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their\n    journey by land and sea till they arrived in America, after which\n    disputes arose between the chiefs which caused them to separate\n    into different bands, one of which was called Lamanites and the\n    other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles,\n    which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their\n    being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds\n    in the country. Some of these people he represented as being very\n    large. I have read the Book of Mormon, which has brought fresh to\n    my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding, and I have no\n    manner of doubt that the historical part of it is the same that I\n    read and heard more than twenty years ago. The old, obsolete style\n    and the phrases of 'and it came to pass,' etc., are the same.\n\n    \"MARTHA SPAULDING\"\n\nOur third witness is Henry Lake, Spaulding's business partner at\nConneaut. He says:\n\n    \"He [Spaulding] very frequently read to me from a manuscript\n    which he was writing, which he entitled the 'Manuscript Found,'\n    and which he represented as being found in this town. I spent\n    many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well\n    acquainted with its contents. He wished me to assist him in getting\n    his production printed, alleging that a book of that kind would\n    meet with a rapid sale. I designed doing so, but the forge not\n    meeting our anticipations, we failed in business, when I declined\n    having anything to do with the publication of the book. This\n    book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the\n    lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their\n    contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he\n    was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him\n    what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct,\n    but by referring to the Book of Mormon I find, to my surprise, that\n    it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I\n    borrowed the Golden Bible, put it into my pocket, carried it home,\n    and thought no more about it. About a week after my wife found the\n    book in my coat pocket as it hung up, and commenced reading it\n    aloud as I lay upon the bed. She had not read twenty minutes when\n    I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spaulding\n    had read to me more than twenty years before from his 'Manuscript\n    Found.' Since that I have more carefully examined the said Golden\n    Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of\n    it principally, if not wholly, taken from the 'Manuscript Found.'\n    I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that the so frequent use of\n    the words, 'And it came to pass,' 'Now it came to pass,' rendered\n    it ridiculous.\"\n\nIV.\n\nOur fourth witness is John N. Miller, who was employed by Spaulding and\nLake at Conneaut and boarded at the former's home. Miller says:\n\n    \"He [Spaulding] had written two or three books or pamphlets on\n    different subjects, but that which more particularly drew my\n    attention was the one which he called the 'Manuscript Found.' From\n    this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company\n    present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of\n    America before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from\n    Jerusalem under their leaders, detailing their travels by land and\n    water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, etc. He said that he\n    designed it as a historical novel, and that in after years it would\n    be believed by many people as much as the history of England. He\n    soon after failed in business, and told me he should retire from\n    the din of his creditors, finish his book, and have it published,\n    which would enable him to pay his debts and support his family. He\n    soon after removed to Pittsburg, as I understood. I have recently\n    examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon\n    Spaulding from beginning to end, but mixed up with Scripture\n    and other religious matters which I did not meet with in the\n    'Manuscript Found.' Many of the passages in the Mormon book are\n    verbatim from Spaulding, and others in part. The names of _Nephi,\n    Lehi, Moroni,_ and, in fact; all the principal names are brought\n    fresh to my recollection by the Golden Bible. When Spaulding\n    divested his history of its fabulous names by a verbal explanation,\n    he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very\n    confident he called Zarahemla; they were marched about that country\n    for a length of time in which wars and great bloodshed ensued. He\n    brought them across North America in a northeast direction.\n\n    \"JOHN N. MILLER.\"\n\nOur fifth witness is Aaron Wright, who says:\n\n    \"I first became acquainted with Solomon Spaulding in 1808 or 1809,\n    when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut Creek. When at his\n    house one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing\n    of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first\n    settlers of America, and that the Indians were their descendants.\n    Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their\n    journey from Jerusalem to America as it is given in the Book of\n    Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the\n    Book of Mormon I know to be the same as I read and heard read from\n    the writings of Spaulding more than twenty years ago; the names are\n    especially the same without any alteration. He told me his object\n    was to account for all the fortifications, etc., to be found in\n    this country, and said that in time it would be fully believed by\n    all except learned men and historians. I once anticipated reading\n    his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new\n    Bible. Spaulding _had many other manuscripts_ which I expect to\n    see when Smith translates his other plates. In conclusion I will\n    observe that the names of, and most of the historical part of the\n    Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it as most\n    modern history. If it is not Spaulding's writing, it is the same\n    as he wrote; and if Smith was inspired, I think it was by the same\n    spirit that Spaulding was, which he confessed to be the love of\n    money.\n\n    \"AARON WRIGHT.\"\n\nOur sixth witness is Oliver Smith, who testifies:\n\n    \"When Solomon Spaulding first came to this place [Conneaut], he\n    purchased a tract of land, surveyed it out, and commenced selling\n    it. While engaged in this business he boarded at my house, in all\n    nearly six months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a\n    historical novel founded upon the first settlers of this country.\n    He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land\n    and sea, till their arrival in America, and give an account of\n    their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this\n    way he would give a satisfactory account of all the old mounds\n    so Common to this country. During the time he was at my house I\n    read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were\n    by him represented as leading characters when they first started\n    for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which\n    they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious\n    matter was introduced, as I now recollect. * * * When I heard the\n    historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings\n    of Solomon Spaulding. Soon after I obtained the book, and on\n    reading it, found much of it the same as Spaulding had written more\n    than twenty years before.\n\n    \"OLIVER SMITH.\"\n\nOur seventh witness, Nahum Howard, avers this:\n\n    \"I first became acquainted with Solomon Spaulding in December,\n    1810. After that time I frequently saw him at his house, and also\n    at my house. I once, in conversation with him, expressed a surprise\n    at not having any account of the inhabitants once in this country,\n    who erected the old forts, mounds, etc. He then told me that he was\n    writing a history of that race of people and afterwards frequently\n    showed me his writings which I read. I have lately read the Book\n    of Mormon and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except\n    the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings\n    published in Pittsburg, and he thought that in one century from\n    that time it would be believed as much as any other history.\n\n    \"NAHUM HOWARD.\"\n\nOur eighth witness is Artemas Cunningham, whose evidence reads thus:\n\n    \"In the month of October, 1811, I went from the township of Madison\n    to Conneaut, for the purpose of securing a debt due me from Solomon\n    Spaulding. I tarried with him nearly two days for the purpose of\n    accomplishing my object, which I was finally unable to do. I found\n    him destitute of the means of paying his debts. His only hope of\n    ever paying his debts appeared to be upon the sale of a book which\n    he had been writing. He endeavored to convince me from the nature\n    and character of the work that it would meet with a ready sale.\n    Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation\n    of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history\n    of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to\n    have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he\n    had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then\n    presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share\n    of the night in reading them and conversing upon them. I well\n    remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero\n    of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase 'I, Nephi.' I\n    recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although\n    the general features of the story have passed from my memory\n    through the lapse of twenty-two years. He attempted to account for\n    the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and\n    remarked that after this generation had passed away, his account of\n    the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic\n    as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined\n    and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spaulding had written its\n    outlines before he left Conneaut.\" [151]\n\n[Footnote 151: This ends the evidence taken from Howe's \"Mormonism\nUnveiled,\" Chapter 19.]\n\nAfter the publication of the foregoing evidence (1834) \"Apostle\" Orson\nHyde went to Conneaut, evidently to secure impeaching or contradicting\ntestimony. He received so little comfort that not even a public mention\nof the trip was made by him until 1841, while he was in London. [152]\n\n[Footnote 152: \"The Spaulding Story Examined and Exposed,\" by Page, 10.]\n\nOur ninth witness upon the facts showing the plagiarism of the Book\nof Mormon from the Spaulding manuscript is Mr. Joseph Miller. He was\nintimately acquainted with Solomon Spaulding during all of the time\nwhile the latter resided at Amity, Pa. (1814-16).[153] Mr. Miller's\ntestimony is preserved in the Pittsburg _Telegraph_ of February 6,\n1879, from which the following is pertinent:\n\n[Footnote 153: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 6.]\n\n    \"On hearing read the account from the book [of Mormon] of the\n    battle between the Amlicites and the Nephites [Book of Alma,\n    Chapter 1--Chapter 3, Edition of '88--], in which the soldiers of\n    one army had placed a red mark on their foreheads to distinguish\n    them from their enemies, it seems to reproduce in my mind, not only\n    the narration, but the very words, as they had been impressed upon\n    my mind by the reading of Spaulding's manuscript.\"\n\nOur tenth witness is Redick McKee, Whose evidence upon another point\nwe have already used. Under date of Washington, D.C., April 14, 1869,\npublished in the Washington (Pa.) _Reporter_ for April 21, 1869, he\nsays:\n\n    \"In the fall of 1814 I arrived in the village of 'Good Will,' and\n    for eighteen or twenty months sold goods in the store previously\n    occupied by Mr. Thos. Brice. It was on Main Street, a few doors\n    west of Spaulding's Tavern, where I was a boarder. With both Mr.\n    Solomon Spaulding and his wife I was quite intimately acquainted.\n    I recollect quite well Mr. Spaulding spending much time in writing\n    [on sheets of paper torn out of an old book] what purported to\n    be a veritable history of the nations or tribes who inhabited\n    Canaan. He called it 'Lost History Found,' 'Lost Manuscript,' or\n    some such name, not disguising that it was wholly a work of the\n    imagination, written to amuse himself and without any immediate\n    view to publication. I was struck with the minuteness of his\n    details and the apparent truthfulness and sincerity of the author.\n    I have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred to by Mr.\n    Miller about the Amlicites making a cross with red paint on their\n    foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in the confusion of\n    battle.\"\n\nThe eleventh witness is the Rev. Abner Jackson, who, when but a boy and\nconfined with a lame knee, heard Solomon Spaulding read to his father\nmuch of the former's story, and also heard him give an outline of the\nwhole. Mr. Jackson, under date of December 20, 1880, made the following\nstatement to the Washington County (Pa.) _Reporter_ of January 7,\n1881: [154]\n\n[Footnote 154: See also \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" 6-7.]\n\n    \"Spaulding frequently read his manuscript to the neighbors and\n    amused them as he progressed with the work. He wrote it in Bible\n    style. 'And it came to pass' occurred so often that some called\n    him 'Old Come-to-pass.' The Book of Mormon follows the romance too\n    closely to be a stranger. In both, many persons appear having the\n    same name, as Moroni, Mormon, Nephites, Laman, Lamanites, Nephi,\n    and others. Here we are presented with romance second called\n    the Book of Mormon, telling the same story of the same people,\n    traveling from the same plain, in the same way, having the same\n    difficulties and destination, with the same wars, same battles\n    and same results, with thousands upon thousands slain. Then see\n    the Mormon account of the last battle at Cumorah, where all the\n    righteous were slain. How much this resembles the closing scene in\n    the 'Manuscript Found.' The most singular part of the whole matter\n    is that it follows the romance so closely, with this difference:\n    The first claims to be a romance, the second claims to be a\n    revelation of God, a new Bible. When it was brought to Conneaut and\n    read there in public, old Squire Wright heard it and exclaimed,\n    'Old-Come-to-pass has come to life again.' Here was the place where\n    Spaulding wrote and read his manuscript to the neighbors for their\n    amusement, and Squire Wright had often heard him read from his\n    romance. This was in 1832, sixteen years after Spaulding's death.\n    This Squire Wright lived on a little farm just outside of the\n    little village. I was acquainted with him for twenty-five years.\n    I lived on his farm when I was a boy and attended school in his\n    village. I am particular to notice these things to show that I had\n    an opportunity of knowing what I am writing about.\"\n\nSquire Wright, referred to in Mr. Jackson's statement, is the same\nAaron Wright who was our fifth witness upon the question of identity.\n\nLast, but not least, we, introduce John C. Bennett. He says he joined\nthe Mormons in order to enable himself to expose their iniquity. He\nwas quartermaster-general of Illinois, the mayor of Nauvoo, a master\nin chancery for Hancock County, III., appointed by then Judge Stephen\nA. Douglas, a trustee for the \"University of the City of Nauvoo,\" the\nrecipient of special mention in revelation purporting to come direct\nfrom God, as well as innumerable encomiums from church leaders and\nthe church organ. The Mormon people have called Bennett more kinds\nof a liar, it seems to me, than any man was ever called before. When\nMormons are asked just what statement of Bennett's warrants the\ncharge, they usually confess they never read his book. In the light of\nsubsequent history and later church admissions, there is not one of\nBennett's innumerable charges of almost unbelievable iniquity which I\ncannot demonstrate to be substantially true as to the character of the\niniquity, if not the special manifestation of it, and do so wholly from\nthe evidence of Mormon church publications. I, therefore, believe what\nBennett says, and here quote so much of his testimony as relates to the\norigin of the Book of Mormon. He says:\n\n    \"I will remark here in confirmation of the above [he having quoted\n    a small part of the statements herein last above quoted] that the\n    Book of Mormon was originally written by the Rev. Solomon\n    Spaulding, A. M., as a romance and entitled the 'Manuscript\n    Found,' and placed by him in the printing office of Patterson\n    and Lambdin, in the city of Pittsburg, from whence it was taken\n    by a _conspicuous Mormon divine_ and remodeled by adding the\n    religious portion, placed by him in Smith's possession, and then\n    published to the world as the testimony exemplifies. This I have\n    from the confederation, and of its perfect correctness there is\n    not the shadow of a doubt. There never were any plates of the\n    Book of Mormon excepting what were seen by the spiritual and not\n    the natural eyes of the witnesses. The story of the plates is all\n    chimerical.\" [155]\n\n[Footnote 155: Bennett's \"Mormonism Exposed,\" 123-4--1842.]\n\nIt will be observed Bennett does not name Rigdon or Pratt in his\nstatement. The reason is apparent from reading certain correspondence\npublished in the book from which it appears that at the same time\nof writing he entertained a reasonable hope that Sidney Rigdon and\nthe Pratts would leave the church and join him in his anti-Mormon\ncrusade, and he probably did not wish to unduly embarrass his supposed\nconfederates, who were still apparently within the fold.\n\nFOR THE LOVE OF GOLD, NOT GOD.\n\nWith the exception of establishing the motive, our case is now\ncomplete. The natural inference, of course, is that the greed for gain\nfurnished the dynamics of the scheme, but we must not leave even this\nfact without direct evidence. Mormons point to the violent death of\nSmith as a martyrdom, and assume this sufficient answer to the charge\nof selfishness. A man who, as was the case with Smith, dies with a\nsix-shooter in his own hand, firing it at his assailants, [156] is in a\nnovel pose for a martyr, and yet we may admit that Smith would not from\nselfish ends have chosen a career of imposture had he in the beginning\nbeen able to foresee his ignominious end.\n\n[Footnote 156: \"Rise and Fall of Nauvoo,\" 443. Bancroft's \"History of\nUtah,\" 170.]\n\nSoon after Rigdon's visit to Smith and the reception of the revelation\nmaking Kirtland the gathering place of the \"Saints,\" Smith's family,\ntogether with their followers, moved to Ohio. Revelations now came\nthick and fast, and of such a character as to demonstrate that the love\nof gold, and not God, was the inducing cause of their existence. I\nquote a few pertinent samples:\n\n    \"Whoso receiveth you receiveth me, and the same will _feed_ you and\n    _clothe_ you and _give you money-_and he who doeth not these things\n    is not my disciple,\" [157]\n\n[Footnote 157: Doctrine and Covenants, 84, 89.]\n\n    \"It is wisdom in me that my servant Martin Harris should be an\n    example unto the church _in laying his money before the bishop_\n    of the church. And also this is a law unto every man that cometh\n    unto this land to receive an inheritance, and he shall do with this\n    money according as the law directs.\" [158]\n\n[Footnote 158: Doctrine and Covenants, 58:35, 36.]\n\n    \"And let all _the monies which can be spared, it mattereth not_\n    unto me whether it be little or much, be sent up unto the land of\n    Zion unto those I have appointed to receive it.\" [159]\n\n[Footnote 159: Doctrine and Covenants, 63:40.]\n\n    \"And let all those who have not families, who receive _monies,_\n    send it up unto the Bishop of Zion.\" [160]\n\n[Footnote 160: Doctrine and Covenants, 84:104.]\n\n    \"Behold, this is my will obtaining moneys even as I have\n    directed.\" [161]\n\n[Footnote 161: Doctrine and Covenants, 66:45. Supplement 14 _Millennial\nStar,_ 80.]\n\n    \"Impart a portion of thy property; yea, even part of thy lands, and\n    _all_ save the support of thy family.\" [162]\n\n[Footnote 162: Doctrine and Covenants, 10:34.]\n\n    \"Verily thus saith the Lord, I _require all their surplus_ property\n    to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church of Zion.\" [163]\n\n[Footnote 163: Doctrine and Covenants, 119:1.]\n\n    \"And in temporal labor thou [Smith, the athlete,] shalt not give\n    strength, for this is not thy calling.\" [164]\n\n[Footnote 164: Doctrine and Covenants, 24:9.]\n\n    _\"They shall support thee_ and I will bless them both spiritually\n    and temporally.\" [165]\n\n[Footnote 165: Doctrine and Covenants, 24:3.]\n\n    \"If ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, _provide for Him_\n    [Smith] _food and raiment_ and whatsoever he needeth to accomplish\n    the work.\" [166]\n\n[Footnote 166: Doctrine and Covenants, 43:13.]\n\n    \"He who _feeds_ you, or _clothes_ you, or gives you _money_ shall\n    in no wise lose his reward.\" [167]\n\n[Footnote 167: Doctrine and Covenants, 84:90.]\n\n    \"He that _sendeth up treasures_ unto the land of Zion shall receive\n    an inheritance in this world.\" [168]\n\n[Footnote 168: Doctrine and Covenants, 64:48.]\n\n    \"I command that thou shall not covet thine own property.\" [169]\n\n[Footnote 169: Doctrine and Covenants, 19:26.]\n\n\"Your money or your damnation\" has about as much ethical sanction as\nthe less pretentious demand of the highwayman who says, \"Your money\nor your life.\" But we have not yet reached the end. The \"Prophet's\"\nfather, who, prior to the discovery of the alleged divine mission of\nhis son, eked out only a scanty living as a dispenser of cake and root\nbeer, [170] now became the dispenser of patriarchal blessings at ten\ndollars per week and expenses, [171] and later at three dollars per\nbless. [172]\n\n[Footnote 170: \"Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,\" 12.]\n\n[Footnote 171: 15 _Millennial Star_, 308.]\n\n[Footnote 172: \"Mormon Portraits,\" 16.]\n\nThe Prophet's brothers and friends received a gift of real estate by\nrevelation, [173] and another brother of the Prophet was retained in a\nholy office, though confessedly concealing his property to cheat his\ncreditors. [174]\n\n[Footnote 173: Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 94.]\n\n[Footnote 174: 15 _Millennial Star_, 520.]\n\nThese are a part and by no means all of the evidence tending to\nestablish that a desire for money was the inspiring cause of every act\nof the Mormon Prophet, the very divinity that moulded his thoughts\nand revelations, and brought into being Mormon's books. Before\nbecoming a Prophet, Joseph Smith's earning capacity as a peep-stone\nmoney digger was $14 per month. [175] Soon after becoming a Prophet he\nbecame president of a bank. [176] In 1842 the Prophet (together with\nhis brother Hyrum and Sidney Rigdon) took advantage of the bankruptcy\nlaw to avoid creditors, whose claims amounted to one hundred thousand\ndollars. [177] A few years later the Prophet was killed, he being at the\ntime the richest man in Nauvoo.\n\n[Footnote 175: 16 _Millennial Star,_ 151.]\n\n[Footnote 176: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 334. Sometimes Smith was cashier\nand Rigdon President. \"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 135.]\n\n[Footnote 177: 19 _Millennial Star_, 343. 20 _Millennial Star,_\n106-216-246. \"Mormonism and Mormons,\" 338.]\n\nThrough the whole story of their lives, if we may believe their alleged\nrevelations to come from on high, God manifests in the conspirators'\nbehalf a greed for earthly prosperity which would disgrace any decent\nman who should attempt to gratify it at the expense of a like number of\npoverty-stricken, ignorant unfortunates.\n\nIt is perhaps a work of supererogation, yet I cannot readily resist\ncalling attention to the human side of the conspirators, when they came\nto fall out, over the division of the spoils. Many, even Brigham Young\nincluded, suspected Joseph Smith of misappropriating church money. [178]\nBrigham, however, had his suspicions allayed, for the Lord actually put\nmoney into his trunk. [179] This would, of course, be very convincing\nevidence that a man might have much money without misappropriating\nanything, even months later fail with $150,000 of liabilities and\npractically though a bank established by revelation, [180] should a few\nno assets, and after only eight months of business. [181]\n\n[Footnote 178: _Deseret News,_ April 8, 1857, p. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 179: 2 _Journal of Discourses_, 128. 7 _Deseret News_, 115.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Statement of Warren Parrish, copied in \"An Exposure\nof Mormonism,\" 10. _Messenger and Advocate,_ January 1837, copied in\n\"Prophet of Palmyra,\" 134. _Deseret News,_ December 21, 1864, Vol. 14,\np. 94, says \"under the direction of the Prophet.\"]\n\n[Footnote 181: Statement of Warren Parrish, copied in \"An Exposure\nof Mormonism,\" 11. [The above sentence lacks clearness, but it is\n_verbatim_ from Mr. Schroeder's article, and I do not feel at liberty\nto suggest the meaning.--R.]]\n\nAt one time Cowdery, a witness to the divinity of the Book of Mormon,\ninvited suspicion that he was converting more than his share of the\nspoils, and the following revelation was the result:\n\n    \"It is not wisdom in me that he [Cowdery] should be entrusted\n    with the commandments, and the moneys which he shall carry unto\n    the land of Zion, _except one go with him who will be true and\n    faithful._\" [182]\n\n[Footnote 182: Doctrine and Covenants, 6:91.]\n\nThe most forceful incident of this sort, however, occurred as the\nresult of jealousy between Rigdon and Smith, which manifests itself\nin scores of ways all through their lives. When Rigdon on his visit\nto the Prophet in New York desires to be proclaimed a translator of\nremaining plates given by the angel to Smith, and as having the same\npower as Joseph Smith, the former's ambitions are quietly squelched by\na revelation from God to Rigdon, saying: \"It is not expedient in me\nthat ye should translate any more until ye shall go to Ohio,\" [183] but\nthe rest of the plates never were translated. [184]\n\n[Footnote 183: Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 184: 19 _Journal of Discourses_, 18-216-218. \"Reminiscences\nof Joseph the Prophet,\" 14.]\n\nWhen Cowdery and perhaps Rigdon importune their partner in fraud to\nbe elevated to the prophetic office, Smith resists with a revelation\nin which God is made to say: \"No one shall be appointed to receive\ncommandments and revelations in this church, excepting my servant\nJoseph Smith, Jun.\" [185] Similar revelations seem to have been\nnecessary more than once. [186]\n\n[Footnote 185: Doctrine and Covenants, 28:2.]\n\n[Footnote 186: Doctrine and Covenants 43:8.]\n\nFinally the pressure became too hard to bear, and a revelation was\nprocured in which God, in contradiction of his former declarations,\none of which is above quoted, appoints Sidney Rigdon \"to receive the\noracles for the whole church.\" [187] And not neglecting the equal rights\nof the \"Prophet's\" brother, God declares: \"I appoint unto him (Hyrum\nSmith) that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my\nchurch, as well as my servant Joseph.\" [188] Both men were accordingly\n\"ordained\" each a \"prophet, seer, and revelator.\" [189] Thus are even\nthe Gods made to eat their own words at the behest of the conspirators,\nwho quarrel in their division of the glory and the gold.\n\n[Footnote 187: Doctrine and Covenants 124:126.]\n\n[Footnote 188: Doctrine and Covenants 124:94. 18 _Millennial Star_,\n360.]\n\n[Footnote 189: 20 _Millenial Star_, 550 as to Rigdon, and p. 373 as to\nHyrum Smith. It is now claimed that Smith had conferred upon all the\nApostles \"all the Power, Priesthood, and Authority ever conferred upon,\nhimself.\" 1 _Journal of Discourses_, 206. 19 _Journal of Discourses,_\n124. See also _Melchizedek and Aaronic Herald,_ February, 1850. 5\n_Millennial Star,_ 104, 68 Semi-Annual Conference, 70.]\n\nOne more incident of this sort will suffice. In February, 1831, Smith\nreceived the first of several revelations directing the brethren to\nprovide him a home. In part it reads as follows:\n\n    \"It is mete that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., should have a house\n    built in which to live and translate. And again, it is mete that my\n    servant Sidney Rigdon shall live as seemeth him good, inasmuch as\n    he keepeth my commandments.\" [190]\n\n[Footnote 190: Doctrine and Covenants, 41, 7 and 8.]\n\nOf course, living \"as seemeth him good\" was to Sidney Rigdon hardly a\nfair equivalent for a house and lot. Had he not made Smith a \"prophet,\nseer, and revelator,\" and could he not also unmake him? Why, then,\nshould Sidney Rigdon submit to any unfair division of the spoils of the\nprophetic office? He didn't.\n\nThe above revelation was received while Rigdon was absent from\nKirtland. Upon his return he went to the meeting house where an\nexpectant throng awaited him in anticipation of one of his entrancing\nsermons, but Rigdon failed to go to the speaker's stand, and instead\npaced back and forth through the house. The \"Prophet Joseph\" being\nabsent from Kirtland, Father Smith requested Rigdon to speak. In a\ntone of excitement Rigdon replied (and who will say it was not spoken\nas by one having authority?): \"The keys of the Kingdom are rent from\nthe church, and there shall be no prayer put up in this house this\nday.\" \"Oh, no; I hope not,\" gasped Father Smith. \"I tell you they are,\"\nrejoined \"Elder Rigdon.\" The brethren stared and turned pale, and the\nsisters in anguish cried aloud for relief. \"I tell you again,\" said\nSidney, with much feeling, \"the keys of the Kingdom are taken from you,\nand you never will have them again _until you build me a new house_.\"\n\nAmid tumultuous excitement on the part of the sisters, \"Brother\nHyrum\" left the meeting to bring \"Joseph the Prophet,\" who was in a\nneighboring settlement. On their return next day the \"brethren\" and\n\"sisters\" were gathered in anticipation of important happenings. Joseph\nmounted the rostrum and informed the assembly that they were laboring\nunder a great mistake; that the church had not transgressed. Speaking\nof the lost keys, he said: \"I myself hold the keys of this last\ndispensation, and will forever hold them, both in time and in eternity;\nso set your hearts at rest upon that point; all is right.\"\n\nI continue to quote from an account written by the \"Prophet's\"\nmother, relating just what they desire the world to believe happened\nimmediately after:\n\n\"He (Joseph Smith) then went on and preached a comforting discourse,\nafter which he appointed a council to sit the next day, by which Sidney\nRigdon was tried for _having lied in the name of the Lord._ In this\ncouncil Joseph told him he must suffer for what he had done; that he\nwould be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan, who would handle\nhim as one man handleth another; that the less priesthood he had the\nbetter it would be for him, and that it would be well for him to give\nup his license. This counsel Sidney complied with, yet he had to suffer\nfor his folly, for, according to his own account, he was dragged out\nof bed by the devil three times in one night, by the heels.\" Mother\nLucy Smith doubtingly adds: \"Whether this be true or not, one thing is\ncertain. His contrition of soul was as great as a man could well live\nthrough.\" [191] The last sentence shows beyond dispute that Mother Lucy\nhad her doubts about this silly story she has just narrated, and, of\ncourse, we are entitled to similar doubts.\n\n[Footnote 191: Mother Lucy's life of \"Joseph Smith the Prophet,\" 195\nand 196. As to Rigdon's declaration that the keys were gone, see also\n14 _Deseret News,_ 91, December 21, 1864. As to Rigdon's being dragged\nout of bed, see also History of the Mormons, 53.]\n\nWhat really did happen is made very plain by subsequent occurrences.\nSmith and Rigdon got together, patched up their differences by an\nagreement that Rigdon should have a house if he would restore the\n\"keys\" to the last dispensation, and desist from executing his threats\nto smash the \"Kingdom,\" and for the sake of its wholesome influence\nupon others he must play penitent and humble. As evidence of this\nconclusion we point to the story of this transaction as quoted above\nfrom Mother Lucy's life of the \"Prophet,\" and the two following\nsections of a revelation announced by Smith under date of August, 1831:\n\n    \"Behold, verily I say unto you, I the Lord am not pleased with my\n    servant Sidney Rigdon. He exalted himself in his heart and received\n    not my counsel, but grieved the Spirit.\" \"Let my servants Joseph\n    Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon seek them a house as they are taught\n    through prayer by the Spirit.\" [192]\n\n[Footnote 192: Doctrine and Covenants, 63:55 and 65.]\n\nIt is needless to add they each received a house, and both stood for\nmany years, and perhaps even to this day, side by side, and both built\naccording to the same plans. [193]\n\n[Footnote 193: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" 332.]\n\nCONCLUDING COMMENT.\n\nThe case, so far as the production of evidence is concerned, must now\nbe considered closed. The actors in this fraud are all dead, and upon\nthe precise question here discussed no new evidence is likely to be\ndiscovered. All the evidence directly affecting either side of the\nquestion has been introduced and reviewed.\n\nWhen, as here, we are investigating a case dependent upon\ncircumstantial evidence, we must judge the evidence as a whole. No\none circumstance out of many connected ones ever established the\nultimate fact. The converse of this proposition is equally true. You\ncannot show the insufficiency of the evidence by demonstrating that\nany one circumstance, if it stood alone, would be equally consistent\nwith some other theory than the one in support of which it is cited.\nThe evidentiary circumstances must be viewed as a whole, each in the\nlight of its relation to all the rest. Thus viewed, the circumstantial\nevidence is strong just in proportion as the circumstances related\nto, and consistent with, the theory advocated are numerous. In the\nargument under consideration the circumstantial facts are so numerous,\nand gathered from so many disconnected sources, corroborated by so many\nadmissions from the accused conspirators and their defenders, that it\nis utterly impossible to believe them all to have come into being as a\nmere matter of accidental concomitance.\n\nLet us put the defenders of the divinity of Mormonism to a test on this\nmatter by inviting them to make an equally good case of circumstantial\nevidence based upon established fact, all tending to show some other\nhuman origin for the Book of Mormon than that here advocated. Inability\nto do so means that such an array of concurring facts cannot be\nduplicated in support of any other theory than the one here advocated.\nIf, as must now be admitted, the concurrence of so very many facts can\nbest be explained by the conclusions here contended for, then that is a\nmore believable, a more rational conviction than one which of necessity\nrequires belief in an assumed and unprovable miracle. That explanation\nwhich takes the least for granted is always the one adopted by the\nsanest person. Bearing in mind these truths, let us briefly review a\nportion of the most salient features of the argument.\n\nFrom the uncontradicted evidence of witnesses, practically all of whom\nare disinterested and who in most circumstances of great evidentiary\nweight are corroborated by authorized church publications, we have\nestablished beyond cavil, and I am sure to the satisfaction of all\nthinking minds untainted by mysticism, and whose vision is unobscured,\nthat the following are thoroughly established facts:\n\nSolomon Spaulding, between 1812 and 1816, outlined and then re-wrote\na novel, attempting therein to account for the American Indian by\nIsraelitish origin. The first outline of this story, now at Oberlin\nCollege, had no direct connection with the Book of Mormon, and was\nnever claimed to be connected with it, and such connection was\nexpressly disclaimed as early as 1834. The rewritten story, entitled\n\"Manuscript Found,\" was by Spaulding twice left with a publisher,\nwhence it was stolen under circumstances which then led Spaulding\nto suspect Sidney Rigdon, who long after was the first conspicuous\nconvert of Mormonism; that Rigdon, through his great intimacy with the\npublishers' employees, had opportunity to steal it, and that after\nSpaulding's death, and years before the advent of Mormonism, Rigdon\nhad in his possession such a manuscript and exhibited it, with the\nstatement that it was Spaulding's. Through Parley P. Pratt, Rigdon\nand Smith were brought into relation, and the latter made the Prophet\nof the \"Dispensation of the Fullness of Times,\" the discoverer,\ntranslator, and, according to his own designation, the \"Author and\nProprietor\" [194] of the Book of Mormon. This connection is established\nby the most convincing circumstantial evidence, taken wholly from\nauthorized Mormon publications; it is shown that Rigdon foreknew the\ncoming and in a general way the contents of the Book of Mormon; that\nboth Rigdon and Pratt were, according to some of their contradictory\naccounts, converted to Mormonism with such miraculous suddenness and\nwithout substantial investigation that when this, coupled with the\ncontradictory accounts of these important events and their attempts at\nconcealing the suddenness of their conversion, all compel a conviction\nof their participation in a scheme of religious fraud.\n\n[Footnote 194: Smith designates himself as the \"Author and Proprietor\"\nof God's word, in the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, also in the\ntestimony of the witnesses as it appears in the first edition, since\nwhich time both have been altered. See also _Evening and Morning Star,_\n117.]\n\nUpon the question of plagiarism, we may profitably add a brief summary\nof the points of identity between the peculiar features shown to be\ncommon to Spaulding's novel and the Book of Mormon. In Spaulding's\nfirst outline of the story it pretended to be ancient American history,\nattempting to explain the origin of part of the aborigines of this\ncontinent, all translated from ancient writings found in a stone\nbox. It recounts the wars of extermination of two factions, tells\nof the collecting of armies and of slaughters which were a physical\nimpossibility to those uncivilized people who were without any modern\nmethods of transporting troops or army supplies. After two revisions,\none by Spaulding and a second by Smith, Rigdon & Co., the above general\noutline still describes equally well the Book of Mormon.\n\nLeaving the first blocking-out of his novel unfinished, Spaulding\nresolved to change his plot by dating the story farther back and by\nattempting to imitate the Old Scripture style, so as to make it seem\nmore ancient. Spaulding's determination to date his novel farther back\nprobably suggested changing the roll of parchment which, according to\nthe Oberlin manuscript, was found in a stone box, to golden plates.\nSome time before 1820 some one pretended to have found a Golden Bible\nin Canada. [195] If Spaulding, in rewriting the story, did not make the\nchange, this incident may have suggested such a change to Smith and his\nfellow-frauds.\n\n[Footnote 195: Braden-Kelly Debate, 55.]\n\nSpaulding, in his attempt at imitating Bible phraseology, had repeated\nso ridiculously often the words \"it came to pass,\" that both in Ohio\nand Pennsylvania the neighbors to whom he read his manuscript nicknamed\nhim \"Old Come-to-pass.\" In the Book of Mormon, though professedly an\nabridgment, the same phrase is uselessly repeated several thousand\ntimes, and a bungling effort at imitating the style of Bible writers is\napparent all through it.\n\nSpaulding's existence was contemporaneous with Anti-Masonic riots, and\nhe harbored a sentiment against all secret societies, [196] which has\nalso been carried through into the Book of Mormon.\n\n[Footnote 196: \"Howe's Mormonism Unveiled,\" 288.]\n\nThe uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence of many witnesses is\nexplicit that the historical portions of both the \"Manuscript Found\"\nand the \"Book of Mormon\" are the same, and much of the religious matter\ninterpolated is in the exact phraseology of King James's translation of\nthe Bible. We find also many names of places, persons, and tribes to\nbe identical in the \"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of Mormon. Some of\nthe names were taken from the Bible, others would be known only to the\nstudents of American antiquities, among whom was Spaulding, and still\nothers were unheard of until coined by Spaulding. The names proven to\nbe common to both are Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, Nephites, Lamanites, Laban,\nZarahemla and Amlicites.\n\nAdd to this the very novel circumstance that in both accounts one of\ntwo contending armies placed upon the forehead of its soldiers a red\nmark that they might distinguish friends from enemies, and the new and\ncharacteristic features common to both are too numerous to admit of any\nexplanation except that herein contended for, viz: That the Book of\nMormon is a plagiarism from Spaulding's novel, the \"Manuscript Found,\"\nand is the product of conscious fraud on the part of Sidney Rigdon,\nParley Parker Pratt, Joseph Smith, and others, which fraud was prompted\nwholly by a love of notoriety and money.\n\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nBY BRIGHAM H. ROBERTS\n\n(A Reply to Mr. Theodore Schroeder)\n\n1.\n\nWhen one undertakes at this late day a serious discussion of the\nSpaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, he instinctively\nfeels inclined to begin with an apology to his readers. When Pococke\ninquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon,\ntrained to pick peas from Mahomet's ear, and pass for an angel\ndictating the Koran to him, Grotius answered that there was no proof.\nThe statement here is Carlyle's; and the gruff old Scotch philosopher\nadds in his sour fashion, \"It is really time to dismiss all that.\" [1]\nSo indeed we think of this Spaulding myth in reference to its being the\norigin of the Book of Mormon.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Heroes and Hero Worship,\" by Thomas Carlyle, lecture II.]\n\nWhen the Church of which the Book of Mormon may be said, in a way, to\nhave been the origin has survived the most cruel religious persecution\nof modern times, first in the expulsion of from twelve to fifteen\nthousand of its members from the state of Missouri; and, second, in the\nmurder of its first prophet in Illinois, followed by the expatriation\nof between twenty and thirty thousand of its members from the territory\nof the United States; when that religious movement to which the Book\nof Mormon may be said to have given the first impulse, and is now a\ncontinuous, sustaining factor, has resulted in the founding of a number\nof American commonwealths in the inter-mountain country of the United\nStates; [2] when that people who accept the Book of Mormon as a divine\nrevelation have established, for an extent of well nigh three thousand\nmiles through the plateau valleys of the Rocky Mountains--from the\nprovince of Alberta, Canada, to the states of Chihuahua and Sonora in\nthe republic of Mexico--no less than between seven and nine hundred\nsettlements, many of them prosperous towns of large manufacturing as\nwell as of large agriculture and trade interests; when that same people\nhave won world-wide renown as superior colonizers, and are eagerly\nsought for in such enterprises because of their well known sobriety,\nhonesty, frugality and industry; when that same people are quietly\nbuilding up an educational system including as it does the rounding\nof universities in its principal centers, and academies elsewhere as\nfeeders to the central educational institutions; [3] when those who\naccept the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation continuously sustain a\ncorps of missionaries, numbering from fifteen to eighteen hundred, to\ncarry their message to the world, and these missionaries are at work\nin nearly all civilized nations, and in the islands of the Pacific,\nmeeting their own expenses and manifesting the unselfishness of their\nfaith by their works--their service for God and fellowman; when the\nBook of Mormon itself has been accepted in the first three-quarters of\na century of its existence by hundreds of thousands of earnest people\nof average intelligence and certainly of independent character; when\nthe Book of Mormon itself has been translated into and published in at\nleast eleven languages, in a number of which it has run through many\neditions and the copies published run into the hundreds of thousands,\nand with no abatement of interest yet manifested; when the Book of\nMormon is creating not only a people but also a literature, embracing\nhistory, poetry and philosophy; when it is inspiring music, painting\nand sculpture--when all this has come of the Book of Mormon, is it\nnot really about time to dismiss all that silly talk of the Spaulding\nmanuscript being stolen by Rigdon, revamped by him and palmed off upon\nthe world by a backwoods boy as a revelation, and this practiced fraud\nand deception being the origin of all this that is here enumerated?\n\n[Footnote 2: It must not be supposed that the migration of the Mormon\npeople to the Salt Lake and adjacent valleys when that region was\nMexican territory, resulted only in the founding of the state of\nUtah. Indirectly and directly, too, that movement contributed to the\nsettlement of the entire inter-mountain region, and the founding of the\nStates created out of that territory.]\n\n[Footnote 3: This refers to the Brigham Young University at Provo,\nUtah, the Latter-day Saints' University in Salt Lake City, and fifteen\nColleges and Academies in other parts of the territory occupied by the\nSaints in the inter-mountain west. See \"Defense of the Faith and the\nSaints,\" Vol. I, p. 226.]\n\nWhat faith men must have in fraud and dishonesty to think it can start\nand sustain all this! What a lasting victory is accorded to a thing\nconceived in fraud, brought forth in iniquity, and perpetuated by\ncontinuous falsehood! What credulity is required to believe all this!\nLet no one hereafter, standing in such ranks, dare say that \"cheat\" is\na horse good only for a short race. They must know better than that\nfrom the stand they take in this Book of Mormon matter.\n\nJUSTIFICATIONS FOR REPLYING TO MR. SCHROEDER\n\nTwo things, yea, three, justify a reply to Mr. Theodore Schroeder's\nseries of articles on \"The Origin of the Book of Mormon,\" published\nin the September and November numbers of the _American Historical\nMagazine,_ for 1906, and the January and May numbers for 1907.\n\nThe first justification is the fact of the high standing of the\nmagazine in which his articles appeared. Published in a periodical of\nsuch rank, if unchallenged, they might lead many to believe undeniable\nthe theory there advanced for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and\nthe argument by which said theory is sustained, unanswerable. It has\nbeen from just such circumstances as these with reference to articles\nthat appeared in standard works, in histories and encyclopedias,\nthat Mormonism suffered so much defamation in the earlier year of\nits existence. It now stands recorded in the earlier editions of the\nAmerican Cyclopedia and in the Encyclopedia Britannica that David\nWhitmer denied his testimony as one of the witnesses to the divinity\nof the Book of Mormon; and that his two associate witnesses, Oliver\nCowdery and Martin Harris, had denied their testimony to that book.\nBeing misinformed from these high sources of information, doubtless\ntens of thousands have been impressed with those untrue statements.\nDavid Whitmer never denied his testimony. In a brochure issued by\nhimself, in 1887, and referring directly to these false statements, he\nsaid:\n\n    \"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia\n    Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one\n    of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and\n    that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris,\n    denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all\n    mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or\n    any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver\n    Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony.\n    They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of\n    the Book of Mormon.\" [4]\n\n[Footnote 4: \"Address to all Believers in Christ,\" p. 8. The high\ncharacter and reputation for truthfulness of David Whitmer is attested\nin this brochure by all the leading officials and citizens of Richmond,\nMo., (not Mormons) where he lived for fifty years, pp. 8-10.]\n\nPeople, however, can still quote the above named standard works to\nprove that these men denied their testimony and were false witnesses.\nIt is to prevent as far as possible the creation of such conditions\nrespecting Mr. Schroeder's articles in the American Historical Magazine\nthat I think it important that they should be answered.\n\nThe second thing that justifies an answer to Mr. Schroeder, is the\nform in which his treatment of the subject is cast. Much in the form\nwould lead one to believe, at first glance, that here we had a really\nexhaustive treatise of the origin of the Book of Mormon; that every\nitem of obtainable information had been collected, the mass of facts\nsifted and net results given, instead of a specious plea made for a\nspecial theory. This is evidenced in the constant appeal to sources of\ninformation in the notes appended to the articles, of which notes there\nare one hundred and ninety-six. Then there is an occasional halting in\nthe movement of the argument, as if to weigh the evidence, to balance\none statement against another as if to get down to bed-rock facts,\ninstead of a mere effort to remove some obstruction in the way of the\nspecial theory being worked out. All of which is but so much juggling\nwith forms of treatment,--an effort to win the reader with the shows\nof honest argument, to betray him in deeper consequences. Shimmering\nunder all these forms may be seen the arts of the special pleader bent\non making out a case. It is the false appearance of exhaustive and\nfair treatment of the subject that makes it desirable to answer Mr.\nSchroeder.\n\nThe third justification for answering Mr. Schroeder's articles arises\nout of a suggestion of the gentleman himself, near the close of his\narticle, namely, that the actors who participated in the origin of\nthe Book of Mormon are all dead, and that \"upon the precise question\nhere discussed, no new evidence is likely to be discovered. All the\nevidence directly affecting either side of the question has been\nintroduced and reviewed.\" One may pardon the conscious or unconscious\nself-complacency contained in this suggestion, and even encourage it by\nsaying to the gentleman that we think he is right; that after him there\nwill come no other who will so diligently search for evidence \"on the\nprecise question here discussed.\" For who but himself will ever dare to\nventure to walk by such light as that by which his foot-steps have been\nguided? [5] But with reference to \"all the evidence directly affecting\neither side of the question\" having been \"introduced and reviewed,\" I\nmust hold a different opinion. Believing, however, that Mr. Schroeder\nhas collected, presented and, with as much art as it will be found\npossible to enlist in such a cause, sustained his special view of the\nSpaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, one can but feel\nthat having reached the climax of evidence and argument the case should\nbe considered by those holding an opposite belief.\n\n[Footnote 5: Mr. Schroeder while living in Utah some years ago was\nproprietor, editor and publisher of _Lucifer's Lantern_, a ribald\ninfidel periodical as would be inferred from the title as well as from\nits contents. It is this to which allusion is made in the text.]\n\nPRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.\n\nOne other preliminary word should be said before coming directly to\nMr. Schroeder's theory and argument, and that in relation to the\nauthorities on which the gentleman relies for the support of his views.\nOf course I am not unacquainted with the old controversy concerning\nthe degree of credibility to be allowed to interested witnesses, and\nalso the suspicion that attaches to witnesses for the miraculous.\nI have too long sustained in public debate an unpopular cause not\nto have heard the cry that the witnesses for the truth for which I\ncontended were \"interested witnesses;\" notwithstanding those who were\nmy opponents, at the same time accepted Christianity on the testimony\nof \"interested witnesses,\" and discarded entirely the testimony of\nunfriendly witnesses, or \"interested witnesses\" on the opposite side of\nthe case. I trust that the suggestion in this paragraph will indicate\nthe unfairness of discrediting and discarding entirely the testimony of\nthe witnesses for Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of\nMormon, on the ground that they are \"interested witnesses,\" and taking\nfor truth the statements of the \"interested witnesses\" on the other\nside of the controversy.\n\nI have some acquaintance also with that school of thought which\ndiscredits witnesses of the miraculous. I am familiar with the\nlaborious exposition of that theory by the late Professor Huxley in his\narticle on \"The Value of Witnesses to the Miraculous;\" [6] and also with\nhis controversy on the same subject with Dr. Henry Wace, prebendary of\nSt. Paul's Cathedral, and other Church of England ministers. [7] One\ncould scarcely live in this critical age of ours and be unaware of\nthe existence of the school of thought which undertakes to bar from\nthe court of public debate the testimony of those who are witnesses\nof things held to \"transcend human experience.\" Such testimony, it is\nsaid, suggests \"credulity on the one hand and fraud on the other.\" [8]\n\n[Footnote 6: _The Nineteenth Century Review_, March, 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _The Nineteenth Century Review_, February, 1889; also\nMarch, April, May and June of the same magazine.]\n\n[Footnote 8: \"A supernatural relation cannot be accepted as such, * *\nit always implies credulity or imposture,\" Renan's \"Life of Jesus,\"\nintroduction, p. 45.]\n\nAnd still, both in the history of the past and now, witnesses of the\nso-called miraculous are factors to be reckoned with in our world's\ncontroversies.\n\nIt may be true that the future will disclose the fact that very much\nwhich in the past has been regarded as miraculous, as transcending\n\"all sane, human experience,\" to use a phrase of Mr. Schroeder's, is\nonly such because of human ignorance at the time of a witnessed event,\nand that miracles only exist for the ignorant. Still I concede that\none needs to be upon his guard respecting this class of evidence, for\nman's love for the marvelous leads him into strange self-deceptions,\nas also the practice of deception upon others. But while conceding\nthis on the one hand, on the other I desire to call attention to\na matter entirely neglected by Mr. Schroeder, namely, the general\nuntrustworthiness of testimony in religious controversies, where those\nconsidering themselves orthodox feel called upon to resist what are\nsupposed to be religious innovations. The truth of this is supported\nby all ecclesiastical history. Even pious men, where the innovations\nespecially contravene particular doctrines or theories of established\ninstitutions in which they are interested, often become utterly\nunreliable as witnesses in matters where their opponents are concerned.\n\nSo universally is the fact here pointed out accepted that citations of\nparticular instances are scarcely necessary as proof. But lest others\nforget the fact, as Mr. Schroeder apparently has forgotten it, let\nme ask: Is Roman Catholic historical testimony regarded as reliable\nwhere facts relating to Protestants and the Protestant movement are\nconcerned? Where does Martin Luther stand if the testimony of Catholic\ncontemporaries or the representations of Catholic historians are\nto determine his place in history? A treatise upon the \"Protestant\nReformers\" and the value of the sixteenth century \"Reformation,\"\nbased wholly upon \"Bossuet's Variations,\" and other writers of his\nkind, would not be regarded as of any special value among intelligent\npeople. And Catholics have fared but little better at the hands of\nProtestants. The testimony of either party against the other is quite\ngenerally regarded with suspicion by those who stand aloof from\ntheir controversies, while the respective parties to the discussions\nmutually denounce each other as false witnesses, until \"Catholic lie\"\nand \"Protestant misrepresentation\" are cries and counter-cries that\necho and re-echo through all the pages of Catholic and, Protestant\ncontroversial and historical literature.\n\nBut let us look further up the historic stream of sectarian animosity.\nWhat of Jesus, the Son of God himself? If the sectarian Jews, his\ncontemporaries, are alone to be the accepted witnesses of his words\nand actions and character, what would be the effect of their testimony\nupon the historic Christ? It would make him base born, a wine bibber,\nan associate of harlots, publicans and sinners; it would make him an\ninnovator of sacred customs, a desecrator of the temple, a seditious\nperson, a blasphemer. And so well did the sectaries of his day\nsucceed in making themselves believe that the populace of Jerusalem\nsurged through the streets crying \"crucify him, crucify him!\" and he\nwas condemned by the Sanhedrin to death, from which fate not even a\nfriendly disposed Roman procurator could save him. The sectarian Jews\nsuborned witnesses, who either swore falsely against the Christ, or\nwrongly interpreted his words and actions; and all this in a holy zeal\nfor the preservation of the established order of things among the Jews.\nAfter his resurrection the same characters bribed the Roman guard\nset to watch the sepulchre, put a lie into their mouths, and pledged\ntheir influence as a guarantee against punishment from their superior\nofficers for the neglect of duty involved in the falsehood they were\nbribed to tell. [9] What was Paul's experience with the same sectarian\nJews after he became a proselyte to the Christian faith? Briefly told,\nthe same in character as his master's. [10] So well known is the fact of\nsectarian bitterness; such the zeal of the orthodox for the established\nfaith, that the Emperor Julian, usually called the \"Apostate,\" who\nboth understood and derided the theological disputes of the hostile\nChristian sects, invited to the palace the leaders of the hostile\nsects, that he might enjoy the agreeable spectacle of their furious\nencounters.\n\n[Footnote 9: Matthew xxvi, 59-70; see also xxvi, xxvii.]\n\n[Footnote 10: See Acts of the Apostles from Chapters viii to xxvii,\ninclusive.]\n\n    \"The clamor of controversy sometimes provoked the emperor to\n    exclaim, 'Hear me! The Franks have heard me, and the Alemanni;' but\n    he soon discovered that he was now engaged with more obstinate and\n    implacable enemies; and though he exerted the powers of oratory\n    to persuade them to live in concord, or at least in peace, he was\n    perfectly satisfied, before he dismissed them from his presence,\n    that he had nothing to dread from the union of the Christians.\" [11]\n\n[Footnote 11: \"History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" by\nEdward Gibbon, chap. xxiii.]\n\nSuch the bitterness of sectarian strife, in which the orthodox party\nhas ever been as harsh, as untruthful, as unscrupulous, as resourceful\nat invention of evil things, as savage and cruel as the heretics have\nbeen. Nay, in the sum of such things the preponderance is on their side.\n\nVARIOUS CLASSES OF WITNESSES.\n\nIn the application of this melancholy fact to the controversy between\nChristendom and the Mormon Church respecting the origin of the Book of\nMormon, let no one charge me with a begging of the question because\nI am going to insist that the witnesses quoted by Mr. Schroeder are\nlargely unreliable, because of their zeal against an innovation of\northodox Christianity. Not so. It is not my purpose to beg the question\nby use of the historic fact here brought to view. I only ask that\nit shall be given its proper value in weighing the evidence to be\nconsidered. And I lay stress upon it only because it is an element in\nthe evidence adduced by Mr. Schroeder which is taken no account of at\nall by him.\n\nHe gives no weight at all, considers not at all, the evidence of those\nwho have accepted Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of\nMormon, but he gives unbounded credence to every statement from the\n\"interested witnesses\" on the other side of the question, except, of\ncourse, where they are mutually destructive of each other, and then\nhe seeks to explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions. A\ncasual remark, a reported saying, or a confused recollection of some\nobscure person, of whose character we have no knowledge, nor any\nmeans of testing it, find their way into some one or other of the\nhundred anti-Mormon books published, and then are published by such\ncontroversialists as Mr. Schroeder. Citations are made of them in\nmarginal notes, and in time they come to be regarded, by the ordinary\nreader, as of equal authority with any other witness; and thus the\nunworthy, unreliable and, in some cases, a positively vicious and false\nwitness is given equal--and sometimes even more than equal--credence\nwith witnesses of unimpeachable probity, and high character, and who\nhave back of their testimony perhaps a life time of toil, suffering,\nsacrifice, and sometimes martyrdom.\n\nOf this class of witnesses let me here add one further remark. I know\nthat Arch-deacon Paley and his \"View of the Evidences of Christianity\"\nare scoffed at by a certain school of latter-day critics, as being\nsomewhat out of date and insipid; but there is one statement he makes\nthat I cannot help but believe has great force in it. He holds in his\nargument that because the early Christians in support of the Christian\nmiracles of which they were eye witnesses, and which so called miracles\ncould not be resolved into delusion or mistake, passed their lives in\nlabors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken, in attestation\nof the accounts which they delivered,--therefore, they are worthy of\ncredence. To illustrate the point forcefully, he says:\n\n    \"If the reformers in the time of Wickliffe, or of Luther; or those\n    of England, in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of Queen Mary;\n    or the founders of our religious sects since, such as were Mr.\n    Whitfield and Mr. Wesley in our own times; had undergone the life\n    of toil and exertion, of danger and suffering, which we know that\n    many of them did undergo, for a miraculous story; that is to say,\n    if they had founded their public ministry upon the allegation of\n    miracles wrought within their own knowledge, and upon narratives\n    which could not be resolved into delusion or mistake; and if it\n    had appeared, that their conduct really had its origin in these\n    accounts, _I should have believed them.\"_ [12]\n\n[Footnote 12: Paley's \"Evidences,\" proposition II, chap. I.]\n\nI mention this matter here for two reasons; first because many of those\nwitnesses who accepted the Book of Mormon as true, are of the class of\nwitnesses here spoken of by Dr. Paley. They were men who voluntarily\npassed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily\nundertaken, in attestation of the accounts they delivered to the world\nof the Book of Mormon's origin; and second, because having conceded\nthat men should cautiously receive the testimony to the so-called\nmiraculous, I desire to say that when the events to which the testimony\nrelates are of such character that they may not be resolved into\ndelusion or mistake, and the testimony is backed up by a life of toil,\ndanger and suffering, not only voluntarily undertaken but persisted\nin--then, I say, their testimony is such that it commands respect and\nacceptance; and at the very lowest valuation possible to be put upon\nit, should out-rank in credibility whole hecatombs of such witnesses to\nthe contrary as are quoted by Mr. Schroeder--witnesses imbued, in many\ncases, with personal hatred of Joseph Smith and the Mormon system, and\nall influenced by sectarian zeal to uphold the orthodox view of such\nChristianity as existed at the time and place in which they lived.\n\nBut returning now to the point at which the foregoing digression\nbegan, let me say it is the promiscuous mingling and equalizing of\nwitnesses; and the failure to take into account the unreliability of\nwitnesses of the orthodox party when resisting and seeking to overthrow\nwhat they regard as an innovation upon their most cherished ideas\nand institutions, that I charge against Mr. Schroeder's treatment of\nthe origin of the Book of Mormon. The witnesses must be weighed as\nwell as counted in this controversy; and the liability recognized of\nthe anti-Mormon witnesses, in the supposed interests of orthodoxy,\nresorting to the invention and promulgation of falsehood.\n\nCONFLICTING THEORIES OF ORIGIN.\n\nIt must not be supposed by the reader of Mr. Schroeder's articles that\nhis theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon is the only anti-Mormon\ntheory of its origin advanced. Of course Mr. Schroeder does not claim\nthat it is, but points out quite the contrary in his first article. Why\nthe matter is referred to in these preliminary remarks, is because I\nwant to assure my readers that we \"Mormons\" get considerable amusement\nout of the conflicting theories advanced to account for the origin\nof our Book of Mormon. The necessity for a counter-theory for the\norigin of the book, other than that advanced by Joseph Smith, was\nearly recognized. Christendom felt that Joseph Smith's story of the\nbook's origin must be overthrown, else what would come of this new\nrevelation, this new dispensation of God's work? Joseph Smith's account\nof the origin of the book was a direct challenge to the teachings of\nmodern Christendom that revelation had ceased; that the awful voice\nof prophecy would no more be heard; that the volume of scripture was\ncompleted and forever closed, and that the Bible was the only volume of\nscripture. Hence Christendom must find some other origin for this book\nthan that given by Joseph Smith.\n\nThe first to respond to this immediately \"felt want\" of Christendom was\nAlexander Campbell, founder of the sect of the Disciples. He assigned\nthe book's origin to Joseph Smith, point blank, and charged ignorance\nand conscious fraud upon its author. [13]\n\n[Footnote 13: Campbell's critique on the Book of Mormon, appeared\nin the _Millennial Harbinger,_ Vol. II, 1831, under the title\n\"Mormonites.\" The criticism is exhaustive and bitter. It is, in fact,\na fine example of the bitterness of religious controversialists, in\ndefense of orthodox views.]\n\nNext came the \"Spaulding Theory\" of origin, which Campbell accepted in\nplace of his own, and of which more later. Then came Miss Dougall's\ntheory of the prophet's self-delusion, \"by the automatic freaks of a\nvigorous but undisciplined brain, and yielding to these, he became\nconfirmed in the hysterical temperament which always adds to delusion\nself-deception, and to self-deception half-conscious fraud.\" [14] Next\ncame Mr. I Woodbridge Riley's theory (1902) of pure hallucination\nhonestly mistaken for inspired visions \"with partly conscious and\npartly unconscious hypnotic powers over others.\"\n\nMr. Schroeder, however, will have none of these theories, but turns\nback to the theory of the Spaulding manuscript origin. To him \"the\nconclusions\" of Mr. Riley, because so many material considerations were\noverlooked by that author, are very unsatisfactory, though admittedly\nMr. Riley's effort is the best along this line. [15] On his part,\nMr. Riley, speaking of previous theories, especially including the\nSpaulding theory, says:\n\n[Footnote 15: See Mr. Schroeder's note, 2.]\n\n    \"In spite of a continuous stream of conjectural literature, it is\n    as yet impossible to pick out any special document as an original\n    source of the Book of Mormon. In particular the commonly accepted\n    Spaulding theory is insoluble from external evidence and disproved\n    by internal evidence. Joseph Smith's record of the Indians 'is a\n    product indigenous to the New York wilderness,' and the authentic\n    work of its author and proprietor. Outwardly, it reflects the local\n    color of Palmyra and Manchester, inwardly, its complex of thought\n    is a replica of Smith's muddled brain. This monument of misplaced\n    energy was possible to the impressionable youth constituted and\n    circumstanced as he was.\" [16]\n\n[Footnote 16: \"The Founder of Mormonism,\" 1902. This is a psychological\nstudy of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. \"The aim of this work is to examine\nJoseph Smith's character and achievements from the standpoint of recent\npsychology. Sectarians and phrenologists, spiritualists and mesmerists\nhave variously interpreted his more or less abnormal performance--it\nremains for the psychologist to have a try at them.\" The quotation\nof the text is from the Preface. A review of Mr. Riley's book by the\npresent writer is found in \"Defense of the Faith and the Saints,\" Vol.\nI, pp. 41-55.]\n\nMr. Riley's phrase \"conjectural literature\" is good. It admirably\ndescribes the Spaulding theory literature at which it is particularly\naimed. That theory being \"insoluble from external evidence,\" is also\ngood; but \"disproved by internal evidence,\" is better. I shall not\nforget that either, later on. But if these variant theorizers can't\nconvert each other, how can they hope to convert us Mormons? \"When\nrogues fall out, honest men\"--but there, the proverb is somewhat trite\nand I do not wish to be offensive. But let the merry disagreement of\nanti-Mormon theorizers go on! Meanwhile new translations of the Book of\nMormon multiply, new editions are struck off, and more people are made\nacquainted with its contents; the Church to which it may be said to\nhave given existence, enlarges her borders and strengthens her stakes.\nShe is gaining a victory over her traducers, and winning her place in\nthe world's history and in the world's religious thought.\n\nMR. SCHROEDER'S STATEMENT OF HIS CASE.\n\nThese preliminary remarks ended, I proceed now with the consideration\nof Mr. Schroeder's evidence and argument. Mr. Schroeder states the\n\"case\" he proposes to prove, item by item, as follows:\n\n    \"It will be shown that Solomon Spaulding was much interested\n    in American antiquities, that he wrote a novel entitled the\n    'Manuscript Found,' in which he attempted to account for the\n    existence of the American Indian by giving him an Israelitish\n    origin;\n\n    \"That the first incomplete outline of this story, with many\n    features peculiar to itself and the Book of Mormon, is now in the\n    library of Oberlin college, and that while the story as rewritten\n    was in the hands of a prospective publisher, it was stolen from the\n    office under circumstances which caused Sidney Rigdon, of early\n    Mormon fame, to be suspected as the thief;\n\n    \"That later Rigdon, on two occasions, exhibited a similar\n    manuscript which in one instance he declared had been written by\n    Spaulding and left with a printer for publication.\n\n    \"It will be shown further that Rigdon had opportunity to steal the\n    manuscript and that he foreknew the forthcoming and the contents of\n    the Book of Mormon;\n\n    \"That through Parley P. Pratt, later one of the first Mormon\n    apostles, a plain and certain connection is traced between Sidney\n    Rigdon and Joseph Smith and that they were friends between 1827 and\n    1830.\n\n    \"To all this will be added very conclusive evidence of the identity\n    of the distinguished features of Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found,\"\n    and the Book of Mormon.\n\n    \"These facts, coupled with Smith's admitted intellectual incapacity\n    for producing the book unaided, will close the argument upon\n    this branch of the question, and it is hoped will convince all\n    not in the meshes of Mormonism that the Book of Mormon is a\n    plagiarism.\" [17]\n\n[Footnote 17: I have taken the liberty of throwing the several\npropositions into separate paragraphs.]\n\nTHE FACTS OF THE SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT.\n\nThe facts which may be conceded in Mr. Schroeder's recital of\nevidences, and the claims generally made in relation to Solomon\nSpaulding and his precious manuscript, are: that Spaulding was born\n1761, in Connecticut; that he graduated from Portsmouth in 1785; that\nhe graduated in theology in 1787, and became an obscure preacher; that\nhe made his residence in New Salem, Ashtabula Co., Ohio, now called\nConneaut, about 1808 or 1809; that in the region about Salem were\ncertain mounds and ruins of forts and other fortifications, relics of a\nsupposedly pre-historic civilization; that during Spaulding's residence\nat Conneaut he wrote a story in some way connected with the ancient\ninhabitants of America; that this story reigned to be a translation\nfrom a Latin manuscript which Spaulding pretended to have found in a\ncave in the vicinity of Conneaut, hence the title that came to attach\nto it, \"Manuscript Found;\" that about 1812 Spaulding moved to Pittsburg\nwhere he resided some two years; that while at Pittsburg there may\nhave been something said about publishing this story, but just what is\nuncertain, and the story was never published; that in 1814 Spaulding\nremoved to Amity, Washington county, Penn.; that in 1816 Spaulding\ndied;--\n\nThat after the death of Spaulding his wife and daughter at once removed\nto the home of Mrs. Spaulding's brother, a Mr. William Sabine, in\nOnondaga Valley, Onondaga Co., N.Y., taking with them the \"Manuscript\nFound\" with other Spaulding papers in an old trunk; [18] that Mrs.\nSpaulding next moved to the home of her parents in Pomfret, Conn.,\nbut leaving her daughter with the old trunk and its papers, including\n\"Manuscript Found,\" at Sabine's; [19] that in 1820 Mrs. Spaulding\nmarried a Mr. Davidson of Hartwicks, a village near Cooperstown, N.Y.,\nand sent for the things she had left at the home of her brother in\nOnondaga; that said things were sent to her, including the old trunk\nand its papers which reached her at Hartwicks in safety; [20] that\nMr. Spaulding's daughter, named Matilda, married Dr. A. McKinstry\nof Monson, Hampden Co., Mass., in 1828, and went to Monson, Mass.,\nto reside; that soon afterwards Mrs. Davidson (formerly the wife of\nSpaulding) came to live with her daughter in Monson, leaving the old\ntrunk and its papers in Hartwicks in care of Mr. Jerome Clark; that\nMrs. Davidson continued to live with her daughter up to the time of her\ndeath, in 1844;--[21]\n\n[Footnote 18: Sworn statement of Mrs. Matilda McKinstry, the daughter\nof Solomon Spaulding, _Scribner's Magazine,_ August, 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Ibid. The language of Mrs. McKinstry is, \"I remember that\nthe old trunk with its contents reached her [Mrs. Davidson] in safety.\"]\n\n[Footnote 21: Ibid.]\n\nThat while these former Spauldings were living in Monson, in 1834,\none Hurlburt came to them representing that he had been sent by\na committee to procure the \"Manuscript Found\" written by Solomon\nSpaulding for the purpose of comparing it with the \"Mormon Bible;\" [22]\nthat he represented that he had been a convert to the Mormon faith\nbut had given it up and through the Spaulding manuscript wished to\nexpose its wickedness; [23] that he presented a letter from William\nH. Sabine, brother of the former Mrs. Spaulding, requesting her\nto loan the \"Manuscript Found,\" written by her former husband, to\nHurlburt, representing that he (Sabine) was desirous \"to up-root this\nMormon fraud;\" [24] that Mrs. Davidson reluctantly consented to the\nsolicitations of her brother and Hurlburt and gave the latter a note to\nJerome Clark, instructing Mr. Clark to open the trunk and deliver the\nmanuscript to Hurlburt; that Hurlburt went to Hartwicks, presented his\norder to Mr. Clark and got the Manuscript; that Hurlburt got but one\nmanuscript; [25] that this manuscript Hurlburt delivered to E. D. Howe,\nthen having in course of preparation his anti-Mormon book \"Mormonism\nUnveiled;\" [26] that Howe kept said manuscript until after \"Mormonism\nUnveiled\" was published, then it passed out of sight and he supposed\nit to have been burned; [27] that really, however, it was unwittingly\nconveyed by Howe to one L. L. Rice who purchased Howe's _Painsville\nTelegraph_ and business in 1834, or 1840; the transfer of the\nprinting department being accompanied with a collection of books and\nmanuscripts, Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found\" going with the rest;--[28]\n\n[Footnote 22: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. II, pp. 2, 3, 47, 49 and\nnote. Also Mrs. McKinstry's affidavit.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 25: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 260-Hurlburt's letter.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Statement of D.P. Hurlburt in a letter, dated at\nGibsonburg, Ohio, August 19, 1870, \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 260.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Statement of Hurlburt, \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 260;\nalso statement E.D. Howe, in a letter to Hurlburt, August 7, 1880, \"New\nLight on Mormonism,\" p. 259.]\n\n[Footnote 28: See \"The Manuscript Found,\" Rice's _verbatim et\nliteratim_ copy, printed by the _Deseret News,_ 1886, preface.]\n\nThat some years afterwards Mr. Rice closed up his business affairs\nin Painsville, Ohio, and made his home in Honolulu, taking with him\nhis books, papers, etc.; [29] that in 1884 he was visited by James\nH. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, Ohio; that President\nFairchild, while at the residence of Rice suggested that a look through\nhis (Mr. Rice's) papers might discover some anti-slavery documents of\nimportance, (Mr. Rice while editor and proprietor of the _Painesville\nTelegraph_ having been especially interested in the question of\nslavery); that in his search Mr. Rice found a package marked in pencil\non the outside, \"Manuscript Story--Conneaut Creek;\" that on the\nmanuscript was endorsed the following:\n\n[Footnote 29: Ibid.]\n\n    _The Writings of Solomon Spaulding Proved by Aaron Wright Oliver\n    Smith John Miller and others_\n\n    _The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession_\n\n    _D. P. Hurlburt_ [30]\n\n[Footnote 30: For the above _Bibliotheca Sacra,_ published in Oberlin,\nOhio, January Number. 1885. Also \"The Manuscript Found,\" _Deseret News_\nprint, p. 113.]\n\nThat this manuscript, unquestionably Spaulding's, and the one known as\n\"Manuscript Found,\" was deposited by Mr. Rice with Oberlin College,\nOhio, where it now is preserved; that Mr. L. L. Rice himself made a\n_verbatim et literatim_ manuscript copy of this paper, including all\nerasures, alterations, errors, etc., and from this copy the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published \"Manuscript Found\" in\n1886; [31] that it makes a pamphlet of one hundred and twelve pages of\nprinted matter, of about three hundred and fifty words to the page;\nthat in nothing does it resemble the Book of Mormon--\"there seems to\nbe no name or incident common to the two,\" says President Fairchild,\n\"the solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imitation of the English\nScriptures, does not appear in the Manuscript.\" [32]\n\n[Footnote 31: \"The Manuscript Found,\" _Deseret News_ print, Preface.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Letter of President Fairchild, _Bibliotheca Sacra,_\nJanuary, 1885. Mr. Schroeder, by the way, seems much disturbed over\nthe very frank statement of President Fairchild, published in 1885,\nto the effect that the theory of \"the origin of the Book of Mormon in\nthe traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to\nbe relinquished.\" * * * \"Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it with\nthe Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the two in\ngeneral or detail. Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of\nMormon must be found, if an explanation is required.\" This is said,\nof course, of the manuscript now at Oberlin. It is said of the only\nmanuscript of Solomon Spauldng's treating on ancient America, that any\none knows anything about.]\n\nThe foregoing recital represents the facts concerning Spaulding's\n\"Manuscript Found.\" The claim that the manuscript as above traced, was\nbut a first rough sketch of a story which Spaulding abandoned, and that\nhe wrote a second story dealing with matters of more ancient date;\nthat it was written in imitation of scriptural style, and assigned an\nIsraelitish origin for his colony that came from Jerusalem to America;\nthat in this second story many names were used that are also found in\nthe Book of Mormon, such as Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Zarahemla, etc.; that\nthere is a close structural resemblance between the reigned historical\nincidents in Spaulding's second story and the Book of Mormon; that this\nsecond Spaulding story was deposited with printers at Pittsburg for\npublication; that while there Sidney Rigdon either stole it and never\nreturned it (Mr. Schroeder's theory), or else that Rigdon borrowed\nit, copied it and returned the original to the printer; that there\nwere several Spaulding manuscripts, and that Sidney Rigdon stole the\none that was finally prepared for the press by Spaulding, and perhaps\nJoseph Smith stole one of the unfinished Spaulding manuscripts, (Mr.\nClark Branden's theory); [33] that this manuscript, plus the religious\nmatter of the Book of Mormon, added by Sidney Rigdon, became the\nfoundation of the Book of Mormon; that Sidney Rigdon either directly\nor else indirectly through Parley P. Pratt acted as intermediary,\nand collaborated with Joseph Smith in the production of the Book of\nMormon--all this, upon which the conclusions of Mr. Schroeder and\nothers who attempted to sustain the Spaulding theory of the origin of\nthe Book of Mormon depends, is but a conglomerate of wicked invention\nby embittered sectaries fighting against innovation of their orthodoxy;\na bitter personal fight against Joseph Smith and his work; a mere\nassumption and inference bottomed on flimsiest premises, under which\nlies a mass of contradictions and conflicting suppositions which\ndiscredit the whole theory, and make any serious support of it, however\nlearned in form and exhaustive in appearance it may be, absolutely\ncontemptible; nay, the more learned and exhaustive the treatment\nappears to be, the more absolute must become the contempt.\n\n[Footnote 33: \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" pp. 73, 77.]\n\nTHE TASK OF THE PRESENT WRITER.\n\nTo prove the things here alleged becomes now the task of the present\nwriter.\n\nFirst then as to the matter of Spaulding's having re-written his story,\n\"Manuscript Found;\" in which, it is said, he changed the character\nof it by going further back with his dates, \"and writing in the old\nscripture style, in order that it might appear more, ancient.\" Also\nhe must have further changed the character of his story, giving the\ncolony he brought to America an Israelite instead of a Roman origin,\ngiving his characters the names of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Moroni, etc.,\ninstead of Sambol, Hambock, Labanko, Moon-rod, Ulipoon, etc.; and\nthe names of the people from Sciotans and Kentucks, to Nephites and\nLamanites! This second manuscript and these changes are necessary\nboth to the evidence and the argument of Mr. Schroeder--necessary to\nhis whole theory; without the existence of this second manuscript and\nthese changes that differentiate it from the manuscript at Oberlin, his\n\"case\" collapses. It is conceded by Mr. Schroeder and all through whose\nhands it has passed, including Mr. Fairchild, president of the Oberlin\nCollege, Ohio, and Mr. Rice, among whose papers the manuscript now at\nOberlin was found, that this Oberlin manuscript, which beyond any doubt\nSpaulding wrote, could not have been the original manuscript of the\nBook of Mormon; [34] therefore a second Spaulding manuscript altogether\ndifferent from this half ribald, silly \"Manuscript Found\" story must\nbe had; and its mythical existence was brought about in the following\nmanner:\n\n[Footnote 34: President Fairchild I have already quoted (See Note\n32). Mr. Rice says: \"I should as soon think the Book of Revelation\nwas written by the author of Don Quixote, as that the writer of this\nmanuscript [the Spaulding Oberlin manuscript] was the author of the\nBook of Mormon.\" From a letter of Mr. L. L. Rice to Mr. Joseph Smith,\nPresident of the Reorganized Church--\"History Church of Jesus Christ,\"\nVol. IV, pp. 471-3.]\n\nTHE ENEMIES OF THE PROPHET.\n\nLiving in Kirtland and vicinity, and throughout northeastern Ohio,\nwhere the headquarters of the Church were established in 1831-7, there\nwere many and very bitter enemies of the prophet Joseph Smith and\nSidney Rigdon; and also strong antagonism towards the whole Mormon\nChurch, since its doctrines were regarded as a menace to orthodox\nopinions. Among these enemies of the prophet and the Church none\nperhaps were more bitter than \"Dr.\" Philastus Hurlburt, E. D. Howe,\nAdamson Bentley, Onis Clapp (usually called Deacon Clapp) and his two\nsons, Thomas J. and Mathew S. Clapp, both of whom were Campbellite\npreachers; Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, both prominent in founding\nthe sect Of the Disciples; Thomas Campbell, Dr. John Storrs, of\nHolliston, Mass., Dr. Austin, also of Massachusetts, all sectarian\nministers, and many others. Less than fifty miles away from Kirtland,\nthen the centre of Mormon propaganda, was Conneaut, the former home\nof Solomon Spaulding, and on the direct line of travel between the\nbranches of the Church in Ohio and those in the state of New York and\nCanada.\n\nIt is said,--but I shall develop a somewhat different account of the\norigin of the Spaulding theory near the close of these articles than\nis here set down--that \"a woman preacher\" [35] of the Mormon Church,\nholding a public meeting at Conneaut, read some passages from the\nBook of Mormon which the old settlers of the vicinity, and former\nneighbors of Solomon Spaulding, recognized as very nearly identical\nwith a manuscript story he had read to them some twenty-two or three\nyears before; and as he had feigned to derive this story from a certain\nmanuscript which he pretended to have found in a stone box in a cave,\nwhich he afterwards translated into English, there was thought to\nbe sufficient similarity between these circumstances and the Book\nof Mormon to warrant the charge that the latter was a plagiarism of\nSpaulding's manuscript. This conclusion led to the sending of \"Dr.\nPhilastus Hurlburt to the widow of Spaulding to obtain his manuscript\nand incidentally to visit the former home of the Smiths for the purpose\nof obtaining affidavits respecting their character, and more especially\nrespecting the character of Joseph Smith the Prophet.\" [36] Indeed,\nthe whole purpose of the conspirators was to overthrow Mormonism, \"to\nup-root this Mormon fraud.\" [37] Hurlburt presented himself at the home\nof the former wife and the daughter of Spaulding, who were then living\nin Monson, Mass. He obtained an order from the former Mrs. Spaulding\nupon those with whom she had left the trunk containing the papers of\nher late husband, directing them to deliver to Hurlburt the \"Manuscript\nFound.\" Hurlburt obtained the manuscript and returned to those who sent\nhim upon this mission, chief among whom was E. D. Howe of Painesville,\nOhio, the editor of the _Painesville Telegraph._ To Mr. Howe Hurlburt\ndelivered the \"Manuscript Found,\" obtained by him from the Spaulding\npapers; but lo! when it came to be examined by the conspirators, it was\na very disappointing document. [38] Howe himself describes it as follows:\n\n[Footnote 35: See \"Mrs. Davidson's statement,\", first published in the\n_Boston Recorder,_ May, 1839; also Smucker's \"History of the Mormons,\"\np. 41 _et seq._ It is claimed that \"woman preacher,\" was merely a\n\"typographical error,\" of which more in a later note, and should read\n\"Mormon preacher.\"]\n\n[Footnote 36: These are the affidavits collected by Hurlburt and\ndelivered to Howe for his book \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" chapter xvii; see\nalso \"Origin of the Spaulding Story,\" by B. Winchester, (1840) p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Statement of Mrs. McKinstry, daughter of Solomon\nSpaulding, _Scribner's Magazine,_ August, 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 38: \"New Light on Mormonism,\"--statement of Hurlburt, pp.\n245, 260.]\n\n    \"This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the\n    Latin, found in 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of\n    Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous\n    account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while\n    proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the\n    Christian era, this country then being inhabited by Indians.\" [39]\n\n[Footnote 39: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 288.]\n\nThis description completely identifies this manuscript delivered by\nHurlburt to Howe with the one afterwards found in the papers of Mr.\nL. L. Rice, and now at Oberlin College. \"This old manuscript,\" says\nMr. Howe, \"has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who\nrecognize it as Spaulding's.\" The witnesses here alluded to are the old\nneighbors of Spaulding who testify as to the existence of Spaulding's\n\"Manuscript Found,\" and of its similarity to the Book of Mormon; and\nthey are eight of Mr. Schroeder's twelve witnesses on whom he relies to\nprove the same allegement. Right here we reach the crucial point in the\nSpaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; and now let us\npresent it in one view.\n\nA number of people living at Conneaut on hearing the Book of Mormon\nread in a public meeting, and some of them afterwards reading it for\nthemselves, claim a similarity to exist between it and a manuscript\nwhich Solomon Spaulding read to them some twenty-two or twenty-three\nyears before. Spaulding's manuscript is unearthed--\"Manuscript\nFound\"--but it bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon! There is\n\"no resemblance between the two,\" to use the language of President\nFairchild, of Oberlin College. \"There seems to be no name or incident,\"\nhe continues, \"common to the two.\" [40] Now what will the conspirators\ndo? Search further in the hope of finding another manuscript that may\nhave been the origin of the Book of Mormon, if this one is not? It\nmust be admitted that having gone so far in an effort \"to up-root this\nMormon fraud\" it was worth their while to go still further. The \"fraud\"\nwas making converts throughout the very region where the conspirators\nlived; some of their loved ones, members of the family of the\nconspirators, were \"victims\" of the \"delusion.\" They will not rest the\ncase here, then. They will look further. The emissary just returned,\nHurlburt, or some other will be sent back to make further inquiry\nand research. The fate of millions may depend upon it. But did the\nconspirators against Mormonism take this course? No. Instead of that\nthey resort to subterfuge. Listen: Howe, referring to the manuscript\ndelivered to him by Hurlburt, writes:\n\n[Footnote 40: Letter of President Fairchild, _Bibliotheca Sacra,_\nJanuary, 1885.]\n\n    \"This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing\n    witnesses, who recognize it as Spaulding's, he having told them\n    that he had altered his first plan of writing by going farther back\n    with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that\n    it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance\n    to the 'Manuscript Found.'\" [41]\n\n[Footnote 41: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 288.]\n\nThat statement bears all the earmarks of an \"afterthought,\" a silly\ninvention. There is not a single scrap of evidence in all that has\nbeen written upon the subject, that goes beyond the date of Hurlburt's\ndelivery of \"Manuscript Found,\" to E. D. Howe, to the effect that\nSpaulding had written more than one paper that purported to deal with a\nfound manuscript, or the ancient inhabitants of America. The \"Frogs of\nWyndham\" and infidel disquisitions were more in his line. [42] Why was\nit that the neighbors of Spaulding about Conneaut did not say before\nthis manuscript was brought to light by Howe, Hurlburt _et al.,_ that\nSpaulding had written several manuscripts on the subject of the ancient\ninhabitants of America; one that told of a Roman colony came to America\nand settled in the Ohio valley, the story of their adventures being\n\"written in modern style;\" but that this story he abandoned and wrote\nanother, going farther back with his dates and assigning to the people\nan Israelitish origin and writing in the old scripture style? How\nvaluable such evidence, ante-dating Hurlburt's coming to Conneaut with\nSpaulding's manuscript, would be! But it does not exist.\n\n[Footnote 42: See Mrs. McKinstry's statement, _Scribner's Magazine,_\nAugust, 1880. Also _Deseret News_ print of \"Manuscript Found,\" pp. 114,\n115, where the infidel opinions of Mr. Spaulding are expressed.]\n\nThere was enough in the fact that Solomon Spaulding had written a story\nconnected in some way with a manuscript which he feigned to have found\nin a stone box in a cave; which he further feigned to have translated\ninto English; and which story had something to do with a colony coming\nin ancient times from the Old World to the New; and that there were\ngreat and sanguinary wars in the story--to suggest a similarity with\nthe Book of Mormon. With so much as a basis it will go hard with human\ninvention, under the circumstances, if out of the dim recollections,\nof some twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, it cannot \"remember\"\nthat there was a similarity and even identity of names between those\nof Spaulding's Manuscript and those of the Book of Mormon. Especially\nsince the Book of Mormon is now in their hands, and they have either\nread it, or heard it read and have the names of Lehi, Nephi, Moroni,\nZarahemla, and some phrases such as \"and it came to pass,\" etc., with\nwhich to refresh their \"memories!\"\n\nAnd when they have Spaulding's found manuscript, or \"Manuscript\nFound\" placed in their hands by Hurlburt, and have identified it as\nSpaulding's and none of these things are true respecting it, that is,\nthere is \"no resemblance between the two, in general or in detail; * *\n* no name or incident common to the two,\" then it will again go hard\nwith human invention if it cannot, under the circumstances, \"remember\"\nthat this manuscript so thrust into their hands is merely but the\nrough draft of the real \"Manuscript Found;\" that this story, in fact\nwas abandoned and Mr. Spaulding informed them that he had recast his\nwhole scheme; [43] and that he wrote into this second story the names\nand historical incidents now found in the Book of Mormon; that no one\never believed that this first effort of Spaulding's, the Manuscript\nnow at Oberlin College, was the foundation of the Book of Mormon. Mr.\nSchroeder himself says that \"from the beginning it was asserted that\nthis manuscript, now at Oberlin, was not the one from which the Book\nof Mormon was alleged to have been plagiarized.\" [44] But from what\n\"beginning\" was it so asserted? Well, not previous to the bringing to\nlight of the Oberlin manuscript by Hurlburt; but from the time that\nthis manuscript,--the only one we have any real knowledge of Spaulding\never having written on the subject of the ancient inhabitants of\nAmerica--disappointed the hopes of the conspirators against Mormonism.\nThat is the only \"beginning\" from which it has been asserted that the\nmanuscript now at Oberlin was not the one from which the Book of Mormon\nwas alleged to have been plagiarized.\n\n[Footnote 43: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 288.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _American Historical Magazine,_ Vol. I, No. 5, p.\n385--_ante_ p. 18.]\n\nThe foregoing boldly charges dishonesty, fraudulent invention, and\nconscious deception upon those who originated this Spaulding theory of\nthe origin of the Book of Mormon; and I realize that it is incumbent\nupon me to set forth substantial reasons for such allegations, or else\nI must bear the odium of making false, or at the very least, unproved\ncharges. Let us then consider, if not all, at least the leading\ncharacters of this conspiracy against the Mormon Church, for it will be\nworth our while.\n\n\"DR.\" PHILASTUS HURLBURT.\n\nWe start with \"Dr.\" Philastus Hurlburt. He was not a \"Doctor\" by\nprofession, but being a seventh son, his parents, following the old\nfolklore custom, called him \"Doctor.\" He was formerly a member of\nthe Methodist Church from which he was excluded for immoralities. He\nappeared in Kirtland in 1833 and began an investigation of Mormonism,\nand finally claimed to be satisfied of its truth. Joseph E. Johnson,\nresiding at Kirtland at the time, and at whose mother's home Hurlburt\nboarded for about one year, describes him as \"a man of fine physique,\nvery pompous, good looking, very ambitious, with some energy, though\nof poor education.\" [45] Some time after he joined the Church he was\nbrought before a conference of high priests in Kirtland and charged\nwith un-Christianlike conduct with women, while on a mission to the\neastern states. His commission as an elder was taken from him and he\nwas excommunicated. Being dissatisfied with the result of this trial he\nappealed his case to the high council at Kirtland, and a hearing was\ngranted him. He confessed his sin before this council and was forgiven;\nbut a few days after this action, he boasted that he had deceived the\ncouncil in his confession, \"and Joseph Smith's God,\" and this led to\nhis final excommunication. [46]\n\n[Footnote 45: _Deseret Evenings News,_ December 28, 1880; also \"History\nof the Church,\" Vol. I, p. 355, note. Also Gregg's \"Prophet of\nPalmyra,\" pp. 427-430.]\n\n[Footnote 46: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, pp. 354-5 and note.]\n\nAfter his excommunication \"Dr.\" Hurlburt became very bitter against the\nChurch, and threatened the prophet's life. He was finally arraigned\nbefore the court at Chardon, for this offense and placed under bonds\nto the amount of two hundred dollars \"to keep the peace, and, be of\ngood behavior to the citizens of the state of Ohio generally, and to\nJoseph Smith, Jun., in particular, for the period of six months.\" He\nwas also required to pay the costs of the prosecution which amounted\nto one hundred and twelve dollars. [47] When it is remembered how great\nthe excitement was at this time in northeastern Ohio, respecting\nMormonism, how numerous and how bitter were Joseph Smith's enemies,\nthis decision of Judge M. Birchard is important in showing how violent\nand vicious must have been the character of \"Dr.\" Hurlburt. Yet he\nbecomes the special emissary of the conspirators of north-eastern Ohio,\nagainst Mormonism. He is commissioned to secure Spaulding's manuscript\nand gather information in New York concerning the character of Joseph\nSmith, [48] the man whom he so bitterly hates, and whose life he had\nthreatened. And the world is asked to form its opinion of Joseph Smith\nfrom the alleged information procured in New York by this man, and\npublished in Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" in the form of affidavits!\n\n[Footnote 47: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. II, pp. 47-49 and notes.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \"Origin of the Spaulding Story,\" by B. Winchester,\nPhiladelphia, (1840) p. 10, \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" chapter xvii.\nThese affidavits gathered up by Hurlburt are quoted by nearly every\nanti-Mormon writer since 1834, until now, the year of grace, 1908 [and\n1911]; all forgetful of the fact that no matter how many mirrors are\nbrought into a room where a farthing rush light is burning, they do not\nincrease the light burning there, but merely reflect it. It is safe to\nsay that since Howe's publication of \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" in 1834,\nlittle or nothing has been added to the stock of \"information,\" from\nthe anti-Mormon side of the controversy on this particular point.]\n\nEven some who are parties to the Spaulding theory distrusted Hurlburt.\nMrs. Davidson, formerly Spaulding's wife, \"did not like his appearance,\nand mistrusted his motives,\" and it was only because he presented a\nletter from her brother, William H. Sabine, urging her to loan her\nformer husbands' manuscript story to Hurlburt, that she finally, but\nreluctantly, consented for him to have the paper. [49] Mrs. Ellen\nDickinson, grand-niece of Solomon Spaulding, and author of \"New Light\non Mormonism,\" charges him with having betrayed his fellow conspirators\nin Ohio, by securing the \"real\" \"Manuscript Found\" and turning it over\nto the Mormons for a price, and that they destroyed it. [50] Clark\nBraden in his debate on the Book of Mormon with E. L. Kelly, makes the\nsame charge, and says that Hurlburt got $400.00 for his treachery and\nboasted of it. [51]\n\n[Footnote 49: Mrs. McKinstry's statement _Scribner's Magazine_, August,\n1880.]\n\n[Footnote 50: \"New Light on Mormonism.\" p. 62-71.]\n\n[Footnote 51: \"Braden-Kelly Debate.\" p. 96. Braden relies upon the\nstatement of Rev. John A. Clark, D. D., in \"Gleanings by the Way,\" p.\n265.]\n\nMr. E. D. Howe, author of the first anti-Mormon book of any very great\npretensions or general interest--and of which Mr. Schroeder is so\neulogistic, speaking of it as \"the most important single collection\nof original evidence ever made upon the subject\"--was the editor of\nthe _Painsville Telegraph_, and especially bitter towards the Mormons\nand Mormonism, because his own wife and sister had joined the Mormon\nChurch, at which he was greatly incensed. [52]\n\n[Footnote 52: \"Braden-Kelly Debate.\" pp. 69, 81. See also the\nAdvertisement of Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\"--which precedes the\nIntroduction. Also the Introduction of the same work, for manifestation\nof bitterness.]\n\nREV. ADAMSON BENTLEY ET AL.\n\nAdamson Bentley was a Campbellite preacher, also, a brother-in-law to\nSidney Rigdon, having married Rigdon's wife's sister. It appears that\nthe parents of Mrs. Rigdon had settled upon her, or expressed intention\nof doing so, some considerable property; but the Rev. Bentley, by his\ninfluence with the Brooke family, diverted the inheritance designed for\nMrs. Rigdon to his own wife; [53] so that in addition to the bitterness\nwhich ever attends on sectarian controversies, there must be added in\nthe case of Mr. Bentley the bitterness of family feud; and if the claim\nof Sidney Rigdon be true, _viz.,_ that he was the injured party, in\nthis controversy, there would be intensity of bitterness on the part\nof Bentley, since it is strangely true that men may forgive those who\ninjure them, but they never forgive the innocence of those whom they\nwilfully injure. The Reverend Bentley was one of the bitterest of\nanti-Mormons and a warm supporter and advocate of the Spaulding theory\nof the origin of the Book of Mormon. [54] Of Mr. Alexander Campbell,\nDr. Storrs and Dr. Austin we shall have occasion to speak later, when\nconsidering certain evidence Mr. Schroeder introduces from them. The\npoint now contended for respecting these men who stand as sponsors for\nthe Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon, is simply\nthis: that being ardent sectarian priests zealous for their particular\nbrand of orthodoxy, which Mormonism opposed as false doctrine; [55]\nand adding to this cause of bitterness the further fact that in some\ninstances these men felt the sense of personal grievance against Joseph\nSmith and the Mormon Church--renders them incompetent to be reliable\nwitnesses on the questions at issue. All history, and the well known\nfacts respecting human nature, warrant the conclusion that under such\ncircumstances sectaries in support of their orthodoxy, and by way of\nreprisal for wrongs, real or imaginary, will stoop to invention of\nadverse testimony; to misrepresentation; to the creation of a case,\nor a hurtful theory; will distort facts; in a word will bear false\nwitness. Such false or incompetent witnesses I declare, those parties\nto be on whom Mr. Schroeder relies for the support of his case.\n\n[Footnote 53: _Messenger and Advocate,_ p. 334-5. Also _Evening and\nMorning Star,_ p. 301.]\n\n[Footnote 54: See _Millennial Harbinger,_ for 1844, p. 38, _et seq._\nAlso \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" pp. 124-5. ]\n\n[Footnote 55: \"Pearl of Great Price,\" \"Writings of Joseph Smith,\" p.\n85, (edition of 1902); also \"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, pp. 5, 6.\nFor an exposition and defense of this position see the present writer's\n\"Defense of the Faith and the Saints,\" Vol. I, p. 26-27 and note.]\n\nLet us take first this group of Conneaut witnesses, eight of them, used\nby Hurlburt, Howe, Bentley _et al.,_ and chiefly relied upon by Mr.\nSchroeder as supplying the \"clinching\" [56] evidence for the plagiarism\nof Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found\" by the author or authors of the\nBook of Mormon. They are the most important witnesses on the side of\nthe Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon; yet, by the\napplication of the principle that recognizes the untrustworthiness\nof witnesses interested in opposing religious innovation; that\nrecognizes the zeal of witnesses interested in supporting orthodoxy;\nthat recognizes the bitterness which characterizes sectarian strife;\nas also the necessary vagueness of the state of mind of these\nwitnesses in respect of those things of which they testify; as also\nby the consideration of many other things that will bear upon their\nstatements--for the evidence and argument is to be cumulative--I hope\nto prove quite conclusively that these witnesses are incompetent, and\ntheir statements untrue.\n\n[Footnote 56: See sub-heading in _American Historical Magazine,_ Vol.\nII, No. 1, p. 70 _et seq._]\n\nII.\n\nTHE \"SECOND\" SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT.\n\nLet it constantly be borne in mind that the existence of a second\nSpaulding manuscript, on the subject of ancient America and its\ninhabitants, and entirely different from the one at Oberlin, is not\nheard of until after the unearthing of the manuscript, (now at Oberlin)\nby Hurlburt, and the consequent disappointment of the conspirators\non finding it so utterly lacking in the features necessary to make\nit appear probable that it was the basis of the Book of Mormon.\nHowe's book was not published until after the return of Hurlburt from\nMassachusetts with this disappointing manuscript.\n\nNot one of this group of eight witnesses whose testimony Howe publishes\nsays one word about a \"second manuscript\" on the subject of ancient\nAmerica. The only witnesses of the group who say anything at all about\nany other manuscripts by Spaulding are John M. Miller, Aaron Wright,\nand Artemas Cunningham. The first says, in speaking of Spaulding, \"He\nhad written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects;\nbut that which more particularly drew my attention was one which he\ncalled the \"Manuscript Found.\" [56a] The second says, \"Spaulding had\nmany other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates\nhis other plate.\" [57] The third simply uses the word \"manuscript\" in\nthe plural when referring to the writings of Spaulding, thus; \"Before\nshowing me his _manuscripts,_ he went into a verbal relation of _its_\noutlines, saying that _it_ was a fabulous or romantic history of the\nfirst settlement of the country, and as it purported to have been a\nrecord buried in the earth or a cave, he had adopted the ancient style\nof writing. He then presented his _manuscript,_ when we sat down and\nspent a good share of the night in reading them.\" [58] It is quite clear\nthat this witness really refers to but one manuscript, though he uses\nthe plural form of the word; leaving only two of this group who refer\nto more than one manuscript of Spaulding's, and neither of these claims\nthat the other manuscript dealt with subjects relating to ancient\nAmerica, unless the sneering remark of Aaron Wright to the effect\nthat he expected to see more of Spaulding's manuscripts \"when Smith\ntranslates his other plate,\" can be tortured into such a reference.\n\n[Footnote 56a: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 283.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Ibid. p. 284.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 286-7.]\n\nThere is no word then in the signed statement of these witnesses making\nreference either to a second manuscript on the subject of the ancient\npeople of America, nor any reference made to Spaulding rewriting,\nor recasting his story \"Manuscript Found.\" Mr. Howe, however, says\nthat the manuscript brought to him by Hurlburt, (and now at Oberlin)\nwas shown to these Conneaut witnesses and that they recognized it as\nSpaulding's; \"he having told them that he had altered his first plan\nof writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old\nscripture style in order that it might appear more ancient. They say\nthat it bears no resemblance to the \"Manuscript Found.\" [59] This,\nhowever, is only what Mr. Howe says these witnesses said, and is not\ntheir testimony at all, as Mr. Schroeder must know since he makes some\npretense to a professional knowledge of he law; it is the assertion\nonly of Mr. Howe, it must be remembered; and from his relationship to\nthis controversy, being the author of a book that was a vicious attack\nupon the Mormon Church; from his association with such men as Hurlburt,\nBently _et al_. whose purpose it was \"to uproot this Mormon fraud;\"\nfrom the fact of his bitterness, because of the membership of his wife\nand sister in the Mormon Church--he is not a reliable witness in the\ncase. On the contrary he is a very unreliable witness, as will be shown\nmore completely later, and one marvels that in a case so important, Mr.\nHowe did not get a statement direct and over the signatures of these\nConneaut witnesses, instead of contenting himself by reporting what he\nalleges they had said to him.\n\n[Footnote 59: Ibid. p. 288.]\n\nSince these Conneaut witnesses, then, do not testify as to the\nexistence of any second manuscript of Spaulding's dealing with the\nancient inhabitants of America, of what exact value is their testimony?\nThe whole eight claim to have heard Solomon Spaulding read his\nmanuscript story; they have all read or heard read parts or all of the\nBook of Mormon; four of them say that the colony of Spaulding's story\ncame from Jerusalem; four of them say that Spaulding represented the\nIndians as the lost tribes of Israel; seven recognized in the Book of\nMormon a number of names and phrases as identical with the names and\nphrases of Spaulding's manuscript story; two say that the colony of\nIsraelites of Spaulding's story separated into two distinct peoples\nor nations, as the colony of Lehi, according to the Book of Mormon,\ndid; and in a general way the whole eight may be said to claim that\nthe historical parts of the Book of Mormon and those of the Spaulding\nstory agree; five of them declare the absence of religious matter in\nthe Spaulding manuscript, and two of them, say it was written in the\n\"old style.\" Such is the substance of the testimony of this group of\nwitnesses. [60]\n\n[Footnote 60: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" chapter xix.]\n\nNow let it be remembered that Spaulding resided in this Conneaut\nneighborhood something less than three years; [61] these witnesses, his\nneighbors, heard occasional reading of his manuscript story, which\nfrom twenty-one to twenty-four years later they assume to identify\nwith another literary production, the Book of Mormon; and identify it,\ntoo, in respect of several very minute and particular things. Are we\nnot asked here to accord to human recollection a vividness and power\nwhich, to say the least of it, is very exceptional? Who were these\npeople--these witnesses whose testimony Mr. Schroeder relies upon\nto \"clinch\" the charge of plagiarism upon those responsible for the\nexistence of the English translation of the Book of Mormon? Who vouches\nfor the extraordinary intelligence with which they must have been\nendowed to accomplish the feat of memory ascribed to them, if their\ntestimony is credited? Who knows them and vouches for their honesty,\nanother consideration to be taken into account before their testimony\nmay be wholly satisfactory? Mr. Howe vouches for them (we might say,\n\"of course!\"). He says they are all \"most respectable men, and highly\nesteemed for their moral worth, and their characters for truth and\nveracity are unimpeachable. In fact the word of any one of them would\nhave more weight in any respectable community than the whole family\nof Smiths and Whitmers, who have told about hearing the voice of an\nangel.\" [62]\n\n[Footnote 61: See statement of John Spaulding, brother to Solomon\nSpaulding, who fixes date of arrival of the latter at Conneaut in 1809\n(Howe's Mormonism, p. 279); and all witnesses agree that he left for\nPittsburg in 1812.]\n\n[Footnote 62: \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 281.]\n\nTHE FAILURE OF HOWE'S BOOK.\n\nBut we have already seen from the nature of things Howe cannot be\nregarded as a reliable witness in this controversy. And as for putting\nthese witnesses in contrast with the \"Smiths and the Whitmers,\" it must\nbe remembered that the latter have back of their testimony a life of\ndanger, toil, poverty, suffering, and in some cases martyrdom itself,\nall endured in support of, and on account of the testimony they bore\nas to the origin of the Book of Mormon; [63] while no such good earnest\nof veracity stands back of this Conneaut group of Mr. Schroeder's\nwitnesses; and the mere word of Mr. Howe does not give sufficient\nguarantee of their \"character for truth and veracity.\" Certainly what\nthey stated about the Book of Mormon could not have been regarded\nas of any great weight, since in spite of the publication of their\ntestimony right in the section of the state of Ohio where most of\nthese witnesses lived, people went on believing the testimony of the\n\"Smiths and the Whitmers\" as against that of the Conneaut witnesses,\nby becoming members of the Church of the Latter-day Saints. The years\nbetween 1833, and 1837, years in which this Hurlburt--Howe--Bently--\nCampbell--Clapp--Spaulding agitation was going on, the growth of the\nChurch was most rapid, and northeastern Ohio was the most fruitful of\nits proselyting fields. It took six years to sell the first edition\nof Howe's book, as the second edition was not published until 1840.\nRelative to the influence of Howe's book, and two other anti-Mormon\nproductions published in northeastern Ohio, just before Howe's book,\nElder Orson Hyde, writing from Kirtland after a missionary tour\nthrough a number of surrounding towns and country districts, wrote the\n\"Messenger and Advocate,\" under date of May 4th, 1836, of which the\nfollowing passage is an excerpt:\n\n[Footnote 63: The force and value of the testimony of these witnesses\nis considered at length in the \"Young Men's Manual\" (Mormon), for 1904,\nchapters xv to xxi, inclusive. See also \"New Witnesses for God,\" Vol.\nII, chapters xv to xxiii, inclusive. For the value of this kind of\ntestimony see Paley's \"Evidences,\" Proposition II, Chapter 1, also the\npresent writer's \"New Witness for God,\" Vol. I, Chapter 17.]\n\n    \"The first weapon raised against the spread of truth, of any\n    consideration in this country, was the wicked and scurrilous\n    pamphlet published by A. Campbell. Next, perhaps, were the letters\n    of Ezra Booth; and thirdly, 'Mormonism Unveiled,' written by Mr.\n    E. D. Howe, alias 'Dr.' P. Hurlburt. These were designed severally\n    in their turn for the exposure and overthrow of Mormonism, as\n    they termed it; but it appears that heaven has not blessed the\n    means which they employed to effect their object. No weapon raised\n    against it shall prosper. The writings of the above named persons,\n    I find, have no influence in the world at all; for they are not\n    even quoted by opposers, and I believe for no other reason than\n    that they are ashamed of them.\" [64]\n\n[Footnote 64: _Messenger and Advocate_, p. 296.]\n\nElder Parley P. Pratt, about 1839-40, in answering an attack on the\nBook of Mormon in _Zion's Watchman,_ said:\n\n    \"In the west, whole neighborhoods embraced Mormonism, after this\n    fable of the Spaulding story had been circulated among them.\n    Indeed, we never conceived it worthy of an answer, until it was\n    converted by the ignorant and impudent dupes or knaves, in this\n    city, who stand at the head of certain religious papers, into\n    something said to be positive, certain, and not to be disputed!\" [65]\n\n[Footnote 65: Thompson's \"Evidences\" (1841) pp. 182-3; also \"Origin of\nthe Spaulding Story,\" (Winchester) p. 13.]\n\nTHE CONNEAUT WITNESSES.\n\nThere remains yet to be considered how much these obscure Conneaut\nwitnesses were flattered by the prospect of coming to be regarded as\npersons of importance by their connection with this movement against\nMormonism, a consideration by no means of slight importance if they\nwere, as is most likely the case, ignorant men and religious fanatics.\nAlso it must be asked to what extent they were under the influence of\nthe conspirators, Hurlburt, Howe, _et al.,_ and to what extent they\nshared the sectarian bitterness of these men against Mormonism. It\nshould be remembered that it is beyond all human probability that they\ncould remember the things about Spaulding's manuscript story that they\nsay they recollect after an elapse of from twenty-one to twenty-four\nyears. Think what the recollection of these Conneaut witnesses\nrespecting the old Spaulding manuscript would have been had one gone\ninto the community to make inquiries about it after an elapse of more\nthan twenty years, and before anything had been heard of the existence\nof the Book of Mormon!\n\nBut it will be said that this is not altogether a fair test on which\nto build a contrast between what could be recalled without the aid\nof associated ideas and incidents, and what could be remembered when\nassociated ideas and really similar or identical incidents, names, and\nphrases, though long forgotten, were repeated. One must necessarily\nconcede something to such a contention. But on the other hand, let\nit be conceded what a fertilizing effect the recent reading of the\nBook of Mormon would have on the minds of these witnesses anxious to\ntestify against it! What an awakening effect it would have on the\nminds of witnesses full of fanatical zeal against what they considered\na religious innovation; on the minds of witnesses tempted by the\nprospect of being lifted from obscurity to a position of importance in\ntheir little world; on the minds of witnesses doubtless leagued with\ncrafty conspirators full of bitterness, and confessedly determined\n\"to uproot this Mormon fraud.\" With the Book of Mormon in their hands\nfrom which to refresh their minds as to names and incidents, of course\nthey will \"remember\" that Spaulding's colony came from Jerusalem; that\nhe represented the American Indians as descendants of the lost tribes\n(ignorantly supposing that such was the representation of the Book of\nMormon in the matter); [66] that the names of the chief characters in\nthe Spaulding story were \"Lehi and Nephi,\" and one \"remembers\" that\nthe place where Spaulding landed his colony was near the straights of\nDarien, which he is \"confident\" was called \"Zarahemla;\" while another,\nthat the colonists separated and became two nations and had many great\nand cruel wars; that the phrases \"I, Nephi;\" and, \"It came to pass,\"\nwere frequently used in the Spaulding story, just as they were used in\nthe Book of Mormon! All this they \"very well remember\"--after reading\nthe Book of Mormon! One very striking thing that was \"remembered\" in\n1834 at Conneaut, in this connection, is not mentioned by any one of\nthe group of eight witnesses; it is a thing Mr. Howe missed entirely,\nand that Mr. Schroeder has not used, though the minuteness of his\nresearches into all things Mormon must forbid us thinking that he\nhas not come in contact with it. Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson brought the\nmatter into view as late as 1885, in her book so frequently quoted by\nMr. Schroeder, \"New Light on Mormonism.\" This lady, a grand-niece of\nSolomon Spaulding's wife, says:\n\n[Footnote 66: Nearly all anti-Mormon writers make this blunder,\nand thereby exhibit their shallow knowledge of the subject. In the\ncolony of Lehi were descendants of the tribe of Manasseh and Ephraim,\ndescendants of the patriarch Joseph, but no where does it claim that\nthe inhabitants of America are descendants of the \"lost tribes.\" For\nan exhaustive treatise of the subject, see the \"Young Men's Manual,\"\n1905-6, Chapter 35. \"New Witnesses for God,\" Vol. 2, chs. xxxii, and\nxxxv.]\n\n    \"Of the odd stories told at Conneaut, in 1834, in connection\n    with Solomon Spaulding, was one to the effect that he told his\n    neighbors at the time he entertained them with his romance, that\n    his 'Manuscript Found' was a translation of the 'Book of Mormon,'\n    and he intended to publish a fictitious account of its having been\n    discovered in a 'cave, in Ohio,' as an advertisement, to advance\n    its sale, when his book was printed.\" [67]\n\n[Footnote 67: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 80.]\n\nWhy did not Mr. Howe publish this precious item--this \"odd\" story \"told\nat Conneaut in 1834?\" Why does not Mr. Schroeder at least make use of\nit as among his \"clinching\" evidences of the plagiarism of the main\npart of the Book of Mormon by Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith _et al?_ Is\nit possible that this was even too \"raw\" for Mr. Schroeder's stout\nstomach, which is capable of digesting everything anti-Mormon, from\n\"pap to steel?\" Or is it so that this bald statement is an outgrowth of\nthe \"recollection\" process operating at Conneaut after Howe's record\nwas closed? And that here we see the process of \"recollection\" at\nwork in these Conneaut witnesses, which expands the dim consciousness\nthat an old, eccentric minister, from twenty-one to twenty-four years\nago lived among them two or three years--read to them some kind of a\nstory about the ancient people of America, the manuscript of which he\nfeigned to have found in a stone box in a cave--into that remarkable\nrecollection of similarity of names, phrases and historical incidents\nto be found in their signed statements in Howe's book, until finally,\nif advocates of the Spaulding theory of origin for the Book of Mormon\nwould but admit into their collection this \"odd\" story unearthed\nby Mrs. Dickinson, they might \"prove\" that Mr. Spaulding's story\n\"Manuscript Found,\" \"was a translation of the Book of Mormon,\"--and\nwhat a victory that would be, O, my countrymen!\n\nE. D. HOWE DISCREDITED AS A WITNESS.\n\nThe reader who will follow me through this review of Mr. Schroeder's\nevidence and argument, will find by the time the review closes\nthat these Conneaut witnesses--incompetent and weak as they are as\nwitnesses--and Mr. Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" are the very heart of\nthis whole Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon. We\nhave seen, in part, how flimsy and incompetent are the eight Conneaut\nwitnesses, on whom Mr. Schroeder relies to \"clinch\" his evidence of the\nplagiarism of the Book of Mormon; let us now see how unworthy of belief\nis Mr. E. D. Howe.\n\nMr. Howe at the time he was preparing his book, \"Mormonism Unveiled,\"\n1833-4, represents the position of the church to be as follows, in\nrespect of the several matters stated:\n\n    \"About this time an opinion was propagated among them, that they\n    should never taste death, if they had sufficient faith. They\n    were commanded to have little or no connexion with those who had\n    not embraced their faith, and everything must be done within\n    themselves. Even the wine which they used at their communion, they\n    were ordered to make from cider and other materials. All diseases\n    and sickness among them were to be cured by the Elders, and by the\n    use of herbs--denouncing the physicians of the world, and their\n    medicines, as enemies to the human race.\" [68]\n\n[Footnote 68: Howe's \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" p. 124.]\n\nAnd then he makes this sneering remark, and emphasizes it with an index\nhand pointing to it:\n\n    \"They had one or two root doctors among them, for whose benefit it\n    is presumed the Lord made known his will, if at all.\"\n\nIn refutation of these slanders, I quote the revelation by which\nthe Saints were governed in the particulars here named by Howe; a\nrevelation which to the Saints of course was the law of God, and which\nrevelation Mr. Howe garbled into the statement above quoted:\n\n    \"And whosoever among you that are sick, and have not faith to be\n    healed, but believeth, shall be nourished in all tenderness with\n    herbs and mild food, and that not of the world. And the elders of\n    the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and\n    lay hands upon them in my name, and if they die they shall die\n    unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me. Thou shalt live\n    together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of\n    them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope\n    of a glorious resurrection. And it shall come to pass, that those\n    that die in me, shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet\n    unto them; and they that die not in me, woe unto them, for their\n    death is bitter! And again, it shall come to pass, that he that has\n    faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall\n    be healed; he who has faith to see shall see; he who has faith to\n    hear shall hear: the lame who have faith to leap shall leap; and\n    they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have\n    power to become my sons; and in as much as they break not my laws,\n    thou shalt bear their infirmities.\" [69]\n\n[Footnote 69: \"Doctrine and Covenants,\" section xxvii. \"History of the\nChurch,\" Vol. I, p. 106.]\n\nThis was given to the church as a law, February 9th, 1831. The\nrevelation was published in the _Evening and Morning Star,_ Missouri,\nVol. I, Number 2, July, 1832, more than two years before Mr. Howe's\nbook was published. (I quote from the original _Star_ of 1832, not\nthe Kirtland reprint). I challenge Mr. Schroeder and the religious\nliterature of the world for a passage more beautifully sympathetic\nconcerning the sick and those who die, than this passage. And it\ncompletely convicts the star witness for this Spaulding theory of\nthe origin of the Book of Mormon of vile misrepresentation of the\nSaints and the church in several important particulars. So far is the\nrevelation from creating the impression that the saints should never\n\"taste of death,\" in the sense that they should never die, that it\nexpressly directs what course shall be taken in respect of those who\ndie, both in the case of those who have, and those who have not the\nhope of a glorious resurrection. As to wine used at communion being\nmade from \"cider and other materials,\" the law of the church is found\nin a revelation given in September, 1830, as follows:\n\n    \"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not\n    purchase wine, neither strong drink of your enemies: wherefore, you\n    shall partake of none, except it is made new among you; yea, in\n    this my Father's kingdom, which shall be built up on the earth.\" [70]\n\n[Footnote 70: \"Doctrine and Covenants,\" section 27.]\n\nOne looks in vain for the \"cider and other materials\" in this\ncommandment as to the Sacrament; just as he looks in vain for the\ndenunciations of \"The physicians of the world and their medicines as\nenemies of the human race.\" The effort of Mr. Howe in these several\nparticulars was to make the saints ridiculous; he succeeds only in\nmaking himself contemptible. And let no one say that Mr. Howe does\nnot allude to the revelations here quoted in refutation of his false\naccusation, but to opinions propagated outside of these authoritative\nutterances of the Church. The phraseology employed by Mr. Howe and the\nallusions to death, sickness, healing, the use of herbs, etc., follows\ntoo closely the revelation, as also his allusion to the Lord making\n\"known his will,\" to admit of such an excuse or defense.\n\nTHE DAVIDSON STATEMENT.\n\nThe next testimony to be examined as to the Spaulding theory of the\norigin of the Book of Mormon is an alleged statement of Mrs. Matilda\nDavidson, formerly the wife of Solomon Spaulding. Spaulding died in\n1816, and four years later Mrs. Spaulding married Mr. Davidson, of\nHartwicks, New York. The alleged statement of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson\nfirst appeared in the _Boston Recorder,_ in April, 1839, and was widely\ncopied by the religious press of the eastern states.\n\nIt was intended by its authors to help out the Spaulding theory in\nseveral particulars; first, in that the Spaulding manuscript was\nwritten in \"ancient style; and as the Old Testament is the most\nancient book in the world he (Spaulding) imitated its style as nearly\nas possible;\" second, that the manuscript that Spaulding feigned to\nhave found was \"written by one of the lost nation;\" third, that it\nwas recovered from the earth; fourth, that a connection is established\nbetween Spaulding and Patterson, and that the latter told Spaulding\nto write a title page and preface to his story, and he (Patterson)\nwould publish it; fifth, that a relationship is established by it\nbetween Rigdon and Patterson; and sixth, that there was \"spontaneity\"\nin affirming the identity between the Book of Mormon and Spaulding's\n\"Manuscript Found\" at Conneaut, when the Book of Mormon was publicly\nread there. [71] On account of the peculiar attitude of Mr. Schroeder\ntowards this Davison statement; as also on account of the methods\nof creating the materials for the Spaulding theory disclosed by the\nhistory of this document, it is important that it should be published\n_in extenso_:\n\n[Footnote 71: The Davidson statement is published in the _Boston\nRecorder_ April, 1839; Smucker's \"Mormonism,\" p. 41 _et seq._\n\"Gleanings by the Way,\" p. 250, _et seq.;_ and many other anti-Mormon\nbooks.]\n\n    ALLEGED STATEMENT OF MRS. DAVIDSON, FORMERLY THE WIFE OF SOLOMON\n    SPAULDING.\n\n    \"As the Book of Mormon, or Golden Bible (as it was originally\n    called) has excited much attention, and is deemed by a certain new\n    sect of equal authority with the Sacred Scriptures, I think it a\n    duty which I owe to the public to state what I know touching its\n    origin.\n\n    \"That its claims to a divine origin are wholly unfounded needs\n    no proof to a mind unperverted by the grossest delusions. That\n    any sane person should rank it higher than any other merely human\n    composition is a matter of the greatest astonishment; yet it is\n    received as divine by some who dwell in enlightened New England,\n    and even by those who have sustained the character of devoted\n    Christians. Learning recently that Mormonism had found its way\n    into a church in Massachusetts, and has impregnated some with its\n    gross delusions, so that excommunication has been necessary, I am\n    determined to delay no longer in doing what I can to strip the mask\n    from this mother of sin, and to lay open this pit of abominations.\n\n    \"Solomon Spaulding, to whom I was united in marriage in early life,\n    was a graduate of Dartmouth College, and was distinguished for a\n    lively imagination, and a great fondness for history. At the time\n    of our marriage he resided in Cherry Valley, New York. From this\n    place, we removed to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio, sometimes\n    called Conneaut, as it is situated on Conneaut Creek. Shortly after\n    our removal to this place, his health sunk, and he was laid aside\n    from active labors. In the town of New Salem there are numerous\n    mounds and forts supposed by many to be the dilapidated dwellings\n    and fortifications of a race now extinct. These ancient relics\n    arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of\n    research for the curious. Numerous implements were found, and\n    other articles evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spaulding\n    being an educated man, and passionately fond of history, took a\n    lively interest in these developments of antiquity; and in order\n    to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his\n    lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving an historical\n    sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity led him to\n    write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the\n    most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as\n    possible. His sole object in writing this imaginary history was to\n    amuse himself and his neighbors.\n\n    \"This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit\n    occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from\n    that circumstance. As he progressed to his narrative the neighbors\n    would come in from time to time to hear portions read, and a great\n    interest in the work was excited among them. It claimed to have\n    been written by one of the lost nation, and to have been recovered\n    from the earth, and assumed the title of 'Manuscript Found.' The\n    neighbors would often inquire how Mr. Spaulding progressed in\n    deciphering the manuscript; and when he had a sufficient portion\n    prepared, he would inform them, and they would assemble to hear\n    it read. He was enabled, from his acquaintance with the classics\n    and ancient history to introduce many singular names, which were\n    particularly noticed by the people, and could be easily recognized\n    by them. Mr. Solomon Spaulding had a brother, Mr. John Spaulding\n    residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar\n    with the work, and repeatedly heard the whole of it read. From\n    New Salem we removed to Pittsburg, in Pennsylvania. Here Mr.\n    Spaulding found a friend and acquaintance, in the person of Mr.\n    Patterson, an editor of a newspaper. He exhibited his manuscript\n    to Mr. Patterson, who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed\n    it for perusal. He retained it for a long time, and informed Mr.\n    Spaulding that if he would make out a title page and preface, he\n    would publish it, and it might be a source of profit. This Mr.\n    Spaulding refused to do. Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely\n    in the history of the Mormons, was at that time connected with the\n    printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region,\n    and as Rigdon himself has frequently stated, became acquainted\n    with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, and copied it. It was a matter\n    of notoriety and interest to all connected with the printing\n    establishment. At length the manuscript was returned to its author,\n    and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, etc., where\n    Mr. Spaulding deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my\n    hands, and was carefully preserved. It has frequently been examined\n    by my daughter, Mrs. M'Kinstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now\n    reside, and by other friends.\n\n    \"After the Book of Mormon came out, a copy of it was taken to\n    New Salem, the place of Mr. Spaulding's former residence, and\n    the very place where the manuscript found was written. A woman\n    preacher appointed a meeting there; and in the meeting read and\n    repeated copious extracts from the Book of Mormon. The historical\n    part was immediately recognized by all the older inhabitants, as\n    the identical work of Mr. Spaulding, in which they had all been\n    so deeply interested years before. Mr. John Spaulding was present\n    and recognized perfectly the work of his brother. He was amazed\n    and afflicted that it should have been perverted to so wicked a\n    purpose. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he arose\n    on the spot, and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and regret\n    that the writings of his deceased brother should be used for a\n    purpose so vile and shocking. The excitement in New Salem became\n    so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting, and deputed Dr.\n    Philastus Hurlburt, one of their numbers, to repair to this place\n    and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding,\n    for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy\n    their own minds, and to prevent their friends from embracing an\n    error so delusive. This was in the year 1834. Dr. Hurlburt brought\n    with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, which was\n    signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright, and others, with all\n    of whom I was acquainted, as they were my neighbors when I resided\n    at New Salem. I am sure that nothing would grieve my husband more,\n    were he living, than the use which has been made of his work.\n    The air of antiquity which was thrown about the composition,\n    doubtless suggested the idea of converting it to the purpose of\n    delusion. Thus an historical romance, with the addition of a few\n    pious expressions, and extracts from the sacred Scriptures, has\n    been construed into a new Bible, and palmed off upon a company of\n    poor deluded fanatics as divine. I have given the previous brief\n    narration, that this work of deep deception and wickedness may be\n    searched to the foundation and the authors exposed to the contempt\n    and execration they so justly deserve.\n\n    (Signed) \"MATILDA DAVIDSON.\"\n\nBriefly stated the history of the above document is this: Mormon\nmissionaries make their appearance in Holliston, Massachusetts, and\nare successful in making some converts to their faith, among them\nseveral members and a deacon of the Presbyterian Church of that place.\nWhereupon the Reverend John Storrs, the pastor of this church, becoming\nconcerned for his flock, and having learned of the Spaulding theory, he\nwrites to his friend, the Reverend D. R. Austin, residing near Monson,\nwhere Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson was making her home with her daughter,\nMrs. McKinstry, and urges him to secure a statement from her as to\nthe connection between the writings of her late husband and the Book\nof Mormon. Mr. Austin made some inquiries of the old lady, wrote down\nnotes as to her answers, then through the Reverend Dr. Storrs publishes\nthis product as a signed statement of Mrs. Davidson! The facts came out\nrespecting this document in a letter of Mr. John Haven, of Holliston,\nMiddlesex Co., Mass., to his daughter, Elizabeth Haven, of Quincy,\nAdams, Co., (Illinois) which was published in the _Quincy Whig._ It\nrepresents that Jesse Haven, the brother of Elizabeth Haven, to whom\nthe letter is addressed, called upon Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. McKinstry\nat their home in Monson, Mass., and spent several hours with them, a\nDr. Ely also being present. During this interview Mr. Haven asked the\nfollowing questions of Mrs. Davidson.\n\nTHE HAVEN-DAVIDSON INTERVIEW.\n\n\"Did you, Mrs. Davidson, write a letter to John Storrs, giving an\naccount of the origin of the Book of Mormon? Ans: I did not. Did you\nsign your name to it? Ans: I did not, neither did I ever see the\nletter until I saw it in the _Boston Recorder,_ the letter was never\nbrought to me to sign. Ques: What agency had you in having this letter\nsent to Mr. Storrs? Ans: D. R. Austin came to my house and asked me\nsome questions, took some minutes on paper, and from these minutes\nwrote that letter. Ques: Is what is written in the letter true? Ans:\nIn the main it is. Ques: Have you read the book of Mormon? Ans: I\nhave read some of it. Ques: Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, and the\nBook of Mormon agree? I think some few of the names are alike. Ques:\nDoes the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people?\nAns: An idolatrous people. Ques: Where is the manuscript? Ans: Dr.\nP. Hurlburt came here and took it, said he would get it printed and\nlet me have one-half the profits. Ques: Has Dr. P. Hurlburt got the\nmanuscript printed? Ans: I received a letter stating it did not read\nas they expected and they should not print it. Ques: How large is Mr.\nSpaulding's manuscript? Ans: About one third as large as the Book of\nMormon.\" [72]\n\n[Footnote 72: _Times and Seasons_, Vol. I, (1839) p. 47. Not having\naccess to the _Quincy Whig,_ I quote this passage from the _Times\nand Seasons_ as being most reliable, because published shortly after\nthe letter appeared in the Quincy paper, and practically in the same\nneighborhood. This to insure the accuracy of the passage over which\nthere is some controversy as will appear later.]\n\nIn addition to fixing the character of the Davidson statement, it is\nquite remarkable how well the answers of Mrs. Davidson describe the\ncharacter of the Spaulding Manuscript now at Oberlin, and not at all\nthe manuscript described by the Conneaut witnesses, or the manuscript\ngenerally contended for by the upholders of the Spaulding theory of\nthe Book of Mormon origin. Mr. Schroeder, however, insists that \"the\ndishonesty of the original publication of the Haven interview is\npointed out in 'Gleanings by the way!'\" [73] But is it? The Rev. John A.\nClark, D. D., author of \"Gleanings by the Way,\" published the alleged\nDavidson statement in the _Episcopal Recorder_ after which he came in\ncontact with the Haven contradiction quoted above. Whereupon he wrote\nto the Reverend John Storrs who was responsible for the publication\nof the Davidson statement. In the course of his reply to Mr. Clark's\ninquiries, Mr. Storrs said:\n\n[Footnote 73: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 396,\nnote 44.]\n\n    \"It is very true Mrs. Davidson did not write a letter to me, and\n    what is more, of course, she did not sign it. But this she did do,\n    and just what I wrote you in my former letter I supposed she did:\n    she did sign her name to the original copy as prepared from her\n    statement by Mr. Austin. This original copy is now in the hands of\n    Mr. Austin. This he told me last week.\" [74]\n\n[Footnote 74: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" p. 262.]\n\nThe last sentence gives the exact value of this testimony, Mr. Austin\ntold Mr. Storrs that Mrs. Davidson had signed the statement. Mr. Storrs\nhimself knew nothing about it beyond what Mr. Austin told him. This\nMr. Schroeder, as a professional lawyer, knows is not testimony. But\nthe Reverend Clark wrote Reverend Austin also, and the Reverend Austin\nreplied, in which the following occurs:\n\n    \"The circumstances which called forth the letter published in the\n    _Boston Recorder_ in April, 1839, were stated by Mr. Storrs in the\n    introduction to that article. At his request I obtained from Mrs.\n    Davidson a statement of the facts contained in that letter, and\n    wrote them out precisely as she related them to me. She then signed\n    the paper with her own hand, which I have now in my possession.\n    Every fact as stated in that letter was related to me by her in the\n    order they are set down.\" [75]\n\n[Footnote 75: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" p. 264.]\n\nThe statement of the Reverend Mr. Austin of course flatly contradicts\nthat of Mrs. Davidson; and when the contradiction is between a reverend\ngentleman on the one hand, and a venerable lady, the wife of a former\nbut retired minister, (Reverend Mr. Spaulding) on the other, one may be\njustified in declining the delicate task of determining on whose side\nthe truth lies; unless it may be found, as I think it may, otherwise\nthan by directly passing judgment upon the veracity of either of these\nworthy parties.\n\nMRS. ELLEN E. DICKINSON'S REPUDIATION OF THE DAVIDSON STATEMENT.\n\nNot only have we the denial of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson as to\nthis document not being signed by her, but we have the manifest\ncontempt shown for it by Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, grand-niece of\nMrs. (Spaulding) Davidson. Mrs. Dickinson was the grand-daughter of\nWm. H. Sabine, already mentioned in these pages, the brother of Mrs.\n(Spaulding) Davidson. Mrs. Dickinson wrote her \"New Light on Mormonism\"\nas the representative of the Spaulding family, to set forth \"the family\ntraditions\" in relation to the subject, and represents her work as\nbeing \"the only attempt of the Rev. S. Spaulding's relatives to set\nthis matter in its proper light, a duty long delayed to the memory of\nan upright man!\" [76]\n\n[Footnote 76: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" preface, p. 5.]\n\nMrs. Dickinson devotes a number of her chapters to the elaboration\nof the Spaulding theory, and in an appendix publishes twenty-seven\ndocuments bearing either remotely or immediately upon the subject of\nthe Spaulding manuscript; but the Davidson statement is not admitted\ninto the number, though indirectly, but without naming it, she makes a\nslight quotation from it respecting John Spaulding, brother of Solomon,\nwho by the Davidson statement is represented as being \"amazed and\nafflicted that his brother's writings should have been perverted for\nsuch a wicked purpose.\" (i.e., as forming the basis for the Book of\nMormon.)\n\nThese words occur in the Davidson statement and no where else. Mrs.\nDickinson quotes them at page 79 of her book. As the source of her\nauthority for the statement she gives reference to the appendix of her\nbook, note 13. We turn to note 13 only to find that we are directed\nto \"John Spaulding's statement--see No. 4.\" We turn to \"No. 4,\" only\nto find the statement of John Spaulding as given in Howe's book in\n1834, with not a word about his being \"amazed and afflicted,\" or that\n\"his grief found vent in a flood of tears,\" etc., also quoted by Mrs.\nDickinson from the Davidson statement, and found no where else, and\nof which there is nothing in the note in the appendix of her book,\nwhich she cites as the authority for her statement. [77] This smacks of\njuggling with the Davidson statement.\n\n[Footnote 77: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 79; also appendix No. 13,\nNo. 4, No. 14. \"The New Light\" appears a bit unsteady at this point.]\n\nMrs. Dickinson would not admit the Davidson document into her\ncollection of such papers, knowing doubtless its history; nor is she\nwilling to deny to her narrative the rich dramatic effects infused\ninto it, by the \"Reverend\" forger of it. We shall see further on how\nMr. Schroeder manifests the same disposition towards it. That is, he\nrepudiates its being a statement made by Mrs. Davidson, but still\nhe would retain this precious piece of hysteria on the part of John\nSpaulding--the \"amazement,\" the \"affliction,\" and above all, \"the flood\nof tears;\" not to adorn a tale, as in the case of Mrs. Dickinson, but\nto show the \"spontaneity\" with which the people of Conneaut detected\nthe identity between Spaulding's \"Manuscript Found\" and the Book of\nMormon. [78]\n\n[Footnote 78: _American Historical Magazine,_ January, 1907, pp. 71,\n72, _ante_ p. 67.]\n\nBut to return to Mrs. Dickinson. If she had done her full duty in the\npremises as an author, she would have made reference to this forged\nstatement credited to her grandaunt and repudiated it in her name; but\nsuch a course is scarcely to be looked for in an anti-Mormon author,\nof especial bitterness. However, her silence respecting it, and her\nrefusal to admit it into the collection of her documents in the\nappendix to her book, amounts to the same thing, the repudiation of it\nby the Spauldings.\n\nREVEREND JOHN A. CLARK AND THE DAVIDSON STATEMENT.\n\nBefore proceeding further as to this Davidson statement in a direct\nline, just a word in relation to the Reverend John A. Clark, author\nof \"Gleanings by the Way,\" and the spirit he is of. He prefaces his\ninvestigation of this Davidson statement by saying that he does not\nthink \"that the truth or falsehood of Mormonism, in any degree turns\nupon the correctness or incorrectness of the foregoing statement of\nMrs. Davidson.\" Then continues--\"for deceit and imposture are enstamped\nupon every feature of this monster, evoked by a money digger and a\njuggler, from the shades of darkness!\" This man is evidently in fine\ntemper to act the impartial judge--to point out \"the dishonesty of the\noriginal publication\" of the Haven-Davidson interview, quoted in the\nforegoing pages. But this is only a partial exhibition of the Reverend\ngentleman's state of mind in the matter, and we would not do him an\ninjustice.\n\nFollowing the above ebullition of bitterness he immediately adds\nthis pious thought, in the hope, perhaps, that his piety may balance\nin the scale his outburst of wrath: \"Still if her [Mrs. Davidson's]\nstatement be correct, and it to be relied upon, the facts brought out\nby Mrs. Davidson would seem to be one of those singular developments\nof divine, Providence by which impostors are confounded, and their\ndevices brought to naught.\" [79] Of this it is sufficient to say, that\nif the gentleman were living today he would be confronted with a\nvery perplexing dilemma. In the event of his taking his stand on the\ncorrectness of Mrs. Davidson's statement, he would have to lament the\nfailure of \"one of those singular developments of divine Providence,\nby which imposters are confounded and their devices brought to\nnaught;\" for the Book of Mormon, notwithstanding the efforts of the\nReverend gentleman against it, in his \"Gleanings by the Way,\" has been\ntranslated into ten other languages, since his day; has passed through\nmany editions in a number of them, and sold by hundreds of thousands.\nIt has resulted in gathering a people; in founding a church that has\nmore of history behind it, and more of prospect before it, than any\nother modern religious movement in Christendom. On the other hand, if\nthe Reverend gentleman should take his stand on the infallibility of\ndivine Providence, singular or otherwise, from the striking failure of\nthe Davidson statement to confound an impostor and bring his devices\nto naught, he would be under the necessity of reversing his former\ndecisions; he would have to conclude that the Davidson statement was\nnot true; and if he could not be brought to the point of acknowledging\nthat he had been fighting against the truth, he would have the\nhumiliation of discovering that he had, at least, sought to maintain\na falsehood. Fortunately the gentleman is dead, and, let us hope, at\npeace.\n\n[Footnote 79: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" p. 259-60.]\n\nBut it is time to return from this digression. In addition to showing\nwhat the attitude of the Spauldings was to this document, through Mrs.\nDickinson, I appeal from the conflicting testimony of the Reverend D.\nR. Austin and the venerable Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, to the Davidson\nstatement itself as evidence that it is not the product of \"an aged\nwoman, and very infirm.\" [80] I ask any person capable of forming any\nkind of a literary judgment, to take the statement signed with Mrs.\nDavidson's name, and then say, honor bright, if that is the statement\nof a woman in private life, much less of one \"aged and infirm.\" Its\nintroduction, almost ideal from a literary standpoint, when the purpose\nof the document is considered; the movement thence to the introduction\nof the evidence and its discussion; thence to the conclusion--so\npotent, and so desirable to a minister whose church had been invaded\nby successful Mormon missionaries, but so unlike a woman in private\nlife, _viz:_ \"I have given the previous narration, that this work of\ndeep deception and wickedness may be searched to the foundation and the\nauthors exposed to the contempt and execration they so richly deserve.\"\nAll this too plainly proclaims the professional hand to leave anyone\nin doubt as to where the truth lies as between the Haven-Davidson\nstatement and the Clark-Storrs-Austin story and argument in \"Gleanings\nby the Way,\" which Mr. Schroeder so warmly commends to us as settling\nthe \"dishonesty of the original publication\" of the Haven interview.\nParley P. Pratt was right when in an article published in the New Era\n(New York, Nov., 1839), he said:\n\n[Footnote 80: \"Gleanings by the Way,\" p. 265. The statement is the Rev.\nDr. Austin's. The New Haven statement represents her as \"about seventy\nyears of age and somewhat broke.\" _Times and Seasons,_ Vol. I, p. 47.]\n\n    \"A judge of literary production, who can swallow that piece of\n    writing as the production of a woman in private life, can be made\n    to believe that the Book of Mormon is a romance. For the one is as\n    much like a romance as the other is like a woman's composition. The\n    production, signed 'Matilda Davidson' is evidently the work of a\n    man accustomed to public address.\" [81]\n\n[Footnote 81: _New Era,_ impression of November 25, 1839. Same is\ncopied into the _Times and Seasons,_ Vol. I, p. 47.]\n\nMr. Schroeder reaches the same conclusion, and that largely too from\nthe literary style of the article. Listen to this comment:\n\n    \"The argumentative style and the failure to distinguish between\n    personal knowledge and argumentative inferences is all readily\n    understood when the history of this statement is made known. It\n    seems that two preachers, named D. R. Austin and John Storrs,\n    are responsible for this letter. Mrs. Davidson never wrote it,\n    but afterwards stated that 'in the main' it was true. Even with\n    her reaffirmance of the story as published, we cannot give it\n    evidentiary weight except in those matters where it is plain from\n    the nature of things that she must have been speaking from personal\n    knowledge.\" [82]\n\n[Footnote 82: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, pp.\n393-4. _Ante_ pp. 28, 29.]\n\nThere is but one conclusion possible on the point at issue. Mrs.\nDavidson never made the statement, nor signed it. It was the work of\nthe Reverends John Storrs and D. R. Austin--a forgery.\n\nMUTILATION OF THE HAVEN-DAVIDSON INTERVIEW.\n\nAt this point I take note of what Mr. Schroeder says in relation to\nan omission of a question and answer in the Haven-Davidson interview\nin Elder George Reynolds' \"Myth of the Manuscript Found;\" and also of\nwhat Mr. Schroeder characterizes as \"John Taylor's lying perversion\nof this alleged interview as reported in his 'Three Nights Public\nDiscussion.'\" The question and answer referred to are held, in effect,\nto re-instate the Davidson document as evidence, after denying it to\nbe Mrs. Davidson's statement, or that she signed it. The question and\nanswer are as follows: _\"Ques._ Is what is written in the letter true?\n_Ans_. In the main it is.\" This is omitted in Elder Reynolds' \"Myth of\nthe Manuscript Found\" (1883); and copying the Haven interview from his\nwork into my own treatise of the Book of Mormon in the \"Young Men's\nManual\" for 1905-6, the same omission, of course, is made; but of which\nomission this writer was ignorant until Mr. Schroeder's article called\nattention to it. Why the omission occurs in Mr. Reynolds' book, I do\nnot know; and although Mr. Reynolds is still alive, his health is so\nshattered at this time it would be as useless as it is impossible to\nquestion him upon the subject. [82]\n\n[Footnote 82: This in November, 1908. Mr. Reynolds died in August,\n1909.]\n\nCertainly there was no occasion for purposely making the omission since\nthe Book of Mormon is equally defensible with the Davidson statement in\nthe record as evidence, or excluded. And as evidence that the omission\nwas not intentional, on the part of Mormon writers, attention is\ncalled to the fact that in the _Times and Seasons_ copy of the article\nfrom the _Quincy Whig,_ (1840) both the above question and answer are\npublished, (Vol. I, 47). It is also published accurately in \"Thompson's\nEvidence of the Book of Mormon,\" (1841); also in \"The Origin of the\nSpaulding Story,\" by B. Winchester (1840) p. 17. In Mr. Taylor's\nwork--so severely criticised by Mr. Schroeder, the question and answer\nstand as follows: _\"Ques._ Is what that letter contains true? _Ans._\nThere are some things that I told him.\" Mr. Schroeder calls this a\n\"lying perversion.\"\n\nIf this were the only variation in the document, as quoted by Elder\nTaylor, there might be justifiable suspicion that the change was\npurposely made and was intended to lessen the force of the answer;\nbut, as throughout the version of the _Whig_ article published in the\n\"Three Nights' Discussion\"--held in France--there are quite a number\nof variations--and none of them contribute advantage to the pro-Mormon\nside of the controversy--there can be no other conclusion, than either\nthat some inaccurate version of the _Quincy, Whig_ article had fallen\ninto the hands of President Taylor while in France, and he printed\nfrom that imperfect version; or, it may be, that the _Quincy Whig_\narticle had been published in French, and Elder Taylor's published\naccount of it in his \"discussion\" was a translation of the French\nversion back into the English. While I am aware that this view is based\non conjecture merely, yet if the _Whig_ article as published in the\n_Times and Seasons_ be compared with Elder Taylor's version in the\n\"Three Night's Discussion,\" the difference that exists between the two\nversions would not be greater than in two versions so produced. And the\ncharacter of the variations warrant the conjecture. For example, take\nthese passages:\n\n    _Quincy Whig_.\n\n    Ques. Have you read the Book of Mormon? Ans. I have read some of it.\n\n    Taylor's version.\n\n    Ques. Have you read the Book of Mormon? Ans. I have read a little\n    of it.\n\n    _Quincy Whig_.\n\n    Ques. Is what is written in the letter true? Ans. In the main it is.\n\n    Taylor's version.\n\n    Ques. Is what that letter contains true? Ans. There are some things\n    that I told him.\n\n    _Quincy Whig_.\n\n    Ques. Does the manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree? Ans. I\n    think some of the names agree. Ques. Are you certain that some of\n    the names agree? Ans. I am not.\n\n    Taylor's version.\n\n    Ques. Is there any similarity between Mr. Spaulding's manuscript\n    and the Book of Mormon? Ans. Not any, with the exception of some\n    names, something similar the one to the other.\n\nAnd so the variations run from beginning to end. They are just such\nvariations, too, as would exist if the Taylor version was produced as\nconjectured. I trust I may be pardoned for being insistent at this\npoint. I was personally acquainted with the late President John Taylor,\nand am also his biographer. His letters, official and personal, as also\nhis journals, passed through my hands; his most private life was laid\nopen to me, and I know him to have been a highly honorable gentleman,\nfar above such low subterfuge as that charged against him in the coarse\nvulgarisms employed by Mr. Schroeder, and which, from no standpoint\nwhatever, are justifiable. [83]\n\n[Footnote 83: See \"The Life of John Taylor,\" by B.H. Roberts, (1892).\nLest in some rejoinder to this reply Mr. Schroeder should return to\nthis subject of the Taylor variations, in the Haven-Davidson interview,\nand should seek further to establish his point of view by referring to\nwhat is sometimes alleged to be Elder Taylor's denial of the existence\nof the plural marriage system of the Church when he was in France,\n(1850) I wish to say that in the above \"Life of John Taylor\" the\nalleged denial is dealt with at length, pp. 222-5.]\n\nMR. SCHROEDER AND THE DAVIDSON STATEMENT.\n\nThere is something amusing in the attitude of Mr. Schroeder towards\nthis Davidson statement. Although Mr. Schroeder declares in so many\nwords that \"Mrs. Davidson never wrote it,\" and hence must admit it to\nbe a forgery by Reverend gentlemen; yet, since the Haven interview\nrepresents Mrs. Davidson as saying that it was \"true in the main,\" Mr.\nSchroeder dogmatizes thus in regard to this \"piece of evidence:\"--\"Even\nwith her re-affirmance of the story as published, we cannot give it\nevidentiary weight, except in those matters where it is plain from\nthe nature of things that she must have been speaking from personal\nknowledge.\" [84] Why, in the name of all that is reasonable? If her\nre-affirmance is to re-instate any part of the story as worthy of\nbelief, why not all of it, and all the parts equally? Is Mr. Schroeder\nto pick and choose from his own witnesses as he will, allowing this,\nbut discarding that, as suits his personal view of the Spaulding theory?\n\n[Footnote 84: _American Historical Magazine_, September, 1906, p. 394,\n_ante_ p. 29.]\n\nWhat is behind all this proposed jugglery? Simply this: I have already\npointed out how vital to Mr. Schroeder's case it is to establish the\nexistence of a second Spaulding manuscript, dealing with American\nantiquities, a \"re-written\" story different from this manuscript story\nnow safely lodged in Oberlin college. There is nothing of all this\nin the Davidson statement. This in the eyes of Mr. Schroeder is its\nfirst sin, one of omission. Another thing essential to Mr. Schroeder's\ncontention is a second submission of the Spaulding manuscript to the\nPatterson-Lambdin publishers, after the Spauldings had made their home\nin Amity, Washington county, Pa. Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson \"says,\"\nobserves Mr. Schroeder, \"that before leaving Pittsburg for Amity,\nher husband's manuscript was returned by the publishers.\" * * * \"She\nseemingly remembers nothing of its second submission while her husband\nresided at Amity, or else those who wrote and signed her statement\ndidn't see fit to mention it.\" [85] This is the second sin of omission\nin the Davidson statement. And right here it may be as well to notice\nanother singular thing in reference to these Spaulding documents, the\nalleged Davidson statement and Mrs. McKinstry's affidavit, the former\npublished in 1839, the latter in 1880--while both are very explicit as\nto affairs over at Conneaut, there is nothing said in the statement of\neither about the readings of the manuscript alleged to have taken place\nbefore the Amity neighbors, whence come the Amity witnesses, Joseph\nMiller and Redic McKee. This silence is all the more inexplicable\nbecause it was here that the final \"polishing\" and preparing for the\npress of the Schroeder-assumed \"rewritten\" manuscript was going on; and\nMrs. McKinstry was more competent to remember such things than when at\nConneaut, because then of less tender years. Indeed if the Davidson\nstatement is insisted upon as evidence, then Mr. Spaulding refused to\nhave his manuscript published, even though Mr. Patterson suggested it,\nas he had only written it for his own amusement!\n\n[Footnote 85: _American Historical Magazine,_ p. 392-3. (How careless\nof him!) _Ante_ p. 28.]\n\nThe next sin of the Davidson statement is one of commission. The\nsuccess of Mr. Schroeder's case against the Book of Mormon depends upon\nestablishing his contention that Sidney Rigdon stole the Spaulding\nmanuscript from the printing office of Patterson and Lambdin; and\nthat, after October, 1816, (the time of Spaulding's death), the\nSchroeder-assumed \"rewritten\" manuscript was never in the hands of\n\"anybody but Sidney Rigdon.\" But if the re-affirmance of the Davidson\nstatement is to be admitted at all, in evidence, then, according to\nMrs. Davidson, before the family removed from Pittsburg to Amity, the\nSpaulding manuscript was \"returned to its author, and soon after,\" says\nthe Davidson statement, \"we removed to Amity, Washington county, etc.,\nwhere Mr. Spaulding deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my\nhands, and was carefully preserved. It has frequently been examined by\nmy daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside,\nand by other friends.\" [86]\n\n[Footnote 86: See Davidson statement in the text above.]\n\nThis statement, let it be observed, would not fall within the items\nwhich even Mr. Schroeder would exclude from the Davidson statement if\nreadmitted as evidence; for it is very clear that as to this item the\nlady was speaking of a thing about which she had \"personal knowledge,\"\nthe \"shibboleth\" which gives \"evidentiary weight\" to what the lady is\nsupposed to have testified to in this \"shady\" document. But against\nthis damaging affirmation of the Davidson document, about the return of\nthe Spaulding manuscript to its author, and Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson's\nsubsequent possession and care of it, Mr. Schroeder says: \"Upon the\nquestion as to whether or not Spaulding's re-written manuscript was in\nthe possession of anybody but Rigdon at any time after October, 1816,\nMrs. Davidson's statement as published cannot in any sense whatever be\nconsidered as evidence.\" [87]\n\n[Footnote 87: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 394\n_Ante_ p. 29. (Sic!)]\n\nThe reader will now better understand Mr. Schroeder's attitude: what\nagrees with his theory in the Davidson statement shall be accepted;\nwhat contradicts it, must be discarded; and this may be applied to the\ngentleman's attitude to pretty much the whole mass of testimony upon\nthe subject. The attitude of Mr. Schroeder, however, cannot be conceded\nas proper. Either he must admit the force of the Davidson statement\nagainst his contentions, as well as where it favors them, or else he\nmust discredit the Davidson evidence altogether. One may not have his\ncake and at the same time eat it. We care not which he does in respect\nof this particular \"piece of evidence.\" It will be equally advantageous\nto our argument, which he does.\n\nBut let us see in what plight this statement leaves Mr. Schroeder's\ncase. If, Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson is right about the return of the\nSpaulding manuscript to its author while yet at Pittsburg; that it was\ntaken to Amity, and after the decease of Mr. Spaulding fell into the\nhands of Mrs. Spaulding, and \"was carefully preserved\" by her, and\nwas \"frequently examined\" by her daughter,--then Sidney Rigdon did\nnot steal it from Patterson and Lambdin's printing office, whatever\nRigdon's connection with that office might have been; and Mr. Schroeder\nis under the necessity of abandoning one of the chief elements of his\ncase; an element so essential that if abandoned his case collapses into\nconfusion.\n\nTo Mr. Schroeder's mind the theft of the manuscript by Mr. Rigdon is\nthe one circumstance that will harmonize all the alleged \"established\nfacts,\" and make the Spaulding theory tenable. To this end he\nrepudiates four other theories as to how the Spaulding manuscript\nreached the hands of Joseph Smith, by him to be exploited as the\nBook of Mormon. First, the theory that Joseph Smith himself secured\nthe manuscript from the house of Wm. H. Sabine in 1823 (John Hyde's\ntheory.) [88] Second, that Sidney Rigdon copied the manuscript\nwhile it was at the printing office of Patterson and Lambdin, (the\nStorrs-Austin-Davidson statement theory, and also the Spaulding family\ntheory). [89] Third, that Joseph Smith copied it while working for Wm.\nH. Sabine (brother of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, be it remembered),\nabout 1823, but leaving the original there. Fourth, the theory that\nSpaulding copied his story for the publisher \"while keeping the\nduplicate at home to be afterwards cared for by the family.\" Of course,\n\"these various theories\" were all invented because of a supposed\nnecessity of accounting for the alleged presence of the re-written\n'Manuscript Found' in the trunk at Sabine's house after 1816, the date\nof Spaulding's death. So says Mr. Schroeder. [90]\n\n[Footnote 88: \"Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs,\" by John Hyde, Jr.\n(1857) p. 279.]\n\n[Footnote 89: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" grand-niece of Mrs. (Solomon\nSpaulding) Davidson, (1885). She declares that Mrs. McKinstry\n\"remembers how her mother talked on the subject, expressing a firm\nconviction that Sidney Rigdon had copied the manuscript which had been\nin Mr. Patterson's office in Pittsburg,\" p. 23, 24.]\n\n[Footnote 90: _American Historical Magazine_, September, 1906, p. 390,\n_ante_ pp. 24, 25.]\n\nVery naturally all those interested in maintaining the theory\nthat Spaulding's manuscript was the original source of the Book\nof Mormon--except Mr. Schroeder--would be anxious to maintain the\nintegrity of both the Davidson statement and Mrs. McKinstry's\naffidavit, published in _Scribner's Magazine_ for August, 1880, as the\nmost valuable evidence in existence for the anti-Mormon side of this\ncontroversy. But to preserve that integrity they must vindicate Sidney\nRigdon from theft of the Spaulding manuscript, for both these witnesses\ndeclare the Spaulding manuscript to be in their possession after the\ndeath of Spaulding in 1816. The Davidson statement represents that the\n\"Manuscript Found,\" the very manuscript in controversy, that Spaulding\nhad placed in the hands of Patterson \"for perusal,\" was returned to\nSpaulding before the family left Pittsburg; and at his death, two\nyears later, fell into Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson's hands, and \"was\ncarefully preserved;\" was frequently examined by her daughter, Mrs.\nMcKinstry, \"and by other friends.\" Mrs. McKinstry testifies as to the\nassociation of her father, Solomon Spaulding, with Mr. Patterson, at\nPittsburg; also as to the contents of the trunk that had been taken to\nher uncle's, Wm. H. Sabine, by her mother and herself shortly after the\ndeath of her father, containing the papers of her father; and there\nshe claims to have seen the manuscript that the Davidson statement\nsays she \"frequently examined;\" and \"on the outside of this manuscript\nwere written the words, 'Manuscript Found.'\" She did not read it,\n\"but looked through it,\" and had it many times in her hands and saw\nthe names she \"had heard at Conneaut,\" when her father read the said\nmanuscript to his friends. [91]\n\n[Footnote 91: See the McKinstry affidavit.]\n\nNothing could be more explicit than these statements of mother and\ndaughter, and both were in the closest relations to Solomon Spaulding;\nand what they say is supplemented and emphasized by the grand-niece\nof Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, Ellen Dickinson, who, in her \"New Light\non Mormonism,\" represents Mrs. McKinstry as insisting that her mother\nsaid,--and the impression is created that she repeatedly said it--\"that\nMr. Spaulding had assured her that he had recovered his original\nmanuscript when Patterson had refused to publish it, and she never\nvaried or doubted in this belief.\" [92]\n\n[Footnote 92: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 23, 24.]\n\nWHY MR. SCHROEDER DISCREDITS THE SPAULDING WITNESSES.\n\nThe question naturally arises as to how it is that Mr. Schroeder\nadopts this theory of Rigdon stealing the Spaulding manuscript when\nit involves him in the necessity of practically throwing overboard\nthese two important witnesses of the Spaulding theory. We have\nalready seen that Mr. Schroeder practically discredits the testimony\nof the Davidson statement; [93] and with no less emphasis he throws\nover Mrs. McKinstry's testimony on the ground of her incompetency\nto be a reliable witness because of her tender age--from four to\neleven--when the things happened of which she testified; and her great\nage--seventy-four, (\"seventy-seven,\" says Mrs. Dickinson, [94])-when she\nmade her affidavit as to those distant happenings.\n\n[Footnote 93: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, pp.\n392-4. _Ante._ p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 94: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" preface.]\n\n    \"That this woman, at seventy-four, should remember strange names,\n    casually repeated in her presence, before her sixth year, and\n    those names wholly unrelated to anything of direct consequence to\n    her child life, is a feat of memory too extraordinary to give her\n    uncorroborated statement any weight as against valid contradictory\n    conclusions drawn from established facts.\" [95]\n\n[Footnote 95: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 392,\n_ante_ p. 26.]\n\nIn a casual re-statement of his theory that Rigdon stole the Spaulding\nmanuscript, and pointing to the alleged related facts of that theory,\nMr. Schroeder says: \"These conclusions and much of the evidence upon\nwhich they are based will contradict Mrs. McKinstry's statement.\" [96]\nThen why adopt that theory? A direct answer is nowhere to be found\non the face of Mr. Schroeder's articles; but one acquainted with all\nthe variations of the Spaulding theory does not have far to go to\nunderstand the reasons.\n\n[Footnote 96: Ibid. 391.]\n\nFirst, there is the shady transactions of the Reverends Clark, Storrs,\nand Austin in the production of the Davidson statement that discredits\nit; and in Mr. Schroeder's view, the evidentiary value of this document\nis not very great. [97]\n\n[Footnote 97: Ibid. pp. 393-4, _ante_ pp. 26-29.]\n\nSecond, Mr. Schroeder knows, for reasons that he himself states, that\nthe McKinstry affidavit is incompetent and cannot be held to establish\nthe alleged facts detailed in it. \"That this woman at seventy-four,\nshould remember strange names casually repeated in her presence, before\nher sixth year, * * * is a feat of memory too extraordinary,\" is his\nown characterization of the absurdity.\n\nThird, Mr. Schroeder knows that the other theories by which an effort\nis made to connect the Spaulding manuscript with Joseph Smith and the\nconsequent plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from it are untenable.\nThat is, he knows that the theory that Rigdon copied the Spaulding\nmanuscript while it was at Patterson-Lambdin's printing office,\nthe original being returned to Spaulding, cannot be established\nby evidence. He knows equally well that the theory that Spaulding\nhimself made a copy of his story for the publisher while keeping the\nduplicate at home to be cared for by his family, cannot be successfully\nmaintained. This copying a manuscript that makes a book of 600 pages,\nof more than 500 words to the page (see first edition of Book of\nMormon), is not so easy a task, and the time necessary to such an\nachievement, by either of these men, make the theories impossible.\n\nFourth, Mr. Schroeder also knows that the theory that Joseph Smith\nhimself stole the Spaulding manuscript from the house of Win. H. Sabine\nof Onondaga Valley, in 1823, at which time it is alleged that Joseph\nSmith worked for Mr. Sabine, cannot be established by evidence.\n\nFifth, Mr. Schroeder knows that the theory that Joseph Smith copied\nthe Spaulding manuscript while at Sabine's is not only incapable of\nbeing established by evidence, but would be ridiculous, even if it\ncould be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith ever worked\nfor Sabine, in 1823, or at any other time, both on account of his\nage, then eighteen, certainly unschooled, and by some said not to be\nable then to write at all. [98] Yet this man working as a teamster\n(for so it is said) copies a manuscript which afterwards makes a book\nof six hundred pages of five hundred words to the page! No wonder\nthat Mr. Schroeder discredits this theory. With all these theories\ndiscarded, however, what remains for Spaulding theorists? Nothing but\nto charge the theft of Spaulding's manuscript to Sidney Rigdon, and to\nstick to it. To do this, however, they must follow Mr. Schroeder in\ndiscrediting the Davidson statement; and declare the incompetency of\nthe McKinstry affidavit, for reasons already considered. This destroys\nfor the Spaulding theorists what some regard as the two most valuable\ndocuments, (contemptible as they are) on which the theory stands.\n\n[Footnote 98: Mrs. Horace Eaton of Palmyra, \"Hand Book of Mormonism.\"]\n\nIII.\n\nTHE CONNECTION OF SIDNEY RIGDON WITH THE SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT.\n\nWhat is relied upon as evidence that Sidney Rigdon stole the Spaulding\nmanuscript from Patterson-Lambdin's printing-office? When Howe appealed\nfor information on this point to Mr. Patterson of Pittsburg, in 1834,\nMr. Lambdin had been dead about eight years; and Howe writes--\"Mr.\nPatterson says he has no recollection of any such manuscript being\nbrought there for publication.\" [99] This statement of Howe's has proved\nvery troublesome to the later, or Pittsburg group of Mr. Schroeder's\nwitnesses. Mr. Howe was appealed to for his authority for the statement\nand replied, \"I think Hurlburt was the person who talked with Patterson\nabout the manuscript.\" [100] This is confirmed by the testimony of B.\nWinchester, author of \"The Origin of the Spaulding Story,\" (1840).\nAs soon as the \"Storrs-Davidson\" statement was published,--asserting\nthat Patterson had borrowed the Spaulding manuscript, was very much\npleased with it, advised the writing of a title page, a preface and\nthen publishing it,--a Mr. Green, according to Mr. Winchester, \"called\nupon Mr. Patterson to know if this statement was true. Mr. Patterson\nreplied, that he knew nothing of any such manuscript. I learned this\nfrom Mr. Green's own mouth,\" says Mr. Winchester, \"who is a man of\nundoubted veracity. * * * Mr. Hurlburt states, that he called upon Mr.\nPatterson who affirmed his ignorance of the whole matter.\" [101]\n\n[Footnote 99: \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" Howe, p. 289.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 101: \"Origin of the Spaulding Story,\" p. 13.]\n\nIn 1842, Mr. Patterson was again appealed to upon the subject of the\nsubmission of the Spaulding manuscript to him. The appeal was made\nby the Reverend Samuel Williams who at the time was preparing for\npublication a pamphlet entitled \"Mormonism Exposed.\" Whereupon Mr.\nPatterson wrote and signed a brief statement which was afterwards\npublished by the Reverend Williams as follows:\n\n    \"R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time,\n    a foreman printer, and general superintendent of the printing\n    business. As he (S. E.) was an excellent scholar, as well as a\n    good printer, to him was intrusted the entire concerns of the\n    office. He even decided on the propriety or otherwise of publishing\n    manuscripts when offered,--as to their morality, scholarship, etc.\n    In this character, he informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the\n    East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular\n    work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible,\n    and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages and finding\n    nothing apparently exceptionable he (R. P.) said to Engles he might\n    publish it if the author furnished the funds or good security. He\n    (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned\n    the manuscript, as I supposed at that time, after it had been some\n    weeks in his possession, with other manuscripts in the office.\n\n    \"This communication written and signed 2d April, 1842. [102]\n\n    ROBERT PATTERSON.\"\n\n[Footnote 102: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 7.]\n\n\"It is matter of sincere regret,\" says the author of \"Who Wrote\nthe Book of Mormon?\" \"that so meager a document is all the written\nevidence that Mr. Patterson has left.\" And well he may, as one of the\nSpaulding-origin theorists, have such regret. For there is nothing here\nof Spaulding and his manuscript, nothing of Patterson's interest in it\nand advising a title page, preface, and the publication of it; nothing\nof Rigdon and his connection with the manuscript; nothing of its being\nmissing or stolen or copied. Of course \"the gentleman from the East\noriginally, [who] had put into his [Patterson's] hands a manuscript of\na singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of\nthe Bible,\" in which neither the printing-firm proof-reader, to whom\nit was referred, nor Mr. Patterson, had more than a languid interest,\naccording to the above, is made by the Spaulding-origin theorists\nto mean the author of the Spaulding manuscript. There is nothing to\njustify such a conclusion. Had it been Spaulding's manuscript, which\n\"the gentleman from the East presented,\" would not Mr. Patterson have\nremembered it? Would he not have named him? Why should he not? There\nis but one answer--the gentleman was not Spaulding. Oh, at this point,\nfor Mr. Patterson's remembrance of an identity of names with \"Book of\nMormon\" names,--for a \"Nephi\" now, or \"Moroni,\" or \"Zarahemla!\" But\nmark you, what Mr. Patterson refuses to do in the signed statement\nwhich he prepared especially at the request, Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams\ndoes for him in introducing this signed statement by saying: \"Mr.\nPatterson firmly believes, also, from what he has heard from the Mormon\nBible, that it is the same thing he examined at the time.\" [103] Then\nwhy is that not in the statement Robert Patterson signed? The manifest\ndishonesty of these preachers grows tedious!\n\n[Footnote 103: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 7.]\n\nMr. Schroeder next puts in as \"evidence\" the testimony of Joseph\nMiller, (the name \"John\" in Mr. Schroeder's text is evidently a\nmisprint), \"who knew Spaulding at Amity, bailed him out of jail when\nconfined for debt, made his coffin for him when he died, and helped\nlay him out in his grave\"--quite a formidable list of services; also\ngruesome. And his testimony? Spaulding told him \"there was a man\nnamed Sidney Rigdon about the office and they thought he had stolen\nit\" [104] (i.e., the Spaulding manuscript). This man is heralded in the\n_Cincinnati Gazette_ as the \"one man in the United States who can give\nits [i. e., the Book of Mormon's], origin.\" Gregg, whom Mr. Schroeder\ncites as his authority, repeats this announcement, and we marvel\nthat Mr. Schroeder did not include this circumstance in his list of\nqualities that makes this witness so picturesque.\n\n[Footnote 104: _American Historical Magazine,_ November, 1906, p. 518,\n_ante_ p. 30. Miller's letter is given in full in Gregg's \"Prophet of\nPalmyra,\" p. 442. Miller also writes another letter of similar import\nto the author of \"New Light on Mormonism,\" p. 240. \"Who Wrote the Book\nof Mormon?\" p. 7.]\n\nThe Miller document quoted by Mr. Schroeder from Gregg's \"Prophet\nof Palmyra,\" bears date of January 20, 1882; and as Miller was born\nin 1791 he was then ninety-one years of age. [105] The very earliest\nstatement of Miller's story is in the _Pittsburg Telegraph,_ February\n6, 1879, when Miller would be eighty-eight years old. How much reliance\nis to be placed upon the early recollections of such an aged person\nafter all the talk had, and all the newspaper and magazine articles and\ndiscussions that have been published, leading to confusion in the minds\nof unliterary, uncritical, and often ignorant people, as to dates, the\norder of events, and mind impressions; and this confusion influenced\nby their religious zeal, not to say fanaticism; prejudices against\nsupposed heresies; and resentment of religious innovations--what value,\nI say, is to be given to the recollections of a very aged person under\nthese circumstances, must be finally determined by the reader. I only\nask that the circumstances be known; that they be constantly held in\nmind and given their due weight, and I shall not fear the judgment.\n\n[Footnote 105: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 6.]\n\nMr. Schroeder next introduces what he would fondly have us believe is\nthe testimony of the Reverend Cephus Dodd, \"a Presbyterian minister\nof Amity, Pa.\" (where Spaulding lived 1814-16); Mr. Dodd was also a\npracticing physician and attended Spaulding in his last illness. \"As\nearly as 1832,\" says Mr. Schroeder, \"this Mr. Dodd took Mr. George M.\nFrench of Amity to Spaulding's grave, and there expressed a positive\nbelief that Sidney Rigdon was the agent who had transformed Spaulding's\nmanuscript into the Book of Mormon.\" Mr. French, we are told, fixes the\ndate through its proximity to his removal to Amity. Following is the\ncomment of Mr. Schroeder on the Reverend Mr. Dodd's \"testimony:\"\n\n    \"The conclusion thus expressed by Mr. Dodd, in advance of all\n    public discussion or evidence, is important, because of what is\n    necessarily implied in it. First, it involved a comparison between\n    Spaulding's literary production and the 'Book of Mormon,' with a\n    discovered similarity inducing conviction that the latter was a\n    plagiarism from the former. This comparison presupposes a knowledge\n    of the contents of Spaulding's rewritten manuscript. The second\n    and most important deduction is to be made from the assertion that\n    Sidney Rigdon was the connecting link in the plagiarism. Such a\n    conclusion must have had a foundation in Mr. Dodd's mind, and could\n    have arisen only if he was possessed of personal knowledge of what\n    he considered reliable information creating a conviction in his\n    mind of the probability of Sidney Rigdon's connection with the\n    matter.\" [106]\n\n[Footnote 106: _American Historical Magazine,_ November, 1906, p. 519,\n_ante pp._ 31-32.]\n\nBut not so fast. Let us think of it. Who tells this story? Mr. Dodd\nin 1832? No. And is it of record that he did all these things that\nMr. Schroeder surmises that he did? Again, no. And was Mr. Dodd's\n\"conclusions expressed\" in advance of all public discussion or\nevidence, respecting the Book of Mormon? Not at all. According to\nthe authority Mr. Schroeder himself cites for this Dodd \"evidence,\"\nand from which he gets the story, the Reverend Mr. Dodd lived until\nJanuary 16, 1858. But there is no direct statement or evidence at\nall from him on the matter here discussed. Nothing was said about\nit until the publication of \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" in the\n\"History of Washington County, Pa.,\" 1882; after the discussion of\nall the evidence, instead of in advance of it. Then Mr. George M.\nFrench, according to the author of \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\"\n\"in his eighty-third years,\" \"retains a vivid impression\" of the\nforegoing account of a visit to Mr. Spaulding's grave in company with\nMr. Dodd; and then the story. [107] And Mr. Schroeder would lead his\nreaders to believe that they have in this jumbled mass of second hand\n\"vivid impressions\" fifty years old, detailed by a man in his dotage,\nover eighty-two years old, an expression in \"advance of all public\ndiscussion or evidence\" respecting the Book of Mormon--in 1832, in\nfact! And Mr. Schroeder is a professional lawyer!\n\n[Footnote 107: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 10.]\n\nOf like character but weaker are the rest of Mr. Schroeder's witnesses\nto the \"theft\" of the Spaulding manuscript and its identity with the\nBook of Mormon. Such is his \"tenth witness,\" Redick McKee (Joseph\nMiller, considered above, being his \"ninth witness,\"); and his\n\"eleventh witness,\" the Reverend Abner Jackson; and, as Mr. Schroeder\nhimself puts it,--\"Last but not least,\" John C. Bennett, who also\nendorses the Spaulding theory of the Origin of the Book of Mormon; for\nwhich I had almost said, \"thank God!\" for nothing could so completely\ndamn a thing as John C. Bennett's endorsement. Then I restrained the\nall but expressed exclamation and softened it to the quiet conclusion\nof--\"fitting climax to such an array of testimony!\"\n\nBennett claims to have had it from the \"confederation\"--that \"there\nnever were any plates of the Book of Mormon excepting what were seen\nby the spiritual and not the natural eyes of the witnesses.\" [108] All\nthese witnesses are as incompetent and contemptible as those whose\ntestimony we have examined, and with this we leave them. It is not\nnecessary to demonstrate over and over again the same proposition, or\nrefute every specific detail of falsehood when they can be classified\nand dealt with in mass.\n\n[Footnote 108: \"Mormonism Exposed,\" pp. 123-4.]\n\nOF RIGDON'S ALLEGED \"RELIGIOUS DISHONESTY.\"\n\nMr. Schroeder seeks to make much of what he calls \"Rigdon's religious\ndishonesty\" previous to his joining the Mormon Church. Of this and\nthe evidence on which it is based, it is only necessary to say: said\ndishonesty is charged by the Reverend Samuel Williams, author of\n\"Mormonism Exposed\"--the Reverend gentleman whom we have seen put into\nhis book a statement as to Mr. Patterson's views about the Spaulding\nmanuscript which Mr. Patterson evidently refused to put into his own\nsigned statement, given to Mr. Williams for his anti-Mormon work. The\ndishonesty alleged against Rigdon has to do with religious experiences\nwhich Rigdon is represented by a rival minister as confessing to have\nfeigned in order to obtain membership in the Baptist Church, at Peters\nCreek. Its source utterly discredits it; and at best it is only the\nall-too-usual exhibition of malice expressed in misrepresentation when\na person passes from one religious organization to another.\n\nRIGDON'S OPPORTUNITY TO STEAL SPAULDING'S MANUSCRIPT.\n\nThe next question which Mr. Schroeder considers is Rigdon's opportunity\nto steal the Spaulding manuscript. This depends upon whether Sidney\nRigdon was at Pittsburg when the Spaulding manuscript was there\nbetween 1812, the time of Spaulding's advent into Pittsburg with his\nmanuscript, and 1814, the time of his departure. But to humor Mr.\nSchroeder we will extend the time so as to include his fiction about\na \"re-written\" manuscript and its \"second submission\" to Patterson\nfor publication. So the question is, was Rigdon in Pittsburg between\n1812 and 1816, the time of Spaulding's death? Here I insert a brief\nbiography of Sidney Rigdon, up to the time of his joining the Mormon\nChurch. It is taken from the \"Illustrated History of Washington County,\nPa.,\" in which was published the treatise on \"Who Wrote the Book of\nMormon?\" I select this account of Mr. Rigdon's movements up to 1830,\nbecause it is the one regarded by Mr. Schroeder as more accurate than\nother accounts; and it is only slightly different, but in no respect\nmaterially so, from the account of Mr. Rigdon published in the \"History\nof Joseph Smith,\" in the _Millennial Star,_ supplement, volume XIV.,\nand condensed in a foot note in the \"History of the Church.\" [109]\n\n[Footnote 109: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, pp. 120-1, and notes.]\n\n    \"Sidney Rigdon was born near the present village of Library,\n    Allegheny Co., Pa., Feb. 19, 1793; attended in boyhood an ordinary\n    country school; joined the Baptist Church near his home May 31,\n    1817; studied divinity with a Baptist preacher named Clark in\n    Beaver County, Pa., in the winter of 1818-19, and was licensed to\n    preach; went to Warren, Ohio, where he was ordained, and in the\n    winter of 1821-22 returned to Pittsburg; became pastor of the First\n    Baptist Church there Jan. 28, 1822, and for doctrinal errors was\n    excluded from the Baptist denomination Oct. 11, 1823. He continued\n    to Preach in the court-house to his adherents, but in 1824,\n    according to one account, he removed to the Western Reserve Ohio;\n    according to another account he engaged in the tanning business in\n    Pittsburg until 1826, and then removed to the Reserve, residing for\n    brief periods at Bainbridge, Mentor, and Kirtland. At this time\n    he was connected with the Campbellite or Disciple's Church, and\n    preached its doctrines, mingled with extravagant conceits of his\n    own, until in 1830 he joined the Mormons.\" [110]\n\n[Footnote 110: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 8.]\n\nIt will be observed that this does not bring Sidney Rigdon to Pittsburg\nuntil 1821-22, some seven years after the Spauldings had left Pittsburg\nwith their precious manuscript, and five years after they had departed\nfrom Pennsylvania with it. Mr. Rigdon's own account of his going to\nPittsburg puts it in November, 1821, on his return from Ohio, to visit\nrelatives in Allegheny county, Pa. He preached in Pittsburg a few\ntimes, and it was his preaching during this visit that led to his being\ncalled to become the permanent pastor of the First Baptist Church of\nthat place, where he took up his residence in 1822.\n\nIn a communication addressed to the _Boston Journal,_ under date of\nMay 27, 1839, Sidney Rigdon emphatically denies having any connection\nwith Patterson's printing establishment; or with Spaulding and his\nmanuscript. [111] Concerning the charge frequently made that Rigdon\nlived in Pittsburg, and was connected with Patterson's printing office\nduring 1815 and 1816, Mr. Schroeder himself remarks.\n\n[Footnote 111: The Letter of Rigdon will be found complete in Smucker's\n\"History of the Mormons,\" pp. 45-48.]\n\n    \"The evidence upon which is based the charge of Rigdon having a\n    permanent residence in Pittsburg during the years in question,\n    or his connection with Patterson's printing office, is so\n    unsatisfactory that these issues must be found in favor of Rigdon's\n    denial.\" [112]\n\n[Footnote 112: _American Historical Magazine,_ November, 1906, p. 524,\n_ante,_ p. 39.]\n\nVery diligent inquiry was made by the historians of Washington County,\nto ascertain whether or not Rigdon was in Pittsburg at the time the\nSpaulding manuscript is alleged to have been there. What makes the\nmatter of inquiry more interesting is the fact that the author of that\npart of the \"History of Washington County\" under the caption \"Who Wrote\nthe Book of Mormon?\" is Robert Patterson, son of Robert Patterson, who\nis said to have been the printer to whom Spaulding's manuscript was\ntaken for publication. Robert Patterson, author of \"Who Wrote the Book\nof Mormon?\" in his capacity of historian, sent out a number of letters\nsoliciting information as to the time of Sidney Rigdon's residence\nin Pittsburg and his connection with the Patterson-Lambdin printing\nestablishment; and also he made personal inquiry on the same subject.\nThe results of such inquiry follow. The term \"the present writer\" used\nin the quotation refers to Mr. Patterson himself. After saying that\nCarvil Rigdon, Sidney's brother, and Peter Boyer, his brother-in-law,\nwere the source of information for Rigdon's biography, Mr. Patterson\nsays:\n\n    \"Mr. Boyer also in a personal interview with the present writer in\n    1879, positively affirmed that Rigdon had never lived in Pittsburg\n    previous to 1822, adding that 'they were boys together, and he\n    ought to know.' Mr. Boyer had for a short time embraced Mormonism,\n    but became convinced that it was a delusion, and returned to his\n    membership in the Baptist Church.\"\n\nIt could not then have been through religious sympathy with Mr. Rigdon\nthat Mr. Boyer made the above statement.\n\n    \"Isaac King, a highly-respected citizen of Library, Pa., and an old\n    neighbor of Rigdon, states in a letter to the present writer, dated\n    June 14, 1879, that Sidney lived on the farm of of his father until\n    the death of the latter in May, 1810, and for a number of years\n    afterwards; * * * * received his education in a log school-house\n    in the vicinity; he began to talk in public on religion soon after\n    his admission to the church, (1817) probably at his own instance,\n    as there is no record of his licensure; 'went to Sharon, Pa., for\n    a time, and was there ordained as a preacher, but soon returned to\n    his farm, which he sold (June 28, 1823), to James Means, and about\n    the time of the sale removed to Pittsburg.'\n\n    \"Samuel Cooper, of Saltsburg, Pa., a veteran of three wars, in\n    a letter to the present writer, dated June 14, 1879, stated as\n    follows: 'I was acquainted with Mr. Lambdin, was often in the\n    printing-office; was acquainted with Silas Engles, the foreman of\n    the printing-office; he never mentioned Sidney Rigdon's name to me,\n    so I am satisfied he was never engaged there as a printer. * * *\n    Never saw him in the bookstore or printing-office; your father's\n    office was in the celebrated Molly Murphy's Row.'\n\n    \"Rev. Robert P. DuBois, of New London, Pa., under date of Jan. 9,\n    1879, writes: 'I entered the bookstore of R. Patterson & Lambdin in\n    March, 1818, when about twelve years old, and remained there until\n    the summer of 1820. The firm had under its control the bookstore on\n    Fourth Street a book-bindery, a printing-office, (not newspaper,\n    but job-office, under the name of Butler & Lambdin) entrance on\n    Diamond Alley, and a steam paper-mill on the Allegheny (under the\n    name of R. & J. Patterson). I knew nothing of Spaulding (then dead)\n    or of his book or of Sidney Rigdon.'\n\n    \"Mrs. R. W. Lambdin, of Irvington, N.Y., widow of the late\n    J. Harrison Lambdin, in response to some inquiries as to her\n    recollections of Rigdon and others, writes under date of Jan. 15,\n    1882:\n\n    \"'I am sorry to say I shall not be able to give you any information\n    relative to the persons you name. They certainly could not have\n    been friends of Mr. Lambdin. Mrs. Lambdin resided in Pittsburg from\n    her marriage in 1819 to the death of her husband, Aug. 1, 1825. Mr.\n    Lambdin was born Sept. 1, 1798.\"\n\nIt is to the credit of Mr. Patterson that he recorded these testimonies\nthat must be so unsatisfactory to the Spaulding theory advocates,\namong whom must be numbered Mr. Patterson himself. He also says that\n\"impartial justice, requires the addition to the above testimony of the\nvery explicit denial of Rigdon himself;\" and then quotes the essential\npart of Mr. Rigdon's denial sent to the _Boston Journal_ in 1839. He\ncriticises the grammar of the passage, and points out that Mr. Rigdon\nwas mistaken in saying that there was no \"Patterson printing-office\"\nin Pittsburg during his residence there; \"as his [Rigdon's] pastorate\nthere began in January, 1822, and the firm of 'R. Patterson and\nLambdin' was in business until January 1, 1823.\" But, as related in\nthe statement of the Reverend Robert P. DuBois, given above, since the\njob printing-office, said to be under the \"control\" of the firm of \"R.\nPatterson and Lambdin,\" was conducted under the name of \"Buttler and\nLambdin,\" [113] Mr. Schroeder admits that Mr. Rigdon's slight mistake\nwas very natural, and does not impair in the least the truth of his\ndenial. Having introduced Mr. Rigdon's denial Mr. Patterson remarks\nupon it and upon the witnesses whose testimony is given above:\n\n[Footnote 113: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 9. The testimony of\nthe five witnesses alluded to will be found in the same work and page.]\n\n    \"But whatever may be thought Of his testimony, as that of an\n    interested party, there can be no doubt that the five preceding\n    witnesses on this point have conscientiously stated what they\n    firmly believed to be the facts. No one who knew them would for a\n    moment doubt their veracity.\" [114]\n\n[Footnote 114: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\"]\n\nHere let us notice a statement by Mr. Schroeder, that seems to have\nsome weight on this point. He claims Sidney Rigdon's son, John W.\nRigdon, says that his father lived in Pittsburg in 1818; and in the\nbiographical note of Sidney Rigdon published in the \"History of the\nChurch,\" following John W. Rigdon's \"History of Sidney Rigdon,\" the\nmanuscript of which he has deposited with the Church Historian, it is\nthere stated:\n\n    \"In March, 1819, Mr. Rigdon left the farm and made his home with\n    the Reverend Andrew Clark of Pittsburg, also a Baptist minister.\n    While residing with Mr. Clark he took out a license and began from\n    that time his career as a minister. In May, 1819, he removed from\n    Pennsylvania to Trumbull county, Ohio.\" [115]\n\n[Footnote 115: \"History of the Church,\" (1906), Vol. I, p. 121, foot\nnote.]\n\nThis would give Sidney Rigdon a residence in Pittsburg from some time\nin March (1819) until some time in May of the same year--something\nlike two months. This would give some support to Mr. Schroeder's\nstatement. But in the biographical sketch of Mr. Rigdon in the \"History\nof Washington County,\" the date of which was supplied to the writer of\nit by Carvil Rigdon, Sidney's brother, and his brother-in-law, Peter\nBoyer, it is said that Sidney Rigdon \"studied divinity with a Baptist\npreacher named Clark in Beaver County, Pa., in the winter of 1818-19\nand was licensed to preach.\" Beaver County is immediately north of\nAllegheny County, in which Pittsburg is located. Notwithstanding the\nstatement of John W. Rigdon has found its way into the \"History of the\nChurch,\" as above explained, yet Carvil Rigdon and Peter Boyer must be\nheld to be more competent witnesses on this point than John W. Rigdon;\nand more especially since the inquiry made by Mr. Patterson in his\ncapacity of contributor to the \"History of Washington County, Pa.,\" was\nmade in the interest of the Spaulding theory that requires the location\nof Rigdon in Pittsburg earlier than 1822, when, it is conceded, he took\nup his residence there. Had the Reverend Mr. Clark with whom Rigdon\nstudied divinity in the spring of 1819 lived in Pittsburg instead of\nBeaver County, that fact would scarcely have escaped the searching\ninquiry made upon the subject. But even if the residence of Rigdon\nfor two months in the year named could be fixed in Pittsburg beyond\nreasonable doubt the conclusion of Mr. Schroeder as to its effect upon\nRigdon's denial of knowledge of the existence of the printing-office\nof Patterson and Lambdin, would not stand. He puts his argument in\nsyllogistic form, thus:\n\n    \"Rigdon's son says Rigdon lived in Pittsburg in 1818. Church\n    biographers allege that he preached there regularly after January\n    28, 1822. During 1818 and 1822 Patterson was in the printing\n    business, and Rigdon's statement must be deemed untrue.\" [116]\n\n[Footnote 116: _American Historical Magazine,_ November, 1906, p. 526,\n_ante_ p. 39.]\n\nTo which the answer is: By no means; since if it be allowed that Rigdon\nwas in Pittsburg at all, he was there but some two months--and the\nexistence of a certain printing establishment might easily escape his\nknowledge,--and more especially so since the printing office was under\nanother firm name, that of \"Butler and Lambdin.\" [117]\n\n[Footnote 117: \"Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 9.]\n\nLet us now return to Mr. Patterson and his \"Who Wrote the Book of\nMormon?\" We have seen how fairly he recorded the testimony of witnesses\nthat told against his own side of the case, and the certificate of good\ncharacter he gave those witnesses. It is but fair to him to say that\non the opposite side of the question he gives the \"Davidson\" statement\ncredence, apparently not knowing the \"shady\" character of that\ndocument; and that if it was \"in the main true,\" then it carried off\nthe Spaulding manuscript beyond the reach of Sidney Rigdon as early as\n1814, when the Spauldings left Pittsburg for Amity. Mr. Patterson also\nrecords the statement of Joseph Miller, Redick McKee and Mr. French's\nstory of the Reverend Cephus Dodd, whose statements have already been\nconsidered, and shown to be incompetent as evidence.\n\nAnd then he comes to another witness in whom both he and Mr. Schroeder\ndelight as establishing a connection if not between Rigdon and\nPatterson's printing establishment, then at least between Rigdon and\nLambdin. This is Mrs. R. J. Eichbaum of Pittsburg. The facts relating\nto her are that she was the daughter of John Johnston, and was born\nAugust 25, 1792. Her father was post-master of Pittsburg from 1804 to\n1822; and was succeeded by William Eichbaum, who held the office until\n1833. In 1815 Miss Johnston married William Eichbaum. As soon as she\nbecame old enough she assisted her father in attending the post-office.\nFrom 1811 to 1816 she became the regular clerk in the office assorting,\nopening and distributing the mail. And even after her marriage in\nthe absence of her husband, she sometimes attended to these duties.\nPittsburg was then a small town, the mail was meagre, and Mrs. Eichbaum\nremembered those who called regularly for their mail; and now her own\nwords:\n\n    \"I knew and distinctly remember Robert and Joseph Patterson, J.\n    Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles, and Sidney Rigdon. I remember Rev.\n    Mr. Spaulding, but simply as one who occasionally called to inquire\n    for letters. I remember that there was an evident intimacy between\n    Lambdin and Rigdon. They very often came to the office together. I\n    particularly remember that they would thus come during the hour on\n    Sabbath afternoon when the office was required to be open, and I\n    remember feeling sure that Rev. Mr. Patterson knew nothing of this,\n    or he would have put a stop to it. I do not know what position, if\n    any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing-office, but\n    am well assured he was frequently, if not constantly there for\n    a large part of the time when I was clerk in the post-office. I\n    recall Mr. Engles saying that 'Rigdon was always hanging around\n    the printing-office.' He was connected with the tannery before he\n    became a preacher, though he may have continued the business whilst\n    preaching.\" [118]\n\n[Footnote 118: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 10.]\n\nThis is the strongest and I may say the only testimony existing\nconcerning any connection between Sidney Rigdon and Lambdin. But if\nthis testimony was left to stand with all its strength unimpaired,\nit is a \"far way\" between this and the establishment of a connection\nbetween Rigdon and the Spaulding manuscript. Even Mr. Schroeder\nconcedes that. In commenting on the above testimony, he says:\n\n    \"While this does not establish that Sidney Rigdon had a permanent\n    abode in Pittsburg, nor that he was connected with Patterson's\n    printing establishment, it yet explains why seemingly everybody who\n    knew him reached that conclusion.\" [119]\n\n[Footnote 119: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 528,\n_ante_ p. 41.]\n\nOne marvels at the concluding remark in the above passage, in the\nface of the testimony of the five witnesses quoted by the author of\n\"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" These five witnesses had the best\nopportunity of knowing of such connection if it existed. They were\nRigdon's own boyhood and young manhood companions, employees of the\nfirm of Patterson and Lambdin, including Lambdin's wife, and they\nall declare there was no such connection, or that they knew of none.\nAnd then there is the silence of Robert Patterson, of the firm of\nPatterson and Lambdin to account for. Patterson, who was solicited\nfor information on the subject but who evidently could give none; and\nwhose disclosure if he had any to make, Rigdon boldly challenged in\nhis _Boston Journal_ article of 1839. Mr. Patterson did not die until\nSeptember 5th, 1854; [120] and in 1839 Rigdon in the article referred to\nsaid:\n\n[Footnote 120: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 7.]\n\n    \"If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding\n    and his hopeful wife, until Dr. P. Hurlburt wrote his lie about me,\n    I should be a liar like unto themselves. Why was not the testimony\n    of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of\n    lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to\n    work with; he would not lie for them, for if he were called on he\n    would testify to what I have here said.\" [121]\n\n[Footnote 121: \"History of the Mormons,\" Smucker, p. 96.]\n\nThis is Rigdon's challenge, (Mr. Schroeder nowhere deals with it) and\nwhile we regret its form we rejoice in its boldness and emphasis. Mr.\nPatterson was solicited by the Reverend Samuel Williams, when preparing\nhis \"Mormonism Exposed,\" for a statement, and Mr. Patterson gave one\nand signed it under date of 2nd of April, 1842, but not a word in it\nof Rigdon or of his connection with the printing establishment, or his\nassociation with Lambdin, or of the complaints of Engles about Rigdon\n\"always hanging around the printing office;\" not a word about Spaulding\nand his manuscript. There is but one conclusion to be reached from\nthis silence, viz., there were no such relations to disclose as are\ncontended for by Mr. Schroeder.\n\nThe statement of Mrs. Eichbaum is somewhat weakened by the fact that\nwhen she gave her statement she was eighty-seven years old and what\nMr. Schroeder has implied of memories impaired by age in the case of\nMrs. McKinstry, ought to have some application to the testimony of\nMrs. Eichbaum. Another consideration weakens it. Taking into account\nRigdon's prominence in the public life of Pittsburg from the time of\nbeing settled there as the regular pastor of the First Baptist Church,\nin 1822, up to 1825, the year of Lambdin's death, if any such intimacy\nhad existed between Rigdon and Lambdin as described by Mrs. Eichbaum\nand contended for by Mr. Schroeder, would not Mrs. Lambdin have had\nsome knowledge of it? \"Mrs. Lambdin resided in Pittsburg from her\nmarriage in 1819 to the death of her husband, August 1st, 1825.\" Yet\nwriting to Mr. Patterson, author of \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\"\nunder date of Jan. 15th, 1882, in response to inquiries as to her\nrecollections of Sidney Rigdon and others she says:\n\n    \"I am sorry to say I shall not be able to give you any information\n    relative to the persons you name. They certainly could not have\n    been friends of Mr. Lambdin.\" [122]\n\n[Footnote 122: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 9.]\n\nIf due weight be given to these considerations, I do not think much\nimportance can attach to the testimony of Mrs. Eichbaum. It simply\nrepresents the confused impressions arising from the neighborhood\ngossip and public discussion of the subject, in a mind grown old.\n\nWhat Mr. Patterson has said at the close of the testimony _pro et con,_\nwhich he presents in his article in the History of Washington County,\nis worth repeating:\n\n    \"These witnesses are all whom we can find, after inquiries\n    extending through some three years, who can testify at all to\n    Rigdon's residence in Pittsburg before 1816, and to his possible\n    employment in Patterson's printing-office or bindery. Of this\n    employment none of them speak from personal knowledge. In making\n    inquiries among two or three score of the oldest residents of\n    Pittsburg and vicinity, those who had any opinion on the subject\n    invariably, so far as now remembered, repeated the story of\n    Rigdon's employment in Patterson's printing-office, as if it were\n    a well-known and admitted fact; they 'could tell all about it,'\n    but when pressed as to their personal knowledge of it or their\n    authority for the conviction they had none.\" [123]\n\n[Footnote 123: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 11.]\n\nThe search for evidence was prolonged and thorough; evidently, at\nthe outset, the confidence was great; and the results evidently a\ndisappointment. That becomes more apparent when one reads the foot note\nof the publishers oil Mr. Patterson's passage above.\n\n    \"If any one would learn an impressive lesson upon the transitory\n    nature of man's hold upon the remembrance of his fellow-men,\n    let him engage in an investigation into some matter of local or\n    personal history dating back a half century ago. So rapidly,\n    in the very places where a man has lived and labored, does the\n    recollection of him fade into rumor, or myth, or oblivion. The\n    candid reader will doubtless suspend his judgment on this hitherto\n    accepted theory of Rigdon's printership, or set it down as, at the\n    most, only probable, but certainly not yet proved.\" [124]\n\n[Footnote 124: Ibid. p. 11, foot note.]\n\nTo these reflections on how quickly recollections of man in the place\nwhere he wrought some portion of his life's work fade into myth or\nrumor, or oblivion, there may be added the other side of the case; let\never so little a circumstance happen to a man in some place where part\nof his life was passed, and if that man becomes famous, or through any\ncause becomes notorious, then mark how local gossips and myth-makers\nspring up on every hand, magnifying the most trivial incidents into\nevents of importance; how new incidents are often invented, which with\nthose that have some foundation in fact are constantly undergoing\nvariations by additions or subtractions or a change in application,\nuntil all is distorted, confused and confounded. And many \"can tell\nall about it, until,\" as Mr. Patterson remarks, \"pressed as to their\npersonal knowledge, or their authority for their conviction, then\nit is discovered they have none.\" And then one stands face to face\nwith the utter worthlessness of that kind of \"evidence\" to establish\nanything good or ill concerning a man, or an event, or a cause. It is\nout of just such \"evidence\" as this that Mr. Schroeder and his fellow\n\"Spauldingites,\" seek to construct for the Book of Mormon an origin\nother than that vouched for by Joseph Smith and his associates.\n\nDID RIGDON EXHIBIT THE SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT?\n\nEspecially out of just such evidence as this grows Mr. Schroeder's next\nsubject--\"Sidney Rigdon exhibits Spaulding's manuscript.\" While Rigdon\nwas at Pittsburg, 1822-3, a Dr. Winters, then teaching school in the\ntown, was in Rigdon's study when the latter took from his desk a large\nmanuscript and said that a Presbyterian minister named Spaulding whose\nhealth had failed brought it to a printer to see if it would not pay to\npublish it--\"it is a romance of the Bible,\" Rigdon is reported to have\nsaid. Doctor Winter thought no more about it until the Book of Mormon\nappeared. Then, of course, \"he remembered all about it.\" Dr. Winter,\ndid not commit his recollections of this interview to writing, though\nhe lived until 1878. But Mr. Schroeder finds \"something just as good,\"\na daughter writes out what she had heard her father, Dr. Winter, say\nabout it. This was in 1881, about the time interest was renewed in the\nsubject through the publication of Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson's article in\n_Scribner's Magazine_ for August, 1880.\n\nOf like import is the story of Mrs. Amos Dunlap, of Warren, Ohio. She\nwrote in answer to inquiries in December, 1879, to the effect that she\nvisited the Rigdon family at Bainbridge, Ohio, when quite a child,\n(Mrs. Rigdon was her aunt). One day the following happened:\n\n    \"During my visit Mr. Rigdon went to his bedroom and took from a\n    trunk, which he kept locked, a certain manuscript. He came into\n    the other room and seated himself by the fire place and commenced\n    reading it. His wife at that moment came into the room and\n    exclaimed, 'What! you're studying that thing again?' or something\n    to that effect. She then added, 'I mean to burn that paper.' He\n    said, 'No, indeed, you will not. This will be a great thing some\n    day!\" [125]\n\n[Footnote 125: \"Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?\" p. 12.]\n\nMr. Schroeder introduces this as one of his items of evidence that Mr.\nRigdon foreknew of the forthcoming and contents of the Book of Mormon.\nThe thing that destroys the effect of it is, the undoubted fact that if\nSidney Rigdon was engaged in such a scheme as Mr. Schroeder charges he\nwas, then Mrs. Rigdon must have known of it. Now when Mr. Rigdon had\nbefore him in 1830 the question of what should be his relationship to\nMormonism, and he had decided that it was true and that he would accept\nit, he naturally was concerned as to what Mrs. Rigdon's attitude would\nbe in the matter, and when he broached the subject to her \"he was happy\nto find that she was not only diligently investigating the subject,\nbut was believing with all her heart, and was desirous of obeying the\ntruth.\" [126] If it be urged by Mr. Schroeder, as it is most likely\nto be, that the conversion of Mrs. Rigdon, like that of her husband,\nwas but a sham, a prearranged affair, that she as well as Mr. Rigdon\nforeknew of the forth-coming of the Book of Mormon, then the scene\nat Bainbridge, described by Mrs. Dunlap as taking place, supposedly\nbecause of Mr. Rigdon's absorption in Spaulding's manuscript, has\nno place in the scheme of things to be supported by Mr. Schroeder's\ncontention. But I have referred to this and the Dr. Winter episode\nmerely as illustrations of how variations and additions multiply upon\nmyths when once started. And so it will continue to be as long as there\nis a relative who had a relative who heard something about what some\none else had said of Rigdon's connection with Patterson and Spaulding;\nthat is, new variations of the story will be constantly appearing.\n\n[Footnote 126: _Millenial Star_, Vol. XIV, supplement, p. 48.]\n\nDID RIGDON FOREKNOW THE COMING AND CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON?\n\nThis question is more worthy of consideration than the last, because\nassociated with it is a man of character, Alexander Campbell. In the\n_Millennial Harbinger_ of 1844, at page 39, is a letter quoted by Mr.\nSchroeder, bearing date of January 22, 1841, from Adamson Bently, in\nwhich the following passage occurs:\n\n    \"I know that Sidney Rigdon told me there was a book coming out, the\n    manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates, as much\n    as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance or had been\n    heard of by me.\"\n\nIt must be remembered that Bently and Rigdon married sisters, that they\nhad family troubles in respect of property, as already explained, [127]\nand were rival preachers, all which would go far to discredit Bently's\ncharge if his charge stood by itself. Alexander Campbell, however,\nwas the editor of the _Millennial Harbinger_ at this time, and in an\neditorial note on the above mentioned letter, lays the weight of his\nunqualified confirmation upon it. He says:\n\n[Footnote 127: See note 52, etc., and _Evening and Morning Star_, p.\n301, _ante_ p. 127.]\n\n    \"The conversation alluded to in Brother Bently's letter of 1841\n    was in my presence as well as in his, and my recollection of it\n    led me some two or three years ago, to interrogate Brother Bently\n    touching his recollections of it, which accorded with mine in every\n    particular except the year in which it occurred, he placing it in\n    the summer of 1827, I, in the summer of 1826, Rigdon at the same\n    time observing that in the plates dug up in New York there was an\n    account not only of the aborigines of this country, but also it\n    was stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this\n    country during the first century just as we were preaching it on\n    the Western Reserve.\"\n\nALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE BOOK OF MORMON IN 1831.\n\nThis is Mr. Schroeder's strongest \"evidence,\" and must be met at its\nfull height and value. In 1831, in this same _Millennial Harbinger,_\nVol. II, beginning at p. 86, is an exhaustive review and analysis\nof the Book of Mormon, and the most powerful critique of it ever\npublished. It is by the Reverend Alexander Campbell. After giving an\nanalysis of each book, in the Book of Mormon, from Nephi I to Moroni,\nthe last book in it, he then starts an investigation of its \"internal\nevidences,\" and in the first subdivision he begins in this language:\n\"Smith, its real author, as ignorant and impudent a knave as ever\nwrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a\nfalse fact.\" Then he proceeds. On the \"internal evidence\" he uses the\nfollowing language:\n\n    \"The book proposes to be written at intervals and by different\n    persons, during the long period of 1020 years, and yet for\n    uniformity of style, there never was a book more evidently written\n    by one set of fingers, nor more certainly conceived in one cranium\n    since the first book appeared in human language, than this same\n    book. If I could swear to any man's voice, face, or person,\n    assuming different names, I could swear that this book was written\n    by one man. And as Joseph Smith is a very ignorant man and is\n    called the 'author' on the title page, I cannot doubt for a single\n    moment but that he is sole 'author' and 'proprietor' of it.\"\n\nMr. Campbell also considers the testimony of the three witnesses, and\nof the eight witnesses, and denounces them. He is acquainted with the\nwhole subject. He knows that it was claimed for the record that it\nwas engraved on gold plates; that they were found buried in a stone\nbox in New York; that an account is given in the record of the gospel\nhaving been preached in America in the first Christian century--for all\nthese things are subjects of his criticism. He criticises nearly every\nimportant doctrine and historical event in the book. He revels in his\ncriticism, and near the conclusion of the whole says:\n\n    \"If this Prophet and his three prophetic witnesses had aught of\n    speciosity about them in their book, we would have examined it\n    and exposed it in a different manner. I have never felt so fully\n    authorized to address mortal man in the style in which Paul\n    Addressed Elymas, the sorcerer, as I feel towards this atheist\n    Smith.\"\n\nAnd now question to Mr. Campbell, and to Mr. Schroeder: Could the\nevent described in the letter of Mr. Bently and confirmed by Mr.\nCampbell's editorial note, have happened in 1826 or 1827 without Mr.\nCampbell remembering it in 1831 when he wrote this scathing review\nand critique on the Book of Mormon? Let it be held in mind here how\nexplicit the charge of Bently is. More than two years before the Book\nof Mormon made its appearance Rigdon told Bently \"there was a book\ncoming out the manuscript of which had been found on gold plates.\"\nCampbell was present and heard this remark, and also says that Rigdon\nat the same time observed that \"the plates were dug up in New York,\"\nand that \"the Christian religion had been preached in this country\nduring the first Christian century, just as we were preaching it on\nthe western reserve.\" Had these things been said in the presence of\nAlexander Campbell, two years before the Book of Mormon came out,\nand so said that they made such a lasting impression upon his mind\nthat in 1844 he remembered them perfectly--will any reasonable person\nundertake to say that under the strong stress of feeling exhibited by\nAlexander Campbell against the Book of Mormon in 1831, remembering too\nthat this same Sidney Rigdon had left the Campbellites and joined the\nMormon Church--under these circumstances, will any person, reasonable\nor otherwise, say that during the writing of this long and bitter\ncriticism of the Book of Mormon in 1831 the association of ideas and\nincidents would not have asserted itself and recalled this alleged\nBently-Rigdon incident to the mind of Alexander Campbell? Yet not one\nword in the Campbell review of 1831, to indicate that the Bently-Rigdon\nincident ever happened.\n\nYet as he proceeded with his review, it would have been inevitable that\nhe would have discovered Rigdon's forth-promised book--\"the manuscript\nof which had been found engraved on gold plates.\" \"Why, yes,\" he would\nhave said, \"that must be the book that Rigdon spoke to Bently about.\"\nHe read in the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon--and\nMr. Campbell made a specialty of this preface in his criticism--\"I\nwould also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken were\nfound in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New York\"--\"Yes, I\nremember,\" Mr. Campbell would have exclaimed--\"dug up in New York\"--\"I\nremember, that is what Sidney Rigdon said to Adamson Bently two or\nthree years ago.\" He came to the account of the appearance of the risen\nMessiah among the aborigines of America; to the choosing of a ministry\nand commissioning them to preach the Gospel to all the people--\"Yes,\"\nhe would have exclaimed, \"it is all here; that is what Rigdon said in\nthat Bently conversation in 1826 or 1827,--'the Christian religion had\nbeen preached in this country during the first century, just as we are\npreaching it on the western reserve'--those were his very words, and\nnow Rigdon has joined the movement of which the coming forth of this\nbook is a leading incident! Well! well!\"\n\nWould not such have been the mental process? And would we not, in that\nevent, have had the Book of Mormon criticised by Mr. Campbell in 1831,\nfrom quite a different view-point than that from which he treated it?\nAnyone who can believe that Campbell could remember such an incident as\nthe Bently-Rigdon incident he recites in 1844, and yet that he failed\nto remember it under all the circumstances of writing his review of the\nBook of Mormon in 1831, need not stagger over believing any seeming\nmiracle within the experience of man, however extravagant it may be.\n\nI shall never be able to express in words the deep depression that\novercame me when the conviction of Alexander Campbell's perfidy was\nforced upon me. In my early manhood I had read extensively in his\nworks. The evidence he compiled and the argument he made in his\ngreat debate with Robert Owen, the English Communist, I regard as\nthe grandest defense ever made of historic Christianity, while his\ndebate with Bishop Purcell on the The Roman Catholic Religion is\njustly described as the \"battle of the giants.\" In these and in his\ndebates with William McCalla and the Reverend N. L. Rice, his bearing\nis admirable; he is the courteous gentleman, the splendid scholar,\nthe patient philosopher, the fair opponent. In discussing the Book of\nMormon, he exhibits a vulgarity, a bitterness utterly unaccountable,\nand entirely unworthy of himself; and lastly, and saddest of all, he\ndescends to the low subterfuge of falsehood as in this Bently-Rigdon\naffair.\n\nOne may halt here. The Reverend Mr. Atwater quoted by Mr. Schroeder\nmay now tell his little story, in 1873, of his \"recollection\" of\nSidney Rigdon's reference to the mounds and other antiquities found\nin some parts of America, and of his saying before the Book of Mormon\nwas published that \"there was a book to be published containing an\naccount of these things.\" Dr. Rosa of Painsville, Ohio, also quoted by\nMr. Schroeder, can now tell, in 1841, of a conversation he had with\nSidney Rigdon in the early part of 1830, about it being time for a new\nreligion to spring up that \"mankind were ripe, and ready for it;\" and\nair his suspicions that Rigdon found his \"new religion\" in Mormonism,\nand on that and a remembrance of a casual remark of Rigdon's that he\nexpected to be absent from home a few months, build his conclusion that\nRigdon \"was at least an accessory, if not the principal in getting up\nthis farce\" [128] of Mormonism. All this I say may be said by these\n\"witnesses,\" but it is of no effect; for if sectarian prejudice and\nbitterness and jealousy, coupled with intellectual pride, can so swerve\nAlexander Campbell from the path direct of truth and fair dealing, it\nis not to be marveled at if a thousand little Reverend whiffets spring\nforward with their timely \"recollections,\" that make against the truth.\n\n[Footnote 128: _American Historical Magazine_, November, 1906, p. 532,\n_ante p._ 46.]\n\nIV.\n\nMr. Schroeder's next development of his attempted \"cumulative\nevidence and argument\" is to establish a connection between Joseph\nSmith and Sidney Rigdon, through Parley P. Pratt. He first deals\nwith the movements of Pratt from his birth until he is established\nin Amherst, Lorain county, Ohio, a few miles west of Cleveland, in\n1826. In order to lay a foundation for his conclusion Mr. Schroeder\ngives an exaggerated idea of the notoriety of Joseph Smith at this\ntime \"as a 'peep-stone' money digger, through mention made of him in\npapers published in several counties in southern New York and northern\nPennsylvania.\" [129] For authority of this statement Mr. Schroeder cites\nonly Tucker, author of \"Origin and Progress of Mormonism,\" and the Rev.\nClark Braden, in the \"Braden-Kelly Debate.\" He might just as well have\nonly cited Tucker, for Braden but repeats, in slightly altered form\nwhat was said by Tucker. The latter in his work produces not a single\nnewspaper item, nor gives a single reference to any publication in\njustification of his statement. There was none to give prior to 1826.\nJoseph Smith's \"notoriety\" was purely local up to that time.\n\n[Footnote 129: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 58.\n_Ante_ p. 49.]\n\nMr. Schroeder represents that Parley P. Pratt was a peddler \"who knew\nalmost every body in western New York,\" [130] therefore he very likely\nknew the Smiths previous to 1826. For the statement that Pratt was a\npeddler, and \"ubiquitous,\" Mr. Schroeder can only cite an address,\nbefore the Union Home Missionary meeting in 1881, by Mrs. Horace Eaton,\nof Palmyra; [131] and she was evidently repeating one of the many idle\nrumors from the vicinity of Palmyra, as there is no evidence for the\nstatement of Mrs. Eaton, and the story is refuted by the facts as\nstated in the first chapters of Pratt's \"Autobiography,\" where his\nstruggles to secure and clear a farm, in partnership with his brother,\nare detailed. This farm was near the then small town of Oswego, on\nLake Ontario, in Oswego County. It is true that Pratt in the autumn\nof 1826 visited his uncles, Ira and Allen Pratt, in Wayne--then\nOntario--county, New York,--exact location not given. There is\nnothing \"ubiquitous\" about his movements, or any evidence of his wide\nacquaintance with people.\n\n[Footnote 130: \"Hand Book on Mormonism\" (1882), p. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 131: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 58.\n_Ante_ p. 49. Also \"Hand Book on Mormonism,\" p. 3.]\n\nTo give a coloring of dishonesty to the character of Pratt, Mr.\nSchroeder writes the following passage:\n\n    \"One of the temptations inducing Pratt's departure from New York\n    was to get a country where, as he himself expresses it, there is\n    'no law to sweep (away) all the hard earnings of years to pay a\n    small debt.' The ethical status of an average country-peddler who\n    is willing to leave his native State to avoid the payment of his\n    'small debts' furnishes a fertile immorality in which to plant the\n    seeds of religious imposture.\" [132]\n\n[Footnote 132: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 59.\n_Ante_ pp. 49-50.]\n\nMr. Schroeder conceals the fact that the \"small debt\" not \"debts\" as\nput by him, was merely a remainder due to Mr. Morgan of whom Pratt\nhad purchased the farm near Oswego, and which owing to his brother's\nfailure to meet his share of the payments, as also bad markets for the\ncrop of 1826, Mr. Pratt could not pay. Whereupon the farm it had taken\nyears to clear of timber, and the crop was seized by Morgan for that\ndebt. Is Mr. Schroeder justified in giving a sinister aspect to this\nmatter?\n\nWe have Pratt located in Amherst, 1826. Sidney Rigdon makes his second\njourney from Pennsylvania and arrives at Bainbridge, Ohio, in 1826, and\nin capacity of \"Disciple\" preacher visits the surrounding towns where\nhe becomes acquainted with Pratt. All this is granted. Mr. Schroeder\nin trying to fix upon the exact time and circumstance of their first\nmeeting, resorts to a jugglery of facts, and builds on the distorted\nmass such conclusions as can be characterized only by the term\nshameful. I quote Mr. Schroeder:\n\n    \"The date of their first meeting is nowhere given, but may\n    reasonably be inferred from an address delivered by Parley\n    P. Pratt in 1843 or '4. In this discourse Pratt tells of an\n    occurrence which transpired on his way to his future Ohio home,\n    which occurrence furnishes the key to his first connection with\n    Mormonism. On his way he stopped at a humble cottage, the name\n    of whose occupant he carefully fails to give. Here, while asleep\n    (so he says), \"a messenger of a mild and intelligent countenance\n    suddenly stood before me (Pratt) arrayed in robes of dazzling\n    splendor.\" According to Mormon theory, an angel is but an exalted\n    man. Of course Sidney Rigdon was an exalted man; why not, then,\n    an angel? This angel claimed to hold the keys to the mysteries\n    of this wonderful country, and took Pratt out to exhibit those\n    mysteries to him. Pratt then had portrayed to his mind the whole\n    future of Mormonism; its cities, with inhabitants from all parts\n    of the globe; its temples, with a yet unattained splendor; its\n    present church organization was, with considerable definiteness,\n    outlined; its political ambition to establish a temporal kingdom\n    of God on the ruins of this government was set forth with quite\n    as much definiteness as in the subsequent more publicly uttered,\n    treasonable sermons. I conclude from the exact manner in which\n    this \"Angel of the Prairies\" foreknew the ambitions, hopes,\n    and future achievements of the Mormon Church and the similar\n    admitted fore-knowledge of Rigdon and the subsequently established\n    connection between Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith, that the \"Angel of\n    the Prairies\" who outlined to Pratt his then contemplated and\n    now executed religious fraud, was none other than Sidney Rigdon\n    himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure to\n    give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with\n    Rigdon.\" [133]\n\n[Footnote 133: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 59.\n_Ante_ p. 51.]\n\n\"THE ANGEL OF THE PRAIRIES.\"\n\nThe work here quoted for these supposedly historical incidents, is\nentitled \"The Angel of the Prairies,\" and is a work of pure fiction,\na product of the author's imagination, professedly and confessedly\nso. [134] It was never delivered as a public address in Nauvoo, though\nMr. Schroeder in the above calls it successively an \"Address delivered\nby Parley P. Pratt,\" a \"discourse,\" and in his notes a \"sermon.\" [135]\nIt was merely read in the presence of Joseph Smith and \"a general\ncouncil,\" most likely the First Presidency and Mr. Pratt's associates\nof the Twelve Apostles, as \"a curious and extraordinary composition in\nthe similitude of a dream.\" Such is its author's characterization of\nit. \"It was designed,\" he continues, \"as a reproof of the corruptions\nand degeneracy of our government, in suffering mobs to murder, plunder,\nrob and drive their fellow citizens with impunity. It also suggested\nsome reforms.\" [136] It is no more history, or even prophecy than\nJohnson's \"Rasselas\" or Sir Thomas Moore's \"Utopia\" is history or\nprophecy. Yet this fiction, and I charge that Mr. Schroeder knew it\nto be fiction--for he could learn the facts from its preface--must be\npressed into service as solemn prose history in order to complete and\nsustain the vagaries of the Schroeder-Spaulding theory! At first on\nmeeting with this shameful perversion one is inclined to an outburst of\nvexation. On second thought he remembers that this fragment is but a\npiece of the whole fabric of the Spaulding theory, and smiles.\n\n[Footnote 134: \"Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt,\" edition of 1874, p.\n367.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Note 101 _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p.\n74. _Ante_ 51.]\n\n[Footnote 136: Same as note 134.]\n\nBut let us follow Mr. Schroeder further into the realms of his\ndeductions built upon this piece of literary fiction, the \"Angel of\nthe Prairies.\" Parley P. Pratt returned to the home of his aunt Van\nCott in Canaan, Columbia county, New York, for the purpose of marrying\na Miss Halsey to whom he was engaged. This was in the summer of 1827.\nMr. Schroeder makes Pratt's visit to New York for the above purpose,\nthe occasion of placing the Spaulding manuscript in the hands of Joseph\nSmith, and all the connections are perfected for revamping this old\nmanuscript story into a pretended volume of scripture. And this is the\nway of it as _per_ Mr. Schroeder:\n\n    \"Pratt was married September 9, 1827. On September 22, 1827, a\n    'heavenly messenger' appeared to Joseph Smith and unfolded to him\n    the scheme of the Book of Mormon, and disclosed the where abouts\n    of the 'Golden Plates.' This 'heavenly messenger' is called the\n    Angel Moroni. According to Mormon theology, 'God may use any\n    beings he has made or that he pleases, and call them his angels,\n    or messengers.' 'Gods, angels, and men are all of one species, one\n    race, one great family.' 'God is a man like unto yourselves; that\n    is the great secret.' Why of course! 'That is the great secret.'\n    God is but an 'exalted man,' and may call Parley Parker Pratt his\n    angel. Parley Parker Pratt was the 'heavenly messenger,' the angel\n    who, on that day (September 22, 1827), appeared to Joseph Smith\n    and told him where were the golden plates, that is, Spaulding's\n    'Manuscript Found.' Sidney Rigdon for Smith's purposes, was the\n    'exalted man,' the 'God' who sent this 'heavenly messenger,' Parley\n    Parker Pratt, just as the Mormon people now look upon Joseph Smith\n    as the 'God to this people.'\" [137]\n\n[Footnote 137: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, pp. 60, 61.\n_Ante_ p. 53.]\n\nOne might well consider himself under no obligation to treat seriously\nsuch a palpable perversion of Mormon ideas as is here presented. But\nthis taking a piece of Mormon fiction, the \"Angel of the Prairies,\"\nand misrepresenting it first as a \"discourse delivered by Parley\nP. Pratt at Nauvoo;\" thence elevating it from fiction to a sober\nhistorical document; thence building upon it this misrepresentation,\nand perversion of Mormon ideas and historical facts, exhibits in the\nperson of Mr. Schroeder that order of intelligence that could conceive\nof others following the same process in relation to the Spaulding\nmanuscript, until it was converted into a pretended revelation. I think\nMr. Schroeder will not gain much for his \"evidence\" or his \"argument\"\nby this wicked perversion of Mormon ideas and facts of history, since\nit must suggest the innate weakness of a cause that requires such\nintellectual dishonesty, as is here exhibited.\n\nIt is true that the Mormons are anthropomorphists in that they\nbelieve that Jesus Christ is the \"brightness of God's glory and the\nexpress image of his person\" [138] the revelation of God as well in\nform as in spiritual attributes; they believe that Jesus Christ is\nnot only divine, but Deity; that he exists now as he did after his\nresurrection from the dead, an immortal personage of flesh and bones\nand spirit--hence that God is an exalted man; that he uses other men,\nperfected and glorified, such as Noah, Moses, Elijah, and others, as\nhis angels and arch-angels and messengers, to aid in the accomplishment\nof his purposes. But to represent the Latter-day Saints as believing in\nor accepting such jugglery as that which Mr. Schroeder charges is an\noutrage and a direct and conscious misrepresentation of the faith of\na people. Joseph Smith indeed proclaimed that God appeared to him; in\nfact he claims that both the Father and the Son appeared to him, but\nit is blasphemy to think of Rigdon impersonating them, or either of\nthem, in the manner and for the purpose represented by Mr. Schroeder.\nThis revelation moreover was given in 1820, not 1827. [139] Joseph Smith\nsaid an angel visited him and revealed to him the existence of the\nBook of Mormon; but this was declared to be a very definite personage,\na man who had lived in America in the fourth century of the Christian\nEra, now raised from the dead and sent to make this revelation of\nthe American volume of scripture; he was not Parley P. Pratt; and\nhe revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith in\nSeptember, 1823, not 1827. [140]\n\n[Footnote 138: Hebrews, 1, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 139: See Joseph Smith's own account, \"Pearl of Great Price,\"\nwritings of Joseph Smith and many other Mormon works.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Ibid.]\n\nTHE SUPPOSED MEETINGS OF JOSEPH SMITH AND SIDNEY RIGDON BEFORE THE\nPUBLICATION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nMr. Schroeder after getting the Spaulding manuscript into the hands\nof Joseph Smith, _via_ Parley P. Pratt, proceeds next to bring Sidney\nRigdon and Joseph Smith together for the necessary collaboration on\nthe manuscript. The chief, and I may say the only, authority that Mr.\nSchroeder really gives for this charge is that of Pomery Tucker, author\nof \"Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,\" (1867). Tucker having\nbrought his narrative down to the year 1827, announces the appearance\nof a \"mysterious stranger\" at the Smith residence. No name or purpose\nof this stranger is given out even to the nearest neighbors, but it\nwas observed that \"his visits were frequently repeated.\" Afterwards\nTucker makes out this mysterious stranger to be Sidney Rigdon. The\nother \"witnesses,\" Mrs. Eaton (1881), as also J. H. McCauley, in his\n\"History of Franklin County, Pa.,\" together with Abel Chase and Lorenzo\nSaunders, neighbors of the Smiths (the last three are the \"witnesses\"\nnamed by Braden in the \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" and for which that\ndisputant gives no authority) merely repeat the statement of Tucker.\nMr. Schroeder himself in another matter, however, discredits Tucker. In\nhis note 115, he says: \"Tucker * * * * says Rigdon officiated at the\nwedding of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale, but he fixes the date of the\nwedding in November, 1829, when in fact it seems to have occurred Jan.\n18, 1827. Tucker therefore may have been misinformed.\" [141] And Joseph\nSmith, who ought to know, says that he and Emma were married by Esquire\nTarbill. [142]\n\n[Footnote 141: \"Origin and Rise and Progress of Mormonism,\" pp. 28, 46,\n75, 121.]\n\n[Footnote 142: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, p. 17.]\n\nLucy Smith, in her \"History of the Prophet Joseph,\" makes mention of a\nstranger coming to the home of the Smiths in company with Joseph about\nthe time Martin Harris lost 116 pages of the translation of the Book\nof Mormon. The reason for the stranger accompanying the prophet to his\nhome was the dejection of spirits and illness and physical weakness of\nthe latter, and out of kindness the stranger insisted upon accompanying\nJoseph home from the point at which he left the stage on which he had\ntraveled from his home in Harmony, Pennsylvania. Mr. Schroeder, of\ncourse, seeks to press the incident into service as an evidence of the\nacquaintance and co-operation of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon before\nthe Book of Mormon is published; hence as seen through Mr. Schroeder's\neyes, the \"stranger\" is Sidney Rigdon. There is nothing, however,\nin the narrative of Lucy Smith to warrant the conclusion that this\nstranger was Sidney Rigdon; and Mr. Schroeder is certainly in error\nas to the \"stranger\" being present at the interview between Martin\nHarris and the Smiths on the next day--the only circumstance that could\nhave made the coming of the \"stranger\" in any way significant in Mr.\nSchroeder's theories. [143]\n\n[Footnote 143: The incident of the \"stranger\" and Joseph, the prophet\nis found in chapter XXV of Lucy Smith's \"History of Joseph, the\nProphet,\" Mr. Schroeder's reference to the incident is in his note 113.]\n\nOf course, this allegation of the appearance of Rigdon at the Smith\nhome, resting upon no other basis than the fabrication of Tucker, comes\nin direct conflict with the express statement of both Parley P. Pratt\nand Sidney Rigdon, but I am not trying this issue upon the _per contra_\ntestimony of \"interested\" witnesses. I hold that this particular charge\nof collaboration between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, involving\nfrequent association and in fact demanding almost constant association\nbetween the two in the years from 1827 and 1830, necessarily breaks\ndown under its own weight of absurdity. The movements of Joseph Smith\nand of Sidney Rigdon are too well known to allow of that association\ntaking place, to say nothing of its being kept secret. The distances\nseparating them during those years are too great to be covered by\nSidney Rigdon, even if his falsely alleged occasional absences from\nOhio were allowed to stand unchallenged. This matter of distance that\nseparated them, together with the slow modes of travel--by carriage or\nhorse-back--badness of roads, etc., seem not to be taken into account\nat all in the fabrications of Tucker. Sidney Rigdon is operating\nexclusively in Ohio, in Kirtland and vicinity from 1827 to 1830. Mr.\nKelly in his debate with Braden thus summarized the movements of Rigdon\nduring these years from Hayden's \"History of the Disciples:\"\n\n    \"The Disciple (Campbellite) history sets forth, that Rigdon was\n    their standing minister for the year 1825, at Bainbridge, Ohio;\n    for the year 1826 at Mentor and Bainbridge; for the year 1827 at\n    Mantua; for the year 1828, at Mentor, and this year is the time\n    when he met Alexander Campbell at Warren, Ohio, at their assembly,\n    where the famous passage at arms took place between Campbell and\n    Rigdon of which so much has been said. The next year, 1829, Rigdon\n    continued the work in Mentor, and at Euclid, and founded the\n    church in Perry, Ohio, Aug. 7th. The next year, 1830, he continued\n    as their minister, (and the ablest of them all), at Mentor,\n    Euclid, Kirtland, and occasionally at Hiram, Perry, Mantua, and\n    Plainsville.\" [144]\n\n    [Footnote 144: \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" p. 100.]\n\nJoseph Smith's movements during the years named are between Manchester,\nNew York, Pennsylvania, and Fayette township (where the Whitmers\nlived), New York; a distance from Ohio points, where Rigdon was\noperating, by the nearest roads traveled, of from 250 to 300 miles.\nDoes any one believe that the necessary collaboration was possible\nunder such circumstances as Mr. Schroeder's theory of origin for the\nBook of Mormon calls for?\n\nOn this whole question of collaboration, and conspiracy by Rigdon,\nPratt and Smith in the production of the Book of Mormon the following\nparagraph from the writings of Elder George Reynolds is most convincing:\n\n    \"Has it ever entered into the thoughts of our opponents that if\n    Sidney Rigdon was the author or adapter of the Book of Mormon how\n    vast and wide spread must have been the conspiracy that foisted it\n    upon the world? Whole families must have been engaged in it. Men\n    of all ages and various conditions in life, and living in widely\n    separate portions of the country must have been connected with it.\n    First we must include in the catalogue of conspirators the whole\n    of the Smith family, then the Whitmers, Martin Harris and Oliver\n    Cowdery; further, to carry out this absurd idea, Sidney Rigdon and\n    Parley P. Pratt must have been their active fellow-conspirators in\n    arranging, carrying out and consummating their iniquitous fraud.\n    To do this they must have traveled thousands of miles and spent\n    months, perhaps years, to accomplish--what? That is the unsolved\n    problem. Was it for the purpose of duping the world? They, at any\n    rate the great majority of them, were of all men most unlikely to\n    be engaged in such a folly. Their habits, surroundings, station\n    in life, youth and inexperience all forbid such a thought. What\n    could they gain, in any light that could be then presented to\n    their minds, by palming [off] such a deception upon the world?\n    This is another unanswerable question. Then comes the staggering\n    fact, if the book be a falsity, that all these families, all these\n    diverse characters, in all the trouble, perplexity, persecution\n    and suffering through which they passed, never wavered in their\n    testimony, never changed their statements, never 'went back' on\n    their original declarations, but continued unto death (and they\n    have all passed away), proclaiming that the Book of Mormon was a\n    divine revelation, and that its record was true. Was there ever\n    such an exhibition in the history of the world of such continued,\n    such unabating, such undeviating falsehood? If falsehood it was.\n    We cannot find a place in the annals of their lives where they\n    wavered, and what makes the matter more remarkable is that it\n    can be said of most of them, as is elsewhere said of the three\n    witnesses, they became offended with the Prophet Joseph, and a\n    number of them openly rebelled against him; but they never retraced\n    one word with regard to the genuineness of Mormon's inspired\n    record. Whether they were friends or foes to Joseph, whether\n    they regarded him as God's continued mouthpiece or as a fallen\n    Prophet, they still persisted in their statements with regard to\n    the book and the veracity of their earlier testimonies. How can we\n    possibly with our knowledge of human nature make this undeviating,\n    unchanging, unwavering course, continuing over fifty years,\n    consistent with a deliberate, premeditated and cunningly-devised and\n    executed fraud!\" [145]\n\n[Footnote 145: \"Myth of the Manuscript Found,\" (1883) pp. 35-6.]\n\nThe last matter of argument in the quotation above, the unwavering\nadherence of the witnesses to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon\nand the relationship they sustained to that work, has peculiar force\nwhen applied to the case of Sidney Rigdon. He claims to have known\nnothing of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him (as we\nshall see later by a statement of his) by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver\nCowdery, some six months after its publication. But let us suppose for\nthe sake of the argument, that he really took the part assigned to him\nby Mr. Schroeder in bringing into existence the Book of Mormon; that\nhe stole the Spaulding \"Manuscript Found\" about 1816; that hearing of\nSmith through Pratt, he then sent the said manuscript to Smith to be\nannounced as a revelation from God; that afterwards he collaborated\nwith Smith to produce the Book of Mormon out of it. It will go without\nsaying that a thief, and especially such a thief as Rigdon is here\nrepresented to be, is a very ignoble character; and it will not be\ntoo much to say that if such a character is hard pressed by his\nassociates, or is, what he might consider, ill treated by them, he will\nvery-probably betray them. Sidney Rigdon certainly considered himself\nboth hard pressed and positively wronged by his brethren--but he never\n\"revealed\" the \"fraud\" in which Mormonism is supposed to have had its\norigin. Joseph Smith sought to be rid of him as his counselor at the\nOctober Conference of 1843. He directly charged Rigdon with treachery,\nof being leagued with his deadly enemies, and that he had no confidence\nin his \"integrity and steadfastness;\" that Rigdon had been profitless\nto him as a counselor since their escape from Missouri in 1839. By\nvirtue of a vigorous denial on the part of Rigdon as to some of the\ncharges, and a plea for mercy as to some delinquencies confessed,\nhe was sustained by the conference in his office of counselor to\nthe Prophet, notwithstanding the latter was not satisfied with the\nconclusion of the matter reached by the conference. \"I have thrown him\noff my shoulders,\" said he, \"and you have again put him upon me. You\nmay carry him, but I will not.\" [146]\n\n[Footnote 146: _Millenial Star_, Vol. 22, pp. 215-16.]\n\nAfter the death of the prophet, Sidney Rigdon put in a claim for\nprecedence in authority, claiming that right by virtue of his office\nas counselor to the prophet now martyred. The priesthood of the\nchurch assembled as a body to hear the cause, President Brigham Young\npresenting the counter claims of the Twelve Apostles as the proper\npresiding authority in the absence of the First Presidency. Sidney\nRigdon was rejected by that body of the priesthood; [147] and shortly\nafter left Nauvoo full of disappointment and bitterness; but he never\nin those trying days, or in any of the subsequent years of his life,\nby hint or direct charge or confession, revealed any \"fraud\" in which\nMormonism is supposed to have had its origin; but on the contrary, as\nwe shall see, emphatically reaffirmed his true relationship to the\nwork, and his faith in it.\n\n[Footnote 147: _Millennial Star,_ Vol. 25, pp. 215, 279.]\n\nThere is one person, however, who undertakes to say that Sidney Rigdon\n\"revealed\" the secret concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. This\nis Clark Braden, who quotes one James Jeffries of St. Louis, as saying\nin substance that in the fall of 1844, Rigdon in several conversations\nadmitted to him the existence of the Spaulding manuscript; that it\ntraced the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel;\nthat the manuscript was within his reach for several years; that \"He\n(Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on\nSundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said 'I'll print\nit,' and went off to Palmyra, New York.\" On this \"testimony,\" the\nReverend Clark Braden comments: \"On his way from Nauvoo to Pittsburg\n(in the fall of 1844) he (Rigdon) called on his old acquaintance, Mr.\nJeffries, in St. Louis, and in his anger at the Mormons, he let out the\nsecrets of Mormonism, just as he told the Mormons he would if they did\nnot make him their leader.\" [148] This \"evidence,\" however, since it\ncosts him nothing to set aside such palpable absurdity, Mr. Schroeder,\nwith a show of bigness and condescension, discredits by saying: \"an\nalleged admission of Sidney Rigdon to James Jeffries I consider of\ndoubtful value.\" [149] In this case, as in that of the item presented\nby Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, to the effect that it was \"remembered\" by\nsome of the Conneaut witnesses in 1834, that the \"Spaulding manuscript\nwas the translation of the Book of Mormon\"--the \"evidence\" manufactured\nin support of the Spaulding theory of origin, becomes a little too\nraw for Mr. Schroeder, and his gorge rises at it, and with an air of\nsuperiority he \"considers it doubtful!\"\n\n[Footnote 148: \"Braden-Kelly Debate,\" p. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 149: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 75 and\nnote 115. _Ante_ p. 55 and Note.]\n\nClosely connected with Sidney Rigdon's relationship to the coming forth\nof the Book of Mormon is another matter several times alluded to by Mr.\nSchroeder, in common with all other advocates of the Spaulding theory\nof origin, namely, the assumption that \"Joseph Smith, the nominal\nfounder and first prophet of Mormonism, was probably too ignorant\nto have produced the volume unaided.\" It is because of this assumed\ninability of Joseph Smith to produce the book that the Spaulding\nmanuscript and Sidney Rigdon are brought into the scheme of production.\nAnd yet it is clearly demonstrable that Joseph Smith did not need the\nassistance of either Spaulding or of Sidney Rigdon in the production of\na book equal, if not superior, to the Book of Mormon from a literary\nstandpoint. I refer to the \"Book of Doctrine and Covenants.\" It is true\nthis book was not published until 1835; but the revelations of which\nit is composed began in 1828, and by the close of 1833, one hundred\nand one of the revelations forming the major part of the book, were\nreceived and are of record.\n\nThere can be no question as to the authorship of this book.\nJoseph Smith--under a divine inspiration, as Latter-day Saints\nbelieve--dictated these revelations, and in this way he is their\nauthor; and they disclose a literary force and beauty far ahead of the\nBook of Mormon. If any one shall doubt it, let him read and compare\nsections 20, 42, 76, 84, 88, and 107 of the \"Doctrine and Covenants,\"\nwith the Book of Mormon. Any part of the book would demonstrate what is\nhere claimed, but these sections particularly demonstrate it. Moreover\nin all published documents in the current periodicals of the Church,\nthose that may be referred respectively to Joseph Smith and Sidney\nRigdon, will disclose the superior excellence in every respect of those\nproduced by the former, over those produced by the latter.\n\nThis Spaulding theory, moreover, supposes the necessity of a superior\nintelligence to Joseph Smith in the production of the Book of\nMormon--in the inception of the \"Mormon fraud.\" But will some one\nexplain--for Mr. Schroeder fails us at this point--how it is that\nSidney Rigdon, as soon as the Book of Mormon is launched, though having\nbeen up to this point the \"master Spirit\" of Mormonism, now suddenly\nfalls into second place in the development of Mormonism, and becomes\nmerely the scribe of the Prophet, as Mr. Schroeder himself points out.\nIt should be remembered that in 1827, the year in which Mr. Schroeder\nbrings them together for the work of collaboration, Rigdon was\nthirty-four years old, Joseph Smith but twenty-two; and when the Church\nwas organized, Joseph was but twenty-five and Rigdon thirty-seven. With\nRigdon's better education (which is granted), how comes it that this\nman, superior in education and knowledge of the world, and of greater\nage, consents to occupy second place to Joseph Smith? If Rigdon was the\ngreat moving spirit of Mormonism during its incubation, why did he not\ncontinue so after the Book of Mormon was printed? The answer is that\nSidney Rigdon never was the prophet's superior in talents or even in\nliterary power of expression.\n\nThen, again, in this connection, I call attention to the fact that if\nthe Book of Mormon had been produced as charged by Mr. Schroeder, it\nwould not have been so full of petty errors in grammar and the faulty\nuse of words as is found in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.\nWhile entertaining no exalted opinion of the education of either Mr.\nSpaulding or of Mr. Rigdon, and the works of both are before me, on\nwhich to base that judgment, yet I cannot conceive it possible that\nthey, even though but half educated, would make such language errors as\nappear in the first edition. Take for example the following passages\nfrom said first edition of the Book of Mormon--speaking of the Urim and\nThummim it says:\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 * * * and\n    hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not known\n    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\nSuch errors as the foregoing occur frequently throughout the first\nedition of the Book of Mormon. They are ingrained in it; they\nare constitutional faults. And while perfectly explicable on the\nsupposition that one unlearned in the grammar of the English language,\nas confessedly Joseph Smith was, obtaining the thought from the Nephite\ncharacters in which the Book of Mormon was written, but left to express\nsaid thought in such faulty English as he was master of;[150]--yet\nutterly inexplicable on the supposition that the manuscript from which\nthe Book of Mormon was printed was written by Solomon Spaulding and\nrevamped by Sidney Rigdon. The errors in grammar and the occasional\nwrong use of words are just such errors as would be made by Joseph\nSmith, an unlettered youth, in working out the translation, but just\nthe errors that such educated men as Spaulding and Rigdon would pride\nthemselves in avoiding. I am of the opinion that this consideration\nalone would be sufficient to convince a candid mind that whoever wrote\nthe Book of Mormon, neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spaulding ever\nwrote it, or any part of it.\n\n[Footnote 150: For an exposition and defense of this theory of the\ntranslation of the Book of Mormon, see the author's treatise of the\nsubject, in \"Defense of the Faith and the Saints,\" Vol. I, (1907) pp.\n249-311.]\n\nIn this connection I also call attention to the fact that it is utterly\nimpossible that the Book of Mormon should be the Solomon Spaulding\nstory, \"Manuscript Found,\" plus the religious matter supposed to have\nbeen supplied by Sidney Rigdon. This is the claim of all Spauldingite\ntheorists, including Mr. Schroeder. It is based upon the assumption\nof Joseph Smith's lack of knowledge of theological subjects and\ncontroversies. If the book, however, was constructed as the Spaulding\ntheorists claim it was, the line of cleavage would be apparent; the\nnecessarily incongruous parts must be discernible: but no critic has\nyet appeared bold enough to point out which was originally Spaulding's,\nand which the Rigdon addition. The fact of the matter is there is no\nline of cleavage; no point at which one ends and the other begins.\nYou might just as well talk about a line of cleavage between what the\nelement of earth and what the element of sunshine has contributed to\nthe coloring of the pansy or the rose, as to try to indicate what is\nthe religious part added to the Book of Mormon by Rigdon, and what the\nhistorical part supplied by Spaulding. The religious and historical\nparts of the Book of Mormon are perfectly fused. They can no more\nbe separated than sunlight and sun-warmth can be separated from our\nearth's atmosphere. As the sun's rays penetrate and permeate our\nearth's atmosphere, so the religious elements, incidents and spirit\nalike, permeate the Book of Mormon--in it they are one and inseparable.\n\nOF THE CONVERSION OF PRATT AND RIGDON.\n\nAs part of Mr. Schroeder's chain of evidence, by which he hopes to\nestablish the cumulative proofs that Pratt, Rigdon and Joseph Smith\nconnived in palming off upon the world the Spaulding manuscript as\na revelation--the Book of Mormon--he points to discrepancies in the\npublished accounts of the suddenness or slowness of Pratt's and\nRigdon's conversions. Holding that the accounts of their sudden and\nmiraculous conversion, had to be modified, and, in fact, concealed lest\nthey should lead to the suspicion of connivance, if Rigdon and Pratt\nshould be found giving too ready a credence to the Book of Mormon. Of\nthe variations pointed out in Pratt's conversion it is only necessary\nto say that they are such variations, so slight and unimportant, that\nif it is considered that they are made by different persons, or, as\nin the case of Pratt himself, on widely separated occasions, the\nvariations are the sure witnesses that the account is not a concocted\none. In the case of one of the authorities quoted, Lucy Smith, mother\nof the prophet, and author of the \"Life of the Prophet Joseph,\" Mr.\nSchroeder should be corrected. He states, following a misapprehension\nof Orson Pratt's, in order to make his statement of more force,\nthat Lucy Smith's book was written under the supervision of Joseph\nSmith. [151] This is not true, as Lucy Smith did not begin to write her\nbook until after the martyrdom of her son Joseph. It was in the fall of\nthe year of 1844 that she began her work, and the prophet was killed\nin June of that year, all of which could have been learned by Mr.\nSchroeder by consulting the foot notes of the edition of Lucy Smith's\nbook published by the Reorganized Church, in 1880. [152]\n\n[Footnote 151: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 67.\n_Ante_ p. 61.]\n\n[Footnote 152: \"Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet,\" by\nLucy Smith, p. 90, foot notes.]\n\nThe discrepancy as to the time element in the conversion of Sidney\nRigdon--as to whether it was two days after Pratt and Cowdery's arrival\nat Kirtland, or two weeks--may not be as satisfactorily accounted for\nas in the case of Parley P. Pratt. Still the chief authority for Mr.\nSchroeder's whole theory of the Spaulding origin of the Book of Mormon\nfavors the longer period for the conversion of Rigdon, since Mr. Howe\nrepresents that the \"sudden\" conversion of Rigdon occurred \"after many\npretensions to disbelieve it.\" [153] Furthermore, in view of the whole\nquestion here debated, and the overwhelming evidences educed against\nthe contentions of Mr. Schroeder, the matter of the time it took to\nconvert Sidney Rigdon to Mormonism is of but slight importance.\n\n[Footnote 153: \"Mormonism Unveiled,\" Howe, p. 290.]\n\nTHE DENIALS OF RIGDON.\n\nMr. Schroeder throughout his argument, intermittently seeks to add\nforce to his \"evidence\" by saying that Sidney Rigdon never denied this,\nthat, or the other statement though made in his life time. He notices\nonly Rigdon's denial published in the _Boston Journal_ in 1839, and\nrepresents it as \"absolutely the only recorded public denial ever made\nby Rigdon, though from 1834 to 1876 he was almost continually under\nthe fire of this charge, reiterated in various forms and with varying\nproofs.\" [154] Of course, Mr. Schroeder is allowed to speak with some\ndegree of authority upon the anti-Mormon side of this controversy;\nbut for all that there are some things he does not seem to know about\nSidney Rigdon's denials and affirmations. It may be that of the several\nstatements to which Mr. Schroeder attaches the remark of Rigdon's\nsilence, Rigdon never saw one of them; and there is one denial made by\nMr. Rigdon that Mr. Schroeder has failed to note, made in 1836; and\nwhich, since it is general in its character, may be made to cover the\nwhole period in which Mr. Rigdon is said to have made no denial. In\nthe January number of the Latter-day Saints' _Messenger and Advocate,_\nafter denouncing Howe's book and those who advocate it, and referring\nto Mr. Scott, Mr. Campbell and other professed ministers, he says:\n\n[Footnote 154: _American Historical Magazine,_ Nov., 1906, p. 527.]\n\n    \"In order to avoid investigation this brotherhood will condescend\n    to mean, low subterfuges, to which a noble-minded man would\n    never condescend; no, he would suffer martyrdom first. Witness\n    Mr. Campbell's recommendation of Howe's book, while he knows,\n    as well as every person who reads it, that it is a batch of\n    falsehoods.\" [155]\n\n[Footnote 155: _Messenger and Advocate,_ Jan., 1836, p. 242.]\n\nInasmuch as Howe's book, published in 1834, charges Rigdon's complicity\nwith the whole procedure by which the Book of Mormon is alleged to\nhave been produced out of the Spaulding manuscript, and Rigdon above\ndenounces Howe's book as \"a batch of falsehoods,\" we may say there has\nbeen in existence ever since January, 1836, Rigdon's denial of the\nwhole Spaulding theory of his complicity with a scheme to deceive men\nin respect of the Book of Mormon.\n\nHowever, if that is not sufficient to be convincing, then I wish\nto produce a well authenticated denial of the most sweeping and\nconvincing nature. John W. Rigdon, the son of Sidney Rigdon, has\nwritten a somewhat extended biography of his father which he has filed\nin its manuscript form in the Church Historian's Office at Salt Lake\nCity. In this narrative he relates his own experience in connection\nwith Mormonism, and his attempt to learn the truth from his father\nrespecting the latter's early connection with the Book of Mormon. He\ntells of his visit to Utah, in 1863, where he spent the winter among\nthe Mormon people. He was not favorably impressed with their religious\nlife, and came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon itself was a\nfraud. He determined in his own heart that if ever he returned home and\nfound his father alive, he would try and find out what he knew of the\norigin of the Book of Mormon, \"although,\" he adds, \"he had never told\nbut one story about it, and that was that Parley P. Pratt and Oliver\nCowdery presented him with a bound volume of that book in the year\n1830, while he [Sidney Rigdon] was preaching Campbellism at Mentor,\nOhio.\" What John W. Rigdon claims to have seen in Utah, however,\ntogether with the fact that Sidney Rigdon had been charged with writing\nthe Book of Mormon, made him suspicious, and he remarks:\n\n    \"I concluded I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction\n    and find out if I could if he had all these years been deceiving\n    his family and the world, by telling that which was not true,\n    and I was in earnest about it. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had\n    thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and\n    disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined\n    to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be. I\n    reached home in the fall of 1865, found my father in good health\n    and (he) was very much pleased to see me. As he had not heard\n    anything from me for some time, he was afraid that I had been\n    killed by the Indians. Shortly after I had arrived home, I went to\n    my father's room; he was there and alone, and now was the time for\n    me to commence my inquiries in regard to the origin of the Book\n    of Mormon, and as to the truth of the Mormon religion. I told him\n    what I had seen at Salt Lake City, and I said to him that what I\n    had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward\n    the Mormon Church, and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I\n    had some doubts. 'You have been charged with writing that book\n    and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have\n    always told me one story; that you never saw this book until it was\n    presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you\n    ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and\n    what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the\n    plates had told you. Is this true? If so, all right; if it is not,\n    you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man\n    and will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in\n    your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something\n    to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other\n    way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that\n    I may know the truth.' My father, after I had finished saying what\n    I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand\n    above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes:\n    'My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you\n    about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister,\n    (Mrs. Athalia Robinson), were present when that book was handed to\n    me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that\n    book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and\n    the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in\n    all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but the one\n    story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a\n    hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him\n    and directed him where to find it; and I have never, to you or any\n    one else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to you.' I\n    believed him, and now believe he told me the truth. He also said\n    to me after that that Mormonism was true; that Joseph Smith was a\n    Prophet, and this world would find it out some day.\" [156]\n\n[Footnote 156: \"Life of Sidney Rigdon,\" by his son, John W. Rigdon,\nms. pp. 188-195. The passages quoted in the text will be found in the\n\"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, pp. 112-3. Also \"Y.M.M.I.A. Manual\"\nfor 1905-6, pp. 485-6.]\n\nNot only does John W. Rigdon give this valuable statement as to his\nfather's position respecting the Book of Mormon, but he adds the\nfollowing from his mother:\n\n    \"After my father's death, my mother, who survived him several\n    years, was in the enjoyment of good health up to the time of her\n    last sickness, she being eighty-six years old. A short time before\n    her death I had a conversation with her about the origin of the\n    Book of Mormon, and wanted to know what she remembered about its\n    being presented to my father. She said to me in that conversation\n    that what my father had told me about the book being presented to\n    him was true, for she was present at the time and knew that was\n    the first time he ever saw it, and that the stories told about my\n    father writing the Book of Mormon were not true. This she said to\n    me in her old age, and when the shadows of the grave were gathering\n    around her; and I believe her.\" [157]\n\n[Footnote 157: \"History of the Church,\" Vol. I, p. 123, note.]\n\nTHE REAL ORIGIN OF THE SPAULDING THEORY.\n\nA word upon the real origin of the Spaulding theory. It did not\noriginate by a \"woman preacher,\" [158] reading extracts from the Book\nof Mormon whereupon there was a \"spontaneous\" recognition of Solomon\nSpaulding's story \"Manuscript Found,\" and an outburst of popular\nindignation against this deception, as is usually represented to\nbe the case by those who advocate the Spaulding theory, and by Mr.\nSchroeder in particular. [159] Especially is Mr. Schroeder insistent\nupon the \"spontaneity\" with which the Spaulding work was recognized\nwhen the Book of Mormon was publicly read at Conneaut; though to get\nthis \"spontaneity\" Mr. Schroeder must needs rely upon the Davidson\nstatement which he acknowledges. Mrs. Davidson never wrote, and which\nhe says can have no \"evidentiary weight except in those matters where\nit is plain from the nature of things that she must have been speaking\nfrom her own personal knowledge\" [160] and in the matter here to be\nmentioned Mrs. Davidson could have had no personal knowledge at all. So\nthat Mr. Schroeder throws aside his own limitations within which Mrs.\nDavidson's statement is to be given evidentiary weight, in the interest\nof his desire for the force of \"spontaneity\" in the recognition of\nthe Book of Mormon as Spaulding's work. According to the Davidson\nstatement, then, when the \"woman preacher\" in a public meeting read\nextracts from the Book of Mormon, John Spaulding, residing at Conneaut\nat the time, and present at the meeting--\n\n[Footnote 158: It is claimed that the words \"woman preacher\" found\nin the Davidson statement was a typographical error, (see Clark's\n\"Gleanings by the Way,\") and should read \"Mormon preacher;\" bu the\ntypographical error being claimed after it was learned that the mormon\nChurch at that time had no women preachers, gives it the color of one\nof those \"afterthoughts\" which are so frequently seen in this Spaulding\ntheory, that one in spite of himself remains doubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 159: _American Historical Magazine,_ Jan., 1907, p. 71.\n_Ante_ p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 160: _American Historical Magazine,_ Sept., 1906, p. 394.\n_Ante_ p. 29.]\n\n    \"Recognized perfectly the work of his brother. He was amazed\n    and afflicted that it should have been perverted to so wicked a\n    purpose. His grief found vent in a flood of tears, and he rose on\n    the spot, and expressed to the meeting his sorrow and regret that\n    the writings of his deceased brother should be used for a purpose\n    so vile and shocking. The excitement in New Salem (Conneaut)\n    became so great that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr.\n    Philastus Hurlburt one of their number to repair to this place\n    (Monson) and to obtain from me (Mrs. [Spaulding] Davidson) the\n    original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding.\"\n\nOne marvels that all this was missed by the authors of \"Mormonism\nUnveiled.\" Dr. Hurlburt was present, too, in that meeting, and was the\nchief agent and factor in compiling Howe's book. Yet in the statement\npublished in that book, and credited to John Spaulding, there is not\na word of this dramatic circumstance--this splendid \"spontaneity,\" so\nmuch the joy of Mr. Schroeder. There is no \"agony of grief;\" no \"flood\nof tears;\" no \"denunciation on the spot;\" no reference to a purpose\n\"vile and shocking;\" just a plain statement that he had \"recently\nread the Book of Mormon;\" and the claim that he found nearly the same\nhistorical matter in it as in his brother's writings; some names that\nwere alike; and that the \"Manuscript Found\" held to the theory that\nthe American Indians were descendants of the \"lost tribes;\" evidently\nsupposing that the Book of Mormon held the same theory. Had any such\ncircumstance as described in the Davidson statement occurred, it would\nundoubtedly have appeared in John Spaulding's statement published by\nHowe five years before this second version was put forth.\n\nBut notwithstanding the bad odor of the whole Davidson statement,\nand the violation of his own principle, under which only it is to be\nconsidered possessed of evidentiary weight, Mr. Schroeder uses this\nhighly dramatic fiction to introduce his \"clinching\" evidence of the\nplagiarism charged against those responsible for the publication of the\nBook of Mormon.\n\nThe true story of the origin of this Spaulding theory is as follows:\nWhen Dr. Hurlburt was finally excommunicated from the Church he took\nto lecturing against the Mormons, holding forth first at Springfield,\nErie County, Penn., some distance east of Conneaut. Finally visiting\nthe Jackson settlement (presumably in the same county) he learned, from\none of the Jacksons, of Solomon Spaulding, and that he had written\na story called \"Manuscript Found.\" \"Not that any of these persons,\"\nsays my authority, who was well acquainted in the Jackson Settlement,\nalso with Dr. Hurlburt, and attended his anti-Mormon meetings in the\nneighborhood--\"not that any of these persons had the most distant idea\nthat his [Spaulding's] novel had ever been converted into the Book of\nMormon; or that there was any connection between them.\" [161]\n\n[Footnote 161: \"Origin of the Spaulding Story\" (1840), B. Winchester,\np. 8.]\n\nIt was the conception of Dr. Hurlburt that this Spaulding manuscript\ncould be used in concocting a counter theory for the origin of the Book\nof Mormon--\"a long felt want,\" by the way, among those who opposed\nthe book and the work growing out of it. With the information he had\nobtained in the Jackson Settlement, Hurlburt repairs to Kirtland, holds\na public meeting, at which there is great joy, and enthusiasm among\nthe anti-Mormons in that vicinity, because of Hurlburt's theory of the\norigin of the Book of Mormon. One Mr. Newel, a bitter anti-Mormon,\npromised to advance $300 for prosecuting the work of identification,\nand others contributed liberally for the same purpose. Out of this\nmeeting grew the public meeting held later at Conneaut; [162] and which\nsent Hurlburt upon his journey to Monson, Mass., for Spaulding's\nmanuscript which ultimately he obtained of Mr. Jerome Clark at\nHartwicks, New York, on the order of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson. This\nmanuscript Hurlburt brought to E. D. Howe of Plainsville, Ohio, for the\nforth-coming book, \"Mormonism Unveiled.\" It was a disappointment to\nthese conspirators, as already detailed; and as explained by Hurlburt\nin a letter to Mrs. Davidson, \"It did not read as expected, and he\nshould not print it.\" [163]\n\n[Footnote 162: Ibid. pp. 6-14.]\n\n[Footnote 163: See Haven-Davidson Interview. _Ante_ p. 147.]\n\nIn passing, it should be said that Hurlburt never received but the one\nmanuscript. The theory put forth that he obtained two, one the true\n\"Manuscript Found,\" which it is alleged, he sold to the Mormons,--as\nis the suspicion of the Spauldings--and a worthless one, the Roman\nmanuscript, now at Oberlin, which he gave to Howe, is one of the\nmany fictions that have grown out of the innumerable surmisings and\nconjectures associated with the Spaulding theory. Hurlburt himself says\non this point, in a signed statement under date of August 19, 1879:\n\n    \"I do not know whether or not the document I received from Mrs.\n    Davidson was Spaulding's Manuscript Found, as I never read\n    it entire, and it convinced me that it was not the Spaulding\n    Manuscript; but whatever it was, Mr. Howe received it under the\n    condition on which I took it from Mrs. Davidson--to compare it with\n    the Book of Mormon, and then return it to her. I never received\n    any other manuscript of Spaulding's from Mrs. Davidson, or any one\n    else. Of that manuscript I made no other use than to give it, with\n    all my other documents connected with Mormonism, to Mr. Howe. I did\n    not destroy the manuscript nor dispose or it to Joe Smith, or to\n    any other person.\" [164]\n\n[Footnote 164: \"New Light on Mormonism,\" appendix, p. 260, No. 17.\nLetter from Hurlburt; also no. 8, another letter from Hurlburt, and No.\n16 a letter from Howe.]\n\nThis manuscript received by Hurlburt and given to Howe is the only\nSpaulding manuscript written by Spaulding, making any reference to\nthe antiquities of America. It is the simon-pure and only \"Manuscript\nFound.\" Against this it is urged by Mr. Schroeder that \"no such title\nis discoverable anywhere upon or in the body of the manuscript in the\nOberlin library.\" [165] And yet with strange inconsistency he himself\na few pages further on admits--\"It is even possible that this first\nmanuscript (meaning the one now at Oberlin), may at sometime have been\nlabeled \"Manuscript Found.\" [166] But what is better than any \"label\"\non the manuscript inside or outside; better than any admission of Mr.\nSchroeder's, is the fact that this manuscript is the one Mr. Spaulding\nfeigned to have found, and that he pretended to translate into English.\nIt is the \"found\" manuscript, and the only one that Spaulding pretended\nor feigned to have found. It is the one that Mrs. McKinstry says she\nhad in her hands \"many times\" at Sabine's after 1816; and that \"on the\noutside of this manuscript were written the words, 'Manuscript Found.'\"\n\n[Footnote 165: _American Historical Magazine_, Sept., 1906, p. 386.\n_Ante_ p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 166: Ibid. p. 390.]\n\nPerhaps it was this positive statement that drove Mr. Schroeder to the\nadmission that it is possible that this manuscript at Oberlin may have\nbeen so labeled. The descriptions of the Spaulding manuscript called\n\"Manuscript Found,\" by others, who had knowledge of it, agree very\nnearly as to its size, and their descriptions fit the manuscript at\nOberlin and not at all such manuscript as would be required to make\nthe Book of Mormon. Thus, Mrs. McKinstry says that the manuscript she\nhad in her hands many times at Sabine's, and that was tied up with\nsome other stories, and had written on the outside of it, \"Manuscript\nFound,\" made the manuscript about \"one inch thick.\" Mrs. (Spaulding)\nDavidson in the Haven interview says her husband's manuscript was\n\"about one third as large as the Book of Mormon.\" (i.e., about one\nthird as much, Ms. as would be required to make the Book of Mormon).\nThe Davidson statement represents that John Spaulding was perfectly\nfamiliar with the work of his brother, \"Manuscript Found,\" _\"and\nrepeatedly heard the whole of it read,\"_ which might be possible with\nthe Spaulding manuscript, which, now that it is printed, makes 112\npages, but scarcely possible respecting a manuscript making a book of\nabout 600 such pages.\n\nThis manuscript of Spaulding's has finally been really \"found\" and\npublished as already detailed; and its publication has resulted in the\noverthrow of the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon;\nand that quite in another way than from disclosing the fact that there\nis no incident, or name, or set of ideas common to the two productions.\nThe publication of the \"Manuscript Found\" not only demonstrates\nthat this particular manuscript was not the foundation of the Book\nof Mormon, but it demonstrates, also, that no other writings of\nSolomon Spaulding's could possibly be the Book of Mormon. Spaulding's\nmanuscript, as published, makes a pamphlet of some 112 pages, of about\n350 words to the page, enough matter to give a clear idea of his\nliterary style. I am sure that no person, having any literary judgment\nwill think it possible for the author of \"Manuscript Found\" to be the\nauthor of the Book of Mormon.\n\nComposition in writers becomes individualized as distinctly as the\nlooks, or appearance, or character, of separate individuals; and\nthey no more write in several styles than individuals impersonate\ndifferent characters. True, by special efforts this latter may be done\nto a limited extent by a change of tone, costume and the like, but\nunderneath these impersonations is to be seen the real individual; and\nso with authors. One may sometimes affect a light, and sometimes a\nserious vein, in prose and poetry. He may imitate a solemn scriptural\nstyle even, or the diction of some Greek or Roman author, but\nunderneath it all will be seen the individuality of the writer from\nwhich he cannot separate himself any more than he can separate himself\nfrom his true form, features, or character. Since we have in this\n\"Manuscript Found\" enough of Mr. Spaulding's style to determine its\nnature, if this manuscript of his was used either as the foundation or\nthe complete work of the Book of Mormon, we would be able to detect\nSpauldingisms in it; identity of style would be apparent; but these\nthings are entirely absent from every page of the Book of Mormon. Mr.\nRice, in whose possession the Spaulding manuscript was found in 1884,\ndoes not over-state the matter when he says: \"I should as soon think\nthat the Book of Revelation was written by the author of Don Quixote,\nas that the writer of this manuscript was the author of the Book of\nMormon.\" And again, he is right when he says: \"It is unlikely that any\none who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible, would spend his\ntime in getting up so shallow a story as this\"--i. e., the Spaulding\nStory.\n\nTHE MOTIVE FOR PUBLISHING THE BOOK OF MORMON.\n\nIt must be said for Mr. Schroeder that his theory of the motive\nprompting the publication of the Book of Mormon is quite in harmony\nwith his theory of its origin. For it is fitting that a thing founded\nin fraud should--and it very likely would--have the \"greed of gain\" as\nthe \"dynamics of the scheme;\" and that \"love of gold, not God,\" would\nbe the moving cause of action. The only point at which Mr. Schroeder\nbreaks down in his theory of the motive, is just where he breaks down\nin his theory of origin--namely, in the proof.\n\nThe excerpts from the revelations quoted by Mr. Schroeder fail\nas proofs for his assumption. He ranges all through the numerous\nrevelations given to the Church from 1830 to 1841. Of the thirteen\nexcerpts quoted by him two only have any bearing upon the Book of\nMormon; and these two are from a revelation to Martin Harris, who had\ncovenanted with Joseph Smith and with the publisher of the book, Mr.\nGrandin, that he would pay for printing it. Yet when the time came\nto make good his plighted word, he hesitated; whereupon the word of\nthe Lord came, as quoted by Mr. Schroeder: \"Impart a portion of thy\nproperty; yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy\nfamily.\" So far Mr. Schroeder quotes. The very next paragraph (35) of\nthe revelation goes on--\"Pay the debt thou has contracted with the\nprinter. Release thyself from bondage\"--(i. e. the bondage of debt).\nAgain Mr. Schroeder quotes (verse 26) \"I command that thou shalt not\ncovet thine own property.\" The full paragraph is: \"And again I command\nthee, that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it\nfreely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth\nand the word of God.\" [167] Just where in these passages, which are the\nonly ones out of those quoted from the \"Doctrine and Covenants\" that\nbear at all on the Book of Mormon--just wherein they bear witness to\nthe \"greed of gain\" being the motive that prompted the publication of\nthe book; or how they sustain the idea that \"love of gold, not God\" was\nthe \"dynamics of the scheme,\" I fail to see.\n\n[Footnote 167: \"Doctrine and Covenants,\" Sec. 19:34, 35, 36.]\n\nAs for the rest of the passages quoted by Mr. Schroeder, they fall into\ntwo classes: first, those that relate to the consecration of properties\nto the Church; and second, those that command that provisions be made\nfor the sustenance of Joseph Smith and others who were devoting their\nenergies to the work of the Lord. In relation to the first class it\nwill make matters clear for the reader to know that the Saints were\ncalled upon to recognize this principle: The earth is the Lord's.\nHe created it. It is his, by virtue of proprietorship; consequently\nall that man holds, of the world's wealth is held as a stewardship\nunder God. To give visible recognition to this truth, the Saints were\ncommanded in Missouri to consecrate their property to the Lord through\nhis servants, and receive back a stewardship as from the Lord; and\nthis in order that the great truth of man's mere stewardship over that\nwhich he is said to possess--coming now to be recognized by the best\nChristian thought of the age as the proper attitude of mind for the\nbeliever in God, in respect of his material possessions--might once\nfor all be established as a doctrine of the Church, emphasized by this\nvisible act of consecration.\n\nAs to the second class of quotations directing that provisions shall\nbe made for the material needs of Joseph Smith and his family--is it\nnecessary to argue at this late day what Paul seems to have settled\nlong ago, viz: \"They which minister about holy things, live of the\nthings of the temple. * * * * Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they\nwhich preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel.\" [168] Is not the\njustice of this principle universally recognized? I say Mr. Schroeder\nbreaks down at the production of proof for his theory as to motive. And\nhis ringing the changes upon this subject has but the sound of brass\nwhen applied to Joseph Smith personally or to all the leaders of the\nMormon Church from its inception. Never have a people been more blessed\nwith unselfish leaders than the Latter-day Saints. Men blessed with\ndivine insight and power have given their services, practically without\nrenumeration, for the welfare of their people. They have labored in\nseason and out of season for them. They have given not only a teaching\nservice, tending to make the truth clear, but they have given freely\nof their business ability, executive and judicial abilities. Men of\nstatesman-like quality of mind have devoted their lives to their\npeople, and practically without earthly reward, and many of them, the\nmost of them, in fact, have died poor in this world's goods, but rich\nin the consciousness of service for fellow-men well performed.\n\n[Footnote 168: I Corinthians 9:13, 14.]\n\nI write these words from the midst of a people, who, when they read\nthem, will think of hundreds of men who have lived and wrought out\nlife's service among them, in the very spirit here described. \"Greed\nof gain\" furnish \"the dynamics\" of the Mormon scheme! \"Love of gold,\nnot of God,\" the motive force in Mormonism! \"A desire for money\" \"the\ninspiring cause of every act of the Mormon Prophet, the very divinity\nthat moulded his thoughts and revelations, and brought into being\nMormon's books!\" [169] Nonsense, Mr. Schroeder; you have studied human\nnature as well as Mormonism to little purpose if you really think so.\nJoseph Smith was loved by his people to the verge of idolization.\nHe won and kept that love of theirs to the day of his death. He had\nthe satisfaction of seeing one of his great prophecies fulfilled--a\nprophecy given out from a prison cell, in 1839, and when his fortunes\nwere fallen to their lowest point--when his enemies seemed to triumph,\nand traitors were arrayed against him-then came the assurance from\nGod--\"Thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of\ntraitors.\" [170] And they never were, either before his death or since.\n\"Greed of gold,\" selfishness; \"Love of gold, not God,\" does not produce\nthese results. Selfishness never wins or holds hearts. Only a life that\npours out itself in floods of unselfish service for others wins and\nholds affections. Such was the life of Joseph Smith, such the lives of\nMormon leaders.\n\n[Footnote 169: _American Historical Magazine,_ May, 1907, p. 221.\n_Ante_ pp. 80-81.]\n\n[Footnote 170: \"Doctrine and Covenants,\" Sec. 122.]\n\nCONCLUDING REMARKS.\n\nAnd now my task draws towards its close. My purpose in this paper,\nin the main, has been merely to refute the theory, together with the\nalleged evidences and arguments of Mr. Schroeder. My method has been\nto refute him largely out of the material and authorities which he\nhimself has introduced. And of course this has kept the discussion\nof the origin of the Book of Mormon within narrow limits. This paper\nhas been more in the nature of a rejoinder than anything else to Mr.\nSchroeder's reply to the theory set forth by the Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints for the origin of the Book of Mormon.\n\nBy this undesigned order of the discussion and by its necessary\nlimitations, the reader is at the disadvantage of not having\nimmediately before him the theory of the divine origin of the Book of\nMormon, sustained by the strong array of evidences and arguments, that\nmay be marshalled in its support. [171] But it will help in forming\na right conclusion as to the merits of this discussion if what is\nhere suggested be held in mind, namely: The Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints sets forth the claim of a divine origin for the\nBook of Mormon, sustained by special witnesses, whom God raised up to\ntestify of that origin; sustained also, as that Church believes, by a\nworld of evidences, both external and internal. To this Mr. Schroeder\nhas offered a counter-theory of origin, the \"Spaulding Theory,\" to\nwhich I have made this rejoinder. My effort has had no higher aim\nthan this, believing that nothing more was required of me under the\ncircumstances. If my paper shall prove to be, as I think it must, a\nsuccessful rejoinder; if it exhibits how inherently weak, and foolish\nthis Spaulding theory is, even when most skillfully set forth; if it\nexhibits the tissue of falsehood and of malice, of which that theory is\nmade up; and the bitterness and hatred in which it had its inception;\nand exposes the dishonest sophistry by which that theory has been\nsupported,--I shall be content.\n\nB. H. ROBERTS.\n\nSalt Lake City, Jan., 1909.\n\n[Footnote 171: For an extended treatise on this subject see the\nwriter's \"New Witness for God,\" published as Young Men's Manuals, Nos.\n7, 8 and 9, 1903-1906. Now published in a series of three volumes under\nthe title \"New Witnesses for God,\" Vol. I treats of Joseph Smith as a\nNew Witness; Vols. II and III is the treatise on the Book of Mormon as\nA New Witness for God.]\n\n\n\n###PART II.\n\nRECENT DISCUSSION OF MORMON AFFAIRS.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe justification for publishing the three following papers consists in\nthe importance of the subjects which they treat. The first paper, \"An\nAddress to the World,\" was presented to the General Conference of the\nChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the First Presidency of\nthe Church, and by that conference unanimously adopted on the 5th of\nApril, 1907, and sent forth to the world. It was conceived and written\nin a conciliatory spirit, and was intended to form the basis of a right\nunderstanding of the attitude of the Church of the Latter-day Saints\nwith reference to a number of subjects concerning which there had been\nbitter controversy. The \"Address\" explained the past. It expressed the\nintention of the Church to give strict adherence to its obligations\nto discontinue plural marriages, and with that, in time, would pass\naway polygamous living. It also declared the intention of the Church\nto abstain from interference in politics. That this was the spirit and\nintent of the \"Address\" cannot be questioned by those who read it.\nIt presented, as the writer then believed, and as he now believes, a\nfair basis of understanding and settlement of our local difficulties.\nThe manner in which it was met by the Ministerial Association, with\ndistrust, misrepresentation, unfair criticism and sly innuendo of evil\nintentions, went far towards defeating its purpose, and gave occasion\nfor the Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of the Address\nto the world. The papers themselves tell the rest.\n\nI.\n\nAN ADDRESS:\n\nTHE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TO THE WORLD.\n\nFIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\"Let facts be submitted to a candid world.\"\n\nI.\n\n_The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World_.\n\nGREETING: In the hope of correcting misrepresentation, and of\nestablishing a more perfect understanding respecting ourselves and our\nreligion, we, the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, issue this\nDeclaration.\n\nSuch an action seems imperative. Never were our principles or our\npurposes more widely misrepresented, more seriously misunderstood.\nOur doctrines are distorted, the sacred ordinances of our religion\nridiculed, our Christianity questioned, our history falsified, our\ncharacter traduced, and our course of conduct as a people reprobated\nand condemned.\n\nIn answer to the charges made against us, for ourselves and for those\nwho, under divine direction, founded our religion and our Church; for\nour posterity, to whom we shall transmit the faith, and into whose\nkeeping we shall give the Church of Christ; and before mankind, whose\nopinions we respect, we solemnly declare the truth to be:\n\nOur religion is founded on the revelations of God. The Gospel we\nproclaim is the Gospel of Christ, restored to earth in this the\ndispensation of the fulness of times. The high claim of the Church is\ndeclared in its title--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\nEstablished by divine direction, its name was prescribed by him whose\nChurch it is--Jesus the Christ.\n\nThe religion of this people is pure Christianity. Its creed is\nexpressive of the duties of practical life. Its theology is based on\nthe doctrines of the Redeemer.\n\nIf it be true Christianity to accept Jesus Christ in person and in\nmission as divine; to revere him as the Son of God, the crucified and\nrisen Lord, through whom alone can mankind attain salvation; to accept\nhis teachings as a guide, to adopt as a standard and observe as a\nlaw the ethical code he promulgated; to comply with the requirements\nprescribed by him as essential to membership in his Church, namely,\nfaith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and\nthe laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost,--if this be\nChristianity, then are we Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints is a Christian church.\n\nThe theology of our Church is the theology taught by Jesus Christ\nand his apostles, the theology of scripture and reason. It not only\nacknowledges the sacredness of ancient scripture, and the binding\nforce of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also\ndeclares that God now speaks to man in this final Gospel dispensation.\n\nWe believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual personages,\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost.\n\nWe hold that man is verily the child of God, formed in his image,\nendowed with divine attributes, and possessing power to rise from the\ngross desires of earth to the ennobling aspirations of heaven.\n\nWe believe in the pre-existence of man as a spirit, and in a future\nstate of individual existence, in which every soul shall find its\nplace, as determined by justice and mercy, with opportunities of\nendless progression, in the varied conditions of eternity.\n\nWe believe in the free agency of man, and therefore in his individual\nresponsibility.\n\nWe believe that salvation is for no select few, but that all men may be\nsaved through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.\n\nWe affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel authority\nmust be given of God; and that this authority is the power of the Holy\nPriesthood.\n\nWe affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages; the\nHoly Priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age,\nand that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been\norganized.\n\nWe proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching of\nthe Gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered-Israel, and the\npreparation of a people for the coming of the Lord.\n\n\"Mormonism\" seeks its converts among all classes and conditions of\nsociety, and those who accept it are among the best men and women of\nthe nations from which they come--honest, industrious, virtuous, and\nreverent. In their community life they are peaceable, law-abiding and\nexemplary. Their instincts, traditions and training are opposed to\nvice and crime. The religion they have embraced, the Church of which\nthey are members, condemns every form of evil, and their lives, with\nfew exceptions, are exponents of righteousness. Many of the early\nproselytes to our faith were descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans.\nJoseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other leaders among the Latter-day\nSaints, traced their lineage to the founders and first defenders of the\nnation. Joseph Smith was a native of Vermont, and by vocation a farmer.\nAll trades and professions were drawn upon for the membership of the\nChurch. In England, its first foreign mission field, it was mainly the\nmiddle and working classes that responded to the Gospel message. All\nover the world it has been the same,--our converts have been men and\nwomen of character, intelligence, and integrity. There is nothing in\n\"Mormonism\" to attract the selfish or the vile.\n\nThe effort to differentiate the \"Mormon\" priesthood and the\n\"Mormon\" people, by allowing that the latter are a good, honest,\nthough misguided folk, while alleging that their leaders are the\npersonification of all that is bad, is a most futile one. The great\nmajority of the male members of the Church hold the priesthood, and\nthough constituting the official body of the Church, they are a portion\nof the people. Priesthood and people are inseparable, and, vindicated\nor condemned, stand together.\n\nThe charge that the Church relies upon duplicity in the propagation\nof her doctrines, and shuns enlightened investigation, is contrary to\nreason and fact. Deceit and fraud in the perpetuation of any religion\nmust end in failure. A system of religion, ethics, or philosophy, to\nattract and hold the attention of men, must be sincere in doctrine and\nhonest in propaganda. That the Church employs deceptive methods; that\nshe has one doctrine for the priesthood and another for the people;\nthat she teaches one set of principles to her members in Zion, and\nanother to the world, is not true. Enlightened investigation is the\nvery means through which the Church hopes to promote belief in her\nprinciples, and extend the beneficent influence of her institutions.\nFrom the beginning, enlightened investigation has been the one thing\nshe has sought. To secure this she has sent her missionaries into all\nparts of the world, especially to the centres of civilization and\nenlightenment, where her literature has been freely distributed; yet\ntoo frequently her claims have been disallowed without investigation,\nand judgment has been pronounced without a hearing. At the Columbian\nExposition, which celebrated the four hundredth anniversary of the\ndiscovery of America, the religions of the world were represented in a\ngreat parliament, for the purpose of showing \"in the most impressive\nway, what and how many important truths the various religions hold\nand teach in common; * * * to set forth by those most competent to\nspeak, what are deemed the important distinctive truths held and\ntaught by each religion; * * * to inquire what light each religion has\nafforded or may afford to the other religions of the world.\" To this\ngathering the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though the\nmost distinctively American church, was not invited; nevertheless she\nsought opportunity to place side by side with the creeds of all the\ngreat historic faiths, a presentation of her principles, and to voice\nto mankind the truths she deemed most important and most helpful. This\nopportunity was denied the Church, except upon such terms as were\nhumiliating and subversive of the end sought--a wider publication and\na more just consideration of her faith. After such an experience,\nand others of like kind, though of varying degree, we submit that\nit ill becomes our accusers to charge us with shunning enlightened\ninvestigation.\n\nIt has been charged that \"Mormonism\" is opposed to education. The\nhistory of the Church and the precepts of its leaders are a sufficient\nanswer to that accusation. Joseph Smith, the first President of the\nChurch, founded schools, and attended them as a student, as did many\nof his followers under his advice and influence. Brigham Young, who\nsucceeded Joseph Smith, emulated him as a founder and patron of\nschools; and every subsequent President of the Church, his associates,\nand the people generally, have been equally zealous in that cause. In\nthe course of their exodus from Illinois, our people built log school\nhouses while halting on the Missouri river, then the frontier of the\nnation; and after they had traversed a thousand miles of wilderness,\nand planted their infant colony in the valley of the Great Salt Lake,\nschool houses were among the first buildings they erected. Such has\nbeen the course pursued in every \"Mormon\" colony. The State of Utah,\nnow dotted with free schools, academies, colleges, and universities,\ninstitutions which have given her marked educational prominence,\nfurnishes indisputable evidence that her people--mostly \"Mormons\"--are\nfriends and promoters of education. To the Latter-day Saints, salvation\nitself, under the atonement of Christ, is a process of education.\nThat knowledge is a means of eternal progress, was taught by Joseph\nSmith--It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.--A man\nis saved no faster than he gets knowledge.--The Glory of God is\nintelligence.--Whatever principles of intelligence we attain to in this\nlife, will rise with us in the resurrection.--He who gains in this life\nmore knowledge than another, will have so much the advantage in the\nworld to come. These were aphorisms with the Prophet Joseph Smith.\n\nNeither is it true, as alleged, that \"Mormonism\" is destructive of\nthe sanctity of the marriage relation; on the contrary it regards\nthe lawful union of man and woman as the means through which they\nmay realize their highest and holiest aspirations. To the Latter-day\nSaints, marriage is not designed by our Heavenly Father to be merely an\nearthly union, but one that shall survive the vicissitudes of time, and\nendure for eternity, bestowing honor and joy in this world, glory and\neternal lives in the worlds to come.\n\nThe typical \"Mormon\" home is the temple of the family, in which the\nmembers of the household gather morning and evening, for prayer\nand praise to God, offered in the name of Jesus Christ, and often\naccompanied by the reading of scripture and the singing of spiritual\nsongs. Here are taught and gently enforced, the moral precepts and\nreligious truths, which, taken together, make up that righteousness\nwhich exalteth a nation, and ward off that sin which is a reproach\nto any people. If such conditions are not a sufficient answer to the\ncharge that our homes are un-Christian, subversive of moral influence,\nand destructive of the state's stability, then we turn to the present\ngenerations, \"Mormon\" American citizens products of our religion and\nour homes, for our vindication:--Here are our sons and daughters,\nsubmit them to any test of comparison you will; regard for truth,\nveneration for age, reverence for God, love of man, loyalty to country,\nrespect for law, refinement of manners, and, lastly, in this issue\nbetween us and our accusers the crowning test of all, purity of mind\nand chastity of conduct. It is not inordinate self praise to say of the\ngenerations of our people, born and reared in \"Mormon\" homes, that they\nwill compare favorably, in the Christian virtues, and in all that makes\nfor good citizenship, with any community in this or any other country.\n\nThe charge that the Church is a commercial rather than a religious\ninstitution; that its aims are temporal rather than spiritual; that\nit dictates its members in their industrial activities and relations,\nand aims at absolute domination in temporal affairs,--all this we\nemphatically deny. That the Church claims the right to counsel and\nadvise her members in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is\nadmitted. Leading Church officials, men of practical experience in\npioneer life, have aided the people in establishing settlements\nthroughout the inter-mountain west, and have given them, gratuitously,\nthe benefit of their broader knowledge of things, through counsel and\ndirection, which the people have followed to their advantage; and\nboth the wisdom of the leaders and the good sense of the people are\nvindicated in the results achieved. All this has been done without\nthe exercise of arbitrary power. It has resulted from wise counsels,\npersuasively given and willingly followed.\n\nIt has also been the policy of the Church to foster home industries.\nWhere there has been a lack of confidence in some of these enterprises,\nand private capital has been afraid to invest, the Church has furnished\nfunds that the practicability of the undertaking might be demonstrated;\nand repeatedly the wisdom of this policy has been made manifest.\nThereby the resources of various localities have been developed,\ncommunity industries diversified, and the people, especially the poor,\ngiven increased opportunity of employment and a better chance to become\nself-sustaining.\n\nWe deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church; and this\nbecause its government is moral government purely, and its forces are\napplied through kindness, reason, and persuasion. Government by consent\nof the governed is the rule of the Church. Following is a summary of\nthe word of the Lord, setting forth the principles on which the Church\ngovernment is to be administered:\n\nThe rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers\nof heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled\nonly upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred\nupon men, is true; but when they undertake to cover their sins, or\ngratify their pride, their vain ambition, or exercise control, or\ndominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any\ndegree of unrighteousness, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when\nit is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood, or the authority of that man.\nNo power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the\npriesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness, and\nmeekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which\nshall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.\n\nNominations to Chuch office may be made by revelation; and the right of\nnomination is usually exercised by those holding high authority, but it\nis a law that no person is to be ordained to any office in the Church,\nwhere there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the\nvote of its members. This law is operative as to all the officers of\nthe Church, from the president down to the deacon. The ecclesiastical\ngovernment itself exists by the will of the people; elections are\nfrequent, and the members are at liberty to vote as they choose. True,\nthe elective principle here operates by popular acceptance, rather\nthan through popular selection, but it is none the less real. Where\nthe foregoing facts exist as to any system, it is not and cannot be\narbitrary.\n\nThe Church officers, in the exercise of their functions, are answerable\nto the Church. No officer, however exalted his position, is exempt from\nthis law. All decisions, rulings and conduct of officials are subject\nto investigation, correction, revision and final rejection by the\ngeneral assembly of the priesthood of the Church, its final court of\nappeal. Even the President, its highest officer, is subject to these\nlaws, and special provision is made for his trial, and, if necessary,\nhis deposition. Where these facts exist in any administration of\ngovernment, it cannot be justly classed as a tyranny, nor considered a\nmenace to free institutions.\n\nThe tithing system of the Church, so often denounced as oppressive, and\nas imposing an arbitrary ecclesiastical tax, is in reality a system of\nfree-will offerings. True, the members, by the law of the Church, are\nunder moral obligation to pay one-tenth of their interest annually. But\nfrom the very nature of the principles on which churches exist, they\nbeing voluntary associations for the fostering of spiritual life, and\nthe achievement of moral and charitable ends--in which associations\nmembership cannot be compelled--there is no compulsory means of\ncollecting this or any other church revenue. Tithing is a voluntary\noffering for religious and charitable purposes, and not a scheme of\nextortion for the enrichment of the higher officials. Service in the\ninterest of the Church is given, for the most part, without monetary\ncompensation; where compensation is allowed it is moderate; the high\nChurch officials are not rich, but in the majority of cases are men of\nlimited means, and where it is otherwise their wealth did not come from\nthe tithes of the people; these facts are a complete refutation of the\nslander that our tithing is a system of extortion practiced upon the\npeople for the enrichment of the priesthood. Like the Church government\nthroughout, the tithing system operates upon the principle of free will\nand the consent of those who hold the faith to be divine.\n\nNeither in mental attitude nor in conduct have we been disloyal to the\ngovernment under whose guarantee of religious freedom our Church was\nfounded. The Book of Mormon proclaims America to be the land of Zion;\na land dedicated to righteousness and liberty; a land of promise to\ncertain branches of the house of Israel, and also to the Gentiles. It\ndeclares that God will fortify this land against all other nations;\nand \"he that fighteth against Zion shall perish.\" By revelation to\nJoseph Smith the Prophet, the Lord declared that he had established\nthe Constitution of the United States through \"wise men raised up unto\nthis very purpose.\" It is also our belief that God has blessed and\nprospered this nation, and given unto it power to enforce the divine\ndecrees concerning the land of Zion, that free institutions might not\nperish from the earth. Cherishing such convictions, we have no place in\nour hearts for disloyal sentiments, nor is there likelihood of treason\nin our conduct. Were we evil-disposed toward American institutions, or\ndisloyal to the United States, we would be recreant to those principles\nto which by interest and education we are attached, and would repudiate\nthe revelations of God concerning this land.\n\nIn reaffirming our belief in the high destiny of America, our\nattachment to American institutions, and our loyalty to the United\nStates, we declare that these sentiments, this loyalty, have outlived\nthe memory of all the wrongs inflicted upon our fathers and ourselves.\n\nIf patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested in times of peace,\nby just, temperate, benevolent, industrious, and virtuous living; in\ntimes of trial, by patience, resistance only by lawful means to real or\nfancied wrongs, and by final submission to the laws of the land, though\ninvolving distress and sorrow; and in time of war, by willingness\nto fight the battles of the nation,--then, unquestionably, are the\n\"Mormon\" people patriotic and loyal.\n\nThe only conduct seemingly inconsistent with our professions as loyal\ncitizens, is that involved in our attitude during the controversies\nthat have arisen respecting plural marriage. This principle was\nintroduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at Nauvoo, Illinois. The\npractice was continued in Utah, and published to the world, as\na doctrine of the Church, in 1852. In the face of these facts,\nBrigham Young, whose position in the matter was well known, was\ntwice appointed, with the consent of the Senate, first by president\nFillmore, and afterwards by President Pierce, to be the Governor of the\nTerritory. It was not until 1862 that Congress enacted a law forbidding\nplural marriage. This law the Latter-day Saints conscientiously\ndisregarded, in their observance of a principle sanctioned by their\nreligion. Moreover they believed the enactment to be violative of\nthe Constitution, which provides that Congress shall make no law\nprohibiting the free exercise of religion. Notwithstanding this\nattitude and conduct on the part of our people, no decision of the\nSupreme Court upon this question was secured until 1878, more than\nthirty years after the settlement of Utah; nor were determined efforts\nmade to enforce the law until a further period of five or six years had\nelapsed. Surely this toleration, under which the practice of plural\nmarriage became firmly established, binds the United States and its\npeople, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of mercy and\nwisdom, to the exercise of patience and charity in dealing with this\nquestion.\n\nIf it be charged by those who find extenuation for offenses committed\nprior to the decision of 1878, that our subsequent duty as good\ncitizens was clear and unmistakable, we reply that the situation, as\nviewed by some of our members, developed a conflict between duty to God\nand duty to the government. Moreover, it was thought possible that the\ndecision of the Supreme Court might be reversed, if what was regarded\nas a constitutional right were not too easily surrendered. What our\npeople did in disregard of the law and of the decisions of the Supreme\nCourt affecting plural marriages, was in the spirit of maintaining\nreligious rights under constitutional guaranties, and not in any spirit\nof defiance or disloyalty to the government.\n\nThe \"Mormon\" people have bowed in respectful submission to the laws\nenacted against plural marriage. While it is true that for many years\nthey contested the constitutionality of the law of Congress, and\nduring that time acted in harmony with their religious convictions\nin upholding by practice, as well as by spoken and written word, a\nprinciple committed to them from God, still, when every means of\nconstitutional defense had been exhausted, the Church abandoned the\ncontroversy and announced its intention to be obedient to the laws of\nthe land. Subsequently, when statehood for Utah became a possibility,\non the condition that her constitution provide by ordinance,\nirrevocable without the consent of the United States, that plural\nmarriages should be forever prohibited, the \"Mormon\" people accepted\nthe condition by voting for the adoption of the constitution. From\nthat time until now, the Church has been true to its pledge respecting\nthe abandonment of the practice of plural marriage. If it be urged\nthat there have been instances of the violation of the anti-polygamy\nlaws, and that some persons within the Church have sought to evade the\nrule adopted by her, prohibiting plural marriages, the plain answer is\nthat in every state and nation there are individuals who violate law\nin spite of all the vigilance that can be exercised; but it does not\nfollow that the integrity of a community or of a state is destroyed,\nbecause of such individual transgressions. All we ask is that the same\ncommon-sense judgment be exercised in relation to our community that is\naccorded to other communities. When all the circumstances are weighed,\nthe wonder is, not that there have been sporadic cases of plural\nmarriage, but that such cases have been so few. It should be remembered\nthat a religious conviction existed among the people, holding this\norder of marriage to be divinely sanctioned. Little wonder then that\nthere should appear, in a community as large as ours, and as sincere, a\nfew over-zealous individuals who refused to submit even to the action\nof the Church in such a matter, or that these few should find others\nwho sympathized with their views; the number, however, is small.\n\nThose who refer to \"Mormon polygamy\" as a menace to the American\nhome, or as a serious factor in American problems, make themselves\nridiculous. So far as plural marriage is concerned, the question is\nsettled. The problem of polygamous living among our people is rapidly\nsolving itself. It is a matter of record that in 1890, when the\nmanifesto was issued, there were 2,451 plural families; in nine years\nthis number had been reduced to 1,543. Four years later the number was\n897; and many of these have since passed away.\n\nIn answer to the charge of disloyalty, founded upon alleged secret\nobligations against our government, we declare to all men that there is\nnothing treasonable or disloyal to any ordinance, ceremony, or ritual\nof the Church.\n\nThe overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and state;\ndomination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical interference\nwith the political freedom and rights of the citizen,--all such things\nare contrary to the principles and policy of the Church, and directly\nat variance with the oft repeated declarations of its chief presiding\nauthorities and of the Church itself, speaking through its general\nconferences. The doctrine of the Church on the subject of government,\nstands 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 acknowledgment 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.\" (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 134.)\n\nWith reference to the laws of the Church, it is expressly said:\n\n    \"Be subject to the powers that be, until He reigns whose right it\n    is 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.\" (Doc. &\n    Cov. Sec. 58.)\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 any\npolitical party or set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent right\nof self-preservation for the Church and her right and duty to call\nupon all 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 judgment of our fellow men,\nshould such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace and\nconfidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of all\nreligions.\n\nIt is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such a desire\nis impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of their\nfaith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient times; that\nthe priesthood of the Church constitute a body of men who have, each\nfor himself, in the sphere in which he moves, special right to such\nrevelation; that the President of the Church is recognized as the only\nperson through whom divine communication will come as law and doctrine\nto the religious body; that such revelation may come at any time, upon\nany subject, spiritual or temporal, as God wills; and finally that,\nin the mind of every faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in\nwhatsoever it counsels, advises or commands, is paramount. Furthermore\nit is sometimes pointed out that the members of the Church are looking\nfor the actual coming of a Kingdom of God on earth, that shall gather\nall the kingdoms of the world into one visible, divine empire, over\nwhich the risen Messiah shall reign.\n\nAll this, it is held, renders it impossible for a \"Mormon\" to give true\nallegiance to his country, or to any earthly government.\n\nWe refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon\nour beliefs; or by what they allege must be the practical consequences\nof our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think\nmay be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves\ndo not accept. We are to be judged by our own interpretations, and by\nour actions, not by the logic of others, as to what is, or may be,\nthe result of our faith. We deny that either our belief in divine\nrevelation, or our anticipation of the coming kingdom of God, weakens\nin any degree the genuineness of our allegiance to our country. When\nthe divine empire will be established, we may not know any more than\nother Christians who pray, \"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in\nearth as it is in heaven;\" but we do know that our allegiance and\nloyalty to country are strengthened by the fact that while awaiting the\nadvent of the Messiah's kingdom, we are under a commandment from God to\nbe subject to the powers that be, until He comes \"whose right it is to\nreign.\"\n\n\"Mormonism\" is in the world for the world's good. Teaching truth,\ninculcating morality, guarding the purity of the home, honoring\nauthority and government, fostering education, and exalting man and\nwoman, our religion denounces crime, and is a foe to tyranny in every\nform. \"Mormonism\" seeks to uplift, not to destroy society. She joins\nhands with the civilization of the age. Proclaiming herself a special\nharbinger of the Savior's second coming, she recognizes in all the\ngreat epochs and movements of the past, steps in the march of progress\nleading up to the looked for millennial reign. \"Mormonism\" lifts an\nensign of peace to all people. The predestined fruits of her proposed\nsystem are the sanctification of the earth and the salvation of the\nhuman family.\n\nAnd now, to all the world: Having been commanded of God, as much\nas lieth in us, to live peaceably with all men--we, in order to be\nobedient to the heavenly commandment, send forth this Declaration,\nthat our position upon the various questions agitating the public mind\nconcerning us may be known. We desire peace, and will do all in our\npower on fair and honorable principles to promote it. Our religion\nis interwoven with our lives, it has formed our character, and the\ntruth of its principles is impressed upon our souls. We submit to\nyou, our fellow-men, that there is nothing in those principles that\ncalls for execration, no matter how widely in some respects they may\ndiffer from your conceptions of religious truth. Certainly there is\nnothing in them that may not stand within the wide circle of modern\ntoleration of religious thought and practice. To us these principles\nare crystallizations of truth. They are as dear to us as your religious\nconceptions are to you. In their application to human conduct, we see\nthe world's hope of redemption from sin and strife, from ignorance\nand unbelief. Our motives are not selfish; our purposes not petty and\nearth-bound; we contemplate the human race, past, present and yet to\ncome, as immortal beings, for whose salvation it is our mission to\nlabor; and to this work, broad as eternity and deep as the love of God,\nwe devote ourselves, now, and forever. Amen.\n\nJOSEPH F. SMITH,\n\nJOHN R. WILDER,\n\nANTHON H. LUND,\n\nIn behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 26,\n1907.\n\n_Adopted by vote of the Church, in General Conference, April 5, 1907._\n\nSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.\n\nII.\n\nREVIEW OF ADDRESS TO THE WORLD.\n\nMINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following announcement accompanying the publication of the\nMinisterial Association's Review of the Mormon Address to the World\nappeared in the _Salt Lake Tribune,_ impression of June 4, 1907:\n\nREPLY TO MORMON ADDRESS TO THE WORLD IS ISSUED BY THE MINISTERIAL\nASSOCIATION OF SALT LAKE CITY.--PUBLICATION MISLEADING AND SUPPRESSION\nOF FAITH.--MINISTERS OF THIS CITY ARE UNIT IN DECLARING AGAINST THE\nADDRESS.\n\nThe Ministerial association of Salt Lake City has issued a review, in\nthe nature of a reply, to the \"Address to the World,\" put out by the\nMormon church at the recent conference held in this city, in defense\nof Mormonism. The review represents the combined labor of nearly every\nmember of the Ministerial association of Salt Lake, of which there are\nthirty-three members, and by which it was adopted as a unit.\n\nThe review, which is presented elsewhere in this issue of _The\nTribune,_ is lengthy, comprehensive and unanswerable, well worthy\nany and every one's time in reading, studying and digesting. It was\nunanimously adopted at a meeting of the Ministerial association in its\nheadquarters in the club room of the Y. M. C. A. Monday afternoon.\nAlmost the entire membership of the association was represented at the\nfinal meeting and there was not a dissenting voice or vote against the\nadopting of the review, or reply, as it may aptly be termed.\n\nWithin a few days after the publishing of the Mormon Address to the\nWorld a movement was started in the association looking to a reply to\nthe so-called Address. Among the ministers the document put forth by\nthe Mormon church was considered in the light of a suppression rather\nthan a confession of Mormon faith, and so most misleading. With the end\nin view of a reply to the falsified, juggled and deceiving Address,\na number of papers were prepared and submitted to the association by\nseveral different members. These papers were placed into the hands\nof the committee, selected by the association for that purpose,\nwhich threw them into the form of a report. The report was discussed\nthoroughly at several different meetings of the association and every\nmember was given an opportunity of suggesting changes, presenting his\nideas on the subject for incorporation in the reply, or registering an\nobjection to it. As before stated, there was not a dissenting voice or\nvote against the reply, the adoption being unanimous.\n\nA STRIKING THING.\n\nOne of the striking things in the reply, which covers every point in\nthe Address with convincing thoroughness, is that it sets the teachings\nof the Mormon leaders, as published in their own works and used in\ntheir Improvement Associations, Sunday-schools and the like, alongside\nof and in direct contrast to the diluted statement of doctrines found\nin the \"Address to the World.\" It is confidently asserted that there\nhas never been such a published statement by the Mormons, based upon\ntheir own publications of the fact that they teach that there are many\ngods and goddesses, that God, the Father, is married and that the gift\nof eternal procreation is one of the felicities of paradise, promised,\nhowever, only to those who are joined by the priesthood in marriage for\neternity.\n\nIn the discussion of the several papers that were worked into the reply\nto the \"Address to the World\" all the active members of the Ministerial\nassociation have been present and have taken an active part in the\nwork that led to its promulgation. The reply represents the combined\nlabors of the members of the Ministerial association. In its drafting\nthe churches of the Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist Episcopal,\nBaptist, Lutheran, Christian and Episcopal denominations, through their\npastors, are represented. The officers of the Ministerial association\nare: President, the Rev. S. A. Hayworth, pastor of the East Side\nBaptist church; vice-president, the Rev. Benjamin Young, of the First\nM. E. church; secretary and treasurer, the Rev. E. C. Parker, of the\nLiberty Park M. E. church. The members and their denominations are:\n\nMINISTERIAL DIRECTORY.\n\nThe Rev. J. C. Andrews, Baptist; the Rev. A. A. Anderson, Swedish\nEvangelist; the Rev. J. H. Allen, Calvary Baptist; the Rev. J.\nArmstrong, Baptist; the Rev. D. A. Brown, First Baptist; the Rev.\nBenjamin Brewster, St. Mark's Episcopal; the Rev. F. W. Bussard,\nEnglish Lutheran; the Rev. J. C. Bell, A. M. E.; the Rev. J. G.\nCairns, Second M. E.; the Rev. J. F. Baker, Garfield, Baptist; the\nRev. D. M. Helmick, Iliff M. E.; the Rev. H. I. Hansen, Norwegian\nand Danish M. E.; the Rev. H. E. Hays, Third Presbyterian; the Rev.\nJ. S. Hurlburt, Murray, M. E.; the Rev. Jesse Hyde, Murray, Baptist;\nthe Rev. Harold Jensen, Norwegian and Danish Evangelical Lutheran;\nthe Rev. Bruce Kinney, superintendent Baptist work; the Rev. R.\nG. McNiece, Presbyterian; the Rev. Josiah McClain, superintendent\nPresbyterian work; the Rev. J. K. McGillivray, Presbyterian: the Rev.\nC. C. Mclntire, Westminster Presbyterian; the Rev. R. S. Nickerson,\nSandy, First Congregational; the Rev. W. M. Paden, First Presbyterian;\nthe Rev. E. C. Parker, Liberty Park M. E.; the Rev. Emanuel Rydberg,\nSwedish Lutheran; the Rev. P. A. Simpkin, Phillips Congregational;\nthe Rev. R. M. Stevenson, Presbyterian; the Rev. D. B. Scott, M. E.;\nthe Rev. F. S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop; the Rev. H. J. Talbott,\nsuperintendent M. E. work; the Rev. Benjamin Young, First M. E.; the\nRev. J. H. Worrall, M. E.\n\nNot only was the _\"Review\"_ thus heralded in the local columns of the\n_Tribune,_ but that paper also made the following editorial comment:\n\nTHE REVIEW BY THE MINISTERS.\n\n    \"We print in other columns this morning, in full, the review by the\n    Salt Lake Ministerial association of the declaration made by the\n    first presidency of the Mormon church and sustained by the general\n    conference in April last. This review is calm, deliberate, and\n    temperate in tone; but it is irresistible in force, in logic, and\n    in conclusion. It will, of course, be warmly welcomed and approved\n    by the loyal citizenship of Utah, while to the country at large it\n    will be a good deal in the nature of a revelation.\n\n    \"It is shown that the Mormon declaration is uncandid in that it\n    suppresses so much of the real beliefs and sentiments of the\n    church; and citations are given from authoritative writers of\n    the church, and from its standard works, showing how serious\n    these omissions are, and how completely their suppression gives a\n    false impression of the whole system. The evidence presented on\n    this point by the Christian ministers of this city is absolutely\n    irresistible.\n\n    \"The evasions, the duplicity, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty, of the\n    conference declaration are completely shown, in masterly style.\n    The repeated but half-hearted efforts of the church leaders to\n    make the world believe in their patriotism, their piety, their\n    unselfishness, their benevolence, their purity, when they do not\n    believe these things of themselves, knowing their own corruption,\n    treason, blasphemy and corroding selfishness, avarice, lusts of\n    power and of the flesh, are fitly dealt with in this admirable\n    review, which we cannot too highly commend for its spirit and its\n    substance.\n\n    \"It is shown in it that the hypocritical position of the conference\n    declaration is condemned by the Mormon church's own publications;\n    that the righteousness of polygamy is still upheld by the Mormon\n    leaders and speakers; and the hollowness of the entire pretense\n    through which it is sought to make it appear that the Mormon\n    leaders occupy a position which they do not occupy, is made clear.\n    Not any longer will the hierarchic pretense of being what it is\n    not, serve.\"\n\nThus heralded, the \"Review\" follows.\n\nII.\n\nREVIEW.\n\nAn \"Address to the World\" was issued by the president of the Mormon\nChurch and his counselors, and was adopted by the general conference\nof that church April 5, 1907. This \"Address,\" evidently prepared for\nthe residents of non-Mormon communities, is being widely circulated.\nOstensibly it makes a declaration of the doctrines, asserts the\nprinciples and defends the practices of the Mormon Church. It claims\nsupremacy for that body as the only divinely authorized church of Jesus\nChrist in the earth. It sets forth grievances. It appeals to the candid\njudgment of mankind for toleration.\n\nFor more than a half-century the Mormon Church has been teaching its\ndoctrines. Wherever it has had an organization its practices have\nbeen more or less subject to observation. It would seem, therefore,\nthat there should be little doubt as to the nature of the one, or the\neffect and tendency of the other. Nor would there be much question\nas to either were the doctrines of that church as fully proclaimed\nelsewhere as they are in Utah; and were its practices everywhere as\ntransparent as they are in its strongholds. The publication and wide\ncirculation of the aforementioned defense of the Mormon Church is the\nground of our communication, in which we join hands with the authors of\nthe defense in \"establishing a more perfect understanding respecting\"\nthemselves and their religion. We could wish that some of the points\ntouched upon in their paper might have had more ample elucidation,\nboth as ministering to a better understanding on the part of residents\nof non-Mormon communities, and as forestalling the necessity for\nthis review upon our part. But, since this defense obscures so much\nthat it is necessary for people to know, who would desire to form an\nintelligent judgment concerning the Mormon Church, we discuss those\nthings alluded to in the \"address\" that seem to us of the gravest\nimportance.\n\nIt will be noted at the very outset that a supreme claim is made for\nthe Mormon Church. Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things\nalready revealed, fostering no virtues not already taught by Christian\nchurches, and exemplified in Christian lives, showing no superiority\nof Christian ideals or of Christian character, contributing nothing\noriginal to civic righteousness, to commercial integrity, to domestic\nvirtue, to reverence for God or to justice and mercy toward men--this\nsect, whose activities are chiefly confined to a few countries already\nChristianized, claims to be the only divinely authorized church of\nJesus Christ on the earth; its very name, so it is affirmed, being\ngiven by divine revelation. In harmony with this claim it sets up a\nwholly unbiblical test of salvation.\n\n    \"Joseph Smith is a new witness for God; a prophet divinely\n    authorized to teach the Gospel and re-establish the church of Jesus\n    Christ on earth.\"--\"New Witness for God.\" by B. H. Roberts.\n\n    \"Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a prophet,\n    that he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon\n    is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of\n    anti-Christ.\"--Brigham Young, Millennial Star, volume 5, page 118.\n\n    \"If plural marriage be unlawful, then is the whole plan of\n    salvation through the house of Israel a failure, and the entire\n    fabric of Christianity without foundation.\"--A compendium of the\n    doctrine of the Gospel published for missionaries. 1898.\n\n    \"Q. What doth the Lord require of the people of the United States?\n\n    \"A. He requires them to repent of all their sins and embrace the\n    message of salvation contained in the Book of Mormon, and be\n    baptized into this church, and prepare themselves for the coming of\n    the Lord.\n\n    \"Q. What will be the consequence if they do not embrace the Book of\n    Mormon as a divine revelation?\n\n    \"A. They will be destroyed from the land and sent down to\n    hell, like all other generations who have rejected a divine\n    message.\"--Orson Pratt in the Seer, page 215.\n\nThis claim naturally provokes a most searching investigation of the\ngrounds upon which it rests. When it appears that it involves the\neternal reprobation of those who finally reject it, there can be no\nsurprise that the claim is very sharply challenged. It is asserted that\n\"the high claim of the church--is declared in its title--the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;\" that \"its name was prescribed by\nHim whose church it is--Jesus, the Christ;\" and that, \"we affirm that,\nthrough the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood\nhas been conferred upon men in the present age, and that under this\ndivine authority the Church of Jesus Christ has been organized.\" It\nwill be seen that the claim to exclusiveness involves the invalidity of\nall the church ordinances, and of all ministerial functions, including\nthe right to solemnize marriages, as administered by the Christian\nchurch from the second to the nineteenth century.\n\n    \"It (Mormonism) is entirely unlike all plans and systems ever\n    invented by human authority; it has no likeness, connection or\n    fellowship with any of them; it speaks with divine authority, and\n    all nations, without an exception, are required to obey. He that\n    receives the message and endures to the end will be saved; he that\n    rejects it will be damned.\"--Pratt's Works, paper 1.\n\n    \"These claims in behalf of Mormonism presuppose the destruction\n    of the primitive Christian church, a complete apostasy from the\n    Christian religion.\"--New Witness for God, preface, page 1.\n\n    \"The very religion of modern Christianity is now about as great\n    a curse as can be inflicted upon its successors without doing\n    violence to their power of free agency. * * *\"\n\n    \"The modern Christians with the Bible in their hands are in as\n    gross darkness as the worshipers of Baal. The god they worship\n    is no more like the person of Christ or the person of man than\n    Baal was. Their order of church authorities and church gifts and\n    ordinances of healing and anointing are probably about as remote\n    from the apostolic pattern as the worship of Mohamet or Vishnu\n    is.\"--Spencer's letters, pages 119 and 120.\n\n    \"The power to officiate in the ordinances of God has not been upon\n    the earth since the great apostasy until the present century.\n    Something like seventeen centuries have passed away since the\n    authority was last on the eastern hemisphere to administer in any\n    of the ordinances of God. During that long period marriages have\n    been celebrated according to the customs of human government by\n    uninspired men, holding no authority from God, consequently all\n    their marriages, like their baptisms, are illegal before the Lord.\n    Point out to us a husband and wife that God has joined together\n    from the second century of the Christian era until the nineteenth,\n    if you can. Such a phenomenon cannot be found among Christians or\n    Jews, Mohammedans or Pagans.\"--Orson Pratt in the Star, page 48.\n\nThe further significance of this claim is seen when one considers\nthat it denies that the Christian church has represented Christ in\nthe last seventeen centuries. And this denial stands in face of the\ntestimony that Christian people have borne to Him, the martyrdoms they\nhave suffered to carry His message to benighted peoples, the charities\nthey have organized, the great reforms they have fostered, the general\nprogress of mankind which they, chiefly, have promoted, and the saintly\nlives nurtured under the teaching of the Christian church. Surely\nthe claim to exclusive divine authorization must rest upon proofs so\nclear and convincing that no sincere seeker after truth would question\ntheir conclusiveness. But no such proofs are presented. Here is the\nfundamental weakness of the whole system for which this astonishing\nclaim is made--it presents no credentials that would make good a claim\nto even be numbered among the churches which represent Christ; much\nless to the only church of Christ on the earth.\n\nIt would naturally be expected that, in a communication intended to\nreally enlighten mankind concerning the Mormon faith as the only true\nreligion--the statement of doctrine would be both full and luminous.\nBut in the \"Address\" it is exceedingly brief--so brief, in fact, that\none is driven to the conclusion that, as a basis upon which a candid\njudgment might be framed, it not only leaves much to be desired, but is\npositively misleading.\n\nAs to divine revelation, it declares \"The theology of our church is\nthe theology taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology\nof Scripture and reason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of\nancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely-inspired acts\nand utterances in ages past, but also declares that God now speaks\nto man in this final Gospel dispensation.\" Under this declaration\nlies the claim of the Mormon Church--constantly insisted upon in its\ncongregations here and in surrounding regions--that the \"Book of\nMormon,\" \"The Doctrine and Covenants,\" the \"Pearl of Great Price,\"\ntogether with the \"Living oracles,\"--i.e., certain members of the\npriesthood--are divinely inspired, and are, therefore, of equal\nauthority with the Bible. This claim, a knowledge of which is so\nnecessary to even a tolerable understanding of their system of belief,\nis not plainly and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine\ncontained in the \"Address,\" but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in\ntheir teachings in Mormon communities.\n\n    \"The commissioned officers of the church form one part of its\n    motive force. The other is the continual revelation of the will of\n    God to his people. Without the first, disorder and confusion would\n    prevail; without the second, stagnation and death.\"\n\n    \"Written revelation is comprised in the four books of Scripture\n    accepted by the church in this dispensation--the Bible, the Book of\n    Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. *\n    * * As far as these revelations are adapted to present conditions,\n    they are binding on the church today.\"--Young Men's Improvement\n    Association Manual, 1901-2.\n\n    \"The Book of Mormon claims to be a divinely inspired record,\n    written by a succession of prophets who inhabited ancient America.\n    It professes to be revealed to the present generation for the\n    salvation of all who will receive it and for the overthrow\n    and damnation of all nations who reject it. * * The nature of\n    the message in the Book of Mormon is such that if true no one\n    can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can be\n    saved and receive it. Therefore, every soul in all the world is\n    equally interested in ascertaining its truth or falsity.\"--Orson\n    Pratt--Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, page 1.\n\n    \"Q. Has God given many revelations to men?\n\n    \"A. Yes, a great number.\n\n    \"Q. Where have we any account of his doing so?\n\n    \"A. In the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and\n    Covenants and other publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of\n    Latter-Day Saints.\"--Children's Catechism, chapter 3.\n\n    \"Many hundreds of the servants of God among the Latter-Day Saints\n    keep journals of their travels, and of the miracles which pass\n    under their observation. Hence the Acts of the Apostles of the\n    nineteenth century are recorded as well as the Acts of those in the\n    first century; and the miracles recorded in the latter-day Acts are\n    just as worthy of being believed as the miracles recorded in the\n    former-day Acts.\"--Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, page\n    80.\n\n    \"The word 'oracle' is instructive. It is derived from the Latin\n    'Ora,' meaning the mouth. It means, therefore, those whose\n    authoritative teachings are by spoken word as well as by pen and\n    their word takes precedence with their own generation over that\n    which has been written by any previous authority. * * * Their\n    authority also includes the right to interpret the Scriptural\n    writings of previous dispensations. For in case of doubt as to what\n    the law of God is, final appeal is made to the living oracles,\n    who interpret through the authority of the priesthood and the\n    inspiration of the Holy Ghost.\"--Manual, 1901-2, part I, page 81.\n\n    \"The standard works of the church form our written authority and\n    doctrine, but they are by no means our only sources of information\n    and instruction on the theology of the church. We believe that God\n    is as willing today as he ever has been to reveal his mind and will\n    to men, and that he does so though chosen and appointed channels.\n    We rely, therefore, on the teachings of the living oracles of God\n    as of equal validity with the doctrines of the living word, and\n    the men in chief authority being acknowledged and accepted by the\n    church as prophets and revelators, and as being in possession of\n    the power of the holy priesthood,\" etc.--The Articles of Faith, by\n    Talmage, page 5.\n\n    \"The living oracles that exist in the true church possess and\n    exercise the power of discrimination between obsolete and active\n    commandments. Whenever it is necessary that a decision be made as\n    to the present application of a commandment, or the interpretation\n    of Scripture, the matter is referred to the living oracles and\n    their decision is final. There is no dissipation of energy; no\n    doubt or indecision. * * * The living oracles are a motive force\n    to the church in the fact that they are, as the name implies,\n    mouthpieces of God to his people.\"--Manual, 1901-2, pages 64-65.\n\nAs to the doctrine of Deity, the \"Address\" declares: \"We believe in\nthe God-head, comprising the three individual personages, Father, Son\nand Holy Ghost.\" As this declaration stands here, it will not perhaps\nsuggest Tritheism or Materialism to Christians unfamiliar with Mormon\ntheological terms. But when the full doctrine of the Deity, as taught\nin Mormon congregations, is known, it will at once be seen that no\nChristian can accept it. In fact, the Mormon Church teaches that God\nthe Father has a material body of flesh and bones; that Adam is the\nGod of the human race; that this Adam-God was physically begotten by\nanother God; that the Gods were once as we are now; that there is a\ngreat multiplicity of Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically begotten\nby the Heavenly Father of Mary, His wife; that, as we have a Heavenly\nFather, so also we have a Heavenly Mother; that Jesus Himself was\nmarried, and was probably a polygamist--at least so it has been printed\nin their publications and taught among their people; and that the Holy\nSpirit is of material substance, capable of actual transmission from\none person to another.\n\n    \"We know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature\n    perfect men; each of them possesses a material body, infinitely\n    pure and perfect, and attended by a transcendant glory, yet a body\n    of flesh and bones.\"--Talmage, Articles of Faith, page 41. See also\n    Doctrine and Covenants, chapter cxxx, 22d verse.\n\n    \"Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the\n    fact of his materiality; indeed, an immaterial being, under which\n    meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of\n    God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction of\n    terms.\"--Talmage, Articles of Faith, page 42.\n\n    \"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint\n    and sinner: When our Father Adam came into the garden he came into\n    it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with\n    him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the\n    Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written\n    and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with\n    whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christian\n    or non-professing Christian, must hear it, and will hear it, sooner\n    or later. * * *\n\n    \"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had\n    begotten him in his own likeness; he was not begotten by the Holy\n    Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family;\n    and when he took a tabernacle it was begotten by his father in\n    heaven after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel and\n    the rest of the sons and daughters of Eve. I could tell you much\n    more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy\n    would be nothing to it in the estimation of the superstitious and\n    over-righteous of mankind. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten\n    by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden. And who is\n    our Father in Heaven.\"--Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,\n    volume 1, pages 50-1.\n\n    \"Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we Mormons are\n    ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young,\n    to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No,\n    friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you\n    see any change coming over our countenance when this doctrine is\n    named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of\n    grasping the largeness and extent of the universe, the grandeur of\n    existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress,\n    should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of\n    understanding as to call it in question at all.\"--Roberts, The\n    Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pages 42-3.\n\n    \"Q. Are there more Gods than one?\n\n    \"A. Yes, many.\"--Catechism for Children, page 13.\n\n    \"We believe in the plurality of Gods.\"--Roberts, Mormon Doctrines\n    of Deity, page 11.\n\n    \"In the beginning the head of the Gods called a council of Gods,\n    and they came together to concoct a plan to create the world and\n    the people in it.\"--Joseph Smith, quoted by Roberts in Mormon\n    Doctrine of Deity, page 229.\n\n    \"Without going into the full investigation of the history and\n    excellency of God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in this\n    article, let us reflect that Jesus Christ as lord of lords and\n    king of kings must have a noble race in the heavens or upon the\n    earth, or else he can never be as great in power, dominion, might\n    and authority as the Scriptures declare. But hear: The mystery is\n    solved. John says: 'And I looked and lo, a lamb stood on Mount\n    Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having his\n    father's name written on their foreheads.' Their father's name;\n    bless me. That is God. Well done for Mormonism--144,000 Gods among\n    the tribes of Israel and two living Gods and the Holy Ghost for\n    this world. Such knowledge is too wonderful for men, unless they\n    possess the spirit of Gods.\"--President Taylor, quoted by Roberts\n    in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 253.\n\n    \"If none but Gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children,\n    it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the\n    father of our spirits, became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ\n    according to the flesh. The fleshy body of Jesus required a mother\n    as well as a father. Therefore, the father and mother of Jesus\n    according to the flesh must have been associated together in the\n    capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been\n    for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father.\n\n    \"As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so he, before\n    the world began, begat his spirit; as the body required an earthly\n    mother, so his spirit required a heavenly mother. As God associated\n    in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise\n    he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly\n    things being in the likeness of heavenly things, and that which is\n    temporal being the likeness of that which is eternal. Or, in other\n    words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of\n    the laws of generation in heaven.\"--Orson Pratt in The Seer, page\n    159.\n\nEliza R. Snow, the Mormon high priestess and poetess, gives voice to\nthese doctrines in her famous \"Invocation; or, the Eternal Mother and\nFather.\"\n\nMost of us have heard it in the Tabernacle; many, however, have not\nunderstood its teachings. We quote two stanzas:\n\n  \"In the Heavens are parents single?\n    No; the thought makes reason stare;\n  Truth is reason; truth eternal\n    Tells me I've a mother there.\"\n\n  \"When I leave this frail existence--\n    When I lay this mortal by;\n  Father, mother, may I meet you\n    In your royal court on high.\"\n\n  --Latter-day Saints Hymnal.\n\n  \"Obedience will the same bright garland weave\n  As it has done for your great mother Eve,\n  For all her daughters on the earth, who will\n  All my requirements sacredly fulfill.\n  And what to Eve, though in her mortal life\n  She'd been the first, or tenth, or fifteenth wife?\n  What did she care, when in her lowest state\n  Whether by fools considered small, or great?\n  'Twas all the same to her--she proved her worth;\n  She's now the Goddess and the Queen of the earth.\"\n\n  --Eliza R. Snow's Poems.\n\n    \"If the men and women are the children of God, sons and daughters\n    of heavenly parents, fashioned in their image, endowed with their\n    attributes and destined to become like them in perfection, why\n    should it startle the world to be told that there is a mother as\n    well as a father in heaven. It is reasonable, philosophical and,\n    like all truth, invulnerable.\"--Address in Tabernacle, summer of\n    1906, Apostle Whitney\n\n    \"The father of our spirits has only been doing that which his\n    progenitors did before him. Each succeeding generation of Gods\n    follow the example of the preceding one; each generation have their\n    wives, who raise up from the fruit of their loins immortal spirits;\n    when their families become numerous, they organize new worlds for\n    them, after the pattern set before them. They place their families\n    upon the same, who fall as the inhabitants of previous worlds have\n    fallen. They are re-redeemed. The inhabitants of each world have\n    their own personal father, whose attributes they worship, and in so\n    doing all the worlds worship the same God, dwelling in all of his\n    fullness in the personages who are the fathers of each.\" Seer, 135.\n\n    \"Did the Savior of the world consider it his duty to fulfill all\n    righteousness? And if the Savior of the world found it his duty to\n    fulfill all righteousness to obey a command of far less importance\n    than that of multiplying his race, would he not find it his duty\n    to join with the race of the faithful ones in replenishing the\n    earth?\"--Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II, page 79.\n\n    \"'He shall see his seed.' If he has no seed how could he see it?\n    'And who shall declare his generation?' If he had no generation who\n    could declare it?\"--Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II,\n    page 80.\n\n    \"We say it was Jesus Christ who was married (at Cana) to the\n    Marys and Martha, whereby he could see his seed before he was\n    crucified.\"--Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, volume II.\n\n    \"Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in the\n    Scriptures concerning the wives of Jesus. One thing is certain:\n    that there were several holy women who greatly loved Jesus, such\n    as Mary and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene; Jesus greatly\n    loved them and associated with them much; and when he arose from\n    the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses,\n    the apostles, he appeared first to these women, or at least to\n    one of them, namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be very natural\n    for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear\n    wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the\n    acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these\n    beloved women were his wives. Indeed, the Psalmist David prophesies\n    in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. 'Kings'\n    daughters were among thine honorable wives; upon thy right hand\n    did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold of Ophir.\"--Apostle Orson\n    Pratt in The Seer, page 159.\n\nConcerning the doctrine of man it is declared: \"We hold that man is\nverily the child of God, formed in His image, endowed with divine\nattributes. * * * We believe in the pre-existence of man as a spirit,\nand in a future state of individual existence, in which every soul\nshall find its place, as determined by justice and mercy, with\nopportunities of endless progression in the varied conditions of\neternity.\" This statement cannot be said to fairly represent the\nprecepts of the Mormon Church at this point. For, in addition to the\nabove, they believe and teach in their own congregations: That, \"As man\nis, God once was: As God is, man may be;\" that man's disobedience of\nthe first commandment given was commendable, and was the source out of\nwhich his chief glory shall arise; that the image of God in which he\nwas made is the material one; that the brightest glory possible to him\ncan be reached only through polygamous living here or hereafter; and\nthat the eternally continued power of procreation forms the basis of\nthis glory.\n\n    \"The belief of the Latter-day Saints regarding the personality of\n    God and our relationship to him has been crystallized by President\n    Lorenzo Snow into the aphorism, one of the most expressive in\n    the language: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'\n    No statement could set forth more clearly the nature of God's\n    exaltation and man's destiny.\"--Manual, 1901-2, part I, page 17.\n\n    \"We shall now proceed to show from new revelations that the saints\n    are to have equal knowledge with the Father and the Son * * * The\n    fullness of all truth in us will make us Gods, equal in all things\n    with the personages of the Father and the Son; and we could not\n    be otherwise than equal, for he is the same God who dwells in us\n    that dwells in them. Instead of dwelling in two tabernacles under\n    the names of Father and Son, he will then dwell in the additional\n    tabernacles of the saints. And wherever he dwells in fulness,\n    there would necessarily be equality in wisdom, power, glory and\n    dominion.\"--Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 121.\n\n    \"Thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material\n    universe--that is, the earth and all the other planets and worlds,\n    as an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not\n    away. They will also continue to organize people and redeem and\n    perfect other systems which are now in the womb of chaos, and thus\n    go on increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child\n    of God which now exists upon earth will possess more dominions,\n    more property, more subjects and more power and glory than is\n    possessed by Jesus Christ or by his Father; while at the same time\n    Jesus Christ and his Father will have their dominions, kingdoms\n    and subjects increased in proportion.\"--Parley P. Pratt, quoted by\n    Roberts in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 257.\n\n    \"They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such\n    a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of\n    Jesus Christ, and to possess immortal flesh and bones, in which\n    they will still eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing,\n    play on musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet,\n    or from system to system; being Gods or saints of God, endowed with\n    the same powers, attributes and capacities that their Heavenly\n    Father and Jesus Christ possess.\"--Parley P. Pratt, quoted by\n    Roberts in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 257.\n\n    \"They who have obeyed the laws of the Gospel received the Holy\n    Ghost, obtained and honored the priesthood and lived lives of\n    righteousness, remaining faithful in spite of persecution and\n    earthly tribulation, shall be admitted to the celestial glory. Here\n    they will enjoy the personal presence and gory of the Father and\n    the Son; they will be kings and priests of the most high, those in\n    the highest degree of this glory shall have thrones, dominion and\n    endless increase; they shall be Gods creating and governing worlds\n    and peopling them with their offspring.\"--Manual, 1901-2, part I,\n    page 52.\n\n    \"God always attached a special and honorable distinction to males\n    and females engaged in the sacred system of plurality according\n    to the conditions he laid down for them to observe.\"--Spencer's\n    Letters, page 195.\n\n    \"Their great duty was to become the progenitors of the human\n    family--to prepare mortal tabernacles for God's immortal children.\n    It was Adam's privilege and duty to become the patriarch of this\n    earth--the parent of all its inhabitants. In this great labor and\n    destiny his wife, Eve, was to be associated with him. Before them\n    was a future of endless glory, happiness and power, to be gained\n    through the great principle of parentage. To attain this glory,\n    present sorrow, pain and difficulty would have to be experienced\n    and overcome. The other law was negative and prohibitive: 'Of the\n    tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat.' If the\n    fall was essential and it was a part of God's design that a law be\n    broken in order that man might be subject to sin and death, this\n    latter law was well adapted for the purpose. For the consequences\n    of the breaking of this law were such as to fit in with the designs\n    of God, and the breach of the law would not apparently interfere\n    with the accomplishment of any high destiny. If either law was to\n    be broken, it was far better that this negative one be broken than\n    the other.\n\n    \"Eve was deceived and tempted. * * * She told Adam what she had\n    done and he fully realized the consequences of her act. It meant\n    that he and she could no longer remain together; that they must\n    move in different spheres--he in the higher, she in the lower--she\n    should be cast out of the garden and he should remain. * * * But\n    he remembered that Eve had been given him as an eternal companion.\n    He remembered the great commandment: Be fruitful and multiply and\n    replenish the earth. This he could not obey, for Eve, his wife,\n    was to be separated from him forever. He was therefore under the\n    necessity of deciding which was the greater and more important\n    commandment of the two--the negative one: Thou shalt not eat of\n    the tree; or the positive one: Thou shalt multiply and replenish\n    the earth. And he decided wisely--he would break the negative\n    commandment and keep the positive one.\"--Manual, 1901-2, Part 1,\n    pages 39-41.\n\n    \"Marriage thus becomes one of the chief means of man's exaltation\n    and glory in the world to come, whereby he may have endless\n    increase of eternal lives and attain at length to the power of\n    the God-head. It was this glorious doctrine in connection with\n    the baptism, redemption and sealing for the dead, that was the\n    uppermost theme of the Prophet Joseph during the last two years\n    or more of his life.\"--A Brief History of the Church of Jesus\n    Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Apostle George Q. Cannon, page 138,\n    published 1893.\n\n    \"I would here say that the promise made to Abraham and to all\n    who are heirs of the same promise through faith extends to all\n    generations in this life and to all generations to come forever\n    and ever. That is, Abraham and Sarah will continue to multiply not\n    only in this world, but in all the worlds to come. And the same is\n    true of all the sons and daughters that obtain the fulness of the\n    promise made to Abraham. * * * Will the resurrection return you a\n    mere female acquaintance that is not to be the wife of your bosom\n    in eternity? No; God forbid; but it will restore you the wife of\n    your bosom, immortalized, who shall bear children from your own\n    loins in all the worlds to come, and that without pain or sorrow\n    in travail. This, sir, was couched in the promise of Abraham; this\n    makes the promise great.\"--Spencer's Letters, pages 204-5.\n\n  \"Each pair the Eve and Adam of some world,\n  Perchance unborn, un orbited and unwhirled.\"\n  (Where they shall) \"reign as queens and kings,\n  Where endless union endless increase brings.\"\n\n  --Apostle Whitney, Elijah, pp. 103-4.\n\n    \"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and\n    be married for eternity while in this probation, by the power and\n    authority of the holy priesthood, they will cease to increase\n    when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the\n    resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority\n    of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing\n    the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have\n    children in the celestial glory. * * * In the celestial glory there\n    are three degrees or heavens, and in order to obtain the highest,\n    a man must enter into this order of the priesthood, and if he does\n    not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is\n    the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.\"--Quoted in\n    Young Men's Improvement Manual from Joseph Smith, Mill. Star, page\n    108.\n\n    \"I wish to be perfectly understood here. Let it be remembered that\n    the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that man, that is his spirit, is\n    the offspring of Deity; not in any mythical sense, but actually. *\n    * * Instead of the God-given power of procreation being one of the\n    chief things that is to pass away, it is one of the chief means of\n    man's exaltation and glory in that great eternity which like an\n    endless vista stretches out before him. * * * Through that law, in\n    connection with an observance of all the other laws of the Gospel,\n    man will yet attain unto the power of the God-head, and like his\n    Father--God--his chief glory will be to bring to pass the eternal\n    life and happiness of his posterity.\"--Roberts, New Witness for\n    God, page 461.\n\n    \"The devil and his angels having forfeited in their first estate\n    all right to enter a second with bodies of flesh and bones, and\n    having lost the privilege of marrying and propagating their\n    species, feel maliciously wicked and envious against the sons of\n    men who kept their first estate and now are in the enjoyment of the\n    second, marrying and increasing their families or kingdoms.\"--Orson\n    Pratt in The Seer, page 79.\n\n    \"Parents for the want of that holy and pure affection which\n    exists in the bosom of the righteous, not only destroy their own\n    happiness, but impress their own degraded and unlawful passions\n    upon the constitution of their offspring. It is for this reason\n    that God will not permit the fallen angels to multiply. It is\n    for this reason that God has ordained marriage for the righteous\n    only. It is for this reason that God will put a final stop to\n    the multiplication of the wicked after this life. It is for this\n    reason that none but those who have kept the celestial law will be\n    permitted to multiply after the resurrection. It is for this reason\n    that God has so ordained that the righteous shall have a plurality\n    of wives; for they alone are prepared to beget and bring forth\n    offspring whose bodies and spirits, partaking of the nature of the\n    parents, are pure and lovely, and will manifest, as they increase\n    in years, those heaven-born excellencies so necessary to lead them\n    to happiness and eternal life.\"--Orson Pratt in The Seer, pages\n    157-8.\n\nThe \"Address\" has somewhat to say regarding the holy priesthood,\nbut what is said affords one unacquainted with the church but\nlittle idea of the relation which this order sustains to the whole\necclesiastical system. In reality everything centers here. Admit the\nchurch's contention for its priesthood and you have yielded the most\nessential things which it claims. \"We affirm that, to administer in the\nordinances of the Gospel, authority must be given of God; and that this\nauthority is the power of the holy priesthood. We affirm that, through\nthe ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood has been\nconferred upon men in the present age, and that, under this divine\nauthority, the Church of Christ has been organized.\" So it is declared,\nbut the teaching of the church on this most important doctrine is not\nherein candidly set forth. The appended extracts will show that the\nbasis for the exercise of arbitrary power of its membership lies in\nthe church's claim for the \"holy priesthood,\" and that their power\nextends not only to things spiritual, but to secular matters as well.\nFurthermore, it will be seen that when once the church's claim for\nits priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters\nlogically follows. The members of the priesthood claim the special\npower to interpret scriptures, and the president of the church, who is\nalso chief of the high priesthood, is the prophet, seer and revelator\nof God to the church and to the world.\n\nIf it was the purpose of the leaders to keep the mass of the membership\nunder such control as would effectually destroy all liberty of action,\nand would curb that freedom of thought to which all responsible people\nare entitled, then it is difficult to see how any better scheme for\nachieving that purpose could have been devised than the Mormon doctrine\nof the \"holy priesthood.\" Given a people who endorse its high claims\nand submit to them, and you have a community which is under the\ntyranny of arbitrary rulership. That such power should be provided for\nin any system, civil or ecclesiastical, and should not be used, is\nincompatible with the known facts in human nature. That the full power\nof the Mormon priesthood is exercised is not a matter of doubt among\nwell-informed people.\n\n    \"I shall then define priesthood to be that order of authoritative\n    intelligences by which God regulates, controls, enlightens,\n    blesses or curses, saves or condemns all beings. To it under God\n    all things are subservient in righteousness, whether in heaven or\n    hell.\"--Spencer's Letters, page 94.\n\n    \"Men who hold the priesthood possess divine authority thus to act\n    for God; and by possessing part of God's power they are in reality\n    part of God. * * * Men who honor the priesthood in them, honor God,\n    and those who reject it, reject God.\"--New Witness for God, page\n    187.\n\n    \"The priesthood is the authority delegated to men to act in the\n    name of God, and to have those acts approved of him. Whatever is\n    done by this authority is as if God himself had done it. The one\n    holding the priesthood becomes an agent of the Lord. * * * The\n    curse of God on Cain, the flood, the rejection and dispersion\n    of Israel, the destruction of Jerusalem--these are all typical\n    instances of the judgments of God following the lack of reverence\n    for his priesthood. * * * Faith in the priesthood in general must\n    be supplemented by a specific faith in those who hold the keys of\n    the priesthood and preside in its various organizations, Priesthood\n    without presidency would be unorganized and lacking in efficiency.\n    * * * We cannot honor the priesthood if we do not honor those who\n    hold its keys. They are indeed the living oracles of our time,\n    and the voice of inspiration from them is as the voice of God to\n    us.\"--Manual, 1901-2, part I, pages 81, 82.\n\n    \"There is also a tendency among the youth, and I am sorry to\n    say among some of the older ones, to show but little regard for\n    the sacredness of the holy priesthood. What I mean by the holy\n    priesthood is that authority which God has delegated to man by\n    which he may speak the will of God as though the angels were here\n    to speak it themselves; by which men are empowered to bind on\n    earth and it shall be bound in heaven, and to loose on earth and\n    it shall be loosed in heaven; by which the words of men spoken in\n    the exercise of that power become the word of the Lord, the law of\n    God, unto the people scripture and divine commands. It is therefore\n    not good that the Latter-day Saints and the children of Latter-day\n    Saints should treat lightly this sacred principle of authority\n    which has been revealed from the heavens in the dispensation in\n    which we live. It is the authority by which the Lord Almighty\n    governs his people, and by it in time to come he will govern the\n    nations of the world.\"--Report of seventy-second conference, page\n    2, October 4-6, 1901.\n\n  \"Before all lands in east or west\n  We love the land of Zion best;\n     With God's choice gifts 'tis teeming.\n  There, prophets, seers, as of old\n  The mysteries of heaven unfold.\n     Through holy priesthood streaming.\"\n                --Sunday School Hymnal, No. 61.\n\nOne other observation must be made before leave is taken of this\npart of the defense before the world. It touches a matter which in\nimportance dwarfs everything mentioned in the \"Address.\" Apparently\nthe foundation of the Mormon Church is in the \"Book of Mormon,\" the\n\"Doctrine and Covenants,\" the \"Pearl of Great Price,\" and the testimony\nof the \"Living Oracles,\" delivered from time to time. But whoever digs\ndown to the lowermost foundation will find that, at last, everything\nrests upon the reported visions of Joseph Smith. When any matter of\nvital importance is presented for the belief of mankind, if that\nmatter, either in its nature or the circumstances attending it, lies\nvery much outside the ordinary, a due regard for human intelligence\ndemands that whatever testimony is produced in support of it shall\nbe buttressed by corroborative evidence. But here we have a system\nof religion which claims sole authority as being alone divinely\naccredited. It asks for the acceptance of mankind on the ground of\nbeing so accredited. It anathematizes all who finally reject it. Yet\nthis religion, making such an astonishing claim, is founded upon the\nunsupported assertion of a young person whose probity was not yet so\nwell established that his naked word would be taken concerning any\nmatter transcending ordinary observation and experience; and that\nassertion touches supernatural appearances, and messages which, if\ntrue, are of the most profound importance to mankind, and yet that\nassertion is wholly without corroborating evidence. We are asked to\nbelieve that, after seventeen centuries of apostasy on the part of his\nchurch, and 1700 years of silence on his own part, God broke this long\nsilence at last with a message to a hitherto unbelieving world, which\nwould determine the destiny of mankind, but that he so discredited\nhuman intelligence as to send that all-important message by an\nambassador without credentials.\n\nIn short, the Mormon Church has not yet given the world any\nsatisfactory evidence that the foundation upon which it rests its\nenormous claim entitles that claim to any serious consideration. Here\nis the fatal destitution of the whole system. And no defense that can\nbe set up for the doctrines or practices of the church, or for its\nhistory, or for the character of its people, however strong or adroit\nthat defense may be, can veil their mortal weakness.\n\nAttention is called in the \"Address\" to plural marriages and polygamous\nliving. We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of\nplural marriage has been discontinued in the Mormon Church, since no\nrecords of such marriages are kept by the church that are accessible\nto the public. That there have been instances of such marriages, even\nsince the agreement of the church to discontinue them, we know; that\nthey cannot be celebrated without the sanction of the church, through\naccredited officials, is unquestioned; that, so far as the public\nknowledge goes, no officials who may have celebrated such marriages\nhave been disciplined therefor, is certain. The doctrine of plural\nmarriage yet appears in the accepted standards of the church unchanged,\nin face of the promise made by the president of the church that the\nWoodruff manifesto should be printed, in the later editions of such\nstandards. That the practice is not now as open or as common as in\nthe days of Brigham Young may be conceded. But that it is, at most,\nsuspended by church decree, and not abrogated, is well understood here.\n\nNo denial was made of the practice of polygamous living. The \"Address\"\nadmits that authoritative figures officially collected show 897 such\nmale polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that later reports are not\nquoted leads to the reasonable belief that since that date the number\nof male polygamists has not diminished, but rather has increased.\nBut even if this conclusion is not valid, these figures given have a\nvery grave significance. We have this condition before us: In a sect,\nnumbering at the outside some 400,000 souls, many of whom--half or\nmore--are children or mere adherents, at the very least 2,691 persons\nare living in polygamy. This would be true if each of the 897 male\npolygamists had only two consorts; but, since in many cases there\nare more than two, the whole number of persons living in polygamy is\nconsiderably larger than the figures just named would indicate. It\nseems quite probable that far more than 1,800 families in this sect\nare polygamous families. All of these people are living in violation\nof the law. Each one of them has a circle of relatives and friends,\nmost of whom will not only condone, but will sympathize with the\ncriminal. These people are rearing children, a majority of whom have\nbeen born under ban of the law. Moreover, they are now maintaining\ntheir relations against the decree of the church, as interpreted under\noath by the church leaders, and yet none of them have been subjected to\nchurch discipline for polygamous living. What must reasonable people\nthink of it when such a condition is approved and sustained by a church\nclaiming to be the only church of Christ in the earth--a church strong\nenough to control all conditions in the state, political, social and\ncivil?\n\nToleration of these criminals, mercy and charity toward them, is\nclaimed on the ground: First, that toleration has been shown them in\nthe past. It is even said that the \"toleration under which the practice\nof plural marriage became firmly established binds the United States\nand its people, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of\nmercy and wisdom, to the exercise and patience and charity in dealing\nwith this question.\" Second, that wisdom in dealing with the matter\nin the future prescribes it. But to this it must be replied that the\n\"toleration\" of former years was not the toleration of choice, but the\nendurance of a reprobated condition while there were no adequate means\nat hand to correct it. And, in the next place, when the church insists\nupon the doctrine of polygamy as divinely revealed and enjoined; when\nthe governing body of the church publicly honors those who practice it;\nwhen its chief officials openly, and with mutual approbation therefor,\nlive in it; when the officials studiously refrain from any public\nact in restraint of it--when all this is true, we must hold it to be\ndoubtful whether the practice of polygamous living ever will die out\nunder any system of toleration. And thoughtful people will conclude,\nin the light of these facts, that the only mercy and charity which is\nlogical is that which will, with a strong hand, defend society at large\nfrom the taint of such flagitious precepts, examples and practices.\nWisdom does not prescribe toleration toward other unlawful conduct; nor\ndoes experience show that such a method of dealing with offenders is\nso conspicuously successful in restraining crime as to encourage that\npolicy. In addition to this, when we consider the fact that men have\nlived in polygamous relations here for years without the fact being\ngenerally acknowledged, or even known; when the church teaches the\ndoctrine of polygamy as a divinely-revealed \"principle,\" such precept\nbeing supplemented by the powerful example of its highest officials;\nand when the president of the church makes a virtue of his contumacy\nin this regard, we must be pardoned if we declare that no sufficient\nevidence that polygamous living is dying out, or is likely to die out,\nhas yet been produced.\n\n    \"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me.\n    I will command my people; otherwise they shall harken unto these\n    things\"--(that is, revelations forbidding polygamy). \"Thus we see\n    that a man among the Nephites, by the law of God had no right to\n    take more than one wife, unless the Lord should command, for the\n    purpose of raising up seed unto himself. Without such a command\n    they were strictly limited to the one-wife doctrine. * * * So it is\n    in this Church of Latter-day Saints; every man is strictly limited\n    to one wife, unless the Lord, through the president and prophet of\n    the church, gives a revelation permitting him to take more.\"--Orson\n    Pratt in The Seer, page 30.\n\n    \"For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant;\n    and if you abide not that covenant then are you damned; for no one\n    can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. *\n    * * And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood, if any\n    man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first\n    give her consent; and if he espouse the second and they are virgins\n    and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; for he cannot\n    commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to none else;\n    and if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot\n    commit adultery, for they belong unto him; and they are given unto\n    him--therefore, he is justified.\"--Doctrine and Covenants, chapter\n    132.\n\n    \"From the foregoing revelation given through Joseph the Seer, it\n    will be seen that God has actually commanded some of his servants\n    to take more wives. * * Showing still further that, if they refuse\n    to obey this command after having the law revealed to them, they\n    should be damned. This revelation, then, makes it a matter of\n    conscience among all the Latter-day Saints; and they embrace it as\n    a part and portion of their religion, and verily believe that they\n    cannot be saved and reject it.\"--Orson Pratt in The Seer, January,\n    1853, page 14.\n\n    \"Who would suppose that any man in this land of religious liberty\n    would presume to say to his fellowman that he had no right to take\n    such steps as he thought necessary to escape damnation. Or that\n    congress would enact a law that would present the alternative to\n    religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they\n    should attempt to obey a law of God which would deliver them from\n    damnation.\"--Epistle of the first presidency, October 6, 1885.\n\nIn a signed article written by Brigham H. Roberts, one of the first\nseven presidents of the seventies of the Mormon Church, for the\nImprovement Era of May, 1898, are found the following statements as the\nconclusion of an argument on the righteousness of polygamy:\n\n    \"Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the plural\n    marriage custom of the ancient patriarchs, prophets and kings\n    of Israel, it is not at all to be wondered at that, in the\n    dispensation of the fulness of time, in which he has promised\n    restitution of all things, God should again establish that system\n    of marriage. And the fact of God's approval of plural marriage\n    in ancient times is a complete defense of the righteousness of\n    the marriage system introduced by revelation through the prophet,\n    Joseph Smith.\n\n    \"Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered, then Abraham,\n    Jacob, and the prophets who practiced it would not be allowed\n    an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, and if polygamy is not\n    adultery, then it cannot be classed as a sin at all.\n\n    \"It appears to the writer that modern Christians must either\n    learn to tolerate polygamy or give up forever the glorious hope\n    of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which he approves, and so\n    strikingly approves, must be not only not bad, but positively good,\n    pure and holy.\"--Improvement Era, May, 1898, pages 472, 475, 478,\n    482.\n\nWe quote from the poem written by Apostle Orson Whitney to the Women of\nthe Everlasting Covenant:\n\n  \"Up with the guardian of social purity,\n  The marriage system of futurity--\n  Asylum of reform and penitence;--\n  God-given home to homeless innocence;\n  And down with wayward Rome's economy,\n  Parent of nameless ills, monogamy;\n  Concomitant of empire crushing vice,\n  Immolating virtue at the shrine of price,\n  Let innocence no more be child of shame;\n  Let nature's needs the laws of nature frame;\n  Let marriage vows be honorable in all,\n  Untrammelled by a monogamic wall\n  Of selfishness and rank hypocrisy,\n  The gift of Pagan aristocracy.\"\n  --Apostle Whitney's Poems.\n\nThe declaration made by B. H. Roberts concerning his determination to\ncontinue his polygamous living is of a piece with that made under oath\nby President Joseph Smith and Apostle F. M. Lyman. Mr. Roberts said:\n\n    \"These women have stood by me. They are good and true women. The\n    law has said that I shall part from them. * * * But the law cannot\n    free me from the obligations assumed before it spoke.\" (It spoke\n    before he was born.) \"No power can do that; even were the church\n    that sanctioned these marriages and performed the ceremonies to\n    turn its back upon us and say that the marriage is not valid now\n    and that I must give these good and loyal women up--I will be\n    damned if I would.\"--Case of B. H. Roberts of Utah, page 13.\n\nConsiderable space has been devoted in the \"Address\" to a defense\nof the loyalty of the Mormon Church to civil government. It is not\nrecalled that any Christian church in this country has found itself\nunder a like necessity, for the teachings and practices of the\nChristian churches have never been such as to raise an issue between\nchurch authority and allegiance to civil statutes. \"Gentiles\" will bear\nwilling testimony to the fact that the Mormon people, as a body, are by\nno means naturally disposed to contest civil ordinances.\n\nBut it must be clear to all that there is much in their surroundings\nto contravene their obedience to civil government. We may pass by the\nhistory of the church's conflict with the federal government, which is\nyet well remembered, and may mention these facts as bearing upon the\npoint now under consideration: That the most honored leaders of the\nchurch in the past have made an issue between the civil power on the\none hand the church authority on the other; that the president of the\nchurch today, reverenced by his people as God's deputy on the earth,\nis living in outlawry; that a number of his chosen associates in the\ngoverning body of the church are lawbreakers; that many of the most\nresponsible officers of the church, next to those just referred to, are\nproscribed by the law; that honors are conspicuously accorded by the\nhighest authority in the church to persons who have the taint of this\nlawlessness upon them; that these offenders against civil government\nare not called to account by any church authority for their offenses.\nSuch conduct on the part of the leaders cannot be said to stimulate\nrespect for civil authority, but it must be held to be a stronger\ndeterrent to obedience to the laws of society. So that whatever credit\nthe Mormon people may have as a law-abiding people can scarcely be\nshared by the governing body of the church, since the weight of their\nprecepts and example is wholly against the validity of any claim to\nsuch credit.\n\nThis review is issued that the real doctrines, practices and general\nspirit of the Mormon Church may be known. Whatever the intent of the\n\"Address\" may have been, the effect of it will certainly be to deceive\nall readers who are not intimately acquainted with the teachings and\npractices of the Mormon Church. We are not unmindful of the fact that\nwe shall be charged with persecution and misrepresentation in issuing\nthis review. But the publication of the truth can hardly be called\npersecution, and if there be any charge of misrepresentation it must\nlie against the leaders of the Mormon Church, whose own utterances\nwe have quoted as sustaining what has herein been said about their\nteachings.\n\nThat there may be no misunderstanding of our contention in this paper,\nwe, in conclusion, very frankly declare that not only is the \"Address\nto the World\" misleading to the general public, but also that the\nteachings of the Mormon Church in Gentile communities and through its\nmissionaries are deceptive; that the policy of the Mormon leaders is\nto keep the people in entire subjection to the priesthood, and that so\nthese leaders seek to control political, commercial and educational\nconditions in Utah; that their moral influence where such control is\nmaintained is neither complimentary to or commensurate with their\npower; that their influence is not only subversive of civil authority,\nbut also of reverence for God; that these leaders associate Joseph\nSmith in dignity and honor with the most eminent of mortals, if not\nindeed with Christ Himself; that they claim for Brigham Young and\nJoseph Smith and other \"living oracles\" the same obedience that is\nclaimed for the very word of God; that whatever spirituality is found\nin the lives of individual members of the Mormon Church exists in spite\nof the examples and precepts of their leaders; that the difficulty in\nthe enforcement of the civil law, wherever it affects the practice of\npolygamous living, is well nigh unsurmountable; that the practice of\npolygamous living was never held in higher esteem by the governing body\nof the church than now; that until the practices of the present leaders\nof the Mormon Church are radically changed there can be no peace\nbetween them and pure Christianity; and that until the doctrines of the\nchurch are radically modified it can never establish a claim to be even\na part of the church of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nANSWER TO MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION'S REVIEW.\n\nELDER B.H. ROBERTS\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe following Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of\nthe Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to\nthe World, was delivered in a speech at two meetings of the Mutual\nImprovement Association conference, Sunday afternoon and evening, June\n9, 1907, in the \"Mormon Tabernacle,\" Salt Lake City, Utah, before an\naudience of between four and five thousand people. The speaker expected\nto close his remarks with the afternoon meeting, and therefore omitted\ncertain matters that were intended to be discussed at the time the\nsubject to which they were related was presented in the afternoon, but\nwhich, for lack of time, as he then supposed, went over to the evening\nsession. He was urged by those in charge of the Conference to continue\nhis remarks in the evening session, which he did. In this printed copy\nof the speech, some of the remarks in the evening are brought over\ninto their proper place, and connected with the subjects to which they\nmost properly belong, and that were treated in the afternoon. Also the\nspeaker has added some items that were outlined in his notes prepared\nfor the occasion, but not used either in the afternoon or evening. In\norder that such new matter might be designated it is placed in brackets.\n\nIII.\n\nToday, my brethren and sisters, we convert this pulpit into a forum,\nfrom which we propose a defense both of our faith and the Church. Nor\ndo we violate any of the proprieties in this change, because when truth\nis to be defended and injustice resented, then \"all place a temple, and\nall seasons summer.\"\n\nThe occasion to which we address ourselves this afternoon arises out\nof these circumstances: At the late general conference of the Church,\nthe First Presidency issued to the world an address. Submitting it to\nthe general conference, it was approved and endorsed by the Saints\nassembled, so that it became an address of the Church of Christ to\nthe world. Of course, as we might have anticipated, this address met\nwith adverse criticism, and finally there was formulated against\nit an alleged review by the Ministerial Association of evangelical\nministers in the state of Utah. Represented in that association are\nthe Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran,\nChristian (Campbellite) and regular Episcopal churches--so that\npractically the whole of Protestant Christendom is represented by these\nministers who challenge the correctness and the candor of the address\nissued by the Church to the world.\n\nIn our consideration of their review we will suppose the\nrepresentatives of these churches present, sitting right here\n[indicating a place close by the stand] in a body. And I wish they were\nso present, because there is nothing like talking it out face to face\nwith these gentlemen; and I doubt not but their presence in a body\nwould be quite an inspiration to one in discussing the document they\nhave submitted to us. Having, then, before us the circumstances out of\nwhich this occasion arises, let us proceed to our task.\n\nThe first charge or criticism of the address of the Church made by\nthese gentlemen is to the effect that the doctrines of the Church are\nnot as fully proclaimed elsewhere as in Utah; all through the review,\nin fact, runs the innuendo that the Church deceitfully teaches one\ndoctrine at home and another abroad, and that the address obscures much\nthat is necessary to an intelligent judgment of \"Mormonism.\" Hence\nthese gentlemen propose to help the world to a fuller presentation of\n\"Mormon\" doctrine and practice, as set forth in their review of our\naddress.\n\nRight here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The\ndocument they have issued quotes very copiously from our published\nChurch works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they\nrely for this larger, fuller proclamation of \"Mormonism?\" I find quoted\nthe _Millennial Star,_ the _Journal of Discourses,_ the _Seer_ (by\nOrson Pratt), the _Improvement Era,_ the _Manuals_ of the Young Men's\nMutual Improvement Associations, _Orson Spencer's Letters,_ Epistles\nof the First Presidency of the Church, Talmage's _Articles of Faith,_\nand last, and of course least, some of my own works. Now where is the\n_Millennial Star_ published? In Liverpool, England. Where were the\n_Journals of Discourses_ published? In Liverpool, England. Where was\nthe _Seer_ published? In Washington, D.C. Does it not occur to you,\ngentlemen, since these are the works on which you chiefly rely for\nyour larger view of \"Mormon\" doctrine, that we have published them\nelsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The _Improvement Era,_\nof course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two thousand copies of\nit are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts and to\nscatter everywhere in the world. So with _Orson Spencer's Letters:_\nso with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which\nmore presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them\nvery freely, and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad,\nand from them they learn the doctrines of \"Mormonism.\" So that your\npractical charge that we preach one set of doctrines and principles in\nUtah, and quite another in the world, and that we are trying to play\nthe double game of having one doctrine for home consumption and another\nfor proclamation abroad, is as shallow as it is untrue.\n\nOne other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from\nthe _Seer_ which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal\naction of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was\nrepudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation.\nThere was a long article published in the _Deseret News_ on the 23rd\nof August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and\nTwelve setting forth that this work--the _Seer_--together with some\nother writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that\ndocument, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the\nwork of this noted apostle, they say:\n\n    \"But the _Seer,_ the _Great First Cause,_ the article in the\n    _Millennial Star,_ of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain\n    doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown,\n    so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may\n    not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where\n    these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes,\n    or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.\"\n\nAnd yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must\nbelieve, since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are\nministers of the truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long\nquotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a\nwork that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine\nand Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and\nover again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be\nfound, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of\nMormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All\nelse is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority,\ncontaining much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of\nthe Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church\ndoes not stand.\n\n\"Well,\" says one, \"do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding\nyour priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the\ninspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness\nof your Church ministry when you take this attitude?\" Not at all. We\nmerely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing\nfor a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit\nof God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which\ncircumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances\nat all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into\naccount human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is\ntoo much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk\nlinked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking\nsometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions,\nand the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and\nhaving the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position,\nmay, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and\nstand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's\nSpirit that shall plead, \"Father, thy will and thy word be made known\nnow to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed.\" There is a\nwide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained,\nand their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.\n\nIn thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration,\nshall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the\nillustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have\ntoday all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries.\nThese books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God,\nHoly Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches\nrunning through several hundred years. They endured the test of time.\nBut the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by\napostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian\nChurch, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved\nthese Scriptures--the New Testament. The Christian world up to this\ntime is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all\nthat should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several\nbooks called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal\nauthority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament.\nAnd so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only\nthat which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be\nabsolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church\nof Christ.\n\nWe move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You\nsay of us, that \"Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things\nalready revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or\nto justice and mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only\nauthorized church of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical\ntest of salvation.\"\n\nGentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the \"Mormon\"\nChurch, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an \"unbiblical test\nof salvation.\" I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim\nmade for Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine\nmessage, with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now,\njust for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that\nclaim to be true, is the test we apply, at all, much less \"wholly,\"\nunbiblical? May one reject God's message and stand uncondemned before\nGod? Assuredly not. What was the example Jesus set? This: \"He that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not\nshall be damned.\" He was but proclaiming the message that God had given\nto him, and he laid down this principle as connected with the authority\nand commission he had bestowed upon the apostles when sending them into\nthe world: \"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth\nme receiveth him that sent me.\" What do we do, when we proclaim the\ndivine message with which the Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned to\nthe world but just apply this same principle? Nothing more than this,\nand of course we could do nothing less. As I remarked a moment ago, you\nmay refuse, as you do, to believe this message and testimony, but you\ncannot say in truth that there is anything unbiblical in the principles\non which we proceed to make this declaration to the world: and, by the\nway, don't you claim the same thing for your message? If you don't,\nwhat does your message amount to? Are you not ministers of Jesus\nChrist? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can men\nreject you and your doctrine and your message and still be secure in\nthe favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand you as\nfalse teachers, untrue servants--not representatives of the Master. You\nare weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not gather\nagain, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity. You are\ntalking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism of\nthis kind.\n\nNow we are told that because of the claims of \"Mormonism\" it provokes\nsearching investigation, for the reason that \"it involves eternal\nreprobation of those who finally reject it.\" Gentlemen, have you not\njuggled here a little with words? And is it not just possible that\na wrong impression may go out from your view of our Address, rather\nthan from the Address itself? Is there such a thing in \"Mormonism\"\nas eternal reprobation as generally understood in the theological\nterminology of the world? With the single exception of those who come\nto know the truth and then so far sin against it that they have no\npower of repentance nor desire for forgiveness--the sons of perdition,\nwhich all our works teach will be comparatively few in number--does not\n\"Mormonism,\" aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation to all\nthe children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently;\nbut the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is\n\"provoked\" because the claim of the \"Mormon\" Church to being the only\nauthorized Church of Christ, \"involves the validity of all the Church\nordinances and of all ministerial functions, including the right to\nsolemnize marriages as administered by the Christian Church from the\nsecond to the nineteenth century.\" Here we are approaching solid\nground of controversy. \"Mormonism\" does deny that divine authority\nexists in the churches of the world, the churches of men, miscalled\nChristian churches. We do not blanch from the position. We proclaim\nit; although we do not wish to do so in any offensive way, but we have\nto be witnesses for the truth. And God has revealed that to be the\ntruth. \"Mormonism\" is in the world because their was a real necessity\nfor its coming into the world. It did not come into existence through\ntheological disputations, because of differences of views about\nbaptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these\nthings; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy\nfrom God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization,\nand the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the\ninstitutions and systems of men, consequently there was need of divine\nauthority being again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the\ngospel of Christ given to the world. It is our pride that \"Mormonism\"\nis this restored gospel and Church of Christ.\n\nI notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this\nMinisterial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a\nbranch of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this\nattitude of the \"Mormon\" Church, for the reason that in one of the\nHomilies of his church; in the Homily on the _Perils of Idolatry,_ it\nis expressly stated that \"Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned,\nall ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable\nidolatry, most detested by God, and damnable to man, for 800 years and\nmore.\" (_Perils of Idolatry_, p. 3). Certainly \"Mormonism\" does not\nproclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor do we declare its\nuniversality more emphatically, but I presume we are offensive to the\nrepresentatives of this particular church, the Episcopal, because we\ninclude him and his organization as among those who are in the apostasy\nand who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on him\nor his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the\nChristian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England\nunder the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory,\nand we do have this advantage, _viz_.:\n\nThat if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the\nrestoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine\nauthority, the resumption of present-day and continuous revelation\nfrom God. So we are in an infinitely better position, as to the\nreasonableness of our attitude, than are those who proclaim this\napostasy and yet are without a renewal of a dispensation of the gospel\nto the world.\n\nThere is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review,\na misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the\nreviewers set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority\nin their churches, and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for\ncenturies in the earth, but they say that our attitude involves the\nvalidity of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize\nmarriages. They are not, I take it, responsible for the headlines of\ntheir review as they appeared in the public press, but in order to make\nthe attitude of the \"Mormon\" Church as offensive as it could be made,\nthe headline said, \"Gentile Marriage Ordinances Illegal Before God.\"\nNow in justice to us I think this matter should have been put fairly,\nand the exact status of the matter given. It should have appeared that\nwe regard marriage as a civil as well as a religious contract, and\nour attitude with reference to divine things nowhere involves us in a\ncontradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil contract, nor\nas a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine favor\nand blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any way,\nin thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that\nmarriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or\nby the authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage\ncovenant beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have\nbeen a little more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our\nposition upon this question. Allow me to do it for them.\n\nTurning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be\nfound:\n\n    \"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these:\n    All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows,\n    performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that\n    are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of\n    promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all\n    eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment\n    through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on\n    the earth to hold this power * * * are of no efficacy, virtue,\n    or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all\n    contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are\n    dead.\"\n\nAgain,\n\n    \"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of\n    men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name,\n    whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith\n    the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are\n    dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your\n    God.\n\n    \"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things\n    are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man\n    marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by\n    my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world,\n    and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when\n    they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they\n    are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.\"\n\nSo far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it\nrelates only to denying their validity after the resurrection--not this\nside of it; and, gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because\nyou yourselves, in performing the marriage ceremony, say, \"I pronounce\nyou man and wife until death does you part.\" I think you ought not\nto take offense at what we say on this subject--we say your marriage\nceremonies are of no binding effect in and after the resurrection, you\nmake no pretensions of marrying for eternity. The fact is, you scorn\nand ridicule it. Before leaving this group of propositions with which\nI am dealing, I desire to say respecting this question of universal\napostasy from the Christian faith--we can sustain the truth of that\ndeclaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of the\nreligious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no\nanxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into\nan argument on the justification of our attitude.\n\nBut, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference\nbetween your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and\nthe existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out\nof those respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there\nis no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved except\nthe name of Jesus Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be\nacceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that\nthose who do not accept this gospel cannot receive the benefits of its\nsalvation? Now then, after two thousand years of proselyting in the\nworld, under the most favorable circumstances, what is the sum total of\nyour achievements? Why, less than one-third of the inhabitants of the\nearth are even nominally Christians! and what is your attitude toward\nGod's children whom you have not converted. Why, that they are lost.\nThat is the inevitable result of your attitude and doctrine. Or else\nyou must say that men can be saved without the gospel of Christ. Now\nthe difference between your position and ours is simply this:\n\nThe proposition that you present to the world at large, we present\nto you as well as to the rest of mankind--and you don't like your\nown medicine--with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one\nthat goes far towards establishing the divine origin of this great\nlatter-day work; the exception is this: that whereas, your attitude and\nprinciples condemn the great bulk of the human family to everlasting\nperdition--and I am going to talk to you about perdition in a little\nwhile, and point out what you mean by it--while you consign to eternal\nperdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's children, we proclaim\nan \"everlasting gospel,\" one that shall not only walk beside men\nthrough this life but through all the ages that are to come. You say\nin your review that we \"contribute nothing to reverence for God, or\nto justice or mercy toward men.\" Well, here is one little item that\n\"Mormonism\" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold\nthat in any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten\nthousand years hence, or ten million years hence--we hold that when an\nintelligence, a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate\nthe law of God, but that it profiteth everything to yield obedience\nto that law, and repentance takes hold of him, and he stretches out\nhis hands toward God--through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the hand of\nGod will find the man's hand and bring him unto salvation. That is the\ndifference between us, and I leave you to judge which smacks most of\nthe inspiration and truth of heaven.\n\nWe take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by\nyou, gentlemen, that the \"Mormon\" Church denies that the Christian\nchurches have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding\nChristian martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches\nhave fostered, the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly\npromoted. I wish to explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with\nreference to this interregnum between the apostasy and the restoration\nof that gospel in the nineteenth century, through our prophet.\n\nOur position is this: While there was this universal apostasy, while\nthe Church of Christ as an organization was destroyed, and replaced\nby the churches of men, yet just as when the sun goes down, there\nstill remains light in the sky--so, too, notwithstanding this apostasy\nfrom the Church, there still were left fragments of truth among the\nchildren of men, and some measure of truth thank God, through his\nmercy, has always remained with man, not only with Christians but with\nall God's children. He has not left himself in any of the ages of the\nworld without his witnesses, and he has sanctified all generations\nof men with some measure of the truth; therefore, when we proclaim\nthis apostasy from the Christian religion and the destruction of the\nChurch of Christ, it does not follow that we hold that all truth, that\nall virtue, had departed from the world, or that God had absolutely\nwithdrawn from his creation. Not so. The light of truth burned in the\nbosom of good men; but it does not follow that because these fragments\nof truth remained there was necessarily the organized Church of Christ\nand divine authority in the world. These fragments of the truth could\nremain in the so-called Christian parts of the world, as we now know\nthem to exist in what is called the heathen world. Relative to the\nreforms you claim that your churches have fostered and the progress\nof mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted, you are aware,\ngentlemen, that there is a certain class of thinkers among you--I mean\nin the Christian world, not among \"Mormons\"--you are aware that there\nis a school of thinkers among men who will tell you to your teeth, and\nthey will come very nearly proving the truth of it, that such progress\nin civilization, in science, in arts, as the world has made in past\nages, has not been made _because_ of your churches, but _in spite_ of\nthem. They hold that your organizations have been found quite as often\nagainst the progress of truth as standing in support of it. Taking the\nwhole time range into account, from the close of the second to the\nopening of the nineteenth century, it would puzzle you to meet their\nevidence and argument.\n\nIt is claimed that the brevity of our Address not only leaves much to\nbe desired, but that it is \"positively misleading.\"\n\nFirst, our reviewers claim that the address is misleading on the\nsubject of revelation. Still these reviewers are able to quote from\nthe Address as follows: \"The theology of our Church is the theology\ntaught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology of Scripture and\nreason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture,\nand the binding force of divinely inspired acts and utterances in ages\npast; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel\ndispensation.\" That seems quite explicit to me. But, commenting upon\nthe passage, the reviewers say:\n\n    \"Under this declaration lies the claim of the 'Mormon'\n    Church--constantly insisted upon in its congregation here and in\n    surrounding regions--that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and\n    Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, together with the living\n    oracles--_i.e._, certain members of the priesthood--are divinely\n    inspired and are, therefore, of equal authority with the Bible.\n    This claim, a knowledge of which is so necessary to even a\n    tolerable understanding of their system of belief, is not plainly\n    and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine contained\n    in the Address, but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in their\n    teachings in 'Mormon' communities.\"\n\nNow, be honest, gentlemen, is it not repeated everywhere with just as\nmuch emphasis as in \"Mormon\" communities in Utah? Isn't it a universal\nproclamation that we make to the world? You know it is, and you prove\nthat it is from the very works you quote to establish the fact that we\nbelieve in that doctrine, and which are of world-wide circulation. It\nwas a vile effort at misrepresentation on your part to make it appear\notherwise. But on the subject of revelation, let us go to the Address\nitself. What is said upon the subject of revelation is found on pages\nthree and four, and fourteen and fifteen: \"Our religion is founded\non the revelations of God,\" * * * \"It,\" [the Church of Christ] \"not\nonly acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding\nforce of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also\ndeclares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation.\"\nAt page 14 of the Address this is said:\n\n    _\"_It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such\n    a desire [i.e., to live in peace with our fellow citizens] is\n    impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of\n    their faith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient\n    times; that the priesthood of the Church constitute a body of\n    men who have each for himself, in the sphere in which he moves,\n    special right to such revelation; that the president of the Church\n    is recognized as the only person through whom divine communication\n    will come as law and doctrine to the religious body; that such\n    revelation may come at any time, upon any subject, spiritual or\n    temporal, as God wills; and finally that, in the mind of every\n    faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in whatsoever it\n    counsels, advises, or commands, is paramount.\"\n\nNow, gentlemen, will you tell me how we could be more frank or explicit\non the subject of revelation? And when you charge that in this document\nwe have not dealt candidly with the subject of revelation, why did you\nnot quote this passage I have just read, with the other passages that\nyou have quoted? Were you not trying to do a little misleading on your\nown account? Did you deal quite fairly with the Address when you failed\nto quote this very explicit passage just read?\n\nComplaint is made about our belief in \"Living Oracles\" in the Church,\n_i.e._, certain members of the priesthood who are divinely inspired,\nand who may interpret the revelations and the laws of the Church.\n\nWell, gentlemen, why do you complain of that? Books do not make\nchurches. How came we by the ancient scriptures? The Old and the\nNew Testament, I mean. We are instructed in the Scriptures that no\nscripture is of private interpretation, but that \"holy men of God spake\nas they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost,\" hence your Old Testament\nand your New Testament. They came into existence exactly in the same\nway that our scripture is coming into existence. The living oracles\nmake scripture; scriptures do not make living oracles. And that is what\nis the matter with you, gentlemen; you have been relying upon books\ninstead of relying upon the fountain source of all wisdom, truth and\nknowledge, the inspiration and revelation of God to the human soul.\nYou are book-made teachers, rather than God-made teachers. That is\nthe difference between the living oracles in the Church of Christ and\nthose who speak as the Scribes and Pharisees were wont to speak. The\npeople in ancient times were able to discern the difference; for they\nsaid of Jesus that he spoke as one having authority, and not as the\nScribes and the Pharisees. We are in harmony with the whole course of\nGod's dealings with his children in this matter of developing his word\nin his Church. Yes, we have living oracles in the Church, thank God;\nand when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost their utterances\nare the very word of God; and when the teachings and discourses of the\nelders of the Church shall have been sifted and tried in the fire of\ntime, much that they have said will prove to be scripture, and thus the\nChurch of Christ of this dispensation shall make scriptures, just as\nthe Church of Christ of former dispensations has done.\n\nNow I read to you another passage from this review. Complaint is made\nagainst our address upon the ground that it treats very briefly--all\ntoo briefly, the doctrines of the Church. I do not know but what it\nis open to just criticism on that ground; for our doctrines are but\nstated, as you may say, in headlines. I presume the Presidency of the\nChurch did not think the occasion called for an elaborate exposition of\nthe principles of our faith, with chapter and verse given for warrant\nof the authority on which they rested. But the Church had been under\nthe fire of severe criticism for a period of four years or more. Its\ndoctrines had been assailed, the practices of its people had been\nmisrepresented, their character traduced, and their \"whole course of\nconduct reprobated and condemned.\" Taking these circumstances under\nadvisement, the Presidency of the Church thought, I presume, the time\npropitious for an utterance which would in outline tell the world what\nwe believed, and correct the misunderstanding that obtained respecting\nour past history and present position. The address was not designed,\nas I understand it, to be a complete exposition of our faith, but a\ndeclaration of our present attitude.\n\nOn the doctrine of the Godhead these Christian gentlemen, our\nreviewers, think that the statement of the Address to the effect\nthat we believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual\npersonages--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--is a declaration that will not\nperhaps suggest Tritheism or materialism to Christians unfamiliar with\n\"Mormon\" \"theological terms.\" \"But,\" they continue, \"when the full\ndoctrine of the Deity, as taught in 'Mormon' congregations, is known,\nit will at once be seen that no Christian can accept it. In fact,\" they\nsay, \"the 'Mormon' Church teaches that God the Father has a material\nbody of flesh and bone; that Adam is the God of the human race; that\nthis Adam-God was physically begotten by another God; that the Gods\nwere once as we are now; that there is a great multiplicity of Gods;\nthat Jesus Christ was physically begotten by the heavenly Father of\nMary, his wife; that as we have a heavenly Father, so also we have a\nheavenly mother; that Jesus himself was married, and was probably a\npolygamist.\"\n\nLet me say, in treating this group of statements, that these gentlemen\nnowhere support these allegations by citations from our authoritative\nworks that the Church accepts as binding in doctrine; but they do\nquote the commentaries of men, which often express only individual\nopinions. I might dismiss this group of charges against the \"Mormon\"\nChurch, therefore, by this statement of the case: the Church is not\nbound to defend any doctrine that is not explicitly found in the works\nof the Church setting forth authoritatively her doctrines. But I do\nnot propose to dismiss the charges in any such fashion. I propose to\ngrapple with them, and meet them, I trust to your satisfaction and to\nthe satisfaction of these gentlemen.\n\nFirst, as to God having a body of flesh and bone--being a material\npersonage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural,\nunphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose\nof this discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that\nGod is a spirit inhabiting a body of flesh and bone--an exalted, a\nperfected man, if you will--the statement of the belief of these\nreviewers as to the nature of God. And, by the way, they are so nearly\nat one upon this doctrine, that the Church of England's creed, the\nstatement of the Episcopal church on the doctrine, will be acceptable,\nI doubt not, to them all. On this subject these gentlemen hold: \"There\nis but one living and true God, everlasting, without body\"--and that\nterm \"body,\" by the way, does not mean to deny that God has a body in\nfashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not material.\nContinuing then--\"without body, parts or passions; of infinite power,\nwisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both\nvisible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three\nPersons of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and\nthe Holy Ghost.\"\n\nOf Jesus the creed says:\n\n    \"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from\n    everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one\n    substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the\n    blessed virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect\n    natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined\n    together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ\n    very God and very Man.\"\n\nAgain:\n\n    \"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body,\n    with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of\n    man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth,\n    until he return to judge all men at the last day.\"\n\nMark what is said here of Jesus. You say that \"the Godhead and manhood\"\nin Jesus \"were joined together in one person,\" that is, his spirit and\nhis body are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you\nthis question: Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then\nis not God an exalted man according to your creed? Listen--and this is\nyour belief as expressed in your creed--\"Christ did truly rise again\nfrom death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things\nappertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended\ninto heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the\nlast day.\"\n\nAccording to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved\ninto some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout\nthe universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial,\nresurrected personage, a united spirit and body; and \"The Godhead,\nand Manhood\" that are united in the Christ--the humanity and the\ndivinity--are \"never to be divided.\" He is recognized and worshiped by\nyou, gentlemen, as \"very God and very man.\" This, of course, scarcely\nmeets the description of the first paragraph of the creed used here,\nwhere God is declared to be not matter, that is \"without body, parts or\npassions.\" But then that contradiction is your affair, your trouble,\nnot ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the fact that the\nsecond part of your creed leads you closely to the \"Mormon\" doctrine\nthat God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to your\ncreed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his\nreturn to judge all men at the last day.\n\nAnd now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture\nwhich says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, \"and the\nexpress image of his person\" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of\na person the Christ is, who \"possessed all the fulness of the Godhead\nbodily;\" and who, when he declared that all power in heaven and in\nearth had been given unto him, and he was in the act of sending his\ndisciples into all the world to teach and baptize in the authority of\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--was a resurrected, immortal man, of\nspirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the scripture teaches that\nthe Son was the express image of the Father's person, we conclude that\nthe Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, just as the\nSon, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that \"such as the\nFather is, such is the Son;\" and of course, it follows that, such as\nthe Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of\nspirit, flesh and bone, united in one person, \"very God and very man,\"\njust as Jesus is. And there are two separate personages, each distinct\nfrom the other in person, two individuals, but both of the same divine\nnature; and if two separate personages, individuals, may participate in\nthe one divine nature, it logically follows that a larger number than\ntwo or three may participate in that nature. And hence the Scriptures\nrepresent in many places the existence of a plurality of divine\npersonages, how many we do not know, and it does not matter. But we\nhear of God saying, \"Let us make man in our image; the man has become\nas one of us, knowing good and evil;\" \"God standeth in the congregation\nof the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said Ye are\nGods, and all of you are children of the most High.\" The last a passage\nof the Psalms, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification of\nhis own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel,\nMichael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what\nmore fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the\ngreat, presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants;\nand the one with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What\nsacrilege is there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should\nbe so?\n\nOf your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will\nsay nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if\nyou expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines.\n\nOne other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that\nwe believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen,\nhonestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for\nhim to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his\nbody grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth\nof the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman;\nthat through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and\nguided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in\nyour philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother,\nbut a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father?\nIs not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people,\nthere is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having\na father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our\nfaith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother\nas well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn\nof ours on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's\nsoul, and which was given to this world through the inspired mind of\nEliza R. Snow; the hymn is known to us as \"O My Father.\"\n\nIn the Scripture we read: \"We have had fathers of the flesh, and we\ndid give them reverence, shall we not much rather be subject to the\nFather of spirits and live?\" So that we know we have had a father to\nour spirits; but because we hold that the spirits of men have also a\nmother in heaven, as well as a father, behold these reviewers complain\nagainst us. Now, observe the peculiar position of these critics: It is\nall right for Jesus to have a mother; but it is all wrong for him to\nhave a father. On the other hand, it is all right for men's spirits to\nhave a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our doctrine of\ntheir also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in the world\nis the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your views,\nor the kind of beings with which you people heaven. One of your own\nnumber, however, has thrown some light upon that subject, and has so\nclassified you--saving me the trouble--as to enable us to understand to\nsome extent your peculiar views. I have a book here that I am going to\nuse in this controversy. It is a new one. I got it three days ago, and\nhave read it nearly through in order to be prepared for this occasion.\nIt is the work of Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, and it\nis a treatise on the _New Theology,_ just now much talked of in Europe.\nHe describes ministers of the gospel and gives them the classification\nreferred to a moment since, and which I think must needs be all right,\nsince it comes from a minister. He takes the average business man of\nEngland, naming him \"John Smith,\" for convenience, and he says this\nabout John:\n\n    \"John Smith, with whom we used to go to school, and who has since\n    developed into a stolid British man of business, with few ideas\n    and a tendency toward conservatism--John is a stalwart, honest,\n    commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never\n    prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. His wife and\n    children go to church on Sundays. John seldom goes himself, because\n    it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended\n    to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting\n    any daring flights. He has a good-natured contempt for clergymen\n    in general, because he feels somewhat that, like women, they have\n    to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not\n    count for much in the ordinary affairs of life, they are a sort of\n    a third sex.\"\n\nNow, ladies, I ask you to remember, in passing, that I am reading\nthe words of somebody else; their are not my words. The phrase\n\"half-fictitious reverence\" is not mine. I think we ought to have real\nreverence for women; no fictitious reverence at all.\n\nThe ministers are here in this passage described as \"a sort of third\nsex,\" and I am inclined to think that is right; for when a man in one\ncase objects to a person having a father, and in another case considers\nit altogether unholy for persons to have a mother, I do not know how\nelse to classify him but as \"a sort of third sex\"-kind of a man.\n\nThere seems to be objection in the review to the idea of the marriage\nrelation existing in heaven and subsisting between divine beings.\nLoud complaint is made, if you hold that the intelligences of heaven\nobey the law of marriage. Let me ask you, Christian gentlemen, Who\ninstituted marriage? You will answer, God. Is it holy or unholy? Did\nGod institute an unholy thing and command men to engage in it? You will\nhave to say that marriage is holy, since God instituted it. Very good.\nThen if it is holy, how do you make it out that it will be unholy for\ndivine personages to practice it? Is it not just as good for divine\npersonages as for you imperfect men? Can it be that your ideas of the\nrelationship of the sexes are so impure that you must needs regard that\nassociation as so unholy as to be unworthy of divine beings? Let me\nread to you what a great English author--Jeremy Taylor--says on this\nsubject of, marriage:\n\n    \"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and\n    fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful\n    bee, it builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower,\n    and labors and unites into societies and republics, and sends out\n    colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps\n    order, and exercises many virtues and promotes the interest of\n    mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the\n    present constitution of the world.\"\n\nNow, you prate to us about our belief, or the belief of some of us at\nleast, that divine personages are in this holy relationship. But tell\nme what it is that has been the great civilizing force of this and all\nother ages? What is it that best tempers man, and fits him for the\nsociety of his fellows and for holy communion with God? There is no\nforce within the experience of man, that is so beneficial or ennobling\nto him as the love and devotion of a pure, good woman; and for woman\nthere is nothing that is so sanctifying as the love of an upright,\nhonorable man, whose arm protects her and whose love shields her from\nthe evils of the world. These relations, blessed with the pledges of\ntheir affection in off-spring, complete the circle of man's happiness,\nand greatness, and exaltation of spirit in this world. It is the\ncivilizing force that stands pre-eminent above all others. And that\nwhich sanctifies man here in this world may be trusted not to degrade\nhim in the eternities that are to come, but, on the contrary, will\ncontribute to his exaltation and his eternal glory. That is our faith,\nat least, and we would not change it for all the sexless, hermaphrodite\nexistences that your warped minds paint in such glowing colors.\n\nWe offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the\ndivine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that\nwe believe that \"as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may\nbecome.\" The world usually shouts \"blasphemy\" and \"sacrilege\" at one\nwhen he talks of such a possibility. But the world moves, I am happy to\nsay. Just now, in England, especially, there is a thought-revolution\nunder way. Some have declared that in importance and extent it is as\ngreat as was the revolution of the sixteenth century, led by Martin\nLuther. The present recognized leader of this movement is the Rev.\nR. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, London, whose book I referred\nto a moment ago. This \"New Theology,\" so-called, has the outspoken\nsupport of the _Christian Commonwealth,_ of London, a publication\nof wide influence. A \"Society for the Encouragement of Progressive\nReligious Thought\" has been organized to champion the ideas of the\n\"New Theology.\" Mr. Campbell numbers among his champions Dr. John\nClifford, the leading figure in the English Baptist church, also Dr.\nR. F. Horton, chairman of the London Congregational Union. In America,\nhis sympathizers and opponents seem to be equally numerous. Mr. W. T.\nStead, of the _Review of Reviews,_ compares the present theological\nardor in London with that which marked Alexandria in the days of\nAthanasius, \"when fishmongers at their stalls discussed the doctrine of\nthe trinity.\" The strife of tongues has reached even to Germany, where\nProf. Harnack, the eminent theologian, interprets it as a proof that\nthe \"formal theology of the creeds [your creeds, gentlemen,] is being\ngradually displaced by the vital theology of experience.\"\n\nI want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is\nmaking its way among all churches. It is' not an organized movement.\nNo one appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as\nbeing one of those pulsations of the \"cosmic mind\" which moves over the\npeople at intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be\nastonished at the fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great\nnumber of people who are accepting it as the \"theology of experience.\"\nIts fundamental principle is the recognition of the identity between\nhuman nature and the divine nature.\n\nIn proof of it, I submit the following passages:\n\n    \"Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the\n    representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the\n    fact that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost\n    sight of its own fundamental, the divineness of man.\" (Rev. R. J.\n    Campbell, in _Hibbert Journal,_ April, 1907, p. 487.)\n\n    \"When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief,\n    let us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that\n    until he becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to\n    his help and share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of\n    the Christ incarnate for the redemption of the world.\" (_Ibid,_ p.\n    493.)\n\n    \"The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence\n    of God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe\n    man to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the\n    self-manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real\n    distinction between humanity and the Deity.\n\n    \"Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it\n    is limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should\n    be interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it\n    reverences Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, 'but so are we.'\n    * * * Every man is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of\n    the eternal Christ. * * * The new theology * * * is the gospel of\n    the humanity of God and the divinity of man.\" (Campbell, _London\n    Daily Mail,_ quoted in _Current Literature,_ April, 1907.)\n\n    \"I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power\n    which produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus\n    becomes my gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I\n    say to myself, God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth\n    about myself I shall find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the\n    humanity was divinity and divinity humanity. * * * But you make\n    him only a man! No, reader, I do not. I make him the only man, and\n    there is a difference. We have only seen perfect manhood once,\n    and that was the manhood of Jesus. The rest of us have got to get\n    there. * * * We have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on\n    putting humanity and Deity into two separate categories.\n\n    \"Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God.\"\n    Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older\n    Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in\n    man--God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of\n    difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional\n    orthodoxy on the other. The latter would restrict the description\n    'God manifest in the flesh' to Jesus alone; the new theology would\n    extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain\n    that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as it\n    ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and\n    significance to the earthly mission of Jesus--he came to show us\n    what we potentially are.\" (_The New_ _Theology,_ Campbell, pp. 82,\n    83.)\n\nThere is much more to the same effect, which I now pass.\n\nI am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr.\nCampbell--from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers\nsway the religious thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the\nthoughts of many more people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir\nOliver Lodge, who says in the _Hibbert Journal,_ one of the foremost\npublications in the world on the subject of theology and philosophy,\nwith reference to the divinity of Jesus, and the identity of the divine\nand human nature:\n\n    \"The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers\n    and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though\n    still assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath\n    reality, that the notion of a God revealed in human form--born,\n    suffering, tormented, killed--has been utterly incredible. 'A\n    crucified prophet, yes; but a crucified God! I shudder at the\n    blasphemy,' is a known quotation which I cannot now verify; yet\n    that apparent blasphemy is the soul of Christianity. It calls\n    upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an executed God.\n    * * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is a God.\n    Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) 'The divinity of\n    Jesus' is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be\n    illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified\n    by the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it\n    can be freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and\n    can be recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of\n    Jesus, (Mark you--'the divinity of Jesus') and of all other noble\n    and saintly souls, in so far as they too have been inflamed by\n    a spark of Divinity--in so far as they too can be recognized as\n    manifestations of the Divine.\" (_Hibbert Journal_ for April, 1906,\n    pp. 654-5.)\n\nThat is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, \"the\ndivinity of Jesus,\" and the divinity of \"all other noble and saintly\nsouls\"--the kinship of men and God. That is \"Mormonism,\" and it was\nproclaimed by the great prophet of the nineteenth century, half a\ncentury before these modern minds were awakened to its grandeur and\nto its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it running in the earth to\nbe glorified, for in it I recognize the very root principle of all\nreligion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with all\nthat is pure, uplifting and divine.\n\nNow, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this \"New\nTheology;\" but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord\nwith the principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The\ndoctrine of the immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the\nuniverse and the divinity of man, instead of its having its origin\nsome fifteen or twenty years ago, and now finding expression in the\nbeautiful diction of Mr. Campbell and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it\nwas taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at least over seventy years\nago. Concerning the immanence of God, he taught the following in 1832:\nHe first represents that the spirit of Christ is \"in all and through\nall things, the light of truth; which truth shineth.\" Then he adds:\n\n    \"This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the\n    light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As\n    also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power\n    thereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars, and\n    the power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also, and\n    the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the\n    light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who\n    enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth\n    your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence\n    of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all\n    things; which giveth life to all things; which is the law by which\n    all things are governed; even the power of God who sitteth upon his\n    throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all\n    things.\"\n\nThe prophet further declared, in 1833, that \"the elements are eternal,\nand spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy.\nThe elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of\nGod, even temples.\"\n\nAgain, I say, there is much in the so-called \"New Theology\" which we\ncannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment\nof the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental\nprinciples of it are concerned--the immanence of God in the world,\nand the identity of the race of man and divine beings--there can be\nno question as to their accuracy. And those Christian people who are\nnot accepting these ideas are not moving forward with the far-flung\nthought-line of God's revelations on these matters.\n\nWe next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the\nreviewers that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine\nis not candidly set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long\nline of quotations, most of them from the _Seer,_ upon the subject of\npriesthood; and insist that the priesthood involves the possession and\nexercise of arbitrary power in all things, in things both spiritual\nand temporal. I read to you a passage or two from the Address on the\nsubject of priesthood that you may see the injustice of this charge:\n\n    \"We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the\n    authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the\n    power of the holy priesthood.\n\n    \"We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages,\n    the holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age,\n    and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been\n    organized.\"\n\nThe reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remark--but without\nreturning to quote again from the Address--\"so it is declared; but\nthe teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein\ncandidly set forth.\" Then why did not you reviewers go to another part\nof the document where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote\nthat? Following the fragment you do quote occurs this passage which\ndeclares the express purposes for which the priesthood was given:\n\n    \"We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching\n    of the gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered Israel,\n    and the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord.\"\n\nBut you reviewers say this \"power extends not only to things spiritual,\nbut to secular matters as well.\" Within certain limitations, granted;\nand the acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which\nyou charge with being uncandid. Here is the passage:\n\n    \"That the Church claims the right to counsel and advise her members\n    in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs is admitted. Leading\n    Church officials, men of practical experience in pioneer life,\n    have aided the people in establishing settlements throughout\n    the inter-mountain west, and have given them, gratuitously, the\n    benefit of their broader knowledge of things, through counsel and\n    direction, which the people have followed to their advantage; and\n    both the wisdom of the leaders and the good sense of the people\n    are vindicated in the results achieved. All this has been done\n    without the exercise of arbitrary power. It has resulted from wise\n    counsels, persuasively given and willingly followed.\"\n\nBut you insist that there is \"tyranny and arbitrary ruler-ship\" over\na community which indorses the priesthood's high claims. I deny the\nexistence of such tyranny as a fact among the \"Mormon\" people who\nindorse the priesthood's high claims; and I deny the existence of\narbitrary power as a doctrine of the Church, and so does the Address\nwhich you pretend to review. Here is the passage:\n\n    \"We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church\" [why\n    didn't you gentlemen quote that]; \"and this because its government\n    is moral government purely, and its forces are applied through\n    kindness, reason, and persuasion. Government by consent of the\n    governed is the rule of the Church.\"\n\nFollowing is a summary of the word of the Lord, setting forth the\nprinciples on which the Church government is to be administered:\n\n    \"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the\n    powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled\n    nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they\n    may be conferred upon men, it is true; but when they undertake to\n    cover their sins, or gratify their pride, their vain ambition, or\n    exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of\n    the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit\n    of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the\n    priesthood or the authority of that man. No power or influence\n    can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only\n    by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and\n    by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall\n    greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile.\"\n\nGentlemen, those are our principles. Why didn't you quote them fairly\nand fully, instead of charging arbitrary power, when it is expressly\ndenied by what we regard as the very word of God? Honestly, now, did\nyou deal fairly with us when you came to this part of your review? But,\nyou say, \"given the power of the 'Mormon' priesthood, that it should\nnot be used is incompatible with the known facts of human nature.\"\nWell, if it does attempt arbitrary power, it will be in violation of\nour principles, and not in harmony with them; and that fact furnishes\na basis for the correction of any abuses that may arise. And while it\nis true that here and there, throughout a long experience, there may\nhave been individual instances of the exercise of arbitrary rule in the\nChurch, yet speaking for the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints, as a whole, I challenge you to duplicate the same\nhonorable conduct anywhere within the experience of men, where those\nentrusted with power have so uniformly abstained from abusing it while\nexercising the functions of government. The Latter-day Saints love\ntheir leaders, living and dead, and not without cause, I assure you;\nfor these men have labored in season and out of season, persuading,\ncounseling, advising, and guarding the interests of their people with\nan unselfishness that tells us something of the love of God, and that\nwithout effort at personal aggrandizement or enrichment. The lives and\nlabors of the priesthood are a vindication of its divine origin and\nspirit.\n\nThe review further says that when once \"the Church's claim for its\npriesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters\nlogically follows.\" But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact,\nor at least admit it in some form, that the address you were reviewing\n_emphatically excepted out of its jurisdiction the sphere of civil\ngovernment?_ You could have edified those whom you are so anxious to\nenlighten with such passages as these:\n\n    \"The laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the\n    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. On the\nsubject of the relations of the Church and the State the Address says:\n\n    \"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to\n    the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the\n    non-interference of church authority in political matters; and\n    the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the\n    performance of his political duties. If, at any time, there has\n    been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in\n    violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church.\n\n    \"We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:\n\n    \"The absolute separation of church and state;\n\n    \"No domination of the state by the Church;\n\n    \"No church interference with the functions of the state;\n\n    \"No state interference with the functions of the church, or with\n    the free exercise of religion;\n\n    \"The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of\n    ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;\n\n    \"The equality of all churches before the law.\"\n\nAgain I read from the review, and this time I deal with a passage\nwhich the reviewers themselves say \"dwarfs everything mentioned in the\nAddress.\" We shall see what comes of it:\n\n    \"Apparently the foundation of the 'Mormon' Church is in the Book\n    of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price,\n    and the testimony of the living oracles delivered from time to\n    time. But whoever digs down to the lowermost foundation will find\n    that, at last, everything rests upon the reported visions of\n    Joseph Smith. When any matter of vital importance is presented\n    for the belief of mankind, if that matter, either in its nature\n    or the circumstances attending it, lies very much outside the\n    ordinary, a due regard for human intelligence demands that,\n    whatever testimony is produced in support of it shall be buttressed\n    by corroborative evidence. But here we have a system of religion\n    which claims sole authority as being alone divinely accredited.\n    It asks for the acceptance of mankind on the ground of being so\n    accredited. It anathematizes all who finally reject it. Yet this\n    religion, making such an astonishing claim, is founded upon the\n    unsupported assertion of a young person whose probity was never so\n    well established that his naked word would be taken concerning any\n    matter transcending ordinary observation and experience; and that\n    assertion touches supernatural appearances, and messages which, if\n    true, are of the most profound importance to mankind; and yet that\n    assertion is wholly without corroborative evidence.\"\n\nGentlemen--Christian gentlemen--you who are such sticklers for\ncandor--have you spoken truly here, and in a matter which you say\ndwarfs everything else mentioned in the Address? What of the testimony\nof three certain witnesses, who claim that they stood with Joseph\nSmith wrapt in open vision, in the light of day; who give their most\nsolemn asseveration that a holy angel came into their presence on\nthat occasion, laid before them certain ancient documents, turned\nover the leaves, conversed with them, and at the same time they heard\nthe voice of God saying that the translation of the Book of Mormon by\nJoseph Smith was true, and commanded them to bear witness of it to\nall the world--which they did, over their own signatures, and that\ntestimony is printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon? What of\nthe testimony of eight other witnesses, to whom Joseph Smith handed\nthe book of plates, and they handled and hefted them, and passed them\none to the other, and examined the engravings thereon; and they gave\ntheir testimony to the world to this effect, which testimony has been\npublished with every edition of the Book of Mormon given to the world.\nDid you overlook this corroborative testimony? Is it true that you\ngave so slight attention to the subject you were reviewing that you\ncould make a misstatement of the kind just mentioned? Were you so\nunacquainted with it? Must we think you so dull? If we acquit you of\nstupidity, what then? Must we not think of you as uttering falsehood?\nWhat of the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, who stood wrapt in vision in\nthe Kirtland temple with Joseph Smith? And of Sidney Rigdon, wrapt in\nvision with Joseph Smith, from which resulted their conjoint testimony\nconcerning that grandest of revelations ever given to man on the\ndoctrine of the future degrees of glory in which men will live in the\neternities? I do not desire to use harsh language; I will not say that\nyou wilfully, maliciously, ponderously and atrociously lied; because\nwhile all that might be true, one would be accused of harshness if he\nsaid it; but I will say that you have economized the truth, and you may\nsettle it with your own consciences.\n\nOur subject increases in interest as you get into it, and perhaps it is\nwell it is so, else your interest might falter. We come now to a very\ninteresting topic--that of polygamy. This is the darling theme of the\nreviewers, and so we will not slight it by saying nothing about it. I\nhad best read what they say on this point:\n\n    \"We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of plural\n    marriage has been discontinued in the 'Mormon' Church, since\n    no records of such marriages are kept by the Church that are\n    accessible to the public. That there have been instances of such\n    marriages ever since the agreement of the Church to discontinue\n    them, we know; that they cannot be celebrated without the sanction\n    of the Church accredited officials, is unquestioned; that, so far\n    as the public knowledge goes, no officials who may have celebrated\n    such marriages have been disciplined therefor is certain.\"\n\nThroughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not\nquite candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that\nin the State of Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it,\nwho does not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day\nSaints has stopped the practice of, or sanctioning and performing\nplural marriages. I am of the opinion that everybody is settled in his\nconviction in relation to that matter.\n\nIt requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved\nin the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church.\nNo proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and\nvariety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this\ndescription. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's\nmanifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was\ngiven that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the\nlaw, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition\nwas not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by\nrefraining from contracting such marriages within the United States\nwould not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto.\nThe matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the\nconclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages\nin all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is\nnot the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United\nStates alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general\nconference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world.\nHence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were\neverywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view\nthat that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement\nto discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural\nmarriages within the United States--when that view was persisted in, I\nsay, there was but one thing left, and that was to conclude that such\npersons were out of harmony with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles\nheld that view; they were declared by their associates to be out of\nharmony with their brethren in these matters, they tendered their\nresignations which were accepted; and since that time there has been\nno question in the Church, or out of it, as to where the Church stands\non the subject of discontinuing plural marriages, and I do not believe\nthat there is any doubt on that subject existing in the minds of the\ngentlemen who formulated this review.\n\nIn confirmation of this I submit the letter of resignation of John W.\nTaylor:\n\n    \"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905.\n\n    \"_To the Council of the Twelve Apostles_:\n\n    \"DEAR BRETHREN:--I hereby tender to you my resignation as a member\n    of the council of the twelve apostles, as it is clear to me that I\n    have been out of harmony with you on some very important matters\n    which have apparently brought reproach upon the Church of Jesus\n    Christ of Latter-day Saints.\n\n    \"I wish to state in the first place that I have not violated the\n    laws of the United States, nor of the State of Utah, in relation\n    to polygamous or plural marriages; also that the authorities of\n    the Church have not directed or authorized me to do so, or to do\n    anything contrary to the rules of the Church as adopted by that\n    body.\n\n    \"But I find that I have been out of harmony with the said\n    authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued\n    by President Woodruff and adopted by the general conference, on\n    October 6, 1890, and also as to the meaning of the last clause\n    of the petition for amnesty to President Benjamin Harrison in\n    December, 1891. I have always believed that the government of the\n    United States had jurisdiction only with its own boundaries, and\n    that the term 'laws of the land' in the manifesto meant merely\n    the laws of the United States. I find now that this opinion is\n    different to that expressed by the Church authorities, who have\n    declared that the prohibition against plural marriages extended to\n    every place and to every part of the Church. It is doubtless true\n    that this view of the matter has been given by President Woodruff\n    and others, but I have never taken that as binding upon me or the\n    Church, because it [such interpretation] was never presented for\n    adoption by 'common consent,' as was the manifesto itself, and I\n    have disputed its authority as a law or a rule of the Church.\n\n    \"I acknowledge that I received a request from President Joseph F.\n    Smith, by letter, to appear as a witness in the Reed Smoot case\n    before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections, but I\n    declined to do so because, while I recognized his right to direct\n    me in Church affairs, I did not think his authority extended to\n    civil affairs to the extent that I should expose my family concerns\n    and be questioned and be held up to public ignominy as some of my\n    brethren were before that body, and I still hold the same views\n    upon that matter.\n\n    \"Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these\n    subjects, and I have been called in question concerning them, I\n    now submit to their discipline, and, to save further controversy,\n    tender this my resignation, and hope for such clemency in my case\n    as they may deem right and just and merciful.\n\n    \"Your brother,\n\n    (Signed) \"JOHN W. TAYLOR.\"\n\nThe explanation accompanying the resignation of Elder Cowley was of\nsimilar import.\n\nAnother complaint of our reviewers is that polygamy is only abrogated\nas to practice, and that belief in the divinity of the principle is\nstill held by the Latter-day Saints.\n\nWell, gentlemen, what of it? Whose business is it? Do you hold that you\nmay enter the sacred precincts of the mind and uproot our opinions?\nYour law gives you the right to punish overt acts; but you have no\nlaw and no right to enter the domain of conscience and interfere with\nwhat is held there as the truth. Hands off here! Our belief is our\nown. We have a right to our opinions. If you don't believe them, that\nis nothing to us, we do. And if you have not succeeded in converting\nus, we can't help that. You have got all you deserve out of this\ncontroversy on our marriage system. Properly this was a question which\nbelonged to the dominion of reason, scripture and polemics. You should\nhave convinced us, as ministers of Christ, from the word of God and\nfrom the nature of the things involved, that the principle itself was\nuntrue. But you were not content to leave it to the arbitrament of\ndiscussion and reason; you must needs play upon the prejudices of the\nmasses and induce them to belabor Congress with their petitions until\nyour inimical legislation was put upon the statute books; and the\ncrusade against the practice of our marriage system was declared, and\nthose who practiced it were raided with unabated vigor for years. We\nyielded at last to superior force, not to your arguments, because we\nsuccessfully met them. You remember the occasion, do you not, of the\nchaplain of the Senate of the United States coming to this very forum,\nand here discussing the question, \"Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?\"\nThat your champion was vanquished in the contest is evidenced from\nthe fact that we publish as a campaign document both sides of\nthe Pratt-Newman discussion. If you have not convinced us of the\nincorrectness of our principles, it must be because of the lameness of\nyour reasoning, the weakness of your argument, and you must be content\nwith the result so long as we do not carry into practice that principle\nwhich we believe. We have a right to our belief in that or any other\ndoctrine as abstract principles, whether our belief suits you or not,\nand we have the right to freely express that belief, and if you don't\nlike it, you may go hang.\n\nAgain the review says: \"No denial is made of the practice of polygamous\nliving. The 'Address' admits that authoritative figures officially\ncollected show 897 male polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that\nlater reports are not quoted leads to the reasonable belief that since\nthat date the number of male polygamists has not diminished but rather\nincreased.\"\n\nIt is true the address brings down the figures no further than 897 in\n1902; but the address does say \"and many of these have since passed\naway.\" Besides, there was a statement made upon the floor of the Senate\nof the United States, based upon official figures, to the effect that\nthe number had been reduced to at least 500. Here is the passage:\n\n    \"Careful statistics have been taken and preserved, and will be\n    found in the testimony, which show that this number has gradually\n    decreased until there was at the time the testimony closed [before\n    the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections having in charge\n    the Smoot case] not to exceed five hundred such households in\n    existence.\"--(_Congressional Record,_ p. 3269.)\n\nNow, gentlemen, here was an opportunity for you to exercise a little\ngenerosity instead of juggling with alleged conditions in Utah, so\nas to express your belief that these cases of polygamous living have\nincreased rather than diminished, you could have called attention to\nwhat were the facts in the case--that it was said upon the floor of the\nSenate of the United States that the reduction had been to 500, and\nthat time would soon obliterate this question from among our problems.\n\nLet us discuss for a moment this subject of polygamous living. It is\ndoubtless a difficult problem. It has been difficult for some few men\nto discern the line of duty in the matter; but, thank God, the most of\nour brethren have not found it difficult to determine what their duty\nwas in the premises. Notwithstanding that through interpretations the\nmeaning of the Manifesto has been made to cover polygamous living as\nwell as new marriages; and logically, however much it may have been\nmisunderstood, that conclusion was inevitable; and it is conceded that\nthe law of the land forbids the continuance of these relations--yet,\nin the face of these conditions, men have concluded that their moral\nobligations to; their families demanded that they should be true to\nthe relationships into which they had entered in good faith, and under\nwhat they regarded as the sanctions of the law of God. You, gentlemen\nof the Ministerial Association do me the honor to quote some words of\nmine uttered seven years ago, while in attendance upon Congress, and\ntrying to maintain the seat that had been given me by the suffrages\nof the people of my state. I wish now to repeat what I said then,\nthough in better form, because the words I uttered at that time were\nsomewhat garbled, by the report made of them--not intentionally\ngarbled, by Mr. Arthur McEwen, who reported them. I will say that for\nhim, because I believe it, and he is since and recently dead. But so\nfar as I am concerned, I stand exactly where I did seven years ago,\nnamely, that though the Church proclaimed against the continuance of\nthat relationship contracted under her sanctions, though the state by\nstatute proclaimed against it, neither Church nor state can dissolve\nthe moral obligations I feel I am under to discharge what I regard as\na moral duty. I ask you, gentlemen, to consider this proposition. What\nprompts this adherence to these relationships by myself and other men\nin our Church? You must concede that the most of those involved in\nthese relations have passed middle life. They have entered upon the\nperiod of the \"sere and yellow leaf.\" You cannot say their conduct is\nprompted by passion or lust; \"for the heyday in the blood is cooled\nand waits upon the judgment.\" What is it then that prompts so many men\nand women in the \"Mormon\" Church to remain true to those relations\nentered upon in plural marriage? They look into each other's faces--the\nbloom of youth has passed, the brightness of the eye is somewhat\ndimmed, the suppleness of the form has passed away. But these men and\nwomen have lived their lives under circumstances that tend to endear\nmen and women to each other. The trials of life, even under ordinary\ncircumstances, result in that; but when what they regard as oppression\nand danger surround them, it is calculated all the more to draw them\nmore closely to each other in their affections. These men and women\nhave endured all sorts of trials for each other in addition to the\nordinary trials of life. They, as well as monogamists, have stood\nhands clasped by open graves, and have known the purifying effects of\ngreat sorrows. In addition to such experiences, many of the men have\nendured exile and imprisonment, and wives have been exiled from their\nhomes, their kindred and their friends, and have cast their lot among\nstrangers, rather than to sever the ties by which they were bound to\ntheir husbands; and back of it all stood the conviction that they were\ndoing God's service--upholding a principle that he had revealed, and\nentrusted to them for vindication and making it honorable among men.\nThese are facts well known in this community. These men and women were\nnot of the criminal element: their conduct was not prompted by a desire\nto defy law; they were acting and are acting now from the highest and\nnoblest motives--religious conviction of duty. And so I say, for one\nof this number--for myself--I stand exactly as I have always stood\nupon this question of fulfilling the obligation these relationships\nhave imposed; and I shall, so far as possible, still respond to the\ndictates of honor. I shall read my duty by the light of that conscience\nGod gives me--I shall respond to the voice of love and honor, and you\nreviewers may make the most of it.\n\n[You will say, such an attitude is inconsistent with the utterances\nof the Church leaders before the courts, and especially before the\nSenate Committee on Privileges and Elections. So be it then. It is\nan inconsistency that has the promptings of honor back of it, and\nunder such circumstances, for one, I shall trust God to forgive such\ninconsistency.]\n\nIt is said by you gentlemen that no apology can white-wash the outlawry\nof Joseph F. Smith. Gentlemen, his conduct needs no apology, his honor\nneeds no vindication, his position needs no defense; it needs only to\nbe stated. And as you have not stated it, I will; or, what is better,\nI will let him state it for himself. On a recent occasion, before the\ncourt in this city, President Smith said these noble words:\n\n    \"In the tacit, general understanding that was had in 1890, and the\n    years subsequent thereto, regarding what were classed as the old\n    cases of cohabitation, I have appreciated the magnanimity of the\n    American people in not enforcing a policy that in their minds was\n    unnecessarily harsh, but which assigned the settlement of this\n    difficult problem to the onward progress of time.\n\n    \"Since the years 1890 a large percentage of the polygamous families\n    have ceased to exist, until now the number within the jurisdiction\n    of this court is small, and marriages in violation of the law have\n    been and now are prohibited. In view of this situation, which has\n    fixed with certainty a result that can easily be measured up, the\n    family relations in the old cases of that time have been generally\n    left undisturbed.\n\n    \"So far as my own case is concerned, I, like others who had entered\n    into solemn religious obligations, sought to the best of my ability\n    to comply with all requirements pertaining to the trying position\n    in which we were placed. I have felt secure in the protection of\n    that magnanimous sentiment which was extended as an olive branch\n    in 1890 and subsequent years to those old cases of plural family\n    relationships which came within its purview, as did mine.\n\n    \"When I accepted the manifesto issued by President Woodruff I did\n    not understand that I would be expected to abandon and discard my\n    wives. Knowing the sacred covenants and obligations which I had\n    assumed by reason of these marriages, I have conscientiously tried\n    to discharge the responsibilities attending them without being\n    offensive to anyone. I have never flaunted my family relations\n    before the public, nor have I felt a spirit of defiance against\n    the law; but, on the contrary, I have always desired to be a\n    law-abiding citizen.\n\n    \"In considering the trying position in which I have been placed, I\n    trust that your honor will exercise such leniency in your sentence\n    as law and justice will permit.\"\n\nI say that Joseph F. Smith's position needs only to be stated to\nthe world, and the manhood of America will applaud his attitude,\nlong-haired ministerial associations and short-haired women's\norganizations to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nBut what is the use of talking in this strain to you gentlemen? This\nis a question for statesmen, and you cannot be accused of possessing\nany of those qualities. That, however, is perhaps your misfortune, not\nyour fault. When I take into account the intellectual and physical\ncapital with which you start in life, I sometimes marvel that you have\ndone so well. Your vocation is not always left to your own choice.\nThe position is frequently chosen for you by your parents, having\nin view your physical and intellectual endowments. The ministry is\ngenerally recognized as a genteel sort of profession. It promises a\ncertain social standing. It secures you from the dust and sweat and\nphysical toil of a mechanic's life, and from the brain-sweat of secular\nprofessional life and struggle. It takes you out of the turmoil of\ntrade and commerce, and out of the fierce contests of political life,\nand from the dangers of a career in army and in navy. Then, you know,\nas a class you were not physically strong; a larger proportion of your\nnumber are consumptives, neurotics, anemics, paranoiacs, and the like,\nthan in any other of the professions; and so this genteel profession is\nquite frequently selected for you by your parents, and for the reasons\nhere set forth. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I am\ndealing with you as a class. After your calling is selected for you,\nyou pass into the schools, colleges and universities, and there you\nfollow a rather kid-glove course of study. You will not need much of\nmathematics, so you pay little attention to that subject; you will need\nmore of _belles lettres,_ of moral and metaphysical philosophy, of\nlanguages and rhetoric, and eloquence. So your studies run along those\nlines, and after completing this course you step from your colleges\ninto pulpits to instruct the world, at the same time knowing less about\nthat world than any other class of men whatsoever. Then, going into\nthat world, you are soon sequestrated into a very narrow portion of\nit. As a rule, you have to deal most with christenings, with weddings,\nwith funerals; but you shine most at social functions, more especially\nat pink teas. So that, all things considered, neither by your original\nendowments nor by your environments nor by your training are you\nprepared to meet the broad questions that concern humanity.\n\nAs was stated in the passage I read from Mr. Campbell's book a while\nago, your class \"do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of\nlife.\" On practical questions you are relegated to the rear, and your\ninfluence in community life grows less and ever less with the passing\nyears. Do you think I overstate the case? Then let me quote to you\nwhat one of your own number says of you--again Mr. Campbell in his\nup-to-date book before quoted. Before giving the quotation, however,\nlet me disclaim the existence of any personal animosity towards you.\nAll that I say is meant in the very best of feeling. I speak not from\nmalice concerning you, but from experience. I have been meeting your\nclass, gentlemen, for now thirty years; and have had controversies of\nvarious kinds with it during that time, and I know you as a class quite\nthoroughly. I speak from experience, not malice, and comparing you as a\nclass with other classes of men whom I have known, it is just a plain,\nsolemn truth that you are, as a class, narrow, bigoted, intolerant,\npetty; and I say that in the very best of feeling. And now the\npassage of Mr. Campbell's book. Speaking of the decline of organized\nChristianity and its ministry, he says:\n\n    \"For a generation or more in every part of Christendom there has\n    been a steady drift away from organized religion as represented\n    by the churches, and the question is being seriously asked\n    whether Christianity can much longer hold its own. Protestant\n    controversialists frequently draw attention to the decline of\n    church-going in Latin countries as evidence of the decay of\n    sacerdotalism, particularly in the church of Rome. But outside\n    Latin countries it is not one whit more noticeable in the church\n    of Rome than in any other church. The masses of the people on\n    the one hand and the cultured classes on the other are becoming\n    increasingly alienated from the religion of the churches. A London\n    daily paper made a religious census some years ago and demonstrated\n    that about one-fifth of the population of the metropolis attended\n    public worship, and this was a generous estimate. Women, who are\n    more emotional, more reverent, and more amenable to external\n    authority than men, usually form the majority of the worshipers\n    at an ordinary service. Mr. Charles Booth in his great work on\n    the _Life and Labor of the People in London_ asserts that the\n    churches are practically without influence of any kind on the\n    communal life. This I believe to be an exaggeration, but it\n    will hardly be denied that the average working, business, or\n    professional man looks upon the churches almost with indifference.\n    In many cases this indifference passes into hostility or contempt.\n    Intelligent men take little notice of preacher and sermons, and the\n    theologically-minded layman is such a rarity as to be note-worthy.\n    Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that much of the\n    moral earnestness of the nation and of social redemptive effort\n    exists outside the churches altogether. * * * The plain, bald fact\n    remains that the churches as such are counting for less and less\n    in civilization in general and our own nation in particular. One\n    of the ablest of our rising young members of parliament, a man\n    of strong religious convictions and social sympathies, recently\n    declared that we were witnessing the melancholy spectacle of a\n    whole civilization breaking away from the faith out of which it\n    grew.\"\n\nAs I remarked, I desired to read that passage to you, that you may know\nthat my charge that the people are slipping away from the influences\nof the churches and the ministry was not inconsiderately made. Of\ncourse, the decline in the influence of the churches marks also the\ndecline in the influence of the ministry, hence the pertinency of\nthis quotation. What is said by this authority concerning conditions\nin England is equally and more emphatically true of our own country\nthan it is of England. That is, the decline of the influence of the\nministry and churches in the United States is more marked than in\nEngland. Ministers, then, don't count for much when it comes to dealing\nwith practical questions. And the conditions that have and do exist\nin Utah, and that come down to us out of a remarkable past connected\nwith our former plural marriages are practical questions. Questions\nfor statesmen, not for sectarian priests and their trundle-bed notion\nof things. It is a question for men of blood and brains, and when it\nwas referred to such a body of men not long since--the Senate of the\nUnited States--they at least refused to take the radical steps you\nsuggested. Through four long years you raked the country as with a\nfine-toothed comb to gather up your evidence and to convince the United\nStates Senate that they ought to follow your dictation, to assail the\nLatter-day Saints, and to break up and terrify, as a few years ago\nour community was broken up and terrified by a severe, rigid and, I\nmay say, cruel administration of this law against polygamous living;\nand after you have done your best, submitted your evidence--employed\nthe best counsel you could find, and after you have awakened all the\nprejudices to which you could appeal, the court has turned you down,\ngentlemen! You could not move that body to adopt your view of the case.\n\nI made some remarks this afternoon upon the subject of the toleration\nfor those conditions respecting polygamous living that have come to us\nout of the past. I do not desire to be understood as standing in any\ndefiant attitude against the public sentiment of our state or of our\nnation. The fact of the matter is, these ministerial friends of ours\nare disposed to make mountains out of mole-hills, and are representing\nto the world as conditions existing here things that do not exist.\nThe Latter-day Saints are not a law-defying body of people, but on\nthe contrary they have manifested an obedience and respect for law,\nand you shall find no better order or a more universal acquiescence\nin and obedience to law than you find here in the settlements of the\nLatter-day Saints. We believe in law and in order and in being subject\nto kings and presidents, in honoring and magnifying the law; but the\nconditions here in Utah are unusual in respect of this one matter of\npolygamous living. The conditions, however, are well understood by our\nnon-\"Mormon\" friends; and but for the agitation of these ministerial\nmeddlers and a few disreputable and disgruntled politicians, the\npeculiar conditions which confront the community, and in which some\nof the best men of the community are involved, would go to their\nsettlement along the lines in which they are being settled, namely:\nby the termination of these relations in death as, one by one, the\nparties pass out of existence to the grave. Now, in order to convince\nyou that I am right in this view of the case I shall read an extract\nfrom the testimony of a prominent citizen of our state, a non-\"Mormon,\"\nwho I believe, better than anyone else, in the testimony he gave\nbefore the committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, in the\nSmoot case, described conditions in Utah as they are. He analyzed the\nsituation here and told the truth in respect of it. I shall read his\ntestimony--never mind who he is just for the present, but let me read\nto you what he said before the committee. Keep in mind that he is a\nnon-\"Mormon\" and one not at all prejudiced in favor of the Latter-day\nSaints:\n\n    _\"The Chairman_ said: Will you state why it is that those who live\n    in polygamous cohabitation today are not prosecuted?\n\n    _\"The witness:_ I will do so as well as I can, and I simply state\n    here the views, as I know them, of what are termed the 'old guard'\n    of the Liberal party, Republicans and Democrats, who fought the\n    Church party in the days when it was a power. Those men have felt,\n    and still feel, that if the Church will only stop new plural\n    marriages and will allow this matter to die out and pass away, they\n    will not interfere with them. First of all, of course we want peace\n    in Utah. We would like to be like the rest of the country. We want\n    to make of it a state like the states of the rest of the Union.\n    We want the 'Mormon' people to be like the rest of the American\n    people; but we realize that there is a condition there which the\n    people of the east do not--and, I presume, cannot--understand.\n    You cannot make people who have been brought up under our system\n    of government and our system of marriage believe that folks can\n    sincerely and honestly believe that it is right to have more than\n    one wife, and yet those people believe it. They are a God-fearing\n    people, and it has been a part of their faith and their life.\n\n    \"Now, to the eastern people their manner of living is looked upon\n    as immoral. Of course it is, viewed from their standpoint. Viewed\n    from the standpoint of a 'Mormon' it is not. The 'Mormon' wives\n    are as sincere in polygamy as the 'Mormon' men, and they have no\n    more hesitation in declaring that they are one of several wives of\n    a man than a good woman in the east has in declaring that she is\n    the single wife of a man. There is that condition. There are those\n    people--\n\n    _\"Senator Hopkins_ interrupted to say: Do you mean to say that a\n    'Mormon' woman will as readily become a plural wife as she would a\n    first wife?\n\n    _\"The witness:_ Those who are sincere in the 'Mormon' faith--who\n    are good \"Mormons,\" so called--I think would just as readily become\n    plural wives (that has been my experience) as they would become\n    the first wife. That condition exists. There is a question for\n    statesmen to solve.\"\n\nYou will remember that is what I said to these ministerial gentlemen\nthis afternoon. The witness continued:\n\n    \"We have not known what was best to do. It has been discussed, and\n    people would say that such and such a man ought to be prosecuted.\n    Then they would consider whether anything would be gained; whether\n    we would not delay instead of hastening the time that we hope to\n    live to see; whether the institution would not flourish by reason\n    of what they would term persecution. And so, notwithstanding a\n    protest has been sent down here to you, I will say to you the\n    people have acquiesced in the condition that exists.\n\n    _\"Mr. Van Colt,_ an Attorney: You mean the Gentiles?\n\n    _\"The witness:_ Yes, the Gentiles.\"\n\nThe witness who gave that testimony was Judge O. W. Powers, and you\nknow, and all Utah knows, that he spoke the truth.\n\nMr. J. Martin Miller writing to the _Newark_ (New Jersey) _News,_\nrepresents Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds as holding the views expressed in\nthe accompanying quotation on conditions in Utah:\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. He was rabbi\n    of the Oheb Shalem Synagogue, Newark, from 1892 to '96.\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\n    quota of the vice of the city. As a rule, they are a temperate\n    people. If Senator Smoot is unseated, would the influence of the\n    'Mormons' in the state and nation be diminished? I inquired. Not\n    in the least; it would make them feel their persecution more than\n    now and cause them to have less faith in the fairness of the\n    government. They know the government cannot be fooled to any great\n    extent, and that polygamy must go. Now that the tendency on the\n    part of the 'Mormons' is to abandon polygamy, the purposes of the\n    government in making better Americans of the 'Mormon' people than\n    they are now will be better subserved by allowing the influential\n    men among the 'Mormons' to help the government bring about the\n    desired end. I say this with Senator Smoot in mind, and in view\n    of the believed fact among every class in Utah that he is not a\n    polygamist. He is one of the most level-headed businessmen in Utah,\n    and is exceedingly popular with all classes. Polygamy was deeply\n    rooted. The people for the most part were born in it. Why humiliate\n    these innocent victims by persecuting them unnecessarily when\n    they show an inclination to rid themselves and the country of the\n    blot? The United States is a conciliatory and humane government. I\n    was born in Russia and can appreciate this government. It is the\n    kind of a government that begets loyalty in its subjects. Will\n    these erring children of Utah, who in all probability are not\n    now contracting any new polygamous marriages, be better citizens\n    if they are hounded and misrepresented by agitators, or if they\n    are fairly but firmly dealt with by the government and given a\n    reasonable chance to prove their good intentions and their good\n    citizenship? There is a very strong element throughout the country\n    that takes absolutely no stock in this ecclesiastical warfare that\n    is being made from Salt Lake City against the 'Mormons.' It has\n    been plainly demonstrated very recently in the case of one minister\n    here who carried on a bitter crusade, that was worse than a waste\n    of energy, that such methods are reactive in the extreme.\"\n\nThese statements are thoughtful and fair; and no one acquainted with\nexisting conditions can doubt their truthfulness.\n\nAnd why have they, and why do they, the non-\"Mormons,\" acquiesce in\nthese conditions, and tacitly consent that this question should be\nsettled by the grave. First, because they recognize the honesty and\nthe purity of the lives of the people who are involved in the \"Mormon\"\nsystem of marriage; and they know that it was the promptings of a\nreligious duty that involved them in that system, and not criminal\ninstincts nor worldly or ungodly lust.\n\nThat is what they know to begin with--and that the people in these\nmountains were contending for the persistence--and they hoped the\ntriumph--of what to them was a religious principle. That is why\nhonorable non-\"Mormons\" respect honorable and upright \"Mormons\" who\nare doing their duty as God gives them the light to see that duty.\nAnd, moreover, their minds doubtless go back to the settlement of this\nquestion by the Constitutional convention of this state of which,\nperhaps some of you will remember, I was a member. The people of the\nUnited States, speaking through the Congress of the United States,\ndemanded of the people of Utah, as a condition precedent to statehood,\nthat their Constitution should provide \"That polygamous or plural\nmarriages are forever prohibited.\" When the Constitutional convention\nmet that proposition--desiring to meet it in good faith, they not\nonly made the constitutional declaration that polygamous or plural\nmarriages should forever be prohibited, but they also in order to make\nthat effective, took the territorial law--which was but a copy of the\nCongressional law, which defined \"polygamous or plural marriages\" and\nprescribed for that offense the penalties, the fines and imprisonments,\nand which also defined polygamous living and prescribed its penalties.\n\nThe constitutional convention, I say, took that enactment and cut it\nsquare in two, adopting the part that defined the offense of polygamous\nor plural marriages, and prescribed its punishments, and made it,\nwith its penalties, part of the Constitution; but the part of the law\nrelating to polygamous living or unlawful cohabitation, they left out\nentirely. The question was brought up on the floor of the convention,\nand debated in open session. The leader of this movement, who advocated\nthe adoption of this part of the law for the Constitution--for it\nwas rather an unusual proceeding in constitution making, intended,\nhowever, in good part, to meet a very unusual condition; the question\nwas put to him in substance: If you thus cut the law in two, and\nprohibit polygamous or plural marriages but say nothing about unlawful\ncohabitation or polygamous living, will not the inference be--will\nnot the conclusion be, that you do not intend to include unlawful\ncohabitation in the offenses defined and made punishable under this\nconstitutional provision? The answer was that such would be the\nimplication--that the intent was to leave the offense out. That was\nnot only the inference, but it was the understanding--say what men\nwill--in that convention. The record bears out the statement I make of\nit, because it was not done in a corner, or in the dark, it was out\nin the open, and some of those who now join you reverend gentlemen in\nthis agitation against men who are seeking, under hard conditions, to\nrespond to the promptings of duty and conscience--some of those who now\njoin you in your clamor, were parties to and sanctioned that settlement\nin the constitutional convention. [1]\n\n[Footnote 1: This subject is discussed circumstantially and at length\nin my reply to Senator Kearns' U.S. senate speech,--\"Defense of the\nFaith and the Saints,\" Vol. I, pp. 209-218.]\n\nThe subject of \"Mormon\" loyalty is briefly discussed in this review,\nand apparently the only way you reviewers could meet the treatment\nof the subject was by a sneer. You say, \"It is not recalled that\nany Christian Church in this country has found itself under a like\nnecessity.\" That is, to avow and defend its loyalty to the government.\nVery true, gentlemen, but do you recall that any other church that has\nbeen assailed with misrepresentation and charges of disloyalty as the\nChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been? And so, being\nassailed, we necessarily make defense. I pass the rest that could\nbe said on that subject, excepting this, that when you refer to the\nconflict we had with the general government during territorial days,\nI take you to witness that the controversy was not of our making, but\nit was the result in part of your sectarian agitation, your arousing\na popular sentiment, exercising church influence upon Congress which\nled that body to enact laws against a principle of our religion. We\ncontested those laws for every inch of the ground, until the court\nof final appeal pronounced judgment on the controversy. Was not that\nour right? And does it necessarily involve us in or leave us open to\nthe charge of disloyalty, because we thus contended for religious\nfreedom--the right to practice what to us was part of our religion? Let\nus remind you, gentlemen, that had the people of the first Christian\nage, and the people of the sixteenth century followed your idea of\nimmediately surrendering when religious principle was attacked, there\nwould have been no Christian religion at all, there would have been no\nsuch thing as Protestant sects. We contested the grounds legally, and\nfought as hard as we could for a religious principle; that is the head\nand front of our offending.\n\nThese gentlemen Reviewers express two fears. One is that they will\nbe charged, because of issuing this review, with misrepresentation.\nWell, I don't wonder at that, and I think we have proven that you\nhave misrepresented. But they also fear that we will charge them with\npersecution. Gentlemen, we acquit you of the intention of persecution.\nWhen the Revs. Phineas Ewing, Dixon, Cavanaugh, Hunter, Bogart, Isaac\nMcCoy, Riley, Pixley, Woods and others carried on an agitation in\nMissouri against \"Mormonism\" and the \"Mormons\" that resulted in burning\nhundreds of our homes and driving our people--including women and\nchildren, remember--to bivouac out in the wilderness at an inclement\nseason of the year; when the mob incited by these reverends, your\nprototypes, gentlemen, laid waste our fields and gardens, stripped\nour people of their earthly possessions, keeping up that agitation\nuntil twelve thousand or fifteen thousand people were driven from the\nstate of Missouri, dispossessed of several hundred thousand acres of\nland--two hundred and fifty thousand acres, to be exact--which they\nhad entered, and rendered them homeless--we might call, we do call,\nthat persecution. When the Rev. Mr. Levi Williams led the mob that\nshot to death Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith in Carthage\nprison, and when the Rev. Mr. Thomas S. Brockman led the forces against\nNauvoo, after the great body of the people had withdrawn from that\ncity, and expelled the aged, the widow and the fatherless, and laid\nwaste the property of the people--we think we are justified in calling\nthat persecution, of which right reverend gentlemen were the chief\ninstigators. And when in this territory some years ago one wave of\nagitation followed another, of which your class, and some of you, were\nchief movers, until a reign of terror was produced, and a regime was\nestablished under which men guilty at most of a misdemeanor, could\nnevertheless be imprisoned for a term of years covering a lifetime,\nand fined to the exhaustion of all they possessed, under the beautiful\nscheme of segregating the offense into numerous counts in each\nindictment; and when in that reign of terror women were compelled to\nclasp their little ones to their breasts and go out among strangers,\nexiled from their homes--we might be inclined to call that persecution.\nBut our experience has been such that we scorn to call such attacks as\nthis review of yours persecution. It does not rise, gentlemen, I assure\nyou, to that bad eminence. So we acquit you of any intent in your\nreview to persecute us. You need not fear that such a charge will be\nmade, we are not so thin-skinned as all that. Besides, gentlemen, your\npower is no longer equal to your malice, and so we do not believe you\nwill ever be able to persecute us again.\n\nAnd now I want to turn \"reviewer\" myself a while. I want to review some\nthings which the ministers of the association before us stand for, at\nleast some of them stand for what I shall refer to; and I only regret\nthat we can't take up each one in turn and examine his doctrines. But\nwe all proceed, as far as we can, on this occasion. I turn \"reviewer\"\nbecause I want to show our young people who are represented here, that\nthese gentlemen, standing for such principles as their church creeds\nrepresent are scarcely in a position to make an assault upon our\ndoctrines on any score of inconsistency or repulsiveness; and second,\nby placing our doctrine in contrast with theirs, I desire to show the\nyouth of Israel, whose representatives are here, the greatness and\ngrandeur and the divinity of those principles for which their fathers\nhave stood, and for which we stand, for the ensign given into the hands\nof our fathers we will sustain and carry to still greater heights of\nsuccess.\n\nOf the doctrine of the Godhead, taught and advocated by the sectarian\nworld, I have already said something and pointed out the inconsistency\nof these ministers, holding Jesus to be divine--nay more, to be Deity,\nand yet proclaiming against our views of God being a personage of\ntabernacle, a personage of flesh and bone as well as of spirit--in a\nword, an exalted, a perfected man--Christ Jesus resurrected from the\ndead and possessing all power in heaven and in earth. I shall leave\nthem, of course, to patch up the contradictions of their creeds on that\nsubject, I am not concerned about them.\n\nAnd now, to turn to another portion of the creed, held at least by the\nPresbyterian ministers before us, and by some other members of the\nMinisterial Association--our reviewers. I read from the Westminster\nConfession of Faith, chapter iii, section 3.\n\n    \"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some\n    men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others\n    foreordained to everlasting death.\n\n    \"Sec. 4.--These angels and men, thus predestinated 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    \"Sec. 5.--Those of mankind that are predestinated 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\nNow listen to this:\n\n    \"Sec. 7.--The rest of mankind, God was pleased according to the\n    unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or\n    withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign\n    power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to\n    dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious\n    justice.\"\n\nThat is to say, that though all mankind be sinners, and it must be\nconceded that all men sin, yet out of this mass of sinners some are\nrescued from the consequences of that sin by the pure grace of God,\nand without any co-operating act of theirs, they are rescued from\nthe consequence of that sin by the decree of God. Whereas, others of\nthat mass of sinners, by the decree of God, are relegated eternally\nto condemnation, to reprobation, and what that means we shall see\npresently--but in the face of this doctrine, where appears the justice\nof God, or mercy of God either? But the end is not yet.\n\n    \"Sec. 4 (chapter x.) Others not elected, although they may be\n    called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common\n    operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ,\n    and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men not professing the\n    Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they\n    ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of\n    nature and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert\n    and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.\"\n\nNow, on these sections from the Presbyterian creed, I read to you the\ncomment of a very high authority in that church who deals with this\ncreed, the Rev. A. A. Hodge. This work is designed for the schools\nand colleges of the Presbyterian church. This is his comment on the\narticles of the creed:\n\n    \"This section * * * teaches the following propositions: That the\n    non-elect will certainly fail of salvation. * * * That the diligent\n    profession and honest practice of neither natural religion, nor\n    of any other religion than pure Christianity, can in the least\n    avail or promote the salvation of the soul, is evident from the\n    essential principles of the gospel. * * * That in the case of sane\n    adult persons a knowledge of Christ and a voluntary acceptance of\n    him is essential in order to a personal interest in his salvation.\n    * * * * God has certainly revealed no purpose to save any except\n    those who hearing the gospel, obey. * * * Whatever lies beyond this\n    circle of sanctified means is unrevealed, unpromised, uncovenanted.\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 1,800 years, a\n    possibility illustrated by no example.\"\n\nThat means, then, that the great bulk of God's children have been\ncreated only that they may be food for the flames of the sectarian\nhell, because orthodox Christian sects allow of no means of salvation\nbeyond the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel in this world.\nBut we shall not arrive at an understanding and the enormity of these\ncreeds--we shall have no conception of their abomination until we learn\nsomething about the sectarian idea of hell and the continuation of the\npunishment of those who do not accept Christ. Those who have not heard\nof Christ are, by these creeds, placed in the same category as those\nwho have heard of him, who have heard his gospel and rejected it; for\nthey neither are nor can be, according to the teachings of orthodox\nChristianity, subjects of salvation.\n\nBut before taking that matter up, let me read to you another section\nfrom the creed:\n\n    Sec. 111, (chapter 10.) \"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are\n    regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh\n    when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect\n    persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the\n    ministry of the Word.\"\n\nThis has been a very troublesome part of the creed to our Presbyterian\nfriends. It has been understood to at least imply the possibility\nof some infants not being among the elect and therefore subject to\ndamnation, just like the non-elect who grow up to maturity, a view most\nshocking to most people including--to their honor be it said--most\nPresbyterians. The interpretation of this section of the creed by the\nPresbyterian church is, that \"all infants are among the elect!\" If this\nwas the thought in the minds who wrote the creed, what a pity they\ndid not say, \"All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved\nby Christ,\" instead of saying \"elect infants,\" etc. What a world of\ncontroversy it would have saved!\n\nHowever, gentlemen, your interpretation is that all infants are of\nthe elect, and therefore saved, and I will accept your interpretation\nbecause I believe you have a right to your own interpretation. But\nsay, by the way of whisper, and in confidence, I can make it extremely\ninteresting, if not difficult for you to make good your interpretation\nboth by reason of the implication that must fairly be conceded exists\nin the language of the section against your contention, as also from\nvery respectable authorities I can quote, on the history of the\ncontroversy. But we let that pass, and will concede your right to say\nwhat your creed means. Especially so since, the abomination of your\ncreed may be established without pressing this point. Why should you\nPresbyterians be so particular to declare against the damnation of\ninfants, when the promulgation of the doctrine of the damnation of a\ngood man, because he is not of the elect, is just as outrageous as the\ndamnation of an innocent babe?\n\nIn some respects of the case it is even worse. Here we will say, is a\nman who throughout his life has made every effort to realize in his\nliving the lofty ideal of possessing \"clean hands and a pure heart;\"\nwho entertains only aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only\nthat are honorable; who in the relationships of life, as son, brother,\nhusband, father and citizen, discharges with reasonable fidelity,\nall his duties in these relations, and, as nearly as a man can while\nunder the effects of the fall, and pestered with human inclinations to\nperversity, leads what is recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not\nof the elect, this man is doomed eternally, and his struggling for the\nattainment of his lofty ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in\nthe way of warding off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the\nelect, and hence must perish everlastingly.\n\nThe questions here being considered were once presented to Dr.\nFrancis L. Patten, president of Princeton university, and a stalwart\nPresbyterian defender of the creed, in a rather unique, not to say\npersonal manner, by a correspondent of one of our great eastern\njournals, and as it helps one to get a view of the doctrines here\nconsidered from close range, I quote it:\n\n    Interviewer: \"But if it would be unjust to take an infant from\n    the world and resign it to everlasting torture, is it not equally\n    unjust that those of us who have lived and suffered and struggled\n    with life's battles should be eternally doomed because we happen\n    not to be among the elect? Is it fair or just, or consistent, with\n    the workings of a religion built upon a foundation of eternal love,\n    that some of us shall be born into the world under a spiritual ban,\n    compelled to go through the battle, with the certainty of no reward\n    for honors or efforts, predestined for hell, as the elect, for no\n    effort or worth of their own, are predestined for heaven? That is\n    the doctrine of election, is it not?\"\n\n    \"That is the doctrine of election,\" repeated Dr. Patten. \"And you\n    believe it?\"\n\n    \"I do,\" was the prompt response, \"wholly and unreservedly.\"\n\n    \"And you think it just?\"\n\n    \"I think it is not for me to pass judgment upon the working of God.\"\n\nIs that a fair answer, or artful dodging?\n\nAgain the interviewer asked:\n\n    \"Do you believe there may be near and dear ones of yours, reaching\n    out, perhaps, for all that is noblest and best in life, struggling\n    each day to gain the mastery over self, striving to attain purity\n    of purpose to conquer weakness and inferior motives, who, when it\n    is all over and the battle has been won, and won hard, will be cast\n    into everlasting torment because they weren't lucky enough to be\n    elected before they were born?\"\n\n    \"I have never had the question brought before me in that way,\" Dr.\n    Patten replied evasively. \"But it is before you now,\" I persisted.\n    \"Well,\" replied the doctor, slowly, \"I should say that any one who\n    could strive so hard after the good must be one of the elect.\" \"The\n    extracts from the Confession of Faith dispose of that theory,\" I\n    said. 'Good works do not avail unless one has been chosen.'\"\n\nThat sounds very like the reasoning of Jonathan Edwards on the subject\nof infant damnation and baptism, when he said that an infant, if one of\nthe elect, would have the opportunity for baptism; and that while all\ninfants who were baptized would not be saved, all who were not baptized\nwere damned, as they could not have been of the elect!\n\nBut, as I remarked awhile ago, no one can begin to appreciate the\nabomination of these creeds, these doctrines, until he has some\nconception of what is meant by orthodox damnation. Now here is a\npicture of God's wrath and vengeance upon men. It is a passage,--a\nnoted one--taken from the works of the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and\nhe is addressing himself to sinners. Now, I cannot help but believe\nthat though men are sinners--notwithstanding that fact--I cannot help\nbut believe that God still has some compassion in his heart for his\nchildren, sinners though they be. Indeed, if that be not true, then it\nseems to me despair must settle down like a black pall upon humanity;\nfor if God loves only those who have remained without sin, how very\nfew of his children he loves! While God cannot look upon _sin_ with\nthe least degree of allowance, I believe that he can have and does\nhave infinite compassion for the sinner. He will never call your sin\n\"righteousness.\" He will never compound a sin and say that it is less\nthan it is. Always and everywhere God's law will stand pronounced\nagainst sin; but while he stands thus committed irrevocably against\nsin in all its forms, I believe that his heart goes out in compassion\nto men who sin, and he will save them from their sins as soon as\nthey repent. When they repent he will forgive, and you will find,\nmy friends, that the forgiveness of God is effective; it is worth\nsomething. It will blot out the sin, and cause it to be no more held\nagainst one who has repented. But now to this description of damnation\nby Edwards, who as I think gives quite a contrary view of God from that\nI have been presenting:\n\n    \"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds\n    a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and\n    is dreadfully provoked. * * * You are ten thousand times more\n    abominable in his eyes than the most hateful, venomous serpent is\n    in ours. * * * You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of\n    divine wrath flashing about it. * * * If you cry to God to pity\n    you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case that\n    he will only tread you under foot. * * * He will crush out your\n    blood and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments so\n    as to stain all his raiment.\"\n\nWhat think you of this picture of God, who is supposed to be a God of\ninfinite compassion, youth of Israel? Was it not about time, since\nthese conceptions here set forth by Edwards sprang from the creeds\nof men--was it not about time when such beliefs prevailed, that some\nmessenger should come from heaven declaring that such creeds are an\nabomination in the sight of God?\n\nLet us go on:\n\n    \"Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering,\n    and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they\n    will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen!\"\n\nI believe that is cruel. I think they ought to show us such places at\nleast; so that if we had the disposition we could possibly avoid them.\nOf all the mean things on earth, that can be done, it seems to me,\nwould be to lead one along the path where the pitfalls are covered. I\nwould not like to believe that such a thing as that could exist in the\nmoral economy of God.\n\nAgain:\n\n    \"Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead and to tend\n    downward with great weight and pressure toward hell; and, if God\n    should let you go, you would immediately sink, and swiftly descend\n    and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution,\n    and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all\n    your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you,\n    and keep you out of hell than a spider's web would have to stop\n    a falling rock. * * * The wrath of God is like great waters that\n    are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise\n    higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the\n    stream is stopped the more rapid and mighty is its course when\n    once it is let loose. Thus it will be with you that are in an\n    unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might and\n    majesty and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified\n    upon you in the ineffable strength of your torments; you shall be\n    tormented in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of\n    the Lamb; and, when you shall be in this state of suffering, the\n    glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful\n    spectacle that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the\n    Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and\n    adore that great power and majesty.\"\n\n    Elsewhere it is said in effect that the saintly souls in heaven\n    will not be troubled over the misfortunes and sufferings of the\n    damned, but their very sufferings will increase the happiness of\n    the glorified saints. The Lord deliver us from all such conceptions\n    of either God or the saints.\n\nAgain I quote:\n\n    \"It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this\n    fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must\n    suffer it to all eternity; there will be no end to this exquisite,\n    horrible misery; when you look forward you shall see a long\n    forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up\n    your thoughts and amaze your soul!\"\n\nWell, we stand amazed now, that anyone could have such conceptions of\nGod and such treatment of his children as this. But to continue the\nquotation:\n\n    \"You will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, and\n    end, any mitigation, any rest at all; you will know certainly that\n    you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in\n    wrestling and conflicting with this Almighty, merciless vengeance;\n    and then, when you have so done, when so many ages have actually\n    been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but\n    a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be\n    infinite.\"\n\nThat is what awaits those who are not of the elect; that is the fate\nthat awaits the heathen, and without hope of redemption. Again I say,\nyoung people, youth of Israel, if God should ever speak to man at a\ntime when such ideas obtained, when such creeds and teachings were in\nexistence, would not the first word uttered be one repudiating these\ncreeds and the institutions, the organizations, built upon these\nfoundations, these creeds of men? Would not God's first word denounce\nthese creeds as an abomination? Of course, it would. Humanity in its\nsober senses would be disappointed else. Joseph Smith was entirely\nright--or rather God was. The first thing needful was to brush aside\nthe rubbish of the creeds that traduce the character of God and banish\nall the qualities of mercy and justice from the attributes of God,\nand his moral government of the world. Hence this message called\n\"Mormonism\"--this message from God--began with a denunciation of these\ncreeds. God said they were an abomination in his sight, and I do not\ndoubt it one moment. How could they be otherwise?\n\nOne of the best things that can be said about our \"reviewers\" here\nbefore us, is that they are better than their creeds. They do not\nsay much about them. They know the people don't believe them; and a\npreacher's influence among men is in exact proportion to the distance\nhe leaves these creeds behind him--to the depth of oblivion in which\nhe buries them. I am tempted to believe some times that our reviewers,\nbad as they are--I mean that as a pleasantry--they are still too good\nto believe these creeds. What if they do, at their ordination, have to\ndeclare that they adopt the creed as their faith! I still believe that\ndown in their hearts they do not believe them! \"Well,\" one may say,\n\"this may be a tribute to their goodness of heart, but what of their\nsincerity, what of their honesty?\" I hope the inquirer will not press\nthat point, I refer it to the gentlemen most immediately concerned--to\nour reviewers. The fact is, speaking of these matters in a general\nway--light, thank God! has come into the world and dispelled the gloomy\nprospects of the future as pictured by these creeds of men. It is a\ngreat relief to the world, brought about, to a large extent, by the\nrevelations of God to Joseph Smith.\n\nPart of the complaint of our Reviewers is to the effect that\n\"Mormonism\" adds no \"spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already\nrevealed;\" that \"Mormonism\" contributes nothing \"to reverence for God,\nor to justice and mercy toward men.\" The complete answer to all this\nis the fact that \"Mormonism\" enthrones again in the conceptions of men\nthe true doctrine in respect of God. It enthrones in the conceptions of\nmen the God of the Bible. It proclaims once more the high station of\nman; in that it recognizes and proclaims him the brother of the Lord\nJesus Christ; as being of the same nature as Jesus and his Father; it\nopens up the pathway of progress, and points to the possibility of man\nrising to the same exaltation, and participating in the same glory\nas Jesus Christ and the Father. It banishes the injustice which the\ncreeds of men would fix in the moral and spiritual economy of God, and\nunfolds anew to the conceptions of men the fact that, while God stands\nforever committed against sin, his love and compassion for his children\nendure forever, that his gospel is an everlasting gospel. \"Mormonism\"\nteaches to the world a larger hope than it before knew. It proclaims\nthe possibility of salvation for all the children of men, and that so\nlong as time endures the gospel will endure; that so long as men can be\nbrought to repentance, the means of their salvation shall be at hand in\nthe gospel of Jesus Christ. These are some things that \"Mormonism\" does\nfor the world. These are some of the doctrines which it has proclaimed\nand emphasized, and which are finding their way among and are being\naccepted by the children of men. Moreover, the elements are so forming\nthat it will yet be possible for a nation to be born to the knowledge\nof the gospel in a day. \"Mormonism\" is not going to fail. This work has\ntaken such root and hold in the world that it cannot be moved. We have\npassed the day when we stand in any danger from persecution by violent\nmeans. We stand today largely secure from the natural effects of the\nmisrepresentations that you gentlemen of the Ministerial association\nfulminate against us. This Church of Christ is beginning to come unto\nits own. I hear in fancy the tramping of thousands upon thousands of\nthe servants of God among the nations of the earth, making proclamation\nof these grand truths of the gospel. I hear men casting up accounts,\nand searching out the \"where\" and the \"whence\" of the truths they have\nlearned in this generation; and as they go on with the reckoning,\nthey will find that these truths were revealed from God, of which his\nChurch, and also we ourselves have the high honor of being witnesses.\n\nYouth of Israel, be proud of the station which God has given you.\nBe fervent in faith; be high-minded in your aspirations, for there\nremaineth for Zion a glory, a development, a recognition in this\nworld that shall more than repay our fathers for all the scenes of\nturmoil, strife and labor through which they passed in establishing and\nmaintaining this great work. They shall have joy in their posterity,\ntoo; for we, their sons, will carry the burdens laid upon them; and\nZion shall triumph; and the gospel shall be proclaimed and accepted;\nand the children of men shall be saved; and God shall be glorified.\n\n[And now a parting word respecting our conference \"Address\" and this\nministerial review of it. The \"Address\" was conservative in tone,\ntruthful in statement, conciliatory in spirit, and intended to form\na basis of a right understanding of the attitude of the Church. It\nexplained the past; it expressed the intention of strict adherence\nto its obligation to discontinue plural marriages--and with that, in\ntime, would pass away polygamous living--and declared its intention\nto abstain from interference in politics. That this was the spirit\nand intent of the \"Address\" cannot be questioned by those who have\nread it. It was a fair basis of understanding and settlement of our\nlocal difficulties. And in what spirit was it met, at least by this\nMinisterial association? By pretended distrust of its most solemn\nasseverations; by misrepresentation and unfair criticism; by sly\ninnuendo of evil intentions on our part; by a hunting for a basis, not\nof justice, reconciliation and friendship, but the hunting of a basis\nfor future agitation, turmoil and strife; and for what? Sectarian and\npolitical advantage, is the only answer; unless you add sectarian hate\nof a rival institution. What can \"Mormons\" do in the presence of such\nconditions? I can tell you what one \"Mormon\" will do. He will teach\nthese reviewing gentlemen that the reviews will not be all on one side.\nThat he himself will turn reviewer. And so far as the theological part\nof the controversy is concerned, these gentlemen shall have war if\nthey want it--war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt, and that on\nevery platform in the state. \"Mormonism\" here can hold its own. It does\nnot have to apologize for its doctrines nor repudiate its principles.\nIts representatives stand ready, willing and able to vindicate its\ndoctrines; and they have some knowledge of the nonsense and weakness of\nthe reviewers' creeds. Pardon our seeming boastings, gentlemen, but in\nthe language of Paul, \"ye have compelled us.\"\n\nTurning from you reviewers to all the people of the state of Utah,\nI can say to them irrespective of their creeds or political faith,\nthat I have the utmost confidence in their fairness, in their native\nsense of justice, and love of square dealing; in their manhood and\nlove of honor. And I know that they know that this local agitation by\nthe Ministerial association, and disgruntled politicians, who cannot\nride into seats of political preferment by virtue of the exercise of\nChurch influence in politics, which they feign to denounce, but which\nthey would gladly use to their own advantage, could they but fawn or\nfrighten it into supporting them--I say I know that the people of Utah\nknow that this agitation is unjust; conceived in spite and vengeance;\nbrought forth of malice; and nurtured by hate. No conditions existing\nin Utah justify it. The spectres that are conjured up from the vasty\ndeep to give warrant to this unseeming agitation are but foul creations\nof diseased animals, phantoms of disordered imaginations.\n\nFellow citizens of Utah, in my humble judgment, if we have regard\nto those things which concern our welfare, our well-being at home,\nour standing abroad, our interests in all that concerns us, we will\ndiscourage these agitators, and say, as we can say, to the troubled\nwaves of our social and civil strife, \"peace, be still.\"]\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nJoseph Smith's Doctrines Vindicated.\n\nFOREWORD.\n\nThe discourses which make up Part III, deal with some of the doctrines\nadvanced in the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and in his\ndiscourses, which at the time they were brought forth subjected him\nto the cry of \"false prophet,\" and even of \"fallen prophet\" on the\npart of some of his former disciples, \"pagan\" and \"blasphemy.\" Slowly,\nhowever, with the passing of successive decades, and building up a new\nand a less offensive terminology than the Prophet knew, a change has\ncome over the religious and philosophical thought of the world, until\ntoday many of those doctrines advanced by Joseph Smith, the \"Mormon\"\nProphet--without any intention of doing so, and indeed without any\nknowledge that they were doing so--are now being taught by leading\nminds and in some of our very highest institutions of learning. It is\nto point out this startling fact that the following three discourses\nare presented.\n\nI.\n\nTHE FIRST MESSAGE OF MORMONISM VINDICATED.\n\nA discourse in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday afternoon, August\n8, 1909. Reported by F. W. Otterstrom. The National Annual Encampment\nOf the Grand Army of the Republic was held in Salt Lake City in August,\n1909, and many of the veterans of that organization were present at the\nTabernacle services on the occasion of this discourse being delivered\nand hence the reference to them in the closing paragraphs.\n\nI.\n\nI presume, my brethren and sisters, that a very large portion of this\nmagnificent audience is made up of those who are strangers within the\ngates of our city; and I doubt not but what, prompted by curiosity and\ninterest, our friends are here in the hope of learning something about\nthe faith of the Latter-day Saints whom, perhaps, many of them regard\nas a strange people. For my own part, if I could, I would like to\nrespond to this curiosity or interest of our friends, by setting forth\nwhat message Mormonism has for them and for the world. I would like to\nspeak, if I could, the choicest word that we have for them and mankind;\nbut I stand appalled at the task that such a proposition presents to\nme, and I frankly confess my own inability to meet such an issue unless\nthere shall be divine assistance rendered and God shall help by the\ninspiration of his Spirit. If he help, then of course we shall not\nfail; and if we do not fail, then to him let us accord praise and honor\nand glory, since success will be through his help.\n\nIn order to get this message of ours before you, my friends, it is\nnecessary to refer to a little history connected with this movement\ncalled Mormonism. Perhaps many of you are aware of the fact--since\nmany of you are well advanced in years--many of you are acquainted\nwith the fact that in the early decades of the nineteenth century\nthere was great agitation in respect of religion throughout the United\nStates and parts of Europe; but more especially in that part of our own\ncountry known as the Western Reserve--northern Ohio; also in western\nNew York; and the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. In these sections\nof our country there seemed to be a great spiritual awakening--or,\nat least, so it was regarded at that time--and religious excitement\nexisted everywhere. It existed to such an extent in some localities\nthat even the ordinary pursuits of industry were interrupted while\npeople assembled in great camp meetings to hear noted ministers exhort\nand expound in respect of religion. This great religious revival\nextended into western New York where the family of Joseph Smith lived,\nnear Palmyra, in that state. His family had been religiously inclined\nfor generations before his birth; and when this religious agitation\nof which I am speaking reached Palmyra, the family of Joseph Smith\nwas affected by it. This young man, then about fifteen years of age,\nwas also influenced by it; but his mind was sore troubled because of\nthe divisions and contentions existing among the various sects of\nreligion. There were cries of \"Lo here\" and \"Lo there,\" as to Christ\nand religion; and even when union revival meetings were held, and the\ntime came for the converts made by united effort to divide off into the\nvarious sects, then much of the good feeling that had prevailed seemed\nto be dissipated, and contentions and jealousies predominated. This\nyoung man, Joseph Smith, observed these divisions, and it seems as if\nthe question of Paul to the schismatically inclined Corinthians reached\nhim, asking this stern question: \"Is Christ divided?\" Will God teach\none group of men one set of principles and order of church government\nand ordinances, and then teach another principles diametrically\nopposed? Is God the author of confusion?\" And there was borne in upon\nhis soul the thought that all was not well with the religions world. In\nthe midst of these reflections he came upon the Scripture which after\na fashion may be regarded as one of the historical corner stones of\nMormonism, namely: \"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who\ngiveth liberally to all men and upbraideth not, and it shall be given\nhim.\"\n\nJOSEPH SMITH'S FIRST VISION.\n\nJoseph Smith informs us that this Scripture became, to his soul, the\nvery voice of God. In the light of it he reviewed the situation, and\nfinally came to this conclusion, that if ever man was perplexed he\nwas; if ever man lacked wisdom, he lacked it; if any man knew not what\nto do, he was that person. He had confidence in the Scriptures. The\nteachings of a sainted mother and of a Christian father had instilled\nthat faith into his heart; and hence he decided, in child-like\nconfidence, to go to God with this query: \"Which out of all these sects\nis right? Which the true Church of Christ? Which shall I join?\" Having\nconcluded to put these questions to the Infinite Mind--to God--he\nretired to a grove not far removed from his father's house--still\nstanding, by the way, unmarred by the hand of man. On attempting to\nengage in prayer, however, he found himself overcome by a spirit of\ndarkness, and his tongue bound that he could not utter his thought.\nAs he was about to abandon himself to seeming destruction, he beheld\ndescending towards him a great, white pillar of light, and as it rested\nupon him the darkness was dispelled, and lo! in the midst of the light,\nwhich exceeded the brightness of the sun at noon-day, he beheld two\npersonages, resembling each other; and one calling him by name, and\npointing to the other, said:\n\n\"_Joseph, this is my beloved Son; hear Him_.\"\n\nIt speaks well for the intellectual texture of this boy's mind, that\nin the midst of these unusual circumstances he could still hold to the\ngreat thought that had brought him to this issue; and to the presence\nin which he stood. To the person to whom he was directed Joseph Smith\nput the question: \"Which of these sects is thy church, and which shall\nI join?\"\n\nNow, my friends, bear, I pray you, for a moment, with the seeming\nharshness of the reply that was made to that great inquiry. The\npersonage whom he addressed said to him in reply, that all the churches\nwere wrong; that he must join none of them; that their creeds were an\nabomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that\nthey drew near to him with their lips but their hearts were far from\nhim; that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men, \"having\na form of Godliness but denying the power thereof.\" He was again\nexpressly commanded to go not after them, at the same time receiving a\npromise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be\nmade known unto him.\n\nThat was a tremendous message to deliver to a world that supposed\nitself to be living in the full blaze of Christian glory! It was enough\nto appall the stoutest heart to be called upon to deliver it! But, my\nfriends, Mormonism would have no right to existence unless such was\nthe condition of the world. Of churches and creeds there were already\nenough; and unless there was some great, fundamental reason why a new\nmessage should be sent to the world, then Mormonism has no right to\nexist at all.\n\nThe vision closed, and the boy went with it to his friends, and out of\nit has grown what the world calls Mormonism. Now, let us talk about the\nsubstance of this vision a little while and see if we can not soften\nthe seeming harshness with which this message of Mormonism begins: \"The\nchurches are wrong.\" But, my friends, the people then living were not\nresponsible for those conditions. They had inherited them. Generations\nago men had transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, broken\nthe everlasting covenant of the gospel, and formulated creeds which\nfailed to grasp or record truly the central truths of the gospel of\nJesus Christ, the nature of God, the relationship of man to Deity, or\nthe purpose of man's earth existence. The false notions and doctrines\nthat obtained respecting these matters our generation inherited from\npreceding generations. It was a case of the fathers \"eating sour\ngrapes, and the children's teeth being set on edge.\"\n\n\"CREEDS ARE AN ABOMINATION.\"\n\n\"The creeds are an abomination, and the professors are all corrupt!\"\nThat is a severe arraignment of Christendom. Do we mean by it that\nthe whole of Christendom is corrupt? That virtue was fled? Of course,\nin a certain sense, all men have sinned, and come short of the glory\nof God. There is none that doeth wholly good, no, not one. All flesh\nis corrupt before God, in that it has in it an inclination to evil--a\nconcupiscence to sinful ways. But that is not the matter in question\nhere. No, my friends, we do not mean to say that all Christendom is\ncorrupt, or that virtue has fled from the earth. I pray you regard the\nlanguage more closely: \"The creeds are an abomination;\" the \"professors\nare corrupt;\" they \"teach for doctrine the commandments of men.\" It\nis the professors that are alluded to here as being \"corrupt,\" not\nnecessarily the _confessors,_ of the creeds; the \"professors\" the\n\"teachers\" of the creeds are corrupt. What, then, do you arraign the\nwhole Christian ministry as being corrupt? By no means. We are ready\nto believe that many of them like their followers are men who strive\nearnestly for the truth, and desire the uplifting of humanity; but\nthose who, in the ages gone by, could formulate such creeds as exist\nin Christendom, expressing such beliefs about God and about man, and\nthe relationship of God to man; those who could formulate creeds that\nwould eternally damn innocent infants; or that could forever close the\ndoors of mercy against the vast majority of the children of God--as\nwell those who have died in ignorance of revealed truth, as those\nwho died in the knowledge of it but rejected it--in the awful dogmas\nof eternal punishment--men who could formulate such creeds as these\ncertainly had minds that had gone awry, that were \"corrupted,\" so they\nwould not or could not see the truth. So you see the harshness of this\nmessage of ours narrows down considerably when you get to analyzing it.\nThese creed-formulators were teaching for doctrine the commandments of\nmen; they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were\nfar removed from him, they had reduced religion to forms of godliness\nmerely. The ground had to be cleared of the theological rubbish that\nhad accumulated through the ages, that the living rocks might appear,\non which God should found his Church in very deed; and thus our message\nhad to begin with this declaration concerning the status of Christendom.\n\nGOD'S FIRST MESSAGE CONFIRMED.\n\nNow something singular has happened in our time, in our day, within\nthe past few years, and more especially within the past year. Ninety\nyears have passed away since this first message of God though Joseph\nSmith was given to the world declaring the churches wrong; but, mark\nyou, we did not sit in judgment upon the world's creeds and religions\nand religious teachers. We have not assumed to do that. Neither did\nJoseph Smith, he confessed his own inability to judge the matter, hence\nhe went to God for wisdom. We think it would have been beyond the\ncapacity of human wisdom to determine which of the sects or churches\nwere acceptable to God; Or say which was his Church; but God was\ncompetent to sit in judgment, and he sat in judgment, and announced\nthe conclusion, and made Joseph Smith and the Church of Christ, that\ngrew out of his message--God made them the heralds of this judgment\nof his to the inhabitants of the earth. But, to return to what I was\nabout to remark,--after ninety years have elapsed, something remarkable\noccurs, and that is a wonderful confirmation of this seemingly harsh\nmessage with which our prophet began his life's work. There is at\npresent going on in the great Catholic church--that church which holds\nwithin her communion more than one half of all the Christians of the\nworld--within her great organization is going on what is called the\n\"Modernist\" movement. That movement, briefly told is this: a demand\nis made on the part of many of her scholars and theologians for wider\nintellectual liberty, and that the church shall come out of the\ndarkness of the creeds and symbols of the dark ages and live in harmony\nwith the new truths that have been developed through the inspiration\nof God operating upon the minds of modern men, of our present-day\nscientists and philosophers. In order to be exact in the statement of\nthe matter, permit me to read to you something of the program that\nis suggested by this modernist movement within the Catholic church;\nand let no one esteem it as a light thing, as a mere \"crackling of\nthorns beneath the pot.\" Rome does not so regard it, I can tell you.\nWe are assured by a writer in the _North American Review_ for June of\nthis year that this revolution within the Church of Rome is one of\nthe mightiest revolutions since that one led by Martin Luther in the\nsixteenth century. The Catholic church has already noted the importance\nthat she attaches to it by issuing what is known as the \"Encyclical\nLetter on Modernism\" by the present pope of the Roman church, a\ndocument filling about one hundred printed pages, in which the errors,\nor supposed errors, of the modernists are detailed and reviewed from\nthe standpoint of the orthodox within the Catholic church. In each\ndiocese a \"committee of vigilance\" is appointed to keep watch that\nwhether in pamphlet, or book, or speech, any prelate or curate of the\nchurch should presume to be in sympathy with this movement, he might\nbe instantly reported and silenced. Some of the most gifted men within\nthe church have been driven into retirement from official life; others\nhave been silenced; some have been dismissed from chairs of instruction\nin Catholic institutions of learning; and everywhere the bishops\nare called upon to exercise the utmost vigilance to keep down the\nthrobbing, intellectual life of this movement.\n\nNewman Smyth in _Scribners_ for February of the present year gives the\nfollowing account of the vatican's efforts at suppression of modernism:\n\n    \"The vatican has succeeded in putting out a few scholarly\n    periodicals; in their places others more popular have appeared.\n    It has persuaded some enlightened teachers to relapse into the\n    obedience of silence for a season, yet without actual recantation\n    of their opinions; others it has forced to stand by their own\n    conscientious intelligence before the whole world. It has\n    prohibited the publication of some Italian magazines, only to\n    increase their circulation. It forbade the faithful to read the\n    'Program of the Modernists,' and a new and enlarged edition was\n    called for by the public. It enjoined the Bavarian bishops to see\n    to it that the people read the 'catechism and good books,' and it\n    obtained from the civil authority of Innsbruck the confiscation of\n    a lecture by a modernist professor of canonical law, only to cause\n    forty-three editions of it to be issued within a short time, and to\n    lead many thousand liberal German students to organize a strike in\n    behalf of the freedom of academic teaching. The index of prohibited\n    writings increases; but it cannot keep up with the modernist press.\n    In short, the Encyclical Pascendi, which aimed to destroy by a blow\n    a heresy of the schools, has succeeded in creating a literature\n    of it for the people. It commands the utmost vigilance in every\n    diocese in searching out modernist ideas; and in Rome itself, under\n    the very shadow of the vatican, a scientific-religious publishing\n    society has been established, and its issues, increasing in power\n    as well as in number, are now to be found scattered through many\n    lands.\n\n    \"Besides all this, account should be taken of the number of secular\n    journals which are in sympathy, more or less avowed, with the\n    modernists. An ecclesiastical authority which in former times\n    could bind peoples and humble kings, has yet to show whether it is\n    mightier than the power of a free press in a free state.\"\n\nTo the Encyclical letter that was issued by Pope Pius, the modernists\nthemselves have made a most bold and fearless answer, and have\npublished it, in connection with the Pope's Encyclical to the world.\n(See \"Program of Modernism,\" Putman's Sons, 1908.) This movement,\nby the way, is described as \"a clear call for the rejuvenation of\nRoman Catholicism.\" The modernists believe that the church, the Roman\nCatholic church, can harmonize its teachings with the thought of this\npresent age, that the most ancient church can survive by becoming the\nmost modern. The ambitious designs of the modernists may further be\nlearned by the following questions they propound, and answers they make\nto them:\n\n    \"At this moment (1908) pregnant with all sorts of moral revolution,\n    when the intellectual world, still alienated from Christ and his\n    Church, progresses in a hundred ways towards some undefinable\n    renewal of spirit, we ask ourselves frankly, Is there in the\n    Catholic church, in that great organism in which the religious\n    spirit of the gospel has come to embody itself--is there a power\n    of conquest or simply a conservative instinct? Does she still\n    hide in the secret complexities of her wonderful organization,\n    capacities for winning adherents, or is her vitality threatened\n    by the germs of a speedy decay? Is her mission henceforth to be\n    limited to a suspicious vigilance over the rude and simple faith of\n    her rapidly-dwindling followers, or will she rouse herself to the\n    reacquisition of that social influence which she has lost through\n    long years of listless self-isolation? For ourselves we have long\n    since answered this critical question. We have ever watched the\n    aspirations of the contemporary mind with sympathetic interest; our\n    hearts have beaten in unison with its glowing enthusiasm for the\n    new ideals of universal brotherhood; and we have seen in all its\n    movements the symptoms of a glorious revival of religion. * * *\n    Speaking the language of our age and thinking its thought we have\n    tried to bring it into touch with the teachings of Catholicism,\n    that through such contact their profound mutual affinities might\n    be made evident. We cannot believe that the church will ultimately\n    reject our program as mischievous.\"\n\nI only want to present these statements to you and ask this question:\nWhy is this rejuvenation of the Catholic church demanded? Why this\ndemand to forsake symbol and creed of the middle ages in order to\ncome into harmony with modern truth as it has been developed by\nmodern thought and science? Do not the questions pre-suppose that the\nchurch complained against is wrong in creed and doctrine and attitude\ntowards progress? I may not go further into a discussion of this\nCatholic situation, because I want to call your attention to still more\nstartling things in the Protestant world, especially in our own country.\n\nREFORM IN PROTESTANTISM.\n\nThere has been running through the current numbers of the\n_Cosmopolitan_ magazine a series of articles by Harold Bolce on the\ntrend of university teaching in America. Some two years ago, Mr. Bolce\nblocked out an itinerary for himself, having no less an object than\na visit to leading universities throughout the United States, with a\nview to becoming acquainted with the trend of university teaching,\nand more especially with reference to economic, social, philosophical\nand religious subjects. As a result of that investigation he reports\nhis visit through four articles of this magazine. I shall call your\nattention to what is said simply upon the trend of religious teaching\nwithin the universities. I read the following extracts from the August\nnumber of the _Cosmopolitan._ The article is prefaced with a note from\nthe editor in which he says:\n\n    \"It has been shown in the series of articles beginning with\n    'Blasting at the Rock of Ages' that our great universities\n    repudiate the dogma and orthodox of the established church and\n    proclaim a new religion divested of Biblical and church creed.\n    Why do the most profound scholars in our institutions of learning\n    undertake this revolutionary work? What do they hope to accomplish?\n    * * * The answer is here. The schoolmen have placed Christianity\n    in a scholars' crucible. They are determined upon reducing sacred\n    institutions to scientific tests. The college men approach the\n    subject with the greatest reverence. It is false to characterize\n    them as atheists or iconoclasts. They assert that what we need is\n    not less of God but more of God. They prophesy the introduction\n    into the world of a system of belief superior to the Christianity\n    of the ages.\"\n\nSuch is the editorial conception of the trend of teaching in our\nuniversities, on this subject, with Mr. Bolce's articles before them.\nAnd now from the article itself. I read the following:\n\n    \"Instead of living in harmony with God, the church, the colleges\n    say, has set up a celestial czar, a conception which has been\n    an injury to man, because it has given him a sense of weakness,\n    inferiority and fear.\"\n\nThat is the arraignment of the colleges against the teachings of the\nchurches as to their conceptions of God. Now mark you, \"The colleges\nsay that the church, through its fear of new truth, has at all times\nbeen an obstacle to progress.\" Is not that a remarkable thing to say\nof the church of Jesus Christ that in reality ought to be in the very\nvanguard in the pursuit of truth and in the conservation of it?\n\n    \"Dr. Andrew D. White, formerly President of Cornell university,\n    says that the church in its apprehension of the progress of\n    learning persecuted Roger Bacon, and by so doing did more harm to\n    Christianity and the world than has been done as a result of all\n    the efforts of all the atheists who have ever lived.\"\n\n    \"Professor Borden P. Bowne, of Boston university, Professor Frank\n    Sargent Hoffman of Union College, and scores of others, say that\n    the church is the last to come into the possession of truth;\n    that it often lags behind, even in the matter of the progressive\n    conscience of the time; that it has had to recede from its position\n    in every field of science; and that it is still receding and\n    must continue to make way for the progress of truth in spiritual\n    matters. For many professors assert that the church, as revealed by\n    the outcry over the disclosures of what the universities teach, is\n    still engaged in the effort to strangle thought.\n\n    \"And as the opposition to truth, as it is claimed, is still the\n    role of religious bodies, the inescapable duty of unfettered\n    institutions of learning is to give the world a new revelation.\"\n\nJoseph Smith proclaimed that need ninety years before these professors\nawoke to the realization of the need of a new revelation.\n\nBut to continue:\n\n    \"The professors believe that civilization is under the domination\n    of many false doctrines, and that the fact that these are held\n    sacred is no reason why they should be preserved.\"\n\nNot only do these professors--scores of them, remember--hold that the\nchurch is wrong now, but they hold that it has been wrong for ages.\nListen to this:\n\n    \"The present crusade of the colleges is surcharged with the\n    conviction that the churches and church thought are not only behind\n    the times but that they have, throughout the centuries, been an\n    obstacle to human advance, and are even now the last barrier\n    keeping man out of his true spiritual kingdom. They say that man\n    has earned the right to know the truth, the truth that it will\n    make him free; and that man's ignorance of his power in a world\n    of spirit, where he could, if he would, be master, with all the\n    harmony, health, happiness and abundance that that mastery implies,\n    is the secret of the centuries of travail, hatred, wars and crimes\n    that have cursed the world.\"\n\nI shall trouble you to read but one more extract:\n\n    \"This, then, is the announced justification of the college\n    arraignment of many cherished institutions. The old indictment\n    drawn up by irreverent critics against the church, is repeated\n    with a new force and a new meaning. It is pointed out that it\n    was religious Jerusalem, not pagan Rome, that clamored for the\n    crucifixion. Motley and Draper and other historians have been cited\n    in support of the teaching that the church in many ages murdered\n    more people than it saved: And these victims were burned alive,\n    strangled or beheaded, not for crimes committed, but in some cases\n    for reading the Scriptures, or looking askance at a graven image,\n    or smiling at an idolatrous procession as it passed. * * *\n\n    \"But the college men are not blind to what the church has\n    accomplished. In this phase of the subject they are peculiarly\n    catholic. But it is taught now in practically all the departments\n    of philosophy in the great universities that a new revelation is\n    quickening this age, and that it is not only the right but the\n    duty of the colleges to stand, if they can, as interpreters of the\n    acceptable year of the Lord. Prof. R. M. Wenley of the University\n    of Michigan teaches that we have every reason to anticipate great\n    changes in Christianity. The world of thought is in progress of\n    such profound alteration that orthodox belief can scarcely escape\n    the transforming effects of the new idea of God. Hundreds of\n    thousands of young men and young women in America are coming under\n    the influence of the new university philosophy, and instead of\n    being apologetic for the teaching that the God of the colleges is\n    greater than the God of the church, the university philosophers\n    look forward with composure and even elation to the ultimate\n    surrender of what they regard as discredited beliefs.\"\n\nIn relation to the methods adopted by the churches for imparting\nreligious truths, and enforcing religious living--the revival method\nmore especially; and be it remembered that of late years many of the\nextravagances of this method have been eliminated since the boyhood\ndays of Joseph Smith. Of this method of the churches, Mr. Bolce\nrepresents the universities as holding the following view:\n\n    \"Professor Boris Sidis of the Pathological Institute of New York,\n    who recently concluded a series of psychological experiments\n    at Harvard, is ruthlessly arrayed against popular religion as\n    expressed in revivals, and his findings have been endorsed by\n    Prof. William James in an introduction to the former's published\n    report. If there is in American university teaching a more\n    fearless doctrine than the following as put forth by Prof. Sidis\n    and countenanced by Harvard's leading philosopher, I have not yet\n    encountered it: 'Well may President Jordan of Stanford university\n    exclaim: 'Whisky, cocaine and alcohol bring temporary insanity, and\n    so does a revival of religion--one of those religious revivals in\n    which men lose their reason and self-control. This is simply a form\n    of drunkenness no more worthy Of respect than the drunkenness that\n    lies in the gutter!'\"\n\n\"Professor Jordan,\" comments the Harvard psychologist as a result\nof his investigations, \"was too mild in his expression. Religious\nrevivalism is a social blame; it is more dangerous to the life of\nsociety than drunkenness. As a sot, man falls below the brute; as a\nrevivalist he sinks lower than the sot.\"--(_Cosmopolitan_ for July,\n1909.)\n\nNow, my friends, after that, do not complain of harshness in the\nmessage that Joseph Smith was commissioned to give to the world ninety\nyears ago? He never said anything nearly so harsh as the American\nuniversities are now saying about the churches. It seems to me as if\nGod had called from the high seats of learning throughout our land\nthe most intellectual class in the world to confirm the truth of the\nmessage of His prophet.\n\nThe world despised the word of an unlearned youth upon this subject,\nalbeit coming with a message from God--from the Highest Intelligence.\nWhat will they say now to the testimony of the learned--which confirms\nthe message of Joseph Smith?\n\nWHAT MORMONISM AFFIRMS.\n\nI do not want to take all the time, however, in discussing this\nnegative part of our message. I desire to say something affirmatively,\nsomething that will dispel the gloom that this first part of our\nmessage is likely to impress upon the minds of those who contemplate\nit. In the affirmative part of our message we come to you with these\nglad tidings: God has again spoken. He has renewed, so to speak,\nofficial relationships with the world. At that time when men supposed\nthat God had spoken His last word in revelation; at that time, when it\nwas supposed angels would no more visit the earth; at that time when\nmen concluded that the volume of revelation was completed and forever\nclosed--in the very darkest hour of these great errors, lo, the heavens\nopen! angels visit the earth; the American volume of Scripture, the\nBook of Mormon, the Scripture, of the old inhabitants of America,\nbefore they fell into anarchy and barbarism, when they were learned and\nenlightened, when they had communion with God and Christ, and received\nthe gospel--their record is brought forth to be a witness for God; a\nwitness to His justice, to His mercy; it came as a protest against\nthe dark and awful thought that God could possibly leave a hemisphere\nto perish in ignorance of his mind and of his will, and of the gospel\nof Jesus Christ! In the moment when these thoughts had crystallized\ninto dogma, God brushed them aside, renewed revelation, gave a new\ndispensation of the gospel to the children of men, restored divine\nauthority, re-established the Church of Christ, deposited with her his\nrevealed truth, and gave her commission to make proclamation of it to\nall the inhabitants of the earth--\"to every nation, and kindred, and\ntongue and people;\" giving warning that the kingdom of God was at hand.\nOur message comes then with the announcement of these great truths; and\nMormonism is this restored gospel of the Christ, this re-established\nChurch of Christ, or nothing. It is not a new gospel, my friends, not\na new religion. But the old gospel, the old religion and the Church of\nChrist coming forth under a new dispensation. We, equally with you of\nother Christian persuasions, believe there is no other name given under\nheaven whereby men may be saved except the name of Jesus of Nazareth,\nJesus the Christ. Therefore to us there can be but the one true gospel\nand one true Church. Not only this, but our message goes further. It\ncomes to you with the glad tidings that God is still in the world, not\napart from it, not standing aloof in unsympathetic observation of the\ncreation of his hands--but he is in it. What men name divine immanence.\nHis spirit permeates all the elements. \"He is in the sun, the light\nof the sun, and the power thereof by which it was created. He is in\nthe moon, and the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which\nit was made.\" Also he is in the many blazing suns that we call fixed\nstars, and the power by which they were created. He is \"the light which\nis in all things, which giveth life to all things;\" which is the law\nby which all things are governed--even the power of God.\" That is,\nto say, God through and by his Spirit is immanent in the world--in\nhis world--the universe. The elements--the stuffs we call matter are\neternal: and element united with spirit may attain to a fulness of\njoy; when separated they can not attain to a fulness of glory, nor\nanswer the end of their existence. In this view \"the elements are the\nvery tabernacle of God;\" or, as some of your scientists put it, \"the\nmaterial universe is but the garment of God.\" Under that garment is the\nliving, throbbing, sympathetic God, in whom we live, and move, and have\nour being.\n\nGod is in his world reconciling it unto himself, and working out his\nsovereign will. But chiefly God by his Spirit may be in man, if man\nwill but have it so. Yea, man may be, and often is \"the tabernacle of\nGod, even temples.\" There may be such an indwelling of God in man that\nGod is very near to him and not afar off. Your life, my friends, and\nmine, may touch the life of God; his rich spiritual grace and life may\npour into our poor lives, making them rich in deed--who, then, shall\ntalk of failure! But let us see clearly here.\n\nWhile our message proclaims God to be immanent in the world by his\nSpirit, and pre-eminently so in man--yet also does our message proclaim\nGod to be a person. God, my friends, with the Latter-day Saints, is not\na mere abstraction, an empty word without objective reality; a merely\nspiritual essence or influence; but, on the contrary, God is a person\nin the sense that he is an individual. He is revealed to us through\nJesus Christ. We believe in that revelation of God that is to be read\nin the life and character of the Nazarene--the Lord Jesus Christ. To us\nhe is the very image and likeness of God; nay, as the Christ was and\nnow is, so God is! The Christ you remember stood in his resurrected\nimmortal body before his disciples, out on the Mount in Galilee, where\nhe had appointed a meeting with them. As he stood there, in all the\nglory of a resurrected, immortal personage, no more subject to death,\nhe said to them: \"All power is given unto me, in earth and in heaven.\nGo, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the\nFather and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo! I am with you\nalways to the end of the world.\" As the Christ thus stood before his\ndisciples he was God manifested in the flesh. And as the Son is, so we\nare assured, is the Father--a glorious mighty intelligence of tangible\nreality, as much so as the Christ was there on the mount in all his\nresurrected glory--a being whose heart throbs in sympathy with his\nchildren. For his children! Yes, friends; this Mormon message bids us\nproclaim that the children of men are also the children of God, essence\nof his essence, and nature of his nature. Our message proclaims man\ndivine, as also it proclaims God human--God and man of one and the same\nrace! But God relatively to man, perfect; man, fallen and imperfect\nin his present estate, yet an heir of salvation and a child of God\ndestined to become like his Father and Elder Brother, the Christ. You\nsee I was right in saying that God is no mere abstraction with us, but\na real personal being with whom we sustain very definite relations--the\nrelation of child to father, with all the sympathies that grow out of\nthe conception of that relationship.\n\nIMMORTALITY OF MAN.\n\nOne other thing that our message is burdened with is the immortality\nof man--a proper immortality, not merely and alone a continuation of\nconscious being after death, not merely a prolongation of life, but a\npre-existence of life and intelligence before we tabernacled in the\nflesh. Our habitation was with God before we came to this earth. In our\nfirst, primeval childhood we lived in his presence, and have come forth\nfrom his presence merely to gain an experience in the midst of the\nconditions that prevail in this world of ours. We believe in and teach\nthe immortality of man; an immortality that stretches backward before\nbirth as well as forward after death.\n\nOur message also proclaims the persistence of the individual. There\nis something in you, my friends, according to this Mormon message to\nthe world--there is something in all of us, that was not created: and\nthat will not die. Something that is indestructible and uncreatable; a\nsomething that must live, because it can not be destroyed--the soul,\nthe intelligence of man. That entity, that intelligence--_you_--will\nnot be absorbed, and lose its identity. _You,_ friend, as an\nintelligence, and as a man shall live through all eternities. _You,_\nfriend, shall accumulate experiences and grow in grace and knowledge,\nand power, and might and dominion, until _you_ attain unto something\nthat is worthy to be called divine--a son of God indeed!\n\nOn the day that you, our visitors, members of the Grand Army of the\nRepublic--on the day that you parade the streets of our city, our Zion,\nand we shall note you as you go by--perhaps, with feeble footsteps and\nbowed forms, not with the elastic step of youth as when you responded\nto your country's call when the great Republic was in danger!--We\nshall look upon you on that day and note, perhaps, in our thought, the\ncontrast. We shall think of you, my friends, in sympathetic mood; and\nwe shall contemplate the time when these aged forms of yours shall\nput on immortality--when even these bodies shall give forth in the\nresurrection the vital elements essential to the manifestation of\nyour spirits, in all the eternities to come. Our message, friends,\nreaffirms the reality of the resurrection from the dead. We are\ncommissioned to say that though a man die, yet shall he live, and that\neternally. Christ is our warrant for the reality of the resurrection\nof all men. You, then shall live again--aye and in immortal youth,\nand possessed of all the high powers of a glorious manhood. You will\nmeet again the comrades and the old commanders beyond the heights, to\nhold your camp-fires and recount the glories of your victories for the\npreservation of our great nation. We shall think of you in this spirit\nas you march by, and our sympathies will go out to you, but we shall\nregard you as the children of God--immortal men! not only in history,\nbut in reality. And what may not be accomplished in eternity, friends,\nunder these circumstances? What may we not all accomplish in such a\nstate as our gospel gives hope to believe in, through Jesus Christ our\nLord? Think of eternity in which to live, with God for your friend,\nwith good men for your associates, and eternity in which to work out\nthe problems of existence--eternity!--its shining plane stretching\nout illimitably before you--I say, what may you not hope to achieve?\nAt least development, intellectual, spiritual; at least growth, moral\ngrowth--soul growth, until at last, citizenship in the kingdom of God,\nsonship to God, and brotherhood with all divine Intelligences.\n\nYou see, then, my friends, this message of Mormonism, beginning so\nharshly, to what music it leads us! to what harmonies! We stand here,\nwith you, panoplied in this faith, in these hopes, in this spirit\nof charity for the world. Our message is optimistic; we have glad\ntidings for the world, not a message of dole and damnation, but of\nassurance, of hope, and encouragement, an uplifting message. Mormonism\nproclaims the coming of a brighter day for the world--the long-promised\nmillennium with the reign of the Christ--\n\n  \"The morning breaks, the shadows flee!\n    Lo, Zion's standard is unfurled!\n  The dawning of a brighter day\n    Majestic rises on the world.\n\n  \"The clouds of error disappear\n    Before the rays of truth divine;\n  The glory, bursting from afar,\n    Wide o'er the nations soon will shine.\"\n\nGod grant it, for Christ's sake. Amen.\n\n\n\nII.\n\nOTHER DOCTRINES OF JOSEPH SMITH VINDICATED BY COLLEGES.\n\nI.\n\nMen the Avatars of God. [1]\n\n[Footnote 1: The word avatar comes from the Sanskrit word _avatara,_\nand in Hindu mythology meant an incarnation; a manifestation of Deity.\nThis discourse was delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Nov. 21,\n1909.]\n\nEarly in the month of August, of the year 1909, I had the pleasure\nof addressing a congregation from this stand; and when the remarks I\nmade on that occasion were published, those who had the publication\nin charge entitled them, \"The Message of 'Mormonism.'\" In part the\nremarks covered a review of a series of articles published in the\n_Cosmopolitan Magazine_ during the early summer months, in which Mr.\nHarold Bolce gave the result of a two years' itinerary through the\nuniversities of the United States, pointing out the trend of religious\nand philosophical thought among the professors of these universities.\nOn that occasion I called attention to the fact that the first great\nmessage that Joseph Smith delivered to the world: namely, that all the\nchurches were wrong, and their creeds an abomination unto the Lord,\nreceived wonderful confirmation from the utterances of these professors\nquoted in the articles I name. That occasion in August did not warrant\na complete or exhaustive review of these articles, nor did it afford\nthe opportunity, for sheer lack of time, to indicate all or even the\nchief points at which modern educated thought sustained utterances of\nthe great modern prophet. It is this theme which I desire to renew and\ndiscuss on the present occasion.\n\nThe question which I now propose to take up will prove to you, I think,\nthat it is useless for the world to decry some of the fundamental\ndoctrines announced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, on the ground that\nthey were the utterances of an uneducated, obscure and ignorant\nyouth--since, I believe, I shall be able to show you that from some\nof the highest seats of learning in the land there comes pronounced\nconfirmation of many things our prophet taught; and hence that his\nutterances on the doctrine to be considered were not born of ignorance,\nbut of inspiration from God.\n\nIn the _Cosmopolitan_ for July, 1909, in the editorial review of Mr.\nBolce's article, is this utterance:\n\n    \"Many university teachers, while subscribing to doctrines akin to\n    those of Christian Science, New Thought, and the Emanuel movement,\n    are in favor of studying the forces of the spiritual world in a\n    cold, scientific manner. Orthodox Christian dogma is regarded as\n    at variance with its own principles and is interpreted in a new\n    and revolutionary light. The professors' philosophy is purged of\n    mysticism and blind faith. By moving their young students, they\n    believe they will move the world, and so they are directing their\n    energies to the scientific interpretation of those forces which are\n    marvelously transforming our contemporary age.\"\n\nMr. Bolce himself, in further explanation of the attitude of many\nof the educators in the universities, represents Professor James\nC. Monaghan, recently of Notre Dame University, and formerly of\nthe University of Wisconsin, as telling his classes, in regard to\nthe adage \"there is room at the top,\" that there is no top, \"that\nprogress--particularly spiritual progress--is eternal.\" The Latter-day\nSaints will readily recognize that statement as in harmony with\n\"Mormon\" doctrine. Continuing, Mr. Bolce says:\n\n    \"Friends of the college philosophers insist that if there is a gulf\n    between them and the people, it is because the masses have not yet\n    crossed over into the life of progress and spiritual liberty. It is\n    simply that the professors from the standpoint of their followers,\n    are inviting mankind again into the fields to which the prophets\n    beckoned the world centuries ago. The choice, it is declared, is\n    either backward to the brute, or forward to the superman.\"\n\nI think that the Latter-day Saints will also recognize in that a note\nof \"Mormonism\"--because they believe that whatever man may be today,\nwhatever his excellence may be--even the excellence of the most highly\ndeveloped men--we believe that there are heights beyond those which he\nhas now attained, to which it is possible for him to mount.\n\nI merely wanted to read those two paragraphs for the purpose of\npresenting the attitude of the professors, in a general way, in regard\nto the creeds of men and the existing Christian Churches. I now call\nyour attention to some few doctrines that our prophet taught in respect\nof man. Of course, you who are familiar with Christian teaching of\nthree-quarters of a century ago, will recall the fact that it was quite\ncustomary to represent man as a quite inferior, insignificant, poor\nworm of the dust; and the phraseology applied to him was that he was a\ncreature \"conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity.\" Referring to these\nideas as something engrafted upon Christianity, yet foreign to its\ngenius, Professor G. H. Howison of the University of California, in his\ncontribution to the book _Conceptions of God_ (1902) and speaking of\nthose who hold and taught such views, says:\n\n    \"Their monotonous theme was the inevitable greatness of the Supreme\n    Being and the utter littleness of man. Their tradition lay like a\n    pall upon the human spirit--nay, it lies upon it to this day, and\n    it smothers now, as it smothered then, the voice that answers there\n    to the call of Jesus.\" (p. 96.)\n\nWhen the prophet proceeded with the deliverance of his message to the\nworld, he departed from this view as to the essential baseness of the\nnature of man, and proceeded to proclaim him to be a son of God, not\nonly through some means of adoption, but by the very nature of him.\nHe proclaimed him to be an eternal intelligence as to his spirit, and\nthat after the experience of the resurrection from the dead, he would\nbe an immortal personage, a prince of heaven, an heir to all that God\npossesses, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ, capable of infinite\nprogress and of amazing possibilities. On one occasion--to be more\nspecific, in 1844--while discoursing upon the subject of man and his\nspirit, he propounded this question:\n\n    \"The mind of man, the immortal spirit--where did it come from?\n    All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it\n    in the beginning, but it is not so. The very idea lessens man in\n    my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear\n    it, all ye ends of the world! for God has told me so. If you don't\n    believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. * * * We\n    say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so?\n    It is correct enough, but who told you that man did not exist in\n    like manner, upon the same principle? God made a tabernacle and\n    put man's spirit in it, and it became a living soul. * * * * It\n    does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man; it\n    says God made man out of the earth and put in him Adam's spirit,\n    and so became a living soul. The mind or the intelligence which\n    man possesses is co-eternal with God himself. * * * God himself\n    does not create himself. Intelligence is eternal, and exists upon a\n    self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there\n    is no creation about it. The spirit of man is not a created being,\n    it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity.\"\n\nSuch was the prophet's teaching upon this subject. I might, however,\nsupplement the above statement by quoting one of the revelations that\nalso bears upon this theme. The Christian world are ready to accord\nto the Christ, the Son of God, an existence co-eternal with God; and\nindeed would consider it unorthodox to hold any other view than the\nco-eternity of the Son with the Father; and they quote in support of\nthis view the very beautiful preface to John's gospel; namely, \"In the\nbeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. The same was in the\nbeginning with God. * * * * In him was life, and the life was the light\nof men.\" And then later it is explained that this \"Word\" \"became flesh\nand dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory; the glory as of the Only\nBegotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.\"\n\nAll orthodox Christians believe that this passage establishes the\nco-eternity of the Christ with the Father. Now, that is a very great\ndoctrine; but I desire to show you that, excellent as it is, the Lord\nin our dispensation has added another truth to that one by what is said\nin the revelation from which I now read. Jesus Christ is represented as\nspeaking:\n\n    \"Verily, I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father,\n    and am the first-born. [Now, mark you--addressing the several\n    brethren who were present when this revelation was received]--Ye\n    were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is spirit,\n    even the spirit of truth.\"\n\nMeaning that part of man that is spirit, that intelligence, that\nthing within man that is conscious of its own existence, and of other\nexistences; that has power to will and to direct and to do things; that\nthing within man that reasons and reflects and has memory; that being\nwho, most emphatically, is you, yourself, and not the house, merely,\nin which you live; that, too, was in the beginning with the Father.\nAnd now the revelation broadens the truth beyond those to whom the\nChrist directly spoke at the time the revelation was given; for in a\nsubsequent verse it says: \"Man,\" undoubtedly meaning the race--\n\n    \"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light\n    of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.\n\n    \"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed\n    it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is\n    no existence.\n\n    \"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of\n    man, because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest\n    unto them, and they receive not the light.\n\n    \"And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under\n    condemnation,\n\n    \"For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and\n    element, inseparably connected, receiveth a fulness of joy;\n\n    \"And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.\n\n    \"The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle\n    of God, even temples.\"\n\nThat is bold doctrine. When our prophet came with this splendid message\nto the world, he was met with the cry of \"Blasphemy, blasphemy!\"\nThree-quarters of a century have now passed away since these utterances\nwere first given to the world; and I want to show you what men in the\nhighest seats of learning have to say with respect to principles that\nare either identical with these, or closely analogous to them, though,\nof course, the learned men whom I quote may not be aware even of the\nexistence of these revealed truths given to the world by Joseph Smith.\nThey are not, of course, consciously bearing any testimony to the\ndoctrines announced by our prophet; but they are bearing unconscious\ntestimony to the truth; and I am glad to see the truth grow, whether\nby direct or indirect means. Sometimes I think that the indirect means\nthat God is using for disseminating his truths are more potent and\nfar-reaching, perhaps, than the direct means which we are seeking to\nuse, and that God is using through his Church. But now to this record\nand what our learned men are saying on principles identical with or\nanalogous to these. Professor Howison, whom I before quoted, says:\n\n    \"Son of man, thou art the son of God. Rouse heart! put on the\n    garments of thy majesty, and realize thy equal, thy free, thy\n    immortal membership in the Eternal Order!\" (Conceptions of God, p.\n    96.)\n\nProfessor Robert Kennedy Duncan, in the concluding pages of his _The\nNew Knowledge,_ (1905) says:\n\n    \"Still another conception of the new knowledge is that of the\n    vast stores of inter-elemental energy of which we live but on the\n    fringe--a store of energy so great that every breath we draw has\n    within it sufficient power to drive the workshops of the world.\n    Man will tap this energy some day, somehow. * * * But now that\n    we know, or think we know, of this infinite treasure-house of\n    inter-elemental energy lying latent for the hand of the future\n    man to use, it is neither difficult nor fanatical to believe that\n    beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins\n    shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and\n    shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars. * * * 'In\n    the beginning God created,' and in the midst of his creation he set\n    down man with a little spark of the Godhead in him to make him to\n    strive to know--and in the striving to grow and to progress to some\n    great, worthy, unknown end in this world. He gave him hands to do,\n    a will to drive, and senses to apprehend--just a working equipment:\n    and so he has won his way, so far, out of the horrible conditions\n    of pre-history.\"\n\nI have been presenting to you in my discourse the words of our prophet.\nMr. Bolce represents the professors of our American universities as\nsaying:\n\n    \"The professors see in man, and in man alone, the consciousness\n    and power destined to sway the affairs of the world. Professor\n    Munsterberg insists that the world we will is the reality, and\n    that the least creature of all mortals 'has more dignity and value\n    than even an Almighty God,' as that being is popularly conceived.\n    * * * It is declared by the professors that if divine energy is\n    divisible and man's spirit inferior to God's, the eternal future of\n    the soul is unalluring. Christianity so teaches, they say, and is\n    of all philosophies the most pessimistic. Forever in its scheme man\n    is to be an underling. Not only that, but uncountable billions of\n    souls--worms of the dust--are created doomed to perpetual despair;\n    while a fortunate remnant's highest felicity is to gather around\n    the throne of a superior and august God and chant his praises.\"\n\nThen follows this contrast with the above view:\n\n    \"Opposed to this conception is the new psychology that teaches\n    that the spirit of man is the highest conscious expression\n    of the infinite, and that by invoking the powers--the divine\n    forces--resident in the human, all that humanity desires may be\n    accomplished.\"\n\nThus complete does the divinity of man's spirit appear to these\nphilosophers. Continuing, these views are expressed:\n\n    \"The colleges in teaching this faith take ground with those who\n    believe that in the emancipation and fruition of modern thought\n    greater works than Christ did will be performed. It is, therefore,\n    to rid the modern mind of this deadening effect of what they deem\n    to be paralyzing superstitions that the professors attack orthodox\n    dogmas.\"\n\n    \"Far from deriding the forces of the spirit, the colleges proclaim\n    that the laws of divine energy are the most important study\n    confronting modern man. The professors take their stand with\n    Professor Slater of Chicago University whom I heard emphasize with\n    marked sincerity that the 'name of Jesus is not written but plowed\n    into the history of the world.' Yet in their determination to\n    approach the God-idea as scientists, they consider themselves more\n    reverent than the great body of church people who, they believe,\n    are indulging in idolatrous prostration and ritual.\"\n\nIn still stronger confirmation of Joseph Smith's doctrine, in language\nmore direct, is the following utterance from Professor Herrick, of\nDennison University, who says:\n\n    \"Focused in the mind of man, therefore, are the dynamic forces of\n    the universe. Beyond and above our most daring calculation is the\n    potency of thought! And in the following allegorical words, the\n    Scientist explained how the mind of man, assuming and asserting\n    its power may absorb the fire of creative energy. 'The wood\n    disappears in the grate, but the genial warmth pervades the room,\n    invades our blood, quickens our pulse, wakens vital action, and\n    finally is wrought into the history of our life.' If we keep in\n    mind this picture of an element becoming transfused by natural\n    processes into human life and happiness, it is not difficult to\n    understand the scientific interpretation of prayer, of New Thought,\n    of Christian Science, of the Emmanuel Movement, and similar forces\n    marvelously transforming our contemporary age. As scientists, not\n    as communicants at old altars, many scholars have allied themselves\n    with the forces of spiritual health and healing.\"\n\nAnd yet when the Prophet Joseph and the first elders of the Church\ntaught that the world today was entitled to the enjoyment of the same\n\"spiritual gifts,\" of forces that characterized the Church of Christ in\nthe early Christian centuries, by which the sick were healed, the lame\nmade to walk, and the power of prophecy and revelation enjoyed,--they\nwere classed as presumptuous persons, and generally discredited; indeed\none of the complaints against the Saints when settling in Jackson\ncounty, Missouri--1831-1833--was that\n\n    \"These pretended to communications and revelations direct from\n    heaven, to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and, in short,\n    to perform all the wonder-working miracles wrought by the inspired\n    apostles and prophets of old. * * * They openly blaspheme the most\n    high God, and cast contempt on his holy religion by pretending to\n    receive revelations direct from heaven, by pretending to speak in\n    unknown tongues, by direct inspiration, and by diverse pretenses\n    derogatory of God and religion, and to the utter subversion of\n    human reason.\"\n\nThis is from a document put into circulation by the Jackson county\nanti-\"Mormon\" mob, in the summer of 1833 (_Evening and Morning Star_\nfor December, 1833). But now we find, according to Mr. Bolce's\nrepresentation, professors in universities asserting their faith in\nthe possibility of this spiritual force operating at present among the\nchildren of men, and incidentally, our author remarks, \"These men are\nnot dreamers; they are of solid mental mould.\"\n\nAs a result of man awakening to the consciousness of these indwelling\nforces, our author says:\n\n    \"'Human society, for the first time in history, is coming to\n    itself,' says Professor Edmund J. James, 'and is becoming conscious\n    of definite ends and purposes toward which it is striving; of the\n    possibility of setting up certain ideals toward which it can ever\n    struggle.' And now that man has discovered that there resides in\n    his nature a spirit of energy that is divine, the colleges say,\n    and that he can summon it to work his will, the potency and future\n    operation of this psychic force no man can compute. Science having\n    found a way through psychology to God, the opportunities for the\n    race, through invoking in the human consciousness the brooding\n    spirit that fills all space, are absolutely infinite. Science,\n    therefore, is demonstrating along new lines, or at least is\n    claiming to demonstrate, _that man is God made manifest!_\"\n\nMore than seventy-five years before this utterance of the scientist,\nhowever, there went ringing down the corridors of time these words of\nour prophet:\n\n    \"The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle\n    of God, even temples!\"\n\nContinuing, Mr. Bolce concludes his article on this theme in the\nfollowing terms:\n\n    \"And modern philosophy, as set forth in American universities,\n    holds this incarnation not as a fanciful and merely beautiful\n    ideal, but as a working and understandable principle in the soul\n    of humanity. The professors, therefore, who are digging what they\n    believe to be graves for dead dogmas, stand as exponents of the\n    teaching that man is the embodiment and conscious expression of the\n    force that guides all life and holds all matter in its course. Man\n    has begun the cycle of that triumphal daring prophesied by ancient\n    seers, and which appealed so potently to the imagination of Poe.\n    Not merely in religious rhetoric but in reality the schoolmen say,\n    is man the avatar of God.\"\n\nThat is to say, man is the incarnation of God, the incarnation of a\ndivine spirit; his spirit is one with the Infinite Spirit, even the\nspirit and essence of God. Let no one hereafter say, when viewing the\nteachings of Joseph Smith in reference to the divinity of man's spirit,\nthat his doctrines are merely the utterance of an ignorant, unlettered\nman, since the doctrines he taught three-quarters of a century ago,\nnow receive this splendid, though unconscious vindication, through the\nutterances of the most learned men of our country and age.\n\nII.\n\nThe Existence of a Plurality of Divine Intelligences--Gods.\n\nThe trend of teaching by professors in universities of America is\nsupporting the ideas expressed by Joseph Smith in relation to Deity;\nnot by direct affirmation, of course, but by natural implication, they\nsustain his doctrines in relation to Deity. Let me call your attention\nto what the prophet taught on the subject of Deity, by quoting one\nparagraph from a discourse delivered by him in 1844. I think this one\nparagraph presents in one view the essential things the prophet had to\nsay about God:\n\n    \"What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears\n    and hear, all ye ends of the earth. * * * God himself was once as\n    we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder\n    heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil was rent today, and\n    the great God who upholds this world in its orbit, and who upholds\n    all worlds and things by his power, was to make himself visible--I\n    say if we were to see him today, you would see him like a man in\n    form, like yourself in all the present image and very form as a\n    man: for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness\n    of God, and received instructions from and walked and talked and\n    conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.\"\n\nThis doctrine met with the cry of \"Blasphemy!\" even more pronouncedly\nthan the Prophet's doctrine respecting the divinity of man. The general\nconception of orthodox Christendom in relation to God was that he was\nan incorporeal being, that he was without body; by which they meant\nthat he was not matter; that he was immaterial and without form.\nThey adopted the old pagan idea that God was without parts, without\npassions; that he was without quality, as a matter of fact, if these\nother descriptions of him were true.\n\nWhat is the inevitable outgrowth of the doctrines of these professors\nin our universities, from what was said in part II, of this treatise?\nIt is that there is in man a divine spirit: that man is \"God manifested\nin the flesh.\" From this, the question very naturally arises: Do men\nas such become immortal? Are there any means by which men may become\neternal entities--as spirits and bodies inseparably connected--immortal\nindividuals? If so, would they be any less incarnations of a divine\nspirit in their immortal state than they are now as mortals? The answer\nis obvious; and if only it be admitted that man, as man, may become\nimmortal, then the doctrine of Joseph Smith respecting God receives\nstrong support by necessary implication from the aforesaid teachers of\nthe universities; for if it be true, as we now are assured it is by\nthese teachers, that \"man is God made manifest;\" that \"focused in the\nmind of man are all the dynamic forces of the universe\"--then truly it\nis that such doctrines cannot be far removed from the bold announcement\nof Joseph Smith, that \"God himself was once as we are now, and is an\nexalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.\" To make complete\nthe support of Joseph Smith's doctrines from the teachings of the\nuniversities, it only becomes necessary to say that the individual man\npersists; that he becomes as man, body and spirit, immortal. Let these\ndeclarations be made: The spirit in man is divine--he is an incarnation\nof God; man will become immortal. Say this and then the whole doctrine\nof Joseph Smith, both as to man and as to God, receives perfect support\nfrom the trend of university teachings, as represented by Mr. Bolce's\npapers here being discussed; and there is no escaping that conclusion.\nHold to the first proposition, namely, that the spirit of man is\ndivine, then the question resolves itself merely into this: Is there\nsuch a thing as resurrection from the dead for man? The Christ answers,\nYes; and proclaims himself to be the \"resurrection and the life;\" and\nthe \"first fruits of the resurrection.\"\n\nPaul most eloquently argues for the reality of the resurrection from\nthe dead; indeed, his whole ministry had this as its foundation.\nYou will remember how he argues the question in the 15th chapter of\nFirst Corinthians; wherein he masses the Christian testimony for the\nresurrection of the Christ; and after massing it he then declares that\nif Christ was not raised from the dead then the faith of the Saints\nwas vain, and men were still in their sins, and were without hope in\nthe world; for it is 'only through Christ that men might hope for the\nresurrection from the dead. Not only does the Christ and Paul argue for\nthis great fact yet to be realized in man's experience, but you will\nfind very many Christian philosophers who are contending today for the\nsame truth. Among these is one who is among the first scientists of the\nEnglish speaking people of today, Sir Oliver Lodge who, in speaking\nupon the subject of the resurrection, in his recent work, _Science and\nImmortality,_ says:\n\n    \"It is clear that Christianity, both by its doctrines and its\n    ceremonies, rightly emphasizes the material aspect of existence.\n    For it is founded upon the idea of incarnation; and its belief in\n    some sort of bodily resurrection is based on the idea that every\n    real personal existence must have a double aspect, not spiritual\n    alone, nor physical alone, but in some way both. Such an opinion,\n    in a refined form, is common to many systems of philosophy, _and is\n    by no means out of harmony with science_.\"\n\nThat is the declaration of one of the foremost scientists of our day.\nContinuing he says:\n\n    \"Christianity, therefore, reasonably supplements the mere survival\n    of a discarnate spirit, a homeless wanderer or melancholy\n    ghost, with the warm and comfortable clothing of something that\n    may legitimately be spoken of as a \"body;\" that is to say, it\n    postulates a supersensually appreciable vehicle or mode of\n    manifestation, fitted to subserve the needs of terrestrial life;\n    an ethereal or other entity constituting the persistent 'other\n    aspect,' and fulfilling some of the functions which the atoms of\n    terrestrial matter are constrained to fulfill now. And we may\n    assume, as consonant with or even as part of Christianity, the\n    doctrine of the dignity and sacramental character of some physical\n    or quasi-material counterpart of every spiritual essence.\"\n\nIn other words, Sir Oliver evidently believes in something equivalent\nto the resurrection of man; that there will be some sort of\nquasi-material substance that shall form the future clothing of man's\nspirit, suitable to the future states of its existence and experiences.\n\nNow, my friends, the point is this: If our professors, as we see they\ndo, insist that there is incarnate in man a divine spirit, and we get\nmen through the veil of death, and they become immortal men, possessing\nimmortal tabernacles, what have you here but the \"superman\" of the\nprofessors, or the \"exalted man\" of Joseph Smith's doctrine? And if we\npostulate for these immortals, as both Joseph Smith and the professors\ndo, a limitless opportunity for progress and development, then indeed\nit is not impossible that man may approach, somewhat even to the\nexcellence of his Father, and of his elder brother, Jesus Christ.\n\nThis brings me to the consideration of another thought in connection\nwith Joseph Smith's doctrine, namely, the doctrine that there is a\nplurality of divine intelligences in the universe--\"Lords many and Gods\nmany,\" as Paul would say.\n\nIt was supposed that Joseph Smith was guilty of great blasphemy when\nhe announced to the world that in the great vision of God, given to\nhim, he beheld two personages, each resembling the other, and that they\nspake to him; and one said to the other, calling the prophet by name,\n\"This is my beloved Son; hear him.\" Since Joseph represented that there\nwere two divine personages--Father and Son--separate and distinct, one\nfrom the other, he was charged with having uttered a great blasphemy.\nSuch a statement was at variance with the orthodox conception of\nDeity. It had been held in the creeds of men--notwithstanding they\nprofessed belief in God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy\nSpirit--that somehow or other the three persons of the Godhead were but\none essence or substance; were but one entity, and not three separate\nand distinct personages or individuals. But if the doctrine considered\nin part II of this treatise be true as to the spirit in man being\ndivine; and if that spirit goes through the resurrection and becomes\nan immortal personage--still divine--what is the result? The result\nmust be that there are a multitude of divine intelligences; which is\nonly another way of saying with Paul, and Joseph Smith, that there\nare \"Lords many and Gods many.\" And so the inevitable result of the\nteachings in our universities leads to the support of this doctrine\nthat was announced to the world by the Prophet Joseph Smith, that there\nare a multitude of divine intelligences in the heavens--spirits and\nangels and arch-angels; and Gods who meet in solemn councils--David's\n\"congregation of the mighty,\" where God \"judgeth among the Gods\" to\ngenerate the wisdom that is present through the universe that has\nbeen brought from chaos into cosmos by the wisdom and power of these\ndivine intelligences. But as \"pertaining to us,\" there is one Godhead\nappointed to preside from among these intelligences--the Father, the\nSon and the Holy Spirit. And this Godhead, or grand presidency, does\npreside over our world and the spheres that are associated with it:\nwith our earth and its heavens.\n\nThis doctrine of the existence of a plurality of divine intelligences\nhas further support by a very eminent professor--no less a personage\nthan Professor James, late of Harvard university. Within the year, his\nlectures before Oxford university, England, have been published, and\nthis work bears the title _A Pluralistic Universe._ The outcome of\nProfessor James' learned discussion of all the questions involved in\nthis subject is to the effect that instead of the universe being, as he\nsatirically speaks of it, when referring to the monistic view of it--\"a\nsolid block,\" it is a pluralistic universe. One of his passages runs as\nfollows:\n\n    \"I propose to you that we should discuss the question of God,\n    without entangling ourselves in advance in the monistic assumption.\n    Is it probable that there is a superhuman consciousness at all, in\n    the first place? When that is settled, the further question whether\n    its form be monistic or pluralistic is in order.\" (page 295).\n\nThis question as to their being a \"superhuman consciousness\" the\nprofessor decides in the affirmative as at least probable; and then he\nannounces that the only way to escape from the inconsistencies of other\ntheories \"is to be frankly pluralistic and assume that the superhuman\nconsciousness, however vast it may be, has itself an external\nenvelopment, and consequently is finite\" (page 311 ).\n\n\"The line of least resistance, then, as it seems to me,\" he adds, \"both\nin theology and philosophy, is to accept, along with the superhuman\nconsciousness, the notion that it is not all-embracing, the notion,\nin other words, that there is a God, but that he is finite, either in\npower or in knowledge, or in both at once. These, I need hardly tell\nyou, are the terms in which common men have usually carried on their\nactive commerce with God; and the monistic perfections that make the\nnotion of him so paradoxical practically and morally are the colder\naddition of remote professorial minds, operating _in distans_ upon\nconceptual substitutes for him alone\" (page 311). Professor James also\nexplains that present day Monism carefully repudiates complicity with\nSpinozistic Monism, \"in that, it explains, the many get dissolved\nin the one and lost, whereas in the improved, idealistic form they\nget preserved in all their manyness as the one's eternal object.\nThe absolute itself is thus represented by absolutists as having a\npluralistic object. But if even the absolute has to have a pluralistic\nvision, why should we ourselves hesitate to be pluralists on our own\nsole account? Why should we envolve our 'many' with the 'one' that\nbrings so much poison in its train?\" (Page 311.)\n\nAddressing himself directly to Oxford men on the movement of late\ntowards pluralistic conceptions of the universe, professor James\nsays: \"If Oxford men could be ignorant of anything, it might almost\nseem that they had remained ignorant of the great empirical movement\ntowards a pluralistic panpsychic view of the universe, into which our\nown generation has been drawn, and which threatens to short-circuit\ntheir methods entirely and become their religious rival unless they are\nwilling to make themselves its' allies\" (page 313).\n\nThe professor also insists that by taking the system of the world\npluralistically we banish what he calls our \"foreignness\"--by which I\nunderstand him to mean our apartness from the world (_i.e._, universe).\n\n    \"We are indeed internal parts of God, and not external creations,\n    on any possible reading of the panpsychic system. Yet because\n    God is not the absolute, but is himself a part when the system\n    is conceived pluralistically, his functions can be taken as not\n    wholly dissimilar to those of the other smaller parts,--as similar\n    to our functions, consequently. 'Having an environment, being in\n    time, and working out a history just like ourselves, he escapes\n    from the foreignness from all that is human, of the static,\n    timeless, perfect absolute. * * * * No matter what the content of\n    the universe may be, if you only allow that it is many everywhere\n    and always, that nothing real escapes from having an environment,\n    so far from defeating its rationality, as the absolutists so\n    unanimously pretend, you leave it in possession of the maximum\n    amount of rationality practically obtainable by our minds. Your\n    relations with it, intellectual, emotional and active, remain\n    fluent and congruous with your own nature's chief demands.\" (pages\n    318, 319.)\n\nWe may not here and now, of course, enter into all the explanations and\narguments that Professor James enters upon in treating this subject,\nbut the purpose of his whole work is to establish the idea that the\nunity one discovers in the laws and forces of our universe, grows\nout of a \"free harmony of individual entities;\" that the absolute\nreality is a system of self-active beings forming a unity; and hence,\nhe concludes the world to be \"a pluralistic universe.\" With this view\nProfessor Howison, of the University of California, if I understand him\naright, in his contribution to a volume on the _Conception of God,_\nlargely agrees.\n\nTo this may be added also the views of Arthur Kenyon Rogers Ph.D.,\nProfessor of Philosophy in Buttler College recently expressed in a\nbook entitled \"The Religious Conception of the World,\" \"An Essay in\nConstructive Philosophy,\" 1907. On the particular point in question,\n\"the nature of the unity of God and of lesser conscious beings,\" he\nsays:\n\n    \"The modern world is coming more and more to feel that if there is\n    to be any real body and permanent satisfaction to the spiritual\n    life, it will have to be carried back in large part to the sort of\n    experience that we get concretely and verifiably in our every-day\n    human and social relationships. * * * * Now here also in the social\n    realm there is a verifiable and significant sense in which we may\n    talk of identifying ourselves with others. But it distinctly is not\n    to merge our conscious lives into a single and inseparable whole of\n    conscious content. Rather it is to work for common interests and\n    care for the same things, to feel a concern each for the other's\n    welfare, a respect for his character, a regard for the essential\n    individuality of the other. Two things in this situation--and these\n    two the most fundamental--are wholly foreign to an absolute merging\n    and absorption. Love, as human love, presupposes necessarily the\n    self-identical and independent consciousness of the one toward whom\n    it is directed. And the moral life, about which some of the deepest\n    values cling, in its turn involves alike a personal autonomy which\n    absorption would destroy, and an extra-personal, an outgoing and\n    unselfish concern for others, for which no converging of all\n    reality to a single self-conscious centre could find a place. * * * *\n\n    \"We have only, then, to extend this conception a step farther, in\n    order to pass from what is merely an account of the social order to\n    a philosophy of the universe. The ultimate way for understanding\n    the universe _is not self-consciousness, but a society of selves._\n    But in this community there is one member who occupies a quite\n    exceptional position. For God, as the inner reality of what we call\n    the world of nature, stands clearly somehow in a special way at the\n    centre of things, as human selves do not. In him there are summed\n    up the conditions which are needed to account fully for the lesser\n    world of our own more immediate social experience, since the lives\n    of men confessedly have their roots in nature. In him therefore\n    we may suppose the unity of the whole is directly reflected, and\n    there are gathered the broken threads of the universal purpose as\n    it appears in our partial and limited human experiences. But none\n    the less, if we are to follow the conception, is he still only one\n    member of the community, and not the whole sum of existing things.\n    He exists as one whose nature needs the positing of other lives\n    which do not come within the same immediate conscious unity as his\n    own. He also is a social being as men are, and finds his life in\n    social co-operation, though the complete conditions of his life\n    may be eternally present to his consciousness as they are not to\n    ours. But while his knowledge thus may cover all existence, the\n    inclusion will be one of knowledge simply. My conscious life will\n    still be mine alone, which no one else in the universe can directly\n    share, not even God himself. No one else feels my feelings or has\n    my sensations. * * * *\n\n    \"And this is the position which has already been argued for in\n    a preceding chapter. In other words, God does not create us by\n    an arbitrary choice of his, so that our nature as human selves\n    is merely secondary and derivative. _This nature of ours is\n    an ultimate fact of reality._ It is implicated in the deepest\n    constitution of the universe, in the nature of God himself.\n    _Reality is a confederacy of free beings;_ and no one of these\n    is ultimately responsible for the others, since each alike is\n    essential to the whole with which reality is identified.\"\n\nFrom all this, then, it appears that the doctrine of a plurality\nof divine intelligences existing in the universe, as taught by our\nprophet, is receiving confirmation by the works and the philosophizing\nof some of the foremost learned men of our country, and, for that\nmatter, of the world.\n\nPerhaps you will be putting to me the question: What of all this? Why\ndiscuss questions of this character? What spiritual or moral force may\none gather from a contemplation of such themes? Well, in the first\nplace, to Latter-day Saints, those who have faith in the dispensation\nof the fulness of times and in the Prophet Joseph Smith--does it mean\nnothing to you to find the inspirations of God in this man confirmed\nby the conclusions of plodding philosophers who come trailing in\nseventy-five years after the words of the prophet have gone forth to\nthe world? After he has been denounced as charlatan, as false prophet\nand deceiver, for advancing the truths we have been considering--does\nit mean nothing to you to find that the truths which he stood for are\npermeating the philosophies of men and are receiving the sanction and\napproval of the learned? It means much to me; it gives confirmation to\nmy faith; and I rejoice in the triumph that the truth is achieving.\nThen to all, whether Latter-day Saints or not, it seems to me that\nto have fixed in the mind, in the consciousness, the thought of the\nreality of things--the reality of God, the reality of the divine in\nman, the consciousness that this spirit within us is of a divine\nnature, and that it is capable of attaining to something really good\nand great--to something really worth while--to goodness, power and\nglory, to have that thought present to consciousness, as we go about\nthe duties of life--to feel that \"for a wise and glorious purpose God\nhas placed us here on earth,\" and has merely \"withheld the recollection\nof our former friends and birth\"--to be conscious of all this, I say,\nis to gather strength for the battle of life. To feel that we, in the\nessence of us, are one with God, and that he envelopes us closely\nabout by spiritual influences that we can call to our assistances--to\nbe conscious of the fact that our life is part of God's life--to be\nconscious of this is to banish from us the thought of failing in\nlife. We gather spiritual strength, and force and power to meet the\nresponsibilities and duties of life, by contemplation of these high\nthemes. This is the practical effect of these doctrines--we know that\nour life touches the life of God; that our life is one with God's life,\nand this inspires to noble efforts, out of which may grow the highest\nand most glorious results possible in human existence.\n\n\n\nPart IV.\n\nMiscellaneous Discourses.\n\nI.\n\nTHE SPIRIT OF MORMONISM; A SLANDER REFUTED.\n\nA discourse in the Salt Lake Mormon Tabernacle, January 16, 1910.\n(Reported by F. W. Otterstrom.)\n\nI.\n\n    \"Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and\n    bitter?\n\n    \"Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries, either a vine,\n    figs? So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.\"\n\nSuch is the language of James, whose epistle appears in the New\nTestament Scripture; and the passage condensed simply means, of course,\nthat an impure fountain sends forth not pure streams, neither does a\ngood fountain send forth impure streams; such as the fountain is, such\nalso is the stream.\n\nI have been somewhat surprised, if not amazed of late at the bitterness\nthat has been manifested in the discussion in our local prints, of\nsome doctrines and some of the history of this great movement known as\nMormonism. There has been lately a raking up of old past controversies,\nuntil one would think that we would be under the necessity of fighting\nagain the old battles of 60 and 70 years ago; for this raking up of\nold controversies extends that far back with reference to this great\nlatter-day movement. I have it in mind to make a little contribution\nto this discussion, from the standpoint of this text. Of course, it\nis said that the tree must be judged by its fruit; and that must be\nadmitted to be a righteous judgment, because in all moral machinery,\nthe effectiveness of it must finally be judged by moral results, and we\ncould not, if we would, escape the judgment of the world, which will\nbe pronounced upon the results of our religious and ethical system.\nBut, while that is a most excellent method of estimating the value of\nany religious or philosophical or ethical system, it does not exclude\nthe justice and righteousness of judging it from this standpoint of\nJames, namely: Is the fountain, whence it springs, pure? If so, it were\nan anomaly, indeed, if the streams flowing out of it were not like\nthe fountain--pure. So, for a little while, I am going to invite your\nattention to the spirit in which this thing the world calls Mormonism\nhad its inception. This gives us the opportunity of briefly reviewing\nsome things that are very commonplace with you, but important,\nnevertheless; and we may begin with that very wonderful incident of\nthe Prophet Joseph Smith's boyhood when but fourteen years of age. He\nwent as you know to the Lord in prayer, in response to the Scripture\nwhich said: \"If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth\nto all men liberally and upbraideth not.\" He became familiar with that\nScripture, for it constituted, at least on one occasion, a text to a\ndiscourse to which he listened, and it became the voice of God to his\nsoul. At last he put this Scripture to the test and inquired of God,\nwith the result familiar to you all that he received a splendid vision\nof God the Father and of the Son, and received knowledge of the purpose\nof the Father to give a new dispensation of the gospel to the world\nthrough him, provided he should be faithful. Three years passed, and\nwhen reviewing the experiences of those three years, and calling to\nmind, as any lad could, the follies of youth, the light-mindedness and\nthe foolishness of boyhood, a sorrow took hold of him as he made this\nreview; and he wondered to what extent he had given offense to God. He\nbesought the Lord in prayer again, in order to know his standing, with\nthe result that a holy messenger from the presence of God visited him\nand made known his acceptance to the Lord, notwithstanding his boyhood\nfollies, and assured him that he was still the chosen instrument in\nthe hands of God for the accomplishment of his purposes, and revealed\nto him the existence of a whole volume of Scripture, being the word\nof the Lord as delivered unto the prophets living upon these western\nAmerican continents in ancient times. Of course, I am not relating\nthese familiar incidents in the history of the Prophet, with a view of\nimparting information as to these facts to you, but I simply want to\ncall your attention to the course pursued by the Prophet, to ask you if\nthis course is not altogether commendable in him; and so far as we have\npursued the course followed, is it not altogether praiseworthy--this\nseeking the Lord and finding him? This guidance by the spirit of\nprayer? This was the spirit in which Mormonism, so-called, had its\ninception, so far as the Prophet was concerned; and now I want to\nfollow its development a little further.\n\nBy and by, others began to participate in the development of this work.\nAmong those who sought to be useful in bringing it into existence was\nthe Prophet's own father. He desired that his son inquire of the Lord\nto learn what course he should take, and what was to be his lot and\npart in this work. The Prophet inquired of the Lord and received the\nfollowing message, contained in your Doctrine and Covenants:\n\n    \"Behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children\n    of men;\n\n    \"Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye\n    serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye\n    may stand blameless before God at the last day;\n\n    \"Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God, ye are called to the\n    work.\n\n    \"For behold the field is white already to harvest, and lo, he that\n    thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store\n    that he perish not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;\n\n    \"And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory\n    of God, qualify him for the work.\n\n    \"Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly\n    kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.\n\n    \"Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you.\"\n\nWhat virtue exists outside of those here enumerated and enjoined? What\nsay you of this fountain--good, or corrupt?\n\nBy and by, but a few months after this, in fact, Oliver Cowdery came to\nthe Prophet, he who was to be the Second Elder in the Church of Christ\nabout to be established--a young man, a schoolteacher, a blacksmith,\nformerly a store-keeper--a variety of occupations of course impossible\noutside of frontier life in America, in the early decades of the\nnineteenth century. He had heard of God's dealings with this prophet\nwho was being qualified for his great mission; and so came to him. He,\ntoo, like the Prophet's father, was willing to throw his lot in with\nthe Prophet and the work that was developing. He, too, would know the\nwill of the Lord concerning him, in his relationship to this work;\nand, now, what said the Lord to him? It is told in section six of your\nDoctrine and Covenants. It was given April, 1829, a year before the\nChurch was organized; to Oliver the Lord said:\n\n    \"A great and marvelous work is about to come forth among the\n    children of men.\"\n\nObserve how that prediction is constantly repeated in these\nrevelations. One need only call your attention to the great latter-day\nwork and its wonderful history, to prove the prophetic character of\nthis repeated utterance in these early revelations. Continuing:\n\n    \"Behold, I am God, and give heed unto my word, which is quick and\n    powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder\n    of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words.\n\n    \"Behold the field is white already to harvest, therefore whoso\n    desireth to reap, let him thrust in his sickle with his might, and\n    reap while the day lasts, that he may treasure up for his soul\n    everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God:\n\n    \"Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is\n    called of God;\n\n    \"Therefore, if you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will\n    knock it shall be opened unto you.\n\n    \"Now, as you have asked, behold, I say unto you, keep my\n    commandments, and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of\n    Zion.\"\n\n    \"Seek not for riches, but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of\n    God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich.\n    Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.\n\n    \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you desire of me, so it\n    shall be unto you; and if you desire, you shall be the means of\n    doing much good in this generation.\n\n    \"Say nothing but repentance unto this generation: keep my\n    commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my\n    commandments and you shall be blessed.\n\n    \"Therefore be diligent, stand by my servant Joseph, faithfully, in\n    whatsoever difficult circumstances he may be [in] for the word's\n    sake.\"\n\nLet us pause here and a little contemplate the striking sentences of\nthis revelation: \"Seek not for riches\"--Why, we were told here but a\nfew days ago, in our local prints, as about a year ago in one of the\ngreat magazines of our country, we were told that \"lust of gold, not\nlove of God,\" was the motive power of Mormonism.\n\n\"Admonish him [the Prophet] in his faults.\"--What! a prophet with\nfaults? O yes; and to be admonished by his brethren? Yes. What\nhumility is here required of the prophet; what frankness, what godlike\nquality!--\"Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition of\nhim. Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and\ncharity.\"\n\nWe are told, and it is charged in the old anti-Mormon books of fifty,\nsixty and seventy years ago, that these men were liars, intemperate,\nidlers, money diggers; that they were utterly untrustworthy; and, yet,\nget behind the scenes where the word of God comes to them, and, lo!\nthe purity of the fountain whence Mormonism comes! And this was no\nplaying to the galleries of the world, either. These revelations were\nnot published to the world at that time, indeed there was no idea that\nthey would ever be published. As the secret thoughts of a man is to his\nactions, so were these revelations to the Church.\n\nII.\n\nPEOPLE JUDGED BY THEIR LAWS.\n\nWith historians it is common to regard the laws that are enacted as\nbeing among the truest means of insight to conditions prevailing among\na people; because the things that the laws forbid, or the things that\nthe law commands are truly a revelation of the inclinations of the\npeople. And so, too, the legislation of a people will reveal their\naspirations, their strivings after justice and righteousness; and\nlikewise the revelations which God gave through Joseph Smith, out of\nwhich the Church of Latter-day Saints has been developed, reveal the\nspirit of this great Latter-day Work, the aims and aspirations of the\nChurch.\n\nAgain, the Prophet's brother, Hyrum, his lifelong companion, and fellow\nmartyr at the last, in the spring of 1829 came from Manchester down\nto Harmony, upwards of a hundred miles, to inquire of the Lord. His\nbrother Samuel had recently been in touch with Joseph and Oliver, and\nhad received the testimony of the Lord that the work these young men\nwere engaged in was true; and he had received baptism at their hands.\nIt was he who carried the word up to the Prophet's father's home, that\nthe brethren had received the ministration of John the Baptist, and\nhad received divine authority to teach the gospel of repentance--the\npreparatory gospel--and to baptize for the remission of sins. And this\noccasioned Hyrum to immediately repair to Harmony to find out if there\nwas a word from the Lord for him; and this word came:\n\n    \"A great and marvelous work is about to come forth among the\n    children of men.\"\n\n    \"Behold, I am God, and give heed to my word, which is quick and\n    powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder\n    of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my word.\n\n    \"Behold, the field is white already to harvest, therefore: whoso\n    desireth to reap, let him thrust in his sickle with his might, and\n    reap while the day lasts, that he may treasure up for his soul\n    everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God.\n\n    \"Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is\n    called of God;\n\n    \"Therefore, if you will ask of me, you shall receive, if you will\n    knock, it shall be opened unto you.\n\n    \"Now, as you have asked, behold, I say unto you, keep my\n    commandments, and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of\n    Zion.\n\n    \"Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and, behold, the mysteries of\n    God, shall be unfolded unto you, and then you shall be made rich,\n    behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.\"\n\n    \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you desire of me, so it\n    shall be done unto you: and if you desire you shall be the means of\n    doing much good in this generation.\n\n    \"Say nothing but repentance unto this generation. Keep my\n    commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my\n    commandments, and you shall be blessed.\"\n\nThe spirit of this is splendid, it is good, not evil. Contemplate these\nwords to Hyrum Smith and you get better than any where else, perhaps,\nthe spirit of Mormonism--\"Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you\ndesire of me, so it shall be done unto you: and, if you desire, you\nshall be the means\"--of doing what? Revelling in luxury, living without\nthe labor of his hands--be deprived of the blessing of earning his\nbread in the sweat of his brow--and participate in the pride and glory\nand honor and applause of the world? No; not so; but: \"_you shall be\nthe means of doing much good in this generation_.\"\n\nTHE CALLING OF SIDNEY RIGDON.\n\nThe same holds good as to other characters who came dropping into the\nwork. When Sidney Rigdon came with Edward Partridge--the latter the\nProphet described as a pattern of piety and one of the Lord's great\nmen, and of whom the Lord spoke afterwards as being like unto Nathaniel\nof old, because there was no guile in his heart. When Sidney Rigdon,\nin December, 1830, came to the Prophet to inquire of him, the Lord\ncommended him for his past work in the Disciple's ministry, where he\nhad been teaching repentance and faith and baptism in water for the\nremission of sins; and, now, the burden of the Lord's word in this\nman, Sidney Rigdon, was simply that hereafter his mission should be\nenlarged, and he should not only baptize with water but he should\nbaptize now, also, with water and with fire and with the Holy Ghost. No\npromise of wealth and position; no worldly exaltation was promised to\nhim, but warnings of toil and labor in the ministry and the opposition\nof the world. And, by the way, there is something a little interesting\nin this incident of Sidney Rigdon coming into the work. It is generally\nheld forth, in the anti-Mormon publications, that Joseph Smith neither\nin his general information, nor in trained faculties, was equal to the\ntask of bringing forth the Book of Mormon. They assumed that some more\nskilful man, some man better versed in the Scriptures and in history,\nand having more literary ability withal, was somewhere behind the\nscenes manipulating affairs to bring forth the Book of Mormon and the\nMormon Church. But Sidney Rigdon did not come to the Prophet until\nDecember, 1830. When he came--in addition to what I have reported\nof what was promised to him--he was appointed to be scribe to the\nProphet; and afterwards in all their labors and associations he held\na subordinate position to the Prophet. At this time Sidney Rigdon was\na man thirty-seven years of age; the Prophet but about twenty-five.\nWe might ask our anti-Mormon friends how it came about that if Sidney\nRigdon was the master spirit in bringing forth the Book of Mormon and\nthe Mormon Church--\"the real Mephistopheles of the blasphemous drama\nthat was being enacted\"--how comes it that after playing this part\nfor a number of years, in secret when he comes out into the public\nlight, with all his advantage of age, of education and experience and\npower as a public speaker, he consents to take second place in the\ngreat drama to be enacted--no, not even second place for that had been\nconferred upon Oliver Cowdery who had been ordained and sustained by\nthe Church as the Second Elder of the Church, while Sidney Rigdon at\nhis advent must be content with being the Prophet's scribe! Is there\nany consistency in claims of this anti-Mormon sort?\n\nI come now to another matter. You have seen how our Prophet began his\nwork--in prayerfully seeking unto the Lord for his own guidance, and\never, as men who became leaders in the movement, one after another,\ncome dropping into the work, from his father and brother, and Oliver\nCowdery to Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, and afterwards the same as\nto Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and all the rest--ever as they came\ninto the work, it was always the same thing; he inquired of the Lord\nfor these men, and received answers; he was prayerful throughout--this\nProphet. In 1833 the Prophet himself went on a mission to Canada to\nvisit some branches of the Church that had been raised up by the labors\nof Parley P. Pratt; and among the treasures of our Historian's office\nis the daily journal of the Prophet while on that mission--a little\nbook--not so large, in thickness, at least, but a little larger in\nlength and breadth than this small hymn book that I now hold in my\nhand; a journal kept in his own hand writing, that recorded the events\nof each day, the thoughts that were in his heart, and his method of\nprocedure. I want to read a few entries from that journal to you;\nbecause our Church history, that is, as originally published in the\n_Times and Seasons,_ and as published in _The Millennial Star,_ does\nnot contain all the entries of the Prophet in that journal; but in the\nrecently published history of the Church, in the first volume of the\nsix now published, these entries are to be found in the Footnotes. I\nwant to have you follow the Prophet for a few days in his ministry,\nthat you may know the spirit of this man.\n\n    A FEW DAYS WITH THE PROPHET.\n\n    \"Oct. 5--I started on a journey to the east, and to Canada in\n    company with Elders Rigdon and Freeman Nickerson. We arrived in\n    Springfield whilst the brethren were in meeting, and Elder Rigdon\n    spoke to the congregation. A large and attentive congregation\n    assembled at Brother Rudd's in the evening, to whom we bore our\n    testimony. Had a great congregation--paid good attention. _O God,\n    seal our testimony to their hearts.\"_ That is from page 6 of the\n    manuscript book I speak of.\n\n    \"Oct. 11--We left Westfield, and continuing our journey, stayed\n    that night with a man named Nash, an infidel, with whom we\n    reasoned, but to no purpose. I feel very well in my mind. _The Lord\n    is with us, but have much anxiety about my family.\"_ (Page 7.)\n\n    \"Thursday, 24th--At the house of Mr. Beman, in Colburn, whence we\n    left for Waterford, where we spoke to a small congregation; thence\n    to Mount Pleasant, and preached to a large congregation the same\n    evening, when Freeman A. Nickerson and his wife declared their\n    belief in the work, and offered themselves for baptism. Great\n    excitement prevailed in every place we visited. _The result is in\n    the hands of God_.\"\n\n    \"Friday, 25th--This afternoon, at a Mr. Patrick's; expect to hold a\n    meeting this evening. People very superstitious. O God, establish\n    thy word among this people. Held a meeting this evening; had an\n    attentive congregation; _the Spirit gave utterance_.\"\n\n    \"28th--In the evening we broke bread and laid on hands for the gift\n    of the Holy Ghost, and for confirmation, having baptized two more.\n    The Spirit was given in great power to some, and peace to others.\n    _May God carry on his work in this place till all shall know him.\n    Amen.\"_ (Page 16.)\n\n    \"Tuesday, 29th--After preaching at 10 o'clock a. m. I baptized two,\n    and confirmed them at the water's side. Last evening we ordained\n    F. A. Nickerson an elder; and one of the sisters received the girt\n    of tongues, which made the saints rejoice exceedingly. _May God\n    increase the gifts among them for his Son's sake_.\"\n\n    On the 29th the Prophet's party started for home. _\"May the Lord\n    prosper our journey. Amen.\"_ (Page 17.)\n\n    \"Friday, Nov. 1--I left Buffalo. New York, at 8 o'clock a. m. and\n    arrived at my house in Kirtland on Monday, the 4th, 10 a. m., and\n    found my family well, according to the promise of the Lord in the\n    revelation of October 12, _for which I felt to thank my heavenly\n    Father_.\"\n\nNow, my friends, this is but a few days with the Prophet. You may\nfollow him throughout his career--in freedom and in bonds, in the\nmidst of his joys and in the darkness of his sorrows; you shall find\nthis same prayerful attitude towards God--always thanksgiving for\nblessings, cries for help in his hour of need, and always prayers for\ndivine guidance when unfolding the great organization of the Church\nof Christ. Tell me--is the spirit in which this man labored, evil or\ngood? Is this the course of a libertine and a liar? Or, is it the\ncourse of a righteous man? To me there draw tremendous consequences in\nconnection with this course of our Prophet; and the importance of these\nconsequences will appeal to you, I think, when I call your attention\nto them. When you see this man so constantly seeking communion with\nGod, seeking for guidance and help--if God came not to his help, and\ndid not guide him, then what hope may men entertain that God will hear\nprayer at all? Or give divine guidance to those who seek it? If I could\nbe persuaded that God did not hear and answer the prayers of this\nman--beginning in his innocent boyhood, and continuing to his martyr,\ncry _\"O Lord, my God_!\"--if God, I say, did not hear him, and did not\nwalk beside him and guide his footsteps, I would say to all the world:\nYour prayers are but mockeries; your heaven above you is brass; the\nearth under your feet is iron. Cease from prayer; become self reliant,\nand do the best you can by your own inherent strength; develop such\nhuman wisdom as you may, and walk in its light, for it is all there\nis--your cries for help and guidance cannot penetrate the heavens, and\nthere is no God to hear or help you!\n\nBut, of course, believing, as I do, that God responded to the\nheart-cries of the Prophet, to his prayers, I say to all men--Behold\nthe result of Joseph Smith's praying in the achievements of his life's\nwork! In this circumstance we may find encouragement to believe that\nGod will both hear and answer prayers, and help all to know the truth\nand walk in its light, who seek for it.\n\nBut notwithstanding the fact that this great latter-day work called\nMormonism had its inception in this prayerful spirit--this manifest\nhungering and thirsting after righteousness; notwithstanding all who\nsought to be helpful in it, and to be identified with its development\nwere sternly bidden to keep the commandments of God; that faith, hope,\ncharity, temperance, chastity and patience were required qualities;\nthat they must seek for wisdom, not for riches--\"the laborers in Zion\nshall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish\"\n(II Nephi 26:51); notwithstanding the stream called Mormonism arises\nfrom so noble and pure a fountain, how greatly has it been defamed\neither through misconception of it, or through malice, and the motives\nof its founders misrepresented!\n\nOnly a short time ago, no later in fact than last Thanksgiving day, a\nminister in preaching what I think, in the main, must have been a very\nexcellent discourse, took occasion to glance in our direction, and\nsay what I think was one of the unkindest things that could be said\nof the Latter-day Saints. I will read to you what the press reported\nthe gentleman as saying. You know the local press of our city, now\nand then, becomes wonderfully agitated about our paying tithes and\nofferings to the Church; and, really, if you read those reports and did\nnot know better you would think the Latter-day Saints were a community\nthat were impoverishing themselves by carrying on the work of the Lord.\nThis minister referred to that, and what he says on that particular\npoint is rather refreshing, and I commend it to the attention of the\nlocal paper in question:\n\n    \"One of our local papers has assigned, as one of the reasons of the\n    so-called poverty and handicap of the Mormon people, the collection\n    of tithes. We think the paper in error in this, for we ourselves\n    are in favor of the tithes and have practiced it for the past\n    twenty years. The children of Israel were never so prosperous as\n    when they brought the tithes and offerings to the treasury of the\n    Lord;\"--and everybody that is acquainted with the history of Israel\n    knows that to be true. \"The true cause of this so-called poverty\n    and handicap, of course, is not in reference to the tithes, _but\n    the low ideals in the homes and the lack of respect for woman. As\n    the earthly, home is lifted it becomes nearest like the home beyond\n    the skies, the final home of the soul._\"\n\nIII.\n\nWOMAN'S PLACE IN MORMONISM.\n\nI say that the charge made as to \"low ideals in the homes, and the\nlack of respect for woman,\" is the unkindest thing that could be said\nof the Latter-day Saints, or, really, of any people. It would be the\nsaddest commentary that could be made on any system if it were true;\nbut I resent it as a charge against my people, and say that it is\nuntrue; and on the contrary affirm that the gospel of Jesus Christ, the\nnew dispensation of it committed to this world through the ministry\nof the Prophet Joseph Smith, teaches the highest respect for woman\nthat may be described by human speech or wrought into practice. There\nis no people in the world that so religiously and absolutely believe\nthat doctrine of Paul's that in God's economy of things \"the man is\nnot without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord.\"\nSome, through misrepresentation, have charged that we believe this\ndoctrine so absolutely as to hold that there is no salvation for man or\nwoman outside of the marriage relation. Of course, that is an extreme\nto which we do not go. We believe--at least, permit me to say that I\nbelieve, and I think I have warrant for such belief in the principles\nof our faith, that it is possible for either man or woman to be saved\nwithout marriage at all. It is possible for a man to be saved with one\nwife, and, if you will just be patient enough to let me say it, if we\nmay here regard the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, which speak of\nAbraham as having a place in the kingdom of God--nay, his very bosom\nis the goal to which all Christian eyes turn, where they hope to find\npeace and heavenly rest--and if we believe this of Abraham, we may be\njustified in believing it possible for a man to be saved though he\nshould happen to have more than one wife. But instructed by our faith,\nwe so honor woman that we hold that man cannot attain to the heights of\nexaltation and glory possible to the intelligences we call men only as\nhe shall be holily joined with woman in divinely appointed wedlock, for\nin that state, and that state only, is the power of eternal lives, and\nincreasing glory, and dominion, and exaltation. No man may attain unto\nthese high things only as he is united with woman in holy marriage.\n\nI accept all that the reverend gentleman says of the beauty and\nblessedness of the home. It is indeed, from the Mormon viewpoint, the\nprincipal factor of civilization; the spring and source of national\nlife and greatness and stability. And, as our reverend friend remarks,\n\"as the earthly home is lifted it becomes nearest like the home beyond\nthe skies, the final home of the soul.\" A very pretty sentiment,\ntruly, and Mormons believe in it so absolutely that they look forward\nto the actual existence of the family \"beyond the skies,\" or at\nleast in heaven--through all eternity--that they even now make their\nmarriage vows and covenants with reference to that status--the eternal\nperpetuation of the family. They are not content to have the marriage\nceremony end with that doleful note from the tombs--\"until death does\nyou part!\" but rejoice rather in the blessed words of their God-given\nceremony--the inspiring words of life and joy and hope--_\"I pronounce\nyou man and wife through time and all eternity!\"_ To those who express\nthe fear that all this is too concrete, to matter-of-fact, too sensual,\nwe answer that such has been the refining influence of woman upon man,\ndeveloping the purest and best part of his nature; such has been the\ninfluence of the home upon civilization in this world, that we cannot\nbelieve but what the joys of heaven will be heightened and rendered\npurer by it, and even conception of its community life must be made\ngrander by thinking of it as made up of indestructible families. Hence\nour hopes and holiest aspirations are associated with the family--in\nwhich woman is necessarily a chief and honored factor in this world and\nin that which is to come. And not only is this our hope for the future,\nbut we believe it is a condition prevailing in all past eternities, as\nnote one of our hymns:\n\n  \"In the heavens are parents single?\n    No, the thought makes reason stare;\n  Truth is reason, truth eternal\n    Tells me I've a mother there.\n\n  \"When I leave this frail existence,\n    When I lay this mortal by,\n  Father, Mother, may I meet you\n    In your royal courts on high?\n\n  \"Then at length when I've completed\n    All you sent me forth to do,\n  With your mutual approbation,\n    Let me come and dwell with you?\"\n\nI challenge the Christian world to equal--to say nothing of\nsurpassing--this conception of the nobility of woman and of\nmotherhood and of wifehood--placing her side by side with the Divine\nFather--consort and Mother of divine intelligences--the spirits of\nmen. Some object to that conception, and undertake to detract from\nits beauty and glory by saying that it presents to the thought a\npluralistic Deity, consisting of divine Father and divine Mother. That,\nhowever, is a consequence they attach to our faith, not a principle\nthat we accept; because the Godhead, for us, as all those who are\nacquainted with our doctrines know, consists of the Father, the Son\nand the Holy Ghost, the grand creating and presiding, divine Council\nthat upholds and sustains and guides the destiny of our earth and its\nassociated spheres. These gentlemen who are so fearful of a pluralistic\ndeity and universe being thought of, would do well to stand out a\nlittle upon the frontier of the highest Christian thought of our age,\nand they will discover that many of our first and greatest philosophers\nare beginning to teach the doctrine that so far as the infinite or the\nabsolute exists, it exists in a plurality of divine intelligences;\nand that the oneness of God is but the free harmony of divine\nintelligences. And, then, for matter of that, so long as the Christian\nworld teaches that in the Godhead are three personalities--the Father,\nthe Son, and Holy Spirit--they will try in vain to get away from the\nconception of a pluralistic deity.\n\nAnd now, I am about to violate what some regard as the canons of\ngood taste in public speaking, by making reference to a matter quite\npersonal. But what I am about to present meets this charge of \"low\nideals in the home--and the lack of respect for woman\"--I say the thing\nI have in mind so completely meets this issue that I am even going to\nventure upon something some what personal.\n\nIt has been my custom, now, for quite a number of years, on the\nanniversary of my mother's birth, and on the anniversary of my own\nbirth, to either visit her in person and chat with her, or else, if\naway from her home, to write her a communication. Four years ago, not\nbeing able to reach her, on the anniversary of my own birth, I sent her\nthe following communication, written in honor of women--in honor of\nher--my mother. I now read it to you. I gave it a title, calling it\n\n    GOD'S HERALD OF THE RESURRECTION AND HUMAN BROTHERHOOD--WOMAN.\n\n    \"Next to her holy office of wifehood and motherhood, the most\n    exalted honor Deity ever conferred on woman was that of making her\n    his first messenger of the resurrection; and, in its most emphatic\n    form at least, the messenger also of the beautiful doctrine of\n    the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man. The manner\n    of conferring this high and sacred commission upon woman was as\n    follows--the account is John's:\n\n    \"The Christ had been crucified and laid in the new sepulcher\n    provided by Joseph of Arimathea. Then early in the morning of\n    the third day after the crucifixion, came Mary of Magdala to the\n    sepulcher and found it empty; whereupon she ran and, informed Peter\n    and John that the body of Jesus had been taken away. There was a\n    hasty and excited visit to the sepulcher, and, on the part of Peter\n    and John, a hasty departure. But Mary lingered near the vacant\n    tomb. This was where she had last seen him whom she loved--here she\n    must begin her search for him--and she will search for him, for it\n    is woman's nature to hope--O glorious inconsistency!--against hope\n    itself. And she was rewarded for her love that made her linger,\n    though it was by an empty sepulcher; for soon angels said to her,\n    'Why weepest thou?' and Mary said, 'Because they have taken away\n    my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.' And then one\n    greater than the angels stood by her, and said, 'Why weepest thou?\n    Whom seekest thou?' Then she:\n\n    \"'Sir, if thou have born him hence, tell me where thou hast laid\n    him, and I will take him away.'\n\n    \"'Mary!'\n\n    \"'Rabboni,' with arms extended--\n\n    \"'Touch me not,' gently, lovingly, not harshly said--'Touch me not;\n    for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren,\n    and say unto them, I ascended unto my Father, and your Father; and\n    to my God, and to your God.'\n\n    \"Commissioned so, Mary told the disciples that she had seen the\n    Lord, 'and that he had spoken these things unto her.'\n\n    \"And thus to a woman was it first given to carry the glad message\n    fashioned first by angel's tongues--'He is risen!' As also the\n    message that the Christ's Father is man's Father; that the Christ's\n    God is man's God; and that in consequence of this, all men are\n    brethren.'\n\n    \"Many eulogies have been written in thy praise, O woman! Much\n    honor accorded thee in God's economy of the world. But here thy\n    glory--under the limits of our opening sentence--attained its flood\n    tide. Never wast thou so honored before; never, so far as human\n    ken may see, wilt thou be more honored. Indeed, how couldst thou\n    be? What concerns the world more to know than what is comprised in\n    thy message--Christ is risen; his Father is man's Father; his God,\n    man's God--all men are brethren! This the sum of the law and the\n    gospel--all else commentary. And thou, O woman! the messenger of\n    these glad tidings! How honored wast thou! Even the glory of being\n    'last at the cross, and earliest at the tomb,' is eclipsed by the\n    honor of being herald of this. Cherish thou this honor. Claim it\n    in all its Christ-given splendor; for it is fitting that thou unto\n    whom it is first given to know human earth-life perennial, should\n    be made herald of life immortal, and declare also its great source,\n    and its relations. And thus wast thou honored of Deity, O Mother\n    of human life--herald of life immortal! and of common fatherhood\n    and brotherhood for human race. I am taught by these high things to\n    honor thee, and here uncovered and holily I reverence pay thee.\"\n\nThat was sent, on the 13th of March, 1906, to my mother. It was not\nwritten with any intent, the remotest, for publication; and while it\nmay lack very much of excellence and come far short in worthiness of\nthe high theme with which it deals; yet whatever its defects may be,\nit is not lacking in appreciation and honor of woman. It is the result\nof much thought and reflection, of one born and reared in the Mormon\nsystem; such sentiment of respect and honor as it breathes for woman in\nher high offices is taught to me by my Mormon faith, letter and spirit.\nIf anyone shall say in controversion of this that my brief treatise\ndeals with New Testament facts, such an objector must be reminded\nthat my Mormon faith teaches me the acceptance of both Old and New\nTestaments as \"the word of God,\" a fact too frequently overlooked by\nour critics; and from them, as other books containing revelations from\nGod, I learn my Mormonism.\n\nA few days ago, she to whom the above words were written, breathed\nout her life in my arms; and yesterday we stood by the open grave\nwhile friends and kindred laid this honored woman to rest. I am still\nin the atmosphere of these things; and from the midst of these holy\nassociations, I denounce as false--I hope it was not maliciously\nmade--the charge that the Mormon faith gives out \"low ideals in the\nhome and lacks in its respect and honor for woman.\" The charge is not\ntrue.\n\nUNJUST CRITICISM ANSWERED.\n\nA word, in conclusion, on the proper limits of religious controversy.\nIn 1824 Robert Southey, Esquire, poet laureate of England at the time,\nwrote a book under the title \"The Book of the Church.\" It was a defense\nof the Protestant position with reference to the holy Scriptures, and a\ncomparison of the respective attitudes of Catholics and Protestants in\nrelation to them. The book was replied to by Charles Butler, Esquire, a\nRoman Catholic; and in the preface of his book, which he dedicated to\nCharles Blundell, Esq., he says:\n\n    \"I willingly admit that to produce against our creed or conduct\n    all that research and fair argument can supply, is legitimate\n    controversy; but surely to conceal our merits or to represent\n    them very briefly and imperfectly, and to display our defects at\n    length and with the highest coloring; to impute to our general body\n    what in justice is only chargeable on individuals; or to estimate\n    the writings or actions of our ancestors in the dark ages by the\n    notions and manners of the present age, is a crying injustice.\"\n\nThat states a true principle, and registers a just complaint. It voices\na protest that precisely fits our case. In the controversy waged\nagainst us our merits, both as to doctrine and as to practice, are\neither concealed or represented very briefly and imperfectly, while\nour defects are displayed at length and with the highest coloring; to\nthe general body of the Church is imputed what, in justice, is only\nchargeable on individuals; and I may add to this enumeration that we\nare judged as to our settled convictions and established sentiments\nrespecting our relation to our fellow citizens, not of our religious\nfaith, and our attitude as citizens of the great republic, our country,\nby the ill-advised and sometimes harsh expressions of some leading men\nwhen in a state of irritation and disturbance; thus contravening the\nprinciple long since laid down by Edmund Burke and quite generally\naccepted that--\n\n    \"It is not fair to judge of the temper or the disposition of\n    any man or set of men when they are composed and at rest from\n    their conduct and expressions in a state of disturbance and of\n    irritation.\"\n\nBY THEIR WORKS THEY SHALL BE JUDGED.\n\nNow, of course, as I stated in the commencement of my remarks, the\nmoral machinery of any system will be judged by the moral results\nof it. We recognize the fact that a beautiful and perfect life is\nunanswerable in support of a system that produces it; and yet while\nexalting this species of evidence in vindication of a system, human\nnature ought to be taken into account, for a perfect and beautiful\nlife in any system is rather a rarity, even among the early Christians\nwho were called saints it was so. They were not called saints because,\ngood souls, they were such; that is, in the sense of being perfect; but\nthey were called saints because they aspired to be such; because of\ntheir struggles after righteousness. A close inquiry into their lives,\nhowever, will demonstrate the fact that they were made of much the same\nstuff that enters into our composition--that they were men of like\npassions and weaknesses with ourselves, and fell far below the great\nideals set up by the gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\nI am not putting this forth as a plea of justification for any failures\non our part. I am willing that this tree of Mormonism should be judged\nby its fruits absolutely, and let it stand or fall by that test. But,\nwhat I do object to is the course so often pursued by our critics.\nThat course is as if one should go into an orchard of twenty or fifty\nacres of fruit-bearing trees, and should seek out and find here and\nthere--as one may, even in the best of orchards--the wind-beaten,\nblasted, mildewed, dwarfed, or shrunken fruit, and carefully raking\nthis together, represent that as the fruit of the orchard! Whereas the\nfacts are that there are scores of tons of beautiful, ripe and perfect\nfruit that is a credit to the orchard and to the husbandman of it. Yet\nall that is passed by, and you are asked to judge the orchard by the\nblasted specimens that have been raked together.\n\nSo in this work called Mormonism. Let our critics take into account the\nrich harvest of righteous souls that this system has produced; and the\npresent upright and honorable men and women of our system, and judge\nnot the people by those who have failed to reach the high ideals that\nMormonism holds up as the goal of moral and spiritual achievement, and\nwho fail because they depart from our principles and the practices they\nenjoin.\n\nMy brethren and sisters, I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. So far\nas it is possible for the soul of man to be conscious of the truth, I\nam conscious of the truth of this great latter-day system. I love it\nwith all my heart. There is no heart-throb of mine, no matter how far\nshort I may come in meeting the high requirements of the gospel--there\nis no heart throb of mine that does not pulsate with love for this\nwork. I believe it true--nay, I know it to be of God. The fountain\nwhence it springs is pure. The water flowing from that fountain, the\nstreams, are also pure, in the name of God, Amen.\n\nII.\n\nERRONEOUS IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS--WHAT THEY DO NOT\nBELIEVE.\n\nAn address delivered at Salt Lake Tabernacle, Sunday, March 19, 1911,\nfollowing a discourse delivered by Elder Charles W. Penrose, of the\nCouncil of the Twelve. (Reported by F. W. Otterstrom.)\n\nII.\n\nMy brethren and sisters, I greatly rejoice in these sublime principles\nexpounded by our beloved brother and, now these many years, prominent\nelder in the Church, Charles W. Penrose. While listening to him on this\noccasion, I thought of the very many times I have had the opportunity\nof so listening to him and being instructed in these principles which\nconcern the salvation of men. I remarked to Elder George Albert Smith,\nby whom I sat during the discourse, how much the youth of Israel, how\nmuch the present living membership of the Church of Latter-day Saints,\nand the many thousands that have passed away--how much we all owe to\nthe faithful service of this witness for God! I felt that I wanted to\nacknowledge my own indebtedness to him for the service that he has\nrendered to the Church and to the world. I feel in my heart to thank\nGod for his ministry, for the gifts of his mind. I thank the Lord that\nthe Spirit of God has touched his understanding with inspiration to our\nedification for, lo, these many years. Those are my sentiments towards\nBrother Charles W. Penrose. The Lord bless him.\n\nWhile contemplating the duty of speaking to this congregation, a duty\nthat arises out of the appointment I received to be in attendance upon\nthis conference, and while listening to the discourse just closed, I\ncame to the conclusion that it is almost as important to tell the world\nwhat we do _not_ believe as it is to tell them what we _do_ believe.\nReally, there is great strength at times in a negative statement, a\ndisclaiming of certain doctrines which we are slanderously reported to\nbelieve, but in which we do not believe. The force of this negative\nstatement has been recognized by all the great councils of the Catholic\nchurch at least, from the first unto the last. Upon every formal\nannouncement of dogma, by the councils of that church, there has been\nattached an anathematizing clause. For illustration, in the great\ncouncil of Nicea, held early in the fourth century of the Christian\nera, after defining the doctrine concerning the nature of God and the\nrelationship of the persons of the holy trinity, the Catholic church\nadded this clause:\n\n    \"But those who say that there was a time when he [the Son] was not,\n    and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made of\n    nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance or essence,\n    or that the Son of God is created and mutable or changeable, _the\n    Catholic church doth pronounce accursed_.\"\n\nCATHOLIC BELIEF.\n\nAnd again, in the council of Trent, held in the sixteenth century, in\ndefining the doctrine of justification, which was then in debate, and\nwas one of the points of difference between the Protestants and the\nCatholic church, after defining the doctrine of justification, the\nChurch said:\n\n    \"If any one shall say that the sinner is justified by faith alone\n    in the sense that nothing else is required, which may cooperate\n    towards the attainment of the grace of justification, and that the\n    sinner does not need to be prepared and disposed by the motion of\n    his own will, _let him be accursed_.\"\n\nAnd so the last council held by that church, known as the Vatican\ncouncil, held in the closing months of 1869, and in the first months of\n1870, defining the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, the pope of the\nCatholic world, the anathematizing clause stands as follows:\n\n    \"But if any one, which may God avert, presume to contradict this\n    our definition, _let him be anathema_.\"\n\nFAITH IN THE GODHEAD.\n\nI read these statements to show you that the negative statement is\nrecognized as possessing great force; for these anathematizing clauses\nin the announcement of the councils are inserted to guard the Roman\nCatholic faith from error. I am of the opinion, let me repeat, that\na negative statement by us, concerning some things that we do not\nbelieve, would have a certain force, and I am going to try to make an\napplication of this principle just a little this afternoon, though in a\nsomewhat informal way.\n\nTo begin with, take this doctrine so ably expounded by Elder Penrose\nin relation to our belief in God and in Jesus Christ and in the Holy\nGhost, the trinity of the Holy Scriptures and of our faith. We profess\nfaith in that Godhead, and to that Godhead alone do we pay divine\nhonors in holy worship; but it is extremely difficult to get the\npeople of the world to believe that we are thus far Christians. We\nare accused, in some cases, of man-worship; we are sometimes accused\nof worshiping Joseph Smith. Because we proclaim his mission and the\ndivinity of it, and say that through him there has been restored to the\nearth divine authority to speak and act in the name of this Godhead\nwhom we worship--because we have emphasized his mission and have\ninsisted upon its divinity--because we speak much about it and write\nmuch about it--the world has accused us of worshiping Joseph Smith; but\nthat is not true. We worship this Godhead of the Christian scriptures\nalone; and if we may not say because of Christian charity, let him who\naccuses us of worshiping other God than this be anathema, let us at\nleast say to those who assert that we worship other Godhead than the\nGodhead of Holy Scripture, that they misrepresent and slander their\n\"Mormon\" brethren.\n\nSo also in relation to our belief in the Savior of men. It has been\nexplained here by Elder Penrose that we believe and accept Jesus of\nNazareth as the Savior of men; that he was and is the Son of God, whom\nGod gave to the world, that through faith in him, and obedience to his\ngospel, the world might be saved; and let those who say that we look to\nother source and have other expectations of salvation, than through him\nand his power, let them also know that they, at least, misrepresent the\nLatter-day Saints.\n\nERRONEOUS REPORTS.\n\nAnother matter, in connection with this, might be dwelt upon at greater\nlength, and that is an accusation to the effect that we believe in\nwhat is called \"blood atonement.\" So, indeed, we do; and so also do\nthe Christian world. Is it not the belief of the Christian world that\nthey will be saved through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, the Son\nof God? Most assuredly; and so, too, do we believe in the atonement of\nthe Christ--aye, and in the manner of the atonement of the Christ--that\nthe very form of it was necessary to the salvation of men. We believe\nthat there is no other means that could be devised to make adequate\nsatisfaction to justice and preserve in its integrity the moral law of\nthe universe. Just what was done in the atonement of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, his death, and the manner of his death, the shedding of his\nblood was necessary to the salvation of the world, for in the gospel,\nas in the law, \"without the shedding of blood is no remission of\nsins.\" (Heb. ix:21). Yet it would appear that there are some things\nfor which not even this atonement can bring forgiveness. For example,\nit is said by the Master himself, that \"every sin and blasphemy shall\nbe forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be\nforgiven unto men. If men speak a word against the Son of Man it shall\nbe forgiven them, but if they speak a word against the Holy Ghost it\nshall not be forgiven them, neither in this world, neither in the world\nto come.\" (Matt. xii:31-32); and that notwithstanding the atonement\nof the Christ. Again it is written, \"The murderer hath not eternal\nlife abiding in him.\" (I John iii:15). Again it is written, \"He that\nsheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.\" (Gen. ix:6).\nBlood for blood was the doctrine of that Scripture. Now we believe in\nthat doctrine; that is, we believe that those who so far transgress\nthat they imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow men, that\ntheir lives are necessary to the complete atonement; and that their\nexecution should be such that it admits of the shedding of their blood.\nAnd it is because of this belief that the laws of Utah permit such\nmethod of execution for capital offenses as sheds the blood of the\nmurderer. But the reputation has gone out, the slander has passed from\nlip to lip, it has been printed from one book into another, until the\nreport has gone out into all the world, that the Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints, the \"Mormon\" Church, arrogates to itself the\nright to take human life for apostasy from the Church, and for certain\nother sins. That is a slander; it is not true. We do not believe the\ndoctrine; we do not claim for the Church that it has the right of\ncapital punishment, or the right of executing vengeance. We do not\nteach nor claim that the Church has the right to assassinate men for\napostasy, even though they be murderers. However much we might believe\nthem worthy of death, the Church claims no right to execute them. The\ndoctrine of the Church in relation to that matter is found here in\nthe Doctrine and Covenants. It is in a revelation given before the\nChurch was a year old, and is found in section 42 of the Doctrine and\nCovenants.\n\n    REVELATION QUOTED.\n\n    \"And now, behold, I speak unto the Church, Thou shalt not kill, and\n    he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the\n    world to come;\n\n    \"And again, I say, thou shalt not kill, but he that killeth shall\n    die.\"\n\nYes, but how? By whose hand? Read it in a subsequent verse, in the same\nrevelation:\n\n    \"And it shall come to pass that if any persons among you shall\n    kill, _they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the\n    laws of the land;_ for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it\n    shall be proven according to the laws of the land.\"\n\nAnd of course those who administer the laws of the land must become the\nexecutors of that law; the Church claims no right of executing such a\nlaw. That is our belief in relation to this subject. \"Yes, but,\" some\none will be ready to say, \"is it not matter of record that some very\nemphatic and even vehement declarations have been made in relation to\nthis matter by very prominent men in the Mormon Church, in years that\nare gone?\" Yes, some very extravagant utterances, some very ill-advised\nexpressions were used; but those exaggerated, those embittered and\nover-zealous words on the part of very well-meaning men, doubtless,\ndid not announce in those instances the doctrine of the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The question will be asked, How\nare you going to account for these expressions which you declare are\nunwarranted by the law of the Church? How are you going to justify\nthem? Well, I am not going to justify them at all, but I can account\nfor them.\n\nIt cannot be that the world is so ignorant in this enlightened age\nas not to know that churches cannot be held responsible for every\nutterance that is made in their name and from their pulpits. Listen to\nthis passage from the writings of the learned Edersheim, in his History\nof the Life and Times of the Christ; he says:\n\n    \"No one would measure the belief of Christians by certain\n    statements in the Fathers; nor judge the moral principles of\n    Roman Catholics, by prurient quotations from the casuists; nor\n    yet estimate Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early\n    successors of Luther; nor Calvinists by the burning of Servitus. In\n    all such cases the general standpoint of the times has to be first\n    taken into account.\"\n\nSo it is in our history, not every word that has been spoken, even by\nmen high in authority in the Church, has always been the exact and\nperfect word of God.\n\nBELIEF IN REVELATION.\n\nThat thought brings me to another subject; our belief in continuous\nrevelation, and an inspired priesthood in the Church. We have heard,\nby our brother who preceded me, that we believe in the revelations of\nGod. One of our articles of faith puts it in this form: \"We believe\nall that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe\nthat he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to\nthe kingdom of God.\" We believe that the Church of Christ is within\nthe hearing of God, that is, not only that he hears the prayers of\nhis Saints, but also that he answers those prayers. We feel that this\nChurch of Christ--this Church of ours--is in touch with the Infinite\nand in tune with the Infinite, that the intelligence and power of God\nare among its resources; that where human wisdom comes short, God may\nbe reached through the channels appointed and God's intelligence, and\nwisdom, and power brought into the service of the Church of Christ. It\nis possible for his prophet to divest himself of personal desires and\ninterests; to put away from himself preconceived thought and notion,\nand seek to know the mind and will of God; by going into the holy of\nholies, thus prepared, it is possible, if God will, for him to return\nwith the law of God unto his people, unto his Church, thus making the\nwisdom and strength of God the wisdom and strength of his Church. We\nbelieve that; but there is for the Church but one man in the Church\nat a time who has the right to thus come with the law of God unto his\npeople. Though every individual, in his individual capacity, and for\nguidance in the position he occupies in the Church--it is possible for\neach person to have access, through the inspirations of the Spirit of\nGod, to the same source of knowledge and strength and power. We believe\nin an inspired priesthood for the Church; we believe in inspired\nteachers; but that does not require us to believe that every word that\nis spoken from the pulpit is the very word of God. Perhaps some of you\nwill think that there is a passage in one of our revelations somewhat\nagainst this conception of things, as for instance here in section 68\nof the Doctrine and Covenants, is a revelation that was given to Elder\nOrson Hyde and the Church. It is written here that Elder Hyde was\ncalled upon to go from land to land as a teacher of the gospel--\n\n    \"And behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were\n    ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them\n    to go forth;\n\n    \"And this is the 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\n    Ghost, shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be\n    the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the\n    voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.\"\n\nINSPIRED UTTERANCES.\n\nBut mark you this, the fact that shall give unto their utterances the\nvalue of Scripture, making their words as the word of God, and the\npower of God unto salvation--the condition precedent to this is that\nthey \"speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost.\" \"Whatsoever they shall\nspeak _when_ moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture,\" etc. But\nit is not given to mortal man always to walk upon that plane where the\nsunlight of God's inspiration is playing upon him. Men may, by care and\ndevotion and spiritual strength, rise sometimes to that high plane; may\nstand at times as on mountain tops, uncovered, in the presence of God,\ntheir spirit united with his Spirit, until the mind of God shall flow\nthrough them to bless those who hearken to their words: and there is no\nneed that one shall rise up and say, \"This man was inspired of God,\"\nfor all the people who receive of his ministrations know that by the\neffect of his spirit upon their spirits. But, sometimes, the servants\nof God stand on planes infinitely lower than the one here described.\nSometimes they speak merely from their human knowledge, influenced\nby passions; influenced by the interests of men, and by anger, and\nvexation, and all those things that surge in upon the minds of even\nservants of God. When they so speak, then that is not Scripture, that\nis not the word of God, nor the power of God unto salvation; but when\nthey speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, their voice then becomes\nthe voice of God. So that men, even some of high station in the Church,\nsometimes speak from merely human wisdom; or from prejudice or passion;\nand when they do so, that is not likely to be the word of God. I do\nnot think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist\nthat our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In\nany event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said\nin times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that\nwere not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not\npossess the value of Scripture, or anything like it; and it was not\nrevelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the\nChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by\nthat Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of\nthe Church before it becomes the law of the Church.\n\nREVEALED WORD.\n\nThere is one thing which always gives me great and abounding joy, and\nthat is this: Here in the Doctrine and Covenants we have a volume of\nrevelation that has been given to the Church as the word of God, and\naccepted as such by the Church. We accept four great books as the\nauthoritative Scriptures of the Church, wherein the doctrines of the\nChurch are couched, viz. the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine\nand Covenants, and the collection of writings called the Pearl of Great\nPrice, containing the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and some of\nthe writings of the Prophet Joseph. I have been engaged for some years\nin advocacy of our faith, and in defending it, and in these Scriptures\nthat have been given under the inspiration of God, and accepted by the\nChurch of Christ as containing the doctrine of the Church, I find no\ndoctrine, that may not be successfully defended before any body of men\nin the world, I care not how learned or intelligent they may be--nay,\nthe more learned and intelligent the easier is the defense. The books I\nhave named constitute our Scripture, not the haphazard sayings of men\nfrom the pulpit; and as in the future we receive line upon line, and\nprecept upon precept--as the volume of written revelation shall grow,\nit will possess the same characteristics of truth that our present\nvolumes of Scripture possess.\n\nThere is one other item I would like to speak upon, viz., that article\nof our faith which declares that \"We believe in being honest, true,\nchaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.\" Now,\nof course, that article covers the whole moral law of the gospel\nas pertaining to personal conduct, and as pertaining to conduct in\nrelationship to others. It introduces a theme altogether too large\nfor exposition here; and I shall confine my remarks just to the two\nfirst things--which, really are but one thing, namely, that we believe\nin being \"honest, true.\" If you were to judge of the character of\nthe Latter-day Saints by what is being said of them in the current\nmagazines and the daily press, one would really think that they\npossessed no quality of honesty or of truthfulness; but that in both\ncivic and religious life their whole course of conduct was based upon\nchicanery, and fraud, and untruth. Yet, here is our article of faith,\nthat we believe in being honest, in being true. That means that we\nbelieve in speaking the truth and acting the truth; it goes both to\nbelief and to action; to mental attitude and actual practice:\n\nGOD'S WORD IS TRUTH.\n\nLet me call attention to another fact--and Brother Penrose\nmentioned it, also--namely, that we believe in certain attributes\nthat God possesses. Among these attributes, as well as eternity,\nand omnipotence, and omnipresence, and omniscience, and holiness,\nand wisdom, and knowledge, and power, and love, and justice, and\nmercy--there is also the attribute of truth; and this attribute of\ntruth is absolute in God. The scriptures say, with verity, that he is\n\"a God of truth, without iniquity; just and right is he.\" \"Mercy and\ntruth,\" said another prophet, \"go before thy face.\" Another one has\nsaid, \"God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he\nshould repent.\" Along this line we ourselves have a very grand saying,\ngiven to the Prophet Joseph before the organization of the Church,\nbut it will endure through all time, and in all ages, and in all\nexperiences, namely:\n\n    \"God doth not walk in crooked paths; neither doth he turn to the\n    right hand, nor to the left; neither doth he vary from that which\n    he has said; therefore, his paths are straight, and his course is\n    one eternal round.\" (Doc.& Cov., sec. 3:2).\n\nBecause of this attribute of truth in God, he must be thought of as\nimparting to the institutions which he founds his own nature; they must\nbe in harmony with his attributes. Consequently, when he establishes\nhis Church, it will be a church of truth; it will stand for the truth\nlike its founder; it will speak the truth without variation, without\nturning to the right hand, or turning to the left hand. God must be\ntrue--an untruthful God? The very thought, but that I am refuting it,\nwould be blasphemy. It would wreck the moral universe for God to speak\nuntruth. It is unthinkable; it cannot be entertained. That also which\nGod founds, an institution such as his Church, must also, I repeat,\nstand for the truth. But those, I say, who judge our reputation from\nwhat is said of us in the current magazines--a person forming his\njudgment upon those slanders, would believe there was no truth in\nus, nor in the Church. But we, nevertheless, believe in truth; we\nbelieve in being honest, true, virtuous; and let those who charge\nus with believing otherwise than this; or who say that we trust in\nfalsehood; and believe in practicing it, wherein they do not speak\nignorantly--\"_let them be anathema_!\" And those among us--those of our\nfaith--and I fear that there may be one in ten thousand, I do not know,\nbut I have found some who will advance the idea that even the kingdom\nof God has to resort to deception and untruth, at times, in order to\nmeet some emergency or other--to all such without qualification, I say\n_anathema!_ Be ye accursed! They do the Church to which they belong a\ngreat injustice. The Church cannot stand on untruth. The truth, the\nwhole of it, and constantly the truth, must be the creed of the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or else it proves itself not\nthe product of the God of truth, for he is true. To doubt it would\nbe disloyalty, to think of it, otherwise than to refute it, would be\nblasphemy.\n\nTESTIMONY BORNE.\n\nThere is much more that might be dealt with negatively, and\nanathematized, perhaps, but this satisfies me upon this occasion,\nand the time for closing this meeting has arrived. I join here, this\nafternoon, with my brother, Elder Penrose, in bearing witness to the\ntruth of the gospel of Jesus Christ; to the existence of God the\nFather, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. With him, I bear witness\nto you of the virtue and power and saving grace in the atonement of\nthe Lord Jesus Christ; and bear witness to you that there is no other\nname given among men whereby we may be saved, only the name of Jesus of\nNazareth. With him, I bear witness to you, out of my experience, that\nmen may have communion with God, that his Spirit does give inspiration\nto the spirit of man, and through that means there may be both union\nand communion now between men and God, through obedience to the gospel.\nI know and I bear witness, with Elder Penrose, that this is the Church\nof Jesus Christ, founded in these latter-days; that there was virtue\nand power, and divinity in the mission of Joseph Smith, the instrument\nin God's hands of bringing in this new dispensation of the gospel of\nJesus Christ. I testify that those who believe the gospel and obey it;\nthat those who with real, earnest effort--even though stumblingly--seek\nto obey it, to them will be extended the divine grace and power of God,\nand helpfulness; that out of the abundance of his mercy and grace will\nGod help those who are weak, if only they keep their faces constantly\ndirected towards him, and back of all their mistakes and failures they\nmaintain an earnest determination to overcome the things of this world\nand the weaknesses of human nature. God will remember that they are but\nmen in the making, and he will be merciful and ultimately will give\nthem the victory, if only they will strive and pray and not faint. That\nI know, for God has taught me that in my own experiences, and I bear\nwitness of it to you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE THINGS OF GOD GREATER THAN MAN'S CONCEPTION OF THEM.\n\nDiscourse in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Sunday, September 12, 1909.\n(Reported by F. W. Otterstrom.)\n\nI.\n\nI never face this tabernacle congregation without a very great amount\nof misgiving on my part, which amounts to an inward fear and trembling.\nI presume it arises from the fact that such a position brings home to\none the weight of responsibility that rests upon him who undertakes\nto be a public teacher; and, sometimes, I have felt for my own part,\nthat I would be happier if these occasional duties did not devolve upon\nme. However, we can't help but remember that in discharging this duty\nthe Lord has sometimes been good to us and blest us with a measure of\nsuccess, and some truth, or portion of truth, has been presented in a\nmanner to be understood by the saints. This gives one encouragement\nand faith to try again, and perhaps, my friends, on this occasion, if\nwe can acceptably approach the Lord, our meeting together may result\nin blessing. I most fervently pray that such may be the outcome of our\nmeeting this afternoon.\n\nI have not been able to fix upon any text which would foreshadow the\ntruth that I would like to present on this occasion. I have no text,\nbut I have a theme in mind, that has taken more or less of definite\nform--a theme which may be illustrated by many texts; and certainly by\nmany historical experiences of the people of God in various ages of the\nworld. My thought may be stated in these terms: No matter what your\nconception of divine things may be--however wide or high--the divine\nthings themselves, be assured, are much greater than your conceptions\nof them. I pray you, think about that a while, and get it well in mind:\nNo matter how great or comprehensive your conceptions may be of divine\nthings, the divine things themselves are always greater than your\nconceptions of them. It must have been some such thought as this which\nled our Prophet Joseph Smith to make the following remark: \"The things\nof God are of deep import, and time and experience, and careful and\nponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man,\nif thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the\nutmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss and\nthe broad expanse of eternity--Thou must commune with God!\"\n\nDIVINE THINGS MISJUDGED.\n\nAssociated with this theme that we have here announced is another,\nnamely, that in consequence of man's failure to comprehend fully the\nthings of God, there is great danger that he may misapprehend divine\nthings--God's messages and God's purposes. The experience of God's\npeople abundantly demonstrate this second truth. For example: suppose\nyou think upon the misapprehension that the Jews had concerning the\npromised Messiah. Their prophets and even their patriarchs, in their\nwritings and prophecies, had foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah\nthe Redeemer not only of Israel but of the world. Yet, when he came,\nthe Jews altogether misapprehended him, and so far misunderstood him\nand his mission that they rejected him. Israel's national existence\nhad been a very precarious and trying one. They had been subdued again\nand again by nations surrounding them. For many generations their\npetty kingdom had been but a shuttle-cock between the battle-doors of\nAssyrian and Persian, of Persian and Egyptian; and at the time of the\nadvent of the Messiah, Palestine had been reduced to the condition of\na Roman province, and was under the iron hand of Roman rule. The Jews\nlooked back, frequently, to the glorious days of David and Solomon,\nwhen Israel could well be proud of her national existence. They longed,\nagain, for a king, and national independence; and hence they regarded\nthe promise of the Messiah as the coming of a king to bring redemption\nto Israel and to establish them as a nation in the earth. But instead\nof a king, there came a peasant; instead of a conqueror, there came a\nteacher; and they did not recognize, in his character, and mission the\nelements that would exalt him far above all earthly kings and give to\nhim an empire over the children of men that should far exceed in glory\nanything that could come to earthly potentate or monarch. They wholly\nmisapprehended the mission of the Messiah; and yet, when you take into\naccount the position of the Christ today in the world, although we have\nhad but a partial development of his truths, although the glory of his\nkingdom has been somewhat arrested by reason of the departure of men\nfrom that divine system of truth which he established, notwithstanding\nwe have had but a lame and halting Christianity--yet, to what heights\nhas it lifted the Messiah of the Jews in mighty influence among the\nnations of the earth! We get the principle with which we started our\ndiscourse illustrated most beautifully in these circumstances: First\nthe misapprehension of men of the things of God; and yet the truth\nthat however great the conceptions of men may be of divine things,\nthe divine things themselves far outrun in glory, and largeness, and\npower, men's conceptions of them; for the Jews never attributed even\nto the Messiah of their prophecies the glory that has already come to\nthe Christ. He reigns, with more or less supremacy in the hearts of\nat least more than one-third of the inhabitants of the earth, and is\naccepted as prophet, as priest, and, in some sense or other, as the\nRedeemer of all men. And that, I believe, far outstrips the conceptions\nthat the Jews had of the glory of their Messiah.\n\nTake another illustration of our theme. The early Christians, as well\nas the Jews, failed to apprehend the mission of the Christ. There was\nfixed in the minds of those early converts to the Christian faith the\nthought that salvation was of the Jews; (John 4:22); and it seems to me\nthey added to the words of Christ the idea that not only was salvation\nof Israel, but salvation, in their minds, was merely for Israel. Those\nearly Christian converts had no idea that their Messiah was to become\nthe Messiah and Savior of all men; and it required special revelation\nto the chief apostle, Peter, to get even him to understand that the\nmessage of the Christ was for the gentile as well as for the Jew. You\nwill remember, when the Lord had inspired a certain gentile, of the\nname of Cornelius, to inquire of the Lord what he ought to do in order\nto be accepted of God, how by special revelation unto Peter, as the\nmessengers from this devout gentile approached his dwelling place, he\nwas given a vision, the import of which was that whosoever God should\nrecognize as clean, Peter must not call filthy or unclean. Three times\nwas this lesson taught to the chief apostle, when, lo, the messengers\nfrom Cornelius were knocking at his doors. He met the messengers from\nCornelius, who brought word that God had visited this devout gentile,\nand bid him send for the chief apostle of the Christ. Peter went down\nto the house of Cornelius and taught him the truths of the gospel;\nand as he spake the Holy Ghost rested upon the gentiles present as\nit had upon the Jews on the day of Pentecost. Then Peter saw the\ninterpretation of his vision; and he said: \"Can any man forbid water,\nthat these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost\nas well as we.\"\n\nBy this means the Lord led this man, Peter, to have a wider view of\nthe mission of the Christ, but it was extremely difficult to get the\nrest of the Christians, in that day to accept this thought. Hence when\nPaul came forward, being raised up of the Lord to carry his message\nto the gentiles, it was his chief offense, so thought the Christian\nJews, that he taught this broader application of the Gospel of the\nChrist to the children of God; and those early, fanatical Christians\nstoutly accused him of blasphemy and of bringing those who were unclean\ninto the temple of God. It required all the revelations that God gave\nto Peter; it required all the inspiration that God gave to Paul--all\nhis energy, all his learning, all his inspired eloquence--to make it\nknown to the world that salvation was not only for the Jew but for the\ngentile also; and the first congregations of the Christians in Judea\nseem, in sullen mood, to have rejected the greater revelations accepted\nby the apostles, and the great tide of the gospel swept by them and\nleft them in their obscurity; while Paul and his associates ran to\nand fro, through the mighty Roman empire, and planted the standard of\nthe gospel in many gentile cities, and made the world ring with the\nmessage of the Messiah. These people, the first Christians, many of\nthem good and pure minded people, no doubt, failed to rightly apprehend\nthe great mission of the Messiah, and so that mission swept on by them\nand left them in their obscurity. We may say in closing this branch of\nour reflections that the prophecy of the Messiah respecting the Jews\nwho rejected him; and in a manner also the Jews who accepted him, but\nfailed to apprehend the largeness of his mission, the universality of\nthe salvation he brought into the world--the prophecy of the Messiah, I\nsay, was fulfilled--\"The Kingdom of God shall be taken from among you,\nand given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.\" And Paul: \"It\nwas necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to\nyou: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of\neverlasting life, lo! we turn to the gentiles.\"\n\nNow I am wondering if you will bear with me while I point out the fact\nthat we too, in this dispensation of the fulness of times, are in the\nsame danger of failing to apprehend the greatness of the things of God\nrestored to us. We, too, are human; we, too, fail to grasp the full\nimport of the truth which is the center around which our thoughts are\nmoving. We fail to realize that great as our conceptions may be of\ndivine things, yet, those divine things are infinitely greater than our\nconceptions of them.\n\nII.\n\nMARVELOUS WORK AND A WONDER.\n\nTake here this book of Doctrine and Covenants. In some half score of\nthe early revelations, you find this statement made, \"A great and\nmarvelous work is about to come forth unto the children of men.\" How\nmany of the early converts of the Church appreciated the meaning of\nthat solemn announcement? They stood in the presence of certain facts\nthen developing, that were truly marvelous and great in their eyes.\nIn an age when the orthodox churches were teaching that God would no\nmore speak from heaven to give further revelation; in an age when all\nChristendom taught that the visitation of angels had ceased; in an age\nwhen it was orthodox to regard the volume of Scripture as completed\nand forever closed--these early converts had heard the wonderful\nannouncement of God's witness, that the heavens had been reopened;\nthat God had once more revealed himself to man upon the earth; that\nangels had come with messages from God; that there had been brought\nforth a whole volume of Scripture that was a witness for God, the\nBook of Mormon, that spoke of the ancient inhabitants of this western\nworld, giving an account of the migration of their fathers to this\nland from the old world; that gave an account of the rise and fall of\nnations and empires in this western hemisphere; that testified of the\ngoodness of God to them, and revealing himself to them, and sending the\nrisen Messiah to them to make known the gospel of the Son of God, and\nproclaim the means of their salvation. The early converts to the Church\nhad witnessed that volume of Scripture brought forth. They had seen a\nchurch organized under the direction and inspiration of God. They had\nseen a renewal of those spiritual powers and graces that characterized\nthe primitive church of the Christ. Contrary to the expectations and\nteaching of modern Christendom, the sick were healed; the lame were\nmade to walk; in some cases the eyes of the blind were opened. Men felt\nonce more that they stood in the immediate presence of the living,\nthrobbing power of God in the world, and especially in the Church of\nChrist. These things were indeed \"great and marvelous\" to them; but\nhow very far short of the full glory of the latter-day work do these\nfew first steps now seem to us! The saints in those early days did\nnot dream that there was to be an unfolding of doctrine and Church\norganization such as we now behold. They did not understand in those\nearly days that there would again be a quorum of apostles, endowed\nwith the same powers and gifts and authority that characterized the\nfirst apostolate of the Church of Christ. They did not know then that\nthere were to be called into existence thousands and tens of thousands\nof assistant apostles, the seventies, who would be commissioned to go\ninto all the world under the direction of the twelve, to preach the\ngospel to all nations and gather Israel. They had no idea that scores\nand even hundreds of bishops would be called into official existence\nto preside in the midst of the people of God. They did not understand\nthat the keys for the redemption of the dead would be restored, so that\nthe gospel could be proclaimed in the spirit World and men brought\nto a knowledge of the truth, that they might \"live according to God\nin the spirit,\" and, ultimately, be judged as men are judged in the\nflesh. They did not know that temples were to be erected, in which this\nwork for both living and dead could be performed. They could not then\nunderstand that in this dispensation of the fulness of times all the\nends of the earth were to meet; and \"all things in Christ be gathered\ntogether in one, even in him,\" until all the families of the earth that\nwould receive the truth might in every way be bound in chains of love\nat the feet of the living Christ. The early converts to the Church had\nno such vision of the work of God, as this. It is not a reproach to\nthem that they did not fully comprehend these things, or anticipate the\nmarvelous history that the people of God would make. They were just\nlike the children of men in all generations, and like ourselves. No\nmatter how wonderful to them divine things were, no matter how great\ntheir conceptions of them, the divine things themselves were infinitely\ngreater than they conceived them to be.\n\nIII.\n\nTHE NEW JERUSALEM.\n\nTake another illustration of my theme. In the Book of Mormon this\ntruth was revealed, that in this western world a holy city would\nfinally be builded by the people of God. A city called \"Zion,\" the\n\"New Jerusalem.\" When the saints saw that fact revealed in the Book\nof Mormon, they, very naturally, desired to know the place where the\ncity would stand; and the Lord finally revealed the place where the\nCity of Zion will be located. The place of that city is in the central\nportion of the land of Zion. Independence, Jackson county, Missouri,\nwas designated as the place where the holy city is to be founded. No\nsooner was this known than straightway the gathering of the people\nto that point commenced. Some few hundreds of the saints gathered to\nthat land and essayed to lay the foundations of the city, the glory of\nwhich was described in the Nephite Scriptures. In the course of time,\nhowever, the saints were expelled from Jackson county by the cruelty\nof their neighbors, who rejected their religion and rose up against\nthe people of God. When the saints were compelled to leave Jackson\ncounty, they looked upon themselves as exiles from Zion, and it was\nrather with heavy hearts and with sinking hopes that they went to\nbuilding other cities elsewhere in Missouri. Finally the entire state\nof Missouri rose against the people of God--and unjustly and by the\nviolation of every principle of constitutional government, expelled\nsome twelve thousand of the saints from that state. As you know, the\nsaints located themselves on the Illinois side of the Mississippi river\nand founded the city of Nauvoo. They still counted themselves as exiles\nfrom Zion, and they thought that the cause of God--that is, many of\nthem--thought that the cause of God was losing, that his purposes were\nbeing thwarted; they were exiles from the land of promise; the City of\nZion was as a dream that was fast fading from their consciousness. Then\nthe Prophet began to instruct them more fully concerning this matter of\nZion. He called their attention to the fact that the whole of America,\nboth north continent and south continent--was the land of Zion; that\nthe promise of God concerning Zion related to this western hemisphere;\nthat these great continents were consecrated chiefly unto the seed of\nJoseph, the patriarch in Israel, son of Jacob, and that this whole land\nwas given to him as his inheritance. That is how it is that both Moses\nand also Jacob, in their blessings upon the head of Joseph declare that\nhis blessings had prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors;\nand that his lands extended to the \"utmost bounds of the everlasting\nhills.\" He was given the birthright in Israel, to stand at the head of\nIsrael. (I Chron. 5:1-2.) Reuben \"was the first born; but, forasmuch\nas he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons\nof Joseph, the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned\nafter the birthright\"--i.e., of Reuben. \"For Judah prevailed above\nhis brethren and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was\nJoseph's;\" and hence the Scriptures frequently declare that God is a\nFather unto Israel, and Ephraim is his first born. (Jeremiah 31:9).\nThis was a larger view of the subject of Zion than the saints had\nentertained. Can you see in this illustration, confirmation of our\ntheme, viz., that no matter how great your conceptions may be of divine\nthings, the divine things themselves are infinitely greater than you\nconceive them to be?\n\nIV.\n\nRESTORATION OF ISRAEL.\n\nStill another illustration. It is a prominent principle of the faith\nof the Latter-day Saints that the great promises which God has made\nunto Israel, to the effect that they shall be gathered in from their\ndispersion, shall be fulfilled in this dispensation of the fulness of\ntimes. Of course you know, being familiar with the history of Israel,\nthat they have been scattered among all the nations of the earth. This\nis true with reference to all the tribes of Israel. \"I will sift the\nhouse of Israel among all nations\" is what Amos represents the Lord\nas saying (Amos 9:8, 9). Of course you are aware of the fact that\nafter the reign of Solomon, Israel divided into two kingdoms--the\nnorthern kingdom composed of the ten tribes, the southern kingdom,\nJudah, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. After a national\nexistence of some two hundred years, the Assyrians overcame the\nnorthern kingdom and took the people captive into Assyria; but while\nin captivity there, we are informed by tradition, that the people\nresolved to leave the heathen nation by whom they had been led into\ncaptivity, and go into a land never before inhabited by man, and there\nthey resolved that they would keep the statutes and the judgments\nof God even better than they had done in the land of their fathers.\nThe historian who tells us of these circumstances (Esdras) also says\nthat they performed something like a year and a half's journey to the\nnorthward, up through the narrow pass of the Euphrates and Tigris\nrivers, and thence northward, and inhabited the land; and since those\ndays they have been known as \"the lost tribes of Israel.\" The kingdom\nof Judah maintained but a precarious existence; it was first subject\nto one nation and then to another, until finally, toward the close\nof the first century of the Christian era, the nation was completely\nsubjugated by the Roman power; her people were taken captive and sold\ninto slavery, or scattered as exiles among the nations of the gentiles.\nEver since then, until now, Judah has been a hiss and byword, a broken,\nscattered people. But over and above all these historical events rings\nout clear and strong the promise of God, as spoken by the mouth of\nJeremiah, Saying:\n\n    \"Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the\n    isles afar off and say, he that scattered Israel will gather him\n    and keep him as a shepherd doth his flock. For the Lord hath\n    redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was\n    stronger than he (ch. xxxi:10, 11). Behold I will bring them [the\n    children of Israel] from the north country, and gather them from\n    the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the\n    woman with child and her that travaileth with child together; a\n    great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping\n    and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk\n    by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not\n    stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first\n    born.\" (Ch. xxxi: verses, 8, 9).\n\nThe Jewish Scriptures are full of this promise. It is iterated and\nreiterated; and it is well known that the tradition lives in Israel,\nthat though now scattered abroad, yet will they at some time be called\nto resume the thread of their national existence, and Israel shall yet\nbe known among the nations of the earth. As broad as the scattering has\nbeen, so broad also shall be the gathering. This message of ours, the\ngospel of Jesus Christ, has always been accompanied by proclamation\nof this doctrine of the gathering of Israel. The prophet Amos tells\nus that God had \"sifted\" Israel among the nations, and now unto the\nservants of God in this dispensation is given the commission to cry\naloud unto Israel, \"Come out of her, my people: that ye partake not of\nher sins, and receive not of her plagues,\" speaking of Babylon. God, I\nsay, has repeatedly promised that there shall be a gathering together\nof Israel, and those who were led away into the \"north countries,\" we\nare told shall be brought again to the land of their fathers; their\nprophets shall hear the voice of God, and shall not stay themselves,\nbut they shall come forth in the power of God and bring their people\nunto Zion, where they shall receive blessings at the hands of the\nchildren of Ephraim, the first born, who holds the patriarchal right\nto bless and seal in the house of Israel. This is the faith of the\nLatter-day Saints respecting Israel.\n\nV.\n\nLOST TRIBES IN THE NORTH.\n\nPermit me to make a little divergence at this point. I have observed\nsome criticisms in our local press in relation to the views entertained\nby the Latter-day Saints about the return of the lost tribes of\nIsrael from the land of the north. We have recently had the north\npole discovered--well, discovered twice, if reports be true. [1] And\nit is claimed by the aforesaid local press that the Church entertains\nthe view that somewhere, in this frozen region of the pole these lost\ntribes have lived, and that it has been the hope of the Latter-day\nSaints that from the north pole regions these lost tribes would return\nto supplement them in numbers and power and influence here in this\nland of our Zion. There is more or less of merriment indulged in\nbecause, now that the north pole has been discovered, lo, there is no\npeople there and no place for a people. Ice fields, ice mountains, ice\nfloes, with accompanying desolation--an absolute loneliness out there\nat the poles! Well, I think men for some time have been sufficiently\nclose to the pole to lead any thoughtful person to the conclusion\nthat such conditions of lonely desolation must have existed there,\nrather than any continent of salubrious climate and fertile soils,\nwhere a great people could be located. Let me offer this suggestion:\nIf those of us who believe in the messages from God given in these\nlast days are likely, because of inability to asses these messages\nat their full value--if we are likely to have misapprehensions of\nthe messages and the purposes of God, certainly those who have no\nsympathy with them, and who do not believe in them are apt to have\nstill wider misapprehensions of the messages and purposes of God.\nThat being true, it is possible also that our local newspaper critics\nhave formed misconceptions concerning an alleged belief of ours about\nthe existence of the ten tribes somewhere in polar regions. I do not\nknow how many Latter-day Saints may have entertained the view that\nabout the polar regions were located the lost tribes of Israel. I do\nnot know how many even of our students--the students of the gospel\nof this dispensation of the fulness of times--may have entertained\nthe same view. There is the statement of Esdras that there was a\nyear and a half's journey northward from Assyria, by the ten tribes;\nand there is the promise repeated frequently in Jewish Scriptures,\nthat the Lord would lead back from the north the tribes of Israel.\nFrom these statements, some of our people may have concluded that\nnecessarily these lost tribes must be established in the extreme\nnorthern portions of the earth, hence the region of the north pole.\nThere may be something in our literature to that effect--I cannot\nsay positively, because I have not had the opportunity, recently, to\nexamine our literature with reference to that particular view. But of\nthis I am positive; that in none of the revelations of God is there\nany expression that would lead one to believe that God had located\nthe ten tribes about the north pole. The revelations of the Lord do\nnot necessarily lead us to any such conclusion. When the Savior was\nin the western hemisphere, ministering among the Nephites, he called\ntheir attention to the announcement that he had made to his disciples\nin Judea, when he said, \"Other sheep have I which are not of this\nfold; them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there\nshall be one fold and one shepherd.\" (John 10:16.) When ministering\nto the Nephites, I say, the Messiah explained to them that they\nwere the \"other sheep\" he had in mind in this passage. Some of the\ndisciples, he explained, believed that he had in mind the gentiles,\nnot appreciating the fact that his manifestation of himself and of\nhis truth to the gentiles should be through the manifestations of the\nHoly Ghost, rather than by ministration of himself personally to them.\nThe disciples in Judea then had a misapprehension of this matter,\nthough Jesus himself had said that he was not sent (personally) but\nto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 15:24.) Here, then,\nin this western world, were the \"other sheep,\" that the Christ had in\nmind in this remarkable statement that he made to his disciples in\nJudea. The Messiah also informed the Nephites that he had not only\nfulfilled this Scripture but now there was still another mission that\nhad been given him, namely to visit the lost tribes of the house of\nIsrael, and manifest himself to them, for though these tribes were\nlost unto the children of men they were not lost unto the Father. He\nknew their location, and had given commission to his Son to minister\nunto them. (See III Nephi, chaps. 15, 16, 17.) But there is nothing in\nthe statement of the Messiah to the Nephites that would compel us to\nbelieve that these lost tribes were located about the north pole; but\nmerely expressions in the Scriptures that would lead one to conclude\nthat they were located in northern lands. Then again, in the matter\nof this return of the \"lost tribes of Israel,\" there are those I\nbelieve, who, seeing that there was small hope of a location for them\nabout the north pole, have held that perhaps the said lost tribes were\nlocated upon some detached portion of the earth. As to that, I have no\nopinion to express; but this I believe, for myself, that within the\nknown regions of the earth, where the children of men are located, it\nis quite possible for God to fulfill all his predictions in relation\nto the return of Israel. It would have been quite possible for God to\nscatter, or to use the language of the prophet Amos--\"Sift the house\nof Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve,\" and\n\"yet not the least grain fall upon the earth\"--i.e., be lost to the\nknowledge of God, though now lost to men. And as it was possible to\nlose these tribes of Israel among the nations of the earth, so is it\npossible for God to recover them from their scattered condition from\namong these nations, with a display of the divine power. And with\nreference to this display of divine power, let me say that something\nmust always be allowed to the character of prophetic language. You must\nremember that seers and prophets do not speak the cold, calculating\nlanguage of philosophy, where every word is weighed in the exact scales\nof thought. Prophets do not follow the precision in their language that\nis required of the scientists. These men, prophets and seers, commune\nwith God. Their finite life touches, for a moment, the infinite life\nof God. Their limited wisdom touches for a moment the supreme wisdom\nof the infinite. For an instant they see things large; and infused and\ninspired with the fire they have received from this contact with the\ndivine, lo! they come with their message and speak it in the words of\nspiritual passion. Of course, to them, in this mood, the mountains\nwill sink; the valleys will rise. Of course, the prophets, if in the\nnorth, will hear the voice of God, and the mountains of ice will flow\ndown at their presence; the hills will rejoice and the mountains shout\nfor joy! When men come with this inspiration upon them they see and\nfeel things large, and they speak of them in that spirit; and when\nwe come to reduce what they thus bring to us, from the heart of God,\nto our petty conceptions, we of course must be prepared to take into\naccount the figurative language they speak. It is possible that if we\nfail to do this, we shall misapprehend, in part, some material fact of\ntheir message. Especially should one be on his guard in such highly\npicturesque matters as the return of the lost tribes from their long\ndispersion--from the lands of the north. In such an event not only will\n\"mountains of ice flow down\" at the presence of their prophets, but\nhighways will be cast up in the midst of the great deep--their enemies\nwill become a prey unto them--in barren deserts shall come forth pools\nof living water--the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty\nland--the \"boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their\npresence!\" (Doc. and Cov., sec. 133.)\n\n[Footnote 1: Having reference to Cook's claims of \"discovering the\npole\" as well as Peary's discovery.]\n\nWe must make some allowance, I repeat, for the hyperbole of that\nlanguage in which the message of these prophets is delivered--remember,\nit is vibrant with the great things of God; and it makes some effort to\nencompass these great things.\n\nISRAEL NOW GATHERING.\n\nBut, coming to a closer consideration of this \"gathering of\nIsrael\"--Israel is gathering all right; perhaps not after our\nconception of it, not after our ideas as to how Israel should or would\nbe gathered. Nevertheless, Israel, I say, is gathering to the land of\nZion. You Latter-day Saints--whence came you? From the British isles,\nfrom Germany, from the Scandinavian countries, from the islands of\nthe sea. Who are you? Israelites, gathered by the gospel message,\nwhich includes the word of God to you to gather together on this land\nof Zion. You are chiefly of the tribe of Ephraim, according to the\ninspired utterances of the patriarchs who pronounce blessings upon\nyour heads. Well, if you--gathered from a multitude of nations--are of\nIsrael, may not Israel, by hundreds of thousands and millions, be in\nthe lands whence you came, which was chiefly from the northern lands of\nEurope? for our mission has had little success among the Latin races\nof southern Europe. You have been gathered by the proclamation of the\ngospel and are of Israel; and not only are you who have received the\ngospel gathered, but your kindred Germans, your kindred Scandinavians,\nyour kindred Britishers, have also been coming to the land of Zion.\nIndeed, it seems that America is an asylum for all people; and even\nraces that we fain would close our gates against, in spite of all the\nwisdom and caution and legislation of our national legislators and the\nadministrative officers of our government, they, too, come to the land\nof Zion; and who shall say that these races have not inheritance in\nZion? This western hemisphere is not only granted to the descendants\nof Joseph in Israel, not only to it will come those of the lost tribes\nof Israel, but the gentile races also have promise of an inheritance\nin this land; and here shall they receive the blessings of the gospel\nof Jesus Christ; receiving it at the hands of the children of Ephraim,\nupon whom commission has been bestowed and divine authority given to\npreach the gospel and administer in its ordinances. So Israel is being\ngathered in these last days to the land of Zion, and here gentile races\nare also assembling. Here in the United States alone we can reach more\nGermans than we can preach to in Germany, because of the limitations of\nreligious liberty in Germany. Here we may preach to more English people\nthan in England. Here we may preach to more Scandinavians than we can\npreach to in Scandinavia. Here we have opportunity to teach the truth\nunto gathered Israel in this blest land of Zion, and here and among\nthe other known nations of the earth is full scope and opportunity for\nthe accomplishment of all those things that have been predicted by the\nservants of God in all ages of the world respecting Israel, without\nassuming that it is necessary to go into the north polar regions or to\ndetached portions of the earth somewhere in illimitable space.\n\nVI.\n\nPURPOSES OF GOD WILL NOT FAIL.\n\nThe purposes of God are not failing. God is imminent in this world, and\nis fashioning it according to his own divine purposes. There will be no\nfailure in Jehovah's plans. The only thing is, Can we so enlarge our\nthought, can we lift ourselves from the narrow limits of our thinking\nin which we are so contented to walk--can we take broader views in\nrelation to God's purposes and messages to the children of men? That is\nthe only question. The Lord Almighty, I repeat, is accomplishing his\ndesigns in relation to the land of Zion; in relation to the gathering\nof Israel and the return of the ten tribes; just as he will accomplish\nhis purposes with reference to the re-establishment of Judah upon the\npromised land of Canaan, and the redemption of Jerusalem. All this will\ncome about in its times and seasons. The word of the Lord will go forth\nfrom Jerusalem, and the law will go forth from Zion--nay, in my view,\nit is now going forth in large measure from Zion--in a manner to reach\nthe inhabitants of the earth, and bring to them the blessings that God\nhas decreed for the children of men.\n\nMy brethren and sisters, I rejoice in the largeness of this work of\nGod--this dispensation of the fulness of times. I love it, in part,\nbecause of its greatness--in its very bigness there is inspiration.\nI love to contemplate the purposes of God in their far-reaching\npossibilities. I rejoice to feel that today the children of men are\nmoving up to a higher and truer conception of the things of God. We\ntalk about, and we sometimes even dare to hope for, the coming of the\nmillennium! I wonder what our sensations will be if some morning we\nwake up to a realization that the millennium is already on its way,\nand has been on its way for some time? When I think of the mighty\nprogress that has been made in these modern days, and especially since\nGod opened the heavens and revealed himself unto his servant Joseph\nSmith; when I take that circumstance as a starting point and contrast\nconditions as they are today with conditions as they were when that\nfirst revelation was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, it seems to\nme that the prediction that old things shall pass away and all things\nshall become new is on the way to a very rapid fulfillment. At that\ntime--early in the third decade of the nineteenth century--not a single\nfoot of railroad existed anywhere in the world; today, all civilized\nnations are a network of railroads and railroad systems. We have moved\nall the way from the ox-cart and stage-coach to the mighty express\ntrain that thunders with lightning speed throughout the land. Distance\nis discounted--well nigh annihilated, in comparison with former times.\nIn ocean navigation we have come from the rude vessel that could only\nbe driven by the wind, to the mighty ocean greyhounds that speed across\nthe oceans like express trains; and the oceans, once a dreaded mystery,\nare now but the convenient highways between the continents, the\nhighways of commerce! Man, within the period we are considering, has\nnot only mastered transportation upon the earth and upon the ocean; but\nwe have recent demonstrations that man has mastered also the element\nof air; and may navigate the air with as great speed and ease as the\nland or the water. Within the period named--1820-1909--we have come all\nthe way from the tallow dip to the electric light. In communication\nwe have come from the pony express to the telegraph, and to the\nwireless telegraph, and the telephone; so that now we are in instant\ncommunication with all portions of the earth. No event of any moment\nmay happen tonight that will not be spread upon the pages of tomorrow\nmorning's press, which will await us upon our breakfast tables! Then\nin the way of advancements that give promise of peace--so mighty have\nbecome the engines of destruction; so revolutionary the promises of\nthis recent mastery of the air, that it would seem that war must be an\nimpossibility in the near future; and it becomes imperative that men\ndevise--statesmen must devise, philanthropists must devise, patriots\nmust devise--some means by which the international questions that\narise may be settled without allowing nations to go to the dreadful\narbitrament of war for a settlement. The time when swords shall be\nbeaten into plow-shares, and spears into pruning hooks seems not far\ndistant, even the time when nations shall learn war no more--the vision\nof the prophets! These are the conditions in the midst of which we\nlive: A time when property is more secure than it ever was before in\nthe world; a time when personal liberty is more secure than ever it was\nbefore in the world; a time when the comforts of life among the masses\nof mankind well nigh equal conditions that only kings could enjoy in\nages that are past! When I see all these blessings, and realize that\nyear by year they are increasing with accelerated speed--when I see\nthe sentiment of universal brotherhood enlarging--when I see great\nand mighty intellects pushing far out upon the frontier of Christian\nthought, grasping the truths of God and weaving them into systems of\npractical philosophy, tending to make ready the inhabitants of the\nearth for that fulness of truth that God, through his prophets, has\ndecreed should be poured out upon the nations of the earth in the last\ndays,--when I see these evidences of man's progress within the last\nthree-quarters of a century, since God spoke from heaven to Joseph\nSmith, I can not help but believe that there is some connection between\nthe re-opening of the heavens to restore the gospel, and this wider\ndiffusion of knowledge by which the comfort and enlightenment of men\nas to material things has been brought to pass--the golden age that\nprophets dreamed of, that prophets sang about--the golden age--the\nmillennium--has at last dawned upon the earth! And right here, in the\nmidst of it, God has established his Church. He has given to it the\nknowledge of the means of salvation. He has given to the Church divine\nauthority to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, and the coming\nforth of this work is the herald of the modern world's awakening! For\nwhen the Book of Mormon came forth, by that token Israel might know,\nand the world might know, that God had set his hand to fulfil and\naccomplish the things that he had decreed concerning the gathering\nof Israel, and concerning all the inhabitants of the earth--their\nhappiness and peace and glory and security. (II Nephi 30, and III\nNephi 21.) This is our part of the work; to make proclamation of these\nthings; to exemplify the law of God and the excellence of the Gospel\nof Jesus Christ; to proclaim to the children of men that God is not a\nGod afar off--One who transcends the world; but God imminent in the\nworld, and that men may connect their lives with the life of God; and\nfeel the inspiration of his life vibrating in their lives, uplifting,\npurifying, exalting--until man, the individual, and communities of men,\nnations--may walk with God in this great age now dawning on the world!\nAnd yet, great as our conceptions may be of the things of God--divine\nthings--be assured that the divine things themselves are infinitely\ngreater than our conceptions of them can be--then how great indeed they\nmust be! The prophet spoke truly when he said of God: \"His thoughts are\nnot as your thoughts; his ways are not as your ways; for as the heavens\nare higher than the earth, so are his thoughts above your thoughts,\nand his ways above your ways.\" But while we are under the necessity\nof conceding the truth of that, may we not share in and enjoy in some\nmeasure a knowledge of divine things and therein rejoice, as I feel we\ndo this day by this brief glimpse of some of the things of God?\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nMORMONISM AS A BODY OF DOCTRINE.\n\nA discourse at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Sunday, March 13, 1910.\n(Reported by F. W. Otterstrom.)\n\nI.\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\nSome time ago, within a year at least, a gentleman of some prominence\nin the public life of our state felt that he had occasion in a public\naddress to allude to our religious faith as a \"body of doctrine,\" and\nin doing so I think he exhausted his skill in framing an expression of\ncontempt for it. He said:\n\n    _\"I will venture it as my individual opinion, that considered as\n    a body of doctrine, no well instructed person would give this\n    priesthood creed, the cold respect of a passing glance_.\"\n\nIt is not worth while getting vexed over such expressions as that.\nThey do no harm to our faith, nor to our society--the Church. Such a\nremark may lead one to wonder if the gentleman, who has some reputation\nfor intelligence, and especially for his ability in following to\nlogical conclusions any investigation he may undertake--I say such a\nremark may lead one to wonder if the gentleman himself has paid our\nfaith the \"cold respect of the passing glance\" to which he refers;\nor has he presumed to pass judgment upon it without even such \"a\npassing glance\"--since he assumes with such air-sniffing loftiness and\npride of intellect that \"no well instructed person\"--of which he is\none, of course--would give it? For my own part, the only effect that\nthis remark had upon me was to send me back in a half amused frame\nof mind to see if things pertaining to our creed were really as bad\nas that; and once more, I examined the foundations of our faith. I\nreturned from that examination with my convictions deepened, with my\nrespect and admiration very much increased for this body of doctrine\nso contemptuously characterized by this gentleman, and my faith in it\nstrengthened. When called upon, this afternoon, to address you, it\nseemed to me that I could do you no better service than to give you the\nbenefit of an examination of our faith as a body of doctrine--so far as\npossible in one sitting; and this holds good whether you be strangers\nwithin our gates, or members of the Church.\n\nIt is a good thing, occasionally, to recur to first principles, as\na means of keeping in view the whole system for which we stand.\nEvery religion must have some sort of philosophy; it must give some\naccounting for things; some explanation of life and its meaning; some\nexplanation of the universe and whither things trend. Religion must\naddress itself to the understanding as well as to the heart; to the\nreason as well as to the emotions. Religion has been described by one\nas \"morality touched with emotion\" and, in some of its aspects, I think\nthat is a very happy description of religion. But we are living in an\nage that asks adult questions, and religion must give adult replies.\nI think our faith is capable of doing that. I love it because it\nappeals to my understanding as well as to the emotions of my heart;\nand consequently, when I heard this contemptuous reference to it, I\nresolved to do what I could by exposition of that faith, to show this\ngentleman, and those who think with him, how mistaken they were. So now\nto our task:\n\nII.\n\nMormon View of the Universe.\n\nFirst, concerning the world itself--I mean by that expression the sum\ntotal of things, the universe. In 1832 the Prophet Joseph Smith came\nwith this message, in one of the revelations contained in the Book of\nCovenants:\n\n    \"All kingdoms have a law given: and there are many kingdoms; for\n    there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no\n    kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser\n    kingdom.\"\n\nBy this term \"kingdom\" our Prophet does not have in contemplation a\nnumber of people ruled by a king; the context reveals the fact that the\nprophet had in mind those great planetary systems which make up the\nuniverse. These are the \"kingdoms\" he had in mind; and he announces\nhere a very wonderful doctrine, when he declares that there is no space\nbut what has in it some one or other of these kingdoms--worlds and\nworld-systems; and that there is no kingdom in the which there is not\nalso extension, or space. A great scientist and scholar expresses the\nsame truth in the following language:\n\n    \"Through all eternity the infinite universe has been, and is,\n    subject to the law of substance: The extent of the universe is\n    infinite and unbounded. It is empty in no part, but everywhere\n    filled with substance. The duration of the world is equally\n    infinite and unbounded. It has no end; it is eternity.\"\n\nSuch is the summing up of what he calls the \"law of substance,\" by one\nof the profoundest minds of Germany, Ernest Haeckel. Analyze it, and\nyou will find it precisely the same conception as that announced by our\nProphet in 1832, when he said: \"There is no space in the which there\nis no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space.\"\nI think, perhaps, it will be necessary to dwell upon that idea for a\nfew minutes in order that we may grasp the thought in something of its\nimmensity. I had a teacher, once, who was very skilful in imparting\nknowledge to his pupils in the matter of solving mathematical problems.\nThe lines on which he proceeded were these: He would take a very simple\nexample that involved the same principles that were to be applied in\nthe more difficult problem; then he would work out the simple problem\nand tell us to work out the more difficult one in the same manner. So\nI am of opinion that if we spend a short time in considering our own\nlittle solar system, perhaps it will help us form some idea of the\nimmensity of the universe of which we speak.\n\nIt is well known to you all that our solar system is made up of what\nthe astronomers call eight major planets and a great number of minor\nplanets, lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter; that our planets\nin the order of their relationship of nearness to the sun, consist\nof Mercury, Venus, the earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and\nNeptune, these are the eight major planets. In diameter, we are told\nthat Mercury measures 3,200 miles; that the diameter of Venus is 7,760\nmiles; that the earth is 7,918 miles in diameter; that Mars is 4,200\nmiles in diameter; that Jupiter is 85,000 miles in diameter (while our\nearth is less than 8,000 miles in diameter, be it remembered!); that\nthe diameter of Saturn is 73,000 miles. Yet, take all these planets and\nall their satellites, wonderful and great as they are, and consider them\nmelted down into one great sphere, and still our sun alone, the center\nof this planetary system, is upwards of 750 times as large as all these\nplanets combined would be!\n\nLet us now consider these several planets with reference to the\ndistance at which they revolve about their primary--the sun. Mercury\nmakes the circuit in 116 days; Venus makes the circuit around the sun\nin 224 days; the earth of course, as you remember, makes the circuit\nin 365 days; but Mars requires 687 days in which to make the journey;\nwhile Jupiter requires 4,330 days (more than 11 years); Saturn 10,767\ndays (more than 29 years); Uranus, 20,660 days, or 56 years; and\nNeptune, 60,127 days, or about 165 years.\n\nThe distances of these planets from the sun, in millions of miles, are\nas follows: Mercury is 36 millions of miles; Venus 67 millions; the\nearth 92 millions; Mars 141 millions; Jupiter 483 millions; Saturn 875\nmillions; Uranus 1,770 millions; Neptune 2,746 millions of miles.\n\nThese figures and the facts they represent are given that some little\nidea may be conceived as to the extent of our own solar system, that\nafter contemplating its immensity and discovering that, inconceivably\ngreat as it is, it is still no very considerable part of the universe,\nwe may arise to a brief contemplation of still greater spaces--depths\nof the universe, and their contents. You see, I am using our solar\nsystem, as the teacher referred to a moment ago used the simple\nproblem in arithmetic, to help solve the more intricate problem of\ncomprehending a little more clearly the immensity of the universe. Let\nus resume our work. Professor Newcomb in his \"Popular Astronomy\" makes\nuse of the following illustration to help the popular mind grasp the\nimmensity of the sidereal system:\n\n    \"Turning our attention from this system to the thousands of fixed\n    stars which stud the heavens, the first thing to be considered is\n    their enormous distance asunder, compared with the dimensions of\n    the solar system, though the latter are themselves inconceivably\n    great. To give an idea of the relative distances, suppose a voyager\n    through the celestial spaces could travel from the sun to the\n    outermost planet of our system in 24 hours. So enormous would be\n    his velocity, that it would carry him across the Atlantic ocean,\n    from New York to Liverpool, in less than a tenth of a second of the\n    clock. Starting from the sun with this velocity, he would cross the\n    orbits of the inner planets in rapid succession, and the outer ones\n    more slowly, until, at the end of a single day, he would reach the\n    confines of our system, crossing the orbit of Neptune. But, though\n    he passed eight planets the first day, he would pass none the next,\n    for he would have to journey 18 or 20 years, without diminution of\n    speed, before he would reach the nearest star, and would then have\n    to continue his journey as far again before he could reach another.\n    All the planets of our system would have vanished in the distance,\n    in the course of the first three days, and the sun would be but an\n    insignificant star in the firmament. The conclusion is, that our\n    sun is one of an enormous number of self-luminous bodies scattered\n    at such distances that years would be required to traverse the\n    space between them, even when the voyager went at the rate we have\n    supposed.\" (Newcomb's Astronomy, p. 104.)\n\nJust now the great winter constellations are leaving our skies;\nstill, in the evening, you may yet see Orion, in the western sky; and\nfollowing, and shining most brightly of all the stars in the firmament,\nthe Dog star. It is estimated by our astronomers that light travels\nthrough space at the enormous speed of 198,000 miles per second; that\nin about eight minutes a ray of light reaches our earth from the sun.\n\nYet, this Dog star, to which I call your attention, is so distant from\nus that it requires something like 16 years for a ray of light to reach\nus from that distant and splendid sun; and from the familiar Pole\nstar, it requires 40 years for a ray of light to reach our earth. Mr.\nSamuel Kinns, well known in England, as one of the foremost thinkers\nin that land, tells us that this Dog star, judging from the amount of\nlight emitted from him, is 3,000 times larger than our own sun; and he\nargues, that if this great primary, is so many times larger than our\nsun, may it not be possible that the retinue of planets of which he is\ndoubtless the center, is correspondingly greater than our planetary\nsystem.\n\nNobody knows, of course, how many fixed stars there are. Our\nastronomers tell us they number all the way from 30 to 50, 60, or even\nhundreds of millions; and that it is not unreasonable to suppose,\nthey argue, that since we find this little planet of ours inhabited\nby sentient beings, by intelligences, by men and women capable of\nestablishing national governments, and high grades of civilization, it\nis not unreasonable to suppose that in some of these more magnificent\nworld-systems there may be beings more intelligent, more powerful\nthan we are, and further advanced in arts and Sciences and all that\ngoes to make up superior methods of life and civilization. And if\nour astronomers are anywhere nearly right in relation to the scores\nof millions of suns, they report, and it is true, that they are the\ncenters of planetary systems, then of course of worlds such as ours,\nand more magnificent than ours; there are hundreds of millions. Upon\nthis head Professor John W. Draper says:\n\n    \"Man when he looks upon the countless multitudes of stars--when he\n    reflects that all he sees is only a small portion of those which\n    exist, yet that each is a light and life-giving sun to multitudes\n    of opaque, and therefore invisible worlds--when he considers the\n    enormous size of these various bodies and their immeasurable\n    distance from one another, may form an estimate of the scale on\n    which the world (universe) is constructed.\"\n\nThese reflections I trust will help to impress upon our minds the\nimmensity of the universe, until we can in some measure understand the\ngreatness of that truth announced by the Prophet Joseph, when he said:\n\"There are many kingdoms; and there is no space in which there is no\nkingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a\ngreater or a lesser space;\" and the deductions of Ernest Haeckel, when\nhe said: \"The extent of the universe is infinite and unbounded. It is\nempty in no part, but every where filled with substance. The duration\nof the world is equally infinite and unbounded. It has no end; it is\neternity.\"\n\nMormonism recognizes certain eternal truths, necessary truths, because\nthe opposite of them cannot be conceived of--as, for example, that\nspace or extension is boundless, as one of our hymns puts it:\n\n  \"If you could hie to Kolob,\n    In the twinkling of an eye,\n  And then continue onward,\n    With that same speed to fly--\n\n  \"Do you think that you could ever,\n    Through all eternity,\n  Find out the generation\n    Where Gods began to be?\n\n  \"Or see the grand beginning,\n    Where space did not extend?\n  Or view the last creation,\n    Where Gods and matter end?\"\n\nYou cannot limit space in any conception of it you may form--try how\nyou will; for as soon as you fix the limitation, your mind conceives\nextension beyond the point you fix upon, and you may fix it as distant\nas you please. So, also, in relation to duration. Mormonism recognizes\nno limit to duration. Time is endless; there is no absolute beginning\nor end of time. All beginnings and endings spoken of are but relative,\nand concern not duration absolutely, but \"time\" within eternity, when\na certain order of things begins or when it reaches an end. We measure\nduration so, and call it time. So in relation to matter. Mormonism\nrecognizes the eternity of matter and also eternity of spirit; that\nmatter is uncreated; spirit is also uncreated. These, spirit and\nmatter, are eternal existences, constituting what our Book of Mormon\nspeaks of as \"things to act and things to be acted upon.\" (II Nephi\nii:14.)\n\nReferring back now to the immensity of the universe--to this limitless,\nheaving, restless ocean of worlds and world-systems--is it inhabited by\nsentient beings? Or stands it tenantless save only for our own little\nearth--less than the single grain of sand on limitless sea shores? On\nthis head Sir Robert Ball, one of the leading men of science in England\nhas a most thoughtful passage; and though it would seem to open again\nthe subject of the immensity of the universe on which we have already\ndwelt over long, still I cannot consent to omit any part of what\nfollows:\n\n    \"We know of the existence of 30,000,000 of stars or suns, many\n    of them much more magnificent than the one which gives light to\n    our system. The majority of them are not visible to the eye, or\n    even recognizable by the telescope, but sensitized photographic\n    plates--which are for this purpose eyes that can stare unwinking\n    for hours at a time--have revealed their existence beyond all\n    doubt or question, though most of them are almost inconceivably\n    distant, thousands of tens of thousands of times as far off as our\n    sun. A telegraphic message, for example, which would reach the sun\n    in eight minutes, would not reach some of these stars in 1,800\n    years. The human mind, of course, does not really conceive such\n    distances, though they can be expressed in formula which the human\n    mind has devised, and the bewildering statement is from one point\n    of view singularly depressing, it reduces so greatly the probable\n    importance of man in the universe. It is most improbable, almost\n    impossible, that these great centers of light should have been\n    created to light up nothing, and as they are far too distant to be\n    of use to us, we may fairly accept the hypothesis that each one\n    has a system of planets around it like our own. Taking an average\n    of only 10 planets to each sun, that hypothesis indicates the\n    existence, within the narrow range to which human observation is\n    still confined, of at least 300,000,000 of separate worlds, many\n    of them doubtless of gigantic size, and it is nearly inconceivable\n    that those worlds can be wholly devoid of living and sentient\n    beings upon them. Granting the, to us, impossible hypothesis that\n    the final cause of the universe is accident, a fortuitous concourse\n    of self-existent atoms, still the accident which produced thinking\n    beings upon this little and inferior world must have frequently\n    repeated itself; while if, as we hold, there is a sentient Creator,\n    it is difficult to believe, without a revelation to that effect,\n    that he has wasted such glorious creative power upon mere masses\n    of insensible matter. God cannot love gases. The probability, at\n    least, is that there are millions of worlds--for after all, what\n    the sensitized paper sees must be but an infinitesimal fraction of\n    the whole occupied by sentient beings.\"\n\nThis is as far as scientific men may go. Our astronomers stand upon\nour earth with their telescopes directed to the planet Mars, which\nmost nearly resembles the physical conditions of our own earth, so\nfar as may be judged, and they speculate as to whether or not Mars is\ninhabited. And while they thus stand halting, our Prophet, through the\nrevelations of God and the inspiration of the Almighty that was in him,\nproclaimed these worlds and world-systems to be inhabited by the sons\nand daughters of God. Let me read a passage of Mormon scripture to you:\n\n    \"There are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there\n    is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space,\n    either a greater or a lesser kingdom;\n\n    \"And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there\n    are certain bounds also and conditions. * *\n\n    \"Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?\n\n    \"Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or\n    the least of these, hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.\n\n    \"Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field and\n    he sent forth his servants into the field to labor in the field;\n\n    \"And he said unto the first, go ye, and labor in the field, and in\n    the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of\n    my countenance;\n\n    \"And he said unto the second, go ye also into the field, and in the\n    second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance\"--and\n    so he said unto all.\n\n    \"And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their\n    lord; every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season;\n\n    \"Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last\n    unto the first, and from the first unto the last.\n\n    * * * *\n\n    \"Therefore, unto this parable will I liken all these kingdoms, and\n    the inhabitants thereof; every kingdom in its hour, and in its\n    time, and in its season; even according to the decree which God\n    hath made.\"\n\nThe late Elder Orson Pratt, in a Footnote, commenting upon the above\npassages says:\n\n    \"The inhabitants of each planet blessed with the presence and\n    visits of their Creator.\"\n\n    That which scientific men may only properly say is a probability,\n    the Prophet Joseph boldly proclaims as revealed truth--the universe\n    is not tenantless, but is inhabited by sentient beings--the\n    offspring of Divine Beings.\n\nIII.\n\nPHILOSOPHY OF MORMONISM.\n\nI think now we have sufficient data before us on which we may proceed\nto the consideration of the philosophy of Mormonism.\n\nWith your permission, then, and asking you to bear with me and\nfollow me as closely as you can in what I now have to offer, I will\nread--because one ought to be careful in stating conceptions of\nimportant things--I will read to you a few paragraphs touching these\ngreat and, I think, essential principles of so-called Mormonism that\nought to be considered when we are discussing Mormonism as a body of\ndoctrine. I trust we shall arrive at the conclusion, finally, that\nit is worth more than the \"respect of a passing glance.\" It would be\ndifficult to characterize Mormon philosophy under any of the schools\nextant. \"Eternalism\" I should select as the word best suited for its\nphilosophic conceptions. It is dualistic, but not in the sense that\nit breaks up the universe into two entirely distinct substances--the\nmaterial world and an \"immaterial God,\"--as the Christian philosophy,\nin the main does. It is also monistic, but not in the sense that in the\nlast analysis of things it recognizes no distinctions in matter, or\nthat matter--gross material--and spirit, or mind, a finer and thinking\nkind of material, are fused into one inseparable sole substance which\nis at once \"God and nature,\" as the monists claim. Its dualism is\nthat which, while recognizing an infinitely extended substance, the\nuniverse, unbounded and empty in no part, but everywhere filled with\nsubstance--it holds, nevertheless, that such substance exists in\ntwo principle modes, having some qualities in common, and in others\nbeing distinct; first, gross material, usually recognized as matter,\npure and simple; and, second, a finer, thinking substance, usually\nregarded by other systems of thought as \"spirit,\" i.e., \"immaterial\nsubstance\"--if one may use terms so contradictory. These two kinds\nof matter have existed from all eternity and will exist to eternity,\nin intimate relations. Neither produces the other, they are eternal\nexistences--\"things to act and things to be acted upon.\" The monism of\nMormonism, alluded to a moment since, while recognizing the universe as\ninfinitely extended substance and all substance as material--and hence,\nin this respect, monistic; yet it also recognizes the world substance\nas being of two kinds: one gross material; the other a finer, or\nthinking material; having some qualities in common with gross matter,\nand in others being distinct. \"All spirit is matter,\" said our Prophet,\n\"but it is more fine or pure [i.e., than gross matter tangible to our\nordinary senses] and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot\nsee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all\nmatter.\"\n\nAfter these distinctions are made and all the while held in\nconsciousness, so that there shall not be a loss of distinction in\nthings, nor a confounding of things, we may hereafter use the terms\n\"intelligence\" and \"matter\"--equivalent of mind and matter--as naming\nthe two modes in which, for Mormonism, the eternal and infinitely\nextended substance, the universe, exists. To say that intelligence\ndominates matter and produces all the ceaseless changes going on in\nthe universe, both of creation and demolition, for both forces are\noperating--as our Pearl of Great Price says: \"There are many worlds\nthat have passed away, by the world of my [God's] power; and there are\nmany that now stand; and as one earth shall pass away and the heavens\nthereof, even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works;\"\nand hence the creation and demolition to which reference is here made.\nTo say that mind dominates matter, I repeat, is merely to say that\nthe superior dominates the inferior; that which acts is greater than\nthat which is acted upon; that mind is the eternal cause of the \"ever\nbecoming\" in the universe, the cause and sustainer of the cosmic world.\nIt is also to say that mind is power; that mind possesses as qualities\nthe power of thought, and will, and life, and love.\n\nAs the grosser material exists ultimately in elements that are\nthemselves eternal--uncreated and uncreatable, so the finer or thinking\nsubstance, intelligence is eternal--uncreated and uncreatable. That is\nthe doctrine of the revelation, which says: \"Man was in the beginning\nwith God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created, or\nmade--neither, indeed, can be;\" and as the gross material, atoms,\nexist, some in organized worlds and world-systems, the cosmos; and\nalso others in chaotic mass, so the intelligences, intelligent\nentities, exist in somewhat analogous states, some in the form of\nperfected exalted men clothed upon with immortal bodies, as the Christ\nwas--nay, rather is now, today, and participating in a nature that\nis divine--having won their exaltation through stress and trial in\nthe various estates or changes through which they have passed; other\nintelligences exist in spirit bodies, less tangible than the first\nclass, possessed of less experience, less of power and dignity, but\nstill they are in the way of progress through other estates yet to be\nexperienced by them; also intelligences not yet begotten spirits, not\nyet united with elements of the grosser substance, union with which is\nessential to the highest development of intelligences. You find this\nlast doctrine mainly-recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, as\nfollows:\n\n    \"The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably\n    connected\" [as in the case of resurrected, glorified personages]\n    \"inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when\n    separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.\" \"The elements are\n    the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even\n    temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled God shall destroy that\n    temple.\"\n\nSuch is the Mormon view of the universe and the modes of existence in\nit, briefly outlined. These existences, both of the thinking substance\nand the grosser materials, are subject to infinite changes and\ndevelopment in which there are no ultimates. Each succeeding wave of\nprogress may attain higher and ever higher degrees of excellence, but\nnever attain perfection: The ideal recedes ever as it is approached;\nand, hence, progress is eternal, even for the highest of existences.\n\nOne other thought in connection with all these matters. I read to you\na few moments ago a passage to the effect that \"to all these kingdoms\nof the infinite universe is given a law, and unto every law there are\ncertain bounds also and conditions.\" Later in the same revelation this\nis added: \"Verily I say unto you he, [God] hath given a law unto all\nthings by which they move in their times and in their seasons. And\ntheir courses are fixed; even the courses of the heavens and the earth,\nwhich comprehend the earth and all the planets; and they give light to\neach other in their times and in their season, in their minutes, in\ntheir hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their\nyears; all these are one year with God, but not with man.\"\n\nIn passing it may be interesting to note respecting the idea expressed\nabove, viz., that \"to every law there are certain bounds also and\nconditions,\"--that a remarkable statement was made by a learned man\nof our own country touching this same principle. The passage quoted\nfrom Joseph Smith bears the date of December, 1832. Sixty-three years\nafterwards, Henry Drummond, speaking upon this principle of law being\nlimited by law--or law itself being under the dominion of law--said:\n\n    \"One of the most striking generalizations of recent science is that\n    even laws have their law.\"\n\nThat is to say, even unto laws there are certain bounds and conditions\nthat limit them. Let me illustrate it, if I can. The old-time mariner,\nsay of a hundred years ago, knew nothing of nature's forces applied\nto navigation except the tides, the ocean currents, and the winds. He\nbelieved these were all the propelling forces that entered into ocean\nnavigation. If he were alive today, and could see one of our great\nocean greyhounds, the modern passenger ocean steamship, dashing through\nthe waves dead against both ocean currents and the wind, and yet making\ngreater speed than he could ever attain in his sailing vessel with\nboth wind and the tide in his favor, he would declare that he beheld a\nmiracle. But that would not be true. We of today, with our knowledge\nof other forces than those of wind and ocean currents operating in\nocean navigation, look upon the steamship's speed as perfectly natural.\nThe natural forces with which the mariner of a hundred years ago was\nacquainted are simply overcome by other forces in nature; not in\nviolation of any natural law, but through the application of forces\nunknown to the sailor of a hundred years ago. So, doubtless we shall\nfind it true in relation to nearly all laws or forces that exist.\nWe shall find still other laws, still other forces, that limit or\nsupercede, when applied, the forces now known to us.\n\nBut what I wanted to do is merely to call your attention to the fact\nthat Mormonism teaches this very great doctrine, viz., that the whole\nuniverse--unlimited and unbounded as it is, and having within it and\nnow operating processes both of evolution and devolution--as it is\nwritten in the Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price): \"Behold there are\nmany worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there\nare many that now stand, and innumerable are they to man. * * * And\nas one earth shall pass away and the heavens thereof, even so shall\nanother come; and there is no end to my works\"--notwithstanding all\nthis is going on in the universe, the operation of both creative and\ndestructive forces, yet we are assured by the word of God as well as\nby the deductions of scientists and philosophers that all the mighty\nchange going on in the universe, as well as the universe itself, are\nunder the dominion of law; and in the consciousness of the reign of\nlaw, our faith teaches us to repose sublime and perfect confidence in\nthe fact that\n\n  \"God is in his world:\n  \"All is well with the world.\"\n\nSuch I conceive to be the effect of this conception that we live under\nthe reign of law; and that constructive forces predominate in the\neconomy of things, else things that are would not be nor persist.\n\nIV.\n\nSOURCE OF MORAL EVIL.\n\nNow we come to an element in our faith, extremely interesting and\nthat is the transgression of law, which the Apostle John declares to\nbe sin: \"for sin,\" said he, \"is the transgression of the law.\" This\ntransgression of law is a fact that has to be taken into account in\nthe sum of things. The existence of moral evil in the world is one of\nthe problems that has vexed Christian theologians from the earliest of\ntimes until now. They have had extreme difficulty in reconciling their\nconception of God as an absolute being, infinitely wise, all-powerful,\nall-good, and that he created everything out of nothing, and yet not\nassign to him the creation of evil. If all things have been produced\nby an infinitely righteous, perfect, all-powerful, and good Creator,\nhow can moral evil exist in his economy? That is a question to which\nno satisfactory explanation has yet been found. Mormonism teaches that\nGod does not create moral evil; but that moral evil arises out of the\nagency of intelligences, and that so long as there are intelligences,\npossessed of free agency, it means that they can violate law, if they\ninsist upon doing it. To conceive this as impossible would be to deny\nthe free agency of intelligences.\n\nI know there is one passage that, perhaps, might be quoted against my\ncontention, that God does not create evil. It occurs in the writings of\nIsaiah, it is said--and it is the only place in Scripture where it is\nsaid, so far as I have been able to learn--\"I [God] make peace,\" and \"I\ncreate evil.\" \"I create\"--what? \"Evil,\" such as the opposite of peace,\nsuch as war, famine, and the like. But to what end does God cause war,\nor famine? For corrective purposes only, to chastize men, to bring\nthem to a realization of wrong-doing, or national transgression. For\nthese ends God has, sometimes, brought to pass these conditions that we\nrecognize as evil. But that class of evils is quite a distinct thing\nfrom moral evil. Though God may bring on a famine, storm, tempest, or\nwar for corrective purposes, yet God is not the creator of falsehood;\nhe is not the creator of slander; nor of drunkenness; nor of avarice,\nnor malice, nor of robbery, nor unkindness, nor of adulteries. These\nmoral evils are not of his creating. Jesus Christ did not say, \"Lead\nus not into temptation,\" for, as the Apostle James instructs us, God\ncannot be tempted of evil. \"Let no man,\" says he, \"when he is tempted,\nsay, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither\ntempteth he any man. But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of\nhis own lusts and enticed. Then lust when it hath conceived bringeth\nforth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.\" The\nprayer of the Christ, as taught to his apostles, and as restored\nthrough the word of the Lord to our Prophet, is not, \"And lead us not\ninto temptation,\" but \"Suffer us not to be led into temptation, deliver\nus from evil.\"\n\nSo far as moral evil is concerned, then, I say it is not of God's\ncreation. It is one of those possibilities that are eternal. It did not\nbegin with the transgression of Adam upon this earth. It existed before\nthat; even in the heavens, when Lucifer rebelled against the King and\nmajesty of heaven--God. Lucifer had power even there to sin; and so\nfar back as the agency of intelligences extends, there has existed\nalways the possibility of sin; and so far forward as the agency of\nintelligences shall extend, there will always be the possibility, of\nthe transgression of law, of sin; for sin potentially, is an eternal\nreality. It is concurrent with the free agency of intelligences.\n\nBut God, according to Mormon doctrine, does not create evil, tempt\nmen with it, and then when not sufficiently strong to withstand the\ntemptation, damn them everlastingly for falling. The only way in\nwhich God affects men is favorably, that is, he helps them in their\napprehension of and their adoption of the good. He does not, according\nto Mormon doctrine, create intelligence, for that is an independent,\nself-existing thing; therefore not even God creates man's intelligence,\nthat is uncreated and uncreatable--an eternal thing. As I have said\nelsewhere, God is not responsible for the use they make of their\nfreedom; nor is he the author of their sufferings when they fall\ninto sin; suffering arises out of the violations of law to which the\n\"intelligence\" subscribed, and must be endured until the lessons of\nobedience to law are learned.\n\nMan has his choice of moving upward or downward in every estate\nhe occupies; often defeating even the benevolent purposes of God\nrespecting him, through his own perverseness; he passes through\ndire experiences, suffers terribly, yet learns by what he suffers,\nso that his very suffering becomes a means to his improvement; he\nlearns swiftly or slowly, according to the inherent nature of him,\nobedience to law; he learns that \"that which is governed by law is also\npreserved by law, and perfected and sanctified by the same; and that\nwhich breaketh the law and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a\nlaw unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth\nin sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice nor\njudgment. Therefore they must remain filthy still.\" This conception of\nthings relieves God of the responsibility for the nature and status of\nintelligences in all stages of their development; their inherent nature\nand their volition makes them primarily what they are, and this nature\nthey may change, slowly, perhaps, yet change it they may. God has put\nthem in the way of changing it, by enlarging their intelligence through\nchange of environment, and through experiences.\n\nTHE PLACE AND MISSION OF CHRIST IN MORMON DOCTRINE.\n\nThere is a singular fact connected with this subject of moral evil--of\nsin. And that is that the transgression of the moral law entails\nsuffering, even as violation of physical law may result in pain, or\nsickness or death. The way of the transgressor is hard. \"Whatsoever\na man soweth that shall he reap.\" \"The wages of sin is death.\" Not\nonly are these truisms, but it is also true that often the righteous\nare made to suffer because of the transgressions of the wicked. The\ninnocent are involved in the misery of the guilty. No man lives unto\nhimself alone, and he may, and often does involve others in his\ntransgressions. It is possible for the fathers to suffer because of\nthe sins of the children. It is possible for the children to suffer\nbecause of the sins of the fathers. Many a father can still exclaim as\nDavid did over his wayward son Absalom, \"O! my son! Would to God that\nI had died for thee!\" This is one of the difficulties that confront\nreligious thought--the innocent being involved in the sufferings of\nthe guilty. Yet, from the midst of our perplexity over such a seeming\ninjustice as this, there comes to us the mighty testimony that it is\nnot only possible but it is a fact, that the innocent can and do suffer\nwith and because of the transgression of the guilty; may they not also\nsuffer for them, since vicarious suffering is a possibility? On that\npossibility hinges the whole gospel of the Christ, and the saving power\nof the atonement. It is deeply written in the experiences of men that\nthe innocent can suffer with and because of the guilty; and it is the\ndoctrine of the Christian revelation that the innocent can suffer for\nthe guilty, as witness the following testimonies: \"For when we were yet\nwithout strength, in due time Christ died for us.\" \"Christ also hath\nonce suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us\nto God.\" \"He [the Christ] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of\nhimself. * * * So Christ once suffered to bear the sins of many; and\nunto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin\nunto salvation.\" \"Christ also suffered for us. * * Who his own self\nbore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin,\nshould live unto righteousness; by whose stripes we were healed.\" It is\nvery clear, then, that it is the doctrine of the Christian revelation,\nwhich doctrine of course, Mormonism accepts, that Christ suffered\nfor man's transgressions. There is Scripture evidence also, could we\nbut take the time to point it out, to prove that the whole scheme of\nman's earth-life and his redemption was considered even before the\nfoundations of the earth itself were laid. And the Redeemer chosen and\nagreed upon and hence was \"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the\nworld.\" Paul announces himself as living, \"In hope of eternal life,\nwhich God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.\" The\nfacts in brief are that the time came when for the progress of spirit\nintelligences an earth-life, under conditions such as exist in this\nworld, became necessary to them. To bring to pass that earth-life the\nunion of spirit with earth element and attended by the experiences\nwhich such a life would bring, involved transgression of law,\ninvolving the race in sin and death from which it was only possible to\nextricate it by adequate atonement being made to satisfy the claims of\ninexorable law. In this crisis there arose in the councils in heaven\none great, sympathetic Soul who recognized not only the fact that the\ninnocent can suffer with the guilty, or because of the guilty, but\n_for_ the guilty, and offered himself a sacrifice for the sin that\nshould be committed in breaking the harmony of things in order to give\nintelligences the advantages of earth-life and its lessons. The Christ\nwould make atonement for Adam's transgression, so that as in Adam all\nshould die, as saith the Scriptures, so in Christ should all be made\nalive; that \"since by man came death, by man should come also the\nresurrection of the dead.\" And not only was this vicarious atonement\nmade to cover the transgression of Adam, but it was made to reach also\nto the individual sins of men, that they might not suffer if they\nwould accept the gospel. The doctrine is better stated in a revelation\ngiven to our Prophet than anywhere else in sacred literature, hence\nI quote that revelation. Let it be borne in mind that transgression\nof the moral law--sin--is attended upon by suffering, and now this\nrevelation. It was given through the Prophet to Martin Harris, one of\nthe three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, reproving him for some of\nhis delinquencies:\n\n    \"And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless,\n\n    \"Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes\n    shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to\n    those who are found on my left hand;\n\n    * * * * *\n\n    \"Therefore I command you to repent, repent, lest I smite you by\n    the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your\n    sufferings be sore--how sore you know not! how exquisite you know\n    not! yea, how hard to bear you know not!\n\n    \"For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they\n    might not suffer if they would repent,\n\n    \"But if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I,\n\n    \"Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to\n    tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer\n    both body and spirit; and would that I might not drink that bitter\n    cup and shrink--\n\n    \"Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, I partook and finished my\n    preparations unto the children of men;\n\n    \"Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you\n    with my almighty power, and that you confess your sins, test you\n    suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the\n    smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time\n    I withdrew my spirit.\"\n\nI presume that the experience of Martin Harris, here described, has\nat least been sufficiently the experience of every matured man and\nwoman--that they know this testimony to be true, that is, that sin\nproduces suffering--sorrow, anguish of heart; and when the Spirit of\nthe Lord is withdrawn and darkness, like the blackness of night surges\nthrough the soul of man, and the sun of righteousness seems set for\nhim, he is then made to feel what it means to sin against the law\nof God as it has been revealed unto his soul. When you think of the\nbitterness of that personal suffering, you will not marvel that when\nthe heavy burden of a world's sin rested down upon the Son of God in\nGethsemane--you certainly will not marvel that he sweat great drops of\nblood in his agony; nor wonder at his suffering on the cross.\n\nNow, the transgression of the moral law we say results in suffering. It\nis possible for the innocent to suffer for the guilty, and through the\nvoluntary act of the Christ, he took upon him your sins and mine, if we\nwill but be bought by the price which he paid for us. He has suffered\nthat we might not suffer, if we would but obey his law henceforth.\n\nThe atonement of the Christ both for Adam's transgression and for\nthe individual sins of men, brings into the moral economy of God the\nelement of mercy, and of love from which mercy springs. To make room\nfor mercy, however, justice had to be satisfied, hence the atonement.\n\"And God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that\nwhosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world,\nbut that the world through him might be saved.\" This sacrifice of\nthe Christ is the manifestation of that love of God that binds in\nsympathetic relations all the intelligences of the universe together;\nby which they suffer not only _with_ each other and _because_ of each\nother, but at need _for_ each other. This is the doctrine of the\natonement of the Christ; this the good news of salvation, the gospel of\nJesus Christ. You may be rescued, I may be rescued, from the suffering\nthat comes of sin, through the vicarious atonement of the Christ. And\nthat the forces of that atonement may be applied to us, we manifest our\nacceptance of this means of salvation by our repentance of sin, and\nby going into the waters of baptism, into the great cleansing element\nof the world, and there are buried with the Christ in likeness of his\nown burial; and then we are brought forth from the watery tomb in the\nlikeness of his glorious resurrection; and as he awoke to a newness of\nphysical life, by the resurrection, so, too, may we come forth from\nbaptism to a newness of spiritual life. We also complete the baptism\nby the application of the purifying element, the baptism of the Holy\nGhost--likened unto a baptism of fire. The Spirit of God is thus\nimparted to our spirit, which means that our lives are united with the\nlife of God; by which his wisdom may be at our service; by which his\nstrength may be our strength; his glory, may be our glory. Thus may men\nbe united to God by these most beautiful and holy symbols of the gospel\nof Jesus Christ. Then, to keep the object lessons constantly before us,\nand to be reminded of the price that was paid for the possibility of\nour redemption from sin, we often partake of the emblems of the body\nand of the blood of the Christ, by which we renew covenant, by which we\nrenew spiritual life, and thus keep our fellowship with God, that the\nblood of Christ may cleanse us from all sin.\n\nThis, in part, is the body of our doctrine. This is the grand scheme\nof man's salvation, and the philosophy that underlies it. This is\nour doctrine concerning the universe, concerning the existence of\nintelligences within it, the purpose of earth-life of man, and the\nmeans provided for man's redemption from the consequences of the\ntransgression of law involved in that earth-life. Judge ye, this day,\nwhether such a body of doctrine as this is not worthy of something more\nthan \"the cold respect of a passing glance.\"\n\n\n\nV.\n\nPEACE.\n\nRemarks at the \"Peace Meeting,\" held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle,\nSunday afternoon, May 16th, 1909, following a Discourse by Elder W. W.\nRiter on the subject of \"Universal Peace.\"\n\nI.\n\nTHE BLESSEDNESS OF PEACE.\n\n    \"And he [Jehovah] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke\n    many people; and they shall beat their swords into plow shares,\n    and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword\n    against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.\"\n\nThis is the passage of Scripture which Elder Riter referred to as\nbeing the one which, perhaps, will be more frequently repeated today\nthan any other passage of Scripture; for in our own land, and other\nChristian lands, this day is dedicated to the promotion of peace; to\nthe suggesting of ways and means by which peaceful arbitration may be\nsubstituted for the dreadful arbitrament of war, in the settlement of\ninternational difficulties.\n\nI presume there is no one but what loves peace. We remember, of\ncourse, the injunction of the Psalmist, \"to seek peace and pursue\nit.\" We recall, on this occasion, the song of the angels at the birth\nof the Christ, when the hope of Isaiah in a new form was expressed\nin the song of the angels, in the Judean hills--\"Glory to God in the\nhighest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.\" I think of all\nthe salutations that were ever spoken to man, the most beautiful is\nthat salutation of the Christ after his resurrection upon meeting his\ndisciples--\"Peace be unto you!\" This afterwards became the universal\nChristian salutation--\"Peace be unto you!\" \"He [the Christ] hath called\nus to peace,\" is Paul's declaration. Again: \"if it be possible--as much\nas lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.\" Of wisdom it is said:\n\n    \"Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are paths of\n    peace.\"\n\nFrom all these expressions we learn, of course, the desirability and\nthe beauty and grace of peace--\"peace on earth, and toward men good\nwill.\" Strange indeed would be the spectacle of a man who would express\nhimself in favor of war instead of peace. Peace is the mother of\nabundance; the nurse of sciences and of arts; for without peace these\nthings may not abound. Peace is essential to the progress of nations;\nsome one has called it the \"calm health of nations.\" Every prompting\nof the heart and every deduction of the reasonable mind would array\nall men upon the side of peace. Good sense demands it; prosperity and\nprogress of nations demand it. I give my voice for peace. But in our\ncontemplation of this subject, there are some other things that, I\nthink, ought to be considered. We must not forget that there is such a\nthing as \"ignoble peace,\" There has been in the past, and there may be\nin the future, such things as \"honorable wars.\" There are some things\nin this world that can not be arbitrated. A burglar, for instance,\nenters your home, and he loads up his bag with your valuables--your\njewelry, your money, the product of your frugality and industry--and\nwhen you catch him red-handed in the act, he may not drop his bag and\npropose arbitration. You can't arbitrate the case; he must be seized\nand brought before the courts, and receive the punishment due to his\ncrime. The community must be protected against such characters. It\nis equally true that there are international affairs that may not\nbe arbitrated. A host may not invade our territory, and while still\noccupying it propose arbitration of differences between us. We will\nnot endure the presence of the invader. He must be driven from the\nfatherland. Until we reach the basis of assured justice in personal\naffairs and in national affairs, the world may not hope to dispense\nwith the force that can demand and assure justice. The very existence\nof law implies force. The great Napoleon, who will yet be recognized\nas a greater statesman than he was warrior, once said, \"Your laws are\nmere nullities without the force necessary to make them respected.\" Law\nimplies penalty; penalty implies force; force, in the last analysis of\nit, means armies and navies, and there is no escaping the conclusion.\nWhile God is spoken of as a God of justice, he is also spoken of as a\nGod of battles: and we have a number of instances named in holy writ,\nwhere God justified war--notwithstanding all the horrors attendant upon\nit. There are some things worse than war, and there are some things\neven better than peace. Justice is better than peace; and without\njustice, be assured you can have no enduring peace. War is horrible,\nbut slavery is worse. Deprivation of your rights, the right to life, to\nliberty, and to the pursuit of happiness--to be deprived of these is\nworse than war; and these are worth all that it costs to maintain them,\nworthy of all that even a war would cost us to maintain them.\n\nII.\n\nTHE GOD OF BATTLES.\n\nI was much impressed, many years ago, in reading the account of Joshua,\nwhen he was taking possession of the land which God had given to the\nHebrew race. As he was nearing Jericho, in the early days of his\nconquests, on one occasion he observed a stranger approaching, with his\nsword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him and said, \"Art thou\nfor us, or for our adversaries?\" \"Nay,\" said this glorious personage,\n\"but as captain of the host of the Lord, am I now come;\" and Joshua\nfell at his feet and worshiped him without reproach, acknowledging him\nas lord, and inquired what he would have him to do; and the divine\npersonage--for he was no less--required the warrior, Joshua, to remove\nthe very shoes from his feet, for he was standing on holy ground! How\ndifferent this incident from that where an angel appeared unto John,\nthe beloved disciple, and John, overwhelmed with the glamor of the\nangel's brightness, fell down and worshiped him, or would have done\nso, but the angel quickly raised him up and said, \"See thou do it not,\nfor I am of thy fellow servants and of thy brethren that have the\ntestimony of Jesus, worship God.\" But in the case of Joshua bowing down\nto this personage, with drawn sword in hand, \"Captain of the Lord's\nhosts,\" he was not stopped in his worship of him; proving to us that\nthis personage was more than an angel--that he was divine. What, Deity?\nYes, or why was he worshiped by Joshua? Again, it is written in the\nScriptures:\n\n    \"The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of\n    Manasseh--made war with the Hagarites--and they were helped against\n    them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of\n    them; because they put their trust in him.--Then fell down many\n    slain, because the war was of God.\"\n\nThese incidents represent God indeed as a God of battles. I know it\nis said that \"War is hell,\" and therefore, from that standpoint, some\npeople may think that God has little or nothing to do with war; but at\nthis point I may say that I share the views of his Grace the Archbishop\nof Armagh, who, in a poem published a few years ago, said:\n\n  \"They say that 'war is hell,' the 'great accursed,\n    'The sin impossible to be forgiven--\n  Yet I can look beyond it at its worst,\n    And still find blue in Heaven.\n  \"And when I note how nobly natures form\n    Under the war's red rain, I deem it true,\n  That he who made the earthquake and the storm,\n    Perchance made battles too!\n\n  * * * * *\n\n  \"As the heaven's many colored flames\n    At sunset are but dust in rich disguise--\n  The ascending earthquake dust of battle frames\n    God's pictures in the skies.\"\n\nIII.\n\nJUSTICE THE BASIS OF PEACE.\n\nYou will see, from what I have here said, that while I am interested\nin this question of peace, and believe in it, I have little sympathy\nwith the hysteria that sometimes goes with those who advocate it. If\nthe world wants peace--very good; the world may have it; but that\nworld-peace which has been the dream of prophets and sages must\nhave for its basis justice. No more beautiful expression than this:\n\"Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other;\" and peace is of\nlittle worth till kissed by righteousness. Make your basis of universal\npeace universal justice, and peace is assured. And may we hope for\nit, this universal peace? Most assuredly. It has been promised the\nworld by divine wisdom, and his word will not fail; but when we get\nuniversal peace, it will be because righteousness has been established,\nand because justice is assured. Those of us, then, who are interested\nin establishing international peace--universal peace--let us proceed\nby seeking to establish righteousness--personal and national--and\nby establishing justice. Already there has been wonderful progress\nmade by the world in this direction. Already we may see the twilight\nbreaking over the eastern hills that gives assurance of the coming\nday of peace spoken of by the prophets. Elder Riter has traced for us\nsome of the developments in this progress. I think, in modern days\nour movements towards it have been almost by leaps and bounds. It was\nin 1815 that the first peace society in the world, was organized.\nThat organization was effected in the United States. It took place\nimmediately after the close of the unfortunate war of 1812, our last\nwar, with Great Britain--pray God it may be, indeed, the very last!\nThe circumstances attendant upon that war, the pity of seeing people\nof the same race and of the same religion, locked in deadly conflict;\nand then, too, the unhappy circumstances of having the chief great\nland battle fought some fifteen or twenty days after the peace between\nthe two nations had really been signed--these circumstances created a\nsentiment against such wars as this, wars between people so closely\nallied in interest and sentiment, and religion--it was like brother\nfighting brother! And the great internecine war between the American\nstates presented to the world even a sadder picture, and created a\nstill stronger sentiment for peace. So the peace movement began from\nthese circumstances, and from these beginnings grew until from a purely\nlocal movement it became a national one; and today is an international\none. In 1899 we had the happiness of seeing the world's first great,\npermanent international court of arbitration established, the beginning\nof the fulfilment of that dream of the prophets, the establishment\nof the universal parliament of the world, the federation of nations.\nThe leading nations of Europe and America sent delegations to the\nHague that year, and there was established this permanent court of\narbitration, which has already passed upon some twelve international\ncases, and that has quite a number of cases still pending before it.\nThis is progress beyond the dreams of men a quarter of a century ago.\nBut these things grow slowly. We need not marvel if the movement that\nfinally established this permanent international court of arbitration\ngrew slowly. \"Constitutions,\" says an authority on civil law, \"are not\nmade--they grow.\" They come up out of the long experience of races\nof men. They are beaten out upon the anvil of human experience. Take\na single nation, a homogenous people--how slow they have been, in\nthe centuries of the past, to come to a settlement of the questions\npertaining to the civil rights of persons, to their political rights\nunder the law. How slow individuals have been to learn that liberty\nis liberty under the law; and not the license to do as one pleases,\nirrespective of the rights of others! You may be assured that if a race\nor a nation has made slow progress along these lines, when the people\nwere homogenous, when their civilization was identical, when their\naspirations were of one character--then you may be assured that nations\nof different races, civilizations, traditions and temperaments will\nstill make slower progress and require a longer time to conform their\nconduct to international law, the object of which shall be to dispense\njustice among the nations. Still we may hope that this movement towards\na recognition of international justice and universal peace will be more\nrapid than in past ages as to national reforms and progress, since we\nlive in an age noted for the diffusion of knowledge, and a constantly\nwidening circle of intelligence.\n\nIn this text I have read to you, there is one thing that I want to\ncall your attention to, that we are apt to overlook, and that is\nthis: \"And He [Jehovah] shall judge among the nations, and shall\nrebuke many people,\" etc. Mark you that! Jehovah \"shall judge among\nthe nations;\" then comes your promise of the beating of swords into\nplowshares, and spears into pruning hooks. When? When Jehovah judges\namong the nations--when his law, the very essence of which is justice,\nis observed and honored by the nations; then we may hope to find the\nfulfillment of the dream of the prophet,--and not until then. And\nwhen the dream of the poets and sages shall come to pass, and the\nfederation of nations shall be a reality, and there shall be the\nworld's parliament--what then? Why, even then you will find that law\nimplies force to compel obedience, and that force in the last analysis\nof things means armies, navies--war! So that when the world shall be\nremoved from the possibilities of war, I do not know. My judgment is\nthat we shall need courts, police, armies, navies--the embodiment\nof force, just so long as on the part of individuals and groups of\nindividuals and communities and nations there is a disposition to\nresort to acts of injustice, to violate law, to gratify the disposition\nin man to make aggression upon his fellow-men. These things must be\nrestrained; and, in some cases force only is the means by which they\nmay be restrained; so that the means of the enforcement of law, so far\nas I can see, must live as long as there is law.\n\nWell, this view is not so very hopeful for international--for universal\npeace, is it? I read, in my Scriptures, about their having been war\neven in heaven; and I do not know but what there may be future wars in\nother heavens--I am sure there will be if there is rebellion against\nlaw, and justice, and good order; and it will extend into the future,\nas well as being a reality of the past. Now, do you not see that the\nend of all our reflections upon the subject simply means that you must\nhave righteousness or you can have no peace? You must have justice or\nyou can never have peace. Neither Gods nor men have been able to have\npeace in the past, not even in heaven, apart from these principles;\nand what holds as to the past, I think is very likely to hold for the\nfuture.\n\nAs to the sorrow that wars bring to us--I scarcely know what to say of\nthat. But even sorrows have their mission in this world; and suffering\nhas its mission. I think that any Christian who rightly understands\nthe gospel of Jesus Christ will value all the more the salvation that\ncomes to him, by reason of what it cost--the blood-sweat of the Christ\nin Gethsemane, as well as his sufferings on Calvary. I think a man\nshould value the liberties that he enjoys all the more because of the\nawful price that has been paid for them. I read here in our Book of\nDoctrine and Covenants that God inspired the fathers of our republic\nto establish the Constitution of our country--the United States; and\nhe tells us that he \"redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.\" Are\nthese battles of the past, these sufferings and sacrifices of past\ngenerations, of no value? I prize the liberties of our age and the\ncivilization of our times, not only because of the value of the things\nin themselves, but also because of the price that the generations\nin the past have paid for them. They become sanctified through the\nsuffering and the sacrifice that it has been necessary to make fo\nthem. Father Ryan has voiced some sentiments, in which I share, and I\nam going to read them to you. It is said by some one, whom I do not\nnow remember, that \"Calvaries and crucifixes take deepest hold of\nhumanity--the triumphs of might are transient, they pass away and are\nforgotten--the sufferings of Right are graven deepest on the chronicles\nof nations.\" I do not believe that all the suffering of the past is\nwasted, by any manner of means, \"Crowns of roses fade; crowns of thorns\nendure!\" And now for this poem:\n\n  THE LAND WITH MEMORIES.\n\n  \"Yes! give me a land where the ruins are spread,\n  And the living tread light on the hearts of the dead;\n  Yes, give me a land that is blest by the dust,\n  And bright with the deeds of the downtrodden just!\n  Yes, give me the land that hath legend and lays\n  Enshrining the memories of long-vanished days;\n  Yes, give me a land that hath story and song,\n  To tell of the strife of the Right with the Wrong;\n  Yes, give me the land with a grave in each spot,\n  And names in the graves that shall not be forgot!\n  Yes, give me the land of the wreck and the tomb,\n  There's a grandeur in graves--there's a glory in gloom!\n  For out of the gloom future brightness is born,\n  And the graves of the dead, with the grass overgrown,\n  May yet form the footstool of Liberty's throne,\n  And each single wreck in the war-path of Might,\n  Shall yet be a rock in the Temple of Right!\" [1]\n\n[Footnote 1: This poem was often quoted by Mr. Alexander Stephens, of\nGeorgia, than whom America has produced few greater statesmen, and this\npoem for him seemed to voice the sorrows of the South after the close\nof the war between the States.]\n\nNow, let us have peace, even if we have to fight for it--and in my\njudgment, for some time to come, if you have peace, it will be because\nyou are prepared to fight for it; and when the great central government\nshall be established--the world's federation of nations--it will need\nthe force, the power to compel men to submit to its just decrees.\nThis dream of the poet, here in Isaiah, shall be fulfilled in very\ndeed, when God shall judge among the nations; because when he judges\namong the nations, he will judge in righteousness, and he will judge\nin justice; that will insure the world's peace; and our national\narmaments then will not be necessary. But what experiences, national\nand international, lie between where we now stand and the attainment\nof that end--who may tell? Another prophet caught a glimpse of that\nside of the question, when he declared that the nations would beat\ntheir plows into swords, and their pruning hooks into spears (Joel\n3:10); and there is something in the way of experience in that kind\nfor modern nations, in all probability. Yet, I am a man of peace, I\nbelieve in peace. I intend to work for peace, but I cannot close my\neyes to some of these things that are born out of the experiences of\nraces and nations of men; but may God grant that the spirit of peace\nmay increase in the world--there is much need of it, but when peace\nbecomes universal and permanent, be assured it will be so, because\nrighteousness and justice shall have been established in the world.\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nTHE MYSTERIOUS HARMONIES OF THE GREAT REPUBLIC.\n\nBeing a development of the thought that God had part in founding the\ngovernment of the United States and is directing its destinies. (Fourth\nof July speech at Spanish Fork, 1908.)\n\nI.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n_Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen_: I appreciate the honor you have\ndone me in asking me to come to your beautiful and thriving town to\nspeak such things to you as this occasion may suggest. I think it\nis quite generally conceded that the old-fashioned Fourth of July\ncelebration, like many other old-fashioned things, is growing out of\ndate. The thirteen guns at sunrise, the hoisting of the flag, the\nearly assembling of the people, the parade, in spite of heat and dust,\nrain or mud, representation of the thirteen states by thirteen young\nladies--beautiful all; the assembling of the people in the grove, the\nprayer of the chaplain, the reading of the Declaration of Independence,\nwith all its serious charges against King George III intact; and, above\nall, the long and serious and wearying speech of the \"orator of the\nday\"--all this is passing away, and we celebrate our nation's birthday\nusually under less imposing ceremonies; and to this change, for one, I\nhave been entirely reconciled. So far reconciled, in fact, that I had\nmade something like a resolution that never again would I participate\nin the old-fashioned methods of celebration; that I would no more\ninflict on my fellow-citizens a Fourth of July speech so often misnamed\n\"oration.\"\n\nBut receiving your committee's very flattering invitation to address\nthe good people of Spanish Fork, a change came over the spirit of\nmy thought, and it occurred to me that at this particular time the\noccasion might afford an opportunity for the expression of thoughts\nwhich I am quite sure the people of your town, and the people of our\nentire state, would do well to consider at this time, and hence I am\nhere to venture a few remarks which I hope will be of some interest to\nthose here assembled, and without offense to any.\n\nTHE MIRACLE OF AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENTS.\n\nI think no man of intelligence can contemplate the achievements by the\nUnited States of America through the last one hundred thirty six years\nwithout being over-powered by the sense that what has been wrought is\nthe result of something more than merely unaided, human achievement.\nThe establishment, maintenance and extension of free institutions until\nthey reach triumphant success in permanent, peaceful self-government\nby the people; the enlargement of our borders from the great lakes to\nthe gulf; from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific;\nthe triumphs obtained over the wilderness; the marvelous extension\nof civilization; the contributions we have made to civilization\nitself; the triumphs of intellect over material things; the practical\nannihilation of distances; the network of railroads, trans-continental\nand local, with accompanying network of telegraph lines bringing all\nparts of our land into immediate communication with each other, and\nwith all the world; the multiplication of mechanical contrivances,\nwhich removes man from much of the drudgery of life; the marvelous\nincrease in conveniences and comforts of human life, country life,\ntown life, city life and national life; the general uplift that has\ntaken place in intellectual, moral and spiritual life; our expanding\neducational facilities and the wide dissemination of knowledge among\nthe people; the increase among the people, if not of patriotism, at\nleast of confidence in the permanency and success of our system of\ngovernment--all these triumphs, I repeat, proclaim a higher power than\nthat which is resident in human wisdom as being the force that founded\nand that has guided the destinies of our country to the achievement of\nall this. For some wise purpose, yet to be more perfectly unfolded,\nthrough plot and counterplot of men, I feel that God is developing\nthe mysterious harmonies that shall make up the history of our great\nrepublic. It is upon this idea that I shall dwell today, the idea that\nGod has had a part in founding our nation and directing thus far its\ncourse. I am the more free to take in hand this subject today, because\nI believe that I am speaking to those who quite generally accept this\nview.\n\nII.\n\nTHE INSPIRATION OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.\n\nThe following passage is to be found in a book which many of our\ncitizens accept as scripture, and which represents Deity saying:\n\n    \"It is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.\n    And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this\n    land [the United States] by the hands of wise men whom I raised up\n    unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of\n    blood.\" (Doc. and Cov. Sec. 101.)\n\nI think this doctrine may be maintained in two ways: First, by\nreference to the historical incidents of the American revolution, in\nthe throes of which our nation had its birth. And, second, by an appeal\nto the principles of the constitution on which our nation is founded.\nNecessarily, of course the consideration of these two branches of the\nsubject must be very limited. Let us consider the first proposition.\nOne hundred and thirty-six years ago today, when the Declaration\nof Independence was signed by the American patriots assembled in\nPhiladelphia, there were in existence, and in rebellion against Great\nBritain, thirteen colonies extending along the Atlantic seaboard from\nMassachusetts to Georgia. In round numbers, the population did not\nreach 3,000,000. They were not a military people. They were a farming\nand frontier population. The task immediately before them, in an\neconomic way, was the subjugation of the wilderness. They had no great\nstores of munitions of war, nor were they well supplied with arms.\nTheir commerce was primitive and depended upon the favor and shipping\nof the nation with which they were at war. They had no great military\ngeniuses among them, and, from the standpoint of those who believe\nthat God fights on the side of those who have the largest and most\nperfect armies and the heaviest ordinance, the struggle for independent\nnational existence would look hopeless. In the eyes of many of the\ncolonists themselves it was a forlorn hope, this dream of independence.\nThey were about to measure arms with one of the most formidable empires\nof the world. A nation ready and armed at all points, \"her navies,\"\nas some of the leading men of Virginia said--\"her navies were riding\ntriumphantly in every sea; her armies never marched but to certain\nvictory.\" What could be the issue of such a conflict except that the\ncolonies would become an easy prey to Great Britain, and the rebellion\nwould end in converting \"the right\" which the British parliament\nthen claimed to tax America without representation, into a firm and\nindubitable right by conquest?\n\nThe fact alone that the colonies succeeded in the face of such\noverwhelming odds in winning their independence must necessarily argue\nthe support of some superhuman power which intervenes in the affairs\nof nations. And when the secondary means through which victory was\nfinally secured for the colonies is considered, the more apparent\nbecomes the fact of divine interposition. The mind skeptical to such\nfaith as this, would naturally say that the victory of the colonies\nwas achieved because France and Spain, old enemies of Great Britain,\nand Holland, her jealous rival for the world's commerce, joined with\nthe American colonies in the war against Great Britain, and that those\nnations, rather than the colonial armies, won for the American colonies\ntheir independence. To my mind, however, it is just here that the\ninterposition of divine providence becomes most apparent; and I find my\nbelief most aptly expressed by one of the most accomplished of American\nhistorians (Marcus Wilson), who, in commenting upon the treaty of peace\nsigned by Great Britain, France, Spain, Holland and the United States,\nsaid:\n\n    \"This closed the most important war in which England had ever been\n    engaged--a war which rose wholly out of her ungenerous treatment\n    of her American colonies. The expense of blood and treasure which\n    this war cost England was enormous; nor, indeed, did her European\n    antagonists suffer much less severely. The United States was the\n    only country that could look to any beneficial results from the\n    war, and these were ordained by a strange union of opposing motives\n    and principles, unequaled in the annals of history. France and\n    Spain, the arbitrary despots of the old world, had stood forth as\n    the protectors of an infant republic, and had combined, contrary\n    to all the principles of their political faith, to establish the\n    rising liberties of America. They appeared but as blind instruments\n    in the hands of providence, employed to aid in the rounding of\n    a nation which should cultivate those republican virtues that\n    were destined yet to regenerate the world upon the principles of\n    universal intelligence, and eventually to overthrow the timeworn\n    system of tyrannical usurpation of the few over the many.\"\n\nTo this expression of my belief I may hope to add nothing. I do,\nhowever, desire, in addition to the evidence thus presented for the\nidea of the interposition of providence in the affairs which led to\nthe establishment of our nation, I do desire to call your attention to\nthe fact that some of the great American leaders in the Revolutionary\nperiod had a most perfect pre-vision of all these events which history\nrecords as having taken place. Among these inspired men, which many of\nyou believe God raised up to found the constitution of our country,\nthere certainly was none more inspired than the great Virginia orator,\nPatrick Henry. Mr. Wirt, his biographer, calls attention to an item of\nhis history which seems to have been strangely overlooked by those who\nspeak of this great man and the contributions he made to the general\ncause of freedom in our land. Mr. Wirt tells us of a conversation that\ntook place at the residence of Colonel Samuel Overton, in Virginia,\nin the presence of a number of prominent gentlemen that is so clearly\nprophetic that you shall not find in Isaiah or Micah or Amos or any\nof the Jewish prophets a passage that surpasses it for prophetic\nclearness. I shall quote the incident as related by Mr. Wirt, who\nreceived the story of Mr. Pope, and records it in his excellent\nbiography of Patrick Henry:\n\n    \"I was informed by Colonel John Overton, that before one drop\n    of blood was shed in our contest with Great Britain, he was at\n    Colonel Samuel Overton's in company with Mr. Henry, Colonel\n    Morris, John Hawkins and Colonel Samuel Overton, when the last\n    mentioned gentleman asked Mr. Henry, 'whether he supposed Great\n    Britain would drive her colonies to extremities, and if she should,\n    what he thought would be the issue of the war.' When Mr. Henry,\n    after looking round to see who were present, expressed himself\n    confidentially to the company in the following manner:\n\n    \"'She will drive us to extremities; no accommodation will take\n    place; hostilities will soon commence, and a desperate and bloody\n    touch it will be.' 'But,' said Colonel Samuel Overton, 'do you\n    think, Mr. Henry, that an infant nation as we are, without\n    discipline, arms, ammunition, ships of war, or money to procure\n    them do you think it possible, thus circumstanced, to oppose\n    successfully the fleets and armies of Great Britain?' 'I will be\n    candid with you,' replied Mr. Henry. 'I doubt whether we shall be\n    able, alone, to cope with so powerful a nation. But,' continued he\n    (rising from his chair, with great animation), 'where is France?\n    Where is Spain? Where is Holland?--the natural enemies of Great\n    Britain. Where will they be all this while? Do you suppose they\n    will stand by, idle and indifferent spectators to the contest? Will\n    Louis XVI be asleep all this time? Believe me, no! When Louis XVI\n    shall be satisfied by our serious opposition, and our Declaration\n    of Independence, that all prospect of a reconciliation is gone,\n    then, and not until then, will he furnish us with arms, ammunition,\n    and clothing; and not with these only, but he will send his fleets\n    and armies to fight our battles for us; he will form with us a\n    treaty offensive and defensive, against our unnatural mother.\n    Spain and Holland will join the confederation! Our independence\n    will be established! and we shall take our stand among the nations\n    of the earth!' Here he ceased; and Colonel John Overton says, he\n    shall never forget the voice and prophetic manner with which these\n    predictions were uttered, and which have been since so literally\n    verified. Colonel Overton says, at the word independence, the\n    company appeared to be startled; for they had never heard anything\n    of the kind before even suggested.\"\n\nI think this passage alone, when the roster of \"American prophets\"\nshall be made up, will place this first man of our Revolutionary period\nhigh on the list of such prophets, and we shall yet have occasion to be\nas proud of our American prophets as the Jews are of their prophets.\nOf other manifestations of inspiration in the men who guided the\ncouncils of our nation in this Revolutionary period, I may not here\nspeak at length. It is matter of pride, however, that their wisdom was\nrecognized by friends over the sea. Of the first continental congress,\nthe Earl of Chatham, in the British house of lords, said:\n\n    \"I must declare and avow, that in all my reading and study of\n    history (and it has been my favorite study--I have read Thucydides,\n    and have studied and admired the master states of the world),\n    that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity and wisdom of\n    conclusion, under such a complication of circumstances, no nation\n    or body of men can stand in preference to the general congress of\n    Philadelphia.\"\n\nWhence obtained these men the wisdom that thus challenged the\nadmiration of the first statesman of Great Britain, and of his age, a\nman of gigantic intellectual powers, of incorruptible integrity, and\nwho devoted the great powers of his mind to the service of his country?\nCould the wilderness impart much knowledge of principles of government\nand statesmanship as was manifested in the councils of those American\nplanters, manufacturers and trades people? What books were extant from\nwhich they could learn it? Was it the genius of the land they inhabited\nthat taught them statecraft? Was it the spirit of freedom that\nbrooded over the country, over lake and stream and forest that sought\nself-expression through them? Did the wild waves of the Atlantic, as\nthey broke upon the shingle of New England's rugged coast, hymn civic\nwisdom into their souls? Let poets and romancers attribute it to what\nsource they will, to me it was the inspiration of God which touched\ntheir spirits and gave them understanding.\n\nAnd not only was that inspiration wisdom to the American councils,\nbut it inspired courage in the presence of defeat and patience that\ntaught their armies to wait for their victory. It gave hope and calm\nto the turbulent spirit of Washington, and faith and confidence to\nhis companions in arms. It kept alive the fires and patriotism in the\nbreast of the common soldier and quieted the fears of the loved ones\nleft to watch over the homes during the absence of husbands and fathers\nand sons. It affected all the departments of the great struggle until\n\"Yorktown's sun rose on a nation's banner spread, a nation's freedom\nwon.\" And the nation of the United States began that career whose\nachievements are the admiration and marvel of the world.\n\nIII.\n\nTHE UNIQUE THINGS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.\n\nLet us now consider the second proposition; namely, that the\ninspiration of those who founded our constitution may be sustained by\na consideration of the principles on which our government is founded.\nThat there were republics and federated republics, too, before our\nown, goes without saying; that the justice of the principle of\ngovernment by the people had been recognized by masters of the science\nof civil government is equally true; but never before in the history\nof the world has there been developed such a highly complex system of\ngovernment, none in which there has been such a balancing and fair\nadjustment of powers, will be conceded by every student of history and\nof civil government. In the first place, the division of the sovereign\npower of government into three co-ordinate and independent departments,\nboth in the states and in the nation--the executive, the legislative\nand the judicial departments--is more insisted upon than in any\nother government that has ever been established. Then, again, in the\ndivision of the sovereign power as between the states and the general\ngovernment it is unique. On the one side the general government is\nmore limited and on the other more extended than in any other republic\never founded. Limited in that the general government is confined to\npowers expressly conferred upon it by the constitution, while all other\npowers of government are reserved to the states or to the people,\nrespectively. The side on which its powers are more extended than in\nany previous confederation is in this, that power is conferred upon the\ngeneral government to execute its own laws, with its own machinery,\nand upon all citizens within any one and in all the states. The French\nphilosopher, De Tocqueville, declares that the principle of our\nrepublic rested upon \"a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as\na great discovery in modern political science, and for which there is\nas yet no specific name.\" Enlarging upon the subject, he said:\n\n    \"This constitution, which may at first be confounded with the\n    federal constitutions which have preceded it, rests, in truth,\n    upon a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a great\n    discovery in modern political science. In all the confederations\n    which preceded the American constitution in 1789, the allied states\n    for a common object agreed to obey the injunctions of a federal\n    government; but they reserved to themselves the right of ordaining\n    and embracing the execution of the laws of the Union. The American\n    states which combined in 1789 agreed that the federal government\n    should not only dictate, but should execute its own enactments. In\n    both cases the right is the same, but the exercise of the right\n    is different, and this difference produced the most momentous\n    consequences. The new word, which ought to express this novel\n    thing, does not yet exist. The human understanding more easily\n    invents new things than new words, and we are hence constrained to\n    employ many improper and inadequate expressions.\"\n\nOur own national experience proves that it is the adoption of this\nprinciple in our system of government which supplies the element of\nstrength that is usually supposed to be lacking in republican forms\nof government, and makes it possible for a republic to persist, to be\nstrong, and at the same time conserve the freedom of the people.\n\nThe principle, however, which most concerns us here today in our\ndeliberations is the great and fundamental principle of our system\nof government--\"the law of laws,\" as De Tocqueville calls it, the\ndoctrine of the sovereignty of the people--\"government of the people,\nby the people and for the people.\" This principle is, of course, the\nfoundation not only of our republic but of all republics. It has,\nhowever, in our American system received increased emphasis; it has\ntaken on new life; it has become a reality. There are not wanting\nwriters on civil government who say this principle is active in all\ngovernments, and, indeed, to some extent, that is true; but for\nthe most part, in modern times, until the establishment of our own\ngovernment, this principle found expression only \"in the purchased\nsuffrages of a few of the satellites of power.\" At other times \"in the\nvotes of the timid or interested minority.\" Or else it was \"discovered\nin the silence of the people and based on the supposition that the fact\nof submission establishes the right to govern.\" But in our system this\nprinciple is not barren or concealed; it is recognized by the customs\nof the people, as well as proclaimed by the laws. \"It spreads freely\nand arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences,\" as\nDe Tocqueville urges, and it has direct application to the affairs\nof government. It is a principle that takes government out of the\nhands of a favored few, and recognizes civil power as resident in the\npeople. It upsets the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule,\nand of priests to interfere, only as they may exercise their rights\nof citizenship in common with their fellow-citizens. That utterance\nof our Declaration of Independence, which says \"governments derive\ntheir just powers from the consent of the governed,\" may seem at first\nglance to be an unimportant statement, but tremendous consequences\ndraw it, and it was truly revolutionary in its character, as matters\nstood in the political affairs of the British Empire at the time it was\nproclaimed. And when we say that we believe that the constitution of\nour country was established by a divine inspiration, working through\nthe men who formulated it, we should remember that we stand committed\nto this doctrine of government by the people; and to such of us who\nhold to a divine inspiration in our constitution, that principle of our\ngovernment is God-ordained.\n\nReferring to this idea that the constitution of our country is an\ninspired instrument, I am tempted to believe sometimes that we fail to\nappreciate the seriousness of that doctrine. We are apt to speak of\nit too glibly, and as applying to a mass of things that we have never\ntaken the time to analyze and consider in detail. But if we really\nmean what we say when holding to this view of the constitution being\nan inspired instrument, then let us remember that we believe that the\nconstitution, not only as a whole, but in its parts, is inspired of\nGod. That is, it was a divine wisdom that recognized the power of civil\ngovernment as resident in the people. In other words, God ordains, for\nour country at least, that government shall be by the people; that the\nsovereign power of government which they ordain and establish shall be\ndivided into its three co-ordinate and independent branches, executive,\nlegislative and judicial; that there shall be a further division of\nthe sovereign powers of government between the states and the general\ngovernment; that the general government is authorized to exercise only\nsuch powers as are expressly conferred upon it by the constitution;\nthat the rest of the sovereign powers of government are reserved to the\nstates and to the people respectively. The theory that the constitution\nof our country is inspired commits us to the doctrine that there shall\nbe freedom of the press, freedom of speech, separation of church and\nstate, and the freedom, equality and independence of the individual\ncitizen--all these things together and severally are ordained of God;\n_and he who infringes upon any one of these things ordained by our\ninspired constitution is untrue to that order of things that God has\nordained for our government through an inspired constitution_.\n\nThere is even more than all this to those of us who believe the\nconstitution to be an inspired instrument; for the most of us who\nbelieve that believe also that the Book of Mormon is a true history of\nancient America; and in that book is recorded an historical incident\nwhich has a direct bearing upon the subject we are here considering.\nIt refers to a new element in government by the people; one that we\nwill do well to properly regard. And that is, the direct personal\nresponsibility that the individual carries under a system of government\nwhere the people rule. The incident occurs in the alleged reign of\nMosiah I at a period that corresponds with the latter half of the\nsecond century before Christ. The old king proposed to his people\na revolution in the form of government by which monarchy should be\nabandoned and the republican form of government be established in its\nplace. In urging this revolutionary measure the good king said:\n\n    \"It is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything\n    contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser\n    part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore\n    this shall ye observe and make it your law to do your business\n    by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice\n    of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the\n    judgments of God will come upon you, yea, then is the time he will\n    visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited\n    this land. * * * * And I command you to do these things in the fear\n    of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have\n    no king; that if this people commit sins and iniquities, they shall\n    be answered upon their own heads. For behold, I say unto you, the\n    sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their\n    kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of\n    their kings. And now I desire that this inequality should be no\n    more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire\n    that this be a land of liberty, that every man may enjoy his rights\n    and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live\n    and inherit the land; yea, even as long as any of our posterity\n    remains upon the face of the land.\"\n\nThe old king in his passage points to the existence of an important\nelement in government by the people, the moral element; the direct,\npersonal responsibility of the individual for such evils as obtain\nunder government where the people rule. But in order that this element\nof moral responsibility may be brought into government, it stands\nto reason that every individual must be free and untrammeled in the\nexercise of his political duties, in the casting of his vote. Each\nindividual musts have an equal voice in the government. Every man must\nbe a sovereign in the civil institution, and his vote must represent\nthe voice and judgment of a free man. A vote unawed by influence, and\nuncoerced by any power whatsoever. Less than this would bring the\nwhole scheme of government by the voice of the people into contempt\nand failure. Under the system of government by the people, in order to\nretain the moral responsibility of the people in civil affairs, there\nmust be no appeal but to the intelligent judgment of the individual.\nEach man's act must be the act of a free man; and those who would\ncorrupt the electorate of a government where the people rule, or sway\nit by any other force than by an appeal to reason, would destroy\nthis element of personal, moral responsibility in civil government,\nand in the case of those of us who accept this book from which I am\nquoting--_if we would appeal to any other force than to that of reason,\nwe would be setting ourselves against an order of things that God has\nordained_.\n\nThis old king of whom I am speaking manifested wisdom in another\nrespect. His suggestion of this change from a monarchy to a republic\ncarried with it the provision that the change should not go into effect\nuntil the time of his death. He would remain king so long as he lived;\nthen the rule by the voice of the people should begin. Was the old\nmonarch conscious that it would be difficult to inaugurate this rule\nof the people while he yet lived? That there would be those who would\nseek to know his desires, then proclaim them, influence the minds of\nthe electorate, and thus still have Mosiah's rule instead of government\nby the people? I do not know how far these thoughts may have been the\nthoughts of the king; but surely he removed grave difficulties from the\ninstitution of his newly conceived form of government for his people\nby putting off its inauguration until after his death. For sure it is\nthat the desires of one so esteemed, so wise and unselfish, would have\nhad such influence that his wishes, howsoever expressed, would have\nbeen followed by the people, and in a measure the end of his proposed\nrevolution would have been thwarted.\n\nThese reflections bring to my recollection the words of an American\nwriter (Orville Dewey) whose works I learned to esteem in the early\ndays of my reading. Especially did I admire the following passage on\nwhat the character of a free people should be, from his essay on \"Human\nLife:\"\n\n    \"Liberty gentlemen, is a solemn thing--a welcome, a joyous, a\n    glorious thing, if you please; but it is a solemn thing. A free\n    people must be a thoughtful people. The subjects of a despot may\n    be reckless and gay if they can. A free people must be serious;\n    for it has to do the greatest things that ever was done in the\n    world--to govern itself. That hour in human life is most serious\n    when it passes from parental control into free manhood; then must\n    the man bind the righteous law upon himself, more strongly than\n    father or mother ever bound it upon him. And when a people leaves\n    the leading-strings of prescriptive authority, and enters upon the\n    ground of freedom, that ground must be fenced with law; it must be\n    tilled with wisdom; it must be hallowed with prayer. The tribunal\n    of justice, the free school, the holy church must be built there,\n    to entrench, to defend and to keep the sacred heritage. * * * In\n    the universe there is no trust so awful as moral freedom; and all\n    good civil freedom depends upon the use of that. But look at it.\n    Around every human, every rational being, is drawn a circle; the\n    space within is cleared from obstruction, or, at least, from all\n    coercion; it is sacred to the being himself who stands there; it\n    is secured and consecrated to his own responsibility. May I say\n    it?--God himself does not penetrate there with any absolute, any\n    coercive power! He compels the winds and waves to obey him; he\n    compels animal instincts to obey him; but he does not compel men\n    to obey. That sphere he leaves free; he brings influences to bear\n    upon it; but the last, final, solemn, infinite question between\n    right and wrong, he leaves to man himself. Ah! instead of madly\n    delighting in his freedom, I could imagine a man to protest,\n    to complain, to tremble that such a tremendous prerogative is\n    accorded to him. But it is accorded to him, and nothing but willing\n    obedience can discharge that solemn trust; nothing but a heroism\n    greater than that which fights battles, and pours out its blood\n    on its country's altar--the heroism of self-renunciation and\n    self-control. Come that liberty! I invoke it with all the ardor\n    of the poets and orators of freedom; with Spenser and Milton,\n    with Hampden and Sydney, with Rienzi and Dante, with Hamilton and\n    Washington, I invoke it. Come that liberty! Come none that does\n    not lead to that! Come the liberty that shall strike off every\n    chain, not only of iron, and iron-law, but of painful constriction,\n    of fear, of enslaving passion, of mad self-will; the liberty of\n    perfect truth and love, of holy faith and glad obedience!\"\n\nI trust this consideration of some of the details that enter into\nthe idea that our constitution is a divinely inspired instrument,\nwill bring home to us more emphatically the seriousness of that\ndeclaration, as also that it will bring to us the realization of our\nresponsibilities that we sustain as free men, as sovereigns in a free\ngovernment. I trust, however, that you will not think I am calling\nattention to these matters because I believe there will be any failure\non the part of the people of our great republic to perpetuate these\ninstitutions so vital to our system of government. I cannot believe\nthat our nation was brought into existence under the circumstances that\nattended upon its birth to end at last in failure. On the contrary,\nI am persuaded that the time has fully come for the establishment in\nthis world, in some permanent way, government by the people. That\nthe reign of tyrants is ended and that the rule of the people has\nbegun, and will remain. The people of our country, especially the\npeople of our state, I trust, and believe, will stand for the great\nprinciples that will perpetuate free institutions; that there shall\nbe in our country \"equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever\nstate or persuasion, religious or political;\" that our nation shall\ncontinue as an indissoluble union of indestructible states; that\n\"the state governments shall be supported in all their rights as the\nmost competent administration for our domestic concerns, and the\nsurest bulwark against anti-republican tendencies;\" that the general\ngovernment \"shall be preserved in its whole constitutional vigor as the\nsheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;\" that a \"jealous\ncare shall be exercised of the right of election by the people\"--unawed\nby influence, uncoerced by any power other than an appeal to reason;\nthat \"absolute acquiescence shall be maintained in the decision of the\nmajority, the vital principle of republics;\" also \"the supremacy of the\ncivil over military authority;\" the \"diffusion of information and the\narraignment of all abuses at the board of public reason; freedom of the\npress and freedom of person\" [1]--all these shall be maintained, and\nwith these principles maintained we may be assured that free government\nwill not perish from among men.\n\n[Footnote 1: The reader will, of course, recognize these quoted members\nof the concluding sentence as excerpts from Jefferson's First Inaugural\nAddress.]","title":"Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 2 of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":160169}