  ELDER B.H. ROBERTS FOREWORD.The following Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of the Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World, was delivered in a speech at two meetings of the Mutual Improvement Association conference, Sunday afternoon and evening, June 9, 1907, in the "Mormon Tabernacle," Salt Lake City, Utah, before an audience of between four and five thousand people. The speaker expected to close his remarks with the afternoon meeting, and therefore omitted certain matters that were intended to be discussed at the time the subject to which they were related was presented in the afternoon, but which, for lack of time, as he then supposed, went over to the evening session. He was urged by those in charge of the Conference to continue his remarks in the evening session, which he did. In this printed copy of the speech, some of the remarks in the evening are brought over into their proper place, and connected with the subjects to which they most properly belong, and that were treated in the afternoon. Also the speaker has added some items that were outlined in his notes prepared for the occasion, but not used either in the afternoon or evening. In order that such new matter might be designated it is placed in brackets. III.Today, my brethren and sisters, we convert this pulpit into a forum, from which we propose a defense both of our faith and the Church. Nor do we violate any of the proprieties in this change, because when truth is to be defended and injustice resented, then "all place a temple, and all seasons summer." The occasion to which we address ourselves this afternoon arises out of these circumstances: At the late general conference of the Church, the First Presidency issued to the world an address. Submitting it to the general conference, it was approved and endorsed by the Saints assembled, so that it became an address of the Church of Christ to the world. Of course, as we might have anticipated, this address met with adverse criticism, and finally there was formulated against it an alleged review by the Ministerial Association of evangelical ministers in the state of Utah. Represented in that association are the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Christian (Campbellite) and regular Episcopal churches—so that practically the whole of Protestant Christendom is represented by these ministers who challenge the correctness and the candor of the address issued by the Church to the world. In our consideration of their review we will suppose the representatives of these churches present, sitting right here [indicating a place close by the stand] in a body. And I wish they were so present, because there is nothing like talking it out face to face with these gentlemen; and I doubt not but their presence in a body would be quite an inspiration to one in discussing the document they have submitted to us. Having, then, before us the circumstances out of which this occasion arises, let us proceed to our task. The first charge or criticism of the address of the Church made by these gentlemen is to the effect that the doctrines of the Church are not as fully proclaimed elsewhere as in Utah; all through the review, in fact, runs the innuendo that the Church deceitfully teaches one doctrine at home and another abroad, and that the address obscures much that is necessary to an intelligent judgment of "Mormonism." Hence these gentlemen propose to help the world to a fuller presentation of "Mormon" doctrine and practice, as set forth in their review of our address. Right here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The document they have issued quotes very copiously from our published Church works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they rely for this larger, fuller proclamation of "Mormonism?" I find quoted the Millennial Star, the Journal of Discourses, the Seer (by Orson Pratt), the Improvement Era, the Manuals of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Associations, Orson Spencer's Letters, Epistles of the First Presidency of the Church, Talmage's Articles of Faith, and last, and of course least, some of my own works. Now where is the Millennial Star published? In Liverpool, England. Where were the Journals of Discourses published? In Liverpool, England. Where was the Seer published? In Washington, D.C. Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, since these are the works on which you chiefly rely for your larger view of "Mormon" doctrine, that we have published them elsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The Improvement Era, of course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two thousand copies of it are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts and to scatter everywhere in the world. So with Orson Spencer's Letters: so with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which more presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them very freely, and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad, and from them they learn the doctrines of "Mormonism." So that your practical charge that we preach one set of doctrines and principles in Utah, and quite another in the world, and that we are trying to play the double game of having one doctrine for home consumption and another for proclamation abroad, is as shallow as it is untrue. One other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from the Seer which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work—the Seer—together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say:
And yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must believe, since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are ministers of the truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand. "Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions. In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament. And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ. We move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You say of us, that "Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or to justice and mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only authorized church of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical test of salvation." Gentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the "Mormon" Church, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an "unbiblical test of salvation." I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim made for Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine message, with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, just for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that claim to be true, is the test we apply, at all, much less "wholly," unbiblical? May one reject God's message and stand uncondemned before God? Assuredly not. What was the example Jesus set? This: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." He was but proclaiming the message that God had given to him, and he laid down this principle as connected with the authority and commission he had bestowed upon the apostles when sending them into the world: "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." What do we do, when we proclaim the divine message with which the Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned to the world but just apply this same principle? Nothing more than this, and of course we could do nothing less. As I remarked a moment ago, you may refuse, as you do, to believe this message and testimony, but you cannot say in truth that there is anything unbiblical in the principles on which we proceed to make this declaration to the world: and, by the way, don't you claim the same thing for your message? If you don't, what does your message amount to? Are you not ministers of Jesus Christ? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can men reject you and your doctrine and your message and still be secure in the favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand you as false teachers, untrue servants—not representatives of the Master. You are weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not gather again, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity. You are talking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism of this kind. Now we are told that because of the claims of "Mormonism" it provokes searching investigation, for the reason that "it involves eternal reprobation of those who finally reject it." Gentlemen, have you not juggled here a little with words? And is it not just possible that a wrong impression may go out from your view of our Address, rather than from the Address itself? Is there such a thing in "Mormonism" as eternal reprobation as generally understood in the theological terminology of the world? With the single exception of those who come to know the truth and then so far sin against it that they have no power of repentance nor desire for forgiveness—the sons of perdition, which all our works teach will be comparatively few in number—does not "Mormonism," aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation to all the children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently; but the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is "provoked" because the claim of the "Mormon" Church to being the only authorized Church of Christ, "involves the validity of all the Church ordinances and of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages as administered by the Christian Church from the second to the nineteenth century." Here we are approaching solid ground of controversy. "Mormonism" does deny that divine authority exists in the churches of the world, the churches of men, miscalled Christian churches. We do not blanch from the position. We proclaim it; although we do not wish to do so in any offensive way, but we have to be witnesses for the truth. And God has revealed that to be the truth. "Mormonism" is in the world because their was a real necessity for its coming into the world. It did not come into existence through theological disputations, because of differences of views about baptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these things; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy from God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization, and the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the institutions and systems of men, consequently there was need of divine authority being again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the gospel of Christ given to the world. It is our pride that "Mormonism" is this restored gospel and Church of Christ. I notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this Ministerial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a branch of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this attitude of the "Mormon" Church, for the reason that in one of the Homilies of his church; in the Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, it is expressly stated that "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most detested by God, and damnable to man, for 800 years and more." (Perils of Idolatry, p. 3). Certainly "Mormonism" does not proclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor do we declare its universality more emphatically, but I presume we are offensive to the representatives of this particular church, the Episcopal, because we include him and his organization as among those who are in the apostasy and who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on him or his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the Christian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England under the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory, and we do have this advantage, viz.: That if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine authority, the resumption of present-day and continuous revelation from God. So we are in an infinitely better position, as to the reasonableness of our attitude, than are those who proclaim this apostasy and yet are without a renewal of a dispensation of the gospel to the world. There is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review, a misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the reviewers set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority in their churches, and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for centuries in the earth, but they say that our attitude involves the validity of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages. They are not, I take it, responsible for the headlines of their review as they appeared in the public press, but in order to make the attitude of the "Mormon" Church as offensive as it could be made, the headline said, "Gentile Marriage Ordinances Illegal Before God." Now in justice to us I think this matter should have been put fairly, and the exact status of the matter given. It should have appeared that we regard marriage as a civil as well as a religious contract, and our attitude with reference to divine things nowhere involves us in a contradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil contract, nor as a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine favor and blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any way, in thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that marriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or by the authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage covenant beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have been a little more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our position upon this question. Allow me to do it for them. Turning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be found:
Again,
So far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it relates only to denying their validity after the resurrection—not this side of it; and, gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because you yourselves, in performing the marriage ceremony, say, "I pronounce you man and wife until death does you part." I think you ought not to take offense at what we say on this subject—we say your marriage ceremonies are of no binding effect in and after the resurrection, you make no pretensions of marrying for eternity. The fact is, you scorn and ridicule it. Before leaving this group of propositions with which I am dealing, I desire to say respecting this question of universal apostasy from the Christian faith—we can sustain the truth of that declaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of the religious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no anxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into an argument on the justification of our attitude. But, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference between your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and the existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out of those respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that those who do not accept this gospel cannot receive the benefits of its salvation? Now then, after two thousand years of proselyting in the world, under the most favorable circumstances, what is the sum total of your achievements? Why, less than one-third of the inhabitants of the earth are even nominally Christians! and what is your attitude toward God's children whom you have not converted. Why, that they are lost. That is the inevitable result of your attitude and doctrine. Or else you must say that men can be saved without the gospel of Christ. Now the difference between your position and ours is simply this: The proposition that you present to the world at large, we present to you as well as to the rest of mankind—and you don't like your own medicine—with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one that goes far towards establishing the divine origin of this great latter-day work; the exception is this: that whereas, your attitude and principles condemn the great bulk of the human family to everlasting perdition—and I am going to talk to you about perdition in a little while, and point out what you mean by it—while you consign to eternal perdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's children, we proclaim an "everlasting gospel," one that shall not only walk beside men through this life but through all the ages that are to come. You say in your review that we "contribute nothing to reverence for God, or to justice or mercy toward men." Well, here is one little item that "Mormonism" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold that in any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten thousand years hence, or ten million years hence—we hold that when an intelligence, a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate the law of God, but that it profiteth everything to yield obedience to that law, and repentance takes hold of him, and he stretches out his hands toward God—through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the hand of God will find the man's hand and bring him unto salvation. That is the difference between us, and I leave you to judge which smacks most of the inspiration and truth of heaven. We take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by you, gentlemen, that the "Mormon" Church denies that the Christian churches have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding Christian martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches have fostered, the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted. I wish to explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with reference to this interregnum between the apostasy and the restoration of that gospel in the nineteenth century, through our prophet. Our position is this: While there was this universal apostasy, while the Church of Christ as an organization was destroyed, and replaced by the churches of men, yet just as when the sun goes down, there still remains light in the sky—so, too, notwithstanding this apostasy from the Church, there still were left fragments of truth among the children of men, and some measure of truth thank God, through his mercy, has always remained with man, not only with Christians but with all God's children. He has not left himself in any of the ages of the world without his witnesses, and he has sanctified all generations of men with some measure of the truth; therefore, when we proclaim this apostasy from the Christian religion and the destruction of the Church of Christ, it does not follow that we hold that all truth, that all virtue, had departed from the world, or that God had absolutely withdrawn from his creation. Not so. The light of truth burned in the bosom of good men; but it does not follow that because these fragments of truth remained there was necessarily the organized Church of Christ and divine authority in the world. These fragments of the truth could remain in the so-called Christian parts of the world, as we now know them to exist in what is called the heathen world. Relative to the reforms you claim that your churches have fostered and the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted, you are aware, gentlemen, that there is a certain class of thinkers among you—I mean in the Christian world, not among "Mormons"—you are aware that there is a school of thinkers among men who will tell you to your teeth, and they will come very nearly proving the truth of it, that such progress in civilization, in science, in arts, as the world has made in past ages, has not been made because of your churches, but in spite of them. They hold that your organizations have been found quite as often against the progress of truth as standing in support of it. Taking the whole time range into account, from the close of the second to the opening of the nineteenth century, it would puzzle you to meet their evidence and argument. It is claimed that the brevity of our Address not only leaves much to be desired, but that it is "positively misleading." First, our reviewers claim that the address is misleading on the subject of revelation. Still these reviewers are able to quote from the Address as follows: "The theology of our Church is the theology taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology of Scripture and reason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation." That seems quite explicit to me. But, commenting upon the passage, the reviewers say:
Now, be honest, gentlemen, is it not repeated everywhere with just as much emphasis as in "Mormon" communities in Utah? Isn't it a universal proclamation that we make to the world? You know it is, and you prove that it is from the very works you quote to establish the fact that we believe in that doctrine, and which are of world-wide circulation. It was a vile effort at misrepresentation on your part to make it appear otherwise. But on the subject of revelation, let us go to the Address itself. What is said upon the subject of revelation is found on pages three and four, and fourteen and fifteen: "Our religion is founded on the revelations of God," * * * "It," [the Church of Christ] "not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation." At page 14 of the Address this is said:
Now, gentlemen, will you tell me how we could be more frank or explicit on the subject of revelation? And when you charge that in this document we have not dealt candidly with the subject of revelation, why did you not quote this passage I have just read, with the other passages that you have quoted? Were you not trying to do a little misleading on your own account? Did you deal quite fairly with the Address when you failed to quote this very explicit passage just read? Complaint is made about our belief in "Living Oracles" in the Church, i.e., certain members of the priesthood who are divinely inspired, and who may interpret the revelations and the laws of the Church. Well, gentlemen, why do you complain of that? Books do not make churches. How came we by the ancient scriptures? The Old and the New Testament, I mean. We are instructed in the Scriptures that no scripture is of private interpretation, but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost," hence your Old Testament and your New Testament. They came into existence exactly in the same way that our scripture is coming into existence. The living oracles make scripture; scriptures do not make living oracles. And that is what is the matter with you, gentlemen; you have been relying upon books instead of relying upon the fountain source of all wisdom, truth and knowledge, the inspiration and revelation of God to the human soul. You are book-made teachers, rather than God-made teachers. That is the difference between the living oracles in the Church of Christ and those who speak as the Scribes and Pharisees were wont to speak. The people in ancient times were able to discern the difference; for they said of Jesus that he spoke as one having authority, and not as the Scribes and the Pharisees. We are in harmony with the whole course of God's dealings with his children in this matter of developing his word in his Church. Yes, we have living oracles in the Church, thank God; and when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost their utterances are the very word of God; and when the teachings and discourses of the elders of the Church shall have been sifted and tried in the fire of time, much that they have said will prove to be scripture, and thus the Church of Christ of this dispensation shall make scriptures, just as the Church of Christ of former dispensations has done. Now I read to you another passage from this review. Complaint is made against our address upon the ground that it treats very briefly—all too briefly, the doctrines of the Church. I do not know but what it is open to just criticism on that ground; for our doctrines are but stated, as you may say, in headlines. I presume the Presidency of the Church did not think the occasion called for an elaborate exposition of the principles of our faith, with chapter and verse given for warrant of the authority on which they rested. But the Church had been under the fire of severe criticism for a period of four years or more. Its doctrines had been assailed, the practices of its people had been misrepresented, their character traduced, and their "whole course of conduct reprobated and condemned." Taking these circumstances under advisement, the Presidency of the Church thought, I presume, the time propitious for an utterance which would in outline tell the world what we believed, and correct the misunderstanding that obtained respecting our past history and present position. The address was not designed, as I understand it, to be a complete exposition of our faith, but a declaration of our present attitude. On the doctrine of the Godhead these Christian gentlemen, our reviewers, think that the statement of the Address to the effect that we believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual personages—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—is a declaration that will not perhaps suggest Tritheism or materialism to Christians unfamiliar with "Mormon" "theological terms." "But," they continue, "when the full doctrine of the Deity, as taught in 'Mormon' congregations, is known, it will at once be seen that no Christian can accept it. In fact," they say, "the 'Mormon' Church teaches that God the Father has a material body of flesh and bone; that Adam is the God of the human race; that this Adam-God was physically begotten by another God; that the Gods were once as we are now; that there is a great multiplicity of Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically begotten by the heavenly Father of Mary, his wife; that as we have a heavenly Father, so also we have a heavenly mother; that Jesus himself was married, and was probably a polygamist." Let me say, in treating this group of statements, that these gentlemen nowhere support these allegations by citations from our authoritative works that the Church accepts as binding in doctrine; but they do quote the commentaries of men, which often express only individual opinions. I might dismiss this group of charges against the "Mormon" Church, therefore, by this statement of the case: the Church is not bound to defend any doctrine that is not explicitly found in the works of the Church setting forth authoritatively her doctrines. But I do not propose to dismiss the charges in any such fashion. I propose to grapple with them, and meet them, I trust to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of these gentlemen. First, as to God having a body of flesh and bone—being a material personage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural, unphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose of this discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that God is a spirit inhabiting a body of flesh and bone—an exalted, a perfected man, if you will—the statement of the belief of these reviewers as to the nature of God. And, by the way, they are so nearly at one upon this doctrine, that the Church of England's creed, the statement of the Episcopal church on the doctrine, will be acceptable, I doubt not, to them all. On this subject these gentlemen hold: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body"—and that term "body," by the way, does not mean to deny that God has a body in fashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not material. Continuing then—"without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Of Jesus the creed says:
Again:
Mark what is said here of Jesus. You say that "the Godhead and manhood" in Jesus "were joined together in one person," that is, his spirit and his body are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you this question: Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then is not God an exalted man according to your creed? Listen—and this is your belief as expressed in your creed—"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day." According to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved into some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout the universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial, resurrected personage, a united spirit and body; and "The Godhead, and Manhood" that are united in the Christ—the humanity and the divinity—are "never to be divided." He is recognized and worshiped by you, gentlemen, as "very God and very man." This, of course, scarcely meets the description of the first paragraph of the creed used here, where God is declared to be not matter, that is "without body, parts or passions." But then that contradiction is your affair, your trouble, not ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the fact that the second part of your creed leads you closely to the "Mormon" doctrine that God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to your creed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his return to judge all men at the last day. And now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture which says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of a person the Christ is, who "possessed all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and who, when he declared that all power in heaven and in earth had been given unto him, and he was in the act of sending his disciples into all the world to teach and baptize in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was a resurrected, immortal man, of spirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the scripture teaches that the Son was the express image of the Father's person, we conclude that the Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, just as the Son, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that "such as the Father is, such is the Son;" and of course, it follows that, such as the Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, united in one person, "very God and very man," just as Jesus is. And there are two separate personages, each distinct from the other in person, two individuals, but both of the same divine nature; and if two separate personages, individuals, may participate in the one divine nature, it logically follows that a larger number than two or three may participate in that nature. And hence the Scriptures represent in many places the existence of a plurality of divine personages, how many we do not know, and it does not matter. But we hear of God saying, "Let us make man in our image; the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil;" "God standeth in the congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High." The last a passage of the Psalms, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification of his own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel, Michael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what more fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the great, presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants; and the one with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What sacrilege is there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should be so? Of your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will say nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if you expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines. One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that we believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen, honestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for him to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his body grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth of the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman; that through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and guided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in your philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother, but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father? Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people, there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother as well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn of ours on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's soul, and which was given to this world through the inspired mind of Eliza R. Snow; the hymn is known to us as "O My Father." In the Scripture we read: "We have had fathers of the flesh, and we did give them reverence, shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits and live?" So that we know we have had a father to our spirits; but because we hold that the spirits of men have also a mother in heaven, as well as a father, behold these reviewers complain against us. Now, observe the peculiar position of these critics: It is all right for Jesus to have a mother; but it is all wrong for him to have a father. On the other hand, it is all right for men's spirits to have a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our doctrine of their also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in the world is the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your views, or the kind of beings with which you people heaven. One of your own number, however, has thrown some light upon that subject, and has so classified you—saving me the trouble—as to enable us to understand to some extent your peculiar views. I have a book here that I am going to use in this controversy. It is a new one. I got it three days ago, and have read it nearly through in order to be prepared for this occasion. It is the work of Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, and it is a treatise on the New Theology, just now much talked of in Europe. He describes ministers of the gospel and gives them the classification referred to a moment since, and which I think must needs be all right, since it comes from a minister. He takes the average business man of England, naming him "John Smith," for convenience, and he says this about John:
Now, ladies, I ask you to remember, in passing, that I am reading the words of somebody else; their are not my words. The phrase "half-fictitious reverence" is not mine. I think we ought to have real reverence for women; no fictitious reverence at all. The ministers are here in this passage described as "a sort of third sex," and I am inclined to think that is right; for when a man in one case objects to a person having a father, and in another case considers it altogether unholy for persons to have a mother, I do not know how else to classify him but as "a sort of third sex"-kind of a man. There seems to be objection in the review to the idea of the marriage relation existing in heaven and subsisting between divine beings. Loud complaint is made, if you hold that the intelligences of heaven obey the law of marriage. Let me ask you, Christian gentlemen, Who instituted marriage? You will answer, God. Is it holy or unholy? Did God institute an unholy thing and command men to engage in it? You will have to say that marriage is holy, since God instituted it. Very good. Then if it is holy, how do you make it out that it will be unholy for divine personages to practice it? Is it not just as good for divine personages as for you imperfect men? Can it be that your ideas of the relationship of the sexes are so impure that you must needs regard that association as so unholy as to be unworthy of divine beings? Let me read to you what a great English author—Jeremy Taylor—says on this subject of, marriage:
Now, you prate to us about our belief, or the belief of some of us at least, that divine personages are in this holy relationship. But tell me what it is that has been the great civilizing force of this and all other ages? What is it that best tempers man, and fits him for the society of his fellows and for holy communion with God? There is no force within the experience of man, that is so beneficial or ennobling to him as the love and devotion of a pure, good woman; and for woman there is nothing that is so sanctifying as the love of an upright, honorable man, whose arm protects her and whose love shields her from the evils of the world. These relations, blessed with the pledges of their affection in off-spring, complete the circle of man's happiness, and greatness, and exaltation of spirit in this world. It is the civilizing force that stands pre-eminent above all others. And that which sanctifies man here in this world may be trusted not to degrade him in the eternities that are to come, but, on the contrary, will contribute to his exaltation and his eternal glory. That is our faith, at least, and we would not change it for all the sexless, hermaphrodite existences that your warped minds paint in such glowing colors. We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that we believe that "as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become." The world usually shouts "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" at one when he talks of such a possibility. But the world moves, I am happy to say. Just now, in England, especially, there is a thought-revolution under way. Some have declared that in importance and extent it is as great as was the revolution of the sixteenth century, led by Martin Luther. The present recognized leader of this movement is the Rev. R. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, London, whose book I referred to a moment ago. This "New Theology," so-called, has the outspoken support of the Christian Commonwealth, of London, a publication of wide influence. A "Society for the Encouragement of Progressive Religious Thought" has been organized to champion the ideas of the "New Theology." Mr. Campbell numbers among his champions Dr. John Clifford, the leading figure in the English Baptist church, also Dr. R. F. Horton, chairman of the London Congregational Union. In America, his sympathizers and opponents seem to be equally numerous. Mr. W. T. Stead, of the Review of Reviews, compares the present theological ardor in London with that which marked Alexandria in the days of Athanasius, "when fishmongers at their stalls discussed the doctrine of the trinity." The strife of tongues has reached even to Germany, where Prof. Harnack, the eminent theologian, interprets it as a proof that the "formal theology of the creeds [your creeds, gentlemen,] is being gradually displaced by the vital theology of experience." I want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is making its way among all churches. It is' not an organized movement. No one appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as being one of those pulsations of the "cosmic mind" which moves over the people at intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be astonished at the fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great number of people who are accepting it as the "theology of experience." Its fundamental principle is the recognition of the identity between human nature and the divine nature. In proof of it, I submit the following passages:
There is much more to the same effect, which I now pass. I am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr. Campbell—from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers sway the religious thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the thoughts of many more people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir Oliver Lodge, who says in the Hibbert Journal, one of the foremost publications in the world on the subject of theology and philosophy, with reference to the divinity of Jesus, and the identity of the divine and human nature:
That is the doctrine, gentlemen, that is sweeping the earth, "the divinity of Jesus," and the divinity of "all other noble and saintly souls"—the kinship of men and God. That is "Mormonism," and it was proclaimed by the great prophet of the nineteenth century, half a century before these modern minds were awakened to its grandeur and to its uplifting power. I rejoice to see it running in the earth to be glorified, for in it I recognize the very root principle of all religion and out of it grow all the relations that link us with all that is pure, uplifting and divine. Now, do not misunderstand me. There is much nonsense in this "New Theology;" but this root principle of it is true, and it is in accord with the principles that Joseph Smith proclaimed years ago. The doctrine of the immanence of God in the world, by which we mean the universe and the divinity of man, instead of its having its origin some fifteen or twenty years ago, and now finding expression in the beautiful diction of Mr. Campbell and Sir Oliver Lodge and others, it was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at least over seventy years ago. Concerning the immanence of God, he taught the following in 1832: He first represents that the spirit of Christ is "in all and through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth." Then he adds:
The prophet further declared, in 1833, that "the elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples." Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment of the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental principles of it are concerned—the immanence of God in the world, and the identity of the race of man and divine beings—there can be no question as to their accuracy. And those Christian people who are not accepting these ideas are not moving forward with the far-flung thought-line of God's revelations on these matters. We next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the reviewers that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine is not candidly set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long line of quotations, most of them from the Seer, upon the subject of priesthood; and insist that the priesthood involves the possession and exercise of arbitrary power in all things, in things both spiritual and temporal. I read to you a passage or two from the Address on the subject of priesthood that you may see the injustice of this charge:
The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remark—but without returning to quote again from the Address—"so it is declared; but the teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein candidly set forth." Then why did not you reviewers go to another part of the document where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote that? Following the fragment you do quote occurs this passage which declares the express purposes for which the priesthood was given:
But you reviewers say this "power extends not only to things spiritual, but to secular matters as well." Within certain limitations, granted; and the acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which you charge with being uncandid. Here is the passage:
But you insist that there is "tyranny and arbitrary ruler-ship" over a community which indorses the priesthood's high claims. I deny the existence of such tyranny as a fact among the "Mormon" people who indorse the priesthood's high claims; and I deny the existence of arbitrary power as a doctrine of the Church, and so does the Address which you pretend to review. Here is the passage:
Following is a summary of the word of the Lord, setting forth the principles on which the Church government is to be administered:
Gentlemen, those are our principles. Why didn't you quote them fairly and fully, instead of charging arbitrary power, when it is expressly denied by what we regard as the very word of God? Honestly, now, did you deal fairly with us when you came to this part of your review? But, you say, "given the power of the 'Mormon' priesthood, that it should not be used is incompatible with the known facts of human nature." Well, if it does attempt arbitrary power, it will be in violation of our principles, and not in harmony with them; and that fact furnishes a basis for the correction of any abuses that may arise. And while it is true that here and there, throughout a long experience, there may have been individual instances of the exercise of arbitrary rule in the Church, yet speaking for the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a whole, I challenge you to duplicate the same honorable conduct anywhere within the experience of men, where those entrusted with power have so uniformly abstained from abusing it while exercising the functions of government. The Latter-day Saints love their leaders, living and dead, and not without cause, I assure you; for these men have labored in season and out of season, persuading, counseling, advising, and guarding the interests of their people with an unselfishness that tells us something of the love of God, and that without effort at personal aggrandizement or enrichment. The lives and labors of the priesthood are a vindication of its divine origin and spirit. The review further says that when once "the Church's claim for its priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters logically follows." But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact, or at least admit it in some form, that the address you were reviewing emphatically excepted out of its jurisdiction the sphere of civil government? You could have edified those whom you are so anxious to enlighten with such passages as these:
That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the Church, has been promulgated for the state. Such laws and revelations as have been given are solely for the government of the Church. On the subject of the relations of the Church and the State the Address says:
Again I read from the review, and this time I deal with a passage which the reviewers themselves say "dwarfs everything mentioned in the Address." We shall see what comes of it:
Gentlemen—Christian gentlemen—you who are such sticklers for candor—have you spoken truly here, and in a matter which you say dwarfs everything else mentioned in the Address? What of the testimony of three certain witnesses, who claim that they stood with Joseph Smith wrapt in open vision, in the light of day; who give their most solemn asseveration that a holy angel came into their presence on that occasion, laid before them certain ancient documents, turned over the leaves, conversed with them, and at the same time they heard the voice of God saying that the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith was true, and commanded them to bear witness of it to all the world—which they did, over their own signatures, and that testimony is printed in every edition of the Book of Mormon? What of the testimony of eight other witnesses, to whom Joseph Smith handed the book of plates, and they handled and hefted them, and passed them one to the other, and examined the engravings thereon; and they gave their testimony to the world to this effect, which testimony has been published with every edition of the Book of Mormon given to the world. Did you overlook this corroborative testimony? Is it true that you gave so slight attention to the subject you were reviewing that you could make a misstatement of the kind just mentioned? Were you so unacquainted with it? Must we think you so dull? If we acquit you of stupidity, what then? Must we not think of you as uttering falsehood? What of the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, who stood wrapt in vision in the Kirtland temple with Joseph Smith? And of Sidney Rigdon, wrapt in vision with Joseph Smith, from which resulted their conjoint testimony concerning that grandest of revelations ever given to man on the doctrine of the future degrees of glory in which men will live in the eternities? I do not desire to use harsh language; I will not say that you wilfully, maliciously, ponderously and atrociously lied; because while all that might be true, one would be accused of harshness if he said it; but I will say that you have economized the truth, and you may settle it with your own consciences. Our subject increases in interest as you get into it, and perhaps it is well it is so, else your interest might falter. We come now to a very interesting topic—that of polygamy. This is the darling theme of the reviewers, and so we will not slight it by saying nothing about it. I had best read what they say on this point:
Throughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not quite candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that in the State of Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it, who does not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped the practice of, or sanctioning and performing plural marriages. I am of the opinion that everybody is settled in his conviction in relation to that matter. It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved in the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church. No proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and variety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this description. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's manifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was given that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the law, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition was not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by refraining from contracting such marriages within the United States would not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto. The matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages in all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world. Hence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were everywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view that that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement to discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural marriages within the United States—when that view was persisted in, I say, there was but one thing left, and that was to conclude that such persons were out of harmony with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles held that view; they were declared by their associates to be out of harmony with their brethren in these matters, they tendered their resignations which were accepted; and since that time there has been no question in the Church, or out of it, as to where the Church stands on the subject of discontinuing plural marriages, and I do not believe that there is any doubt on that subject existing in the minds of the gentlemen who formulated this review. In confirmation of this I submit the letter of resignation of John W. Taylor:
The explanation accompanying the resignation of Elder Cowley was of similar import. Another complaint of our reviewers is that polygamy is only abrogated as to practice, and that belief in the divinity of the principle is still held by the Latter-day Saints. Well, gentlemen, what of it? Whose business is it? Do you hold that you may enter the sacred precincts of the mind and uproot our opinions? Your law gives you the right to punish overt acts; but you have no law and no right to enter the domain of conscience and interfere with what is held there as the truth. Hands off here! Our belief is our own. We have a right to our opinions. If you don't believe them, that is nothing to us, we do. And if you have not succeeded in converting us, we can't help that. You have got all you deserve out of this controversy on our marriage system. Properly this was a question which belonged to the dominion of reason, scripture and polemics. You should have convinced us, as ministers of Christ, from the word of God and from the nature of the things involved, that the principle itself was untrue. But you were not content to leave it to the arbitrament of discussion and reason; you must needs play upon the prejudices of the masses and induce them to belabor Congress with their petitions until your inimical legislation was put upon the statute books; and the crusade against the practice of our marriage system was declared, and those who practiced it were raided with unabated vigor for years. We yielded at last to superior force, not to your arguments, because we successfully met them. You remember the occasion, do you not, of the chaplain of the Senate of the United States coming to this very forum, and here discussing the question, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" That your champion was vanquished in the contest is evidenced from the fact that we publish as a campaign document both sides of the Pratt-Newman discussion. If you have not convinced us of the incorrectness of our principles, it must be because of the lameness of your reasoning, the weakness of your argument, and you must be content with the result so long as we do not carry into practice that principle which we believe. We have a right to our belief in that or any other doctrine as abstract principles, whether our belief suits you or not, and we have the right to freely express that belief, and if you don't like it, you may go hang. Again the review says: "No denial is made of the practice of polygamous living. The 'Address' admits that authoritative figures officially collected show 897 male polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that later reports are not quoted leads to the reasonable belief that since that date the number of male polygamists has not diminished but rather increased." It is true the address brings down the figures no further than 897 in 1902; but the address does say "and many of these have since passed away." Besides, there was a statement made upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, based upon official figures, to the effect that the number had been reduced to at least 500. Here is the passage:
Now, gentlemen, here was an opportunity for you to exercise a little generosity instead of juggling with alleged conditions in Utah, so as to express your belief that these cases of polygamous living have increased rather than diminished, you could have called attention to what were the facts in the case—that it was said upon the floor of the Senate of the United States that the reduction had been to 500, and that time would soon obliterate this question from among our problems. Let us discuss for a moment this subject of polygamous living. It is doubtless a difficult problem. It has been difficult for some few men to discern the line of duty in the matter; but, thank God, the most of our brethren have not found it difficult to determine what their duty was in the premises. Notwithstanding that through interpretations the meaning of the Manifesto has been made to cover polygamous living as well as new marriages; and logically, however much it may have been misunderstood, that conclusion was inevitable; and it is conceded that the law of the land forbids the continuance of these relations—yet, in the face of these conditions, men have concluded that their moral obligations to; their families demanded that they should be true to the relationships into which they had entered in good faith, and under what they regarded as the sanctions of the law of God. You, gentlemen of the Ministerial Association do me the honor to quote some words of mine uttered seven years ago, while in attendance upon Congress, and trying to maintain the seat that had been given me by the suffrages of the people of my state. I wish now to repeat what I said then, though in better form, because the words I uttered at that time were somewhat garbled, by the report made of them—not intentionally garbled, by Mr. Arthur McEwen, who reported them. I will say that for him, because I believe it, and he is since and recently dead. But so far as I am concerned, I stand exactly where I did seven years ago, namely, that though the Church proclaimed against the continuance of that relationship contracted under her sanctions, though the state by statute proclaimed against it, neither Church nor state can dissolve the moral obligations I feel I am under to discharge what I regard as a moral duty. I ask you, gentlemen, to consider this proposition. What prompts this adherence to these relationships by myself and other men in our Church? You must concede that the most of those involved in these relations have passed middle life. They have entered upon the period of the "sere and yellow leaf." You cannot say their conduct is prompted by passion or lust; "for the heyday in the blood is cooled and waits upon the judgment." What is it then that prompts so many men and women in the "Mormon" Church to remain true to those relations entered upon in plural marriage? They look into each other's faces—the bloom of youth has passed, the brightness of the eye is somewhat dimmed, the suppleness of the form has passed away. But these men and women have lived their lives under circumstances that tend to endear men and women to each other. The trials of life, even under ordinary circumstances, result in that; but when what they regard as oppression and danger surround them, it is calculated all the more to draw them more closely to each other in their affections. These men and women have endured all sorts of trials for each other in addition to the ordinary trials of life. They, as well as monogamists, have stood hands clasped by open graves, and have known the purifying effects of great sorrows. In addition to such experiences, many of the men have endured exile and imprisonment, and wives have been exiled from their homes, their kindred and their friends, and have cast their lot among strangers, rather than to sever the ties by which they were bound to their husbands; and back of it all stood the conviction that they were doing God's service—upholding a principle that he had revealed, and entrusted to them for vindication and making it honorable among men. These are facts well known in this community. These men and women were not of the criminal element: their conduct was not prompted by a desire to defy law; they were acting and are acting now from the highest and noblest motives—religious conviction of duty. And so I say, for one of this number—for myself—I stand exactly as I have always stood upon this question of fulfilling the obligation these relationships have imposed; and I shall, so far as possible, still respond to the dictates of honor. I shall read my duty by the light of that conscience God gives me—I shall respond to the voice of love and honor, and you reviewers may make the most of it. [You will say, such an attitude is inconsistent with the utterances of the Church leaders before the courts, and especially before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. So be it then. It is an inconsistency that has the promptings of honor back of it, and under such circumstances, for one, I shall trust God to forgive such inconsistency.] It is said by you gentlemen that no apology can white-wash the outlawry of Joseph F. Smith. Gentlemen, his conduct needs no apology, his honor needs no vindication, his position needs no defense; it needs only to be stated. And as you have not stated it, I will; or, what is better, I will let him state it for himself. On a recent occasion, before the court in this city, President Smith said these noble words:
I say that Joseph F. Smith's position needs only to be stated to the world, and the manhood of America will applaud his attitude, long-haired ministerial associations and short-haired women's organizations to the contrary notwithstanding. But what is the use of talking in this strain to you gentlemen? This is a question for statesmen, and you cannot be accused of possessing any of those qualities. That, however, is perhaps your misfortune, not your fault. When I take into account the intellectual and physical capital with which you start in life, I sometimes marvel that you have done so well. Your vocation is not always left to your own choice. The position is frequently chosen for you by your parents, having in view your physical and intellectual endowments. The ministry is generally recognized as a genteel sort of profession. It promises a certain social standing. It secures you from the dust and sweat and physical toil of a mechanic's life, and from the brain-sweat of secular professional life and struggle. It takes you out of the turmoil of trade and commerce, and out of the fierce contests of political life, and from the dangers of a career in army and in navy. Then, you know, as a class you were not physically strong; a larger proportion of your number are consumptives, neurotics, anemics, paranoiacs, and the like, than in any other of the professions; and so this genteel profession is quite frequently selected for you by your parents, and for the reasons here set forth. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I am dealing with you as a class. After your calling is selected for you, you pass into the schools, colleges and universities, and there you follow a rather kid-glove course of study. You will not need much of mathematics, so you pay little attention to that subject; you will need more of belles lettres, of moral and metaphysical philosophy, of languages and rhetoric, and eloquence. So your studies run along those lines, and after completing this course you step from your colleges into pulpits to instruct the world, at the same time knowing less about that world than any other class of men whatsoever. Then, going into that world, you are soon sequestrated into a very narrow portion of it. As a rule, you have to deal most with christenings, with weddings, with funerals; but you shine most at social functions, more especially at pink teas. So that, all things considered, neither by your original endowments nor by your environments nor by your training are you prepared to meet the broad questions that concern humanity. As was stated in the passage I read from Mr. Campbell's book a while ago, your class "do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of life." On practical questions you are relegated to the rear, and your influence in community life grows less and ever less with the passing years. Do you think I overstate the case? Then let me quote to you what one of your own number says of you—again Mr. Campbell in his up-to-date book before quoted. Before giving the quotation, however, let me disclaim the existence of any personal animosity towards you. All that I say is meant in the very best of feeling. I speak not from malice concerning you, but from experience. I have been meeting your class, gentlemen, for now thirty years; and have had controversies of various kinds with it during that time, and I know you as a class quite thoroughly. I speak from experience, not malice, and comparing you as a class with other classes of men whom I have known, it is just a plain, solemn truth that you are, as a class, narrow, bigoted, intolerant, petty; and I say that in the very best of feeling. And now the passage of Mr. Campbell's book. Speaking of the decline of organized Christianity and its ministry, he says:
As I remarked, I desired to read that passage to you, that you may know that my charge that the people are slipping away from the influences of the churches and the ministry was not inconsiderately made. Of course, the decline in the influence of the churches marks also the decline in the influence of the ministry, hence the pertinency of this quotation. What is said by this authority concerning conditions in England is equally and more emphatically true of our own country than it is of England. That is, the decline of the influence of the ministry and churches in the United States is more marked than in England. Ministers, then, don't count for much when it comes to dealing with practical questions. And the conditions that have and do exist in Utah, and that come down to us out of a remarkable past connected with our former plural marriages are practical questions. Questions for statesmen, not for sectarian priests and their trundle-bed notion of things. It is a question for men of blood and brains, and when it was referred to such a body of men not long since—the Senate of the United States—they at least refused to take the radical steps you suggested. Through four long years you raked the country as with a fine-toothed comb to gather up your evidence and to convince the United States Senate that they ought to follow your dictation, to assail the Latter-day Saints, and to break up and terrify, as a few years ago our community was broken up and terrified by a severe, rigid and, I may say, cruel administration of this law against polygamous living; and after you have done your best, submitted your evidence—employed the best counsel you could find, and after you have awakened all the prejudices to which you could appeal, the court has turned you down, gentlemen! You could not move that body to adopt your view of the case. I made some remarks this afternoon upon the subject of the toleration for those conditions respecting polygamous living that have come to us out of the past. I do not desire to be understood as standing in any defiant attitude against the public sentiment of our state or of our nation. The fact of the matter is, these ministerial friends of ours are disposed to make mountains out of mole-hills, and are representing to the world as conditions existing here things that do not exist. The Latter-day Saints are not a law-defying body of people, but on the contrary they have manifested an obedience and respect for law, and you shall find no better order or a more universal acquiescence in and obedience to law than you find here in the settlements of the Latter-day Saints. We believe in law and in order and in being subject to kings and presidents, in honoring and magnifying the law; but the conditions here in Utah are unusual in respect of this one matter of polygamous living. The conditions, however, are well understood by our non-"Mormon" friends; and but for the agitation of these ministerial meddlers and a few disreputable and disgruntled politicians, the peculiar conditions which confront the community, and in which some of the best men of the community are involved, would go to their settlement along the lines in which they are being settled, namely: by the termination of these relations in death as, one by one, the parties pass out of existence to the grave. Now, in order to convince you that I am right in this view of the case I shall read an extract from the testimony of a prominent citizen of our state, a non-"Mormon," who I believe, better than anyone else, in the testimony he gave before the committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, in the Smoot case, described conditions in Utah as they are. He analyzed the situation here and told the truth in respect of it. I shall read his testimony—never mind who he is just for the present, but let me read to you what he said before the committee. Keep in mind that he is a non-"Mormon" and one not at all prejudiced in favor of the Latter-day Saints:
You will remember that is what I said to these ministerial gentlemen this afternoon. The witness continued:
The witness who gave that testimony was Judge O. W. Powers, and you know, and all Utah knows, that he spoke the truth. Mr. J. Martin Miller writing to the Newark (New Jersey) News, represents Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds as holding the views expressed in the accompanying quotation on conditions in Utah:
These statements are thoughtful and fair; and no one acquainted with existing conditions can doubt their truthfulness. And why have they, and why do they, the non-"Mormons," acquiesce in these conditions, and tacitly consent that this question should be settled by the grave. First, because they recognize the honesty and the purity of the lives of the people who are involved in the "Mormon" system of marriage; and they know that it was the promptings of a religious duty that involved them in that system, and not criminal instincts nor worldly or ungodly lust. That is what they know to begin with—and that the people in these mountains were contending for the persistence—and they hoped the triumph—of what to them was a religious principle. That is why honorable non-"Mormons" respect honorable and upright "Mormons" who are doing their duty as God gives them the light to see that duty. And, moreover, their minds doubtless go back to the settlement of this question by the Constitutional convention of this state of which, perhaps some of you will remember, I was a member. The people of the United States, speaking through the Congress of the United States, demanded of the people of Utah, as a condition precedent to statehood, that their Constitution should provide "That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." When the Constitutional convention met that proposition—desiring to meet it in good faith, they not only made the constitutional declaration that polygamous or plural marriages should forever be prohibited, but they also in order to make that effective, took the territorial law—which was but a copy of the Congressional law, which defined "polygamous or plural marriages" and prescribed for that offense the penalties, the fines and imprisonments, and which also defined polygamous living and prescribed its penalties. The constitutional convention, I say, took that enactment and cut it square in two, adopting the part that defined the offense of polygamous or plural marriages, and prescribed its punishments, and made it, with its penalties, part of the Constitution; but the part of the law relating to polygamous living or unlawful cohabitation, they left out entirely. The question was brought up on the floor of the convention, and debated in open session. The leader of this movement, who advocated the adoption of this part of the law for the Constitution—for it was rather an unusual proceeding in constitution making, intended, however, in good part, to meet a very unusual condition; the question was put to him in substance: If you thus cut the law in two, and prohibit polygamous or plural marriages but say nothing about unlawful cohabitation or polygamous living, will not the inference be—will not the conclusion be, that you do not intend to include unlawful cohabitation in the offenses defined and made punishable under this constitutional provision? The answer was that such would be the implication—that the intent was to leave the offense out. That was not only the inference, but it was the understanding—say what men will—in that convention. The record bears out the statement I make of it, because it was not done in a corner, or in the dark, it was out in the open, and some of those who now join you reverend gentlemen in this agitation against men who are seeking, under hard conditions, to respond to the promptings of duty and conscience—some of those who now join you in your clamor, were parties to and sanctioned that settlement in the constitutional convention.[1] [Footnote 1: This subject is discussed circumstantially and at length in my reply to Senator Kearns' U.S. senate speech,—"Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 209-218.] The subject of "Mormon" loyalty is briefly discussed in this review, and apparently the only way you reviewers could meet the treatment of the subject was by a sneer. You say, "It is not recalled that any Christian Church in this country has found itself under a like necessity." That is, to avow and defend its loyalty to the government. Very true, gentlemen, but do you recall that any other church that has been assailed with misrepresentation and charges of disloyalty as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been? And so, being assailed, we necessarily make defense. I pass the rest that could be said on that subject, excepting this, that when you refer to the conflict we had with the general government during territorial days, I take you to witness that the controversy was not of our making, but it was the result in part of your sectarian agitation, your arousing a popular sentiment, exercising church influence upon Congress which led that body to enact laws against a principle of our religion. We contested those laws for every inch of the ground, until the court of final appeal pronounced judgment on the controversy. Was not that our right? And does it necessarily involve us in or leave us open to the charge of disloyalty, because we thus contended for religious freedom—the right to practice what to us was part of our religion? Let us remind you, gentlemen, that had the people of the first Christian age, and the people of the sixteenth century followed your idea of immediately surrendering when religious principle was attacked, there would have been no Christian religion at all, there would have been no such thing as Protestant sects. We contested the grounds legally, and fought as hard as we could for a religious principle; that is the head and front of our offending. These gentlemen Reviewers express two fears. One is that they will be charged, because of issuing this review, with misrepresentation. Well, I don't wonder at that, and I think we have proven that you have misrepresented. But they also fear that we will charge them with persecution. Gentlemen, we acquit you of the intention of persecution. When the Revs. Phineas Ewing, Dixon, Cavanaugh, Hunter, Bogart, Isaac McCoy, Riley, Pixley, Woods and others carried on an agitation in Missouri against "Mormonism" and the "Mormons" that resulted in burning hundreds of our homes and driving our people—including women and children, remember—to bivouac out in the wilderness at an inclement season of the year; when the mob incited by these reverends, your prototypes, gentlemen, laid waste our fields and gardens, stripped our people of their earthly possessions, keeping up that agitation until twelve thousand or fifteen thousand people were driven from the state of Missouri, dispossessed of several hundred thousand acres of land—two hundred and fifty thousand acres, to be exact—which they had entered, and rendered them homeless—we might call, we do call, that persecution. When the Rev. Mr. Levi Williams led the mob that shot to death Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith in Carthage prison, and when the Rev. Mr. Thomas S. Brockman led the forces against Nauvoo, after the great body of the people had withdrawn from that city, and expelled the aged, the widow and the fatherless, and laid waste the property of the people—we think we are justified in calling that persecution, of which right reverend gentlemen were the chief instigators. And when in this territory some years ago one wave of agitation followed another, of which your class, and some of you, were chief movers, until a reign of terror was produced, and a regime was established under which men guilty at most of a misdemeanor, could nevertheless be imprisoned for a term of years covering a lifetime, and fined to the exhaustion of all they possessed, under the beautiful scheme of segregating the offense into numerous counts in each indictment; and when in that reign of terror women were compelled to clasp their little ones to their breasts and go out among strangers, exiled from their homes—we might be inclined to call that persecution. But our experience has been such that we scorn to call such attacks as this review of yours persecution. It does not rise, gentlemen, I assure you, to that bad eminence. So we acquit you of any intent in your review to persecute us. You need not fear that such a charge will be made, we are not so thin-skinned as all that. Besides, gentlemen, your power is no longer equal to your malice, and so we do not believe you will ever be able to persecute us again. And now I want to turn "reviewer" myself a while. I want to review some things which the ministers of the association before us stand for, at least some of them stand for what I shall refer to; and I only regret that we can't take up each one in turn and examine his doctrines. But we all proceed, as far as we can, on this occasion. I turn "reviewer" because I want to show our young people who are represented here, that these gentlemen, standing for such principles as their church creeds represent are scarcely in a position to make an assault upon our doctrines on any score of inconsistency or repulsiveness; and second, by placing our doctrine in contrast with theirs, I desire to show the youth of Israel, whose representatives are here, the greatness and grandeur and the divinity of those principles for which their fathers have stood, and for which we stand, for the ensign given into the hands of our fathers we will sustain and carry to still greater heights of success. Of the doctrine of the Godhead, taught and advocated by the sectarian world, I have already said something and pointed out the inconsistency of these ministers, holding Jesus to be divine—nay more, to be Deity, and yet proclaiming against our views of God being a personage of tabernacle, a personage of flesh and bone as well as of spirit—in a word, an exalted, a perfected man—Christ Jesus resurrected from the dead and possessing all power in heaven and in earth. I shall leave them, of course, to patch up the contradictions of their creeds on that subject, I am not concerned about them. And now, to turn to another portion of the creed, held at least by the Presbyterian ministers before us, and by some other members of the Ministerial Association—our reviewers. I read from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter iii, section 3.
Now listen to this:
That is to say, that though all mankind be sinners, and it must be conceded that all men sin, yet out of this mass of sinners some are rescued from the consequences of that sin by the pure grace of God, and without any co-operating act of theirs, they are rescued from the consequence of that sin by the decree of God. Whereas, others of that mass of sinners, by the decree of God, are relegated eternally to condemnation, to reprobation, and what that means we shall see presently—but in the face of this doctrine, where appears the justice of God, or mercy of God either? But the end is not yet.
Now, on these sections from the Presbyterian creed, I read to you the comment of a very high authority in that church who deals with this creed, the Rev. A. A. Hodge. This work is designed for the schools and colleges of the Presbyterian church. This is his comment on the articles of the creed:
That means, then, that the great bulk of God's children have been created only that they may be food for the flames of the sectarian hell, because orthodox Christian sects allow of no means of salvation beyond the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel in this world. But we shall not arrive at an understanding and the enormity of these creeds—we shall have no conception of their abomination until we learn something about the sectarian idea of hell and the continuation of the punishment of those who do not accept Christ. Those who have not heard of Christ are, by these creeds, placed in the same category as those who have heard of him, who have heard his gospel and rejected it; for they neither are nor can be, according to the teachings of orthodox Christianity, subjects of salvation. But before taking that matter up, let me read to you another section from the creed:
This has been a very troublesome part of the creed to our Presbyterian friends. It has been understood to at least imply the possibility of some infants not being among the elect and therefore subject to damnation, just like the non-elect who grow up to maturity, a view most shocking to most people including—to their honor be it said—most Presbyterians. The interpretation of this section of the creed by the Presbyterian church is, that "all infants are among the elect!" If this was the thought in the minds who wrote the creed, what a pity they did not say, "All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ," instead of saying "elect infants," etc. What a world of controversy it would have saved! However, gentlemen, your interpretation is that all infants are of the elect, and therefore saved, and I will accept your interpretation because I believe you have a right to your own interpretation. But say, by the way of whisper, and in confidence, I can make it extremely interesting, if not difficult for you to make good your interpretation both by reason of the implication that must fairly be conceded exists in the language of the section against your contention, as also from very respectable authorities I can quote, on the history of the controversy. But we let that pass, and will concede your right to say what your creed means. Especially so since, the abomination of your creed may be established without pressing this point. Why should you Presbyterians be so particular to declare against the damnation of infants, when the promulgation of the doctrine of the damnation of a good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as outrageous as the damnation of an innocent babe? In some respects of the case it is even worse. Here we will say, is a man who throughout his life has made every effort to realize in his living the lofty ideal of possessing "clean hands and a pure heart;" who entertains only aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only that are honorable; who in the relationships of life, as son, brother, husband, father and citizen, discharges with reasonable fidelity, all his duties in these relations, and, as nearly as a man can while under the effects of the fall, and pestered with human inclinations to perversity, leads what is recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not of the elect, this man is doomed eternally, and his struggling for the attainment of his lofty ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in the way of warding off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the elect, and hence must perish everlastingly. The questions here being considered were once presented to Dr. Francis L. Patten, president of Princeton university, and a stalwart Presbyterian defender of the creed, in a rather unique, not to say personal manner, by a correspondent of one of our great eastern journals, and as it helps one to get a view of the doctrines here considered from close range, I quote it:
Is that a fair answer, or artful dodging? Again the interviewer asked:
That sounds very like the reasoning of Jonathan Edwards on the subject of infant damnation and baptism, when he said that an infant, if one of the elect, would have the opportunity for baptism; and that while all infants who were baptized would not be saved, all who were not baptized were damned, as they could not have been of the elect! But, as I remarked awhile ago, no one can begin to appreciate the abomination of these creeds, these doctrines, until he has some conception of what is meant by orthodox damnation. Now here is a picture of God's wrath and vengeance upon men. It is a passage,—a noted one—taken from the works of the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, and he is addressing himself to sinners. Now, I cannot help but believe that though men are sinners—notwithstanding that fact—I cannot help but believe that God still has some compassion in his heart for his children, sinners though they be. Indeed, if that be not true, then it seems to me despair must settle down like a black pall upon humanity; for if God loves only those who have remained without sin, how very few of his children he loves! While God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, I believe that he can have and does have infinite compassion for the sinner. He will never call your sin "righteousness." He will never compound a sin and say that it is less than it is. Always and everywhere God's law will stand pronounced against sin; but while he stands thus committed irrevocably against sin in all its forms, I believe that his heart goes out in compassion to men who sin, and he will save them from their sins as soon as they repent. When they repent he will forgive, and you will find, my friends, that the forgiveness of God is effective; it is worth something. It will blot out the sin, and cause it to be no more held against one who has repented. But now to this description of damnation by Edwards, who as I think gives quite a contrary view of God from that I have been presenting:
What think you of this picture of God, who is supposed to be a God of infinite compassion, youth of Israel? Was it not about time, since these conceptions here set forth by Edwards sprang from the creeds of men—was it not about time when such beliefs prevailed, that some messenger should come from heaven declaring that such creeds are an abomination in the sight of God? Let us go on:
I believe that is cruel. I think they ought to show us such places at least; so that if we had the disposition we could possibly avoid them. Of all the mean things on earth, that can be done, it seems to me, would be to lead one along the path where the pitfalls are covered. I would not like to believe that such a thing as that could exist in the moral economy of God. Again:
Again I quote:
Well, we stand amazed now, that anyone could have such conceptions of God and such treatment of his children as this. But to continue the quotation:
That is what awaits those who are not of the elect; that is the fate that awaits the heathen, and without hope of redemption. Again I say, young people, youth of Israel, if God should ever speak to man at a time when such ideas obtained, when such creeds and teachings were in existence, would not the first word uttered be one repudiating these creeds and the institutions, the organizations, built upon these foundations, these creeds of men? Would not God's first word denounce these creeds as an abomination? Of course, it would. Humanity in its sober senses would be disappointed else. Joseph Smith was entirely right—or rather God was. The first thing needful was to brush aside the rubbish of the creeds that traduce the character of God and banish all the qualities of mercy and justice from the attributes of God, and his moral government of the world. Hence this message called "Mormonism"—this message from God—began with a denunciation of these creeds. God said they were an abomination in his sight, and I do not doubt it one moment. How could they be otherwise? One of the best things that can be said about our "reviewers" here before us, is that they are better than their creeds. They do not say much about them. They know the people don't believe them; and a preacher's influence among men is in exact proportion to the distance he leaves these creeds behind him—to the depth of oblivion in which he buries them. I am tempted to believe some times that our reviewers, bad as they are—I mean that as a pleasantry—they are still too good to believe these creeds. What if they do, at their ordination, have to declare that they adopt the creed as their faith! I still believe that down in their hearts they do not believe them! "Well," one may say, "this may be a tribute to their goodness of heart, but what of their sincerity, what of their honesty?" I hope the inquirer will not press that point, I refer it to the gentlemen most immediately concerned—to our reviewers. The fact is, speaking of these matters in a general way—light, thank God! has come into the world and dispelled the gloomy prospects of the future as pictured by these creeds of men. It is a great relief to the world, brought about, to a large extent, by the revelations of God to Joseph Smith. Part of the complaint of our Reviewers is to the effect that "Mormonism" adds no "spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already revealed;" that "Mormonism" contributes nothing "to reverence for God, or to justice and mercy toward men." The complete answer to all this is the fact that "Mormonism" enthrones again in the conceptions of men the true doctrine in respect of God. It enthrones in the conceptions of men the God of the Bible. It proclaims once more the high station of man; in that it recognizes and proclaims him the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ; as being of the same nature as Jesus and his Father; it opens up the pathway of progress, and points to the possibility of man rising to the same exaltation, and participating in the same glory as Jesus Christ and the Father. It banishes the injustice which the creeds of men would fix in the moral and spiritual economy of God, and unfolds anew to the conceptions of men the fact that, while God stands forever committed against sin, his love and compassion for his children endure forever, that his gospel is an everlasting gospel. "Mormonism" teaches to the world a larger hope than it before knew. It proclaims the possibility of salvation for all the children of men, and that so long as time endures the gospel will endure; that so long as men can be brought to repentance, the means of their salvation shall be at hand in the gospel of Jesus Christ. These are some things that "Mormonism" does for the world. These are some of the doctrines which it has proclaimed and emphasized, and which are finding their way among and are being accepted by the children of men. Moreover, the elements are so forming that it will yet be possible for a nation to be born to the knowledge of the gospel in a day. "Mormonism" is not going to fail. This work has taken such root and hold in the world that it cannot be moved. We have passed the day when we stand in any danger from persecution by violent means. We stand today largely secure from the natural effects of the misrepresentations that you gentlemen of the Ministerial association fulminate against us. This Church of Christ is beginning to come unto its own. I hear in fancy the tramping of thousands upon thousands of the servants of God among the nations of the earth, making proclamation of these grand truths of the gospel. I hear men casting up accounts, and searching out the "where" and the "whence" of the truths they have learned in this generation; and as they go on with the reckoning, they will find that these truths were revealed from God, of which his Church, and also we ourselves have the high honor of being witnesses. Youth of Israel, be proud of the station which God has given you. Be fervent in faith; be high-minded in your aspirations, for there remaineth for Zion a glory, a development, a recognition in this world that shall more than repay our fathers for all the scenes of turmoil, strife and labor through which they passed in establishing and maintaining this great work. They shall have joy in their posterity, too; for we, their sons, will carry the burdens laid upon them; and Zion shall triumph; and the gospel shall be proclaimed and accepted; and the children of men shall be saved; and God shall be glorified. [And now a parting word respecting our conference "Address" and this ministerial review of it. The "Address" was conservative in tone, truthful in statement, conciliatory in spirit, and intended to form a basis of a right understanding of the attitude of the Church. It explained the past; it expressed the intention of strict adherence to its obligation to discontinue plural marriages—and with that, in time, would pass away polygamous living—and declared its intention to abstain from interference in politics. That this was the spirit and intent of the "Address" cannot be questioned by those who have read it. It was a fair basis of understanding and settlement of our local difficulties. And in what spirit was it met, at least by this Ministerial association? By pretended distrust of its most solemn asseverations; by misrepresentation and unfair criticism; by sly innuendo of evil intentions on our part; by a hunting for a basis, not of justice, reconciliation and friendship, but the hunting of a basis for future agitation, turmoil and strife; and for what? Sectarian and political advantage, is the only answer; unless you add sectarian hate of a rival institution. What can "Mormons" do in the presence of such conditions? I can tell you what one "Mormon" will do. He will teach these reviewing gentlemen that the reviews will not be all on one side. That he himself will turn reviewer. And so far as the theological part of the controversy is concerned, these gentlemen shall have war if they want it—war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt, and that on every platform in the state. "Mormonism" here can hold its own. It does not have to apologize for its doctrines nor repudiate its principles. Its representatives stand ready, willing and able to vindicate its doctrines; and they have some knowledge of the nonsense and weakness of the reviewers' creeds. Pardon our seeming boastings, gentlemen, but in the language of Paul, "ye have compelled us." Turning from you reviewers to all the people of the state of Utah, I can say to them irrespective of their creeds or political faith, that I have the utmost confidence in their fairness, in their native sense of justice, and love of square dealing; in their manhood and love of honor. And I know that they know that this local agitation by the Ministerial association, and disgruntled politicians, who cannot ride into seats of political preferment by virtue of the exercise of Church influence in politics, which they feign to denounce, but which they would gladly use to their own advantage, could they but fawn or frighten it into supporting them—I say I know that the people of Utah know that this agitation is unjust; conceived in spite and vengeance; brought forth of malice; and nurtured by hate. No conditions existing in Utah justify it. The spectres that are conjured up from the vasty deep to give warrant to this unseeming agitation are but foul creations of diseased animals, phantoms of disordered imaginations. Fellow citizens of Utah, in my humble judgment, if we have regard to those things which concern our welfare, our well-being at home, our standing abroad, our interests in all that concerns us, we will discourage these agitators, and say, as we can say, to the troubled waves of our social and civil strife, "peace, be still."] |
|
