Part 2 — III. ANSWER TO MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION'S REVIEW. (continued 2)

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The witness: Yes, the Gentiles."

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:

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

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

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

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

That is what they know to begin 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.

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

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

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

Now listen to this:

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

That is to say, that though all mankind be sinners, and it must be conceded that all men sin, yet out of this mass of sinners some are rescued from the consequences of that sin by the pure grace of God, and without any co-operating act of theirs, they are rescued from the consequence of that sin by the decree of God. Whereas, others of that mass of sinners, by the decree of God, are relegated eternally to condemnation, to reprobation, and what that means we shall see 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.

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

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

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

That means, then, that the great bulk of God's children have been created only that they may be food for the flames of the sectarian hell, because orthodox Christian sects allow of no means of salvation beyond the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel in this world. But we shall not arrive at an understanding and the enormity of these 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:

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

This has been a very troublesome part of the creed to our Presbyterian friends. It has been understood to at least imply the possibility of some infants not being among the elect and therefore subject to damnation, just like the non-elect who grow up to maturity, a view most shocking to most people 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:

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

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

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

"And you think it just?"

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

Is that a fair answer, or artful dodging?

Again the interviewer asked:

"Do you believe there may be near and dear ones of yours, reaching out, perhaps, for all that is noblest and best in life, struggling each day to gain the mastery over self, striving to attain purity of purpose to conquer weakness and inferior motives, who, when it is all over and the battle has been won, and won hard, will be cast into everlasting torment because they weren't lucky enough to be elected before they were born?"

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

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:

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

What think you of this picture of God, who is supposed to be a God of infinite compassion, youth of Israel? Was it not about time, since these conceptions here set forth by Edwards sprang from the creeds of 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:

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

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

Again:

"Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead and to tend downward with great weight and pressure toward hell; and, if God should let you go, you would immediately sink, and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you, and keep you out of hell than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. * * * The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped the more rapid and mighty is its course when once it is let loose. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might and majesty and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you in the ineffable strength of your torments; you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb; and, when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty."

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

Again I quote:

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

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

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

That is what awaits those who are not of the elect; that is the fate that awaits the heathen, and without hope of redemption. Again I say, young people, youth of Israel, if God should ever speak to man at a time when such ideas obtained, when such creeds and teachings were in existence, would not the first word uttered be one repudiating these creeds and the institutions, the organizations, built upon these foundations, these creeds of men? Would not God's first word denounce these creeds as an abomination? Of course, it would. Humanity in its sober senses would be disappointed else. Joseph Smith was entirely 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."]