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

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:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

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:

"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power * * * are of no efficacy, virtue, or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead."

Again,

"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

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:

"Under this declaration lies the claim of the 'Mormon' Church—constantly insisted upon in its congregation here and in surrounding regions—that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, together with the living oracles—i.e., certain members of the priesthood—are divinely inspired and are, therefore, of equal authority with the Bible. This claim, a knowledge of which is so necessary to even a tolerable understanding of their system of belief, is not plainly and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine contained in the Address, but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in their teachings in 'Mormon' communities."

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:

"It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such a desire [i.e., to live in peace with our fellow citizens] is impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of their faith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient times; that the priesthood of the Church constitute a body of men who have each for himself, in the sphere in which he moves, special right to such revelation; that the president of the Church is recognized as the only person through whom divine communication will come as law and doctrine to the religious body; that such revelation may come at any time, upon any subject, spiritual or temporal, as God wills; and finally that, in the mind of every faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in whatsoever it counsels, advises, or commands, is paramount."

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:

"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ very God and very Man."

Again:

"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."

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:

"John Smith, with whom we used to go to school, and who has since developed into a stolid British man of business, with few ideas and a tendency toward conservatism—John is a stalwart, honest, commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. His wife and children go to church on Sundays. John seldom goes himself, because it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting any daring flights. He has a good-natured contempt for clergymen in general, because he feels somewhat that, like women, they have to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of life, they are a sort of a third sex."

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:

"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful bee, it builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labors and unites into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps order, and exercises many virtues and promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world."

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:

"Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the fact that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost sight of its own fundamental, the divineness of man." (Rev. R. J. Campbell, in Hibbert Journal, April, 1907, p. 487.)

"When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief, let us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that until he becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to his help and share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of the Christ incarnate for the redemption of the world." (Ibid, p. 493.)

"The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence of God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe man to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the self-manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real distinction between humanity and the Deity.

"Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it is limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should be interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it reverences Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, 'but so are we.' * * * Every man is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of the eternal Christ. * * * The new theology * * * is the gospel of the humanity of God and the divinity of man." (Campbell, London Daily Mail, quoted in Current Literature, April, 1907.)

"I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power which produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus becomes my gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I say to myself, God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth about myself I shall find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the humanity was divinity and divinity humanity. * * * But you make him only a man! No, reader, I do not. I make him the only man, and there is a difference. We have only seen perfect manhood once, and that was the manhood of Jesus. The rest of us have got to get there. * * * We have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on putting humanity and Deity into two separate categories.

"Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God." Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in man—God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional orthodoxy on the other. The latter would restrict the description 'God manifest in the flesh' to Jesus alone; the new theology would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as it ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and significance to the earthly mission of Jesus—he came to show us what we potentially are." (The New Theology, Campbell, pp. 82, 83.)

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:

"The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though still assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath reality, that the notion of a God revealed in human form—born, suffering, tormented, killed—has been utterly incredible. 'A crucified prophet, yes; but a crucified God! I shudder at the blasphemy,' is a known quotation which I cannot now verify; yet that apparent blasphemy is the soul of Christianity. It calls upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an executed God. * * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is a God. Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) 'The divinity of Jesus' is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified by the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it can be freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and can be recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of Jesus, (Mark you—'the divinity of Jesus') and of all other noble and saintly souls, in so far as they too have been inflamed by a spark of Divinity—in so far as they too can be recognized as manifestations of the Divine." (Hibbert Journal for April, 1906, pp. 654-5.)

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:

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

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

Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment of the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental principles of it are 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:

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

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

The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The review further says that when once "the Church's claim for its priesthood is allowed, the claim of jurisdiction in civil matters logically follows." But, gentlemen, why did you not point out the fact, or at least admit it in some form, that the address you were 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:

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

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

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church.

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

"The absolute separation of church and state;

"No domination of the state by the Church;

"No church interference with the functions of the state;

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

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

"The equality of all churches before the law."

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

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

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:

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

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

It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved in the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church. No proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and variety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this description. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's manifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was given that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the law, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition was not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by refraining from contracting such marriages within the United States would not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto. The matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages in all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world. Hence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were everywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view that that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement to discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural marriages within the United 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:

"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905.

"To the Council of the Twelve Apostles:

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

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

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

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

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

"Your brother,

(Signed) "JOHN W. TAYLOR."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, gentlemen, here was an opportunity for you to exercise a little generosity instead of juggling with alleged conditions in Utah, so as to express your belief that these cases of polygamous living have increased rather than diminished, you could have called attention to what were the facts in the 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:

"In the tacit, general understanding that was had in 1890, and the years subsequent thereto, regarding what were classed as the old cases of cohabitation, I have appreciated the magnanimity of the American people in not enforcing a policy that in their minds was unnecessarily harsh, but which assigned the settlement of this difficult problem to the onward progress of time.

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

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

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

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

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:

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