MORMONS AND MORMONISM.

The Mormon People, Their Industry, Education and Morals—What is Thought of These People by a Non-Mormon of Many Years' Residence Among Them.

Lecture by Charles Ellis, a Non-Mormon.

No cause has so often led to strife as bigotry of religious devotees. In no name has hate so largely gathered harvest of death as in that of God. No prophet ever proclaimed a new word of the Infinite who was not met with abuse. Many of the noblest men who have stood God-tongued on earth have received not only vilification, but martyrdom. Not one of them has escaped the cry of "infidel, atheist, impostor." Even Jesus was crucified as a malefactor. His simple religion of love for God and to man was lost in a cobra-filled jungle of theology. For more than 1800 years Christianity has not been the religion of Christ. The Christianity that boasts of having civilized the world is a mass of dogmatic bran that makes poor bread of life—intellectually a bran-mash for hidebound bigots who send all but a "predestined and foreordained" baker's dozen to eternal torment because they will not take the medicine. It has been itself partially civilized by the natural development of the human mind, but is still much like that "white sepulchre," fair to see, but full of lying dogmas, hypocrisy and sham.

Into this cloaca of pretence, the Mormons say God sent Joseph Smith to destroy its rot with the quicklime of a new revelation from heaven of priesthood, prophecy and providence. The Lord God Omnipotent, so the story runs, came to this youth and informed him that the Gospel of Jesus had been lost to the world through the wickedness of men; that the religions of the present were a sham, that the churches were all wrong, and that the true Gospel would be restored for the salvation of mankind through him.

It is not surprising that Mormonism met with obloquy from its birth. It would have been marvelous had not that obloquy become violence when the "new dispensation" showed a degree of success that roused the fears of the evangelical churches, out of which converts to the new sect were taken. The Mormon missionaries of those early years believed the "fullness of time" had come, and that "the Lord" was speedily to appear, sweep false Christianity from the earth and establish His own kingdom. They believed it their duty to cry aloud, to warn the nations. The boldness of the proclamation that all churches were without recognition in the sight of God, and the only true Gospel was this "new dispensation," was enough to arouse an opposition that has never wholly ceased and is now raging more fiercely than ever. The rapid growth of the new old faith embittered the sects and carried them to the shedding of innocent blood, for many of the early Mormons suffered martyrdom for their faith. Yet the blood of martyrs is still the seed of the church.

It is immaterial here whether Mormonism was born of God or of man. I am not discussing its origin. No matter what its source, it was sure to meet opposition. Had it come with such pomp that the world could have beheld angelic heralds, it would have been denounced as vile. It has been so with the founders of all religions. The prophets are always stoned, The Buddha was accused of consorting with courtesans. Jesus' enemies said harlots were His chosen companions. Mahomet was the called slave of an ambitious mistress. Garrison and Phillips were denounced as infidels and atheists. Joseph Smith was branded a fraud and lecher.

But as time rolls away from the days when an agitator lived, hatred of him is forgotten and he is remembered in the results of his agitation. The Buddha preceded Jesus many centuries and has a following today of 400,000,000. Jesus is buried beneath a mountain of dogma, but 300,000,000 are seeking eternal life in His name. Mahomet came 700 years later and his people number 170,000,000. Only sixty-nine years ago came Joseph Smith, and his following is already half a million. Give Mormonism 1,200 years, as Mohammedanism has had, or 1,900 years, as Christianity has had, and what was said of its founder will be forgotten, but his following may then compare satisfactorily with what the older faiths accomplished.

Had Joseph Smith never declared himself a polygamist he would have been killed. The sects were too fanatical in the wild west to permit so active a rival to exist. Had the Mormons remained east of the Missouri, Brigham Young would have been killed and the church would have been destroyed by wholesale massacre. It was only their isolation among the mountains that saved Mormonism and the Mormons from annihilation. Even that would not have saved them had they not increased so rapidly by conversions and immigration that before their enemies realized their growth they had become too strong to be removed. They have survived the hate that carried off their leader at Nauvoo. They have proved themselves sublime stayers. They have nobly earned the right to the home they have made in "the great American desert," and they are entitled to full liberty of conscience to practice their religion, as well as to the same protection the nation gives to all other churches.

If people must follow some leader in the name of God it makes little difference what his name, when or whence he came, as far as the national government is concerned. As long as his followers are honest, industrious, virtuous and progressive they will advance from existing to better conditions, whether they follow Moses, Jesus, Mahomet, Calvin or Joseph, and our government, guaranteeing rights of conscience to all, cannot dictate what their religion shall be. No matter what Joseph Smith may have been, the people of the United States should not allow themselves to be governed, by what was said against him, in their judgment of the Mormon and Mormonism, as they are now.

By Their Fruits.

If history is reliable many of the popes were steeped in crime, yet we do not condemn the Catholic church of today by that history. Protestantism has done many cruel things in red-handed fanatical rage, but we do not now hold it responsible for crimes of its past. The daily press frequently tells of crimes committed by ministers of the Gospel, but we do not condemn the class for the misdeeds of some of its members. Neither should we condemn the Mormons and Mormonism of today for what their enemies said of them forty, fifty or sixty years ago. Put Joseph Smith down, then, as one of the men who have started new systems of religion, and judge him now by the results of his system, as we judge all others.

Many of the Jews are grand people, notwithstanding some of their leaders ages ago were bad. There are many excellent men and women in the churches, notwithstanding the fact that Christianity has drenched the earth in blood. Mohammedanism has done a great work among its people, notwithstanding all Christendom looks upon its founder as an impostor. Tried thus, what can be said of the Mormons and Mormonism?

Into the Desert.

It would be manifestly unfair to judge either Mormons or Mormonism by that stormy career which preceded the hegira to Utah. Mormonism had no opportunity to show its merits in a country where its enemies gave it little time to act save in self-defense. It was aggressive in its denunciation of existing churches as ungodly frauds and they attacked it with violence, kept it acting on the defensive, forced it from place to place, and finally drove it out of the United States. Having at last found a spot a thousand miles from a "Christian" and subject only to the possible encroachments of Indian tribes, less barbarous than eastern Christians had been towards them, the Mormons and Mormonism were, for the first time in their history, in a condition to show what the people and their religion were.

When Brigham Young and his band of searchers for the new Holy Land entered the valley of the Great Salt Lake there was no white man there to give them a welcome, and therefore no alleged Christian present to disturb their hope. They had traveled far and fared hard. As they emerged from a rugged canyon the magnificent valley before them was the most inviting spot they had seen, and the leader chose it at once as their future home. Along the mountain streams, that ran gurgling through the valley to lose themselves in the saltest sea upon the earth, there was pasturage for the cattle, but for the men, exiles from so-called Christian civilization, there was nothing save an opportunity to gird their loins, forget their hunger and compel the stubborn glebe to yield them food.

Like the Pilgrim Fathers.

When the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth Bay they met such a welcome of dreary desolation as the Mormons received in the Salt Lake Valley. As the Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic to find a land where they could practice their religion, so had the Mormons crossed the plains of the continent. But they must live. In all this wide mountain land no furrow had been turned. It was mid-summer and the wanderers had little to carry them through the approaching winter. They must close with the opportunity and stake all on the hazard. They put in crops and the seed baked in the hot earth or the frost came before anything could mature. They made huts to shelter themselves against the winter, built a wall to guard against Indian attacks (or was it the Christians they had fled from at Nauvoo) and pulled through until spring came, and then they went out upon the foothills and dug the roots of the sago lily for food. They planted and watered and saw their seed spring and saw crickets come down upon the green spots, like Missouri and Illinois Christians, and devour their hope. They fought crickets, made irrigating ditches, cleared off sage, increased their fields, smothered grasshoppers, praised the Lord and grew until, in five years, the valley had become a hive of busy human bees, not a drone among them all, and hundreds of baby bees crawling about the open doors of humble homes in which patient, plodding, hopeful, prayerful women were the grandest heroes of all. But the people crowded in so rapidly that for a dozen years or more all were harassed by hard want. Luxuries there were none. It was one long, ceaseless struggle to live. Women who came then as little girls have pictured to me the cheerless years of their young lives here when all were poor.

Their Staff and Comforts.

What sustained those people in that long ordeal? Faith, the strongest power in all the world. Their religion was an enthusiasm. To them "God" was a living presence. He had "called" them. He had led them forth from persecution. He would remain their friend and they must succeed. Without that faith they would never have come—having it they could not fail. But to my mind a very important adjunct was the pluck that has made the white race superior to obstacles and the master spirits of the world. When we consider what the Mormons underwent to achieve success here their constancy and heroism deserve sublimest commendation, and they who will not concede this because the Mormons will not send them to congress or subscribe their creeds are not true Americans—have never known the meaning and the glory of our "religious freedom."

We honor the Pilgrims for their heroism in crossing the ocean and founding a home in the forest of the new world. Why? Not because of their religion. They were bigots and sometimes murderers. They tortured, killed, or banished men and women who would not accept their theology. We may despise their religion, but we must honor their courage and be thankful for their success. Without them we never would have had our government, the light of the world and the hope of mankind. But their base of supplies in Europe was nearer to them, more accessible, than were the stores from which the early Mormons could draw. The Pilgrims had means; the Mormons had none. When driven from Nauvoo many of them were so destitute that agents were sent through the east soliciting aid to save the people from starvation, and one of these agents was Lorenzo Snow, now President of the Mormon Church. Hundreds of the famished refugees died, in 1846, along the malaria-poisoned bottoms of the Missouri river.

From robbery, murder and exile in Missouri and Illinois to success and independence in Utah, the history of the Mormons is a record of privation, hardship and endurance unequalled since the days of the Moors in Spain, the Huguenots in France, and the Protestants in Holland, when murder sought to exterminate all heresy in the name of the Catholic church for the glory of God. It was the same spirit in the Protestant heart that sought the destruction of Mormonism. But no religion can be wholly bad or lacking in points of great merit that could produce the magnificent results that have sprung from the Mormon occupation of Utah.

In Thirty-Two Years.

Briefly, now, let us see what the Mormons did in Utah through the years when they were nearly the entire population and while the industries and the progress were almost wholly their own.

In 1880, thirty-two years after the arrival of the Mormons in Utah, they had 9,452 farms, the average size being twenty-seven acres. The population of the territory was then 143,963, of which 115,000 were Mormons, 99 per cent of whom were living in homes of their own. To bring this land into productive farms there had to be done an inconceivable amount of work that was not directly productive. The land was covered with sagebrush and other wild shrubs and grasses that made it as hard to clear as swamp land in the east. In addition to clearing the land it had to be lined with ditches to carry water to the growing crops. On those 9,452 farms there were several thousand miles of ditching. All of this work was dead capital. It was the "plant" of the farmers and was put in solely by the toil of a people who never knew when it was "sundown." But it was done and the farms were yielding great crops of small grain, corn, potatoes—all the vegetables of garden and field, and the fruits—apples, pears, plums, apricots, peaches, grapes, berries—everything that the climate would sustain. Live stock had risen from zero to millions in the shade of the mountain. There were herds of sheep, cattle and horses, and the great American lard producer was not wanting. Home manufactories were prosperous at several points. Stores were in evidence everywhere. "Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution" was the center of a magnificent trade at Salt Lake, extending throughout the territory. Temples had been built or were under construction at four points in the territory. Meeting houses had been erected in every direction. Academies were being started in Salt Lake, Logan and Provo. The people were united and persistent in their determination to succeed, and under the guiding will of Brigham Young this most remarkable effort of colonization had been quietly carried forward in spite of the continual harassment of the people by government officials, goaded by the anti-Mormon ministers of the east. In thirty-two years the exiled Mormons had become too strong to be despoiled again, and all that time this alleged destroyer of the American home, polygamy, was being practiced, and thousands of the most intelligent, honest, virtuous and industrious men and women of the state today were the offspring of such marriage relations. Why do not the Mormon haters of today attempt to destroy the force of this fact? Because they know that they would fail.

Education.

A common charge against the Mormons for years, and revived now, was that they were ignorant, illiterate and had no use for schools save to teach their theological dogmas. But in 1870, only twenty-three years after the first Mormon immigration, the percentage of school attendance in Utah was higher than in Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts. In 1881 the school population of Utah, from 6 to 18 years of age, was 43,353 and the average daily attendance was 44 per cent. There were then 395 schools in Utah. In 1888 the commissioner of schools, a government official, reports 344 school districts and 460 public schools in Utah. The school population was 54,943, of which 47,371 were Mormons. The number of scholars enrolled was 32,988, of which 30,721 were Mormons. The value of district school property was $542,755, and the amount paid for teachers in the public schools for the year ending June 30, 1888, was $293,085. Yet the anti-Mormon still screeches his old cry that those were Mormon schools.

Let us see. The school commissioner referred to was not only a United States official, but he was also a non-Mormon. Yet he reported that the 460 public schools of Utah were "non-sectarian." Then he enumerated eighty-nine denominational schools, of which only four were Mormon. The text books used in the schools, a list of which was given, set at rest the charge that Mormons were opposed to education; and the average of education of those who were trained in them is proof that they were not theological schools. According to the United States census for 1880 the percentage of persons in Utah of 10 years and upward who could not read was five. In Rhode Island at the same time it was seven, and in the United States at large thirteen. The average illiteracy in Mormon Utah, thirty-two years after its settlement by people absolutely without means and obliged to toil early and late to find a mere subsistence, was less than in twenty states and territories in the union.

The growth of schools in Utah is full of evidence that the Mormons were the friends of education. Remember that for years there was no money in Utah, yet the people built houses in which they lived, as well as hundreds of meeting houses. The first meeting houses were "boweries"—posts set in the ground, a flat roof of poles shingled with bushes cut in foliage. I have seen several of these old places of worship. But as soon as practicable every ecclesiastical "ward" had its "dobe" meeting house, which was also school house. But "Utah's best crop" would soon overflow any ordinary Mormon meeting house and more school room would become necessary. On Sunday the bishops of a ward would say:

"My brothers and sisters, we need more school room in this ward. What will you do to provide it?"

"I will give a team ten days."

"I will give a thousand 'dobes.'"

"I will give two weeks' work."

"I will give twenty bushels of wheat."

Thus it would go, and the school room would come as a labor of love and without the passing of a dollar. Today there are no people in the nation so eager to learn as are many of the young Mormons whom I have met in my travels about Utah. The State University, the public schools, all schools are full. The Mormon Church has its special schools, as other sects have in Utah, and their theology has its place in the studies, but the Mormons have no desire to introduce Mormon theology into the public schools and are opposed to the introduction of any other theology, as of course they should be.

Morals.

In 1876 there were thirteen counties in Utah without saloon, brewery, gambling house, brothel, lawyer, doctor, beggar, parson or politician, and the population was exclusively Mormon.

In the winter of 1881-2 there were fifty-one prisoners in the Utah penitentiary. Only five were Mormons, and yet the Mormon population of the territory exceeded that of the anti-Mormon 500 per cent. From 1877 to 1882 the jail of Salt Lake county received only three Mormons. In 1881 there were 1,020 arrests in Salt Lake City, of which 103 were Mormon men and boys and six Mormon women; 657 non-Mormon men and 194 non-Mormon women. In 1882 the number of arrests in the same city was 1,561, of which 188 were Mormons and 1,373 non-Mormons. In that year there were sixty-six barrooms in the city, and sixty of them were kept by non-Mormons. There were fifteen billiard and bowling rooms and seven gambling houses, all kept by non-Mormons.

The above, as well as the following statistics, are taken from "The Palantic," published by A. M. Musser from the Utah penitentiary records for the year ending June 30, 1884. Mr. Musser showed that, with the population of Utah 83 per cent Mormon and the non-Mormon population only 17 per cent, there were thirteen Mormon and seventy-eight non-Mormon prisoners—a difference of 600 per cent in favor of the Mormons. Add to this the difference in percentage of population, and we have over 1,000 to one in favor of Mormon morality as compared with that of the non-Mormon population of that period.

It should be understood that the above statement is not intended to characterize the whole non-Mormon population. All through the Utah years there have been non-Mormons here who were the most exemplary people. They came in to stay, to engage in business, to make homes. They have never engaged in the local disputes. They have never been anti-Mormons. Because they would not join the raid against the people they were for years sneered at as "jack-Mormons." The criminal element referred to in these statistics as "non-Mormons," it is safe to say, should have been put down as "anti-Mormons."

When the first edition of this pamphlet was issued the anti-Mormon paper of the city and several anti-Mormon parsons of Utah and Canada undertook to answer these statistics by claiming that the Mormons referred to were all "Latter-day Saints," while none of the "non-Mormons" were "Christians." For answer I will say that the record shows that of the seventy-eight "non-Mormons" in the Utah penitentiary and referred to above, forty-five were members of Christian churches. To show that this class of Utah non-Mormons were not worse than Christians generally, I refer to statistics furnished the Deseret News recently by Ephraim Ainsworth.

In 1889 Ohio had 942 convicts in penitentiary—826 of them belonged to Christian churches. In 1893 Canada had 11,810 convicts—Catholics, 4,395; Church of England, 3,621; Methodists, 1,624; Presbyterians, 1,495; other sects, 698; Atheists, none. In 1896 the Kansas penitentiary had 343 Methodists, 41 Presbyterians, 61 Campbellites, other sects 12. In 1896 the Michigan state reformatory had as inmates 226 Methodists, 84 Baptists, 31 Episcopalians, 28 Congregationalists, 18 United Brethren, 229 Catholics, 65 Presbyterians. From the Tennessee state prison, no date given, is reported 873 convicts—870 Christians and three who would not state their religion. Thirty years ago a Unitarian minister named Hatch made a careful investigation of criminal statistics of the United States and Territories and published the statement that 7 per cent of male convicts in the penitentiaries of the country were ministers. Utah has had her full share of them in the last thirty years, though she has kindly permitted them to run away, making no attempt to capture them, save in the case of a parson who killed his victim, cut her body up and attempted to burn it. A reward was offered for him, but he is probably sending heretics to hell yet for Christ's sake. It is said "there are none righteous, no, not one;" that is, we all "live in glass houses" perhaps.

If the faces of children are an index to the morals and self-control of parents, many Mormons have only to point to their offspring to prove their own general purity. Indeed, it would be difficult to find finer types of manhood and womanhood that are to be seen among the Mormons, and this applies as well to polygamous as to monogamous offspring.

Right here, at the risk of being misunderstood, I want to say a word about Mormon polygamy. It was not established for the gratification of "lust," as has been so often averred, but was, I think, a conscientious effort to improve humanity by stirpiculture. It was the only considerable effort ever so made among civilized people. I think it would have been better to have given it a scientific instead of a theological basis. In the country at large monogamous marriage has long been degenerating. With its degradation society must sink to conditions that must eventually, if not arrested, destroy our civilization. Religion may insure humanity against fabled fire after death, but it cannot breed out defects of will and taints of blood. Nobility of person, life, character is born, not made by creeds. Humanity can never be Godlike or fit for "the kingdom" until it is bred up from its sometimes lower than "beastly" level. Mormon polygamy was the beginning of such an effort. It has been killed by ignorant prejudice. But soon or late the world will see the infinite need of wisdom and science in the production and development of children, and then it will be understood that the marriage system must be reconstructed. Mormon polygamy was not the "beastly" thing a nation of adulterers called it. It grew out of the belief that life is eternal, that there can be no marrying in the future life; that women not married here can never marry, but must be the servants of those who were married on earth for all time here and hereafter. It grew out of the belief that woman gains her "exaltation" in the kingdom with her husband, and he in part through the excellence of his family. It was the Mormon women who wanted polygamy. But no woman would enter that relation through "lust." She could only enter it by conquering her passions, and in doing that she prepared herself to become a divine mother. It is only when women can learn to do this and compel men to respect their rights in gestation, as all other female mammals do their mates, that mankind can be saved from—itself. I am not advocating Mormon polygamy, but the physical improvement of humanity as the natural and also the scientific basis of mental and moral improvement. Sometime this great truth will receive the recognition denied it now.

I come back now and say that, taking polygamy and all into careful consideration, the morals of the Mormon people have always been as good as the best in the nation, and through the thirty-two years when the population of Utah was almost wholly Mormon and "this people" had not come under the influence of those who wanted saloons, brothels and dance halls opened to tempt young Mormons, their morals were infinitely superior to anything to be found in the rag-tag-and-bobtail element that for years existed on the western frontier and found in Utah the only oasis of the mountains.

Had the Mormons been Methodists the praises sung over their success in Utah would have been heard around the world. But if they had been Methodists they would not have been driven out of the United States. Had they been bogus Christians they would have been too busy sending other people to hell to have ever thought of colonizing on a barren desert 1,000 miles from heretics. The sublime industry and heroic achievements of the Mormons among the mountains of the west have been studiously ignored and viciously misrepresented, not because of any real or suspected immorality or menace to "the American home," but simply and solely because they were heretics to other sects. Anti-Mormonism never did and does not now care for polygamy—it hates the Mormon Church. A mean, whiskey-guzzling government official in Utah once said to me: "Damn 'em, all 'e rights 'e Morm's hez is t' pay taxes! 'Fthey don' like that I'm gitout!" That was for years the anti-Mormon spirit in Salt Lake City. The struggle was to get control and tax the Mormons out. That, too, was done largely. That is, many of the poorer Mormons were forced to leave their homes in the city on account of increased taxation levied by anti-Mormon officials. That old spirit is now revived by this new crusade, not because of polygamy but because the Mormons were compelled to take the power to levy taxes out of the hands of their enemies.

A popular impression has been craftily created by the anti-Mormons of Utah that its priesthood and polygamy are the cause of all hostility to Mormonism. The shallowness of the pretense is easily seen when you consider that the most vicious of anti-Mormons accept the Bible as the infallible word and will of God. Yet the Bible teaches priesthood and polygamy. Hence priesthood and polygamy cannot be the secret of anti-Mormonism. The Protestants have been trying for a century to get God into our national constitution and to make Jesus Christ the ruler of the nation. Catholics and Protestants outnumber Mormons a thousand to one. As long as they believe in theocracy they cannot quarrel with the Mormons for holding the same belief. But if they were afraid the Mormons might get into the kingdom ahead of them they would become jealous, and jealousy is the womb of hate. The evangelical churches fought Mormonism from its appearance, not because of polygamy and priesthood, for there was neither priesthood nor polygamy in it then, but because it was a more enticing faith than their own. Mormonism was running smoothly and growing rapidly without original sin, total depravity and eternal torment as its steady theological diet. Therefore, it was infidelity. Therefore, it must be destroyed. Advocates of the undying worm, the lake of fire and the endless roast drove the Mormons out of the United States. When they made the Utah desert a prosperous land, adventurers crowded in to make speculation and riot among them, but found them united against invaders. That was put down against them. Yet a people driven into exile five times would be idiotic not to unite for their own protection, and, as soon as possible, prepare themselves to refuse to be driven again. When their old enemies learned what advancement the Mormons had made in Utah they came to send them to perdition again, but it was too late. Then they raised the outcry against polygamy. That brought in the aid of congress, the destruction of the incorporated church and the confiscation of church property, but did not crush Mormonism. A thousand polygamists went to the penitentiary, and still Mormonism would not collapse. The Mormons did not hanker after salvation from a hot spell in another life. They were too busy. They had hell enough here. There was no brimstone in their conception of the hereafter. A few might falter, but the mass stood by their faith, submitted as best they could to the insolence of their enemies, waiting upon the Lord to rescue them. Then came the scheme to disfranchise them. Disfranchisement was the culmination of forty years of effort to conquer the Mormons. If this calamity should fall the people would be at the mercy of unscrupulous legislators who would practice the sentiment of him who said all the rights the Mormons had were to "pay taxes" or "git out." Before this danger the leader yielded and declared that to save the people from ruin he would take no more plural wives (he was then about 90) himself and would advise his people to do likewise. That was in September, 1800. Two weeks later the church, in conference, accepted the advice of its president that polygamous marriages should cease.

Then it was seen that the Mormons would not abandon their homes—that their persecutors should not grow rich upon property the fleeing Saints must sacrifice. They had conquered by yielding, and there was no other scheme to be sprung upon them. Those who hoped to crush Mormonism were forced to accept the situation. The old political status disappeared and Mormons and Gentiles came together as democrats or republicans, each party seeking to gain control of available public offices. Men who had for years studied how they might throw increased difficulties upon the Mormons were tumbling over each other in their eagerness to reach the Mormon leaders, to profess their profound esteem and to make known their willingness to aid the Latter Day Saints by accepting office at their hands. The new love was touching, but it was sincere? We shall see. The Mormons were rejoiced to find at last an atmosphere of at least seeming peace about them, and gladly gave their old enemies the offices they desired. The offices secured, the men who were going to "boom Utah" proceeded to a recklessness of "improvement" that increased public debt and taxes to an alarming degree. The Mormons disliked to protest; they could not "grin," so they bore it with long, sober faces. Then statehood was secured and the Mormons began to elect their own more cautious men. The new lovers, chiefly office seekers, scented defeat. The old snarl appeared. Startled politicians appealed to willing ministers who needed funds sadly—and the old outcry against the Mormons and polygamy was revived in 1898.

The New Crusade.

What basis is there for this renewed fight against the Mormons? When Wilford Woodruff declared that he would advise the people to cease plural marriages, and when his advice was accepted by vote of the church, there were men living in Utah who were already in polygamy. Most of them were old men, but there were young and middle-aged men who had more than one wife. All through the government fight against polygamy these men had lived with their wives as far as they could in secrecy. Would they be likely to abandon their wives when peace had been received?

To the Mormons, marriage is one of the most sacred of their ordinances. It is solemnized by a priest in the name of God. It is "sealed" in heaven also and is to continue forever. The true Mormon cannot ignore the claims of his plural wife without being false to his vows and his God. No manifesto of Wilford Woodruff, no vote of conference, could annul a plural marriage or engage that any Mormon should cease to care for his plural wives. This fact was as well known by every non-Mormon in Utah in 1890 as it is today. It was understood by every gentile politician, by every representative of the government, by every minister in Utah, that polygamists had been all along secretly living with their polygamous wives. All knew that this would continue, yet all agreed that no further notice should be taken of the matter and polygamy should be left to die its natural death. That understanding reached, no further effort was made to arrest "cohabs." Polygamists lived openly with their wives and, as was expected, children were here and there born—in one instance, at least, we have heard of "twins." So matters stood from the close of 1890 for seven years. In 1897 we had a semi-centennial celebration of the arrival of the pioneer Mormons. In that "jubilee" Mormons and non-Mormons all joined heartily, including the ministers who have since become rabid anti-Mormons; including also the editor of the anti-Mormon paper who was so harmonious then that he delivered an address when the Brigham Young statue was unveiled, who was so inspired by the holy ghost or some other spirit (he is more familiar with other spirits) as to declare in his paper that the Mormons had founded the "new civilization." Yet at that very moment he and all non-Mormons in Utah knew that those who were in polygamy when "the manifesto" was issued, in 1890, had been living openly with their wives for seven years and that children were being born in some of the families. No objection was made, I repeat, until the Mormons, to stay the increase of public debt, began to fill important public offices with prudent men of their faith. There is no evidence that the church had anything to do with this. It was the work of men who owned property, and were anxious to protect it. That this is true is seen in subsequent political action. A majority of the Mormons are democrats. The democrats were rapidly getting control of the state. In the municipal election of Salt Lake last November the republicans elected their ticket over a known democratic majority of voters. Why? Because the republicans ran their canvass on the line of the anti-Mormon elections of a decade ago—the gentile democrat voted the republican ticket. That is, while the Mormons have kept the compact made when the people divided on national party lines, in 1891, the others have largely broken it and we have now the democratic and republican parties with the republican party working as an anti-Mormon party largely. The excitement in Washington over the fact that the republican Utah postmasters at Provo and Logan have been all along in the same boat with democratic Roberts is amusing because of the frantic efforts of men to show that they did not know that those men were old polygamists and had been living with their wives since the "manifesto" of 1890. Of course they knew it. No man could have lived in Utah since 1890 without knowing it. From 1890 until statehood came United States district attorney and marshal for Utah knew it, and yet so generally was it understood that the old condition was to be left to die of old age that those officers made almost no effort to disturb "cohabs." The postmasters in Provo and Logan were chosen because they were influential republicans, and their wives did not count—then. The anxiety over them now is that this excitement will defeat the hope of the republicans to carry Utah in 1900, and when this whole matter is analyzed it is found that the anti-Mormon agitators of Utah, with one exception, are republicans, and the exception is a democrat who, having most earnestly defended the Mormons ten years, was not recognized by them when they were distributing political offices. The Catholics in Utah are democrats and they have taken no part in this crusade. But the evangelical ministers and sects are republicans. The ministers have worked hard for 25 years to "save" the Mormons and yet have never "saved" one who was in good standing in his own church. When polygamy was given up, eastern interests in Utah missions fell, funds went low and the wolf was howling in the back yard. The politicians who had lived for years on salaries as government officers or later in state or city offices were in the same "fix"—they had to raise hell or starve—they did the first and, if I am not much mistaken, will do the second also or—"git out."

Amnesty.

To make clear the subsequent action of the chief factor in the new crusade it is necessary to call attention to what is known as "the amnesty." By act of congress polygamous Mormons were disfranchised. When peace was declared these men wanted their disability removed. A well-meaning but not sagacious Mormon took it upon himself to secure that result. He went for advice to the man who had tried for years to obtain the disfranchisement of all Mormons. That person seems to have expected such a visit. He advised a petition to the President of the United States for amnesty. The unsuspecting Mormon swallowed the hook and asked his adviser to write such a petition. It was, perhaps, already written. The adviser, swearing he would never consent, consented and the petition was produced. It was carried at once to President Woodruff, lying sick at home. The sick man, unable to even read the petition, signed it. With his name attached it was taken to the Apostles and all signed. The petition went to Washington, and, after much unavoidable delay, was granted. But the course of the writer of the petition, in the new crusade, his continual use of his petition against the Mormons, might possibly be taken as evidence that he was shrewdly forging a weapon that he might use against his quondam friends if his love for them should grow cold, or if his ambition were not satisfied. That is, it was well known here that when statehood should come to Utah The-man-who-wrote-the-petition would be a candidate in the first state legislature for the office of United States senator. It was necessary, therefore, to have a republican legislature. To that end the writer of the petition exerted himself to defeat the democratic party in the election of 1895. The democrats were frothing over a suspicion that prominent Mormon church officials were secretly aiding the republicans. Democrats were crying bad faith on the part of the church. The-man-who-wrote-the-petition defended the church officers and charged the democrats with intent "to give Utah a black eye;" with a desire "to keep immigrants from coming here;" with "the awakening of unworthy suspicions against us all;" with trying "to alarm the country;" with committing "an outrage." A few days before election, in 1895, The-man-who-wrote-the-petition, the man who, for more than a year, has found nothing too scurrilous to publish against the Mormons, the man who expected to be elected to the senate in January, 1896, said:

"There is not a man, woman or child in Utah who for one moment thinks there is any agreement or thought of restoring polygamy, or that it could be possible even if such a thought was in the mind of a few bigots."—Salt Lake Tribune, October 19, 1895.

"There is going to be no revival of polygamy; there is going to be no return to church rule." (The same, Oct. 22, 1895.)

The legislature was republican, but The-man-who-wrote-the-petition was "not in it." In the race for senatorship he was shut out in first heat. That straw of ingratitude broke the candidate's editorial back and he seems to have waited for an opportunity to use his petition. The Deseret News says he was paid for it at the time it was written, or, perhaps, concocted, but the action of the legislature was a deadly frost and the bloom of his young love for the Mormon church was killed.

The Secret Opened.

In 1897, the Mormons, aided and abetted by many of the most influential non-Mormons, made a non-partisan effort to secure much needed municipal reforms. The movement was largely successful, but was hotly denounced by the office seekers of the republican and democratic parties as a "trick" of the church to restore political control over its people. In Salt Lake City the feeling was bitter and an attempt was made to resurrect the anti-Mormon "liberal" party. Failing in that, the excited politicians appealed to the clergy. A Presbyterian paper in Salt Lake began the publication of sundry articles running back into early Mormon literature, culling the crudities, slips and discrepancies to be found therein and using them to condemn the Mormons and Mormonism of today—a course that would be paralleled by attacking the Presbyterians of the present with the fanaticism, folly and worse of "no papacy" days. This publication was scattered over the country and started up the smouldering non-Mormon fire. The smoke encouraged the clergy in Utah to believe that there actually might be something in their sensational talk about polygamy. Then they got together in the summer of 1898 and adopted a series of resolutions declaring that plural marriages are still being contracted, that the Mormons control the state, injure the public schools, and that old Mormon Utah is on deck again. A few weeks later came the state democratic convention to nominate candidates and B. H. Roberts was nominated for congress. He was one of the men who were in polygamy when plural marriage was stopped. From the day of Roberts' nomination the writer of that petition found his opportunity and from then until now has not ceased to vilify the Mormons. He insisted that the election of Roberts would create a storm and then created it himself—a very common trick of false prophets. He revelled in his petition. That is, he sprung the trap he himself had set. I think he was trying to force the Mormon church to declare for the election of the republican ticket, for there was to be another election of a senator in 1899.

In addition to his use of the petition he reprinted the testimony of President Woodruff before a Master of Chancery and tried to prove that the manifesto of 1890 prohibited cohabitation among those then in polygamy. He knew that the president of the church could not annul a marriage. He knew that the hearing was held preliminary to a decree restoring what remained of the escheated church property. He knew that property was worth millions of dollars and the church needed it. There was not an attorney engaged in that hearing who did not want the church to get back its property. There was not a non-Mormon in Utah then mean enough to wish that the church might not get it. But there must be a record to the effect that polygamy had been given up. So President Woodruff consented to say that he included "cohabs" in his manifesto. At that time the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune was friendly, as I have shown, and although it now seeks to brand President Woodruff as a liar it said then that the manifesto "went only to the point of plural marriages," and added "we believe that the rule laid down has been as sacredly kept by this people as it would have been done by any other people; that the Mormons and Gentiles have a right to say that the change amounts to a transfiguration." The measureless infamy of the disappointed office seeker now seeking to pile odium upon the honored dead will be a fitting monument to his malodorous memory in Utah for years to come; and if our good old friend did stretch the truth to save that property it was a lie like that of Hugo's nun, the recording angel dropped a tear upon the slate and rubbed it out.

All this insanity of excitement through the country over alleged polygamous marriages has been created by a few men who are now laughing over their success in fooling the people. They have hunted these mountain states over—have imported special aid from New York—have declared that plural marriages are being contracted, and yet have not been able to find one case. Defeated in that they have arrested several men for "unlawful cohabitation" and advertised that as proof of polygamous marriages.

Avowing, with maledictions upon it, that polygamy is the "twin-relic of barbarism" and must die, they yet will not let it die, but drag it from its senile sleep, enhorse and caparison it like a waxen image of some old Catholic saint and lead it in triumphal procession through the land to excite the clamor of women gone hysterical through brooding in nightly loneliness over the clandestine amours of their monogamous husbands with other women more charming than themselves!

If polygamy were permitted to die a natural death the evangelical churches would lose their last foothold against the rising tide of Mormonism. It is not polygamy that disturbs them, but the steady growth of the Mormon church. Right or wrong, there is a current running to the Mormon church with increasing volume and velocity. The Mormon church and faith have been a boon to hundreds of thousands as poor as were those who heard Jesus gladly. It is today nearer to being a successful effort to inaugurate the Brotherhood of Man than anything ever tried.

In Conclusion,

I want to say that what is here presented does not err from truth and was not written with either knowledge or consent of any member of the Mormon church. It stands upon my personal knowledge. I am not a member of any church, and view all sects philosophically. I cannot perceive that any religion has been of divine origin, in the theological sense of the terms. To my mind they are all human, very human, in their origin. But, conceding to all the rights of intellectual liberty I claim for myself, I question not the right of the people to any religion that satisfies them. In so far as creeds and dogmas impose upon credulity, I claim the right to protest. Thus I have long protested against Calvanism in all its varieties as a wholly unjustifiable cruelty forced upon humanity through its ignorance and fear. I gladly admit that theology, like everything else, is subject to the progressive influence of the ages, and realize that the God of Calvin is not as mean as he was 400 years ago—has been much improved in the last 100 years under our free government and public education. I cheerfully concede that all theologians mean to be honest in the dogmas they create, and I believe that all churches sincerely endeavor to hold their people to defined standards of moral life. But I lay this against them—that they would have men and women practice moral living, not for itself, but to secure a definite reward after we have ceased to live here, a reward called "salvation" from threatened ills and horrors that exist only in the excited imagination of ignorance and superstition. It is childish—it is the mother bribing her boy with bread and jam, or frightening him with threats of "the bad man."

You see, then, that I am one of that class of persons called by all the professors of all the thousand and one varieties of so-called Christianity "an infidel." It is the easiest thing in the world to call people by opprobrious names, as the history of these unpopular Mormons makes manifest. In fact, no new thought appears that is not infidelity to some older one—no new issue that is not maligned by the satisfied believer in some old one. The term "infidel," as applied to persons who think for themselves, do their own business with the Infinite, and decline proffered rewards based on fear of God, is one of merit rather than reproach. Jesus was the great infidel of his time—crucified for truth derided by the prevailing orthodoxy of his day.

There are two kinds of infidelity in the world. One comes by growing up out of existing beliefs, the other by falling below them. The only harmful infidelity exists in the churches, and consists of professing one code of morals and living another. For instance, all Christians call Sunday the Lord's day and pretend to keep it holy, a sacred day devoted to the worship of God. Yet half of them, in this country, keep it as a day of frolic and dissipation. That does not harm the day, does not injure God, but it makes hypocrites of professing Christians. They are infidels who have fallen below their religion. For instance, again, take the seven million names of American people who petitioned congress to expel the Utah congressman. It is safe to say a large percentage of the signers were children who did not know what they were doing, but whose names were taken by Christian adults with intent to deceive.

A long study of religions convinces me that all mean to do good, yet fail, in great part, because they work for a wrong purpose. That is, they work, not for this life, but for one to be sometime somewhere "above the stars," in a locality that has never been more than a myth; and the object of working for that unreality is to escape another mythical locality below the earth, in the earth, or somewhere else equally uncertain. This would do in a world peopled with ignorant savages, but will not do for intelligent men and women. This fact is recognized by the churches. They spend their money chiefly to carry their religion to the "heathen," realizing that it is useless at home. The religions of the world need reconstructing. They have much to learn and unlearn. I know of no church working so zealously for what it believes to be the good of humanity as Mormonism. I know its leaders, its system, its work. Its directors, as a whole, are sincere, conscientious, clean, honest men. If they err, it is not from evil intent. To them the presence of God is a living faith. It may be an error, but the faith is there, and the work is the result.

Mormonism is peculiar in this: it does not regard this life as a preparation for an eternity of idle psalm-singing in a future existence Lord-knows-where, but a school of moral training for an eternal life right here after "the resurrection." To this end it aims to make its people intelligent, capable, honest, moral, successful now, as the proper means of reaching the greatest happiness then. This may be a practical basis for a possible end. Its enemies say it is based on fraud. Well, it is said they cannot demonstrate that Christianity was not based on fraud—cannot demonstrate that Jesus ever existed. But Christianity is here, and, whether He lived or not, it will remain. If it should transpire that Joseph Smith was not the founder of Mormonism, that the engraved "plates" had no existence, Mormonism is here, the faith is here, and it too will remain. We can only dismiss all questions of "fraud" and choose—the best. The best is that which is most beneficent in practical helpfulness. Tried thus, Mormonism possesses merit that cannot be ignored by any who would concede equal rights—fair field and no favors—to all. I see in it what to me are weaknesses, but in what system do they not exist? They are the weaknesses of its youth and are being outgrown—would be outgrown faster but for the malevolent opposition that drives it back upon itself. But let no enemy of Mormonism flatter himself that it can be killed by vituperation. It is the most remarkable movement in the religious world since the days of Mahomet—the most wonderful religious movement in forty generations. The thunder and lightning of its enemies cannot strike it down. It must fall, if fall it must, as other religions have fallen—by its own decay after it has lived its natural life. Keeping Roberts out of congress will not arrest its course, and it is highly probable that the time will come when the American people who want no church interference with our national government may be glad to have the aid of the now maligned Mormons.

Consider that there are today 1,700 young Mormons tramping over this continent in city, town and hamlet—young men who are so circumspect in all their deportment that not even the most bitter enemies of their faith have the hardihood to raise their voices against them—young men who are steadily making the fundamental principles of their faith known to the people. There has been nothing like it in the world for hundreds of years, nothing in so-called Christian countries since the steady persistence of the Protestants on the continent and in Great Britain, and it is going to produce great results. The Mormons might be called the non-Conformists of this country and in spite of all efforts to the contrary they are going to wield an influence upon its future. One of the Utah men in Washington fighting the Mormons was honest enough to tell the truth when he said in a public meeting: "It is not polygamy but Mormonism we want to check." But it won't check or warp and is growing, and I write with a growing interest in its success. In 1718 there came 900 non-Conformists from Ulster county, Ireland, to Boston. They were Scotch-Irish Protestants seeking religious freedom. They introduced the Irish potato in New England. Some of them gave to older Yankees a few potatoes with instructions for planting them. They grew, blossomed, and bore fruit, but the Yankees cooked the seed balls and said they found them anything but good. Next spring when spading up their gardens they found the potato crop. Mormonism presented to Christian sects a new theological potato, so to speak. They tried it, ate the wrong end of the growth and denounced it. But there will come a new spring in which old sectarian gardens will be plowed up and then the real fruits of Mormonism will be discovered—and will be found to be both palatable and healthful.

"Where there is no change of priesthood, there is no change of ordinances, says Paul. If God has not changed the ordinances and the priesthood, howl ye sectarians! If He has, when and where has He revealed it? Have ye turned revelators? Then why deny revelation?"

—Joseph Smith, The Prophet.

"All who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy, and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost."

—Brigham Young.