Chapter XVI: Foreword (2)

"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."

As I remarked, I desired to read that passage to you, that you may know that my charge that the people are slipping away from the influences of the churches and the ministry was not inconsiderately made. Of course, the decline in the influence of the churches marks also the decline in the influence of the ministry, hence the pertinency of this quotation. What is said by this authority concerning conditions in England is equally and more emphatically true of our own country than it is of England. That is, the decline of the influence of the ministry and churches in the United States is more marked than in England. Ministers, then, don't count for much when it comes to dealing with practical questions. And the conditions that have and do exist in Utah, and that come down to us out of a remarkable past connected with our former plural marriages are practical questions. Questions for statesmen, not for sectarian priests and their trundle-bed notion of things. It is a question for men of blood and brains, and when it was referred to such a body of men not long since--the Senate of the United States--they at least refused to take the radical steps you suggested. Through four long years you raked the country as with a fine-toothed comb to gather up your evidence and to convince the United States Senate that they ought to follow your dictation, to assail the Latter-day Saints, and to break up and terrify, as a few years ago our community was broken up and terrified by a severe, rigid and, I may say, cruel administration of this law against polygamous living; and after you have done your best, submitted your evidence--employed the best counsel you could find, and after you have awakened all the prejudices to which you could appeal, the court has turned you down, gentlemen! You could not move that body to adopt your view of the case.

I made some remarks this afternoon upon the subject of the toleration for those conditions respecting polygamous living that have come to us out of the past. I do not desire to be understood as standing in any defiant attitude against the public sentiment of our state or of our nation. The fact of the matter is, these ministerial friends of ours are disposed to make mountains out of mole-hills, and are representing to the world as conditions existing here things that do not exist. The Latter-day Saints are not a law-defying body of people, but on the contrary they have manifested an obedience and respect for law, and you shall find no better order or a more universal acquiescence in and obedience to law than you find here in the settlements of the Latter-day Saints. We believe in law and in order and in being subject to kings and presidents, in honoring and magnifying the law; but the conditions here in Utah are unusual in respect of this one matter of polygamous living. The conditions, however, are well understood by our non-"Mormon" friends; and but for the agitation of these ministerial meddlers and a few disreputable and disgruntled politicians, the peculiar conditions which confront the community, and in which some of the best men of the community are involved, would go to their settlement along the lines in which they are being settled, namely: by the termination of these relations in death as, one by one, the parties pass out of existence to the grave. Now, in order to convince you that I am right in this view of the case I shall read an extract from the testimony of a prominent citizen of our state, a non-"Mormon," who I believe, better than anyone else, in the testimony he gave before the committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, in the Smoot case, described conditions in Utah as they are. He analyzed the situation here and told the truth in respect of it. I shall read his testimony--never mind who he is just for the present, but let me read to you what he said before the committee. Keep in mind that he is a non-"Mormon" and one not at all prejudiced in favor of the Latter-day Saints:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_"The witness:_ Yes, the Gentiles."

The witness who gave that testimony was Judge O. W. Powers, and you know, and all Utah knows, that he spoke the truth.

Mr. J. Martin Miller writing to the _Newark_ (New Jersey) _News,_ represents Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds as holding the views expressed in the accompanying quotation on conditions in Utah:

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

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

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

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