Reiner-Roberts Correspondence

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE, In the May number of the Era there appeared a correspondence between John M. Reiner of New Jersey and a company of gentlemen in New York who had agreed to meet together weekly for the purpose of studying "Mormonism." It was proposed to submit this correspondence to one of the editors of the Era, with the invitation that he publish the same and make such comments from a "Mormon" standpoint as would give the "Mormon" view upon the questions considered. Accordingly such comments were made and published in the May Era as the questions discussed seemed to demand. It was the expectation that these Letters and Comments would run through, at least, several numbers of the magazine; but none have appeared since the first installment published in May. This has given rise to many inquiries in relation to the status of the agreed upon correspondence and comments; and in justice to the readers of the Era, and also to the editor who was invited to make the comments, it is thought proper that the present status of the correspondence entered upon should be submitted to them. Under date of May 23rd, the junior editor of the Era received the following letter from the gentleman who is spokesman in the correspondence for the company of gentlemen in New York investigating "Mormonism," in which he makes complaint against the nature of the editor's remarks on Mr. Reiner's first letter. "My dear Elder:— Your kind favors with paper containing your discourse and the magazine containing Dr. Reiner's letters and your pomments were received, for which kindly accept my thanks.

I hesitate almost to write concerning either article because of your words "a. people who have suffered much at the hands of those who have often pretended to investigate their faith." I dislike to hurt one's feelings and it is equally unpleasant to be misunderstood, but does it not occur to you that some honest people may have investigated your faith and not been favorably impressed with it, and under such circumstances is it strange your people have suffered at their hands? As for the comments on Dr. Reiner's letter, I can only say this. If we assume for the sake of argument everything the Doctor says is true and beyond dispute—and remember I do not say it is—and you do not say it is not, then there would appear some intelligent historical and biblical warrant for some of the acts and claims of your people, but instead of taking any of these as authority or warrant for your claims, you abandon all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs and fall back on the claims of revelation. Now, of course, no man can prove by direct evidence that another has not received a revelation, but if one should prove to a jury of people that the Seer was not a man holier or saintlier than his fellow men, that all evidence showed he was an ordinary man, he was not possesed of extraordinary virtues or anything that would mark him as an instrument to be selected of God, and this one man claimed, because he was dissatisfied with the existing conditions of the Church on earth, God directed him to reorganize and re-establish his church, and then as occasion would require, either to accomplish some new work or to quell some non-believers or dissatisfied disciple, he would receive new revelations directed at the necessary party. And add to this the fact that the claimed words of God often contain bad grammar and tautology, and that God directs the most extraordinary things to be done—I fear the jury would say the weight of evidence is against you, and your sole claims that you had a revelation is not sufficient. I hope I have not given you the idea that I wish to attack the faith or to hurt your feelings. I only intended to say, it is not strange to my mind that your people have suffered at the hands of those who have investigated your faith. You.

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 809 must see that unless one can believe fully, completely, implicitly and blindly in Joseph Smith and his revelations, as well as the other prophets of your faith and their claims, they must be utterly and eternally opposed to the whole faith. It is impossible to believe part and disavow the balance. To revert to Dr. Reiner's letter, I doubt if we can procure from him further letters for publication. He insists that the purpose of his letter was to answer from a historical standpoint the questions propounded to him by us and not to enter into any controversy with the Mormon Elders. That had the latter been his purpose, he would have written rather differently than he did, and your comments place him in the unfair position as an antagonist, but perhaps I can best tell you how the Doctor feels on the subject by his letter which I enclose. I have not enclosed his article as it was intended for the gentlemen to whom it was addressed, and I assume you would not care to publish it under the conditions imposed by the Doctor. Accept my assurance of the kindliest Christian feeling for you, and a full appreciation of your courtesy and good heartedness, and I can always say with sincerity that your representative people can honestly lay claim to patience, brotherly love and sincerity, and I have no doubt, as Dr. Reiner says, are God fearing people Yours very truly," DR. REINER'S LETTER. Here is Mr. Reiner's letter referred to in the foregoing; and which, it will be seen, accompanied a communication from the Doctor, most probably on "Mormon" literature, but which was not sent as per the original arrangement to the editor of the Era for comment: "My Dear Friend:— In sending you the enclosed letter I regret that I am compelled to ask you to release me from the promise given that I would not object to the publication of

my letters. Mr. Roberts created the impression that I am engaged in a controversy with him, which is not a fact. I had no desire to debate the question of Mormonism with anyone but yourself and those you represent. Nothing is further from my mind than the intention to offend or wound Mr. Roberts or any one of his friends or co-religionists. And yet any adverse criticism is taken in Utah as a personal affront. In speaking plainly about the Mormon literature and about Mr. Roberts' productions, I mean nothing disrespectful to him or to the other authors. In the Era of May, Mr. Roberts combats my methods of treating the subject of polygamy and yet that method was only in favor of Mormonism. Besides a controversy with Mr. Roberts would be a useless undertaking. Our different training and vocation in life would be sufficient reason for me to avoid such a controversy. Therefore I will not consent to a publication of my letters, unless Mr. Roberts will state in writing that it is his wish to publish it, and will make it clear that I have no controversy with him, and will publish this letter and other letters that may pass between us. Kindly convey this to our friends with my sincerest regards. Yours very sincerely, John M. Reiner. The following is the answer of the junior editor of the Era to both of the above letters, addressed to the New York correspondent: My dear Sir: Your favor of 23rd ultimo, enclosing Dr. John M. Reiner's note to you without date, to hand by due course of mail. As you remark it is unpleasant to be misunderstood, and if my past experience brought me no evidence of that fact, the present one of being misunderstood by you and your associates would be all-sufficient to produce conviction that it is. That yourself and associates—for I take it that in this correspondence you speak for them—should make a personal application to yourselves of my words—"A people who have suffered much at the hands of those who have often pretended

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 811 to investigate their faith"—is a matter of very deep regret; and you must pardon me if I say that it is a matter of very great astonishment also, since it involves so manifest a misapprehension of my remarks. I pray you read them again: "I entertain a very high respect for the Doctor's learning, and also honor him for his evident intention of speaking fairly of a people who have suffered much at the hands of those who have often pretended to investigate their faith." This certainly could not have been meant to refer to you who had scarcely begun to investigate our faith. It certainly could not have been meant for Dr. Reiner who, so far as I know, has done our faith no harm by the investigation he has made of it, although entertaining no favorable impression concerning it. Turn which way I may I cannot see how you could have applied the words to yourselves. But since you did, allow me to say that I neither had the company of gentlemen you represent in mind, nor Dr. Reiner. I had in mind those men and women who from time to time have come among us with the avowed purpose of fairly investigating our doctrines only to go away and misrepresent both our religious faith and our people. From such characters we have suffered much and they are the ones I had in mind, and I distinctly disavow, let me say again, having reference to yourself or friends. You ask me, "Does it not occur to you that some honest people may have investigated your faith and not been favorably impressed with it, and under such circumstances is it strange your people have suffered at their hands?" To which I answer both yes and no. Yes, to the fact that honest people have investigated our faith and have not been favorably impressed with it. No, to the idea that our people and faith have suffered at the hands of such honest investigators. I call to mind Captain Burton who was such an investigator in 1862, and who wrote as the result of his investigation "The City of the Saints." We have never suffered from his investigation of our faith, though he pronouncedly opposed our doctrines. We did not suffer from the investigation of Mr. Phil. Robinson, the noted war correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and representative of the New York World, in 1886, when he visited Utah for the purpose of investigating

"Mormonism," and reporting his conclusions to the journal he represented, and subsequently publishing those letters in his book "Sinners and Saints." We have never suffered at the hands of those who have honestly investigated our faith or people and told the truth about us, no matter how much they may have disagreed with our theology. But we have suffered very much at the hands of those who have pretended to investigate our faith and then have gone away and misrepresented both our people and our faith. Such characters are numerous and they are the ones I had in mind when the words to which you take exception were written. You charge us, in our comments on Dr. Reiner's letter, with abandoning all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs, and with falling back on the claims of revelation, which revelation you say no man by direct evidence can prove was not received, etc. Did you read carefully our comments on the Doctor's letter? If so, how could you come to such a conclusion? Instead of abandoning all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs, in our comments we brought together in support of the righteousness of plural marriage well known events in Jewish history, covering a period of more than a thousand years, and cited the legislation of God for the Hebrew race in proof of his approval of the form of marriage in question. And yet you accuse us of abandoning all historical evidence, all tangible proofs, and falling back on the claims of revelation! We may not use historical or other tangible evidence as you yourself and Dr. Reiner may think we ought to, but you cannot justly accuse us with abandoning it. And the use we make of it, moreover, is not less forceful than that you would recommend. I gather from your letter that your idea would be that in support of our plural marriage system, say, we should quote the practice of the old patriarchs and prophets, the legislation of the Jews on the subject, and the apologies of Luther and his associates for this practice, which were collated, in part, in Dr. Reiner's letter. But if this was our position how easily we could be answered that the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, is but a record of past events, and however many evidences may exist in it

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 813 of God's approval of plural marriage in the past, it cannot now be cited as authority in justification of such a marriage system. But our position is that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God instituting that form of marriage in this present age, and in support of the righteousness of that system of marriage, and in support of the truth of the revelation, we point to the practice of plural marriage by God's noblest and most blessed sons; to God's own course in giving them a plurality of wives; to his own laws which regulated polygamy among his ancient people, and under certain contingencies forced it upon them. All this if quoted in direct support of plural marriage, you think, would give some appearance of "intelligent historical and biblical warrant for some of the acts and claims of your (our) people." The difference between the course you would think most reasonable for us to pursue and the one we take is not very great. You would have us quote the historical and biblical proofs in direct support of our doctrine of plural marriage, and justify our course by reason of what is written in the scriptures; we quote that evidence in support of the truth, and the likelihood of the divine origin of that revelation which authorized our marriage system; and that is all the difference there is in the course you would advise and the one we take. Certainly that difference cannot justify you in saying that it amounts to an abandonment on our part of the evidence in question. What Luther and his associates said upon this question amounts to but very little; at best it is but the interpretation of what the law of God in their judgment was, and will be regarded as light or possessed of weight according as men esteem their learning, wisdom and piety. Incidentally it would be useful material in a discussion with virulent Protestants who while they revile Joseph Smith, all but deify Martin Luther. But with the revelations of God as warrant for our doctrine and all the biblical proofs that may be marshalled in support of the righteousness of plural marriage, and the likelihood of the divine origin of that revelation which authorized our marriage system, what Martin Luther and other "reformers" may have said on the subject sinks into something below secondary importance. We are more anxious to set forth the

truth, and make known the basis on which it rests, than score a mere point in polemics. I agree with you that no man can prove by direct evidence that another has not received a revelation; and that for proofs against such claims we are dependent upon the secondary evidences that arise from inconsistencies in the alleged revelation, for contradictions of known truths, for things in it incompatible with the revealed character of God, or things that would be known to be unworthy of the Divine Mind. It would have some weight too with "the jury of the people" you suppose, if it could be proven that the prophet whose revelation was under examination "was not a man holier or saintlier than his fellow men;" or if "all evidence showed he was an ordinary man," "not possessed of extraordinary virtues or anything that would mark him as an instrument to be selected of God" for giving a new revelation to mankind; or if for selfish and unrighteous motives it could be proven that "to quell some non-believers or dissatisfied disciple he would [pretend to] receive new revelations directed at the necessary party;"—all this, we know, if proven, would lead "the jury of the people" to say to those who believed the prophet and urged his claims, "the weight of evidence is against you, and your sole claim that you have a revelation is not sufficient." I do not concede, however, that the Lord Almighty in communicating a revelation to mankind through a prophet is bound by our rules of rhetoric or of English grammar. The people of Jerusalem were able to discern from the speech of Peter and John that they were unlearned men, but the imperfection of their speech did not destroy the fact that they possessed a revelation from God and a commission to preach it to all the world. But aside from that, we are aware of the fact that it is not sufficient to affirm that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in justification of the existence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of one or more of our doctrines. The fact of such revelation must be proven by the necessity that exists for it, by the character of it, the consistency of it, the truths it makes known, the results that flow from it; or the truth of it must be revealed individually to those who accept it. Nobody is more aware of

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 815 the necessity that is laid upon us of proving the seership and divine calling of Joseph Smith than we ourselves. And to convince you that we have a lively understanding of this fact and are working at it in our humble way, I shall send you by the mail that carries this a work of mine under the title "A New Witness for God," which, whatever its imperfections may be, will at least have this virtue, it will convince you that we do not "abandon all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs and fall back on the claims of revelation" alone for proof of the faith we have accepted. Reverting to Dr. Reiner's letter and what you say of him being placed in the "unfair position as an antagonist" to our faith, when in his first letter to you (the one published in the May No. of the Era) his "method was only in favor of Mormonism," I am sorry that either yourself or Dr. Reiner consider that he has peen placed in an "unfair position." Let us examine that position. I am left to judge from the answers the Doctor gives in his letter published in the May Era, that you had submitted to him at that time two questions:—first, "Are the Mormons a sincere people?" That question he answers in the affirmative; second, "Is their practice of polygamy capable of being justified from a biblical standpoint?" From that question he turns aside by asking "from a biblical standpoint according to whose interpretation?" He then assures you gentlemen who are members of the Church of Rome that you can discard this question by saying:—"Roma locuta, causa finita est." And then he proceeds to show that the Protestants have no good cause to complain against us on account of our plural marriages because Luther and a number of his associates justified and even advocated polygamy. This letter you sent to me with the suggestion that I "comment on the same from a Mormon standpoint, so that we (you) may have the 'Mormon' answer to the questions which you see from his answer were asked the Doctor. * * * We simply say, 'Here is what the Doctor says, what have you got to say?' " What could I say under these circumstances? That the Doctor by quoting what Luther and Carlstadt had said in approval of polygamy had cited the "Mormon" justification

for their doctrine of a plurality of wives? Could I say that he had completely answered your question, "Can 'Mormon' polygamy be justified from a biblical standpoint?" I could do neither of these things. And since I was to comment on the Doctor's letter from a "Mormon standpoint," so that you might have the "Mormon answer to the questions" which had been asked the Doctor, there was nothing to say but that Dr. Reiner had not answered your question, since he neither stated on what grounds "Mormons" justified the doctrine in question, nor cited the biblical evidence they refer to in support of the revelation which authorizes its practice among them. He did not represent our position on the question at all, and hence the task to do so devolved upon me by the arrangement governing our correspondence. Because I did this, yourself and Dr. Reiner think he is placed in an unfair position as an antagonist. Pardon my obtuseness, but I cannot see that that follows; and whatever of it appears to others to exist must arise from the peculiarity of our correspondence and the Doctor's method of treating the subject. As to the future and the terms the Doctor imposes for the privilege of publishing more of his letters:—I am to state in writing that it is my wish to publish his letters; I am to make it clear that the Doctor has no controversy with me; I am to publish the letter he encloses to you, and other letters that may pass between us. Just one word on the second condition. Does the Doctor mean that in making it clear that he has no controversy with me I am to abandon the right, in commenting on his letters, to set forth the whole position we occupy as a church if he but states it in part? That if he fails entirely to set forth our views on any given question— as in the case of his letter on plural marriage—I am prohibited from saying what our position is? That if, through misapprehension of our position or doctrine, he misstates either one or the other, I am to be prohibited from making the correction? Or, if in my judgment, his criticism of our doctrine or of our literature is unwarranted, am I to be prohibited from pointing that out and defending both our doctrine and our literature from his criticism, because under obligation to keep it clear that the Doctor has no controversy

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 817 with me? If he means all this or any part of it, I refuse his terms absolutely, for such an arrangement would make comment on his letters impossible, unless the Doctor thinks I am prepared to sit demurely at his feet while he teaches both you and me what my religious faith is, and at the conclusion of each lesson merely have me join in the applause, stifling all inclination to set forth more clearly what has been set forth but in part; or to defend our doctrine and our methods of exposition from what might be unwarranted criticism. You, my dear sir, will see how impossible it will be for me to accept such a proposition. I have, I think, a due appreciation for Doctor Reiner's abilities, learning, and intention to be fair; but my confidence in him to state accurately, fully, and without prejudice our claims and doctrines, does not reach the sublime stage that leads me to think he can do so absolutely without error. And I must say frankly that I do not think the Doctor has yet fully understood the genius of what the world calls "Mormonism." But with the right reserved to set forth m full what the Doctor may only state in part; to say what our position is when he fails to make it clear; to correct misstatements of our doctrine when through misapprehension they may occur; to defend our doctrines and position from what may be unwarranted criticism—with these rights reserved I am willing to comply with the Doctor's conditions. I will say, and do now say, that it is my wish to publish his letters; especially the one in relation to the "most crudely and unlearnediy stated dogmas of the Mormons," which, I take it, is the one you have now in hand; for I am anxious to discover wherein the weakness of our statement of our dogmas lies. Dr. Reiner said much, while here, on the crudenes of our methods in presenting our doctrines; I shall be pleased to get what he has to say on this head in explicit Jorm. I am willing to say and do now say, the Doctor has no personal controversy with me, and whatever appearance of controversy may exist arises from the singular nature of the manner in which the correspondence is carried on. I am willing to publish the letter he names, and this with it, and other letters that may pass between us, provided that 59

they are kept within limits consistent with the space that can be reasonably devoted to them in the Era. One word in conclusion, on another matter. Dr. Reiner says that "any adverse criticism is taken in Utah as a personal affront." He of course means any adverse criticism of our religion. I do not know upon what experience the Doctor bases his conclusion; but am sure that he could not have arrived at it by reason of anything that transpired in the interviews at which I was present, for as I remember it the Doctor was listened to with attention and courtesy and no offense was taken, so far as I know, at any adverse criticism he made either of our faith or manner of presenting it. And, speaking for myself, I must disclaim the weakness the Doctor charges. Almost from the days of my youth it has fallen to my lot to advocate and defend my religious faith. My experience, to say nothing of the spirit of meekness and humility which that religion enjoins, has taught me to bear with patience even the rudest opposition. My own experience in this kind ranges from the excited clamor and violence of mobs and the low jests and the loud blasphemy of the rabble, up to the polished sneer, the keen satire and biting sarcasm of the learned and refined. Yet I have not, to my knowledge, answered railing with railing, or taken as a personal affront adverse criticism of my religious faith. If I have spoken with great freedom and plainess to men, it has been in defense of truth; if I have been earnest in word or action, it has been from.other motives than personal vexation born of adverse criticism of our faith. But if adverse criticism has been brooked with patience; if personal violence has never been followed with retaliation; if sneers have never provoked anger; if assumption of superiority has been endured with meekness—I trust it will not be thought our conduct is the result of dullness of sensibility, meanness of spirit, or our failure to recognize the sneer, the satire, or the assumption of superiority. For example: Dr. Reiner says, "A controversy with Mr. Roberts would be a useless undertaking. Our different training and vocation in life would be sufficient reason for me to avoid such a controversy." I understand the Doctor's meaning in that perfectly, but it does not vex me, or provoke the least resentment in my

REINER-ROBERTS CORRESPONDENCE. 819 heart. I regard with what I trust is Christian charity the weakness of that vanity which alone could prompt such a remark. Moreover I admit there is much to justify the conclusion of the Doctor. He has enjoyed advantages in the Continental universities that are out of the question with us here in the West; and has had the opportunity also of making himself a specialist in his chosen lines of work. I can understand that he would look with some impatience upon those who might not agree with him, and yet who had not had the same advantages of training that he has had. But may it not be that I, too, am something of a specialist in my line. After a lifetime of study and reflection, advocacy and defense of my religious faith, may I not, without being open to the charge of egotism, be justified in the opinion that I could defend my faith against even what the Doctor might have to say against it; and that in that controversy he would not lose over much of dignity? I must ask you to pardon so long a letter. I am still at your service to assist you in your investigation of "Mormonism" in any way within my power; and to go on in the publication of the letters and comments as originally arranged between us and with the understanding herein set forth. Thanking you in advance for your patience with this lengthy communication, and assuring yourself and also Dr. Reiner of my good will and kindliest Christian feelings for you, I remain Very truly yours, B. H. Roberts. This letter was written on the 3rd of June, and since then we have received no word from our eastern friends. We have concluded therefore that they have decided to discontinue the arrangements originally entered into concerning this correspondence; and we think it is only just both to our readers and the Era that the circumstances under which the correspondence closed should be known.