---
title: Improvement Era
description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930.
authors:
  - Williams, Edward
collections:
  - periodicals
tags:
  - magazine
  - improvement-era
periodical: Improvement Era
volume: 16
number: 10
published: 1913-08
publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations
publisher_place: Salt Lake City
language: en
type: magazine
reference: 'Williams, Edward, "The “Mormon” Problem," *Improvement Era* 16, no. 10 (August 1913): 968–981.'
source:
  url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera16010unse
  transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers.
  identifier: improvementera16010unse
start_page: 968
end_page: 981
rights:
  status: public-domain
  basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1913-08)
  source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera16010unse
  publication_year: 1913
  note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1913, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright.
---

# The “Mormon” Problem

<!-- Illustration or unnumbered editorial plate in source. -->

Improvement Era Vol. XVI AUGUST, 1913. No. 10 The "Mormon" Problem BY EDWARD WILLIAMS, A NONMORMON Everyone has heard of the "Mormon" problem. Indeed, any who have not heard of it must either be unable to understand the prevailing dialect of our country, or else residents of settlements very remote from the beaten trails. Few, however, have a clear idea as to what this problem involves. It is not like the familiar puzzles of our school text-books of mathematics, because, in spite of all our skill and pains, no answer has yet been found. Yet, there is a "Mormon" problem, and a very real one. According to general understanding, it relates directly to the uprooting of all the evils and perplexities that afflict us, which makes it a very vexatious problem indeed. This opinion is correct, but in a very different sense from what we suspect. The seriousness of the problem, however, is usually expressed by our feelings of indignation'and annoyance. Had the devil himself taken up a local and visible habitation somewhere between Chicago and the coast, and begun circulating vicious and alluring literature among school children, the indignation of the righteous could hardly have been greater, nor the wouldbe "exorcist" busier than these elements have been, because some people called "Mormons," inhabit a region within the bounds of our great country. Could we credit all that has been said about "Mormons," we should presently expect them to rot of sheer turpitude. Why should any set of people be voluntarily and openly so wicked, when a reputation for virtue and respectability is so easily achieved and maintained? Charity — or complacence — cloaks such multitudes of sins for so many of us that "honest wickedness" must appear in the same category with unsanitary negligence. The reputed gravity and comprehensiveness of the "Mormon" problem are unprecedented. There is nothing bad the "Mormons" have not done, at one time or another, or all at the same time. Worse than this they indulge the inexcusable folly of being so careless in their mischief, that they are always being found out, and that, also, by people whose judgment and powers of observation are in complete inverse ratio to their loquacity. These finders-out represent various sects and persuasions, religious, political and otherwise, but all are "just persons which .need no repentance," and all are implacably anti-"Mormon." Friends of "Mormons," and un *This article was first printed in the Deseret News, June 7, 1913.

<!-- page:968 -->

968 IMPROVEMENT ERA biased observers in general, are mysteriouslv blinded to these evil qualities and doings. The "Mormons" are clever enough, we hear, to show them only the "best side." (What a pleasure to hear that there is a "best side" to be shown!) Thus, most causes now before the American public are largely, if not essentially, concerned with the solution of this "great problem." Any one opposed to trusts and monopolies, and wishing to use the very strongest argument against them, proclaims that they are "Mormon" institutions, a part of the "problem." Similarly, our "abnormal high tariff duties" are found to be solely for the protection of "Mormons." No one else cares a straw for them. Legislatures are corrupted by "Mormon" money. Interstate commerce laws are defied by "Mormon" plotting. A society recently organized to oppose child-labor in factory centers occupies its first meeting with a denunciation of "Mormonism," and of a certain United States senator, reputed an adherent of that form of faith. Certain zealous temperance reformers "discover" the monstrous "fact" that the "Mormons," for sheer love of lawbreaking, probably, are engaged in importing intoxicating liquors into "dry" states and counties. Commissions, appointed to inquire into vices of various orders, inaugurate their proceedings, not with prayer, but with resolutions calculated to "get a whack at the 'Mormons'." Atrocious murderers are "discovered" to be "Mormons," and thus miss the consolations of popular sentimental "sympathy." Nor was this "problem" any simpler or any less inclusive in the early days. It has always been auife as serious and quite as embarrassing as at present. If there was a row on the frontier, it was traced to the "Mormons." If a horse was stolen, or a dog was shot, "Mormons" again. The "high-handed and Christian" populations who could not tolerate "Mormonism" in Missouri, strangely degenerated into the "border ruffians," when, a few years later, the anti-slavery fight was on in Kansas. That was an after-effect. The "Mormons" hypnotized the legislature of Illinois, and comnelled it to pass unanimously the "amazing charter" of the City of Nauvoo, which was later found to be "distinctly seditious." Finalb' after being "driven from civilization" to the then sequestered wilds of the Rocky Mountains, they inaugurate a "rebellion" against the federal government some 2,500 miles distant. This uprising must have been somewhat in the line of a modern rendering of "Ajax defying the lightning," because there appeared nothing else, in particular, to defy. It was intolerable, nevertheless, and an army marched forth to quash it. It must have been a genuine solace to the clergy, those guardians of virtue, whenever a massacre, a hold-up, or a plain murder was reported from the far west, to know exactly whom to blame. There was only one answer — at least only one was given. In short, the theory always was that all the innocent blood ever shed upon the earth, "from the blood of righteous Abel" to the latest non-combatant shot in Mexico, must be "required" of this same people. In view of all these allegations, it is in no sense remarkable that the "Mormon" problem has always worried sensitive souls among us. One great trouble about the matter is that no one seems to know exactly what this "problem" is. Whether it is moral, religious, political, sociological, or merely pathological, or all together, is equally uncertain and vexatious. In short, the situation involves a problem about a problem, and the only thing definite from start to finish is that there is a set of people, popularly called "Mormons," who are odius to a large number of other people. Even this in-

<!-- page:969 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 969 formation affords only meager satisfaction. On the basis of this popular "dislike," our earnest friends expect us to accept their tales of superlative and unprecedented rascality. Even the most selfaccusing among us would be fairly amazed to find his soul blackened by such an overwhelming excess of depravity as we are asked to believe is domiciled in "Mormon" hearts. The situation is merely preposterous, and would be ludicrous, were it not that it involves an intensity and malignity of feeling that are dreadful to contemplate. Then, when, as sinners of the commoner varieties, we visit "Mormon" centers, expecting to meet congenial soirits, we are ruthlessly disappointed to find just plain, honest, industrious people, nearly uniformly interested in matters religious, and enthusiastic advocates of temperance, purity and righteousness of life. We find these people kindly and helpful to one another, and strangely unhurried about destroying the stranger within their gates. They exemplify the adage that a "bad reputation is a good thing: one need not trouble about living up to it." Yet, these people have been publicly accused of all the sins condemned in the Decalogue, the Pentateuch, and the Four Gospels, with a few newer ones in addition. We have been informed, in effect, that it would take a miracle of grace to raise them to the level of total depravity. They have been denounced as a menace to morals, religion, government, and what not else beside. But, where we had expected to thrill with admiration at sight of a stupendous mountain of deviltry, we find modest exteriors and unassuming manners. All this aggravates the "problem" still further. How can "wolves" array themselves so neatly and becoming in "sheep's clothing?" Were there ever such successful deceivers? Some people, emulous probably of a reputation for originality, have gone so far as to assert that "Mormonism" is not a religion at all — but a business enterprise. It is altogether evident that such statement is based upon no misapprehension of facts or conditions, but, also, not necessarily upon any accurate observation or reliable demonstration. If it be true, however, it must be considered, not as "exposure," but as "publicity." In other words, if "Mormonism" is "business" merely, it is quite as certain that anti-"Mormonism" is its advertising department. The two are as surely parts of one plan as if they were managed from one "office," and organized by one "board of directors." Furthermore, the campaign of publicity has been most astute. It has followed two familiar and effective lines, now approved among publicists, to-wit: persistent, even pestering, reiteration of a name or style, which serves to worry and torment the public into familiarity; and deliberate exaggeration, which, in spite of begetting disbelief in many minds, is calculated to impress this same name or style lastingly upon the memory. And the campaign is beginning to show results. The first of these is that the name "Mormonism" is already a "household word," and people naturally want to know just what it really means. Had it not been for this excellent, and providential, scheme of advertising, we might have felt no more curiosity about "Mormons" than about Shakers or defenseless Mennonites. As it is, when we see an item or an article about "Mormons" we read it, and the next time we see such "Mormons," authoritative intelligence about our "shipload" of 6,000,000 Baptists, or our "trainload" of 7,000,000 Methodists goes into 'the basket. The reading public esteems these 13,000,000 people as some-

<!-- page:970 -->

970 IMPROVEMENT ERA what less than sensationally interesting. Thus it is that the public is ill tinproper mood eagerly to devour the "follow-up matter," when it is ready. That virtually all the information they have had, hitherto, is unreliable, misleading, often entirely false, is immaterial: "Mormonism" has been so well advertised that they are interested in reading anything about it. How thrilling, then, the surprise involved, should there be a complete reversal of previous impressions! This "surprise business'' is another trick which our advertising experts have learned to use with telling effect. In the second place, the policy of exaggeration and misrepresentation, so consistently followed in this "publicity campaign." has also been justified in its effects. At first, the saner oortion of the American public was mildly amused at the grotesque "wickedness," as reported, of the "Mormons," viewing it somewhat in the light of matter proper to the humorous department. Later, as the "humor" waxed senile, the prevailing sentiment was tolerant skepticism. Human nature can support no more than a very small average weight of sinfulness, without a breakdown. Consequently, the reiteration of exaggerated accusation logically leads to the suspicion that, for sake of effecting a disguise, wolves, rather than sheep, had been despoiled of their "clothing." Skepticism leads to investigation: and thus it is that sociologists and other thoughtful people are now giving attention to "Mormon" claims and achievements. Soon these matters will take their places in the world's common stock of Knowledge, while the whole body of adverse criticism will be ignored as irrelevant accretion. Thus the value of thorough advertising will be fully proven. It is no part of our thesis, however, that "Mormonism" and anti- "Mormonism" have ever been, consciously, in league. Even the highest "Quorum" of the Church exercises no secret suzerainty over this "publicity campaign." It is pained by it, undoubtedly: it submits to it as a permission of Providence; it regards it as a necessary dispensation, fraught with mystery and rich in trials grievous to be borne. It may be that it holds other, and more consoling convictions on the matter, but on this point it says nothing further. In the meantime, anti-"Mormons" are every whit as certain that there is no co-operation between themselves and their antitypes. They protest that they are not "advertising," but "opposing:" that their aim is to further God's work, as against those who would thwart it; that, in fine, they are "instruments" in the hands of a righteous and over-ruling Providence for the vindication of the everlasting gospel. And there is an overruling Providence, which uses men for its own ends, be they anti- "Mormons," or be they otherwise: that "makes even the wrath of man to praise him," and 'is certain to use them, willing or unwilling, to vindicate this gospel. We are closer now to understanding what the "Mormon" problem really is, and a surprising and astounding problem it must appear. We have heard of men who "builded better than they knew" — perhaps, also, worse. We have known of men who have "overreached themselves to their own undoing." We have seldom heard of men whose bitterest denunciations and best-conceived plottings have proven at last the strongest arguments in favor of the very cause which they had hoped to overthrow; who, in short, had been able helners where thev had hoped to be formidable adversaries. Yet, just this situation still further complicates the "Mormon" problem. The "Mormon" Church makes one original and fundamental claim, which, at once, involves a "great gulf fixed" between itself and all other bodies professing religion. It claims to be the very Church founded by Christ on earth, completely and perfectly re stored, after submersion for centuries bepeath a deluge of apostasy.

<!-- page:971 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 971 As to whether this claim be warranted or not, it is unnecessary to argue here: we are concerned with the "signs which shall follow" rather than with aught that may be said in way of support or defense. If the claim is untrue, it is merely the pet vagary of a set of people, who have their virtues and failings, like the rest of the world, and furnishes no possible warrant for the invariable bitterness and implacability of anti-"Mormonism." If it is true, on the other hand, all this turmoil and savagery are fully and sufficiently explained as the world's wrath at the sight of God's truth, and the "Mormon" problem achieves a clear and definite statement, thus: "How shall we prove that the 'Mormon' Church is not the true Church of God, as it claims?" Is this the horrid situation that has always afflicted the "sub-conscious" of anti-"Mormonism?" The forming or statement of such an estimate as this involves no necessary conviction in the premises, nor, even, a readiness to argue for the claims of "Mormonism." It is interpretation of a situation, rather than assertion of a conviction. Furthermore, it is interpretation of a situation created by the professed enemies of "Mormonism " which they alone can modify, if they are so moved. Without fear of exaggerating, we may assert that the situation is almost unique. We can blind ourselves no longer to the fact, in our attitude toward and our treatment of these people, we have done no otherwise than help them re-enact the miseries of the early Christians. In this we have dignified, rather than discredited, in any degree, their most radical claims. The analogy between the two is startling. At no time in the world's history did intolerance, injustice, violence, false witness, or other forms of "man's inhumanity to man" attain such huge and hideous proportions, as in the oersecutions of the early Christians. Throughout the Roman empire at this same period, every form of squalid superstition and half crazy philosophy was viewed with appreciative complacence, but the Christians were safe nowhere. They were accused of numerous crimes evidently committed by others; of misdoings existing" nowhere but in the depraved imaginations of their traducers, and even of evil things done or procured for the deliberate purpose of creating excuses to onnress them. They were advertised as a menace to the state; as conspirators against "law and order;" as "anarchists, brigands and murderers;" as oeople, in short, to be tolerated nowhere and to be feared and hated everywhere. There was evidently a very definite and serious "Christian problem" before the Roman people. The horrible story of the early days of Christianity has been told repeatedly. There is no need to rehearse the sickening details here, nor to dwell on them further tnan to remark that "hell let loose to oppose the cause of truth and righteousness" is the fairest characterization. Yet, in this very fact may we derive the strongest argument in favor of the claims of Christ. If he were not the Lord of life, whose "lifting-up" means the ultimate overthrow of hell and the "death of death," it were difficult, indeed, to explain why all the agencies of evil were massed together, as it were, to attempt the destruction of his cause and his people. Why else was it that just and wise men, such as Marcus Aurelius — he whose "Meditations" are still read and quoted by students of moral thought — should participate in this reign of hellish madness? Why else was it' that good men imbued their hands with innocent blood? In such matters we see examples of the principle that "God maketh the wrath of man to praise him" — they were accumulating the "evidence." How strange, then, it must appear that, eighteen centuries later, this same lying and vindictive spirit again appears to tempt men,' otherwise just and righteous, to lie, revile, persecute, and even mur-

<!-- page:972 -->

972 IMI'knVKMKNT KRA der, in the alleged behalf Of truth ! Had they so behaved in opposition to any one of the numerous sects and denominations that have arisen in our country, and still survive, more or less obscurely, it would have seemed a surprising waste of energy, or an unwarranted compromise wiili evil-doing, That they reserved their unworthy activity for the only sect or church that, definitely and flatly announced its claim to exclusive divine authority is significant. Why were the claims of this Church not ignored as absurd and presumptuous, from the standpoint of the world at large, and the Church itself left to live or die, as destiny might decide? Why, indeed? Whv, in the same fashion, could not the Jews and Romans of twenty centuries ago ignore, and leave to its fate, another Church which arose making the same claims? Now, as we may hear, the two cases, the ancient and the modern, are not perfectly parallel; we lack in these times the arena, the terrors of wild beasts, the tortures, and the cruel and miserable forms of death. The modern movement is, they allege, merely the zeal, overdone at times, perhaps, mistaken often, exaggerated usually, of good men, earnest and God-fearing, who oppose what they honestly believe a wicked heresy and a dangerous organization. Goodness and earnestness have been credited with very curious disguises long before our time, but many there are who doubt the masquerade. As for ourselves, there is no valid defense for our doings and sayings, and we may as well understand it. To be sure, in this modern misbehavior of ours, the bloodv and wicked violence of early Christian days has not been perfectly reproduced. This, however, is only because, unlike the old Romans, the greater mass of our people are of a stock which has always been indifferently bloodthirsty, even from the earliest times. Also, all these things were done in this age of utilitarian civilization, and weak stomachs, when we have neither the time, nor the physical inclination to enjo" wholesale bloody violence. It is distinctly repugnant, even when visited on enemies. Nevertheless, despite all our handicaps of race and time, we have failed but slightly in point of will. Very many things we have not done, but many of these, again, we have advocated as far as we have dared. The facts are all written on the pages of history. Here we find that murderous mobs assaulted the "Mormons" in every state where they appeared, and in a preposterously large number of cases pleading religious grounds for their deviltry. The violent denunciations of preachers and other agitators, really quaking for their own livings, no doubt, inflamed the baser elements, even to the commission of murder. During the persecutions in Missouri occurred the brutal massacre of Haun's Mill, in which defenseless women and little boys were shot to death in an abandoned blacksmith shop. On several occasions even the "Mormons" hit back against the slaughterers of women and children, and, forthwith, arose monstrous tales of "Danites" or "destroying angels," whose trade and pleasure alike was murder and violence. Finally, the "outraged population" drove all these people from their homes, men, women, children and the aged and sick together, in the dead of winter, compelling them to leave the state. Where were the "Danites" then? Ordained preachers accompanied some of the bands of anti-"Mormon" ruffians in the capacity of "chaplains" — it was a holy war. Later, after the "Mormons" had settled in Illinois, very similar movements were organized against them. The "conscience" of the community must have been like a running sore, so sensitive it was. Governor Ford, a participant in much of the turmoil in this state, wrote a history in which he asserts that "popular indignation" against these people was rooted in their own political chicanery. Some ex-

<!-- page:973 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 973 planations need crutches. The political "indignation" culminated in the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother in the jail at Carthage. Here they were shot to death by a mob having their faces blackened with burnt cork, and the niveous whiteness of their virginal characters cloaked beneath participation in a savage and unlawful act. They rose "manfully" to the duty of destroying this "enemy of true religion," subduing their racial abhorrence to the sight of blood. But even with this "achievement," the oopular "horror at political perfidy" was not assuaged. A "posse of citizens," under the leadership, for a time, of a certain Brockman, a Campbellite preacher of bad reputation and great zeal, and with the apparent anproval of the governing clique of the state, heckled and tormented the "Mormons" in their city of Nauvoo, until they arose, man, woman and child, and sought a refuge beyond the sunset. In the fastnesses of the Rocky Mountains, safe from the depredations of even the most "indignant" mobs of "outraged citizenry," they still continued to be a menace in the eyes of the clergy and of other sensitive souls. Their reek pervaded the upDer air, like the wind-borne ashes of a volcano: their existence could not be forgotten. The "unruly member" in the anatomies of numerous good people did "yeoman service for the cause of truth." Missionaries and traveling bishops brought back weird tales of impending "bloody conflicts" and "infuriate disloyalty," and our people — satiated, likely, with "penny-dreadful" stories of wild Indians, misguided cowboys, and ruthless "road agents" — -welcomed these vapid hallucinations as new provocations to the delights of a howling frenzy. Popular preachers, hired to herald the gospel of peace and love to intelligent congregations, grew restive at God's delay with the thunderbolts, and shrieked for the artillery to "thunder" the "Mormons" into futurity, and for bayonets to tap the springs of their sinfulness and of their life-blood together. These things are too well attested to be denied. A leading Presbyterian journal openly advocated that the "Mormons" be driven from their homes, and that their "lands and tenements be thrown open to original entry by civilized settlers." Preachers and publications of other connections offered precisely similar advice with equal energy; holding, evidently, that, in St. Peter's words, some people are "fit only to be taken and killed." What these popular preachers and religious editors would have tried to do, had the power been in their hands, may be better imagined than enlarged upon. However, the cool blood of the Briton and the Teuton fevers less readily with the lust of persecution than do the liquid elements of the Latin and the oriental. Their material was refractory, but they did their noble best with it. Failing in the attempt to provoke an "armed conflict," w'th these people by violent talk, they bombarded Congress with demands of sumptuary legislation, finally compromising in their more strenuous designs, when acts were passed dissolving the corporation of the "Mormon" Church, declaring its property escheated to the public treasury, and its people disfranchised and branded with outlawry. We cannot wonder that the framers of our Constitution specifically enacted that no law should be passed relating to the "establishment of religion." This was a selected method of calling "not the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." If all this was not persecution, what, then, shall we call it? Many travelers, public officials and "gentile" residents of the "Mormon" country flatly denied all the charges of superlative rascality brought against them, while congressmen and senators, even from states sodden with anti-"Mormon" sentiment, denounced and thundered at the brutal provisions of the Edmunds law. These men

<!-- page:974 -->

974 IMPROVEMENT ERA so Far as the "Mormons" were concerned, were all "unk outsiders," liowbeit normal in the fact thai the cerebral co-ordination between their sense records and their speech centers seems to have been intact. M,Mi\ well meaning persons suffer from derangement in this particular. Thev challenge <>tir pity, bul it is "unscientific," perhaps, to call them nlain falsifiers. One of these people, favored with a normal co-ordination, a man named Charles Ellis, who always appended "Non-'Mormon' " to his signature, summed the situation in the following words: "From its appearance. 'Mormonism' has been hated by the evan- -clical sects as a heresy. The cry against its polygamy as being a danger to society, and the cry againsl its priesthood as being a danger to the government have never been more than a subterfuge, the object being to detract attention from the real fight, which was to destroy the 'Mormon' heresv. This statement will bear full investigation. Why has 'Mormonism' been so much misunderstood? Simply because the evangelical churches saw in its success their own downfall, and they dare not let their own followers know what 'Mormonism' really is, lest they should embrace it. As compared with the evangelical conception of life here and after, 'Mormonism' is as a Rocky Mountain day in May compared with a New England day in March when the wind is east and the sun is veiled. Such being the case, it may be readily understood that an investigation . . . will reveal a very different spirit from that which has been talked about, and written and preached against in the east for nearly half a century." As it was in the davs when the Romans persecuted the harmless disciples of the lowW Nazarene, so also in this latter-day persecution, the persecutors charge upon the persecuted the very sins with which they and their fellows will be charged at the judgment seat of God. The crimes and rascalities alleged against the "Mormons" — and there may be some "Mormons" as there are some others who are guilty of some or of all of them — are merely the adumbrations of the kinds of iniquity most common among us all. When we see a bad "Mormon," or a bad Indian, or a bad Chinese, or a bad person of any stock or allegiance with which we happen to be out of sympathv, his badness looms far more hideous than the same qualitv in ourselves or in our friends. This is because of defective imagination. We are like the man mentioned by St. Peter 1:24, who, having beheld his face in a glass, "straightway forgetteth what manner of man he is." We are also like Edgar Poe's hero, William Wilson, who slew his own disembodied conscience, mistaking it for a threatening and hateful adversary and thus destroyed himself. It is, indeed, a sad and dreaded thing when good men, pausing from their appointed work, assume the role of accusers. We know who the great Accuser is, and we have Christ's own word for it that he was a "liar from the beginning." It is dangerous to trespass in this field, unless we are willing to accuse ourselves with the rest of humanity. In view of these facts, it is scarcely remarkable that anti-"Mornn in" accusation consists either of wanton exaggeration or of childish triviality. It is, in fact, an attempt to justify ourselves for our overzealous onposition to this form of faith, and not, in any propriety, the cause or occasion of any part of it. If this be a mistaken view, it is quite certain that we ask our fellows to help "crush" these neoole with a quality of "evidence" upon which no one could justly hang a dog. Their "impurity" and "immorality" have been embalmed in a whole literature of lachrymose jeremiads, which has provoked the detestation, unjustly, of "gentile" virtue, and replenished the coffers of missionary enterprise. We are told, on the one hand, that the

<!-- page:975 -->

THE -MORMON" PROBLEM 975 alleged "general impurity among the young people" is definitely traceable to the "social dances" founded by Brigham Young, since these affairs promote too close association among the sexes. Poor Brigham Young, when will they reach the end of his mistakes! But, who founded the "social dances" and other affairs which should account for the same kind of doings in all the world beyond? If such things really bothered us so much, we would never have time even to mention the existence of any form of "Mormon" iniquity. We are told, on the other hand — and this by a "missionary" who has been sadly careless in the matter of contradicting false rumors in the past — that this terrible "impurity" originated in the institution of "polygamy." (Ergo, "Mormonism" must be crushed again). But what effect, if anv. is visible to missionaries, is exercised on the young by that other "social institution," beside which Presbyterianism thrives fatly, innocuously, complacently, in "gentile" vicinages, just as should the lamb and the wolf, who, by prophetic promise, shall one day "dwell together?" Another gentleman complains that "Mormonism" destroys the "unitv of the family." He neglects to inform us, however, to what extent we must blame this system for the 55,000 divorces annually effected in this country. Probably the influence which he deplores gains in virulence in direct ratio to its distance from the point of origin. Another coterie of sectarian critics, like the famous "traveler from Altruria," who found his guileless soul constantly in pain, because the "Golden Rule" appeals not to worldly cupidity, publish a wail of horror at the record of the juvenile court in a city "overwhelmingly 'Mormon.' " Because of this dreadful list, including truancy, malicious mischief, use of tobacco, violating city ordinance, trespassing on railroad cars, and several other offenses common to youth, even in "Christian" communities, their trenchant editor runs amuck through half a column, reviling a senator, accusing a drug company of "boozevending," hinting at vague rumors of "unnrintable doings," which no one had attempted to print, and concludes thus: "The reason is that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no saving power. The 'Mormon' Church has not and cannot change. [Shades of the grammarians!] The only hope for Utah is in the evangelical churches, and these churches must declare the whole counsel of God, or sadly miss their chance." Well, Tood, kind, logical gentlemen, "declare the whole counsel of God;" and do it now — it should take the whole time of all of you — but do soft-pedal these "railing accusations" based on the folly of irresponsible children, and omit this hoodlum gossip about "unprintable doings" which are no monopoly of "Mormons," else some of us will conclude that you know little enough of God and his counsels. If the evangelical churches are going to purge Utah of the vicious practices of truancy and trespassing on railroad cars, which so seriously discredit "Mormon" influences, it is a great mystery that juvenile delinquents are so numerous and so enterprising in communities blessed with the untrammeled influence of evangelicalism. This situation reminds one curiously of the fable of the boastful traveler, who, on returning home, brought witnesses to attest a mighty jump once made by him in Rhodes. "No need for witnesses," said his neighbors. "Pretend this is Rhodes, and jump again." The marvelous things to be accomplished by the missionaries of our ineffective sects, among the heathen and others, is always out of all proportion to anything they have ever done at home. But, there is one charge brought against the "Mormon" Church, which experience might warrant us in believing serious. It is to the effect that this Church asserts the doctrine that God's priesthood is superior to all (?) earthly governments: in other words, that it antici-

<!-- page:976 -->

976 IMPROVEMENT ERA pates the institution of a theocracy, in which its own central authority shall be supreme. If such is the teaching of this Church, it merely repeats what is, after all, the common belief of all Christian sects, each one in behalf of itself and of its fellowships. The oldest of them all, the Roman church, still asserts its claim to "temporal power," and the belief in its future complete realization. At one i eriod this church was virtual ruler of the world, and its head was recognized as king of kings. The music of angel choirs disturbed no one's sleep in those days. Some there be who assert that the world has improved since the Catholic power was broken. The government of England has been for several centuries theocratic, to the extent, at least, of seating the bishops of the established church in the House of Lords. There has always been a fairlv uniform "Christian harmony" in this house, between the "lords temporal" and the "lords spiritual," and neither party has sought to curtail the "sacred orerogatives" of the other. "How beautiful it is when brethren dwell together in unity." The result is the religious inculcation of the British commoner's sacrosanct reverence for all established authoritv and for exalted personages in general. By the same token, this reverential person expects no special privileges or prerogatives to apply to himself. Such things are reserved for persons in exalted station. When, for example, the people petitioned Charles II in vain to call a parliament to decide certain questions of importance to themselves, the church party enrolled itself with the court attaches in opposition to the people, thus dividing Englishmen into two camps, the "petitioners," all too forgetful of "divine rights," and the "abhorrers," who were very piously revolted at such presumption. Thus, it is scarcely remarkable that England, with all her glories, is not, nor was ever, the home of human brotherhood and equal rights. This fact many of her people are beginning to suspect today, in their revolt against ridiculous and oppressive laws and customs; and when she reaps the whirlwind, as she surely will, it will be largely because those thinking "to say within [themselves], We have Abraham to our father" (in a "spiritual sense") have forgotten to "bring forth the works of Abraham." No contributions to the cause of universal justice or the sacred rights of mankind ever came to birth, because the bishops sat with the lords: almost uniformly, they have been forced forth by demand of the people themselves, working from below upward. Yet, some would fain have us believe that a large part of Christ's mission on earth was to establish these bishops in power. The social unrest of the present day has compelled people active in the affairs of our various churches to take a serious, often grudging, cognizance of the conditions under which mankind have labored and suffered hitherto, and which they have very generally ignored. Thus, we are told, in way of explanation and excuse, that "the church has not yet developed the full social consciousness," but, presumably, is now at work upon its development. Similarly, "the power of working miracles has become latent;" and "in the future the Church will develop a powerful moral influence." Prominent workers constantb' propose the question, "What shall be the Church's attitude upon" this and that issue? There can be no doubt but what the Church founded by Christ — if, indeed, his .own words are any clue to his intentions in the matter — possessed a well-defined "social consciousness," also, the "power of working miracles," and exercising a moral influence. Presently, our sectarian friends will fully acknowledge the complete "apostasy" of their respective bodies; finding such a multitude of "undeveloped" influences, which, by Christ's own words, should have been fullv matured and vitally active in all these centuries of "Christian" domination. It is strange, also, that anyone should ask, except from

<!-- page:977 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 977 motives of the merest curiosity, "What shall be the Church's attitude?" Great problem that, referring to an organization professedly informed and vitalized by the Spirit of God! Protestantism is also theocratic to the extent that, while pattering about the "separation of church and state," it is constantly busybodying about procuring laws to enforce standards of righteousness, otherwise not to be observed. If the Protestant preacher, a person constitutionally unable to discriminate a fact from a fancy, also emulous of no such ability, could refrain from meddling in politics, fewer foolish laws would stand on our statute books, and far less injustice be done among us. His kind of "theocracy" is a real menace. Sad it is for a community whose moral standards are determined by such people. Once, in the history of our beloved country, the Protestant preacher was the chief factor in the government. The history then composed is no story of regnant loving kindness, nor cf the supremacy of any of the "weightier matters of the law." It is a tale of bitter strifes, rank oppression, endless turmoil, crazy behavior and detestable presumption; we refer to affairs in Massachusetts Bay colony. Henry Dunster, orincipal of Harvard college, for announcing his disbelief in infant baptism, was driven forth in the depth of winter with all his family. This seems to be a favorable method with heretics. Roger Williams was censured by the colonial sanhedrin for insisting that the colonies had no just title to lands, except by grants from the aborigines. This was counted "impious," because, as they held, God had given these lands to them, his "elect." Later, Williams was banished, largely for advocating the separation of church and state. A woman named Anne Hutchinson was similarly driven forth for alleged heresies, but principally for criticising the "chief priests and the scribes." Mary Dyer, a fanatical Quaker, was hanged, after repeated banishments and returnings, because she presumed to "warn" these saintly autocrats. Several others of her connection were similarly subjected to the form of "banishment" that is certain to entail no danger of returnings, simply because the government knew of no other way to "silence" them; the Puritan churches, like another just mentioned, demonstrated "no saving power." But the apogee was reached in the witchcraft insanity, fathered by Cotton Mather, ably assisted b others of the pastors, which resulted in the deaths, cruelly brought about, of scores of unfortunate people, many of them aged, all of them, probably, innocent of wrongdoing. The public excesses perpetrated by these preacher-autocrats were worthily seconded by their theological abominations. The gloom of the spiritual "reign of terror" inaugurated by these persons was intensified by the heathenish doctrines of infant damnation and of a God whose "mercy" was no more than legalistic immunity from the horrors of his "justice." One needs only read the famous poem by Michael Wigglesworth, "The Dav of Doom" — a composition highly prized among the Puritans — to appreciate the force of Wesley's remark to the Calvinistic Whitefield, "Your God is my devil." Small wonder that this inverted pyramid of oppression, false doctrine, and presumption collapsed from its own top-heaviness. Small wonder, also, that the unthinking element supposes that massacre, murder, violence and bloody doings, in general, are necessary accompaniments of theocracy. This explains many of the wanton charges made against the "Mormons;" it was association of ideas merely. We should remember, however, that the word connotes "God-government," the scheme promulgated in the Bible;

<!-- page:978 -->

978 IM l'K< »\'l MIX"! IK \ also, tii.it "Mormonism" advocates neither the first, nor yet the wmM form. 1 1 merely claims for itself, it it makes a claim in this particular. ili«- same dignity as Hie visible agent <>\ God which all other bodies asserl on thenown behalf; and such right is guaran teed under "inConstitution. I low-ever, such is the soul and BubStance of the famous "political menace." in consequence of which, again, we .ue urged to helo quash "Mormonism." But, in view of general shortcomings, why stop with this Church? Why not completely purge the Augean stables of American religion, hefouled, as they are, by the cattle of false doctrine, hypocrisy, and Christless sell complacency, and begin anew with the faith that the Savior meant precisely what he said on all matters whatsoever, and nothing else? It is to he piously hoped that those persons who claim the dignity of religious leaders will one clay outlive the childish habit of slandering those with whom thev happen to disagree. The practice serves most effectively to fortify the faith of believers in the persecuted sect or cult, also, to excite the suspicion in many minds, that, all the weight of truth and righteousness may not lie on the side of the sword, the fire-hrand, and the "serpent's tongue." Thus, for example, in our silly policy of persecuting the "Mormons," we have accomplished two things, not in our program. We have fortified the faith of believers in this Church, and have furnish ed excellent arguments to others who are seeking occasions against the claims of traditional sectarianism, as if its wretched failures did not argue enough already. We have demonstrated, in short, that, so far as concerns simple loyalty to Christ's teachings and commands, our sects and creeds have again been "weighed and found wanting," and this, in his own words, "because thou hadst no mercy." No adherent or advocate of "Mormonism" can ever comnlain in tin' words of Scripture, "We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced," because we have danced. Joseph Smith has been the stagemanager, and the rest of us have obedientlv taken the positions and played the parts which he has assigned to us. He said to the great "Christian" public of our country: "Your oart shall be that of the apostate victims of Satan, involved in the 'great fallingaway'," and we have acted the apostate to the life. He said to the handful of disciples gathered around him: "You are the remnant of Israel, chosen to restore God's kingdom in the world." and their acting, also, has been most realistic. They persist in the role of the "lamb dumb before its shearers," and to our wealth of vitriolic eloquence they have answered "not a word." While anti- ". Mormonism" has raged and howled itself into gnashing paroxvsms which have nassed current for seizures of "righteous indignation," they have stolidly adhered to the command, "revile not again." One can understand, to be sure, how that a system of religion claiming to be the "restoration of the fulness of the gospel," and explicitly declaring the complete apostasy of all previous sects and churches, should be odious to religionists of other persuasions. But that is not sufficient reason for playing pandemonium "by request." In our blindness and stupiditv, we have done everything possible to establish the truth of Joseph Smith's claims, also those of the Church founded by him, except arguing directly in their favor. Now it is rather late to reverse ourselves. Is the "Mormon' Church the true Church of God, after all? If not, why do its enemies "so furiouslv rage," precisely as should the enemies of the real true Church? Is this Church blasphemously presumptuous in declaring: the unescapable necessitv for a restoration of the gospel in the world apostate from Christ? If so, whv have its opponents piled the "Pelion" of slander on the "Ossa" of malignant

<!-- page:979 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 979 hate, thus adding fresh arguments to the "infidel" conviction that the "Mormon" charges are true? All this is no "Mormon" presumption; so many Christlike qualities have become "latent" in Christian centuries, that they must have been honestly deceived into supposing them absent entirely. Such a "mistake" is nearly inevitable. Could any educated "heathen," reading for the first time a truthful and perspicuous historv of "Christianity," close the book with the tearful comment, "Lord, I believe?" If such an educated "heathen" should then turn to the history of "Mormonism," he might feel surmised at Joseph Smith's account of his first vision, where God said of traditional sects, "Their hearts are far from me. Having a form of godliness, they deny the power thereof." "Why," he might ask, "should a fact so entirely obvious, when the history of 'Christianity' is known, be made the subject of a special revelation?" Is there not enough work for the Christian churches, or any other engines contrived for assumed righteous ends, in uprooting the rank weeds of injustice, misery, ignorance and sin, as Christ sought to do. without turning aside from the olain path of duty, merely to make it possible that the despised "Mormons" might read the eight Beatitudes with the keen relish of a personal application? Indeed, we owe it solely to the ex-officio activity of our "spiritual pastors and masters," that the "Mormons" can apply to themselves this beatitude: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my name's sake" — and all these things have we done with a pertinacity worthy a more godly form of service — "for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Nor can we blame others than ourselves, if we are indicted in another sentence, not a beatitude, "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." Speaking of prophets true and false, the words of Christ seem to indicate that the former have generally been persecuted, rejected, stoned and killed — this seems to be the mark of a "true prophet;" we should not have shot Joseph Smith — while to the latter he makes one telling reference, "Wo unto you when all men speak well of you; for so did their fathers to the false prophets." If Christ's words are comprehensible at all, he certainly taught that his doctrine should never find universal favor, until the time when the earth should be redeemed from the curse of sin in all its phases — for "these are the signs which shall follow." He expected and predicted that it would find small favor in the eyes of the world. He anticipated no era in which kings and the "predatory rich," the "refined," the wise and the "just persons wnicn need no repentance," should champion "his cause." and explain spaciously why they did not produce the results expected. We are justified, then, on his own grounds, in questioning the validity of a form of Christianity, which can comfortably indwell our harlot civilization, and make no more inconvenience than it does for evil doers; also, in carefully considering the claims of another, which is. with a sickening uniformity, "despised and rejected of men." We are fond of ouoting the poet's striking lines "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne," but we forget that "Mormonism" has been on the scaffold for over 80 years, now, and that, unless we change our attitude materially, it may stay there forever. Soon we shall lose our sense of dia-

<!-- page:980 -->

980 IMl'ki )\ I MENT ERA crimination of truth and wrong, whether applied to "prophets" or other persons and things. If we have spoken as we have, and have behaved as we have, as part of a seemingly predestined plan for furthering the "counsel .mil work" of a "false prophet," what worse things could we do or say should a "true prophet" arise among us? We would welcome him? We would honor him? We would entertain him in our comfortable homes, and yield him the preacher's place in our elegant churches? By no sort or manner of means would we do anv of these things. If such a one came preaching the doctrines taught by Christ and by John the Baptist, and insisting that they be obeyed to the letter, not admired as literary exercises and choice examples of rhetorical excellence, how could we square with his demands our Sunday religion and our week-day carelessness1 our cruel and detestable social order; our squalid failures and our anaemic obediences; our smug self-righteousness and our calm, assumption of the old claim of "Abraham to our father?" If such a person were not done to death by an "outraged mob of citizenry," he would certainly be shunned as unfit for "refined society." If such a view of the matter be unacceptable to any of us, the clear refutation lies in demonstrating the congeniality of our customs and institutions with the precepts uttered by Christ. His discourses were no high school declamations; and herein lies the condemnation of our stuoiditv. But Christ aggravated the matter still further, both for the highly respectable Pharisees of his own time, and for those who say, "Lord, Lord," in others. "Beware," said he, "of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing" [making large claims and "boasting many things"l . . . "Ye shall know them by their fruits." And what are the "fruits" which we should expect in persons acceptable to God? "Forasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me." Should he appear in the clouds toda',r and, on the basis of this test, which, so he declared, should separate the evil and the good, how greatly would the world be depopulated at hearing his "Come, ye blessed of my Father"? How many of us, "civilized," unctions, intolerant, self-satisfied "Christians," who render our "tithes of mint, anise and cummin," and leave such monstrous conditions of human poverty, misery, sin and Sybaritism, because we forget the "weightier matters of the law;" how many of us would "rise to meet him in the air?" In addition to all our other sins of omission and of commission, we have certainly not won His distinguished favor — unless his words are so "figurative" as to be meaningless — by our childish condemnation of a people whose first principle is "men are that they might have joy," and who have striven a little to make the world a better habitation for the few, at least, within their sphere of influence. The Jews claimed to be God's people, and they have been persecuted in all the countries of the world, being accused of the most dastardly crimes, in addition to things that may be justly charged against them. Yet, we of free America still profess a belief that the Jews are chosen people of God. The "Mormons" made this same claim, and they have been persecuted in nearly all countries of the world: and we are unwilling to believe their claim, although charging them with the same crimes brought against the Jews from time immemorial. This is a curious coincidence. Furthermore, the same Providence, which we have been accustomed to see exercised over the Jews to keep them separate from the world, has been, apparently, exercised in behalf of the "Mormons" also. There was a notable example of this some years ago, when we thought we were showing them our righteous scorn and our

<!-- page:981 -->

THE "MORMON" PROBLEM 981 virtuous contempt. In the year 1893, in connection with the Columbian Exposition at Chicago, occurred the famous Congress of Religions, a sort of theological "happy family," at which mingled together on a common platform, for mutual interchange of opinion, Christians, orthodox and heterodox; heathens, pagans and idolaters; Jews, Turks, infidels and heretics. The worthy promoters of this conclave literally searched the earth over, going "into the highways and hedges," with the object of fulfiling the command, "compel them to come in." Men came "from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south," and sat down with Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. This may have been in way of a fulfilment, in part at least, of the ancient prophecy, "the leopard shall lie down with the kid;" or it may have been somewhat in the Psalmist's mind, when he sang, "Mercy and truth are met together;" or, again, merely a re-enactment of the august episode in which "Herod and Pilate were made friends together." Out of all the world's sects, cults, faiths, and superstitions, only one was found which "had not on a wedding garment" — such a livery as would be appronriate for an assemblage like this — and its name was "Mormonism." It alone was judged unworthy to participate in this convention, where professed worshipers of the God of Israel "were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works." (Ps. cvi: 35.) Of course, the "Mormons" resented this exclusion. It seemed to them, and to the world in general, "the most unkindest cut of all." But Providence consults no man: "Mormonism," in this apparrent slight, enjoyed once again the distinction of being "despised and rejected of men." As for the rest of us, we were left to describe our conduct in the words of the context, "We hid our faces from him; he is despised, and we esteemed him not." We let these people assume also, that, using us as humble instruments, God was merely enforcing the law to ancient Israel, "Thou shalt not seek their peace, nor their prosperity" (Deut. xxiii, 6) ; and was preparing to renew the old promise: "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word. Your brethren that hated vou, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, let the Lord be glorified; but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." (Isaiah lxvi, 5). We know now what the "Mormon" problem really is. We know that its answer involves meeting the challenge laid down by these people who call themselves Latter-day Saints. It is a two-fold problem, involving ourselves as well as them. "How shall we prove that the 'Mormon' Church is not the true church? How shall we prove that the true Church exists elsewhere on earth?" Certain writers have argued that the persecution and manhandling of "Mormonism" is only a re-enactment of the ancient parable of the "Stone which the builders rejected." Whether they be right or not, it is certain that, if this "Stone" is anywhere on earth, we have rejected it. In the first century, Paul declared, "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God." Where are thev? In the twentieth century the groaning and travailing still continues, because of our inhuman injustice, our devilish social order, our self-righteous hypocrisv, our ineffective and self-satisfied sects, whose teachings and practices are a "far cry" to the commands of Christ, "The mountains are in travail: a ridiculous mouse is born."