---
title: Improvement Era
description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930.
authors:
  - Webb, Robert C.
collections:
  - periodicals
tags:
  - magazine
  - improvement-era
periodical: Improvement Era
volume: 17
number: 6
published: 1914-04
publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations
publisher_place: Salt Lake City
language: en
type: magazine
reference: 'Robert C. Webb, "The Galileo of Sociology," *Improvement Era* 17, no. 6 (April 1914): 565–580.'
source:
  url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera176unse
  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: improvementera176unse
start_page: 565
end_page: 580
rights:
  status: public-domain
  basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1914-04)
  source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera176unse
  publication_year: 1914
  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 1914, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright.
---

# The Galileo of Sociology

<!-- page:565 -->

The Galileo of Sociology
BY DR. ROBERT C. WEBB
Some explanation may be due for the act of presenting an article bearing
any such title as the present one, which embodies a phrase quoted from a wellknown educator in a recent address delivered by Bishop F. S. Spalding, and
reprinted in his magazine, "The Utah Survey." In the present case we are
bound to criticize the Bishop's opinions to a certain extent, and to state in
opposition to them certain others, which he opposes. It is not with any desire
to annoy this gentleman, nor yet to interfere with his right of private judgment
in religion or any other matter, that we feel obliged to write as at present.
We are moved partly by the desire to call his attention to certain matters which
have slipped his mind in his recently-published study of "Mormonism"; also,
in view of his efforts to discredit certain books held in esteem by the "Mormon"
Church, to analyze the beliefs, and the state of the body, which he proposes
to offer to the consideration of all his " 'Mormon' friends," who shall have been
persuaded to "courageously readjust their system of belief." Since the Bishop
is an educated man, a graduate of one of the greater universities of our country,
he is undoubtedly aware of the force of all utterances made by him, also perfectly willing to discuss any opinions which he may espouse. As he is a
controversialist by nature, and has already appeared as a vigorous critic of
certain beliefs of certain of his neighbors, he will assuredly respect an honest
and, as the present writer intends, a courteous criticism of his own. As an
honest man, also, sincerely convinced of the gravity of many of the conditions,
equally visible to and equally deplored by the present writer, it would seem
no more than could be reasonably expected that his challenge should be
answered, as on former occasions.
In the November number of his magazine the Bishop presents an article
entitled, "Mormonism without Polygamy," which contains some strictures
about the Church and system discussed, and in the October number he presents
an address recently delivered by him, "Christianity and Democracy," which
contains numerous other strictures — but not about "Mormonism." _ The two
together furnish an interesting study in something closely resembling inconsistency, and invite the attention of the reader. If no confusion between the
positions indicated in the two papers mentioned exists in the Bishop's mind, it
is quite certain that many others may not be able to reconcile them with satisfaction.
Our first acquaintance with Dr. Spalding was in the character of a zealous
missionary, who, according to his own acknowledgment, is interested in leading such "honest searchers for truth among the Latter-day Saints," as would
listen to him "into the light of the truth of the Historic Faith." This object,
indeed, is stated in one of his church papers, in the following words:
"This is the real problem in Utah. How are we to help out of their intellectual and moral confusion into the light of the truth of the Historic Faith
the thousands of young men and women who have received as their religion
from their parents, just as we received ours, the hopelessly illogical, untruthful,
unspiritual, and immoral system of Joseph Smith, Jr.? Many of the young
people are full of missionary enthusiasm. They are staying with the Mormon
Church because they do not want to be disloyal to the Church of their fathers,
and they think that they can help their comrades more effectively as members
than as outsiders * * * We must sometime do our duty. That duty involves three things: First: Help the young people in their own personal lives
by giving them a Christian home while they are studying. Second: Strengthen

<!-- page:566 -->

566 • IMPROVEMENT ERA
the forces of reform within the 'Mormon' Church. Third: Welcome to the
true Church those who will come.
"The other day I was going through the tabernacle grounds in Salt Lake
with a party of friends from the East. After listening to the clever speech of
the 'Mormon' guide, hearing the organ, and seeing the outside of the great
temple, one of my friends, a banker, said to me, 'What difference does it make
what these 'Mormons' believe? What harm does it do? If they like Joseph
Smith and his teachings, what business is it of ours?' 'Well,' I said, 'I must
feel about their acceptance of what is intellectually and morally untrue, just
as you would feel if you knew a group of people were coining and passing
counterfeit money.' He thought a minute and then admitted, 'I guess you
are right. The counterfeit might pass for a time, but there would be a bad
financial smash-up in the end.' " — "Spirit of Missions," Oct., 1912.
If the Bishop's attitude and methods are correctly represented in the above
quotation, one would certainly be led to believe that he is honestly convinced
that "Mormonism" is a self-discredited substitute for "Christianity," and that
he himself represents a body so evidently superior that any honest mind may
see the truth at a mere glance. Indeed, he states something very similar to
this in another number of the same paper above quoted:
" 'Mormonism' is a blind, unguided groping after truth which Catholic
Christianity might have given had our Church, during the early part of the
nineteenth century, been something more than a private chaplain to groups of
Church people along the Atlantic coast." — "Spirit of Missions," Sept., 1912.
The Bishop makes perfectly similar remarks anent "Mormonism" in the
November number of his magazine, and enlarges considerably on his reflections
on his own church in the October number. In view of the fact that he repeatedly asserts his belief that his own is the "true church," his attitude is
somewhat problematical. Without descending to a quibbling attitude, one
might reasonably ask how it could be that the body which most strenuously
asserts its claim to being the very church of St. Paul and the other "apostles
of the Lamb" should ever degenerate so far as to become a mere "private
chaplain" to any set of people, anywhere resident, while monstrous perversions of sane religion were stalking throughout the land, and provoking the
antagonism and reforming efforts of sundry well-meaning people, such as the
Campbells, and others, and, as the Bishop believes, the founders, also, of the
"Mormon" Church. The church represented by the Bishop, as is well known,
has been frequently charged with being the "church of the rich, as distinguished
from the masses" and the "champion of the rights of property." At least one
of its ordained ministers recently made a bonfire of his clerical garments and
church books, vehemently repeating this very charge. His sensational action
was widely commented on, both favorably and unfavorably, by various persons,
clerical and otherwise. One well-known minister in New York was quoted in
a lengthy interview, apparently favoring the procedure, but later alleged misquotation in certain particulars. He did not disown, however, the following,
which was reproduced in several newspapers throughout the country:
"An Episcopal clergyman whom I admire is Frank S. Spalding, the Bishop
of Utah. When they welcomed Cardinal Farley home from Rome, Bishop
Spalding saw the great parade up Fifth Avenue and the formal ceremonies, at
the Cathedral.
"Bishop Spalding became convinced that the Catholic Church was yielding
itself definitely through this display as a church of conservatism and the champion of the rights of property. The thing he urged upon the Episcopal Church
then was that it become definitely the champion of human rights, as opposed
to property rights, and the law of co-operation among men as opposed to the
jungle law on which business now is organized.
"Bishop Spalding represents one phase of the struggle now going on within
the church. The leaders are often very conservative. I am not willing to say
that either side at present surely is going to triumph."
We should hesitate to quote this eulogium of Bishop Spalding, creditable
as it may seem, were it not for his own plain and straightforward statement
of the same position in his own magazine. He essays to criticize "Mormonism." alleging it to be a "hopelessly illogical, untruthful,, unspiritual, and im-

<!-- page:567 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 567
moral system," although standing very definitely for the very causes which he
himself espouses, yet he eulogizes as the "true church" a body, in which he is
honestly obliged to assume a position of protest. We cannot expect perfect
consistency in any human being, but the matter is of considerably greater import to the world, and to humanity, than any of the issues involved in the disagreements between Bishop Spalding and the "Mormons," or even the people
high in influence in his own body, or important in its support. Briefly, the
issue is precisely this: Can we any longer believe the words of Christ, "My
grace is sufficient for thee"? It is the Gospel itself that we are to test anew
in the light of knowledge and human experience, and not the opinions of any
man, or set of men. Here, however, we have been brought to the "turning of
the ways," at which the rival claims of traditionalism, on the one hand, and
something of more recent origin, on the other, are set definitely before us.
Seldom have these issues been presented with greater force than in the present
case.
In his "Mormonism without Polygamy" Dr. Spalding sets forth four heads
of what he characterizes as "historic belief," after the attainment of which he
feels that "the Latter-day Saints represent an ignorant, and from our point of
view, a pathetically ignorant effort." These heads are: (1) that Christianity
is based on the incarnation of Christ, not the atonement; (2) that Christ
founded a visible church; (3) that everlasting punishment is not an essential
belief; (4) that there is need for ritual in the service of God. In pursuance of
his indictment of "Mormonism" on these points, he finds that "Orson Hyde's
statement * * * is a reaching out for the truth of the incarnation;" that
"Smith and Rigdon and the Pratts * * * were groping after the 'Church
idea'"; that there ought to be "a feeling of sympathy for the Latter-day Saint
who, with scant knowledge of the history of the development of the thought
on the subject, made his own doctrine of the hereafter;" and, finally, that "had
the churches not been so extreme the other way, the crude ritual of the 'Mormon' temple would not have been so attractive."
Having promulgated these characterizations of people and beliefs, from
the superior standpoint, be it said, of those who have "knowledge of Greek or
Hebrew" also "training in the historic development of theology," he proceeds
thus:
"It is therefore suggested that 'Mormonism' is an unguided groping after
the truth of the incarnation, the visible church, a more helpful view of immortality and the use of ritual in the service of God. It succeeded just because
it came into existence at a time when it had to create its own satisfactions,
historic and rational Christianity not being near to lend a hand; and since its
instincts were true it will continue to exist," etc.
He also quotes with apparent approval the statement of Lyman Abbott
that "the Christian Church with all its power should preach in Utah the doctrine of the Incarnation," although he does not state if he intends also to endorse any such theory of the Incarnation, as is suggested in the writings of
Abbott and others, some sort of academic consummation of the alleged "evolution" process.
In concluding his study of "Mormonism," the Bishop cheerfully credits it
with two very excellent features:
"First, its provision not only for the spiritual but for the temporal needs
of the people and its organization of lay workers. * * * Do we not envy
the system of the Latter-dav Saints, which makes little boys deacons and sets
them to work, and has 6,700 in the order of the Seventies, hundreds of whom
are preaching their faith outside of Utah, while the rest, as part of their duty,
are preaching it within the state. * * * A religious organization which has
developed such a spirit of lay preaching and lay church management has m
it a real source of strength." „. ,
Nevertheless, remembering apparently that all this has been done in the
dark." he perorates as follows: . .
"If churches possessing fuller truth and deeper spirituality will be less
critical and more loving thev will draw many 'Mormons' into their .clearer
litfht and share with them their larger truth: but probably 'Mormonism .
will thrive as a sect, supported largely by its social and financial features, its

<!-- page:568 -->

568 IMPROVEMENT ERA
partial hold on truth, its appeal through ritual to the aesthetic side of human
nature and its organization of lay workers."
But of what use is an "historical and rational Christianity"; the possession
of a "fuller truth and deeper spirituality;" the enjoyment of a "clearer light,"
and a "training in the historic development of theology"? After we have heard
a lot of accusations of "blind groping," "reachings out" and "crude rituals," we
would expect to have a plain demonstration of the way in which the "true
church" is based upon the incarnation of Christ and continues its work. We
are disappointed with the outcome, however.
In the Bishop's address, "Christianity and Democracy," included in the
October number of his magazine, we read his able arraignment of the present
social order and of the miserable industrial conditions that exist under it. All
that he says on these matters is perfectly true, and his own attitude toward the
conditions is in every sense creditable to his heart and to his head. Like every
right-minded man, like every man who is not blinded by vanity, selfishness, and
self-complacency, he resents the vile practices, which, like an hypertrophied
Juggernaut, grind the life and joy of living out of the millions of toiling humanity, all to no intelligible ends of use or good, and reward the few, the
schemers, the able-minded and the enterprising with ease and luxury, beyond
all sanity. We cannot commend too highly his courage in delivering this able
address before the last General Convention of his church, to an audience largely
composed, as he himself says, of the very kind of people who can dare to enjoy
the good things of life, while the relentless terrors of poverty, vice, starvation
and failure walk the world by day and night. His words also are eloquent with
the burden of a heartfelt conviction.
"We worship in a great church like this and it makes us forget the slums
just over theway. We watch bishops and priests in holy vestments and we
forget the millions who have only rags to wear. We debate our canons and
names and we forget the toiling workers who are pleading for a living wage.
We discuss hymns and prayers and we forget that there are tens of thousands
whose hearts are too heavy to sing and whose faith is too weak to pray."
The origin of these unhappy conditions Dr. Spalding very properly attributes to the selfishness and indifference of mankind, and his entire discourse is
directed to attempting to stir his hearers to a living sense of their responsibilities in the premises. Nor is he unmindful of the fact that "class-conscious"
laborers and agitators denounce religion of all schools, even that endowed with
the "fuller truth and deeper spirituality," even "historical and rational Christianity.      Thus he says:
"Why all this agitation for a minimum wage unless the wages of the
workers are below the minimum? What is the logical conclusion for the man
who accepts these premises as valid? This, that when the wage scale is worked
out, it is worked out on a basis of the bare necessities of life. Now, except in
cases so rare that they may be neglected, religion is not reckoned' as one of
life s necessities. Therefore, wages do not support religion. If religion is supported, it is supported out of profits, not out of wages. It is, therefore, in the
judgment of the class-conscious worker, a gift of the rich made possible because of the plundering of the workers. If the church is endowed it is supported by past plunderings. Therefore, self-respect requires the class-conscious
workers to repudiate organized Christianity as a charity which decent selfrespect forces him to despise. It has no connection with the justice for which
he longs but which he knows he must struggle for himself. The laboring
man thinks that the capitalist pays the preacher and therefore owns him
And does not the capitalist think so, too?"
c Jn ?.d£h{?n toJ,he above Passages, we find several suggestions of a solution
of the difficulty. Thus:
_ "The interest of Jesus Christ in a human being did not depend upon that
being s age or nationality, or literary qualifications, or material possessions In
Him there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither male nor female' To
Him every human being is a child of God, worth living and dying for The
state may limit its interest in men to securing to them their legal rights and
their property rights, but if the church is true to her Master she must extend
her interest to the securing of full natural rights— which are divine rights— to

<!-- page:569 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 569
every man, woman and child, (p. 10.) * * * * In a single word, the
church, if she is to be a real power in the Twentieth Century must cease to be
merely the almoner of the rich and become the champion of the poor. (p. 18.)
* * * And what must the church do? Will you not let me try to tell you?
Accept the truth which the industrial democracy has discovered, that labor and
not capital is at the basis of production. Only this spring, in his address as
president of American Sociologists, Dr. Albion W. Small, head of the Department of Sociology in the University of Chicago, said in effect, that Karl Marx
deserves the same place in sociology that Galileo deserves in natural science,
because Marx's contention that in production labor is fundamental, and not
capital, is as true even if it is as revolutionary as the contention that the sun
and not the earth is the center of the solar system. * * * * Surely there
can be no doubt on which side the Church of Jesus Christ ought to stand when
the issue is between dollars and men. Shall not the church set her face against
a competitive system of industry, which inevitably involves the exploitation of
men, women and little children? She must surely stand for a social system in
which production shall be for use and not for profit, in which the worker shall
be rewarded on the basis of the service he renders and in which every child
shall have a chance, not as an act of charity, but as a God-given right, to all
that makes for a full and joyous and useful life." (p. 16.)
Of course, there is no doubt of the truth of many of Dr. Spalding's remarks
about the proper position of the "Church of Jesus Christ" upon these matters;
as to what she "must" do and as to what she "ought" to do, assuming that any
such church exists. But, why all this earnest urging to duty? What propriety
or necessity could there be in thus outlining the "plain path of duty" to a body
professing to perpetuate the work and authority of the Savior of men? If, as
numerous authorities assert, and as Dr. Spalding seems to agree, the real
function of the true church is to continue the incarnation of Christ, why the
need of urging upon this vehicle of divine life the duty of bringing forth the
works commanded by Christ? If this body had really been the instrument for
continuing the personal work of Christ on earth, would it have been necessary
for Dr. Spalding, or any other advocate of social justice, to apologize, and
express hesitation in such words as these:
"I know that I am in all probability speaking to men and women who do
not look at this problem of 'Christianity and Democracy' from the side of the
laboring man, but from the standpoint of the capitalist."
It would be needless and discourteous to thus criticize the opinions of the
Bishop, or to comment upon the inconsistency of the two positions which he
has assumed before the public within a month — if we may judge by the dates
on his magazines — were it not that recently he was urging upon his "many
'Mormon' friends * * honest searchers after the truth," to come forth into
the "light of the truth of the historic faith." And, when some of them "which
sat in darkness," as he confidently assures us, begin to look about to see this
"great light," they are met with a passionate and earnest invitation to help
"sweep and garnish" the house of faith with the whisk broom of Marxian
sophistries.
No more damaging indictment of traditional systems has ever been issued
than those that appear in Dr. Spalding's article. In spite of assumed correct
views upon the proper emphasis of Christian doctrine, and the supreme duty
of preaching the incarnation, we find that there is nothing that can unfailingly
"body forth" the life and spirit of Christ to a world whose evils, in spite of all
the good and amiable things accomplished meanwhile, have been allowed to
aggravate to an intolerable condition of exaggeration. Nor is there any
definitely recommended help "from within." In so stating the conditions we
must remember that Dr. Spalding is not the only man in his own and other
churches to take the position indicated in his article. It is a widely followed
fashion nowadays to preach Socialism, as the great hope of worldly salvation.
At the recent Convention of the Episcopal Church in New York, we are informed, preachers of Socialistic principles were allowed to exhort at noon
recess and on other occasions, outside of regular sessions. This movement
to recognize and adopt, in part at least, the principles of "scientific sociology,'
as it is termed— doubtless because of its recognition of the evolution hypothesis

<!-- page:570 -->

570 IMPROVEMENT ERA
and the ape origin of mankind — shows nothing more clearly than the actual
limitation of the scientific sense, and the intellectual supineness of most of the
people holding to the movement. This is true because they persistently ignore
as many vital facts as they attempt to marshal to the aid of their arguments.
In order to show what we mean, and how we mean it, a brief discussion of the
claims and principles of Socialist philosophy may be admissible.
In the last analysis, Socialism claims to be a "scientific," rather than a
benevolent, theory. With the intention of securing concerted action for the
achievement of economic justice, it proposes to develop a "class-consciousness"
in the "wage-earning class," moving them to take measures to secure the abolition of "wage-slavery" and bring about a reconstruction of society in which
all men shall be equal participants in the work and profits of industries, with
the government as the common proprietor or "employer." The success of
such a scheme would depend doubtless upon the possession of a high average of
common intelligence in the members of society, also an equally high average of
good will and honest purpose. Without these qualities it would be difficult
to argue that the "benevolent feudalism" of the Socialist state might not be
perverted into the "coming slavery" which Herbert Spencer has predicted and
deplored. It is altogether certain that depraved selfishness has succeeded
hitherto in perverting and turning from good ends every historic institution
which it has affected — not excepting even the Christian Church, as we have
seen acknowledged. There can be no doubt, when we read the discourses of
Christ, that His Church was intended to be a means and instrument for maintaining social justice among His people, as embodying His fundamental principle that the benefit of mankind is emphasized equally with the service of God.
When, therefore, this institution, which our "Christian Socialist" friends profess to believe is of divine origin — hence should have been effective — has been
so far perverted by human selfishness and evil doing that men, aware of the
shames of civilization, must try by eloquent jeremiads to awaken some sense
of its "high calling," what assurance is there that the socialist state — were such
a product possible — would not be similarly victimized and perverted? This
fate seems particularly inevitable, when we consider the fact that the very class
of people, supposed to be the most active in the attainment of Socialism, are
the same as have always been readily victimized by selfish schemers, tyrants,
slave-makers and parasites of all varieties.
Of course, the answer proposed by Socialists is that "evolution" has
worked such an "improvement" in the human species that this "next step" —
that into Socialism — will necessarily involve permanence. In spite of all such
"grounds of faith," we are compelled to recognize the fact that the institutions
of human society are as truly outworkings of human nature as are any of the
racial and national characteristics to be found among the representatives of
mankind, as much as their various languages, artistic efforts and domestic
habits. However widely divergent in other matters, all nations past or present
have agreed in one common feature of society: inevitable gradations in the
social structure, a king, chief, master or "boss" at the top, and the rest of the
people his willing servitors and subjects. Even where, as is said, there is "no
king," the people must be subservient to somebody, who joyously exploits
them to his own advantage. The natural law upon which this phenomenon
rests is that as intelligence rules in the physical organism — or should so rule —
so also it must be master in the social organism. Because there have always
been grades of intelligence in human society, it has always happened that the
most alert or the most courageous have obtained for themselves the positions
of advantage, involving that others must be subordinate to them.
Such "improvement of opportunities" and achievement of advantage have
very generally resulted in commensurate disadvantages — even keen suffering — -
for the weaker and less intelligent members of society, through the operation
of still other perfectly natural laws. Because the human, like his brute contemporaries, acts very largely from "selfish motives" — and this fact cannot
be ignored by any capable philosopher or socioologist — it has always happened
that those who have achieved power among men develop the characteristics of
the beast of prey, or even of the simple parasite. Such people, also, exhibit
the worst variety of the preying habit or of parasitism, in the fact that they

<!-- page:571 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 571
prey upon their own kind. This is a detestable practice indulged by no "lower
animal" in the state of nature. However, in contemplating the transgressions
of those who abuse position or opportunity to the disadvantage of their fellows, we should deplore their existence no more than that of ourselves, who
are the kind of people who offer no reasonable obstacles to the progress of
our exploiters, allowing them to grow and progress along lines of "no resistance."
Nor can we reasonably argue that a reorganization of society, or the
establishment of new institutions, the opposite of those now existing, can
eradicate any such absurd and deplorable possibilities. The best and wisest
laws — even the "law of God" and the laws of nature — have been made of
"none effect" by ingenious depravity: correspondingly, also, the worst laws
ever enacted have become "dead letters," because of growing intelligence. As
has been well said, it would be better to live under a despotism controlled by
angels, or by perfectly good and wise men — if such exist — than under the most
equably conceived democracy that has fallen into the hands of bad men, or of
fools. The American people have had some experiences of the latter evil.
If, however, there is any available means or method for raising the average
of human intelligence and goodness, it is quite certain that there would be no
need for a Socialistic state. A completely good will in all men, coupled with
normal intelligence, would act automatically to neutralize the abuses of power
and opportunity upon which Socialist agitators base their protests. Thus,
when mankind are ready for a perfect social order, the laws of nature, which
have produced imperfect orders for imperfect intelligences, will develop an
order fit for the indwelling of normal beings — normal animals, even — without
need of the kind offices of theorizers, would-be prophets of the future, or any
of the horde of professional friends of man. On the other hand, even if it be
possible that the Socialist idea correctly outlines the institutions of the future,
the same rule applies. Marx himself believed that it could eventuate only
through the further evolution of mankind — hence, probably, that all individuals
must be prepared to enter upon its felicities.
One cannot build a "skyscraper" out of scrap iron, since each beam and
girder must be separately formed and proportioned to bear its own particular
load and stress, thus helping to make the total construction stable. Nor could
one reasonably expect an order affording perfect justice for all men, unless the
sense of justice were already complete in all men. This brings us to the fundamental criticism of the system, which is that the problems afflicting human
society are not economic problems at all, nor even political or social problems,
as such, but, precisely, problems that deal direct with the motivation of each
individual. In other words, they are moral and religious problems.
In spite of all the difficulties to which our attention has been called, a
thoughtful consideration of the nature of man and of the conditions of human
life reveals nothing more clearly than the fact that there is no assignable reason
or excuse for sin, misery, poverty, vice or failure. There is no intelligible
explanation of the evident fact that all mankind do not possess the joy of life
which the Creator doubtless intended for them, unless, indeed, we find it in
the belief that the essence of "sin" is merely inability to "see" God and to
enjoy the direct guidance of His Spirit. This teaching agrees with common
sense, however, that the all-sufficient indictment of evil of all grades and varieties lies in the' fact that it is essentially irrational and unintelligent. As has
been said, "the rogue is only a roundabout fool;" also "Hell is only a vast madhouse." This seems to justify the assertion that the human being is no more
made for sin than any other created thing, since, as known by its effects, sin
is always a form of affliction, working the degradation and ruin of the individual and the inevitable degeneration of the social organism.
In spite of the usual talk about "scientific sociology," our "new lights" are
so unscientific as to forget that, in considering the social structure, one must
consider human nature and its qualities and capabilities— the real component
material of any order— just as the machine designer must consider the fitness
of any given metal— knowing its strength, hardness, elasticity, and its other
qualities— to enter into the construction of any proposed machine. Any such

<!-- page:572 -->

572 IMPROVEMENT ERA
careful attention to the character and operation of the human mind, considered
as a part of the organism in which it belongs, as has made possible the grand
achievements of experimental and practical science — in mechanics, physics,
chemistry, etc. — would reduce the involved facts to a basis truly scientific,
giving us the much needed "science of human nature." We should then be
able to demonstrate, to the comprehension of all intelligent people, that evildoing of all varieties merely partakes of the nature of insanity or imbecility,
and that, therefore, the strongest argument for well-doing, from the "natural"
point of view, at any rate, is that it is as essential to health, life and real "selfinterest," as are food, air or sanitary surroundings. Thus would we effectually
rescue the theory and practice of morals and religion from the clutches of
sentimentalists, madmen, hypocrites and futilists in general.
A really scientific study of man, individual and social, would place the
springs of motive upon an intelligible basis, thus enabling us to deal with the
mechanism of the mind as effectively as with other mechanisms. It would
show us, for example, why it is necessary, to the end of achieving a stable and
rational civilization, to eliminate the ignorant, supine and poverty-stricken
class — not with machine guns, but by removing the causes of their condition,
just as we would remove unsanitary complications from our homes — since the
mere existence of the evils afflicting them menaces the safety and integrity of
the social order itself, as well as being a stench in the nostrils of God and a
source of grief and humiliation to every really intelligent mind. We could
understand, also, the real spur and motive of rational human endeavor, showing
how that, with normal and healthy ambition, independence and a competence
are the just rewards of talent, industry and enterprise; although — as we forget
in the mad atmosphere of the present, and cannot understand from the vague,
iil-digested and half-hearted preachments of our would-be guides and teachers
— the enrichment of no man should be allowed to involve the spoliation of
others. We should understand, rather, that the surplus wealth of all nations
is amply sufficient to reward real worth and effort justly, and that no one
but an "equivalent lunatic," a social cancer, is capable of battening on the ruin
and distress of his fellow beings. On the other hand, we should be rendered
capable of discerning the fact that no normal person really objects to hard
work, although as experience proves, just treatment, even rewards for extra
effort, is an excellent policy for enlightened selfishness: a means for securing
a better "efficiency." "Equality," syndicalism, and the socializing of industries
are only so many dreams of innocent and inexperienced minds, unintelligible
to and really undesired by anyone, when secured by the unnatural methods
proposed — if such "methods" could exist anywhere but in wordy sentences —
and it is a simple waste of time to talk about them; as silly as advice to a
growing boy about the proper and acceptable fashions in beards. Good results must follow from a scientific treatment of human nature, and injustice
receive its effectual condemnation, since it would teach us precisely where
sanity and rationality stop and insanity and perversity begin. It would show
us the folly of pride of ancestry, except where people inherit strength, health
and common sense; it would convince us that display, extravagance and intemperance are not the marks of "nobility" but of derangement; and, finally, that
there are no lower objects of endeavor known to man than the current "ambition" to pervert advantage in catering to the bestial vanity of women and
the infra-brutal callousness of men. We need no Socialist agitation to inform
us that these latter growths, highly esteemed as they may be among the
"socially ambitious," are but the gaudy and ill-perfumed flowers of ignorance
and degradation, rooted in the soil of poverty and misery, and to be tolerated
in a society composed of really rational beings no more than any one of us
would tolerate filthy typhoid puddles in the cellar of his dwelling.
However, in the formulation of scientific principles for the study of human
nature, in the effort to indicate a way to achieve efficiency, perfection r.nd happiness, the religious instinct must be recognized as the one all-important' factor.
Without fear of exaggerating, we may hold that religion, in its proper manifestations, at least, is the expression of something fundamental in both thought
and motive. It may be described, therefore, as the element in the human mind
which relates it to its origin; being, thus, the source of every enthusiasm, as

<!-- page:573 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 573
well as, in the words of a certain popular sociologist, "the central feature of
human history."
The function of religion is precisely to express the dissatisfaction of the
mind at missing its natural and proper normality, which, in correct expression,
it should restore to it. The properly normal mind — the mind of man as he
exists in the contemplation of the Creator — demands an organic co-operation
with something, both ultimate and all-sufficient, best and most usually represented in the idea of God. The desire for relationship with this supreme factor,
the capability of maintaining it and of acting in accord with impulses originated
with it, constitute religion at once a form of enthusiasm — and the mind naturally seeks for enthusiasms — and the vehicle of a preserving, enheartening and
transforming energy in life. The fact that this relationship has always been
postulated and desired indicates that it is not an achievement to be gained as
the climax of a tedious and devious process of cosmic gestation and "unfoldment," but a possession proper and essential to human nature, as is any organ
or sense to the physical body, although missed and wanting, somehow, throughout historic time. Nor does its realization seem generally nearer even now.
Thus, by contemplating human history, we may understand the universal
need for the element just described quite as well as by regarding the conditions
of the present, and, perhaps, better. We have heard from immemorial antiquity of the perfection and happiness prevalent in the "good old times" — just as
we hear today, ad nauseam, of the "glorious future" — but no history records
that they ever existed. It is the "distant view" only that makes the old times
seem attractive. Yet, as we cannot deny, knowing all the degradation, misery,
cruelty and vice that have ever been mingled with culture, refinement, advanced
civilization and artistic perfection, as well as with crude, rough and savage
habits of life, there has never been a time or an environment in which perfection, happiness, contentment, and all that goes to make the ideal man, might
not have existed in complete efficiency. There is one sentence that expresses
God's verdict on human life, both past and present. It is this, "one thing thou
lackest," which thing is, and always was, a humanly complete knowledge of
God. "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth until now, waiting for the
manifestation of the sons of God. That is the summary of human history.
Without this knowledge of God, the grandest civilization is no more than a
flimsy veneer on essential squalor; with it, the crudest conditions of living
could become the environment of exhaustless happiness. It is useless, then,
to suggest any reconstruction of environment, any reorganization of social or
economic institutions, or any revisions of governmental theory. The problem
is, not to determine what things people should do, but to indicate how they
may be brought to do them. We may insist, therefore, that religion alone
can furnish the real "great passion," which, as is stated by the writer above
discussed, "every movement [for the betterment of mankind] needs to give it
motive force." . .
As known in history, religion manifests in two forms, which have been
nearly equally prominent: (1) the normal or vital; (2) the conventional. The
first form is characterized by a desire for direct relationship between the human soul and the Ultimate Source of life and power, to the end that, normally,
the Ultimate may be embodied vitally and effectively to all humanity. In the
second form, the human mind, because of disability or partial instruction, stops
short in its "passion for God," and is satisfied, or seeks so to be, with clever formulae and conventional rules for living and thinking— ending by accepting words
for ideas and the forms of habit and custom for life-expressions. This form
of religion manifests also in idolatry, as well as, apparently, in such prevailing
enthusiasms as the "cause of humanity," reforming paranoia, socialism, etc.,
which like many professedly religious sects, stop short of recognizing the
proper divine element in man and the essential sinfulness of ignorance, particularly in the "cultured."
Similarly we may discriminate two forms of the human expression of
religion, which may be discerned throughout historic time These may be
called, if only for want of better terms: (1) the prophetic, (2) the hierarchic.
The difference between them is very great The first involves a direct relation
real or assumed, between the individual soul and its Creator, together with such

<!-- page:574 -->

574 IMPROVEMENT ERA
"assurances" and "testimonies" of His existence as are possible to the human
mind, or, at least, as it is usual to believe are possible. It may be found in the
persons and work of the world's great teachers, philosophers and prophets,
who have essayed to express anew the solution of "life's mystery," as it became visible to their minds; also in the thinkers and mystics of all ages, who,
as well said, "have sought to dive into the depths of things that they might
rescue the treasure of truth for all mankind." Not all of these masters were
. equally successful, but all made the effort.
The second form of religious expression is found when the great message
of any prophet is passed to the keeping of others, who, although lacking, perhaps, the light allowed to him, have sought to preserve his teaching in forms
of words, in rites and in institutions, but particularly, by creating a special class
to guard and administer it. As may be understood, the original impulse in such
cases is laudable; probably, also, the best that could be done in the conditions,
but the results have always been defective, for the evident reasons that thfc
understanding in such cases must have been partial, also that the statements
and institutions so originated have proved inefficient media for expressing the
highest purity of embodied truth for the end of uplifting mankind. Thus, we
find among ancients such intrepid thinkers as Gautama Buddha and the Chinese
sage, known as Laou Tsze. The profound and suggestive systems propounded
by both these masters — and that of the Chinese seems to parallel the ethical
teachings of Christ in several striking particulars — have been appropriated by
priestly orders, who, while deifying the teachers, have obscured the teachings,
mingling much that is both unworthy, and, properly speaking, unreligious in
any sense. Thus it is that a priestly class, whether in old Egypt, in India, in
China, or elsewhere, has always proved most influential in "making the law of
none effect." Indeed, as we may understand, the minute religion is supposedly
passed into the hands and keeping of one special set or class of men, as opposed to the mass of mankind, just so soon it ceases to be regarded as a common possession and responsibility, and the "body of believers" ceases to be
an order of "kings and priests unto God." This explains, in great part, the
dearth of "lay co-operation," so often complained of, also, much of the current
high profession and low performance. It explains, further, why traditional religious systems have failed hitherto as influences for individual integrity and
social justice. Thus, because the Driestly class has virtually "monopolized" religion, do we have our "social problems" and our godless "solutions;" also our
"unfruitful professions" and our passionate pleadings for the performance of a
fuller duty toward mankind — if, indeed, some system or other is to continue
as a "real power" in the future.
In view of the facts explained above, we may feel justified in concluding
that a very large part of the mentioned religious failure in essential departments of influence is due to the compromises necessary to maintain the prestige of systems and clerical classes. This has involved the perfectly evident
fact that, in spite of the general worship of Christ's person, His clear and oftrepeated teachings on human duty have been persistently ignored, or, at least,
"explained figuratively," and "with rational limitations;" hence, in a very actual
sense, treated with contempt by human stupidity and self-interest. Thus, the
real meaning of His words to the rich young man — -"go sell all that thou hast,
and give unto the poor" — has been utterly lost to sight in the frantic effort to
prove that the possession of wealth, even with all its attendant disabilities in
the spiritual way, is not inconsistent with perfect Christian profession. The
anxiety of our doctors and preachers to square their "faith" with the world and
its favoring influence has blinded them to the fact that, while Christ's command may not apply to all, it still remains true that any person filled with a
vital conviction of the reality of Christ's mission, would reckon it an act of
shame and indecency to wallow in luxury and pleasure, while pauperism, squalor
and ->-"ce continue possible. It is because too many of our "doctors of divinity"
and formulators of the "historic theology" have been mere traders in the temple that they have encouraged, in effect, the selfish Sybarite, who will supply
his own pleasure by the woes of his fellows, and of their wives and their tender
children — "how dwelleth the love of God in him?" These same exemplars of
"spiritual religion" — "profound thinkers" and "ripe scholars" — in dealing with

<!-- page:575 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 575
certain other blotches on our civilized society, will gravely inform us that "they
are great evils, but have always existed." Thus, essaying to "cast out devils"
and do many wonderful works" in the name of Christ, do these triflers with
the truth of God dismiss the matter of hideous vice.
If, then, in attempted answer to our assertion of the sufficiency of religion
when properly understood and faithfully lived— for religion follows the law of
all vital forces, working from within outward— it be objected that our religious
duties to our fellows have been persistently preached for nineteen centuries,
with unsatisfactory results, the plain answer is that there is nothing remarkable in this condition. If we are told that the vitalizing influence of Christ is
now so limited as to be ineffectual, and that "scientific sociology" is now our
best available hope and dependence, the answer is that such statement was
exoected. And we may explain our answers in the words of the Prophet Jeremiah (ii.11-13):
"My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. Be
astonished * * * at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith
the Lord. For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns,
that can hold no water."
In spite of the truth of all this, we must insist that "scientific sociology"
gives us no clew to a solution. When recommended by a professed servant of
Christ, we can see in it only a sad case of advi: ing people to attemot the folly
of him who "climbeth up some other way." The world needs no influence that
shall force people apart, no "class-consciousness:" it demands emphatically
something that shall unify — the God-consciousness, in which "there is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free."
But, in the words of Paul (Rom. x:14-15), "How shall they hear without
a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" As we have
heard from our youth, with all the embellishments of Jesuitical logic, it is
"reasonable to believe that Christ founded a Church, whose duty it should be to
continue his personal work on earth, perpetuating his incarnation." Although,
at times, this argument has seemed very "sophistical," the present condition of
the world lends new suspicion that it may be true. If the worship of God and
the administration of religious ordinances demands an actual delegation of
authority — and this has always been claimed — the need of a divinely-organized
Church is at once apparent. But there is a further duty, not so often remembered, although involving equal need for an efficient vehicle of power and perpetuation.
Christ placed the duty toward man — "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"— second only to the duty toward God, although of no mere secondary
importance. Furthermore, as experience amply demonstrates, it is the more
difficult of the two even to attempt. The virtue of good will and sympathy for
mankind is rare and imperfect in the best of us, because most of us lack the
imagination — the refined intelligence — that can feel another's sufferings as
keenly as our own, or the patience to bear with his follies and shortcomings.
This may be the case because God never intended mankind to live in conditions
involving the constant need for pity, patience and long suffering— such conditions are certainly unnatural and unreasonable. But, because the need of such
virtues actually exists, and will continue until all sin and ignorance are done
away, we may conclude that, having founded His Church to continue His work
on earth, He must have equipped it with a mechanism capable of compensating
the defects in the individual man, empowering him to develop and exercise virtues, which, of himself and by himself, are difficult or impossible. If, then,
we are seeking for the "True Church," the organization actually founded by
Christ and infused with His Spirit and power, we should reasonably expect to
find such a contrivance embodied in it and working efficiently.
Yet the old-world legend of the "Quest of the Holy Grail" describes no
greater difficulties and no more soul-trying uncertainties, than beset one seekin^ for this Church, if it is to be recognized by any such attributes. It was a
sad day for worldly pride and the self-sufficiency of human wisdom, when the
I ord of Life came, "not with terrors as the King of kings," but as the humble
Carpenter of Nazareth. Yet that is the way in which God chose to manifest

<!-- page:576 -->

576 IMPROVEMENT ERA
Himself. If He so chose to manifest in ancient times, who can argue that it is
not always His will to humble our pride and convict of folly and futility the
wisdom of the world — for this it is that has ever opposed His truth most powerfully— even in its most approved "historic development"?
Whatever may be God's chosen methods of procedure, the fact remains that
there is but one organization on earth, claiming Christ's authority, that embodies the qualities of a Church that even attempts a systematic effort to obey
Him in this matter on which He spoke oftenest, and at greatest length, the "duty
to my neighbor." This organization — popularly known as the "Mormon"
Church- — -alone holds, as part of its essential and organic law, to the principle,
as expressed in the words of its present head, that "a religion which has not
the power to save people temporally, and make them prosperous and happy
here, cannot be depended upon to save them spiritually, and exalt them in
the life to come." Unless we assume that Christ was only a vain dreamer,
such a statement is axiomatic. Nor is its force and authority to be discredit d
by semi-contemptuous mentions of "social and financial features," mild and halfhearted efforts, merely, to turn the edge of the suspicion that, judged by such
things, "Mormonism" may be true. IndeeJ, earnest and honest thinkers in
other connections are already awake to this truth. Thus, Dr. F. S. Spalding
says: "If the Church is really a divine agency for man's redemption she must
look after the body as well as the soul, even as Christ did" ("Survey," Nov.,
1913, p. 7).
But this Church makes no halt with a "we believe that," etc., nor is its
provision for the temporal needs of its people expressed in merely occasional
outcroppings of good nature and desultory awakenings to the need of making
performance square with profession. Its beneficence is evoked by no eloquent
pleadings for relief of aggravated conditions, but a constant expression of the
vital principles of the system itself. We may understand this when we remember that "Mormonism" is the one influence in the world today that is able to
mold people of diverse origins and instincts into a stable solidarity, begetting
"new type" of man, and generating an enthusiasm for religious principles
that is as real as the faith of the early Christians and as vital as patriotism
itself.
In this achievement, if nothing more, it has demonstrated by a vivid objectlesson the real ability of man to live up to the "high calling" of which we have
talked so much, hitherto, and with such small effect. Furthermore, the method
followed in attaining such results is evidently "scientific" in the truest sense,
taking advantage in a practical and effective manner of the very element of
close association among the members of society, which our sociological dreamers have talked and written about at' such length, and so fruitlessly. As these
dreamers discern, and as the history of the "Mormon" Church has proved, a
compactly-organized and stable body of people is capable of accomplishing
almost any desired results. The very existence of such an organization demands the propagation of the virtues of sympathy, fellow-feeling, mutual helpfulness and other similar qualities; also, if only because the sense of "approbativeness" is a powerful motive to good behavior, as well as of the leading
virtues classed as "moral." It may be understood, also, that a close and strong
organization of people, itself demanding the development and exercise of certain hicrh ethical virtues, must prove an immense power in helping to life
expression and a wide currency the higher obligations of the law of Christ, otherwise to be shamefully neglected, as already explained. Indeed, preaching and
teaching may largely fail of their desired results — and they generally do so fail —
if there be no contrivance to assist to the realization of their demands, no association of people bent on attaining a common good end, and exercising a mutually-assisting example. We may consistently argue, then, that some such
mechanism as a close organization of people, is God's contrivance for rendering
His commands humanly practicable.
In fine, a close organization of people is the only known instrument capable of neutralizing and overcoming the tendencies to disintegration and degeneration in a social order, in which, as in the present, religious and ethical influences labor under such aggravated difficulties. If the "laboring classes," socalled nowadays, they whose wrongs are being so eloquently described, could

<!-- page:577 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 577
have united in any such compacted organization, acting under intelligent direction, all our social and industrial difficulties could have been vastly mollified,
and that without resort to Socialist principles or methods. This is, and always
has been, impossible, however, and solely because the act of organizing, like
any other act, requires a sufficient impelling motive. No such impelling motive exists outside of patriotism and religion, and no religious system outside of
"Mormonism" has shown hopeful signs of ability to originate any motive of
the kind. Thus the world misses a valuable factor in the social life of mankind.
Nor does the strength of the "Mormon" Church consist merely in its
splendid oranization — and this deserves the obeisance of the greatest minds —
but its teachings command with an equal authority. The missionary zeal of
this people — and we should call it "consecrated" if found elsewhere — may well
evoke the envy of all other bodies. It sends out to all the world, to make converts to its faith and order, not selected candidates from a ministerial profession, who are to be supported in their fields by contributions of the faithful,
drawn forth by earnest and eloquent solicitation — "lest the work stop" — but
men from all walks of life, of all callings and occupations, who pay their own
expenses, and devote their time freely to the work. However this phenomenon may be explained, or depreciated, by sectarian critics, the fact remains
that the motive most immediately intelligible is such a sense of good will toward mankind as outrides the limits of the community in which it has originated. Men undertaking such missions in anything like a reasonably proper
spirit, must be filled with the conviction that they have something of prime
value to offer to the world. At any rate, "pathetically ignorant," though it has
been called, "Mormonism" has certainly gone far toward realizing something
closely resembling a sense of the common "divine sonship" of mankind.
In studying the history of this amazing movement we learn that, in its
earliest days, it brought to practical operation the principle of consecrated
property and "equal stewardship," and that the restoration of this institution has
always been maintained as an ideal, whose final realization is confidently expected. Although compromising on a basis of practice that is possible in the
world as at present constituted, it has never lost sight of the ultimate object
of abolishing poverty and the evils consequent upon it. It has never attempted
to remodel social institutions but has accomplished many of the ends sought
by those who advocate such procedure, by ignoring the invidious and artificial distinctions of class, position, property, etc., so prominent among other
communities; adhering to a very good general practice of equality and fraternity. This is because it has as its daring object to remodel human nature, instead of the mere institutions in which it lives; of actually bringing the human
race to its highest and best development. We have heard the criticism of the
benevolent movements in other societies that they serve best to secure the "survival of the unfit," which is supposed to be very unscientific, in the modern
sense. But among the "Mormons" the aim is rather to abolish the "unfit," by
bringing the whole people to as high a standard of life as is possible in this
world. Such an aim is certainly admirable, even if only partially attainable. Tt
has the virtue also of being in strict accord with the method indicated by all
sociological tendencies worthy to be ranked as scientific in the best sense. ^
We must also attribute a very large part of the vitality of "Mormonism" to
the fact that the Priesthood is open to all men of good character, and that a
separate priestly or ministerial class— acting mostly, as already suggested, to
monopolize religious performance and render the "laity" only "vicariously" religious is entirely abolished. This arrangement makes religion truly the firsthand concern of every man in the Church, endowing him with the responsibility of both teaching and living its truths, also of seeking after an individual
"testimony" to his own spirit, which places him, as he is taught to believe, in
as direct relation to God as any other members of the Church, even those whose
official dignities involve general duties and greater responsibilities.
Although as we have often heard from critics, whose disingenuousness
seems argued' by their own methods, that this Church organization is despotic
in character rather than democratic, as claimed, it would seem that a careful
study of its 'genius and workings must reveal the fact that quite the opposite
is the case Indeed, unless honesty and candor entail blindness and stupidity.

<!-- page:578 -->

578 IMPROVEMENT ERA
when brought to bear on "Mormon" matters, it would seem that Joseph Smith's
reported explanation of the success of his system of government — -"I teach the
people correct principles, and they govern themselves" — is amply justified by
the facts of history. But a part of the "correct principles" taught by the
Prophet appears in his famous sayings— "The glory of God is intelligence," and
"It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance: a man is saved no faster
than he gets knowledge." Such principles, accepted from the first among these
people, have contributed to developing the strong individuality, noted as the
rule among them by several really unprejudiced observers of the system and
people. In any case, it would be difficult to argue to anyone knowing the facts
that the majority of the "Mormon" people are of the kind to be readily victimized by a "despotic oligarchy." There can be no doubt of the fact that the
Church has achieved a remarkable combination of personal independence and
high individuality, with strong organization and efficient co-operation. No
really Intelligent student of sociology can deny that we have here an efficient
example of two of the most necessary features in a perfect and stable society
of human beings.
Nevertheless, the mutual importance of these two elements is not such that
any individual influence can seriously affect the total mass. Even though, as
is probable, there are among these people many examples of meanness and indifference, the genius of the organiation is consistently otherwise. Thus, the
influence of the Church is directed to solicitous care for all its members. The
funds realized from tithes, fast offerings and other systematic contributions
from the membership, are mostly expended each year in relieving need and
suffering, in caring for the sick, aged and disabled, and in assisting communities, wherever located, to prosperity and self-support. A large number of the
necessary irrigation works in Utah and other states, where "Mormons" have
settled, have been built with the assistance of Church funds, which are largely
invested also in several home industries, and in co-operative institutions, intended primarily to afford employment for the people and to supply their needs.
Not only will the authorities render such assistance, when occasion arises,
but occasions are always being sought by them. If a man is poor, in need, or
sick, their agents will search him out. If he is out of employment, he finds
available the influence of these same Church authorities for helping him to a
suitable position. He can find, at least, "official friends," who, strikingly unlike official persons in general, are of the kind who can "be touched, with the
feeling of our infirmities." ("When we find the "real true church," it is more
than probable that it will be found to be officered by precisely this kind of
"officials.") If a man dies, his family is offered the help and assistance, in all
ways, that may be needed. No man in the "Mormon" Church need be afraid
to die, because that, by his death, his loving wife and defenseless children will
be exposed to the tender mercies of the worse than wolfish wickedness of the
world, as occurs just exactly a few times too often in communities infiltrated
with the "homeopathically diluted" influence of "churches possessing fuller
truth and deeper spirituality." Why is it possible that only among these people
do we find a negation of David's plaint: "Let me not fall into the hands of
man"? Of what use, beside satisfying the idiotic "wisdom" of the world, are
academic "demonstrations" of "fuller truth," and other excellencies, capable of
catering to the spiritually indolent far better than convincing the intellectually
honest, by the side of such performances as those noted above?
Thus, in yet another aspect, does this Church fulfil offices reasonably to
be attributed to the Church that existed in the mind of the Savior of men.
It is not only an exemplar and preserver of His well-doing and of His charity to
His people, but it also comes very near to embodying His divine life to the
world. It suggests forcibly to the inquiring mind that God's "true church"
must also be an embodiment, visible, vital and effective, of Divine Providence,
the visible means provided for the answer to the cry of distress and the prayer
of faith. No one in such an organization, which works thus faithfully and untiringly, need complain of unanswered prayers. For, as such must believe,
God's Church perpetuates the incarnation of Christ, not only in repeating His
words and administering His ordinances, but also in continuing His loving and
restoring Presence to mankind. Just as God sent ravens to feed Elijah: He

<!-- page:579 -->

THE GALILEO OF SOCIOLOGY 579
sent also His Church— that is to saythe Church which evidently continues His
incarnation in any true and intelligible sense — to meet the needs of all manland, and provide for their extremities. Thus only can the True Church perpetuate the incarnation.
Thus, then, as we claim, has the "Mormon" Church solved, in a practical
and vital manner, the problems of civilization, as well as having contributed
to make religion a reality, and to render possible a perfectly logical and consistent obedience to the most often-repeated commands of Christ. We need
not complain that it has done no better, because there is no more to be done,
under human conditions, than it has attempted to do — and with such large
success — and no other known organization, working under the same difficulties,
could have done in any sense as well. We must not forget Cabet's "Icarians,"
whose colony, attempting to live out Fourierite theories in a completely finished and fully furnished city left for their occupation, failed ignominiously,
while the "Mormons," driven from their homes by the zealous possessors of a
"fuller truth," were founding in the barren wilderness a community that should
convict of foolishness the well-reasoned theories of dreamers and professors of
sociology. We read in an article above quoted of the "partial hold on truth"
of this Church, but in view of the exceptional results achieved, we might be
inclined to ask whether the "truth" involved in this "partial hold" be not some
cosmic force, effective in transforming the lives of men. Is it the "power
of God unto salvation"?
Whatever may be the answer to such questions and suggestions, there is
one inevitable conclusion — and it should be carefully considered by all who are
liable to be influenced by shallow and ill-founded criticisms — and this is that,
no matter what may have been the "historic development of theology," or
whatever the ingenuity exercised in explaining and concealing the dismal failures of "historic and rational Christianity," the ultimate, perfect religion, the
Church that shall be utterly true to Christ, and for which our social and moral
perplexities have created an insistent demand, must embody the distinctive
features of "Mormonism," as above described. Nor can "Mormonism" by any
process of force or logic be deprived of the credit of having originated, or, at
least, of having first expressed these indispensable features of Christ's Church.
Hence we may state that any thoughtful and earnest person, turned from
"Mormonism" by the preaching of Dr. Abbott's theory of the incarnation, or
by the groundless assertions and shallow arguments of biased critics, must, if
he live long enough, merely "return again to his origin."
In the frantic effort to conceal and discredit plain facts, and for no evident purpose beyond "saving their own faces," people will still repeat the old,
discredited charge that Joseph Smith, the promulgator of the system by which
all these results have been achieved, was a mere "imposter" or, at best, an
epileptic dreamer. It seems unnecessary to say more here than to remark
that no imposter in history ever wrought so well as he or to such good and
abiding ends; also, that all the epileptic symptoms that may be hyoothetically
laid to him seem to have been of so innocuous a character that, by the findings
of our pathologists, nearly every great man in history must have been in the
same case, notably such men as Napoleon and Julius Csesar, and that, judged
by the symptoms as described, we should all be solicitous lest we have "seizures."
Apart from all such silly and unworthy charges, which explain nothing and
amount to nothing — since "by their fruits ye shall know them" — it is difficult,
indeed, to see how an honest man, so awake to the shortcomings of our civilization, can assume the position toward "Mormonism" as is displayed by the
author of the article quoted above. He accuses this system of "blind and unguided groping" and "pathetically ignorant effort," while he argues for justice to mankind and eulogizes as the "Galileo of sociology," a man whose
greatest contributions to the world lie in a challenge of current opinions on the
relations of "capital and labor" and a lot of clever guesses as to the future organization of society. But the man, whose work and significance he would
depreciate with virtuous and scholastic contempt, has made humanity and science his bankrupt debtors by demonstrating, beyond peradventure, the true
solutions of the problems of social injustice and religious impotence. He re-

<!-- page:580 -->

580 IMPROVEMENT ERA
stored religion to its proper place as the real basis and impulse for social reorganization; he made it, as is right and normal, the common possession of all
believers, rather than a virtual monopoly of a clerical or priestly class; he
originated an organization that has made practical the exercise of charity, benevolence and fellow-feeling among the members of society; he promulgated a
conception of Church duties that has purged his people of the grosser forms
of immorality, and which has "traveled twenty leagues" toward abolishing poverty and its attendant blights among them. He might consistently have
adopted the motto of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, AD MAJOREM
DEI GLORIAM ("to the greater glory of God"). Surely, if the title belongs to
any man, we must call Joseph Smith the real "Galileo of sociology." If he was
rot, as he professed, also a prophet of God, who can demonstrate, at least,
that he did not understand and apply the teachings of Christ to better and
more practical effect than have any others, even those who helped most conspicuously in the "historic development of theology"? "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not, but this I know" — that he performed where others have
failed, and left an example of achievement that cannot but form the basis of
effort for all who seek and find the way to benefit mankind. In short, his
detractors cannot escape the impeachment expressed in the words of Christ,
"Go thou and do likewise."
We may answer, then, to all this talk about "blind groping" and "ignorant
effort" that the man so accused never sought to compound the truth of God,
as he understood it, with atheistic sociological flounderings, in the frantic
effort to awaken a sense of neglected Christian duties toward humanity. He
applied religious rules, which he undoubtedly believed were of divine origin,
and to so great success that his claim cannot be disproved, unless "Marx was
crucified for your sins." "Blind groping" he may have done: but what do any
of the rest of us? We have been told — but that was in the past — that the highest function of the soul is the exercise of faith. But faith is only the "evidence
of things not seen" — humanly speaking, the impulse toward acts done blindly
and in the dark, for the glory of God, as St. Paul sufficiently explains. But faith
is known by its "works," by the things done in the name of God; never as
wordy profession and practical failure in the performance of Christ's commands. If, then, all this be demonstrated as "blind groping," we may say, in
the words of a noble hymn, "I'd rather walk with God in the dark than walk
alone in the light."