ELDER B.H. ROBERTS

FOREWORD.

The following Answer to the Ministerial Association's Review of the Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World, was delivered in a speech at two meetings of the Mutual Improvement Association conference, Sunday afternoon and evening, June 9, 1907, in the "Mormon Tabernacle," Salt Lake City, Utah, before an audience of between four and five thousand people. The speaker expected to close his remarks with the afternoon meeting, and therefore omitted certain matters that were intended to be discussed at the time the subject to which they were related was presented in the afternoon, but which, for lack of time, as he then supposed, went over to the evening session. He was urged by those in charge of the Conference to continue his remarks in the evening session, which he did. In this printed copy of the speech, some of the remarks in the evening are brought over into their proper place, and connected with the subjects to which they most properly belong, and that were treated in the afternoon. Also the speaker has added some items that were outlined in his notes prepared for the occasion, but not used either in the afternoon or evening. In order that such new matter might be designated it is placed in brackets.

III.

Today, my brethren and sisters, we convert this pulpit into a forum, from which we propose a defense both of our faith and the Church. Nor do we violate any of the proprieties in this change, because when truth is to be defended and injustice resented, then "all place a temple, and all seasons summer."

The occasion to which we address ourselves this afternoon arises out of these circumstances: At the late general conference of the Church, the First Presidency issued to the world an address. Submitting it to the general conference, it was approved and endorsed by the Saints assembled, so that it became an address of the Church of Christ to the world. Of course, as we might have anticipated, this address met with adverse criticism, and finally there was formulated against it an alleged review by the Ministerial Association of evangelical ministers in the state of Utah. Represented in that association are the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Christian (Campbellite) and regular Episcopal churches—so that practically the whole of Protestant Christendom is represented by these ministers who challenge the correctness and the candor of the address issued by the Church to the world.

In our consideration of their review we will suppose the representatives of these churches present, sitting right here [indicating a place close by the stand] in a body. And I wish they were so present, because there is nothing like talking it out face to face with these gentlemen; and I doubt not but their presence in a body would be quite an inspiration to one in discussing the document they have submitted to us. Having, then, before us the circumstances out of which this occasion arises, let us proceed to our task.

The first charge or criticism of the address of the Church made by these gentlemen is to the effect that the doctrines of the Church are not as fully proclaimed elsewhere as in Utah; all through the review, in fact, runs the innuendo that the Church deceitfully teaches one doctrine at home and another abroad, and that the address obscures much that is necessary to an intelligent judgment of "Mormonism." Hence these gentlemen propose to help the world to a fuller presentation of "Mormon" doctrine and practice, as set forth in their review of our address.

Right here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The document they have issued quotes very copiously from our published Church works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they rely for this larger, fuller proclamation of "Mormonism?" I find quoted the Millennial Star, the Journal of Discourses, the Seer (by Orson Pratt), the Improvement Era, the Manuals of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Associations, Orson Spencer's Letters, Epistles of the First Presidency of the Church, Talmage's Articles of Faith, and last, and of course least, some of my own works. Now where is the Millennial Star published? In Liverpool, England. Where were the Journals of Discourses published? In Liverpool, England. Where was the Seer published? In Washington, D.C. Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, since these are the works on which you chiefly rely for your larger view of "Mormon" doctrine, that we have published them elsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The Improvement Era, of course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two thousand copies of it are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts and to scatter everywhere in the world. So with Orson Spencer's Letters: so with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which more presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them very freely, and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad, and from them they learn the doctrines of "Mormonism." So that your practical charge that we preach one set of doctrines and principles in Utah, and quite another in the world, and that we are trying to play the double game of having one doctrine for home consumption and another for proclamation abroad, is as shallow as it is untrue.

One other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from the Seer which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work—the Seer—together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

And yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must believe, since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are ministers of the truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand.

"Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.

In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament. And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ.

We move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You say of us, that "Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or to justice and mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only authorized church of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical test of salvation."

Gentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the "Mormon" Church, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an "unbiblical test of salvation." I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim made for Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine message, with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, just for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that claim to be true, is the test we apply, at all, much less "wholly," unbiblical? May one reject God's message and stand uncondemned before God? Assuredly not. What was the example Jesus set? This: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." He was but proclaiming the message that God had given to him, and he laid down this principle as connected with the authority and commission he had bestowed upon the apostles when sending them into the world: "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." What do we do, when we proclaim the divine message with which the Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned to the world but just apply this same principle? Nothing more than this, and of course we could do nothing less. As I remarked a moment ago, you may refuse, as you do, to believe this message and testimony, but you cannot say in truth that there is anything unbiblical in the principles on which we proceed to make this declaration to the world: and, by the way, don't you claim the same thing for your message? If you don't, what does your message amount to? Are you not ministers of Jesus Christ? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can men reject you and your doctrine and your message and still be secure in the favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand you as false teachers, untrue servants—not representatives of the Master. You are weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not gather again, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity. You are talking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism of this kind.

Now we are told that because of the claims of "Mormonism" it provokes searching investigation, for the reason that "it involves eternal reprobation of those who finally reject it." Gentlemen, have you not juggled here a little with words? And is it not just possible that a wrong impression may go out from your view of our Address, rather than from the Address itself? Is there such a thing in "Mormonism" as eternal reprobation as generally understood in the theological terminology of the world? With the single exception of those who come to know the truth and then so far sin against it that they have no power of repentance nor desire for forgiveness—the sons of perdition, which all our works teach will be comparatively few in number—does not "Mormonism," aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation to all the children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently; but the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is "provoked" because the claim of the "Mormon" Church to being the only authorized Church of Christ, "involves the validity of all the Church ordinances and of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages as administered by the Christian Church from the second to the nineteenth century." Here we are approaching solid ground of controversy. "Mormonism" does deny that divine authority exists in the churches of the world, the churches of men, miscalled Christian churches. We do not blanch from the position. We proclaim it; although we do not wish to do so in any offensive way, but we have to be witnesses for the truth. And God has revealed that to be the truth. "Mormonism" is in the world because their was a real necessity for its coming into the world. It did not come into existence through theological disputations, because of differences of views about baptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these things; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy from God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization, and the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the institutions and systems of men, consequently there was need of divine authority being again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the gospel of Christ given to the world. It is our pride that "Mormonism" is this restored gospel and Church of Christ.

I notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this Ministerial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a branch of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this attitude of the "Mormon" Church, for the reason that in one of the Homilies of his church; in the Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, it is expressly stated that "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most detested by God, and damnable to man, for 800 years and more." (Perils of Idolatry, p. 3). Certainly "Mormonism" does not proclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor do we declare its universality more emphatically, but I presume we are offensive to the representatives of this particular church, the Episcopal, because we include him and his organization as among those who are in the apostasy and who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on him or his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the Christian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England under the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory, and we do have this advantage, viz.:

That if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine authority, the resumption of present-day and continuous revelation from God. So we are in an infinitely better position, as to the reasonableness of our attitude, than are those who proclaim this apostasy and yet are without a renewal of a dispensation of the gospel to the world.

There is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review, a misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the reviewers set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority in their churches, and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for centuries in the earth, but they say that our attitude involves the validity of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages. They are not, I take it, responsible for the headlines of their review as they appeared in the public press, but in order to make the attitude of the "Mormon" Church as offensive as it could be made, the headline said, "Gentile Marriage Ordinances Illegal Before God." Now in justice to us I think this matter should have been put fairly, and the exact status of the matter given. It should have appeared that we regard marriage as a civil as well as a religious contract, and our attitude with reference to divine things nowhere involves us in a contradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil contract, nor as a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine favor and blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any way, in thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that marriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or by the authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage covenant beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have been a little more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our position upon this question. Allow me to do it for them.

Turning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be found:

"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power * * * are of no efficacy, virtue, or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead."

Again,

"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

So far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it relates only to denying their validity after the resurrection—not this side of it; and, gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because you yourselves, in performing the marriage ceremony, say, "I pronounce you man and wife until death does you part." I think you ought not to take offense at what we say on this subject—we say your marriage ceremonies are of no binding effect in and after the resurrection, you make no pretensions of marrying for eternity. The fact is, you scorn and ridicule it. Before leaving this group of propositions with which I am dealing, I desire to say respecting this question of universal apostasy from the Christian faith—we can sustain the truth of that declaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of the religious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no anxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into an argument on the justification of our attitude.

But, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference between your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and the existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out of those respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that those who do not accept this gospel cannot receive the benefits of its salvation? Now then, after two thousand years of proselyting in the world, under the most favorable circumstances, what is the sum total of your achievements? Why, less than one-third of the inhabitants of the earth are even nominally Christians! and what is your attitude toward God's children whom you have not converted. Why, that they are lost. That is the inevitable result of your attitude and doctrine. Or else you must say that men can be saved without the gospel of Christ. Now the difference between your position and ours is simply this:

The proposition that you present to the world at large, we present to you as well as to the rest of mankind—and you don't like your own medicine—with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one that goes far towards establishing the divine origin of this great latter-day work; the exception is this: that whereas, your attitude and principles condemn the great bulk of the human family to everlasting perdition—and I am going to talk to you about perdition in a little while, and point out what you mean by it—while you consign to eternal perdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's children, we proclaim an "everlasting gospel," one that shall not only walk beside men through this life but through all the ages that are to come. You say in your review that we "contribute nothing to reverence for God, or to justice or mercy toward men." Well, here is one little item that "Mormonism" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold that in any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten thousand years hence, or ten million years hence—we hold that when an intelligence, a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate the law of God, but that it profiteth everything to yield obedience to that law, and repentance takes hold of him, and he stretches out his hands toward God—through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the hand of God will find the man's hand and bring him unto salvation. That is the difference between us, and I leave you to judge which smacks most of the inspiration and truth of heaven.

We take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by you, gentlemen, that the "Mormon" Church denies that the Christian churches have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding Christian martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches have fostered, the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted. I wish to explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with reference to this interregnum between the apostasy and the restoration of that gospel in the nineteenth century, through our prophet.

Our position is this: While there was this universal apostasy, while the Church of Christ as an organization was destroyed, and replaced by the churches of men, yet just as when the sun goes down, there still remains light in the sky—so, too, notwithstanding this apostasy from the Church, there still were left fragments of truth among the children of men, and some measure of truth thank God, through his mercy, has always remained with man, not only with Christians but with all God's children. He has not left himself in any of the ages of the world without his witnesses, and he has sanctified all generations of men with some measure of the truth; therefore, when we proclaim this apostasy from the Christian religion and the destruction of the Church of Christ, it does not follow that we hold that all truth, that all virtue, had departed from the world, or that God had absolutely withdrawn from his creation. Not so. The light of truth burned in the bosom of good men; but it does not follow that because these fragments of truth remained there was necessarily the organized Church of Christ and divine authority in the world. These fragments of the truth could remain in the so-called Christian parts of the world, as we now know them to exist in what is called the heathen world. Relative to the reforms you claim that your churches have fostered and the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted, you are aware, gentlemen, that there is a certain class of thinkers among you—I mean in the Christian world, not among "Mormons"—you are aware that there is a school of thinkers among men who will tell you to your teeth, and they will come very nearly proving the truth of it, that such progress in civilization, in science, in arts, as the world has made in past ages, has not been made because of your churches, but in spite of them. They hold that your organizations have been found quite as often against the progress of truth as standing in support of it. Taking the whole time range into account, from the close of the second to the opening of the nineteenth century, it would puzzle you to meet their evidence and argument.

It is claimed that the brevity of our Address not only leaves much to be desired, but that it is "positively misleading."

First, our reviewers claim that the address is misleading on the subject of revelation. Still these reviewers are able to quote from the Address as follows: "The theology of our Church is the theology taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, the theology of Scripture and reason. It not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation." That seems quite explicit to me. But, commenting upon the passage, the reviewers say:

"Under this declaration lies the claim of the 'Mormon' Church—constantly insisted upon in its congregation here and in surrounding regions—that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, together with the living oracles—i.e., certain members of the priesthood—are divinely inspired and are, therefore, of equal authority with the Bible. This claim, a knowledge of which is so necessary to even a tolerable understanding of their system of belief, is not plainly and explicitly set forth in the declaration of doctrine contained in the Address, but it has repeated and urgent emphasis in their teachings in 'Mormon' communities."

Now, be honest, gentlemen, is it not repeated everywhere with just as much emphasis as in "Mormon" communities in Utah? Isn't it a universal proclamation that we make to the world? You know it is, and you prove that it is from the very works you quote to establish the fact that we believe in that doctrine, and which are of world-wide circulation. It was a vile effort at misrepresentation on your part to make it appear otherwise. But on the subject of revelation, let us go to the Address itself. What is said upon the subject of revelation is found on pages three and four, and fourteen and fifteen: "Our religion is founded on the revelations of God," * * * "It," [the Church of Christ] "not only acknowledges the sacredness of ancient Scripture, and the binding force of divinely-inspired acts and utterances in ages past; but also declares that God now speaks to man in this final gospel dispensation." At page 14 of the Address this is said:

"It is sometimes urged that the permanent realization of such a desire [i.e., to live in peace with our fellow citizens] is impossible, since the Latter-day Saints hold as a principle of their faith that God now reveals himself to man, as in ancient times; that the priesthood of the Church constitute a body of men who have each for himself, in the sphere in which he moves, special right to such revelation; that the president of the Church is recognized as the only person through whom divine communication will come as law and doctrine to the religious body; that such revelation may come at any time, upon any subject, spiritual or temporal, as God wills; and finally that, in the mind of every faithful Latter-day Saint, such revelation, in whatsoever it counsels, advises, or commands, is paramount."

Now, gentlemen, will you tell me how we could be more frank or explicit on the subject of revelation? And when you charge that in this document we have not dealt candidly with the subject of revelation, why did you not quote this passage I have just read, with the other passages that you have quoted? Were you not trying to do a little misleading on your own account? Did you deal quite fairly with the Address when you failed to quote this very explicit passage just read?

Complaint is made about our belief in "Living Oracles" in the Church, i.e., certain members of the priesthood who are divinely inspired, and who may interpret the revelations and the laws of the Church.

Well, gentlemen, why do you complain of that? Books do not make churches. How came we by the ancient scriptures? The Old and the New Testament, I mean. We are instructed in the Scriptures that no scripture is of private interpretation, but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost," hence your Old Testament and your New Testament. They came into existence exactly in the same way that our scripture is coming into existence. The living oracles make scripture; scriptures do not make living oracles. And that is what is the matter with you, gentlemen; you have been relying upon books instead of relying upon the fountain source of all wisdom, truth and knowledge, the inspiration and revelation of God to the human soul. You are book-made teachers, rather than God-made teachers. That is the difference between the living oracles in the Church of Christ and those who speak as the Scribes and Pharisees were wont to speak. The people in ancient times were able to discern the difference; for they said of Jesus that he spoke as one having authority, and not as the Scribes and the Pharisees. We are in harmony with the whole course of God's dealings with his children in this matter of developing his word in his Church. Yes, we have living oracles in the Church, thank God; and when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost their utterances are the very word of God; and when the teachings and discourses of the elders of the Church shall have been sifted and tried in the fire of time, much that they have said will prove to be scripture, and thus the Church of Christ of this dispensation shall make scriptures, just as the Church of Christ of former dispensations has done.

Now I read to you another passage from this review. Complaint is made against our address upon the ground that it treats very briefly—all too briefly, the doctrines of the Church. I do not know but what it is open to just criticism on that ground; for our doctrines are but stated, as you may say, in headlines. I presume the Presidency of the Church did not think the occasion called for an elaborate exposition of the principles of our faith, with chapter and verse given for warrant of the authority on which they rested. But the Church had been under the fire of severe criticism for a period of four years or more. Its doctrines had been assailed, the practices of its people had been misrepresented, their character traduced, and their "whole course of conduct reprobated and condemned." Taking these circumstances under advisement, the Presidency of the Church thought, I presume, the time propitious for an utterance which would in outline tell the world what we believed, and correct the misunderstanding that obtained respecting our past history and present position. The address was not designed, as I understand it, to be a complete exposition of our faith, but a declaration of our present attitude.

On the doctrine of the Godhead these Christian gentlemen, our reviewers, think that the statement of the Address to the effect that we believe in the Godhead, comprising the three individual personages—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—is a declaration that will not perhaps suggest Tritheism or materialism to Christians unfamiliar with "Mormon" "theological terms." "But," they continue, "when the full doctrine of the Deity, as taught in 'Mormon' congregations, is known, it will at once be seen that no Christian can accept it. In fact," they say, "the 'Mormon' Church teaches that God the Father has a material body of flesh and bone; that Adam is the God of the human race; that this Adam-God was physically begotten by another God; that the Gods were once as we are now; that there is a great multiplicity of Gods; that Jesus Christ was physically begotten by the heavenly Father of Mary, his wife; that as we have a heavenly Father, so also we have a heavenly mother; that Jesus himself was married, and was probably a polygamist."

Let me say, in treating this group of statements, that these gentlemen nowhere support these allegations by citations from our authoritative works that the Church accepts as binding in doctrine; but they do quote the commentaries of men, which often express only individual opinions. I might dismiss this group of charges against the "Mormon" Church, therefore, by this statement of the case: the Church is not bound to defend any doctrine that is not explicitly found in the works of the Church setting forth authoritatively her doctrines. But I do not propose to dismiss the charges in any such fashion. I propose to grapple with them, and meet them, I trust to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of these gentlemen.

First, as to God having a body of flesh and bone—being a material personage. I want to find out what there is wrong, unscriptural, unphilosophical or immoral about that doctrine. And for the purpose of this discussion, I am going to put in contrast to our belief, that God is a spirit inhabiting a body of flesh and bone—an exalted, a perfected man, if you will—the statement of the belief of these reviewers as to the nature of God. And, by the way, they are so nearly at one upon this doctrine, that the Church of England's creed, the statement of the Episcopal church on the doctrine, will be acceptable, I doubt not, to them all. On this subject these gentlemen hold: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body"—and that term "body," by the way, does not mean to deny that God has a body in fashion like man's; but it means that he is not matter, not material. Continuing then—"without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Of Jesus the creed says:

"The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ very God and very Man."

Again:

"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day."

Mark what is said here of Jesus. You say that "the Godhead and manhood" in Jesus "were joined together in one person," that is, his spirit and his body are united, never to be severed or disunited. Now I put to you this question: Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Yes, you must answer. Then is not God an exalted man according to your creed? Listen—and this is your belief as expressed in your creed—"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature; wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day."

According to this statement of the matter, Jesus has not been dissolved into some spiritual, immaterial essence, and widely diffused throughout the universe as some spiritual presence. No; he is a substantial, resurrected personage, a united spirit and body; and "The Godhead, and Manhood" that are united in the Christ—the humanity and the divinity—are "never to be divided." He is recognized and worshiped by you, gentlemen, as "very God and very man." This, of course, scarcely meets the description of the first paragraph of the creed used here, where God is declared to be not matter, that is "without body, parts or passions." But then that contradiction is your affair, your trouble, not ours. It is enough that I call your attention to the fact that the second part of your creed leads you closely to the "Mormon" doctrine that God is an exalted, perfected man, since Jesus, according to your creed, is God, and yet a resurrected man sitting in heaven until his return to judge all men at the last day.

And now as to there being more Gods than one. We believe the Scripture which says that Jesus was the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). And as we know what kind of a person the Christ is, who "possessed all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and who, when he declared that all power in heaven and in earth had been given unto him, and he was in the act of sending his disciples into all the world to teach and baptize in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was a resurrected, immortal man, of spirit, flesh and bone. And since, I say, the scripture teaches that the Son was the express image of the Father's person, we conclude that the Father must be a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, just as the Son, Jesus, is. Indeed your Athanasian creed says that "such as the Father is, such is the Son;" and of course, it follows that, such as the Son is, such is the Father; that is, the Father is a personage of spirit, flesh and bone, united in one person, "very God and very man," just as Jesus is. And there are two separate personages, each distinct from the other in person, two individuals, but both of the same divine nature; and if two separate personages, individuals, may participate in the one divine nature, it logically follows that a larger number than two or three may participate in that nature. And hence the Scriptures represent in many places the existence of a plurality of divine personages, how many we do not know, and it does not matter. But we hear of God saying, "Let us make man in our image; the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil;" "God standeth in the congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High." The last a passage of the Psalms, quoted and defended by the Savior as a justification of his own claim to sonship with God. And now, if the great archangel, Michael, or Adam, is among that number of exalted, divine souls, what more fitting than that the father of the human race shall become the great, presiding patriarch of our earth and its redeemed inhabitants; and the one with whom our race would most immediately have to do? What sacrilege is there in this thought? Is it not reasonable that it should be so?

Of your nonsense of one being three, and three being but one, we will say nothing, except to remark that you must reform your arithmetic, if you expect sensible people to pay attention to your doctrines.

One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that we believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen, honestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for him to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his body grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth of the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman; that through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and guided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in your philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother, but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father? Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people, there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother as well as a heavenly father! They quote, in part, that splendid hymn of ours on heavenly motherhood, the great throbbing hunger of woman's soul, and which was given to this world through the inspired mind of Eliza R. Snow; the hymn is known to us as "O My Father."

In the Scripture we read: "We have had fathers of the flesh, and we did give them reverence, shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits and live?" So that we know we have had a father to our spirits; but because we hold that the spirits of men have also a mother in heaven, as well as a father, behold these reviewers complain against us. Now, observe the peculiar position of these critics: It is all right for Jesus to have a mother; but it is all wrong for him to have a father. On the other hand, it is all right for men's spirits to have a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our doctrine of their also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in the world is the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your views, or the kind of beings with which you people heaven. One of your own number, however, has thrown some light upon that subject, and has so classified you—saving me the trouble—as to enable us to understand to some extent your peculiar views. I have a book here that I am going to use in this controversy. It is a new one. I got it three days ago, and have read it nearly through in order to be prepared for this occasion. It is the work of Rev. R. J. Campbell, of City Temple, London, and it is a treatise on the New Theology, just now much talked of in Europe. He describes ministers of the gospel and gives them the classification referred to a moment since, and which I think must needs be all right, since it comes from a minister. He takes the average business man of England, naming him "John Smith," for convenience, and he says this about John:

"John Smith, with whom we used to go to school, and who has since developed into a stolid British man of business, with few ideas and a tendency toward conservatism—John is a stalwart, honest, commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant things were never prophesied and who has never been guilty of any. His wife and children go to church on Sundays. John seldom goes himself, because it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being attended to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is attempting any daring flights. He has a good-natured contempt for clergymen in general, because he feels somewhat that, like women, they have to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not count for much in the ordinary affairs of life, they are a sort of a third sex."

Now, ladies, I ask you to remember, in passing, that I am reading the words of somebody else; their are not my words. The phrase "half-fictitious reverence" is not mine. I think we ought to have real reverence for women; no fictitious reverence at all.

The ministers are here in this passage described as "a sort of third sex," and I am inclined to think that is right; for when a man in one case objects to a person having a father, and in another case considers it altogether unholy for persons to have a mother, I do not know how else to classify him but as "a sort of third sex"-kind of a man.

There seems to be objection in the review to the idea of the marriage relation existing in heaven and subsisting between divine beings. Loud complaint is made, if you hold that the intelligences of heaven obey the law of marriage. Let me ask you, Christian gentlemen, Who instituted marriage? You will answer, God. Is it holy or unholy? Did God institute an unholy thing and command men to engage in it? You will have to say that marriage is holy, since God instituted it. Very good. Then if it is holy, how do you make it out that it will be unholy for divine personages to practice it? Is it not just as good for divine personages as for you imperfect men? Can it be that your ideas of the relationship of the sexes are so impure that you must needs regard that association as so unholy as to be unworthy of divine beings? Let me read to you what a great English author—Jeremy Taylor—says on this subject of, marriage:

"Marriage is the mother of the world and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. Like the useful bee, it builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labors and unites into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with delicacies, and obeys and keeps order, and exercises many virtues and promotes the interest of mankind, and is that state of good to which God hath designed the present constitution of the world."

Now, you prate to us about our belief, or the belief of some of us at least, that divine personages are in this holy relationship. But tell me what it is that has been the great civilizing force of this and all other ages? What is it that best tempers man, and fits him for the society of his fellows and for holy communion with God? There is no force within the experience of man, that is so beneficial or ennobling to him as the love and devotion of a pure, good woman; and for woman there is nothing that is so sanctifying as the love of an upright, honorable man, whose arm protects her and whose love shields her from the evils of the world. These relations, blessed with the pledges of their affection in off-spring, complete the circle of man's happiness, and greatness, and exaltation of spirit in this world. It is the civilizing force that stands pre-eminent above all others. And that which sanctifies man here in this world may be trusted not to degrade him in the eternities that are to come, but, on the contrary, will contribute to his exaltation and his eternal glory. That is our faith, at least, and we would not change it for all the sexless, hermaphrodite existences that your warped minds paint in such glowing colors.

We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that we believe that "as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become." The world usually shouts "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" at one when he talks of such a possibility. But the world moves, I am happy to say. Just now, in England, especially, there is a thought-revolution under way. Some have declared that in importance and extent it is as great as was the revolution of the sixteenth century, led by Martin Luther. The present recognized leader of this movement is the Rev. R. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, London, whose book I referred to a moment ago. This "New Theology," so-called, has the outspoken support of the Christian Commonwealth, of London, a publication of wide influence. A "Society for the Encouragement of Progressive Religious Thought" has been organized to champion the ideas of the "New Theology." Mr. Campbell numbers among his champions Dr. John Clifford, the leading figure in the English Baptist church, also Dr. R. F. Horton, chairman of the London Congregational Union. In America, his sympathizers and opponents seem to be equally numerous. Mr. W. T. Stead, of the Review of Reviews, compares the present theological ardor in London with that which marked Alexandria in the days of Athanasius, "when fishmongers at their stalls discussed the doctrine of the trinity." The strife of tongues has reached even to Germany, where Prof. Harnack, the eminent theologian, interprets it as a proof that the "formal theology of the creeds [your creeds, gentlemen,] is being gradually displaced by the vital theology of experience."

I want to read to you some key-words of this new theology which is making its way among all churches. It is' not an organized movement. No one appears to know whence it springs. Indeed, it is spoken of as being one of those pulsations of the "cosmic mind" which moves over the people at intervals and proclaims some great truth. Now, you will be astonished at the fundamental truth of this new movement, and the great number of people who are accepting it as the "theology of experience." Its fundamental principle is the recognition of the identity between human nature and the divine nature.

In proof of it, I submit the following passages:

"Whence springs the deep-seated hostility of so man, of the representatives of labor to the churches? It can only be from the fact that organized religion has, in the immediate past, lost sight of its own fundamental, the divineness of man." (Rev. R. J. Campbell, in Hibbert Journal, April, 1907, p. 487.)

"When the man with a burdened conscience comes to us for relief, let us tell him that we all bear the burden together, and that until he becomes a Christ all the love in the universe will come to his help and share his struggle. His burden is ours, the burden of the Christ incarnate for the redemption of the world." (Ibid, p. 493.)

"The starting point in the New Theology is belief in the immanence of God, and the essential oneness of God and man. * * * We believe man to be a revelation of God, and the universe one means to the self-manifestation of God. * * * * We believe that there is no real distinction between humanity and the Deity.

"Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it is limited. * * * The new theology holds that human nature should be interpreted in terms of its own highest nature, therefore it reverences Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was divine, 'but so are we.' * * * Every man is a potential Christ, or rather a manifestation of the eternal Christ. * * * The new theology * * * is the gospel of the humanity of God and the divinity of man." (Campbell, London Daily Mail, quoted in Current Literature, April, 1907.)

"I shall continue to feel compelled to believe that the power which produced Jesus must be at least equal to Jesus, so Jesus becomes my gateway to the innermost of God. When I look at him I say to myself, God is that, and if I can only get down to the truth about myself I shall find that I am too. * * * In him (Jesus) the humanity was divinity and divinity humanity. * * * But you make him only a man! No, reader, I do not. I make him the only man, and there is a difference. We have only seen perfect manhood once, and that was the manhood of Jesus. The rest of us have got to get there. * * * We have to get rid of the dualism which will insist on putting humanity and Deity into two separate categories.

"Unitarians used to declare that Jesus was man, not God." Trinitarianism maintained that he was God and man; the older Christian thought as well as the youngest regards him as God in man—God manifest in the flesh. But here emerges a great point of difference between the new theology on the one hand and traditional orthodoxy on the other. The latter would restrict the description 'God manifest in the flesh' to Jesus alone; the new theology would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would maintain that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as it ever was of Jesus. Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and significance to the earthly mission of Jesus—he came to show us what we potentially are." (The New Theology, Campbell, pp. 82, 83.)

There is much more to the same effect, which I now pass.

I am now going to read to you from a higher authority than Mr. Campbell—from a man of science, a man whose intellectual powers sway the religious thought of many thousands in Great Britain, the thoughts of many more people than Mr. Campbell sways. I refer to Sir Oliver Lodge, who says in the Hibbert Journal, one of the foremost publications in the world on the subject of theology and philosophy, with reference to the divinity of Jesus, and the identity of the divine and human nature:

"The conception of the Godhead formed by some divine philosophers and mystics has quite rightly been so immeasurably vast, though still assuredly utterly inadequate and necessarily beneath reality, that the notion of a God revealed in human form—born, suffering, tormented, killed—has been utterly incredible. 'A crucified prophet, yes; but a crucified God! I shudder at the blasphemy,' is a known quotation which I cannot now verify; yet that apparent blasphemy is the soul of Christianity. It calls upon us to recognize and worship a crucified, an executed God. * * * The world is full of men. What the world wants is a God. Behold the God! (referring of course, to Jesus,) 'The divinity of Jesus' is the truth which now requires to be re-perceived, to be illuminated afresh by new knowledge, to be cleansed and revivified by the wholesome flood of skepticism which has poured over it; it can be freed now from all trace of groveling superstition, and can be recognized freely and enthusiastically; the divinity of Jesus, (Mark you—'the divinity of Jesus') and of all other noble and saintly souls, in so far as they too have been inflamed by a spark of Divinity—in so far as they too can be recognized as manifestations of the Divine." (Hibbert Journal for April, 1906, pp. 654-5.)