The Mormon puzzle, and how to solve it

by R. W. Beers

Accordingly, the policy which I advocate is not the let-alone policy. Far from it. It is rather the antipodes of that policy, the furthest remove from it possible. Instead of letting every Mormon alone in his voluntary bondage, it touches every Mormon; it brings a power to bear upon every one which he cannot help but feel. It brings him into personal contact with the spirit of freedom as it is exemplified in the genuine American.

True, it may be called a policy of toleration; but therein lies its strength and its superiority over any purely repressive policy, for it is regarded as an axiom that to tolerate error where truth surrounds it is the best means for its destruction. The evils in the Mormon system would long ago have been sunk out of sight but for its isolation from vital contact with truth. What the result of a battle between Truth and Error will be is known to all; but to conquer, Truth must be brought into close contact with Error. The trouble has been that Utah until quite recently has been hedged in by a Chinese wall of separation, so that Truth and Liberty have been shut out. The plan we advocate breaks down this Chinese wall entirely, and lets in the light of Truth and Liberty upon every Mormon soul. It allows Truth to have free course and fair play. There will then be a hand-to-hand combat between Truth and Error; and who can doubt as to the result? “Truth is mighty and will prevail.”

But some alarmist may cry: “Ah! but it will take time for that moral battle to be fought out to the end, and in the mean time the horrid cancer will spread and spread, and even our own families will not be safe from its infection.”

But, in reply, it can be said that nothing short of the annihilation of the Mormons would overcome polygamy very soon. Even at the shortest, it will take several years to accomplish its effectual overthrow. The Utah Commission, in their report to the Secretary of the Interior, September 24th, 1886, deemed it proper to reiterate on this point what they had before said in their report for 1884, viz.:

“As the Government has to deal here with a people who are wonderfully superstitious and fanatically devoted to their system of religion, the public should not expect, as the immediate result of the present laws of Congress, nor indeed of any legislation, however radical, the sudden overthrow of polygamy; and the most that can be predicted of such legislation is, that it will, if no step backward be taken, soon ameliorate the harder conditions of Mormonism, and hasten the day for its final extinction.”

Furthermore, the cry that “even our own families will not be safe from the infection of this ever-spreading cancer” is nothing but sheer cant—such a cry as the ranting demagogue might raise; and it only shows how ignorant most people are in regard to this question of Mormonism, even those who claim to understand it. Polygamy is not taught by the Mormon missionaries, and is not practised outside of Utah, and is practised there only by a small minority of the people. In the letter of the First Presidency to the Mormons at their semi-annual conference, dated October 6th, 1885, there were the following statements, coming from the head of the Church, and which are known to be true: “We never have believed or taught that the doctrine of celestial marriage was designed for universal practice.... There appears to be a fallacious idea abroad regarding this doctrine. It has been asserted that there was a design to propagate it outside of our community, and thus introduce into the United States an element opposed to the Christian views of this and other nations. On the contrary, our elders have been instructed not to introduce the practice of that principle anywhere outside of the gathering-place of the Saints; and they do not preach it abroad to any extent, even in theory, except on occasions when it is called for or when they are assailed on account of it.... It should also be understood that the practice is not generally admissible even among the Latter-Day Saints. It is strictly guarded, the intention being to allow only those who are above reproach to enter into the relationship.... The idea, therefore, that plural marriage is a menace to the general monogamous system is without foundation. This fallacy is further exhibited by the fact of the popular antipathy with which it is regarded, people outside of our Church exhibiting a disposition the reverse of favorable to its establishment in other communities, making the extension of its practice abroad impossible.” No; our own homes are not in much danger from this evil. The Mormons in Utah will be the only sufferers. There should be no selfish motive aroused for the destruction of this evil. Neither we nor our families are in great danger. Honor and humanity are the motives which should actuate every American to wipe out this foul blot upon our nation’s face and to uplift our brethren from the degradation and bondage of this accursed system; and although the plan with which we propose to accomplish this end will take some few years before the climax will be reached, yet while the plan is gradually being wrought out it will place a greater check upon the evil than any other plan, and in the end will be effectual in breaking it up, which cannot be said of any other plan yet proposed. And what is more, it would accomplish the end with less of bitter spirit being manifested and with less property and lives lost than any other plan that could possibly be brought forth, because it is in strict accord with Christian principles and has nothing in connection with it which could be construed by the Mormons as religious persecution.

In dealing with this question we must not overlook the Mormon standpoint, although it may differ from our own. The law against polygamy is regarded by the Mormons, in the first place, as unconstitutional. The existing prohibitory law is only a statute-law, which they claim to be out of harmony with the fundamental law of our land as expressed in the Constitution. The latter they claim to revere as inspired. Accordingly, their constant hope and effort is to obtain admission into the Union as a State, so that they might no longer be under the exclusive control of Congress. Under the Constitution as it now is, Congress has no legislative jurisdiction over the question of polygamy in the different States of the Union. The whole subject, together with that of marriage and divorce, is left with the States themselves, and may be regulated by them according to their own discretion. Knowing this, the Mormons are working strenuously to have Utah admitted as a State with all its rights and privileges; then they could bid defiance to all the statute-laws of Congress on the subject of polygamy, and in the exercise of their undoubted right they would enact a law allowing polygamy, which would not transgress any article of our Constitution. The earnest efforts of the Mormons will naturally be directed to that end as long as the Constitution remains as it is. The proper thing to do in order to completely overthrow that idea among the Mormons is to pass the proposed Polygamy Amendment to the Constitution. The Mormons would then see that, so far as that institution is concerned, they have nothing to gain by gaining political control of a State. No State could establish polygamy, any more than it could establish slavery; and if any State, owing to local public sentiment or partisan politics, were remiss in dealing with polygamists, the general Government would have power to supply the remedy. If such an amendment were made to the Constitution, the cry of the Mormons concerning the unconstitutionality of the Anti-Polygamy Law would be completely overcome; for, as the Utah Commission very aptly say in their report for 1886, “they would probably not have the hardihood to say that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional, and it is not unreasonable to predict that the more sagacious and influential persons among the Mormons would realize the hopelessness of a further conflict with the Government, and accommodate themselves to the inevitable by the exercise of that ‘worldly wisdom’ which so often tempers and modifies the conduct of religious fanatics.”

Nevertheless, the Mormons could still raise their greatest cry—that which has the greatest weight with them—the cry of religious persecution; because then, as now, they would claim that the law interfered with their religion. We cannot admit the truth of their assertion. Chief-Justice Waite was right when he delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court on this subject: “Laws are made for the government of actions; and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which we lived could not interfere to prevent the sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her from carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law for the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the country because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Those words express the views of at least nine tenths of the people in our land. To deny those statements is to deny doctrines that are essential to the possibility of civil government, and in effect would reduce society to a state of anarchy in which every one may do as he pleases without any legal responsibility. Crimes against society do not cease to be crimes because they are religiously committed. Society can never take the criminal’s conscience, whether it be religious or otherwise, as a test or guide on this subject, and yet live under the regulation of law. Nevertheless, the Mormons do not agree with us in such views, and hold that every person who is convicted under the Edmunds law is a martyr to his religion.

And looking at the subject as they do, we cannot help but feel a measure of respect for the Mormons while we deplore their bondage, when we find them, after conviction in court, when the alternative is presented to them of a promise to obey the law against polygamy hereafter or go to prison, deliberately choose the latter, saying, as Abram H. Cannon, one of the elders of the Church did, March 17th, 1886: “I would like to state, your Honor, that I have always endeavored to keep the laws of the United States, because I have been taught by my parents that the Constitution was a sacred instrument. That I have failed in this respect and now stand before you convicted of the crime of unlawful cohabitation is due to the fact that I acknowledge a higher law than that of man, which is the law of God; and that law being a part of my religion, sir, I have attempted to obey it. When I embraced this religion I promised to place all that I had, even life itself, upon the altar, and I expect to abide by that covenant which I made. And, sir, I hope the day will never come when I must sacrifice principle even to procure life or liberty. Honor, sir, to me is higher than anything else upon the earth; and my religion is dearer to me than anything else that I have yet seen. I am prepared, sir, for the judgment of the court.” Such a man one cannot help but respect; and we can only wish that he stood up thus manfully in a nobler cause than that of polygamy.