“That Mormon apostles and elders, as Parley P. Pratt and John Taylor, denied the existence of polygamy, even after it was known and practiced by their community.” The Mormons reply that they never attempted to evade the imputation of the true patriarchal marriage: they merely asserted their innocence of the “spiritual wifedom,” the Free Loveism and the Fanny Wrightism of the Eastern States—charges brought against them by the anti-Mormons.
Having thus disposed of the principal allegations, I will more briefly allude to the minor.
“That the Mormons do not allow monogamy.” This I know not to be the fact, as several of my acquaintances had and have but one wife. “That a multitude of saints, prophets, and apostles are in full chase after a woman, whom the absence of her husband releases from her vows; that the missionary on duty appoints a proxy or vicarious head to his house, and that his spouses are married pro tempore to elders and apostles at home.” Mrs. Ferris has dreamed out this “abyss of abomination,” and then uses it to declaim against. But is it at all credible? Would not such conduct speedily demoralize and demolish a society which even its enemies own to be peculiarly pure? “That the Mormons are ‘jealous fellows’”—a curious contradiction of the preceding charges. The Saints hold to the semi-seclusion of Athens, Rome, and Syria, where “she was the best of women of whom least is said, either of good or harm,” believing with the world generally that opportunity often makes the thief. “That the Mormons ‘swap,’ sell, exchange, and transfer their wives to Indians.” Mrs. Ferris started the story, which carries its own refutation, by chronicling a report of the kind; and Mr. Ward improves upon it by supplying false instances and names. “That the utmost latitude of manners is allowed in the ballroom and the theatre,” which are compared to the private réunions of Rosanna Townsend and other Aspasias. The contrary is notoriously the case. “That the young Mormons are frequently guilty of the crimes of Absalom and other horrible offenses.” Unprejudiced Gentiles always deny the truth of such accusations. “That the Mormon has no home, and that Mormon houses are dirty, slovenly, and uncomfortable.” The Far West is not remarkable for neatness: the only exceptions to the rule of filth which I have seen are in the abodes of the Mormons. “That ‘plurality-families’ are in a state of perpetual storm.” I believe that many a “happy English home” is far stormier, despite the holy presence of monogamy. Even Mrs. Ferris tells of two wives, one young, the other old, “who treated each other with that degree of affectionate cordiality which properly belongs to the intercourse between mother and daughter,” and—naïvely wonder-struck by what she could not understand—exclaims, “What a strange spectacle!” “That women must be married to be saved.” The orthodox Mormon belief is that human beings are sent into the world to sow seed for heaven; that a woman who wittingly, and for stupid social Belgravian-mother motives, fails in so doing, neglects a vital duty, and that whoso gives not children to the republic has lived in vain—an opinion which the Saints are contented to share with Moses and Mohammed, Augustus Cæsar and Napoleon Bonaparte. “That the Mormons marry for eternity.” They believe that Adam and Eve, when wholly pure, were so married, and that redemption signifies a complete restoration to all the privileges lost by the fall. “That Mormons are ‘sealed’ to rich old women.” The vetula beata exists, I believe, almost universally. “That Mormons marry and seal for the dead.” As has been seen, it is a principle of faith that all ordinances for the living may vicariously be performed for those departed. “That Mormon women are pale, thin, badly and carelessly dressed, and poorly fed—that they exhibit a sense of depression and degradation.” I found them exceedingly pretty and attractive, especially Miss ——. “That it is dangerous to be the rival of a Mormon elder in love and business.” This is true only so far that the Saint is probably a better man than the Gentile. I have been assured by Gentiles that they would rather trust the followers of Mr. Joseph Smith than their own people, and that, under Mormon rule, there never has been, and never can be, a case of bankruptcy. The hunters and Indian traders dislike the Saints for two chief reasons: in the first place, the hunting-grounds have been narrowed; and, secondly, industry and sobriety have taken the place of rollicking and dare-devilism. “That the Mormons are bigoted and intolerant.” The Mormon’s golden rule is, “Mind your own business, and let your neighbor mind his.” At Great Salt Lake City I found all the most violent anti-Mormon books, and have often heard Gentiles talk in a manner which would not be tolerated in Paris, London, and Rome. “That the Church claims possession of, and authority over, a dead disciple’s goods and chattels.” This is done only in cases when heirs fail. “That it is the Mormon’s duty to lay all his possessions at the apostles’ feet.” The Mormons believe that the Lord has ordered his Church to be established on earth; that its success involves man’s salvation; that the apostles are the pillars of the sacred edifice, and that the disciple is bound, like Barnabas, when called upon, to lay his all at the apostles’ feet; practically, however, the measure never takes place. “That the high dignitaries are enriched by tithes and by plundering the people.” I believe, for reasons before given, this assertion to be as wholly destitute of fact as of probability. “That the elders borrow money from their Gentile disciples, and that the Saints ‘milk the Gentiles.’” The Mormons, like sensible men, do not deny that their net has drawn up bad fish as well as good; they assert, however, and I believe with truth, that their community will bear comparison in point of honesty with any other.
POLITICAL OBJECTIONS.I have already remarked how thoroughly hateful to the petulant fanatical republican of the New World is the Mormon state within state, their absolute aristocracy clothed in the wolf-skin of democracy; and I have also shown how little of that “largest liberty,” concerning which the traveler in the United States hears so often and sees so seldom, has been extended to them or to their institutions. Let us now consider a few of the political objections to Mormonism.
“That the Mormon Church overshadows and controverts the actions and opinions, the property, and even the lives of its members.” The Mormons boast that their Church, which is their state, does so legitimately, and deny any abuse of its power. “That the Church usurps and exercises the legislative and political business of the Territory.” The foregoing pages disprove this. “That the Church organizes and commands a military force.” True, for her own protection. “That the Church disposes of public lands on her own terms.” The Mormons reply that, as squatters, they have earned by their improvements the right of pre-emption, and as the federal government delays to recognize their title, they approve of the Church so doing. “That the Church has coined money and forced its circulation.” The former clause is admitted, and the excellence of the Californian gold is warranted; the latter is justly treated with ridicule. “That the Church levies the tenth part of every thing from its members under the charge of tithing.” The Mormons derive this practice from the laws of Moses, and assert that the gift is purely a free-will offering estimated by the donor, and never taken except from those who are in full communion. “That the Church imposes enormous taxes upon Gentile citizens.” The Mormons own that they levy a large octroi, in the form of a regulated license system, upon ardent spirits, but they deny that more is taken from the Gentile than from the Saint. “That the Church supervises and penetrates into the domestic circle, and enjoins and inculcates obedience to her own counsels, as articles of faith paramount to all the obligations of society and morality, allegiance and law.” The Mormons reply that the counsel and the obligations run in the same grooves.
Mormonism in England would soon have fallen to the level of Leeism or Irvingism; its teachers to the rank of the Southcoteans and Muggletonians. Its unparalleled rise and onward march could have taken place only in a new hemisphere, in another world. Its genius is essentially Anglo-American, without one taint of Gallic, Teutonic, or Keltic. It is Rationalistic: the analytic powers, sharpened by mundane practice, and wholly unencumbered by religious formal discipline, are allowed, in things ultra mundane, a scope, a perfect freedom, that savors of irreverence: thus the Deity is somewhere spoken of as a “right-hand man.” It is Exaggerative in matter as in manner: the Pentateuch, for instance, was contented with one ark, Mormonism required eight. It is Simplificative: its fondness for facilitation has led it through literalism into that complete materialism which, to choose one point only, makes the Creator of the same species as his creature. It is Imitative to an extent that not a vestige of originality appears: the Scripture names are carefully moulded in Hebrew shape; and, to quote one of many instances, the death-bed of the first patriarch (“Life of Joseph Smith, the Prophet,” chap. xlii.) is a travestie of that of Israel, with his prayers, prophecies, and blessings; while the titles of the apostles, e. g., Lion of the Lord, are literally borrowed from El Islam. It has a mystic element the other side of its severe rationalism, even as the American character mixes transcendentalism with the purest literalism, as Mr. Emerson, the Sufi, contrasts with the Pilgrim fathers and Sam Slick. It is essentially Practical, though commonplaces and generalisms are no part of its composition. Finally, it is admirably puffed, as the note upon Mormon bibliography proves—better advertised than Colonel Colt’s excellent revolvers.
I had proposed to write a chapter similar to this upon the Mormon annals. After sundry attempts, the idea was abandoned in despair. It would be necessary to give two distinct or rather opposite versions—according to the Mormons and the anti-Mormons—of every motive and action which have engendered and produced history. Such a style would not be lively. Moreover, the excessive positivism with which each side maintains its facts, and the palpable sacrifice of truth to party feeling, would make it impossible for any but an eye-witness, who had lived through the scenes, and had preserved his impartiality, to separate the wheat from the chaff. The Mormons declare that if they knew their prophet to be an impostor, they could still love, respect, and follow him in this life to the next. The Gentiles, I can see, would not accept him, even if he were proposed to them by a spirit from the other world. There is little inducement in this case to break the scriptural injunction, “Judge not.”
MORMON CHRONOLOGY.Under these considerations, I have added to the Appendix ([No. V.]) a detailed chronological table of Mormon events: it is compiled from both parties, and has at least one merit—impartiality.