Part 4

7. In quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," Mr. Evans reveals the character of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses." The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the most bitter anti-"Mormons" and apostates for his "evidence," but in quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," he certainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was published in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious _Police Gazette_. The author of these "Mysteries," undoubtedly a man, assumes the title of "An Apostle's Wife," in order to hide his perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all anti-"Mormon" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a "lusty toper," "the worst of a bad breed," "an ignorant, brutal loafer," "immoral, false and fraudulent," and the author says, "_this_ is the man who founded what he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the religion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism." An apology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr. Evans makes this work one of the chief of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses," I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept the wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares "_ought to know whereof she affirms_." Shame upon the man who draws his inspiration from such a source!

8. This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the least shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife did not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two sisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry Lewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his position. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the space occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans quotes so faithfully.

9. This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until sometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote: "You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_, as soon as I have time to reply thereto." This reply was received May 5, 1905.

A REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS' LETTER

Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.

_Mr. R. C. Evans_,

_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.

Sir:--Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May 5. Whether I was "fair, dispassionate and also candid" in my letter, or, as you seem to think, "guilty of a labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'" and "your faith"--which was not discussed--I am perfectly willing to leave to the judgment of "those who read" the same in the Toronto _Star_. So on this point we may both rest satisfied.

BLOOD ATONEMENT

I will now consider your "labored effort to cover up the _true facts_ regarding blood atonement."

In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact appears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions and accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct position of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful study of John Taylor's _Meditation and Atonement_ and Charles W. Penrose's _Blood Atonement_, which was published in answer to such wicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so. I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which we believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case, especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.

If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which church you are pleased to call "Utah Mormonism," then I say that you _do not_ believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To this I will refer later.

You delight--as all anti-"Mormons" do--in referring to statements made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during the troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into Utah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own _desired_ interpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a garbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible from which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39 when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums of the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned under the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]

THE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS

Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry Leon Wilson's plagarisms in his _Lions of the Lord_, declares the position taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in these words:

"The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and without any wresting whatever it may be applied to "Mormon" leaders who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted."

Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in his answer to _The American Baptist_, wherein he said:

"Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are responsible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no more responsible for it than were the early Christians for Peter's attempt to kill the high priest's servant when he cut off his ear with his sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings or doings of some or many of its members or ministers.

It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the embryo authors and abettors of the "Border Ruffianism" that reigned in Missouri and Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own way, that some of the Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should have done many things unwisely and wrongfully, and contrary to the law of God."--_Saints' Herald_, 37:51.

With this I heartily agree.

Now, when the statements were made, which you in a garbled manner both quote and misquote, there was in Utah a class of individuals who spent the greater part of their time in circulating wicked and malicious reports about the Saints, threatening their lives, committing crimes and attempting to make the Saints their scape-goats. The officers of the law were General Government officials appointed by the President of the United States, and I am sorry to say, some of these were among the chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable and bloodthirsty falsehoods were concocted and served up to the people of the United States to stir them up to anger against the "despised Mormons." Almost every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Salt Lake City was charged to the leaders of the "Mormon" people and became the foundation of a multitude of anti-"Mormon" publications that still flood the world. Because of these false and highly colored tales, in 1857--one year later than the time that most of the utterances were given on which you so delight to dwell--the Government of the United States sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never existed, and forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the Government found out how it had blundered it was humiliated.

Now, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it any wonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? The wonder is that the people bore it as patiently as they did. The officers were non-"Mormons," the Territory was under Federal control and contained many Gentiles, many of whom were most bitter in their feelings and ever ready to accuse the Saints of crime. The government was strong enough to enforce the law if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the horrors, as they have been pictured, could have existed under such conditions?

Such a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a shame to the American government. And no such state of affairs existed.

The conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent of Indian affairs in Utah, to declare in 1869:

I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here there is a greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other Church dignitaries with every criminal offense than dilgent endeavor to punish the actual perpetrators of crime.

Bancroft's History of Utah, p. 561.

Whitney's History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1.

Mr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this statement can be relied upon.

This being the case, Brigham Young and the "Mormon" people could not have engaged in the crimes charged against them.

In connection with this let me quote from Bancroft:

It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding and patriotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered by the enemies to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this score they are naturally very sore. When deprived of those sacred rights given to them in common with all American citizens, when disfranchised, their homes broken up, their families scattered, their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, they have not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to God and their country.--History of Utah, pp. 390-392.

Again, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and anti-"Mormons" from the beginning and "that there are men living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State, who feel as secure and are just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates as you or any other man could be," proves the falseness of the malicious accusation that "Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood."

MR. EVANS' FALSE QUOTATIONS

"What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut off their ears."

Your conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you continued the quotation your attempt would have appeared even more ridiculous. The next sentence is:

"But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them; and will wash them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and wash them again until we make them clean."

And you try to make this appear as threatening life! It is apparent that your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. This whole passage is humorous and you make yourself ridiculous by not having discovered it.

Again from Parley P. Pratt, you quote:

"My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so."

This from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add:

"I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned."

Then three paragraphs off, the following:

"It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."

This method of proving things reminds me of the reason why you should be hanged:

And Judas "went out and hanged himself."

"Go thou and do likewise."

Now let me quote some extracts from this discourse which you purposely left out.

"Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, _I for one_, would rather march out today and be shot down. These are my feelings, and have been for some time. Talk about liberty of conscience! Have not men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, etc., have _here_ the liberty to worship God in their own way, and so has every man in the world. People have the privilege of apostatizing from this Church and worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege to disturb the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is the idea. If they will take that privilege, _I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned_."

Again:

"He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his professions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of proof. Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer, standing at the head of this dispensation? Have we not proved the priesthood which he placed upon others by the command of God?

"I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people. _It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth_.

"We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us--unacted upon. There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already than our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations to carry out. And yet we are called upon to prove--what? _Whether an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago, has really improved by reason of age_!

"'_You are going to be destroyed_,' say they. '_Destruction awaits this city_.' Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed as any people living. What care we whether we are destroyed or not? These old tabernacles will die of themselves, if left alone.

"We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared to die as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad to hear it. We shall not be destroyed in the old way--as we have been heretofore. We shall have a change in the manner, at least. We shall probably be destroyed _standing, this time_, and not in a _sitting_, or _lying position_. We can die as well as others who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall not stand still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed, plundered, and driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor does God require it at our hands. That is the best news we have heard today. * * *

"It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on the defensive while you still live. I have said enough on this subject."--pp. 86-87.

The vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so apparent in this contrast between your garbled quotations and the whole truth, that it scarcely deserves further comment.

I have quoted quite extensively in order to show the reason for these remarks of which you quote such brief and disjointed extracts. You should remember that the Saints had but a short time before being driven from their homes at the cannon's mouth, and were forced to traverse a desert under the most trying circumstances to find a new abode where they could rest in peace and call their souls their own. When followed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined to again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their might and righteous indignation they firmly took their stand for home and liberty. I for one, say that they were justified in this course, the protection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had the threats of their enemies here in Utah been carried out as they boasted that they would be, and as they were carried out in Missouri and Illinois, then Brigham Young and his people would have been as thoroughly justified in unsheathing the bowie knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at Lexington and Bunker Hill!

Home and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, are just as dear to a "Mormon" as to members of any other denomination or even an apostate "Mormon," and when the "Mormons" are persecuted, driven and slain and forced to seek a home in the savage wilds, would any honest man blame them if they declined to move again?

Why is it worse for "Utah Mormons" to defend themselves than for "Mormons" at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even the noble Prophet Joseph Smith, when dragged from home and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly demurred. Said he to the Saints at Nauvoo on the 30th day of June, 1843, after his escape from Missourian assassins:

"Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial, _I will spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all my enemies in hell_! To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I will not bear it any longer. Shall we bear it any longer? (one universal, No! ran through all the vast assembly like a loud peal of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you any more here, dung your gardens with them. We don't want any excitement; but after we have done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break off the hellish yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed!"

I have copied this from the manuscript history of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as it was recorded at the time. I have learned also that it is corroborated by the journal of Wilford Woodruff of the same date--June 30th, 1843.

UTAH NOT A FIELD OF BLOOD

You say, "I have read that which leads me to believe that under Brighamism"--as you slurringly remark--"Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood," and then you ask me, "what of the Mountain Meadows massacre,--the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties?"

Well, that which you have read counts for but little when the source is considered. Your case is most certainly desperate when you are forced to accept the statements of murderers.

It's a strange thing that you and many of your elders accept all the blood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and other apostate sources _when_ they happen to refer to Brigham Young and "Utah Mormons," and denounce the same sources when they refer to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Yet, I repeat, the same class of charges--in many respects identical--that you charge against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed, adultery, and even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just such falsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his death.

You resort to sources that even the editor of your official paper denounces as "Idle and vicious stories gathered from the awful files of terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at enmity with them."--_Saints Herald_ 52:2.

If you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept the statements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew with blood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the anti-Christian? Wherein then, is your consistency in asking me to accept the testimony of those whose hands are imbrued in blood, apostates and bitter enemies of my people?

Very well then, I return your question. What about them? Pray tell, what about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the Aiken party? the confessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that you call him a "Bishop" proves the source of your information); what about Hickman and above all, the Danties?

When Alfred Henry Lewis, in _Collier's Weekly_ of March 26, 1964, stated, "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their head, and when a man rebelled had him murdered, if one fled the fold, he was pursued and slain," he repeated one of the most colossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor is that the only falsehood in his article you are pleased to quote.

Brigham Young was _not_ a man of blood. The "Mormon" people were _not_ guilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.[2] There was no destruction of an Aiken party. Hickman and Lee are not worth the mention; and the Danties! Had you not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there never were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of bitter anti-"Mormons" and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans knows that fact.

CHARACTER OF THE "MORMONS"

In answer to your many charges about Utah and the "Mormons," I desire to refer to credible references from witnesses who understood the truth and were bold enough to express it.

Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary and the Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following result:--In Salt Lake City there are about 75 Mormons to 25 non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County there are about 80 Mormons to 20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there were 29 convicts, all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 convicts all non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the five years past were all anti-Mormons except _three_! * * *

Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table keepers not over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of the bagnios and other disreputable concerns in the territory are run and sustained by non-Mormons. Ninety-eight per cent of the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. * * * Of the 250 towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no "gaudy sepulchre of departed virtue," and these two hundred and odd towns are almost exclusively Mormon in population. Of the suicides committed in Utah ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of "outsiders."--Phil Robinson, in _Sinners and Saints_, p. 72.

The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man. There is another to help him, but if they had not something else to do they would either have to keep arresting each other, in order to pass the time, or else combine to hunt gophers and chipmunks.--_Sinners and Saints_, p. 142.

Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? From _anti-Mormons_ only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject, and yet I really could not tell any one where to go for an impartial book about Mormonism, later in date than Burton's "City of the Saints," published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on one side and I think I can defy any one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly _awful_ book, "The History of the Saints," published by one Bennet (even an anti-Mormon has styled him "the greatest rascal that ever came to the west") in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not, to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is not utterly unreliable from distortion of facts. Yet it is from these books--for there are no others--that the American public has acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah.--_Sinners and Saints_, p. 245.

And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has been put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon, is full of calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass his predecessor in the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are written in a sensational style, and for the purpose of deriving profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and are wholly unreliable as to facts.--_Bancroft's History of Utah_, preface page 7.