to investigate their faith"-is a matter of very deep regret; and you must pardon me if I say that it is a matter of very great astonishment also, since it involves so manifest a misapprehension of my remarks. I pray you read them again: "I entertain a very high respect for the Doctor's learning, and also honor him for his evident intention of speaking fairly of a people who have suffered much at the hands of those who have often pretended to investigate their faith." This certainly could not have been meant to refer to you who had scarcely begun to investigate our faith. It certainly could not have been meant for Dr. Reiner who, so far as I know, has done our faith no harm by the investigation he has made of it, although entertaining no favorable impression concerning it. Turn which way I may I cannot see how you could have applied the words to yourselves. But since you did, allow me to say that I neither had the company of gentlemen you represent in mind, nor Dr. Reiner. I had in mind those men and women who from time to time have come among us with the avowed purpose of fairly investigating our doctrines only to go away and misrepresent both our religious faith and our people. From such characters we have suffered much and they are the ones I had in mind, and I distinctly disavow, let me say again, having reference to yourself or friends.

You ask me, "Does it not occur to you that some honest people may have investigated your faith and not been favorably impressed with it, and under such circumstances is it strange your people have suffered at their hands?" To which I answer both yes and no. Yes, to the fact that honest people have investigated our faith and have not been favorably impressed with it. No, to the idea that our people and faith have suffered at the hands of such honest investigators. I call to mind Captain Burton who was such an investigator in 1862, and who wrote as the result of his investigation "The City of the Saints." We have never suffered from his investigation of our faith, though he pronouncedly opposed our doctrines. We did not suffer from the investigation of Mr. Phil. Robinson, the noted war correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and representative of the New York World, in 1886, when he visited Utah for the purpose of investigating

"Mormonism," and reporting his conclusions to the journal he represented, and subsequently publishing those letters in his book "Sinners and Saints." We have never suffered at the hands of those who have honestly investigated our faith or people and told the truth about us, no matter how much they may have disagreed with our theology. But we have suffered very much at the hands of those who have pretended to investigate our faith and then have gone away and misrepresented both our people and our faith. Such characters are numerous and they are the ones I had in mind when the words to which you take exception were written.

You charge us, in our comments on Dr. Reiner's letter, with abandoning all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs, and with falling back on the claims of revelation, which revelation you say no man by direct evidence can prove was not received, etc. Did you read carefully our comments on the Doctor's letter? If so, how could you come to such a conclusion? Instead of abandoning all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs, in our comments we brought together in support of the righteousness of plural marriage well known events in Jewish history, covering a period of more than a thousand years, and cited the legislation of God for the Hebrew race in proof of his approval of the form of marriage in question. And yet you accuse us of abandoning all historical evidence, all tangible proofs, and falling back on the claims of revelation! We may not use historical or other tangible evidence as you yourself and Dr. Reiner may think we ought to, but you cannot justly accuse us with abandoning it. And the use we make of it, moreover, is not less forceful than that you would recommend. I gather from your letter that your idea would be that in support of our plural marriage system, say, we should quote the practice of the old patriarchs and prophets, the legislation of the Jews on the subject, and the apologies of Luther and his associates for this practice, which were collated, in part, in Dr. Reiner's letter. if this was our position how easily we could be answered that the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, is but a record of past events, and however many evidences may exist in it

But

of God's approval of plural marriage in the past, it cannot now be cited as authority in justification of such a marriage system. But our position is that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God instituting that form of marriage in this present age, and in support of the righteousness of that system of marriage, and in support of the truth of the revelation, we point to the practice of plural marriage by God's noblest and most blessed sons; to God's own course in giving them a plurality of wives; to his own laws which regulated polygamy among his ancient people, and under certain contingencies forced it upon them. All this if quoted in direct support of plural marriage, you think, would give some appearance of "intelligent historical and biblical warrant for some of the acts and claims of your (our) people." The difference between the course you would think most reasonable for us to pursue and the one we take is not very great. You would have us quote the historical and biblical proofs in direct support of our doctrine of plural marriage, and justify our course by reason of what is written in the scriptures; we quote that evidence in support of the truth, and the likelihood of the divine origin of that revelation which authorized our marriage system; and that is all the difference there is in the course you would advise and the one we take. Certainly that difference cannot justify you in saying that it amounts to an abandonment on our part of the evidence in question.

What Luther and his associates said upon this question amounts to but very little; at best it is but the interpretation of what the law of God in their judgment was, and will be regarded as light or possessed of weight according as men esteem their learning, wisdom and piety. Incidentally it would be useful material in a discussion with virulent Protestants who while they revile Joseph Smith, all but deify Martin Luther. But with the revelations of God as warrant for our doctrine and all the biblical proofs that may be marshalled in support of the righteousness of plural marriage, and the likelihood of the divine origin of that revelation which authorized our marriage system, what Martin Luther and other "reformers" may have said on the subject sinks into something below secondary importance. We are more anxious to set forth the

truth, and make known the basis on which it rests, than score a mere point in polemics.

I agree with you that no man can prove by direct evidence that another has not received a revelation; and that for proofs against such claims we are dependent upon the secondary evidences that arise from inconsistencies in the alleged revelation, for contradictions of known truths, for things in it incompatible with the revealed character of God, or things that would be known to be unworthy of the Divine Mind. It would have some weight too with "the jury of the people" you suppose, if it could be proven that the prophet whose revelation was under examination "was not a man holier or saintlier than his fellow men;" or if "all evidence showed he was an ordinary man," "not possessed of extraordinary virtues or anything that would mark him as an instrument to be selected of God" for giving a new revelation to mankind; or if for selfish and unrighteous motives it could be proven that "to quell some non-believers or dissatisfied disciple he would [pretend to] receive new revelations directed at the necessary party;"—all this, we know, if proven, would lead “the jury of the people" to say to those who believed the prophet and urged his claims, "the weight of evidence is against you, and your sole claim that you have a revelation is not sufficient." I do not concede, however, that the Lord Almighty in communicating a revelation to mankind through a prophet is bound by our rules of rhetoric or of English grammar. The people of Jerusalem were able to discern from the speech of Peter and John that they were unlearned men, but the imperfection of their speech did not destroy the fact that they possessed a revelation from God and a commission to preach it to all the world. But aside from that, we are aware of the fact that it is not sufficient to affirm that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in justification of the existence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of one or more of our doctrines. The fact of such revelation must be proven by the necessity that exists for it, by the character of it, the consistency of it, the truths it makes known, the results that flow from it; or the truth of it must be revealed individually to those who accept it. Nobody is more aware of

the necessity that is laid upon us of proving the seership and divine calling of Joseph Smith than we ourselves. And to convince you that we have a lively understanding of this fact and are working at it in our humble way, I shall send you by the mail that carries this a work of mine under the title "A New Witness for God," which, whatever its imperfections may be, will at least have this virtue, it will convince you that we do not "abandon all history, all living evidence, all tangible proofs and fall back on the claims of revelation" alone for proof of the faith we have accepted.

Reverting to Dr. Reiner's letter and what you say of him being placed in the "unfair position as an antagonist" to our faith, when in his first letter to you (the one published in the May No. of the ERA) his "method was only in favor of Mormonism," I am sorry that either yourself or Dr. Reiner consider that he has peen placed in an "unfair position." Let us examine that position. I am left to judge from the answers the Doctor gives in his letter published in the May ERA, that you had submitted to him at that time two questions: first, "Are the Mormons a sincere people?" That question he answers in the affirmative; second, "Is their practice of polygamy capable of being justified from a biblical standpoint?" From that question he turns aside by asking "from a biblical standpoint according to whose interpretation?" He then assures you gentlemen who are members of the Church of Rome that you can discard this question by saying:-"Roma locuta, causa finita est." And then he proceeds to show that the Protestants have no good cause to complain against us on account of our plural marriages because Luther and a number of his associates justified and even advocated polygamy. This letter you sent to me with the suggestion that I "comment on the same from a Mormon standpoint, so that we (you) may have the 'Mormon' answer to the questions which you see from his answer were asked the Doctor. * * We simply say, 'Here is what the Doctor says, what have you got to say?" "

*

What could I say under these circumstances? That the Doctor by quoting what Luther and Carlstadt had said in approval of polygamy had cited the "Mormon” justification