Univenity of California • Berkeley 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/churchstateissueOOreasrich 
 
r 
 
 "% 
 
 LATE MANIFESTO 
 IN POLITICS. 
 
 Praotieal WcK'ng of "Counsel" 
 
 IN RELATION TO 
 
 - ii 
 
 Gi^il and Religious Ciber1|r in U^ab. 
 
 "That this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of Freedom, 
 and that Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall 
 not perish from the Earth. — Abrahain Lincoln. 
 
 PRICE, 25 CENTS. 
 
 ji ^.y^ i.a '' — j g ^~ - j ir — y -:;^ 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 
 Dec. 22nd, 1898. 
 
 -^~^--^-^-T-^ 
 
7 
 
 7^ 
 
 
 /^ /^7 :2. 
 
 
 
 :. 2r 
 
 ■«-ji 
 
 
 
CHURCH AND STATE 
 
 THE ISSUE OF 
 
 CIVIL AND Religious Liberty 
 
 IN UTAH. 
 
 A TESTIMONIAL IN BEHALF OF CIVIL LIBERTY AND THE 
 AMERICAN STATE AS SEPARATE FROM THE CHURCH, 
 AND DEDICATED TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE- 
 DOM AND TRUE PROGRESS IN UTAH 
 AND ELSEWHERE 
 
 BY 
 
 Calvin Reasoner. 
 
 Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, 
 And to God the things that are God's. 
 
 — yesus. 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 
 Dec. 15th, 1896, 
 
PKEFAOE. 
 
 m/f 
 
 The little book herewith presented to the public, and 
 especially to the Mormon people, discusses those underlying 
 principles of liberty that permeate the parties and shape the 
 policies of a free governing people. While the book is political 
 in its texture, its arguments and illustrations are designed to* 
 have no partisan or sectarian application. Its appeal is ad- 
 dressed to intelligent minds and honest hearts of all creeds and 
 persuasions. 
 
 The case of Moses Thatcher is presented at considerable 
 length, but only as an illustration of the practical working and 
 results of the policy and discipline of the Mormon priesthood 
 organization under the political manifesto recently promulgated. 
 And in order to give a comprehensive view of the issue, his late 
 deposition from all priestly offices by his ecclesiastical quorum 
 and his political record for a number of years past have been 
 selected for presentation, for the reason that they are matters 
 of present interest, they are most extensively before the people 
 in printed form, and throughout their origin, progress and cul- 
 mination they are more pertinent than any other as illustrations 
 of the meaning and application of vital principles herein dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 There is no intention to vindicate Moses Thatcher person- 
 ally in these pages. So far as his official and political record 
 may have an appearance of approval, it is the reflection of 
 general political principles in their application to a concrete 
 case. What is said herein is said, not by him, and only in a 
 subordinate way is anything said for him. The real truth is 
 that nothing is said by him or for him; but his case is used as 
 an object lesson to carry thoughts of the deepest importance to 
 the people of Utah and the whole country. 
 
 Concerning the fundamental question raised in this book — 
 the relation of church and state — there is a widespread misap- 
 prehension of a character similar to that presented in a well- 
 written and candid letter by Judge Edwin G. Woolley in 
 the Tribune, December 6, 1896. So far as the writer defends 
 the proceedure of Church discipline in the case of Moses 
 Thatcher we make no rejoinder; for this book is not concerned 
 
\) \ 
 
 4 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 with matters purely ecclesiastical. But in discussing the politi- 
 <;al side of the controversy raised against Moses Thatcher by 
 the Deseret News, Judge Woolley is wholly unconscious that 
 there is a state to be encroached upon by the Church; he 
 could but make the same argument if the State were absolutely 
 within the Church as an ecclesiastical function. He fails to 
 apprehend that the occasion of contention is that the Church 
 abandons its true sphere and usurps political authority when it 
 •enjoins "counsel" as a condition precedent to nominations and 
 elections to civil offices. When Judge Woolley finds that there 
 is such a thing as a State we shall be pleased to have him define 
 it in a way that will show it incapable of being absorbed by the 
 rule of "counsel." 
 
 And it may be further said in behalf of the writer of these 
 pages, that as in times past he has said and done and written 
 many things in kindly regard for the Mormon people, because 
 it was deemed to be their due; so in this book, waiving personal 
 considerations, the truth is sought to be presented and urged, 
 not in any particular interest, but in behalf of humanity at 
 large and the progress of the race. 
 
 Mankind is struggling up into the light of God and a 
 higher civilization; and the race is deeply concerned with what- 
 ever promotes or impedes its progress. No true man can refuse 
 to receive the truth from any quarter; neither can he be grieved 
 when present customs and beliefs are shown to be erroneous. 
 It is only as the present is passed away that the future glory is 
 revealed. 
 
 Calvin Eeasoner. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, Dec. 15, 1896. 
 
CHA.PTER FIRST, 
 
 MOSES THATCHEE'S OFFENSE. 
 
 The following pages present, by way of illustration, the 
 case of Moses Thatcher in relation to the recently adopted rule 
 of the Mormon Church, and the disciplinary action of the Quor- 
 um of Apostles deposing him from the apostolic office and other 
 priestly functions, in conformity with the spirit and require- 
 ments of said rule as embodied in the Manifesto concerning 
 "counsel" which was promulgated during the Conference of 
 last April. 
 
 It must be remembered that the action taken by Mr. 
 Thatcher is not without its tragic element; for with his fidel- 
 ity to a sense of duty he is compelled to relinquish positions 
 of honor and usefulness which he cherished as the honest fruit- 
 age and well earned recognition of long years of earnest labor 
 and generous sacrifice in the service of his Church. Further- 
 more in his ecclesiastical humiliation, he contemplates nothing 
 less than genuine faithfulness in the fellowship and brother- 
 hood of Christ, realizing that service is ministry, and that to 
 be greatest of all is to be servant of all. 
 
 In order that people who have not kept themselves fully 
 informed on current events, and especially those living outside 
 the state, may understand the nature and origin of matters dis- 
 cussed in this statement, it is well to state that for several years 
 there has been more or less friction in the Mormon church 
 arising out of the political conduct of some of its leading men. 
 About 1890, when the people of the Territory of Utah were con- 
 sidering the question of dividing on national party lines to the 
 exclusion of church issues, it was decided by the governing 
 officials of the Mormon Church that men holding the higher 
 orders of the Mormon priesthood should refrain from entering 
 politics personally, lest jealousies and ill feeling might arise 
 because of the influential positions which they held in the 
 Church. Accordingly, a rule was promulgated requiring the 
 several higher grades of Mormon officials to decline leadership 
 in the political parties. 
 
6 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 It appears that this rule was soon disregarded by the action 
 and counsel of the same governing officials in the Church; and 
 this beeause of political conditions and complications wherein 
 it was deemed best, in order to promote statehood for Utah, to 
 intervene in a partisan way, so that the Territory might show up 
 in certain political colors, thereby to secure powerful influence 
 in behalf of statehood legislation. In keeping with this policy, 
 it soon transpired that high officials on one side were 
 "counseled" to go forth and gather in the political harvest, 
 while officials on the other side in politics were "counseled" to 
 stay at home and hold their peace. 
 
 Moses Thatcher took the view that when the rule was abro- 
 gated for one or more, it was set aside for all; and accordingly 
 he spoke in public several times, and in all his addresses never 
 failed to urge the importance of a complete separation of church 
 and state. His course gave offense to some of his brethren on 
 the opposite side in politics, and there were numerous passages 
 at arms politically; and there was also a good deal of muttering 
 in Church councils where his conduct came up with reference to 
 ecclesiastical disapprobation and censure. But the whole mat- 
 ter was covered up and carried over as a thorn in the flesh until 
 after statehood was secured; and then the Church authorities 
 issued an address of great length and prolixity, embodying a 
 specific rule to the effect that all officers in the Church — and 
 almost all male members are officers — should seek "counsel" be- 
 fore accepting any political nomination or any secular position. 
 The rule itself is as follows: 
 
 First — We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that 
 should always be observed in the Church and by every leading oflBcial 
 thereof, that before accepting any position, political or otherwise, which 
 would interfere with the proper and complete discharge of his ecclesias- 
 tical duties, and before accepting a nomination or entering into engage- 
 ments to perform new duties, said official should apply to the proper 
 authorities and learn from them whether he can consistently with the 
 obligations already entered into with the Church upon assuming his office, 
 take upon himself the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the 
 new position. 
 
 The manifesto containing the foregoing rule was presented 
 to Moses Thatcher for his signature, but for reasons indicated 
 in the following, he withheld his name. 
 
 Salt Lake City, April 6,' 
 "At about 12 o'clock this morning two of the quorum of the Twelve 
 called on me and presented a document of several pages for my considera- 
 tion, wishing me to sign it immediately, so that they could take it away 
 
MOSES THATCHER S OFFENSE. i 
 
 with them. On my request for more time to consider the matter, they 
 agreed to leave it with me until 1:30 p. m., at which time I returned the 
 document with the following reply : 
 
 Salt Lake City, April 6, 1896. 
 President Lorenzo Snow and Apostle Brigham Young : 
 
 Dear Brethren — Having carefully read the document left with me 
 for consideration, I herewith return it as per promise. There is much 
 of its contents that I could heartily endorse by signing, but there are other 
 portions which I cannot endorse without stultification. If I were well I 
 might view this most serious matter in another light; or I might do so had 
 I more time to consider it. But as it is, it seems that I must determine 
 now, though 1 fully realize how sadly long illness has weakened me in 
 every way. In the future the Lord may enable me to define my views and 
 acts as running along those of honor, integrity and truth. Now I can only 
 humbly ask that you act according to the Holy Spirit's dictation as 
 prompted by justice and brotherly love towards your fellow laborer in the 
 cause of our Savior. 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 The daily papers made the whole Gircumstance a matter of 
 news, their reports exhibiting the first flush of public senti- 
 ment. The Tribune has the following : 
 
 The session of the Mormon Church Conference yesterday afternoon 
 produced a stupendous political and religious sensation. The question 
 that stirred Utah last fall relative to the candidacy of Church officials for 
 political office was revived by a proclamation in which the rule was 
 reaffirmed that men engaged in the service of the church must take coun- 
 sel — that is, ask permission — of the Church authorties before becoming 
 candidates for political positions. The address in itself was sufficient to 
 excite the most profound interst. But the fact that it was subscribed to 
 by B. H. Roberts was sensational. It did not bear the signature of Moses 
 Thatcher, who, with Roberts, was under the ban last fall for violating the 
 rule, and the lack of his name on the document was the cause of another 
 development that was astounding. 
 
 When the names of Apostles were called in the conference, that the 
 people might vote to sustain these officials, that of Moses Thatcher was 
 not announced. The failure to name him was not generally noted at the 
 time, but when the knowledge of the omission was spread through the 
 great congregation it excited most intense interest. Many were at first 
 disposed to believe that the omission to submit Apostle Thatcher's name 
 to a vote was due to a mistake. But it was not so. The omission was 
 deliberately intentional. The address had been taken to the Apostle about 
 12 o'clock by President Lorenzo Snow and Apostle Brigham Young, and 
 he had been requested to sign it. After examining it he had declined to 
 do so. This refusal occurred but a short time before the meeting of the 
 Conference in the afternoon, but the intervening time was long enough for 
 the Church authorities to decide to withhold bis name from the Conference. 
 In Mr. Thatcher's card, given above, is contained the statement of his 
 reasons for not signing which he gave to the bearers of the address. It was 
 upon this statement that the action of the Church authorities was based. 
 Though the letter to his fellow Apostles is couched in touching terms, it 
 is clear from it that years of physical suffering have not deprived him 
 of the courage of his convictions. He holds that to sign the address 
 would be to stultify himself, and he cannot do that, even to secure peace. 
 
8 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 The refusal to sign the Manifesto was thought to be the last 
 straw of Moses Thatcher's offending. For several years it had 
 been secretly whispered that he had been insubordinate to his 
 priestly associates and superiors. In subsequent pages his alleged 
 demerits will be more fully exhibited. It all amounts to this: 
 He sought to think and act' like any ordinary American citizen 
 guided by the principles of Thomas Jefferson. But the "coun- 
 sel " that interdicted his freedom of action was not in sympathy 
 with the principles of Jefferson. It sought to make him a mere 
 cog in the wheels of a priesthood program for the manipulation 
 of the political machinery of Utah in accordance with the dic- 
 tates of a single central intelligence. For twenty years Moses 
 Thatcher had shown symptoms of political independence. Fi- 
 nally a rule was conceived and promulgated which would either 
 clip his wings or disrobe him of his priestly functions. That 
 rule forced him to decide whether he would abdicate his politi- 
 cal manhood and hold his apostlehip, or otherwise preserve his 
 freedom of citizenship and cease to administer priestly offices 
 that were not germane to the Declaration of Independence. He 
 chose to pursue a course "running along the lines of honor, in- 
 tegrity and truth." 
 
 It will be seen in the following chapter that a great effort 
 was made to disseminate Moses Thatcher's demerits over an 
 almost unlimited area ; but the discerning reader will see at a 
 glance that the refusal to endorse the Manifesto was the last 
 grievance that a priesthood sovereignty would tolerate. Thence- 
 forth it was either "recant or burn." 
 
CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHEE. 
 
 At the time of the April Conference Mr. Thatcher was a very- 
 sick man, scarcely able to walk across the room, and neither he 
 nor his friends had much hope of his recovery. Soon, however, 
 he began to mend, and concluded to spend several weeks at a 
 mountain resort up the Logan Canyon. Before leaving the 
 City he was assured by the Presidency of the Church and mem- 
 bers of his quorum that nothing would be done in reference to 
 his matter till his return and recovery. This assurance was 
 repeated to him while he was in the mountains, but for some 
 unknown reason the First Presidency and members of his quo- 
 rum did take up his case and made public charges against him 
 in the last General Conference held in October. 
 
 The purport of the remarks made in the Conference was to 
 show up a continued insubordination on the part of Mr. Thatcher 
 extending over a period of several years. His name had been 
 dropped from the list of authorities presented for confirmation 
 at the April Conference immediately after his refusal to sign 
 the Manifesto, all the other names on the document having been 
 signed before it was presented to Mr. Thatcher. It is evident 
 that the authorities did not keep faith with Mr. Thatcher in 
 bringing up his case in his absence; and it is apparent that 
 there was a desire to locate the difficulty with Thatcher on other 
 grounds than that of his refusal to sign the manifesto; though 
 if he had signed it when it was presented to him in April there 
 would have been no question as to his standing with his 
 quorum. 
 
 In order to show the sentiments of the First Presidency 
 and Apostles at the October Conference in regard to Mr. 
 Thatcher, and the grounds on which his insubordination was 
 condemned, a few utterances from several speakers are herewith 
 presented, the quotations being from the Deseret News : — 
 
 GEO. Q. CANNON. 
 
 (October 4.) 
 
 When I respect and honor Wilford Woodruff I bow to God who has 
 chosen him. My neck does not and never did bow to man. Those who 
 know me know that I am unbending in that respect. I may get along 
 
10 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 quietly; I do not like to quarrel; but I never yet bowed to man. I only 
 bow to proper authority. 
 
 If I listen to Wilford Woodruff, if I look to him to see how the Spirit 
 of God moves upon him; if I ask his counsel and take it, it is because God 
 has commanded me. God has given him the keys of authority. Let any- 
 body else try it, and see what effect their action would have. When Joseph 
 F. Smith obeys Wilford Woodruff, he does it upon the same principle. 
 We reverence him as the prophet of God, and as our leader. We listen to 
 him, and are guided by his shghtest wish. It is because we know that he 
 is the servant of God, chosen by the Almighty to fill that place, and that 
 he holds the keys of the Priesthood to this generation on the earth at the 
 present time. I can say truthfully that we strive to consult his slightest 
 wish, and honor him in his position, because we know that God has chosen 
 him. And who are we that we should withstand God? Who are we that 
 we should withstand that which God reveals? Does this sacrifice 
 our independence? Not in the least. And these Twelve Apostles are 
 in precisely the same position. When they accept the counsel of the 
 First Presidency, they do it because they believe the First Presidency 
 to be chosen of God. They may have different views on many things; 
 but when the First Presidency gives counsel, every man that has 
 the Spirit of God accepts that counsel. This does not prevent him from 
 entertaining his views and expressing them, and it does not detract from 
 his influence. Now, we do not ask this people to be more obedient than 
 we are. We do not ask you to do something that we are not willing to do. 
 We have set you the example. We ask you, as the Lord asks you, to obey 
 the authority of God and to respect it. 
 
 WILFORD WOODRUFF. 
 
 (October 5.) 
 
 My brethren and sisters, there is something pressing upon my mind 
 that I want to say. We have arrived at a point here with regard to cir- 
 cumstances that it is my duty to take up as the President of the Church. 
 The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles were never more united as 
 a body than they are today. Our spirits are united. We believe together, 
 we work together, we pray together; and we believe in each other, because 
 we are all trying to do the will of God. This is the case with all of us, 
 with one exception. That exception is Brother Moses Thatcher. 
 
 There has been a great deal said with regard to Brother Moses That- 
 cher, and many have wondered why something was not done about him. 
 Well, I will say that this is a matter that belongs to the Twelve Apostles. 
 He is a member of that quorum, and of course it is their duty to take hold 
 of that work and attend to it until it is settled. 
 
 The Apostles know that he has neglected to meet with them at times 
 when he could and should have done so. He has been at difference with 
 them in many things that have transpired. He has been by himself in his 
 labor, and for himself, and not for the Church. Now, I want to say that 
 neither Moses Thatcher nor any other man on the face of the earth can 
 stand in the way of this Church. We have had almost whole quorums of 
 Apostles that have been in the road, and they have had to be moved out of 
 it, because the kingdom of God cannot stop for anybody— for Wilford 
 Woodruff, for Moses Thatcher, or for anybody else. Unless we work with 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. 11 
 
 the Saints of God, with the Priesthood of God and with the organization 
 of His Church, we cannot have any power or influence. 
 
 I pray that His blessing and spirit may rest, not only on the First 
 Presidency and Apostles and the whole Priesthood and the Saints, but 
 upon Moses Thatcher, that his eyes may be opened to see, his ears to hear, 
 and his heart to comprehend his position and duty before God and man. 
 
 PRESIDENT LORENZO SNOW. 
 
 (October 5.) 
 
 As the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of which 
 Brother Thatcher is a member, I want to say a few words in connection 
 with this subject that has been introduced by President Woodruff. 
 
 About the last conversation I had with Brother Thatcher was m the 
 Temple, either at the last spring or fall Conference. We had prayed for 
 him, and we had sent some of our most experienced brethren to talk with 
 him privately and beg of him to make things satisfactory. I called on 
 Brother Brigham Young, because I knew he felt an interest in Brother 
 Thatcher, and was a wise man, to go and see him and plead with him to 
 make things satisfactory. But he failed. He came and reported to me 
 that a spirit of darkness seemed to reign in Brother Thatcher's heart, and 
 he could not reach it. I still thought, however, that he would come and 
 make things right before he returned to his home in Logan; and about 
 the second or third day after this, I was visited by him in the Temple. I 
 never felt to rejoice more in my heart than when I saw him enter my room. 
 I thought he had made up his mind to do that which we requested him to 
 do and to place himself in perfect fellowship with the brethren of the 
 quorum. I talked with him. I did most of the talking myself. I felt the 
 spirit of it, as I always did when I spoke to him, because my heart was 
 warm towards him, and the Lord seemed to help me so that I felt perfectly 
 at home in telling him just what the Lord dictated to me. I thought he 
 had come to my room with his mind made up to take a course to come into 
 fellowship, with his quorum. I was disappointed, however, I felt like shed- 
 ding tears when he left the room. There was not that disposition exist- 
 ing in him that I hoped there would be when he came 
 
 Now, there is a certain document that you have heard talked about 
 a good deal. Brother Young and myself took that document to Brother 
 Thatcher. His physical condition was not very promising, and I asked 
 him if I should read it to him. He said he preferred to read it himself, 
 and he read it — read it very deliberately. He said he did not feel then to 
 approve of it altogether; he wished it to remain for awhile. We accorded 
 him his wish. As President Woodruff had said, not half the trouble is in 
 relation to that document — not one hundredth part that is talked about. 
 Of course, it was rather singular. There were appended to that document 
 the names of the First Presidency, of the Apostles, (with the exception of 
 Brother Lund, who was then in England) of the first seven Presidents of 
 the Seventies, of the Patriarchs, and of the presiding Bishopric — twenty- 
 four names in all, representing the authorities of the Church; but he did 
 not feel inclined, he said, to put his name to the document. 
 
 I am reminded of a little anecdote I heard of Brother Erastus Snow, 
 which illustrates a principle. Brother George A. Smith was speaking to 
 an "outside" audience one night, and Brother Erastus fell asleep. When 
 
12 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 'lie got through preaching he sat down and elbowed Brother Erastus, and 
 requested him to bear his testimony. It was thought that Brother 
 Erastus had scarcely heard a word ; but he arose and said : "My friends, 
 eyery word that my brother here has said is God's truth." Now, why did 
 he say so? There was a reason for this. Why, he knew Brother George 
 A. Smith; he had heard him preach a hundred times, and he knew that 
 he was a man of inspiration, and he would never say anything but that 
 was true. Well, I think when a man is so well acquainted with the First 
 Presidency, with the Apostles, with the Patriarch, with the Presidents of 
 Seventies, and with the Presiding Bishops, he ought to have some confi- 
 dence in the position of these brethren ; and if that brother is rather low 
 in his mind and does not really feel competent to judge of the matter, he 
 ought to have confidence in his Brethren. 
 
 Brethren and sisters, these are solemn truths that I have told you 
 and what President Woodruff has stated. I want you all to pray for 
 brother Thatcher. As soon as his physical abilities will allow, we shall 
 have him before our quorum and he will be treated by his friends. But 
 there are certain rules and regulations, that we as the servants of God, 
 must conform to, and we are nob responsible for them. 
 
 JOHN HENRY SMITH : 
 
 (October 5 ) 
 
 I have recognized the fact that there must be an explantion made 
 to the Latter-day Saints in connection with the subject upon which 
 the President of the Church and the President of the Council of the 
 Apostles have treated. I fully understand that within three days 
 after Brother Moses Thatcher declined to sustain his associates he would 
 have been dealt with for his fellowship and standing in the Council of 
 the Apostles but for his physical condition. 
 
 The Presidency of the Church and the Council of the Apostles, in 
 their deliberations upon all questions that affect the wellbeing and interest 
 of the cause, are as candid and frank in their consultations and expression 
 of views as any body of men could possibly be. But when a conclusion 
 has been reached as to the course that should be pursued, it is expected 
 that every man will give in his adherence to the course marked out, and 
 with unfaltering voice and fixed determination, bo that those counsels may 
 prevail, so far as may be possible, among the whole people. 
 
 It is not my thought, in the time that 1 am here, to dwell upon the 
 position in which our brother finds himself. I have held the hope, I hold 
 the hope now, that he will see his way clear to put himself in unison with 
 his associates, that he may stand with them and receive in the end the 
 commendation of our Father, through his humility, and that his name 
 may not be effaced from the roll of honor which God in this dispensation 
 and in this day has established. It is not for me to speak further upon this 
 subject. I stand by my President and by the Presidency of this Church 
 in the position they have taken, because I know they are right. 
 
 My judgment was convinced that their position was absolutely cor- 
 rect, or I never would have subscribed my name to that document, nor 
 would I, in connection with my brethren, have sought in various ways 
 to awaken a class of refiections in the mind of our brother that would have 
 brought him in unison with the council of which he is a member. 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. 13 
 
 BRIGHAM YOUNG: 
 (October 5.) 
 
 There was a time when I was absent from Utah for two years and a 
 half, I left here in August, 1890. But I knew more than I cared to know 
 before I left then in relation to this matter. I cannot see a man rise up 
 and stand in open rebellion to his brethren in defiance of the pleadings of 
 his quorum, and feel that he has the Spirit of God in him, which I wit- 
 nessed previous to my departure in 1890; for I saw Brother Moses stand 
 in open rebellion to his quorum. 
 
 On a certain occasion, quite a long time ago, I went to President 
 Woodruff and asked him the question: " What is the reason of this dark- 
 ness that 1 see in the mind of a man whom I have loved like a brother, 
 whom I had placed in my affection, equal to any man upon the face of the 
 earth." This is the answer that he gave me: " He has sought to rule over 
 his brethren and has lost the spirit." 
 
 Where, brethren and sisters, will you get the channel of communica- 
 tion opened up between you and the powers that reign over the earth? 
 The God that sits in the heavens, and the angels and saints that visit us — 
 through what line of communication do they come? God has placed 
 these authorities here to guide His people, and when a man cuts that 
 thread for himself, then the channel of revelation is destroyed, so far as 
 that man is concerned. If you and I ever consider that we can reach God 
 and get His mind and will in relation to this great work without receiving 
 it through the channel of those men who stand at the head, then all I 
 have to say to you or myself is, we have cut the thread between us and the 
 Spirit of God, and we are left to wander in bye and forbidden paths. One 
 channel, one organization ! And no man may rise against that and expect 
 that he will be favored of the Lord or permitted to enjoy His Spirit. 
 
 JOSEPH F. SMITH: 
 
 (October 5.) 
 
 I wish merely to say a word to guard the people from unwise sympa- 
 thies. While we may have a great deal of love for our fellow beings, and 
 especially for those who have been favored of the Lord in times past we 
 should exercise that love wisely. Now, I love men and women who are de- 
 voted to the cause of truth, and my sympathies are always with them. 
 But it is impossible for me to sympathize with those who do wrong. It is 
 written somewhere in the laws of God that "the Lord required the heart, 
 and a willing mind and the willing and the obedient shall eat the good of 
 the land of Zion in these last days." Now, if a man has given his heart 
 unto the Lord, and is willing and obedient unto God and his requirements, 
 that man I love and that man has my sympathy. But when he turns 
 away from the love of God and steels his heart against the laws of God 
 and the counsels of his priesthood, then amen to the authority and power 
 of that man and to my love and sympathy for him in his wrong-doing. I 
 may pity him for his wrong-doing, and I may love him, too, as well as any- 
 body else; but when he ceases to do right, that is the end of it with me. 
 He may go his own road and I will go mine. I love my own brother; I 
 love my sister; I love my wife and children; but when my brother, or sis- 
 ter, or wife, or child turns away from God and raises the heel against the 
 Almighty and turns his or her heart to their own selfish desires and'whims 
 
14 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 they are no more to me than the heathen; for they are unbelievers, and 
 they are not my brother nor my sister in the covenant of the gospel, and 
 that covenant is stronger than all other covenants and all other ties that 
 bind the Saints together. 
 
 The man that will abide in the covenant is my brother and my friend, 
 and has my sympathy and love, and I will sustain him. But the man who 
 raises his heel and his voice against the servants of God and the authority 
 of the Priesthood on the earth is not my friend, and he has not my sym- 
 pathy nor my love. Mercy has done its work; patience has endured long 
 enough; and all Israel must know that a man, whether he is an Apostle, a 
 High Priest, or a Seventy, that will not hearken to the voice of God, that 
 will not give his heart unto the Lord, that is not obedient, must cease to 
 be fellowshipped by the people of God. We cannot uphold men who will 
 pursue a course like this, or who will betray their brethren. We cannot 
 afford it, and we cannot do it and be justified before the Lord. 
 
 We have received a communication, saying that we stood self-con- 
 demned before the people, because we had transgressed the law of God, 
 We have transgressed no law of God, so far as we know. It is a clear case 
 of the twelve jurymen, eleven of whom were united and saw eye to eye. 
 while the one stood out alone, claiming that all the rest were wrong . We 
 have borne and borne. Six months have passed — aye, years have passed, 
 because that which occurred six months ago marked only the forks of the 
 road, only the dividing line. For years before we had tolerated, and 
 patiently waited, we had prayed and petitioned, and we had suffered long 
 and yet to no avail. Our councils have seldom been graced by his 
 presence. He has not felt it necessary to be one with his brethren. He 
 has estranged himself from us, not we from him. It is a matter concern- 
 ing the government of the Church, and the authority which God has insti- 
 tuted to direct and to guide. It is the question as to whether the people 
 will unite with the majority of the Priesthood, who are united and see eye 
 to eye, or whether they will be misled by one man. 
 
 It is to be regretted that Mr. Smith, standing as he does at 
 the head of a great ecclesiastical organization, should utter 
 sentiments savoring so strongly of the dark ages. In the light 
 of the gospel of the blessed Christ who died for all, both saint 
 and sinner; in the presence of nineteenth century civilization, 
 it sounds harsh and even cruel for a man to say that certain 
 doctrines and ordinances are the supreme standard whereby he 
 will either love brother, sister, wife or child; or otherwise spurn 
 them from him and hold them as "heathen," if they do not be- 
 lieve and worship as he does. Surely Mr. Joseph F. Smith 
 should realize that it is not a matter of doctrine or practice that 
 is the true standard whereby to enter into sympathetic relations 
 with men and women, but the soul endowment, the image of 
 God in each and all. We may hate sin, but surely we must 
 love the sinner. Such are the lessons of the Great Teacher. 
 
 In order that a little more light may be shed on the ques- 
 tion ot Moses Thatcher's disagreement with his quorum and the 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. 15 
 
 First Presidency, it is well to add a portion of Mr. Smith's 
 speech at the priesthood meeting at Logan a few months previ- 
 ous. There need be no question as to the accuracy of the report, 
 for it is thoroughly substantiated, and may be read in full in the 
 Salt Lake papers of May 10th and 11th, 1896:— 
 
 Joseph F. Smith was the next speaker. He said that Moses Thatch- 
 er's attitude all through the political fight in Utah could not be justified; 
 that he had been the one Apostle who had refused to take counsel as to 
 how the people should be divided up; that the First Presidency and all 
 the Twelve but Thatcher had decided upon a certain policy to get the re- 
 lief they needed from the government; but Thatcher had stood out against 
 them; that he had been opposing his brethren ever since the division on 
 party lines, and had not been in harmony with his quorum. 
 
 Joseph F. said further that the meeting called in the Gardo House to 
 consider the advisability of disbanding the People's Party was attended by 
 many of the authorities, stake presidents and leaders of the People's 
 Party. 
 
 It was plainly stated at this meeting that men in high authority who 
 believed in Republican principles should go out among the people, but 
 that those in high authority who could not indorse the principles of 
 Republicanism should remain silent. Their counsel was obeyed by all the 
 Apostles and high authorities except Moses Thatcher, who talked to the 
 people contrary to the wishes of his brethren. If it had not been for his 
 condition, Moses Thatcher would have been called to account for his 
 declaration in the opera house, (here giving Thatcher's declaration of poli- 
 tical independence), but if he ever became able he would have to answer 
 for that as well as other things they proposed to charge against him. 
 
 In this connection it is important to put on record a cir- 
 cumstance showing on the part of Joseph F. Smith a spirit of 
 extraordinary resentment and clerical intolerance. At the Stake 
 Conference held in Logan during the month of November, 
 Bishop Lewis was reprimanded by Mr. Smith for making Moses 
 Thatcher the subject of prayer, although Presidents Woodruff 
 and Snow at the October Conference enjoined upon the Saints 
 the duty of praying for him. The circumstance is narrated in 
 the following letter from a prominent churchman, appearing in 
 the Tribune November 21st: 
 
 Logan, Utah, November 20, 1896. 
 
 It is fully realized here that in the Senatorial candidacy of Moses 
 Thatcher and the fight being made against him by the organ which pur- 
 ports to voice the sentiments of the Church, a grave issue has arisen, 
 greater, in fact, than the one caused by the issuance of the original mani- 
 festo abandoning the practice of polygamy, and there are thousands whose 
 faith scarcely survived that ordeal. 
 
 A great moral question is involved, and it will not be without serious 
 thought that conservative members of the Church will align themselves on 
 
16 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 either side. A few years ago there could have been no doubt of the out- 
 come. Then the utterances of the First Presidency and the Apostles 
 would have been considered as the voice of God, and no one would have 
 thought of upholding Moses Thatcher or any other man in opposition to 
 their expressed will; but division on party lines brought about a change, 
 and they are no longer considered infallible, especially in political affairs. 
 They claim that Church and State have been divorced, but a candid exam- 
 ination of the rule they seek to enforce— that of asking consent before 
 accepting office — will be sufficient to convince one that Moses Thatcher is 
 right when he says that it might be the means of making the Church a 
 great political machine, the steering apparatus of which would be in the 
 hands of the twelve or fifteen men at the head. The majority of those 
 who opposed the rule did it for the same reason expressed by Moses 
 Thatcher in his recent interview for the Tribune; it was too sweeping, and 
 could be made to include almost every male member of the Church, as 
 there are but few lay members. The leaders have disclaimed any such 
 intent in sermons on the subject, but it would have been just as easy and 
 much more satisfactory to have changed the wording of the document so 
 as to state specifically what officers were to be subject to the rule. 
 
 In Cache Valley, at least, Moses Thatcher will receive full credit for 
 sincerity. Here he is known, and that this was a matter of conscience 
 with him no one will doubt. It seems that special efforts have been made 
 to cast discredit on him here, probably because here he was best known 
 and loved. It was to the Presidency of this Stake that the first letter was 
 issued forbidding them to allow him to preach or officiate in any of the 
 ordinances; and it was here that Joseph F. Smith, contrary to the teach- 
 ings of the Savior, publicly rebuked Bishop B. M. Lewis for praying for 
 Moses Thatcher during our recent quarterly Conference. The prayer was, 
 one would think, a perfectly proper one from a Church standpoint, as the 
 appeal was that his mind might be enlightened and that he might once 
 more be brought into harmony with his quorum. Mr. Smith assumed that 
 no prayer must be uttered publicly in favor of the erring (?) member. This 
 savored so strongly of a spirit contrary to that of the divine love and com- 
 passion that has heretofore been enjoined, that many who had supported 
 the Manifesto and considered Mr. Thatcher's opposition wrong, wondered 
 whether after all, some strong personal feeling did not underlie the pres- 
 sure brought to bear on him, and began to investigate his reasons for 
 opposing it. If the Senatorship could be left to the popular vote, Moses 
 Thatcher would have an overwhelming majority in Cache county, and the 
 constituents of the members-elect to the State Legislature from this 
 county will expect them to give this sentiment fitting expression. Young 
 Utah has read history and has there seen the awful results of placing un- 
 limited political power in ecclesiastical hands, when the merits of candi- 
 dates were discussed and their fate settled, not in political conventions, 
 but in priesthood meetings. Those days are gone; but would it not be the 
 aame in effect if rival candidates each had to ask the consent of the same 
 Church authority? 
 
 The following partial report of the prooeedings of the Con- 
 ference on Tuesday, October 6th, is quoted from the Tribune 
 of the 7th: 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. IT 
 
 Ab on the day before, Moses Thatcher received the major portion a 
 attention from speakers at yesterday's sessions of the Mormon Church 
 Conference. Apostles John W. Taylor and M. W. Merrill in turn stated 
 their agreement with the majority in the case. In the afternoon President 
 George Q. Cannon discussed the matter at considerable length, though 
 carefully avoiding mention of Apostle Thatcher's name. His tone indi- 
 cated that he regarded the termination of the matter as settled. He spoke 
 of the unjupt condemnation of the priesthood for its course, and told those 
 who had uttered condemnatory words what their duty now is. 
 
 President George Q. Cannon then arose. " Our Conference thus far," 
 he began, " has been of exceeding interest to all who have shared in He. 
 proceedings. Never have I heard the brethren speak with greater power.. 
 I have never felt more edified by the addresses. It is indeed deeply grati- 
 fying that such a measure of the spirit and power of God should have 
 thus rested upon President Woodruff and upon President Snow. There is; 
 no doubt that the Saints will depart, instructed upon many points, per- 
 haps hitherto hidden from them. Equally there is no doubt that many 
 surmises have been indulged in and possibly unjust remarks made regard- 
 ing the authorities in some of their actions. 
 
 " I am glad that the spirit of God has moved President Woodruff and 
 others to speak on the subject as they have done." 
 
 President Cannon explained that while it was the duty of the leaders 
 to take up the matter as they had, still a feeling of delicacy caused them 
 to shrink from making the trouble public. He said that the delay owing 
 to this disinclination to act upon the part of the authorities had resulted 
 in a peculiar condition of affairs arising, which had been further compli- 
 cated by the introduction of politics. This made the brethren in full 
 knowledge of the trouble less inclined than ever to speak. Their reticence 
 had been misunderstood, their motives misconceived, and themselves held 
 up for condemnation in many instances. All this had resulted from the 
 kindliness, manifested by the failure to make public a brother's error. 
 
 " This should be a warning, a solemn warning, to all of you to not be 
 hasty in reaching a conclusion or in the censure or condemnation of any 
 one whom God has placed to preside over you. It is a warning to be care- 
 ful, for 1 believe that a great amount of sin has been committed and the 
 spirit of God grieved, causing darkness to many minds because the liberty 
 has been taken, if I may use the word, to condemn without understanding 
 all the circumstances of the case mentioned yesterday." 
 
 President Cannon referred to a letter from a president of the Seven- 
 ties who at one time was prominent in Sunday-school work, in which the 
 writer said the authorities had violated the law of the Church, and as men 
 standing self -convicted they were called upon to repent and make amends. 
 This letter, he said, affords an index of the sentiment that may actuate 
 possibly hundreds. 
 
 " Now, God has warned us," he continued, "not to speak evil of the 
 Lord's annointed. Any one who finds fault with them is liable to lose the 
 spirit and go into darkness. The Prophet said that fault-finding was one 
 of the first symptoms of apostacy: God has chosen his servants and 
 claims it as His prerogative to condemn them and censure them. It 
 is not given to us individually to do this, No man, no matter how high in 
 the Church, can speak evil of the Lord's annointed without incurring the 
 displeasure of the Lord and losing the spirit. Then how important it is 
 
18 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 not to question or censure the heads of the Church, no matter how difficult 
 it may be to comprehend the reasons for their actions. 
 
 " Never since the days of Kirtland has there been such a spirit in the 
 Church to do this error as has been shown during the past few years. We 
 have almost feared to go to some places, owing to the arraignment of our mo- 
 tives and condemnation of our actions. Yesterday's explanations ought to 
 have the effect of making these people, who have been finding fault and 
 condemning unjustly, ashamed of themselves so that they will ask God's 
 forgiveness for having condemned innocent men. People are going to 
 apostatize because of this, if they don't repent." 
 
 To the careful reader it will be apparent that the proceed- 
 ings of the Conference in relation to Moses Thatcher, beginning 
 on Sunday and ending on Tuesday, are guided and inspired by 
 one comprehensive and efficient mind. Mr. Cannon's avowed 
 loyalty to his aged superior, his exaltation of the ostensible 
 Head of the Church to the Vicegenerency under God, his 
 reference to him as the source of plenary authority, his profes- 
 sions of absolute submission for himself and his brother offii- 
 cials — all this was, in the nature of things, deeply suggestive to 
 the venerable President, and next day it bore fruit in the form 
 of harsh accusation in the speech of one whose guilessness and 
 gentleness are light and peace to the Church. There were other 
 speeches and exortations. but they all chimed in harmonously 
 as parts of the orchestral performance inaugurated on Sunday. 
 The master mind had touched the button and a responsive 
 corps of helpers did the rest. 
 
 We can only imagine the depth of satisfaction with which 
 the chief designer could take hold of the clearing up process 
 on the third day and thank God that there had been such out- 
 pouring of divine grace! And what a magnificent inning to the 
 First Presidency ! They had been censured for too great leni- 
 ency! But see now what mountains there were in the way! 
 See how gallantly we have plucked them up by the roots and 
 cast them into the sea! 
 
 But mark you! it was a "political document' that caused 
 all this outpouring of zeal and sentiment ; it was the refusal of 
 a beloved Apostle to sign that political document that caused 
 the heavens to open and the vials of wrath to be poured out; in 
 short, it was a spectacular performance, a shrewdly devised 
 program with sheet lightning and stage thunder in abundance, 
 and all for the purpose of stampeding the faithful Saints into 
 an attitude of recognized encroachment on the political sphere I 
 There were business reasons, too, and these are heaving in fer- 
 ment like an angry volcano. Over all let us pay honest tribute 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. 19 
 
 to the sincerity and worth of the body o? the Saints ; their in- 
 dustry and patience are worthy of all praise. 
 
 From the remarks of the leading officials quoted above 
 several important conclusions may be drawn, as follows: 
 
 1. The priesthood organization as viewed by the First 
 Presidency is the divinely authorized and exclusive channel of 
 communication between God and mankind, the only instrumen- 
 tality whereby God intends to promote His cause and kingdom 
 in the world. 
 
 2. The obligations imposed upon those who hold the high- 
 er orders of priesthood require absolute obedience to the First 
 Presidency, not only as to religious and spiritual things but 
 also those that are civil and political. 
 
 3. Moses Thatcher's disobedience and insubordination lay 
 in his refusal to submit his civil and political agency to the dic- 
 tation of his quorum and his superiors in the priesthood. 
 
 4. As shown elsewhere in these pages, the First Presidency, 
 the Apostles and the whole Church in conference assembled 
 made solemn pledges to the people of the United States and the 
 people of Utah that the Church should claim no control or au- 
 thority over civil and political functions, and on these pledges 
 statehood was secured. Hence in refusing to submit his politi- 
 cal agency to the dictation of the Church, Moses Thatcher was 
 keeping the plighted faith of the Mormon Church and people. 
 
 5. The decisive act of disobedience of Moses Thatcher was 
 his refusal to sign the Manifesto; and for this refusal, as John 
 Henry Smith remarks, he would have been called to account 
 "within three days" had it not been for the condition of his 
 health. 
 
 6. The specific form of submission that was required of 
 him in order to his reinstatement in full fellowship with his 
 quorum was to submit absolutely and unreservedly his religious 
 and political agency to the counsel and dictation of his quorum 
 and his superiors in the priesthood. His want of fellowship 
 was not a lack of love, kindness and charity, for he would have 
 given of his means unstintedly to the help of his brethren, and 
 at the "last call" for money to finish the Temple he gave $3500; 
 but this was not what was required; rather was it that he should 
 surrender his political manhood and independence, and to this 
 he could not consent, and thank God he could not and did not ! 
 
 7. It is not indended in these pages to call in question any 
 of the doctrines of the Mormon faith as a purely religious sys- 
 tem; but as to politics and the civil sphere, the church and the 
 
20 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 authorities have surrendered control under formal pledge; they 
 have said : "Render unto Csesar the things that are Caesar's and 
 to God the things that are God's," and they must not seek to 
 dishonor their pledges. Moreover, submission to Church dic- 
 tation in political affairs is in opposition to the spirit of the 
 Declaration of Independence and to the genius of American 
 Institutions. 
 
 8. While there is no issue raised in this book against 
 religious doctrines, there is a very clear issue made against that 
 operation of religious doctrines which infringes on the political 
 free-agency of the individual. This opposition is on two 
 grounds: First. It is wrong in itself as an infraction of the 
 inherent civil rights of the citizen. Second. It is in conflict 
 with the pledges of the Church which has solemnly renounced 
 all claim or assumption to control in the civil and political 
 sphere. If Moses Thatcher, in entering the Apostleship, made 
 any pledges or took any vows which compromised his political 
 or civil freedom, he is in duty bound to renounce them, especially 
 since Statehood was secured by relinquishing the right to 
 enforce such vows. But it seems that his offense consisted in 
 his refusal to do what would be a ratification and recognition of 
 such a vow. Such a vow, either in form or effect, would be a 
 crime against the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 9. The several speakers of the Conference, in referring to 
 the Manifesto, call it a " political document." It is most emi- 
 nently a " political document," for it defines and qualifies the 
 political and civil agency of every man that is subjected to its 
 rule. Yet it is claimed in the name of religion that such a 
 document should be submitted to! Is not this claim a usurpa- 
 tion of the functions of the State? President Snow censures 
 Moses Thatcher because he did not sign the " political docu- 
 ment" on the strength of the twenty-four names already on it, 
 just as he says Erastus Snow endorsed the words of George A. 
 Smith — words spoken while Erastus Snow was asleep — pro- 
 nouncing them ** God's truth," when he never heard a word, 
 and gave his ** testimony " on the single ground that he knew 
 George A. Smith was *! a man of inspiration and would never 
 say anything untrue." How this process of believing and 
 knowing things to be true because people say they are true, 
 may work in religion, is not a matter of inquiry in this connec- 
 tion; but when it comes to roping in a man's political and civil 
 agency on such grounds, it is a different matter. It is encroach- 
 ment on the State. 
 
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER. 21 
 
 10. John Henry Smith gives away his mental processes in 
 a very open manner. He says that within three days " Moses 
 Thatcher would have been dealt with had it not been for the 
 state of his health " And this for not signing the "political 
 document." And what does Mr. Smith rest his faith on? He 
 says, "I stand by my President and the Presidency of this 
 Church in the position they have taken, because I know they 
 are righV And George Q. Cannon says, " When they (the 
 Twelve Apostles) accept the counsel of the First Presidency, 
 they do it because they believe the First Presidency to be 
 chosen of God. They may have different views on many things ; 
 but when the First Presidency gives counsel, every man that 
 has the Spirit of God accepts that counsel." Now all this yield- 
 ing of individual independence of thought may suffice for relig- 
 ious uses and purposes; but when such machinery is used to 
 enforce conviction and action within the sphere of a man's poli- 
 tical agency, such as the signing of a " political document," it 
 is in direct conflict with the spirit and genius of our institu- 
 tions; it is a matter that demands notice from the world, and 
 every loyal citizen should enter a protest against such methods 
 when carried into politics. Moreover, the First Presidency is 
 recreant to its own pledges when it undertakes to enforce politi- 
 cal action through its own alleged inspiration. 
 
CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 
 
 Subsequent to the October Conference there was a consid- 
 erable correspondence between Moses Thatcher and Lorenzo 
 Snow, President of the Quorum of Apostles; and as important 
 items appear in the letters, the greater portion of them are here- 
 with presented in the order of their dates. The first letter 
 recites Mr. Thatcher's exclusion from the Temple after having 
 been invited by F. D. Richards to meet with the Apostles there- 
 in. The "notice" to which allusion is made is as follows^ 
 having appeared in the News, October 15th : — 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 To the OflScers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
 Saints: 
 
 It having been reported to us that Brother Moses Thatcher has on 
 three different occasions recently addressed congregations of the Saints at 
 Logan, Cache Valley, this, therefore, is to notify you that by action of the 
 Council of First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ 
 of Latter-day Saints, the name of Moses Thatcher was not presented at 
 the General Conferences of April and October, 1896, to be sustained in his 
 oflBce as an Apostle; and that this action of the authorities suspending 
 him from exercising any of the functions of the Priesthood, that is, from 
 preaching the Gospel or administering in any of the ordinances thereof, 
 until he, by making satisfactory amends to his fellow servants, should be 
 restored to their fellowship and that of the Church. 
 
 WiLFORD Woodruff, 
 George Q, Cannon, 
 Joseph F. Smith; 
 
 First Presidency. 
 
 THATCHER TO SNOW. 
 
 No. 101 N. West Temple St. ) 
 Salt Lake City, October 16, 1896. j 
 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of 
 Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: 
 
 Dear Brethren: — Having in mind the utterances of my file leaders 
 and others at the late semi-annual Conference, respecting myself and the 
 attitude in which I was placed toward the Church of Christ, and those in 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 28 
 
 authority over me in the holy priesthood, and desiring, if possible, to be in 
 harmony with the quorum over which you preside, and with that of the 
 First Presidency of the Church. I endeavored to meet with you and the 
 brethren at their weekly gathering on Thursday, the 15th inst., but upon 
 appearing at the door of the Temple, was denied admittance. 
 
 Later in the day I was furnished by the secretary, George F. Gibbs, 
 a copy of the general "notice" to the Latter-Day Saints, as published in 
 the Deseret Evening News of October 15th. That was the first notification 
 received of the intended suspension of the functions of the priesthood held 
 by me. I was aware that my name had not been presented and sustained 
 by the vote of the Saints assembled in Conference on April and October 
 last, but no intimation had been given that such action deprived me of the 
 priesthood or in any way suspended its functions. Had I received an author- 
 itative intimation that such was the intention, or was in any sense thought 
 to be desirable, I would have, if possible, avoided occasion for complaint 
 on that point. 
 
 Now, since I am denied the privilege of meeting your quorum for the 
 purpose explained herein, I humbly and respectfully ask you to furnish 
 me in writing, conveying in specific detail the items of all charges of 
 wrong-doing which my brethren may think proper, or feel constrained to 
 bring against me as objections to my further continuance as an Apostle 
 and fellow laborer with them in the cause and Church of the Master, our 
 Savior, to whom I also have dedicated all I have or may hereafter be. 
 
 Until the remarks of the brethren delivered at the last General Con- 
 ference, as they appeared published in the daily press of this city apprised 
 me of it, I did not know that they held aught against me, or premeditated 
 the planting of charges against me on any matter whatever other than 
 that of my failure to indorse the "declaration" issued last April relating to 
 political affairs past and present and future, and possibly complaints also 
 respecting my political attitude as relating to political methods, words 
 and works since the division of the people in Utah on national party lines. 
 
 I had understood that my failure to see eye to eye with my brethren 
 on those civil matters, and for not on short notice endorsing the "declara- 
 tion" caused the withholding of my name from the list of Apostles as pre- 
 sented to the Saints at the April Conference. 
 
 The sacred, and as I believed, holy bond of fellowship openly con- 
 fessed and candidly proclaimed many times— each to the other — during all 
 the years of your presidency over the Twelve Apostles, and the sacred 
 places and loving manner in which that bond of "fellowship" was, as I 
 thought, cemented together at least for all past and present time, if not 
 for eternity, banished from my heart distrust of any kind, and naturally 
 precluded apprehension, fear and thought of such darkness and ambition 
 as that publicly proclaimed as having been the condition in which I had 
 continued for a number of years. 
 
 Under the newly-revealed conditions, as stated at Conference, it may 
 be seen how naturally and how easily harmony might fail of its fullest 
 fruition of confidence, hope and trustful love, for how could those in the 
 light harmonize with one in the dark? Or how could one in the dark go 
 to the light when not informed respecting his darkness? 
 
 It appears useless at this time, and as a waste of valuable time, for 
 me to ever allude to the love and labor of the past, for those whose esteem 
 
24 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 and confidence I have tried hard to merit may well be trusted to remem- 
 ber of that all that is necessary. 
 
 For the light and for truth and for justice as defended in the laws of 
 God I have sacrificed some things, and am willing when necessary to sac- 
 rifice all things. While greatly improved in health, I am not yet in a physi- 
 cal condition to endure a prolonged or severe strain of body or mind; and, 
 therefore, trust that I shall be given sufficient time in which to answer all 
 charges that may be brought against me. x\b to anything I have said or 
 done contrary to the commandments of God, I hold myself bound under 
 His law to answer or plead guilty whenever the charges are made specific, 
 and have sufficient time so that the exertion shall not again force me to- 
 ward the grave, on the verge of which, as you know, I have so long 
 lingered. 
 
 My desire is to do right, and to be united with the brethren and 
 those who preside over me, in all that will promote the glory of God and 
 the salvation of man. For, as I comprehend the lessons of history, he who 
 cannot be governed is utterly unfit to attempt government even in the 
 family relation. 
 
 Praying the Lord God of Israel to bless you, and expressing heartfelt 
 gratitude to you for the considerate, humble and loving manner in which 
 you have presided over your brethren of the Apostles, and trusting that 
 you are not unwilling that I should still subscribe myself as your brother 
 in the gospel, I remain, as heretofore, devoted^ to the cause of righteous- 
 ness—the cause of Christ. 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 SNOW TO THATCHER. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, Oct. 23, 1896. 
 Elder Moses Thatcher, City: 
 
 Dear Brother: — Your communication of the 16th inst., was received 
 by me on the 19th, and its contents carefully noted. 
 
 Since the writing of your letter the full stenographic report of the 
 remarks of the brethren made at our late General Conference has been 
 published in the Deseret News, in which their feelings concerning you are 
 quite fully expressed, and you not having read these published remarks 
 prior to the writing of your communication, I take it for granted that it will 
 not be necessary for me to explain or answer further. With kindest re- 
 gards, your brother. 
 
 Lorenzo Snow. 
 
 THATCHER TO SNOW. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 4, 1896. 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, Preaideot of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: 
 
 Dear Brother: — While at Logan last week I learned through a let- 
 ter that Elder Franklin D. Richards had called at my home for the pur- 
 pose of informing me that yourself and the Quorum of Apostles desired to 
 meet me, and thought arrangements could be made to meet in the annex 
 of the Temple if I could name a date when I could be present. Apprecia- 
 ting this kindness and desiring very much to meet again with my brethren 
 that they might know the inmost feelings of my heart by personal contact 
 with the spirit that possesses me, I at once sent word desiring that you 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 25 
 
 would Eame the time and place of meeting, so as to conform to your own 
 and the convenience of the brethren, rather than to that of my own. It 
 was my intention to go north from Logan to see my brother, who resides 
 in Idaho, but on receiving no word as to when I could meet with you, I 
 returned to this city Thursday — a week ago tomorrow — and have daily 
 expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren once 
 more together. No word having reached me respecting that matter, I 
 adopt this means of respectfully asking you when such meeting can be ar- 
 ranged. As early a reply as convenient will greatly oblige. Your brother 
 in the gospel. 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 That delays may be avoided, I send this by Elder C. W. Penrose, who 
 has kindly consented to deliver it promptly to you. M. T. 
 
 SNOW TO THATCHER. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, November 6, 1896. 
 Elder Moses Thatcher:— 
 
 Dear Brother : — Your letter of the 4th instant received. In it 
 you state that you learned last week at Logan, through letter, that 
 Brother Franklin D. Richards had called at your home for the pur- 
 pose of informing you that myeelf and the Quorum of Apostles desired 
 to meet you in the annex of the Temple, also intimating that it is 
 our desire that you name a date when you could be present. I wish to 
 correct this impression, the Quorum, as such, not having expressed them- 
 selves in regard to this matter. Doubtless the misunderstanding arose 
 from the fact that some time ago an appointment was made to meet 
 with you in the Temple annex, which appointment was not kept owing to 
 your physical inability to do so, as we learned verbally through Brother 
 John Henry Smith. But since then the Council of First Presidency and 
 Apostles felt it to be due to the late General Conference that something 
 should be said by way of explanation for withholding the presentation of 
 your name to be sustained by the Conference as one of the general author- 
 ities of the Church, which resulted in the remarks of the brethren on this 
 subject as published in full in the News. Since then, also, a card has been 
 published over the signatures of the First Presidency, informing the officers 
 and members of the Church that the withholding of your name from go- 
 ing before the last two Conferences suspended you from exercising the 
 functions of your priesthood, the publication of this card having been 
 made necessary, contrary to our expectations, by your addressing public 
 congregations of the Saints in your suspended condition. Since then, too, 
 I sent you the following, under date of 23rd ult.: — (See above.) 
 
 I may say that the foregoing was in response to your communication 
 in which you desired that whatever charges your brethren might think 
 proper to make against you, that the same be specifically made in writing, 
 etc. In penning the foregoing I hoped that further correspondence 
 would not be indulged in by you, but that just as soon as you fully realized 
 your true position you would not rest until you had conferred with me 
 personally in regard to arranging for an interview with your Quorum for 
 the purpose of regaining your fellowship. I repeat, I hoped your 
 feelings would have prompted you to do this, and I felt warranted in 
 
26 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 believing that your wisdom would have led you to do it ; but in this I was 
 disappointed, and so were your brethren one and all. 
 
 This being the condition of affairs, you were not admitted to the 
 Temple on the forenoon of Thursday, 15th ult.; for the further reason, also, 
 that the meeting of that day was not a meeting of our quorum, but the 
 regular Council meeting of the First Presidency and Apostles, at which 
 business of pressing importance was to be attended to, which could not be 
 deferred for consideration of your suspension. 
 
 In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in 
 appointing 2 o'clock on Thursday next at the Historian's office, upon which 
 occasion the Quorum will be pleased to meet with you. With kindest 
 regards, your brother and fellow servant. 
 
 Lorenzo Snow. 
 
 The following letter presents a general review of all the 
 facts and circumstances leading up to and terminating in Mr. 
 Thatcher's deposition from the Priesthood : 
 
 THATCHER TO SNOW. 
 
 Logan, Cache County, Utah, November 11, 1896. 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and 
 
 Members of the Quorum: — 
 
 Dear Brethren: — By way of preface to a request I am about to 
 make of you, my brethren, I humbly ask your attention while I review, 
 briefly, the reasons which lead me to make it. 
 
 My name was regularly presented to the people and I was regularly 
 sustained in my position in the Church until the 6th day of April, 1896. 
 On that day at noon, and never before, a document was presented to me for 
 my signature. I was then confined to my room with what I considered 
 at that time a fatal illness. I was given about an hour and thirty minutes 
 within which to consider a matter of vital importance, not only to myself, 
 but, in my opinion, to the people. I could not see my way clear to sign it 
 without stultification, and I so informed you by letter. In about two hours 
 from that time my name was unceremoniously dropped from the list of 
 Apostles presented to the Conference for confirmation. No reason for 
 your action was given, and my letter of explanation was, for reasons best 
 known to yourselves, supressed. 
 
 Matters went on in this way, until a day or so before the funeral of 
 our lamented brother, Abraham H. Cannon, I called upon President 
 Woodruff and told him I desired to be relieved of all responsibility for 
 awhile in order to regain my health and strength. He acquiesced. Subse- 
 quently, I was informed by Brother C. W. Penrose that the brethren were 
 willing for me to lay aside all care and go away if I desired, and that 
 nothing further would be done concerning my standing until I should be 
 fully restored to health, if it took six months, a year or even two years. 
 And these representations of Brother Penrose have since been confirmed 
 by several members of our quorum. 
 
 I then went to Logan canyon, where I remained about six weeks. 
 While there rumors began to circulate that my case would be taken up, 
 notwithstanding the promisee which had been given me. These rumors 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 27 
 
 did not reach me at the time, but they reached my son, Moses Thatcher, 
 Jr., who at once went to the city, where he called at President Woodruff's 
 oflBce in company with his brother Preston and Bishop W. B. Preston. 
 While waiting for an opportunity to see President Woodruff, Brother 
 Brigham Young entered and to him my son told the object of his visit. 
 Then Brother Young went into the President's office. After awhile Presi- 
 dent Snow, Apostles Richards, Young and Smith, Bishop Preston and 
 others came out from President Woodruff's office and assured my son that 
 they had delivered his message to President Woodruff, and that he and all 
 the brethren present had unanimously decided that nothing whatever 
 would be done in my matter until I felt mentally and physically able to 
 meet with the brethren. President Snow bade my son to convey to me 
 that message, which he did by returning home and driving to my camp 
 thirty miles up Logan canyon. When President Woodruff at that meeting 
 was reminded of his former promise to me, he said that he had not seem 
 me, and that I had not called on him for many months. Bishop Preston 
 reminded him of my visit a day or so before Brother Abraham H. Cannon's 
 funeral, and of our conversation at the time, whereupon he recalled the 
 circumstance and then said that he remembered distinctly what had trans- 
 pired on that occasion. 
 
 Had it not been for the assurances and reassurances given me I 
 would have attended the Conference before which, in my absence, I was 
 publicly accused. 
 
 Upon my return to Logan from the canyon I was dumfounded on 
 reading and hearing reports of the treatment I had received at Conference. 
 Feeling, however, that there might be some reason unknown to me for 
 your apparent change of mind, I went to Salt Lake on purpose to ascertain 
 the truth, if possible. On my way to the office of President Woodruff, 
 Wednesday, October llth, I met Brother Franklin D. Richards. I told 
 him that I expected to meet with my Quorum at their regular meeting on 
 the following day. He replied that they would be delighted to have me. 
 I asked if there could be any objection to it. He assured me that there 
 would not be, and that he could vote for it with both hands. 
 
 Accordingly, I went to the Temple next day at the regular hour, and 
 was informed that the Presidency of the church had given orders not to 
 admit me into the Temple. I was surprised and grieved, but one thought 
 consoled me, and that was that during the last six months of the construc- 
 tion of the Temple, now closed against me, I had given $3500 toward its 
 completion, and if I had it to do over again I would give even more. No 
 reason was given for refusing me admittance; no explanation was offered, 
 not even by the one who had assured me of a welcome with both hands. 
 
 I went home distressed and with such a flood of sorrow in my heart 
 compared with which the pain and sufferings of five years were like a drop 
 to the ocean. I asked God for light and wisdom; I searched the innermost 
 depths of my soul; I reviewed my whole life and my record in the Church 
 to find some excuse for the action taken, but in vain. As it seemed I was 
 cut off from communication with you in every other way, I wrote to the 
 president of my Quorum asking what my brethren had against me, plead- 
 ing humbly and respectfully for the charges, specifically stated, that I 
 might have a chance to prove my innocence or plead guilty. 
 
 Before I heard from you I had gone to Logan with the intention of 
 visiting my brother, who resides in Idaho. While in Logan word reached 
 
28 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 me that Brother Franklin D. Richards had called at my home in Salt Lake 
 City to see me. He left word that my Quorum desired me to meet with 
 them, and thought such meeting might be arranged in the Temple annex 
 if I would name the day when I could be present . I immediately sent 
 word to him that I did not desire to set the time, but would leave the time 
 and place of meeting with the Quorum, desiring to conform to their con- 
 venience. 
 
 Not hearing anything further about the matter, I returned to Salt 
 Lake, where I waited several days and wrote you again, meantime receiv- 
 ing the following answer to my request for specific charges. —(See above 
 October 23d.) 
 
 This communication changed the face of the whole matter, because 
 in it I am cited to the public press to read the accusations made against 
 me in public meetings before the Saints in General Conference assembled 
 and before the world. I am told to go to a newspaper and there read what 
 my brethren have said about me and against me, and to these public 
 utterances published to all mankind I am to make my answer. 
 
 But, owing to the word sent me by Brother F. D. Richards, I still 
 thought you might possibly have other communications to make, outside 
 of the published declarations to which you referred me in your letter of 
 October 23rd, and being in the city in response to that request, I therefore 
 wrote you on the 4th of November asking for information as to when that 
 meeting would be called. 
 
 In reply I received a letter from you. President Snow, dated Novem- 
 ber 6, 1896, in which you repeat in full your letter of October 23rd, thus 
 indicating that the public declarations made in Conference covered all the 
 charges against me. You say further that you had hoped that I would 
 write no more after receiving your letter of October 23rd, and that I should 
 have lost no time in seeking you personally after receiving that letter, and 
 that you, one and all, were disappointed at my lack of wisdom after receiv- 
 ing that letter, and that therefore the Temple was closed against me on the 
 15th day of October. Believe me, it is hard to understand how any supposed 
 disregard of a letter written October 23rd should cause the Temple to be 
 closed against me on the 15th of the same month, or eight days before. Be 
 that as it may, I desire to make a simple request of you, to which, lam 
 sure, your sense of justice and honor will acquiesce. It is this: As I was 
 accused in public I desire to meet the charges in public. Although the 
 judges before whom I am to be arraigned have nearly all expressed an 
 opinion as to the merits of my case; although my accusers are to sit in 
 judgment over me; although a verdict has already been delivered against 
 me and without a hearing, and in the most public manner; still will I be 
 willing to submit my case to them, to place in their keeping, not only my 
 life, but that which is dearer to me than life— only asking for the defense 
 the same publicity which has been given the prosecution. 
 
 It has been written : "If any shall offend in secret he shall be re- 
 buked in secret," but I have been rebuked in public, and therefore ask a 
 hearing in public. I am moved to make this request, not only because my 
 brethren have, one after another, accused me before cocgregations of 
 Saints, nor because the door of the Temple has been closed in my face, nor 
 because Brother Joseph F. Smith in the last Logan Conference classed me 
 as one of the enemies of the Church and publicly reprimanded my former 
 bishop for mentioning me in his prayers; but also because, in a conversa- 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 29 
 
 tion with President Lorenzo Snow, on the train between Salt Lake and 
 Brigham City last Saturday, November 7th, I was given the impression 
 that I have absolutely nothing to hope for in any other than a public hear- 
 ing such as I now request. I shall not trouble my brethren, therefore, to 
 convene in a special meeting named for Thursday at 2 o'clock p. m. in the 
 Historian's oflBce. 
 
 In conclusion, brethren, I desire to say that nothing could shake my 
 faith in the everlasting Gospel. All the trials and afflictions through which 
 I have passed leave me firm in my belief. I am devoted to my Church, my 
 people and my God. I have willingly made every sacrifice required of me. 
 I have given freely of my time and means to the upbuilding of the King- 
 dom of God. I have never shirked a responsibility placed upon me. If I 
 have done wrong it is because I am mortal, but I bear no consciousness of 
 wrongful intent. If I have not been in harmony with my brethren of the 
 Quorum of the Twelve on religious matters I was not aware of it till their 
 public declarations to that effect. Have not frequent authoritative declar- 
 ations been made in public during the last few years as to the perfect har- 
 mony existing between all the members of the Quorum and the First 
 Presidency ? With those made so often in sacred places you are familiar. 
 It is very hard to understand why, in the face of these, the public should 
 now be informed that we have not been in harmony for years. 
 
 Brethren, this matter may seem trivial to you, for in your hands is 
 placed the judgment, while I stand in the position of a victim. Misappre- 
 hension as to the motives prompting my action during all the years of my 
 oflBcial life may be the result of misinformation ; and prejudice, once 
 aroused, increases, as you know, like an avalanche. If there is aught in 
 word or act of mine since I have been a member of the Church that I 
 would not have published upon the housetops, I do not know it; and yet I 
 am aware that any man is liable to become darkened in his mind, who, 
 nevertheless, may still desire to do right and be just in all things. There- 
 fore, I beseech you, that mercy have its claims, then award to justice, 
 under the laws of God, all its demands ; remembering always that it is a 
 serious matter to judge even in small concerns, but it becomes of great 
 magnitude when involving that which is more precious than life. 
 Your brother and fellow-laborer, 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 SNOW TO THATCHER. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 12, 1896. 
 Elder Moses Thatcher, Logan: 
 
 Dear Brother: — This is to notify you that at a meeting of the Quo- 
 rum of Twelve Apostles held to-day, it was resolved that as you are not in 
 fellowship with the Council, your case will be called up for consideration 
 and action at a meeting to be held for that purpose at 10 a. m. on Thurs- 
 day, the 19th inst., at the Historian's office, this city. 
 With kind regards, your brother, 
 
 Lorenzo Snow. 
 
30 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 THATCHER TO SNOW. 
 
 101 N. West Temple Street, ) 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 17, 1896. ) 
 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: 
 
 Dear Brother:— On the 11th inst. I wrote you a somewhat lengthy 
 letter in which, after reviewing my case, I asked that the same publicity 
 be given my defense as that given to the complaints and accusations made 
 against me. 
 
 My son, George F. Thatcher, delivered to you that communication 
 about 10 o'clock a. m., the following day. At noon on the 13th inst., 
 Brother Isaac Smith of the Cache Stake Presidency handed me a letter 
 from you, of which the following is a copy. (See above, Nov. 12.) 
 
 As no reference is made to my communication of the 11th inst. in 
 yours of the 12th, I am in doubt as to whether the latter was intended to 
 be a reply to the former or not; but as no other word has reached me I 
 suppose I should so regard it, especially in view of the fact that the action 
 of the Apostles respecting my case was evidently taken after the delivery 
 to you of my letter of the 11th inst. 
 
 You say: "Your case will be called up for consideration and action at 
 a meeting to be held for that purpose at 10 a. m., on Thursday, the 19th 
 inst." Am I warranted in concluding that you intended that declaration 
 to be a denial of my request for a public hearing ? And, if so, am I to 
 understand that "consideration" and "action" mean that my trial will com- 
 mence on the date and at the time and place mentioned? If that is the 
 intention, am I, as heretofore directed by you, to defend myself against or 
 plead to the charges as published in the Deseret Evening News of October 
 17th? And, if so, will the charges be presented one at a time, or considered 
 as a whole? In either event, will those making the charges be present to 
 hear my witnesses ? Will I be permitted to bring with me and introduce 
 the testimony of those willing to testify in my behalf? Is the "Manifesto" 
 regarding Church discipline in political affairs and for the failure to sign 
 which, it was understood at the time, I was suspended from exercising the 
 functions of the Apostleship, to be introduced as any part of the charges 
 against me? 
 
 As I will have to call witnesses from various points, I shall greatly 
 appreciate as early a reply as possible. 
 
 Very respectfully your brother in the Gospel, 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 SNOW TO THATCHER. 
 
 November 18, 1896. 
 Elder Moses Thatcher, City: 
 
 Dear Brother: — I am in receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., in 
 which you advise me of the receipt by you of a communication signed by 
 myself in behalf of the Quorum of Twelve, and dated November 12. You 
 ask whether my letter was intended to be a reply to a former communica- 
 tion which you sent to me, in which you had requested a public hearing. 
 You also ask, if this be so, are you to understand that "consideration" and 
 "action" mean that your trial will commence on the day and at the time 
 and place mentioned; and further, if that is the intention, are you to 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 31 
 
 defend yourself or plead to the charges as published in the Deseret Even' 
 ing News of October 17th, and, if so, will the charges be presented one at a 
 time or considered as a whole; also, in either event, will those making the 
 charges be present to hear your witnesses, and will you be permitted to 
 bring with you and introduce the testimonies of those willing to testify in 
 your behalf. You further ask whether the document regarding Church 
 discipline which you failed to sign will be introduced as any part of the 
 charges against you. 
 
 In reply to these queries, I have to say that the Quorum of the 
 Apostles do not consider your request for public hearing a proper one — 
 for this reason: It is not your standing in the Church that is at issue, but 
 your fellowship with the brethren of your own Quorum. This is the busi- 
 ness to be settled between yourself and us, and when this is settled 
 satisfactorily there will be no diflBculty remaining concerning the docu- 
 ment on Church discipline. You have been informed on several occasions 
 that the members of your Quorum could not fellowship your spirit and 
 conduct. Several of them have waited upon you and informed you that 
 the Twelve felt that you should make amends and take proper steps to re- 
 store yourself to their fellowship. This, therefore, is not a matter for the 
 general public, nor for the presence of witnesses. You yourself are the 
 principal party interested, and if you can take the necessary steps — which 
 are altogether within your own power — there need not be the least diffi- 
 culty about you having the fellowship of your fellow Apostles. This has 
 always been the course taken in our Church from the beginning to the 
 present time. If the question of your fellowship with the Church should 
 be brought forward at any time, it will then be for the Church to give you 
 such a hearing as will enable its members to express themselves as to 
 whether they will hold you in fellowship or not. 
 
 With kind regards, your Brother, 
 
 Lorenzo Snow. 
 
 THATCHER TO SNOW. 
 
 No. 101 N. West Temple St., ) 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, November 18, 1896. \ 
 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of Twelve: 
 
 Dear Brother: — Your esteemed favor of even date, replying to my 
 letter of yesterday, was handed me this evening and its contents have been 
 carefully considered. As there is to be no trial of my case, and as I am 
 not requested to be present, I take it to be the purpose, as heretofore 
 notified, that the quorum meet on the morrow for the purpose of consider- 
 ing my case and determining what I must do before I can again enjoy the 
 fellowship of my brethren of the Twelve Apostles. 
 
 Beyond the public action taken at the annual Conference on the 6th 
 of April last, which suspended me within a few hours after my failure to 
 sign the document regarding Church disciplioe on political matters, and 
 your citations to the remarks of the brethren as published in the Deseret 
 News of October 17th about me, I know of nothing upon which to found 
 requirements in my case; and since judgment in those matters has been 
 already passed, the necessity for presenting, through witnesses or other- 
 wise, any defense in my behalf seems obviated. I can, therefore, only wait 
 with great concern and deep anxiety your findings and specifying the con- 
 
32 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 ditione upon which I may regain the fellowship of my brethren and resto- 
 ration to the official position heretofore held in the Church, and the duties 
 and obligations of which I have sought earnestly, honestly and prayerfully 
 to discharge. The thought of the permanent loss of that exalted position 
 and of your fellowship, and of the consequent humiliation and bitterness 
 that may follow, are very dreadful — I shrink from the contemplation. It 
 seems a sad ending — a fruitless reward for thirty years or more of earnest 
 and devoted work in a cause that has inspired and does still inspire the 
 best efforts of a life subject, of course to human weaknesses and human 
 errors, but nevertheless devoted and true. I cannot — brethren I utterly 
 fail to feel that I deserve the fate that now seems hanging over me ! Par- 
 don, I did not intend to plead my cause. Only let me remind you, 
 brethren, of how the Lord has required us to use the priesthood — persua- 
 sion, gentleness, brotherly kindness, patience, love. This in the interest of 
 mercy. Try each of you to place or imagine yourself placed in my posi- 
 tion. Remember if you can, that there is none of you — no, not one, for 
 whose peace and happiness I would not give all I have, and for the preser- 
 vation of whose liberties and rights I would not, if necessary, sacrifice even 
 my life. As proof, if you require proof, I refer you to records of the past. 
 So, as you would be judged, judge me. Then submit that judgment, give 
 me reasonable time to consider it, and if I can harmonize my conscience 
 and convictions respecting justice, truth and honor with your findings and 
 requirements, I shall do so gladly and with a heart full of grateful 
 acknowledgments to Him whose servants we have all been glad to be. 
 
 Praying the Lord to direct your minds in all things and uphold and 
 sustain you now and hereafter, I remain, your fellow laborer in the gospel. 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 In answer to that appeal the following curt notice was sent: 
 SNOW TO THATCHER. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, November 19, 
 Hon. Moses Thatcher, City: 
 
 Dear Brother: — It becomes my painful duty as the President of the 
 Twelve Apostles to inform you that, at a meeting of that body, held to-day, 
 November 19, 1896, at which all the living members of the Council, except- 
 ing yourself, were present, it was decided, after a full consideration and 
 individual expression of every one present, to sever you from the Council 
 of the Twelve Apostles, and deprive you of your Apostleship and other 
 offices in the priesthood. I remain, your brother, 
 
 Lorenzo Snow. 
 
 The following notice appeared in the evening of the same 
 day in the Deseret News : 
 
 To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 
 Saints : 
 
 This is to inform you that at a meeting of the Council of Apostles 
 held this day (Thursday, November 19, 1896), there being present Lorenzo 
 Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young, Francis M. Lyman, John 
 Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, Marriner 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 33 
 
 W. Merrill and Anthon H.Lund, which meeting was called for the purpose 
 of considering and taking action on the case of Elder Moses Thatcher — 
 and of which meeting and its object he had been duly notified — after a full 
 consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and after each Apostle 
 present had expressed himself upon the subject, it was unanimously de- 
 cided that Moses Thatcher be severed from the Council of the Twelve 
 Apostles, and that he be deprived of his Apostleship and other ofiices in 
 the Priesthood. 
 
 Lorenzo Snow, 
 President Council of Twelve Apostles. 
 
 KEMAEKS. 
 
 We see that Mr. Thatcher was denied a public trial, although 
 h© sought diligently to have the charges specifically set out and 
 passed on at a public hearing; and this was clearly his right as 
 an American citizen, and particularly because he had been by a 
 concerted action among certain leaders accused in open Confer- 
 ence. Public sentiment, to which the speakers of the Conference 
 appealed, should unite with the broader sentiment of honest 
 men throughout the world in condemnation of a star chamber 
 procedure that persistently refuses to make a defense as public 
 SL'i the accusations. It shows unmistakable indications of nar- 
 rowness, prejudice and injustice. 
 
 President Snow says in his letter of November 18th, of the 
 offense for which it was sought to try Moses Thatcher, *'it is 
 not a matter for the general public, nor for the presence of 
 witnesses. You yourself are the principal party interested, and 
 if you can take the necessary steps — which are altogether with- 
 in your own power — there need not be the least difficulty about 
 having the fellowship of your fellow Apostles." He says in the 
 same connection, "the members of your quorum could not fel- 
 lowship your spirit and conduct." " It is not your standing in 
 the Church that is at issue, but your fellowship with the breth- 
 ren of your quorum." Hence, there was no offense charged 
 that concerned the public; there was no misdemeanor, no in- 
 fraction of the moral or civil law, no personal wrong against 
 any brother or sister; it was not anything that required wit- 
 nesses to make accusation or vindication. 
 
 What was it then that was required of Moses Thatcher? 
 It was simply submission and self-abnegation, a renunciation of 
 selfhood to the control of his quorum and those in higher au- 
 thority. He had declined to endorse the Manifesto. He had 
 
34 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 formerly endorsed a rule that prohibited the leading officials 
 from participating in political affairs as partisan leaders. He 
 believed that restriction was proper and right under the circum- 
 stances. But when the First Presidency concluded to rescind 
 that rule and "counselled" that some should go out and speak 
 and organize for a certain party while others should, because 
 they favored an opposite party, hold their peace, under these 
 eircumstanees Moses Thatcher refused to be controlled by a 
 "counsel" which he knew to be morally wrong in itself, as also 
 in conflict with pledges which the chief authorities were at that 
 time making to the people of Utah and the United States in order 
 to secure statehood. It was in such matters and under such 
 conditions that Moses Thatcher refused to be made a subservient 
 tool in the hands of certain of his quorum and ecclesiastical 
 superiors to carry out a nefarious policy of religious tyranny 
 and political infamy. 
 
 In all this, according to President Snow, he showed a 
 "rebellious spirit." For such conduct he is called "rebellious 
 and worldly minded." Hence, what he was now required to do 
 was that he should go to his quorum and make a full renuncia- 
 tion of his rights and manhood as an American citizen. He 
 must renounce the inspiration of the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence; he must eschew the freedom and equality that constitute 
 our birthright of civil liberty. And all this he must do, not- 
 withstanding the solemn pledges of the Mormon Church and 
 authorities that no man's civil and political agency should be 
 compromised or infringed by priestly authority. Not only this, 
 he must also fly in the face of the Constitution of the Unit- 
 ed States, and the very expressive clause which he himself 
 caused to be inserted in the Constitution of the State of Utah — 
 a clause pronouncing most emphatically and unambiguously in 
 behalf of a complete separation of church and state, as follows: 
 
 Section 4. The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The 
 State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohib- 
 iting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a 
 qualification for any oflBce of public trust or for any vote at any election; 
 nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of 
 religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of church 
 and state, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its 
 functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or ap- 
 plied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support 
 of any ecclesiastical establishment. No property qualification shall be re- 
 quired of any person to vote, or hold office, except as provided in this Con- 
 stitution. 
 
MOSES THATCHER DEPOSED. 35 
 
 Such personal renunciation and self subjection as was re- 
 quired of Moses Thatcher by the president of his quorum, is 
 nothing new in the history of religious societies. Every Jesuit 
 is under such vows; almost all monastic organizations require 
 such a surrender; but they are all wrong; they are all inimical 
 to liberty, and the genius of American citizenship is utterly 
 hostile to such abnormal religious serfdom. No difference what 
 church ordains suoh ordinances, they are all opposed to the true 
 spirit of progress, and the Mormon Chuch has already solemnly 
 pledged itself against them. 
 
 We see in the procedure in the case of Moses Thatcher 
 the course to be pursued in all similar cases of discipline for 
 infraction of the rule of "counsel" promulgated in the Mani- 
 festo. If an officer in the Mormon Church refuses to "counsel"" 
 in regard to a nomination to a political office, his refusal will be 
 a "breach of fellowship" with his quorum. He will be called 
 upon to "humble himself," to renounce his "ambitions," to ab- 
 dicate his political independence. If he "submits" to a satis- 
 factory degree, that submission restores his fellowship on the 
 basis of an emasculated manhood and civil agency; the offense 
 is now wiped out; he is henceforth redeemed from the infection 
 of Jeffersonian Democracy; he is absorbed into the general 
 control of "counsel" which says to one man "eome," and he 
 Cometh; to another it says "go," and he goeth. 
 
 Note that Moses Thatcher was not to be tried for his 
 refusal to sign the "political document," although, as one 
 Apostle says, **he should have been called to account within 
 three days for that refusal, except for his poor health at the 
 time." No, there would be no public trial for such an offense. 
 The idea is preposterous ! The political sagacity that rules in 
 high councils is not going to give away its cause in that un- 
 sophisticated manner, for it would raise an unsurmountable 
 protest in the minds of the public. 
 
 But while there would be no trial for the specific offense of 
 refusing to sign the "political document," the "submission" 
 that was required would be such that no other refusal would 
 ever occur, for the man's spirit would be subdued and moulded 
 into complete ecclesiastical serfdom. 
 
 But why not have a public trial, if the rule is right in the 
 sight of God and man? Why not that which is spoken in the 
 ear proclaim from the housetops? Alas, the ways of "counsel" 
 are not so! If the rule is maintained and rigidly enforced, so 
 far as the Mormon people are concerned, there is an end of Jef- 
 
36 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 fersonian Democracy in Utali! As well could light subsist with 
 darkness, freedom with bondage, as that "counsel" should 
 dictate the nominations to political and civil offices, and not 
 destroy the independence and individuality that are the life and 
 inspiration of Jeffersonian Democracy and true Republicanism. 
 
 CHA.PTER FOURTH, 
 
 THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 
 
 If Moses Thatcher is right in his dissent, as it is confident- 
 ly believed these pages will demonstrate, the future history of 
 Utah will rank him as one of her greatest benefactors. For, if he 
 is right, his truth will prevail over error in the minds of the 
 people and be the means of escape from untold tribulations. 
 Throughout nearly half a century Utah has been a storm center 
 within the American Republic. Beneath all the ostensible 
 causes of disturbance, such as polygamy was made to be in the 
 estimation of the masses, in the minds of the real statesmen of 
 the country, those who have always shaped its policy, there was 
 one menace — and only one in fact — the tendency of some of the 
 Mormon leaders to lay hands on the functions of the govern- 
 ment and subvert the state by a theocratic regime that strikes 
 at the very life of our free institutions. 
 
 If such fears are confirmed in the development of Utah 
 politics — if the offices of the State shall become subordinated to 
 the dictation of the Church — if the will of the people and the 
 government of the people shall become tributary to the will and 
 the counsels of a priestly junta — if the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence shall be made null and void by a religious priesthood, slowly 
 but surely a cloud will gather in the sky of American patriot- 
 ism, Utah's representatives in Congress will be discredited, her 
 population will be divided into hostile bands, the power of a 
 hundred millions of people will frown in defiance of an attempt 
 to subvert the Republic, and in the end there will be violence 
 and loss of life; the whole State will be storm swept; every 
 vestige of offense will be swept away. 
 
 It will be shown in this discussion that the rule of disci- 
 pline in question is in substantial conflict with pledges and 
 
THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 37 
 
 guarantees made by the Mormon Church and the leading 
 officials thereof to the people of the United States — pledges 
 made in behalf of full and complete civil liberty, individual 
 freedom and the entire separation of Church and State. Indeed, 
 the following pages will render it difficult to apprehend how 
 any faithful adherent to the rule can at once with a clear con- 
 science and ordinary intelligence, claim, in either letter or spirit, 
 to fulfill the pledges thus made. 
 
 The gist of the rule sought to be enforced is that every 
 member of the Church, and particularly every "leading official," 
 shall first take "counsel" and be authorized by the "proper author- 
 ities" in the Church in order to render service in the State. No 
 officer or member can even "accept a nomination" to office in the 
 State without first seeking "counsel" in the way of authoriza- 
 tion. In short, the rule means, in effect, that the State shall 
 subsist in and through the "counsel" of the Church. 
 
 It is not unreasonable for the people to demand of Moses 
 Thatcher that he show good and sufficient reasons for noncon- 
 formity to the regulations of his Church; for a church has a 
 recognized right to prescribe a system of rules and regulations 
 for the guidance of its members, and no communicant has it 
 within his own discretion to dissent from such rules, unless he 
 can show ample grounds for non-compliance. In response to 
 this demand Moses Thatcher is presented in the following pages 
 as resting upon the most important and substantial reasons for 
 his conduct as indicated in the following propositions: 
 
 1. The rule in both letter and spirit conflicts with the po- 
 litical faith of Moses Thatcher, as shown from his conduct, 
 sermons, speeches and writings during previous years. Extracts 
 will be presented sufficient to show that he could not, without 
 self-stultification, endorse a rule whose meaning and effect he 
 would, from his long experience in the Church, know to be 
 inimical to liberty and destructive of the State, 
 
 2. The rule will be shown to be in conflict with the sacred 
 pledges of the Church assembled in general Conference, and of 
 high Church officials, these pledges having been made in order 
 to encourage a proposed division on national party lines and to 
 promote statehood for Utah. Some of these pledges will be pre- 
 sented in these pages to show that the Church and leading 
 authorities entered into solemn covenant with the people of 
 Utah and of the United States. And inasmuch as the people 
 of the whole country accepted such pledges and ratified them 
 in good faith, it is implied that the covenants thus made are 
 
38 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 expressed in terms conveying the common and accepted mean- 
 ing that the people naturally and necessarily attach to words 
 thus used to beget confidence and co-operation. There can be 
 no toleration of a double sense of language, no allowance shown 
 to mental reservation. All must be clean and open in the full 
 sense of frankness and manly integrity. 
 
 3. It will be shown that the rule is in conflict with the 
 independence and freedom of the State, and that it tends to 
 absorb the State into the Church and make it the mere function 
 and agent of a priestly junta. The rule is in conflict with the 
 Constitution of Utah, the Declaration of Independence and the 
 genius and spirit of American institutions. 
 
 4. The questions herein discussed are eminently adapted 
 to awaken and educate the minds of the people in the principles 
 of liberty and the spirit of American institutions. These are 
 problems of sovereignty and statehood. They could not arise 
 among other than a people seeking to be free and self-govern- 
 ing, and we venture to say thaij this discussion will deepen and 
 quicken our sense of their sacredness and significance. 
 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 MOSES THATCHER ON CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 In discussing the political pledges made by the Mormon 
 Church and authorities, it is important to begin with Moses 
 Thatcher; for during many years past his convictions in rela- 
 tion to church and state have been :n accord with those of the 
 most democratic of American statesmen. Throughout active 
 manhood he has understood and cherished the inspirations of 
 lil erty and equality out of which originate government by and 
 for the people. 
 
 A further reason for giving prominence to his opinions on 
 church and state is that at the beginning of the "division move- 
 ment" his attitude was a subject of discussion, and his unam- 
 biguous utterances in behalf of American principles had a ten- 
 dency to quiet and reassure those who had fears as to the wis- 
 dom of promoting statehood for Utah. It was not known until 
 long afterwards that Moses Thatcher was by some of his breth- 
 ren considered too direct in his utterances. It now appears 
 that he was severely reprimanded for the democracy of his poli- 
 tics; and at the Logan high council meeting he was the subject 
 of bitter censure by Joseph F. Smith for his Ogden Opera House 
 speech, delivered May 14, 1892. Joseph F. Smith and John 
 Henry Smith made a caustic reply soon afterwards but it 
 seems that Joseph F. Smith was not satisfied; he desired to re- 
 inforce his arguments with ecclesiastical torture; and it is due 
 to Mr. Thatcher to say that the unrelenting vindictiveness with 
 which he has been pursued is due to the ire of certain priestly 
 leaders who feel chagrinned because of his refusal to be a party 
 with them in carrying out political machinations that betray 
 and violate the plighted faith of the Mormon Church and 
 authorities. 
 
 And Mr. Joseph F. Smith must remember that the utter- 
 ances of Moses Thatcher which he now condemns were at the 
 time greatly instrumental in procuring statehood and in build- 
 ing up the party of Jefferson in Utah. Had it been known at 
 the time that Moses Thatcher was an offending member of the 
 
40 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Mormon Church, and that he was imperiling his official stand- 
 ing for his outspoken Americanism, there would have been no 
 statehood for Utah so long as it was manifest that in the hearts 
 of certain Mormon leaders there existed such rancorous hostili- 
 ty to the principles of civil liberty. But as Mr. Thatcher's 
 opinions were scattered broadcast among the people, inducing 
 many to favor statehood who would not otherwise have done so; 
 and as his utterances were not repudiated by any public action 
 of the chief Church authorities, but left rather to contribute to 
 the formation of statehood sentiment, under such a state of facts 
 we are compelled to classify his declarations among those that 
 bind the Mormon Church to a complete separation of Church 
 and State. 
 
 A very telling little address was delivered by Moses Thatch- 
 er at the Salt Lake Theatre, July 30, 1891, and was briefly 
 reported by the Herald as follows: 
 
 The Democrats held a rousing meeting at the Salt Lake Theatre last 
 evening. 
 
 Hon. Moses Thatcher was there as a listener. While the meeting 
 was being adjourned the vast audience demanded that he speak. 
 
 Mr. Dyer stepped forward to say that the meeting was at an pnd, but 
 cries for Moses Thatcher resounded from all parts of the house, and 
 Mr. Thatcher finally stepped to the front and said: "For reasons which 
 I think BuflBcient I have taken no active part in this campaign — not 
 because I was not in sympathy with the grand old Democratic party, 
 but because there are many people in Utah throughout the length and 
 breadth of the land, who believe the Church dominates the state in Utah. 
 Because of the ecclesiastical position which I occupy I desire to say no 
 word in this campaign, but look to these gentlemen for the educating of 
 the people. A great hero of many battles who had shot and shell tear up 
 the ground at his feet, and who had seen the blood of those who wore the 
 blue and the gray flow in streams, said to Lee when the latter sur- 
 rendered and handed him his sword, 'No, general, not a horse or a mule. 
 You will need them all for your spring plowing.' It is a glorious thing to 
 be magnanimous. You may look on that picture and then turn and look 
 on this. The Mormon people are sincere. (Tremendous applause.) 
 
 "We trust the Gentile Democrats and Mormon Democrats alike, be- 
 cause they cannot go back on their promises without stultification. Stul- 
 tification is dishonor, and to us dishonor is worse than death. (Prolonged 
 applause.) I am opposed to a union of church and state and always have 
 been. (Applause.) It cannot exist under the American system of govern- 
 ment. (Applause.) We have never been understood, but thank God we 
 will be." 
 
 This speech means that as General Grant was magnanimous 
 in that he was generous, having all power in his hands, so also 
 the Mormon people are greatly in the majority, but they also 
 are magnanimous, for they do not desire to rely upon numbers, 
 
MOSES THATCHER ON CHURCH AND STATE. 41 
 
 but upon principles. They do not believe in the union of church 
 and state, and the people can confide in their faithfulness to the 
 American system of government. 
 
 In a sermon preached at Logan in April, 1892, on the 
 " Evils Eesulting from the Union of Church and State," Mr. 
 Thatcher gave an exhaustive review of the whole subject as 
 shown up in sacred and secular history. He traced the sacred 
 records down to the time of Christ, when he commanded that 
 the people "render unto Caesar the things that are Csesar's and 
 unto God the things that are God's." He took up the union of 
 church and state effected in European countries and the action 
 of the people who fled to America for freedom. 
 
 "Then came the struggle for nationality," he continued,, 
 "that finally found voice in the Declaration of Independence de- 
 manding advanced human rights as outlined in the Constitution,^ 
 an instrument inspired of God. Its writers, profiting by the ex- 
 perience of the past, made religious liberty its chief corner- 
 stone, but avoided a union of church and state. TVithout viola- 
 tion of that sacred charter of human rights Congress can pass no 
 law respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the 
 free exercise thereof. To that guarantee ofthe Constitution we 
 owe our existence as a church." 
 
 Probably as clear and concise a statement as will be found 
 of Mr. Thatcher's position is given in his letter to the Recon- 
 vened Convention, which met at Salt Lake, October 22, 1895,. 
 the following report being from the Salt Lake Herald: 
 
 Logan, Utah, October 21, 1895. 
 
 Hon. O. W. Powers, Chairman Democratic Territorial Committee, and 
 Members of the Re-Convened Convention : 
 
 Gentlemen— Owing to the unsatisfactory condition of my health, 
 which renders it impossible for me to be with you, I adopt this means of 
 conveying to your honorable body a statement of my position on questions 
 arising from the very serious crisis which, without volition of the Demo- 
 cratic party, now confronts us; and in the proper and permanent solution 
 of which, as I view it, is involved the honor, peace, prosperity and liberty 
 of Utah's inhabitants. (Applause.) 
 
 As heretofore, when treating on political issues, I have sought to be 
 candid and straightforward in word and act, and the conditions now con- 
 fronting us, as well as my honor and that of the party of which I am a 
 member, demand that I should continue along those lines, leaving nothing 
 of a doubtful nature, upon which to found an argument as to my position* 
 either by friends or by political opponents. (Hearty applause.) 
 
 My connection with the matters relating to the present grave crisis 
 would appear to warrant a brief statement of my political acts since the 
 division of the citizens of Utah on national and local political questions. 
 
42 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 At the outset, I was strongly impressed with the idea that it would be 
 better for the ecclesiastical oflScers of the dominant religious society in 
 Utah, as well as in the interest and welfare of the people, for prominent 
 Church officials, including the members of the First Presidency, the Twelve 
 Apostles and the presidents of the Quorum of Seventies, not to involve 
 themselves in active partisan politics, believing that their influence should 
 be brought to bear against the acrimonious jealousies likely to arise in a 
 contest over questions in which the masses of the people were not then 
 well informed. In other words, that these high ecclesiastical authorities 
 might be called upon to pour oil on the politically disturbed waters of our 
 fair Territory, a task which I then and now believe can be successfully per- 
 formed by those only who had not become partisan in their political pre- 
 ferences, and I believe that action in harmony with those ideas was, about 
 that time, taken, but was shortly thereafter, as I remember, ignored, and 
 that, as the record, I think, will show, not by members of the Democratic 
 party, but by their Republican political opponents. 
 
 * * * * I need waste none of the time of this reconvened con- 
 vention, in an argument respecting the political struggles in this Territory 
 during the past three years ; nor need I add anything on the question of 
 Church influence being directly or indirectly to the injury of one party and 
 correspondingly to the benefit of another, because that question has been 
 fully discussed during the period to which I allude. 
 
 From the beginning, in nearly all, if not all, of my political addresses 
 and private conversations I have uniformly sought to impress upon the 
 minds of the people the absolute separation of church and state; holding 
 that the civil obligations of the citizen should in no degree trammel the 
 exercise of a man's religious obligations, nor, on the other hand, should 
 the exercise of his religious duties interfere with his obligations to the 
 state and nation whose citizen he was; maintaining always that there 
 were no presidents, apostles nor other church officials, as such, in politics, 
 and that the freedom of the citizen in these matters was not the gift of 
 any man or combinations of men, but a bequest from the fathers who, for 
 the benefit of themselves, their posterity and future generations, placed 
 their honor, their fortunes and their lives upon the altar of human liberty. 
 
 Many Democrats, if not the majority in Utah, have been made to feel 
 that they were, more or less, under a religious ban, and have had to endure 
 the slurs, if not the direct insults tauntingly and sneeringly put upon 
 them by men who had espoused other political doctrines, and many have 
 endured insinuations as to their religious integrity, and that which re- 
 cently occured in the priesthood meeting was a natural sequence of causes 
 leading up to that culmination. 
 
 Personally, J have no complaint to make because of what then and 
 there happened, in the allusions made to myself, because, as I view it, the 
 individual peace, happiness, integrity and reputation of one man, or a score 
 of men, cuts but little figure in matters of great consequence to the peo- 
 ple of Utah, like that which now confronts us, but I may be permitted to 
 say in passing that nothing in the acts or words of myself would warrant 
 any person in the church in the belief that I would not, upon proper oc- 
 casion, show, as I have always done, the respect due my ecclesiastical 
 superiors, and that without in the least degree doing a wrong or in any 
 way affecting the honor of the political party to which I belong. 
 
MOSES THATCHER ON CHURCH AND STATE. 43 
 
 I have always believed, and now believe, that there is abundance of 
 room in Utah as elsewhere for a citizen to do his whole duty to the state 
 without in the least degree interfering with his obligations to the church 
 of which he may be a member. The thought had never occurred to me 
 that I had, at any time, been a priestly hireling. Upon the least intima- 
 tion from those who furnish means from which myself and others have 
 received compensation that such is their view of the matter, I would there- 
 after neither take nor expect compensation for ecclesiastical work, but 
 would gladly do all in my power, trusting the future for the rewards to 
 which I would be entitled. 
 
 Recent occurrences intensify the demand, as expressed in our State 
 Constitution, that state and religious matters must not be united, and 
 that, while it is the duty of the state to protect the church in the enjoy- 
 ment of the fullest religious freedom, the church must not attempt to 
 dominate in civil affairs, and on this point I am with my party and do not 
 hesitate to believe that our citizens when given the opportunity, will vin- 
 dicate and maintain their political honor. 
 
 Believing as I do, that the citizens of Utah will once more at the 
 polls in November vindicate their integrity and preserve their honor, as I 
 expect to do, I shall vote for the Constitution, ready and willing, in and 
 out of season, to do my part in maintaining the political rights, privileges 
 and blessings of free institutions. 
 
 And now, in conclusion, in view of what has recently occurred, should 
 the members of the convention feel that it would be in the interest of the 
 Democratic party in Utah to have my name withdrawn as a possible can- 
 didate for the United State's Senatorship, you may regard my resignation 
 as herein tendered, but should you still think that I should remain where 
 your action at Ogden placed me, I shall be with you, head, heart and hand, 
 to the end. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 The foregoing distinctions and declarations concerning the 
 sphere and functions of church and state as being separate and 
 independent are clear-cut and thoroughgoing. Moreover, he made 
 these declarations at a time of intense interest and agitation of 
 the questions discussed. At any other time his words would 
 have had far less significance. At this particular time a great 
 many members of the Mormon Church were assembled in con- 
 vention, and the policy and procedure of their own church was 
 the topic under consideration. 
 
 On May 25, 1892, Moses Thatcher published in the Salt 
 Lake Herald a letter containing fundamental and discriminating 
 thoughts on the question of church and state. The article was 
 called out as a reply to a letter published in the Ogden Stand- 
 ard by Joseph F. Smith and John Henry Smith, who signed 
 their names as " Republicans and descendents of Whigs." Their 
 publshed letter was a quiver full of arrows, each one pointed 
 and sharpened to make the keenest rejoinder possible to allega- 
 tions made by Mr. Thatcher in a political speech at a Demo- 
 
44 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 cratic convention held at Ogden a short time previous. The 
 personalties of the two letters are not of importance in this con- 
 nection; and we present those features of Mr. Thatcher's letter 
 that develop the respective spheres and functions of church 
 and state: 
 
 I simply maintained that Jesus contended for the exercise of man's 
 individuality and free agency; while his imperious brother, Lucifer, sought 
 by a plan of force exactly the opposite. * h; * j recognize wisdom in 
 the idea that "political addresses ought to deal in political matters solely 
 and ought to leave theological matters alone," even though the letter itself 
 appears in plain contradiction of that suggestion. In parity the rule can, I 
 think, be reversed with profit to many: i. e. "That theological discourses 
 ought to deal in theological matters solely and ought to leave political 
 matters alone." Thus, with double purpose would be accomplished that 
 which should be the great design of all religious and political parties, 
 namely, the erection of an impassable barrier over which state influence, 
 harmful to the constitutional guarantees of the church, could not pass^ 
 and over which church influence hurtful to the state could never go. And 
 this, it seems to me, if not the greatest question involved in Utah today, is 
 at least one of vast proportions, and one that none of us can afford to 
 tamper with. 
 
 The conditions as now developed would seem to indicate the present 
 as a suitable time in which to publicly define my position upon this most 
 grave subject. To my mind it is a subject of vast moment to the people 
 of Utah, and one fraught with the peace, prosperity, progress and happi- 
 ness of ourselves and our children on the one hand, or of degradation, 
 misery and bondage to us and \o them, on the other. I am, therefore, con- 
 strained to approach it with a sense of its profound gravity and far-reach- 
 ing consequence, rather than with feelings of personal resentment, which^ 
 if gratified, could only be so gratified in the interest of personal pride. 
 
 In the conditions surrounding us there are political issues arising 
 that demand solution; and as they cannot be put aside, it would seem to 
 be the part of wisdom to meet them manfully and courageously, affording 
 such solution as the public weal, and not personal animosities should inspire, 
 for after all, personality in questions of this nature, should find rest in the 
 sea of public good as drops of rain find repose on the bosom of the ocean. 
 For the wealth of empires I would not intentionally become a stumbling 
 block or rock of offense to my friends, and if I have offended, it certainly 
 was not premeditated. If errors by me have been committed they were of 
 the head; the heart has certainly not held any malice aforethought. 
 
 As to the necessity of an absolute separation of church and state in 
 this country, my position has long since been clearly defined, for I have 
 urged earnestly and persistently, in public and private, that they should 
 be entirely separate until He comes whose rig-ht it is to unite and rule over 
 the one as king of kings and govern the other as lord of lords. These 
 views are the outgrowth of years of thought, and, I may be excused if I say, 
 of most earnest prayer over a subject fraught with matters of deepest 
 import to the majority of the people of this vast intermountain region.* 
 * * * * As fellow citizens, we meet upon a common jjolitical level each be- 
 ing the peer of the other, while every other citizen, irrespective of class 
 
MOSES THATCHER ON CHURCH AND STATE. 45 
 
 color or previous coDdition of servitude, whether poor or rich, famous or 
 obscure, is the peer of either of us. 
 
 Resting upon this broad, humane and just platform, all the people in 
 whom we have confided, for whom we have fraternal affection and upon 
 whom we have builded high hopes of liberty and love, will come to know 
 as many now know, how to distinguish between the words and works of a 
 citizen and those of the church official, though the citizen and church 
 official may be but one personality. 
 
 During the transition, a few individuals may drink often from the cup 
 of sorrow down to the bitter dregs, being lashed by the whipcords of party 
 prejudice until the fruits of honest toil and the flowers of honest repute 
 may fade away like snow before the July sun; but the boon once gained 
 and discriminative judgment once founded on the rock of political and 
 divine truth, the Church will surely be safe and may demand without fear 
 that toleration and protection from the government which is guaranteed 
 by the Constitution of our country. Such a consummation gained in be- 
 half of a persecuted and oppressed, but honest, upright people would be 
 cause worthy of any sacrafice. 
 
 To my mind it affords a theme worthy the best thought and effort of 
 statesman, poet and prophet. As religionists, let us still hold fast to the 
 supreme declaration, "that Congress shall enact no law respecting the es- 
 tablishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As 
 citizens let us see to it that no word nor act of ours shall even by implica- 
 tion, taint the Church with the unjust and dangerous charge of its 
 interference in the affairs of civil government. 
 
 As to myself the constant recognition of the civil rights of others, 
 irrespective of party, seems important. And I desire in the discussion of 
 political matters, and in every other way, to keep in mind the great demo- 
 cratic fact that whatever distinctions, birth, ancestry, posterity, name, 
 wealth or education may have wrought in other directions, yet in political 
 affairs and in the exercise of the sacred rights of franchise my poorest and 
 most humble brother having the rights of citizenship is not only my equal, 
 but under present conditions many of them are my superiors. I shall 
 never ask to become more than their equal. * * * * If I believed politically 
 and felt politically as do my Republican friends, Joseph F. and John 
 Henry, I should no doubt write as they have written; but as I do not po- 
 litically so believe and feel I refrain from imitating their style. I fully 
 recognize, however, their right to criticise anything that I may politically 
 say or do; but I do not accord them a higher right in that respect than 
 that accorded to the humblest Republican in the rank and file of the party. 
 * * * * Religiously, I have a yearning, earnest, prayerful desire to be one 
 with my brethren and in an humble way, always asking God for help, I shall 
 try to do my part. But when it comes to matters political, especially in 
 reference to the fundamental principles dividing Democracy and Republi- 
 canism, I must still remain on the side that trusts the people, opposes 
 protection, bounty legislation, and force bills, so long as I believe them 
 oppressive and harmful to the masses. But I am willing that others should 
 entertain and maintain opposite views. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 LiOGAN, May 25, 1892. Moses Thatcher. 
 
CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 PLEDGES OF THE MOEMON CHUKCH. 
 
 One of the strongest and most notable features of Moses 
 Thatcher's position is that he holds the very ground concerning 
 church and state that has already been covered by repeated 
 pledges of the First Presidency, the leading officials and the 
 whole body of the Mormon Church. In order to clear the way 
 for statehood, they pledged honor and manhood to the people 
 of Utah and the United States that church and state should be 
 kept separate; and that by no exercise of priestly authority 
 should the sphere of the civil government be infringed upon. 
 
 Hence Moses Thatcher's position is confessedly impregnable, 
 and the authors of the Manifesto are put upon their defense to 
 show that their rules and regulations do not violate the pledges 
 heretofore given. As the terms in which such pledges were made 
 are of great importance in this connection, we present several of 
 them, beginning with the memorable interview of Presidents 
 Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon, published in the 
 Salt Lake Times, June 23, 1891, which is as follows, in part: 
 
 TIMES INTERVIEW. 
 
 " It is asserted that the Peoples Party was dissolved by direction of 
 the Church. Is there any foundation for that charge?" 
 
 "The People's Party was dissolved, as we understand, by the action 
 of its leading members. They have stated to us their convictions that the 
 time had come for a division on national party lines. There has been a 
 growing feeling in this direction for a long time, and the dissolution of the 
 People's Party is the result of that sentiment, and not the fiat or instruc- 
 tion of the Church. The first intimation that we had of dividing on party 
 lines came to us from Ogden. There is, therefore, no foundation for the 
 charge that the Church brought about the dissolution of the People's 
 Party. The Church does not claim any such right." 
 
 "The Times has held that the appearance of Church management 
 of the People's Party during recent times resulted purely from the fact 
 that the party was composed almost entirely of members of the Church, 
 with prominent churchmen taking part in the affairs, and that there has 
 not been church rule as charged. Is this view correct?'' 
 
 " The Times has correctly stated the facts connected with the appear- 
 ance of Church management of the People's Party. That party having 
 been composed principally of members of the Church, and self-defense 
 
PLEDGES OF THE MORMON CHURCH. 47 
 
 haviDg compelled them to consult together and to decide concerning the 
 best Bteps to be taken to preserve their rights, some color has been given 
 to the charge that it was a Church party. But this has not been done in 
 a Church capacity. Men have had influence in that party and been lis- 
 tened to according to their experience, and not because of their ofl&cial 
 position in the Church." 
 
 "That being true, are we to understand that the Church will not as- 
 sert any right to control the political action of its members in the future?" 
 " This is what we wish to convey and have you understand. As offi- 
 cers of the Church we disclaim the right to control the political action of 
 the members of our body." 
 
 '• Will there be any reason why members of the Church should come 
 together and vote solidly, if political conditions here are similar to those 
 which prevail elsewhere?" 
 
 " We cannot perceive any reason why they should do this in the fu- 
 ture, if, as you say, political conditions should exist here as they prevail 
 elsewhere." 
 
 " Do you understand that it is the wish of the Mormon Church to 
 maintain a separation of church and state with respect to all political 
 questions?" 
 
 " However much appearances may have indicated that we have favored 
 the union of church and state, and notwithstanding the many assertions 
 which have been made of this nature, there is no real disposition among 
 the people of our Church to unite church and state; in fact, we believe 
 there should be a separation between the two. But in past times the situ- 
 ation in this Territory was such that officers of the Church were frequent- 
 ly elected to civil office. If the people availed themselves of the best 
 talent of the community, they were under the necessity very frequently of 
 selecting officers of the Church to fill these positions. You must under- 
 stand that nearly every reputable male member of the Mormon Church 
 holds office in the Church. Of course, where the people, as was the case 
 in many localities, were all Mormons, if they elected any of their own 
 members they had to choose men who held positions in the Church. Men 
 were selected for bishops because of their superior ability to care for and 
 manage the affairs of their wards. They were the practical and experi- 
 enced men of the several communities, and in the estimation of the people 
 were suitable for legislators, etc. Their election to civil office led to the 
 idea that there was a union of church and state." 
 
 "Do you believe that it is the wish of the Mormon people to unite 
 with the great national parties and to conduct politics in this Territory as 
 they are conducted in all other states?" 
 
 "That is the impression we have received from conversation with the 
 men among us who take the greatest interest in political matters." 
 
 "Is there any reason why the members of the Church should not act 
 freely with the national parties at all times?" 
 
 "We know of no reason why they should not." 
 
 "Is there anything to be gained for the Church by securing political 
 control in Utah with or without statehood?" 
 
 "We see nothing to be gained for the Church in this way." 
 "Is it not true that the members and leaders of the Church desire to 
 place it in a position in the community like that occupied by other church 
 societies?" 
 
48 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 "The only protection the Church desires is that which it should ob- 
 tain under general laws which secure the rights of all denominations. It 
 would be most unwise for the Mormon people to endeavor to secure any 
 advantage not shared in by all other religious people. All that we ask is 
 to have equal rights before the law." 
 
 "Is it your understanding that the Mormon people differ as to the 
 Republican and Democratic parties, and that they will act in accordance 
 with their convictions in uniting with those parties?" 
 
 "That is our understanding." 
 
 "Is it your wish that the Republican and Democratic parties should 
 organize and present their principles to the Mormon people, and that they 
 should unite with them according to their honest convictions?" 
 
 "Personally we have felt that the time would come when the two great 
 parties would be organized in this Territory, and we have felt that if an 
 attempt of this kind should be made, each should have the fullest oppor- 
 tunity to lay its principles before the people so that they might have a 
 clear understanding of the issues and be able to decide in the light of facts 
 presented to them, to which of the parties they would belong." 
 
 "That being true, could anything be gained by bad faith, even if it 
 should be contemplated by any of the former members of the People's 
 Party?" 
 
 "Certainly not." 
 
 "The opponents of party division on national lines declare that they 
 want evidence of the sincerity of the Mormon people. The Times would 
 ask you to state whether the declarations of sincerity on the part of those 
 leaders who have been before the public reflect your views and meet with 
 your approval?" 
 
 "Those declarations express our views and have our entire approval. 
 What greater evidences can be asked than those which have already been 
 furnished? The statement has been repeatedly made that the great objec- 
 tion to us was our belief in and practice of patriarchal marriage. In entire 
 good faith the manifesto was written, siorned by the leading men, and 
 adopted by one of the largest Conferences of the Church ever held — a Con- 
 ference composed of about 15,000 people. It has been asserted in addition, 
 that the people were governed by the Priesthood in political matters. This 
 is now disproved by the dissolution of the People's Party and the union of 
 its members with the two national parties. What could possibly be gained 
 by the action of the people if they were not sincere? If the elements of 
 sincerity are wanting, such a movement would result in entire demoral- 
 ization." 
 
 EEMAKKS ON FOEEGOING INTEKVIEW. 
 
 In this interview it is seen that the chief authorities dis- 
 claim all right to "dictate" to members concerning their politi- 
 cal faith and action. They declare in behalf of an entire 
 " separation of Church and State;" and many other expressions 
 are used with reference to popular and current opinions on the 
 subject; and by a great variety of language the First Presidency 
 endeavor to show that their views and purposes are in harmony 
 with the wishes and demands of the world at large. 
 
PLEDGES OF THE MORMON CHURCH. 49 
 
 The third question is of special significance: "Are we to 
 understand that the Church will not assert any right to control 
 the political action of its member in the future?" 
 
 The answer is: " This is what we wish to convey and have 
 you understand. As officers of the Church we disclaim the 
 right to control the political action of the members of our body." 
 Surely if the single pledge herein set out were kept in good 
 faith and in the full meaning of words there would be no cause 
 of complaint. 
 
 These pledges were made at the time of the division on 
 party lines and in order to promote that movement. The thing 
 of most importance to say about them is that they must be 
 made to the people in the current sense and meaning of the 
 words. There must be no double sense, or "mental reserva- 
 tion." The so-called "Gardo House meeting," as reported in 
 the papers in connection with the proceedings of the Logan 
 high council, was held about the time of the interview, probably 
 later, we have not inquired into the matter of date as yet; but 
 whenever held, its purpose and effect were in direct violation, not 
 only of the pledges above given, but of all the others that were 
 at various times and in divers forms promulgated. The matter 
 will be presented elsewhere in these pages; but here it is neces- 
 sary to make the point that all such political schemes are 
 instances of bad faith in keeping pledges that were solemnly 
 received and ratified by the people. 
 
 In the interview above given the Mormon Church speaks 
 in its highest official capacity. They say in effect that they will 
 not determine by counsel or any other priestly influence the 
 status or policy of parties. They must not, in any ecclesiastical 
 capacity, entertain and promote any policy or project of a polit- 
 ical character. They disclaim all right to exercise political in- 
 fluence by means of ecclesiastical authority or inducement. The 
 separation of church and state must be in the American sense. 
 They must be really independent of each other. One must not 
 live as a parasite upon the other; each has its own origin and 
 sphere, each has its work to do, its cause for existence, and its 
 end to achieve. 
 
 The Deseret News, June 24, 1891, in commenting on the 
 *^ Times Interview" given above says: 
 
 We believe their unreserved and straigHtforward statements will 
 have the effect of satisfying persons who are undecided as to the political 
 attitude of the leaders of the Mormon Church. Although there has not 
 been the slightest evidence that they either controlled or claimed the right 
 
50 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 to control the people of Utah in the exercise of the voting power, yet the 
 charge that they did so has been reiterated so much that it has been 
 taken by many as an undisputed fact. 
 
 At all events, whether the people had been subject to 
 priestly ''counsel" in political matters, or whether they had not, 
 the ^' Times interview" shows that the First Presidency intended 
 to convey to the people the impression that they should be 
 politically free; and the Deseret News endeavors to fortify that 
 impression and to substantiate the validity of the promises and 
 pledges thus made. 
 
 THE HOME KULE MEMOKIAL. 
 
 In January, 1892, the legislative Assembly of the Territory 
 of Utah, composed of Mormons and Gentiles, addressed a 
 memorial to the Congress of the United States, containing these 
 words : 
 
 In the midst of wonderful material progress her (Utah's) people have 
 recently turned their attention to the study of the questions of government 
 and legitimate politics, and are espousing the cause of one or the other of 
 the national parties. 
 
 These new conditions have come naturally, honestly, and for the 
 future are absolutely secure. A patriotic people are pledged to their pres- 
 ervation. Retrogression, involving as it would dishonor and dire misfor- 
 tune, is impossible. 
 
 Utah, in the feelings of her people, has been lifted from her humilia- 
 tion and disgrace . Today she is imbued with the hope and determination to 
 be free — free in the full sense of American constitutional freedom; which 
 means something more than liberty permitted; which consists in civil and 
 political rights absolutely guaranteed, assured and guarded in one's liber- 
 ties as a man and a citizen — his right to vote, his right to hold oflBce, his 
 equality with all others who are his fellow citizens, all these guarded and 
 protected, and not held at the mercy and discretion of one man, or popular 
 majority, or distant body unadvised as to local needs or interests. 
 
 DEMOCEATIC MEMOEIAL. 
 
 At the national convention of the Democratic party, held 
 at Chicago in 1892, a memorial was presented by the Democrats 
 of Utah, signed by Hon. C. C. Eichards, chairman of the Demo- 
 cratic Territorial Committee, and Elias Smith, secretary, in 
 which, among other things, it was stated: 
 
 " That the sole objections, to-wit: polygamy and Church dictation in 
 politics, against the Mormon people on political grounds, have been entirely 
 removed, and it is most unwise and impolitic to deny them the common 
 rights and privileges of citizenship, or to place a barrier in their way when 
 they are evidently determined to turn their backs on the past and for the 
 
PLEDGES OF THE MORMON CHURCH. 51 
 
 future labor in harmoDy with the Nation for the general welfare, in strict 
 submiFsion to the laws, acd each taking an independent course in refer- 
 ence to party." 
 
 THE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION. • 
 
 At the general Conference of the Mormon Church, held at 
 Salt Lake City in October, 1891, the following resolution was 
 adopted after extended diseussion of the questions involved: 
 
 " Whereas, The Utah Commission, with one exception, in their report 
 to the Secretary of the Interior for 1891, have made many untruthful 
 statements concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
 and the attitude of its members in relation to political affairs; and, 
 
 "Whereas, Said report is an official document and is likely to pre- 
 judice the people of the Nation against our Church and its members, and 
 it is therefore unwise to allow its erroneous statements to pass unnoticed. 
 Now, therefore, be it 
 
 '^Resolved, By the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 
 general Conference assembled, that we deny most emphatically the asser- 
 tion of the Commission that the Church dominates its members in politi- 
 cal matters, and that the Church and State are united. Whatever appear 
 ance there may have been in times past of a union of Church and State, 
 because men holding ecclesiastical authority were elected to civil office by 
 popular vote, there is now no foundation or excuse for the statement that 
 Church and State are united in political matters; that no cbercion or in- 
 fluence whatever of an ecclesiastical nature has been exercised over us by 
 our Church leaders in reference to which political party we shall join, and 
 that we have been and are perfectly free to unite with any or no political 
 party, as we may individually elect; that the People's Party has been 
 entirely dissolved and that our fealty henceforth will be to such political 
 party as seems best suited to the purposes of republican government." 
 
 WHO IS IN THE WRONG? 
 
 The foregoing exhibits are public pledges made by the 
 Church as a whole and the chief authorities as representatives 
 of the Church. If the several specifications and distinctions 
 are carefully weighed they will be found to cover all the points 
 that are necessary to be emphasized in a discussion of the 
 spheres of Church and State. These pledges of the Church 
 put it on the same ground as that occupied by Moses Thatcher 
 in his declarations concerning Church and State. Are the 
 Church authorities true to their covenants? If they are, why 
 is Moses Thatcher ostracized? If their pledges affirm the recti- 
 tude of the position held by him, why is he now standing in the 
 attitude of an offender? 
 
 What makes him an offender? It is his refusal to conform 
 to the rule of the Manifesto. Surely then the Manifesto must 
 
-52 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 conflict with Moses Thatcher's declarations as to Church and 
 State ! If it does, it must also contradict the pledges made by 
 the Church and the authors of the Manifesto! This is why- 
 Mr. Thatcher could not sign the Manifesto without stultification* 
 Not only himself but the Church also would be stultified by the 
 Manifesto. 
 
 CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
 
 PEIESTHOOD "COUNSEL" IN POLITICS. 
 
 Under primitive conditions the secular ruler is also the 
 religious authority, not only king but prophet and priest. As 
 progress is made toward civilization the state is divorced from 
 the church with a resulting increase of human welfare. 
 
 This process of differentiation is recognized by Christ him- 
 self when he said : "Render unto Csesar the things that are 
 CsBsar's and unto God the things that are God's." In the infi- 
 nite mind all government is united; and if there ever comes a 
 time when human souls will consciously enter the infinite life, 
 then there may be but one organization for religious and govern- 
 mental purposes. But at present man is a frail mortal, ever 
 liable to temptation, ever subject to misapprehension, always 
 open to motives of ambition and self-aggrandisement, never 
 free from prejudice, never fully emancipated from the bonds of 
 selfishness, never wholly illumined with the light and love ol 
 God, always human, always finite and dependent. 
 
 Hence it has become an axiom under democratic systems 
 of government that there must be no "union of church and 
 state." The First Presidency are as emphatic in making this 
 declaration as Thomas Jefferson was. But when it comes to the 
 meaning of words and propositions, when it comes to practices 
 and fulfillments, their policies lead to a subversion of the state. 
 
 DESERET NEWS QUESTIONS. 
 
 In order to show how the rule of "counsel" laid down in 
 the Manifesto is interpreted by the chief authorities that speak 
 through the Deseret News, a list of seven questions printed in 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 58 
 
 the issue of November 21, with short answers to each, is here- 
 with presented : 
 
 1. Has the Church through its rightly constituted authorities de- 
 clared that Church and State affairs shall be separate, or has it not? 
 
 Ans. Yes, it has, not only through its "Authorities," but 
 through the body of the Church in convention assembled. 
 
 2. If it has, how can this declaration take effect without a solemn 
 agreement between the ecclesiastical officers that none of them shall enter 
 a political race without first seeking the counsel of his brethren? 
 
 Why should ecclesiastics be banding and bonding them- 
 selves together concerning political offices? Who made tjiem 
 the ministers and masters of political positions? This would 
 seem appropriate for a country governed by the papacy, but 
 here in Utah we have not yet subjected ourselves to the rule of 
 a pope. It is supposed that we have a free republican govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Who controls the state under popular government? What 
 are the people for? What did Abraham Lincoln mean when he 
 spoke of "government by the people, of the people, for the 
 people?" Is it the "brethren" that determine the matter of 
 civil offices, or the people? Is it so that political offices, like 
 ripened apples, are dropping into the laps of the "brethren," 
 whether they will it or not? Who taught these ecclesiastics 
 that the offices were going begging for them to fill them ? 
 
 So it seems in the mind of the priesthood organ that the 
 only danger to the state is that church officers will each be 
 greedy to fill them ? In former times when the controversy be- 
 tween church and state arose, the state sought to run the church; 
 later the church controlled the state and made it a simple func- 
 tion of the church. Now the Deseret News thinks that the only 
 thing neeessary to keep the church off the state is that "all the 
 brethren" should agree to get into the state at one time. They 
 must "all agree" in one act of trespass on the state. It is an 
 offense if one officer does it independently; but it is all right if 
 all together go pell mell into the transgression. 
 
 But the News asks a sober question: — "How can this decla- 
 ration (that church and state shall be separate) take effect with- 
 out a solemn agreement between the ecclesiastical officers, etc." 
 How strange it is that such a question should seem to be neces- 
 sary! Does the church infringe on the state because some 
 preacher or other clerical officer seeks employment in the civil 
 service? No. If all civil officers were ecclesiastics, there migh 
 
54 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 still be no union of church and state. They might still be 
 clearly independent. 
 
 What then constitutes infringement? It is the use of the 
 religious authority of the church to impel or induce men to act 
 in civil affairs. Does the News know of anybody going up to 
 Idaho recently to carry "counsel" to the "brethren" up there in 
 regard to their political action? Does the News know of any 
 prominent brother Mormon up in Idaho who now complains 
 that he was defeated by the "counsel" carried up there by that 
 same visiting brother? Does the News know of any "counsel" 
 that was carried into Wyoming during the late canvass? Does 
 the News know of any so-called visiting statesman who came to 
 Salt Lake recently prepared with some of Mark Hanna's logic 
 to procure "counsel" for the "brethren" in Idaho and Wyoming? 
 Does the News know of any legislative "steering committee" 
 whose mission it was to instruct "brethren" how to vote at the 
 recent session. 
 
 It is such influences as the foregoing that constitute an 
 infringement on the state. It is the use of church authority to 
 induce actions and effect results in political and civil affairs. It 
 can be said in truth that it is not the desire of the rank and file 
 of the Mormon Church, the great and honest body of the mem- 
 bership, to have such infamous uses made of their sacred beliefs 
 and confidences, but unfortunately there are men in power who 
 control others, they hypnotize them and domineer over them, 
 and in the end mould them to their nefarious purposes. 
 
 If the News wishes to know in good faith, "how this decla- 
 ration (against union of church and state) can take effect with- 
 out the rule requiring "counsel" in order to run for office in the 
 state, let it reflect that no other church has found it necessary 
 to have such a rule. Even those churches that have throughout 
 the progress of Christianity warred against the union of church 
 and state, none of such churches has ever thought of a rule like 
 that which is now proposed. Why? Because the rule is simply 
 an expedient to control the presentation of officers to the state. 
 It enables a few men, or perhaps one man, to say who shall be 
 elected. It proposes to authorize certain men to run the state. 
 
 Hence the true answer to the question is that it is wholly 
 and emphatically a usurpation for any church council to say 
 one word or record a line concerning which one of their number 
 shall take or seek political office. If they want to say that none 
 of their number shall enter politics or any other secular occupa- 
 tion, it is their privilege to do so; but to say who shall go and 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 55 
 
 who shall come is to present men to the state, it is usurpation, 
 a violation of the rights of the people, an infringement on pop- 
 ular liberty. 
 
 3. Is it possible to obtain the desired result without strict adher- 
 ence to some uniform rule of conduct, and if so, how? 
 
 Why surely it is possible to obtain the proper and true 
 result without such a rule; but whether that would be the 
 "desired" result is not certain. How? Why, let the church 
 authorities get out of politics; have them let politics severely 
 alone; let the people run that department for themselves; that 
 is what the chief authorities promised to do, and let them be 
 faithful to their pledgee. If the authorities let the political 
 offices alone, the people will soon learn to know whether they 
 need any clerical functionaries to serve in a civil capacity. How 
 do churches manage sueh matters in other settled states? Sure- 
 ly, because we have the Mormon Church in Utah, the people 
 are not differently constituted here from what they are in other 
 parts of the country. Let the people and their politics alone. 
 
 4. Is not the recent address to the Saints the adoption of just such 
 a rule with the plain and evident intention of preserving inviolate the bor- 
 der line between church and state? 
 
 The recent address to the Saints! Preserving the border 
 line between church and state! The address uses many words 
 and phrases that seem to sanction the separation of church and 
 state. In that address the lion and the lamb lie down together 
 in seeming peace and harmony, and in the practical working of 
 the rule the lion is a perfect !ion, and the lamb is a perfect 
 lamb; and very, very lovingly they lie down together — the lamb 
 inside the lion ! The address is simply a contrivance of a very 
 shrewd mind to get the lamb inside the lion with the utmost 
 neatness and dispatch. If the lamb persists in not getting in- 
 side, the alternative is that it shall be defamed, maltreated, de- 
 stroyed, as in the case of Moses Thatcher. 
 
 5. How can an ecclesiastical oflBcer refusing to submit to such a rule 
 escape the suspicion that he is the one who intends using his religious in- 
 fluence for political purposes? 
 
 What transparently shallow logic! How will such an eccles- 
 iastic better the matter by being commissioned by his quorum 
 and superior officers? Will he not be doubly charged with Church 
 authority? And will he not be doubly empowered to impose 
 himself on his brethren as a divinely appointed candidate for 
 the office? Will it not give him a double dose of Church in- 
 
66 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 fluence? Will he not then go forth as the only simon pure, 
 regularly authorized, doubly blessed, especially chosen emissary 
 of the Priesthood ? 
 
 If there is evil in church influence in politics, as every 
 lover of the Declaration of Independence must hold that there 
 is, this endorsement by "the brethren" under the rule of "coun- 
 sel" enhances in every way the possibilities of evil. And why 
 does the News suggest that the man who refuses to submit to 
 such a rule is the one that intends using his religious influence 
 for political purposes? Are all those men that have refused to 
 submit to the rule seeking office? If they were, is it likely that 
 they would deem it an advantage to resist a rule that they 
 could, if they were designing and unscrupulous men, use to pro- 
 mote their own interests? If they resist the rule, do they not 
 thereby incur the enmity of crafty leaders who have great in- 
 fluence in the Church? If they were sordid office seekers, 
 would they not work the Church for all that it was worth, and 
 go to the people clad in all the religious influence of priesthood 
 authority ? 
 
 No, the man who has independence enough to go to the 
 people without any such brand of church approval, stands in 
 the presence of all honest men with infinitely less of the taint 
 of "suspicion" than the man who plots with his ecclesiastical 
 associates to capture an office which is the heritage of the 
 people in their secular capacity. 
 
 6. What is it— bigotry, mania, hypocrisy or viiliany, or all combined 
 — that prompts an attack on the Church, because its authorities endeavor 
 to carry out solemn pledges? 
 
 What is it that prompts such malice in a question ? What is 
 it that prompts such men as Moses Thatcher to refuse compli- 
 ance to the rule of "counsel" promulgated by the Church? Are 
 such epithets as "bigotry, mania, hypocrisy or viiliany" applic- 
 able to Moses Thatcher? Are such qualities of mind and heart 
 exhibited in his correspondence with President Snow? Are 
 his friends, relatives and associates entitled to such designa- 
 tions? Does the News as the "Church organ," claim to be the 
 voice of "the Son of God," in resorting to such vituperation? 
 
 Why does the News beg the question by assuming an 
 "attack on the Church?" Does not that look like the most 
 arrant cowardice? Don't you unjustly assume that your rule is 
 right? By setting up an "attack on the Church," don't you 
 seek to dodge an examination into the righteousness and jus- 
 tice of the rule ? Don't you thus seek to hide the inquiry as to 
 
PEIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 57 
 
 its being subversive of the State? Don't you seek thus to raise 
 such a dust that in the midst of it you may obscure the point at 
 issue? Why not try to honestly show that the rule of "counsel" is 
 not in conflict with the doctrine of the separation of church and 
 state? 
 
 7. Are those the colors of the banner of "liberty," round which 
 "Young Utah" are invited to rally? If so, keep on unfurling it to the 
 breeze, as has been done in the papers the past week. "Young Utah" will 
 then see where the standard of true liberty does not wave. 
 
 There was a mighty "banner of liberty" unfurled when 
 the Declaration of Independence was promulgated. Its folds 
 now wave in every land where the heart of man is bold enough 
 and true enough to inaugurate self-government. That Godgiv- 
 en ensign has been unfurled in Utah; its lines are written in 
 our Constitution; its lessons are nourished in the hearts of our 
 school children ; we want to be true to the Heaven-born emblem 
 of human liberty ! 
 
 There is not a thought, not an emotion of soul that rises 
 up in protest against the "rule of counsel" that does not have 
 its inspiration from the "banner of liberty" that God unfurled 
 in the Declaration of Independence. God knows that in the 
 hearts of the men that are moved to resist this "rule" there is 
 no thought of malice or unkindness toward the Church. But 
 the thought is forced upon them that certain individuals in the 
 Church are seeking to use the Church and its influence to pro- 
 mote their own selfish schemes. It is for the sake of these 
 schemes that the Church is about to be ushered into a career in 
 utter conflict with the sacred pledges of the past. The protest 
 is not an anti-church protest. It is the voice of Liberty. It is 
 the voice that spoke in the Declaration. It contains all politics 
 because it contains all the motives of self-government. It lies 
 at the foundation of the democracy of Thomas Jefferson and 
 the republicanism of Abraham Lincoln. It is the sunlight and 
 air of every true patriot. It is as deep as the human soul, as 
 broad as human life. 
 
 TKIBUNE QUESTIONS. 
 
 Having reproduced the queries of the Deseret News, it is 
 fair to give place to a similar series of questions from the Tri~ 
 hune which have the merit of answering themselves in the 
 intelligence of any man who can honestly lay claim to intel- 
 ligence. 
 
58 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 The News says it opposes Moses Thatcher's candidacy for the sole 
 reason that he stands upon a platform "which, fairly interpreted, means 
 nothing more nor less than war against a religious society." 
 
 The public of Utah is not especialy interested either in Moses Thatch- 
 er or the News, but is deeply interested in knowing what the Mormon 
 Church now holds as a "war against it." So we beg to propound to the 
 organ of the Church a few questions, as follows : 
 
 1. Does Moses Thatcher pretend to assail, trench upon or render in- 
 valid any article of the Mormon faith? 
 
 2. Is or is not his present insistence solely that as an American citi- 
 zen he has a right to excercise his political privileges, without regard to 
 his religious superiors? 
 
 3. Has not that right been conceded to him and every other member 
 of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by the present First 
 Presidency of the Church ? 
 
 4. Was it not the assumption of the right of the First Presidency to 
 dictate the action of the members of the Church in political matters that 
 kept Utah in a turmoil and filled with apprehension and unrest the hearts 
 of men here for twenty-five years? 
 
 5. Was it not the voluntary surrender of that claim by the First 
 Presidency that secured Statehood for Utah? 
 
 6. Has the course of the News during the past six days been the 
 same that it would have been had the question of admitting Utah to State- 
 hood been one which Congress was about to consider? 
 
 7. If not, has good faith been displayed toward the United States and 
 this people since the People's party disbanded? 
 
 8. If the News as the organ of the Church, can dictate who shall not 
 be elected to oflBce, cannot the same power dictate who shall be? 
 
 9. If it can, what political freedom has Utah any more than when the 
 nominations were announced from the Tabernacle altars and the people 
 were instructed to vote for candidates so named? 
 
 The people of Utah are exceedingly anxious to read the answers to 
 the foregoing interrogatories. 
 
 THE DESERET NEWS' FIGHT FOR THE 
 SENATORSHIP. 
 
 In a letter of Judge E. G. Woolley, of St. George, pub- 
 lished in the Tribune, Dec. 6th, the following paragraph occurs: 
 
 While there may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the 
 course being pursued by the Deseret News in threatening the supporters 
 of Thatcher for the Senate, with Church power, still I would rather have 
 an open fight at any time than to be stating one policy for the outside to 
 hear and pursuing another in secret, so that I am willing to stand by the 
 Church in an open fight for any principle of right, and at no matter 
 what cost. 
 
 Judge Woolley is right in one thing: he would rather have 
 an "open fight" than "to be stating one policy for the outside 
 to hear, and pursuing another in secret;" and this "open fight" 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 59 
 
 he is willing to pursue "at no matter what cost." He is "will- 
 ing to stand by the Church for any principle of right;" but he 
 does not take time to discriminate whether the "principle of 
 right" belongs to the Church as co-ordinate with the State, 
 leaving Church and State independent of each other, or whether 
 it belongs to the Church as a means of absorbing and swallow- 
 ing up the state. He seems willing to let the Church say what 
 it wants, and then "iSght it out," whether or not the State is 
 overwhelmed as the result. 
 
 While open warfare is preferable to secret machinations, 
 Ihere is little doubt that both methods will be worked for all 
 that they are worth ; yet it is nobler and fairer for the "Church 
 organ" to sound the key note and head the charge with such 
 of the Saints as are loyal to its behests, than to inaugurate a 
 secret warfare against Mr. Thatcher, such as the Tribune au- 
 thorizes in its comment on Judge Woolley's letter, one of those 
 strangely inconsistent, uncertain and ambiguous counsels for 
 which the Tribune has become famous of late: 
 
 We publish his (Judge Woolley's) letter merely as a matter of news, 
 because that is the business of a newspaper, and have no comment to make 
 upon it except this: To impress upon the readers of the Tribune the fact 
 that the matter of the discipline of the Mormon Church, or in the Quorum 
 of Apostles, is no concernment whatever to us, and the only reason we 
 have entered any protest is that the organ of the Mormon Church in this 
 city proclaimed a church warfare on Mr. Thatcher in political matters. 
 That is something no Church in America has any right to do, and is in vio- 
 lation of the understanding which was fairly had before Statehood was 
 given to Utah. To make it clear, if Apostle John Henry Smith or Presi- 
 dent George Q. Cannon, or President Woodruff pleases to go to the mem- 
 bers of the Legislature and say: "If I were in the Legislature I would not 
 vote for Mr. Thatcher, because he has needlessly antagonized the religion 
 in which we believe," that would be a man's right, the same as it is Mr. 
 Thatcher's right to be a candidate, notwithstanding his church troubles. 
 But when the organ of that Church in effect pulls down the anathemas of 
 heaven on Mr. Thatcher or any other man to beat him for a political oflBce, 
 that is a direct trenching upon the State, and that kind of work must not 
 go on in Utah. 
 
 One may well wonder that the Tribune should publish such 
 an editorial comment. It evinces a marvelous blindness and 
 flagrancy of misapprehension. The idea of monkeying with the 
 question of church and state by saying that the open editorials 
 of the News are objectionable while it is not objectionable for 
 "President" Woodruff, "President" Cannon, and "Apostle" 
 Smith to go privately to individual members of the Legislature 
 — members of the Church — and make their fight in the name 
 
60 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 of the Church and in defense of the Church! And all this 
 without making any reservation or qualification as to the char- 
 acter in which these men go, or the influences they shall bring 
 to bear on brethren who are members of the Legislature! How 
 blandly those who are intense supporters of the News' policy 
 will smile at the wisdom displayed by a paper that has set out 
 to champion the statehood rights and exemptions of the people 
 of Utah under specific pledges of the Mormon Priesthood! 
 
 The point at issue is the separation, independence and co- 
 ordination of church and state in their respective spheres of 
 action. Neither the Church nor any member or representative 
 of the Church is justifiable in using means to influence legisla- 
 tors in either of the following forms: 
 
 1. By controlling the vote of a member of the Legislature 
 by priestly counsel. We don't need special inspiration of God 
 to tell us concerning the contents of the multiplication table 
 or any other problem of pure or applied mathematics, for tha 
 mind is naturally furnished with the power to acquire such 
 knowledge; but we can have assistance such as the subject mat- 
 ter warrants. It is the same with all secular questions apper- 
 taining to legislation and statesmanship. The mind itself is 
 competent for all such things, with the assistance of the lights 
 and helps of nature. 
 
 So far as Messrs. Woodruff, Cannon and Smith can help 
 men along in the exercise of their mental faculties and the ac- 
 quisition of knowledge, they do not need to use priestly offices, 
 for they are working along a natural and secular plane. But it 
 is for no such purpose that " Presidents," "Apostles" and other 
 priestly officers go to a legislator to give "counsel;" they go ap- 
 pealing to the religious suceptibilities of the human heart; they 
 go claiming to represent Him who is essentially inscrutable 
 and incomprehensible — that to which the awe and mystery of 
 our souls respond. Into the sacred abiding place of faith and 
 trust they make bold to intrude themselves for a secular pur- 
 pose; and from this center of religious motive power they speak 
 in the name of God, saying that certain things should be done. 
 The natural grounds and reasons for the course recommended 
 are ignored; the man is induced to obey from priestly dictation 
 and authority. This is one phase of the nature and operation 
 of counsel; but there is another equally as objectionable, as 
 follows : 
 
 2. By setting up the Church as imperial, absolute and un- 
 restricted, the major premise for all secular reasoning, the true 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 61 
 
 center and source of all right and authority, the real and pres- 
 ent Kingdom of God. 
 
 It is this form of belief that pervades Judge Woolley's can- 
 did and valuable article. He sees nothing, knows nothing but 
 the Church; and what the Church wants he is willing to fight 
 for, utterly ignoring the contention that the "rule of counsel'* 
 is simply a piece of machinery chiefly valuable as a means of 
 controlling and absorbing the state. 
 
 Under this second form of "priestly counsel " the legislator 
 is warned that the Church is endangerd, that such a man is an 
 enemy of the Church, that his election will be an injury to the 
 Church, and he is cautioned against voting for him; and all the 
 time there is a great and mysterious thought in the background 
 — through the hazy exhortations of "counsel," the recipient, ac- 
 cording to his faith in the Church, thinks he sees the hand and 
 hears the voice of God! 
 
 Frequently, however, the potency of priestly "counsel" re- 
 solves itself into a simple business proposition. There are 
 considerable tithing funds; there are immense debts, and there 
 is wild and daring speculation on the part of certain individ- 
 uals in authority. A great many have got a foot in it; some 
 are in with both feet; others are anxious to get in; still others 
 are equally anxious to get out; some have their living and em- 
 ployment at stake; a vision of destitute and hungry wives and 
 babies stares them in the face; this vast net work of human 
 needs and business complication is a magazine of reserve 
 power, and all may be used by some one and in some way in 
 <;onnection with "counsel." 
 
 In answer to all unjust and forbidden methods of proceed- 
 ure it is important to recognize the fact that American institu- 
 tions have orignated in connection with a clean-cut distinction 
 between church and state, that each is independent, each has its 
 own grounds for existence and its own sources of knowledge, 
 each has its own conditions for progress and perfection ; neither 
 must trespass on the sphere of the other. Religion must not 
 come into the control of the state; neither must the state trench 
 on the province of religion. If the News will make an "open 
 fight" and an honorable fight, neither ignoring the state nor 
 shrouding its own counsels in a glamour of false godliness — an 
 honest battle for the right — millions of men and women will 
 gladly accord it a right to openly contend in the political arena. 
 
62 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 THE DESERET NEWS ON CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 In numerous issues and in a variety of forms the News has 
 laid down its doctrine of church and state; we quote a sample 
 paragraph in the editorial of November 18th, as follows: 
 
 The candidacy of the person to whom all this has reference, is antag- 
 onized by the News because it is an assault upon the doctrines and organic 
 existence of the Church of which this paper is the oflBcial organ. His ap- 
 pearance in the political arena at this time is nothing more nor less than 
 this, and every candid voter in the commonwealth will admit it. He him- 
 self announces that he stands upon a platform equivalent to this very 
 proposition. It is not a political question, for the candidate's politics cuts 
 no figure in it. It is religious, pure and simple, in that it involves nothing 
 more nor less than questions relative to the integrity of a religious organi- 
 zation, the maintenance of its discipline, and the perpetuity of its doctrines. 
 
 Note the following propositions contained in the foregoing 
 editorial : 
 
 1. "The candidacy of the person to whom all this has refer- 
 ence (Moses Thatcher) is antagonized by the News because it 
 is an assault upon the doctrines and organic existence of the 
 Church of which this paper is the official organ." 
 
 2. "It is not a political question." 
 
 3. "It is religious, pure and simple, in that it involves 
 nothing more nor less than questions relative to the integrity of 
 a religious organization, the maintenance of its discipline, and 
 the perpetuity of its doctrines." 
 
 4. "The candidate's politics cut no figure in it." 
 
 Here are four propositions expressed in tho identical lan- 
 guage of the News' editorial, and every one of the four is wrong 
 for the reason that the News puts the Mormon Church in the 
 wrong attitude; it puts the Church where it ought not to be; it 
 puts the Church on the railroad track of Civil Liberty, and then 
 finds fault with the locomotive of American Freedom because 
 the obstruction gets bumped off the track. 
 
 This is the story in a nutshell: The Reconvened Conven- 
 tion, October 22, 1895, laid down ihe principles of civil liberty 
 as a platform. Moses Thatcher and all others that participated 
 in that convention, not excepting Mr. Roberts, adopted those 
 principles and pledged themselves to stand by them. The crafty 
 leaders among the Mormon Authorities, seeing that they could 
 not safely attack the principles directly, concluded to do it by 
 a flank movement; so they promulgated 'Hhe rule of counsel." 
 By this means they believed they could control politics in the 
 interest of the Church ; and they further believed they could 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. DO 
 
 control the Church in their own personal interest, and utilize 
 its revenues to promote their wild speculations. In this way 
 they set their "rule of discipline" on the track of Civil Liberty, 
 and unless Freedom fails in her Godlike mission, that "rule of 
 of Counsel" is going io he thrown out of the way. 
 
 Some of the more important principles affirmed by the Re- 
 convened Convention are as follows : 
 
 "Equal and exact justice to all men, and special privileges to none," 
 is the foundation principle of the Democratic Party. It is now, and ever 
 has been, the party of civil and religious freedom. It is the party of tol- 
 eration. It has ever been the defender of the rights of individuals and 
 the advocate of personal liberty. It believes in the people, and declares 
 that they are the source of all political power. It steadfastly maintains 
 that there shall be no invasion of personal rights. It is a stanch upholder 
 of the doctrine that man must be allowed to worship God where he chooses 
 and as he chooses, without molestation and without intereference, and 
 that, on the other hand, he should not be directed in his course toward 
 governmental affairs by those whom he has chosen to minister to his 
 spiritual welfare. 
 
 We declare the truth to be : 
 
 I. That man may worship his maker as his conscience dictates. 
 
 II. That no State nor political body has the right to interfere with 
 this great privilege. 
 
 III. That man's first allegiance, politically, is to his country. 
 
 IV. That no church, ecclesiastical body, nor spiritual adviser should 
 encroach upon the political rights of the individual. 
 
 V. That in a free country no man nor body of men can, with safety 
 to the State, use the name or the power of any religious sect or society to 
 influence or control the elective franchise. 
 
 VI. That a trust is imposed upon each citizen in a free country to 
 act politically upon his own judgment and absolutely free from control or 
 dictation, ecclesiastical or otherwise. 
 
 VII. That no political party can be required to obtain the consent 
 of any church, or the leader thereof, before selecting its candidate for pub- 
 lic office. 
 
 VIII. That no citizen, by reason of his association with any church, 
 can be absolved from his duty to the state, either in times of war or of peace, 
 without the consent of the state. 
 
 IX. That all men should be, and of right are, free to think, free to 
 act, free to speak, and free to vote, without fear, molestation, intimidation , 
 or undue influence. 
 
 Thus believing, whenever designing men have seized upon the cloak 
 of religion to hide from view their nefarious designs, and while appealing 
 to man's spiritual faith have sought to direct his political action for selfish 
 ends, the Democratic Party since its organization has denounced such a 
 course. It has declared in the past and it declares now for every man's 
 political freedom, whatever may be the governmental views of those who 
 guide his spiritual welfare. 
 
 We therefore, in the most solemn manner, say that we will not be so 
 
64 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 dictated to, interfered with, or hindered in our political duties by those 
 selected to minister to us the consolations of the gospel. 
 
 The people being sovereign in this free land, to the people we make 
 our appeal. The church being the source of man's religion, to the church 
 we appeal, when we so desire, with regard to matters affecting the con- 
 science. 
 
 Now let the "Church organ" and all other persons and or- 
 ganizations take due notice that it is not so much Moses 
 Thatcher or any other individual that stands in the way of the 
 "rule of counsel" as the principles of liberty that were declared 
 to be the political faith of the Eeconvened Conrention; and if 
 the Democratic Party of Utah proves true to its plighted faith, 
 those principles will prevail; and if that party should prove 
 recreant to its trust, some other party will maintain its princi- 
 ples. For Civil Liberty is not of mushroom growth; it is not 
 the child of a day; for centuries it has been growing, and it is 
 not going to lose its meaning or change its color because a few 
 members of the Mormon Priesthood plot against it. 
 
 If any person wishes evidence of the fact that the feelings 
 of the people were aroused in a way that culminated in the 
 declaration of principles by the Reconvened Convention, and 
 that a great many of the Mormon people were in spirit opposed 
 to the meaning and intent of the "rule of counsel," and this 
 before the "rule of counsel" was promulgated, let him consider 
 the following telegram which was signed and sent at the time 
 of said Convention. 
 
 Logan, Utah, October 22, 1895. 
 
 The Democrats of Cache County unite in declaring for absolute sep- 
 aration of church and state. We oppose the idea that men should be 
 compelled to get permission from ecclesiastical authorities before exercis- 
 ing their political rights. We deny that Democrats are religiously or other- 
 wise bound to follow the advice of Republicans in making up Democratic 
 tickets. We shall uphold every legitimate effort of our party to resist and 
 disavow such pretensions, if any such have been made. Stand firm for the 
 right. 
 
 J. H. Paul, G. W. Thatcher, I. C. Thoresen, Joseph Kimball, William 
 Haslam, W. R. Owen, Jesse S. Hancey, William Sparks, John Dale, Aaron 
 F. Farr, Jr., Joseph H. Olsen, Frank K. Nebeker, O. A, Reavil, Don C. 
 Musser, Fred Turner, Will G. Farrell, S. M. Molen, W. G. Reese, B. G. 
 Thatcher, William Edwards, E. G. Robinson, A. D. Smith, John Bench, 
 Noble Warrum, Jr., Joseph Monson, Arthur Hart, H. J. Matthews, H. A. 
 Campbell, Martin Woolf, Newell W. Kimball, J. M. Blair, J. Li. Payne, 
 Thomas L. Obray, James C. Orr, Alma Olsen, James Lofthouse, Thomas 
 Leishman, Joseph Quinny, M. A. Hendricks, H. G. Hayball, Chas. W. 
 Maughan, Joseph Wilson, Samuel Clarke, John Robinson, G. M. Thompson, 
 John M. Wilson. 
 
PRIESTHOOD COUNSEL IN POLITICS. 65 
 
 With two exceptions these men are Latter-Day Saints, and 
 on last June the Democracy of Cache County met again in con- 
 vention and, with the exception of five, themselves personal 
 friends of Thatcher, the convention of 150 representative men 
 of the county agreed upon and adopted the following resolu- 
 tions : 
 
 We are opposed to any union, and to any attempt at union, real, ap- 
 parent, possible or potential, of the church and the state. In the language 
 of the Utah Constitution, the supreme law of this commonwealth, "there 
 shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the 
 State or interfere with its functions." We declare the State to be the su- 
 preme authority in all matters that concern the political rights and duties 
 of its citizens. We believe it prejudicial to the interests of the State if 
 any organization existing under its laws should visit penalties, disabilities 
 or disadvantages, upon any cit'zen of this State because of his free choice 
 of his political party, and participation in the ordinary duties of citizen- 
 ship. We believe that citizens should conform to whatever the State ex- 
 pressly and of right commands them to do; and in return for the benefits 
 and protection which the State guarantees to them, that they should 
 serve the State, whether in peace by casting a free and untrammeled ballot, 
 or by holding public office at the call of a majority of the citizens, or in war 
 by bearing arms; in all necessary ways should defend, honor and obey the 
 institutions and laws of the country. The State has the right to demand 
 that whatever rules of discipline may be adopted by any society for the 
 regulation of the political action of the society's own members, those rules 
 must be consistent with the laws of the land and with the genius of free 
 institutions and should be uniform in operation, applying with strictness 
 and impartiality to each member of the class for whom they are intended, 
 and showing favors to none. 
 
 We reassert with all possible candor and plainness, that any interfer- 
 ence with the free exercise of the rights of the elective franchise will not 
 be tolerated or condoned in our midst, so long as the Democratic party 
 shall be able to maintain inviolate these sacred rights of our citizens. And, 
 conversely, the Democratic party hereby reaffirms in behalf of every person 
 and every society, religious, social or political, in this State, the time-hon- 
 ored doctrine of true Democracy, in the guarantee of the utmost toleration 
 and protection of each under the law, with special favors to none and 
 equal rights to all. 
 
 We reaffirm the correctness of the doctrines of personal liberty which 
 were announced by the Reconvened Convention, as principles which are 
 dear to the heart of every true citizen of this Republic, and we endorse 
 the course of our esteemed fellow-citizen, Hon. Moses Thatcher, in main- 
 taining his stand upon these principles of truth and justice amid the 
 combined misfortunes of sickness, hostile criticism, and the honest mis- 
 conception of perhaps both friend and foe. * 
 
 Anybody can see that it is not Moses Thatcher, or the Re- 
 convened Convention, or anyone else that is* attacking the 
 Church, or interfering with its doctrine or discipline; but it is the 
 
66 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 framers of the **rule of counsel" that have put themselves in 
 the pathway of Civil Liberty; and if there is to be a struggle 
 for Liberty and for a separation of Church and State in Utah, 
 ^'may God protect the right.'' 
 
 CHAPTER EIGHTH. 
 
 THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 
 
 Follovs^ing is the Manifesto in full, as first published in the 
 Salt Lake Herald. 
 
 To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 
 Saints, in General Conference Assembled: 
 
 Dear Brethren and Sisters — Every Latter-Day Saint will recognize 
 the value of union, not only in action, but in matters of faith and disci- 
 pline. As to the rights and authority of the priesthood of the Son of God, 
 it is of the highest importance that there should be no diflference of opinion 
 among the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
 Day Saints. Feeling the necessity of a correct understanding of this prin- 
 ciple, we deem it proper at this sixty-sixth anniversary of the orginazation 
 of the Church in these last days, to prepare and present a statement on the 
 subject, embodying the doctrine which has always prevailed in the Church 
 and our views upon it. We are prompted to adopt this course at the present 
 time, because of events which have happened during the late political con- 
 test. A great diversity of opinion on the subject has been expressed, and 
 even by leading elders in the Church, which latter fact has naturally led 
 in some instances to considerable division of sentiment. 
 
 It is of great importance that we understand each other, and that 
 there be harmony in our teachings. It is especially important that those 
 teachings shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations and doc- 
 trines which have been taught, and which have prevailed from the begin- 
 ning until the present time, having not only the sanction of undisputed 
 usage, but the approval of all faithful leaders in the Church and of Him in 
 whose name and by whose authority they act. 
 
 THE RECENT ELECTION. 
 
 In the late exciting contest, to which reference has been made, the 
 presiding authorities in some instances have been misunderstood. In other 
 instances they have been misrepresented, which has led to a wrongful con- 
 ception of their real views. It has been asserted too freely, and without 
 foundation, that there has been a disposition on their part to interfere 
 with individual liberty and to rebuke in some men a course which was ap- 
 plauded in others. In a word, that they have appeared to desire to assert 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 67 
 
 and maintain an unjust and oppressive control over the actions of the 
 members of the Cnurch, and in thus doing have endeavored to effect a 
 union of church and state. In the heat of political discussion, assertions 
 have been made and arguments used conveying to the public mind a false 
 idea concerning the position of the officers of the Church, and leaving the 
 impression that there has been and was now being made an attempt to ac- 
 complish the union above referred to. Now that the excitement has 
 passed, and calmer reason has resumed its sway, we think it prudent to set 
 forth, BO that all may understand, the exact position occupied by the lead- 
 ing authorities of the Church. 
 
 NO UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 In the first place we wish to state in the most positive and emphatic 
 language that at no time has there ever been any attempt or even desire 
 on the part of leading authorities referred to to have the Church in any 
 manner encroach upon the rights of the State, or to unite in any degree 
 the functions of one with those of the other. 
 
 Peculiar circumstances have surrounded the people of Utah. For 
 many years a majority of them in every portion of the Territory belonged 
 to one church, every reputable member of which was entitled to hold and 
 did hold some ecclesiastical office. It is easy to see how, to the casual ob- 
 server, it might appear singular that so many officers of the Church were 
 also officers of the State; but while this was in fact the case, the distinc- 
 tion between Church and State throughout those years was carefully 
 maintained. The President of the Church held for eight years the highest 
 civil office in the community, having been appointed by the national ad- 
 ministration. Governor of the Territory. The first Secretary of the Ter 
 ritory was a prominent Church official. An Apostle represented the Ter- 
 ritory in Congress, as a Delegate during ten years. The members of the 
 legislature also held offices in the Church. This was unavoidable; for the 
 most suitable men were elected by the votes of the people, and, as we have 
 stated, every reputable man in the entire community held some Church 
 position, the most energetic and capable holding leading positions. This 
 is all natural and plain enough to those who consider the circumstances; 
 but it furnished opportunity for those who were disposed to assail the peo- 
 ple of the Territory to charge them with attempting to unite church and 
 ^tate. A fair investigation of the conditions will abundantly disprove the 
 charges and show its utter falsity. 
 
 On behalf of the Church of which we are leading officials, we desire 
 again to state to the members and also to the public generally, that there 
 has not been, nor is there, the remotest desire on our part or on the part 
 of our co-religionists to do anything looking to a union of church and 
 state. 
 
 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. 
 
 We declare that there has never been any attempt to curtail individ 
 ual liberty — the personal liberty of any of the officers or members of the 
 Church. The First Presidency and other leading officers did make certain 
 suggestions to the people when the division on party lines took place. Tha 
 movement was an entirely new departure, and it was necessary in order 
 that the full benefit should not be lost which was hoped to result from 
 
68 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 this new political division, that people who were inexperienced should be 
 warned against hasty and ill-considered action. In some cases they were 
 counseled to be wise and prudent in the political steps they were about to 
 take, and this with no idea of winning them against their will to either 
 side. To this extent, and no further, was anything said or done upon this 
 question, and at no time and under no circumstances was any attempt 
 made to say to voters how they should cast their ballots. Any charge that 
 has been made to the contrary is utterly false. 
 
 CANNON IN POLITICS. 
 
 Concerning officers of the Church themselves, the feeling was gener- 
 ally expressed in the beginning of the political division spoken of, that it 
 would be prudent for leading men not to accept of oJBRce at the hands of 
 the political party to which they might belong. This counsel was given to 
 men of both parties alike — not because it was thought that there was any 
 impropriety in religious men holding civil office, nor to deprive them of 
 any of the rights of citizeship, but because of the feeling that it would be 
 better under all the circumstances which had now arisen to avoid any 
 action that would be likely to create jealousy and ill-feeling. An era of 
 peace and good will seemed to be dawning upon the people, and it was 
 deemed good to shun everyting that could have the least tendency to pre- 
 vent the consummation of this happy prospect. In many instances, how- 
 ever, the pressure brought to bear upon efficient and popular men by the 
 members of the party to which they belonged was of such a character that 
 they had to yield to the solicitation to accept nomination to office, or sub- 
 ject themselves to the suspicion of bad faith in their party affiliations. In 
 some cases they did this without consulting the authorities of the Church; 
 but where important positions were held, and where the duties were of a 
 responsible character, some did seek the counsel and advice of the leading 
 Church authorities before accepting the political honors tendered them. 
 Because some others did not seek this counsel and advice, ill-feeling was 
 engendered and undue and painful sensitiveness was stimulated; mis- 
 understanding readily followed, and as a result the authorities of the 
 Church were accused of bad faith, and made the subjects of bitter re- 
 proach. We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high posi- 
 tions in the Church, whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesias- 
 tical labors are understood to be continuous and necessary, it would be an 
 improper thing to accept political office or enter into any vocation that 
 would distract or remove them from the religious duties resting upon them 
 without first consulting and obtaining the approval of their associates and 
 those who preside over them. It has been understood from the very be- 
 ginning of the Church that no officer whose duties are of the character re- 
 ferred to, has the right to engage in any pursuit, political or otherwise, 
 that will divide his time and remove his attention from the calling already 
 accepted. It has been the constant practice with officers of the Church to 
 consult - or, to use our language, to "counsel" — with their brethren con- 
 cerning all questions of this kind. They have not felt that they were sac- 
 rificing their manhood in doing so, nor that they were submitting to im- 
 proper dictation, nor that in soliciting and acting upon the advice of those 
 over them they were in any manner doing away with their individual 
 rights and agency, nor that to any improper degree were their rights and 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 69 
 
 duties as American citizens being abridged or interfered with. They real- 
 ize that in accepting ecclesiastical office they assumed certain obligations; 
 that among these was the obligation to magnify the office which they held, 
 to attend to its duties in preference to every other labor, and to devote 
 themselves exclusively to it with all the zeal, industry and strength they 
 possessed, unless released in part or for a time by those who preside over 
 them. Our view, and it has been the view of all our predecessors, is that 
 no officer of our Church, especially those in high standing, should take a 
 course to violate this long-established practice. Rather than disobey it, 
 and declare himself defiantly independent of his associates and his file 
 leaders, it has always been held that it would be better for a man to resign 
 the duties of his priesthood; and we entertain the same view to-day. 
 
 In view of all the occurrences to which reference has been made, and 
 to the diversity of views that have arisen among the people in conse 
 quence, we feel it to be our duty to clearly define our position, so there 
 may be no cause hereafter for dispute or controversy upon the subject: 
 
 First — We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that should 
 always be observed in the Church and by every leading official thereof, 
 that before accepting any position, political or otherwise, which would 
 interfere with the proper and complete discharge of his ecclesiastical 
 duties, and before accepting a nomination or entering into engagements 
 to perform new duties said official should apply to the proper authorities 
 and learn from them whether he can consistently with the obligations 
 already entered into with the Church upon assuming his office, take upon 
 himself the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the new posi- 
 tion. To maintain proper discipline and order in the Church, we deem it 
 absolutely necessary; and in asserting this rule, we do not consider that 
 we are infringing in the least degree upon the individual rights of the 
 citizen. Our position is that a man having accepted the honors and 
 obligations of ecclesiastical office in the Church, cannot properly, of his 
 own volition, make those honors subordinate to or even co-ordinate with 
 new ones of an entirely different character; we hold that unless he is will- 
 ing to counsel with and obtain the consent of his fellow-laborers and pre- 
 siding officers in the priesthood, he should be released from all obligations 
 associated with the latter, before accepting any new position. 
 
 Second — We declare that in making those requirements of ourselves 
 and our brethern in the ministry, we do not in the least desire to dictate 
 to them concerning their duties as American citizens, or to interfere with 
 the affairs of the State; neither do we consider that in the remotest degree 
 we are seeking the union of church and state. We once more here repu- 
 diate the insinuation that there is or ever has been an attempt by our lead- 
 ing men to trespass upon the ground occupied by the State, or that there 
 has been or is the wish to curtail in any manner any of its functions. 
 
 Your brethren, 
 
 WiLFORD Woodruff, 
 Geo. Q. Cannon, 
 Jos. P. Smith, 
 
 First Presidency. 
 
 The following is a discussion of the Manifesto by sections 
 and paragraphs in consecutive order. In each section it is in- 
 
70 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 tended to present, not only the surface meaning, but also the 
 more latent significance of the language. In some cases the 
 real meaning lies between the lines. 
 
 1. To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
 Day Saints, in General Conference Assembled : 
 Dear Brethren and Sisters — Every Latter-Day Saint will recognize 
 the value of union, not only in action, but in matters of faith and disci- 
 pline. 
 
 It is noticeable in this enumeration of items in which union 
 is desired, that the most important requisite, the only one 
 really and truly attainable, is omitted : That is love — Chris- 
 tian love and sympathy. Love unites opposites; it blends the 
 numberless diversities of human life into harmony; it is the 
 bond of perfection; without it all other union is ''sounding 
 brass or a tinkling cymbal." 
 
 The glory of love as the bond of union is that it is broader 
 than church; it thrills the heart of motherhood throughout all 
 animate creation; it dances with the motes in the sunbeam; it 
 murmurs with the brooks; it moves with the tides of the 
 ocean; it joins its melody with the music of the spheres. 
 There may be diversities of beliefs and practice; but with 
 unity of love the heights are scaled and the ideals of the Lord 
 Christ are achieved. 
 
 THE SPECIAL THEME. 
 
 2. As to the rights and authority of the Priesthood of the Son of God, it 
 is of the highest importance that there should be no difference of opinion 
 among the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
 Day Saints. 
 
 The special topic proposed in the Manifesto is "the rights 
 and authority of the Priesthood." There must be "no dif- 
 ference of opinion." This looks like centralization wherein 
 one mind does the thinking and prohibits all other thought. 
 With brotherly love there might be unity and harmony in the 
 midst of great diversity of opinion; but without it everything 
 must run on the dead plane of machinery. 
 
 A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. 
 
 3. Feeling the necessity of a correct understanding of this principle, 
 we deem it proper at this Sixty-sixth Anniversary of the organization of 
 the Church in these last days, to prepare and present a statement on the 
 subject, embodying the doctrine which has always prevailed in the Church, 
 and our views upon it. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 71 
 
 To explain a principle is to state its nature and origin. This 
 the manifesto does not attempt to do. It does not define the 
 "rights*' of priesthood; but it elaborates and enforces the "au- 
 tln rit}^" of the priesthood which manifests itself through "coun- 
 sel." This counsel applies to all things; but in this manifesto it is 
 applied chiefly to political affairs. It is in reference to political 
 matters that the authorities speak of "feeling the necessity of a 
 correct understanding of this principle." But they do not ex- 
 plain a principle; they simply enforce a rule of practice. 
 
 A SOVEREIGN REMEDY APPLIED. 
 
 4. — We are prompted to adopt this course at the present time because 
 of events which have happened during the late political contest. 
 
 Certain political events have occurred; an emergency arises; 
 they "feci the necessity of preparing and presenting a statement" 
 of the doctrine of priesthood; their "statement" culminates in 
 the duty of "counsel ;" the old usages and teachings of the church 
 all point to counsel as the first and foremost of obligations; and 
 in this emergency counsel is what is necessary to redeem and 
 prcser\'e the church from dissensions and calamities that seem 
 imminent What is necessary is to restore the customary and 
 time honored authority- of the priesthood. In order to restore 
 "union in action, faith and discipline," there must be under the 
 new politics, the same recognition of counsel as under the old 
 regime. 
 
 DIVERSITIES DEPLORED. 
 
 5. — A great diversity of opinion on the subject has been expressed, and 
 even by leading elders in the church, which latter fact has naturally led 
 in some instances to considerable division of sentiment. 
 
 Some are ducks that take to the water; others are chickens 
 that scratch the ground. They entertain differences of opinion 
 about the many things that enter into governmental policy. 
 They develop differences of moral and economic instinct. Some 
 are jealous of every encroachment on individual and personal 
 rights. Others are zealous for combined effort and the exhi- 
 bition of strong governing power as a means of safety and wel- 
 fare. 
 
 This diversity of opinion is a new phase of things, and it can 
 only be met by "counsel." Instead of diversity of opinion, there 
 nmst be unity; and instead of many minds running off here and 
 there, only one mind must do the thinking; and when this cen- 
 tral thinking is spread out to the periphery by means of "counsel" 
 
72 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 the pur]:>ose of "union in faith, discipHne and action" will have 
 been achieved. 
 
 WHAT MIGHT BE. 
 
 There is only one line of thinking that seems to threaten a 
 disturbance of the counseled unity that tolerates "no difference 
 of opinion;" that is the thinking suggested by the Declaration of 
 Independence. But why should we fear to welcome the highest 
 and truest attitude of the human soul — that of freedom, indepen- 
 dence and self-reliance? God himself is independent and abso- 
 lute; and no soul can be truly begotten in his image without 
 sharing his absoluteness. 
 
 Wha- would happen the Mormon church were a majority of 
 its members to im_bibe in its full meaning and effect, the lesson of 
 the Declaration of Independence? Would it weaken the church 
 or dim its glory ? No. It would put the church in the way of 
 true progress and efficiency. It would release it from the care 
 of trivial burdens of a material, civil and temporal character, and 
 it would encourage the mind and spirit of the church to develop 
 those higher truths that are needed to lift the world out of the 
 slough of materialism and monetary greed into which it has 
 fallen. 
 
 We are now importing from Asia doctrines concerning the soul 
 and eternal life; and with much of illusion and error these doc- 
 trines arc spreading over the country in a way to counteract 
 the sordid tendencies of the age. They find a welcome because 
 they are a needed antidote for ills that are afflicting the souls 
 of the race. And Mormonism has a groundwork of doctrine 
 of the soul and eternal life that goes far towards satisfying the 
 want for the sake of which many people are hunting up the rec- 
 ords of thought dating back to the dawn of human history. 
 
 Would it be diminishing the sphere and splendor of the Mor- 
 mon church to take off its hands from the miserable squabbles 
 of politics and the sordid weight of business interests in order 
 that it might more truly and effectively explore and reveal the 
 domain of eternal life? No. This would be to exalt the church 
 and put it in the way of fulfilling its true mission. 
 
 AN OPEN FAITH. 
 
 6, — It is of great importance that we understand each other, and that 
 there be harmony in our teachings. 
 
 It is net so important that ministers of the gospel should 
 "understand each other" as to understand Christ and his teach- 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 73 
 
 ings. Having the same sources of knowledge and the same 
 grtat le.uUi, if they are faithful to those, they can not fail to 
 cumprchoiid each other. 
 
 There wtre numerous secret religious orders in ancient times; 
 but Christ did not approve of them. When asked concerning 
 his doctrine he replied, "I spake openly to the world; I ever 
 taught in the synagogue, and in the temple whither the Jews 
 resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? 
 Ask tlx-ni which heard me, what I have said unto them. Behold 
 they know what I said.'* John, 18:20. 
 
 The great truths of life and being, of mathematics and philoso- 
 phy, of nn rals and religion are all an open book, as free as the 
 air and sunlight, as unobstructed as the open vault of heaven. 
 
 1+ is a menace to public welfare when any order of men, 
 whether secular or religious, have a secret understanding with 
 eacli other. Especially in Christian work should there be an 
 open book known and read of all men. The more sunlight and 
 publicity the better for public morality. 
 
 IS DIVERSITY UNDESIRABLE? 
 
 7. — It is especially important that these teachings shall be in accord- 
 ance with the rules and regulations and doctrines which have been taught 
 and which have prevailed from the beginning until the present time, 
 having not only the sanction of undisputed usage, but the approval of all 
 faithful leaders in the church and of him in whose name and by whose 
 authority they act. 
 
 Uniformity of belief and teaching is desirable if it be not at 
 the expense, of independence and individuality. It is far more 
 important to presei*ve the personal coloring that distinguishes 
 men and women, than to create unanimity by arbitrary processes. 
 Men arc made so as to think and act differently; yet all may be 
 equally divine; even as the leaves of the trees and the sands of 
 the sea differ each from the other. There is unity in diversity; 
 and it requires all to reveal the fullness of the infinite. The nu- 
 merous historic religions present diverse phases of truth. Doubt- 
 less each one will be found to reveal some special color that 
 enters into combination with all the others to make the pure 
 wlrlte light of the eternal sun of righteousness. 
 
 *The rules and regulations which have been taught and which 
 have prevailed from the beginning," are proposed above as a 
 means of settling political differences of opinion and policy. As 
 said in Sec, 5. "a great diversity of opinion (in politics) has led 
 to division of sentiment." Then comes the exhortation to be 
 of one mind, to understand each other, to unite in the usages 
 
74 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 and teachings (counsel) of the past years of church activity, and 
 all as a moans of preventing diversity and division of sentiment 
 in poh^-ics. 
 
 How do divisions of sentiment arise? We have an illustration 
 in the reconvened convention, Oct 22, 1895. When this body 
 afRrmecl for individuals the rights and principles of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, such action would naturally create a 
 division of sentiment as to submitting to "counsel" any matter 
 other than such as belonged to the church in its proper spiritual 
 sphere. Whoever believed in the Declaration intelHgently would 
 be slow to ask "counsel" in any matter of party politics. 
 
 The Mormon people regard the Declaration as inspired. The 
 question ai'ises, which is the greater inspiration, the Declaration, 
 or priestly "counsel" on political issues? Surely the magna charta 
 of American independence is the outcome of all the ages; it is 
 an epoch in the development of humanity — the monument set 
 up as a nemorial of all progress hitherto made in human govern- 
 ment: and it is fair to believe that whatever else perishes, the 
 Declaration will survive the wreck of time. 
 
 SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE. 
 
 8. In the late exciting contest, to which reference has been made, 
 the presidinsr authorities in some instances have been misunderstood. In 
 other instances they have been misrepresented, which has led to a wrong- 
 ful conception of their real views. It has been asserted too freely, and 
 without foundation, that there has been a disposition on their part to 
 interfere with individual liberty and to rebuke in some men a course 
 which was applauded in others. In a word, that they have appeared to 
 desire to assert and maintain an unjust and oppressive control over the 
 actions of the members of the church, and in thus doing have en- 
 deavored to effect a union of church and state. 
 
 Why should there be so much smoke and no fire? It is singu- 
 lar that in this manifesto there is a large space taken up in re- 
 peated disclaimers like the foregoing wherein it is asserted that 
 there has not been any desire or attempt to unite church and 
 state: yet, as will be seen, in no place is there any definition of 
 the sphere and function of either church or state. We can not 
 tell wh?^ the chief authorities mean when they refer to one or the 
 other. Doubtless they may have been misunderstood and mis- 
 represented ; but in a document put to the church and the "public 
 generally," there should be full explanation made. We can, how- 
 ever, set cut the rights and authority of the state; and we can 
 a«''«'i:ain with some certainty from this manifesto the rights 
 and authr)rity claimed for the priesthood; and it will be easy to 
 measure the conflict, if any there be. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 75 
 
 REITERATION. 
 
 9. In the heat of political discussion, assertions have been made and 
 argfuments used conveying to the public mind a false idea concerning the 
 position of the officers of the Church, and leaving the impression that there 
 has been and was now being made an attempt to accomplish the union 
 above referred to. 
 
 This last paragraph seems to be a repetition of the previous 
 one in substance. If the published report of the high council 
 meeting at Logan were true history, would the people, with all 
 their "misunderstanding and misrepresentation," be very far 
 wrong in charging the authorities with serious and unwarrantable 
 intermeddling with politics and the state? It does not seem that 
 they wc uld ; and what is more — there are so many testimonials of 
 the correctness of the report of the meeting that denials seem 
 quite useless. 
 
 EXPLANATION PROPOSED. 
 
 10. Now that the excitement has passed, and calmer reason has re- 
 sumed its sway, we think it prudent to set forth, so that all may under- 
 stand, the exact position occupied by the leading authorities of the 
 Church . 
 
 Here is an appeal to reason and intelligence. A judicial frame 
 of mind, calm and dispassionate, is invoked. The authorities 
 have acted in the late "political contest" in accordance with the 
 teachings, rules and precedents of the church; and it is all an ob- 
 ject lesson setting forth the authority and sphere of priesthood. 
 They pr(jpose to find a panacea for all political differences, ills 
 and controversies in the faith and usage of the church; and all 
 this is to be applied by "counsel." 
 
 GENERAL DENIAL AS TO UNION OF CHURCH AND 
 
 STATE. 
 
 11. In the first place we wish to state in the most positive and em- 
 phatic language that at no time has there ever been any attempt or even 
 desire on, the part of leading authorities referred to to have the church 
 in any manner encroach upon the rights of the State, or to unite in any 
 degree the functions of the one with those of the other. 
 
 There is really no occasion for "positive and emphatic lan- 
 guagc.'^ It is not a question of vehemence or asseveration, but 
 one of the facts and the philosophical significance of those facts 
 —whether they are in their nature and operation an infringement 
 on the sphere of the state. It is not a question for which 
 denial or affirmation are at all competent. It is a case which 
 
76 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 turns on the significance of facts, just as the legal import of a 
 document is determined as judicially interpreted, and not by any 
 amount of affirmation as to what the document signifies. 
 Whether the "rights of the priesthood," as ^et forth in this mani- 
 festo, are in conflict with the rights of the state, is to be decided, 
 not by "positive and emphatic language,'' but by an examination 
 of Ihe rights and principles on each side, and by critical compari- 
 son to determine whether they conflict either in essence or in 
 operation. 
 
 AN OBJECT LESSON. 
 
 12. Peculiar circumstances have surrounded the people of Utah. For 
 many years a majority of them in every portion of the territory belonged 
 to one Church, every reputable member of which was entitled to hold and 
 did hold some ecclesiastical oflBce. It is easy to see how, to the casual 
 observer, it might appear singular that so many officers of the church 
 were also officers of the State; but while this was in fact the case, the dis- 
 tinction between church and Stat© throughout those years was carefully 
 maintained. The president of the church held for eight years the highest 
 civil office in the community, having been appointed by the national 
 administration governor of the territory. The first secretary of the terri- 
 tory was a prominent church official. An apostle represented the territory 
 in Congress as a delegate during ten years. The members of the Legis- 
 lature also held offices in the church. This was unavoidable; for the 
 most suitable men were elected by the votes of the people, and, as we 
 have stated every reputable man in the entire community held some 
 church position, the most energetic and capable holding leading positions. 
 This is all natural and plain enough to those who consider the circum- 
 stances; but it furnished opportunity for those who were disposed to 
 assail the people of the territory to charge them with attempting to 
 unite church and Stato. A fair investigation of the conditions will abun- 
 dantly disprove the charges and show its utter falsity. 
 
 During the period described the more important offices were 
 appointive rather th^n elective, so that only to a limited degree 
 would office holdinsf came under the supervision of counsel. 
 When the People's party was in vogue, everybody knows, and 
 nobody so well as the leaders, that the policy and energy and all 
 neces«;ary manipulation were under the control of the church 
 authorities. The lamb would be all there, but it would be inside 
 tljc lion. It might be said, as it is frequently said in this mani- 
 festo, that the "distinction" between the lamb and the lion was 
 carefully preserved. It might be, and yet the lamb might be in- 
 sidt. So that there is something to be said of relation as well 
 as distinction. If the state is inside the genius and power of the 
 church, as in papal Rome; or i^ the church is inside the state 
 as in Russia; in either case the relation is one of inclusion. The 
 true rolatif r is that of equality and independence. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 77 
 
 When "every reputable member was entitied to hold and did 
 1iold some ecclesiastical office," and all offices and members were 
 tinder priestly counsel as to all the affairs of life, both temporal 
 and s])iritual, how could there be a state within the meaning of 
 the Declaiation of Independence? How could there be a demo- 
 cratic state when life is drawn from the church through the un- 
 biblical cord of counsel? 
 
 It used to be a question for debate, whether or not the relation 
 of master and slave is sinful. Some attempted to settle the 
 questicm by proofs as to usages and customs of antiquity, whether 
 Jew or Gentile; but it remained to the quickening of the sensi- 
 bilities, the awakening of conscience and the diffusion of the 
 love of Christ to enable mankind to perceive that the slave rela- 
 ticn is in itself essentially wrong, abnormal and sinful. In like 
 manner, if we lift aloft the charter of American liberty, and men 
 see in its light that they are created in the divine image and 
 equally endowed with the rights of humanity, superstition and 
 serfdom fall away, independence and self-reliance are enthroned, 
 and the state absolves itself from ecclesiastical thralldom. 
 
 No need to say above that because there were so many church 
 people in civil offices there would need to be a suspicion of union 
 between church and state. The only question is: Were they 
 in office in conformity with and in subordination to counsel? If 
 they wert, the state was made tributary to the church. 
 
 If every civil officer in the United States were also an officer 
 in the church, that fact would prove nothing in regard to a 
 union of church and state. During all the above described period 
 wa^ counsel given as to who should, and who should not, hold 
 office ? It ought to be clear that so far as civil affairs are shaped 
 and governed by the counsel of the church there is an absorption 
 of the state by the ruling authorities. 
 
 RENEWED ASSURANCES AS TO NON-INTERVEN- 
 TION IN THE STATE. 
 
 13. On behalf of the Church of which we are leading oflScials, we de- 
 sire again to state to the members and also to the pubUc generally, that 
 there has not been, nor is there, the remotest desire on our part or on the 
 part of our coreligionists to do anything looking to a union of church and 
 state. 
 
 In this paragraph "the public generally" is taken into con- 
 sideration and assured by the church that there is no desire, 
 even tlie remotest "to do anything looking to a union of church 
 and state." As remarked under the Eleventh paragraph, "this 
 
78 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 is not a question wherein any amount of affirmation, however 
 positive and^emphatic, is a means of solution." It depends upon 
 the meaning- of facts and conditions. 
 
 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. 
 
 14. We declare that there has never been any attempt to curtail in- 
 dividual liberty — the personal liberty of any of the officers or members of 
 the Church. 
 
 Ihere might be no desire or attempt to "curtail" or diminish 
 or repress individual liberty, yet there might at the same time 
 be a desire and a purpose to mould and redirect that individual 
 libert\^ by methods and influences that might be either proper or 
 improp( r If a man is convinced of the truth of a mathematical 
 economic, or industrial problem by a demonstration or explana- 
 tion that lies within the sphere of that problem, no difiference 
 who furnishes the proof, whether his priest or his school teacher, 
 it is all right. But if a priest, because of his priestly authority^ 
 were to dictate to a man in mathematics, economy or politics 
 without furnishing appropriate reasons to appeal to the man's 
 understanding, there would be a wrong done the man's intelli- 
 gence and individual liberty. His liberty would not be "cur- 
 tailed," but it would be directed and controlled by wrong 
 methods. 
 
 A mati might have a firm determination to pursue a certain 
 C'jurse; and he might, by means of proper advice and enlighten- 
 ment resolve upon the opposite course and pursue that as ear- 
 nestly as he would the first determined upon. It is the purpose 
 of the Christian gospel to change every man's mind from deter- 
 iriination> that are wrong to those that are in harmony with his 
 Letter lature and with the right and true everywhere. A man 
 thus changed is under law, but it is "the law of liberty;" for obe- 
 dience i-nder this law springs from a soul inspired with the uni- 
 versal hamicny. His individual liberty is not "curtailed" but 
 renewed and redirected by right methods. 
 
 If the "chief authorities" were to publish books setting forth 
 the facts of history and the principles of government, and such 
 books were circulated among the Mormon people thereby de- 
 termining to a considerable extent their political status and 
 action; there would in such case be no infringement upon indi- 
 vidual liberty or the state, if the literature sent out were true, 
 if no dictation or preference were indicated, and if the people 
 received it purely on its merits and with no coloring of priestly 
 authority accompanying it. That is, if men's minds were left 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 79 
 
 free from any influence, other than that of scientific truths and 
 principles, it would be all right; the people would be left free 
 to judge and act under the operation of "the law of liberty" as 
 revealed to them by the light of history and governmental 
 science. 
 
 But if the people should receive such books under a species of 
 priestly glamour; and if, because they came from the chief au- 
 thorities, the people believed they must be infallibly inspired 
 and di\inely authoritative — in such cases the people would be 
 brought into bondage. There would be no apprehension of "the 
 law of liberty." There would be blind fealty to a fetish, the 
 sen'itude of ignorance, bigotry and superstition. 
 
 Hence the "chief authorities" should realize what a delicate 
 and responsible position they occupy in relation to that large 
 number of people who regard their utterances as inspired, and 
 who would think it irreverent and sinful to doubt or question 
 anything coming from the head of the church. They stand 
 ready to surrender their judgment and individual independence, 
 and thus they would put themselves beyond the pale of "the law 
 of liberty.'* 
 
 Thre are few men living, possibly none, who are entitled to 
 more regard for earnestness and integrity than Wilford Wood- 
 ruff. Yet, if Wilford Woodruff were to go out upon the street 
 on electi'- n day in the earlier part of the day, and in the presence 
 of multitudes cast his vote in a way that would seem open, spec- 
 tacular and demonstrative; and if the fact of his voting in such a 
 way and with such a party were telegraphed all over the state; 
 and if the incident as telegraphed were used at many polling 
 places during the remainder of the day and voters were thereby 
 induced to cast their votes in the same way — ^why, a great wrong 
 would be done, the state would be encroached upon, religion 
 and priesthood would be made the means of superstitious en- 
 thralln»ent 
 
 Sure!; a great and difficult work is laid at the door of the 
 chief authorities to divest themselves and disclaim a homage 
 from zealous followers which in its very essence is inimical to 
 American institutions. 
 
 EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING COUNSEL. 
 
 15. The First Presidency and other leading oflBcers did make certain 
 suggestions to the people when the division on party lines took place. 
 
 "The first presidency and other leading officers:" — Whatever 
 they said or did, it would be taken by "the people" as coming to 
 
80 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 them with all the insignia and credentials of authority and inspi- 
 ration. They would be largely bound and guided by it. 
 
 They "did make certain suggestions.'*' As to whether right or 
 wrong, those "suggestions" would depend on what they were. 
 About the only kind of "suggestions" that could be rightly made 
 would be concerning the nature of government, the duty of the 
 pe ;ple to become faithful, true and competent citizens, the im- 
 portance of understanding all questions of government, the neces- 
 sity of independence and self-reliance; and above all, the first 
 presidency should lay the foundation stone of American citizen- 
 ship in the minds of "the people" by reminding them of the 
 Declaration of Independence — a flash of inspiration and true 
 manhccd from the very throne of God himself — that men are 
 by God created free and equal; that they are divinely endowed 
 with inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness; that they 
 must stand up in their own manhood and refuse to bow their 
 heads to kings or priests; that they must be sovereigns in their 
 own right; that they must render unto Caesar the things that 
 are Caesar's; that henceforth the spheres of church and state 
 should be kept separate. But did the first presidency make such 
 suggestions as these? 
 
 It was at the time "when the division on party lines took place" 
 that "certain suggestions" were made, presumably in order to 
 shape tlie division. If there were any biases or party preferences 
 in the mijids of the first presidency they will, to some extent at 
 least, appeal* in the sequel! 
 
 NEW WINE IN OLD BOTTLES. 
 16. That movement was an entirely new departure. 
 
 Here is a very significant concession — ^that division into 
 parties and independent action as citizens "was an entirely new 
 departure." There had been voting and other party action at 
 Nauvoo; but there was no division into independent parties 
 there ; it was run by "counsel" as it was under the People^s party 
 regime in Utah. There was a long period of office holding in 
 Utah as set out in the foregoing section; but there was no 
 division en national party lines. It was all done under the dic- 
 tates of church counsel. Now comes a new state of things, a 
 "new departure." There is a new wine for the people. Will it be 
 put into new bottles? Will there be new rules and regulations? 
 Or will the old bottles — the old rules and regulations of "coun- 
 sels—be patched up for the new state of Utah? A study of the 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 81 
 
 inanifesto reveals the fact that old bottles and old customs and 
 usages are to hold the new wine of Utah statehood. 
 
 A QUESTION OF MOTIVE. 
 
 17. And it was necessary in order that the full benefit should not be 
 lost which was hoped to result from this new political division, that people 
 who were inexperienced should be warned against hasty and ill-considered 
 action. 
 
 That "fi:ll benefit" was statehood containing by implication 
 many other things that were regarded as beneficial. Hence we 
 have a clue to the procedure of certain officials who went about 
 dividing the people into parties, saying — "Zion wants your 
 votes," *'Zion wants statehood." We find that the people were 
 about equally divided between the Democratic and Republican 
 panics; and it would look a little strange, after the visit of 
 one of the "dividing officials" to a town to see the next day 
 some *''unterrified" sage brush Democrat posing as a genuine Re- 
 publican. And as late as October, 1895, several minor officials 
 gave out to near friends that they belonged to the "reserve 
 corps," supposed to be a convenient means of holding the bal- 
 ance of power between the parties. 
 
 Beneath the politics of the national parties there was a state- 
 hood p.» itics, covering certain maneuvering in order to attain 
 the "full benefit." This statehood politics called for the equaliz- 
 ing of parties; hence the counseling of some officials to go out 
 and speak to the people; and the counseling of other officials 
 to stay at home and keep silent; hence the bargaining with party 
 managers abroad, in short there were a thousand things included 
 in this statehood project that could not have come down from 
 that "Son of God'' whose name is so often used to give sanction 
 to the wily schemes of man. 
 
 If the motive had been to enlighten the people thoroughly; to 
 promote the spread of true political knowledge; to qualify men 
 and womern for self government and useful citizenship — if such 
 had been the motive set out in the manifesto, we could but re- 
 gard it as worthy of the church, or of Qirist himself. 
 
 Whatever the "full benefit," it was necessary in order to its 
 attainment "that people who were inexperienced should be warn- 
 ed against hasty and ill considered action." Here we see no 
 referen-^e to instilling principles into their minds in order that 
 they might be rightiy guided. All that is told us suggests that 
 the people were to be marched about and generaled into the 
 accomph^hment of some plan or scheme of priestiy counsel. The 
 
82 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 iinst presidency seem to be considering actions and results to be 
 gained and controlled directly, rather than the political and civil 
 enlightenment of the mind whereby alone the true results in 
 action sIk uld be sought to be attained. 
 
 OPERATIONS OF COUNSEL. 
 
 18. In some cases they were counseled to be wise and prudent in the 
 political steps they were about to take, and this with no idea of winning 
 them against their will to either side. 
 
 "Counseled to be wise and prudent" Does thisi mean, coun- 
 seled (tha* they ought) to be wise and prudent; or counseled 
 (so as) to be wise and prudent? Probably the latter; for it would 
 avail but little to tell people to be wise and prudent without 
 giving them a knowledge of what would be wisdom and pru- 
 dence under the circumstances. As the "full benefit^' was state- 
 h*" 1 d and what appertained thereto, we may well suppose that 
 ^'tc be wise and prudenf' included a disclosure of the "political 
 steps" that would lead up to that consummation. 
 
 "With no idea (purpose) of winning them against their will to 
 either side." No, it is not the nature of counsel to win a per- 
 son against the will; rather does it operate to convince the will, 
 remove objections, and thus with' the consent of the will direct 
 their political steps, or their movements in any other depart- 
 ment of life. 
 
 In the foregoing sentence, number 17, the "inexperienced" 
 were counseled against "hasty and ill considered action." In 
 the sentence under consideration, "in some cases," they were 
 counseled "to be wise and prudent." Why not in both cases? 
 Does noi wisdom and prudence answer the purpose precisely to 
 counteract "hasty and ill considered action?" From what follows 
 it will be more clearly seen that the writer of the manifesto has 
 unconsciously written a good deal between the lines; and "to 
 be v/ise and prudent" in this passage means to be wise in plan- 
 ning methods to achieve statehood. 
 
 As it afterwards turned out, statehood would have been more 
 easily secured, if there had been no plans or schemes forced upon 
 the pc jple. They were counseled "to be wise and prudent," 
 and they were required to do certain things; but if no counsel 
 whatever had been given and the people had been left to their 
 own judgment and inclination, statehood would have been more 
 promptly secured. For while the incidents referred to in the 
 manifesto were happening in 1890-91, there was a great over- 
 turning of parties in 1892. The president and congress were 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 83 
 
 changed from one side of politics to the other. And if Utah 
 had not been thrown into a different political relation she would 
 have bfen in harmony with president and congress in 1893, and 
 statehood would have come more promptly than it finally did. 
 
 One leading brother announced at Paris, Idaho, that he had 
 receiveo a political prophecy. He had it by a revelation., he 
 claimed, that Cleveland would never be president of the United 
 States again, although nominated at that time. Of course he 
 wa- mi^aken; but the matter that concerns us here is the tendency 
 at that time to construe the counsel of certain leaders as being in- 
 spired, and the inclination to get supplementary inspirations to 
 aid the leaders in controlling the political action of the people. 
 It is a matter of congratulation that statehood was attained; 
 but it did not need that the means and plans "suggested" by 
 counsel should have been adopted, or even thought of. 
 
 TO THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY. 
 
 19. To this extent, and no further, was anything said or done upon 
 this question, and at no time and under no ciacumstances was any attempt 
 made to say to voters how they should cast their ballots. Any charge that 
 has been made to the contrary is utterly false. 
 
 It would be foreign to the purpose of this memorial to discuss 
 what might be termed "statehood politics," were it not that the 
 whole matter obtains a certain degree of importance in relation 
 to the political character and conduct of Moses Thatcher. It was 
 widely known that he was not in harmony v^th some of his 
 brethren in relation to the policy to be pursued, and that was 
 fmally decided upon by superior authority. Only those who 
 were fully advised could have located the trouble; but enough 
 was generally known to mitigate the surprise awakened in the 
 public mind by the disclosures made in the Salt Lake Tribune 
 of May 10 concerning the priesthood meeting at Logan. It may 
 be remarked here that the report is substantially correct, and in 
 very many cases the exact words are used: 
 
 "Joseph F. Smith was the next speaker. He said that Moses 
 Thatcher's attitude all through the political fight in Utah could 
 not be justified; that he had been the one apostle who had refused 
 to take counsel as to how the people should be divided up; that 
 the first presidency and all the twelve but Thatcher had decided 
 upon a ceitain policy to get the relief they needed from the gov- 
 ernment; but Tliatcher had stood out against them; that he had 
 been opposing his brethren ever since the division on party lines, 
 and had not been in harmony with his quorum." 
 
 Joseph F. said further that the meeting called in the Gardo 
 ou.«e to consider the advisability of disbanding the People's 
 
84 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 party was attended by many of the authorities, stake presidents 
 and leaders of the People's party. 
 
 It was plainly stated at this meeting that men in high author- 
 ity who believed in Republican principles should go out among 
 the people, but that those in high authority who could not in- 
 dorse the principles of Republicanism should remain silent. Their 
 counsel was obeyed by all the apostles and high authorities ex- 
 cept .Closes Thatcher, who talked to the people contrary to the 
 wishes ()f his brethren. If it had not been for his condition, 
 Moses Tliatcher would have been called to account for his dec- 
 laration in the opera house, (here giving Thatcher's declaration 
 of political independence), but if he ever became able he would 
 have tr) answer for that as well as other things they proposed to 
 charge against him. 
 
 "An.l I want to tell you now," said Joseph F., "that Moses 
 Thatcher was only admitted to the dedication of the Salt Lake 
 temple after long hesitation; he only got in 'by the skin of his 
 teeth.'' The speaker said that the only concession Moses That- 
 cher ever had made was that he would always submit to the will 
 of the majority, but would not admit that he was wrong, al- 
 though all his brethren voted against him. 
 
 Right here George W. Thatcher interrupted Joseph F. to say: 
 
 ''Brother Joseph, will vou allow me to make a statement?" 
 
 The permission was granted and George W. Thatcher said: 
 
 "My brother is very sick, and it does not seem right to make 
 these charges against him behind his back. I have no knowledge 
 of these matters, and cannot defend him against you; but I love 
 my brother and do not like to have him treated this way." 
 
 Joseph F. continued by saying that he, too, loved Moses 
 Thatcher, and wouldn't have taken the matter up if Heber J. 
 hadn't started it. 
 
 George W. Thatcher then asked Joseph F. if he meant to say 
 that Mr.ses Thatcher was at the meeting in the Gardo House 
 referred to, and the answer was: 
 
 "Yes, T am. positive, and I have related exactly what took place 
 at that meeting." 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to assure the readers of this memorial 
 that Moses Thatcher was not in attendance at that Gardo house 
 meeting, but he is, nevertheless, under the ban of some of his 
 brethren for his disregard of certain proposed "counsel" in rela- 
 tion to what they supposed to be his political duty. 
 
 And now the question arises: Was not Moses Thatcher 
 wholly justifiable in the course that he chose to pursue? Will not 
 historv justify him? Will not men honor him for his indepen- 
 dence** Will not God approve his fidelity and integrity? To 
 ask such questions is to answer them. And even with respect 
 to statehood, his course promised speedier success; for soon 
 after that time the president and congress became Democratic. 
 But it is not as a mere makeshift that the question must be 
 
THE MANIFESTO PIXAMINED. 85 
 
 jtidged, bat as a matter of principle and right. Mr. Thatcher 
 ti ok tht. right ground in the sight of God and his- countrymen 
 
 HOW ABOUT CHURCH AND STATE? 
 
 Suppose the pubhshed report of the high council meeting at 
 Logan is substantialiy correct as to the language ascribed to the 
 several spiakers; suppose the "division" was accomplished about 
 as described — that certain men w^ere counseled to go out and 
 speak arid organize, and that certain other men were counseled 
 to stay at home and hold their peace; suppose the parties were 
 put into array in conformity with arrangements entered into 
 between the "authorities" and certain prominent politicians; sup- 
 pose statehood were secured by carrying out such a program; — 
 what shcnild our judgment be as to the leading authorities en- 
 croaching upon the sphere of the state? 
 
 Of C(.iirse it might be said that by all such means certain 
 leaders were counseled so as "to be wise and prudent;" but is 
 this the wisdom that comes from above, from "the Father of 
 Lights with whom there is neither variableness or shadow of 
 turning^" To send out men for one side to speak and organize, 
 and keep the leaders of the opposite side at hime, is to play the 
 game with loaded dice. How does such a procedure dififer in 
 rn«>ral quality from the simple ordering up of a majority for 
 either party as the circumstances required? If these things were 
 dent as narrated at Logan, or in any other way that produced 
 the same result by means of "counsel," how can the authoritie? 
 escape th< judgment of mankind that they have trespassed, in 
 no very exalted way, upon the sphere of the state? 
 
 BEGETTING A STATE. 
 
 20. Concerning officers of the Church themselves, the feeling was 
 generally expressed in the beginning of the political division spoken of 
 that it would be prudent for leading men not to accept of office at the 
 hands of the political party to which they might belong. This counsel 
 was given to men of both parties alike — not because it was thought that 
 there was any impropriety in religious men holding civil office, nor to de- 
 prive them of any of the rights of citizenphip, but because of the feeling 
 that it would be better under all the circumstances which had now arisen 
 to avoid any action that would be likely to create jealousy and ill-feeling. 
 
 "Concerning officers themselves." In foregoing paragraphs 
 the manifesto has been speaking with reference to the people at 
 large as led about and divided into parties by the chief officials. 
 Here thev deal with "officers themselves." 
 
Sb THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 And why must officers in the church abstain from holding" 
 office in the state? Note that the time here indicated is about 
 1890. In a former lengthy paragraph, number 12, we are told 
 concemirg; a period of near 40 years, during which the people 
 of Utah enjoyed a tranquil reign of church officials without hav- 
 ing in the least degree obliterated or trespassed upon "the dis- 
 tinction betw^een church and state." 
 
 Why should there be a feeling in the beginning of the politi- 
 cal divisicn spoken of that it would be prudent for leading men 
 not to accept office at the hands of the political party to which 
 they might belong?" Why should it "create jealousy and ill 
 feeling?" Why was "this counsel given" at this particular time 
 "to men of both parties alike?" 
 
 There is a very good and sufficient reason between the lines 
 for all this: — During all the long* period of forty years before 
 mentioned, there was the church; and within its counsel was the 
 semblance of a state; but so far as it was a state by Mormon 
 votes, it drew its life from the guidance and authority of the 
 priesthood. Tne people knew this. They knew that in a gen- 
 eral way they votfed for whomsoever the church wished elected. 
 
 Now that the Mormon people were to be divided up with the 
 Gentiles into parties, they could not very well decide between 
 church officials, many of whom had previously been in the habit 
 of dictating to them as members of the People's party. They 
 had formerly looked upon the dictation of each one of the chief 
 officials as inspired. Now they would have to decide between 
 the leadmg authorities and they would even have to consider 
 the attitude of the first presidency. Here was indeed a chance 
 for confusion, jealousy and ill feeling! 
 
 The "counsel" is now given to the effect that the chief offi- 
 cers gc back on the precedents that have guided them for forty 
 years, and keep out of politics. This was probably good coun- 
 sel under the circumstances. "Let all the chiefs who have been 
 in the habit of dictating to the people, now abstain from be- 
 coming political leaders, so that the chosen people shall not 
 become confused in the matter of priestly authority. 
 
 A far better way — a truer, nobler, more American way — a way 
 more in accord with the Declaration of Independence — was that 
 pursued by Moses Thatcher; to let the people go free in political 
 matters: to absolve them from all dictation and counsel; to let 
 the state alone, as we allow the moon to freely move in her 
 orbii; to let every Mormon brother stand up in his own man- 
 hood and God-given right as an American citizen. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 87 
 
 A STATEHOOD GLAMOUR. 
 
 21. An era of peace and good will seemed to be dawning upon the 
 people, and it was deemed good to shun everything that could have the 
 least tendency to prevent the consummation of this happy prospect. 
 
 '*The consummation!" Not that the world was about to end; 
 but the struggle of half a century would culminate in statehood, 
 and Zion would be enlarged. The meaning is that the leader- 
 ship of high church oiftcials in politics would be likely to work 
 confusion., and as a consequence prevent the "consummation," 
 the "full benefit." At first, all such officials were counseled to 
 abstain from political leadership. This counsel was to be good 
 up to the attainment of statehood. The next regulation is that 
 all must be guided by counsel as to matters of state. This rule 
 puts charch officers — and all are officers— back into the People^s 
 pany regime. The index on the dial of liberty is put back forty 
 }'ears ! 
 
 WEAKNESS AND DIVIDED COUNSELS. 
 
 22. In many instances, however, the pressure brought to bear upon 
 efficient and popular men by the members of the p irty to which they be- 
 longed was of such a character that they had to yield to the solicitation to 
 accept nomination to office, or subject themselves to the suspicion of bad 
 faith in their party affiliations. 
 
 No, that was not the true reason. There had been a rule made 
 that "all the leading authorities should keep out of politics." 
 Now, i^ the chief authorities had themselves firmly adhered to 
 the rr.k, and had set an example of faithfulness and consistency, 
 there w uld have been no trouble whatever. No "solicitations" 
 to recive nominations would have been a temptation. 
 
 After the rule was made, there was "counsel" given that was 
 in violation of the rule. One side in politics was counseled to 
 go out to the people and promote that side; and the other side 
 in politics was "counseled" to stay at home and keep silent. 
 
 WTicn a rule is made by a certain authority, and by the same 
 authority the rule is changed so as to apply to only one-half of 
 the people subject to the rule, by all the dictates of right reason 
 the rule is nullified. Otherwise there could be no government, 
 no administration of justice. Whoever should be dealt with in 
 this way would know that his rights as an American citizen were 
 trifled with. 
 
 It would have been better to have discarded all political con- 
 trol over the people and let them go absolutely free; but when 
 it v-as resolved to promote one side, this would in honor release 
 the other side; and any free man would resent restraint imposed 
 by a partial and inequitable rule. 
 
88 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 CONFLICTING COUNSELS. 
 
 23. In some cases they did this without consulting the authorities of 
 the church; but where important positions were held, and where the 
 duties were of a responsible character, some did seek the counsel and ad- 
 vice of the leading church authorities before accepting the political honors 
 tendered them. 
 
 Note thai in the beginning of the division movement, as 
 stated above in section 20, the chief officials were prohibited 
 from accepting civil offices because of the likelihood of arousing 
 ''jealousies and ill feeling," and also for fear of imperilling the 
 "consuniT-'alion." But in this section some did seek counsel 
 and some did not. Now how could it have a tendency to allay 
 "ill feelirg" and disarm "jealousies" to know that any leading 
 official had not only gone into politics, but had been instructed 
 by counsel to go into politics. The fact is, it would have the 
 contrary effect," and it actually did have that effect; for time 
 and again individuals and committees appeared before the first 
 presidency and complained of their unfairness in allowing certain 
 men to go into politics to the exclusion of others. 
 
 Here it is that "counsel" seems to disregard its own policy. 
 For, it was stated a few lines above that for certain reasons^ — 
 "jealousy and ill feeling'' — leading men were to abstain from 
 civil office. In this section all that seems to have been required 
 was the seeking of "counsel," and counsel being obtained they 
 wert- ushered into politics notwithstanding "jealousy and ill 
 ff^eling." 
 
 The whole procedure is confused and conflicting. It is utterly 
 impossible to gather any consitency or uniformity out of it. 
 "When important positions were held, some did seek counsel 
 befce accepting, etc." They sought counsel, and according to 
 the rule laid down above, they ought to have been forbidden 
 th< privilege; but they were elected; and the meaning between 
 tlie lines is that they were helped into their position because 
 they did seek counsel. All this is crooked and confused; it indi- 
 cates n( system and uniformity; and it can but be looked upon as 
 reprehensible. 
 
 WITHOUT COMPASS OR RUDDER. 
 
 24. Because some others did not seek this counsel and advice, ill-feel- 
 ing was engendered and undue and painful sensitiveness was stimulated; 
 misunderstanding readily followed, and as a result the authorities of the 
 Church were accused of bad faith and made the subjects of bitter re- 
 proach. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 89 
 
 The writer is very much confused at this point. He is speak- 
 ing' of things connected with the "division movement." The rea- 
 son given "for leading men not to accept office" was to "avoid 
 any acti »n that would be likely to create jealousy and ill feeling." 
 Here we find the writer complaining that "ill feeling was engen- 
 dered because some others did not seek this counsel and ad- 
 vice.'^ This is not stating it consistently with what precedes. The 
 counsel was given generally that all the leaders should stay out 
 of politics. See above: — "This counsel was given to men of 
 both parties- alike." All must keep out. What is the trouble 
 then? It should be stated thus: "Counsel was given and a rule 
 made that all leaders should stay out of politics. Subsequently a 
 different plan was adopted. It was thought best to favor a cer- 
 tain party, and the leaders that were favorable to that party 
 vv^ere allowed to go out, and those that were not favorable to 
 that party were counseled to stay at home. Some men that felt 
 independent claimed that the original rule was nullified and that 
 tlie whok plan was vitiated by partial, discriminating and con- 
 flicting counsels." Of course there might be ill feeling; but it 
 would be because of divided counsels. 
 
 A REVISED EDITION. 
 
 25. We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high posi- 
 tions in the church, whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesiastical 
 labors are understood to be continuous and necessary, it would be an im- 
 proper thing to accept political office or enter into any vocation that would 
 distract or remove them from the religious duties resting upon them> 
 without first consulting and obtaining the approval of their associates and 
 those who preside over them. 
 
 "AVe have maintained." When? How long previously was 
 the dc'ctrine of submission and obedience put into this form? 
 At the time of the "division" other reasons prevailed — the like- 
 lihood ci "jealousies and ill feeling." Later on things went hap- 
 hazard and a great partisan movement was inaugurated. There 
 were divided counsels, insubordination and ill-feeling. Previous 
 to "division," and throughout the long reign of the People's 
 party, all faithful Mormons were, as a matter of faith and prac- 
 tice, subject to the chief leadership. They sought authoritative 
 guidance in all the affairs of life, temporal and spiritual. 
 
 And when did the authors of the manifesto begin to put the 
 doctrine of subordination and counsel in the precise form above 
 stated? Never before did they claim that the duty of seeking 
 counsel depended on the obligations and responsibilities involved 
 in an office. The duty had always rested, upon the relation of 
 
90 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 subordinaTion to the head of the church, and the obHgation to 
 obedience as in the kingdom ol God. This change of reason 
 f(jr counsel and obedience is of importance as showing conscious 
 need of some rational ground on which to base the universal 
 obligation to submission and counsel. 
 
 AT WAR WITH AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 26. It has been understood from tbe very beginning of tbe Church 
 that no officer whose duties are of the character referred to, has the right 
 to engage in any pursuit, political or otherwise, that will divide his time 
 and remove his attention from the calling already accepted. It has been 
 the constant practice with officers of the Church to consult — or, to use our 
 language, to "counsel" — with their brethren concerning all questions of 
 this kjnd. 
 
 Here is the statement of the doctrine of counsel and submis-^ 
 sion as originally promulgated. They had no "right." They 
 had relinquished all such seculaf rights. In order to be rein- 
 stated in those "rights" they must consult with brethren and with 
 those in authority over them. In the former sentence this rule 
 is modified and it is called an improper thing to accept office 
 in the state. The earlier doctrine was that they had "no righf^ 
 1.0 do so. 
 
 But it is made very evident in this exposition of the duty of 
 "counsel," how thoroughly and essentially it is at war with the 
 individuality and independent manhood required by the Decla- 
 ration of Independence. Just consider! Here in Utah 
 is a majority in one church, every reputable male member of 
 which holds some ecclesiastical office, all such members being 
 bound to "counsel" with their brethren and especially with those 
 that preside over them, and all this in relation to secular and po- 
 litical duty. Everyone relinquishes his individuality. He no lon- 
 g'er acts from the dictates of his own will, but from the will of 
 the church. 
 
 The chief authorities do not dictate to individuals how they 
 shall vote; but they determine which of the officers shall accept 
 nominations and which shall not; and with a large number of 
 voters acting as a reserve corps, ready to be guided by the least 
 intimations from the chief authorities, it is easy to see that any 
 desired result can be predetermined. 
 
 WHY NOT? 
 
 27. They have not felt that they were sacrificing their manhood itt 
 doing so, nor that they were submitting to improper dictation, nor that in 
 soliciting and acting upon the advice of those over them they were in any 
 manner doing away with their individual rights and agency, nor that ta 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 91 
 
 any improper degree were their rights and duties as American citizens 
 being abridged or interfered with. 
 
 The writer breaks down in the last clause of the foregoing long 
 sentence: — "Nor that to any improper degree were their rights 
 and duties as American citizens being abridged or interfered 
 with.'' There is a "degree" in which they feel their rights 
 abridged and interfered with; but it is not an "improper degree.*' 
 How much is "proper;" and how much more will make it "im- 
 proper?" Caesar's -wife was to be "above suspicion." How much 
 latitude could there be until it would become "improper." 
 
 No, a good many that have been bound hand and foot for lot 
 these many years with the two fold cord of church counsel, begin 
 to feel new that in nature and essence it stands opposed to the 
 spirit of American freedom and independence, and that their 
 manhood and individuality are sacrificed by being required to 
 submit for guidance to a junta of the church. 
 
 PRIESTLY OFFICES AND AUTHORITY. 
 
 28. They realized that in accepting ecclesiastical office they assumed 
 certain obligations; that among these was the obligation to magnify the 
 office which they held, to attend to its duties in preference to every other 
 labor, and to devote themselves exclusively to it with all the zeal, industry 
 and strength they possessed, unless released in part or for a time by those 
 who preside over them. 
 
 In tK«. Mormon church "every reputable member" is entitled to 
 hold office. So says the manifesto, and this is the general un- 
 derstanding. The not holding some office is a suggestion of 
 disrepute. In fact, holding an office of some kind seems neces- 
 sary in the Mormon church as an evidence of full and reputable 
 membership. But most of the officials, almost all indeed, receive 
 no compensation whatever. 
 
 When persons agree to perform certain work for a certain 
 compensation, they are amenable to those who employ them, 
 for a faithful discharge of their duties; and for neglect or non- 
 performance they are justly liable to discharge or some other 
 expression of demerit. 
 
 Thus if a man is employed by a mercantile company or a 
 church committee to do a certain work, he is bound to do it, and 
 to make reparation for neglect of duty or lost time. If an em- 
 ployee desired to devote time that was unemployed or uncon- 
 tracted for by the company or committee to other work, it 
 would be his right and privilege to do so. All that his employ- 
 ers could require would be performance of duty; all that they 
 could censure him for would be neglect or non-performance of 
 
92 THE LATE MANIFi STO IN POLITICS. 
 
 the duties for which they had employed him. If his employers 
 demanded the right to control his unemployed time, so as to 
 say what. he. should or should not do during" the hours for 
 which he was not under contract to them, they would then tres- 
 pass on his rights, and he would be under no obligation to yield 
 to them. 
 
 Of course the great majority of the officers of the Mormon 
 church have duties to perform that require but little of their 
 time, and almost none at all of their week day time, and none 
 are required to make special preparations in order to address the 
 people. Nearly all officers make their living and support their 
 familie«; by some secular occupation or profession. A number 
 of the apostles even are laborious and thrifty business men de- 
 voting a large share of their time to secular work. 
 
 Under such circumstances it is wholly preposterous for the 
 chief authorities to claim the right to dictate to a member or an 
 officer in reference to the time that is naturally and ordinarily 
 taken up with secular occupation in order to earn a living for 
 the individual himself and his family. If a man is a farmer, he 
 devotes some of his time to church duties, but he seldom neglects 
 his farm occupations. If he is elected to a civil office, he devotes 
 even less time to his office than he formerly did to his farm. 
 
 What reason or justice is there in the claim that because a 
 fanner, a merchant oi an artisan devotes a small portion of his 
 time to church duties, that therefore a priesthood must pass upon 
 his right to devote the secular part of his time to some kind of 
 civil service? Is it not evident at a glance that such claims are 
 unreasonable and tyrannical? 
 
 All that a priesthood having charge of church aflfairs can de- 
 mand of a subordinate officer, is that he perform his duty prop- 
 erly. All that they can justly and honorably do in the way of 
 discipline is because of neglect or non-pefrormance of duty. 
 Because a man is commissioned to devote a fraction of his time 
 to the church, they can not have a right to dictate how he shall 
 employ the balance of his secular time. All such claims savor 
 of capricious and unprincipled monarchy. 
 
 A SERIOUS PENALTY. 
 
 29. Our view, and it has been the view of all our predecessors, is that 
 no oflScer of our church, especially those in high stand ng, should take a 
 course to violate this long-established practice. Rather than disobey it, 
 and declare himself defiantly independent of his associates and his file 
 leaders, it has always been held that it would be better for a man to re- 
 sign the duties of his priesthood; and we entertain the same view to-day. 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 93 
 
 But in the Mormon church more than any other, perhaps, the 
 priesthood constitutes the Ufe and significance of the church; 
 and to be deprived of priesthood as a matter of discipline re- 
 flects t- the man's discredit, and thus becomes a penal alternative. 
 
 In such a case, the member deprived of ofificial standing as 
 a punishment, is in little better condition than an open apos- 
 tate. He must feel the confidence and respect of the Church 
 are withdrawn from him, for his loyalty to liberty has led him 
 to refuse to do what all the other members of the priesthood 
 have done, some willingly and others through fear and com- 
 pulsion. Thus his patriotism ostracizes him. It marks him 
 out as unpleasantly peculiar and unbrotherly in the Church. 
 It makes him a target for unkind and unwise criticism on the 
 part of those who have not studied and thought upon the 
 question, and who are consequently unable to understand and 
 appreciate his motives. 
 
 Why is it that no American Protestant Church has ever made 
 such demands upon minor officers? A deacon or an elder in 
 a Presbyterian Church, or a minor ofificer in any other Protest- 
 ant Church, is at libeaty to conduct his secular affairs as he 
 sees proper, so that he abstains from those forms of business 
 that are denounced as vicious and immoral by the churches. 
 Would the members and minor ofificers of any American 
 Pretestant Church tolerate any such rule as is here sought to 
 be enforced? No. They would rebel against it instantly. 
 Neither would the Catholic Church either attempt or care to 
 enforce such a rule. Is it reasonable that the Mormon Church, 
 which is now greatly in the majority in a State that has just 
 attained Statehood, should enact a rule that is more exacting, 
 more liable to abuse and temptation, than that of any other 
 church in the Western Hemisphere? 
 
 All these evil consequences and possibilities could have 
 been avoided by framing a rule in harmony with the circum- 
 stances as they actually exist in the Mormon Church. There 
 are a few ofilicers that are supposed to devote the most or all 
 their time to Church work. These are the First Presidency, 
 the Apostles, the Presidents of the Seventies, and a very few 
 others. These, by the custom and consent of the Church, 
 receive certain amounts for their temporal needs, perhaps only 
 enough to partially support them, the balance to be procured 
 through some secular occupation. It is reasonable to require 
 that these men confine themselves to Church work, and that 
 
94 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 they should not engage in politics so long as they continued 
 in ecclesiastical office. 
 
 But as to the vast number of members who are minor 
 officers in the Church, deacons and elders and bishops of 
 wards, it is utterly unreasonable and tyrannical to control their 
 secular time or business occupations because of their mem- 
 bership in the lower priesthood to which all male members in 
 good standing are eligible. All that could be required in 
 justice and right would be sincere devotion to duty, and dis- 
 cipline for neglect and non-performance of duty. 
 
 It is now generally known that a large proportion of the 
 higher officials in the Church were in favor of a regulation in 
 accordance with the foregoing principles; but in this they 
 were overruled, and the present rule was promulgated. Cer- 
 tainly Mr. B. H. Roberts' bold and manly words last fall were 
 decidedly against such a regulation; and those thousands of 
 independent and liberty-loving Mormons who agreed with him 
 then will be slow to accept the contrary doctrine with full pur- 
 pose of heart. It is apparent at a glance that the rule now 
 proclaimed achieves a purpose that could not have been sub- 
 served by a rule that would prohibit high officials from enter- 
 ing politics. The difference is that the rule now laid down 
 puts all the officials of the Church under a control that is to 
 all intents and purposes in the hands of a centralized power, a 
 power that can say to one, "come," and he cometh; to another, 
 "•' go," and he goeth. 
 
 If this rule gets to working efficiently in all the regions 
 where the Mormon Church is now in the ascendency, and in 
 those States where it holds the balance of power, it may be 
 made the means of accomplishing important political results. 
 Our Presidential elections are so close at times that a few 
 votes in the electoral college turns the scale. Under this rule 
 an ambitious leadership could easily determine the political 
 status of one or more States, and thus decide a Presidential 
 contest. As a matter of money such a power would be worth 
 millions of a corruption fund; but its exercise would imperil 
 the peace and safety of the commonwealth; its existence 
 would be a menace to free institutions; and to destroy it, the 
 whole country, if necsssary, would desolate our fair valleys 
 and fill every house with mourning. 
 
 CLEARING THE DECK FOR ACTION. 
 30. In view of all the occurrences to which reference has been made, 
 and to the diversity of views that have arisen among the people in conse 
 
THE MANIFESTO EXAMINED. 95 
 
 <iuepce, we feel it to be our duty to clearly define our position, so there 
 may be no cause hereafter for dispute or controversy upon the subject. 
 
 By the constitution of the Moniion church, a solemn declara- 
 tion like this manifesto commits the priesthood to a certain line 
 of action which would be continuous and unchanged except as 
 subsequently modified by some equally solemn declaration. 
 
 The authorities aim to have "no dispute or controversy*' as 
 to their oosition. Yet their document is so redundant and am- 
 l)iguou3, both in the rule itself which follows, and in the grounds 
 laid for the rule, that there could be no end of doubt and contro- 
 versy; unless indeed, which sems possible, the whole subject 
 should die away in importance and eflfectiveness until it ceases to 
 be an authoritative regulation. The light of liberty and popular 
 education is growing and spreading too rapidly to permit a reg- 
 ulation so monarchical and undemocratic to flourish upon Amer- 
 ican soil and among a free people. 
 
 THE RULE OF COUNSEL. 
 
 First — We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that should 
 always be observed in the Church and by every leading official thereof, 
 that before accepting any position, political or otherwise, which would 
 interfere with the proper and complete discharge of his ecclesiastical 
 duties, and before accepting a nomination or entering into engagements to 
 perform new duties, said official should apply to the proper authorities and 
 learn from them whether he can, consistently with the obligations already 
 entered into with the Church upon assuming his office, take upon himself 
 the added duties and labors and responsibility. 
 
 This rule is to be perpetuated: it is "always to be observed." 
 It applies to every member of "the church;" and it specially ap- 
 plies to "every leading official thereof." It applies to "any posi- 
 tion, political or otherwise," that the member would wish to enter 
 upon. It applies to any "nomination" to civil office. All of these 
 may be construed to "interfere with the proper and complete dis- 
 charge of ecclesiastical duties." Before accepting any such new 
 occupation the member must apply to the "proper authorities" 
 for permission. They propose to decide whether the new duties 
 will be compatible with the performance of church duties already 
 assumed. 
 
 The grounds on which this rule is laid is that certain duties are 
 already a.ssumed, and that when new employments are undertaken 
 the authorities must decide upon their compatibility with existing 
 cbligaticjus. In this way every officer and member, male and 
 female, is bound to seek coimsel for every new step in political, 
 •civil or industrial affairs that it may be desired to take. 
 
CHAPTER NINTH. 
 
 OASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 ROBERTS AND THATCHER. 
 
 And now the question arises, was Moses Thatcher right in 
 withholding his assent to the rule promulgated in the manifesto? 
 He was willing at the outset, and possibly may still be of the 
 same mind, to concur in the regulations whereby all the high 
 officers in the church should remain entirely out of politics. But 
 he wa? not willing to endorse a rule that makes it uncertain 
 whether a man's political allegiance is first of all to the state 
 or to the leading authorities of the churck It seems that Elder 
 B. H. Roberts was of the same opinion as to the authority of 
 the church. At the time of his political canvass last fall he was 
 reported in the papers as follows: 
 
 "I believe the church has a right to say whether or not its high 
 cilicials shall be allowed to participate in politics. If they de- 
 cide that certain officials shall not enter politics, it is for those 
 officers to submit to the regulation or resig^. But if the church 
 permits its high officials to enter politics at all, then those men 
 ought to be absolutely free to follow their own discretion as to 
 wliat their politics shall be and the extent to which they shall 
 engage in the affairs of government, as anything short of this 
 would tender party loyalty impossible. I do not ^believe that 
 Democratic officials ought to be expected to go to Republican 
 church officials for counsel in political affairs, or vice versa. Such 
 a requirement in our community would place the control of the 
 respective parties under the church officials, and would give up 
 political affairs entirely into their hands. I see no middle 
 ground between absolute and complete retirement on the part 
 of high Mormon church officials from politics, or else perfect 
 freedc m of conduct in respect to politics — ^trusting the individ- 
 ual's own discretion and judgment in political concerns." 
 
 Note Mr. Roberts' very significant language — "If high offi- 
 cials are permitted to enter politics, they must be left absolutely 
 free to follow their own discretion." Again, "Democratic offi- 
 cials (Mcrrmon) should not be required to go to Republican 
 church officials for counsel in political affairs, or vice versa.'' 
 Whvi' Mr. Roberts says "it would place the control of the re- 
 
CASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 97 
 
 spectiv« parties under the church officials, and would give up 
 pcHtical affairs entirely into their hands." He says further, there 
 must be "a complete retirement of Mormon church officials from 
 politics, or else perfect freedom of conduct with respect to 
 politics." 
 
 Of c«>urse, with siith convictions as are above expressed, Mr. 
 Robert? could in no wise sign the manifesto^ and that he did 
 finally sign it can only be explained by a state of facts similar to 
 those reported by the papers, as having been set forth in the high 
 council meeting at Logan, as follows: 
 
 ApGstle Heber J. went on to say that the brethren had worked 
 with B. H. Roberts for nine weeks before they brought him 
 around. After the first protracted effort availed them nothing 
 they gave him a couple of weeks to think the matter over, and 
 counsel with the authorities at his leisure. When his period of 
 reflection expired they met with him ag^n, but found his heart 
 like stone. They prayed with him and wept over him, but with- 
 out avail. Another extension of time was given him, during 
 whicii they all took up aj labor with him, but he was still un- 
 willing to admit that he had done wrong. 
 
 In the meantime Apostle Grant said, he and F. M. Lyman had 
 been appointed a committee to persuade Roberts that he was in 
 error. Day after day and night after night they went to him 
 and wept and prayed, and he wept and prayed, but insisted that 
 he had dc»ne no wrong. This continued for nine weeks, at the 
 end of which time he yielded. One morning he appeared before 
 the authorities and told them he was ready to acknowledge his 
 wrong and would sign any paper they might ask him to sign, or 
 dn an}1:hing they might tell him! to do. 
 
 Whether or not the foregoing statement is absolutely faithful 
 to the facts in the case, is unimportant; though supposing the 
 narrative to be strictly correct, there is nothing in it that is seri- 
 ously derogatory to an honest man's character. It shows that 
 there must be great pressure brought to bear upon a strong 
 man ere he can surrender a deep and consistent conviction. 
 It shows that a man must be harrassed and distressed and his 
 nights filled with troubled dreams, ere he can do such a thing. 
 Under such circumstances there remains an appeal from Mr. 
 Roberts after nine weeks continuous agitation, to the same 
 man when free and unobstructed, boldly and eloquently dis- 
 cussing the rights of church and state. 
 
 THE CASE OF MOSES THATCHER. 
 
 The charges against Moses Thatcher, so far as we have been 
 able tci ascertain them, were quite fully delineated at the stake 
 
•98 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 high council meeting at Logan, and they seem to be about as 
 follows: 
 
 I — "Moses Thatcher's attitude all through the political fight 
 in Utah could not be justified." 
 
 2 — ^"He had been the one apostle who had refused to take 
 counsel' as to how the people should be divided up." 
 
 3 — "The first presidency and all the twelve but Thatcher had 
 decided upon a certain policy to get the relief they 'leeded from 
 the government; but Thatcher had stood out against them." 
 
 4 — "He had been opposing his brethren ever since the divi- 
 sion on party lines; and had not been in harmony with hi« 
 brethren." 
 
 2 — "The meeting called in the Gardo House to consider the ad- 
 visabilit}^ of disbanding the People's party was attended by many 
 of the authorities, stake presidents and leaders of the People^^ 
 party. It was plainly stated at this meeting that men in high 
 au'^hority who believed in Republican principles should go out 
 among the people, but that those in high authority who could 
 not indorse the principles of Republicanism should remain silent 
 Their counsel was obeyed by all the apostles and high authori- 
 ties except Moses Thatcher, who talked to the people contrary 
 to the Avirhes of his brethren. 
 
 6 — "If it had not been for his condition, Moses Thatcher would 
 have been called to account for his declaration in the opera 
 liouse, (here giving Thatcher's declaration of political indepen- 
 dence,) but if he ever became able he would have to answer for 
 that as well as other things they proposed to charge against 
 liin-./' 
 
 7 — "The speaker said that the only concession Moses Thatcher 
 ever had made was that he would always submit to the will of 
 the majority, but would not admit that he was wrong, although 
 all his brethren voted against him." 
 
 The last charge. No. 7, shows a wonderful concession on the 
 part of Mr. Thatcher. While his judgment could not be con- 
 vinced of the rectitude of such a plot as was hatched at the 
 Gardo House, or of the righteousness of other plans for divid- 
 ing the people like so many cattle and sheep; yet he was willing, 
 according to democratic principles, to submit to the "will of the 
 majority.'' 
 
 As to charge No. 6, his declaration at the opera house as given 
 in preceding pages, that declaration is in harmony with the sol- 
 emn pledges of the church, pledges which Moses Thatcher him- 
 self ratified most devoutly. What sort of justice or honor would 
 
CASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 99 
 
 that be which would require him to renounce his own political 
 faith, der.y his own personal pledges and withal dishonor the 
 covenants cf his church? 
 
 In reference to charge No. 5. the whole recital is something 
 so sepulchral and uncanny, so utterly out of harmony with the 
 honor and rectitude of open daylight and honest business, that 
 everybody will forget at once that it contains an accusation 
 against a noblej man, and only hope that such a seeming con- 
 spiracy against American institutions was never plotted. 
 
 All the other charges mean simply that Moses Thatcher had 
 refused to concur in a plan adopted and promulgated at the 
 Gardo house to divide the people into political parties according 
 to a certain policy. He had been willing to keep entirely out of 
 politics according to the rule first adopted; but when this was 
 set aside and the Gardo House rule put in operation he refused 
 to be bound by it; and for so doing he will have the approbation 
 of posterity, and doubtless that of the God of all. 
 
 PLEASE EXPLAIN! 
 
 A great part of the manifesto is devoted to the subject of 
 church and state; not that any attempt is made to define what is 
 meant by the one or the other; but to make it clear by many and 
 oft-repeated disavowals that no thought or desire or attempt has 
 ever been made or ever will be made to unite church and state, or 
 to permit the functions of the one to interfere with those of the 
 other. 
 
 One is cc^mpelled to wonder what kind of a state is meant by 
 the writer.' of the manifesto? Surely it can not be an American 
 state! If you have not interfered with the state, how is it that 
 you have controlled the politics of the parties by taking from 
 one side and adding to the other until the state of Utah now 
 ranks in a different organization and marches under a different 
 banner frcm that of half a dozen years ago, or even less? Who 
 made this variation? Surely it was made in great part by the 
 church authorities. 
 
 If you did not wish to interfere with the state, why would you 
 send out men to speak and organize for one side, while the lead- 
 ers for the other side were commanded or counseled to keep si- 
 lent? If you wish not to interfere with the state, why should you 
 seek to punish Moses Thatcher for not co-operating with you 
 !)y keeping silent while other leaders were converting his friends 
 and neighbcrs to a new political profession? 
 
100 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN TOLITICS. 
 
 If you wish not to interfere with the state, why do you en- 
 courage church members to be guided by your preferences in 
 political matters? Why do you not disabuse the minds of the 
 people and command them to be guided by their own thinking 
 and their own preferences? Why should it be a matter of im- 
 portance to the brethren all over Utah to know the position of 
 the "chief authorities" on political matters? 
 
 If there has been no attempt to infringe on the state, why 
 should there be any concern about political parties? Why 
 should noi one be as welcome as the other? And above all, why 
 should the authorities wish to consult with every member in 
 order to determine for him whether he shall accept an office or 
 not? Suppose a certain farmer is a deacon or bishop in the 
 church i- which he holds membership, and that he is desirous 
 of some civil office in his county. For twenty years he has lived 
 on his farm and attended church on Sunday, giving thus a small 
 portion of his time to ecclesiastical duty. Now, why should 
 such a man be compelled to accept and hold a civil office under 
 the aut:i» rization and control of his superiors in church office, 
 on the pica that he held a little official position in the church, and 
 for that reason he must submit all other duties and undertakings 
 to 1h' arbitrament of "counsel?" 
 
 LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION. 
 
 If the chief authorities are really desirous of keeping out of 
 politics and abjuring the functions of the state, why should they 
 ordain a rule that forever puts it within their power to control the 
 state? Nearly every reputable male member of the Mormon 
 church is an officer of some kind. The chief authorities are the 
 authors of the policies that shape the "counsels" of all that are 
 subordinate to them in the priesthood. Every reputable mem- 
 ber -is guided by the counsels of the chiefs, either directly or 
 indirectly. 
 
 Now what is the magnitude and nature of this power? It ex- 
 tendf to the whole population of the church. Within this radius 
 it is practically absolute. Moreover the power is priestly — that 
 is, it is paternal and patriarchal; just such power as should not 
 be used in relation tc the state. 
 
 But tlie inquiry arises — if the authorities do not want to con- 
 trol the state, why do they surround themselves with the means 
 of doing it? Why do they place themselves in the very vortex 
 of temptation? If the members are devoted and sincere, and if 
 they submit to such a rule of counsel, there can be no doubt that 
 
CASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 101 
 
 they are at the mercy of their superiors in office. With such 
 prAver in their hands, it is the invariable verdict of history that 
 those who hold it never fail to use it to achieve their own sel- 
 fish ends. 
 
 It is not right in the sight of God for any man to hold politi- 
 cal power over another man. It is not right in the sight of man ; 
 for long ago have men declared that "all are created equal;" all 
 are endowed with the same "inalienable rights." 
 
 If the chief authorities had desired to frame a rule that would 
 put the state out of danger in case an ambitious priesthood 
 should arise, they might have done so by requiring that all the 
 higher officials abstain from all fonns of political advocacy and 
 from all civil office; and they might further require faithful per- 
 formance^ of duty in all minor offices, with discipline for neglect 
 and nc-n-performance of duty. For violation of the rule on the 
 part of high officials, it might be required that they resign their 
 places; and the same penalty could be exacted from minor offi- 
 cials for neglect or non-performance of duty. 
 
 In such a regulation the church would stand in a negative 
 relation to the state. It would have no positive authorization to 
 make. As the rule reads, the church authorizes the official to 
 seek office. It commissions and qualifies him. It gives him a 
 certificate of character to church people. It tells the members 
 of the church that he is the one to vote for. If any member 
 should defy this counsel he would be classed as an apostate, and 
 his political prospects would be blasted. Thus the power of pre- 
 senting officers to the state would be complete in the priesthood. 
 It would swallow up the state completely. Not more absolute 
 would be Rome of the middle ages, or England under Henry the 
 Eighth. The only prevention would be the inability of the priest- 
 hood t. enforce discipline. 
 
 But why should the chief authorities thus surround themselves 
 with unnecessary burdens, and most of all with needless and 
 perilous teir.ptations? Surely, if they sought only "those things 
 that are honest in the sight of all men," they would put away 
 from thejnselves and their successors in office every possibility 
 of wielding a political power so enormous and far reaching, so 
 tempting to carnal ambition, so corroding and burdensome to 
 such noble souls as are fitted by the divine spirit to be guides and 
 expounders of eternal life. 
 
 CHURCH AND STATE FUNCTIONS, 
 llie sphere of civil government extends to acts — external con- 
 duct, r cc mmands the performance or non-performance of acts. 
 
102 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Civil government does not extend to the thoughts and beliefs 
 and whatever constitutes the spirit world. The church is based 
 upon the religious sentiments, and its true sphere is within the 
 spiritual domain where alone sin and righteousness and morality 
 prevail. Acts of themselves have no moral quality; and it is only 
 as they exist in the thoughts, desires, intentions, that they have 
 in?portance in the estimation of religion. If a man is insane, all 
 his acts count for nothing, however good or evil they might be, 
 were the man of sound mind. In the church acts are of im- 
 portcUic' only as evidences of good or bad states of soul. The 
 church can take no cognizance whatever of the physical act of 
 adultery: the state alone has jurisdiction over the outward act 
 But the church acts with reference to the purpose of heart 
 which dictates the adultery. The outward act is the evidence of 
 ihe mtcmal state; and the church performs its work as having 
 jurisdiction of the spirit and not with respect to external con- 
 duct. The state has no query whatever in regard to sin and 
 righteousness. It looks to public order and welfare and has no 
 eyes to see either sin or holiness. 
 
 The church may close its doors againset a member because 
 of certain acts, but it has jurisdiction only over the spirit, and 
 the act is simply testimony as to what has been done in the heart 
 out of which proceeds all good and evil. 
 
 Church and state may each do much to modify each other; 
 but in doing this, each must remain and work in its own 
 sphere. Thus the state may for its own preservation and wel- 
 fare establish a school system that will mould civilization and 
 transform all the beliefs and conceptions of men. In this way 
 religious c pinions and ordinances are greatly changed from age 
 to age. 
 
 The state may enforce order and protect life and property 
 everywhere, in the church assembly, at the altar — wherever hu- 
 man beings and property exist. But the state can not enforce 
 the discipline or ritual of the church. It cannot order baptisms, 
 commii.ion and confirmation. It cannot pay preachers and 
 provide h<,uses of worship. And in speaking here of the state, 
 we are enforcing the American conception of the state, with 
 which only we have to do. 
 
 The church may modify and mould the state; it may change 
 the characters of men and women; it may transform society and 
 civilization; it may unseat presidents, abolish laws, defeat parties, 
 inaugurate bloody ana destructive wars. But how shall this oe 
 done? By working in its own sphere. By enlightening and 
 
CASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 103" 
 
 moving the souls of men and women. By laying within the soul 
 of the citizen the foundations of character, will and purpose, 
 thus giving the motive and incentive to action. 
 
 The church may teach principles that will surely build up or 
 defeat a great political party, and thus rehabilitate the state. 
 But it would depart from its sphere if it should use its priestly 
 authocrity to control political action or manipulate parties. In 
 m.cdifying the state the church can only fulfill the office of a 
 seer or revelator. It can within its own sphere reveal truths 
 that wUl rock the state to its foundations, possibly overthrow it 
 entirely. But the authority in this case is the authority of the 
 truths revealed, not a priestly authority which adheres to the 
 perse n of the priest. 
 
 There is an infinite diflference between the priestly authority 
 of the priest and the authority of truth itself. In a mathematical 
 demonstration there is a sense of authority or self existence of 
 truth that is called conviction. This authority is infinite and 
 eternal, and it inheres in the nature and essence of the soul, and 
 in the nature of universal spirit. But the authority of a priest 
 is that of an official personage. The submission and obedience 
 rendered him is that of a child to a parent. It is not the result 
 of rational motive. In consenting to receive a man as a priest,, 
 wc becimie children, and the priest stands as the heavenly Fa- 
 ther. We take the prescription of the physician, not because we 
 understand therapeutics, but because we consent to be ministered 
 to as a dnld. 
 
 Tti the civil state men act from rational considerations and with 
 reference to definite and practical ends. It is largely a question 
 of experience. It turns on the operation of the law of cause and 
 efifect. Whatever the church does with reference to the state it 
 should dc by revelation of truth in reference to civil duty and 
 the standard of character. If it should attempt priestly control 
 over nitn^ as children are controlled by a parent; or as the phy- 
 sician requires submission from a patient; it would then resort 
 to priestly authority over civil action and inflict a grievous 
 wrong against the state. 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATE. 
 
 Under the American system there are two distinct spheres for 
 church and state, and they must be kept separate from inception 
 to culmination. In the one sphere, according to the words of 
 Christ, we must "render unto Caesar the things that are 
 Caesars;" and in the other we must "render unto God the things 
 
104 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 that are God's." The foundation of the state is the individual 
 soiils t">f men and women created by God in his image and after 
 his likeness, endowed in the nature of things with inalienable 
 rights cf life, liberty and happiness. These rights exist inde- 
 pendently of government; they exist in order to government and 
 a true government is an expansion and administration of these 
 primal rights; and in proportion as governments accomplish this 
 work the> have a right to exist; and when they fail to do this 
 they should be abolished. These principles as written by Jeffer- 
 son are the magna charta of American liberty and they can 
 never be abrogated. 
 
 The inception and origin of the state is the endowment of right 
 with which God has constituted the soul. Hence the state does 
 not get its right and power to exist from the church. The state 
 is an original and independent inspiration; and however much it 
 ir^ay blend with the church, there are two spheres, and neither 
 one must subvert the other. Neither must one be subordinate to 
 the other or dependent upon it. The state must not present offi- 
 cers to the church, as is done in all state churches; nor must the 
 church present officers to the state as would virtually be the case 
 under the manifesto. 
 
 Tiie manifesto lays the foundation for a church regime similar 
 in its significance and portent to that which prevailed under the 
 People's party organization. It is more subtle in its A^orkings — 
 more deftly devised — but if unimpeded it could not fail to achieve 
 results even more nicely and effectively that the former political 
 machinery. It is very true that much would depend upon the 
 character of the men to whose management the institutions of 
 the church should be entrusted. With some' only the good of 
 the church would be sought; but with men of comprehensive and 
 amlitious minds, both church and state would be covered by 
 their administrations. There would necessarily be discrimina- 
 tion and choice; prejudices and preferences would enter into the 
 work unconsciously; there would be a hundred avenues and in- 
 ducements to fraud and oppression. 
 
 The state is largely made up of the laws, institutions and cus- 
 toms which we inherit from the past; it is also constituted in 
 part by those who hold positions to frame and execute its laws, 
 llie state exists because of a vast number of functions the per- 
 formance of which requires an election to office, and in most 
 cases a prior nomination. 
 
CASES AND PRINCIPLES IN CHURCH AND STATE. 105 
 
 ANTAGONISM OF THE MANIFESTO. 
 
 Tlie position of the manifesto is that so far as the state exists 
 in its official functions it must hold its tenure in harmony with 
 the "counsel'' of the priesthood; that is, if the population were all 
 Mormon, as a majority of the Utah population is, those who 
 hold civil offices, or military either, would do so in conformity 
 with, and in subordination to "counsel." No good Mormon 
 would b^ found in office without the prior authorization of 
 "counstl;'* for if the manifesto is infallible, he would be a vio- 
 lator of the ordinance of God, and the church people acting in a 
 civil capacity would be in duty bound to vote against him. 
 
 Thi'- "rule" as promulgated, provides a circle within a circle — ^a 
 wheel within a wheel — and in the last anaylsis, a very few minds, 
 or possibly one mind, presses the button and the body of the 
 church dees the rest. Thus the network of guidance and author- 
 ity tends to destroy individuality and personal liberty. In this re- 
 gard it conflicts with the equality and liberty incorporated in the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 The "principle" that vitalizes the doctrine of priesthood is that 
 of theocracy dispensed through descending gradations of priest- 
 ly officials. The "principle" that animates the American system 
 is that every man and every woman is created in the image and 
 likeness of God, in virtue of which each is a sovereign unit of 
 the state. These two "principles," allowmg that both are genu- 
 ine, operate in different spheres neither of which may be made 
 subordinate to the other. In the state each man must be a sov- 
 ereign actmg freely, independently and of equal right. There 
 must be no hierarchy in a state, for every citizen is a king and a 
 sovereign. The state must in nowise go to the church for its 
 right to be or to do. In a true state no man could be elected to 
 office, having been "counseled" thereto by the church; that is, 
 if he held himself primarily at the disposal of the church he 
 shijuld not be accounted worthy of the state. 
 
 Perhaps the most important thought written by Jefferson in 
 the Declaration of Independence is that of the innate freedom 
 and independence of each human being. It requires only a clear 
 realization of the spirit of liberty as embodied in the Declaration 
 of Independence to see and feel that a state receiving its officers 
 and hclding its tenure in accordance with the "counsel" of a 
 church is in utter conflict with the genius of American govern- 
 ment. There have been times in the past when the church, 
 notably tht Catholic church, has completely swallowed 
 up the state, even to the literal putting of the foot 
 
106 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 of the ecclesias^-ical ruler upon the necks of kings. At 
 other times and places as in case of Queen Elizabeth, of England, 
 and the czar of Russia at the present moment, the state has ab- 
 sorbed the church, and ecclesiastical dignitaries are shuffled 
 abi'Ut as mere puppets of regal power. In such cases church 
 and stale occupy but a single sphere. The lion and the lamb lie 
 down together it is true, but the lamb is inside the lion. 
 
 CHAPTER TENTH. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAEY CHAKGES* BY LOKENZO SNOW. 
 
 The managers of the case against Moses Thatcher must 
 have had a keen sense of the fact that the consensus of public 
 opinion was against them in the Thatcher deposition;- for we 
 find them hunting about for a subterfuge to give the semblance 
 of a reason for opening up a magazine of obsolete and exploded 
 charges against Thatcher; and the significant feature of it all is 
 that their unwonted attack has been a boomerang that has 
 spread dismay among their ranks. Probably they did not know 
 the full import and history of the matters with which they were 
 dealing. At all events the reaction leaves them in a far worse 
 condition than before. But it is important here to no: ice the 
 subterfuge that was employed to give opportunity for the man- 
 agers, over the name of Lorenzo Snow, to amend their plead- 
 ings and file supplementary charges in order to stiffen up 
 public sentiment against Thatcher. And in order to make the 
 amended complaint more effectual, it is ordered to be read in 
 many if not all the ward churches. A letter is written and a 
 few young brethren are induced to adopt it as their own, and 
 thus request Lorenzo Snow to give the ''primary cause of 
 Brother Thatcher's lack of harmony with his quorum." It 
 seems that what was refused to the earnest pleadings of Moses 
 Thatcher, was here given out by Lorenzo Snow to a few young 
 men, apparently to gratify a mere curiosity. Here is the letter 
 of the young-men: 
 
 Salt Lake City, November 20, 1896. 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Twelve Apostles: 
 
 Dear Brother: — As there has been much discussion over the cor- 
 respondence between Moses Thatcher and yourself, and some of our own 
 people are at sea in regard to the primary cause of Brother Thatcher's 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES BY LORENZO SNOW. 107 
 
 lack of harmony with your quorum, leading to his excommunication there- 
 from, in behalf of a number of such persons we pen you this communica- 
 tion. 
 
 We are aware that the difficulty mainly rested with the twelve and 
 one of its members, also that when action was taken in the case there 
 was no need of your making further explanations. We can appreciate 
 your abstinence from controversy on a purely Church matter through the 
 public prints. But seeing that there appears to be a misapprehension of 
 the facts in the case, and that many good people are liable, in consequence 
 of that, to form incorrect conclusions, we respectfully ask you, if it be not 
 inconsistent with any rule of the Church or of the council over which 
 you preside, to make some public statement which will serve to place this 
 matter in its true light before the Saints, and clear away the mists which, 
 to some at least, seem to surround the subject of Moses Thatcher's de- 
 position. As he has given to the world the private correspondence that 
 passed between you and him in a Church capacity, is it fair, even to your- 
 self and your associates, to leave the matter in its present condition and 
 open to so much misconstruction? If you would make an explanatory 
 statement through the Deseret News, we believe it would be highly es- 
 teemed by many others, as well as your brethren in the gospel. 
 
 Nephi L. Morris, 
 Arnold G. Giauque, 
 Arthur F. Barnes, 
 R. C. Badger, 
 T. A. Clawson. 
 
 PRESIDENT SNOW'S ANSWER. 
 
 Salt Lake City, November 30. 1896. 
 
 Messrs. Nephi L. Morris, Arnold G. Giauque, Arthur P. Barnes, R. C, 
 Badger and T. A. Clawson: 
 
 Dear Brethren— In response to your esteemed communication of 
 the 20th inst., I have determined, after conference with several of the 
 Apostles, to offer some explanations on the case of Moses Thatcher and 
 comments on the correspondence to which you refer, through the columns 
 of the Deseret News. 
 
 The Apostles did not view the publication of the letters that passed 
 to and from Brother Moses Thatcher and them as calling for any contro- 
 versy on their part. Nor did they think it a proper thing to give those 
 ecclesiastical communications general publicity through secular news- 
 papers. The letters bearing my signature were not prepared with a design 
 for publication, whatever the others might have been — and were regarded 
 as Church matters for the consideration solely of the respective parties. 
 It is only because those letters have been given to the public, and because 
 it seems, from what you say, that an improper impression has been made 
 upon the minds of some people thereby, that I comply with the request to 
 meet some of the statements they contain. 
 
 The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to ex- 
 cite public sympathy, and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals they 
 contain convey the imprepsion that they were concocted for that purpose. 
 They were not relevant to the issue involved. Moses Thatcher was not on 
 trial for his fellowship. Specific charges were not preferred either in 
 
108 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 public or in private. The question was solely as to his standing as one of 
 the Apostles, in consequence of his lack of harmony with the Quorum of 
 the Twelve of which he was a member. That question he could have 
 settled at any time if he had so desired, and that without a formal trial. 
 By placing himself in harmony with his Quorum, in the spirit of humility 
 and conformity with its rules, of which he was not in ignorance, he could 
 have saved himself all the trouble and deprivation of which he complains. 
 
 THAT NEW MANIFESTO. 
 
 In his review of what he calls his case, he lays great stress on the 
 matter of the declaration of principles, which he refused to sign after it 
 had received the endorsement of the First Presidency, the Apostles 
 (excepting himself), the seven Presidents of the Seventies, the Patriarchy 
 and the Presiding Bishopric, comprising the general authorities of the 
 Church. His excuse is that he had only about an hour and thirty minutes 
 in which to consider it. Usually .nen do not require much time to consider 
 a matter which they have always held to be right. There was nothing 
 new in that document as it relates to Church discipline. It contains that 
 which has always been an established doctrine of the Church. When the 
 committee which prepared it submitted it to the other Church authorities, 
 they signed it after reading without hesitation and without requiring time 
 to deliberate. It embodies so manifestly a conceded and necessary rule 
 that every one in harmony with the Church authorities accepted it at 
 once, and the Church as a body has received and adopted it as an essential 
 rule. Why should Moses Thatcher alone, of all the Church authorities, 
 feel that he could not sign it, as he alleges, " without stultification?" Was 
 not that in itself evidence that he was and had been out of harmony with 
 his brethren? And are they not men as little disposed as any one living 
 to stultify themselves, or to assent to anything wrong that is of vital im 
 portance to them and to the Church? 
 
 He charges that his letter refusing to sign the declaration was " sup- 
 pressed." There was no suppression in the matter at all. The letter was 
 not addressed to the Conference nor to the public. Out of mercy and 
 compassion to him no reference was made to his contumacy at the Apri 
 Conference, but his name simply dropped from the list of authorities pre- 
 sented. How could he have been sustained under the circumstances? 
 There are six of the Twelve now living who voted for his appointment to 
 the Apostleship. Not one of them would have sustained him for that posi- 
 tion if it had been known that he then entertained views entirely out of 
 harmony with those of that body. The letter addressed at that time to 
 his associates was a deliberately composed communication showing that he 
 was able to understand the document which he refused to sign, and his 
 prompt publication of that letter, in a secular newspaper, shows that he 
 had a deliberate intention to oppose the declaration and defy his brethren 
 who promulgated it. But if he did not have sufficient time to consider 
 the declaration at the April Conference, what about the six months which 
 elapsed before the October Conference? Was not that time enough? Dur- 
 ing that interval he was visited by many of his brethren, some of them 
 Apostles, and no change was effected, but he failed even to attend the 
 October Conference, or to manifest a disposition to conform to the prin- 
 ciple of the declaration. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES BY LORENZO SNOW. 109 
 
 It is true that he was in poor bodily health during that period. But 
 he was not too ill to upbraid brethren who tried to impreps him with the 
 danger of his position, nor to accuse some of them of having "blanketed 
 their conscience " in signing the declaration. 
 
 He states in his letters that he would have attended the October Con- 
 ference if it had not been for the " assurances and reassurances" he had 
 received that nothing would be done concerning his standing until his 
 health should be restored. He then complains bitterly of the explanations 
 given to the Conference as to his position and seeks to convey the impres- 
 sion that they were a breach of good faith. 
 
 ASSURANCES WERE FULFILLED. 
 
 The "assurances'' to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was 
 left in statu quo. Every time it was shown that the condition of his health 
 would not admit of his meeting with his quorum the question of his stand- 
 ing was postponed. But meanwhile he and his friends were not slow to 
 talk about his associates and to convey unwarranted impressions concern- 
 ing their course in his case. So much misunderstanding was thereby 
 created that it became absolutely necessary to make some explanations 
 that the Latter-day Saints might not be deceived. President Woodruff 
 was Eo strongly impressed with this that he addressed the Conference on 
 the subject and his statements were endorsed by several of the Twelve who 
 followed him. 
 
 This was no "trial" of Moses Thatcher. It was simply a necessary 
 explanation of his status. It involved the question of his lack of harmony 
 with the Church authorities. His claim that he was publicly accused and 
 therefore should have a public trial is astonishingly absurd. He was not 
 accused in the sense of a trial or investigation. The fact of his lack of 
 harmony with the authorities was explained and shown to be of much 
 earlier date than his refusal to sign the declaration and his engaging in 
 active politics. To place himself in harmony with the Twelve, or refuse to 
 do so, required no "trial" either public or private. He did neither. Yet 
 the assurances given him which he misconstrues were observed and his 
 "case" was not called up untill he was able to appear. 
 
 It was but a few days after the Conference, even if it had entirely 
 closed, before he appeared and spoije at public meeting as though he still 
 held the authority in which he had not been sustained at Conference. 
 This necessitated the announcement from the First Presidency through 
 the Deseret News that he had no right to officiate in the priesthood while 
 in his suspended condition. 
 
 THE TEMPLE INCIDENT. 
 
 Notwithstanding that announcement, when he chose to present him- 
 self to the authorities he presumed to attempt entrance to the Temple for 
 that purpose, and at a time when the First Presidency as well as the 
 Twelve met for the consideration of other Church matters and for holding 
 their prayer circle. No one could attend but those of their own body, nor 
 even enter the house unless in good standing. No member of the Church 
 without the proper recommend can obtain admittance to the Temple, no 
 matter how much he may have contributed to its erection. That would 
 cut no figure at all in the right of entrance. It is amazing that Moses 
 Thatcher should attempt to intrude the boast of his contributions into the 
 
110 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 question of entering the Temple of God when not in good standing and 
 full fellowship. 
 
 His exclusion from the Temple he construes into being "denied the 
 privilege of meeting with the quorum," No one knew better than he that 
 there was no such denial. The assurance given him by Elder F. D. Rich- 
 ards and others of the quorum was proof of their willingness to meet him 
 and their joy at his manifestation of even a desire to meet them. That 
 there were other places and occasions when he could properly have an in- 
 terview with his brethren he fully understood, and he should have done 
 long before. 
 
 In passing I will notice his technical quibble about the closing of the 
 Temple against him on October 15th for his disregard of my letter of 
 October 23d, which he says is hard for him to understand. A care- 
 ful reading of my letter will show that the difficulty is of his own 
 manufacture. What I said conveys no such meaning as he asserts. 
 I said, "This being the condition of affairs you were not admitted to the 
 Temple on the forenoon of Thursday." "The condition of affairs" which 
 caused that exclusion is set forth in the first paragraph of my letter, and 
 relates to occurrences before the 15th. It is true that my letter of the 23d 
 in reply to his of the 16th is incidentially mentioned, but only as something 
 growing out of what happened on the 15th, and of course was not intended 
 to apply as a condition existing before that date. This perversion of plain 
 language shows what small evasions will be resorted to when one gets into 
 the dark. 
 
 THE CONFERENCE ADDRESSES. 
 
 Reference to the conference discourses published in the Deseret News 
 was made that Brother Thatcher might know exactly what the brethren 
 eaid, that he might see the necessity there was for the people to under- 
 stand where he stood, and that he might see the need of putting himself 
 in harmony with the Church authorities. 
 
 It is necessary to notice his complaint that he had not been invited to 
 attend the meeting at which final action was taken in his case. In his 
 letter dated November 4:th, he says: 
 
 " I returned to this city Thursday — a week ago tomorrow— and have 
 daily expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren 
 once more together. No word having reached me respecting that matter, 
 I adopt this means of respectfully asking you when such meeting can be 
 arranged. As early a meeting as convenient will greatly oblige. 
 Your brother in the gospel, 
 
 Moses Thatcher." 
 
 To this I replied, as he has published, under date of November 6: 
 
 " In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in 
 appointing 2 o'clock on Thursday next at the Historian's Office, upon which 
 occasion the quorum will be pleased to meet with you. With kindest re- 
 gards, your brother and fellow servant, 
 
 Lorenzo Snow." 
 
 On tlje day thus appointed the Apostles met at the time and place 
 thus designated, when they received his lengthy communication dated 
 November 11, in which he said: 
 
 " I shall not trouble my brethren therefore to convene in a special 
 meeting named for Thursday at 2 p. m. at the Historian's Office." 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES BY LORENZO SNOW. Ill 
 
 Thereupon the Council of the Apostles gave him one week more, and 
 notified him that his case would be called up for action at a meeting to be 
 held in the Historian's Office at 10 a. m. on Thursday, the 19th inst., as 
 appears in my letter, published by him with the other correspondence. 
 
 When that day arrived we received this last letter in which he said: 
 
 "As there is to be no trial of my case and as I am not requested to be 
 present, I take it to be the purpose of considering my case, etc." 
 
 Why should there have been any further tampering with the case? 
 Moses Thatcher was entirely out of harmony with his brethren the 
 Apostles. He was simply required to put himself in accord with them as 
 is required by the Gospel and the order of the councils of the priesthood. 
 That he declined to do. After asking for a time and place to be appointed 
 when he could meet with them, and in response to that request a time and 
 place was set, and the Apostles came from distant points for the purpose 
 of meeting with him, instead of appearing he coolly notified them by letter 
 that he would "not trouble them to convene!" Then when they gave him 
 another week in which to appear, and notified him that his case would be 
 called up for consideration and action, he still treated the council with 
 contempt and asserted: "I am not requested to be present." 
 
 That the Council of the Apostles took the only consistent action that 
 was left open must be evident to every Latter-day Saint who has eyes to 
 see and a heart to understand. Why Moses Thatcher did not meet with 
 his brethren, after they had assembled at his own request, is best known 
 to himself. Notwithstanding his past course they were ready to receive 
 him with open arms if he had come in the proper spirit and put himself in 
 accord with them. As he would not, they expelled him from the priest- 
 hood as they were in duty bound to do. 
 
 GOES FURTHER BACK. 
 
 It should be known that the disaffectian of Moses Thatcher dates 
 back to a time long before political difficulties could enter into the matter. 
 President Woodruff has stated publicly that Moses Thatcher had not been 
 in full harmony with his quorum since the death of President John Taylor. 
 Trouble was had with him before that time. 
 
 In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions not 
 endorsed by his brethren. At Lewiston, Cache County, notes were taken 
 of these utterances and published on a fly-leaf. He was subsequently 
 written to by President Taylor, and his answer is on file. While he claimed 
 that he had not been accurately reported, he gave his own language, under 
 his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events to occur within five 
 years, which have failed of fulfillment and which were founded on er- 
 roneous interpretations of scripture. He wrote for publication a sort 
 of retraction which really took nothing back but merely charged partial 
 errors in the report of his extravagant remarks. 
 
 He was out of harmony with his brethren in relation to a standing 
 appellate high council, which he claimed should be appointed and which 
 he has never acknowledged was incorrect. 
 
 He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of Presi- 
 dent of the Logan Temple and contended for a man of his own selection, 
 even after the President announced the appointment by revelation. 
 
 His bearing with his brethren of the Twelve was such that he could 
 not brook dissent and resented their non-acceptance of his personal views. 
 
112 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the Presidency was under con- 
 sideration, as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed 
 that he regarded human smartness and business ability as above that sim- 
 plicity of character and susceptibility to divine impressions which are 
 notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected that such a man 
 could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties arising. 
 He was overruled but persisted in his views. 
 
 BUSINESS DIFFICULTIES WITH PRESIDENT CANNON. 
 
 When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President 
 Taylor, was in prison for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws, Moses 
 claimed that Brother Cannon had defrauded him, and he threatened in 
 the presence of President Woodruff and others of the Twelve to sue him 
 at law and thus bring many private affairs before the public through the 
 courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President Woodruff and 
 others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition, 
 would result disastrously to him in his Church position did he desist. On 
 President Cannon's release from confinement the matter was fully investi- 
 gated and it was demonstrated that instead of Brother Cannon owing him 
 he was in Brother Cannon's debt to an amount which he subsequently paid. 
 For bis insults and hard language towards Brother Cannon he has never 
 apologized nor made any amends. This incident is referred to in President 
 Cannon's absence from the State. He has always preserved silence on this 
 matter and did not wish it to be mentioned against Brother Thatcher. 
 But it is important as showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bearing to- 
 wards his brethren. 
 
 Brother Thatcher makes great pretensions of devotion to the Church 
 and declares he has "never shirked any responsibility." The people in 
 many of the various stakes of Zion who have been visited by the Apostles 
 may ask themselves when they have ever seen Moses Thatcher at their 
 Quarterly Conferences or other Church gatherings. 
 
 MEETINGS OF HIS QUORUM. 
 
 He has neglected the meetings of his quorum for years. This was 
 not always on account of ill-health. He was able, at least, in the earlier 
 part of the time, to attend to business and pleasure affairs, apparently in 
 good health and spirits. The roll book of meetings of the Presidency and 
 the Apostles shows that from May, 1889 to April, 1896, a period of about 
 seven years, he was in attendance at the regulai; weekly meetings but 33 
 times. There were held 277 of those meetings, at which President Wood- 
 ruff, though weighted down by age and numerous cares, was present 256 
 times. His absence was always on account of sickness. Brother Thatch- 
 er's residence was most of the time in Logan, but the hour was set so that 
 he and others at a distance could have reasonable opportunity to attend. 
 
 Brother Thatcher's spirit has been contumacious and he has been 
 self-opinionated and arbitrary. Previous to the dedication of the temple 
 his brethren labored with him for many hours to bring him into the 
 proper frame of mind to unite with them in that sacred ceremony. His 
 condition was not entirely satisfactory at the close of the protracted inter- 
 view, but was accepted out of charity and mercy to him that he might not 
 be excluded from the dedication, with the hope that the spirit of the 
 occasion would influence him to thorough reconciliation. President Wood- 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES BY LORENZO SNOW. 113 
 
 ruflE'e announcement of harmony among the brethren was made with this 
 
 understanding, but has been adroitly turned by Brother Thatcher to shut 
 
 off all that occurred before that time, and which would not now be alluded 
 
 to but for his own utterances and reference to his pretended humility and 
 
 harmony. 
 
 THE POLITICAL NOMINATION. 
 
 In accepting nomination for a political office, which if elected thereto 
 would have taken him away from his ecclesiastical duties for long periods 
 without consultation with his quorum and the presidency, he could not 
 but have known that he was violating a requirement of hig'i officials in the 
 Church. Yet he would not consult with them, while he wa-^? able to attend 
 political gatherings and business meetings although in poor health. Here, 
 again he was out of harmony with his brethren. 
 
 There was no need for any loss of manhood or proper independence nor 
 the forfeiture of any of the rights of citizenship. But if he did not value his 
 apostleship and priesthood as of the very first consideration he was not 
 worthy to hold them, and his subsequent course shows that he held them 
 in great esteem in theory but in very small esteem in practice. Fine words 
 and sympathetic phrases do very well to influence the public, but they 
 count for nothing in the face of deeds that contradict them, or the failure . 
 to do that which is so rhetorically professed. 
 
 The standing and fellowship of Moses Thatcher as a member of the 
 Church has not been brought into question, therefore there has been no 
 trial. He has been dealt with by his quorum for lack of harmony with 
 his associates, something that was entirely within his own power to correct 
 without great exertion or much time. If his standing in the Church was 
 at stake specific charges would be made, and he would have to answer to 
 them in the usual way, which is not and has not been by public demon- 
 stration. 
 
 What has been done was necessary and a duty. Action was not 
 taken until it was certain that no further delay would be of any use or ben- 
 efit. Moses Thatcher has been treated with greater consideration and 
 mercy than any other man who has taken the course which he has pur- 
 sued. He has been prayed for, waited upon, pleaded with and wept over 
 until his rebellion and contumacy were seen to be invincible, and he is in 
 open hostility to regulations which the whole Church has adopted and 
 ratified. He could not and cannot be any longer empowered to act in the 
 authority of the holy priesthood. 
 
 And now let the Latter-day Saints ponder upon the situation, and 
 take the warning given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a key to the 
 Church for all time. It is as follows: 
 
 "I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is 
 an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity. That one 
 who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that 
 they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assured- 
 ly, that that man is in the high road to apostacy; and if he does not repent 
 will apostatize, as God lives. — History of Joseph Smith, July 2, 1839." 
 
 In conclusion I repeat the words of him who spake as never man 
 
 "He that exalteth himself shall be abased but he that humbleth 
 himself thall be exalted." 
 
 Your Brother in the Gospel, 
 L0RF.NZ0 Snow. 
 

 MOSES THATCHER. 
 
CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 
 
 A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 
 
 The following reply of Moses Thatcher to the "Supple- 
 mentary Charges" of Lorenzo Snow is a document of unusual 
 importance, one destined to be a historic paper in the annals of 
 Utah. It is the final word in the Church controversy, and the 
 opening chapter of what, it is to be hoped, will be an honorable 
 public career for Moses Thatcher: 
 
 Logan, Utah, December 12, 1896. 
 Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Twelve Apostles: — 
 1 A Letter Dear BROTHER : — Your recent letter written 
 
 that Demands for publication in the Deseret News at the request 
 Reply. q£ g^Q young men of Salt Lake City, demands an 
 
 answer from me in the interest of fairness, friends, family and 
 the Saints throughout the world. The duty is a painful one — 
 so painful, indeed, that personal considerations would be a mo- 
 tive insufficient to induce me, even on a matter so vitally 
 important to me and mine, to take up my pen in self-defense. 
 
 I have read, and re-read, your open letter and 
 Betrays l^B.Ye purposely delayed replying to it, hoping and 
 
 Unaccustomed praying that a sense of right and justice might 
 dictate what I write to one holding the high and 
 responsible position you occupy in the Church, and for whom I 
 entertain sentiments of profound respect — no matter what you 
 may think or say about me. I confess astonishment not only 
 at the letter, but at the spirit of your communication, for, as I 
 have always understood your disposition, your ideas of justice 
 and your love of mercy, that communication does not appear to 
 your advantage. Lorenzo Snow, as I have known him during 
 all the years of his presidency over the Quorum of Apostles, 
 nowhere, to my mind, appears in that bitter and acrimonious 
 communication. 
 
116 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 ^, Political differences in Utah have unfortu- 
 
 Made to the nately, and, as I believe, unnecessarily, resulted in 
 Worldihat criminations and recriminations, and in the resur- 
 from Mr. rection of misunderstandings long since explained 
 
 Thatcher. ^j. settled. Before their introduction I never saw 
 you turn a deaf ear to pleadings for specifications on the part 
 of an accused brother. Nor is it like you to ignore my earnest, 
 often repeated requests for charges against me, which you fur- 
 nished by the column with evident alacrity for a public print, 
 in order to gratify the apparent curiosity of five young men of 
 Salt Lake City. If, as you say, I was not entitled to a public 
 hearing, as my case was not a public matter, why did you 
 make public charges against me in a newspaper when you re- 
 fused to give me even an intimation of them in private? It is 
 difficult for me to understand why you have publicly accused 
 me when privately you would not; why you presented specified 
 charges against me after my deposal instead of before; why you 
 so readily granted the request of the five young men when you so 
 persistently refused mine ; why you gratified their curiosity and 
 that of the public concerning an affair in which you declared I 
 was "the principal party interested." This treatment, this dis- 
 crimination, is difficult for me to comprehend. 
 
 Nor can I conceive the object of those young 
 77" "/i? 1>^/?^*"^ brethren in asking a f urtherr explanation of the 
 
 News to be conduct of your Quorum toward me, the entire cor- 
 '^^dWh^t" respondence on the subject being in their posses- 
 
 Need of sion. The Deseret News had already declared 
 
 Further officially that the action of deposing me had been 
 
 Jtiecisotisjor zt f .^^. ^ •% • t i 
 
 "inspired, dictated, authorized and approved of 
 
 God." Holding the News' statements in view, it may seem 
 strange to many of the Saints that the young men should ask 
 further reasons for my deposal, and stranger still that you 
 should deem it necessary to furnish them. Besides, the pub- 
 lished correspondence was complete. It told its own story of 
 the patience and forbearance which had been shown me. 
 
 The appearance of those letters in secular 
 j^g^;^Q^s o? ^^g newspapers (and I infer from your remarks that 
 ^'Church the Deseret News is not secular) was probably 
 
 rgan. brought about by the direct personal attacks of 
 
 the News, which has not appeared to be friendly to me under 
 its present management. And why should I have gone to the 
 News when its columns were daily filled with misrepresenta- 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 117 
 
 tions of my conduct aod position? When it was falsely declaring 
 that 1 had been pledging political support for months? When 
 it was forcing me upon a platform I had never constructed, and 
 attributing to me words I had never uttered? But have you 
 not seen even official declarations, from those occupying higher 
 positions than I ever held, appear first in a secular newspaper 
 and afterward in the organ of the Church? 
 
 Why should you feel called upon "to meet 
 Gain Ground some of the statements" contained in that public 
 in Public correspondence ? Were you not satisfied with the 
 
 en imen . judgment of the people as to the merits of the 
 controversy ? Your side was placed before them just as fully 
 as it had been placed before me. If you believed a farther ex- 
 planation was due, why did you not give it to me when I 
 requested it time and again? 
 
 Pardon me for quotins: the following: harsh 
 7. The Public . - i .. 
 
 jj^Q^g expression irom your open letter: 
 
 th^^fhe ^ ^^^ evident purpose in publishing those communica- 
 
 Brethren. tions was to excite public sympathy; and the unnecessary 
 
 and superfluous appeals they contain convey the impres- 
 sion that they were concocted for that purpose . 
 
 Judging from the way those appeals were treated, they 
 were, indeed, "superfluous and unnecessary." Had I known 
 thau they would have been so regarded, I never would have 
 made them. I will confess they were appeals, not to the pub- 
 lic, but to my brethren. They were cries of anguish from a 
 heart racked with pain. They were pleas for mercy — prayers for 
 light — for information as to my offending. But why should you 
 imagine they were published to excite public sympathy? Do 
 you consider that to be the natural result of their publication? 
 An appeal from one in distress, in jeopardy, is not "concocted." 
 Rather does it not require the deliberation of a trained, skilled 
 and diplomatic mind to close the ears and hearts of men against 
 such appeals? 
 
 You say : 
 
 Easily ^^^^ During that interval, (A piil to October) he was visited 
 
 Refuted. by many of his brethren, some of them Apostles, and no 
 
 change was effected, but he failed even to attend the Octo- 
 ber Conference, or to manifest a disposition to conform to the principles of 
 the Declaration. It is true that he was in poor health during that period, 
 but he was not too ill to upbraid his brethren who tried to impress him 
 with the danger of his position, nor to accuse some of them of having 
 'blanketed" their conscience in signing the Declaration. 
 
118 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Did you, President Snow, ever hear me say anything of the 
 kind? Which of the brethren did I upbraid or accuse of 
 "blanketing" his conscience? You do not seem aware of the 
 fact that of all the Apostles and members of the First Presi- 
 dency only one, Apostle F. D. Eichards, ever talked with me 
 about the Manifesto since the day it was presented to me for 
 my signature. True, Brothers Eichards and Young called one 
 day just as I was leaving my residence in Salt Lake City for 
 the depot with guests, and we talked a few moments while the 
 carriage was waiting at the door. 
 
 At another time I said to Brother John Henry 
 John as Usual Smith : "How could you, knowing as you do of my 
 Stands with work in the Church for a quarter of a century, 
 vote for my suspension simply because I could not 
 see my way clear to sign the Manifesto? How could you ad- 
 judge me guilty, condemn me and execute your judgment all 
 within a few hours and without a hearing?" He replied: "I 
 will not talk with you about that, for you are too ill, and conver- 
 sation on that subject will make you nervous." I then said : 
 "Which, Brother John, do you think would make me most 
 nervous and ill, to have the brethren humiliate and degrade me 
 by dropping me out of my place, or talking about it after the 
 deed was done." Said he: "I am with my brethren." 
 
 During all those weary months, while friends 
 10. ^^Sick and and physicians believed I was on the verge of the 
 Me NoV grave, I was administered to only once by members 
 
 of our Quorum, although, day after day, engage- 
 ments made for that purpose were, for reasons unknown to me, 
 not kept, and after the Manifesto was returned to you unsigned, 
 none of the Apostles, excepting the three mentioned, ever came 
 to my house or visited me for any purpose whatever. I do not 
 mention this by way of complaint, but because, from the gen- 
 eral tone and certain statements in your letter, you do not seem 
 to be fully acquainted with these facts. 
 
 A fe-v^ men holding less authority in the 
 Treasured Up Church called and argued with me, and sometimes 
 for Accusa- may have heard the peevish plaints of a sick man 
 *^^' which, it seems, were carefully delivered and pre- 
 
 served, and with which you are now willing to reproach me. It 
 appears that every groan I uttered in my pain and weakness 
 was borne away and used to poison the minds of those living in 
 the light against a weak and helpless brother. 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 119 
 
 In this connection I would like to state also 
 and Duty of ^^^^ even before the presentation of that Mani- 
 Private Judg- festo for my signature not one of the brethren 
 had taken up a labor with me concerning any of 
 the matters it was made to embody. You contend that I should 
 have signed it simply and solely because other officers of the 
 Church had signed it, "without hesitation and without requir- 
 ing time to deliberate." I cannot see how that statement adds 
 to the credit of the document. Such matters demand deliber- 
 ation, and because I always so contended I am called "con- 
 tumacious and obstinate." It may be that Elder B. H. Roberts 
 signed it without consideration, but I have been authoritatively 
 informed that strong and healthy as he was in mind and body 
 several members of the Quorum to which I belonged labored 
 with him day after day for weeks before he consented to accept 
 the principles of absolutism it contains. How many of the 
 brethren deemed it necessary to waste their time on me, though 
 I was sick and near the portals of death ? Not one. Yet they 
 expected me to sign it when it was presented, although you 
 say I was considered "contumacious and obstinate." If that 
 was my disposition, why was 1 not labored with for weeks, or 
 why was I expected to sign it without such attention ? Did you 
 really believe me "contumacious and obstinate?" 
 
 I do not desire to be understood as complain- 
 13. Brother . v 
 
 Roberts La- ^^g ^^ *^® short time given me for the considera- 
 
 boriously tion of the Manifesto— the hour and a half at 
 
 Counseled. .i i t j j j.i_ 
 
 noon on the day my name was dropped from the 
 
 list of Church officials. I understood the Manifesto then a§ I 
 understand it now. But when I afterward learned that its 
 claims had been discussed for weeks by the other members of 
 the Quorum of Apostles — that a systematic presentation of its 
 grounds had been devoted to Brother Roberts — I was led to 
 wonder if the brief time allotted me was the result of design 
 or accident. 
 
 You say that "out of mercy and compassion" 
 Qucaitv^^of^^^ the reasons for degrading me were not given at 
 Mercy and the April conference. I fail to see wherein I was 
 Pledaesf^^ benefited by a compassion which gave rise to so 
 many rumors, mysterious hints, dark insinuations, 
 slanders and attacks, unjust allusions and unfair comparisons 
 which have been strenuously created and disseminated since 
 that time. Nor can I appreciate the manner in which my case 
 was left "in statu quo" by the remarks of the brethren at the 
 
120 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 October conference. I had received assurances and reassur- 
 ances that nothing would be done or said affecting my case 
 until I should report myself ready for trial. You say: "The 
 assurances to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was 
 left in statu quo." The average man might be hard to con- 
 vince that his interests would not be affected by creating ad- 
 verse public opinion, by concerted and preconcerted action on 
 the part of the jurors intrusted with his fate in prejudging and 
 prejudicing the people against him. When a tribunal pro- 
 nounces a man guilty and announces to the world its judg- 
 ment, has he been left in "statu quo?" 
 
 You complain because I did not for a time 
 for Absence attend my Quorum meetings as regularly as others 
 from Quorum had done. The time to which you call attention 
 ee tngs. covers the period of lingering illness from which 
 
 I have now almost entirely recovered. But I do not offer my 
 sickness as an excuse for absence, as you had excused me from 
 all official duties during a greater portion of that time, advising 
 me to travel, to seek enjoyment and health. 
 
 The charge that I have "treated the council 
 that Shrink ^^^h contempt" needs no answer but a reference 
 from Pub- to the letters which passed between us. I endeav- 
 *^* ^* ored persistently, patiently, and, as I thought, re- 
 
 spectfully, to ascertain what my brethren held against me — 
 what differences there were between us — in order that we might 
 arrive at an understanding and finally what their requirements 
 were. When I went to the meeting-place of the Quorum of 
 Apostles after being assured by brethren that I would be wel- 
 come and that no objections would be made, I found the door 
 closed in my face. From that time on till my deposal I pleaded 
 for a statement of the grievances against me but dared not in- 
 trude upon my Quorum again without invitation, as I had no 
 desire to give offense. 
 
 I was never aware that I had no right to speak 
 Closed and ^^ public meetings until publicly reprimanded for 
 Also the so doing; I did not think I was barred from the 
 
 emp e. Temple until its door was closed in my face. And 
 
 now you say that I "presumed to attempt an entrance to the 
 Temple." What could I have done? Every move I made was 
 criticised and condemned and seemed to invite new forms of 
 censure and humiliation. 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 121 
 
 I have no desire to quibble; but here is a pas- 
 18. Humiliat- • ^ il i. i • t. t j • j. n 
 
 ing Exercise ^^S^ ^^ 7^^^ open letter to which I desire to call 
 
 of Priesthood your attention : 
 Authority. 
 
 It was but a few days after the October conference, 
 even if it had entirely closed, before he appeared and spoke at public meet- 
 ings as though he still held the authority in which he had not been sus- 
 tained at Conference. This necessitated the announcement from the First 
 Presidency, through the Deseret News, that he had no right to officiate in 
 the priesthood while in his suspended condition. Notwithstanding that 
 announcement, when he chose to present himself to the authorities, he 
 presumed to attempt entrance to the Temple for that purpose, and at a 
 time when the First Presidency, as well as the Twelve, met for the con- 
 sideration of other church matters and for holding their prayer circle. 
 
 I presented myself at the door of the Salt Lake Temple at 
 11 o'clock a. m., Thursday, October 15, 1896. The meeting 
 which promulgated the announcement you refer to was then in 
 session. It was not published in the Deseret News until eve- 
 ning, and was not received by me for at least five hours 
 after my return home from the Temple. You will not deny 
 that these are the facts, and yet you blame me for "attempting 
 entrance to the Temple" in disregard of an announcement 
 which had not then been formulated. At no other time did I 
 "attempt entrance to the Temple" to be refused admittance. 
 
 This point is in direct line with your former 
 X9. Ex-Post statement in our original correspondence to the 
 line. effect that, because I had seemingly disobeyed 
 
 your letter of the 23d of October, I was refused 
 admittance to the Temple on the 15th, or eight days before. 
 When I could not understand that, you explained it by saying 
 I was in the dark. No doubt the same explanation will answer 
 in regard to the paragraph above quoted. 
 
 I did not mention my last contribution to the 
 More Accept- Temple in the way of a boast, but the fact remains 
 able than the that the Temple was, nevertheless, constructed with 
 funds contributed by the Saints. But when Presi- 
 dent Joseph F. Smith declared that I only gained admission to 
 its dedication "by the skin of my teeth," a statement your open 
 letter seemed to corroborate, I could not recall any hesitancy on 
 the part of any one about asking or receiving my donation dur- 
 ing the period of its construction. 
 
122 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Another paragraph in your letter is truly re- 
 21. The Bui- raarkable, and especially wherein the public is 
 ter Shown Up. informed that "silence" in my interest has been 
 maintained by President Cannon, now absent, as 
 you say, from the State. How far that business transaction 
 between two members of the Church has had a bearing on my 
 affairs, as recently made public from the pulpit and press, I can- 
 not say; but future developements may show its relation to past 
 and present conditions. Its frequent '^mention in garbled form, 
 as in this instance, and as it has been told in public and private, 
 on highways and byways, shows that it is no secret. And so far 
 as I am concerned, there is nothing in it that I would have any- 
 body trouble himself to keep secret. I will endeavor to con- 
 vince you. President Snow, that you have not been well posted 
 on this matter. For that, however, I attach no blame to you, for 
 the story of the Bullion- Beck is a long one. I shall not hesitate 
 to face, willingly, my part of the affair. Here is an extract from 
 your letter: 
 
 When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President 
 Taylor, was in prison for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws, Moses 
 claimed that Brother Cannon had defrauded him, and he threatened, in 
 the presence of President Woodruff and others of the Twelve, to sue him 
 at law and thus bring many private affairs before the public through the 
 courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President Woodruff and 
 others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition, 
 would result disastrously to him in his Church position, did he desist. 
 On President Cannon's release from confinement the matter was fully in- 
 vestigated, and it was demonstrated that instead of Brother Cannon's 
 owing him, he was in Brother Cannon's debt to an amount which he 
 subsequently paid. For his insults and hard language toward Brother 
 Cannon, he has never apologized nor made any amends. This incident is 
 referred to in President Cannon's absence from the State. He has always 
 preserved silence on this matter and did not wish it mentioned against 
 Brother Thatcher. But it is important in showing Moses Thatcher's 
 spirit and bearing toward his brethren. 
 
 The closing sentence no doubt satisfies the public as to the 
 reason for bringing the matter up. I am not sorry you men- 
 tioned it, as it gives me an opportunity to correct the rumor 
 which has been well circulated among the people. In answer to 
 a letter written by President Woodruff on the 5th of December, 
 1888, on this very topic, I wrote December 7th, two days later^ 
 making the following statement of my position : 
 
 **In conclusion, you will permit me to say that I have no 
 disposition, and never have had, to take advantage of any of my 
 brethren in the position in which Brother Cannon is placed; for 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 123 
 
 I regret his imprisonment, I believe, quite as sincerely as any 
 of my brethren. Upon this point I hardly think that Brother 
 Cannon himself entertains any doubt." For the present, at 
 least, there is no need to go into further details regarding 
 Ballion-Beck matters, except to correct your assertion that 
 *' instead of Brother Cannon owing him, he was in Brother Can- 
 non's debt." I can think of no explanation so brief and 
 authentic as a copy of the receipt I gave him in settlement of 
 our financial differences. It reads: 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I do hereby 
 fh f^^^^^P^ acknowledge the receipt from President George Q. Cannon, 
 %r Itself °^ ^^ °^^®^ signed by him, and dated August 5, 1889, on 
 
 Secretary George Reynolds for the transfer to myself o^ 
 twenty -three hundred and sixty-eight 16-63rd (2368 16 63) shares of the 
 " pooled stock " of the Bullion-Beck and Champion Mining Company, and 
 that I have received all the dividends declared and paid by said company 
 on the said 2368 16-63rd shares, as shown by the books of the company, 
 less one-fourth, or 25 per cent, on all dividends declared and paid by said 
 company since September 1, 1888. The said 25 per cent, having been paid, 
 as lam informed, to the Bullion- Beck and California Mining Company. 
 
 This receipt is intended and shall operate as in full of all demands 
 and claims by myself, heirs and assigns against President George Q. Cannon 
 on account of said 2368 16-63rd shares of stock when the same shall have 
 been transferred, on surrender to the Secretary of the Company, of the 
 proper stock certificates upon which said transfer may be made, and is in 
 full for the dividends thereon, as specified herein. 
 
 Moses Thatcher. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, September 24, 1889. 
 
 Those shares, for which I paid, represented a value to me 
 at that time, exceeding $25,000 — an amount I did not feel able 
 or willing to lose. My anxiety about it was natural, if not 
 pardonable. 
 
 And now let me call your attention to another astounding 
 assertion in your open letter of information to the young men. 
 You say: 
 
 In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and 
 23. An predictions not indorsed by his brethren. At Lewiston, 
 
 that Ends All ^^®^® county, notes were taken of his utterances and pub- 
 Contradiction. lished on a fly-leaf He was subsequently written to by 
 Prpsident Taylor, and his answer is on file. While he 
 claimed that he had not been accurately reported, he gave his own lan- 
 gmage, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events to occur 
 within five years, which have failed of fulfilment, and which were founded 
 on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. He wrote for publication a sort 
 of retraction which really took nothing back, but merely changed partial 
 errors in the report of his extravagant remarks. 
 
 Not one word uttered by me at Lewiston on the occasion 
 referred to partook of the nature of a prophecy as coming from 
 
124 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 me; nor did I predict anything whatever. I stated my belief 
 upon numerous topics, but predicted nothing. I quoted some- 
 what extensively from the books of revelation, held by us as 
 orthodox, and also from the history of the Prophet Joseph 
 Smith. I was not and could not be held responsible for long- 
 hand reports of what I said, nor for type-written or printed 
 slips said to have been multiplied and circulated among the 
 people. Besides, it is well understood by the Saints that the 
 sermons, even of Apostles, are not regarded as doctrine. Never- 
 theless, I have constantly endeavored to avoid teaching anything 
 erroneous or out of harmony with the revelations of the Lord. 
 
 While in Mexico, in 1886, I was written to by Presidents 
 Taylor and Cannon regarding this matter, and in reply I stated, 
 in substance, what I had said in Lewiston. Of course, I could 
 not remember the exact words I had used, but I closed my 
 letter as follows: 
 
 " If, in your view, there is anything in these remarks erro- 
 neous, contrary to recorded revelation and history; or contrary 
 to the spirit of inspiration and revelation in you; or, if their 
 utterance by me was premature or imprudent, do me the kind- 
 ness at your earliest convenience to point the same out, and 
 suggest the means best calculated in your judgment to correct 
 the same, should the inclosed notice — (which, if you think best, 
 can be sent to the News for publication) — be considered in- 
 sufficient to stop the multiplication and circulation among the 
 Saints of erroneous reports of my remarks as heretofore men- 
 tioned." 
 
 The "notice" was apparently satifactory, as it 
 ^N Ucft^AU ^^^ published in the Deserei Weekly News of 
 December 1, 1886, as follows: 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 Any printed or written docjument circulated, or that may be circu- 
 lated among the Saints of God, as a report of any sermon, or part of 
 sermon, sermons or parts of sermons; or of any private or public remarks 
 said to have been made by me, are unauthorized unless personally revised 
 by me, or written over my signature. And the making and circulation of 
 any such unauthorized report is without my sanction and without my 
 consent. Moses Thatcher. 
 
 In the same issue the News commented edi- 
 25. TheDes- . • n n ^^ 
 
 eret News tonally, as follows: 
 
 Thatcher. AN UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION. 
 
 In another column will be found a notice from Elder 
 Moses Thatcher of the Council of the Apostles. We direct general atten- 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 125 
 
 tion to it because there has been a great deal of comment over some re- 
 marks attributed to him, which have been copied and circulated, and lately 
 have been printed and distributed amon^ the Saints. It is very unfair to 
 take this course unauthorized, and we consider such proceedings worthy 
 of severe censure. Those who have printed and distributed the alleged 
 extracts from a sermon delivered by Elder Thatcher in Cache county, 
 some time ago have, in our opinion, exceeded their right, and those who 
 rely upon the purported remarks as authentic and to be discussed as pro- 
 phecy or doctrine, may be led into error, as the report thus disseminated 
 is without authority of the speaker. We are pleased to receive the notice 
 from Elder Thatcher, and cheerfully give it a prominent place in our 
 columns. 
 
 Subsequent to the year 1886 no further corn- 
 ice. Digging plaint was made until the appearance of your open 
 ChargFs.^ letter ten years later, and as no additional require- 
 ments were made of me, I had a right to believe 
 the matter long since adjudicated. No one at any time ever in- 
 timated to me in any way that this was cherished secretly 
 against me by any of my brethren. Candidly, President Snow, 
 what is there in all this, that in any way can be construed as a 
 justification for the unkind comments you have made upon the 
 circumstance? Your statements are calculated to injure me in 
 the estimation of many people who may have read your letter 
 and condemned me without remembering or having read the 
 Deseret News of December 1, 1886. Surely you would not in- 
 tentionally do me an injury. 
 
 You say further: 
 27. An Eccle- 
 siastical He disputed with President Taylor as to the appoint- 
 Tangle Un- ment of president of the Logan Temple, and contended for 
 a man of his own selection, even after the President an- 
 nounced the appointment by revelation. 
 
 The truth of this matter is made plain by the action of 
 President Taylor in setting me apart on the same day as one of 
 the eounselors of the President of the Logan Temple. Presi- 
 dent Taylor would not have introduced discord in the Temple, 
 and had I contended against him that would have been the 
 effect . I would not have been made third ofloicer in that sacred 
 place if I had been in such open rebellion as you depict. Pres- 
 ident Taylor was my guest in Logan at the time the president 
 of Logan Temple was named. On the morning of the day the 
 appointment was made, President Taylor came down stairs, and 
 before breakfast stated, in the presence of witnesses, that he 
 felt impressed to appoint M. W. Merrill president of the Logan 
 Temple, and asked me what I thought of it. I replied that it 
 was a good selection; that he might search the Stake over and 
 
126 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 not find a man better adapted to the position. And I gave as 
 my reasons that Brother Merrill was financially well to do and 
 could afford to give to the work his time and attention ; that he 
 was secretive and methodical in his habits. President Taylor 
 said he was pleased to hear me say so. I never at any time, or 
 in any place opposed the appointment, but was continued third 
 officer in that Temple till, by the action of my quorum, I was 
 deprived of all priestly offices. 
 
 Although on this point you make a very posi- 
 28. Explana- ^^^^ charge against me, you may have this matter 
 fute Charges, confused with the selection of a President for Cache 
 Stake. In my absence from Conference in Salt 
 Lake, from which I was excused by President Taylor on account 
 of illness in my family, Elder C. O. Card was chosen Stake 
 President to succeed Bishop Preston, who had been called to the 
 office he now holds. A few days later I was informed by a mem- 
 ber of my Quorum as to the action taken in the matter of the 
 Cache Stake Presidency, and my opinion was asked about it. I 
 stated that since Elder Card had been unanimously chosen I 
 acquiesced. Later on, an effort was made to remove President 
 Card, which movement I opposed. I took the ground that, 
 while Brother Merrill was the stronger character, I would op- 
 pose the removal of President Card as his appointment was 
 generally known among the people, and his summary dismissal 
 was sure to result in his irreparable injury. I only mention 
 this matter because there is no foundation for complaint in the 
 other incident, and you may have confused the two. I cite this 
 as a possible reason for your charge because I have no desire to 
 quibble. 
 
 Here is another of your specific charges: 
 
 When Wilford Woodruff's accesBion to the Presidency was under 
 consideration, as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed 
 that he regarded human smartness and business ability as above that 
 simplicity of character and susceptibility to divine impressions which are 
 notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected that such a man 
 could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties arising. 
 He was overruled, but persisted in his views. 
 
 To my mind there never was any question 
 Another about the "proper successor" to President Taylor. 
 
 Charge that ^ I did not regard it as a debatable matter, for I 
 fws!^ ^"^'''*' always held President TVoodruff as the logical 
 successor to President Taylor. I maintained this 
 at the time, and have since testified to its propriety on many 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 127 
 
 occasions. I have always held that, with the death of a Presi- 
 dent, dies the authority of his coanselors as counselors; and the 
 supreme authority of the Church is then vested in the Quorum 
 of Apostles. Upon the death of President Taylor, Wilford 
 Woodruff, as the head of the leading Quorum of the Church, 
 was therefore the leading officer in the Church. 
 
 In my view, no one had a right to assume his 
 to Proprieties, authority or issue addresses to the Latter-Day 
 Saints ignoring him. Yet an address was issued 
 which did not deign to mention President Woodruff or any of 
 the Apostles. Had my name been signed to it you might well 
 accuse me of attempting to oppose the accession of President 
 Woodruff, but my name was not there. If there was a contest 
 between human smartness and simplicity of character for the 
 Presidency, I assure you my preferences were for the latter. 
 Simplicity of character is an ornament to any position, although 
 it is often subservient to "human smartness." 
 
 You make this general charge against my temper or 
 disposition : 
 
 His bearing with his brethren was such that he could not brook dis- 
 sent, and resented their non-acceptance of his personal views. 
 
 I have always tried to be honest, careful, con- 
 denceof siderate and conscientious with my brethren. I 
 
 Thought confess that I have had my personal views on al- 
 
 Insubordina- iiiost every question that came up. I had thought 
 t'^on. I -vvas entitled to them. Had I entertained the 
 
 slightest doubt of my right in the Quorum to my opinions I 
 would never have given the six brethren to whom you refer the 
 opportunity to vote me an apostleship. As it was, I protested 
 part of three days before giving my consent to President Tay- 
 lor. But if I ever resented the non-acceptance of my views on 
 any question where I had been accorded the right to present 
 them, I do not recall it. 
 
 And now I come to what appears to be the 
 
 32. The Real ^hief reason for my suspension and subsequent 
 Onevancewas , , . _,. t.- i nr •£ .. j • -i 
 
 Refusal to deposal, viz. : The political Manitesto read in the 
 
 Sign the April Conference. I regard this as the main dif- 
 
 ference between us, because of the space you give 
 it in your open letter; and because President George Q. Cannon 
 said plainly to Elder B. H. Koberts that it was not right to cir- 
 culate other charges about me as my name would not have been 
 dropped had I signed the Manifesto; and because a leading 
 
128 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Apostle declared that, within three days from my refusal to 
 sign, I would have been brought to trial had my health per- 
 mitted; also because I was never publicly or privately accused 
 of the other offenses you charge until after its presentation for 
 my signature; and last, because at the Logan High Council 
 meeting President Joseph F. Smith gave that as the reason for 
 my suspension. You say "there was nothing new in that docu- 
 ment as it relates to Church discipline;" that "it contains that 
 which has always been an established doctrine of the Church :" 
 and that. "usually men do not require much time to consider a 
 matter which they have always held to be right." 
 
 Had my views relating to this subject harmon- 
 
 33. Pledges ^ged with your statements there would have been 
 and Laws . "^ 
 
 Arrayed no hesitancy on my part m signing that instru- 
 
 J^ainstthe ment, or accepting this rule of discipline. Had I 
 understood that is was simply an old and estab- 
 lished doctrine of the Church I would have given no attention 
 to the previously published declarations of the presiding Quo- 
 rum of the Church respecting the absolute political liberty and 
 individual responsibility of the citizens of Utah. And I be- 
 lieve that perfect freedom of political action unrestrained by 
 fear of ecclesiastical punishment is essential under our Repub- 
 lican form of Government. This principle is so well established 
 in the Declaration of Independence, in the National Constitu- 
 tion and in the Constitution of our own State, that it needs no 
 argument to sustain it. Could I have accepted as a fact your 
 statements I would have saved myself the distress that has fol- 
 lowed my course regarding the Manifesto of October, 1890, 
 which was generally considered and is still regarded as the 
 first public and effective movement toward securing State- 
 hood for Utah. 
 
 But my vote was sincere; and so it was a 
 
 34. Covenants year later when the authorities and Saints of the 
 FM Presi- ^ Church, in General Conference assembled, pledged 
 dency and themselves as individuals, and as a people, to this 
 Peop^? Government, that the members of their Church 
 
 should he untrammeled in all eivil concerns; 
 when it was declared that there was no foundation or excuse for 
 the statement that Church and State were united in Utah, or 
 that the leaders of the Church dictated to the members in poli- 
 tical matters; and that whatever appearance of Church domin- 
 ation there might have been in the past, nothing of the kind 
 would be attempted in the future. I sincerely believed in 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 
 
 129 
 
 ttese declarations and the subsequent official declarations of 
 the authorities of the Church on this subject. On the 18th day 
 of March, 1892, the First Presidency of the Church declared, 
 over their official signatures: 
 
 We have no desire to interfere in these (political) matters, but pro- 
 claim that, as far as we are concerned, the members of this Church are 
 entirely and perfectly free in all political matters. 
 
 In a leading editorial the Deseret Evening News reaffirmed 
 the position of the authorities as stated in their public declara-. 
 tions, and added: 
 
 The public, however, must not expect that a leading churchman 
 shall become a political eunuch because of his ecclesiastical position. He 
 is as much a citizen with ail the powers and liberties of a citizen as if he 
 were a layman or an infidel. 
 
 And the views expressed by the First Presi- 
 
 35. The Times Jency in the celebrated Times interview must 
 Interview. *' . .i .i. « 
 
 bear a portion of the responsibility for the senti- 
 ments so thoroughly grounded in me. I call your attention to 
 the following extracts from the answers carefully prepared by 
 them: 
 
 "Does the Church claim the right to dictate to its members in poli- 
 tical matters?" 
 
 "The Church does not claim any such right." 
 
 "That being true, are we to understand that the Church will not 
 assert any right to control the political action of its members in the 
 future?" 
 
 •'This is what we wish to convey and have you understand. As offi- 
 cers of the Church, we disclaim the right to control the political action of 
 the members of our body." 
 
 "Do you believe that it is the wish of the Mormon people to unite 
 with the great National parties and to conduct politics in this Territory as 
 they are conducted in all other States?" 
 
 "That is the impression we have received from conversation with 
 the men among us who take the greatest interest in political matters." 
 
 "Is there any reasons why the members of the Church should not act 
 freely with the National parties at all times?" 
 
 "We know of no reason why they should not." 
 
 "Is there any foundation for the charge that the Mormon leaders are 
 now engaged in a political conspiracy to secure political power for the 
 Church?" 
 
 "There is not the least ground for any such statement. We are not 
 engaged in any conspiracy of this character." 
 
 "The opponents of party division on National lines declare that they 
 want evidence of the sincerity of the Mormon people. The Times would 
 ask you to state whether the declarations of sincerity on the part of those 
 leaders, who have been before the public, reflect your views and meet with 
 your approval?" 
 
130 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 "Those declarations express our views and have our entire ap- 
 proval." 
 
 "What greater evidence can be asked than that which has already 
 been given? It has been asserted, in addition, that the people were gov- 
 erned by the Priesthood in political matters. This is now disproved by 
 the dissolution of the People's party and the union of its members with 
 the two National parties. What could possibly be gained by the action of 
 the people if they were not sincere? If the elements of sincerity were 
 wanting, such a movement would result in entire demoralization." 
 
 If I could have looked upon these grave and 
 36. Inviola- solemn declarations differently I might have been 
 Pledges. ^ spared the pain and humiliation following my 
 failure to sign what you say has , "always been a 
 doctrine of the Church." If this were well established and 
 generally understood to be "a doctrine of the Church," was not 
 its reissuance in documentary form wholly unnecessary? You 
 ask: 
 
 Why should Moses Thatcher alone, of all the Church authorities, feel 
 that he could not sign it, as he alleges, without stultification? Was not 
 that in itself evidence that he was and had been out of harmony with his 
 brethren? And are they not men as little disposed as any one living to 
 stultify themselves, or to assent to anything wrong that is of vital import- 
 ance to them and to the Church? 
 
 I could not sign that Manifesto because I had 
 57. Honesty is indorsed the others heretofore quoted, and because 
 Policy^. -t could not reconcile this last one with those made 
 
 by my file leaders and ecclesiastical supporters 
 between 1890 and the date of Utah's admission into the Union. 
 I must be permitted to suggest that my fellow members of the 
 Quorum to which I once belonged can define better than any 
 one else their views of right and wrong and their ideas of what 
 constitutes "stultification," but nevertheless, like myself, they 
 are subject to human weaknesses and human errors. As 
 students of history each citizen must determine how long any 
 people can prosper under the practice of punic faith, secretly 
 carried into effect or openly avowed. The declarations of per- 
 fect political freedom to all the Saints are just as binding to-day 
 as they were before we obtained Statehood, and it is the duty of 
 every citizen of Utah to so regard them. 
 
 And now, having shown by quotations from 
 
 38. Sustained unquestioned authoritative sources why I should 
 
 hy'-'Counser not, without stultification, sign the political Mani- 
 
 e^ce. festo, I am bound to stand where counsel and 
 
 conscience have placed me; for, with other citizens 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 131 
 
 of Utah, I was bidden "to attach myself to the party of my 
 choice and then be true to that party." 
 
 While doing that I have constantly endeavored to show, 
 upon every proper occasion, that respect and honor due my 
 ecclesiastical superiors. I had thought that there was room in 
 Utah, as elsewhere, for a citizen to do his whole duty to the 
 State without interfering, in the least degree, with his obliga- 
 tions to the church of which he might be a member. 
 
 The views respecting non-union of Church and 
 
 39. Iiidepend- State are those I have held and openly advocated 
 andState!^^^ ^^^ more than a quarter of a century. Recent 
 
 occurrences have intensified rather than modified 
 them, and I now comprehend better than heretofore the wisdom 
 expressed in that part of our State Constitution relating to the 
 absolute separation of civil and religious matters. And while 
 the State is bound to protect the church in the fullest possible 
 religious freedom, the church must not attempt directly or in- 
 directly to dominate in civil or political affairs. 
 
 As Latter- Day Saints we are doubly bound to 
 
 40. Mormon *^^^ cognizance of this. Loyalty to the Govern- 
 Doctrine on ment protecting us demands it, and the law of the 
 Church and t j • 'j. t j. £ i.* co 
 State. Lord requires it. I quote trom section 58, para- 
 graph 21, page 219, Book of Doctrine and Coven- 
 ants: 
 
 Let no man 'break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws 
 of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. 
 
 Again, from section 98, paragraph 4 to 9, inclusive, page 342. 
 
 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is 
 my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I com- 
 mand them; and that the law of the land is constitutional, supporting that 
 principle of freedom in maintaining rijjhts and privileges, belongs to all 
 mankind, and is justifiable before Me; therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, 
 and your brethren of My Church, in befriending that law which is the con- 
 stitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to the law of man. Whatso- 
 ever is more or less than these cometh of evil. 
 
 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore you are free indeed; and 
 the law also maketh you free; nevertheless, when the wicked rule, the 
 people mourn. 
 
 . . There is no room here for comment. It holds 
 
 of Patriotism ^^ ^^ ^^® silken warp and woof of liberty and love 
 and Prosper- woven in the Almighty's loom of truth and justice. 
 ^ ^' Planting my feet upon that divinely inspired plat- 
 
 form, and laying upon its altar honor, fortune, and, if necessary, 
 life itself, I look anxiously but hopefully forward to the day 
 
132 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 when petty jealousies, envious hatred and malicious accusations 
 shall be deeply buried beneath mountains of peaee, prosperity 
 and happiness resting permanently in Utah, upon the wide tol- 
 eration and good will of her inhabitants toward all creeds and 
 classes throughout the world. Should I live to witness one such 
 day — the beginning of a series that shall not end — the memory 
 of pains, afflictions, tears and sighs shall pass, even as a dream 
 at the dawn of a new day. 
 
 Utah pioneers — the aged and venerable — Utah's brave sons 
 and daughters, deserve such a happy consummation. 
 
 And what is there in human requirement or 
 
 42. A Record divine injunction to prevent me from humbly try- 
 Work^^^ ing to devote the remainder of my days to the 
 
 cause in which I have spent nearly forty years? It 
 is true there are some of the Stakes in Zion whose good people, 
 as you state, I have never visited at their homes. But it is 
 equally true that nearly half my time since I became a member 
 of the Church has been spent upon missions of various kinds. 
 During a period of six years I crossed the line into Mexico 
 some twenty-three times, and for quite a long period my annual 
 travels covered from 15,000 to 20,000 miles a year. There are, 
 I believe, some members of the quorum to which I once had the 
 honor of belonging, who have never, to my knowledge, been on 
 a mission at all. But I would not infer from that they have 
 neglected the duties of their calling. 
 
 As I have already stated, I understood the 
 
 43. Candid Manifesto at the time it was handed me for ap- 
 the^Manife^o. proval, just as I understand it now. While it 
 
 ostensibly appeared not to restrict the liberties of 
 the people, yet there was no limitation to its application, and in 
 view of the fact that nearly every male member of the Church 
 holds some office, and as there has, as yet, been no public 
 decision announced as to the officers to be controlled by it, there 
 have arisen disputes and differences of opinion as to its intent. 
 This being true, and the danger being that it could be applied 
 to restrict the liberties of the people, I cannot sustain it. I 
 thought then, as I think now, that such a course would be a 
 stultification. I had never dreamed that a condition would 
 arise in my life where I could not serve God fully and yet yield 
 my complete allegiance to my country and to my State. The 
 spirit of the Manifesto, as it appealed to me, was in violent 
 antagonism to all I had believed and publicly proclaimed for 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 133 
 
 many years, and I eould not, and, so far, have not been able to, 
 bring myself to a point where I believed I should yield my 
 political judgment to any set of men, however praiseworthy 
 their intentions. 
 
 The position taken by me in political affairs 
 44. By Birth was one that I could not alter. • Through my veins 
 ^PatrioT^^ ^^^ ^^'•'^ them for generations has been sifted a 
 blood that acknowledged the supremacy of the 
 people only in civil affairs. Because of this it was easy for me 
 to understand and accept the principles of Christ as explained 
 by our Church, which,* as I understand them, accord the right 
 of freedom and grant the free agency of man before God and 
 among men. And it is because these rights are accorded men 
 under the Gospel of Christ, as accepted by Latter-day Saints, 
 that I have yielded obedience to the Gospel, have labored for it, 
 and love it for the labor I have given it. 
 
 This assertion may not be accepted by you, 
 Actuating^ but such activity as I have shown in politics has 
 Hirri in been caused by an anxiety to preserve the reputa- 
 
 o I ica ije. ^.^^ of my file leaders when they gave assurances 
 of political honesty among the Saiuts, for there were intima- 
 tions — and they are well known — that in pledging political free- 
 dom to the people of Utah, the authorities were insincere in 
 their declarations. My unwillingness to take part in Democratic 
 campaigns, in face of the course of my Eepublican brethren, 
 was one of the grounds on which it was asserted that the Church 
 authorities had broken faith. While T have loved Democracy, 
 because to me its name embodies all of civil liberty, yet I did 
 not want to take an active part in politics because of my poor 
 health, and because I did not deem it wise for one holding my 
 position in the Church to become aggressive in the division 
 movement. Yet, against my own judgment, in defiance of the 
 demands of my health, and that it might not be said of the First 
 Presidency that their pledges were given to deceive, I made 
 some political speeches. 
 
 For the same reason — having in mind the 
 46. Binding honor of the people and the reputation of the 
 Manifesto. ^^ Church leaders and against my solemn protest — I 
 consented that my name should be used as a Sen- 
 atorial candidate.. For this act I was taken to task at a priest- 
 hood meeting. When the Manifesto was presented to me it 
 appeared to my mind as a command on all to recognize the 
 
134 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 right of the Church authorities to control political concerns; it 
 meant, so far as I was concerned a recantation of the principles 
 I had for years advocated — a receding from the ground I had 
 occupied during the division movement, and, above all, it made 
 me feel that I would be untrue to myself. 
 
 I do not claim that I cannot be wrong. But 
 PowerLodged ^^^^ ^^^ ^^S^^ I have, the Manifesto (applied as 
 in the Mani- its construction will allow, or, as it would be inter- 
 preted by men whose personal ambitions might 
 control and subvert their sense of right, ) could be operated to 
 the injury of the State. 
 
 If, as I hold, the people have enough intel- 
 Must be Ex- lige^ce to deserve citizenship, then they have 
 alted to True sufficient intelligence to become acquainted with 
 ^' the responsibilities of citizenship, and they have 
 no more right to yield their judgment in respect of the exer- 
 cise of the franchise than have any set of men to attempt to 
 control that judgment. 
 
 Whatever the cost, with the knowledge now 
 form true to guiding me, I must still stand where I have stood 
 Jefferson and for years. My whole life and its work contradict 
 the charge that I could seek office on a platform 
 antagonistic to any church. I should oppose any man who 
 stood upon such a platform. I did say that if the voters of the 
 State of "young Utah" believed I represented principles they 
 deem deserving of recognition, and was, therefore, tendered the 
 United States Senatorship, I would accept. For the information 
 of those interested, it must be understood that I am a Democrat, 
 with all the word signifies. As a Democrat, I hold it a duty for 
 every citizen to enjoy the privileges conferred upon him by our 
 Government, and that it is given to no man, to no corporation, 
 and to no body of men to control the citizen in the exercise of 
 his franchise. 
 
 I believe in that Democracy which declares for equal and 
 exact justice to all, with special privileges to none. 
 
 I am for a Jeffersonian government, in which, so far at 
 least as legislation makes to that end, there shall be no ex- 
 tremely rich and no abjectly poor. I favor the principle of an 
 income tax. 
 
 I am for the money of the Constitution as interpreted in 
 the Democratic platform adopted at Chicago this year. 
 
 I am for a tariff that will realize the amount necessary to 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 135 
 
 conduct the Government without running it into debt in time* 
 of peace; but that tariiff must be so levied and so adjusted that 
 its burdens and advantages shall be borne and shared alike by 
 all industries and by all parts of our common country. 
 
 I am with the State Constitution in the declaration that 
 there shall be an absolute separation of church and state; that 
 the state shall not control the church, nor the church encroach 
 on the prerogatives of the state, and to this end I have endorsed 
 and still endorse the declarations of the Democratic Reconvened 
 Convention of a year ago. 
 
 I invite neither the support nor the opposi- 
 
 50. True to sition of the Church. It has no concern in poli- 
 
 hoth Church , • -t . rnu v. jt £ r\ 
 
 and State. tical issues, itie members ot my rormer (Quorum 
 
 have deemed it expedient to deprive me of my 
 priesthood. If I discuss their action, it is as a Church member. 
 Asa citizen and a Democrat, I concede their right to discipline 
 me for any cause whatever. As a member of the Democratic 
 party, as a citizen, I deny their right or their intention to inter- 
 fere with my politics, the threat of the Deseret News, as the 
 Church organ, to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 In conclusion I desire to say that I do not 
 ^Ben Adirri's complain of the treatment accorded me, nor do I 
 Name led all murmur at the humiliation to which I have been 
 
 ill p 7*p^f ^ 
 
 subjected, but I cannot think the threatened ex- 
 communication from the Church, as intimated in some quarters, 
 can be seriously entertained. Am I to be driven out of the 
 Church because of the Manifesto? I shall try and live the re- 
 ligion of our Savior. I want to live and die among my brethren 
 and friends. I desire to do my duty to my Church. I wish my 
 children to observe the principles of the Gospel, that they, too, 
 may desire to live, die and be buried by the side of their father, 
 when they shall reach, on the hillside, a final place of peace and 
 rest. 
 
 With sentiments of esteem, I am, as heretofore, your 
 brother in the Gospel, 
 
 Moses Thatcher. . 
 
EEMAEKS ON FOKEGOING ADDRESS. 
 
 The foregoing paper of Moses Thatcher is highly meritor- 
 ious in many respects. It was written hurriedly by him after 
 having spent a week in overhauling letters and papers in search 
 of the documents which he has presented in his defense. Not- 
 withstanding hasty composition his letter expresses his thought 
 and argument in a scholarly and elegant style; his logic is 
 thoroughly pertinent and unanswerably conclusive; his tone in 
 relation to the Church is pathetc and respectful ; his attitude 
 toward the State is statesmanly, intelligent and truly patriotic. 
 His political creed is full to the brim with the magnetism of 
 civil liberty; his manhood is cast in the mould of American in- 
 dependence; his heart is vitalized with the spirit that immor- 
 talized Jefferson and Lincoln. 
 
 No confession of political faith could be more timely or 
 effective under the circumstances. By the remarkable aggress- 
 iveness of the last letter of Lorenzo Snow; by its unwarrantable 
 and unseemly digging up of dry bones and exploded charges; 
 by its needlessly acrimonious bitterness; by the weakness, in- 
 vidiousness and triviality of its allegations; by its ruthless dis- 
 regard of the plighted faith of the First Presdency and the 
 whole Church; by its authoritative and supercilious tone of com- 
 mand over the political sphere of the citizen; by its inquisito- 
 rial assumption of disciplinary power — by all these outcroppings 
 of pontifical domination rather than Christian brotherhood, 
 Moses Thatcher has been driven into an exhibition of moral 
 and statesmanly qualities which might otherwise have remained 
 hidden. 
 
 He has made no attack on either the Mormon Church or 
 its discipline. He has simply stood as an unbroken phalanx 
 upon the principles of democracy enunciated in the Declaration 
 of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the 
 State of Utah, and more recently in the platform of the Recon- 
 vened Convention, Oct. 22, 1895. If the Church or any mem- 
 ber of the Church feels that an assault has been made upon the 
 doctrine or discipline of the Mormon faith, it is a mistaken 
 thought. If there is any trouble, it is wholly and solely due to 
 the fact that certain leading officials have put the Church on 
 the track of Civil Liberty; and as the car t)f human progress 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 137 
 
 moves onward, the Ohurcli is liable to have its unpatriotic rules 
 of discipline crushed under the resistless wheels. 
 
 Moses Thatcher is not antagonizing the Church or any rule 
 of the Church, when he declines to renounce his political 
 agency; he is merely performing his part as a free citizen; he is 
 carrying out in good faith the declarations of the Reconvened 
 Convention. He is truly fulfilling the pledges made by the 
 authorities and membership of the Mormon Church. 
 
 Whatever the outcome of Moses Thatcher's career, whether 
 he be overwhelmed in the warefare headed by*the "Church 
 organ," or achieve recognized leadership in the party which has 
 now most nobly declared for the principles of Jefferson; what- 
 ever the result, he is a factor in Utah history, and doubtless an 
 instrument in the hands of All Merciful God for promoting the 
 welfare of the people of Utah and the entire inter-mountain re- 
 gion. There can he no doubt that some of the leaders of the 
 Mormon Church have in their hearts, either consciously or un- 
 consciously, to dominate the State. 
 
 Mr. Thatcher has long been an avowed patriot. He has 
 never held his religion as a means of extinguishing the state. 
 He has always given both church and state an independent 
 recognition. When the pledges of the past half-dozen years 
 were made, he held them and ratified them without "mental 
 reservation.'' He was as earnest in behalf of the State as he 
 was in behalf of the Church. And all his troubles have come 
 from this earnestness and fidelity. 
 
 With this sincerity and rectitude of character, with the at- 
 tainment of a leading position in the Church, with a large share 
 of love and respect on the part of his people, with a large fol- 
 lowing of friends and acquaintances who trust and honor him 
 for his innate kindness and rectitude of heart, with unusual 
 talents and a native resoluteness and buoyancy of character — 
 with these se^yeral endowments, no one can be pointed out in 
 Utah so well qualified to influence his Mormon brethren and 
 lead them into the pathway of Civil Liberty, and guard them 
 against those tendencies which if unimpeded, will encroach up- 
 on*the State and keep Utah embroiled with internal discord and 
 create perpetual friction with neighboring states and the gen- 
 eral government. 
 
 It seems hardly necessary to emphasize the completeness of 
 his refutation of the numerous charges made against him in 
 Lorenzo Snow's letter. Some of them are trivial ; all of them 
 would have been waived as mere fictions of gossamer, had 
 
138 THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS. 
 
 Moses Thatcher yielded to his Quorum and his superiors the 
 right to dictate his political agency by "Counsel." 
 
 But see how completely the main charges are answered, and 
 even turned as a boomerang against his accusers ! What is left 
 of the Cannon business matter except the clear indication that 
 he would have lost all his Bullion-Beck stock had he not reso- 
 lutely claimed his property at the hands of an ecclesiastical 
 management that would have construed a trust into a " dedica- 
 tion" and a "dedication" into ownership f 
 
 And as t(5 Church service, look at Moses Thatcher's won^ 
 derful record of travel — hundreds of thousands of miles — hi& 
 long absences, the] disabilities of poor health, his large money 
 contributions, his unremitting labors for the cause of Christ a& 
 he understands the principles of the Gospel. 
 
 And as to other charges, such as the Appellate High 
 Council Court, the appointment of the President of the Logan 
 Temple, the Chief Presidency of Wilford Woodruff, contumacy, 
 non-submission, arbitrariness, and suchlike; in the light of the 
 foregoing reply, they all fade away as the baseless fabric of 
 a dream! And there is not one of those accusing "brethren" 
 that does not know and feel that if he were in want, either of 
 temporal sustenance or spiritual consolation and sympathy^ 
 he could go to Moses Thatcher and be met with open arms and 
 generous heart; the past would be forgotten, and naught but 
 human kindness and Christian charity would govern his con- 
 duct. It seems a pity that those "brethren" who prepared the- 
 supplementary charges for Lorenzo Snow to adopt, should 
 th'.nk it necessary to ransack the English language to find 
 words of vituperation with which to chastise Moses Thatcher 
 for things that they knew were simply "trumped up;" and all 
 this in order to divert attention from the real point of dis-^ 
 satisfaction — the refusal to sign the Manifesto! Has not B. 
 H. Koberts stated that George Q. Cannon said that Moses 
 Thatcher should be charged with this offense only and nothing 
 else? Will Mormon brethren be blind?— or will they open 
 their eyes and see? This is a matter serious enough to com- 
 mand individual and unbiased attention. Do not relinquish 
 your birthright of freedom, of individuality, of personal iden- 
 tity. Know for yourself and judge for yourself, just as you 
 have to bear your own burdens and be judged for your own 
 deeds. 
 
 There is only one issue in all this case — the Manifesto with 
 its rule of counsel providing a clever piece of machinery where- 
 
A MASTERLY VINDICATION. 139 
 
 by the Chief Authorities of the Church can control politics 
 within the State of Utah, and to a considerable extent without, 
 if they so desire. The foregoing address of Moses Thatcher is 
 chiefly valuable in meeting this issue in a manly, unambiguous 
 and statesmanly manner. His mind and heart are sincerely 
 and unselfishly wrought into the issue, and he speaks in a way 
 that must challenge the admiration of every lover of liberty ! 
 
 Of all the prominent Mormon churchmen Moses Thatcher 
 is now the one that stands squarely for an honest fulfillment of 
 the pledges of the Church! 
 
 Of all the leading officials he is the one that stands squarely 
 on the platform adopted hy the Reconvened Convention! 
 
 Of all the Mormon High Priesthood Moses Thatcher is the 
 one that stands for the principles of Jefferson and Lincoln as 
 the American people understand those principles ! 
 
 May God add His merciful guidance and abundant good- 
 ness to the end that Moses Thatcher — a humble instru-^ 
 ment in His Omnipotent hand — may be the means of giving to 
 Utah a thorough establishment in the principles of Civil 
 Liberty and Individual Independence! 
 
5 810t>-