Brigham’s Destroying Angel
An excerpt from Chapter I:

Slavery and polygamy - “twin relics” - may well be put beside each other in a brief parallel. As of slavery thus: if a man will steal another man, steal his whole lifetime, his labor, his free-will to go and come - he shows thereby that he has taken one long step, if he is not some distance on the road, towards stealing any other thing he can safely get away with. For what greater good can he steal than a man’s liberty and the proceeds of his lifetime? Similarly of polygamy: if a man will crucify the wife of his youth, and put her to open shame, by introducing another woman into the family, and calling her his wife, if he will make misery for two helpless persons and pervert nature’s current in the breast of woman, whether for earthly lust or heavenly glory, he shows by that act that he will use another’s misery for his own happiness, that he is a long way on the road towards doing any other mean thing which will give him an advantage over his fellow-man. Hence a nation of slave-holders cannot long remain a nation of freemen; a race of polygamists is sure to become a race of self-seeking sensualists. Love, forgiveness, kindly charity, must wither in such an air. But this argument, says one, touches the principle of freedom in belief. Granted: the hard fact still remains that some religions are of such a nature that their reduction to practice would render their devotees utterly unfit for amity or even neighborhood with civilized society. The world has known scores of such religions; soon or late they have one and all come into violent contact with government or society, and yielded or been crushed. A religion which makes it the chief hope of its devotee to crush his opponents, not to convert or soften and unite with them, can produce but one class of fruits: hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness strife and animosity against all who dissent. Hence the Mormon’s bitter hatred of “apostates.” Other churches pray for the backslider; the Mormon curses them with hideous blasphemy. Said Heber Kimball: “I do pray for my enemies; I pray God Almighty to damn them.” Said Brigham Young, in his sermon against the “Gladdenites” (Journal of Discourses. Vol. I., p. 82): “Now keep your tongues still, or sudden destruction will come upon you. Rather than apostates shall flourish here, I will unsheathe my bowie-knife, and conquer or die. * * * Such a man should be cut off just below the ears.” And again, “I would take that bosom pin I used to wear at Nauvoo, and cut his d-----d throat from ear to ear and say, ‘Go to hell across lots.’ ” If such words were spoken in the pulpit and published by the Church, what may we not suspect to have been said and done in secret? Nevertheless, some apologists maintain that the Mormons, despite such a religion, would be first-rate citizens, “if let alone, and granted a State government.” Can a bitter fountain send forth sweet water? can a people’s whole inner life be bad, and their outer life good? If the Mormons are truly that peaceful, quiet, and industrious people we sometimes hear of, fitted for good citizens, why have they come into violent conflict with the people in all their seven places of settlement? For they have tried every different kind of people, from New York through Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, to Salt Lake. Are all the people of all those places incurably vicious, mobbers and trespassers on religious right? This is your only possible conclusion, if you start with the hypothesis that the Mormon religion makes its devotees good citizens. The position is false; the facts are patent, and sound reason points to but one conclusion: the organization of the Mormon Church is such that it cannot exist under a republican government or in a civilized country without constant collision. This is a strong statement, hut as a little monarchy could not exist in one country of an American State, as the Pope’s temporality could not continue in the middle of Victor Emanuel’s kingdom, so an ecclesiastical organization like that of the Mormon Church cannot peaceably continue in America. It is idle to talk of any compromise, such as Statehood by abandoning polygamy. The Church is a political entity claiming absolute temporal power within its jurisdiction; it must subjugate or be subjugated; it must rule the country it occupies or cease to exist. The conflict in some shape is inevitable. Mormonism is Mohammedanism Yankeeized. What Mahomet sought by his followers’ swords, it seeks by subtle means, by perverting the machinery of free government.
1113741223
Brigham’s Destroying Angel
An excerpt from Chapter I:

Slavery and polygamy - “twin relics” - may well be put beside each other in a brief parallel. As of slavery thus: if a man will steal another man, steal his whole lifetime, his labor, his free-will to go and come - he shows thereby that he has taken one long step, if he is not some distance on the road, towards stealing any other thing he can safely get away with. For what greater good can he steal than a man’s liberty and the proceeds of his lifetime? Similarly of polygamy: if a man will crucify the wife of his youth, and put her to open shame, by introducing another woman into the family, and calling her his wife, if he will make misery for two helpless persons and pervert nature’s current in the breast of woman, whether for earthly lust or heavenly glory, he shows by that act that he will use another’s misery for his own happiness, that he is a long way on the road towards doing any other mean thing which will give him an advantage over his fellow-man. Hence a nation of slave-holders cannot long remain a nation of freemen; a race of polygamists is sure to become a race of self-seeking sensualists. Love, forgiveness, kindly charity, must wither in such an air. But this argument, says one, touches the principle of freedom in belief. Granted: the hard fact still remains that some religions are of such a nature that their reduction to practice would render their devotees utterly unfit for amity or even neighborhood with civilized society. The world has known scores of such religions; soon or late they have one and all come into violent contact with government or society, and yielded or been crushed. A religion which makes it the chief hope of its devotee to crush his opponents, not to convert or soften and unite with them, can produce but one class of fruits: hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness strife and animosity against all who dissent. Hence the Mormon’s bitter hatred of “apostates.” Other churches pray for the backslider; the Mormon curses them with hideous blasphemy. Said Heber Kimball: “I do pray for my enemies; I pray God Almighty to damn them.” Said Brigham Young, in his sermon against the “Gladdenites” (Journal of Discourses. Vol. I., p. 82): “Now keep your tongues still, or sudden destruction will come upon you. Rather than apostates shall flourish here, I will unsheathe my bowie-knife, and conquer or die. * * * Such a man should be cut off just below the ears.” And again, “I would take that bosom pin I used to wear at Nauvoo, and cut his d-----d throat from ear to ear and say, ‘Go to hell across lots.’ ” If such words were spoken in the pulpit and published by the Church, what may we not suspect to have been said and done in secret? Nevertheless, some apologists maintain that the Mormons, despite such a religion, would be first-rate citizens, “if let alone, and granted a State government.” Can a bitter fountain send forth sweet water? can a people’s whole inner life be bad, and their outer life good? If the Mormons are truly that peaceful, quiet, and industrious people we sometimes hear of, fitted for good citizens, why have they come into violent conflict with the people in all their seven places of settlement? For they have tried every different kind of people, from New York through Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, to Salt Lake. Are all the people of all those places incurably vicious, mobbers and trespassers on religious right? This is your only possible conclusion, if you start with the hypothesis that the Mormon religion makes its devotees good citizens. The position is false; the facts are patent, and sound reason points to but one conclusion: the organization of the Mormon Church is such that it cannot exist under a republican government or in a civilized country without constant collision. This is a strong statement, hut as a little monarchy could not exist in one country of an American State, as the Pope’s temporality could not continue in the middle of Victor Emanuel’s kingdom, so an ecclesiastical organization like that of the Mormon Church cannot peaceably continue in America. It is idle to talk of any compromise, such as Statehood by abandoning polygamy. The Church is a political entity claiming absolute temporal power within its jurisdiction; it must subjugate or be subjugated; it must rule the country it occupies or cease to exist. The conflict in some shape is inevitable. Mormonism is Mohammedanism Yankeeized. What Mahomet sought by his followers’ swords, it seeks by subtle means, by perverting the machinery of free government.
0.99 In Stock
Brigham’s Destroying Angel

Brigham’s Destroying Angel

Brigham’s Destroying Angel

Brigham’s Destroying Angel

eBook

$0.99 

Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers

LEND ME® See Details

Overview

An excerpt from Chapter I:

Slavery and polygamy - “twin relics” - may well be put beside each other in a brief parallel. As of slavery thus: if a man will steal another man, steal his whole lifetime, his labor, his free-will to go and come - he shows thereby that he has taken one long step, if he is not some distance on the road, towards stealing any other thing he can safely get away with. For what greater good can he steal than a man’s liberty and the proceeds of his lifetime? Similarly of polygamy: if a man will crucify the wife of his youth, and put her to open shame, by introducing another woman into the family, and calling her his wife, if he will make misery for two helpless persons and pervert nature’s current in the breast of woman, whether for earthly lust or heavenly glory, he shows by that act that he will use another’s misery for his own happiness, that he is a long way on the road towards doing any other mean thing which will give him an advantage over his fellow-man. Hence a nation of slave-holders cannot long remain a nation of freemen; a race of polygamists is sure to become a race of self-seeking sensualists. Love, forgiveness, kindly charity, must wither in such an air. But this argument, says one, touches the principle of freedom in belief. Granted: the hard fact still remains that some religions are of such a nature that their reduction to practice would render their devotees utterly unfit for amity or even neighborhood with civilized society. The world has known scores of such religions; soon or late they have one and all come into violent contact with government or society, and yielded or been crushed. A religion which makes it the chief hope of its devotee to crush his opponents, not to convert or soften and unite with them, can produce but one class of fruits: hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness strife and animosity against all who dissent. Hence the Mormon’s bitter hatred of “apostates.” Other churches pray for the backslider; the Mormon curses them with hideous blasphemy. Said Heber Kimball: “I do pray for my enemies; I pray God Almighty to damn them.” Said Brigham Young, in his sermon against the “Gladdenites” (Journal of Discourses. Vol. I., p. 82): “Now keep your tongues still, or sudden destruction will come upon you. Rather than apostates shall flourish here, I will unsheathe my bowie-knife, and conquer or die. * * * Such a man should be cut off just below the ears.” And again, “I would take that bosom pin I used to wear at Nauvoo, and cut his d-----d throat from ear to ear and say, ‘Go to hell across lots.’ ” If such words were spoken in the pulpit and published by the Church, what may we not suspect to have been said and done in secret? Nevertheless, some apologists maintain that the Mormons, despite such a religion, would be first-rate citizens, “if let alone, and granted a State government.” Can a bitter fountain send forth sweet water? can a people’s whole inner life be bad, and their outer life good? If the Mormons are truly that peaceful, quiet, and industrious people we sometimes hear of, fitted for good citizens, why have they come into violent conflict with the people in all their seven places of settlement? For they have tried every different kind of people, from New York through Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, to Salt Lake. Are all the people of all those places incurably vicious, mobbers and trespassers on religious right? This is your only possible conclusion, if you start with the hypothesis that the Mormon religion makes its devotees good citizens. The position is false; the facts are patent, and sound reason points to but one conclusion: the organization of the Mormon Church is such that it cannot exist under a republican government or in a civilized country without constant collision. This is a strong statement, hut as a little monarchy could not exist in one country of an American State, as the Pope’s temporality could not continue in the middle of Victor Emanuel’s kingdom, so an ecclesiastical organization like that of the Mormon Church cannot peaceably continue in America. It is idle to talk of any compromise, such as Statehood by abandoning polygamy. The Church is a political entity claiming absolute temporal power within its jurisdiction; it must subjugate or be subjugated; it must rule the country it occupies or cease to exist. The conflict in some shape is inevitable. Mormonism is Mohammedanism Yankeeized. What Mahomet sought by his followers’ swords, it seeks by subtle means, by perverting the machinery of free government.

Product Details

BN ID: 2940015921038
Publisher: OGB
Publication date: 11/05/2012
Sold by: Barnes & Noble
Format: eBook
File size: 3 MB
From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews