The Mormons reply that the counsel and the obligations run in the same grooves.
Mormonism in England would soon have fallen to the level of Leeism or Irvingism; its teachers to the rank of the Southcoteans and Muggletonians. Its unparalleled rise and onward march could have taken place only in a new hemisphere, in another world. Its genius is essentially Anglo-American, without one taint of Gallic, Teutonic, or Keltic. It is Rationalistic: the analytic powers, sharpened by mundane practice, and wholly unencumbered by religious formal discipline, are allowed, in things ultra mundane, a scope, a perfect freedom, that savors of irreverence: thus the Deity is somewhere spoken of as a "right-hand man." It is Exaggerative in matter as in manner: the Pentateuch, for instance, was contented with one ark, Mormonism required eight. It is Simplificative: its fondness for facilitation has led it through literalism into that complete materialism which, to choose one point only, makes the Creator of the same species as his creature. It is Imitative to an extent that not a vestige of originality appears: the Scripture names are carefully moulded in Hebrew shape; and, to quote one of many instances, the death-bed of the first patriarch ("Life of Joseph Smith, the Prophet," chap. xlii.) is a travestie of that of Israel, with his prayers, prophecies, and blessings; while the titles of the apostles, e.g., Lion of the Lord, are literally borrowed from El Islam. It has a mystic element the other side of its severe rationalism, even as the American character mixes transcendentalism with the purest literalism, as Mr. Emerson, the Sufi, contrasts with the Pilgrim fathers and Sam Slick. It is essentially Practical, though commonplaces and generalisms are no part of its composition. Finally, it is admirably puffed, as the note upon Mormon bibliography proves—better advertised than Colonel Colt's excellent revolvers.
I had proposed to write a chapter similar to this upon the Mormon annals. After sundry attempts, the idea was abandoned in despair. It would be necessary to give two distinct or rather opposite versions—according to the Mormons and the anti-Mormons—of every motive and action which have engendered and produced history. Such a style would not be lively. Moreover, the excessive positivism with which each side maintains its facts, and the palpable sacrifice of truth to party feeling, would make it impossible for any but an eye-witness, who had lived through the scenes, and had preserved his impartiality, to separate the wheat from the chaff. The Mormons declare that if they knew their prophet to be an impostor, they could still love, respect, and follow him in this life to the next. The Gentiles, I can see, would not accept him, even if he were proposed to them by a spirit from the other world. There is little inducement in this case to break the scriptural injunction, "Judge not."
Under these considerations, I have added to the Appendix
