respectful hearing, which they have never had. As a matter of course, where there is such warmth of feeling, such bitterness and animosity as is here displayed on both sides, we must expect to encounter in our evidence much exaggeration, and many untruthful statements. Most that has been written on either side is partisan—bitterly so; many of the books that have been published are full of vile and licentious abuse—disgustingly so. Some of the more palpable lies, some of the grosser scurrility and more blasphemous vulgarity, I shall omit altogether.
Again, the history of the Mormons, which is the early history of Utah, is entitled in its treatment to this consideration, as differing from that of other sections of my work, and to this only—that whereas in speaking of other and older sects, as of the catholics in Mexico and California, and of the methodists and presbyterians in Oregon, whose tenets having long been established, are well known, and have no immediate bearing aside from the general influence of religion upon the subjugation of the country, any analysis of doctrines would be out of place, such analysis in the present instance is of primary importance. Ordinarily, I say, as I have said before, that with the religious beliefs of the settlers on new lands, or of the builders of empire in any of its several phases, social and political, the historian has nothing to do, except in so far as belief influences actions and events. As to attempting to determine the truth or falsity of any creed, it is wholly outside of his province.
Since the settlement of Utah grew immediately out of the persecution of the Mormons, and since their persecutions grew out of the doctrines which they promulgated, it seems to me essential that the origin and nature of their religion should be given. And as they are supposed to know better than others what they believe and how they came so to believe, I shall let them tell their own story of the rise and progress of their religion, carrying along with it the commentaries
