d me to destruction like another Isaac
on the altar of Church control. I replied to Cowley, as soberly as
I could, that I had never consciously received the aid of any Church
influence; that I had always objected to its use, either for or against
either party; that I could oppose it now with free hands.

He retreated upon the favorite argument of the ecclesiasts: that an
apostle did not relinquish his citizenship because of his Church rank;
that the very political freedom which we demanded, to be effective, must
apply to all men, in or out of the Church. He asked naively: "What did
we get statehood for--and amnesty--and our political rights--if we're
not to enjoy them?"

The answer to that was obvious: The Mormon Church is so constructed
that the apostle carries with him the power of the Church wherever he
appears. The whole people recognize in him the personified authority of
the Church; and if an apostle were allowed to make a political campaign
without a denunciation from the other Church authorities, it would be
known that he had been selected for political office by "the mouthpiece
of the Almighty." I cited the case of Apostle Moses Thatcher as proof
that the Church did exercise power openly to negative an apostle's
ambition. If it failed now to rebuke Smoot, this very failure would be
an affirmative use of its power in his behalf; all Mormons who did not
wish to raise their hands "against the Lord's anointed," would have
to support Smoot's legislative ticket, regardless of their political
convictions; and all Gentiles and independent Mormons would have to
fight the intrusion of the Church into open political activities.

Cowley replied that "the brethren"--meaning the hierarchy--believed that
a Mormon should have as many political rights, as a Catholic; and he
asked me if I would object to seeing a Catholic in the Senate.

Of course not. There are, and have been, many such. "But suppose," I
argued, "that the Pope were to select one of his Italian cardinals to
come to this country and be naturalized in some state of this Union that
was under the sole rule of the Roman Catholic Church; and suppose that
still holding his princedom in the Catholic Church and exercising the
plenary authority conferred on him by the Pope--suppose he were to
appear before the Senate in his robes of office, with his credentials
as a Senator from his Church-ruled state--all of this being a matter of
public knowledge--do you think the Se