Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-15
EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT.

demns, IN severe terms, the theory that
those who take such a course do not
renounce a principle of their religion
With the NewS we agree that to that
extent they do renounce their religion
but in doing so, they have the example
of Mr.. Taylor, the President of their
church, and it is well known that in the
order Of authority in the Mormon church,
the President, as Prophet, Seer and Rev
elator, is the final arbiter in matters Of
theology, and in determining what is the
will of God in relation to any course Of
conduct, or the Interpretation OF any doc
trine. Here we meet two strange things
in this matter of remuneration. The
Mormon church requires obedience and
allegiance from all its members, no mat
ter what their ecclesiastical position may
be. In the Mormon Church, God only
makes known his will through one chan
mel; that channel is the President OF the
church, as Prophet, Seer and Revelator.
No one else can know so well what is
Gods will, for his whole life is dedicated
to finding out and doing that will. Now
what is the case? God, according
to the Mormon theory, gave a
revelation not merely sanctioning
polygamy, or celestial marriage
us it is called, but commanding His peo-
pie to establish the order that His work
might be hastened. 1t is imperative,
then, for the MOrmons to do as God has
commanded them, or for them to dis
obey Him, and in place of attaining a
reward, be condemned. They must do
this bidding until they are relieved from
their work. The United States, through
Congress, have said to the Mormons that
they must not, and shall not, practice
polygamy, and ii they do, that they will
be punished for the same They said
this in 1862, and they repeated it in 1882.
When they repeated it, Mr.. Taylor, the
President of the church, in 4 sermon
which he preached in the Tabernacle,
Salt Lake City, Sunday afternoon, Feb
ruary lst, 1885, and which was published
in the Ne,rs, Saturday, February 14th,
1885, in relating an interview he had re-
Gently had with General
Pierrepont, made the following declara-
tion:
'When Mr.. Pierrepont came in. said:
Mr.. Plerrepont, permit me to introduce you
to my sister, who is my housekeeper. 1t is
not lawful for us to have wives now. Aad
'Chen the EdmuIldS lGtU aUdS passed looked
OUer the document, and SaIU that
Y 1CdS to continue to lice iI the same
house 1Cith nly lUiUeS that should render
myself liable to that ldlC. x = | de-
sired to place myself iB obedience, or an as
lose conformity as practicable, to the lalr.
These are nly feelings. x y
Therefore ! haze sought to place myself in
tccord aciH that IaiU. / said to my wives:
We are living in this building together We
we're quite comfortably situated and we
night 50 have continued, but said to them
hat under the circumstances, it will be bet
.er for me or for you to leave this place; YOU
san take your choice. They had their homes
DOWN here, which they now inhabit; which
were quite comfortable. So | said to them.
-
san stay at the Gardo House, and I will
90 there or somewhere else; FOR WISH TO
TO THIS EDMUNDs LAW AS MUCH AS I
CAM"
This is the position taken on the Ed
munds law by the highest authority in
the Mormon church. He did not take
this position hastily and without consid-
Grafton, but after carefully reading over
Lhe Edmunds law. He knew the will of
God in regard TO the doctrine of celestial
marriage, knew it better than any other
man in his church; and he likewise
knew that the Edmunds law was not
merely inconsistent with the practice of
celestial marriage, but that it was passed
expressly to prohibit it; and imposed
heavy penalties for its infraction. Know
ng all these facts, being cognizant of the |
Will of God as revealed in the revelation
IN celestial marriage, what did he do? /
He says he wished to conform to this
hdmunds law as much rs he can, and
or this purpose, he separated from his
wives. In this connection it should
De remembered that Mr.. Tavlor
$ still the President of his
.hurch, and its Prophet, Seer and
Sevelator. Such being his position still,
What must he presumed with regard to
MS action in rendering obedience to the
Idmunds law? 1t must he presumed
hat by his conduct i'm this matter he
ought TO do the will of God as he seeks
0 do it in all other things. No otherpre-
umption can be made on the hypothesis
hat Mr.. Taylor is the head of Gods
hurch on earth. And yet for this Mr..
,aylor has not been deposed Us leader of
is church. 1t is this same course of
ction that Mr., Taylor voluntarily took
hat is so severely condemned bv the
'eWS when taken by others, when
before the courts. Why the
lace should make any difference it is
ard TO see; yet it seems that it does.
nd a great difference.
The Ne'cs says, regarding polygamous
Marriages, that zone of the imperative
is that the person entering
pom the association endure in faithful
ess to the end" From Mr.. Taylor's
eclaration it must be assumed that he
as brought his association with his wives :
an end. We saw the reasons he gave !
r so doing-a "wish TO conform TO the 7
dmunds law as much rs can" This I
the only reason given by those who @
I've, in open court, promised to obey 7
at law in future, and cease their asso- i
ltion in polygamy. What is the COM v