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

Inc AeUS OF saturday mas an arClcle OF
the conduct of some members of tn,
Mormon church in promising obedience
to the laws against polygamy; and con
dennis, in severe terms, the theory thai
those who take such a course do no
renounce a principle of their religion
With the Meas we agree that to tina
extent they do renounce their religion
but in doing so, they have the example
of Mr.. Taylor, the President of theil
church, and it is we'll 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
revelation not merely sanctioning
polygamy, or celestial marriage
rs it is called, but commanding His peo-
pie to establish the order that His work
might be FASTENED. 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
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 if 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 q sermon
which he preached in the Tabernacle, |
Salt Lake City, Sunday afternoon, Feb |
ruary LIST, 1885, and which was published !
in the Ners, Saturday, February 18th,
1885, in relating an interview he had re-
Gently had with ex-Attorney-Genera
made the following declara-
ion:
"When Mr.. Pierrepont came in. I said.
MIR. Plerrepont, permit me to introduce Won
% my sister, who Is my housekeeper 1t is
lot lawful for us to have wives now. Aud
oheh the EdnuldS IGiU 1UnS passed looked
dr9tUtty OUer the document, and SdlU that
a0dS to continue to Iire in the same
ouSe 9Cih my 1CiUeS that / should render
myself liable to that IalU K : / de-
lred to place myself az obedience, o., in as
lose conformity as practicable, to the IaaU. [
These are my feelings. 4
therefore, haze sought to place 2nUSelf an
cc0fd 9Cith that JdaU. / said to nv wives: {
We are living in this building together. We
'ere quite comfortably situated, and we
hight 50 have continued, but said to them S
hat under the circumstances. it will be bet :
/.
an take your choice. They had their homes
own here, which they now inhabit: which
'ere quite comfortable. SO | said to them. ,
GU can go there and L will stay here, or YOU
an stay at the Gardo House. and | will !
o there or somewhere else: FOR I WISH TO
oNFoRM TO THIS EDMUNDs LAW AS MUCH AS I
AM "
This is the position taken on the Ed {
lunds law by the highest authority in !
he Mormon church. He did not take I
ms position hastily and without consid-
ration, but after carefully reading over I
ne Edmmds law. He knew the will of S
iod in regard to the doctrine of celestial 1
marriage, knew it better than any other
IAN IN his church; and he likewise
new that the Edmunds law was not
lereiy inconsistent with the practice of 7
elestlal marriage, but that it was passed ~
lpressly to prohibit it; and imposed p
eavy penalties for its infraction. Know ~
g all these facts, being cognizant of the =
Ill OF God as revealed in the revelation 81
celestial marriage, what did he do? Fl
e says he wished to conform to this oi
dmunds law as much rs he can, and 70
this purpose, he separated from his y,
ives. In this connection it should .,
remembered that Mr.. TAYLOR n
still the President of his Of
urch, and its Prophet, Seer and 70
evelator. Such being his position still, or
hat must be presumed with regard TO ri
action in rendering obedience to the do
immds law? 1t must be presumed w
at by his conduct in this matter he va
light to do the will of God as he seeks t,,.
do 1t in all other things. No other pre- II,
mpuon can be made on the hypothesis M,
1T Mr.. Taylor is the head of Gods ~,
urch on earth. And vet for this Mr. -,
ylor has not been deposed as leader of ~,
church. 1t is this same course of ~,
lon that Mr.. Taylor voluntarily tool, a..
1t Is so severely condemned by the 70
'cS when taken by others, when sto
aligned before the courts. Why the IN,
ce should make any difference it is on
I'd TO see; yet it seems that it does. blo
great difference. -;
The Ne'cs says, regarding polygamous IN,
rrlages, that zone of the imperative rar
EDITIONS is that the person entering =
N the association endure in faithful var
S to the end" From Mr.. Taylor's bol
laratlon 1t must be assumed that he GRO
brought his association with his wives Gov,
N end. We saw the reasons he gave dee
so doing-a "wish to conform TO the a.
nunds law as much as can" This t;or