Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-08

John Sharp IN promising TO OBEY the law,
we said:
That the Mormon church is each day tax
ing to itself more powers and privileges than
its members have, is plain to all who will but
observe. 1t is fast reaching that stage when
rights and privileges are claimed to belong
TO the church IN contradlst1nctlon to mem
bers thereof, and at a future time we shall
undertake to prove that it is a doctrine of
the Mormon church that the right to practice
polygamy does not inhere in the individual
as citizen but rather III the church, and
that it confers the right upon or withholds it
from its members at its discretion. The
Mormon church ignores the fact that the
Constitution guarantees religious liberty to
the individual and assumes that the guaranty
is to the church in its corporate capacity.
We desire especially to call attention
TO that portion of the above extract which
says: "At future time We shall under
take to prove that ii is doctrine of the
Mormon church that the right to practice.
polygamy does not inhere in the individ-
ual as a citizen but rather in the church,
and that it confers the right upon or
withholds it from its members at its dis
cretion." We propose to prove that
proposition this evening, not by argu-
ment and long train of resoning, but by
authority, and that authority the Presi-
dent of the Mormon church and mis- First
Councillor
Mr.. Taylor, as President of the Nor
mon church, and Mr.. Cannon as his
First Councillor and an Apostle of the
Mormon church, have just addressed an
epistle to the "Officers and Members of the
Church OF Jesus Christ OF Latter-day
Saints" now assembled at conference in
Logan. The epistle is addressed from
Salt Lake City under date of October
9th, 1885. 1t goes over the entire situa-
ton in Utah, and discusses the constitu-
tionality of the Edmunds law and the
proceedings Hereunder 1t naturally
speaks OF the doctrine and practice of
polygamy, and it clearly and definitely
defines the right to- practice it. The
epistle says:
1t should also be understood that the prac-
tice is not generally admissible even among
the Latter-day Saints 1t is strictly guarded,
the intention being to allow only those who
are above reproach to enter into the rela-
tionship. The practice of the doctrine is
not for extension beyond the church, and is
even limited within its pale.
We ask every reader TO carefully COM
pare this extract from this new epistle
with the extract from our editorial of the
22d ult. and see if it is not an absolute
confirmation of our proposition. The
constitutional right to prac tice polygamy,
then, can only be allowed those who are
"above reproach," I" and the power to say
who are and who are not above reproach
belongs to the Mormon church. Con-
slider that proposition for moment;
constitutional right can only be exercised
through the sanction of the Mormon
church. Was anything more preposter-
Gus, and in direct antagonism to the very
genius of the American Government, ever
heard Of? Every war that was ever
waged for the preservation of rights, has
been waged for the preservation of indi-
vldual rights as against the encroach-
ments and aggressions of associated |
bodies. The English Revolution was
waged for the preservation of the rights of |
English freemen, and John Hampden re-
fused to pay his eighteen shilllngs |
ship money because it was an
invasion of his individual rights.
Cromwell fought for individual rights
against the aggressions of the king who,
at the time, was substantially the gov
ernment. The Declaration of Independ-
ence was a declaration of the rights of
the Individual man; the American Revo-
luton was fought to maintain them, and
the Constitution of the United States was
formulated and adopted for their preser-
Walton. The French Revolution was
fought to establish the rights of the indi-
vidual. The English Bill OF Rights and
every Bill of Rights of every State in the
American Union is but sacred and re-
cognlzed declaration of the rights of the
individual. And yet the Mormon church
says that the right to practice polygamv
is religious right and one guaranteed bv
the Constitution, but one that ''is strictly
guarded, the intention being to allow only
those who are above reproach to en-
ter into the relationship. When did
1t became necessary to place additional
safeguards around constitutional right
different from those contained in the
Constitution itself and the laws made in
pursuance thereof? And when was the
Mormon church made the guardian and
dispenser of the rights of American
citizens which are guaranteed by the Con-
stitution? The Mormon church has al
ways insisted upon the right to practice
as one guaranteed by the first
Of the Constitution, yet on
the sixth OF October in the year of our
Lord eighteen hundred and eighty-five. ]
the Mormon church authoritively
declares to Its members and the !
world that a constitutional right
the right to 'the practice of the doctrine ;
is not for ecteRsion beyond the church, !
aad is ereR limited withiR its pale"
A constitutional right has become
privilege bestowed at the pleasure OF the /,
Mormon church. Such doctrine must !
make Marshall and Taney turn in their
graves. Let all remember that the Nor {
mons claim thata right guaranteed by the ,,
Constitution, "is not for extension beyond j
he church. and even limited within its |
pale" :