Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-22
WHAT DID HE MEAN?

The attitude OF the NeWs toward
Bishop Sharp since the latter's promis
TO obey the law has been made, is some
what peculiar. Mr.. Sharp said he in
tended to obey the law as interpreted bl
the courts, but the Neecs OF last evening
SAYS that Bishop Sharp went into cour
with full determination not to agree tC
cease to acknowledge his plural wives is
beyond question, but that he was caught
in trap is equally plain" That which
lends Importance TO the utterances of the
Ne,cS on this question or any other in
which the Mormon church has policy
is the fact that il is the official organ OF
the Mormon church and its utterances on
these questions are its utterances. Mr..
Sharp said he intended to obey the law as
interpreted by the courts, but the Nsus
says he was caught in a trap. By whom
was he caught? His statement was his
own, and was not hastily drawn up;
on the contrary, Mr.. Sharp had been
engaged in carefully formulating his
statement for many weeks before
he read it in court. That Judge Zane
could not have known Of the statement
or its contents until Mr.. Sharp read it in
court, no one will doubt Neither could
Judge Zane have known of the many
notifications and remodifcations to
which it was subjected by Mr.. Sharp be-
fore it was in form and language what
Mr.. Sharp desired. The statement itself
is plain, straightforward and without
equivocation; if there is or was any men,
tai reservation behind it, then the case is
different, and we should say that instead
of Mr.. Sharp having been caught in a
trap that Judge Zane had been caught in
trap. Mr.. Sharp drew UP his state
ment in accordance with what he believed
to be the law, and in this belief he pre-
sented it TO the Court. The Court to
which it was presented was the same
Court that had originally construed the
cohabitation clause of the Edmunds law.
The Court certainly must have known it's
own construction of the cohabitation
clause of the Edmunds law, and it
must also have understood the statement
OF Mr.. Sharp and his plain prom
Use to obey the law as inter-
preted by the courts. Taking all
the circumstances together, and putting
that construction upon language that
common usage gives it, no other conclu-
sion can be reached than that Mr.. Sharp
meant precisely what he said and that he
understood the Interpretation of the law
exactly as the Court did, and that he
was in nowise entrapped. To say that
MIR. Sharp was entrapped in matter of
vital importance and one to which he had
given much thought and attention, is to
say that Mr.. Sharp is not able to take
care OF himself. If he was entrapped,
did he discover ii at the time the trap
was sprung or subsequently and at time
too late to repent?
There is another question OF vital inn
f'OtehhSS AOIiiiCChCo VIII liit COURSE Ot
Mr.. Sharp in promising obedience to the
laws. 1t is this: Can Mormon he
saved without the sanction OF his church
in matter OF obeying law OF the land
where such law is in conflict with law
OF his church? Also, is obedience to the |
law OF the land in such case disobedi- |
ence to the laws of the church? If we
mistake not, ii has always been a doc |
trine OF the Mormon church that its |
every member must stand or fall upon |
his or her own merits, and that it is not |
within the power of the church to make |
this any different. If man must stand
or fall by himself without aid from anv
source, the question arises whether each |
must decide all matters for him or her
self. Ii the other theory is maintained
that the church alone has the power t
to damn or save the member,
then TO do the will of the church
is the sole duty OF any adherent. If it
has this power. then it has the power of
granting absolution and Indulgence the
same as the Roman Catholic church.
That the Mormon church is each dav
taking 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
to belong to the church in contra
distinction to members thereof, and at a
future time we shall undertake to prove
that it is doctrine OF the Mormon church
that the right to practice polygamy does
not herein the individual as citizen
but rather in the church, and that it
conters 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
is 10 the church in its corporate
s-@<.=--@z-.@....
FINANCIAL NONSENSE