The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-11
eENr1LE SCHOOLS.
D.r. Mr.. Cooley Answers
The Se'' bishop Whitney.
,.,o- of THE HERALD.

nj L
9'he . D thanking you for opening your
While '',A nv defense of the Gentle
oOlanlns1 " must decidedly decline to con-
,ch0olss' On entertaining paper OF Bishop
sisr tne as in any true sense an answer
whitney ~ reply is not an answer.
pit AZ nan challenged by an antagon-
when am, lne-- out into the highway and
ST ~ latter in open contest, slips out
peet tne door sets up.an old straw
,be back oo orow .thrusts it through and
.nfsd scarf his sword and riddles it
through W., W.T. however much his children
Eith DulHusnts may be delighted with the
snd se[,Tnoe he can hardly expect that
peffor nl1ls+eSsted spectators Will greatly
nOrinlse bis yalor, or place the laurel
spplaiaa , nlI his brow. Is this smile
Freath upJG describing the Bishops reply
upjust, ai a. 90 Let US see. The case, in
pny le sn Is as follows: Our schools
snut5nsnn' sharply attacked by men in
have Deen in the Latter-day church.
sutborlEy charge is that under the guise
Tbegreae Secular education these
o. gY yin95 Coach the children religious
,chooIf which Mormon parents DO not
IDEAS " This charge | characterized
ipprnooTuftiireIy false and | challenged
8; emu fnr its support; at the same time
proc. W ont the fact that the Mormons
pOinl llhE54ndant opportunities for finding
h'Yeas OGf Vow, how does the bishop
the Pl H. demand? Does he tell of chill
neel n n,r,esiudiced against their parents
iFel Ih v teachings received at these
Ieea ~ No. foresooth, he does not;
,ch0oiII .os the issue entirely. Not an
be aou 9a has he to bring forward, not an
ns D.. # evidence; bat, in place OF it, he
oi :ar :, m biological dogmas which he
5iinEso %most likely to be inculcated" in
iHlDs s1obools in question. Is this an
ihe sOI Is it not the old dodge of
iDsS .iDa at the half and multiplying by
gles S What right has he to reason on
i've. Nv thinks ''most likely when the
sl lans ~ oofcertainty are within his reach?
y lg ca nofraid to SER h out the facts; or
NJ bo consider his imagination the
w. ts, field on which to argue?
'1 Then he proceeds to attack our creed,
.. -n 0f which he states correctly and
pa..s he does not. If he wishes to dis
P l-is AM. nv doctrine of theology with me
{ ga Ell nj he most happy to meet him, but /
| snSm that such an attack on our
is JSJt is in no sense an answer ito the
SSss -lr for proof; it can have no bear
", Tbsteyer on the question at issue
N bo nroves that these doctrines are
- =, Nv tanght. As matter of fact, the
I lefa in question, whatever the Bishop
NAV max think "most likely about them,
sr r not taught in our schools Nor are
We false to our professions in emitting
t N m Such an assumption is mon
't lr, Because, for example, we be-
IisTe that polygamy is the twin relic of
ib,,,rbarism" are we therefore bound to !
teIl the same to every Mormon we
meet2 :,
SIMMONS, if we gather Mormon children
into our schools, as we do by the
hundred it must be on the condition,
EXPRESS or implied, that we do not teach
them doctrines which their parents dis
believe. Now, it is our claim that we
observe this condition honestly and
faithfully. If we violated it, then, and
then only, should we be false to our
professions. Our ideas of religious
teaching fitted for incubation in week
day schools may be summed up in the
words of James i:27: Pure religion,
indebted before God, the Father, is
this, To visit the fatherleSs and widows
in their affection, and to keep himself
Inspected from the world" The two
principles there enunciated, viz: that
God requires of His children kindness
and helpfulness toward each other, and
purity in heart and life. These two
embrace the sum and substance of
leEgOus teaching in Christian schools,
md, | think, the Bishop will have to
ldmit that every sincere Mormon will
endorse this IS heartily in accord with
Dis creed. 1t were an easy task to reply
o the remainder of the Bishops letter;
task which am quite ready to under
axe whenever l have reason to think
LIE HERALD cares to open its columns
OF the purpose. This latter portion is
-aTtly pertinent to the question before [
L and partly not; but no part of it I
VIZ iuCotAO4A dI ills al1bll Tie
eliFal charge of anti-Mormon teaching
the Gentle schools is established by
lde11ce, Until the Bishop, with his
5olndant opportunities, deigns to prove
as charge, it must, of course, be taken
y granted that he cannot prove it;
u lale en- means that the opposition to the
emile schools is based on prejudice
l..ead Of proof, on fancy rather than
Let me record here my satisfaction
earning that the district schools are
Oe made to compare favorably with
" IN this broad land, or any other, can
,.s. This is good news, indeed.
~ with all due respect to one high in
Mt, ,ns church, it must be added that this
o .s. VIII do just what the Bishop
,S9s 70 dread; it will broaden the
- Ia OF the next generation, and in
1 sS years ne will not be able to satisfy
a q geople with arguments of the kind
+ ~ 70 recently printed.
N'Specuully, w. F. COOLEY.