The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-11-24
SLOAN vs. sTODDARD.
Will the Young 'Reformer" Meet
the Young Gentleman2

To the Editor Of TIE HERALD.
Mr.. J. B. Stoddard has, in your issue /
of this date. what purports to be an &C
ceptance of my Invitation" to discuss /
Mormonism with him. Mr.. Stoddard 1
fails to understand me in this, as in
other respects, for made no challenge.
/ simply expressed a desire 70 have him
meet some competent young Mormon
and 20 to the depths of MoTmonism and
a. certain whether its tenets are as he
hal stated absurd. By no reasonable in
depreciation could my communication |
be construed as q personal challenge, |
but only as suggestion that the pub
lie might ascertain. by debate. whether |
the tenets of Mormonism are really |
absurd. Mr.. Stoddard seems to have
mach difficulty in comprehending what
1 mean. Either 1 am utterly vague on
my expressions or Mr.. StOddar1 Is very
dense. aud in either case, it would b.
very difficult for him to meet ms-in dis
cussion, since my yagueness, or ms
density, o. both, would prove an almOs
insurmountaole barrier to a profitable
interchange of ideas. Again, / spoke of
a Young Mormon meetins him because
I inferred that Mr.. ). himself was
Young and 1 believed Mormon the
ology to be so strong that il could
give every advantage of inex-
perience 10 him; aud i have no doubt
that any number OF young men could
be induced TO entertain Mr.. Stodcard
! for an evening. He takes exception to
the fact that / do not want the truth OF
Mormon prineiples determined by
reference TO personal conduc', in
Inmates that he does not clearly under
7 stand me and yet lights upon my mean
ing with a certainty that proves him 10
, be a most excellent guesser. l do not
: object 10 the reasonable assumption
: that a tree is to be known by its fruit,
but do object to that. species Of insan-
: ity which, because the fruit Of one tree
is not agreeable to the taste, holds all
to be disagreeable. and which further
: declares the principle by which all trees
4 live and bear fruit to be hopelessly bad
\ simply because in one instance the fruit
is dwarfed and havorless. Mr.. Stoddard
saws: The principles of MormOnism,
like all other principles, must be judged
: BY the results upon the conduct and
condition of those who hold them. "
This, in a very limited measure, is true
but stated broadly as 1t Is b. the writer,
and taken as his best judgement, shows
: his judgement 20 be nouyery good at the
best. Further: only on this basis
N would be willing to discuss the ques
!, ton at issue with Mr. Sloan" The
!. question at issue is whether Mormon
- tenets are absurd-that Is, II Mr.. Stod-
:, dard is reolying to my letter, as L think
y am justified in assuming. and not the
ie proposition as put by him. But even were
I disposed to accept interpretation. anC
meet him on that ground, he has Sc
cursly guarded against such contin-
gency by providing: Furthermore, thS
Is principles OF morality common TO all
D. people and denominations OF Christen-
20 dom, which were recognized and had
n become established institutions centn-
no rirs before Mormonism was invented
ey and therefore are not dIstinctvely MGR
er mon, if they are part OF MOrmonlsm
ali, shall be excluded from the discus
sion" This is simply childish, and
saw it with ali respect. He has ALREADY
stated that only on the basis that Nor
'h mon principles be judged Ike all otder
re (which can only be oy way OF cOmDari
ne son where Divine law is exc!udedJ wi
en- he discuss with me, and then he OBJ
is iects to the very plane upon which 4
mas planted MS feet. Moreover, ia
last clause quoted involves seyera
questions which would be as difficult {
determine as the one be proposes 70 di;
IN cuss. First, object to the statemen
, a that MormOnISm was invented" an
AZ think Mr.. Stoddard would have yer
A Interesting time in coming TO assure
m ! conclusions as 20 what teatu res are dis
rs tinctiyeiy Mormon. l decline TO accsI
les Mr.. Stoddard's challenge for the sin
IN pie reason tina. it would take discus
Ter sion of some length 10 decide what n
10 challenge is. l have written at leuS;
pr. to show that difficulty.
At In one instance only does q
a Stoddsrd nearly reach a conrlI
oh sion as to what he wODl
Tor prefer to discuss, though he still Pc
- sists in making retrograde mOveneI
IN which more than covers his adsauc
nd He is willing 20 discuss Those pIil
or ciples OF Mormonism which conht
/. with the principles OF morality and
free government, as they arc tiIeosTsto,
-. by the people Of the United States"
nS other words / am 70 begin debate
lIe accepting a standard that has. alreaC
Az determined against me. / can not D
DIX Iieye Mr.. StOddard could seriously ha'
made so ridiculous proposition. Ihr
we times in his brief comnuni3 cation,
re- has asked me TO tie NV hands gag II
ie; uttersnce and then enter a wordY cor
seu Dat with him. This is prodigious a
US ss surdity. decline with thanks.
81 mol now NdAlt ~
me AT one time should Ike 10 have do
so. l am, however, willing to conse
snder conditions thai Will give =
about half the chance Mr.. Stodda
and seems TO wish for himself. de
the evidently indisposed 20 take the posihl
No which the papers have credited hi
ing with assuming. that Mormon tensts q
PIE "absurd." and feel it would be CRY
avs to press the point. 1 have seen NJ
ice, Stoddard, and believe state the 20
mt ton fairly when l write that he
and glIling- to meet me and take I
and afirmatiye on the two proposition
red lI-Mormont enets doctrine or theolos
are opposed 10 the spirit OF the Cons
on tution of the United States; Poly
:. amy is contrary TO the laws OF natu
the Bible, which is the commonly
D. cepted Standard Of Christianity, y
Stoddard, am led to believe by his o.
words, VIII not accept. He IS WI
ana NV impression is that Mr. Stodda
by desires a peeuniary advantage by !
n ( TRANSACTION; l don't blame him, :
= - 4 Eof5ara / Tlpf