Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1889-12-02

ms carried iurthcr ana the annex
ses passage occurs:
d, "WeII. is there any other sin that
IL man may commit which is worthy
NJ death? I think there is. viii ref
81 you TO one in the Book Of Levitic
- 10Th chapter and 10Th verse:
Of "And tho man that committee
adultery with another mans VIII
I even he that commilteth adultery wi
n his neighbours wife, the adulterer NJ
I the Hdulteress shall surely he put
: death"
That was the law OF God in Il
= days Of Moses. II was the law Of Go
d previous to the days Of Moses, as yo
n will find by reference to the Book ,
Genesis. It has been the. law OF Go
c from the beginning"
: The address then deals with Tn
question as to the execution OF tn
death penalty, and shows mos
emphatically that while murderer
should be put to death, and that
the law Of God was fully carrie,
out, adulterers who commit thi
deadly sin after enlightment 10y tn,
Holy Ghost and having mad,
special covenants with God {,
abstSin from such transgressions
would also suffer the same punish
ment-as. the only atonement posi-
bic for their crimes-it can only b,
inflicted by the officers Of the law
Page 81 says:
III a man commits crime he is tC
be delivered over to be dealt with &C.
cording to the laws Of the land. The
Church can withdraw fellowship from
him, but the Church has no authority
TO execute The death penalty. a man
may be deserving of death: but it is
not in the province OF the Church to
kill; he must DO delivered over TO be
dealt with according to the laws Of the
land"
IT. was not to be expected that
Judge Anderson would quote ex-
tensively from this address. But
having picked out part of a para
graph which appeared to suit his
purpose from page Is, then jumped
to page 80, and then skipped over to
page 80, common fairness would
have suggested that he should make
ut least one quotation to show the
gist, and object, and whole tendency
Of the address. But no, not n word
does he give as to this. For instance.
he might have cited this from pages
S5-6:
The law Of the land says that il a
man kills he shall suffer death. But
the laws Of the land don't say that tue
adulterer shall be put to death. There
fore the penalty however deserved
cannot be inflicted"
Also in regard to the opinions Of
loading men in the Church, he
might have made this selection from
the address:
"The law Of God is para mount
When men give their views upon anv
doctrine, the value Of those views Is I
as the value Of the man. II he IS 4 /
wise man, man OF understanding, Of /
experience and authority. such views
are Of great weight with the commu-
nifty; but they are not paramount. nor
equal to the revealed law OF God"
The revealed law Of God, as shown
n this address, is that if any man
crime he shall be delivered
up to the law Of the land. that men,
'ers of the Church shall not kill.
lnd that If they do they shall not
ave forgiveness in this world nor
n the world TO come. And the SEN
iments Of the leaders and the people
N this subject are emphatically ex-
resell. Why did not Judge An
.erson cite this passage from the ad-
Iress:
All this shows that the Lord does
ot delight in the shedding Of blood
either do His servants. We are told
hat we shall not be blood shedGers.
We are to be temple builders. David
old was not allowed to build the
ample because he was not clean from
he blood Of his generation. And the
eople called Latter-dsy Saints, from
lie head Of the Church down 10 the
umblest member, have a horror Of
le shedding Of human blood. They !,
70 not bloody-minded people. They
e forbearing people,ss our coward
prosecutors are well AWARE
Judge Anderson, in his partial and e
ased opinion, made no mention Of il
.terances Of the leaders Of the d
hurch which were presented I'm !,
'idence and were utterly at vari- n
ice with his sanguinary conclu- +
IN. He dismisses all this class Of 4
with the words: u
d An effort was made TO show that tho (,
God atonoment as preached by Brig
IN Young and Jedediah Grant is no. =,
Nv the doctrine Of the Church" "
This is misrepresentation of the "
It's. No such effort was made h
lie proof offered went to show that y
such doctrine as that alleged by n
e DIRECTORS was ever entertained h
the Church. 1t is true that 1t IT
peared in evidence that there had "
EN- no teaching for a great "
my years in regard to the Il,
as advanced by the preachers y
med, and that the address on ;,
cd atonement quoted from was q,
lvered in answer to the erroneous OF
as concerning it set forth by anti IN
Iormons." But no such semi ". W
mission as the Judge insinuates fr,
made during the examination.
was denied then, and is denied OF
Y, that any Church authority df
II declared the doctrine that men m,
uld be killed for apostacy. EC
md we challenge Judge Ander- Ca
, or whoever prepared the one n M.
Il document that bears his name, in
reduce from the evidence pre- w
ted in this case any proof what in'
that the "Mormons Church ne
Is or ever did hold the monsirous cri
.rine asserted by the Judge and cit
Oh we have quoted at the begin rig
: Of this article. As to its 9 ga
'tice, the best answer we can inc
) TO the accusation that men mai
: been "blood atoned, for tho
tacy, is that offered in the ad- me
which the Judge has so honor v Wo,
(?) cited: teri
as there ever been a case OF blood L
ling by the authorities OF the mo .
ch or by tho sanction ~ ,bo