The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-10-12
PEOPLES TICKET.
For Delegate to Congress,
JOHN T. GAME.
HATES THE MANIFEsTTo.

Inc ITlDLf.C says VI Iuo ICScuS oAAO-da
declaration of President WOODRUFF, which
was endorsed by the general conference
last Monday: '.lf it was not a revelation,
Of course, it has no binding effect on the
Mormon church"
The astonishing impudence of this sheet
TO tell the Mormon people that their own
action in endorsing the NANTES to is not
binding unless the manifesto was rev.
citation, gives US cold right to smile. The
The Mormons will be pleased to learn from
such a source as the Tribune which acts OF
theirs are binding and which are not. They
will also be delighted to learn from the same
sainted source that they are to consider
nothing binding upon them unless they I'M
derstand it to be q revelation.
Then it goes off into ridicule and
insinuation in regard to the whole matter.
The blatant thing even tells the counselors
and apostles that they should have done
thus and so in regard to the declaration;
and has also the colossal cheek to tell .ssen-
sible Mormons to rise up and cry: Halt.'
TO the leaders of the church,
That is the point. The Tribune is mad at
the declaration. 1t is the worst blow that
ShCC1 Las LGSSANSQ 1OE q lUuS Lllllt LIS ulcilQ
excuse for urging the Acknowledgement of
the homogeneous Mormons is gone. And the
sheet is dismally mad about it. 1t also
knows that sensible Mormonsn are not
about to revolt at the manifesto, for they
have been expecting it and hoping for it for
some time past. Nothing displeases the
Tribune so much as to see the Mormons live
so strictly within every requirement of law
AID order that there is no chance to assail
them.
The Liberal candidate for Delegate to
Congress, the Tribune editor, is vexed. He
writes column or two daily In his sheet
trying TO conceal his thoughts with words,
but the transparency of his attempt is obvi-
Gus. The mad wag Of Acknowledgement no
toriety is in a sorry plight. Whether the
Tribune is pleased to call the manifesto a
revelation or not, makes no difference. The
significance of this action of the church is
not affected by the talk that 1t is or is not q
revelation.
Every member of the church regards the
declaration as binding upon him. tits au-
thoritative. 1t was ratified by the general
church assembly. II is accepted by and
binding upon the members of the church
by their own act of accepting it. Now. to
raise the theological question as to whether
it is revelation and so accepted, and to saw
that if not it has no binding force, and that
consequently it is mere deception, is the
lowest depth of infamous reasoning and
paltry assumption.
The fact is that 1t was presented to the
church assembly by the church president.
who stated he had made the matter a sinh.
iect Of prayer and knew it to be right m
take this step. He asked the people to nm
hold him IN this course and they did so. If
that be revelation, we have no objection.
But that question cuts no figure in the
case. The only concern of any honest man
would De, DO the people mean what they
say in upholdiug the declaration9 No hon
est man would think of raising the ones
ton, Is this given to the church as a reye-
iationi and then raising the objection tina,
II 1t is not, then It is Of no avail and the
persecution Of the Mormons for their he
lief only, must so right on. This is the
position OF the sheet that wants some es.
cuse Tor further persecution of the Nor
mons IL Is not enough for this black.
Ruardly organ that the Mormous do not VIC
late the law, that they have taken an
oath that they will not in future yio.
late the law, or advise, abet. or aid others
20 do so, and that in their public church
assemblies they declare to the world their
intention to uphold the laval this makes
no difference to the anti-Mormon Tribune
II wants toknow now whether this action
OF the president and the church is a revela
ton, or whether it is only formal, author.
tive and definite statement by the assem-.
bled church members that they will obey
the law, and will use their endeavors r.
have others do the same. If only the lar.
ter, says the anreasoning sheet it is no,
binding If the former, the sheet will in
vestigate, and then say whether or not !,
Ia satisfactory.
we repeat that we neither know nor care
whether the church theologians will de-
fine the announcement by the presiden,
and the acceptance by the church of the
manifesto against plural marriages. as 9
revelation or not. 1t is a question of snec-
ulative theology that we have no par,icn,.r
interest in discussing. 1t is plain enonph
70 US what the declaration means. and ve
think it is equally clear to all candid peo-
pie 1t Is OF course not clear or pleasing II
the Liberal organ. 1t was not given II
please that sheet and its ring. and their
rage under the circumstances is perfectly
Ineligible. They lose at once the sub
stance Of their accusation against the Nor,
mons.
HOW 1T CAN BE DONE.