Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-11-30


1t after reading without hesitation and
without requiring time to deliberate.
II embodies 80 msnifestly a conceded
and necessary rule that every one In
harmony with the Church authorities
accepted It at once, and the Church
as q body has received aud adopted 1t
as en- essential rule. Why should
Moses Thatcher alone, OF all the
Church authorities, feel that he could
not Pign 1t, as he alleges, "wi,hout
stultificatlon?" Was not that In Itself
evidence that he was and had been
out OF harmony with his brethren?
And are they not men as little dis
posed as any one living to stultify
themselves, or to assent to anything
wrong that is OF vital Importance to
them anu TO the Church,
He charges that his letter refueing
to sign the Declaration was soup
pressed" There was no suppression
in the matter at all. The letter was
not addressed to the Conference nor
| ~ Wv lubtiN. Wv VI
compassion TO him no reference was
made TO his contumacy at The April
Conference, but his name was simply
dropped from the list OF authorities
presented. How could he have been
sustained under the circumstances?
There are six of the Twelve now living
who voted for his appointment to the
Apostleship. Not one OF them would
have sustained him for that position II
1t hadlbeen known that he then enter
tanned views entirely out OF harmony
with those OF that body. The letter
addressed at that time to his associates
was a deliberately composed commun.
ica!ion showing that he was able to
understand the document which he
refused to sign, AMI his prompt publica'
ton OF that letter, in secular news
paper, shove that be had n deliberate
intention to oppose the Declaration
and defy his brethren who promulged
it. But II he did not have sufficient
time to consider the Declaration al the
April Conference, what about the
six months which elapsed before the
October Conference? Was not that
time enough? Daring that interval
he was visited by many OF his breth-
rem, some OF them Apostles. anu no
change was effected, but he failed even
to attend the October Conference or to
manifest a deposition to conform to
the principle of the Declaration.
lis true that he was In poor bodily
health during that period. But he
was not too III to upbrsid brethren who
tried to impress him with the danger
OF his position, nor to accuse some OF
them OF having 'blanketed their con.
science" in signing the Declaration.
He states in his letters that he would
have attended the October Conference
II 1t had not been for the "assurances
and resssurances" he hal received
that nothing would be done concorn-
ing his standing until his health should
be restored. He then complains bit,
terly Of the explanations given to
the Conference as to his position anu
seeks to convey the impression that
they were breach OF good faith.
The "assurances' to which he refers
were faithfully fulfilled. He was left
in statu quo. Every time it was
shown that the condition OF his heaith
would not admit Of his meeting with
his quorum the quention of his stand.
ing WAS postponed. But meanwhile
he and his friends were not slow to
talk about his associates and TO convey
unwarranted Impressions concerning
their course in his cs.c. So much
Misunderstanding was the,sby created
that 1t became absolutely necessary 10
make some explanations that the Lat.
ter.dsy Saints might moi be deceived.
President Woodruff was so strongly
impressed with this that he addressed
the Conference on the subject anu his
statements were endorsed by several
OF the Twelve who followed him.
This was no "triap of Mosei
Thatcher. 1t was simply necessary
explanation Of his status. 1t involved
the question Of his lack Of harmony
, with the Church authorities. His
, claim that he was publicly accused
and therefore should have q public
trial is astonishingly absSrd. He was
not accused In the sense OF trial or
Investigation. The fact OF his lack OF
, harmnny with the authnrltiea w az az