The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-01

salt Lake City. Nov. 80. 1896.
Messrs Nephi L. Norris Arnold G.
Giauque. Arthur F. Barnes. R. c. Badg-
er and T. y ClswsOn:
Dear Brethren-In response to your es-
teemed communication of the 10Th inst I
have determined, after conference with
several of the apostles, to offer some eX-
plantations on the case of Moses Thatcher
and comments on the correspondence to
which you refer through the columns of
the Deseret News.
The APOSTLES did not view the publica-
ton of the letters that passed to and
from Brother Moses Thatcher and them
part Nor did they think il a proper
thing to give those ecclesiastical COM
municaSlons general publicity through
secular newspapers The letters bearing
my signature We're not prepared with a
design for publication. whatever the
others might have been-and were re-
garoed as church matters for the consid-
Grafton solely OF the respective parties
1t is only because those letters have been
given to the public. and because ii seems
from what you say, that an improper i'm
preston has been made upon the minds
Of some people thereby. that l comply
with the request to meet some OF the
statements they contain.
The evident purpose in publishing those
communications was to excite public
sympathy, and the unnecessary and SUPER
fiOus appeals they contain convey the i'm
preston that they We're concocted for.
that purpose. They We're not relevant 10
the issue involved. Moses Thatcher was
not on trial for his fellowship. Specific
charges We're not preferred either in pub
lie or in private. The question was solely
as to his standing as one of the apostles,
in consequence Of his lack of harmony
with the quorum of the twelve of which
he was a member. That question he
could have settled at any time if he had
so desired, and that without a formal
trial By placing himself in harmony
with his quorum. in the spirit of hui
mility and conformity with its rules of
which he was not in ignorance. he could
have saved himself all the trouble and
deprivation of which he complains.
THAT NEW MANIFESTO.
In his review of what he caIls his case.
he lays great stress on the matter of the
declaration of principles. which he re-
fused to sign after it had received the
endorsement of the first presidency. the
apostles excepting HIMSELF. the seven
presidents of the seventies, the patriarch,
and the presiding biShOpric, comprising
tho general authorities of the church.
His excuse IS that he had only about an
hour and 30 minutes in which to con-
slider it, Usually men do not require
much time TO consider a matter which
they have always held TO be right. There
was nothing new in that document as it
relates to church discipline II contains
that which mas always been an estab-
lished doctrine of the church. When the
committee which prepared IL submitted
it to the other church authorities. they
signed 1t after reading without hesitation
and without requiring time to deliberate.
It embodies so manifeStly a conceded and
necessary rule that every one in harmony
with the church authorities accepted it
at once and the church as a body has
received and adopted il an essential
rule Why should Moses Thatcher alone,
of all the church authorities, feel that he
could not sign it. as he alleges. without
stultidcationg Was not that in itself
evidence that he was and had been ont
of harmony with his brethren2 And
are they not men as little disposed as
any one living to stultify themselves. or
TO assent TO anything wrong that is of
vital Importance to them and to the
church,
He charges that his letter refusing to
sign the declaration was suppressed.
There was no suppression in the matter
at all. The letter was not addressed to
the conference nor to the pubic. Out Of
mercy and compassion 70 him no refer
ence was made to his contumacy at the
April conference. but his name simply
dropped from the list of authorities pre-
sented. How could he have been sus-