The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-20
To The Editor of The Herald:

To the Editor of The Herald:
1 should have no disposition to bur-
den your columns or occupy your valu-
able space with discussion of the poll
~ or purpose of the church of the Lat
ter-day Saints had 1 the requisite
knowledge to enable me TO do So But
with your permission. WILL for once,
reply as briefly as I may to the answer
OF Norman Democrat to my commu-
nication published in your columns of
the 10th inst. / may say that for the
sake OF brevity L shall use the word
Mormon to include all who adhere to
the Mormon church. And the word
Gentle to include all others. And that
when L use the word church 1 mean
the Mormon church. In my former
article L endeavored to discuss the new
church manifesto in two aspects.
First, its effect on the outside world.
and second, as to how it would work
IN practice. My friend, the Mormon
Democrat in his reply to yours of the
AHh inst, says q am afraid with CO.
vert sheer that he does not suppose I
mean that the first duty of every
man is to accept a nomination for Of
nee. l must confess to some old fash
ioned notions that the office should
seek the man and not the man the Of
nee That public office is a public
trust and that is no reason why
man should be given an Office or a
nomination because he has worked
hard for it. And / have known (even
IN Utah) within the last year, cases
when 1 thought it was if not the
highest duty, at least very high and
soiemn duty for man to accept a
nomination for an office. l think
George Washington would have been
recreant to his duty to his God, to the
people. of the new republic. TO the
cause OF human rights and good gov
eminent throughout the world. had he
refused to accept the presidency. While
TINS is an exceptional case, yet it not
unfrequently happens even now that a
man cannot refuse to accept an Of
nee without Sinking his highest duty.
nv friend goes into an explanation
at considerable length to show the in
tent and motives of the church leaders
IN issuing the manifesto" make no
pretensions of being either a mind
reader, or a prophet Neither am / in
formed as to the purposes of the church
leaders, so l can not go into that ques-
ton which is not raised by me. 1 do
not even go into the question of the
rightfulness or wrongfulness OF the
manifesto of itself. / raise but two
questions and those are already stat
ed. imagined my individual opinion
on these questions would be of little
interest to your readers. 1 sought to
show what the opinion of the American
people outside of Utah would be, and
nothing which does not throw light
upon that subject is germane TO the
discussion of my first question. 1 will,
however, state certain reasons why I
believe the American people will take
the view of the new manifesto which
l have indicated in my former article
OPPOSED TO THEOCRACY.
First. presuming that my views of it
and of some cr their beliefs as [ shall
state them differ more or less widely
from theirs, l believe it will not be dis
puted that the American people as
whole are strenuously and jealousy
opposed to theocracy or anything that
smacks of hierarchial or priestly inter-
ference or participation in civil or DO
litical affairs. They implicitly believe
that until recently the church has dom
mated Utah in all political and gov
ernmental as we'll as religious matters.
except so far as they were restrained by
the general government; that the for
mer manifesto contained a most solemn
pledge on the part of the leaders as
well as the people of the church that
from henceforth, /. e., from its date the
church as a church as well as the lead
ers in the church would absolutely and
entirely refrain from controlling or at
tempting to control the people of their
communion. in voting or from in any
way seeking to influence them to favor
any one party over any other party,
out would advise every member of the
shurch to vote according to his con-
science and best judgment, and they
believe that any departure from this
pledge. whether in letter or spirit,
would be fragrant, dishonorable and
treacherouS breach of faith akin to
perjury or treason in an Individual
For reasons not necessary to state here,
very many if not majority for some
time feared and believed that the first
manifesto was a mere political subter-
fuge. trap by which to secure state
hood and then rivet the chains upon the
Gentiles cE Utah, as well as their own
people BY persistent and reiterated
observations from the leaders of the
church. by constant and repeated assur-
ances, amounting to pledges on the part
of leading Gentiles in the territory,
this fear was in large measure over
come to such an extent that this major
fly was reduced to a strong minority;
many of whom when they became hope
less of preventing statehood. abandoned
a useless and futile opposition. for po-
litical reasons rather from any belief
that their fears had been groundless.
Then came the Gibbs" letter from the
confidential secretary of the head of
the church. never publicly disapproved
by II, and other similar indications that
need not recapitulate-the priesthood
meeting last fall after statehood was
practically assured, and the Brigham
City episode All these matters have
been scanned with a critical may we'll
say a jealous scrutiny by them. It is
in the light of such conditions, such a
state of feeling that we must discuss
my first proposition. And knowing the
existing state of thought and feeling,
feel it to be duty to say farankly
and freely that they will in my judg-
ment say without hesitation, and by a
large majority, that the Norman
church is
AGAIN IN THE SADDLE
in Utah. That the former manifesto
was snare. never intended for anything
else. and that the church leaders have
thrown away the mask at the very first
opportunity after statehood was OBJ
tanned. That it rests with the first pres
idency to say not only who should hold
Office, but ;-lSo who of their church.
comprising 'he large majority OF the
people Of Utah. shall accept nominal
lions for office: that Utah is again un-
der the priesthood. To them notwith-
standing the lengthy explanations Civ
en- in the manifesto itself, the substance
Of it, the gist of the matter will be that
IL gives fhe head of fhe fs71rrroI, |