Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-01-08


concerning religious freedom, or the
liberty OF the tniividual, or OF the
press. to cay whatever 1t was thought
Necessary for the individual or pres ;
10 say, each being responsible OF
course, Tor any abuse OF that liberty.
But L think L see how anxious you are
at this point to say you did not mean
that any restriction hal been put on
free speech, or the freedom OF the
| press by act OF the state, but only that
one cannot dissent from the opinions
OF the leaders OF the Church, or In
Julge L. what ytu wOulu call "iree
| speech" without incurii x the dis
plr assure OF the Church leaders, "wilh-
OUT in fact, "Delng threatened with
the loss OF his ecclesiastical position,
and with the fear OF concpmitant
complications in his political or COM
inerciaI iortunes.D In thinking OF
free speech aud the right to dissent
rom the opinion OF those In authority
never did So without taking into ac-
eount the responsibility AMI conse-
q l' noes attendant upon the exercise
OF that liberty.
We are free, thank God, but we
must be- ready In the exercise OF that
freedom 10 accept Will Out murmuring
quences attendant upon ils exercise.
40 put an extreme cast: You and
| believe that a man Is ut liberty to re.
ject the q spel OF Jesus Chrisi: but we
also believe that IL one 80 exercises his
liberty TO rel ct 1t, he will be under
| coDdemDstio and II he persists In 1t
he Will 20 to hell. But because OF this,
can we say that the liberty OF man
does not exist? Certainly not. Ii O
man elects to make euch use OF bie
freedom as to bring upon himself con.
demhation and sorrow, no ought not
on that account to charge 1t to the want
OF liberty. II he deliberately chooses
To take that course which leads to hell,
he ought not to complain when he gets
there because he lOes not Il n 1.-the
Joys OF heaven. And this principle
here presertsd by an extreme case
may bs seen operating vatiously mod :.
He'd all along the line OF human ex-
perience. The blatant nthelet Jean, II
he chooses, deride the faith OF the
christian, and turn to ridicule
what to that Christian In the subiimest
thipg under the sun; and atheists often
d. thai; but 1t IL not to be supposed
tnat the blatant infidel can take that
course and retain the respect and
friendship Of the Christian. But be-
cause the atheist loses the con fidence
aud esteem OF his Christian fellow
citizen by this exercise Of bis right to
Tree speech, can we cay that freedom
or speech does not exis? The atheist
Exercises his liberty, but he loses the
esteem OF the Christian. That is the
price he pays for the exercise OF his
liberty. 1t is for him 10 determine
xv lpi nm a IL.
senis from the opinions OF cur Church
Iesdert;he is at liberty to do that, b Q Ia at
liberty sven 10 oppose policy they may
determine upon, but II 30, in the ma
ture Of things, can be hope to have his
O .urse approved by them? Aud if he,
himself, 10 holding an official position
thntg gives great weight TO his oppose
ton, can IT be ex pectsd thai hey will
sustain him In that position? II these
questions were put in relation to a
latter deemed by you essential or
vital to the Church, you yourself
would not hesitate 10 say that such an
officer ought to be deposeo. But you
Will say that you are only pleading for
"llberty In things non-essential.D But
who il to judge of what In vital aud
essential, anu what Is moi? l grant YOU
1t is not always easy tu determine ON
which particular side OF the line a
given action may fall, whether ON the
side OF the essential or non.essent,aI;
but clearly In a matter affecting the
government OF the Church the coDstl.
tuted authority In that Church,
whether considered as consistiug OF its
great presiding councils, or the body
OF the Church, or both OF these COM
bined, is the proper authority to
Al D. No % tt.i
what non-essential. II individuals
uieagree with that CONCLUSION and
rebel against it,they have no Just cause
OF complaint II they lose somewhat the
fellowship of those who acqulescs in
the conclusion that the matter Ia vital
and essential. In the matter of
the ''manifesto," to which your
letter refers, 1t wac adiudged
by the brethren constituting the
general authorities of the Churc h
whose signatures were attached to 1t,
to involve a principle vital In the gov.
eminent OF the Church, and that con-
clusion was confirmed by the action of
tue general Conference of the Church,
and subsequently by the action OF the
conferences at the Stakes, so that the
Church shas passed upon that mat
ter, II ia the law OF the Church, and
these who now undertake to over.
throw 1t, are guilty, In my judgment,
OF seeking TO destroy Church reguia.
ton, decided by the proper authority |
within the Church to be vital and |
essential to Its government. Ii there
are individuals who refuse TO accept /
this conclusion Of the Church, that ia /
their right. that is, they are at liberty
to take that COURSE, and there 10 no I
power In the Church, or out Of 1t, TO
prevent them; they can speak against
1t, or write against II, denounce 1t and
refuse to be governed by 1t.
They have iull liberty to. do ali
this. and SO long as this 10 pos
sible, the freedom OF speech 10 main
famed; but they have no just cause to
that the freedom OF speech
|s infringed II their -religionisis re.
Iuse to fellowship them in such q
course. The situation helps 10 illus-
rate that while liberty 10 a glorious
ming, 1t Is also solemn thing attend.
ID by grave responsibilities, and, II O
wrong use Ia made OF It, followed by
serious consequences from which there
8 no escaping.
sFFECr ON THE FAITH OF THE People |
OF WHAT YOU SUPPOSE TO BE THE
INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT OF
DISSENT AND OF FREE SPEECH.