Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-09-03
AFFIRMATIVE.


Az the Affirmative has both the open-
,.s and cloelng OF a debate. It devolves
- me 10 rebuff very bficny my OPP
lent argument Of last week. He
-. made the points which I anticipate
"a chiefly. and they are probably the
~, ,,ssibic. II II always feasible to
y. ,smethlng for any posltlon-aa the
$3.50 dd whom she was challenged TO
- GOOD word for the devil. and
,,,,.d that We Knight all well Initiate
Al, pefrcverancc."
The essence Of my opponents reply 10
,,.. first that the ''reveiat1n" In
sns,,ion does not mean what II says:
~, ,,cond mat II II did. the Bible says
-,,nnsr ,hinrr Neither II true. " the
,.,1,er uniers,ands much about either
me English language. In which he was
h,,n and which he has used In public
mi twenty years. or about the bible,
which he has studied and used nearly
The uss Of the English Language i
NOT a mltter " gucW-wofk IL "
settled and DEFINITE. according 70 me
rules u grammar and corrclate sciences
and Inc meanings Of IT, words are
equally setiied according 10 the dlotion-
afv Thtae uses and meanlnga uf words
mnsi absolutely be- regarded, OF LAM
y,i.an h OF little value and discussion "
80 / shail abide by them. and must
hold my opponent 10 them IN thlr ais.
eu,slof. though Il h characteristic OF
Mormonlsm ~ neglect them. whether
intentionally or otherwise.
when the revelation says an th,ir
crecda are an ahominaNon IN uoi
elght." the words cannot possibly mean
laas than that practically every creed OF
chtistrndOm In 1880 was characteristic
ally nbOminahlc. II cannot possibly
mean that small part Of most " the
rfccds was somewhat different from
what Il should be. and Il TO that cN-
tent ahomlnablc." aH my opponent
would make u. Such use VI language
would be ridiculous. and can hardly be
seriously meant. on second thought
JOSEPH smith must submit 10 the rules
N language when God speaks, He NJ .
ways speaks according 20 the laws OF
the language used. and n Joseph Smith
cannot be- logically interpreted. thus 10
il only another proof that II n not 0od
speaking when he speaks, by any
means.
s. Of the phrase Those professors /"
Those 10 n pfnnouhs ana must fNftf 10
an antcccdent word. In correct English;
this IL not correct. and 80 the word
has no antccedcnt expressed. Hut the
only idea preceding Il which can puH-
slhly serve as such, N that
~ the same sentence the
professors or members OF the
"acris" ~ aavaEcly denounced. This 10
the meaning which my argument gives
90 and u ia the only possible one.
80 my position stands on this point.
AZ 10 tho Scripture argument. only n
word Ioacph Smith spoke these worda
~ utter condemnation regarding the
saved part Of the worid-thc very best
~ manklnd--and this IL the reason why
they are not true: the passages from
Paul and the Palms quoted. were
spoken avowcdiy OF the very opposite
ciaEs-thosc who were wilfully sinners
and unaaved-and this In the reason
why they nrc true To confound the two
% 10 lose sight OF tho very bottom fact
OF the whole situation. The bible never
speaks even dispararingly OF the
church Of Christ. II speaks very ncath-
inEiy 90 Individual sinners who may be
outwardiy attached "a the Church. The
church ~ Christ IL the sacred body Of
Christ. a Cor. is) and u II this which
the revelation" mallgnH. not the few
unsaved who may be ouiwardiy at
tached.
Ny argument only touched upon a
few of the possible points IN the "revc-
iatlln" showing It's fnlnlty. There u no
space for others.