Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-04-22
rI,EsnyrEnIANs IN INDIA.


PItEsByTEItIANs m INDIA.
We Rivc place In another column ION
page cighD to q communication In ref
crcncc To the action. taken recently. by
tho Presbyterian General Assembly at
Pittnburg. Pa. on the application from
the Synod Of India. for anal power to
recognize poiygamouH marriages In that
country. The gentleman who under.
takes to nrraign the Dcscrct News ON
ia remarks concerning that matter.
either falls into error or ~ anxious TO
draw the News into controversy.
The accoun, given In our issue Of
April IL IL not contradictcd In a single
particular by the correspondent Moth
INK was said about inspiration" or
divine sanction" or the right Of per-
sons In Presbyterian council TO speak
each for himself. nor was Il argued
that tho Assembly was responsible for
what any member advanced The gem
tleman might have saved himself
much needless effort by abstaining
from arguing against points OF his own
raising.
Now. an 10 our rcmartnYof April ~
They were In reply to misrcprcaenta-
tons equal TO those implied by the
letter we now publish. ''The impression
left upon" itu writer may DO that which
he has inferred. hut he must not mis-
judge all our readers by aitributing 10
them the same tendency TO jump ut H.
logical conclusions. Did not the Assem-
bly, take some action on IN. mattcrf
our correspondent admits that II did.
We did not announce what that action
was.
Hut We did nlludc 10 the declaration
that tho recognition OF polygamouH
marriages by the Presbyterian church
In India WINS an absolute necessity"
That was made by DR.. Morrison. as re-
ported In the dispatch. We ~ printed
II. We did not say Il was made by tho
Assembly. All the Implications and de.
auctions and arguments for the purpose
~ 40 constituting II. are vain and super.
ilous. The fact remains. IA reported In
the dispatch that we printed and TO
which we drew attention, that u was
claimed on behalf OF the Presbyterian
synod of India that "Rccognltlon 81
polygnmous marriages by the church In
India was an absolute necessity and
that "any other rule would rule David
out Of the church." That II not denied
by our critic.
II appears from the letter We now
publish. that the Assembly did take ac-
ton on the matter. by referring II TO a
committee, who made their report and
tho Assembly subsequently decided not
TO give the final authority 10 the Synod
OF India which Il applied for.
The main question Is left open. Tho
Mohammedan who WIS baptized and
permitted 90 retain his wives II recog-
nlxcd by the Presbyterian church In
India. but II IN doubtful standing with
the General Assembly Of the Prcsby-
terrain church In the United States. IL
that n chse of - house divided against
ltsolf7"
The writer Of the letter makes much
OF the independent dobatings Of In
dlvidual members OF the Assembly. and
offers small aneer at inspiration Does
II not look ~ though little inspiration
To settle those disputes would have been
blNsslng ON that occasion2 We do
not ,now OF any religious dellbcrativo
body where the freedom Of speech he
speaks Of Is denied, In such councils
Of the Church Of Jesus Chrift OF Latter
day Saints tho utmost liberty OF cx.
preston IL enjoyed, but when all the
light possible from each speaker has
been thrown on n subject, unless they
come to perfect unity upon II. the voice
u Inspiration Ia sought and obtained
and becomes the end Of controversy.
n our correspondent admirers the
Presbyterian plan, which II without In
rplration. We have no objection. We
trust he win give us the privilege Of
thinking the Mormon" method far SUI
perlor. II would have decided the Inn
portant question now left open In the
Presbyterian body, In very short order
and In a conclusive manner.
ON the question OF polygamy In In
dia and the same subject In the United
States, we have TO say that the Deseret
News IL not 10 be drawn into oontrov-
crsy. our report OF the action OF the
Presbyterian Assembly has been fully
oorroborated by the correspondent, and
his account Of the Anal action which
left the whole question In doubt. does
not contradict what We published. We
thank him. however. for the added In
formation m to the doings OF that body