Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-07-29

leading part IN what II called Chris
! tIan Science" IN this city. which we
had not space then 10 publish. As 1t
appeared in another daily paper we ala
| not think u necessary TO produce u az
later date. tiut suclng that u was
| written Tor the purpose " replying 10
charges made IN the daily papers by Dr.
Mclean. we win give the glst Of that
portion Of the article.
Dr. Mclean affirmed that the spread
Of scarlet foyer Ia this city was largely
due 10 the criminal negligence Of
Christian Scientists. some Of whom sent
| their children 10 school while GONZALES
cling from scarlet fever. and at the time
whom It was most contagious. and
others had screened their children from
the health officers. "porsistlng IN the
absurdlty that there was no disease cx-
istlng" lie advocated proceedings
ngainst those who were guilty Of yiolat-
Ink the law In these respects
In direct Response 10 this. the advo-
cate Of Christian Science says very lit
l tie. beyond the abatement that he had
/ advised families 10 report such eases.
/ that the health commissioner had kind
/ ~ stated that with one or two oxccp-
lions Scientists have reported con-
tagion." and that many forms of con-
taTlon are 10 mild that physicians allow
much freedom. and In some instances
| have not required nag put up" But
| the writer INDUCES IN a good many H.
rndes against drugs. physicians
churches and ordinary methods Of
treating the sick.
The whole tenor Of the doctors COM
/ plant was the failure of some Christian
Scientists 90 report cases of contagious
scarlet fcycr That failure ~ partly at
least admitted In the reply. The apollo
! glat however says:
! mo Christian Scientist or any one
| else should over send their children 10
school or church while under COM
! tnrl0us hilment No Christian Scientist
| on any one else should expose their
nclghbora 10 contagious nlmcnt'
That IL In perfect agreement with
what tho doctor maintained. II that
advice IL carried out by the people thus
instructed. there will be no trouble on
that head and no need Tor prosecutions
such rs were demanded. But there II
one thing that II not met and which Il
an important point In the controversy
| that IL. "the persistence In the absurd
ity that no disease exists" or course.
n no disease exists. there Il no
contaglon ana nothing 10 report And
that IL the source ana cause Of the
| trouble.
The defender Of Christian Science
claims that thorc are host Of people
who believe IN Il; that medicine and
present methods do not meet human
needs. that Christian Science has "a
record ~ very much larger percentage
of cures than drugs and doctors have;
that the good II does Is lts only rccpm-
mcndntlon. ana that it does not preach
! sermons against other denominations.
but all that, u true, does not touch the
question that caused the doctor to de-
mnnd recognition Of the law rs TO re-
| porting cases " CONTAGIOUS disease.
We DO not dispute the claim that q
| great many people have been relieved
or healed of various disorders under
treatment from Christian Scientists.
We know that numerous cases or heal
lug. by the laying on OF hands and tho
prayer of faith. have occurred ana do
take place In the church Of Jesus Christ
Of Latter-day Saints They ARE facts
which are beyond reasonable dispute.
and are ~ remarkable as any spoken
Of In holy writ ne having been per.
formed In former times.
But that IL not the question, II ~
deeper than that and entirely different.
| n there 10 no such thing M disease,
there Ia nothing to cure. n II is only In
| the mind. thcrr ~ nothing tho matter
with the body. IL there such thing no.
"a contagious uilmont?' n not, why
report It or speak Of exposing ones
ncighbor 10 ne
We DO not know OF any reputable
physician or any unprofesslonnl person
IN hls senses. who wishes To hinder
Christian Scientist In relieving the sick
and suffering All the long sentences
intended TO bcrntc such persons or,
waste ~ time and space The idea that
there il no pain to alleviate, no disease
10 cxpcl, no matter even TO operate ON,
Is the folly that nrousea rational people
The fallacy of Bishop Berkclcy'H
vngurlos about the nou-cNlstenco of
natter now plaRlnrlged ana rovomroi
and called Christian Science, was Ions
ago exploded and rolcgatod to the
scpulcher OF whlms and upoculotlous
denotng a mind discussed They are
what make the modern revival under
another and misleading name ridiculous
and revolving 10 thinking people.
That mind has power over mind, the
stronger over the weaker, is not dis
putcd. That mind has power over mat
ter within certain limits ia generally
admitted. But this prcsupposes the
actual existence OF both, Tho persist
oncr OF matter IL demonstrated. Its
indpstrucubnity Is recognized, The
question OF its origin Is In dispute, but
only among thoologians Is 1t contended
that Il came out Of nothing tx uhil
nihll NJ. IL q sclf-eyldent axiom. That
which is Invisible to the natural eye
may be made visible. ana that which Is
visible be made Invisible by chemical
action, But the appearance Of matter