Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-07-22
THE so.oALLED "HILToN" CASE

OF Utah in the Hilton case ""H w.
sioned a great deal OF comment anu
much diversity OF public opinion II
is founded on an erroneous concepuo"
of the doctrine Of the Church oil De-
sus Christ Of Latter-day Saints IN re'a-
tion to marriage. The court says
ut Is thus clear according TO lhe
revealed law that TO be sealed was W
be married for time and eternity unu
that the sealing ceremony IS q MAJ
iaRe ceremony which IS good at com
mon law. the part referring TO eternity,
Az we have seen, being regarded ~
simply surplusage. II seems also clear
anon careful scrutiny that neither
sealing nor q marriage for time where,
by the parties are to become HUSBAND
and wife for this world only nor u
sealing or marriage for eternity where
by the parties are not 90 become nus
band and wife until after dealh' lhal
IN IN the next world, was authorized ny
this revealed law. and hence any ana
All such unauthorized marriages wOulu
be violation OF the revelation ana
would subject the contracting parties
10 the penalty provided for disobed-
ence, for the express revealed covenant
il that sealing or marrying shall be
lboth and not one or either Tor
fine and eternity"
IN order to reach these conclusions
The court had to go outside OF the rec
cord OF the case, and consult reports
OF dlsoourses and writings of some Of
the leaders of the Church In doing
this the court formed opinions which
may be In accord with what the judges
read, but those works treated only one
eide OF somewhat complicated sub
feet. Ordinarily, the sealing cere-
mony In a marriage for eternity In
cludes time as well. That is to say,
the words "for time and all eternity
are usually expressed, and time Is COM
pretended in eternity But the in
ference which the court has drawn
from this, and from explanations of 1t
IN sermons and writings of Church
authorities, Is incorrect because based
upon consideration Of but one side
Of the question.
In this Church there are numerous
cases Of sealing in which the parties
were united for time only, and not for
eternity. This is so well known by
members OF the Church, and by many
people who are non-members, that
there is widespread amazement at the
declaration of the Supreme Court Of the
state that no such marriage or sealing
is authorized by the Church. The
statement Of the court as TO this point
IL not true, as thousands Of witnesses
could testify IL necessary.
on the other hand, II Is also mis-
take 10 say that Sealing or marrying
shall be (both and not one or either
Tor time and eternity" A sealing may
be solemnized for eternity and not for
time. This is not explained IN Church
writings, perhaps or proclaimed In pub
lie discourses, but is matter of re-
lIetous faith and practice that con-
Germs only the individuals who formed
that relation. II is something over
which the courts have no Jurisdiction
II Il FOR the world to come and not for
the present state OF existence. It does |
not involve a principle of civil law, aud |
therefore the opinions Of lawyers and |
Judges have no effect upon It, and II is |
out of their province.
As to the particular case before the
court, that body had the right, accord.
Ing TO the evidence produced IN the !
trial, 10 decide whether a legal mar |
rage had been solemnized between Dr. |
Park and Miss Armitage. We admit |
that the question was open TO dispute. |
But these facts, which We're IN evil
dence, are clear: The intention Of the
nun and the woman was 20 be united |
by the sealing ceremony for the world |
70 come. There was a physical reason |
why the man did not wish or intend TO |
contract the marriage FOR time. and the |
woman was supposed 10 BE- on her |
death bed, and therefore there was no |
expectation that she would be a wife in |
this world The certificate given by the |
minister who performed the ceremony |
states that he sealed the parties, II !
does not say "for time and an eter-
nifty" so there il nothing IN the docu-
meht that settles the question as to the
SCOPE OF the ceremony But the cir
crmstances were unusual and the un-
dentanding Of all persons present was
to the effect that II was a union for
the next world only and therefore the
inference Is legitimate that it was not
Performed as a marriage for this world.
1he very fact that what is known as
church divorce" was obtained when
The young lady recovered instead Of
Tying from her afiilction, Is evidence
that the marriage was not considered
binding Tor this world because the
President OF the Church never issues
such documents In the case Of a legal
Nl.e. unless II has first been passed up
On by a civIl court. II Is held In the
Church that a marriage which Is valid
under the civil law, whether common or
ratntory, stands good in the ciyll law
pnin It Is dissolved by court Of COM
oetent Jurisdiction. A Church divorce
between a man and his plural wife
holds good IN the Church because when
aiural marriage was practiced it was
aotunder the civil law. il was a re.
ilgious ordinance and ceremony The
Church divorce therefore severed the
o0npectiou made by the Church and
aone other