Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-01-28
wRATTHE "NEws" REALLY SAID

AN NIbNlh'uN Ah"t iNN0H Nv -
the appropriate heading to an editorial
in the Salt Lake Tribune, In attempt
ed criticism OF an article In the Des-
eret News on the subject Of the possl-
billty OF present revelation The posi-
ton really taken by the News on this
question Is entirely ignored by the Tr-
bune, and It's remarks are addressed TO
point Of rs own creation. This Is
The basis Of Us argument;
''The "Newa' proceeds ON the as
sumption that those who object 70 the
reception Of such testimony by the
magistrate are dlsbelieyefs In the prin-
cplo Of revelation from God, That is
clearly an unwauanted presumption"
The last sentence In the foregoing
cts tine rest Of the quotation exactly
The oNows' aid not say or infer, or
hint at any such an assumption" on
the contrary the News" stated en-
phatically that such testimony could
not be and was not received as evil
dence by court. Here is our exact
language ON that question.
mo one that we have heard Of pre-
tends for a moment that II was given
Or received as legal evidence against
the accused. Il was simply an incident
that can have no real bearing upon the
case, which has Yet to be tried before
a jury"
~. avniotnfn,, tbo MAJ, In t,,htcb fhn
testimony was drawn from the witness
by cross-examlnatIon, the News said;
1.-THE decision that the defendant
should be held To the district court for
trial, was not affected In any way by
the reply Of the witness to that incl
dental question
All the comments Of the Tribune are,
therefore, utterly wasted, They form
an argument that does not 1T" We
have not expressed a thought lndloat-
Ing that revelation, real or pretend
ed, should be made applicable TO court
procedure. Yet the entire Tribune edi-
torial assumes that we have taken that
ground, and that those who object are
'dlsbelevers In the principle Of revea-
ton from Cod" Well, we believe in
the principle Of revelation from God
and yet we object, and have plainly
stated our objection, to the reception OF
such testimony as evidence IN court
How more completely the Tribune
could misrepresent our views and our
utterances on this subject we fail to
perceive
For the information Of that paper we
will say, that no such testimony would
be received as evidence In the courts
of this Church against an accused per-
BON. No one can be condemned therein
on anything but real evidence Such a
statement as that elected by close
crosse examination in the Justices court,
would not be admitted In O trial for
Church fellowship, The Tribune has
gone off on tangent and strayed far
away from the subject Of the News"
editorial which It attacks, The Tribune
Gays further;
"The question of revelation Is not
challenged
That Is an assertion that shows either
great density Of mind or a disposition
10 perveri, The Monday mornings pa
pers published synopsis Of discourse
by Methodist preacher on Sunday, in
which he denounced the ldea Of present
revelation as "fanatIelsm" He rdiculed
The claim Of any one nowadays TO hav-
ing divine communication as, profess
ing to have private wire with God"
And that this was not intended merely
ms applicable to the case of the witness
IN court, is evident by the minister's
assertion that:
mo good can come from man pre-
BENDING 10 receive revelations from God
rs demonstration OF the truth Of the
Gospel"
Our argument on the subject Of pres
ent revelation was addressed 10 that
pulpit assertion, and not in support Of
revelation az evidence In court. Here
is what We said on that point.
'The preacher on Sunday repudiated
Immediate revelation entirely, and de-
clared It could not stand before the
law nor az the Gospel II will be read
ily admitted that testimony concerning
@ revelation from God viii not stand
before the law" as evidence against
an accused person But can II be ex-
cluded as evidence relating to the Cos
pelg'
We then showed from the Bible, which
the preacher processes to receive as the
"only guide" IN religion, that revelation
from God IS an essential feature Of the
Gospel and that without It man cannot
know God or that Jesus Is the Christ
That Is the subject Of the News edl-
torlaland II has been completely avoid
ed in the Tribuae dissertation, which is
indeed ian argument that does not 1T
Some gentlemen who are dlsbelleycrs
in either ancient or modern revelation.
commenting on the preachers declara-
ton on Sunday wanted to know why, Il
God talked TO Abraham he could not
talk with men nowadays And fur
ther, they raised the pertinent query
how any one could nationally profess
10 be sent Of God TO preach, Il there
was no such thlng as communication
from Goa in the present age.
The questions are pertinent and APP
pllcable, and they form an argument