The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-11-14
ELDER C. w. PENR0SE MAKES OBJECTION
TO REPORT OF HIS TESTIMONY In HERALD

The report published IN The Herald did
not purpOrt to be given verbatim lt Was
sought, however, 10 pc I1ir report az
/ nearly as could be given Of the several
kinds Of sealings referred to in elder
/ Penrose's testimony.
After Mr.. Penrose's communication was
received last evening at The Herald OF
flee III was submitted to a gentleman who
was present I'm the court room and who
followed closely an the testimony. he
2 ls a member OF the Mormon cnurcn anC
familiar wits its history and teachings
He dictated the following statement with
regard 70 Elder Pcurcse's testimony as
reported I'M The Herald:
with reference to the elder s first OBJ
I lection to the statement. Every word
written law TO the Latter-oay Saints,
etc. unless publicly denied by the
I church 1T should perhaps more properly
have been said that the attorney for the
4 defense and Elder PQnrose attempted to
/ make it appear chat everything Of doc
] trinal nature published in the Deseret
/ unless publicly repuclated by the church,
doubtless for the purpose of giving en-
/ dorsement to Elder PenrOse's editorials.
/ " TN reference 10 the second ODJec-
tOnable paragraph, Elder PeurOsc did
admit that persons sealed under the usual
/ form Of sealing without any intention Of
; cohabiting together at the time. might
thereafter, If they saw fit to change
their minds cOhabit together without be-
( ing IN adultery under the laws Of the
I churcn. The elder admitted thaI there Is
I no law of the church which fOrbids per-
sons cOhdDiting together after they have
been sealed as above stated.
| I'm regard TO objection No 9, the only
inaccuracy that can be properly claimed
4 Is that the words published rules might
I have been used instead of written rules
] IN reference TO the marriage ceremony.
Referring to what Elder PenrOse calls
/ a glarlng lnaccuracy.' he did admit that
I the seali4cs under the revelations were
1 ties who were sealed under il. and that
I while ~ was not a published law OF the
! church. it was accepted by great many
4 with reference to objection No. 6. it
! may perhaps be admitted that the state
/ ment made may not be true Of all ser
} were sermons that were accepted and
acted upon as laws to the church.
J As to all OF objection No. z IL is re-
affirmed that it is but a fair deduction
/ of what the elder said. as may be shown
4 by reference to the record. He admitted
] that persons who are sealed in marriage
I with the intention at first of not living
/ together might thereafter change their
/ minds and cohabit without such Tela-
/ tons being considered unlawful in the
\ eye of the church.
THE intimation referred to I'm the last
I two lines of the objection is a fair and
reasonable deduction Of the statement
Y made by the witness
'The witness stated in substance and
/ In various ways that the rule in regard
THAT persons are sealed for time and
/ eternity with the right 10 live and CO.
/ habit together as husband and wife. AS
/ 70 any other SealingS, they are the eN-
/ ceptiOn and not the rule. Doubtless the
/ reporter, In speaking Of sealing for eLer-
! nifty in q statement that the witness had
I made saying il might be legally followed
/ by CohabitatiOn. intended to be under
1 stood that eternity in that sense included
] time also.
Mr.. Penrose objects to the statement.
/ 1T was almost impossible while Elder
/ PenrOSc was on the witness stand to get
/ a direct answer from him. We submit
HFcra rFaTr~ frsrrn ~
! JUSTIFIED by his conduct from first TO
I last The court records will show that
I'm many Instances where IT was a direct
/ quesuon ana should nave been answered
] Yes or No the witness evaded giving
direct answer HIS manner was shifty
and vacillatng. He admitted his bias
thing i'm any way that would aid the
| plaintiff unless compelled to do so. He
order Of the court but he did not explain
why he failed to respond to the order of
the court when formerly subpOenaed by
the plaintiff. Upon that matter he was
! troubled with lapse Of memory.
He admitted when his editorials were
/ exhibited 20 him that he had written five
or six different editorials while a former
Slmllar case was pending In the courts,
! that he had characterized the decision OF
the supreme court Of Utah, quoted SO
approVlngly in his letter above, as
L having 'emanated from heated brains
His conduct for the most part on the wit
ness stand was that of an advocate for
/ deliberate and consistent witness
I THE witness stated I'm substance that
/ he simply came to elucidate the seaIine
doctrine Of the church. but seemed great
/ ~ Offended when asked by Attorney
Jones why he did not take the large tab
/ ernacle for the purpose. The Herald IL
appears to me, had no other intention
than to fairly and honestly report the
I church doctrines as stated by Elder Pen
/ rose. but his statements seemed to be
I craftily made and frequently with a view
to cover up something rather than e
elucidate the point"