Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-02-28
"wHERE WE ARE AT"

WHERE WE ARE AT"
We have received letter from an
experienced Elder In the Church Of
Jesus Christ Of Latter.day Saints, whose
name and communication we do not
publish out OF personal consideration
FOR him, Il betrays such O lack OF UNI
Outstanding Of fundamental principles
In Church discipline that It would do
him no credit IL II appeared IN our
columns, but as 1t makes complaint
about a matter that some Of our people
may not fully understand we give the
glst OF his grievance with an explana-
ton which we hope win be Of benefit.
The writer alludes TO the testimony
Of Senator smoot, and also Of President
Joseph i, Smith before the Senate
committee on privileges and elections,
in regard to the proper method OF deal
ing with members OF the Church against
whom charges are preferred to the ef-
feet as he puts it, that under a rule
Of the Church man could not be
dropped accommodated or dlsfellow-
shipped from the Church, without first
having chance to defend himself
This he admits, Is not only right but
IN harmony with the spirit and genius
Of the Gospel"
The writer then alludes 70 the re-
lease some time ago, Of the Presidency
Of one Of the Stakes Of Zion, and also
n number Of Bishops and Presidents Of
auxiliary associations, without any
complaint or trial or defense In their
cases. In view Of these "uncontro-
verted facts as he terms them, he
wants us to explain If possible, where
we are at
We might echo the question, where
are we at?' when a man Of his expert
oncc appears TO be unable to distinguish
the difference between excommunlcat-
ing, disfellowshipping or depriying a
man Of his Priesthood, and releasing
him from some temporary duty or re-
sponslbillty Were the officers, or
either Of them, referred to IN the letter
addressed to us, cut Off the Church or
deprived OF the Pries,hood2 Were they
charged with amy offense against the
Church? was anything done In their
case but simply to relieve them Of oner-
Gus duties that had been imposed upon
them during a series Of years?
When a man Ii appointed TO a presd-
Ing position in the Church, no addi-
tional Priesthood Is conferred upon him
by that appointment, nor is IL UNDER
stood TO be Of life tenure, lie is liable
to be removed Mt any time when II is
thought 20 be necessary, either for his
own good or for the welfare Of the
Church or the benefit OF the people
placed under his watchoare His re-
mova takes from him nothing Of his
Priesthood or standing In the Church.
1t lie no more OF a reelection upon him
than II he were released from laboring
on foreign mission or some home duty
90 which he had been called.
In the case alluded to, the Presidency
OF the Church, IN the exercise OF their
undoubted authority, through some OF
the Twelve who were appointed TO at.
tend TO the matter, saw 1T to make a
change IN the affairs OF stake OF Zion
by the release Of number of its off,
GERS and the appointment Of other per-
sons to MI their places, giving due Gre
dit and expressing appreciation for the
effective labors and adollty Of the per,
SONS thus relieved OF those responsible
ties, None Of them were placed under
an accusation Of any kind, therefore
there was no complaint and no defense
They were not dropped" from the
Church nor from their Priesthood. Their
| membership ana their respective call
ings In the Priesthood have remained
as before.
II appears to us that any man OF or
binary ability and understanding OF the
order of the Church should see, that
there Is no similarity between the pro-
cess OF procedure against Church
member charged with an offense, and
that Of relieving presiding officer OF
the duties OF presidency. In the first
| case, It requires a complaint a trial.
an opportunity for defense and de-
clslon by a competent Church court
In the other It requires simply the ac.
ton ot the Presidency, consequent upon
either the resignation Of the officer or
the decision OF the Presidency that a
change is required or would be bene-
fetal There Is no parallel between
them, and we must confess to some
surprise that any man who has him
self been a presiding officer in the
Church should so confound the two In
stances as TO give them the appearance
even In his own mind Of anything like
! Identity. That is where we are at"
If our correspondent Is stll DESTROYS
that his letter should be published IN
the Descret News with his signature
attached, We may perhaps accommo-
date him, with the addition OF some
further remarks on the subject, but we
should Judge that this allusion 10 II
would be sufficient, both for him and
for any other persons who have con-
founded the two cases, when they are
totally dlssinilar, have no bearing one
upon the other, and their extreme diff
ference ought 10 be perceived even by
the youngest Deacon IN the Church OF
Jesus Christ OF Latter-day Saints,