Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-03-04
WHERE WE ARE AT"


why we dld not publish the letter as
received "out Of consideration for the
writer" However we intlmoted that
II lac insisted upon It's appearance I'm
the form IN which II was written, with
his signature appended, we might rer-
hnps accommodate him. We are NOW
iu receipt OF another and more lengthy
communication from him, written IN
similar style, but IN more savage
spirit and containing at the close his
wish that we publish his frst letter
and also his last. We aid not agree or
intimate that We would publish every
thing he chose to write, but since we
half promised to print his first COM
municaiion, with his name attached
we do 80 now, and follow II with the
principal paragraphs In our former re-
ply. This we think viii present both
sides Of the subject In sufficient PLAIN
ness for our readers to understand.
Here is his original letter, literally re-
produced In prints
Editor Deseret News,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Dear Sir,
The question where are we att has
of late frequently arose In my mind
and each month seems to intensely the
question.
notice IN Senator Shoots testi-
mony, as stated In the news paper,
the following language respecting the
question OF sustaining John W. Taylor,
and Matthias f. Cowley TO wit.
Il brought up the question whether
they should be sustained at the COM
ing conference. and spoke OF their be-
ing sustained at the April conference.
/ asked President Smith, 10 It was
proper thing to sustain those men, or
TO ask the people, TO sustain them,
under the circumstances, and he,
President Smith. stated to me that as
member OF the Church ] must know
that no man could be dropped without
hearing and that II was a rule OF the
Church that a man could not be
dropped, accommodated or disfel-
lowshiped from the Church, without
first having a chance TO defend HIM
SELF
Now he's Apostle Smoot testified
truthfully concerning said conversation
with President SMITH | am con-
strained to believe that he testified
truthfully concerning this question. l
know tibet President Smiths state
ment, Is strictly I'm accord with the
rule OF the Church, and not only tibet,
lt IL In harmony with the spirit and
genius OF the Gospel,
But should ! here paus for n mo-
ment and review Incidents and cir
cumstances, which are matters Of rec
4 INIT a
| teachings ON that occasion, are COM
| patible with some of the acts and do
! ing of the First Presidency and the
President Of the Twelve Apostles, in
matters OF late affairs?
Precepts, IN my judgment are mere
| subturfuge. when compared with acts
| II they are at variance with each other
II Is acts that confronts US. and that
| / am now 10 deal with.
Not long since the President OF the
| Twelve Apostles, accompanied by two
| other Apostles, assumed summary to
remove and dropped" q President Of
| one OF the Stakes OF Zion and Eleven
| bishops, and about as meny Presidents
! of Relief Societies, throwing the In
! corporations, which were under the
! laws OF the state, to the supposed
| naught. and that without a hearing, or
| even previous notice, Presidents and
! Bishops. decapitated, without COM
! plants hearing, or notice, And said
| Apostles alleged that their actions
| were I'm accordance with their instruc"
! lions from the First Presidency AS
| the circumstances referred too are an
| mcontuoyertable fact, VIII you please
explain II possible, Where we are at"
some times wonder II the construc-
ton of man. IN many cases, Is such
| that he will accept a forced idea
| though he knows the same TO be
| wrong. rather than muster courage
and emanslpate his self from the cir
| cumstance2
I believe In the principal "Do what Is
right and let the consequence follow
and not IN the idea Of saying one thinR
and then doing the opposite, or Visa
versa
Kindly give this letter space IN your
Daily Paper with such Inflammation
as may be at hand as TO where VIZ
are at"
Yours very respectfully,
ALMA ELDREDGE.
Coalvlle, Utah.
Feb %. 1905.
Following are the chief paragraphs
I'm our response 10 the foregoing
| we might erho lhe question: Nn'l'
are we att when a man of his expert
once appears 10 be unable 10 distinguish
the difference between eNcommunloot
Ing, disfellowshipplng or depriving
mpn of his Priesthood, ana rleasin'
him FROM some temporary duty or ne
sponsihnity. Were the officers, %
either OF them, referred 10 I'm the lctte
addressed TO US. cut OF the Church O
deprived Of the Priesthood Were the
charged with any offense against th
church, Was anything done in thei
case but simply 20 relieve them OF oner
GUS mIcs that had been imposed upol
them ourlrE q series Of ycars2
Whom o man is appointed 20 a oresid
ing position IN the church no add
tdnnl Priesthood is conferred upon h'n
by thnt appointment nor Is Il md }r
ft.od a. hr OF life tenure. He Is lI1b.
to be renewed at any time when Il ]
| thought 20 be- necessary either for h,
own good, or for the welfare Of tn
| church or the benefit Of the neopl
Ilucpd under hs watchcare lis re
m1vAl tAhrs from him nothing OF hi
+ ! Priesthood OF standing in the Church
7 IL Is no mcIc Of reflection upon hin