The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-06-02
a REPETITION OF
ERROR.

now notorious Hilton case, in holding and
deciding that sealing in the Mormon
church, in its ordinary sense, and espe-
cially the sealing performed between
Mrs Hilton and the late Dr. Park, was
not lawful marriage.
That editorial also seeks to further con-
vey the idea that the recent opinion or
the supreme court affirming its former
opinion IN the same case. is "a repetition
OF error"
The News seeks to inject into the case
something that IS practically Immater1al
to the purpose Of the Hilton case. VIZ,
that there are in the Mormon church
three forms Of sealing one for time
only. one for eternity only. and one in
GLIDING both time and eternity And the
editor (goes off on his hobby to tTyl tries
TO make 1t appear that therefore the SUI
pTeme court must be in error 1t fur
/ Their refers to another case. not included
/ IN the Hilton case proper, nor d part of
/ the record. but which IS known as the
7 Mccormick case
The News editorial referring to the
case and the sealing question says:
Il ne DeSeret News at the time Of the
| former decision in this case explained the
subject fully. and we need not repeat the
article II was further emcidated in q
case involving the same question IN the
district court. and the three forms Of
I sealing were INFINITELY explained
The same editorial says also: That the
HAS BEEN FULLY AND COMPLETE
IL ESTABLISHED BY SWORN TESTi-
MONh IN court and elsewhere. and the
/ contrary Is we'll understood by members
of the church who are posted as 90 its
rites and ceremonies"
The testimony to which the News re
ters in its editorial. and which il cites as
authority to show that what 1t alleges
HAS BEEN FULLY AND COMPLETE
If ESTA BLISHED." is nothing more nor
less than the testimony of the editor of
IN the Mccormick case above referred TO-
and which It. cites IS authority
The News has all along. in its various
editorials from time to time, TOundly
stated that there was a form of marTiaG &c
lu the church called sealing for eter-
nifty only, and not including time being.
I from the other two alleged ceremonies,
ana eNrtuulnE any right between the par
ties thereto to COhabit together in this
/ lie. but when the News editor was upon
1 the witness stand in the Mccormick case,
upon crosse examination. he fell down i'm
his effort To '-elucidate' upon the DrOpo-
SlUo1. or otherwise by his calculation
. n" showed clearly that there was 10 such
7 ceremony. that the ceremonies We're all
one and the same. and that it was left TO
the parties after being sealed to de
terminC whether or not they would co
ha bit together I'm other words. that the
intention of the parties. or the under
standing between the parties. was the
controlling factor i'm the case
Following IS an extract from his testi-
mOny:
@ You say that there are three DIFF
fereut ceremonies
A 7 say there are three different forms
Of sealing.
O. Then there arc three different forms
of scaling. are there not2
y Yes, there are three different Cere-
monies.
q Aud YOU have been directed to Of
fICiate in these ceremonies2
A Not all of them.
q Have YOU been directed to olficiatc
in the sealing ceremony
a T4s7-o ,-o,, don, go
q And You say there arc three kinds?
4. Yes. sir
@ And three fOrms2
\ Yes. sir.
.. The general rule in the church ordi-
uances Is that eternity includes time.
A The general rule or understanding Of
IT is that. still, there is a distinction IN
the church in regard TO ceremonies. some
for eternity alone. some for time alone.
and some for time and ali eternity So
there would he distinction I'm that case.
@ In your opinion, does the intention
or the parties cut any figure. or IS It gov
erned altogether by the CEREMONY
A ] think the intention Of the parties
governs to large extent very large ex-
tent, because it Is the basis of il all
@ Suppose that a man and woman are
sealed as husband and wife in the com
mon acceDtattou OF the term. and they
cohabIt together thereafter. do YOU un-
derstand. under the law Of the church
that it would he adultery. that is under
the general aCCcptati0n Of the term seal
ing for time and eternity?
Objection
The Court-He may answer it.
A II wouldn't he considered adultery.
# ! understand the question right 1
Q. With reference to what You claim
10 be sealing for eternity only. in such
a ceremony as that is the right to CO.
habIt IN time or the time proposition
eliminated
A If you mean in the understanding Of
the contract of scaling. I would say yes,
it is eliminated,
@. J mean in the ceremonv7
a don say in the ceremony. I would
say in the understanding Of the contract
. I say in the ceremony. too
A The CeremOuy-thero wouldn't he
anything said perhaps about that
Q. Then would the ceremonies be the
same
A. They wouldn't be the same I'm the
WdE nave explained Sealing that would
be for eternity. would be for eternity If
II were for time. IL would he for time n
II were for time and all eternity, 1t would
be for all times
9. bishops marry for time?
A Yes sir
Q. That is not sealing?
\ No sir; but there are seaIings for
.. 7 understand You said that; but this
eternity prOpOsition-does the ceremony
describe there that it is simply straight
sealing Tor eternity or does il say they
have no right to CChabit i'm time2 .
A IT il relates to the ceremony. I saw
no The ceremony doesn't state that
@. Does it state it at aH2 Is there a
set FORM
4. There is a set form for each Of
those SedlIUES 7 have spoken about and
there Is a form I'm which some things are
eliminated Tt doesn't say specifically
that they must not live together That
+ the understanding between the par
ties not in the ceremony. IS
.. Have You been present at 2 sealing
where woman was sealed to a man for
eternity CuIy2
A Yes sir
Q Did, the parties thereafter cohsbit
a They did not
. You are sure Of that?
\ am sure of il i'm some cases, be
cause one of the parties was dead
.. Well was he dead when he was
seaiedo
A In some cases.
1t is apparent that the witness state
meut that there were three different
forms Of the sealing ceremony. as made
insinCere. for he subsequently admitted
IN effect that the ceremonies were The
same. and that the only difference was
iu the understanding between the par
ties. not in the ceremony
The editor further admitted on cross
examination, after a great deal Of dOdg-
IuE and evasion that if man and v-0-
man were sealed, under the ordinary ac-
ccptatiOn Of the term and had previous
II had an understanding between them
selves that they would not Coha bit to
gether in this life and they. after the
sealing. changed their minds and lived
together. that such cOhabitation would
not he adultery
The News editorial is decidedly unfair
10 the supreme court. for the reason as
the News well knows. that the sealing
law Of the church rs contained in sec
Covenants was introduced in evidence
and was recognized by all the parties in