Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-05-12
A VERY PECULIAR CASE.


prosecution Of some Of our Elders in
Norway for administering tho ordl-
nances of Baptism and the Sacrament
OF the Lords supper, Particulars of
their trial and conviction we're given
IN a "News" editorial OF May ., 1906.
Tho persecution against them was
started by some OF the sectarian cler-
gymen NJ Drontheim and Bergen. II
was based on the theory that the Lat
ter-day Saints, or "Mormons' are not
christian" sect. and therefore had
no right to administer any Christian"
ceremonies.
Elder Niels Eyensen was fined Ave
hundred kroner or 10 be imprisoned
forty.fvo days, for performing the
:, ceremony OF Baptism. and two native
Elders we're fined fifty kroner each for
administering the Sacrament Of the
Lords supper An appeal was taken
10 the superior court and the verdict
OF the lower court VISA set aside and
the Elders found mot guilty on an
other page will be found letter from
President Frederick Christensen. CIV
ing IN substance tho decision Of the
higher court az It appeared In R. Dront-
helm paper II Is worth reading and
considering.
In our editorial Of May 3. previously
referred to- we took up the question of
the application Of the law under which
the Elders were convicted and made
these remarks;
y"By declaration Of the ecclesiastic-
al department OF the government. [dat-
ed August a. 1871 the ordinance OF
baptism as performed by the Mormons
Is not to be considered as Christian
baptism II II is not Christian, It is
not baptism at all and, consequently,
no more subject to ecclesiastical legal
enactments than amy other secular acts
which the citizens have an indsputable
right to perform There II some con-
tradiction IN the Interpretation of the
Dissenter law, which the supreme court
possibly may take cognizancc of when
the case of Elder Evenscn Is brought
up."
II now appears that the higher court
has taken this view OF the matter. and
in It's decision announces that as the
"Mosmons" have been declared TO be
not "Christian' sect nor TO be num-
bcrcd among Christian dissenters, the
baptism which they perform Is not TO
be considered as Christian baptism.
that when "a religious sect which is
not considered Christian uses such
ceremonies in the exercises of their re-
igIon, which moro or less resemble the
Christian Sacrament, that cannot make
the sect Christian church. neither
can II make those ceremonies Chris.
tlan.' and that, further. there can
supposedly be nothing TO hinder non
Christian sect from using water-~ether
by pourisg It upon or immersng in--to
designate the PERSONS initiation into
such sect. From such an act, how
ever. viii no confessor Of the Christian
faith claim that the person SO baptized
has IN fact through such baptism be-
come a member OF the Christian
church"
The court says also: THE same rulo
holds good as 10 administering the
Sacrament. Then II follows that the
accused have not performed any act
connected with any public office which
he does not hold, inasmuch as they have
only performed an act which IN the
eyes OF the Christian churches II on.
tirely without effect, and which would
just as well be performed by any othei
person whomsoeyer." The court rules
that the accused arc not guilty The
Judgment was unanimous.
There are some peculIaritles about
this decision when compared with the
law under which proceedings were taxi
en- against the Elders, But that does
not matter very much So long as the
Elders have the liberty to adminlstr,
the ordinances of our Church u is a
matter Of small concern to MS whether
our christian" friends, or foes regard
that heterogeneous compourn called
Chrstendom or not That religious lib-
eriy which Is supposed to prevail In
Norway 10 some extent, and fully In
the United States belongs to the Lat
tcr-day Saints IN common with ala
mankind, and if people become con-
WINGED Of the truth of cur doctrines.
they ought 10 have the Same freedom
to accept them aul render obedience
TO them as TO receive or reject anything
else that Is presented Co their notice.
IL Is rather remarkable that a Church
founded on the fundamental principles
Of New Testament teachings aud oio-
fessedly established by direct revelation
from Jesus Christ Himself, should be-
rejected as non. Christian by the differ
ent so-called Christian srcts We re-
gard their attitude MS evidence that
they have departed from "the faith
once delivered 20 tho Saints" and that
the system they call "Nlormonisr1."
which they reject, Is what II claims to
be- that is, no part or parcel of dlvid ID
and dscordant modern christianity"
no piece OF new cloth patched upon an
old garment. but the original Chris
tisnity as taught by Christ and His
Apostles IN the first century OF the
Christian era, restored and introduced
anew to mankind
We have no desire 10 have that
Church confounded with the several or
carnations which are clearly OF human
origin, nor do We wish 20 hold any of
them in eninity or to ignore the good