The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-06-24
THE KERNEL IN THE NUT.

While the Deseret News has not given
to the public the whole contents of the
letter of resigna tion from former Apos-
furnished TO establish two propositions,
The first is that there exists within the
official church body no inharmony as
to the matter of polygamy, and that
Taylor was not removed on any such
account; and the second is that thero
is a difference Of opinion as to whether
the president of the church has the
right to dictate in civil affairs, and that
this was the controversial point upon
which Taylor was deposed. These prop
ositions will be made plain in repro.
duction of portions of the letter which
have to do with these subjects. In
respect to the first, here is the showing:
have always believed that the Govern
meut OF the United States had iurisdic-
tiop only within IFS own boundaries. and
that the term laws of the land in the
manifesto meant merely the laws OF the
United States.
Elder Taylor goes on further to say
that the language of the Woodruff man
ifesto which was presented to the con-
ference and adopted by the whole
church. is taken by him to sustain his
implied contention that he may engage
in new polygamy elsewhere than with
in the iurisdic tion Of the United States.
He also observes that his attitude in
this respect was assumed because the
Interpretation Of President Woodruff,
which extended the scope Of the mani
festo to the whole world. was not pre-
sented TO the conference for adoption,
as was the literal document itself, aud
that he therefore does not consider it
TO be binding upon him. From doc
trinal and authoritative viewpoint. tho
leaders can not question the right of
Elder Taylor to believe and practice in
consonance with his expressed view, else
they Themselves should all be unfrocked,
This conclusion is forced by reason Of
their own attitude with reference to
another of President Woodruff IS inter
preta tions Of the manifesto. And that
is respecting the living with plural
wives. To be plain, Wilford Woodruff
defined the manifesto as inhibiting un-
lawful cohabitation, as the otfense of
polygamous living is termed in law,
But this Interpretation was never pre-
sented to the church for its confirma-
tion, any more than was the construc-
tion respecting the boundaries Of juris
diction, or, rather, the universality
Of scope. Upon this point of continued
polygamous living there was much tes-
timony at Washington, including that
Of Joseph F. Smith. Without quoting
all Of these, it can be said in brief that
the witnesses contended that the mani
festo did not in so many words, inhibit
unlawful coha bitation, and that polyg
amists who had married plurally preVi-
GUS to the manifesto had ordered their
lives according to the literal word of
the manifesto, coupled with their own
construction of it's intent.
However, in order that the position
Of the church may be stated, it is only
necessary to observe the fact that it
countenances polygamous living, In that
the majority of the chief officials of the
organizations are practicing it IN their
daily lives. They defend and justify
themselves in this by pointing out that
in no official pronouncement Of the
church is the practice denied to them.
But the conclusion is inevitable that
if polygamous living be justifable in
the hierarchs on this account they
could not discipline John w. Taylor
in the matter of polygamy outside the
jurisdiction Of the United States. Their
own Interpretation, in behalf of their
own practice, is based upon precisely
the same right and ground as is Elder
Taylor's construction in behalf of his
particular practice. Moreover, mas
much as it has been the custom for men
in the church to go to Canada or Mexico
to take new plural wives since the man
ifesto, and since these men have not
been disciplined by the church for so
doing, it is quite evident that polygamy
is not the point at all upon which there
is difference of opinion within the
church. Under the actual wording of
the manifesto, unlawful cohabitation is
permissible within the United States,
provided the plural wives were married
before the issuance of that document;
and. literally, new polygamons mar
risges are permissible within the
church, if consummated outside the ju
risdiction Of this republic. Both prac-
ticcs stand upon an equal footing, so
far as the law of the church is CON
cerned, as adopted by the body of the
church, The reigning officials practice
the one at home, and the deposed Off
cials practice the other abroad. And
no new polygamlst is punished by the
church, although 1T has admitted that
L Il 4 L.