Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-08-27
AN ANr1.MonMoN rALLAcY.

become notorious. The result of It's
labor this time Is a fairly good Illus
tration of the fallacy which logiclans
call Irrelevant conclusions and
which is defined as occurring when
the dlsputant, protesting to contradict
the thesis. advances another PROPOSE
ton which contradicts 1t In appear
ance but not in reality. This seems
TO he favorte mode of reasoning OF
the sheet referred to. either because
of Ignorance or deliberate design TO
deceive the dupes among its readers
that do not think for themselves.
In the case under consideration, our
position is that the Church has faith
fully kept whatever promises. or COW
enants. it has made. We maintain
that It has been demonstrated by the
most searching investigation, that no
marriages contrary to law are being
sclemnizcd. or have been solemnized,
by the Church. or by the authority of
the Church. or by the authority OF any
j Church officials.
The Tribune asserts that the Church
has broken, and is now breaking, cer-
tain pledges and covenants, and then,
instead Of proving that proposition,
which. of course. cannot be proved. it
proceeds to deliver a diatribe against
Elder B. II. Roberts. Mark the SLY
shifting of ground. characteristic of a
dishonest sophist, from a vicious at
tack upon the Church TO an assault
upon an individual member and Of
fetal of the Church But in order to
see the fallacy of the daily assailant
of character clearly, consider the fol-
lowing. The Tribune quotes this as
embodylng the promises made by the
Church;
Whereas said Church has discon-
tjnued the practice of polygamy, and
no longer encourages or gives counten-
0pce in any manner to practices in
violation of law, or contrary to good
morals or public policy; and II the said
personal property Is restored to said
Church it win not be devoted to any
such unlawful purpose"
Then, in support of the falsehood
that this promise regarding the prac-
tice OF polygamy is being broken. 1t
quotes from the address OF President
the Review of the Ministerial associa-
ton, as follows:
Another complaint of our reviewers
Is that polygamy is only abrogated as
10 practice. and that belief In the d.
vinity of the principle Is still held by
the Latter-day Saints. Well. gentle
men. what of it? Whose business Is
1T? 4, Hands off here! Our be-
lief is our own. We have right TO
our opinions. II you don't believe
them. that ~ nothing to us. we do
The reader will notice that one par
agraph deals with the PRACTICE of
pclygamy and the other with the BE-
LIEF In the doctrine--two entirely
different propositions One can be
made Illegal the other never. in this
country
Is 1t not true that every man and
woman in this Republic has right to
believe whatever seems right to him,
or her? If anyone chooses TO believe
that plural marriage relations are
right, or that they are wrong, or that
NtANs ai' ISM CERTAIN NbAAl-
tions, but wrong under other clrcum-
stances, whose business Is that. as
long as religious liberty remains one
OF the sacred prorogatives OF Amerl-
can citizens? We. too. say, Hands
off here!" and every true American
citizen viii say, Amenl
The Tribune closes it's rambling of-
fort by referring to an episode of the
constitutional convention, but it does
not tell more than half OF the sto,y,
and what It does tell. 1t distorts. Mr..
Narian as stated introduced an
amendment. as follows
The act of the governor and lcgls-
lative assembly of the Territory Of
Utah, entitled An act TO punigh no
lygamy and other kindred offenses, ap-
proved Feb 4, A. u, 1892 I'm so far as
the same defines and imposes penal
ties for polygamy rs hereby declared
10 be in force in the state of Utah"
Mark the clause: In so far as the
same defines ana imposes penalties for
poIygamy"
The Tribune, OF course. states that
thls- amendment was suggested by the
fear entertained by some that the
Church would not keep It's pledges.
The Church, we submit was not fac
tor In the constitutional convention.
Nor did that assembly have anything
TO do with any church pledges. The
reference 10 any church in this connec-
ton, is silly twaddle. Mr.. Varan ex-
planned the reason why he introduced
his amendment, lie said in part;
The enabling act requires the con-
Nention 10 provide by irrevocable or
dlnanee that polygamy on plural mar
riages are forever prohibited. II
II desired that there shall be COM
pliance With the act Of Congress, and
with the understanding everywhere IN
spirit, as well as IN letter, II would be
necessary for this convention to make
some positive declaration, adding the
force Of law which would be self-oX-
eoutinE,'
Further questioned about the inten-
tion Of the amendment, Mr., Yariar
said;
the amendment confines II "a
that particular matter lpolygamyl. II
does not touch oohabltation. nor adul'
terry, nor incest, nor fornication"
The further discussion OF this amend.
Inent Is not without interest as show
ing the sincerity OF some OF the dele
gates In striking contrast TO the IN
sincerity OF others Mr.. Goodwin, fol
instance. said, IN part
THE question that confronts us Il