The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-25
ATTACKING THE CHURCH. -

by certain heads of the Mormon church,
1t has been the favorite dodge of tho
church organ TO claim that we were at
racking the church; that is, these men
are in fact the church, and the church
is attacked when they arc attacked
On the other hand, whenever it has
been necessary TO show-as IL often has
been necessary TO show-that tho church
has not kept faith with the Government.
has violated its pledges Of honor. and
has availcd itself of the amnesty which
it wccpingly sought from the Govern
ment and which was granted on condi
tion of obedience to the laws, which
condition has not been fulfilled the
claim has been made that the church
has kept its pledges inviolate although
its leaders have not. The general re-
suit is, therefore. that for the purpose
of defending these persons in their law
less and robbing lives, they are in fact
the church. BUT when the church is TO
be eXculpated from completely in the
confessions that these church leaders
have made under oath that they have
not kept their pledges, then these lead
ers are not the church. And so the
thimble-rigging proposition goes on,
now you see IL and now you don Z sec
it, and the church is involved or is not
involved according TO the exigencies of
the argument for the time being.
But inasmuch as il is an accepted
doctrine Of the church organ that to
o44o,I a.. ,Lrr,I ,J.r. . 4, otto. IL
the church (that organ has even at
times had the cheek to say that when
we differed from its position we at.
tackled tine chrch), are not the Demo
cratic leaders guilty st the present time
of attacking the church, - since they
repel with the vigor that they do, the
charges made against their party by
Apostle Smoot through the agency Of
his "Month's The principal is bound
by the acrs Of his agent, and Smoot is
certainly bound by the charges OF his
"Mouth,n But if Smoot is so bound,
then he is the actual party in guilt of
the falsehooi and SANDER involved in
spreading the story of trcachery i'm
puted by his Mouth to the Demo.
Gratis. And in repelling this lie and Sian.
der in the vigorous manner that they do,
the Democratic leaders must necessarily
reflect upon Smoot. But as Smoot is the
church in the same sense that Smith is
the church, and iuasmuch as the church
organ has from tirne 10 time denounced
The Tribune for sssailing the church
when it has merely attacked Smoot, we
presume that il must consider these
Democratic leaders under the same cen
sure in this charge AS il has visited
upon The Tribune from time to time; IL
must consider that they also arc cat
tacking the church.
We find, therefore. on this style OF
reasoning that Brigham l. Roberts,
Ashby Snow, Mathonihah Thomas, sam
uel A. King, John T. Tobin, and a con.
siderable number of other members of
the church must also rest under the
same censure of the church organ. They
have attacked the church by attacking
Smoot, just as in attacking Smoot or
Smith, The Tribune attacks the
church.
In their speeches at Grantsville on
Wednesday Mr.. Henry C. Lund, son of
President Anthon II. Lund, and Council
man Fernstrom, are also guilty of sat
tacking the church" in deuouncinc the
lies of the Smoot "Mouth" agency.
Elder Brigham II. Roberts also in
American Fork on Thursday evening,
was guilty of the same high offeuse.
That it is high offense is evident from
the nature OF the case; for nobody has
any business politically TO attack any
church. But since it is attacking the
church TO attack any of its high off.
cinls, whether for misdemeanors,
crimes, or breach Of faith, it necessar-
lily follows that these persons have been
guilty of attacking the church" in
attacking the outgivings of SmooJ S
"Mouth.' Smoot necessarily must
stand for those outgivings, since he is
responsible for the "Mouth itself
But on the other hand, can we say
that Smoot himself attacked the church
, when in his speech at Logan he de-
nounced the candidacy Of Mr., Knight
for Governor and sustained that of
Elder Spry7 If Smoot was not guilty
Of attacking the church - in this how
shall the line be drawn! Evidently on
party lines; that is, any one who at
tacks from the American standpoint or
the Democratic standpoint any Repub.
lican dignitary IN the Mormon church,
! is attacking the church. But any one
who attacks from the Republican "
standpoint any Democratic dignitary of
the church, is entirely and religiously
! within his privilege in so doing, and is
not attacking the church at all This
makes the church strictly Republican
| organization; precisely as Joseph T.
Smith undertook TO make il in bis clos
ing address at the October conference.
But if the Mormon church is n Re
publican church. and IL it is unrighteous
/ for any one TO attack leader OF that
church who happens 10 be in Republi-
can politics, but entirely righteous for
any one within that church to attack