OCR Text |
Show I EXPLAIN, PLEASE. The Xews of Saturday night had a very nice reference to the Democrat because the Democrat had exposed the sophistry of the Xews on the question of plural marriage. We trust the Xews will not claim to have originated the idea about polj'gamy not baing intended for general practice, as the late Epistle of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Cannon gave authoritative utterance ut-terance to this new doctrine in this lan- I gunge: It should also be understood that the practice prac-tice is not generally admissible among the Latter-day Saints. It is strictly guarded, the intention being to allow only those who are above reproach to enter into the rela-f rela-f tionship. The practice of the doctrine is f not for extension beyond the church, and is ; even limited wit hin its pale. The Xews, always following on the heels of divinity, like Ruth after Naomi, made the following -comment upon the passage in the Epist le : That "Mormon" plurality of wives is not 1 for general practice, that it is only designed for specified individuals; that even all "Alor-mons" "Alor-mons" if there were women enough for plural wives for all the men in the church i would not be worthy of the privileges of the ; system, and that it is not promulgated for outside acceptance and proselytism. These passages are easily understood ; but how does it come that a new doctrine doc-trine is now preached in regard to the practice of polygamy? The Mormon people always claimed that it was a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it was on account I of this bslief that the case of Reynolds j went up to the Supreme Court, If the practice of polygamy is a privilege, and is even restricted within the pale of the Mormon Church, will the Xews please explain why the caae oi Reynolds was carried up to the Supreme Court, and what the paople here expected would lie the result of that appeal? I , Seeing that the practice of polygamy, according to the Epistle, is only permitted permit-ted to those who are above reproach, the ! conclusion is irresistibly forced upon our j :'j mind that the present editorial staff of I . the Xews is not above reproach, else the ' members thereof would either be in Eng- j' ; land or the Penitentiary. |