OCR Text |
Show AM ormon Datire Editor Tribune: I hove been waiting In pained surprise and Impatience for some adequate answer by the Deseret News to the startling nrtlcle of Mr. Frederick M. Smith, in which ho quoted tho various leaders of the Mormon church as teaching "unquestioning obe-dioncc obe-dioncc to tho priesthood." It Is almost hoping against hope to remain In a state of expectancy and, In behalf of myself and other believers In Joseph Smith (not Joseph F. Smith), I take permission lo quote the only tangible reply which the News has attempted to make, and to comment upon the same. Tho News says editorially: What thoso dead and cono orators proclaimed under conditions that no doubt Justified their remark.", nrr their own vlowa, governing their own net, und nro not binding upon this church, nor nro thoy cited u.n written nulhorlly In tho twentieth century. Under tho circumstances, this appeals ap-peals to me ns a hazardous subterfuge, and I presumo there are many, llko myself, who wonder Just what Is meant by It. Those living during the regime of Brlgham Young wero taught to revere re-vere hlin as a prophet of God, one in whose breast burned the fires of inspiration, in-spiration, who "spake as he wan moved upon by the Holy Ghost;" likewise, Presidents John Taylor, Wllford Woodruff Wood-ruff nnd Lorenzo Snow, if this was true, and I don't sec how nny Latter-Day Latter-Day Saint can consistently dony it and hold the faith, I would like to ask how their utterances can, by any deduction, become merely "their own views" and "not binding upon this church." The Master proclaimed principles under conditions peculiar to his tlmo, and yet, wherever Christianity Is practiced those principles are always operative. "Obedience to God" was a salient doctrine doc-trine of the Christ, and no one has over had tho hardihood to set It aside with the flimsy dictum that It was only the Master's opinion, nnd not binding on Christians. If Editor Penrose's statement state-ment Is lo be considered as a tacit admission ad-mission tnnt those men were not representing repre-senting tho Lord ns prophets and reve-lators, reve-lators, what can be said to constitute Joseph F. Smith as a prophet of God? Or If It Is to be assumed that these men were what they claimed to be, and now having answered the summons of the. grim reaper, the binding effect of their words Is dissolved, the pertinent question ques-tion Is, "Why should a prophet cease to bo regarded as one after death, and why should his words cease to bo binding bind-ing upon his followers?" How can we logically determine this "point of contrary con-trary flexure?" It seems to me, Mr. Editor, that In tho light Brother Penroso places this situation, It can be looked upon In at least two different ways. Giving him the benefit of the supposition, perhaps It Is the Intention that the church be no longer viewed in the light of divine unchangcablllty. but rathor as a vast mercantile Institution, which. In order to escnpo the fate of an organization too rigid to adapt Itself to a mutable environment, must continually readjust read-just Itself, the various presidents of thf church to be regarded In their capacity ca-pacity ns officials of a great corporation, corpora-tion, their duty and prerogative being to conserve and protect tho business Interests. What one official may do during his Incumbency, his successor may deem Impracticable, and reverse the policy. If In one decade It Is advls-ablo advls-ablo to teach "unquestioning obedience" for the enhancement of the secret tithing tith-ing fund. It Is perfectly permissible to do so. and when conditions change so as to make the cxDloltatlon of such slock an unwise venture, another lino of procedure may be taken, and the announcement an-nouncement of freedom of speech, thought and nctlon may prove as good collateral aa the old-time reliable, "unquestioning "un-questioning obedience." Taking the matter seriously, how-over. how-over. It is obvious that If the editor of the News is right In the assertion that "unquestioning obedience to the priesthood" Is not a true principle, and Is not a doctrine of the church, every president of the church up to Joseph F. Smith was wrong, and In that admission admis-sion of wholesale fallacy Is Involved the shattered claims of divine Inspiration Inspira-tion and prophetic vision. While gratitude grat-itude to the editor for correcting errors previously existing Is his Just meed, that gratitude must bo given at tho exponas ex-ponas of moving the very foundation of the Mormon philosophy "the rock of revelation." The elders of Israel havo persistently twitted the various Christian sects on their inconrlstency in tcceptlng dead prophets and rejecting living ones. It certainly must be Just ts embarrassing to reverse the terms and proclaim "living "liv-ing oracles," prophets, feers and reve-lators, reve-lators, and In tho same braath renounce re-nounce the prophetic otllce of the standard-bearers who have passed into the ;;rmt beyond. The natural conclusion conclu-sion Is that Editor Penrose Is merely offering a fop to tho living Cerberus, while he petulantly and Irreverently kicks aside the dead who havo faithfully faith-fully guarded tho Shechlnah of Mormon Mor-mon mystery. I subscribe myself os I am, not a believer be-liever In Joseph F. Smith, but still A BELIEVER IN JOSEPH SMITH. Salt Lake City. Utah. March 7. 1000. |