OCR Text |
Show INBEDIOUS BOTH WAYS. The Doseret New3 afflicts itself with a serious sorry because some preacher abroad has Baid that tho Mormon missionaries mis-sionaries in his neighborhood teach their doctrineB "insidiously" and "surreptitiously." "sur-reptitiously." In a vigorous defense against this "absurd accusation," the Deseret News quotes from another church publication publica-tion to show how opon-hcarted, how supercandid, how flagrantly and brutally-direct brutally-direct are tho teachings of the church and its mouthpieces certain of tho missionaries. And yet let us see whether the charge is not well founded in some respects at least: Moro than sixteen years ago thero was promulgated as a doctrine of i the church, a law of the church, a teaching of the church, a binding. lesson les-son and covenant upon the people, a certain revelation or utteranco known as the Woodruff anti-polygamy manifesto. mani-festo. If anything ever became a. teaching of the Mormon church with all the antecedent solemnities it was this same manifesto. First, it camo from God; next, it was written by a prophet; next, it was edited by a present pres-ent apostle and one of tho seven presidents presi-dents of seventies; next, it was submitted sub-mitted to all Israel, and by all Israel ' accepted; noxt, it was submitted as the law of God to the people and as the teaching of tho church 'to all mankind. And yet from that day to this, that teaching, if presented at all, has been presented in what tho Deseret News well defines as an "insidious nnd surreptitious" sur-reptitious" wajr. Nowhere has it been presented with the boldness and "the candor, with the determination and the vigor which tho News fain would ascribe as-cribe to the teachings of this new gospel. gos-pel. The Tribune will not assume, in view of recent counter-evidences, thnt the Woodruff manifesto which forbids polj'gamy is a doctrine of the church or a teaching of the church; but for sixteen years last past the church itself it-self has made this assumption, and its teaching of the doctrino has been sn "insidious and surreptitious" thnt even tho members tf its own church scarcely know that it is tho doctrine. Not a book of tho creed t'..mt:iinH a revelation of the teaching, not a stan l-ard l-ard sermon of tho church contain any authoritative declaration on the subject sub-ject since tho conference of lSU, not a Deseret News editorial expounds it in anything but an "insidious" w.iy with a "surreptitious" purpose. On the other hand, if the News prefers pre-fers to say that the Woodruff manifesto inhibiting polygamy is not a doctrine of the church, nnd therefore lhat The Tribune is at fault in assuming tho secrecy and the cunning (with which the promulgation of that document are surrounded) ns " surreptitious " teaching; teach-ing; and if the News shall prefer to assume, ns it must then logically do, that the old doctrino of polygamy Is still the doctrine and teaching of the church, will the News dare to denv that this has been "insidiously" taught among all the beauteous damsels 'f Zion for nearl' ten years, and "sur rcptitiously " practiced on lonely roads in Moxico and elsewhere under rhe guise of celestial marriage with fleshly elders like unto the Tanners and the Robertses, who are the examples of the othercalized cult? It is "surroptitious" either way; it is "insidious" both ways. |