OCR Text |
Show ITS STERNAL DUPLICITY. fetiX.. oat It now. There Is not an in any of tho ordinances. $:Jt sacraments or endowments feMorrnon church-Descret News gg,!, February 190C; Lit -A solemn affirmation or declara-P declara-P with an appca to God for Mf of what is afnrmcd.-Webster. 1 of secrecy for the concealing things which , we think flt to keep fcC-Bacon. n evidently willing to divulge that M h" d SOLEMNLY AGREED pcvp SECRET, they wero not able PS anything that they had taken fi2wld ; propfrUy be designated as ftlT-Deseret News editorial. Feb-jtf Feb-jtf H. 1906. Mob F. Smith. I should like to say T&txe Is no oath taken: that we & oaths. We do not take oaths un-fn un-fn are forced to take them. 5i Tavler, I understand. You under-what under-what I mean any obligation Eiph F. Smith. Covenant or agrce-fc-we do that. Testimony In Smoot ..velume 1, page 4S. Cownsnt.-A mutual agreement be-Iwtwo be-Iwtwo or more pers6ns or parties, w-ltlnK and under seal, to do or re-fcfrom re-fcfrom some act or thing; a contract; a writing containing the 'MBK 0f agreement between parties. To d?Et Mo a formal agreement; to bind 'iKmW by contract; to make a stlpu- UBthout ontering into discussion of .ilBkt may or may not be the nature of 7?m Umple ceremonies, asiao xrom vnoso ?gSMiiit the novico to secrecy, we sim-'ajMfpietent sim-'ajMfpietent the foregoing as evidence ot 4!H eternal duplicity, evasion and dis-jLjHfcity dis-jLjHfcity of the Descret News, and, in-3Ht in-3Ht tally, of the ecclesiasts whom it is TfjtjOaiij to represent. jSfc co oath whatever is administered jjjEle Mormon temple, as is declared jjSHf'the president of the church and his PBpnal organ, there is an obligation ytgiSlfCreey of some kind, as both admit. ifjM'i. obligation the hierarchs and the "ijXrtS Ere pleased to call a "covenant." icordiut; to accepted definitions of ftB word "covenant," the term jjMRtfes a signed paper, to which there ielHttt be at least two subscribers. It H.iscsensc to supposo that tho obli-..'jwisu' obli-..'jwisu' administered in the Mormon ilHjkpUE, by which tho novitiate has tijVpiemnly agreed to keep secret" the iBfxtedtags to which he was subjected, iiRni written agreement to that effect. isiWttMormoa can show such a paper, 4flgjfs if he has "been through the iWBBple" a thousand times. In the very JjHifiaTCor the thing, tho obligation tbcre tVKtn is an oath. Thero is not, so far ke are able to see, any justifica-'jSBj justifica-'jSBj ia scripture for designating the Btpl& oath as a "covenant." All jjBtants therein recorded, even those i.JBBtyposed to have been made between Lord aud his prophets, were in witinjj, or were graven in record upon ;ps rabttance or another. iSBAn oatb, according to our best lcxi-'Bfapbers, lcxi-'Bfapbers, is an uttered word, or a fjpn!. of words, whose truthfulness is jBNcied for in the name of the one ob opersonagc which the oath-maker tnB' 'D greatest reverence, respect, jKt. or foar. No writing is necessary, JBjWpt for purposes of transmission to jjWliHes whfire it is inconvenient or jJPjWUlble to carry the person of the PW4ual giving testimony or making Ijjft.U there Is a "covenant" of secrecy 'n the Mormon temples. The Trib-Bjl!ero Trib-Bjl!ero and now challenges production (SB?1 cPJ'of such "covenant." In all rB?"e' agreements it is required that ,fcPy be furnished to each signator; iiiKj !B9$raucb as no covenant can bo !fiHei except in writing and between or wore persons accepting the H?rf as defined by authority every iMnnon who has "been through tho -Hi? v " c abe t0 Prduce a copy "BP j temple obligation, or "cove-to "cove-to secrecy. And inasmuch as it Pecarctl( over aud over again that liflHI5 oblation is absolutely unvicions; ?ie 1 " harm!e5s; t,3afc t is utilized AwHy to protect strictly religious cere-there cere-there can be no barm in 'j1"11 tho nature of this "covenant" ?fn ,t0 tbe worW. Tn fact, it would B? ,'t good, because there aro HSf ,n.ferno.ly bad stories going about ljjE,g p tljd CTuesomft nature of the jjKSj6 fTom ail ofcllcr considerations jMj. ltor, tho main point opposed '?a is the hypocrisy of the church JHltL11 aad their organ. They are con-JRtJ con-JRtJ tempting to pervert the truth 3MfcA 8t c '5vorfls t0 B,,it their dis' JjMgj" Purpose; they utilize a term to TBT r 3 crime morely because that word JBJJ Bot happen to be in the statute do- IKv K tbe described act to be an of- 9Hffb i til C&11 8n oath a "covenant," iH&din b ik be tbe most slin and jfEjjJ8 Waation of words ever con. 2HV" eJr purnoso in doing this BfeinH rm t0 v,'bat tlicy cnl1 con ME ' l,0"a ecruplca against taking 9 '91' oaths. Thoy administer . the oath, nevertheless, but call it by another name. Just as they did with polygamy, for instance. They sworo up and down that there was no law against polygamy, and that therefore they were not breaking the law. There .was a law against bigamy, they admitted, but bigamy was- not polygamy, thoy cried, and therefore they wore innocent. While polygamy was bigamy multiplied and aggravated, they piously contended that the greater offenso was no ovil at all because in the law it was not forbidden for-bidden in the precise word which they chose to adopt for their own designa-tion designa-tion of their own favorite sin. Of course, there are oaths administered admin-istered in the temples doublo-distilled, back-action, triple-plated and hidebound hide-bound oaths and no amount of falsehood false-hood on the partof the whole lot, from the chief prophet, seer, and revelator to the latest ordained deacon, could convince con-vince us to the contrary. We know. |