OCR Text |
Show HIS FATUOUS BLINDNESS. Elsewhere in this issuo of The Trib-.uno Trib-.uno will bo found a commumeation from J. R. Richardson under tho caption, cap-tion, "Protends to Champion Mor-monism." Mor-monism." We gather from his letter that Mr. Richardson has takon great personal umbrage on account of certain articles which h'avo appeared in these columns upon tho historical facts relating to the Mormon church and its leaders. The writer of tho lettor undertakes to constitute con-stitute himself the champion of Mor-monisni Mor-monisni and to mako a defenso in its behalf. Tho Tribune prints his communication com-munication out of a spirit of fairness; auu 11. uio reauer snau ne aryo to discover dis-cover in it a defense of Mormonism, no one will contest his claim of having made the discovery. So far as we arc ablo to see, Mr. Richardson simply poses as tho Sir Oracle of debate, announcing an-nouncing with considerable bounce and flourish that all the literature litera-ture of the world is as an open book to him. With tho ."jack-pudding strut characteristic of a confirmed bigot, ho impertinently assumes that ho is right, and that no amount of discussion dis-cussion could possibly reveal ono iota of merit in tho opinions of those who TTinv flifTnr frnm Viim In ..1.,. A . A " i iro. .'lull ho rests tho case of Mormonism on tho point that ho sees in it, a ."justification of God as if God needed ."justification of human infirmity! As an illustration illus-tration of his unreason, ho practically repudiates tho church leaders, from Joseph Smith down to Joseph F. Smith, bocauso ho declares that the personal conduct and daily lives of these men havo nothing whatever to do with the case. Then ho proceeds in a blusler-ingly blusler-ingly fatuous style to bring in the sayings say-ings and doings of Joseph Smith as ovidence in behalf of a contention that is so obscure that wo confess inability to define it. Tho ono thing that is plain is that ho appears to count the church leaders out in order not to bo compelled to faco opposing and damaging damag-ing evidence as presented in their personal per-sonal lives and utterances; and then brings in tho very men whom he has counted out in an attempt to establish a case against this paper. But. in repudiating re-pudiating "the prophet," ho necessarily necessar-ily repudiates his mission and all pleas fall to tho ground. It is rather a curious position to take. Mr. Richardson, in all likelihood, pretends pre-tends to be a Christian becauao he behoves be-hoves in Christ, accepting the testimony testi-mony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and others aa groundwork for his belief be-lief in tho divino calling and person of Christ. But lie refuses to admit that he is a Mormon because ho .believes in Joseph Smith, declaring that ho will not accept the testimony of men contemporary con-temporary with Joseph as to his character'. char-acter'. In fact, he says that what Joseph Smith was docs not matter, and at the same timo declares that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and so on, in behalf be-half of his own contention. Ho deals with Joseph Smith as ho likes in the interest of his own easo, and forbids The Tribune to deal with Joseph Smith at all in tho interest of its side. He is a bit insolent toward Tho Tribune, too; but notwithstanding that we give space to his letter. Mr. Richardson declares that he doosn't care if Joseph F. Smith bo a liar, nor if the Dcseret News be a no-account no-account church organ, nor if the founder gate, " nor if all the church leaders who over lived wore of the same stripe. Yet. ho doubtless will assert that Iuh belief in the Savior was born of belief in tho story of His spotless life. It is a curious concoction, and wo call attention to it that, tho reader mny uudertako to find where the pompous Richardson docs what ho pretends to do, champion Mormonism, if for no other reason |