| Show IT UP prof nelsons belsons Nel sons final answer in the discussion editor enquirer Enquire rJ observer is evidently an elderly man I 1 quits appreciate the fatherly way in which be is ready to overlook yea even forgive and forget the fact that he and I 1 query were handled without gloves ho he is ia thus forgiving because of a youthful zeal and exuberance in the writer which when the judgment dament Ju becomes maturi mature will be governed by bv prudence and amiability he then proceeds to say that I 1 should have replied thus thul sly my brother you have a miB misunderstanding understanding ol of toe the matter we teach thus and so not thus and so ISO very good advice no doubt but let us see eee i how I 1 Ob observer Berver applied it to himself when he be took a hand in this controversy query had just written a letter in which occurred this assumption Is this not a dangerous doctrine to teach in a latter day saints institute and that too without correction after discussing discus aine sinz by sections the passage complained of and indicating my own dissent from dr halls conclusion I 1 said the only safe way is to meet evolution incorporate its truths into the gospel and combat its wrong inferences by better ones which the light of 0 the gospel enables us to draw that is the method of the frigham young academy 11 observer take note and we have bave yet vet to learn of the first young man going east with such suan a foundation and coming back an infidel on the con arary they come back glowing with spir spiritual igual warmth the truths gained in the sciences only adding lustre to their faith how could query or observer honestly mistake the policy of the academy in respect of evolution after such a plain statement I 1 then asked query on what ground he be assumed that errors of this ibis kind go without correction what are church sebooh for if r ir 1 bat aure t all things in harn barn ny ay with the spirit nj irit of truth does 3 our correspondent presume to say that the academy is failing in its mission if EJ I 1 should like to hear his bis grounds x but he is illogical in finding fault with the academy instead of attacking the principle fairly and squarely on its own account c replies that I 1 have not answered his questions and proceeds to put them once more in the same way blank denial in such a case is a mere mayg trick to often defeat and I 1 was not to be drawn into further controversy by it he then says mr nelson asks aska upon what ground aery assumes that tho the errors errora advanced by lectures are not corrected in reply I 1 will ask the gentleman leman it if the evolution theory in regard to the physical organs of man have ever been corrected by the officials who engaged him could anything be more preposterous than this here is a man deliberately making a charge against the academy and asking me to disprove it I 1 afelt felt that I 1 could rely upon the intelligence of your read readers erses specially especially ally as aa I 1 had explained mv own attitude on me question and the Acad policy with regard to such questions in general besides every schoolboy school boy knows that upon him who makes a charge lies the burden of proof after this I 1 could not believe that query was sincere it was not a de sire for information but a spleen which individuals here and there are known to have against the academy which manifestly prompted this second letter but still I 1 chose not to reply then came observer upon the scene et cf action the situation certai certainly afforded a fine opportunity for the spirit of charity which he commends to me in so fatherly a way As aa he has written the speech which he thinks I 1 ought to have used need permit me to write him a little speech a speech which would haye have been consistent with his bis advice to me friend query me to tn suggest that you sie are laboring under a mis apprehension in your second letter prof nelson explained that when dr hall uttered those words he nelson mentally disagreed saying atals may be an explanation but it is ia not the explanation he also aleo explains that it is the policy of the academy to incorporate the frothy froths of evolution and campat its false conclusions conc lual 1 oab by drawing true ones onea by the light of the spirit ol of truth I 1 agree with you that the doctrine inferred from this passage is wrongs so does the Acad academy erny so does prof nelson As aa the professor says therefore it is not logical to bring the academy into the controversy unless you yon wish to bladig the institution for engaging dr hall but it is ia proper and quite to the point to fight this doctrine such sash a speech would haye have been worthy of the white hairs and venerable countenance of observer but he did not say it he lost hla his temper without haying having any zeal and exuberance of youth to excuse him this is what he be said it seems to me query has the best of the argument it the B Y academy is to 0 be considered a church school in which the doctrines of the church of jesus bebus christ of Latt erday saints carel are I 1 to be taught then ought the alence of the world that conflicts with our ideas hofmans ol 01 mans creation the papoose of his creation and his to be set forth by probes professor lors who believe mormonism is a myth insinuation no 11 I 1 J it we are intending to teach the doctrine of evolution the suri ryal of the fittest the atad tadpole calel theory of the origin of man then let us cut out ou the name of the academy at least the name of brigham young insinuation no 21 2 1 await a further reply from prof nelson kelson what reply could there be other than a reply to insinuation no bor I 1 or a reply to insinuation no 2 1 I reply to both showing that the bigotry which would exclude dr hall was neither 1 in the theory ot mormonism nor 2 the practice of mormonism nor 3 according to common sense that in making second insinuation query and observer must have believed it 1 true trae 2 untrue or 3 been in doubt then I 1 drew draw tho the predicaments in which any one of these attitudes would place them and closed thus mant as such that is a chain of reasoning from given premises to conclusion needs no signature it is impersonal it is its own best beat reason for existence not so with slander query and observer have called upon 3 me to answer a lot of twaddle and vile insinuations about tho academy I 1 call upon them to show their faces what other view could I 1 take th an that I 1 observer wad was another one who took this opportunity ot getting a fling at the academy 7 when these gentlemen complain of the treatment they receive admy at my hands bands they should not forget that they axe are throwing mu mud d from behind a fence and therefore do not deserve better treatment had they honestly and aboveboard af s their names to the insinuations y made it would have been different or had ob observer A erver urged on th the e score of policy the same respectful consideration for non de plumes that names are entitled to there would have been some consistency y in the advice but only on the of policy one olten often gets into a place where it is policy to say 11 doggy beggy doggy pretty doggy dogey good little doggy even when one knows that the bristling openmouthed combination addre addressed aged is anything but good or little or pretty but as in this case I 1 felt no fear for myself and not much respect tor for my opponents the question of policy did not appeal to me and on the whole I 1 have nothing to apologize for in my second letter then came observers and letters observer verl opening paragraph is ia amusing so prof nelson has answered querys Qu erys question at t last he says 1 I am not defending D halls views I 1 never have declared my belief nor do I 1 believe in the passage ao sa often quoted in these letters it is well does Ob observer sarver really think that such a trick will throw the readers of the tha enquirer off the logical track of this controversy am I 1 so BO great a personage that my particular views cut a figure in this thia discussion if so they were defined in my first letter the above remark was made SQ as observer knows because in his second letter iette r he switched off the the theme of previous letters and attacked me personally on the whole I 1 am inclined to think that observer regards his bis first letter as rash and inconsiderate and that he is trying to modify or obliterate the ime im his hasty words might make concerning the academy he is probably honest but ill rush rushes es into print in too raw a state to set himself up as my adviser of the real motive behind his charitably expressed sentiments toward me I 1 am somewhat doubtful there is a way of damning by faint praise of queria querys Qu erya erys motives I 1 have no doubt whatever they are malignant and have been from the beginning for instance he be says bays it seems seema never to haye have occurred to the gentleman that the academy does not need anyone to defend it its record is before an appreciative precia tive public and by no mo power of rhetoric rh etoris or twisting of 0 words can mr nelson or others make it appear that I 1 query has uttered a word or thought which can throw discredit on the institution ution 1 weil we shall see about it after making the above remark ho he says in a circular published by the B Y faculty page pae 21 N L nelson is gazetted as a teacher of the principles of the gospel philosophically considered this announcement suggests the following the following is ia a colu column mn 0 of f tirade by bv the most sh shameless amelee s suppressing 3 p cutti curline cut line ag and fitting not to eav downright misquoting mis ms quoting of passages in my lotters letters he trie tries s to make me out a believer in darwinism and infidelity and whon when by such garbling he has as he be thinks in making me appear in all that is bad be holds me up as a teacher of the B Y academy query i ia placed solaced in this predicament either he must believe his indictment in which cane he holds up op the fact that an infidel is permitted to teach one of the most mo st important theological classes of the academy 0 he disbelieves it in which case he wilfully lies in order that he my publish the same shameful fact and yet he ha has uttered no co word or thought that would throw discredit on the institution ution before he attempts again to poss pose as a friend of the academy lot let him tone down the bray of the hypo crite in his voice I 1 am now done with quein and observer it had been to me au aa un welcome di discussion cushion cus eion and one for which I 1 have not had time I 1 beg the reader to excuse the frequent use oll andee and ime me inthis letter my antagonists forced the controversy into personal channels and I 1 could reply no other way As a little parting advice to these gentlemen I 1 would ask them the next nest time they rush into print with insinuations to have the courage to sign names since attempts have been ma made de to put me in ia a false light before the pub lie I 1 shall try to explain briefly what I 1 ment by maintaining that nine tenths of what is taught under evolution theories is true as the gospel and net in conflict with it observe that I 1 say g taught staught under evolar cion theories the tenth that I 1 B to me untrue is the theory part also a for few facts ahil which c ar are e manifestly colored so as to with the theory the great body of the subject matter or as I 1 put it nine tenths of what is woven into the fabric of evolution are demonstrated facts the gleanings and eif tings of often ten thousand investigators as e earnest a r 11 e t and truth loving as als you and I 1 who have spent their lives in observing describing and or in other words putting into science form the works of the creator as aa exhibited in nature what is ia wrong with the results of their labors supply this these facts are to a wrong point of view what I 1 mean by thinking them into hns with tha gospel gospe is re marshaling baling them according acco iding to our point of view for be assured that the tha facts most strongly relied upon to prove evolution theories will when viewed from a different point ot ol diew still more strongly support the teachings of revelation to illustrate here hare is ia a splendid man sion 1 al and apparently complete and perfect from the ground up but it is built upon a foan dat on of s sand an d that is evolution now does any one doubt that all tha ma erial of this house could have been used to equal if not to better advantage on a foundation of locks yon yea have then my views exactly before mormonism shall make headway against the preat and the learned it inuit digest and absorb nit all of these truths it will not do to ignore them because they are tied up with evolutionary fallacies the life labors of a man of science cannoot be disposed of cf as query seems to think by a quotation from paul about vain philosophy 11 and the elder who tries it will immediately be set down for the bigot and ignoramus that he be probably is while the man of science finding him so eo intolerant of gods truths as aa written in nature will be unwilling to believe that he can be the hearer of gods truths as aa expressed by revelation spare will not permit me to elaborate upon this theme here but I 1 deem the subject of such importance that I 1 h hope fe in the near future to be able to furnish the I 1 improvement era the now new Y 31 M 1 A orann ore in with a series of papers upon it to which ch papers I 1 emust must refer the reader it if mv views still present difficulties K L N |
