| Show Oi r i jAW ANI ho of oc tho Supreme Court i 1 not to grant gt ant a rehearing In it III 19 il I p ct d It Ift 1 not often that t 0 court last whIch decides l t law than On th the fI caso opportunity for re reD D It which It hus puRsed i Wan Unless there to be evl t rl tor uch a co urie urier til r Ift b b pointed out Urn tho thoI jI I s i U J tOt not Uk l Iy t to Igo go back en H ft eiro tr ground over j t to t ter t lt Th O tinder C O tI on th Ot t e hat t tho b bIe bd Mt nd Dr Fork t Ie tot tOl tIni ond nn nil all clef elet to rites ot or tho thoi i Church to which Mch they both I T 31 that It vas S 11 legal nor mar marl l ja related 10 I thIs World I jC t common law and V Q J y u tt dh dl Q on this urn tho et i In tt Issue ut oC Tul f I to th CUll befOre belore th that body hail the right nc ord to the produced Irs In the thet t t decide clde whether a legal mar marhad I had been between DrI Br BrIc kand Ic MI i l L i that JUhe ceremony n nr r r Park anel o wu tl y l a ot th partIes to tako of et p F n a future Mutt there WU Was 1 between them tinder Urn tho erilla aw If they were 10 s nl d for lor time ik ih id all 1 union wan a mar martl 11 tl the law aw to oil and andI I f ana nothing but death or th dep e f could evel jita x t T kew W t I the J bave In this matter conviction on the chilI chiel toI Under they acted lf In renderIng II a d decision cllon 1 IbI I i Iii the n nature ture ot of to o meet with much pUbU s It oc m J tl 1 ut case se Thu t i yer I to It h kad practice ot of the it h 0 ot of Laer da i and tell into omo lloma er cr crl erroN l roN w ho De Deere eret sews that the tho court l l tha In general generali i In w the tho jUd judges Ob p a from reading some somei i h h t that did nt not cover the tho thedr dr doctrine of alin or and therefore they thoy c the they stated f na ion and whIch were open and were proper subjects for public and newspaper comment U l r t t seem also o upon careful it that neither a scaling nor II a p tims whereby the tho pa t to become husband and Wife for tor ij world nor a or soar nAr f or nt e wh reby the tho parties r to become hua wife 1 lafter Is In the tho next t or was authorized by thIs r revealed 11 1 f I ki nd hence any an and all such fluch un would 1 be e II a yb th r revelation and would sub J 1 contracting the parties to the Ion i n 4 for disobedience for tor the Jf i v ale covenant is that ft be c both and not notO tOft O I for rf time and Ity f 0 Was contrary to tol l the practice which d ln the Chur Church h tim tho pointed I out Us its error so that It ItI J I n g to O the world ns 09 on doctrine r Med Va t what wo so elated wh i r u upon on this subject 1 L l Lisa decision wall va t Cases ot of L a th artles R were united el for tor tort i t oRI only ala arn not lot fo eternity and eore ore that It wa II a to or marrying shall be end 1 not one or either for tor time Pu W 4 eternity A way be 1 h c 1 g cI d tore tor eternity and not for tor tm s l J be 0 cIa claimed Im Ci that f th we rare are intended tU I in an way to Influence tue tho court or orIbe Ibe to the suit Bult They Ther are it t they ey were bile Y ij I iio an W We speak that whIch we ito do dono no wan and d of that t which we have N ie n nand and we e say that however right 4 c urt ma hae een In d It nc that legal marriage wan con conr r r between Dr Park lark and M Miss 18 11 g the court was wrong 11 in its Ita to declare clare JUdIcially the doe doc and practice rac Uce of t the Church ot of Je Jet t day SaInts In rElf rn rence c to th thO 5 staling t Ju i opinions on strictly legal ropo lions when uttered by I a court of Inet ri stand as III law But tri m the bench on purely religious n and nd trInal questions not r rj j they r or binding In In ian or 1 t dospel 11 |
