OCR Text |
Show DAHAGtNG AUSIISSI03S. Oob republican neighbor is makinp some daniutfing admissions in its efforts ef-forts to parry the force of our Indictment Indict-ment of republican methods of win ning votes by church influence and which appeared in last Saturday's Dispatch. The Enquirer says : Our neighbor is very solicitous about Apostle John Henry, and wants to know why he has not teen publicly disciplined. Presirit-nl Cauuon said in the puloit at the general coiiferenco two years ago that Apostle bmith had the consent of his superiors then to talk politics. We do not Buppose that Apostle Smith has since, a3 it BeemB A ptstle Thatcher and President Roberts Rob-erts haye done, gone off on politics, to the neglect ot church dutiej, without a word to any member of his quosum about the advisability of such a thing. When men are paid for their services, and their calling is, as Apostle Lyman said Sunday an apostle's duty was to jive his life's service to the ministry, minis-try, we do not believe in arbitrary and independent action. They should either recognize the authority that employs them, or give up their calling. Our neighbor's entire answer is given above, and we ask the readers of The Dispatch to compare our indictment in-dictment with the answer and judge whether or not our strictures were en tirely just and righteous. Our friend does not refer to the "incident" "in-cident" of President Smith's use of a bishop's recommend to help elect Frank J. Cannon. It ignores the Gibbs letter, the Nuggeta of Truth and President Presi-dent Smith's Third precinct speech, ub also hia letter reflecting on the intelligence intelli-gence of democrats. In fact, it dodges everything in sight, and meekly crawls through a very small hole by excusing Apostle John Henry Smith for his unholy zeal for republican success suc-cess on the grounds that he "had the consent of his superiors then to talk politics." The innocence of our friend is con-spicious con-spicious when it "supposes" that Apostle Smith has since gone off on politics, poli-tics, to the neglect of church duties "without a word" etc., and then in the next paragraph to quote Apostle Lyman Ly-man as saying "an apostle's duty was to give his life's seryice to the ministry." minis-try." We ajrree perfectly with Apostle .Lyman, and that that is not being done, forms the subject matter of democratic dem-ocratic remonstrance. Will our republican neighbor " not answer our inquiry as to how it is that Apostle Smith is even now permitted per-mitted to "neglect his duties" and spend almost his entire time in abusing abus-ing the political faith of more than half of those who are paying hiB salary? sal-ary? Also, if the Enquirer's admission admis-sion that ''Apostle Smith has the consent con-sent of his superiors" is not strong ciicumstantial evidence that "his superiors" desire the people to become republicans? If they did not, according accord-ing to the Enquirer's logic, they would callhimlnand if necessary, muzzle him. We gather the idea from the Enquirer, that if any time in the future, fu-ture, those same "superiors" wanted Utah to go democratic "because of the good influence" etc., they could call in the republican apostle and preai dent, and "givo their consent" to a democratic demo-cratic apostle and president if the latter lat-ter could be found, to "go off on polt-lics;" polt-lics;" to use bishops' recommends and GibbB" letters in order to swing the political ptudulum to the other side? Is that what our neighbor means? Another question. Is not the remonstrance remon-strance of 15,000 Mormon democrals t qual in force and power to a pair ol republican high churchmen? If not, then "the voice of the people" isnottlic voice of God." |