Show EXPOSING OUR INWARDNESS The lesser Church organ this morning save that the local press and people who have been most opposed to tho practice of polygamy are now the most bitter opponents op-ponents of tho polygamyprohibiting clause of the constitution and then goes on in a weak attempt to show that the position now taken by the Gentiles of this city is inconsistent with the position that they have taken all along Tho fact of the matter is the inconsistency is all on the other side as any observing person per-son must ECO Ever since the prosecutions against polygamy were begun and in fact for twenty years before that time the Mormons Mor-mons have repulsed all suggestions made them in regard to giving up tke pernicious practice of polygamy and the excuse they have always given was that the principle was the law of God and as such it must be hold paramount to the law of the land They did not say that they didnt want to give it up or that they thought they shouldnt give it up j their only explanation explana-tion was lilt is the law of God and we dart not renounce it One man after another has been convicted of tho crime of unlawful cohabitation and when asked what their intentions were for tho future they said they could make no promises for they must obey Gods command oven if tue Nations laws were against it Not only I did individuals take this stand but from their official press and from the pulpit of their Tabernacle their course was laid out for them and they were told that they must follow it Because Bishop John Sharp took the very step that the entire Church is pretending ¼ pre-tending to take now he lost his Church office and was subjected to every indignity in-dignity that they dared to heap upon a man of his character and influence And now you ask us why we dont bo hero yon aro sincere when you promise this sudden reform Now you turn around and tell us that you have been deceiving us all along You Bay that you lied when you said that you did not dare to givo up the principle princi-ple you say that you lied when you said that you must alwayii hold tho law I of God paramount to the law of man I c Now wo will admit that we had some faith in your former wellfeigned sincerity I I cerity stubborn and defiant though I it was and how arc we to reconcile I the present state of affairs to this It is impossible to believe two statements so I diametrically opposite 03 those you I g f I present and the fact that you say you were insincere then and are sincere now leads to tho belief that the reverse is the case There has been some tall fudging somewhere and if you will point out just where it is your version will receive due consideration |