Show EXAMPLE AND PRECEPT The News of Saturday has an article on tho conduct of some members of the Mormon church in promising obedience to the laws against polygamy and condemns con-demns in severe terms the theory that those who take such a course do not renounce a principle of their religion With the News we agree that to that extent they do renounce their religion but in doing so they have the example of Mr Taylor the President of their church and it is well known that in the order of authority in the Mormon church the President as Prophet Seer and Revelator Rev-elator is the final arbiter in matters of theology and in determining what is the will of God in relation to any course of conduct or the interpretation of any doctrine doc-trine Here we meet two strange things in this matter of renunciation The Mormon church requires obedience and allegiance from all its members no matter mat-ter what their ecclesiastical position maybe may-be In the Mormon Church God only makes known his will through one channel chan-nel that channel is the President of the church as Prophet Seer and Revelator No one else can know so well what is Gods will for his whole life is dedicated to finding out and doing that will Now what is the case God according to the Mormon theory gave a revelation not merely sanctioning polygamy or celestial marriage as it is called hut commanding His people peo-ple to establish the order that His work might be hastened It is imperative then for the Mormons to do as God has commanded them or for them to disobey dis-obey Him and in place of attaining a reward be condemned They must do this bidding until they are relieved from their work The United States through Congress have said to the Mormons that they must not and shall not practice polygamy and if they do that they will be punished for the same They said this in 1802 and they repeated it in 1882 Vhen they repeated it Mr Taylor the President of the church in a sermon which he preached in the Tabernacle Salt Lake City Sunday afternoon February Feb-ruary 1st 1SS5 and which was published in the News Satin day February 14th I 1883 in relating an interview he had recently re-cently had with exAttorneyGeneral Pierrepont made the following declaration declara-tion When Mr Picrroponfc came in I said Mr Pierrepont permit me to introduce you to my sister who is my housekeeper it is not lawful for us to have wives now And when the Edmunds law was passed 1 looked carrfully over the document and saw that if 1 was to continue to lice in the same iojrsr with my wives that I should render myself liable to that law 1 desired de-sired to place myself in obedience or in as < lo < n conformity as practicable to the law 1 These are my feelings Therefore 1 have sought to place myself in accord with that law I said to my wives 4 Wo arc living in this building together Wo wore quite comfortably situated and we might so have continued but I said to them that under the circumstances it will be better bet-ter for me or for you to leave this place you can take your choice They had their homes down here which they now inhabit which were quite comfortable So I said to them you can go there and I will stay here or you can stay at the Gardo House and I will go there or somewhere else lon i WISH TO CONFORM TO THIS EDMUNDS IAW AS MUCH AS I CAN CANThis This is the position taken on the Ed munds law by the highest authority in the Mormon church lie did not take this position hastily and without consideration consid-eration but after carefully reading over the Edmunds law lie knew the will of God in regard to the doctrine of celestial marriage knew it better than any other man in his church and he likewise knew that the Edmunds law was not merely inconsistent with the practice of celestial marriage but that it was passed exprcsbly to prohibit it and imposed heavy penalties for its infraction Knowing Know-ing all these facts being cognizant of the will of God as revealed in the revelation on celestial marriage what did he oHo o-Ho says he wished to conform to this Edmunds law as much as he can and for this purpose he separated from his wives In this connection it should bf remembered that Mr Taylor is still the President of his church and its Prophet Seer and Revelator Such being his position still what must be presumed with regard to his action in rendering obedience to the Edmunds law It must be presumed that by his conduct in this matter he sought to do lie will of God as he seeks to do it in all other things No other pre mnnplion can be made on the hypothesis that Mr Taylor is the head of Gods church on earth And yet for this Mr Taylor has not been deposed as leader of his church It is this same course of action that Mr Taylor voluntarily took that is so severely condemned by the News when taken by others when arraigned before the courts Why the place should make any difference it is hard to see yet it seems that it does and a great difference The Nr1lJr says regarding polygamous marriages that One of the imperative conditions is that the person entering upon the association endure in faithfulness faithful-ness to the end From Mr Taylors declaration it must bo assumed that he has brought his association with his wives to an end We the saw reasons he gave for so doinga wish to conform to the Edmunds law as much as I can This is the only reason given by those who have in open court promised to obey that law in future and cease their association asso-ciation in polygamy What is the comment com-ment that the News makes upon the arguments used to induce this state of mindNo No special pleading no sophistical rca Honing can give any other color to the subject sub-ject in tho mind of tho consistent Saint who does not lean to recalcitrancy not to say treachery It will be very hard for the News or j J < any one else to show wherein the conduct con-duct of Mr Taylor and the conduct of Messrs Arnold Aird and Spencer is inconsistent and equally as hard to say why the arguments and action of Mr Taylor are not as good and true when used by others as when used by him He still remains the head of his church and in matters of religion he acts in accordance with Gods will and in a matter of vital importance in which he must have consulted his God he separated sepa-rated from his wives and says he tried to conform to the Edmunds law In his action in this regard did Mr Taylor disobey dis-obey Gods law or not The sophistry now being used is that a man can obey Gods laws and the laws of his country at the same time and in proof of this Mr Taylors example is cited by those who use the argument Example is stronger than precept |