MORMONISM.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 40, 16 February 1905, Page 2

MORMONISM.

(To the E<Jitor.' Sir,—ln tbe article entitled "Mormon Church Tenets," published in the "Star" of the 11th inst., there are both perversions of truth and distortions of facts which, perhaps, I may be permitted to expose, and which, when fairly and dispassionately examined, it will be proved that there exists an dbvefSe side to the shield. In New Zealand no criminal can be condemned without being heard in defence before an impartial tribunal, and equally ought every society have a right to defend itself against the- imputation of crime, and that through the same channel by which the accusations have been made, which generally is the public press. This indictment alleges that the Mormons have broken the promises made befpre. .Utah was admitted as a State —promises contained in the manifesto issued by the Church in 1890, and through which an amnesty was granted by the United States Government for past offences concerning polygamy. To this I reply that not a single plural marriage has been sanctioned by the authorities of the Mormon Church since the manifesto was published. If any polygamous marriages have been entered into by any individual Mormons since that time they have been contracted against the express decree of the Church, and in point of numbers do not exceed two or three at the most.

Concerning polygamous cohabitation by persons who had contracted plural marriages previous to 1890, the manifesto is silent, and no promise, express or implied, was made in it that such relations should cease. It was never contemplated in that document that any man should discard his own children or thrust away their mothers to become outcasts of society. - -

This precious indictment further states "that it was commonly accepted in Idaho and Utah that the Mormon leaders attempted to and did influence the action of the legislatures and the nomination of candidates for office." Mark the term "commonly accepted," an admission 'that no proof can be furnished of the fact.

Another charge is "that hundreds of Mormon religious classes met in the public school houses of Utah, and were taught by the public school teachers in disregard of the State J«ws." A lie which is half true ie said to be the black-

est of lies. The letter of the statement, although in part true, is in spirit entirely false, for the teaching of those religious classes was always done either before or after school hours, and, therefore, no law of the State was broken, and it may be asked why should public school teachers be debarred from teaching religion before or after school hours when having the consent of the parents of the children taught, and also th 6 consent' of the school trustees, any more than clergymen or other persons?

That the Mormon ChuTch should have the power of veto upon the dictations of its President appears to be an absurdity to. Senator Hoar, but we cannot forget that true prophets have not aJways been true to their vocation, or that their prophetic power has sometimes ceased by reason of their own crimes, as witness the cases of David and Solomon. Therefore, this restraint and check upon priestly authority is wholesome and necessary.

The statement concerning Brigham H. Roberts and Mosa Thatcher is altogether misleading. The Church does not require "political obedience" from its members, but it does require that any officer holding a high, position in the Church shall consider his ecclesiastical duties paramount to political ambition; otherwise he must resign hie 'office in the Church, since his time would be too much engrossed for the proper discharge of those duties.

Some few witnesses in the ease before the committee of the United States Senate on privileges and elections have testified concerning the terrible oaths said to be taken in the Mormon Temples, but the truth of their statement a is not corroborated by any circumstantial evidence, such as is generally required to support direct evidence in serious criminal indictments. Moreover, the author of the article in question omits to state the important fact thai those witnesses, when aslted whether they had any fears for their own safety upon returning to their homes in Utah.

replied that they had none; therefore, the plain inference is either that their ift-ideaee is false or the terrible oaths a farce.

j Similar statements hare been made respecting secret oaths of Freemasons, but we find no murders law to the charge of■ their society, neither ieftn any murder be truthfully laid to the charge of the Mormon Church. The marks of the square and compassed, and other marks, as shown on priesthood gar,«en%s r cannot be considered -wicked or improper if we consider their just significance. This inquiry in its chief aspect, -vizr, the. investigation of secret tenets, has a singular coincidence in the investigation instituted by Pliny, as related in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, which states "they (the tjhristi ians) declared that their offence or crime was stimined up in this, that they met on a stated .day before daybreak, and. addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding. them*sejyes a solemn oath, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, 'theft, or adultery, never to break their word, or to deny a trust when,called on to deliver it up." . . . "I judged it necessary to get at the real putting to the torture two female slaves, who were said to officiate in their religious rites; but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition."

Those numerous apostates who accused their brethren in the early days of Christianity were equally free from the fear of vengeance, as are Itformon renegades of the present day.—-I am, etc., CHARLES HARDY. Mount Albert, February 15, 1905.