Showed how the Lord had revealed His will to them in the same way as he did to the people on the eastern hemisphere, and how the Savior visited them after His resurrection, in fulfillment of His own promise as given in John 10: 16. He described the coming of the angel to Joseph Smith, the delivering to him of the metallic record of the Nephite prophets who were descendants of Joseph that was sold into Egypt, the translation of the Book by the gift and power of God, and its value to science and religion. In addition to the internal and external evidences of its truth, he cited the promise of the Book itself, that God would manifest to all who would ask Him in faith that it is His word and a true record. The speaker added his testimony to it and called upon all to investigate and learn for themselves what the Lord is doing in these last days, to bring about the great change spoken of by the prophets to usher in the reign of righteousness and peace.

The choir, under the direction of Brother Harry Doubleday, sang the authem, "O My Father." On Monday, August 24th, the elders met with President Penrose in Priesthood meeting at 10:30 a.m. A pleasant time was spent, and many excellent instructions were received.

EDWARD LUBLIN, Clerk of Conference.

Then to his arms they brought

Her sleeping, heaven-sent child;

His heart leapt up, and quick as thought
"Forgive me, God," he said and smiled.

MAUD DOBSON, BRADFORD, ENGLAND.

THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS' MILLENNIAL STAR.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1908.

A LITTLE MORE CONTROVERSY.

FOR Some reasons we ought to be thankful to the Liverpool Post and Mercury in arousing interest concerning the system popularly called "Mormonism." The publication of its editorial articles and the correspondence that followed them caused a number of intelligent persons to investigate our doctrines and to attend our meetings. Thus the efforts intended to excite prejudice against us have resulted in favorable attention to our cause, and we there fore return the thanks that are due to the journal which has afforded us this aid in the dissemination of our faith.

At the same time we are not insensible to the fact that we have not been treated with that fairness which we hoped for in such a well-conducted newspaper. Having been attacked both by ridicule and by direct assertions which were objectionable because of their wide divergence from the truth, and by scurrilous letters, some of them from irresponsible individuals and others from clergymen of established reputation, we deemed it but ordinary courtesy on the part of the paper that gave place to them to afford us space enough to make brief replies to those aspersions. The Post and Mercury, however, permitted our opponents to hurl their darts with full freedom, but limited our defence to a few paragraphs which did not afford us anything like a proper opportunity to reply.

Among the assailants of the Latter-day Saints through the columns of that paper was the Vicar of St. Nathaniel's, whose effusions through his Parish Magazine were fully met and overturned in the columns of the MILLENNIAL STAR. Yet he afterwards published his side of the controversy in pamphlet form, and upon his one-sided presentation the remarks of the Post and Mercury were based. He was further permitted to attack the editor of the STAR in that paper, but our reply was shut out, with the exception of a paragraph explaining the Utah situation as to plural marriage, which appears below in parenthesis.

Of course, the editor of a daily newspaper has the right to decide what shall be permitted to appear on its pages and must use dis

cretion both as to space and to matter. But there is a principle of fairness which ought to be recognized in every public journal, and a person or party unjustly attacked ought to have the privilege of defence and rebuttal if used in a respectful manner. This we consider has not been extended in this little controversy, and we naturally attribute the failure to that groundless prejudice which still sways the public mind against the Latter-day Saints and their religion, and which prevents both from being correctly understood. The recent discussion of "Mormonism" here alluded to started with the conversion of a number of the adherents of St. Nathaniel's Church, which aroused the Vicar, Mr. Bartlett, to unwonted energy. To his great surprise some young men among them, whom he grossly maligned, replied to him with such spirit and intelligence that he was goaded to intense anger, hence his attacks on the Church to which they had attached themselves, and the controversy which ensued with which most of our readers are familiar. Mr. Bartlett had the right to endeavor to controvert that which he believed to be erroneous, but he had not the right to vilify and falsely accuse those who seceded from his flock nor the people with whom they became associated, and he did not raise himself in the estimation of decent people by the use of those coarse, vulgar, and abusive epithets which, in his rage, he hurled against them.

After all this had been replied to, it was scarcely just that he should have been allowed to return to the attack in a public newspaper and the bars be put upagainst a fair response. We, therefore, in this issue of the STAR, publish the letter to the Post and Mercury in reply to him which was not given space in that newspaper. It is as follows:

295 Edge Lane, Liverpool.

To the Editor of the Post and Mercury: As you reopened the correspondence on "Mormonism" in your issue of this (Friday) morning, and permitted Mr. Bartlett to make many personal references to me, I request the privilege of responding briefly to his statements. I think you will agree with me that this will only be fair under the circumstances.

The gentleman confesses that he received my reply to his attacks on "Mormonism" and a number of "Mormons" before he published his pamphlet; therefore he had no excuse for repeating the groundless statements which he had previously made through his Parish Magazine. After the evidence presented to him that his assertions concerning the Latter-day Saints and their doctrines were incorrect, and proofs were furnished to him that his accusations had no foundation in fact, he says he did not "alter a single word," but followed up the scurrilous and ungentlemanly assaults in his first production with further virulent and inexcusable libels. His pretended arguments were answered in detail, and everything

he alleged against the Latter-day Saints has been replied to in the pamphlet which I have had published, every part of which was originally sent to him. He complains that "they included much personal abuse," but has never quoted any of my language which justifies his assertions.

On the other hand I quoted a long series of vile epithets which he hurled against men whom he knew nothing about, and against the purported doctrines of our Church which he had distorted and presented so as to convey an entirely different meaning to that which was intended. He gives the names of a number of preachers as his authority for just such perversions as he indulges in himself, but he has neglected to refer to the works of distinguished travelers, eminent literary authorities and Bishops and clergymen of his own church, who did not merely spend twenty-four hours in Salt Lake City and then write books about "Mormonism" and the "Mormons," but made a careful study of the situation, and inquired of the "Mormons" themselves as well as of their opponents, and then wrote their impressions which are in direct opposition to the baseless statements of the persons upon whose effusions Mr. Bartlett has relied for his information (?) There is nothing in all the articles which he first published in the St. Nathaniel's Magazine but were replied to completely, and the gentleman himself, I believe, realizes this fact, and that is the reason why he has publicly and in print advised people not to listen to the explanations of our elders and to "burn their tracts."

Mr. Bartlett refers to some letters which he says I wrote to a "righteously indignant father," and which he says "were defiant and cruel." He knows very well that those letters were merely replies to attacks made upon me without the slightest cause which were abusive in their character and unjust in their aspersions, and that there was nothing in my replies which give him warrant for his denunciation. I do not want to bring the family to which he alludes into public prominence, but am willing for my letters to be published at any time, and if necessary I can bring the persons to whom he alludes forward to prove that his assertions are utterly false.

It is the same as to the "four youths" whom he mentions and whom he maligns by his prurient allusions based on a purported statement of one of his church wardens, which is of very doubtful authenticity, and can be easily disproved by a large company of people, not Latter-day Saints, who were present at the baptism, of which he speaks as well as "Mormons" who were in attendance. Those four young men had to call him down in the conversation to which he alludes, in the presence of nearly a score of hearers and protest against his direct falsehoods.

(As to polygamy being "a thing of the past." A few persons comparatively in Utah, many years ago, entered into the plural family relation for reasons which they advanced and which Mr.

Bartlett is unable to overturn from a scriptural standpoint. After several decades the United States Congress passed some laws against the practice, which were contested in the courts on every point until the Supreme Court of the United States was reached, and after much litigation they were declared to be constitutional, the "Mormons" taking the ground that they were aimed at "an establishment of religion," while the Constitution provides that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Having failed on this point, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints issued a manifesto advising the members not to violate the laws which had been pronounced constitutional. This was endorsed by the unanimous vote of the Latter-day Saints in general conference assembled, October 6th, 1890).

Since that date the "Mormon" Church, so-called, has not solemnized, countenanced or permitted plural marriage, nor has anyone entered into it under its sanction. When the Constitution for the State of Utah was framed by a convention of delegates, a large majority of whom were "Mormons," the United States statutes against polygamy were incorporated in that constitution, and when the State was admitted into the Union on the same footing as all the other States, laws were enacted providing penalties against the practice of polygamy, amounting to five years imprisonment or a fine of five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court. Thus both the Church and the State have legislated against the practice, and Mr. Bartlett's figures do not "lie," perhaps, but he has used them so as to deceive the public. All this has been set forth in the pamphlet which answers his doctrinal and historical errors, and which he fears so much that he advises people to burn them.

Now, Mr. Editor, you make the remark that "it is not obligatory to prove that Mormonisin declares polygamy to be necessary to salvation. Mormonism is sufficiently amenable to the condemnation of Christendom if it permits polygamy." But, my dear sir, did not the Post and Mercury, in unity with Messrs. Bartlett and Elsley, declare that the "Mormons" teach that "polygamy is necessary to escape damnation?" We have not been arguing on the wrongfulness or the rightfulness of polygamy, but on the direct accusation that we teach it as "necessary to escape damnation." Now you say that it is not "obligatory" to prove that. Why that is the crux of the entire dispute on the question. Our replies have been directed to that groundless assertion. To establish it Mr. Elsley, following the lead of Mr. Bartlett, picked out disconnected sentences from a "revelation" and joined them together for the purpose of proving that "Mormonism" teaches that polygamy is necessary to escape damnation. I could pick passages from the Bible and from the prayer book and toggle them together to prove anything however absurd and untrue.