| OCR Text |
Show Maroh 14, 1955 600 North Union lad.peadenOe, JIi •• ottr1 Hanoook, Mrs. Pauline llaroh But these things, these irregularities, did not and oannot oonstitute the thing that the law required, and that was a specifio aotion by the general o onf'e renoe approving and aooepting them. one essential Why lieve all should mistakes be substituted for lawful right thinking people, when the faots Your argument tends, of course, to oommit oertain instanoes in the letters supports your steps neoessary to oonstitute Yeu make referenoe to the letters as law In ans.er to your letter ot MUG 14th, I would like to ooaaider your statements concerning the law or the Reorganized nhurch, relatiYe to S8Gtions 109, 10 and als 107. Joseph Smith: His language in theory; but they were not the legal and for dootrine. so-oalled text books: but not aooepted and approved as revelations, inoidents premised on a wrong theory about them oan They were Dear Sirs say Ne, and I be shown. will say NoL I prooedure? are get we and no arotlnd to the of number take the ever same instanoes plaoe anGWer: or of what the required. You make referenoe to the general oonferenoe of 1841: It is true that seotion 107 was presented and read and disoussed. Joseph Smith himself partioipating in the disoussion; but after several days, according to the reoord, the oonferenoe adjourned without any aotion having been made. Now. "It I taken to approve, being and no record of even a motion to approve , I agree with you. Bapti sm f or the dead is a false d oo sr me a nd if it was created by seotions 109 and 110 or even 107. then and to that extent they were , false revelations. created was ever (in seotions so But I do not far as admit that the of dootrine baptism for the Also I would like to quote from the, "Abstract of f;vidence," that fl8 early and as lat. as 1894, the testimony of one of your ..bief wi tne.se •• W. W. Blair. Gonoerning the Dootriae and Covenanta and revelation 107, was aft follows; "That re.elatlon of 1841 beoaJlllt Th. Reorganized Churoh a law of the churoh. it. and pre;-umptoa 1s that it was adopted 1n . 0 joseph tne Seer. I am not aware ot any reoord of it except in the Times aad Sauo.. ; dead the law of tb.is ohuroh is oonoerned. told that the Book of Mormon 26 and 42), and untilloan be were the Book of Monnon, I will of the beliefs of our ohurch. mentioned part --- tPO; ikbYtioaa , We reooso; had obtained currenoy that the church had not at any tduM 8'.rED the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the lRter revelations given to tureh; by vote-eDd Kttlrmatlon, that thG,J should FOR WITH THR,ble and Book of Mormon, Q standard ot r-eerence in oase ot of dootr1ne controversy and differenoe of oplDion this 'defeat, i' 1'1' o. E and practice in. the church; THEREFOR1 and refened to was introdUoed re.olution the EXISTED, J2asaed." of baptism for the dead) was oreated for you iby the leaders 11 of the ehur oh which preoeded you. That I deny. for the reason that under the law and the proaedure of the ohurch ONLY THE CHURCH could oreate dootrine fer the church You reter 1l'l your letter to the quotati<m in my letter taken trom Churoh Hi.tory. yolu:me 4, page 239, and I quote, "Resolved. That this body. representing the Reorganized Chureh o Jesu. Christ ot Latter Day Saint., .. the Holy Scrl.ptul'e", the Book ot )I0l"JllO!l, the revelation. 0 God oontain.d II the book of Doctrine sad Coyenmts. !:lIld 811 other revelat1on8 Whioh have been or shall be revealed through God'. appolnted prophet, .'!!:!!.!h have 12!.!n or Bl&7 b. hereafter ACCEPTED b7 the ohur6h as the stsndard""'iT" authori ty on all matters or churoh se1'l1ment Mddoetrlae; end THE FIIAL standard ot reterenoe on nppeal in ALL oontreversles arising, or whioh .2!!.! in thi8 ohUrC'h or Cbffit." In conneotion with thi. I would also like to quote from your book. "Rules end ResolutiolUl," Rule 222, "Whereu, Certain RUMORS disagree with your statement: (the dootrine in oontains the shown that deny tb.at fullness of the go sped baptism for the dead is even a heresy is or ever was a adoted suoh pr10r to Our in the safety has oase of the section 107. that I know not and been found (109 in and following 110) the law. and it was not followed in the why these questians were not brought up lang years ago, have the right to assert it even at this late date. liJut we Yours very the year 1844. The law was not foililewed oase unquestioned right to ohallenge them en tb!e ground never lawfully aooepted and approved. Wihat does the lapse af time immaterial matters have to da with the question? they were truth, ever two letters of I therefore have inoidental and is 23, 1955 Mr. brAel Smith 1214 We.t Short Independenoe, Mi.souri truly, truth or "The way of it 1_. the revelation must first be given revelt,tor, and then by hi. given to the ohuroh, and be -=t Israel A.. Smith the by the church before It can beoome a law and RULE OF AO'l'ION to t e churoh. Mot UJlthas been approved and aooepted l2l the does it beoo.e Yes 81, I stated that the revelation law b!nMng upon the church. was given to Joseph Smith the Martyr before hi. death relat1 •• to hi. the revelation sn4 Churoh The suocessor (101). the zeuroh org made 1t BINDIBG upon the 0 uroh. of it BoOk ot Dootr. aad Co••nants and that revelation wee a par embraced in the Book of Doctrine y.aAAtB At that time, and adfiRt!,!L Reorganized ad&d aaotid -- la to -- !!! .hole adopted." Also from W. W. Blair, the same witness, on page 114, he testifles |
