| OCR Text |
Show THE REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS INDEPENDENCE. MISSOURI FIRST PRESIDENCY Maroh 25, 1955 P8/uline Hanoook Mrs. 500 Nort'h Union Street Independenoe, MissolU'i Dear Madam: I have reoeived your my statement IcOO I ..... absolute an I not 23d, and and at the of my beginning reply I reaffirm 107: them dootrines of thle ohuroh. make s ment ion l!aw Of oourse anyone wnuil d know tllat that the Law of the The of the r eady to supinely lay down and allow undoubted requires and did require from the begin!'ling. the ption make Churoh Hi story which you qu ot e our am of March The Lno o r por a td en of the first two reoeive a vete of approval. :l!rregula,rity and illegality, and no number of inoidents wherein it ap church or individuals gave them approval. could rectify mistakes in oon p:! a.r s that the ne0tien with them and ef letter speoting Seotions 109, 110, seotions did not These was re resolution from volume neoessi ty of mistake operate in such as you qJ.ote were made on oemplied wi th at the eegi!'!ning. r e sod ub Lon s ohur oh had be e n ohuroh of what plaoe the 4 acceptanoe. assum take the statemernt from Blair's testimony to whioh you refer :in paragraph 4, first of your letter: W. W. Blair's statement was but hearsay evid enoe. He was not present at the 1841 General Conferenoe, and the reo ord , the only offioial publioation of the reoord Let us page Conferenoe, d oe s not only not supper+ him but is a denial only "adoption" by the Reorganize"d.Ch1ilreh was and has been based wrongful and erroneous as we now knoVl--that the seoti on referred appr evad in ApriJ! of 1841. of the ef wha,t he said. on to The the assumption- (107) was aotually Adverting to Bla:ir's testimon:v in the following paragraph, it undeubtedly r e I'e r red t e the 1835 edition. The implioation that tl'io ohur o h thereb:y endorsed Seotiol'l 107 is un.s.ound for the r e as en that neither we nor anybody else can l'ightfully be he Ld where an obvieus an<!l pr evab'l,e mi stake has oc eur redi, He is olilvioll sly mistaken in sayil'lg that endorsement had bee,n made "At other times l:",ru,0r to 1844." is such erd. , Now, I Herald regret te said see aeemt that you tr:y to hold tile ohuroh to what oertain eaitors of the things. Lsaao SH!leen made a few mi stakes. There is n o good ever at any time presented to the ohur ch by Joseph tllat he "ga,;ve it unto the ebueeh" oannof be supported im law or in oertail'l evidenoe thac;t the Book of Aerahamwas Smi;!}h. Tliie sta,tement faot. l:"ositi0l'l of' the ohuroh that baptism for the dead was a "permissive rite" was oertainly oharitable, but your qU0tation from the Herald in 1874 oannot 'hie interpreted to me an that The it was 1 have oil' is never a val:hd QQ0tr:ine assented J0seph Smith up the er day. and effeotive Up01!1 c ens enbed 0f his to the us as the0ry tn.at death" all and severa]!, such , "the dootril'les and were or are teaolUngs M:nding upon the of |
