| OCR Text |
Show Maroh 25. 1955 Mar oh Mrs. Pauline Hanoook #2 ohur ch s That tioe the so-called to the was egregious error an "dootrines of of the Mormons in Joseph" regardless And summing quotation from Seotion 19: , olaim. argument. In the oould have and matter in the last paragraph on page two of your letter does not right to stand in the faoe of strengthen your position. for error and mistake have no truth, and all of suoh statements were made on the theory. as everybody thought, that the law had been oomplied with in presenting for approval and aoceptanoe by the legislative body of the I ohur ch to deal with do not need light of the had been a mistake, in the all your beoause speoifioations. they have faot--demonstrated faot that the law had not been and I know that I am not bound by mistakes. to be fhere a is to '"-IS. has been of DO no offioial adverse far am r;lad to your on your vVe organization. to and in 'the li;:;ht of the facts to Resolutions as 215 and 222. And no by the indorsements as I by the am c on ce rne d , errors I do not propose to be of the past. cut d own or limited 0::' deterred and mistakes Yours very truly. of the Herald editors brethren oommon Israsl A. S:nith light of postpone oould oonsider and approve. as all things must be done the instruotion mioh until the ordination ohuroh in the "by supplied some amount of requirement I the law. reiterate my statement: ohuroh would Obviously the origin. And personally I that our we are books. Seotion 113 Only the church can Dot approve dootrine feel that you take oounsel create that of your dootrine it did animus so far as not believe against the I was am o on oe rned s of divine Reorganized Churoh on page four, you do in the first paragraph plaoed "under a moral obligation" beoause these seotions had been oarried in Does that make error truth? The Bible has o ar r i ed error for thousands of years. when yew. make s uoh an unwarranted does not and historioal faot. endorsement of Any publioity consent, will to "unanimity" is quite amusing. and I note that you have language that is not in the offioial minutes. So far as I am oonoerned the mind of the oonferenoe olerks--oan take the p l ace of the --in unanimity of la P.s. oonsent?" Your oonolusion from referenoe no cf oould dootrine. How could your interpretation of Seotion 19 stand in the Joseph Smith and Cowdery reoeived when they were told to statement as has represented itself as anything but a statement of revelation. bhouzh in its olosing paragraphs it oarried I?;i ven through the late Joseph Smith. never It is not revelations a an as them. Joseph Smith oould not oreate dootrine for the ohuroh by any suoh a referenoe as And of oourse I deny the oorreotne s s of your oonolus you give at the top of page three. ore ate we enroi ty. But ions have you or your movement, or any desire leave you to your own desires and your attempt to. disoredit us as to our history to shall do will be done with deliberation we reoognize so fight made against sentiment every fair-minded pe r s on that mistakes have been made , and if oorreotion in these matters. 1 feel that we should have your g o od wi Ll obvious of your frustrated hundred , I know to make Whatever And. oonsidered oomplied with. it in s t aad we than I ob je o td on to your welfare. beliefs; but I do oertainly object desire , more raise own and mi s bake , innocently said or assumed, and I oannot understand your matters, as expressed in your Ie b t e r s except on the theory that I know there as let you alone. to of to fasten upon us that which 0 rept whioh makes very thin all your years it is natural that many things trying are through error been entirely hostile are So far obvious that you ohuroh o our se have interest in these you wherein restatement of the up. it is books of the into the and the Your 25. 1955 aooepting and putting into prao they had been presented 2 raises the same point that was raised by the Briggses Gurleys back in the 1880s; but a sane interpretation is that what he should present But presenting dootrine while he was walking in all holiness before God should be heeded. that was hostile or even adverse to the law already adopted by the ohuroh would not be and su ch should not be That to me is as before all heeded. holiness in all God. walking And if Joseph Smith presented to the ohur o'r all that Utah obvious as anything can be. he oertainly was not walki::Jg in all holiness before God. has o ladmed Now. in that statement. please do not oonstrue me as saying I admit that he did all that the Mormons Your Pauline Hanoook of whether approved by it. ohurch furs. be of what oonsidered I have writtsn improper in my Le t t e r s to you. without and unsthioal. IAS my or |
