The Life of John Taylor: Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day SaintsRoberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
History
The Life of John Taylor: Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Latter Day Saint churches; Taylor, John, 1808-1887
Replying to this part of the Vice-President's argument, Elder Taylor
commended the magnanimity and even-handed justice of the first
paragraph saying that the sentiments did honor to the author of them
and that they ought to be engraven on every American heart. To the
second paragraph he replied:
"That our country is governed by law all admit; but when it is said
that 'no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the
law,' I should respectfully ask, What! not if it interferes with my
religious faith, which you state 'is a matter between God and myself
alone?' Allow me, sir, here to state that the assumed revelation
referred to is one of the most vital parts of our religious faith; it
emanated from God and cannot be legislated away; it is part of the
'Everlasting Covenant' which God has given to man. Our marriages are
solemnized by proper authority; a woman is sealed unto a man for time
and for eternity, by the power of which Jesus speaks, which 'seals on
earth and it is sealed in heaven.' With us it is 'Celestial Marriage;'
take this from us and you rob us of our hopes and associations in the
resurrection of the just. This not our religion? You do not see things
as we do. * * * I make these remarks to show that it is considered,
by us, a part of our religious faith, which I have no doubt, did you
understand it as we do, you would defend, as you state, 'with as much
zeal as the right of every other denomination throughout the land.'
Permit me here to say, however, that it was the revelation (I will
not say assumed) that Joseph and Mary had, which made them look upon
Jesus as the Messiah; which made them flee from the wrath of Herod,
who was seeking the young child's life. This they did in contravention
of law which was his decree. Did they do wrong in protecting Jesus
from the law? But Herod was a tyrant. That makes no difference; it was
the law of the land, and I have yet to learn the difference between a
tyrannical king and a tyrannical Congress. When we talk of executing
law in either case, that means force,--force means an army, and an
army means death. Now I am not sufficiently versed in metaphysics to
discover the difference in its effects, between the asp of Cleopatra,
the dagger of Brutus, the chalice of Lucretia Borgia, or the bullet or
sabre of an American soldier.
"I have, sir, written the above in consequence of some remarks which
follow:
"'I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and
which is condemned by the law, is a question of religion.'
"Now, with all due deference, I do think that if Mr. Colfax had
carefully examined our religious faith he would have arrived at other
conclusions. In the absence of this I might ask, who constituted Mr.
Colfax a judge of my religious faith? I think he has stated that 'The
faith of every man _is a matter between himself and God alone_.'
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account