The American Sentinel 14
February 2, 1899
“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 5, p. 65.
THE “Sabbath of the Lord” has nothing to gain by being Americanized. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.1
THE result of “moral reform” by force is always reform backwards. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.2
TRUTH depends upon its power to convict people; error always wants to employ force. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.3
POLITICAL “pull” for the church is a pull that opens her doors to political hypocrites and knaves. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.4
THERE are some in the pulpits who seem to image that a diploma from a theological seminary is a certificate of their ability to manage both the spiritual and the temporal affairs of their fellows. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.5
THE man who has a price for his conscience has no conscience that is worth buying. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.6
MORAL reform by law means letting go of the consciences of men to grasp for their ballots. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.7
THE self-made man is a vast improvement on the government-made man. Legislation cannot give a man backbone. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.8
A PROFESSION of righteousness is not moral reform, but it is all that can be secured for an individual or a nation by law. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.9
THE man who cannot find the gospel in the Declaration of Independence has not yet found it as it is in the Word of God. AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.10
[Inset.] CIVIL GOVERNMENT AMS IT WOULD BE UNDER THE “REFORM BUREA,” AT WAMSHINGTON. A “REFORM BUREAU” has been set up at the seat of the national Government, for the purpose of introducing moral issues into national legislation, and instructing members of Congress how they must vote on the same. The central idea of this institution is that the clergy are pre-eminently qualified for statesmanship,—the same idea with which the papacy started in the early centuries. While they seek now to persuade, they would dictate if they had the power. Through the large religious organizations with which these clerical “reformers” are in touch, they would control the popular vote, and so shut out from Congress every person who could not show a certification of moral character issued by them; in other words, every person who would not declare his readiness to vote for religious legislation,—which, of course, would not debar any knave who was not above being a hypocrite. It is time now if ever in the history of this nation, to bear in mind the warning words of Hon. Richard M. Johnson, in the U. S. Senate Report on Sunday Mails: “All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences.” AMS February 2, 1899, page 65.11
“More Sunday Arrests in Tennessee” American Sentinel 14, 5, p. 66.
RELIGIOUS freedom is again denied in that section of this “land of the free” constituting the State of Tennessee. At the town of Sanford, McMinn County, four persons—two men and their wives—are under arrest on the charge of “violating the Sabbath.” A letter from one of them, Mr. G. M. Powell, gives the following particulars. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.1
Mr. Powell and his wife, both observers of the seventh-day Sabbath, went to that section of Tennessee about five months ago to work as self supporting missionaries. They secured a piece of land, on which they started a private school,—an enterprise which was appreciated by the people, as was shown by the enrollment of between twenty and thirty pupils. But there were some in the neighborhood who were opposed to Mr. Powell’s religion, and whose moral status was such as to cause them to manifest their opposition to religion by becoming enemies of the man who held it, and of all others of like religious views; thus presenting a contrast to Christianity, which manifests only love for all men, no matter what their religious views may be. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.2
Mr. Powell writes that two warrants were sworn out against them for two different charges of the same nature. “Brother and Sister Bristol, who recently began the observance of the Sabbath, were also arrested, but we were permitted to go on each other’s bond, which was $250 in each case.” The trials will be held at the April term of court. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.3
The prospect is, of course, that the school will be broken up; but this will not matter to the advocates of Sunday enforcement. The thing of importance with them is to vindicate the “American Sabbath.” Better is it in their view that there should be no educational enterprise in their midst, than that any person should be permitted to conscientiously disregard the claims of this traditional institution. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.4
The Sunday law is the ever-ready instrument of religious intolerance. The whole history of Sunday legislation only reveals it in this light. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.5
The charge brought by the civil authorities against these defendants is that of “violating the Sabbath.” How do the civil authorities in this part of Tennessee, or in any part of the country, know what the Sabbath is, and what is a violation of it? How does any man know these things? The Bible alone gives an answer to these questions. And the truths of the Bible are understood not alone by reading what the Bible says, but by the agency of the divine Teacher, the “Spirit of truth.” AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.6
What then have the civil authorities in any place to do with the settling of religious questions? And when the civil power assumes to settle the purely religious questions involved in an assumed “violation of the Sabbath,” what less can be represented in it than a union of church and state? Whether it be done by a state, or a country, or only a town, or by the whole United States, the principle is the same, and is precisely that which is embodied in and gives character to the papacy. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.7
“Some Mormon Queries” American Sentinel 14, 5, pp. 66, 67.
THE opposition which has become manifest to the seating of Congressmen-elect Roberts, of Utah, leads the Deseret News, of Salt Lake City, to propound a few questions touching the general principles of the issue involved and the facts to which they are applicable in this country. They are questions which cannot be too often sounded in American ears, and lose none of their force or logic by coming from the official organ of Mormondom. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.1
The News says:— AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.2
“If a ‘Mormon’ elder uses the right of franchise and the right of free speech, in support of a public measure or a nominee for public office, the cry is raised at once that the ‘Mormon Church is dominant in politics,’ and that ‘the church regulates the state in Utah.’ But when ministers and dignitaries of any number of denominational churches unite for the purpose of overawing United States senator’s and representatives and of dictating the course of Congress, no objection is offered by the anti Mormon agitators. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.3
“Why? Have the various sectarian preachers a monopoly of the ‘church-and-state’ business? Is it life and salvation for a Presbyterian or Methodist bishop to instruct Congress as to its duties, and death and condemnation for a ‘Mormon’ elder to advocate the cause of a candidate for election to that body? Is it proper for ‘Christian’ conclaves to instruct legislators what to do, and improper for ‘Mormon’ ministers to exercise the privilege of citizenship? If so, why?” AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.4
The answer to this “why” can never be given by any representative of a denomination which meddles in politics. In principle, every such religious body stands on a par with the Mormons whom it denounces. Religion in politics is the same in principle everywhere. AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.5
The News attempts to justify Mormon connection with politics on the ground of the “rights of an American citizen.” It says:— AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.6
“The statements that are being made by preachers in the East and published in some of the wild cat papers, that the ‘Mormon’ Church is endeavoring to regulate political affairs in this State, are entirely without foundation in fact. Nor is it true that the leaders of the church have taken a prominent part in recent politics. If any prominent ‘Mormon’ has said or done anything in this direction he has simply exercised his rights as an American citizen, and voted for and supported men whom he thinks best suited for the positions to be filled. And that right has been used as much in favor of Gentiles as of Mormon candidates for public office. What is there wrong in that? And why does anybody with common sense raise any objection?” AMS February 2, 1899, page 66.7
It is in this same way that other churches justify their connection with politics, and the justification is just as good for the Mormon Church as for any other. But other churches can see that it does not hold good for the Mormons; the “rights of an American citizen” do not shut the Mormon Church out of politics, nor prevent the Mormon majority in Utah from getting the political control of the State. Yet these other churches cannot see that their own activity in politics must lead just as surely to a union of religion with the civil power, and that on a wider scale than is possible in a single State. AMS February 2, 1899, page 67.1
They do not, or at least profess not, to see this; but it is nevertheless true, and a truth than which there is none more important demanding the attention of the American people. AMS February 2, 1899, page 67.2