{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50535/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50535","id":"gutenberg_50535","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50535","summary":null,"tags":["Atonement","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Latter Day Saint churches -- Doctrines","Latter Day Saints","Marriage -- Religious aspects -- Mormon Church","Polygamy -- Religious aspects -- Mormon Church"],"text":"Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage\n\nA DISCUSSION\n\nCorrespondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR. of the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints\n\nAND\n\nMR. RICHARD G. EVANS, Second Counselor in the Presidency of the\n\"Reorganized\" Church\n\n* * * * *\n\n\n\"To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation.\"\n\n--John Taylor.\n\n\nCorrespondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, (JR.,) of the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and MR. RICHARD C. EVANS, second\ncounselor (1905) in the Presidency of the \"Reorganized\" Church. A\nconclusive refutation of the false charges persistently made by\nministers of the \"Reorganized\" Church against the Latter-day Saints and\ntheir belief. Also a supplement containing a number of affidavits and\nother matters bearing on the subjects.\n\nSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH\n\nPRINTED IN U.S.A.\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe correspondence in this pamphlet was brought about through the\nwilful misrepresentation of the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints and\nthe unwarranted abuse of the authorities of the Church by Mr. Richard\nC. Evans, in an interview which appeared in the Toronto (Canada) _Daily\nStar_ of January 28, 1905. A copy of the interview was placed in the\nhands of the writer, who, on February 19th following, replied to Mr.\nEvans in an open letter which was published in the Toronto Star on or\nabout the 25th of the month.[1] This open letter was answered by Mr.\nEvans in a personal letter, and on the 23rd of May, a rejoinder to his\nreply was sent to Mr. Evans at his home in London, Ontario, Canada.\nIn all, four communications--including the interview--have passed\nbetween us, and all of these four communications are here reproduced\n_in full_. A copy of the open letter which appeared in the _Star_,\nwas also sent to Mr. Evans who acknowledged its receipt. Nothing more\nwas done in regard to this correspondence until August 17th and 24th,\nwhen an article containing a portion of it appeared in the _Zion's\nEnsign_, published by the \"Reorganized\" church at Independence, Jackson\nCounty, Missouri, under the title: \"Statements Authenticated,\" in which\nit was made to appear that the full and complete communications were\nreproduced. But this, however, was not the case.\n\nIn a letter from Mr. Evans to the editor of the _Ensign_ which\naccompanied the above mentioned article, he said:\n\nBelieving that good will be accomplished by the publication of the\nentire matter, I herewith mail you the referred to matter.\n\nFrom this it would naturally be supposed that the _complete_\ncorrespondence would be given. However I was not surprised to see that\nMr. Evans' side of the controversy was _in full_, while a large portion\nof my first communication had been purposely suppressed; and that\nmy second letter _did not appear at all_! And thus was the \"_entire\nmatter_\" given to the readers of the _Ensign_ that \"good\" might be\n\"accomplished.\" (?)\n\nThe parts that were purposely left out of my communication by Mr.\nEvans, were most vital to the subject and have been indicated as they\nappear in the body of this work by being placed in italics, excepting\na few minor matters which he omitted that I have not mentioned,\nnevertheless matters that throw light upon the subject.\n\nOne of these quotations was in relation to two articles in the first\nvolume of the _Saints' Herald_ which were important, coming, as they\ndid from the \"enemy's\" camp. Here is the omitted part:\n\n    If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain\n    the following passage in the _Saints' Herald_, your official organ,\n    volume I, page 9,--it would be well for you to read the entire\n    chapter, which is entitled \"Polygamy.\" The quotation is as follows:\n\n    \"The death of the Prophet is one fact that has been realized,\n    although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning\n    \"polygamy\") before his death. This branch of the subject we shall\n    leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it\n    satisfactorily.\"\n\n    In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following: \"He,\n    (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject (polygamy) to\n    be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned\n    himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to\n    Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been\n    for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine he would not have come to\n    that.\" Kindly read the context.\n\n    There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will\n    explain this it may suffice.\n\nThe first half of the succeeding paragraph was quoted but the second\nhalf was omitted. I quote in full with the part suppressed in italics:\n\n    In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence\n    at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such\n    statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation\n    burned. _There is, however, value in the above statements from your\n    \"Herald,\" for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of\n    the principle of plural marriage and revelation concerning the\n    same_.\n\nIt is easy to perceive that Mr. Evans felt \"that good will be\naccomplished by the publication of the 'entire matter'\"; and for\nthat reason he omitted this evidence which the leaders of the\n\"Reorganization\" have been trying so successfully to destroy for lo\nthese many years. The two articles in the _Saints' Herald_ have caused\nthe leaders of that sect no end of trouble, and today they are in\nthe same fix in regard to plural marriage that the first editor of\nthat paper was when he wrote, for they cannot explain the Prophet's\nconnection with the principle \"satisfactorily,\" and never will be able\nto until they acknowledge the truth.\n\nAnother of Mr. Evans' ommissions that \"good\" might be \"accomplished\"\n(?) is the following paragraph in reference to President Brigham Young:\n\n    It is true that President Young was elected president at\n    Kanesville; but on what grounds do you charge him with holding\n    the office in trust for the \"dead president's son?\" Do you not\n    know that such a statement --contrary to the written word--was\n    antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in\n    the _Times and Seasons_, as well as since that time?\n\n    Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young\n    with being \"under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?\"\n    Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham\n    Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The\n    Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the\n    martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is\n    the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but\n    viciously false.\n\nIt appears from the actions of many of those who fight the Latter-day\nSaints, that they fully realize their inability to successfully oppose\nthe doctrines of the Church with truth as a weapon of attack, and,\ntherefore, resort to falsehood, vilification and abuse, attempting to\nblind those who are not acquainted with the facts. The doctrine of\nthe Church has survived all such onslaughts and continues to spread\nthroughout the earth, as a witness against those who have adopted such\nbase methods for its overthrow. It will continue to spread, bless\nmankind and prepare all who accept it, and follow its teachings in\nrighteousness, for an inheritance in the kingdom of God.\n\nThe Reorganite ministers are generally in the front rank among those\nwho oppose the Church and resort to tactics of a doubtful character.\nThey travel from place to place, never losing an opportunity in\nprivate, on the rostrum or through the press, to \"explain the radical\ndifference\" between their organization and that of the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints, and in denouncing \"the Utah Mormon and his\niniquities.\" On such occasions they will quote garbled and isolated\nextracts from sermons and from writings by Elders of the Church, taking\nparticular pains to cover up the context in order to prejudice the\nuninformed mind. In this way many a harmless, inoffensive passage has\nbeen made to do great execution in some quarters and among a certain\nclass. Nor is this all. Nearly every crime that was committed within a\nthousand miles of Utah in early days and many that were invented out of\nwhole cloth, are brought to bear against the \"dreadful Mormons,\" the\nChurch and the Gospel, that they may be stigmatized and made to appear\nvile and hateful before the world. So much of their time is spent in\nthis way that they can surely have but little left in which to tell the\nworld what they themselves believe.\n\nNo reason except that of misrepresentation and jealousy can be assigned\nfor actions of this kind. These men oppose the truth in a spirit\nof jealousy and to cover up their own false position, and by such\nan attitude prove that they are ashamed of their own faith, being\nconscious of its weakness.\n\nThe supplement following the correspondence is composed of a number\nof affidavits and other testimony bearing on the subjects under\ndiscussion, which, it is hoped, will be of interest and perhaps of\nvalue to the reader.\n\n                                              JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.\n\nSalt Lake City, Utah, September 5, 1905.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. As I did not receive a copy of the _Toronto Star_ I cannot\npositively say that my article appeared in full, but if it did not Mr.\nEvans is still without excuse for not considering the _entire matter_\nfor he received personally a duplicate copy of the article sent the\n_Star_ which contained those portions he has failed to include in his\n\"entire matter\" in the _Zion's Ensign_.\n\n\n\nMR. R. C. EVANS' INTERVIEW IN THE TORONTO, CANADA, \"DAILY STAR,\"\nJAN. 28, 1905\n\nLATTER-DAY SAINT VISITING TORONTO--MR. R. C. EVANS, WHO IS\nPROMOTING THE GROWTH OF HIS CHURCH IN CANADA, NOT A BELIEVER IN\nPOLYGAMY--DENOUNCES THE UTAH MORMONS.\n\nThe name Mormon does not please Toronto's six hundred baptized\nLatter-day Saints, not to mention the fifty thousand others scattered\nover the globe.\n\nThis fact was emphasized today, when R. C. Evans, one of the three\nmembers of the Presidency, explained the radical difference between the\ntwo denominations. Mr. Evans, who reached Toronto a few days ago to\nspend a month here, denounces the \"Utah Mormon and his iniquities.\"\n\n\"We do not believe in polygamy, blood atonement, and kindred evils,\"\nhe said to the _Star_ last night at 142 Peter street, where he is\nvisiting, \"They are an abomination to the Lord. The term Mormon is\noffensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the\npractices that I have specified. The other night, while I was holding a\nservice here, four Utah Elders came to me. I referred to polygamy, and\nthey defended it. 'We endorse it,' they told me, 'but we don't practice\nit.' Three women were with them, and I said to one, 'Do you believe in\npolygamy?' 'I do,' she replied, 'and I know that God will punish the\nUnited States for prohibiting it.' I understand that there are five\nUtah elders in Toronto at the present time, and in addresses here I\nwill expose polygamy and blood atonement.\"\n\n\nBORN NEAR MONTREAL\n\nMr. Evans is forty-three years old, but doesn't look his age. He is\nrather below medium height, strongly built, wears his black hair short,\nand his round, slightly olive face is clean shaven. He is animated in\nmanner, and though his English is occasionally at fault, he speaks\nfluently and well. He was born at St. Andrew's near Montreal, but his\nancestry is not confined to any one country, Irish, Welsh and German\nblood flows in his veins and his somewhat nasal voice is typically\nAmerican.\n\n\"I was baptized in 1876,\" he said, \"ordained a priest in 1882, became\nan elder in 1884, entered the quorum of seventy in 1886, was chosen\none of the twelve apostles in 1897; and in 1902, was selected one of\nPresident Joseph Smith's two counselors, the other being his eldest\nson, Frederick M. Smith. I was the pastor of the London, Ontario,\nchurch from 1882 to 1886, and have given particular attention to\nCanada. We occupy a rented church on the corner of Sumac and St. David\nstreets, a new church on Camden street, and another at Humber Bay,\npractically three congregations in Toronto.\"\n\nThe Latter-day Saints and the Utah Mormons, according to Mr. Evans, are\nfrequently confused, greatly to his regret.\n\n\nTROUBLES OF THE SECT\n\n\"My President Joseph Smith,\" he explained, \"is the oldest son of Joseph\nSmith, who, when a boy of fifteen, was directed to the mound wherein he\nfound the golden plates from which he compiled the Book of Mormon.\n\n\"He organized his church in 1830, when 25 years old, and between\n1830 and 1844 his following numbered 200,000. In 1844 he was shot\nand killed for his anti-slavery sympathies,[1] and with him died his\nbrother Hyrum. John Taylor, a Toronto convert of 1838, was wounded, but\nrecovered. Joseph Smith's city of Nauvoo, Illinois, was wrecked, and in\n1847, at Kanesville, Iowa, Brigham Young was elected president, though\nhe still professed to hold the office in trust for the dead president's\neldest son, also, Joseph, whom the father had consecrated as his\nsuccessor.[2] Brigham Young reorganized[3] the church, rebaptized every\nmember, including himself, and in 1848 (1847) he reached Salt Lake\nCity. With him went the widow and children of Hyrum Smith, whose son\nJoseph F., is now president of the Utah church. The widow of the first\npresident had refused to follow Young, and her boy Joseph was brought\nup in his father's footsteps, hating polygamy and other impurities.\n'Young Joseph,' as he was called, connected himself with the Saints,\nwho had rejected Brigham Young, and was elected their president. He\nwas then 28 years old. In 1872 he was called to Washington, a report\nhaving reached the Government that Mormonism had again sprung up in\nIllinois. He disproved the charge of polygamy and blood atonement,\nand demonstrated that Latter-day Saintism was in keeping with the law\nand supported by the Bible. Incorporation was granted, and we have\nprospered.\n\n\nUPHELD DEATH\n\n\"Brigham Young, who had been under suspicion at Joseph Smith's death,\nintroduced polygamy and blood atonement at Salt Lake City. Blood\natonement meant death to anyone who left his church. Brigham Young's\nargument was that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear,\nthe favorite way, saved his soul, but his object was to keep his people\nunder his iron heel. Young was a shrewd, bad man.\n\n\"I spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith at Salt Lake City three\nyears ago, and he gave me a group photo of himself, his surviving five\nwives, and thirty-six children. His first wife was dead. She died\nbroken-hearted and insane. Personally, Joseph F. Smith is a genial,\nkindly man, but he and I differed on Polygamy. I told him it was vile\nand wicked, always had been, and always would be. In appearance he\nresembles his cousin, my own president.\"\n\nMr. Evans is married, and has two children. The three faces look at\nyou from his watch case. He has recently returned from the northwest.\nHis faith has several thriving churches there, he says, while the Utah\nMormons are settled in one part of Alberta.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. Mr. Evans' declaration that the Prophet was killed for his anti-\nslavery sympathies is rather surprising, when we consider that he was\nin one of the anti-slave states, and the mob at Carthage was largely\ncomposed of men with very strong \"anti-slavery sympathies.\" The fact\nis he and his brother Hyrum were martyred for their religion of which\nCelestial Marriage, (including Plural Marriage) formed a part. One of\nthe charges made against them was that of teaching \"polygamy.\"\n\n2. In proof that the Prophet did not ordain or consecrate his son as\nhis successor, the reader is referred to the affidavits of John W.\nRigdon and Bathsheba W. Smith.\n\n3. As the Church was never disorganized, it could not be reorganized.\nMr. Evans has made a mistake. It was the Quorum of the First\nPresidency that was disorganized at the Prophet's death and which was\n_reorganized_ when Brigham Young was elected President, and not the\nChurch.\n\n\n\nREPLY TO R. C. EVANS\n\nThe following letter was published in the Toronto _Daily Star_ in\nanswer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. Evans' interview.\n\nSalt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905.\n\n_Mr. R. C. Evans_,\n\n_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.\n\nSir:--I have before me a copy of the Toronto _Daily Star_, bearing date\nof January 28, last, in which there is a column on the front page,\npurporting to be an interview, by a representative of that paper with\nyou, in which I desire to call your attention.\n\nIn doing so I desire to be fair and dispassionate, and also candid, and\nI would like it if you would receive and reply to this communication in\nthe same spirit and manner to me personally.\n\nYou are reported as not being \"pleased,\" nor Toronto's six hundred\nbaptized members, with the name \"Mormon.\" \"This fact,\" says the _Star_,\n\"was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, one of the three members\nof the Presidency explained the radical difference between the two\ndenominations. Mr. Evans * * * denounced the Utah Mormon and his\niniquities.\" Then you are made to say: \"The term Mormon is offensive\nto us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices\nthat I have specified.\" That is, the alleged practices of the Utah\n\"Mormons,\" namely, \"polygamy and blood atonement.\"\n\nDid you know that \"the term Mormon\" has always been applied to the\nChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached\nto the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of\nMormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an\nopprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr,\nand ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of\npopular custom, as an appellation?\n\nIf, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your fellows in\nCanada and throughout the world, although it be on the grounds you\nhave named, why do you not discard the Book of Mormon, from whence\nthe name is derived, as well as the name. Is not the term _Book of\nMormon_ as closely associated in the public mind with \"polygamy and\nblood atonement,\" as is the _name_ of the Book? How are you going to\ndisassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied to\nthe Church, since this name has been attached to the Church from the\nbeginning, and before the alleged \"practices\" of the \"Utah Mormon\"\ngained such publicity? _Really, I think it would be quite proper for\nthose holding the view which you are said to have expressed, not only\nto renounce the name \"Mormon\" as applied to the Church but also the\nBook itself_.[1]\n\nYou do not believe in blood atonement. Is not this the more reason why\nyou should discard the Book of Mormon? Are you not at issue with the\nteachings not only of that book, but also with those of the Bible on\nthis matter? If so, why not discard the Bible, and while you are about\nit, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants also? Both of these, as well as\nthe Book of Mormon, teach the doctrine of \"blood atonement,\" and they\nare all \"associated in the public mind\" with the alleged \"practices\" of\nthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\n\nLet us consider this subject of \"blood atonement.\"\n\nBook of Mormon:\n\n    Mosiah 3:11.--His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have\n    fallen by the transgression of Adam. Verse 15.--And understood not\n    that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the\n    atonement of his blood. Verse 16.--Even so the blood of Christ\n    atoneth for their sins.\n\n    Alma 21:9.--Now Aaron began to open the Scriptures unto them\n    concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the\n    resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for\n    mankind, save it was through the death and suffering of Christ, and\n    the atonement of his blood.\n\n    I Nephi 12:10.--Their garments are made white in his blood.\n\n    II Nephi 9:7.--And if so, (not an infinite atonement) this flesh\n    must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to\n    rise no more.\n\nFrom the Bible:\n\n    Mark 14:22-25.--And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed\n    and brake it, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat; this is my\n    body.\n\n    And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to\n    them: and they all drank of it.\n\n    And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which\n    is shed for many.\n\n    Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the\n    vine, until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.\n\nFrom the Doctrine and Covenants:\n\n    Section 45:4.--(Utah edition) Saying, Father, behold the sufferings\n    and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased;\n    behold the blood of thy Son which was shed--the blood of him whom\n    thou gavest that thyself might be glorified.\n\n    Section 74:7.--But little children are holy, being sanctified\n    through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what the\n    scriptures mean.\n\n    Section 76:39-41.--For all the rest shall be brought forth by the\n    resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the\n    Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the\n    worlds were made. And this is the gospel, the glad tidings which\n    the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us. That he came into\n    the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear\n    the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it\n    from all unrighteousness.\n\n    Section 29:1.--Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer,\n    the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins. Verse\n    17.--And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the\n    world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will\n    not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my\n    blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF AN ENEMY\n\nBut the report says: \"This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young\"\nand that it meant \"death to anyone who left the Church * * * that\nthe apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear * * * saved his\nsoul.\" Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not\naware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the\nChurch, without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single\nindividual was ever \"blood atoned,\" as you are pleased to call it, for\napostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this\nfalse charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church\nbefore the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you know of anyone\nwhose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members\nthereof, to \"save his soul?\" Did you not know that you were embittering\nthe people against the \"Mormon\" Elders, and that just such malicious\ncharges and false insinuations have made martyrs for the Church, whose\nblood does not \"cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth?\"\n\nNever in the history of this people can the time be pointed to when\nthe Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate\nas per your statement. There are men living in Utah today who left the\nChurch in the earliest history of our State who feel as secure, and are\njust as secure and free from molestation from their former associates\nas you or any other man could be.\n\n\nEFFICACY OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST\n\nThe Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ.\nThey believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the\nGospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ\nhad not died for _them_. If you did believe in blood atonement, I might\nask you why the blood of Christ was shed? and _in whose stead was it\nshed_? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul: \"Without shedding\nof blood is no remission.\"\n\n\nUNPARDONABLE SINS\n\nAre you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which\nthe atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that\nthis doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further\nreason why you should discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not\nsafe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of\nthis kind? Let me quote:\n\nFrom the Book of Mormon:\n\n    II Nephi 9:35.--Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for\n    he shall die.\n\n    Alma 1:13, 14.--And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man,\n    yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to\n    spare thee, his blood would come upon us for vengeance.\n\n    Alma 42:19.--Now, if there were no law given--if a man murdered he\n    should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?\n\nFrom the Bible:\n\n    Genesis 9:12, 13.--And whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his\n    blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.\n\n    For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve\n    the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man. (Inspired\n    translation.)\n\n    Luke 11:50.--That the blood of all the prophets, which was\n    shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this\n    generation.\n\n    Hebrews 9:22.--And almost all things are by the law purged with\n    blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.\n\n    Hebrews 10:26-29.--For if we sin wilfully, after that we have\n    received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more\n    sacrifice for sins.\n\n    * * * *\n\n    He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three\n    witnesses;\n\n    Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought\n    worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath\n    counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an\n    unholy thing.\n\n    (I commend to you the careful reading of these two chapters:)\n\n    I John 3:15.--No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.\n\n    I John 5:16.--If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not\n    unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that\n    sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he\n    shall pray for it.\n\nFrom the Doctrine and Covenants:\n\n    Section 87:7.--That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of\n    the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of\n    Sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.\n\n    Section 101:80.--And for this purpose have I established the\n    constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised\n    up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of\n    blood.\n\n    Section 42:18, 19.--And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou\n    shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in\n    this world, nor in the world to come.\n\n    And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall\n    die.\n\n    Verse 79.--And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you\n    shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to\n    the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and\n    it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.\n\n\nTHE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT\n\nIn pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which\nhas been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present\ntime, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory\nprovisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the\nblood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State,\ngranted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for\nhimself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have\nhis blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far\nas it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost\nwithout exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This\nis by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church.\nThis law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the \"Mormon\"\nlegislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is\nfrom this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has\nbeen maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer\nto believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing \"blood\natonement\" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any\nliving creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall\nstand condemned before the judgment seat of God.\n\n\nPLURAL MARRIAGE\n\nSince the action taken by the United States government, and also by the\nChurch, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues\nnor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of\nour faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that \"Brigham\nYoung introduced\" that doctrine \"in Salt Lake City,\" I would be pleased\nif you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before\n\"President Young introduced\" the doctrine, declared that the principle\nof plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith\nthe Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and\n\"warned Joseph Smith and his family\" that it would bring ruin upon\nthem. You will find this in the _Messenger and Advocate_, published\nin June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain\nwhy this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently\ncondemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang,\nGladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love\nfor President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced\npolygamy _before plural marriage was \"introduced by President Young_.\"\nIf you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed,\nyou may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church\nhistory.\n\n\nTHE \"SAINTS' HERALD\" AS A WITNESS\n\nIf you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the\nfollowing paragraph in the _Saints Herald_, your official organ, volume\n1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which\nis entitled \"polygamy.\" The quotation is:\n\n\"_The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although\nhe abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before\nhis death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our\nbrethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily_.\"\n\nIn the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?\n\n\"_He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy')\nto be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned\nhimself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to\nCarthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for\nthat accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that.\"\nKindly read the context_.\n\n_There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain\nthis it may suffice_.\n\nIn the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my\ncommand, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement\nas the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. _There\nis, however, value in the above statements from your \"Herald,\" for they\nbear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural\nmarriage, and the revelation concerning the same_.[2]\n\n\nTHE UTAH VISIT\n\nIn connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to\nSalt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President\nLorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you\nheard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that\nprinciple by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared\nto Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You\nmet and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she\nwas married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May,\n1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You\nmet Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August,\n1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the\nProphet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first\nwives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these\ntestimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am\npersonally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful\nand honest--honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.\n\nIn the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent\nfor you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of\nPresident Young the responsibility for the \"introduction of plural\nmarriage\" and the \"authorship\" of the above mentioned revelation?\n\nMy letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item\nor two.\n\n\nPRESIDENT SMITH'S DENIAL\n\nIn the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt\nLake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you\nand he \"differed on polygamy,\" and that you \"told him it was vile and\nwicked, always had been, and always would be.\" I took occasion to ask\nmy father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if\nyou had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He\nreplied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you\ndid not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable\nor otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and\nwas not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have\nexisted.\n\n_It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville,\nbut on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in\ntrust for the \"dead president's son?\" Do you not know that such a\nstatement--contrary to the written word--was antagonistic to the\nteachings of President Young, as recorded in the \"Times and Seasons,\"\nas well as since that Time_?\n\n\nPRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET'S FRIEND\n\n_Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as\nbeing \"under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?\" Am I to\ninfer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was\nin any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never\nhad a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham\nYoung was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you\nwish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false_.[3]\n\nWith reference to my father's first wife, you say she died \"broken\nhearted and insane.\" If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if\ntrue, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it\nis also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died\nneither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think\nthat you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time\nto better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.\n\n                                          Respectfully,\n                                             Joseph F. Smith, Jr.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of\nthe _entire matter_ in the _Zion's Ensign_, August 17th, 1905.\n\n2. The quotations from the _Saints' Herald_ which are in Italics were\npurposely omitted from Mr. Evans' \"publication of the entire matter,\"\nas it appeared in the _Zion's Ensign_ of August 7, 1905. The reason for\nthe suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of\nthe \"Reorganization\" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could\nnot be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies\nof this particular _Herald_ can today be found.\n\n3. These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans'\n\"publication of the entire matter,\" as it appeared in the _Zion's\nEnsign_ August 17, 1905.\n\n\n\nMR. EVANS' LETTER\n\n_Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.:_\n\nSir:--Your open letter published in the Toronto _Star_ for February 25,\nis before me. You say: \"I desire to be fair, dispassionate and also\ncandid.\" Those who read your letter will see plainly that you have\nmispresented the interview, my faith and the facts concerning my visit\nto Salt Lake, and that you are guilty of a labored effort to cover up\nthe _true facts_ regarding \"blood atonement,\" \"polygamy,\" etc., and my\nfaith in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires.\n\nMy position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the name \"Mormon,\"\nis too well known for you to blind the people concerning it. The\ninterview shows plainly in what sense \"the term 'Mormon' is offensive\nto us.\" Read it again, sir: \"Because it is associated in the public\nmind with the practices that I have specified.\" The abominations of\n_Brighamism_; namely, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God,[1] and other\nevils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization.\n\nThe true Church never has adopted the name \"Mormon\" as being the\nproper name of the church. The Latter-day Saints were sometimes called\n\"Mormons\" in derision, as you admit, because they believed in the\ndivine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and some church members may\nhave been willing to be called \"Mormon\"; yet you \"candidly (?) fairly,\ndispassionately\" ask me, \"Why do you not discard the Book of Mormon\nfrom whence the name is derived?\" Now, sir, I profess to believe in the\ndivine authenticity of the Holy Bible; as well call me a Bible, because\nI believe in the Bible,[2] as call me a Mormon because I believe in the\nBook of Mormon.\n\nThe church that I have the honor to represent is incorporated under the\nlaws of the United States as \"The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter Day Saints.\"\n\n\nBLOOD ATONEMENT\n\nThere is not an honest thinking person on earth who is acquainted with\nthe faith of the church regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ but\nthat will say your attempt to misrepresent my faith in this regard is\ndiametrically opposite to your stated desire to be \"fair, dispassionate\nand candid.\" You know that a prominent article in the Epitome of\nthe Faith and Doctrine of the _true church_ reads as follows: \"We\nbelieve that through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by\nobedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.\" You know that the\ntrue church believes in the atoning blood of Christ as stated in the\nscriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you try to make out that\nbecause we do not believe in the doctrine of blood atonement as taught\nby Brigham Young and his successors in \"Utah Mormonism,\" that we do not\nbelieve in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.\n\nThe doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the doctrine of\nblood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove this, I submit the\nstatements as made by Brigham Young and other leading members of the\nUtah Church, as found in their sermons, printed by your church:\n\nBrigham Young said, October 9, 1852: \"What shall be done with the sheep\nthat stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and\ncut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a\nmilder term, and say cut off their ears.\"--Journal of Discourses, vol.\n1:213.\n\nBrigham said again, March 27, 1853: \"I say, rather than that apostates\nshould flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or\ndie. (Great commotion in the congregation and a simultaneous burst\nof feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates,\nclear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to\nthe plummet. (Voices generally, 'Go it, go it.') If you say it is all\nright, raise your hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to\nassist us in this and every good work.\"--Journal of Discourses, vol.\n1:83.\n\nEchoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 27, 1853, \"My\nfeelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. * *\n* I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have\nbeen faithfully warned. * * * It is too late in the day for _us_ to\nstop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth.\"--Journal of\nDiscourses, vol. 1, pp. 84, 86.\n\nElder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: \"Suppose the shepherd should\ndiscover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do?\nWhy, we would suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he\nwould kill him at once * * * kill him on the spot. * * * It would have\na tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may\nprove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or\nshot down before the public.\"--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:72, 73.\n\nPresident Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as follows \"All\nmankind love themselves; and let these principles be known by an\nindividual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be\nloving themselves even to an eternal exaltation. Will you love your\nbrothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that\ncannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? That is what Jesus\nChrist meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in\ntheir wickedness. He never intended any such thing.\n\n\"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been\nrighteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores\nand hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the\nlast resurrection if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled\nupon the ground, as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now\nangels to the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them\nup, conquers death, hell and the grave.[3] I have known a great many\nmen who have left this church, for whom there is no chance whatever for\nexaltation; but if their blood had been spilt it would have been better\nfor them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this\nprinciple being in full force, but the time will come when the law of\nGod will be in full force.\n\n\"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help\nhim; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood\nupon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it.\"--Journal of\nDiscourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 397.\n\nPresident J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: \"I say there are men\nand women here that I would advise to go to the president immediately,\nand ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and\nthen let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their\nblood.\"--_Deseret News_, vol. 6, p. 235.\n\nPresident Heber C. Kimball said; July 19, 1854: \"It is believed in the\nworld that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they\nare common--that is, they are like all other women, I suppose, but they\nare not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones out of our midst; we not\nonly wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And\nif the world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes\nhere, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will wipe the\nevil out. We will not have them in this valley unless they repent, for\nso help me God, while I live I will lend my hand to wipe such persons\nout, and I know this people will.\"--_Deseret News_, August 16, 1854,\nand _Millennial Star_, vol. 16, pages 738-9.\n\nThe above statements speak for themselves, and these were what I read\nto the reporter. You ask, \"Do you _know_ of anyone whose blood was\never shed by the command of the church or members thereof to save his\nsoul?\" To _know_ by hearing such a command given, or seeing a murder\ncommitted, is one thing, to believe the evidence of many who have\ntestified is another. No sir, I was never present when such a command\nwas given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that which\nleads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for years a land\nof assassination and a field of blood. What of the Mountain Meadow\nmassacre--the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of\nBishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties? Alfred Henry\nLewis, writing in _Collier's Weekly_ for March 26, 1904, states:\n\"Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their\nhead, and when a man rebelled, _he had him murdered_, if one fled the\nfold he was pursued and slain.\"\n\nThe world has recently read the testimony of persons under oath, in\nWashington, who testified concerning the endowment oaths, so I will\nforbear any further remarks on this subject.\n\n\nPOLYGAMY\n\nSpeaking of \"plural marriage,\" you say, \"I shall not discuss its\n_virtues_.\" Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, Mr. Smith\ncalls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of every woman who is\nenslaved by it, that doctrine which permits Brighamites to live in what\nthey call marriage with three sisters at one time, with mother and\ndaughter at the same time. Your father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is\nnow living with _two sisters as wives_. I refer to Julina Lambson and\nEdna Lambson, both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a\n_virtue_.\n\nI have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having practiced\npolygamy _before Young was guilty, as stated by you_. But the following\nevidence shows clearly that Brigham Young was under suspicion before\nJoseph's death, and that he has since admitted that he had a revelation\non polygamy before the church knew anything of the doctrine:\n\nIn a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see _Deseret News_ of\nJuly 1, 1874), we read the following statement relative to the origin\nof this doctrine of polygamy:\n\n    While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord\n    manifested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not\n    then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them,\n    until I returned to Nauvoo; _Joseph had never mentioned this; there\n    had never been a thought of it in the church_ that I ever knew\n    anything about at that time;--but I had this for myself and kept it\n    for myself.--The Messenger, volume 1, page 29.\n\nWell, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the self-confessed\nchannel through which polygamy was given to his people.\n\nI here submit the testimony of Brigham Young's legal wife, who left him\nafter he was untrue to her. Testimony of Major Thomas Wanless, given to\nR. C. Evans, his nephew, in the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans\nand her daughter, in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904:\n\n    I met Brigham Young's first and legal wife and her daughter in the\n    winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me\n    that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not\n    teach, practice, or in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy,\n    that he had nothing to do with the so-called revelation on\n    celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My husband, Brigham\n    Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man whose name I\n    have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage.\n\n    Before they left Illinois some of them practiced polygamy. Brigham\n    Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced\n    polygamy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis.\n\n    She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and\n    was then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money\n    according to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot\n    Brigham Young in place of Joseph Smith.\n\nThis statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham's first wife is\na mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, October 8, 1824; she died\nSeptember 8, 1832. In February, 1834, he married May Ann Angel; she\nwas his _legal wife_, and perhaps is the one referred to by the Major.\nIt is quite pardonable in Major Wanless in getting Brigham's wives\nmixed up. We opine poor Brigham was at his wit's end to keep the family\nrecord correct himself.\n\nChambers' encyclopedia, volume 8, students' edition, confirms Mrs.\nYoung's statement, in part. It says, speaking of the practice of\npolygamy: \"Young, Pratt and Hyde are its true originators. Emma, wife\nand widow of the prophet, stoutly denied that her husband had any wife\nbut herself. Young's revelation she declared to be a fraud.\"\n\nFrom a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham Young was the\nman that introduced polygamy in the Church, I submit the statement of\nanother broken-hearted woman from the ranks of Brigham's Church. Fanny\nStenhouse says: \"Polygamy was unheard of among the (English) Saints in\n1849.\" (pages 45, 47, 48) \"Tell It All,\" by Fanny Stenhouse. \"In June\n1850, I heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first\nsaw the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the _Millennial\nStar_,\" (page 132).\n\n\"Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 had been\nexcommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the president of the\nconference was cut off,\" (page 160). When speaking regarding polygamy\nshe says: \"They know that the only source of all their revelations is\nthe man BRIGHAM YOUNG,\" (page 190).\n\n\"Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most sacred ties,\nby his shameless introduction of polygamy,\" (page 273).\n\n\"There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph Smith in\nearly days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is the chief,\" (page\n614).\n\nIt is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that Joseph Smith\nsaid, \"If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham,\nhe would lead it to hell,\" (page 268).\n\nWhy did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death make the above\nand similar statements regarding the man Brigham Young? The reason is\nplain. He too had doubtless heard some rumors as to his conduct and\nsecret teachings, and the evidence would seem to indicate that just\nbefore his death he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We\nwill let William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the\ntime of Joseph Smith's death testify:\n\n\"A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. Joseph, he said\nthat he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the Church, and\nwe retired by ourselves; I will give his words _verbatim_ for they are\nindelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time\nto have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it would\neventually prove the overthrow of the Church, and we should soon be\nobliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put\ndown. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there\nmust be every exertion to put it down. He said that he would go before\nthe congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High\nCouncil, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression,\nand I must sever them from the Church unless they made ample\nsatisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The\nmob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore\nthere was nothing done concerning it.\" (_Saints' Herald_, vol. 1, pp.\n22, 23.)\n\nPresident Marks, after Joseph Smith's death, made mention of the above\nconversation; it was soon rumored that he was about to apostatize, and\nthat his statement was a tissue of lies.\" (See _Saints' Herald_, vol.\n1, pp. 22, 23.)\n\nSpeaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, \"I never heard of\nit during Joseph's life. It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young\nand some of the Twelve, after Joseph's death.\" (Briggs' Autobiography;\n_Herald_ 1901.)\n\nNow I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph Smith and the\nChurch during his lifetime condemned polygamy in the strongest terms.\nFirst, I submit the testimony of thirty-one witnesses as published by\nthe Church on October the 1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show\nyou where Joseph and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy.\n\n\"We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of\nfamilies, do hereby certify and declare, that we know of no other\nrule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of\nCovenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. John C.\nBennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make, as we know\nof no such society in this place, nor never did.\"\n\nThis is signed by a number of the leading men of the Church, some of\nthe Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presidency of the Utah Church,\nand a number of the leading men of the Church. A similar document is\nsigned by Emma Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the\nleading women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all.\n\nNow I submit for your consideration a statement made by Joseph Smith\nand his Brother Hyrum just a few months prior to their assassination.\nThey learned that a man up here in the state of Michigan was teaching\npolygamy, and this is what they said about it: \"As we have lately\nbeen credibly informed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of\nLatter-day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been teaching\npolygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of\nLapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church in\ngeneral that he has been cut off from the Church for his iniquity.\"\nSigned, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church.\n\nThis was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four months after\nthat. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, and the man was\nexcommunicated from the Church for preaching it. Now I want to give\nyou the testimony of George Q. Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City,\nas one of the presidency of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: \"A prevalent\nidea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and\ncontinuation to our belief in a plurality of wives. * * * Joseph and\nHyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds of persons\nwere persecuted to death previous to the Church having any knowledge of\nthis doctrine.\"--_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 14, pages 165, 166.[4]\n\nThis being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the practice of\npolygamy; he was killed before the people knew anything about polygamy.\nThis is the statement of George Q. Cannon. Let me strengthen this now\nby the son-in-law of Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson:\n\n\"Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph Smith's death)\nwas not known among those of the Mormon faith. * * * The doctrine of\npolygamy was not promulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in\nfact, until some little time after they had arrived there.\" Salt Lake\n_Herald_, February 9, 1882.[5]\n\nJoseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt Lake the 24th of\nJuly, 1847, and he says not until some little time after that was it\nintroduced. The little time was the 29th of August, 1852, eight years\nand two months after the assassination of Joseph Smith.\n\nWe have Brigham Young himself on this. He being interviewed by\nSenator Trumbull in 1869, said: \"It (polygamy) was adopted by us as a\n_necessity_ after we came here.\" Ah, there never was a greater truth\ntold in all the world than that. Polygamy was not an original tenet\nof the Church, and Brigham Young says it was adopted as a _necessity_\nafter \"we came here.\" The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I will show\nfrom their own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives\nsecretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, as he\ntruthfully says in this \"as a necessity\"; yea, as a necessity polygamy\nwas introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph Smith for their\nintroducing polygamy eight years after his death?\n\nI have been careful to take these clippings right from their own\npapers, so that they cannot say that we have changed the words or\nanything of that kind. Here is another statement; this is found from\nElder Ephraim Jenson:\n\n\"Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to and at the time of\nthe execution of Joseph Smith, who was executed at Nauvoo, Illinois.\n* * * Fourth, that only three per cent of the Mormon men practiced\npolygamy, a proof itself that it was not essential to the creed.\"--_The\nYeoman's Shield._\n\nHere is another one:\n\n    \"Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, there was no\n    polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon literature until five years\n    after that band of persecuted Saints reached Utah.\" _New York Herald_,\n    January 8, 1900.[6]\n\nThis is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who _did_ introduce this polygamy.\nNow I might introduce dozens and dozens of witnesses to prove that\nJoseph Smith had nothing to do with it. Well, who did it? Here is\nwhat the Apostle's wife says of it: \"How then, asked the reader, did\npolygamy originate? It was born in the vile and lustful brain of\nBrigham Young, and was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual\nbestiality.\"[7] (Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.)\n\nOne of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to know whereof she\naffirms.\n\nWe have learned from the above statements that polygamy was not taught\nor practiced by Joseph Smith, but was introduced into an apostate\nbranch of the church, after his death, as is admitted by Brigham Young\nand others of his followers.\n\nHaving read the works of the church for over a quarter of a century. I\nconfidently affirm that there is not a single word, in a single sermon,\nlecture, statement, newspaper or church publication printed during the\nlifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed\nthe doctrine of plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there\nis no Salt Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and prove its\nauthenticity.\n\nBut suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and\npracticed polygamy, that would not make it a Christian doctrine. If\nJoseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or endorsed the doctrine of\npolygamy, he did it contrary to all the revelations given for the\ngovernment of the church in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and\nCovenants; contrary to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings;\nand he was a criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite\nbefore the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the\nwoman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and was untrue\nto all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity which he evinced\nin all his public utterances and conduct.\n\nIn the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph Smith,\ntogether with thousands of people who knew him in life, refuse to\nbelieve the contradictory statements of Brigham Young and others who\nare wallowing in the mire of polygamy.\n\n\nMY VISIT TO UTAH\n\nIf your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy,\nall I have to say about it is, that what he states is untrue. Here are\na few points that may help him to remember what was said and done:\nWhen talking with Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago,\nhe brought up a number of witnesses and I examined them--that is, he\nrepeated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally said, \"I\ncan produce a living woman who will testify that Joseph Smith was a\npolygamist, and she knew it.\" I said, \"Bring her along here and let\nus examine her.\" Well, I met \"Aunt Lucy\" Walker Kimball, to whom you\nrefer, and we talked the matter over, and here is the one point to\nwhich I want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of\nBrigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of Emma Smith, I\nsaid, \"You were personally acquainted with Emma Smith?\" \"Yes.\" \"What\nhave you to say as to her integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?\" The\nold woman looked me fair in the face and said, \"Emma Smith was one of\nGod's noble women--she was truth personified; and anything that Emma\nSmith may say you can bank on it until the day of your death.\" \"Well,\"\nI said, \"she testifies that her husband never had any wife but her; she\ntestifies that she never heard of that revelation on polygamy until you\nfolks had gone to Salt Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she\ntestifies that it is an unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham\nYoung; that he stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now\nwhat have you to say to that?\" I said. She looked me fair in the face\nand said, \"You can afford to build on anything that Emma Smith has to\nsay.\" \"Thank you,\" said I.\n\nIt is true that she told me she was married to Joseph Smith May 1,\n1843; but when I showed her that the so-called revelation permitting a\nplurality of wives was dated July 12, 1843, and referred to her former\ntestimony as given in the _Historical Record_, and that given under\noath in the Temple Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the\nold lady as she sat silent and confounded.\n\nIt is true that I saw a very old lady in your father's parlor, as\nshe came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, \"This is Catherine\nPhillips Smith. She was married to my father, Hyrum Smith, and she has\nnever married since. I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It\nis certain that _she did not testify to me_, but it was your father who\nmade the statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me\nfrom speaking to the old lady.\n\nLorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and there, in\nthe presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed _his\ntestimony to be false, by his own evidence_, when given _under oath_,\nand _by his sister's statement signed in 1842_. At this, Snow, Cannon\nand Smith were all much annoyed. So much for your father's statement,\nwhich says \"you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy.\"\n\n\nYOUR FATHER'S FIRST WIFE\n\nYou seem to feel sore over the statement that your father's \"first wife\ndied broken hearted and insane\"; and you add, \"If you mean to insinuate\nthat this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on\nthe part of my father, it is also slanderously false.\" I insinuate\nnothing; let the public judge the facts. Your father's first wife was\nhis cousin; she refused to consent to additional wives, and when he\npersisted in marrying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in\nCalifornia. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married to\nJoseph F. Smith on the same day.[8]\n\nNumber of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 1865: 6\n\nNumber of children born to him in 38 years: 42\n\nNumber of children born since plural marriage was prohibited in 1890: 13\n\nChildren of Julina Lambson Smith: 2\n\nChildren of Sarah Richards Smith: 2\n\nChildren of Edna Lambson Smith: 2\n\nChildren of Alice Kimball Smith: 3\n\nChildren of Mary Schwartz Smith: 4\n\nEstimated income available for supporting five establishments: $75,000\n\nCorporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. Smith is a\ndirector: 20\n\nThe only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of President\nSmith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 156\ngrandchildren.--_Collier's_ for March 26, 1894 [1904].\n\n* * * * *\n\nWhile in Utah I was informed that your father's first wife died broken\nhearted and insane. God and civilization know that a woman who loved\nher husband from youth up has enough to break her heart and send her\ninsane when her husband will marry two other women, both sisters, in\none day.\n\nPerhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, should you\nread the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:6, 7. Here it is\nstated, in consequence of polygamy, \"ye have broken the hearts of\nyour tender wives.\" Does this make the prophet an asperser or a\nscandalmonger?\n\nI have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_ as\nfully as space would permit.\n\n                                               Respectfully,\n                                                       R. C. Evans.\n\nToronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.[9]\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine\nof the Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts' valuable\nwork, \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity.\" For the belief of the \"Mormon\" people\nregarding Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called\nespecially to chapters one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine\nand Covenants, sec. 78:15-18, sec. 107:53-57 and Daniel 7:9-14. In\nrelation to this matter I quote the following from the remarks of\nPresident Anthon H. Lund delivered at the General Conference, October\n6, 1902.\n\n\"Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the\nprinciples of salvation, these men get up and charge that the Elders\ndo not believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God,\nand they will bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this\nor that man in the Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are\nnot ashamed of the glorious doctrine of eternal progression, that man\nmay attain the position of those to whom came the word of God, that\nis gods. When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they\nstoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works\nHe had been doing. Oh, no, they say, 'for the good work we stone thee\nnot; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest\nthyself God.'\"\n\nHe quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of\nSt. John, and said:\n\n\"We believe that there are gods as the Savior quoted. He repeated what\nwas written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used\nit as an argument against them (The Jews.) While, however, we believe\nas the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but\none God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth.\nWe worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden\nof Eden. In the revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of\nDoctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, 'the\nplace where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days\nshall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.' In the 107th section\nthe Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, the Prince, the Archangel, and\nsays that he shall be a prince over the nations forever. We may with\nperfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, or even God in\nthe meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. When our\nmissionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts\nfrom sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion\nmust come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they\nneed not do battle for anything outside of the works, that have been\naccepted by the Church as a body.\"\n\n2. If popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as\n\"Bibles\" as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no\nreason why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation\nbut rather honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the\nname \"Christian,\" yet this term, like that of \"Mormon\" was first\napplied to the followers of Christ in derision, \"because it was\nassociated in the public mind with the practices\" of the early Saints,\nwhich practices in that day were looked on as \"abominations.\"\n\n3. This is a misquotation, it should be: \"I could refer you to plenty\nof instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone\nfor their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom\nthere would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be)\nif their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as\na smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil,\nuntil our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up--conquers death,\nhell and the grave.\"\n\nIn that same discourse President Young declares that those who were\n\"righteously slain\" were the wicked that the \"Lord had to slay\" in\nancient Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate\nthat those who were slain to \"atone for their sins\" were killed in\nUtah; but to the contrary they were ancient inhabitants of the earth,\nviz., the antediluvians who perished in the flood, the inhabitants\nof Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and the cities destroyed by the\nIsraelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew (I Kings 18:40) and\na host of others of that class and the class to whom the one belonged\nof whom the Savior said: \"It were better for him that a millstone\nwere hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of\nthe sea.\" President Young's remarks agree with those of Peter when he\ndeclared that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion\nof Christ could not be baptized nor have their \"sins blotted out\" until\nthe \"times of refreshing shall come,\" which was at the time of the\n\"restitution of all things.\"--Acts 3:19-21.\n\n4. In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the\nmiddle of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the\nexpression he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said:\n\"A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its\norigin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives; but when\nit is recollected that the mobbings, drivings, and expulsions from\ncities, counties and states which we have endured, and our exodus to\nthese mountains all took place before the revelation of that doctrine\nwas PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief in it has\nnot been the cause of persecution.\" Now, I ask, is it not plain to\nsee why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints\nall know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his\ntestimony that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph\nSmith. Latter-day Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not\n_publicly_ known in the days of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught\nby him to his trusted friends. When this fact is known the alleged\nquotations which follow, purported to be from H. B. Clawson, Ephraim\nJensen and \"Elder Whitaker\" lose their force.\n\n5. This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1852.\n\n6. The following is the Brooklyn _Citizen's_ report of that same\ndiscourse from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given in the New\nYork _Herald_: Elder Whitaker said: \"The people of the East have been\nled to believe that polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles\nof the Mormons, but the fact remains, that as the fight was waged\nagainst Jesus Christ, against his followers, and against all great men\nfor declaring the truth, so the same spirit is manifest now; but the\nMormons will humbly seek those willing to accept the truths inspired\nof God, leaving the justice of their cause to be vindicated by honest\ninvestigation and time. The fight is directed against the doctrine of\nthe Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman service in\narousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of honest\nmen. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of\nthe attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when\nthe people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and\ncruel mockings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made\na cause of their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed\nin writing until 1843, never published to the world until 1852, and\nwas abandoned by the issuance of the 'Manifesto' of President Wilford\nWoodruff, in 1890, since which time not one polygamous marriage has\nbeen solemnized; but those having wives at that time were never asked,\nand it was never expected they would abandon them, and when death\nbrings such relations to a close, there will be no polygamy among the\nMormons.\" The Brooklyn _Citizen_, Monday, January 8, 1900.\n\nWhy Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York _Herald_ in\npreference to the full account in the Brooklyn _Citizen_ will require\nno comment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker _did_ know\nwho introduced \"polygamy.\"\n\nAs I do not have the Yeoman's _Shield_ and am not in communication\nwith Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel\nsafe in saying that if the whole report were published, his testimony\nwould agree with that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn\n_Citizen_.\n\n7. In quoting from \"The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's\nWife,\" Mr. Evans reveals the character of his \"dozens and dozens of\nwitnesses.\" The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the\nmost bitter anti-\"Mormons\" and apostates for his \"evidence,\" but in\nquoting from \"The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife,\" he\ncertainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was\npublished in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious\n_Police Gazette_. The author of these \"Mysteries,\" undoubtedly a\nman, assumes the title of \"An Apostle's Wife,\" in order to hide his\nperfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all\nanti-\"Mormon\" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of\nthe Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a \"lusty toper,\" \"the\nworst of a bad breed,\" \"an ignorant, brutal loafer,\" \"immoral, false\nand fraudulent,\" and the author says, \"_this_ is the man who founded\nwhat he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the\nreligion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism.\" An\napology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr.\nEvans makes this work one of the chief of his \"dozens and dozens of\nwitnesses,\" I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe\nin the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept\nthe wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares\n\"_ought to know whereof she affirms_.\" Shame upon the man who draws his\ninspiration from such a source!\n\n8. This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the\nleast shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife\ndid not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two\nsisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry\nLewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his\nposition. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the\nspace occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans\nquotes so faithfully.\n\n9. This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until\nsometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote:\n\"You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto\n_Star_, as soon as I have time to reply thereto.\" This reply was\nreceived May 5, 1905.\n\n\n\nA REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS' LETTER\n\n                                           Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.\n\n_Mr. R. C. Evans_,\n\n_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.\n\nSir:--Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May\n5. Whether I was \"fair, dispassionate and also candid\" in my letter,\nor, as you seem to think, \"guilty of a labored effort to cover up the\ntrue facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'\" and \"your\nfaith\"--which was not discussed--I am perfectly willing to leave to the\njudgment of \"those who read\" the same in the Toronto _Star_. So on this\npoint we may both rest satisfied.\n\n\nBLOOD ATONEMENT\n\nI will now consider your \"labored effort to cover up the _true facts_\nregarding blood atonement.\"\n\nIn my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the\nLatter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact\nappears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions\nand accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct\nposition of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful\nstudy of John Taylor's _Meditation and Atonement_ and Charles W.\nPenrose's _Blood Atonement_, which was published in answer to such\nwicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this\nprinciple and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for\nany person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so.\nI claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which\nwe believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case,\nespecially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.\n\nIf you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine\nis taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which\nchurch you are pleased to call \"Utah Mormonism,\" then I say that you\n_do not_ believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.\nTo this I will refer later.\n\nYou delight--as all anti-\"Mormons\" do--in referring to statements\nmade by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during\nthe troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into\nUtah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own _desired_\ninterpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a\ngarbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible\nfrom which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great\npains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such\nextreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some\nrespects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39\nwhen other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums\nof the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned\nunder the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]\n\n\nTHE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS\n\nWriting on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry\nLeon Wilson's plagarisms in his _Lions of the Lord_, declares the\nposition taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in\nthese words:\n\n    \"The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and\n    without any wresting whatever it may be applied to \"Mormon\" leaders\n    who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank\n    injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to\n    rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted.\"\n\nEven the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in\nhis answer to _The American Baptist_, wherein he said:\n\n    \"Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are\n    responsible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no\n    more responsible for it than were the early Christians for Peter's\n    attempt to kill the high priest's servant when he cut off his\n    ear with his sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its\n    authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings\n    or doings of some or many of its members or ministers.\n\n    It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the embryo\n    authors and abettors of the \"Border Ruffianism\" that reigned in\n    Missouri and Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own\n    way, that some of the Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should\n    have done many things unwisely and wrongfully, and contrary to the\n    law of God.\"--_Saints' Herald_, 37:51.\n\nWith this I heartily agree.\n\nNow, when the statements were made, which you in a garbled manner both\nquote and misquote, there was in Utah a class of individuals who spent\nthe greater part of their time in circulating wicked and malicious\nreports about the Saints, threatening their lives, committing crimes\nand attempting to make the Saints their scape-goats. The officers of\nthe law were General Government officials appointed by the President\nof the United States, and I am sorry to say, some of these were among\nthe chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable and bloodthirsty\nfalsehoods were concocted and served up to the people of the United\nStates to stir them up to anger against the \"despised Mormons.\" Almost\nevery crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Salt Lake\nCity was charged to the leaders of the \"Mormon\" people and became the\nfoundation of a multitude of anti-\"Mormon\" publications that still\nflood the world. Because of these false and highly colored tales, in\n1857--one year later than the time that most of the utterances were\ngiven on which you so delight to dwell--the Government of the United\nStates sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never existed,\nand forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the Government found\nout how it had blundered it was humiliated.\n\nNow, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it any\nwonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? The wonder is\nthat the people bore it as patiently as they did. The officers were\nnon-\"Mormons,\" the Territory was under Federal control and contained\nmany Gentiles, many of whom were most bitter in their feelings and\never ready to accuse the Saints of crime. The government was strong\nenough to enforce the law if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the\nhorrors, as they have been pictured, could have existed under such\nconditions?\n\nSuch a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a shame to the\nAmerican government. And no such state of affairs existed.\n\nThe conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent of Indian\naffairs in Utah, to declare in 1869:\n\n    I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here\n    there is a greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other\n    Church dignitaries with every criminal offense than dilgent\n    endeavor to punish the actual perpetrators of crime.\n\n    Bancroft's History of Utah, p. 561.\n\n    Whitney's History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1.\n\nMr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this statement can\nbe relied upon.\n\nThis being the case, Brigham Young and the \"Mormon\" people could not\nhave engaged in the crimes charged against them.\n\nIn connection with this let me quote from Bancroft:\n\n    It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding\n    and patriotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered\n    by the enemies to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this\n    score they are naturally very sore. When deprived of those sacred\n    rights given to them in common with all American citizens, when\n    disfranchised, their homes broken up, their families scattered,\n    their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, they have\n    not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to\n    God and their country.--History of Utah, pp. 390-392.\n\nAgain, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and\nanti-\"Mormons\" from the beginning and \"that there are men living in\nUtah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State,\nwho feel as secure and are just as secure and free from molestation\nfrom their former associates as you or any other man could be,\" proves\nthe falseness of the malicious accusation that \"Utah was for years a\nland of assassination and a field of blood.\"\n\n\nMR. EVANS' FALSE QUOTATIONS\n\n    \"What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will\n    take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches\n    behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut\n    off their ears.\"\n\nYour conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you continued the\nquotation your attempt would have appeared even more ridiculous. The\nnext sentence is:\n\n    \"But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them; and will\n    wash them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we\n    will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and\n    wash them again until we make them clean.\"\n\nAnd you try to make this appear as threatening life! It is apparent\nthat your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. This whole passage\nis humorous and you make yourself ridiculous by not having discovered\nit.\n\nAgain from Parley P. Pratt, you quote:\n\n    \"My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly\n    so.\"\n\nThis from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add:\n\n    \"I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they\n    have been faithfully warned.\"\n\nThen three paragraphs off, the following:\n\n    \"It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such\n    an outcast has the truth.\"\n\nThis method of proving things reminds me of the reason why you should\nbe hanged:\n\n    And Judas \"went out and hanged himself.\"\n\n    \"Go thou and do likewise.\"\n\nNow let me quote some extracts from this discourse which you purposely\nleft out.\n\n    \"Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, _I\n    for one_, would rather march out today and be shot down. These\n    are my feelings, and have been for some time. Talk about liberty\n    of conscience! Have not men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The\n    Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, etc., have _here_ the liberty to\n    worship God in their own way, and so has every man in the world.\n    People have the privilege of apostatizing from this Church and\n    worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and\n    only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege\n    to disturb the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is\n    the idea. If they will take that privilege, _I need not repeat\n    their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully\n    warned_.\"\n\nAgain:\n\n    \"He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his\n    professions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length\n    refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of\n    proof. Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer,\n    standing at the head of this dispensation? Have we not proved the\n    priesthood which he placed upon others by the command of God?\n\n    \"I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of\n    an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people.\n    _It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such\n    an outcast has the truth_.\n\n    \"We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us--unacted upon.\n    There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already\n    than our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations\n    to carry out. And yet we are called upon to prove--what? _Whether\n    an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago, has really\n    improved by reason of age_!\n\n    \"'_You are going to be destroyed_,' say they. '_Destruction awaits\n    this city_.' Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed\n    as any people living. What care we whether we are destroyed or not?\n    These old tabernacles will die of themselves, if left alone.\n\n    \"We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared\n    to die as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad\n    to hear it. We shall not be destroyed in the old way--as we have\n    been heretofore. We shall have a change in the manner, at least.\n    We shall probably be destroyed _standing, this time_, and not in\n    a _sitting_, or _lying position_. We can die as well as others\n    who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we\n    shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall\n    not stand still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed,\n    plundered, and driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor\n    does God require it at our hands. That is the best news we have\n    heard today. * * *\n\n    \"It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on\n    the defensive while you still live. I have said enough on this\n    subject.\"--pp. 86-87.\n\nThe vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so apparent in this\ncontrast between your garbled quotations and the whole truth, that it\nscarcely deserves further comment.\n\nI have quoted quite extensively in order to show the reason for these\nremarks of which you quote such brief and disjointed extracts. You\nshould remember that the Saints had but a short time before being\ndriven from their homes at the cannon's mouth, and were forced to\ntraverse a desert under the most trying circumstances to find a new\nabode where they could rest in peace and call their souls their own.\nWhen followed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined\nto again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their might\nand righteous indignation they firmly took their stand for home and\nliberty. I for one, say that they were justified in this course, the\nprotection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had the threats of\ntheir enemies here in Utah been carried out as they boasted that they\nwould be, and as they were carried out in Missouri and Illinois, then\nBrigham Young and his people would have been as thoroughly justified in\nunsheathing the bowie knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at\nLexington and Bunker Hill!\n\nHome and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, are just as\ndear to a \"Mormon\" as to members of any other denomination or even an\napostate \"Mormon,\" and when the \"Mormons\" are persecuted, driven and\nslain and forced to seek a home in the savage wilds, would any honest\nman blame them if they declined to move again?\n\nWhy is it worse for \"Utah Mormons\" to defend themselves than for\n\"Mormons\" at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even the noble Prophet Joseph\nSmith, when dragged from home and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly\ndemurred. Said he to the Saints at Nauvoo on the 30th day of June,\n1843, after his escape from Missourian assassins:\n\n    \"Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial,\n    _I will spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all\n    my enemies in hell_! To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I\n    will not bear it any longer. Shall we bear it any longer? (one\n    universal, No! ran through all the vast assembly like a loud peal\n    of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you any more here, dung your\n    gardens with them. We don't want any excitement; but after we have\n    done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break off the hellish\n    yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed!\"\n\nI have copied this from the manuscript history of the Prophet Joseph\nSmith, as it was recorded at the time. I have learned also that it is\ncorroborated by the journal of Wilford Woodruff of the same date--June\n30th, 1843.\n\n\nUTAH NOT A FIELD OF BLOOD\n\nYou say, \"I have read that which leads me to believe that under\nBrighamism\"--as you slurringly remark--\"Utah was for years a land of\nassassination and a field of blood,\" and then you ask me, \"what of\nthe Mountain Meadows massacre,--the destruction of the Aiken party;\nthe dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the\nDanties?\"\n\nWell, that which you have read counts for but little when the source is\nconsidered. Your case is most certainly desperate when you are forced\nto accept the statements of murderers.\n\nIt's a strange thing that you and many of your elders accept all the\nblood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and other apostate sources\n_when_ they happen to refer to Brigham Young and \"Utah Mormons,\"\nand denounce the same sources when they refer to the Prophet Joseph\nSmith. Yet, I repeat, the same class of charges--in many respects\nidentical--that you charge against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed,\nadultery, and even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the\nChurch before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just such\nfalsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his death.\n\nYou resort to sources that even the editor of your official paper\ndenounces as \"Idle and vicious stories gathered from the awful files\nof terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at enmity with\nthem.\"--_Saints Herald_ 52:2.\n\nIf you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept the\nstatements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew with\nblood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the anti-Christian?\nWherein then, is your consistency in asking me to accept the testimony\nof those whose hands are imbrued in blood, apostates and bitter enemies\nof my people?\n\nVery well then, I return your question. What about them? Pray tell,\nwhat about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the Aiken party? the\nconfessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that you call him a \"Bishop\"\nproves the source of your information); what about Hickman and above\nall, the Danties?\n\nWhen Alfred Henry Lewis, in _Collier's Weekly_ of March 26, 1964,\nstated, \"Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself\nat their head, and when a man rebelled had him murdered, if one fled\nthe fold, he was pursued and slain,\" he repeated one of the most\ncolossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor is that the only falsehood in his\narticle you are pleased to quote.\n\nBrigham Young was _not_ a man of blood. The \"Mormon\" people were _not_\nguilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.[2] There was no destruction\nof an Aiken party. Hickman and Lee are not worth the mention; and the\nDanties! Had you not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there\nnever were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of\nbitter anti-\"Mormons\" and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans knows\nthat fact.\n\n\nCHARACTER OF THE \"MORMONS\"\n\nIn answer to your many charges about Utah and the \"Mormons,\" I desire\nto refer to credible references from witnesses who understood the truth\nand were bold enough to express it.\n\n    Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary\n    and the Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following\n    result:--In Salt Lake City there are about 75 Mormons to 25\n    non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County there are about 80 Mormons to\n    20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there were 29 convicts,\n    all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 convicts all\n    non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the\n    five years past were all anti-Mormons except _three_! * * *\n\n    Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table\n    keepers not over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of\n    the bagnios and other disreputable concerns in the territory\n    are run and sustained by non-Mormons. Ninety-eight per cent of\n    the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. * * * Of the 250\n    towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no \"gaudy sepulchre of\n    departed virtue,\" and these two hundred and odd towns are almost\n    exclusively Mormon in population. Of the suicides committed in Utah\n    ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and\n    infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of\n    \"outsiders.\"--Phil Robinson, in _Sinners and Saints_, p. 72.\n\n    The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man.\n    There is another to help him, but if they had not something\n    else to do they would either have to keep arresting each other,\n    in order to pass the time, or else combine to hunt gophers and\n    chipmunks.--_Sinners and Saints_, p. 142.\n\n    Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism?\n    From _anti-Mormons_ only. I have ransacked the literature of the\n    subject, and yet I really could not tell any one where to go for\n    an impartial book about Mormonism, later in date than Burton's\n    \"City of the Saints,\" published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on\n    one side and I think I can defy any one to name another book about\n    the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly _awful_\n    book, \"The History of the Saints,\" published by one Bennet (even\n    an anti-Mormon has styled him \"the greatest rascal that ever came\n    to the west\") in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not,\n    to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is\n    not utterly unreliable from distortion of facts. Yet it is from\n    these books--for there are no others--that the American public has\n    acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah.--_Sinners\n    and Saints_, p. 245.\n\n    And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has\n    been put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon,\n    is full of calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass\n    his predecessor in the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are\n    written in a sensational style, and for the purpose of deriving\n    profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and are wholly\n    unreliable as to facts.--_Bancroft's History of Utah_, preface page\n    7.\n\n    It is only fair to state that no Gentile, even the unprejudiced,\n    who are rare aves, however long he may live or intimately he may\n    be connected with Mormons, can expect to see anything but the\n    superficies. * * *\n\n    The Mormons have been represented, and are generally believed to\n    be, an intolerant race. I found the reverse far nearer the fact.\n    The best proof of this is that there is hardly one anti-Mormon\n    publication, however untruthful, violent, or scandalous, which\n    I did not find in Great Salt Lake City.--Burton's _City of the\n    Saints_, p. 203.\n\n    I have not yet heard the single charge against them as a community,\n    against their habitual purity of life, their integrity of dealing,\n    their toleration of religious differences in opinion, their regard\n    for the laws, or their devotion to the Constitutional government\n    under which we live, that I do not from my own observation, or the\n    testimony of others know to be unfounded.--General Thomas L. Kane,\n    U. S. A., _The Mormons_, p. 83.\n\n    The Mormons are sober, industrious and thrifty.--Bishop Spaulding,\n    of the Episcopalian Church, in the _Forum_, March, 1887.\n\n    Had the Mormons been a low, corrupt or shiftless people they never\n    would or could have done what they did in Utah. * * * When they\n    controlled their own city of Salt Lake it contained no saloons,\n    gambling houses or places of ill repute, and when the town had\n    grown to be a goodly city order was kept by two constables. If by\n    their fruits we may know them, the Mormons deserve our confidence\n    and praise.--_The Brooklyn Eagle_, editorial of Aug. 12, 1897.\n\n    I shall not arraign the Mormon people as wanting in comparison with\n    other people in religious devotion, virtue, honesty, sobriety,\n    industry, and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify\n    and bless life.--Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah (and a strong\n    anti-Mormon) in report to Secretary of the Interior for 1888.\n\n    I know the people of the east have judged the Mormons unjustly.\n    They have many traits worthy of admiration. I know them to be\n    honest, faithful, prayerful workers.--D. S. Tuttle, Bishop\n    Episcopalian Church.\n\n    I never met a people so free from sensualism and immorality of\n    every kind as the Mormons are. Their habits of life are a thousand\n    per cent superior to those who denounce them so bitterly.--Mrs.\n    Olive N. Robinson. (I recommend this to you.)\n\nI assure you there are many others of equal force but this should be\nsufficient to prove the scandalous effusions false that you profess to\nbelieve true.\n\n\nGAGGING AT A KNAT\n\nI am glad you profess to believe the Bible. There is one other\nthing which appears strange to me, that is, why you are continually\ndenouncing Brigham Young and \"Utah Mormonism,\" and calling Utah a\n\"land of assassination and a field of blood,\" because vile men without\nconscientious scruples have accused the people of many false and lurid\ntales of blood, and at the same time with sanctimonious countenance and\nupturned eyes you swallow the following without a gulp:\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord of hosts. * * * Now go up and smite Amalek,\n    and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but\n    slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel\n    and ass.\" I Samuel 15:3 (I. T.)\n\nHaven't you swallowed the camel and gagged at his tail?\n\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT\n\nJust a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. _What\nis that doctrine_? Unadulterated if you please, laying aside the\npernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been\nmade. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind\nmay be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.\nThis salvation is two-fold; General,--that which comes to all men\nirrespective of a belief in Christ--and Individual,--that which man\nmerits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws\nand ordinances of the Gospel. But man may commit certain grievous\nsins--according to his light and knowledge--that will place him beyond\nthe reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved\nhe must make sacrifice of his own life to atone--so far as in his\npower lies--for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain\ncircumstances will not avail.\n\nDo you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe\nin the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ! This is the doctrine\nyou are pleased to call the \"blood atonement of _Brighamism_.\" This is\nthe doctrine of Christ our _Redeemer_, who died for us. This is the\ndoctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.\n\nIn whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church members could be fair\nenough to discuss this subject on _its merits_.\n\nI again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my\nopen letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon,--II Nephi\n9:35. Alma 1:13, 14, and 42:19. Bible,--Genesis 9:12, 13, (I. T.) Luke\n11:50. Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29. I John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and\nCovenants,--87:7. 101:80. 42:18, 19, 79. (Utah edition.)\n\nTo these I will add:\n\n    \"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by\n    the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against\n    any person to cause him to die.\n\n    Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,\n    which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.\n\n    So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood\n    it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the\n    blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed\n    it.\"--Numbers 35:30, 31, 33. (I. T.)[3]\n\nDo you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to\natone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? (Alma 1:15)\nZemnariah and his followers (III Nephi 4:27-28). What about Er and\nOnan, whom the Lord slew? (Gen. 38:7, 10), of Nadab and Abihu? (Lev.\n10:2) and the death of Achan? (Joshua 7:25.)\n\nWere not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of\nthis class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you\nmisquote (_Journal of Discourses_ 4:220). He tells us so, in the same\ndiscourse in the portion which you _did not quote_. It is:\n\n\"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay\nevery soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and\nJoshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and\nby the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would\nsave them.\"\n\n\nPOLYGAMY\n\nIn using the term \"polygamy\" in reference to the principle that was\ntaught and practiced by the Saints, I desire it distinctly understood\nthat I use it in the sense of a man having more than one wife.\nPolygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was\npracticed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or\nelsewhere; but Celestial marriage--including a plurality of wives--was\nintroduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and was practiced more generally\nby the saints under the administration of President Brigham Young.\n\nYou say that you have no evidence that those men, _viz_. Lyman Wight,\nJames J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith and others that I\nmentioned to you \"practiced _polygamy_\" before plural marriage was\n\"introduced\" (as claimed by you) by Brigham Young. You said polygamy\nwas \"introduced\" eight years after the Prophet's death by Brigham\nYoung. If so, then why did these men practice it before that time? I\nwas satisfied that you would not exert yourself in seeking for this\nknowledge and tried to help you find the information.\n\n\nPOLYGAMY IN THE \"FACTIONS\"\n\nIn a letter written by the President of the Reorganized church by Mr.\nJoseph Davis of Wales, dated Lamonia, Oct. 13, 1899, I read:\n\n    \"Nearly all the factions into which the church broke had plural\n    marriage in some form. None in the form instituted by President\n    Young. Sidney Rigdon had one form practiced by but a few, and that\n    spasmodically, as an outburst of religious fervor rather than as a\n    settled practice. William Smith had a sort of Priestess Lodge, in\n    which it was alleged there was a manifestation of licentiousness.\n    This he denied, and I never had actual proof of it. Gladden Bishop\n    taught something like it, but I believe he was himself the only\n    practioner. James J. Strang had a system something like Mohamet,\n    four I think, being allowed the king. Lyman Wight had a system but\n    it had no very extended range. President Young's system you may\n    know of.\"\n\nIt is true that William Smith denied that he taught \"polygamy\" but that\nhe practiced plural marriage he cannot deny. Jason W. Briggs said he\n(William) did, and that is why Mr. Briggs left his church. Plaintiff's\nAbstract, Temple Lot suit, p. 395. Hist. of Reorg. Ch. vol. 3:200 and\n_The Messenger_, vol. 2. William entered into plural marriage in the\nProphet's day and his wives lived here in Utah. They are Precilla M.\nSmith, Sarah Libby and Hannah Libby. One of these is still living.\n\nThe third volume of your church history says of Lyman Wight:\n\n    \"Lyman Wight lived and died an honorable man, respected well by\n    those who knew him best. The only thing that can be urged against\n    his character is that about 1845 or 1846 he entered into the\n    practice of polygamy, but we have seen no record of any teaching of\n    his upon the subject.\"\n\nThe fact is that Lyman Wight entered into that relation before the time\nhere mentioned. Affidavits in this regard can be produced but it will\nbe unnecessary.\n\nThat John E. Page practiced \"polygamy\" I have the testimony of his\nwife, Mrs. Mary Eaton of Independence, who told me and others, in\nAugust 1904, that she _gave her husband_, John E. Page, other wives.\n\nThese men did not follow Brigham Young, but denounced him, yet they\npracticed plural marriage and did not get that doctrine from him.\n\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF A BOGUS WIFE\n\nThe \"testimony\" you submit from President Young's \"legal wife\" is\nspurious. It matters not if you did receive the \"information\" from\nyour uncle. The poor man was tricked and deceived. Bogus \"wives\" and\n\"daughters\" of President Young have \"worked\" the public before. Mary\nAnn Angel Young, President Young's legal wife, was not in Colorado in\n1860 and 1861. She never was divorced and died in this city true to\nher husband, his family and the faith, on the 27th day of June, 1882.\n(_News_, July 5, 1882.) So much for this \"bogus\" testimony.\n\n\nTESTIMONY IMPEACHED\n\nThe testimony of T. B. H. and Fanny Stenhouse is sufficiently impeached\nin the _Saints' Herald_, vol. 52, p. 2; 20, p. 602, and _Sinners and\nSaints_, p. 245. The woman's bitterness would condemn her writings.\nHowever I will mention one statement--you make Mrs. Stenhouse say:\n\"It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse and many others, that Joseph\nSmith said, 'If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro.\nBrigham, he would lead it to hell.'\" She gives this as a rumor that is\n\"reported,\" so do the \"many others\" who are mostly from your church.\nOh, yes, I have heard of this before. But do you know where the report\noriginated? It originated with the apostate and would-be assassin,\nRobert D. Foster, who threatened the Prophet Joseph's life in 1844,\nand who was one of the incorporators and advocates of the notorious\n_Nauvoo Expositor_, and one of the chief actors in bringing about the\nmartyrdom, June 27, 1844. In a toadying letter to your president, dated\nFebruary 14, 1874, he said the prophet \"remarked, in the presence of\nMr. Law, Bishop Knight, John P. Greene, Reynolds Cahoon, and some\nothers, that if ever Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he\nwould lead them down to hell.\"\n\n\nMARVELOUS GROWTH OF THE CHURCH\n\nI decline to accept the statements of such a character; besides,\nPresident Young did not lead the Church to hell, but preserved\nit, and under his direction it grew, expanded, and accomplished a\nwonderful, even a miraculous work. In the reclamation of the arid\nwest, the permanent establishment of prosperous communities in the\ndesert wilds, and for their unity, strength, and industrial and\ntemporal independence, the \"Mormon\" people are today the marvel, if\nnot the admiration of the thinking world. They came here with nothing\nbut the good will of God. They began in poverty, and \"having almost\nnothing to invest,\" says Mr. William E. Symthe in _The Conquest of\nArid America_, \"except the labor of their hands and brains, and that\nall they have expended in a period of fifty years for all classes of\nimprovements--from the first shanty to the last turret of the last\ntemple--came primarily from the soil.\"\n\nAgain he says in the same work:\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF MR. SMYTHE\n\n    Nowhere else has the common prosperity been reared upon firmer\n    foundations. Nowhere else are institutions more firmly buttressed\n    or better capable of resisting violent economic revolutions. The\n    thunder cloud that passed over the land in 1893, leaving a path of\n    commercial ruin from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was powerless to\n    close the door of a single Mormon store, factory or bank. Strong\n    in prosperity, the co-operative industrial and commercial system\n    stood immovable in the hour of widespread disaster. The solvency\n    of these industries is scarcely more striking than the solvency\n    of the farmers from whom they draw their strength. No other\n    governor, either in the West or in the East, is able to say what\n    the Honorable Heber M. Wells said in assuming the chief magistracy\n    of the new state in January, 1896, \"We have in Utah,\" said the\n    young governor. \"19,816 farms, and 17,584 of them are absolutely\n    free from incumbrance.\" A higher percentage in school attendance\n    and lower percentage of illiterates than even in the State of\n    Massachusetts, is another of Utah's proud records. P. 71.\n\n\nTHE GUIDANCE OF JEHOVAH\n\nWithout the divine guidance and the constant watchcare of Jehovah\nover the destinies of the \"Mormon\" pioneers, with Brigham Young at\ntheir head, the West today would be but a barren wilderness. Under the\nleadership of Brigham Young the \"Mormon\" people prospered, and he left\nthem in a better condition temporally and physically, and spiritually\nmore united and more firmly established in the faith than they ever\nwere before. Where among the so-called \"factions\" can you point to\none that has accomplished the hundredth part of what the followers of\nBrigham Young have accomplished? They have all practically disappeared\nbut one--gone to their destruction. And the one that remains will\ndissolve and disappear as surely as the sun shines. You cannot fight\nthe work of God and prosper.\n\n\nWILLIAM MARKS\n\nThe testimony of William Marks--a man who was out of harmony with the\nProphet before the latter's death! This testimony of William Marks\nsounds too suspicious, given as it was, when it was, and describing an\nalleged conversation which never could have taken place. \"The reader\nwill please notice,\" said David Whitmer in his _Address_ (p. 41), \"this\nfact in regard to William Marks' statement; and that is, the time when\nBrother Joseph told him that polygamy must be put down in the Church.\"\nThat time was a \"few days\" before the Prophet's death.\n\nTrue, the Prophet was no \"fool\" (_Herald_ 51:74), and such a\n\"conversation\" as this related by William Marks would have stamped him\n\"foolish, irrational and a moral suicide,\" _because_ he could not bring\na charge against others for that for which he was himself responsible.\nThe Prophet had plural wives, and had officiated in the ceremony of the\nsealing of plural wives to others. I have conversed with the principals\nin these cases, and know that they told the truth. Furthermore, Mr.\nMarks' testimony condemns itself. He proves--if he proves anything at\nall--that the Prophet was responsible for this doctrine. This thought\nis in harmony with the early teachings of the original elders of the\nReorganization, for the time was when even your elders acknowledged\nthat the Prophet received the revelation on celestial (including\nplural) marriage. On this point David Whitmer says:\n\n    As time rolled on, many of the Reorganization saw that to\n    _continue_ to acknowledge that Brother Joseph received the\n    revelation would bring bitter persecution upon themselves, as the\n    public feeling at that time was very bitter. * * * The leaders\n    of the Reorganized church, after a time, began to suppress their\n    opinions concerning this matter. They would answer the question\n    when asked about it \"_I do not know whether Joseph Smith received\n    the revelation or not_.\"\n\n\nTHE \"SAINTS' HERALD\" A WITNESS OF \"POLYGAMY\"\n\nNow, if it is true--and I claim it is--that the leaders of the\nReorganized church acknowledged that the Prophet received the\nrevelation and practiced that principle, there must be some proof. Turn\nto the first volume of the _True L.D.S. Herald_ and read the editorial\non pages 6 to 11. It is on polygamy. After trying to explain the reason\nwhy the Prophet taught and practiced this doctrine, the editor said:\n\n    And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the\n    Lord, have deceived the prophet, and I will stretch out my hand\n    upon him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. *\n    * * We have here the facts as they have transpired and as they will\n    continue to transpire in relation to this subject. The death of the\n    prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred\n    and repented of this iniquity before his death. Page 9.\n\nAnd on page 27:\n\n    He (Joseph Smith) caused the Revelation to be burned, and when\n    he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms\n    of his enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At\n    that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed\n    spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that. By his\n    conduct at that time he proved the sincerity of his repentance,\n    and of his profession as a prophet. If Abraham[4] and Jacob, by\n    repentance, can obtain salvation and exaltation, so can Joseph\n    Smith.\n\nMark you, we have the evidence of the revelation from your own side and\nyou well remember that but _one_ could and did receive revelations. I\ndo not accept the apology of your editor; I do not believe that the\nProphet had the revelation burned, or called the doctrine accursed. My\nfaith in Joseph Smith is such that if he had the revelation--which your\nwitnesses declare he did--that it was from God as much as any other\nrevelation he received!\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF JASON BRIGGS\n\nJason W. Briggs, one of the founders of your church, in the Temple Lot\nsuit, said:\n\n    I heard something about a revelation on polygamy, or plural\n    marriage, when I was in Nauvoo, in 1842. I heard there was one:\n    there was talk going on about it at that time, and continued to be;\n    but it was not called plural marriage; it was called sealing.\n\n    You ask me what I understood this sealing to be, at the time the\n    talk was going on. What I understood it to be was sealing a woman\n    to a man to be his wife, to be his wife hereafter, his wife in the\n    spirit world.\n\n    I was asked in my direct examination if I did not hear of the\n    doctrine of polygamy, etc., and I answered that I talked with\n    members with reference to sealing, and I understood that the\n    doctrine of sealing, was for eternity; it was sealing a man's wife\n    to him for eternity, or wives, either. Record pp. 349, 431, 505.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF JAMES WHITEHEAD\n\nJames Whitehead said:\n\n    There was an ordinance in the Church for sealing, as early as 1842\n    or 1843.\n\n    They would be married according to the law of God, not only for\n    time but for eternity as well.\n\nThese men were among the founders of your church.\n\n\nSIDNEY RIGDON'S TESTIMONY\n\nSidney Rigdon, in a lengthy letter to his official paper, _The\nMessenger and Advocate_, in 1845 declared that the Prophet was\nresponsible for the plural marriage doctrine, and said:\n\n    This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their\n    death, and was the thing which put them in the power of their\n    enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death. P. 475, vol. 2.\n\nHe says he \"warned Joseph Smith and his family,\" and told them that\ndestruction would come upon them if they continued in their course.\n\n\nORIGINAL RECORDS OF PLURALITY OF WIVES\n\nYou \"confidently affirm that there is not a single word in a single\nsermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or Church publication _printed_\nduring the life of Joseph Smith, wherein he by word has endorsed the\ndoctrine of plurality of wives, not a single statement.\" Whether any\nsuch statement was ever _printed_ in his lifetime or not I am not\nprepared to say. But I do know of such evidence being recorded during\nhis lifetime, for I have seen it.\n\nI have copied the following from the Prophet's manuscript record of\nOct. 5, 1843, and know it is genuine:\n\n    \"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching,\n    teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for\n    according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last\n    days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom this\n    power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no\n    man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs\n    otherwise.\"\n\nThere is also at the Historian's office in this city, a Bible, which\nI have before me, containing the record of the marriage of Melissa\nLott to the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was recorded at the time,\nSeptember 20, 1843. This Bible also contains the record of the sealing\nof Cornelius P. and Parmelia Lott, parents of Melissa, which was\ndone by Patriarch Hyrum Smith in the Prophet's presence and with his\n\"seal\" or sanction. The president of your church has seen this record,\nand it matters not what he may say _now_ he _then_ acknowledged the\ngenuineness of the record.\n\nThe following is also copied from the journal of William Clayton which\nis in the Historian's office:\n\n    May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy\n    Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with Woodsworth.\n\nThis is the same William Clayton who wrote the revelation at the\ndirection and from the dictation of the Prophet July 12, 1843. However,\nthis principle was first revealed to the Prophet several years before\nthat time, as you learned in your conversation with President Lorenzo\nSnow, when you were in his office.\n\n\nMORE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED\n\nRight here we will consider the \"evidence\" you produce to show that\n\"Joseph Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy\nin the strongest terms.\" The testimony of the thirty-one witnesses\nyou \"produce\" was against the \"secret wife system\" of the vile John\nC. Bennett who was excommunicated for betraying female virtue. This\nBennett system had nothing to do with the system of celestial marriage\nintroduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was no more like the\nProphet's doctrine than darkness is like daylight. The certificate\nof these parties that you mention was given in October 1842 (T. & S.\n3:939), nearly one year before the revelation on celestial marriage\nwas recorded. At that time the law of marriage in the Church was\nthat adopted in 1835, and was binding on all who had accepted the\nhigher law, and they were few in number.[5] The best proof that these\n\"witnesses\" did not condemn the celestial marriage doctrine of the\nprophet in this communication, is that out of the thirty-one, at least\nsixteen have testified that the Prophet introduced that system. One of\nthis number of witnesses became the Prophet's wife, one performed a\nmarriage ceremony in which the Prophet was married to a plural wife,\nand one other was a witness to such a marriage ceremony. At least six\ntestify that the Prophet taught them the principle of plural marriage\nand the others, so far as I know, are not on record. That these\nwitnesses were the dupes of Brigham Young cannot truthfully be said,\nfor three of them left the Church and never followed Brigham Young, yet\nthey testify of these things.\n\nThe action of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, as recorded in the _Times\nand Seasons_ (5:3), wherein Hyrum Brown was cut off the Church for\npreaching polygamy and other false doctrines, was just and timely. The\nsame action would have been taken at any other period of the existence\nof the Church. Polygamy never was a doctrine of the Church, and the\nsystem introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith was not called by that\nname in his day. Nor was the system of the Prophet the same as that of\nHyrum Brown; and if it had been, the ruling of the Prophet of October\n5, 1843, would have cost Brown his standing in the Church, the polygamy\nof Brown and John C. Bennett was of their own make. In relation to this\nsubject, I will quote from the _Life of John Taylor_, pages 223-224:\n\n    The polygamy and gross sensuality charged by Bennett and repeated\n    by those ministers in France, had no resemblance to celestial or\n    patriarchal marriage which Elder Taylor knew existed at Nauvoo, and\n    which he had obeyed. Hence in denying the false charges of Bennett,\n    he did not deny the existence of that system of marriage that God\n    had revealed; no more than a man would be guilty of denying the\n    legal, genuine currency of the country by denying the genuineness\n    and denouncing what he knew to be a mere counterfeit of it.\n\n    Another illustration: Jesus took Peter, James and John into the\n    mountain, and there met with Moses and Elias, and the glory of God\n    shone about them, and these two angels talked with Jesus, and the\n    voice of God was heard proclaiming Him to be the Son of God. After\n    the glorious vision, as Jesus and His companions were descending\n    the mountain, the former said: \"Tell the vision to no man, until\n    the Son of Man be risen from the dead.\" Suppose one of these\n    apostles had turned from the truth before the Son of Man was risen\n    from the dead and under the influence of wicked, lying spirit,\n    should charge that Jesus and some of his favorite apostles went up\n    into a mountain, and there met Moses and Elias,--or some persons\n    pretending to represent them--together with a group of voluptuos\n    courtesans, with whom they spent the day in licentious pleasure.\n    If the other apostles denounced that as an infamous falsehood,\n    would they be untruthful? No; they would not. Or would they be\n    under any obligations when denying the falsehoods of the apostate\n    to break the commandments the Lord had given them by relating\n    just what had happened in the mountain? No; it would have been a\n    breach of the Master's strict commandment for them to do that. So\n    with Elder Taylor. While he was perfectly right and truthful in\n    denying the infamous charges repeated by his oponents, he was under\n    no obligation and had no right to announce to the world, at that\n    time the doctrine of celestial marriage. It was not the law of the\n    Church, or even the law of the Priesthood of the Church; the body\n    thereof at the time knew little or nothing of it, though it had\n    been revealed to the Prophet and made known to some of his most\n    trusted followers. But today, now that the revelation on celestial\n    marriage is published to the world, if the slanderous charges\n    contained in the writings of John C. Bennett should be repeated,\n    every Elder in the Church could truthfully and consistently do just\n    what Elder Taylor did in France--he could deny their existence.\"\n\n\nTHAT UTAH VISIT\n\nAfter receiving your letter, I requested of my father that he give me\na written statement in answer to your charge that he \"discussed\" the\ndoctrine of \"polygamy\" with you, and received the following:\n\n    _Joseph F. Smith, Jr_.\n\n    Dear Son:--You have submitted to me some statements made by Mr.\n    R. C. Evans of the Reorganized church, and desire to know what I\n    have to say about them. He says: \"If your father denies that he\n    and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy, all I have to say about\n    it is, that what he states is untrue.\" Perhaps I could dismiss\n    this statement precisely in the same way he has. I could certainly\n    do so far more truthfully. He and I did not discuss the doctrine\n    of \"polygamy\" at all. It is true I did introduce him to President\n    Lorenzo Snow, to Aunt Lucy W. Smith, to Aunt Catherine P. Smith, to\n    Heber J. Grant and a few others. Whatever \"discussion\" he had on\n    the \"doctrine of polygamy\" may have been with these parties, but\n    not with me. While in my company he was my guest by introduction\n    from my cousin Joseph Smith, president of the Reorganized church,\n    and I carefully avoided any discussion with him upon any and all\n    differences of opinion which existed between us, the discussion of\n    which could only have resulted in ill feeling and perhaps extreme\n    bitterness. I treated him as any gentleman should treat another,\n    not as an antagonist but as a stranger within my gates, indeed,\n    as my guest; and when we parted it was with mutual good feelings\n    and interchange of kindly wishes, without the slightest breath\n    or suspicion of unpleasantness, which must have existed had we\n    indulged in a \"discussion of the doctrine of polygamy,\" or any\n    other points of difference.\n\n    Aunt Catherine P. Smith was making us a short visit at the time,\n    and I introduced her to Mr. Evans as the wife of my father, Hyrum\n    Smith. They had some conversation, in which I took no part, and\n    to the best of my recollection he drew out from her the fact that\n    she was married to Hyrum Smith, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, in\n    August 1843, in the brick office of Hyrum Smith, at Nauvoo, in the\n    presence of her mother, Sarah Godshall Phillips, Mrs. Julia Stone\n    and her daughter Hettie.\n\n    Mr. Evans attempted to cross-question her on her statement, but she\n    stoutly and unequivocally affirmed the truth of what she had said.\n    Mrs. Lizzie Wilcox, your mother and two or three other members of\n    the family were present and heard what was said.\n\n    With reference to Mr. Evans' alleged interview with Aunt Lucy W.\n    Smith at the Theatre, I need only say I occupied a seat adjoining\n    them, and heard the conversation between them, and I have not the\n    slightest recollection of the statement he has made about that\n    interview. The strong point which he attempts to make is the fact\n    that Lucy was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith, on May 1, 1843,\n    while the revelation on plural marriage was dated \"July 12, 1843,\"\n    and her consequent embarrassment, was far-fetched; for no one knew\n    better than she did that the revelation was given as far back as\n    1834, and was first reduced to writing in 1843. And on one could\n    have been better prepared to state that fact than Aunt Lucy W.\n    Smith. There could not be, therefore, any cause for embarrassment\n    on her part on that score, and I apprehend she would have been one\n    of the last persons to \"sit silent and confused\" under such an\n    implied impeachment.\n\n    That she bore testimony to the good character of Aunt Emma Smith\n    with reference to other matters than plural marriage is true;\n    but not to her conduct toward that principle. Aunt Lucy is still\n    living, and sound mentally and physically. She can, and no doubt\n    will, fully clear away any sophistry and falsehood of Mr. Evans'\n    statement of the alleged interview.\n\n    Referring to the interview with President Snow, Mr. Evans says:\n    \"Lorenzo Snow did testify to me as stated. But then and there, in\n    the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed\n    his testimony to be false by his own evidence when given under\n    oath, and his sister's statement signed in 1842. At this, Snow,\n    Cannon and Smith were much annoyed. So much for your father's\n    statement, which says 'you did not say one word to him in relation\n    to polygamy.'\" The fact is, President Snow gave Mr. Evans, in my\n    presence and hearing, a plain, simple narration of the instructions\n    he received from Joseph Smith in regard to the doctrine of plural\n    marriage, including almost word for word the statement he had\n    previously made under oath, and testified that Joseph informed\n    him that his sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his\n    wife. This much and more in this line I distinctly heard and as\n    distinctly remember, but I did not hear the alleged arraignment\n    of President Snow's testimony by Mr. Evans, nor did I witness or\n    experience any \"annoyance\" on the part of myself or anyone present\n    because of the said arraignment. Indeed, I am prepared to affirm\n    that Mr. Evans did not \"then and there\" in my presence and that of\n    Geo. Q. Cannon, nor in the presence of any one there, \"show his\n    (Snow's) testimony to be false,\" either \"by his own evidence when\n    given under oath,\" or \"by his sister's statement signed in 1842,\"\n    or at any other time.\n\n    I am here constrained to say that Mr. Evans was treated by\n    President Snow, as also by President George Q. Cannon and\n    myself, in the most courteous and respectful manner, and so\n    far as I observed his demeanor towards us was reciprocal and\n    gentlemanly--and not one word was said to him by anyone nor by\n    him to anyone in my presence that was in any degree discourteous,\n    contentious or embarrassing.\n\n    I conclude, therefore, that the foregoing statements made by\n    Mr. Evans, were after thoughts uttered by him with a view to\n    misrepresent the truth and the facts, on the lines of the bitter\n    and relentless opposition of himself and associates to the Church\n    of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in general, and the doctrine\n    of plural marriage in particular, as revealed, taught and practiced\n    by Joseph Smith himself, from whom Brigham Young and many others\n    received it. On these matters they are so surcharged with animus\n    that they will not receive, admit, or tell the truth.\n\n    With reference to Mr. Evans' allusion to my first wife I will\n    simply say: She was most intimately acquainted from her childhood\n    with the young lady who became my second wife, and it was with\n    their full knowledge and consent that I entered into plural\n    marriage, my first wife being present as a witness when I took my\n    second wife, and freely gave her consent thereto. Our associations\n    as a family were pleasant and harmonious.\n\n    It was not until long after the second marriage that my first wife\n    was drawn away from us, not on account of domestic troubles, but\n    for other causes which I do not care to mention. In eight years of\n    wedded life we had no children. She constantly complained of ill\n    health and was as constantly under a doctor's care. She concluded\n    to go to California for her health and before going procured a\n    separation. This all occurred previous to 1867. On March 1, 1868\n    I married Sarah E. Richards, and January 1, 1870, I married Edna\n    Lambson, from one to three years after my first wife separated\n    from me, and had become a resident of California. She subsequently\n    returned to Utah and later went to St. Louis where she died.\n\nYour self-exaltation in classing yourself with Jacob is most\nstupendous, to say the least. He was above accepting idle rumors, from\nsuch sources as those given by the writer of the article of _Collier's_\nwhich you quote, and which are false. Jacob was no aspersor.\n\nAunt Catherine Phillips Smith also declares that she did testify to you\nin regard to her marriage and that you questioned her quite closely.\nMy mother declares the same for she was present at the conversation.\nPresidents Snow and Cannon are not here to speak in their defense, but\nI am satisfied that they would bear witness to the foregoing letter.\nAunt Lucy may testify for herself.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF LUCY W. SMITH\n\nThe day I received a copy of the _Ensign_ containing your discourse\nfrom which you give extracts in your \"reply,\" in relation to your\n\"conversation\" with Aunt Lucy W. Smith, I sent her a copy of your\nremarks with the request that she tell me if you had correctly reported\nher testimony. In the course of a few days I received this:\n\n    My Dear Boy: I very much regret not feeling able to answer your\n    request at an earlier date. I am, however, much improved in health\n    since coming to Logan, and take pleasure in declaring to you that\n    the infamous discourse delivered 16th Feb. 1905 (the date of the\n    _Ensign_) at St. Louis, Missouri, by Mr. Evans, is a fabrication of\n    falsehoods and misrepresentations. I confess that I was not only\n    surprised, but shocked beyond measure. Now one of the presidency\n    of the Reorganized church, just think of it! And at the time he\n    came to Salt Lake City three years ago, he claimed to be one of\n    \"young Joseph's apostles; came with a letter of introduction from\n    cousin Joseph to his cousin Joseph F., saying that any courtesy\n    shown him would be appreciated. Accordingly, Mr. Evans was shown\n    every consideration. He accepted the generous hospitality of our\n    President and his model family. Having expressed a desire to meet\n    Mrs. Lucy W. Kimball, who was engaged that afternoon, arrangements\n    were made to meet at the theatre, as he had to leave next day.\n    He asked me many questions which I answered frankly--some very\n    offensive hearsay questions that aroused my indignation, but I\n    bore the ordeal as a martyr should. And from this opportunity\n    sprang the wonderful discourse of wicked falsehood and malicious\n    misrepresentation. O, shame! Where canst thou hide thy brazen face!\n    How dare he resort to such infamy unless to satiate a morbid desire\n    for notoriety among sensation-mongers, who seek not for light or\n    truth! If so he only gratified the cravings of the basest and\n    lowest caste.\n\n    I cannot believe that the once highly and beloved Emma who was so\n    loyal and true to her husband in all the early trials and hardships\n    to which he was subject, when in chains and bondage, when he was\n    dragged from his bed, tarred and feathered, imprisoned and mocked\n    and scoffed at, ridiculed and abused, and his life threatened by\n    infuriated mobs and she stood by him and comforted him in all of\n    his afflictions--I cannot believe after enduring all this for\n    his sake, that Emma Smith ever denied seeing the revelation on\n    celestial marriage after receiving it in good faith and accepting\n    it as a command from God, _knowing_ as I do, that she taught it\n    to Eliza and Emily Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and urged\n    them to accept it by being sealed to her husband. She treated them\n    kindly and considerately and knew they were associated with him as\n    his wives. She was then a happy woman, until the tempter came in\n    human form, and she partook of the apostate spirit so rife in those\n    days. She could not deny these facts without sinning against her\n    husband, sinning against his wives, against the truth, and against\n    her God!\n\n    If her son insists that this denial was her last testimony he\n    fastens a stigma on her once noble character in the estimation of\n    her former friends and associates, who were familiar with the facts\n    of the period referred to. This misguided son, young and without\n    experience, was surrounded by his father's most wicked enemies who\n    had betrayed his father, and had been instrumental in taking his\n    life; and who, after they had accomplished this foul act, through\n    sinister policies, determined to destroy the work his father was\n    commanded to do, and had laid a permanent foundation on which to\n    build up his church--the Church of Christ. They sought to influence\n    his son against the teachings of his father, call him forth as a\n    \"leader\" with promises of success, and good backing. Poor boy was\n    flattered and led on and on, by crafty men, until he became an\n    unbeliever of the principles his father had taught; and I cannot\n    but believe that through such influences his mother has been\n    misrepresented. I am unwilling to believe otherwise.\n\n    I expressed regrets to Mr. Evans in relation to the course taken\n    by \"young Joseph\" through the influence of the bitter opponents of\n    his father. I said he had closed his eyes to anything that would\n    cast a ray of light on the vexed question: \"Did my father have\n    more [other] wives than my mother?\" I answered truthfully without\n    hesitation. Afterwards he went to Lehi, called on Melissa Lott,\n    with whom he had been associated from early childhood and asked:\n    \"Will you answer me one question, I come to you knowing you will\n    tell me the truth, were you my father's wife?\" \"Yes, Joseph, I\n    was.\" \"Where is your proof?\" She stepped to the stand and took the\n    family Bible opened to the family record, placed it on his knee and\n    asked: \"Do you recognize the handwriting?\" \"Certainly that is your\n    father's (Cornelius P. Lott's) handwriting, know it as well as my\n    own.\" Then read the marriage certificate of the Prophet Joseph and\n    Melissa Lott.\n\n    Oliver Huntington who is still living testifies that they were very\n    intimate as boys, and when together had often talked the matter\n    over.\n\n    Referring to Mr. Evans again. I said: \"Does this prove him (Joseph)\n    an honest man?\" Now does this cover the ground of your inquiry? I\n    have so often been interrupted by callers, that I may not have been\n    explicit enough. My personal testimony you already have, if not you\n    can get it by referring to \"Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints,\"\n    by L. O. Littlefield, which you will find at the President's\n    (Historian's) office.\n\nDoes this read much like she had been correctly represented?\n\n\nBRIGHAM YOUNG UPHELD BY THE LORD\n\nIn reference to the wicked charge you make in your discourse mentioned\nin Aunt Lucy's letter, against President Young of practicing gross\nimmorality while on his mission in England in 1840 and winter of 1841,\na sufficient answer will be found in the revelation of January 19,\n1841, wherein the Lord, by revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith\ndeclares:\n\n    I give to you _my servant_ Brigham Young, to be a President over\n    the Twelve traveling Council,\n\n    Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom\n    upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word\n    to every creature.\n\nAnd the revelation of July 9, 1841, given after his return from England:\n\n    * * * Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Brigham, it\n    is no more required at your hand to leave your family as in times\n    past, for your offering is acceptable to me.\n\nIn this abusive charge against President Young you are striking at\nJehovah, and accusing Him, either of condoning such a grievous sin, or\nfailing to discover it. Such a charge as that is ridiculously absurd,\nI feel safe in accepting the word of the Lord in preference to the\nribald, indecent statements of those who speak forth the vulgar desires\nof their own minds.\n\n                                         Respectfully,\n                                                Joseph F. Smith, Jr.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. I am not so blind in my admiration of the \"Mormon\" people or so\nbigoted in my devotion to the \"Mormon\" faith as to think there are\nno individuals in the Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly,\nintemperate speech, and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that\nsome in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of\nexcitement, under stress of special provocation, even \"Mormon\" leaders\nhave given utterances to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to\nlearn that it is just in a writer of history, or of \"purpose fiction,\"\nthat \"speak truly,\" to make a collection of these things and represent\nthem as the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an\nindictment.\n\n\"No one would measure the belief of 'Christians,'\" says a truly great\nwriter, \"by certain statements in the Fathers, nor judge the moral\nprinciples of Roman Catholics by prurient quotations from the Casuist;\nnor yet estimate Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early\nsuccessors of Luther, nor Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all\nsuch cases the general standpoint of the times has to be first taken\ninto account.\"--Edeshiem's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, preface\np. 8.\n\nA long time ago the great Edmund Burke in his defense of the rashness\nexpressed in both speech and action of some of our patriots of the\nAmerican revolution period said: \"It is not fair to judge of the temper\nof the disposition of any man or any set of men when they are composed\nand at rest from their conduct or their expressions in a state of\ndisturbance and irritation.\"\n\n2. Writing of the Mormon Meadows massacre Hubert H. Bancroft, in his\nHistory of Utah, page 544 says: \"Indeed it may well be understood at\nthe outset that this horrible crime, so often and so persistently\ncharged upon the Mormon church and its leaders, was the crime of an\nindividual, the crime of a fanatic of the worst stamp, one who was a\nmember of the Mormon church, but of whose intentions the church knew\nnothing, and whose bloody acts the members of the church, high and\nlow, regard with as much abhorrence as any out of the church. Indeed,\nthe blow fell upon the brotherhood with threefold force and damage.\nThere was the cruelty of it, which wrung their hearts; there was the\nodium attending its performance in their midst; and there was the\nstrength it lent their enemies further to malign and molest them. The\nMormons denounce the Mountain Meadows massacre, and every act connected\ntherewith, as earnestly and as honestly as any in the outside world.\nThis is abundantly proved, and may be accepted as a historical fact.\"\n\n3. See also Doctrine and Covenants section 101:80, on this point.\n\n4. A polygamist the friend of God, whose praise you sing, and the man\nyou are _glad_ to call the father of the faithful.--_Saints' Herald_\n52:437.\n\n5. Those thirty-one witnesses were: S. Bennett, George Miller, Alpheus\nCutler, Reynolds Cahoon, Wilson Law, Wilford Woodruff, Newel K.\nWhitney, Albert Petty, Elias Higbee, John Taylor, Ebenezer Robinson,\nAaron Johnson, Emma Smith, Elizabeth A. Whitney, Sarah M. Cleveland,\nEliza R. Snow, Mary C. Miller, Lois Cutler, Thirza Cahoon, Ann Hunter,\nJane Law, Sophia Marks, Polly Z. Johnson, Abagail Works, Catharine\nPetty, Sarah Higbee, Phebe Woodruff, Leonora Taylor, Sarah Hillman,\nRosanna Marks, and Angeline Robinson.\n\n\n\nTHE SAINTS' HERALD ON THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE\n\nIn both replies to Mr. Evans, mention is made of two articles in the\n_Saints' Herald_, volume one, that were written by Isaac Sheen, the\nfirst editor of that paper. These references were ignored by Mr. Evans\nin his publication of a portion of the foregoing correspondence. It\nwould occupy too much space to copy these articles in full as they\nare quite lengthy, but I feel that the gist of the matter should be\npresented in more detail than it is given in the replies.\n\nMr. Sheen's argument is that the Saints at Nauvoo \"set up their idols\nin their heart,\" and went to the Prophet Joseph Smith and asked him to\ninquire of the Lord and ascertain from Him if it would not be proper\nfor them to practice plural marriage. This the Prophet Joseph did and\nin answer the Lord gave him the revelation on celestial marriage,\ngranting the practice of plural marriage, and then, after giving this\nrevelation the Lord smote the Prophet for his 'iniquity' in asking for\nthe revelation, and poured out wrath and indignation upon the Saints\nfor their participation in what he calls \"abominations.\"\n\nReference is also made to the prophecies of Ezekiel, Balaam and Micaiah\nto substantiate his theory which Mr. Sheen admits he is unable to\n\"satisfactorily explain.\" An extensive quotation from the first article\nfollows, which will give an idea of the position in which the members\nof the Reorganized church regard the Prophet Joseph Smith and the\nculmination of his most glorious mission.\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF ISAAC SHEEN\n\n    We might call your attention to many prophecies in the Bible which\n    these backsliders[1] have fulfilled by their abominations. Ezekiel\n    appears to have had a very clear manifestation of the wickedness of\n    these men and the plan pursued by them, by which they embark into\n    polygamy. In Ezekiel 14 c. 1, 5, v, the prophet says, \"Then came\n    certain elders of Israel unto me, saying, Son of man, these men\n    have set up their idols in their heart and put the stumblingblock\n    of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all\n    by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith\n    the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his\n    idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity\n    before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord, will\n    answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;\n    that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because\n    they are all estranged from me through their idols.\" We have shown\n    you that God gave a revelation unto us in which he commanded that\n    every man should \"cleave unto his wife and none else,\" and that\n    he commanded us saying, \"Repent and remember the Book of Mormon\n    and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to\n    say, but to do according to that which I have written,\" and that\n    in that book there is much testimony against polygamy. All these\n    instructions were sufficient for our guidance, but \"men have set\n    up their idols in their hearts, and put the stumblingblock of\n    their iniquity before their faces.\" This adulterous spirit had\n    captivated their hearts and they desired a license from God to\n    lead away captive the fair daughters of His people, and in this\n    state of mind they came to the Prophet Joseph. Could the Lord do\n    anything more or less than what Ezekiel hath prophesied? The Lord\n    hath declared by Ezekiel what kind of an answer he would give them,\n    therefore he answered them according to the multitude of their\n    idols. Paul had also prophesied that \"for this cause God shall send\n    them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they\n    all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure\n    in unrighteousness.\" Both these prophecies agree. In Ezekiel's\n    prophecy the Lord also says, \"I will set my face against that\n    man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him\n    off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the\n    Lord. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I\n    the Lord have deceived that prophet,[2] and I will stretch out my\n    hand upon him and I will destroy him from the midst of my people\n    Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity;\n    the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of\n    him that seeketh unto him; that the house of Israel may go no\n    more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their\n    transgression; but that they may be my people, and I may be their\n    God, saith the Lord God,\" 8c., 11 v. We have here the facts as they\n    have transpired and as they will continue to transpire in relation\n    to this subject. The death of the prophet is one fact that has\n    been realized although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity\n    before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some\n    of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily.\n    Those who have practiced these abominations have become \"a sign\n    and a proverb\" among men in accordance with this prophecy. These\n    are the \"false teachers\" prophesied of by Peter, of whom he said\n    \"many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way\n    of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall\n    they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment\n    now of a long time lingereth not, and their abomination slumbereth\n    not.\" The reason why the Lord destroyed the prophet and made those\n    who \"set up their idols in their heart,\" a sign and a proverb,\n    made them bear the punishment of their iniquity is worthy of our\n    earnest attention. We are informed that the reason why the Lord\n    would perform all these things was this, \"that the house of Israel\n    may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with\n    all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I\n    may be their God.\" Here is positive evidence that this prophecy\n    was to be fulfilled in the last days, for there has only been a\n    small part of the house of Israel (at any time since this prophecy\n    was given) that were obedient to the Lord. The time is not fully\n    come when Israel shall \"go no more astray,\" and not \"be polluted\n    any more with all their transgressions,\" therefore the punishment\n    of these men who have committed these sins must continue until\n    that happy day shall come. But as the Lord says in this prophecy,\n    \"repent and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your\n    faces from your abominations, so say we, and return unto the fold\n    from whence you have strayed.\" As some may yet doubt whether God\n    would act in this way toward men who set up their idols in their\n    heart, we will see how God dealt with Balaam. In Numbers 22 c. we\n    are informed that Balak, king of the Moabites, sent the elders of\n    Moab and Midian unto Balaam with the rewards of divination in their\n    hands to entreat him that he would curse Israel, but God said unto\n    Balaam, \"Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the\n    people, for they are blessed.\" And Balaam rose up in the morning,\n    and said unto the Princes of Balak, \"Get you unto your land; for\n    the Lord refuseth to give me leave to go with you.\" And Balak\n    sent yet again princes, more, and more honorable than they. And\n    they came to Balaam and said to him, \"Thus sayeth Balak, the son\n    of Zippor, let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto\n    me: For I will promote thee unto very great honor, and I will do\n    whatsoever thou sayest unto me; come, therefore, I pray thee, curse\n    me this people.\" Now although the Lord had said unto Balaam, \"Thou\n    shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they\n    are blessed,\" yet the great honor that was offered him, allured\n    him, and he inquired of the Lord again, and said unto the princes,\n    \"Tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will\n    say unto me more.\" And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto\n    him, \"If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them: but\n    yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.\" And\n    Balaam rose up in the morning and saddled his ass, and went with\n    the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went;\n    and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against\n    him. So we find that the Lord told him not to go, but afterwards,\n    having \"set up his idol in his heart\" he inquired of the Lord\n    again whether he might not go and curse Israel and God's anger was\n    kindled against him because he did so, although God had commanded\n    him to go. This is, therefore, a parallel case with Ezekiel's\n    prophecy.[3]\n\n    In I Kings, 22 c. we are informed that the King of Israel wanted\n    Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead\n    to battle, and there were four hundred prophets who said \"Go up,\n    for the Lord shall deliver it into the hands of the king.\" And\n    Jehoshaphat said, \"Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides,\n    that we might inquire of him?\" And the king of Israel said unto\n    Jehoshapat, \"There is yet one, Micaiah, the son of Imlah, by\n    whom we may inquire of the Lord; but I hate him, for he doth not\n    prophesy good concerning me, but evil.\" And Jehoshaphat said, \"Let\n    not the king say so.\" So he was sent for. The messenger that was\n    gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, \"Behold now the words\n    of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy\n    word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that\n    which is good.\" And Micaiah said, \"As the Lord liveth, what the\n    Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.\" We are then informed that\n    Micaiah prophesied like the false prophets,[4] and then against\n    them. And he said, \"I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all\n    the hosts of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his\n    left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab that he may go up\n    and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this matter, and another\n    said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before\n    the Lord and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him\n    wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying\n    spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, thou shalt\n    persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so. Now therefore\n    behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these\n    thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.\" This\n    doctrine was extensively preached in the Church before iniquity\n    overthrew the Church, and by this doctrine the Church might have\n    been saved, if men had not \"set up their idols in their heart.\"\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. The Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Saints.\n\n2. The inspired translation reads: \"I the Lord have not deceived that\nprophet.\"\n\n3. Mr. Sheen forgets that the Lord said, \"Thou shalt not curse the\npeople, for they are blessed,\" which command Balaam hearkened to.\n\n4. The prophecy was; \"Go and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it\ninto the hands of the king,\" v. 15. This was uttered in mockery, if not\nwhy did the king reply: \"How many times shall I adjure thee that thou\ntell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord,\" v. 16.\n_Then_ Micaiah told the king that he should fall at Ramoth-Gilead, so\nthe king acted with full knowledge of the word of the Lord concerning\nhis death when he went forth to battle. Therefore the Lord did not\ndeceive Ahab in this matter.\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION OF CELESTIAL AND PLURAL MARRIAGE\n\nAdditional testimony of a few out of the multitude[1] of witnesses who\nwere taught these principles by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and who knew\nthat he received the revelation known as section 132 in the Book of\nDoctrine and Covenants.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF PRESIDENT LORENZO SNOW\n\nIn the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A\nfew days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith's\nhouse, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and\nrequested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a\nlittle distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of\nthe river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality\nof wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded\nhim to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble\nthat would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that\nan angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword,\nthreatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the\ncommandment.\n\nHe further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as\nhis wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the\nway, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation\nwas prolonged, I think one hour or more, in which he told me many\nimportant things.\n\nI solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come\nforth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is\ntrue.\n\nLorenzo Snow.\n\nTerritory of Utah, Box Elder County. ss.\n\nPersonally came before me J. C. Wright, Clerk of the County and Probate\nCourts in and for the County and Territory aforesaid, Lorenzo Snow, and\nwho being duly sworn deposeth and says that the foregoing statement by\nhim subscribed is true of his own certain knowledge.\n\nWitness my hand and seal of Court, at my office in Brigham City, Box\nElder County, Utah Territory, this 28th day of August, A.D. 1869.\n\n[Seal.]\n\nJ. C. Wright, Clerk.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF LUCY WALKER\n\nUnited States of America,\n\nState of Utah.\n\nCounty of Salt Lake.\n\nLucy Walker Smith Kimball, being first duly sworn, says:\n\nI was a plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was married for\ntime and eternity in Nauvoo, State of Illinois, on the first day of\nMay, 1843, by Elder William Clayton. The Prophet was then living with\nhis first wife, Emma Smith, and I know that she gave her consent to the\nmarriage of at least four women to her husband as plural wives, and she\nwas well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives. The\nnames of these women are Eliza and Emily Partridge, and Maria and Sarah\nLawrence, all of whom knew that I too was his wife.\n\nWhen the Prophet Joseph Smith mentioned the principle of plural\nmarriage to me I felt indignant, and so expressed myself to him,\nbecause my feelings and education were averse to anything of that\nnature. But he assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him\nof the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its\ndivine origin for myself. He counseled me to pray to the Lord, which\nI did, and thereupon received from Him a powerful and irresistible\ntestimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which\ntestimony has abided with me ever since.\n\nOn the 8th day of February, 1845, I was married for _time_ to President\nHeber C. Kimball, and bore to him nine children. And in this connection\nallow me to say to his everlasting credit that during the whole of my\nmarried life with him he never failed to regard me as the wife for\neternity of his devoted friend, the Prophet Joseph Smith.\n\n                                       Lucy Walker Smith Kimball.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of December, 1902.\n\n[Seal.]\n\nJames Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF CATHERINE PHILLIPS SMITH\n\nUnited States of America,\n\nState of Utah.\n\nCounty of Salt Lake.\n\nCatherine Phillips Smith,[2] being first sworn, says:\n\nI am the daughter of Thomas Denner and Sarah Godshall Phillips, and\nwas born in Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, on the first day of\nAugust, 1819. My present residence is East Jordan, Salt Lake County,\nUtah.\n\nI was married to Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet Joseph Smith,\nas his plural wife, and lived with him as his wife. The sealing was\nperformed by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, in Nauvoo, State of\nIllinois, in August, 1843, in the brick office belonging to my husband,\nand occupied at the time as a dwelling by Brother and Sister Robert\nand Julia Stone, and was witnessed by my mother, Sister Stone and her\ndaughter Hettie.\n\nIn consequence of the strong feeling manifested at the time against\nplural marriage and those suspected of having entered into it, I, with\nmy mother, moved to St. Louis near the close of the year, where I was\nliving when the Prophet Joseph and my husband were martyred.\n\nThe purpose of this affidavit is that my testimony to the truthfulness\nand divinity of plural marriage may live after I shall have passed\naway; and in this spirit I commend it to all to whom it may come.\n\n                                         Catherine Phillips Smith.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of January, 1903.\n\n[Seal]\n\n                                      L. John Nuttall, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF ALMIRA W. JOHNSON SMITH BARTON\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Iron. ss.\n\nBe it remembered on this first day of August A.D. 1883, personally\nappeared before me John W. Brown a notary public in and for said\ncounty, Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton, who was by me sworn in due\nform of law, and upon her oath says: I am a citizen in the Territory\nof Utah, over the age of twenty-one years, and I am the daughter of\nEzekiel Johnson and Julia Hills Johnson his wife; that I was born at\nWestford, in the State of Vermont on the 22nd day of October A.D. 1813;\nthat I had nine brothers who were named respectfully Joel H., Seth,\nDavid, Benjamin F., Joseph E., Elmer, George W., William D., and Amos;\nand six sisters named respectfully Nancy, Dulcena, Julia, Susan, Mary\nand Esther, all of whom, with myself, were baptized into the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the exception of Elmer, who died\nin infancy.\n\nDeponent further says, that in the years 1842 and 1843, I resided most\nof the time at Macedonia, in the County of Hancock, State of Illinois,\nsometimes with my sister who was the wife of Almon W. Babbitt, and\nsometimes with my brother Benjamin F. Johnson. During that time the\nProphet Joseph Smith taught me the principle of celestial marriage\nincluding plurality of wives and asked me to become his wife. He first\nspoke to me on this subject at the house of my brother Benjamin F. I\nalso lived a portion of the time at Brother Joseph Smith's in Nauvoo,\nwhen many conversations passed between him and myself on this subject.\nOn a certain occasion in the spring of the year 1843, the exact date of\nwhich I do not now recollect, I went from Macedonia to Nauvoo to visit\nanother of my sisters, the one who was the widow of Lyman R. Sherman,\ndeceased, at which time I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. At\nthe time this took place Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, came to me and\nsaid I need not be afraid. I had been fearing and doubting about the\nprinciple and so had he, but he now knew it was true. After this time\nI lived with the Prophet Joseph as his wife, and he visited me at the\nhome of my brother Benjamin F. at Macedonia.\n\nDeponent further says that I had many conversations with Eliza Beaman\nwho was also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who was present when I was\nsealed to him, on the subject of plurality of wives, both before and\nafter the performance of that ceremony. And also that since the death\nof the Prophet Joseph Smith I was married for time to Reuben Barton of\nNauvoo, Hancock Co., Ill., by whom I have had five daughters, one only\nof whom is now living.\n\n                                        Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton the\nday and year first above written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                          John W. Brown, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF MARTHA McBRIDE KIMBALL\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Millard. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this eighth day of July, A.D. 1869, personally\nappeared before me Edward Partridge, Probate Judge in and for said\ncounty, Martha McBride Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law,\nand upon her oath saith that sometime in the summer of the year 1842,\nat the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was\nmarried or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints, by Heber C. Kimball, one of the Twelve\nApostles in said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating\nmarriage.\n\n                                                Martha McBride Kimball.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by said Martha McBride Kimball the day and year\nfirst above written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                       Edward Partridge, Probate Judge.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA LOTT WILLES\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this twentieth day of May, A.D. 1869,\npersonally appeared before me, James Jack a notary public in and for\nsaid county, Melissa Lott Willes, who was by me sworn in due form of\nlaw, and upon her oath saith that on the twentieth day of September,\nA.D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois,\nshe was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of\nJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Hyrum Smith, Presiding Patriarch\nof said Church, according to laws of the same, regulating marriage, in\nthe presence of Cornelius P. Lott and Parmelia Lott.\n\n                                                  Melissa Lott Willes.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Melissa Lott Willes, the day and\nyear first above written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                            James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nLOVINA SMITH WALKER'S TESTIMONY\n\nI, Lovina Walker, hereby certify that while I was living with Aunt Emma\nSmith, in Fulton City, Fulton Co., Illinois, in the year 1846, that she\ntold me that she, Emma Smith, was present and witnessed the marrying or\nsealing of Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah\nLawrence to her husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent\nthereto.\n\n                                                         Lovina Walker.\n\nWe hereby witness that Lovina Walker made and signed the above\nstatement on this 16th day of June, A.D. 1869, at Salt Lake City, S. L.\nCounty, Utah Territory, of her own free will and record.\n\n                                                       Hyrum S. Walker,\n                                                       Sarah E. Smith,\n                                                       Joseph F. Smith.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF SARAH A. KIMBALL\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, A.D. 1869,\npersonally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said\ncounty, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and\nupon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A.D. 1842,\nat the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was\nmarried or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of\nsaid Church, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage, in\nthe presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.\n\n                                                      Sarah A. Kimball.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the\nday and year first above written.\n\n                                               E. Smith, Probate Judge.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH A. WHITNEY\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A.D. 1869,\npersonally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for\nsaid county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was by me sworn in due form\nof law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of\nJuly, A.D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of\nIllinois, she was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her\ndaughter Sarah Ann Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and\nall eternity, by her husband Newel K. Whitney then Presiding Bishop of\nthe Church.\n\n                                                        E. A. Whitney.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and\nyear first above written.\n\n                                            James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF ORSON HYDE\n\n                                         Springtown, Sept. 15, 1869.\n\nI, Orson Hyde, do hereby certify and declare according to my best\nrecollection that on the fourth day of September I was married to Miss\nMarinda N. Johnson, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the year of our Lord 1834,\nand in the month of February or March, 1843, I was married to Miss\nMartha R. Browitt, by Joseph Smith, the martyred prophet, and by him\nshe was sealed to me for time and for all eternity in Nauvoo, Ill.,\nand in the month of April of the same year, 1843, I was married by the\nsame person to Mrs. Mary Ann Price, and by him she was sealed to me for\ntime and for all eternity, in Nauvoo, Ill., while the woman to whom I\nwas first married was yet living, and gave her cordial consent to both\ntransactions, and was personally present to witness the ceremonies.\n\n                                                         Orson Hyde.\n\nSworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of September,\n1869, at Springtown, Sanpete County, UT.\n\n                                George Brough, Justice of the Peace.\n\nI hereby certify that the above named George Brough is a justice of the\npeace for the precinct of Springtown in the county of Sanpete, UT., and\nthat he is duly qualified in accordance with law; in testimony whereof,\nI hereunto set my hand and official seal of the County Court of Sanpete\nCounty, at my office, Manti City, this Sept. 16, 1869.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                         William T. Reed, County Clerk.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BATES NOBLE\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on the 26th day of June, A.D. 1869, personally\nappeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county,\nJoseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon\nhis oath saith, that on the fifth day of April, A.D. 1841, at the city\nof Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed\nLouisa Beaman to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ\nof Latter-day Saints, according to the order of celestial marriage\nrevealed to the said Joseph Smith.\n\n                                                   Joseph B. Noble.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph Bates Noble, the day and\nyear first above written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                         James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF RHODA RICHARDS SMITH\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally\nappeared before me, Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said county, Rhoda\nRichards, who was by me sworn in due form of law and upon her oath\nsaith that on the twelfth day of June A.D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo,\nCounty of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to\nJoseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day\nSaints, by Willard Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of said Church,\naccording to the laws of the same regulating marriage.\n\n                                                     Rhoda Richards.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Rhoda Richards, the day and year\nabove written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                          Elias Smith, Probate Judge.\n\n\nTESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN F. JOHNSON\n\n                                 Mesa City, Arizona, 9th March, 1904.\n\n_President Joseph F. Smith_,\n\n_Washington, D. C_.\n\nMy Dear Brother:--\n\nIn reading reports from the Senate Committee on the Reed Smoot case,\nI see that witnesses are subpoenaed to prove that the Prophet Joseph\nSmith did not authorize or practice polygamy; and I do know that he did\nteach plural marriage, and that he did give to me a plural wife who is\nstill living with me, and that I saw one of my sisters married to him.\n* * *\n\nAnd I do know that at his Mansion House was living Mariah and Sarah\nLawrence and one of Cornelius P. Lott's daughters as his plural wives\nwith the full knowledge of his wife, Emma, of the married relations to\nhim.\n\nAt that time I was his legal business agent at Macedonia or Ramtis,\nand was familiar with his family or domestic affairs; and occupying,\nas I did, the family mansion often in a business way with Emma, the\nProphet's first wife, who at no time did ever in my hearing deny the\nplural character of her husband's family.\n\nAnd now with this and much more knowledge relating to this subject,\ncould my evidence before the Senate Committee be of any real value to\nthe cause of truth? If so, although too infirm to travel alone I would\nwillingly try to be there, if according to your counsel and wish.\n\nLoyal to the truth, I am,\n\n                             Always brother,\n\n                                                 B. F. Johnson.\n\n\nTHE CELESTIAL AND PLURAL MARRIAGE REVELATION\n\nThe following letter was written by Elder William Clayton who wrote the\nrevelation known as section 132 in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,\nat the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, July 12, 1843.[3]\n\n    Salt Lake City, Nov, 11, 1871.\n\n    _Madison M. Scott, Esq_.\n\n    Dear Sir:\n\n    Your letter of 23rd of June last, was received by due course of\n    mail, but owing to my being so very closely confined with public\n    duties, which has almost destroyed my health, I have not answered\n    your letter so promptly as is my practice. My health is yet very\n    poor, but I have resigned the office which was bearing so heavy\n    upon me, and am in hopes to regain my usual sound health.\n\n    Now, in regard to the subject matter of your letter, it appears to\n    me that the principal topic is what is commonly called polygamy,\n    but which I prefer to call celestial marriage. As to young Joseph\n    saying that the Church here have apostatized; that _we_ have\n    introduced polygamy, denying bitterly that his father ever had a\n    revelation on the subject, that is all mere bosh! I _believe_ he\n    knows better, and I have often felt sorry to learn that the sons\n    of the Prophet should spend their time in contending against a\n    pure and holy principle which their father's blood was shed to\n    establish. They will have a heavy atonement to make when they meet\n    their father in the next world. They are in the hands of God, and\n    my respect for their father will not permit me to say much about\n    the wicked course of his sons.\n\n    _Now, I say to you, as I am ready to testify to all the world, and\n    on which testimony I am most willing to meet all the Latter-day\n    Saints and all apostates, in time and through all eternity, I did\n    write the revelations on celestial marriage given through the\n    Prophet Joseph Smith, on the 12th of July, 1843_.\n\n    When the revelation was written there was no one present except the\n    Prophet Joseph, his brother Hyrum and myself. It was written in the\n    small office upstairs in the rear of the brick store which stood\n    on the banks of the Mississippi river. It took some three hours to\n    write it. Joseph dictated sentence by sentence, and I wrote it as\n    he dictated. After the whole was written Joseph requested me to\n    read it slowly and carefully, which I did, and he then pronounced\n    it correct. The same night a copy was taken by Bishop Whitney,\n    which copy is now here (in the Historian's office) and which I know\n    and testify is correct. The original was destroyed by Emma Smith.\n\n    I again testify that the revelation on polygamy was given through\n    the prophet Joseph on the 12th July, 1843; and that the Prophet\n    Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy I do positively know,\n    and bear testimony to the fact. In April, 1843, he sealed to me my\n    second wife, my first wife being then living. By my said second\n    wife I had two sons born in Nauvoo. The first died; the second is\n    here now, and is married.\n\n    I had the honor to seal one woman[4] to Joseph under his direction.\n    I could name ten or a dozen of his wives who are now living in\n    this territory, so that for any man to tell me that Joseph did not\n    teach polygamy, he is losing his time, for I know better. It is\n    not hearsay, nor opinion with me, for I positively know of what I\n    speak, and I testify to the truth, and shall be willing to meet all\n    opponents on the subject through all eternity.\n\n    As to the Church here having apostatized that is all a mere\n    matter of assertion, destitute of truth. President Young and his\n    associates are, and have been doing everything they can to carry\n    out the plans and instructions of the Prophet Joseph, and so\n    eternity will prove to the condemnation and confusion of all their\n    enemies. Any one who says to the contrary does not know Joseph nor\n    the mission the Lord gave him to fulfill. * * *\n\n                                            Truly yours,\n                                                   William Clayton.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD CORAY\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nAs many false statements have been made in relation to the authorship\nof the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem it but justice to all\nlovers of truth for me to express what I know concerning this very\nimportant matter.\n\nOn the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the martyred\nPatriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; he invited me\nand my wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, as soon as we could\nmake ourselves ready, we got into his carriage and he set off in the\ndirection of Carthage. Having gone a short distance, he observed to us\nthat his brother Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had received a revelation\non marriage, that was not for the public yet, which he would rehearse\nto us, as he had taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced\nrehearsing the revelation on celestial marriage not stopping till he\nhad gone quite through with the matter. After which he reviewed that\npart pertaining to plurality of wives, dwelling at some length upon the\nsame, in order that we might clearly understand the principle. And on\nthe same day (July 22, 1843,) he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane\nKnowlton, to me; and when I heard the revelation on celestial marriage\nread on the stand in Salt Lake City, in 1852, I recognized it as the\nsame as that repeated to me by Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after\nthis I was present when Brother David Fullmer and wife were sealed by\nBrother Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, according to the law of\ncelestial marriage. And, besides the foregoing, there was quite enough\ncame within the compass of my observation to have fully satisfied my\nmind that plural marriage was practiced in the city of Nauvoo.\n\n                                                        Howard Coray.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of June, A.D. 1882.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                          James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF DAVID FULLMER[5]\n\nTerritory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBe it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June, A.D. 1869,\npersonally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for\nsaid county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn in due form of law,\nand upon his oath saith, that on or about the 12th day of August,\nA.D. 1843, while in meeting with the High Council [he being a member\nthereof] in Hyrum Smith's brick office, in the City of Nauvoo, County\nof Hancock, State of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation\nto the subject of plurality of wives, as there were rumors about\nrespecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those\nrumors, and he wanted to know what it was. Upon which Hyrum Smith\nstepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned bringing\nwith him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage given to Joseph\nSmith July 12, 1843, and read the same to the High Council, and bore\ntestimony to its truth. The said David Fullmer further saith that,\nto the best of his memory and belief, the following named persons\nwere present: William Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George\nW. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, William Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron\nJohnson, Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred\nand Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that William\nMarks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were the only persons present\nwho did not receive the testimony of Hyrum Smith, and that all the\nothers did receive it from the teachings and testimony of the said\nHyrum Smith; and further, that the copy of said revelation on celestial\nmarriage published in the _Deseret News_ extra of September 14, A.D.,\n1852, is a true copy of the same.\n\n                                                        David Fullmer.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said David Fullmer the day and year\nfirst above written.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                            James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF LEONARD SOBY[6]\n\nBe it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886,\nbefore, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly,\nCounty of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city,\ncounty and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith:\n\nThat on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of\nNauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the\nHigh Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was\npresent at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated;\nThomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and\nothers; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the\nrevelation on celestial marriage.\n\nI have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published\nin the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the\nbest of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the\nrevelation then read by Hyrum Smith.\n\nThe deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with\nBrigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by\nthe Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority\nas a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.\n\nWhen read to this deponent and said High Council, I believed it was a\nrevelation from Jesus Christ, and I believe so now.\n\n                                                          Leonard Soby.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to by the said Leonard Soby the day and year first\nabove written.\n\n                                      Joshua W. Roberts, Notary Public.\n\nWitnessed by:\n\nJames H. Hart,\n\nSamuel Harrison.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. RIGDON\n\nState of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nJohn W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of Sidney Rigdon,\ndeceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State of Ohio, in the year 1830,\nand am now over seventy-five years of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon,\njoined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that year,\nand was in 1833 ordained to be Joseph Smith's first counselor which\nposition he held up to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at\nCarthage jail, in 1844. That Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon moved from\nKirtland, with their families, to the State of Missouri, during the\nwinter of 1837, but Rigdon did not reach Far West, in the State of\nMissouri, until the last of April, 1838. That during the troubles in\nMissouri, in the year 1838, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, his brother,\nSidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others, whose names I do not now\nremember were arrested and imprisoned in Liberty jail, about forty\nmiles from the village of Far West, in Caldwell County, Missouri, where\nthey all remained incarcerated for several months. That while said\nJoseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others were\nprisoners in said Liberty jail, as aforesaid I, with my mother, wife\nof Sidney Rigdon, Emma Smith, wife of said Joseph Smith, and Joseph\nSmith, son of Joseph and Emma Smith, went to see the said prisoners\nduring the latter part of the winter of 1838. We all went together in\nthe same carriage and came home together. We stayed at Liberty jail\nwith the prisoners three days and then left for home. The story that\nis being told by some of the members of the Reorganized Church, at\nLamoni, that young Joseph Smith, now president of the said Reorganized\nChurch, was ordained by his father, Joseph Smith, to be the leader of\nthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after his father's\ndeath, is not true, for I know that no such ordination took place while\nwe were at Liberty jail; that if any such ordination had taken place I\nmost certainly should have known it and remembered it, as I was with\nyoung Joseph, the Prophet's son, all the time we were there. If Joseph\nSmith had ordained his son Joseph to be the leader of the Church at his\ndeath, he would have done so in a manner that there could have been\nno doubt about it. Both of his counselors were then in prison with\nhim, namely, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, and it would have been in\norder for the prophet to have called upon them to assist him in such\nan ordination had it taken place, and a record of the same made in the\nChurch books, so that all members of the Church might have known that\nsuch an ordination had taken place. But nothing of the kind appears in\nthe Church books. My father and mother lived a good many years after\nthe incarceration at Liberty jail, and I, who lived near my father,\nnever heard my father or my mother mention that such an ordination\never took place in Liberty jail; and as I know myself that no such\nordination took place in Liberty jail, and inasmuch as it is not\nclaimed that an ordination of this character was bestowed at any other\nplace, therefore I deny it as an untruth and a story gotten up by the\nReorganized Church for effect.\n\nBesides all this, if Joseph Smith, the President of the Reorganized\nChurch was ordained while in Liberty jail, why did he, sixteen years\nafter his father's death, receive an ordination under the hands of\nWilliam Marks, William W. Blair, and Zenas H. Gurley? Would it not seem\nthat one ordination (and that too, said to have been by his own father,\nthe President of the Church) should have been sufficient? But further\nWm. Marks, Wm. W. Blair and Zenas H. Gurley had all been excommunicated\nfrom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (excepting William\nW. Blair, who never belonged to it) before they \"ordained\" young\nJoseph to be President of the Reorganized Church, and therefore they\ndid not have the authority to ordain him. The whole story of his being\nordained by anyone having authority to do so is too preposterous to be\nentertained for a single moment, and should be rejected by all who hear\nsuch a story mentioned.\n\nAs to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being introduced by the\nProphet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: Joseph Smith was absolute\nso far as spiritual figures were concerned, and no man would have dared\nto introduce the doctrine of polygamy or any other new doctrine into\nthe \"Mormon\" Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and\n1844, or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph\nSmith's consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing he would\nhave been brought before the High Council and tried, and if proven\nagainst him, he would have been excommunicated from the Church, and\nthat would have ended polygamy forever, and would also have ended the\nman who had dared to introduce such a doctrine without the consent of\nthe Prophet Joseph.\n\nAnd deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo,\nIllinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the\nfirst part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy\nRigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to\nChurch, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the\n\"Mormons\" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived\nalone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got\nto the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to\ntalk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being\ntaught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise\nto her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe\nit to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came\ninto the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left\nthe room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my\nsister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she\nwould marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet\nand went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told\nfather and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of\nthe town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become\nhis wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence\nJoseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with\nthe family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who\nis now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion\nwere anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the\npart of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two\nlater Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were\nsatisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended. After\nthat Joseph Smith sent my father to Pittsburgh, Pa., to take charge of\na little church that was there, and Ebenezer Robinson, who was then the\nChurch printer, or at least had been such, as he was the printer of the\npaper in Kirtland, Ohio, and a printer by trade, was to go with him\nto print a paper there, and nine days before Joseph Smith was shot at\nCarthage we started, reaching Pittsburgh the day before he was killed.\n\nDeponent further says: I have in my possession a paper called the\n_Nauvoo Expositor_, bearing date, Nauvoo, Illinois, Friday, June 7th,\n1844, which said paper's printing plant was destroyed by the City\nCouncil at Nauvoo a night or two after that issue. There never was but\none issue of this paper. Joseph Smith the Prophet was then Mayor of the\nCity of Nauvoo. In the afternoon of the day on which the printing plant\nwas destroyed, Henry Phelps, a son of W. W. Phelps, came down Main\nStreet selling this paper, the _Nauvoo Expositor_, and everyone who\ncould raise five cents bought a copy. In that paper the three following\naffidavits appeared, which I reproduce herewith.\n\n\nAFFIDAVITS\n\n    I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did (in his office) read to me a\n    certain written document which he said was a revelation from God.\n    He said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards\n    gave me the document to read and I took it to my house and read\n    it and showed it to my wife and returned it the next day. The\n    revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives\n    than one at a time in this world and in the world to come. It said\n    this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law. And\n    also that he should administer to others. Several other items were\n    in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.\n\n                                                              Wm. Law.\n\n    State of Illinois,\n\n    Hancock County.\n\n    I, Robert D. Foster, certify that the above certificate was sworn\n    to before me as true in substance, this fourth day of May, A.D.\n    1844.\n\n                                               Robert D. Foster, J. P.\n\n\n    I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above\n    affidavit of my husband. It sustained in strong terms the doctrine\n    of more wives than one at a time in this world and in the next. It\n    authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that\n    those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives\n    than one should be under condemnation before God.\n\n                                                             Jane Law.\n\n    Sworn and subscribed before me this 4th day of May, A.D. 1844.\n\n                                               Robert D. Foster, J. P.\n\n\n    To all whom it may concern:\n\n    Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of\n    procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by a\n    number of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices\n    therein (among whom I am one) it is but meet that I should give my\n    reasons at least in part as a cause that hath led me to declare\n    myself. In the latter part of the summer of 1843, the Patriarch\n    Hyrum Smith did in the High Council, of which I was a member,\n    introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet,\n    that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in\n    the said council; that according to his reading there was contained\n    the following doctrines: 1st. The sealing up of persons to eternal\n    life, against all sins save that of shedding innocent blood or of\n    consenting thereto; 2nd. The doctrine of plurality of wives or\n    marrying virgins; that David and Solomon had many wives, yet in\n    this they sinned not, save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation\n    with others, evidence that the aforesaid heresies were taught and\n    practiced in the Church, determined me to leave the office of first\n    counselor to the President of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I\n    dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith\n    not.\n\n                                                       Austin Cowles.\n\n    State of Illinois,\n\n    Hancock County.\n\n    To all whom it may concern: I hereby certify that the above\n    certificate was sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of\n    May, 1844.\n\n                                              Robert D. Foster, J. P.\n\n                                                      John W. Rigdon.\n\n    Sworn to before me this 28th day of July, 1905.\n\n    [Seal.]\n\n                                           James Jack, Notary Public.\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF ORANGE L. WIGHT\n\nThe following confirmation of John W. Rigdon's affidavit is copied from\nthe _Deseret News_ of Saturday, August 12, 1905:\n\n    Bunkerville, Lincoln County, Nev., August 4, 1905:--Seeing the\n    testimony of J. W. Rigdon in the semi-weekly _News_ of July 31,\n    and being much interested in the subject, and knowing that there\n    lived in this place a man that was quite familiar with the early\n    scenes of church history, especially those in and about Far West,\n    Missouri, and having heard him say that he had many times visited\n    his father and the Prophet Joseph, while they were incarcerated in\n    Liberty jail, I went and interviewed Orange L. Wight (eldest son of\n    former Apostle Lyman Wight), who is now 82 years old and resides\n    with his daughter, Sister Harriet M. Earl. Brother Wight is quite\n    feeble in body, but his mind seems to be as bright as ever.\n\n    I found Brother Wight in his usual good humor, and seemed quite\n    willing to talk, in fact, was pleased to do so. \"Elder Wight,\"\n    said I, \"are you willing to make a statement for publication in\n    regard to what you know about Joseph Smith, son of the Prophet\n    Joseph, being ordained while in Liberty jail to lead the Church?\"\n    \"Certainly I am.\" \"Then,\" said I, \"just write me out a brief\n    statement covering those points, and I will give it in your own\n    words.\" Following is Brother Wight's statement:\n\n    \"In regard to the statement of John W. Rigdon, I endorse it in\n    every point. Brother John W. Rigdon speaks of being in Liberty\n    prison when the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith,\n    Lyman Wight, and others were there (the others were Caleb Baldwin\n    and Alexander McRae). I also visited the prisoners at or about the\n    same time, and slept with them many times at different periods, and\n    I cannot recollect of ever hearing the subject of an ordination\n    mentioned.\n\n    \"My father, Lyman Wight, nor my mother, never alluded to it during\n    their lifetime in my presence; so I take it for granted that\n    Joseph, the son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, was not ordained to\n    fill the place of his father, in the Liberty jail. I was born in\n    the State of New York, November 29, 1823, hence am about seven\n    years older than Brother John W. Rigdon. And if an ordination of\n    Young Joseph had occurred in the prison, I would likely have heard\n    it, and would certainly recollect it.\n\n    \"Previous to this, while I was several years younger, the Twelve\n    Apostles were organized and commissioned to assist in leading and\n    governing the Church. I can recollect every detail distinctly.\n    My acquaintance with the Prophet was from the year 1830 to his\n    martyrdom, and I can truly say he was a Prophet of God, and was\n    appointed to the divine mission to organize the Church of Jesus\n    Christ of Latter-day Saints in this last dispensation.\n\n    \"As to the Prophet's believing and practicing polygamy, I have as\n    near a certain knowledge of the fact, I may say, as any man living.\n    I was well acquainted with most or all of his wives, and talked\n    with them on the subject, at the same time my wife also talked with\n    them.\n\n    \"If there is anything further that is necessary for me to\n    communicate in regard to my recollection, I will willingly do so.\n\n                                           \"Respectfully,\n                                                \"Orange L. Wight.\"\n\nFurther talk with Brother Wight brought out the following facts: He was\nbaptized into the Church in the spring of 1832; was with the Church\nthrough all their troubles in the State of Missouri. Brother Wight\nfilled a thirteen months' mission in the State of Virginia in company\nwith Jedediah M. Grant and others; was in Nauvoo at the time the\nProphet was captured at Dixon, Ill., and was one of those who went up\nthe Illinois river on the steamer \"Maid of Iowa,\" to assist in rescuing\nthe Prophet.\n\n                                                      Joseph I. Earl.\n\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF BATHSHEBA W. SMITH\n\nState of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.\n\nBathsheba W. Smith, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:\n\nI was a resident of Nauvoo, State of Illinois, from 1840 to 1846. I\nwas married to George A. Smith July 25, 1841, Elder Don Carlos Smith\nperforming the ceremony. Near the close of the year 1843, or in the\nbeginning of the year 1844, I received the ordinance of anointing in\na room in Sister Emma Smith's house in Nauvoo, and the same day, in\ncompany with my husband, I received my endowment in the upper room\nover the Prophet Joseph Smith's store. The endowments were given under\nthe direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who afterwards gave us\nlectures or instructions in regard to the endowment ceremonies. There\nhas been no change, to my certain knowledge, in these ceremonies. They\nare the same today as they were then. A short time after I received my\nanointing, I was sealed to my husband, George A. Smith, for time and\neternity, by President Brigham Young, in the latter's house, according\nto the plan taught, to my knowledge, by the Prophet Joseph Smith. When\nI was married in 1841, I was married for time, and not for eternity.\n\nAt the time I was anointed in Sister Emma Smith's house, she (Emma\nSmith) said in my presence, to me and to others who were present upon\nthat occasion, \"Your husbands are going to take more wives, and unless\nyou consent to it, you must put your foot down and keep it there.\" Much\nmore was said in regard to plural marriage at that time by Sister Emma\nSmith, who seemed opposed to the principle.\n\nIn the year 1840, at a meeting held in Nauvoo, at which I was present,\nI heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say that the ancient order would be\nrestored as it was in the days of Abraham. In the year 1844, a short\ntime before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it was my privilege\nto attend a regular prayer circle in the upper room over the Prophet's\nstore. There were present at this meeting most of the Twelve Apostles,\ntheir wives, and a number of other prominent brethren and their wives.\nOn that occasion the Prophet arose and spoke at great length, and\nduring his remarks I heard him say that he had conferred on the heads\nof the Twelve Apostles all the keys and powers pertaining to the\nPriesthood, and that upon the heads of the Twelve Apostles the burden\nof the Kingdom rested, and that they would have to carry it.\n\nIt has been, and is, necessary for me to make this statement, as\ncontrary reports have been circulated as coming from me. Any statements\npurporting to come from me that have been made, or that may be made\nby any party or parties, in opposition or conflicting with this sworn\nstatement, are false, as I have never, to my knowledge, deviated one\niota from this statement.\n\n                                                    Bathsheba W. Smith.\n\nSigned in the presence of\n\nJoseph F. Smith, Jr.,\n\nB. Morris Young.\n\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of November, 1903.\n\n[Seal.]\n\n                                      Martin S. Lindsay, Notary Public.\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. One hundred or more affidavits in relation to the introduction of\ncelestial and plural marriage are on file in the historian's Office,\nSalt Lake City, and are the expressions of eye and ear witnesses, who\nknow that the Prophet Joseph Smith introduced and taught celestial and\nplural marriage. Most of these witnesses are members of the Church,\nbut some of them are not, and have not been connected with the Church\nfrom before the martyrdom of the Prophet and Patriarch. It would\nbe impracticable and even unnecessary to produce all this evidence\nhere. A portion should suffice, in order that the truth regarding the\nintroduction of these principles should be established; for, in this\ncase as in all others, the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses\nshould establish the truth of these things. Celestial marriage, which\nis marriage for eternity, should not be confused with plurality of\nwives, as is often done by those not acquainted with these teachings.\n\n2. Some time during the month of September four members of the\nReorganized Church called on Catherine Phillips Smith at her home in\nEast Jordan, with the object in view of having her deny her testimony\nregarding her marriage to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, which she\nresolutely refused to do.\n\nIn a statement given on September 24th, two days before her death, she\nsaid: \"They tried to get me to tell a lie and deny that I was married\nto the Patriarch Hyrum Smith; but I would not do it. I never have lied\nand will not now; my affidavit is true. They asked me if my mother knew\nof my marriage, and I told them that the Patriarch asked my mother if\nshe was willing for him to marry her daughter, and she said he could\nask the daughter, and she could do as she pleased. I told them that\nthe Prophet Joseph sealed me to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith as his wife\nfor time and all eternity, and they tried to get me to deny it, and I\nwould not do it, for it is true. I told them the truth. They annoyed me\nvery much, and I finally told them to leave my house and never enter it\nagain.\"\n\n3. This, however, was not the time this principle was first made known\nto the Prophet Joseph Smith, for as early as 1831 the Lord revealed the\nprinciple of celestial and plural marriage to him and he taught it to\nothers.\n\n4. See affidavit of Lucy Walker Smith.\n\n5. Similar affidavits by most of the members of this High Council at\nNauvoo are also on file.\n\n6. Leonard Soby was at first opposed to this revelation, and shortly\nafter the martyrdom he left the Church. When this statement was given\nhe was not a member of the Church.\n\n\n\nTHE REORGANIZED CHURCH--SOME FACTS REGARDING ITS ORIGIN\n\nThe ministers of the \"Reorganized\" Church, or the \"New Organization,\"\nas it was first called,[1] declare that the Church at the death of\nthe Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith, was badly divided, its\nmembers scattered to the four winds, and that the Church was rejected\nwith its dead. They also claim that the \"Reorganization\" is composed of\nthe faithful who did \"not bow the knee to Baal,\" but remained true to\nthe \"original faith\" as revealed and practiced by the Prophet Joseph\nSmith. In the words of their president: \"The individuals who kept this\ncovenant (the new and everlasting covenant) were accepted of Him and\nwere not rejected, nor their standing before God put in jeopardy by\nthe departure of others from the faith. Whatever the office in the\npriesthood each held, under the ordinations ordered by the call of\nGod and vote of the Church, would remain valid. They could as elders,\npriests, etc., pursue the duties of warning, expounding, and inviting\nall to come to Christ, and by command of God could build up the Church\nfrom any single branch, which, like themselves, had not bowed the knee\nto Baal, or departed from the faith of the Church as found in the\nstandard works of the body at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.\"[2]\n\nIt is strongly implied in this quotation from the writings of the\npresident of the \"Reorganization\" that all those who followed\nPresident Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, lost their Priesthood\nand standing before the Lord, and that the founders of the \"New\nOrganization\" and their followers were the only ones who remained true\nand steadfast to the Truth. The evidence in this regard is against\nthem. The truth is that the founders of the \"Reorganized\" church were\nthe ones who followed every will-o-the-wisp, bowed the knee to Baal and\ndeparted from the faith, while the Twelve and the Saints on the other\nhand, pursued an even course and were steadfast under all trials and\ndifficulties even to the end.\n\nIt is not true that the Church was broken, scattered and rejected\nfollowing the martyrdom and that the \"Reorganization\" is a portion of\nthe original church. Their organization did not come into existence\nuntil some sixteen years after the death of the Prophet and Patriarch\nand was an outgrowth of the movement under James J. Strang.\n\nThere was a movement on foot to divide the Church, following the\nassassination of the Prophet and Patriarch, but its range was not as\nextensive as has generally been supposed. The chief actors in this\nmovement were Sidney Rigdon, James J. Strang and William Smith, each\nof whom aspired to lead the Church. Mr. Rigdon based his claim to the\npresidency on the fact that he had been the first counselor to the\nProphet Joseph Smith, and therefore by right should be the \"guardian\"\nof the Church. His claim was in conflict with the position of the\nChurch and the teachings of the Prophet. He laid his case before the\nconference of the Church August 8, 1844, and his claim was rejected\nby the Saints almost unanimously. At the same conference the Twelve\nApostles were sustained as the presiding quorum of the Church. Mr.\nStrang's claim to the presidency was based on his statement that the\nProphet had appointed him as his successor by letter, a few days before\nthe martyrdom. William Smith claimed the right of presidency by virtue\nof being the brother of the Prophet.\n\nEach of these men gathered around him a few followers, principally of\nthat class of restless, erratic individuals, who never remain contented\nvery long in any one place or under any circumstances; but none of them\ngathered many followers. Their organizations barely existed for a few\nyears and then disappeared; the fragments becoming the nucleus of the\n\"Reorganization.\"\n\nThe movement which resulted in the bringing forth of the \"Reorganized\"\nchurch, was of more recent date and was due principally to the efforts\nof two men, viz., Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley. Mr. Briggs was\nborn June 25, 1821, at Pompey, Oneida County, New York. He joined the\nChurch June 6, 1841, and members of the \"Reorganization\" declare that\nhe was ordained an Elder in 1842. His home was in Beloit, Wisconsin,\nfrom 1842 to 1854. After the death of the Prophet, Mr. Briggs sustained\nthe Twelve Apostles and the Church and was apparently true to them\nuntil the exodus in 1846. At that time he lost heart, turned from the\nChurch in its darkest hour and sought the favor of the world. Some\ntime subsequent to this he joined the movement under James J. Strang.\nIn Strang's organization he did missionary work, received honors\nand organized a branch. In 1850 he renounced Mr. Strang and joined\nwith William Smith, in the latter organization he was \"ordained\" an\n\"apostle.\" He soon tired of William Smith, and in 1851 joined with\nZenas H. Gurley who was at that time a follower of James J. Strang.\nThese two men then organized a church of their own which afterwards was\nknown as the \"Reorganized\" church. In 1886 Jason W. Briggs withdrew\nfrom this organization of his own begetting, declaring that it was not\nthe Church of Christ.\n\nZenas H. Gurley was just as unstable as Mr. Briggs. He was born at\nBridgewater, New York, May 29, 1801, joined the Church in April, 1838,\nand moved to Far West, from whence he was driven with the Saints in the\nexpulsion of 1838-39. After this expulsion he settled in Nauvoo, where,\nin 1844, he was ordained a Seventy,[3] under the direction of President\nJoseph Young, and on the 6th day of April, 1845, he was ordained senior\npresident of the twenty-first quorum of Seventy. He sustained the\nTwelve and followed their teachings and remained with the Church until\nFebruary, 1846, (the month of the exodus) when he also left the Church\nand shortly afterwards joined with James J. Strang. Mr. Gurley was\nendowed in the Nauvoo Temple with his wife January 6, 1846, and of that\nevent the record of Seventies states under date of January 10, 1846:\n\n    President Zenas H. Gurley arose and said that the Presidents of the\n    quorum (21st) had received their endowment. He observed that it was\n    remarkable for the unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit.--Page 29.\n\nAgain speaking of the authorities of the Church he said:\n\n    He remembered forcibly the sayings of the First Presidents of\n    Seventy, that we should so live that no charge can be brought\n    against us. A few years ago the men in high standing in this Church\n    were as little as we are. They obtained their exaltation by patient\n    submission to right, and minding their own business.--Page 29.\n\nOn January 25th, 1846, he said:\n\n    The Saints who have passed through the trials of the Church were\n    generally rooted and grounded in love and have a witness in their\n    own hearts or they would not have remained.--Page 33.\n\nWithin a very few days of this time Zenas H. Gurley deserted the Church\nbecause he was unable to face the trials and hardships the Saints were\nforced to undergo. The \"Mormon\" people were journeying in a strange\nland, the prospects before them were dark and some of the members\nbecame faint-hearted and were unable to endure to the end. Of this\nnumber Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley were two who turned back and\nsought refuge in the apostate organization of James J. Strang. Indeed\nit required a strong heart and a firm-rooted faith for men and women\nto give up all earthly comforts and undertake a journey of that kind.\nDeath stared the Saints in the face, they were poorly clothed, without\nshelter, save their ragged tents that would not shed the rain, and\nalmost destitute of food; yet with the exception of the few who sought\nthe \"flesh-pots of Egypt,\" they patiently and determinedly pursued\ntheir way until crowned with the victory. The opinion of the world\nat that time was that the exodus meant the end of \"Mormonism,\" and\nthat the Latter-day Saints had gone to their destruction; for without\nthe necessary means to support life, and isolated as they were from\nthe rest of civilization, they must surely perish in the barren and\ndistant West. Such, too, would doubtless have been the case had not the\nprotecting hand of Jehovah guided them. Is it any wonder under such\ntrying conditions that the hearts of those weak in the faith should\nfail them?\n\nIn 1849 Mr. Gurley filled a mission for Mr. Strang and made a number of\nconverts to that faith. In 1850 he organized the \"Yellowstone branch,\"\nfor the Strangite church. In 1852 he rejected the claim of Mr. Strang\nand joined with Mr. Jason W. Briggs, and these two men united their\nrespective Strangite branches, those of Yellowstone and Beloit, and\norganized themselves into a new religious movement known today as the\n\"Reorganized\" church. In 1853, the leaders of this movement called a\nnumber of men to the ministry, \"ordained\" seven \"apostles\" and began\na proselyting movement. For several years they tried to get \"young\nJoseph,\" the son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who had never affiliated\nwith the Saints since the exodus from Nauvoo, to join them and become\ntheir president. In this they failed, but were diligent and finally,\nthrough their continued efforts and the persuasion of his mother, he\naccepted that position in 1860, was \"ordained\" president of their\nchurch by William Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, and William W. Blair, and has\ncontinued in that position ever since.\n\nMr. Gurley remained with this movement till his death, but his family,\ntogether with Jason W. Briggs, voluntarily withdrew in 1886.\n\nIn 1852, when Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley combined their\nStrangite forces the membership was about one hundred souls, most of\nwhom were converts made for Mr. Strang. In 1860, when \"young Joseph\"\nassumed the leadership, the membership was three hundred souls, most\nof whom were converts that had never belonged to the Church of Jesus\nChrist of Latter-day Saints.\n\nOf the members of the Church who were in fellowship in 1844-46, the\n\"Reorganization\" has received no more, and likely less than one\nthousand converts, which fact shows that the apostasy was not so\ngreat in 1844-46, as has been pictured. These statements are based on\nthe testimony of original members of the \"Reorganization,\" as they\ntestified before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Western District of\nMissouri, in 1894, in the Temple Lot suit, which was for the possession\nof property in the hands of the \"Church of Christ\" or \"Hedrickites.\"\n\nBefore that court Mr. William W. Blair, who for many years was a member\nof the presidency of the \"Reorganization\" and who was one of its oldest\nmembers, testified that \"one thousand was probably too high an estimate\nfor the members of the original church, that had joined the Reorganized\nchurch.\" He could \"approximately say\" that one thousand had joined the\n\"Reorganized church, and possibly that estimate was too large.\" Record\npp. 180, 181.\n\nWilliam Marks, whose testimony is referred to by Mr. Evans, was also\none of those who joined the \"Reorganization\" in an early day. At the\ntime of the martyrdom he was president of the Nauvoo Stake, but was\ndisfellowshipped for transgression at the October conference, 1844,\nand finally excommunicated. Afterwards he joined the organization\nunder James J. Strang. In that organization he became a \"bishop,\"\nwas a member of the \"high council,\" and later a member of the \"first\npresidency.\" After the death of James J. Strang, he joined the\norganization of Charles B. Thompson, another apostate. This is the same\nWilliam Marks who \"ordained\" Joseph Smith, of Lamoni, president of\nthe \"Reorganization.\" In that ordination he was assisted by Zenas H.\nGurley and William W. Blair. Mr. Blair never belonged to the Church. It\nis almost needless to add that these men held no divine authority and\ncould not bestow the Priesthood and officiate in the ordinances of the\nGospel, and, therefore, the pretentions of the \"Reorganized\" church are\nfraudulent. Judged by its history, doctrines and the unstable character\nof its founders it is proved to be a counterfeit and nothing more.\n\nConsidering the conditions under which the \"Reorganization\" came\ninto existence, and the fact that in the beginning the original one\nhundred members came from the Strangite church, and that during the\nexistence of that organization from its foundation to 1894, not more\nthan one thousand members of the \"original church\" (i.e. the Church\nof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it stood in 1844) had joined\nit, we are not to be blamed if we declare that that church is not the\nsuccessor, a faction or a portion of the \"original church\" founded by\nJoseph Smith the Prophet through the command of God, April 6, 1830.\nAnd after following the history of its founders and pointing out their\ninstability and the manner in which they followed after false leaders,\nreceiving \"ordinations\" and honors under their hands, we can most\nemphatically declare that they were not the faithful who did \"not bow\nthe knee to Baal,\" and who kept the \"everlasting covenant.\"\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. _Saints' Herald_, Vol. one.\n\n2. See article in _Era_, Vol. 7, No. 11, entitled, \"The Church\nRejected--When?\"\n\n3. The \"Reorganized\" Church History states that Z. H. Gurley was\nordained a Seventy in Far West in 1838. This is an error, they have\nno original record of such an ordination. The original records of\nthe Seventies in the Historian's Office, Salt Lake City, give his\nordination as stated here.","title":"Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":37095}