THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE

                                 Volume 3

                            A HISTORY PROBLEM
                         23 Dec. 1805 - Jun. 1970

                                   GEMS

                              COPYRIGHT 1971
                         GEMS Publishing Company
                              P.O. Box 7434
                           Murray, Utah, 84107

2. And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the
Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall
be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.
5. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
											Isaiah 2:2-5


                                 PREFACE

* * * The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, suffered greater
sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man
can be. But, notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and
remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to
keep the law and remain also without sin; and also, that by him a
righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in
the law of God may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for
their sins.
											JOSEPH SMITH.

* * * This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the
subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle
was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine
which pertained to celestial order and glory. * * * From him I learned
that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and
important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without
obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of
exaltation in celestial glory.
											WILLIAM CLAYTON.

* * * The principle spoken upon by Brother Pratt, this morning, we believe
in. And I tell you, for I know it, it will sail over, and ride
triumphantly above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day; it will
be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portions of the world,
as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people.
											BRIGHAM YOUNG.

* * * I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of
plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President
Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have
refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they
should not be solemnized. * * * I told the Bishop that it would not do at
all. There must be no more plural marriages. I am confident that there
have been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position.
											WILFORD WOODRUFF.


[i]                            INTRODUCTION

	Plural, Celestial marriage was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith
as one of the "mysteries of godliness." He in turn taught it to others in
the same manner. Those to whom it has been revealed have been taught that
it is "the most holy and important principle revealed by God to man." They
have been placed under severe restrictions not to reveal this principle
nor teach it to others except under certain conditions. They must not
betray God nor His revelations to the wicked. Because of these things much
of the material found in this volume will appear of a contradictory
nature.
	When wicked men have come to know of these sacred principles, they
have sought to use them in an attempt to justify their own wickedness in
pursuing an unholy course in their lives. When their wickedness has been
exposed, they have betrayed God and their brethren who trusted them. They
published to the world that Joseph and his brethren were adulterers,
seducers of women, wicked, lustful, etc. In this way they accused them of
the very sins of which they themselves were guilty, or which they
entertained in their own hearts. They twisted the words and intents of the
Prophets and Apostles of God to suit their own evil designs and purposes.
Often they clothed themselves with a deceiving sanctity through false
affidavits, lies, etc., to the degree that, in many cases, they actually
believed themselves to be correct and justified in their course and
actions.
	Though surrounded by false brethren and traitors, Joseph and Hyrum
Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Heber
C. Kimball, and many others stood true to and kept their covenants. In the
face of all their traditions, and in the face of all the apparent
contradictions, they kept the whole law and maintained their integrity.
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Peruse the history of the lives of
these men. Observe the fruits which flowed from their lives. The record
will prove who were truly the servants of God.
[ii]	It is neither the intention nor the desire of the compiler to cause
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any embarassment. He does
not wish to cast unkind reflections upon her or her leaders in any way. He
entertains a deep and abiding love and respect for and confidence in the
Church and her Leaders. He wishes to make it clear that he sustains the
Church in her present policy relating to plural marriage. He also wishes
to be understood by all, that in publishing this work he does not mean to
imply that her leaders have gone astray. He regards the Church as
fulfilling her destiny in the world today.
	We proffer no excuse for those who maintain the propriety of
perpetuating the living of plural marriage in this day. Certainly they are
out of harmony with the present policy of the Church and her leaders.
Whatever the consequences may be, they alone must bear the burden and
answer to God for their behavior. It is certain that if any man or woman
enters into any unlawful union, whether polygamous or not, they must
suffer the consequences. When anyone violates even the least of the
commandments of God they must pay the penalty. It matters not how
sophisticated their arguments may be, God "knows the hearts and tries the
reins" of the children of men. Those who wilfully violate or set aside His
laws and the counsels of His servants may find in the end that the burden
will be greater than they had anticipated. They may find that they have
forfeited the very blessings that they had deceived themselves into
believing that they had secured unto themselves.
	If plural, celestial marriage is to be continued in the Church and
among God's people today, there is sufficient keys and authority within
the Church to perform those sealings. It is not so much a question of
authority as it is a matter of permission to perform such sealings. The
ordinances of the Gospel do not contemplate death. If a man's first wife
dies and a second is seated to him for time and for all eternity, it is
the same as if the first wife were still alive. If there is sufficient
authority to seal a living woman to a man who has a wife sealed to him who
is dead, there is sufficient authority to seal living [iii] women to a man
in any number. The authority and the ceremony in each and all of these
cases is the same. When the President of the Church says that no man
either in or out of the Church has authority to perform a living plural
sealing, it is the same as to say that no man has permission to do so.
	The sealing power is the power to bind on earth and it shall be bound
in heaven, or beyond the grave. This power was restored to the earth
through the instrumentality of Elijah the Prophet in the Kirtland Temple.
This power was to remain with the Church until the end of time. The keys
of this power reside in the Apostleship. If this power is not present, the
Apostleship is not present. Just before Joseph Smith died he conferred all
of the keys, power and authority that he himself held upon the heads of
the Twelve Apostles. These keys, power and authority have been handed down
by regular succession, and remain with the Church to the present day.
	In this volume will be found many interesting and curious documents.
They have been included because they have attracted the attention of many
people who have delved into the history of plural, celestial marriage.
They are items which were major issues either at the time of their
presentation or have becomes such since that time. Their inclusion does
not necessarily indicate indorsement by the compiler.
	One of these items is a portion of a manuscript entitled THE PEACE
MAKER. This manuscript was written by Udney Hay Jacob in 1840 or before. A
portion of this work dealt with plural marriage and related items as
provided for by the Law of Moses. This was published by Mr. Jacob on the
Church press in Nauvoo in 1842. This unique and curious item is included
in its entirety with the original spelling and punctuation. Many of the
so-called "Fundamentalists" and others have taken portions of this work
and attributed it to Joseph Smith. They have used many things contained
therein to justify themselves in deviations from the true principles of
celestial marriage. When he wrote and published this pamphlet, Mr. Jacob
was not a [iv] member of the Church. Joseph Smith denounced this work
through the official Church organ, The TIMES AND SEASONS. The Latter-day
Saints are striving to live by the law of Christ, which is above the Law
of Moses around which THE PEACE MAKER was written.
	These volumes follow a chronological format. For the most part only
easily accessable reference material has been used, so that those wishing
to confirm the source or to invistigate more thoroughly may do so. Most of
the material is available at the Salt Lake City Public Library Special
Collections. Other material in the form of microfilms and reproductions of
other documents, diaries, etc., have been obtained from Universal
Microfilms, Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah; The New York Public Library;
The Illinois State Historical Society Library at Springfield, Illinois;
The Henry E. Huntington Library at San Marino, California; Brigham Young
University Library at Provo, Utah; The University of Utah Library at Salt
Lake City, Utah; and, in a few instances, from private collections.

                                   NOTE

	It is interesting to note that the earliest journals of Joseph Smith,
Brigham Young, and others, which are readily available, contain no
contemporary entries which would confirm dates of plural marriages or the
fact that a plural wife was taken on a given date, or of other events
concerning this principle, and often no entry at all, and the testimony
upon which we are dependent, to establish these early facts and dates, is
given, by those involved or personally acquainted with them, many years
after the event. Thus we are entirely dependent upon the integrity of the
words and recollections of the individuals giving their testimony. The
same condition of affairs exists in connection with the early events of
the "underground" movement of the 1880's and 1890's, as in the case of the
much disputed events of Sept. 26-27, 1886, when President John Taylor
received a certain revelation concerning this principle, so closely
guarded were the details of those [v] events concerning this "most holy
and important principle ever revealed by God to man." Just as in the
Nauvoo period, where the contemporary journal entries, for instance, of
Joseph Smith, are often bland and usually extremely non-revealing as
pertaining to this particular principle, so it is in those of the
principals of the "underground" era, and afterward, and we are entirely
dependent upon the testimonies given years after the events by those
directly involved or personally acquainted with them if they left any
testimony at all, together with the natural fruit which flows from those
historical events.

[1]
23 Dec 1805:
	Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was born in Sharon, Windsor County,
Vermont.

1821 -1828:
	These years may be termed the preparatory period preceding the
restoration of the Priesthood and the organization of the Church of Christ
on the earth. The Angel Moroni appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith, jun.
several times, and finally delivered to him the plates of the Book of
Mormon. The translation of the sacred records was begun, and Joseph
commenced to receive revelations.

7 Nov 1822:
	Vilate Murray was married to Heber C. Kimball.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 9)

8 Oct 1824:
	Miriam Works was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 14)

18 Jan 1827:
	Emma Hale was married to Joseph Smith in a secret ceremony.

(Jensen, CHURCH CHRONOLOGY)

1829:
	During this year the translation of the Book of Mormon was completed
by Joseph Smith, jun. who was assisted by Oliver Cowdery as scribe; the
plates were shown to the [2] Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses; the
Aaronic Priesthood was restored to the earth by John the Baptist, and,
later, the Melchizedek Priesthood by Peter, James and John; Joseph Smith,
jun., and Oliver Cowdery also commenced to preach and baptize.

	The earliest revelation given upon the principle of plurality of
wives, of which we have record, was apparently given during the time that
Joseph, the Prophet was translating the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery
being scribe. Brigham Young alludes to this incident in the report of a
sermon made by him by Charles Walker in his journal entry under the date
of 26 Jul 1872:

	Brigham spoke on the folly of apostacy, and the lying spirit that
apostates give way to after turning away from the truth. Said that while
Joseph and Oliver were translating the Book of Mormon they had a
revelation that the order of Patriarchal Marriage and the Sealing was
right. Oliver said unto Joseph, "Brother Joseph, why don't we go into the
Order of polygamy, and practice it as the ancients did? We know it is
true--then why delay?" Joseph's reply was "I know that we know it is true
and from God, but the time has not yet come." This did not seem to suit
Oliver who expressed a determination to go into the order of plural
marriage anyhow, although he was ignorant of the order and pattern and the
results. Joseph said, "Oliver, if you go into this thing, it is not with
my faith or consent." Disregarding the counsel of Joseph, Oliver Cowdery
took to wife Miss Annie Lyman, cousin to Geo. A. Smith. From that time he
went into darkness and lost the spirit. Annie Lyman is still alive a
witness to these things. (Journal of Charles Walker, 26 Jul 1872, see also
the testimony of Joseph B. Noble under date Jun 1886, THE MOST HOLY
PRINCIPLE, vol. 1:422-424)

6 Apr 1830:
	The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was [3] organized
according to the Laws of the State of New York, at Fayette, Seneca County,
New York.

1831, Orson Pratt, re: Lyman Johnson:
	Lyman Johnson, who was very familiar with Joseph at this early date,
Joseph living at his father's house, and who was also very intimate with
me, we having traveled on several missions together, told me himself that
Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831 that plural marriage was a
correct principle. Joseph declared to Lyman that God had revealed it to
him, but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church,
but that the time would come.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:230)

1 Jul 1831, Revelation:
	For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land. Let no
man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the
counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or
sitteth upon the judgment seat. Let no man break the laws of the land, for
he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the
land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose
right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet. (D. & C.
58:19-22)

Jan-Sep 1832, Brigham Young:
	I never preached to the world but what the cry was. "That damned old
Joe Smith has done thus and so." I would tell the people that they did not
know him, and I did, and that I knew him to be a good man; and that when
they spoke against him, they spoke against as good a man as ever lived.

	I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend
of ours, before I was personally acquainted [4] with the Prophet Joseph. I
clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to
rail against "Joe Smith, " saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar,
moneydigger, gambler, and a whoremaster;" and he charged him with
everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on,
brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of
Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the
Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The
doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against
that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a
devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide
it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife
every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for
I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will
save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that,
find it. He said, "I have done."

	It is the fashion in the world to embrace men in their faith, or a
fine meeting house, or a genteel congregation, thinking, "O, what perfect
order, and how pretty they look; how straight they walk to meeting, and
how long their faces are during the services; how pretty that deacon looks
under the pulpit; the people are so pretty, the meeting house is so nice,
that we want to join such a pretty people." Such feelings will take a
people to hell. Embrace a doctrine that will purge sin and iniquity from
your hearts, and sanctify you before God, and you are right, no matter how
others act.

(JOURNALS OF DISCOURSES, 4:77-78)

8 Sep 1832:
	Miriam Works, the first wife of Brigham Young, died.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 14)

[5]
28 Jan 1833:
	Leonora Cannon was married to John taylor.

(Roberts, LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Appendix)

6 May 1833:
	And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and
as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the
spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

	The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John
bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of
all truth; and no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his
commandments. He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light,
until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

	Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

	All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it,
to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no
existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation
of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto
them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth
not the light is under condemnation. For man is spirit.

	The elements are eternal, the spirit and element, inseparably
connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot
receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man
is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled,
God shall destroy that temple.

	The Glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, [6] light and
truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one. Every spirit of man was
innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men
became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked
one cometh and taketh away light and truth through disobedience, from the
children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. But I have
commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth.

(Doctrine and Covenants, 93:24-40)

24 Jul 1833:
	Agatha Ann Woolsey was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J. D. Lee, p. 2)

6 Aug 1833:
	In a revelation given at this time, the Lord defines the law of the
land and the responsibility devolving upon the Saints to "live by every
word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God:"

	"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land. It
is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I
command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting
that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to
all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify
you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the
constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man,
whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

	"I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and
the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the
people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for
diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to [7] uphold;
otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

	"And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil
and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which
proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. For, he will give unto the
faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and
prove you herewith. And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my
name's sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

	"Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my
heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you
will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.
For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." (D. & C.
98:4-15)

22 Jan 1834, Joseph Smith:
	THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH IN KIRTLAND, TO THEIR BRETHREN ABROAD.

Dear Brethren in Christ, and Companions in Tribulation: * * *

	We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we
believe ought to be duty considered by every individual, that all men are
created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves
upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not
disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free
independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the
human family as one of its choicest gifts; but we take the liberty (and
this we have a right to do) of looking at this order of things a few
moments, and contrasting it with the order of God as we find it in the
sacred Scriptures. In this review, however, we shall present the points as
we consider they were really designed by the great Giver to be understood,
[8] and the happy result arising from a performance of the requirements of
heaven as revealed to every one who obeys them; and the consequence
attending a false construction, a misrepresentation, or a forced meaning
that was never designed in the mind of the Lord when He condescended to
speak from the heavens to men for their salvation.

	Previous to entering upon a subject of so great moment to the human
family, there is a prominent item which suggests itself to our minds,
which, here, in few words, we wish to discuss: All regularly organized and
well established governments have certain laws by which, more or less, the
innocent are protected and the guilty punished. The fact admitted, that
certain laws are good, equitable and just, ought to be binding upon the
individual who admits this, and lead him to observe in the strictest
manner an obedience to those laws. These laws when violated, or broken by
the individual, must, in justice, convict his mind with a double force, if
possible, of the extent and magnitude of his crime; because he could have
no plea of ignorance to produce; and his act of transgression was openly
committed against light and knowledge. But the individual who may be
ignorant and imperceptibly transgresses or violates laws, though the voice
of the country requires that he should suffer, yet he will never feel that
remorse of conscience that the other will, and that keen, cutting
reflection will never rise in his breast that otherwise would, had he done
the deed, or committed the offense in full conviction that he was breaking
the law of his country, and having previously acknowledged the same to be
just. It is not our intention by these remarks, to attempt to place the
law of man on a parallel with the law of heaven; because we do not
consider that it is formed in the same wisdom and propriety; neither do we
consider that it is sufficient in itself to bestow anything on man in
comparison with the law of heaven, even should it promise it. The laws of
men may guarantee to a people protection in the honorable pursuits of this
life, and the temporal happiness arising from a protection against unjust
insults [9] and injuries and when this is said, all is said, that can be
in truth, of the power, extent, and influence of the laws of men,
exclusive of the law of God. The law of heaven is presented to man, and as
such guarantees to all who obey it a reward far beyond any earthly
consideration; though it does not promise that the believer in every age
should be exempt from the afflictions and troubles arising from different
sources in consequence of the acts of wicked men on earth. Still in the
midst of all this there is a promise predicated upon the fact that it is
the law of heaven, which transcends the law of man, as far as eternal life
the temporal; and as the blessings which God is able to give, are greater
than those which can be given by man. Then, certainly, if the law of man
is binding upon man when acknowledged, how much more must the law of
heaven be! And as much as the law of heaven is more perfect than the law
of man, so much greater must be the reward if obeyed. The law of man
promises safety in temporal life; but the law of God promises that life
which is eternal, even an inheritance at God's own right hand, secure from
all the powers of the wicked one.

	We consider that God has created man with a mind capable of
instruction, and a faculty which may be enlarged in proportion to the heed
and diligence given to the light communicated from heaven to the
intellect; and that the nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are
his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils
of his life and lost every desire for sin; and like the ancients, arrives
at that point of faith where he is wrapped in the power and glory of his
Maker, and is caught up to dwell with Him. But we consider that this is a
station to which no man ever arrived in a moment; he must have been
instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees,
until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety,
justice, equality, and consistency of the same. For further instruction we
refer you to Deut. xxxii, where the Lord says, that Jacob is the lot of
his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the [10] waste,
howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as
the apple of His eye, etc.; which will show the force of the last item
advanced, that it is necessary for men to receive an understanding
concerning the laws of the heavenly kingdom, before they are permitted to
enter it: we mean the celestial glory. So dissimilar are the governments
of men, and so divers are their laws, from the government and laws of
heaven, that a man, for instance, hearing that there was a country on this
globe called the United States of North America, could take his journey to
this place without first learning the laws of government; but the
conditions of God's kingdom are such, that all who are made partakers of
that glory, are under the necessity of learning something respecting it
previous to their entering into it. But the foreigner can come to this
country without knowing a syllable of its laws, or even subscribing to
obey them after he arrives. Why? Because the government of the United
States does not require it: It only requires an obedience to its laws
after the individual has arrived within its jurisdiction." * * *

	We take the sacred writings into our hands, and admit that they were
given by direct inspiration for the good of man. We believe that God
condescended to speak from the heavens and declare His will concerning the
human family, to give them just and holy laws, to regulate their conduct,
and guide them in a direct way, that in due time He might take them to
Himself, and make them joint heirs with His Son. But when this fact is
admitted, that the immediate will of heaven is contained in the
Scriptures, are we not bound as rational creatures to live in accordance
to all its precepts? Will the mere admission, that this is the will of
heaven ever benefit us if we do not comply with all its teachings? Do we
not offer violence to the Supreme Intelligence of heaven, when we admit
the truth of its teachings, and do not obey them? Do we not descend below
our own knowledge, and the better wisdom which heaven has endowed us with,
by such a course of conduct? For these reasons, if we have direct
revelations given us from heaven, surely those revelations [11] were never
given to be trifled with, without the trifler's incurring displeasure and
vengeance upon his own head, if there is any justice in heaven; and that
there is must be admitted by every individual who admits the truth and
force of God's teachings, His blessings and cursings, as contained in the
sacred volume. * * *

	As we previously remarked, all well established and properly
organized governments have certain fixed and prominent laws for the
regulation and management of the same. If man has grown to wisdom and is
capable of discerning the propriety of laws to govern nations, what less
can be expected from the Ruler and Upholder of the universe? Can we
suppose that He has a kingdom without laws? Or do we believe that it is
composed of an innumerable company of beings who are entirely beyond all
law? Consequently have need of nothing to govern or regulate them? Would
not such ideas he a reproach to our Great Parent, and at variance with His
glorious intelligence? Would it not be asserting that man had found out a
secret beyond Deity? That he had learned that it was good to have laws,
which God after existing from eternity and having power to create man, had
not found out that it was proper to have laws for His government? We admit
that God is the great source and fountain from whence proceeds all good;
that He is perfect intelligence, and that His wisdom is alone sufficient
to govern and regulate the mighty creations and worlds which shine and
blaze with such magnificence and splendor over our heads, as though
touched with His finger and moved by His Almighty word. And if so, it is
done and regulated by law; for without law all must certainly fall into
chaos. If, then, we admit that God is the source of all wisdom and
understanding, we must admit that by His direct inspiration He has taught
man that law is necessary in order to govern and regulate His own
immediate interest and welfare: For this reason, that law is beneficial to
promote peace and happiness among men. And as before remarked, God is the
source from whence proceeds all good; and if man is benefitted by law,
then certainty; law is good; consequently, then, he was the first Author
[12] of law, or the principle of it, to mankind. * * *

	No doubt, the course which we pursued in our last communication to
you, is yet familiar to your minds; that we there endeavored to show, as
far as possible, the propriety, in part, of adhering to the law of heaven;
and also, the consistency in looking to heaven for a law or rule to serve
us as a guide in this present state of existence, that we may be prepared
to meet that which inevitably awaits us, as well as all mankind. There is
an importance, perhaps, attached to this subject, which the world has not
so fully examined as it requires. Think for a moment, of the greatness of
the Being who created the Universe; and ask, could He be so inconsistent
with his own character, as to leave man without a law or rule by which to
regulate his conduct, after placing him here, where, according to the
formation of his nature he must in a short period sink into the dust? Is
there nothing further; is there no existence beyond this vail of death
which is so suddenly to be cast over all of us? If there is, why not that
Being who had power to place us here, inform us something of the
hereafter? If we had power to place ourselves in this present existence,
why not have power to know what shall follow when that dark vail is cast
over our bodies? If in this life we receive our all; if when we crumble
back to dust we are no more, from what source did we emanate, and what was
the purpose of our existence? If this life were all, we should be led to
query, whether or not there was really any substance in existence, and we
might with propriety say, Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we
die! But if this life is all, then why this constant toiling, why this
continual warfare, and why this unceasing trouble? But this life is not
all, the voice of reason, the language of inspiration, and the Spirit of
the living God, our Creator, teaches us, as we hold the record of truth in
our hands, that this is not the case, that this is not so; for, the
heavens declare the glory of a God, and the firmament showeth His
handiwork; and a moment's reflection is. sufficient to teach every man of
common intelligence, [13] that all these are not the mere productions of
chance, nor could they be supported by any power less than an Almighty
hand; and He that can mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the
heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he
who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it,
will know the hand wherever he can see it; and when once discovered, it
will not only receive an acknowledgment, but an obedience to all its
heavenly precepts. For a moment reflect: what could have been the purpose
of our Father in giving to us a law? Was it that it might be obeyed, or
disobeyed? And think further, too, not only of the propriety, but of the
importance of attending to His laws in every particular. If, then, there
is an importance in this respect, is there not a responsibility of great
weight resting upon those who are called to declare these truths to men?
Were we capable of laying anything before you as a just comparison, we
would cheerfully do it; but in this our ability fails, and we are inclined
to think that man is unable, without assistance beyond what has been given
to those before, of expressing in words the greatness of this important
subject. We can only say, that if an anticipation of the joys of the
celestial glory, as witnessed to the hearts of the humble is not
sufficient, we will leave to yourselves the result of your own diligence;
for God ere long, will call all his servants before Him, and there from
His own hand they will receive a just recompense and a righteous reward
for all their labors. * * * (DHC 2:4-24)

18 Feb 1834:
	Mary Ann Angel was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 15)

4 Sep 1834:
	Marinda N. Johnson was married to Orson Hyde in Kirtland, Ohio.

[14]
(Smith, BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, p. 74)

24 Sep 1834:
	Jenetta Richards was married to Willard Richards.

Dec 1834, Joseph Smith:
LECTURES ON FAITH

* * * the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father * * *
	* * * descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or, in
other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful
contradictions than any man can be. But, notwithstanding all this, he kept
the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in
the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin; and also,
that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all
who walk not in the law of. God may justly be condemned by the law, and
have no excuse for their sins.

	Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas of the
character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of
the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they
pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled
to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.

	This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for
it was by reason of it that the ancients were enabled to endure as seeing
him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person, that the course
of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially
necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no
person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient
saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to [15] take
joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing (not believing merely) that
they had a more enduring substance. (Hebrews X:34)

	Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was
agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the
spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but
also to suffer death in its most horid forms; knowing (Not merely
believing) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved,
they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens. (2 Corinthians V:1)

	Such was, and always will be, the situation of the saints of God,
that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are
pursuing is according to the will of God they will grow weary in their
minds, and faint; for such has been, and always will be, the opposition in
the hearts of unbelievers and those that know not God against the pure and
unadulterated religion of heaven (the only thing which insures eternal
life), that they will persecute to the uttermost all that worship God
according to his revelations, receive the truth in the love of it, and
submit themselves to be guided and directed by his will, and drive them to
such extremities that nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being
the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced the order of things
which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to
exercise that confidence in him, necessary for them to overcome the world,
and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.

1835:
	The Council of the Twelve was organized.

1835, Benjamin F. Johnson:
	And now as to your question, "How early did the Prophet Joseph
practice polygamy?" I hardly know how [16] wisely to reply, for the truth
at times may better be withheld; but as what I am writing is to be
published only under the strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that
the revelation of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage,
was not the first revelation of that law received and practiced by the
Prophet. In 1835 at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R.
Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the
ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church."
This, at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived
then with his family (the Prophet's) a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger,
a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only
myself, but every one, seemed partial, for the amiability of her
character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her. After
this, there was some trouble with Jared Carter, and through Brother
Sherman, I learned that "as he had built himself another house, he wanted
another wife," which Joseph would not permit.

	And there was some trouble with Oliver Cowdery, and whisper said it
was relating to a girl then living in his (the Prophet's family; and I was
afterwards told by Warren Parish, that he himself and Oliver Cowdery did
know that Joseph and Fannie Alger as husband and wife, for they were spied
upon and found together. And I can now see that at Nauvoo, so at Kirtland,
that the suspicion or knowledge of the Prophet's disruption at Kirtland,
although at the time there was little said publicly on the subject. (sic)
(LETTER TO GEORGE S. GIBBS, from BENJAMIN F. JOHNSON, 1903)

1835:
MARRIAGE.

	According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is
regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore, we believe that all marriages
in this church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, should be solemnized in a
public [17] meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose; and that the
solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest,
bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are
desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe
that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out
of the church if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will
be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

	Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at
the solemnization, the persons to be married standing together, the man on
the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person
officiating, as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit; and if there be
no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names, "You both
mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing
the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves
wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives." And when
they have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them "husband and wife," in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the
country and authority vested in him: "May God add his blessings, and keep
you to fulfil your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.

	The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages
solemnized in his branch.

	All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into
this church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy;
we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one
woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty
to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized
contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her
to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents;
and to influence them to embrace any [18] religious faith, or be baptized,
or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We
believe that husbands, parents, and masters, who exercise control over
their wives, children, and servants, and prevent them from embracing the
truth, will have to answer for that sin. (Doctrine and Covenants, Sec 101,
1835 ed., sec 109, 1854 ed.

17 Aug 1835:
A DECLARATION OF BELIEF.

regarding Governments and Laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a
general assembly of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held
at Kirtland, Ohio August 17, 1835, with the following preamble:

	That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in
general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought
proper to present at the close of this volume our opinion concerning the
same.

	We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of
man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them,
both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of
society.

	We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws
are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free
exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the
protection of life.

	We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers
and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will
administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld
by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

	We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are
amenable to him, and to him only, for the ex-[19]ercise of it, unless
their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and
liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to
interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men,
nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil
magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should
punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

	We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the
respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their
inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that
sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and
should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to
enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure
the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom
of conscience.

	We believe that every man should be honored in his station rulers and
magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and
the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and
deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by
anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of
regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man;
and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns,
for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his maker.

	We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right and are
bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free
exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a
right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them
in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws
and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

[20]	We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according
to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and
the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished
according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by
the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the
public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their
ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

	We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil
government whereby one religious society is fostered and another
proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its
members, as citizens, denied.

	We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with
their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and
regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for
fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious
society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take
from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or
limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only
excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their
fellowship.

	We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all
wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of
property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the
same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves,
their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful
assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where
immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

	We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth,
and warn the righteous to save themselves [21] from the corruption of the
world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants,
neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and
wish of their masters, not to meddle with or influence them in the least
to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life,
thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be
unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government
allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (Doctrine and Covenants
Sec. 134)

Saturday 16 Jan 1836, Joseph Smith:
	Although I have sometimes spoken harshly from the impulse of the
moment, and inasmuch as I have wounded your feelings, brethren, I ask your
forgiveness, for I love you and will hold you up with all my heart in all
righteousness, before the Lord, and before all men; for be assured,
brethren, I am willing to stem the torrent of opposition, in storms and in
tempests, in thunders and in lightnings, by sea and by land, in the
wilderness or among false brethren, or mobs, or wherever God in His
providence may call us. And I am determined that neither heights nor
depths, principalities nor powers, things present or things to come, or
any other creature, shall separate me from you. And I will now covenant
with you before God, that I will not listen to or credit any derogatory
report against any of you, nor condemn you upon any testimony beneath the
heavens, short of that testimony which is infallible, until I can see you
face to face, and know of a surety; and I do place unremitted confidence
in your word, for I believe you to be men of truth. And I ask the same of
you, when I tell you anything, that you place equal confidence in my word,
for I will not tell you I know anything that I do not know. (DHC 2:374)

(Note: Preceeding the above item the Prophet records the following: "By
request I met with the Council of the Twelve in company with my
Counselors, Frederick G. Williams and Sidney ]Rigdon." (ibid,p. 372)

[22]
9 Oct 1836:
	Ruth Moon was married to William Clayton.

(Genealogical Records Book #106)

13 Apr 1837:
	Phoebe W. Carter was married to Wilford Woodruff.

(Cowley, LIFE OF WILFORD WOODRUFF, p. 689)

29 Apr 1837:
	The Presidents of the Seventies met in council in the House of the
Lord, on the 29th of April, 1837, and after opening the meeting by prayer,
they proceeded to take into consideration some difficulties, either real
or imaginary, existing among the Seventies; and believing that every elder
who is called to proclaim the gospel to the nations of the earth, should
in all things conduct himself like a man of God, adopted, among others the
following resolutions:
	1st. --That we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder
belonging to the quorums of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or any
offence of the kind, and who does not in all things conform to the laws of
the church contained in the Bible and in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants.
	2nd. --That we discard the practice of ball-playing, wrestling,
jumping and all such low and degrading amusements, and above all the use
of the ardent spirits of any kind; and will have no fellowship with any
member of our quorum who indulges himself in the practice of such things.
	3rd. --That these resolutions be signed by the chairman and clerk,
publicly read on the next Sabbath for the approval of the Seventies, and
published in the Messenger and Advocate. (May 1837)
[23]				DANIELS. MILES, Chair.
				ELIAS SMITH, Clerk

*Note: According to the records, Joseph Smith had two living wives at this
date.

24 Dec 1837:
	Mary Fielding was married to Hyrum Smith, after his first wife's
death.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 28)

Tuesday 8 May 1838, Joseph Smith:
	I answered the questions which were frequently asked me while on my
last journey but one from Kirtland to Missouri, as printed in the Elders'
Journal, vol. I, number II, pages 28-29, as follow: * * *

7th: Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?

	No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion
dies, they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the
custom, which has gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to
our great mortification, in marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two
or three months, after the death of their companion. We believe that due
respect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of
both friends and children. * * * (DHC 3:28-29)

*Note: Joseph Smith had two wives at this date, both living.

13 Dec 1838:
	Artimesia Beman was married to Erastus Snow.
[24]
(Utah Gen. and Hist. Mag., 3:64)

20 Mar 1839, Revelation:
	My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions
shall be but a small moment; and then, if thou endure it well, God shall
exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.
	Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again with
warm hearts and friendly hands. Thou art not yet like Job; thy friends do
not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they
did Job. And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall
be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth
before the burning rays of the rising sun; and also that God hath set his
hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds,
that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove
them also and take them in their craftiness; also because their hearts are
corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and
love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very
uttermost; that they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut
off; and not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be
swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand
by the wall.
	Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine
anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not
sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in
mine eyes, but those who cry transgression do it because they are the
servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.
	And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might
bring them into bondage and death, Wo unto them; because they have
offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine
house. Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall
perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered
them. They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity
after them from gen-[25]eration to generation. It had been better for them
that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in
the depth of the sea.
	Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder,
and testify against them, saith the Lord of hosts; a generation of vipers
shall not escape the damnation of hell. Behold, mine eyes see and know all
their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof,
for them all; for there is a time appointed for every man, according as
his works shall be.
	God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the
unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the
world was until now; which our forefathers have awaited with anxious
expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were
pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their
glory; a time to come in the which nothing shall be with held, whether
there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and
dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon
all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And also,
if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land,
or to the sun, moon, or stars, all the times of their revolutions, all the
appointed days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws and set
times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of
times, according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of
the Eternal God of all the other gods before this world was, that should
be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall
enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.
	How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the
heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri
river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the
Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the
Latter-day Saints.
	Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they
not chosen? Because their hearts are [26] set so much upon the things of
this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this
one lesson, that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected
with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be
controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That
they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover
our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise
control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men,
in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves;
the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the
priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is
left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints,
and to fight against God.
	We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and
disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority, as
they suppose, they immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
	No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the
priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and
meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which
shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile,
reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and
then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou
hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; that he may know that
thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
	Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the
household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then
shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine
of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The
Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging
scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an
everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto
thee forever and ever. (DHC 3:293-301)

[27]
25 Apr 1839:
	Commerce, Hancock County, Illinois, later called Nauvoo, was selected
by the Prophet as a gathering place for the Saints.

Tuesday 2 Jul 1839, Joseph Smith:
	O Ye Twelve! and all saints! profit by this important Key--that in
all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments
and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not
betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God,
whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any
other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this
world or that which is to come. Yea, in all your kicking and flounderings,
see to it that you do not this thing, lest innocent blood be found upon
your skirts, and you go down to hell. All other sins are not to be
compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to the
brethren.
	I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It
is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That
man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying
that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know
assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does
not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. The principle is as correct as
the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an
adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as
the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign,
you may set it down that he is an adulterous man. (D.H.C. 3:385)

21 Mar 1840, Udney Hay Jacob:
To:
Martin Van Buren,
President of the United States,
Washington, D. C.
Honored Sir,
[28]	Being moved by a sense of solemn duty, I presume to address this
communication to you, being a watchman upon the walls of Zion and seeing
the sword approaching, I am constrained to give timely notice. Yet I am
happy to have it in my power, not only to give warning, but to suggest an
effectual remedy. If you Sir, fail in the coming election our country is
prostrated, and overwhelmed with inevitable destruction. This I speak by
authority, and do know that it is truth. * * * There is a general idea,
(and possibly it is an article of your creed) that prevails, (viz) that
politics or civil government and religion have no connection, and should
be kept assunder. Suffer me to take exceptions to this doctrine. Such a
government especially as ours, in the hands of the people, and directed by
their will; cannot be sustained, but by religious sanctions: * * * What I
have to propose, may appear extravagant to you. But Sir, it is simply
this. I hold in my hands a manuscript, which if it was published
seasonably, and sufficiently circulated, would I humbly conceive be the
certain means of insuring your election. Of this I have no doubt. I am
thorily (sic) acquainted with the religious principles and minds, of every
sect, and denomination of men in this land. And I now offer to place this
almighty power for the time being at your disposal, merely by a
publication of the book alluded to. This may appear an Herculean labor, in
a country filled with such a jargon of religion as this. But be assured my
dear Sir, that it is not impossible. * * * I now reside in Hancock Co,
Illinois, in the vicinity of the Mormons who have by their deligates
visited you that winter past. These Mormons know but very little of me;
but Sir, I know them, and I know them to be a deluded and dangerous set of
fanatics. Dangerous I say, as far as their influence goes. Smith has
returned home, and I am informed is determined to throw his weight with
all his deluded followers into the scale against you. They are at this
time in the United States a large body rapidly increasing, and Smith and
Rigdon hold their consciences. Now Sir, a system of religious, as well as
political truth, supported by irresistable and admitted Testimony,
calculated to cut its own way to the very center of every rational mind;
be their opinions what they may; and compelling [29] them to believe
verily, that by their coming votes their own destiny, not only for time
but for an endless eternity is absolutely involved, would produce a
tremendous effect. This my dear Sir can be done, even by your humble
servant. Observe, I do not pretend to say that every vote in the Union
shall be thus influenced. But I say this, that by the means which I hold
in my power if assisted seasonably by your aid, I shall bring the other
infallibly to kick the beam. * * *
				Yours most respectfully,
				UDNEY H. JACOB

(Copied from the original hand written copy found in the Illinois State
Historical Society Library.

Fall 1840, Joseph Bates Noble:
Territory of Utah,
County of Salt Lake.
	Be it remembered that on this twenty-sixth day of June, A. D. 1869,
personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said
county, Joseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn in due from of law, and
upon his oath saith, that in the fall of 1846, Joseph Smith taught him the
principle of celestial or plural marriage, or a plurality of wives; and
that the said Joseph Smith declared that he had received a revelation from
God on the subject, and that the angel of the Lord had commanded him
(Joseph Smith) to move forward in the said order of marriage; and further,
that the said Joseph Smith requested him (Joseph B. Noble) to step forward
and assist him in carrying out the said principle, saying, "In revealing
this to you, I have placed my life in your hands, therefore do not in an
evil hour betray me to my enemies."
	Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph B. Noble, the day and year
first above written.
				JOSEPH B. NOBLE
(seal) James Jack, Notary Public.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 3:221)

[30]
5 Oct 1840, Joseph Smith:
	"Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His
good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation
of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in
Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him."
(Ephesians, 1st Chap., 9th and 10th verses).

	Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last
dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be
conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.
	And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an
eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered
together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered
together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal
glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be
the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them
from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all
ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of
salvation?" (D.H.C. 4:208)

5 Apr 1841:
	(3) Louisa Beman was married to Joseph Smith, Joseph B. Noble,
officiating.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:233)

Wednesday 19 May 1844:
	From The WARSAW SIGNAL.

APPOINTMENT:

	We have no disposition to complain of the official acts of Judge
Douglass, for whom, as a man and an officer, we maintain the highest
regard, but there is one act of [31] his which receives our unqualified
disapprobation; and we speak advisedly when we say that it is frowned on
with indignity by nine-tenths of the substantial citizens of the
county--we speak of the appointment of Gen. Bennett to be MASTER IN
CHANCERY. Whether from political motives or personal regard, it is
certainly an act that has astonished the members of both parties, by its
indiscretion. Bennett has but recently become an inhabitant of this state.
He came here followed by evil report--he joins a sect and advocates a
creed in which no one believes he has any faith--his true character is not
known to our citizens, nor have they any confidence in him--under such
circumstances we believe, and we are not alone in this belief, that Judge
Douglass has committed an error in countenancing and encourageing such a
man by the gift of a responsible office--an office involving the rights,
and in certain instances the liberties of freemen. We, for one, say, let
the citizens of this county remonstrate against the appointment.

THE MORMONS:
	We understand that great dissatisfaction exists at Nauvoo, amongst
those who have lately arrived from England. It is said that many have
determined to leave--and that letters have been sent to England, warning
their friends, who had designed to emigrate, of the sad state of things in
the City of the Church. Mr. Rigdon, on the contrary, informed us last
week, that, in general, the new comers were well satisfied. Be it as it
may, it is certain that some have left both the City and the Church--not
believing, on the one hand, in the mission of the Prophet, and on the
other, dissatisfied with the temporal government which is exercised over
them.
	But this is no concern of ours. While on the subject, however, we
will notice an accusation which has been made against us--that of having,
for political effect, flattered the Mormons. This is not true--. We have
occasionally noticed their doings, but not with any such design. We
believe they have the same rights as other religious bodies possess, and
ought to be protected in the just and proper exercise of those rights. We
do not be-[32]lieve in persecution for opinion's sake. But whenever they,
as a people step beyond the proper sphere of a religious denomination, and
become a political body, as many of our citizens are beginning to
apprehend will be the case, then this press stands pledged to take a stand
against them. -- On religious questions it is and shall remain neutral;
but it is bound to oppose the concentration of political power in a
religious body, or in the hands of a few individuals.

27 Oct 1841:
	(4) Zina D. Huntington was married to Joseph Smith, Dimick B.
Huntington, officiating, Fanny Huntington, witness.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:233)

Sunday 7 Nov 1841, Joseph Smith:
	Elder William O. Clark preached about two hours, reproving the Saints
for a lack of sanctity, and a want of holy living, enjoining sanctity,
solemnity, and temperance in the extreme, in the rigid sectarian style.

	I reproved him as Pharisaical and hypocritical and not edifying the
people; and showed the Saints what temperance, faith, virtue, charity, and
truth were. I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the
adversary in accusing the brethren, and said, "If you do not accuse each
other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter
heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God
gives you through me, I will take you into heaven, as my back load. If you
wilt not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you wilt throw a cloak of
charity over my sins, I will over yours, for charity covereth a multitude
of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break
down superstition, and I will break it down;" I referred to the curse of
Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a
righteous [33] man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord
did not forsake him in consequence and when he was accused by Cannan, he
cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to
his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk,
and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day.
(D.H.C. 4:445-446)

11 Dec 1841:
	(5) Prescindia L. Huntington was married to Joseph Smith, Dimmick B.
Huntington, officiating, Fanny A. Huntington, witness.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:233)

Sunday 19 Dec 1841:
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TWELVE IN THE HOUSE OF THE PROPHET.
Elder Heber C. Kimball preached at the house of President Joseph Smith, on
the parable in the 18th chapter of Jeremiah, of the clay in the hands of
the potter, that when it marred in the hands of the potter it was cut off
the wheel and then thrown back again into the mill, to go in to the next
batch, and was a vessel of dishonor; but all clay that formed well in the
hands of the potter, and was pliable, was a vessel of honor; and thus it
was with the human family, and ever will be: all that are pliable in the
hands of God and are obedient to His commands, are vessels of honor, and
God will receive them.
	President Joseph arose and said--"Brother Kimball has given you a
true explanation of the parable," and then read the parable of the vine
and its branches, and explained it, and said, "if we keep the commandments
of God, we should bring forth fruit and be the friends of God, and know
what our Lord did.
	"Some people say I am a fallen Prophet, because I do not bring forth
more of the word of the Lord, Why do I not do it? Are we able to receive
it? No! not one in the room. He then chastened the congregation for their
[34] wickedness and unbelief, `for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son and daughter whom he receiveth,' and if we do not
receive chastisements then we are bastards and not sons."
	On the subject of revelation, he said a man would command his son to
dig potatoes and saddle his horse, but before he had done either he would
tell him to do something else. This is all considered right, but as soon
as the Lord gives a commandment and revokes that decree and commands
something else, then the Prophet is considered fallen. Because we will not
receive chastisement at the hand of the Prophet and Apostles, the Lord
chastiseth us with sickness and death. Let not any man publish his own
righteousness, for others can see that for him; sooner let him confess his
sins, and then he will be forgiven, and he will bring forth more fruit.
When a corrupt man is chastised he gets angry and will not endure it. The
reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because
we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but
reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would
we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday. What
greater Love hath any man than that he lay down his life for his friend;
then why not fight for our friend until we die?
	Elder Brigham Young said--one thing lay with weight on his mind; that
is, that we should be prepared to keep each commandment as it came from
the Lord by the mouth of the Prophet, and as the Lord has commanded us to
build a temple, we should do it speedily. (D.H.C. 4:478-479)

1842:
(6) Desdemona W. Fullmer was married to Joseph Smith.
(7) Elvira A. Cowles was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

[35]
Feb 1842:
(8) Mary E. Lightner was married to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young
officiating.

(Brodie, NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY, p. 444)

7 Feb 1842:

AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING MARRIAGES
Sec. 1.
	Be it ordained by the City Council of the city of Nauvoo, that all
male persons over the age of seventeen years, and females over the age of
fourteen years, may contract and be joined in marriage; Provided, in all
cases where either party is a minor, the consent of parents or guardians
be first had.

See. 2.
	Any person as aforesaid, wishing to marry or be joined in marriage,
may go before any regular minister of the gospel, mayor, alderman, justice
of the peace, judge or other person authorized to solemnize marriages in
the state, and celebrate or declare their marriage in such manner and form
as shall be most agreeable, either with or without license.

Sec. 3.
	Any person solemnizing a marriage as aforesaid, shall make return
thereof to the city recorder, accompanied by a recording fee of fifty
cents, within thirty days of the solemnization thereof; and it is hereby
made the duty of the recorder to keep an accurate record of all such
marriages. The penalty for a violation of either of the provisions of this
ordinance, shall be twenty dollars, to be recovered as other penalties or
forfietures.
	Passed February 17, 1842.
				JOHN C. BENNETT, Mayor
James Sloan, Recorder.
(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 20 Sep 1843)

[36]
20 Apr 1842:
Letter by the sister of Martha Brotherton:

Nauvoo, April 20th, 1842.
Dear _____,
	We arrived here three weeks ago; I thought I would not write until I
had seen the prophet, and attended the meetings in Nauvoo. I have now been
at the meetings three sabbaths, and have had the pleasure of attending the
conference which continued for three days; and I have had the pleasure of
hearing brother Joseph speak, and I consider that one hour's speech
rewarded me for all the afflictions I endured while on the mighty deep. I
have no doubt but you have heard that I was sick almost all the passage,
but I have reason to thank God that I was afflicted, for in the night
season when sleep was taken from me, the Lord manifested himself to me in
a manner I cannot express; it might have been that if the Lord had not
shown me these things I might have stumbled with the lying reports that
are in circulation. I suppose, by this time, you will have heard that my
parents and sister have apostatized. I know not what they have written to
England, as they would not let me see their letters, but I can prove that
my sister has told some of the greatest lies that ever were circulated.
	Dear _____, these are trying times for us all, but I know this is the
work of the living God, and though earth and hell should combine to stop
its progress, they cannot prevail. I beg of you not to listen to reports,
but know for yourself, for I believe it is your privilege. O! how I long
to see you and enjoy your society, and unbosom all my care to you. My
parents have turned their backs upon me, because I would not leave the
Saints, and have told my elder sister not to own them until she abandoned
"Mormonism;" but with all this she is unmoved, and is still contending for
the faith once delivered to the Saints, for she and many other of the
English Saints have proved that the statements made by my sister are
falsehoods of the basest kind. (MILLENIAL STAR 3:73-74. see also Wm.
Clayton under date 1 Aug 1842 and Thos Smith under [37] date 15 Jan 1850)

23 Apr 1842, Sidney Rigdon:
From Sidney Rigdon, Esq., Attorney at Law, to Major-Gen. James Arlington
Bennet, LL. D., of Arlington House, L.I.

Post-Office, Nauvoo, Illinois, April 23, 1842.

Sir, - -
	A letter has appeared in the NEW YORK HERALD, giving a description of
certain individuals in this city, I take the liberty of addressing this
letter to you, that I may answer my part and show my opinion. The subject
of this address is General J. C. Bennett. General Bennett is five feet
five inches high, one hundred and forty-two pounds' weight, and
thirty-seven years of age. He is at once Major-General in the Nauvoo
Legion, Quarter-Master-General of the State, Mayor of the City of Nauvoo,
and Master in Chancery for the County of Hancock. He is a Physician of
great celebrity, and a successful practitioner; of great versatility of
talent; of refined education, and accomplished manners; discharges the
duties of his respective offices with honor to himself, and credit to the
people. He possesses much decision of character; honorable in his
intercourse with his fellows, and a most agreeable companion; possessing
much vivacity and animation of spirit, and every way qualified to be a
useful citizen, in this or any other city.
		Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
			SIDNEY RIGDON, Post Master.
J. A. Bennett, Esq.
(HISTORY OF THE SAINTS, by Bennett, p. 40)

11 May 1842:
NOTICE
	The subscribers, members of the First Presidency of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, withdrew the hand of fellowship from
General John C. Bennett, as [38] a christian, he having been labored with
from time to time, to persuade him to amend his conduct, apparently to no
good effect.
				JOSEPH SMITH
				HYRUM SMITH
				WM. LAW

	The following members of the Quorum of the Twelve concur in the above
sentiments.

				BRIGHAM YOUNG,
				HEBER C. KIMBALL,
				LYMAN WIGHT,
				JOHN E. PAGE,
				JOHN TAYLOR,
				WILFORD WOODRUFF,
				GEORGE A. SMITH,
				WILLARD RICHARDS.

	We concur in the above sentiment.

				N. K. WHITNEY,
				V. KNIGHT,
				GEORGE MILLER,
	Bishops of the above mentioned Church.

Nauvoo, May 11th, 1842.
(TIMES AND SEASONS, 15 Jun 1842, 3:830)

17 May 1842, Hyrum Smith:
re: John C. Bennett:

	On the seventeenth day of May, 1842, having been made acquainted with
some of the conduct of John C. Bennett, which was given in testimony,
under oath before Alderman G. W. Harris, by several females who testified
that John C. Bennett endeavored to seduce them, and accomplished his
designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God,
which was to be [39] revealed when the people was strong enough in faith
to bear such mysteries--that it was perfectly right to have illicit
intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves,
vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing
witnesses of his own clan to testify that there were such revelations and
such commandments, and that they were of God; also stating that he would
be responsible for their sins, if there were any, and that he would give
them medicine to produce abortions, provided they should become pregnant.
* * * On becoming acquainted with these facts, I was determined to
prosecute him, and bring him to justice. * * * he immediately came to see
me; he begged on me to forgive him this once, and not to prosecute him and
expose him; he said he was guilty, and did acknowledge the crimes that
were alleged against him; he then wished me to wait until he could have an
interview with the Masonic fraternity; he also wanted an interview with
Brother Joseph; * * * at that time Brother Joseph was crossing the yard
from the house to the store, he immediately came to the store and met Dr.
Bennett on the way; he reached out his hand to Brother Joseph and said,
Will you forgive me? weeping at the time; he said, Brother Joseph, I am
guilty, I acknowledge it, and I beg of you not to expose me, for it will
ruin me; Joseph replied, Doctor! why are you using my name to carry on
your hellish wickedness? Have I ever taught you that fornication and
adultery were right, or polygamy or any such practice? He said, You never
did. Did you ever know anything unvirtuous or unrighteous in my conduct or
action at any time, either in public or private? He said, I did not. Are
you willing to make oath to this before an alderman of the city? He said I
am willing to do so. Joseph said, Doctor, go into my office and write what
you can in conscience subscribe your name to, and I will be satisfied.
(D.H.C. 5:71-73)

17 May 1842:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
[40]
City of Nauvoo.

	Personally appeared before me, Daniel H. Wells, an alderman of said
city of Nauvoo, John C. Bennett, who being duty sworn, according to law,
deposeth and saith: that he never was taught anything in the least
contrary to the strictest principles of the Gospel, or of virtue, or of
the laws of God, or man, under any occasion, either directly or
indirectly, in word or deed by Joseph Smith: and that he never knew the
said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in public
or private; and that he never did teach to me in private that an illegal,
illicit intercourse with females was, under any circumstances,
justifiable, and that I never knew him so to teach others.
			sig. John C. Bennett

	Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 17th day of May, 1842.
			sig. Daniel H. Wells,
				Alderman.
(D.H.C. 5:73, THE WASP, Saturday 25 June, 1842)

May 17, 1842.

Brother James Sloan, --
	You will be so good as to permit General Bennett to withdraw his name
from the Church record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of
feelings towards you and General Bennett.
				JOSEPH SMITH.
 
	In accordance with the above I have permitted General Bennett to
withdraw his membership from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, this 17th day of May, 1842; the best of feelings subsisting
between all parties.
				JAMES SLOAN,
			General Church Clerk and Recorder
City of Nauvoo, May 17, 1842.
[41]
The above is a true copy from the original.
			ORSON PRATT.
(HISTORY OF THE SAINTS, by Bennett, pp 40-41)

19 May 1842, John C. Bennett:

	The following conversation took place in the City Council, and was
elicited in consequence of its being reported that the Doctor had stated
that I had acted in an indecorous manner, and given countenance to vices
practiced by the Doctor, and others:
	Dr. John C. Bennett, ex-Mayor, was then called upon by the Mayor to
state if he knew aught against him; when Mr. Bennett replied: "I know what
I am about, and the heads of the Church know what they are about. I expect
I have no difficulty with the heads of the church. I publicly avow that
any one who has said that I have stated that General Joseph Smith has
given me authority to hold illicit intercourse with women is a liar in the
face of God, those who have said it are damned liars; they are infernal
liars. He never, either in public or private, gave me any such authority
or license, and any person who states it is a scoundrel and a liar. I have
heard it said that I should become a second Avard by withdrawing from the
church, and that I was at variance with the heads and should use an
influence against them because I resigned the office of Mayor; this is
false. I have no difficulty with the heads of the church, and I intend to
continue with you, and hope the time may come when I may be restored to
full confidence, and fellowship, and my former standing in the church; and
that my conduct may warrant my restoration--and should the time ever come
that I may have the opportunity to test my faith it will then be known
whether I am a traitor or a true man."
	Joseph Smith then asked: "Will you please state definitely whether
you know anything against my character either in public or private?"
	Gen. Bennett answered: "I do not; in all my intercourse with Gen.
Smith, in public and in private, he has been strictly virtuous.

[42]
	ALDERMEN.				Geo. A. Smith,
	N. K. Whitney,			Wilson Law,
	Hiram Kimball,			B. Young,
	Orson Spencer,			John Taylor,
	Gust. Hills,			H. C. Kimball,
	G. W. Harris,			W. Woodruff,
	COUNSELLORS.			John P. Green,
	Willard Richards,		James Sloan,
							City Recorder.
(TIMES AND SEASONS, 1 Jul 1842, 3:841)

19 May 1842, Hyrum Smith:
	I know he was not under duress at the time for his testimony was
given free and voluntarily, after requesting the privilege of the council
to speak (which was granted him,) on matters pertaining to the city
ordinances, while speaking, or before he took his seat, he was requested
by the Mayor of the city, Joseph Smith, to state to the council if he knew
aught against him; and he replied according to the above.
	I also know that he had no private intercourse with Joseph in the
preparation room on the 17th day, as he stated in his letter as printed in
the Sangamo Journal, for the lodge was convened on that day, and I had the
keys of the doors in my possession from 7 o'clock A. M. until 6 o'clock P.
M. and it was when the lodge called off for refreshment during recess,
that I had the interview with him, at which time he wrote the affidavit
and subscribed it in my presence, and I was with him during the whole time
from his first coming to me, until he signed it and until the lodge
convened again at 4 o'clock.
				HYRUM SMITH
	Sworn to, and subscribed, before me July 23, 1842.
				GEO. W. HARRIS,
	Alderman of the city of Nauvoo.
(TIMES AND SEASONS, 1 Aug 1842, 3:872)

21 May 1842, Matilda Nyman:
	During this spring Chauncy L. Higbee kept company [43] with me from
time to time, and, as I have since learned, wickedly, deceitfully, and
with lies in his mouth, urged me vehemently to yield to his desires; that
there could be no wrong in having sexual intercourse with any female that
could keep the same to herself;--most villianously and lyingly stating
that he had been so instructed by Joseph Smith, and that there was no sin
where there was no accuser:--Also vowing he would marry me. Not
succeeding, he, on one occasion, brought one, who affirmed that such
intercourse was tolerated by the heads of the Church, I have since found
him also to be a lying conspirator against female virtue and chastity,
having never received such teachings from the heads of the church; but I
was at the time partially influenced to believe in consequence of the
source from whom I received it. I yielded and became subject to the will
of my seducer, Chauncey L. Higbee: and having since found out to my
satisfaction, that a number of wicked men have conspired to use the name
of Joseph Smith, or the heads of the Church, falsely and wickedly to
enable them to gratify their lusts, thereby destroying female innocence
and virtue, I repent before God and my brethren and ask forgiveness.
	I further testify that I never had any personal acquaintance with
Joseph Smith and never heard him teach such doctrines as Higbee, stated
either directly or indirectly.
				MATILDA J. NYMAN.

State of Illinois,
City of Nauvoo. ss
						May 24th, 1842
	Personally appeared before me, George W. Harris, alderman, of said
city, Matilda J. Nyman, the signer of the above instrument, and testified,
under oath, that the above declaration was true.
			GEORGE W. HARRIS, alderman.
(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 29 May 1844)

Tuesday 24 May 1842, Joseph Smith:
	Chauncy L. Higbee was cut off from the Church by [44] the High
Council, for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct towards certain females, and
for teaching, it was right, if kept secret, &c. He was also put under $200
bonds to keep the peace, on my complaint against him for slander, before
Ebenezer Robinson, justice of the peace. (D.H.C. 5:18)

Thursday 26 May 1842, Joseph Smith:
	This forenoon I attended a meeting of nearly a hundred of the
brethren in the Lodge Room, to whom John C. Bennett acknowledged his
wicked and licentious conduct toward certain females in Nauvoo, and that
he was worthy of the severest chastisements, and cried like a child, and
begged that he might be spared, in any possible way; so deep was his
apparent sense of his guilt and unfitness for respectable society; so
deeply did he feign, or really feel contrition for the moment, that he was
forgiven still. I plead for mercy for him.

ADDRESS OF THE PROPHET TO THE RELIEF SOCIETY:
	President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the
Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand
for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of
the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own
souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must
fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in
their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon
themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous
with their shafts of envy. * * *
	I have one request to make of the President and members of the
society, that you search yourselves--the tongue is an unruly member--hold
your tongues about things of no moment--a little tale will set the world
on fire. At this time, the truth on the guilty should not be told openly,
strange as this may seem, yet this is policy. We must use precaution in
bringing sinners to justice, lest in exposing these heinous sins we draw
the indig-[45]nation of a Gentile world upon us (and, to their
imagination, justly too). It is necessary to hold an influence in the
world, and thus spare ourselves an extermination; and also accomplish our
end in spreading the Gospel, or holiness in the earth. * * *
	I am advised by some of the heads of the Church to tell the Relief
Society to be virtuous, but to save the Church from desolation and the
sword; beware, be still, be prudent, repent, reform, but do it in a way
not to destroy all around you.
	I want the innocent to go free--rather spare ten iniquitous among
you, than condemn one innocent one. "Fret not thyself because of evil
doers." God will see to it. (D.H.C. 5:18-20)

15 Jun 1842:
(2) Lucy Decker was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 17)

17 Jun 1842, William Law:
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING:

What have the Mormons done in Illinois? is a question which I have
frequently asked of those who are busy with the tongue of slander in
calumniating the Latter Day Saints; but as yet I have found none who are
willing to answer me honestly or correctly. * * *
	Where is there another community of thirty thousand in any state,
against none of whom there is a record of conviction for crime in any
court during the space of three years. And yet there are those who cry
out, Treason! Murder! ! Bigamy! ! ! Burglary! ! ! Arson! ! ! and every
thing that is evil, without being able to refer to a single case that has
ever been proved against the Mormons. * * *
	Thus it is with the honest in heart; but when the wicked creep in
amongst us for evil, to trample upon the most holy and virtuous precepts,
and find our moral and reli-[46]gious laws too strict for them, they cry
out delusion, false prophets, speculation, oppression, illegal ordinances,
usurpation of power, treason against the government, etc. You must have
your charters taken away--you have dared to pass an ordinance against
fornicators, and adulterers--you have forbid the vending of spirituous
liquors within your city--you have passed an ordinance against vagrants
and disorderly persons; * * * This is the cry of the base and vile, the
priest and the speculator, but the noble, the high minded, the patriotic,
and the virtuous, breathe no such sentiments; neither will those who feel
an interest in the welfare of the state. * * *
				(sig) William Law
(TIMES AND SEASONS, 3:831-832, 1 Jul 1842)

*Note: According to the records, Joseph Smith had at least six living
wives at this date, and Brigham Young, two.

Saturday 25 Jun 1842, Joseph Smith:
re: John C. Bennett:

TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, AND TO ALL THE
HONORABLE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
	It becomes my duty to lay before the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and the public generally, some important facts relative
to the conduct and character of Dr. John C. Bennett, who has lately been
expelled from the aforesaid Church and the honorable part of the community
may be aware of his proceedings, and be ready to treat him, and regard him
as he ought to be regarded, viz., as an impostor and base adulterer.
	It is a matter of notoriety that the said Dr. John C. Bennett became
favorable to the doctrines taught by the Elders of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and located himself in the city of Nauvoo,
about the month of August, 1840, and soon after joined the Church. Soon
after it was known that he had become a member of said church, a
communication was received [47] at Nauvoo from a person of respectable
character and residing in the vicinity where Bennett had lived. This
letter cautioned us against him, setting forth that he was a very mean
man, and has a wife and two or three children in McConnellsvill, (sic)
Morgan county, Ohio; but knowing that it is no uncommon thing for good men
to be evil spoken against, the above letter was kept quiet, but held in
reserve.
	He had not been long in Nauvoo before he began to keep company with a
young lady, one of our citizens; and she, being ignorant of his having a
wife living, gave way to his addresses, and became confident from his
behavior towards her, that he intended to marry her; and this he gave her
to understand he would do. I, seeing the folly of such an acquaintance,
persuaded him to desist, and on account of his continuing his course,
finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist. This, to outward
appearance, had the desired effect, and the acquaintance between them was
broken off.
	But, like one of the most abominable and depraved beings which could
possibly exist, he only broke off his publicly wicked actions to sink
deeper into iniquity and hypocrisy. When he saw that I would not submit to
any such conduct, he went to some of the females in the city who knew
nothing of him but as an honorable man, and began to teach them that
promiscuous intercourse between the sexes was a doctrine believed in by
the latterday Saints, and that there was no harm in it, but this failing,
he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course, and
that was to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the
Church, not only sanctioned but practiced the same wicked acts, and when
asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because
of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own
house. He was well aware of the consequence of such wilful and base
falsehoods, if they should come to my knowledge, and consequently
endeavored to persuade his dupes to keep it a matter of secrecy,
persuading them there would be no harm if they did not make it known. This
proceeding on his part answered the desired end; he accomplished [48] his
wicked purposes; he seduced an innocent female by his lying, and subjected
her character to public disgrace, should it ever be known.
	But his depraved heart would not suffer him to stop here. Not being
contented with having disgraced one female, he made an attempt upon
others; and by the same plausible tale overcame them also, evidently not
caring whose character was ruined, so that his wicked, lustful appetites
might be gratified.
	Some time, about the early part of July, 1841, I received a letter
from Elders Hyrum Smith and William Law, who were then in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. This letter was dated June 15th, and contained the
particulars of a conversation betwixt them and a respectable gentleman
from the neighborhood where Bennett's wife and children resided. He stated
to them that it was a fact that Bennett had a wife and children living,
and that she had left him because of his ill treatment toward her. This
letter was read to Bennett, which he did not attempt to deny, but candidly
acknowledged the fact.
	Soon after this information reached our ears, Dr. Bennett made an
attempt at suicide by taking poison, but he being discovered before it
took effect, and the proper antidote being administered, he recovered; but
he very much resisted when an attempt was made to save him. The public
impression was that he was so much ashamed of his base and wicked conduct,
that he had recourse to the above deed to escape the censures of an
indignant community.
	It might have been supposed that these circumstances, transpiring in
the manner they did, would have produced a thorough reformation in his
conduct; but, alas! like a being totally destitute of common decency, and
without any government over his passions, he was soon busily engaged in
the same wicked career, and continued until a knowledge of the same
reached my ears. I immediately charged him with it, and he admitted that
it was true; but in order to put a stop to all such proceedings for the
future, I publicly proclaimed against it, and had those females notified
to appear before the proper officers, that the whole subject might be
investigated and thor-[49]oughly exposed.
	During the course of investigation, the foregoing facts were proved
by credible witnesses, and were sworn and subscribed to before an alderman
of the city, on the 15th ultimo. The documents containing the evidence are
now in my possession.
	We also ascertained by the above investigation that others had been
led by his conduct to pursue the same adulterous practice, and in order to
accomplish their detestible designs made use of the same language
insinuated by Bennett, with this difference, that they did not hear me say
anything of the kind, but Bennett was one of the heads of the Church, and
he had informed them that such was the fact and they credited his
testimony.
	The Public will perceive the aggravating nature of this case, and
will see the propriety of this exposure. Had he only been guilty of
adultery, that was sufficient to stamp disgrace upon him, because he is a
man of better information, and has been held high in the estimation of
many. But, when it is considered that his mind was so intent upon his
cruel and abominable deeds, and his own reputation not being sufficient to
enable him to do it, he must needs make use of my name in order to effect
his purposes, an enlightened public will not be astonished at the course I
have pursued.
	In order that I may be distinctly understood that he willfully and
knowingly lied in the above insinuations, I will lay before my readers an
affidavit taken before an alderman of the city, after I had charged him
with these things:--(see under 17 May 1842) (THE WASP, 25 Jun 1842)

27 Jun 1842, John C. Bennett:
For the SANGAMO JOURNAL.

Nauvoo, Ills., June 27, 1842

To the Editor of the JOURNAL: * * *
	Joe is a great man of the kind--but God will damn the kind--for, if
the devil don't get Joe Smith, there is [50] no use for any devil. But to
the damnable iniquity of this base impostor, and to begin-- * * *

	2d. Joseph Smith, the great Mormon seducer, one who has seduced not
only hundreds of single and married females, but more than the great
Solomon, attempted to seduce Miss Nancy Rigdon, the eldest single daughter
of Sidney Rigdon, to submit to his hellish purposes, and become one of his
clandestine wives under the new dispensation. Call upon Miss Rigdon, who
repulsed him with commendable firmness, and I will abide her
testimony--call, likewise, upon Gen. George W. Robinson, and Col. F. M.
Higbee, to state what they know upon this subject. Gen. Robinson and Col.
Higbee, can tell some astounding facts in relation to this matter. Joe
approached Miss Rigdon "in the name of the Lord, and by his authority and
permission," as he said. Joe attacked Mr. Rigdon, Gen. Robinson, Col.
Higbee and myself, In order to destroy the influence of all of us to
prevent the exposition of this case.--But it is all true, and the legal
evidence shall be forthcoming. Call upon Miss Martha Brotherton, of
Warsaw, and see what she will say as to the base attempt at seduction in
her own case. She can tell a tale of woe that would make humanity shudder.
Call upon Miss Mitchell, of this city, one of the most chaste and spotless
females in the west, and see what she knows as to the PROPHET'S SECRET
WIVES. Hundreds of cases can be instanced, and if the Danites do not
murder me, you shall hear a tale of pollution and sorrow. Joe's
licentiousness is unparalleled in the annals of time. I have the evidence,
and it shall come; and no attacks on me to divert the public mind from
himself, and his iniquity shall abail him. My purpose is fixed, and the
world shall know who the great impostor is.--Time will not permit my going
into further detail in this letter; but an abused and insulted public
shall know all about it. * * * He has, likewise, established a new lodge
of his own, by inspiration, called "ORDER", in which there are many
curious things, and relative to which I have much to say hereafter. The
following is a part of the obligation--"I furthermore promise and swear
[51] that I will never touch a daughter of Adam unless she is given me of
the Lord." so as to accord with the NEW DISPENSATION and the "ancient
order of things."

	5th. The attacks on me in the "WASP" are all for public effect, and
to divert the public eye from Joe's infamous conduct. My affidavit as
taken before Esq. Wells, and my statements before the City Council, in
relation to the holy Joe, were made under DURESSE--my life was threatened
unless I submitted to the requisitions of Joe. I then preferred the course
I took to DEATH, as I knew the public were not apprized of the facts, and
I could have been murdered and no person would have been the wiser; but
the public are now apprized of the matter, and I am ready and willing to
die in exposing this empious man, and the people will avenge my blood. I
never feared death, but I chose not to die before I rendered God and the
people signal service in bringing to light the hidden things of darkness.
But more of this hereafter. * * *
				Yours respectfully,
				JOHN C. BENNETT
(THE SANGAMO JOURNAL, 7 Jul 1842)

29 Jun 1842:
(9) Eliza Roxey Snow was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:233)

Joseph Smith: I held a long conversation with Francis M. Higbee. Francis
found fault with being exposed, but I told him I spoke of him in self
defense. Francis was, or appeared, humble, and promised to reform. Heard
the recorder, read in the Law of the Lord; paid taxes; rode out in the
city on business, with Brigham Young. My clerk, Willard Richards, being
about to leave me for a season, committed the business of my office to
Elder William Clayton, who had been engaged with him for a few weeks past.
(D.H.C. 5:49)

[52]
Brigham Young: Rode out with the Prophet, and looked at lands the Church
had for disposal. (Mss. Hist of Brigham Young. )

Summer 1842:
(10) Martha McBride was married to Joseph Smith, Heber C. Kimball
officiating.

(Smith, BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, p. 72)

Saturday 9 Jul 1842

MORMONISM AND POLITICS:

	The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, being the only
people now living on the globe, that profess to be guided by revelation
and lead by the will of God, we feel it our duty to lay before the public
a few words on the subject for consideration:

	"Our rules we know, to some seem odd,
	"But blaming us is blaming God."

	Extract from the BOOK OF DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS. (Page 216, par 2,
Sec. 85)

	"And now verity I say unto you, concerning the laws of the land, it
is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I
command them, and the law of the land, which is constitutional, supporting
that principle of freedom, in maintaining rights and privileges belongs to
all mankind and is justifiable before me: Therefore I the Lord justify
you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the
constitutional law of the land: And as pertaining to law of man,
whatsoever is more or less than these, cometh of evil. I the Lord God
maketh you free; therefore ye are free in deed: And the law also maketh
you free: Nevertheless when the wicked rule the people mourn: Wherefore
honest men and wise [53] men should be sought for, diligently, and good
men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less
then these, cometh of evil."

	We hope to hear no more of the Mormons' setting themselves up over
the Government.--They are the only people that will eventually support the
Constitution of our beloved country.

(THE WASP, 9 Jul 1842)

13 Jul 1842, Martha H. Brotherton:
St. Louis Mo., July 13th, 1842
Gen. John C. Bennett,
Dear Sir:
	I left Warsaw a short time since for this city, and having been
called upon by you through the SANGAMO JOURNAL, to come out and disclose
to the world the facts of the case in relation to certain propositions
made to me at Nauvoo, by some of the Mormon leaders, I now proceed to
respond to the call, and discharge what I consider to be a duty devolving
upon me as an innocent but insulted and abused female. * * * Kimball
(Heber C. ) and I went to the store (Joseph Smith's) together. As we were
going along, he said, "Sister Martha, are you willing to do all that the
Prophet requires you to do?" I said I believed I was thinking of course he
would require nothing wrong. "Then, are you ready to take council?" I
answered in the affirmative, thinking of the great and glorious blessings
that had been pronounced upon my head, if I adhered to the counsel of
those placed over me in the Lord. "Well, " said he, "there are many things
revealed in these last days that the world would laugh and scoff at, but
unto us is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom. " He further
observed, "Martha, you must learn to hold your tongue, and it will be well
with you. You will see Joseph, and very likely have some conversation with
him, and he will tell you what you shall do." When we reached the building
he led me up stairs to a small room the door of which was locked, and on
it the following inscription--[54] "Positively no admittance." He
observed, "Ah! brother Joseph must be sick, for strange to say he is not
here. Come down into the tithing office Martha," and went out, I knew not
where. In this office were two men writing, one of whom, William Clayton,
I had seen in England; the other I did not know. Young came in and seated
himself before me and asked where Kimball was. I said he had gone out. He
said it was all right. Soon after Joseph came in and spoke to one of the
clerks, and then went up stairs followed by Young. Immediately after
Kimball came in. "Now Martha, " said he, "the Prophet has come, come up
stairs.
	I went and found Young and the Prophet alone. I was introduced to the
Prophet by Young. Joseph offered me his seat and to my astonishment, the
moment I was seated Joseph and Kimball walked out of the room, and left me
with Young, * * * "This is our private room, Martha." Indeed sir, said I,
"I must be highly honored to be permitted to enter it." He smiled, and
then proceeded, "sister Martha, I want to ask you a few questions; will
you answer them?" "Yes, sir," said I. "And will you promise not to mention
them to any one?" "If it is your desire sir," said I, "I will not." "And
you will not think any the worse of me for it, will you Martha?" said he.
"No sir," I replied. "Well," said he, "what are your feelings towards me?"
I replied "My feelings are just the same towards you that they ever were
sir." "But come to the point more closely," said he, "have not you an
affection for me, that, were it lawful and right you could accept of me
for your husband and companion?"
	My feelings at that moment were indescribable. God only knows them.
What, thought I, are these men that I thought almost perfection itself,
deceivers and is all my fancied happiness but a dream? 'Twas even so; but
my next thought was, which was the best way for me to act at this time; If
I say "no," they may do as they think proper; and to say "yes," I never
would. So I considered it best to ask for time to think and pray about it.
I therefore said "If it was lawful and right perhaps I might; but you know
sir, it is not." "Well, but," said he "brother Joseph has a revelation
from God that it is lawful and [55] right for a man to have two wives; for
as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days, and
whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the
greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight
to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will
have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here
to day, and you can go home this very evening and your parents will not
know any thing about it." "Sir," said I, "I should not like to do any
thing of the kind without the permission of my parents." "Well, but," said
he, "if you are of age, are you not?" "No sir," said I, "I shall not be
until the 24th of May." "Well," said he, "that does not make any
difference. You will be of age before they know, and you need not fear. If
you will take my counsel it will be well with you, for I know it to be
right before God and there is no sin in it, I will answer for it. But
however Joseph wishes to have some talk with you on the subject--he will
explain things--will you hear him?" "I do not mind," said I. "Well but I
want you to say something," said he. "I want time to think about it, said
I. (He) then rose and said he would bring Joseph. * * *
	He was absent about ten minutes and then returned with Joseph. "Well"
said Young, "sister Martha would be willing if she knew it was lawful and
right before God." "Well Martha," said Joseph, "it is lawful and right
before God--I know it is. Look here, sister, don't you believe in me?" I
did not answer. "Well Martha, said Joseph, "Just go ahead and do as
Brigham wants you to * * *." "Well," said Young, "we believe Joseph to be
a prophet--I have known him near eight years, and always found him the
same." "Yes," said Joseph, "and I know it is lawful and right before God,
and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it before God; and I have
the keys of the Kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in Heaven,
and whatever I loose on earth is loose in Heaven--and if you accept of
Brigham you shall be blessed--God shall bless you, and my blessing shall
rest upon you and if you will be led by him you will do well; for I know
Brigham will take care of you, and if he don't do his duty to you, come to
me and I will make him * * * ." "Sir, * * * I [56] want to think first."
"Well, but," said he, "the old proverb is, `nothing ventured, nothing
gained,' and it would be the greatest blessing that ever was bestowed upon
you." "Yes," said Young, "and you will never have reason to repent of
it--that is, if I do not turn from righteousness, and that I trust I never
shall, for I believe God who has kept me so long will continue to keep me
faithful. Did you ever see me act in any way wrong in England Martha?" "No
sir," said I. "No," said he, "Neither can any one else lay any thing to my
charge."
	* * * "Sir," said I, "do let me have a little time to think about it,
and I will promise not to mention it to any one." "Well, but look here,"
said he, "you know a fellow will never be danmed for doing the best he
knows how." "Well then," said I, "the best way I know of is to go home and
think and pray about it." "Well" said Young, "I shall leave it with
Brother Joseph, whether it would be best for you to have time or not."
"Well," said Joseph, "I see no harm in her having time to think, she will
not fall into temptation." "O sir," said I, "there is no fear of my
falling into temptation." "Well, but," said Brigham, "you must promise me
you will never mention it to any one." "I do promise it," said I. "Well,"
said Joseph, "you must promise me the same." I promised him the same.
"Upon your honor," said he, "You will not tell?" "No sir, I will lose my
life first," said I. "Well, that will do," said he, "that is the principle
we go upon." "I think I can trust you Martha," said he. "Yes," said I, "I
think you ought." Joseph said, "she looks as if she could keep a secret."
* * *

				(sig) MARTHA H. BROTHERTON

	Sworn and subscribed before me this 13th day of July, A. D. 1842.

				D. Bouffray Fremon
				Justice of the Peace for St. Louis Co.

[57]
Saturday 16 Jul 1842, re: Incest:
From The QUINCY WHIG.

Law of Incest:
	The Presbyterian General Assembly, which recently met in
Philadelphia, decided that it is incest for a man to marry his deceased
wife's sister.

26 Jul 1842, William Marks:
	Inasmuch as John C. Bennett has called upon me through the SANGAMO
JOURNAL to come out and confirm the statements which he has made
concerning Joseph Smith and others, I take this opportunity of saying to
the public, that I know many of his statements to be false, and that I
believe them all to be the offspring of a base and corrupt heart, and
without the least shadow of truth, and further that he has used my name
without my permission. I believe him to be a vile and wicked adulterous
man, who pays no regard to the principles of truth or righteousness, and
is unworthy the confidence of a just community. I would further state that
I know of no Order in the Church which admits of a plurality of wives, and
do not believe that Joseph Smith ever taught such a doctrine, and further,
that my faith in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, and in Joseph Smith, is unshaken.

				(sig) WILLIAM MARKS

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 3:875, 1 Aug 1842)

27 Jul 1842:
(11) Sarah Ann Whitney was married to Joseph Smith, Newel K. Whitney,
officiating.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:233-234)

[58]
@Aug 1842:
(12) Ruth Vose Sayers was married to Joseph Smith.

Monday 1 Aug 1842, Editorial:
From the TIMES AND SEASONS.

	There has always been, in every age of the church those who have been
opposed to the principles of virtue, who have loved the gain of this
present world, followed the principles of unrighteousness, and have been
the enemies of truth; * * * Peter in prophesying concerning the church
says, "But there were false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in
damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and shall bring
upon themselves swift destruction; and many shall follow their pernicious
ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and
through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of
you; whose judgment of long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not." * * * and if we examine the history of this church we
shall find it much the same: those who have associated with us and made
the greatest professions of friendship, have frequently been our greatest
enemies and our most determined foes, if they became unpopular, if their
interest or dignity was touched, or if they were detected in their
iniquity; they were always the first to raise the hand of persecution, to
calumniate and villify their brethren, and to seek the downfall and
destruction of their friends. * * *
	In the state of Missouri, we had our Hinkle, our Avard, Marsh,
McLellin, and others who were the first to flee in time of danger--the
first to tell of things that they never knew, and swear to things that
they never before had heard of. They were more violent in their
persecutions, more relentless and sanguinary in their proceedings, and
sought with greater fury the destruction and overthrow of the Saints of
God who had never injured them, but whose virtue made them blush for their
crimes.
[59] * * * Daniel, in referring to the last days, in speaking concerning
the "Holy Covenant," that many shall have indignation against it, and
shall obtain information from those that forsake the Holy Covenant--and
the robbers of thy people shall seek to exalt themselves, but they shall
fall. * * * He goes on further to state, that "many shall cleave unto them
by flatteries." Such was Dr. Avard, and John C. Bennett--with the latter
we have to do at the present time, and in many of the foregoing statements
and prophecies we shall see his character and conduct exemplified.--He
professed the greatest fidelity, and eternal friendship, yet was he an
adder in the path, and a viper in the bosom. He professed to be virtuous
and chaste, yet did he pierce the heart of the innocent, introduce misery
and infamy into families, reveled in voluptuousness and crime, and led the
youth that he had influence over to tread in his unhallowed steps;--he
professed to fear God, yet did he desecrate his name, and prostitute his
authority to the most unhallowed and diabolical purposes; even to the
seduction of the virtuous, and the defiling of his neighbor's bed. * * *
He frequently wept like a child, and begged like a culprit for
forgiveness, at the same time promising before God and angels to amend his
life, if he could be forgiven. He was in this way borne with from time to
time, until forbearance was no longer a virtue, and then the First
Presidency, the Twelve, and the Bishops withdrew their fellowship from
him, * * * since that time he has published that the conduct of the Saints
was bad--that Joseph Smith and many others were adulterers, murderers, &c.
* * * that lie was in duress when he gave his affidavit, and testified
that Joseph Smith was a virtuous man--that we believed in and practiced
polygamy--that we believed in secret murders, * * * &c. As he has made his
statements very public, and industriously circulated them through the
country, we shall content ourselves with answering his base falsehoods and
misrepresentations, without giving publicity to them, as the public are
generally acquainted with them already. E. D.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 3:868-869, 1 Aug 1842)

[60]
1 Aug 1842, William Clayton:
APOSTACY.

	The spirit of apostacy has been quite prevalent of late, principally
among those who have emigrated from England to America. They are first
seized with a murmuring and fault-finding spirit towards those who have
suffered perils and privations, by sea and land, for them and for the
cause of truth. These they seek to injure by all manner of evil speaking
and railing accusation. Next they find fault with their sea voyage and the
provisions and sea stores, as being either too scarce or not suited to
their appetite. Next they find fault with the country, because it does not
produce furnished houses and paved streets, and all manner of riches and
luxuries spontaneously, without their labour or their pains; and, last of
all, they find fault with the servants of God, who have spent a dozen or
twenty years in the service of the people, and suffered the loss of all
things, time and again, for Christ's sake and the gospel's, because they
have a house, a home, a farm, a horse and carriage, or suit of clothes,
and will not give it to them, or lay it aside to work and build them
houses and feed them. These they pronounce the wickedest men in the world,
and they write back to this country all manner of evil concerning them.
	Among the most conspicuous of these apostates, we would notice a
young female who emigrated from Manchester in September last, and who,
after conducting herself in a manner unworthy the character of one
professing godliness, at length conceived the plan of gaining friendship
and extraordinary notoriety with the world, or rather with the enemies of
truth, by striking a blow at the character of some of its worthiest
champions. She well knew that this would be received as a sweet morsel by
her old friends, the Methodists, and other enemies of the Saints. She
accordingly selected president J. Smith, and elder B. Young for her
victims, and wrote to England that these men had been trying to seduce
her, by making her believe that God had given a revelation that men might
have two wives; by these disreputable means [61] she thought to overthrow
the Saints here, or at least to bring a storm of persecution on them, and
prevent others from joining them; but in this thing she was completely
deceived by Satan. Her proceedings have had no other effect upon the
Saints, than to fill them with mingled feelings of pity and contempt
towards her, and to make them more diligent and faithful to the cause of
God. Their meetings are well attended with crowded and attentive
audiences, the power and spirit of God is in their midst, they are filled
with the testimony of Jesus, and with a desire to emigrate and settle
among the Saints in America. Many are coming forward for baptism from week
to week, both in Manchester and in Liverpool. However, we will do her the
justice to say, that her letters have had some effect upon several of her
relatives and three or four persons have left the church, perhaps, partly
through the influence of these and other reports from apostates and
murmurers; and if any such thing can turn any others from the faith, we
shall be very happy to part with them, as

	"We want no cowards in our band,
	"That will their colours fly;
	"We call for valiant-hearted men,
	"Who're not afraid to die."

	But, for the information of those who may be assailed by those
foolish tales about the two wives, we would say that no such principle
ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will; this is well
known to all who are acquainted with our books and actions, the BOOK OF
MORMON, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very
strict and explicit on that subject, indeed far more so than the bible.
The following is an extract from a letter written by the sister of the
female before mentioned, which will enable the Saints to judge of the
confidence to be placed in her slanderous statements. (see under date 20
Apr 1842, also under date 15 Jan 1850 for a statement by Thomas Smith.)

(MILLENNIAL STAR, 3:73-74)

[62]
2 Aug 1842, John C. Bennett:
To the Editor of the JOURNAL.

	As I have a little time to appropriate, I proceed to transcribe and
forward you an exact copy of Joe Smith's letter to Miss Nancy Rigdon per
William Richards, (sic) one of the Holy Mormon Apostles, alluded to in one
of my former communications, and which is in the words folLowing, to wit:

	Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the
end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it, and this path is
virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the
commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first
knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know
unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which
is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under
another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill," at another time he said, "Thou
shalt utterly destroy. " This is the principle on which the government of
heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which
the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no
matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long
after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good
things will be added. So with Solomon, first he asked wisdom, and God gave
it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be
considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in
part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by
special revelation. A parent may whip a child, and justly too, because he
stole an apple, whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the
parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite,
there would have been no stripes, all the pleasure of the apple would have
been secured, all the misery of stealing lost. This principle will justly
apply to all of God's dealings with his children. Everything that God
gives us is lawful and right, and 'tis [63] proper that we should enjoy
his gifts and blessings whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow,
but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without
law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and
enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should
have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in
obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed, and as God has
designed our happiness, and the happiness of all his creatures, he never
has, he never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to his
people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness
which he has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of
good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and
ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but
become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful
servant, the proffered good returns to the giver, the blessing is bestowed
on those who will receive and occupy, for unto him that hath shall be
given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will
not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

	"Be wise today, 'tis madness to defer,
	"Next day the fatal precedent may plead."

 	Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time into eternity. Our heavenly
father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and
blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and, at the same time,
is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions
of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are
apt to suppose him to be. He will be inquired of by his children. He says,
"Ask, and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, but if you will take
that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be
rewarded according to your deeds, but no good thing will I withold from
them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things, who will
listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant [64] whom I have sent,
for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide
by the law of my kingdom, for all things shall be made known unto them in
mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.

	Thus reads the Prophet Joe's love letter to Miss Rigdon. To
understand it I refer you to the spiritual wife doctrine heretofore
alluded to, and to Miss Brotherton's letter. You will see that ALL things
that God gives and sanctions by special revelation through the Holy Joe,
is lawful and right, and Joe knows it to be so because God told him so!! I
told you before that the great Solomon was a novice in these matters when
compared to Joe. Peruse the letter carefully, examine all its bearings and
allusions and compare it with the former disclosures, and you will see
that it is pregnant with the "spiritual doctrine" taught by Joe to his
cloistered, chambered, and cyprian maids and members of his female LODGE
of Mormon Inquisition. My last letter to the editors of the LOUISVILLE
JOURNAL will explain this in part, and HISTORY OF THE SAINTS in full.

				Yours respectfully,
				John C. Bennett

(THE SANGAMO JOURNAL, 19 Aug 1842)

Note: Compare D.H.C. 5:134-136, under date of 27 Aug 1842. See also the
editorial comment from THE WASP, under date 27 Aug 1842 concerning this
letter and the previous one.

Friday 19 Aug 1842, Editorial:
From THE SANGAMO JOURNAL.

	What Joe's morality amounts to, can be learned from his letter to
Miss Rigdon, which will be found in the 6th communication of Gen. Bennett,
in this paper. Joe Smith, in the letter alluded to, undertakes to sustain
by the Scriptures, by reason, argument, and GOD'S REVE-[65]LATION TO
HIMSELF, the lawfulness of his "spiritual wife doctrine." The argument is
very specious, and had it been addressed to a young lady of only ordinary
attainments, a believer in Joe's divine mission, it is not improbable it
might have accomplished the object designed by Smith. But happily for Miss
Rigdon, she was too well informed, possessed to much moral firmness, and
was too deeply imbued with the true religion of the Bible, to be overcome
by Smith's hellish schemes. She resisted them, and unquestionably from
this cause arose all those slanders against her father that have for
sometime been in the mouths of Joe's followers here.
	To a young lady of Miss Rigdon's sensibilities, the publications
made, in which her name has been introduced, must have given her pain. We
should have been glad if we could have avoided making those publications
consistently with what we regarded as the high interests of our community.
But Miss Rigdon will have the satisfaction of knowing that her case has
elicited the strong sympathies not only of her own sex, but that of the
other; and that her triumph over the wiles of the impostor will be spoken
to her praise wherever her name shall be known.

Saturday 27 Aug 1842, Editorial:
From THE WASP.

	We have read the fifth and sixth letters of Dr. Bennett, and can only
say like the old adage: a fool's bolt is soon shot. The fifth letter is
made up of the cogitations of disappointed ambition. That want of candour,
virtue, meekness, charity, and temperance, which has hitherto destroyed
the Doctor's prospects, wherever he has tarried for the time being and
left his writings an aching void in the estimation of honest men, runs
through this letter like the chill fever and leaves it a pale faced sample
of western debility. The sixth letter is what purports to be a copy of a
letter from Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon, without date, name or
proof, and if it had these, is, upon the whole, more moral than Bennett
ever was or will be of [66] himself,--but we hope the community are not
yet quite so far from a common course of Justice and propriety as to take
Bennett's word for the truth or fallacy of the curious thing. Joseph Smith
is not the author.--The fact is, candid people begin to see what Bennett's
stuff, with his help meets of harlots' affidavits, bolstered up with
bombast and promises of more disclosures, amounts to! It gives Bennett a
living and tattlers tales. It puts us in mind of a boy, who, when the
first show fell in the fall, took up a pewter quart basin full, and
setting on a hot fire, exclaimed, I will soon melt me a hogshead of water;
but upon turning round, saw, to his surprise, his basin melted, and his
snow evaporated! So the Doctor, (last heard of in the State of New York,)
will soon find that the same fire that melted his disclosures will melt
him, and leave a continual pain to his soul, sharper than the sting of a
serpent's tooth.

Nauvoo, Aug 27th, 1842:
Editor of THE WASP:
	Dear sir: I am fully authorized by my daughter, Nancy, to say to the
public through the medium of your paper, that the letter which has
appeared in the SANGAMO JOURNAL, making part of General Bennett's letters
to said, paper, purporting to have been written by Mr. Joseph Smith to
her, was unauthorized by her, and that she never said to Gen. Bennett or
any other person, that said letter was written by said Mr. Smith, nor in
his hand writing. She further wishes me to say, that she never at any time
authorized Gen. Bennett to use her name in the public papers, as he has
done, which has been greatly to the wounding of her feelings, and she
considers the obtruding of her name before the public in the manner in
which it has been done, to say the least of it, is a flagrant violation of
the rules of gallantry, and cannot avoid to insult her feelings, which she
wishes the public to know. I would further state that Mr. Smith denied to
me the authorship of that letter.
				SIDNEY RIGDON
[67]
P.S. I wish the SANGAMO JOURNAL and all papers that have copied Bennett's
letters to copy this also, as an act of justice to Miss Rigdon. S.R.

(THE WASP, 3 Sep 1842)

Sunday 28 Aug 1842, Eliza Rigdon:
	On one of the last Sabbaths in August, Elder Rigdon made his
appearance on the stand, and though he was somewhat emaciated from ill
health, brought upon him by the malignant persecutions of Missouri, yet to
behold an old veteran in the cause of our Redeemer, rise to address a
congregation of the Saints, was at once animating. That face, from whence
eloquence once flowed copiously, made a welcome appearance, in its place
among the heads of Israel. He was not upon the stand to renounce his faith
in Mormonism, as had been variously stated by enemies and licentious
presses, but appeared to bear his testimony of its truth, and add another
to the many miraculous evidences of the power of God. Neither did he rise
to deliver any regular discourse, but to unfold unto the audience a scene
of deep interest, which had occurred in his own family. He had witnessed
many instances of the power of God, in this church, but never before had
he seen the dead raised: yet, this was a thing that had actually taken
place in his own family: his daughter Eliza was dead; the doctor told him
that she was gone, when, after a certain length of time she rose up in the
bed and spoke in a very powerful tone to the following effect, in a
supernatural manner: and said to the family that she was going to leave
them, being impressed with the idea herself, that she had only come back
to deliver her message, and then depart again: saying the Lord had said to
her the very words she should relate, and so particular was she in her
relation that she would not suffer any person to leave out a word, or add
one. She called the family around her and bade them all farewell, with a
composure and calmness that defies all description: * * * She said to her
elder sister Nancy, it is in your heart to deny this work, and if you do,
the Lord says it will be the damnation of your soul. * * * [68] She said
concerning Dr. Bennett, that he was a wicked man, and that the Lord would
tread him under his feet. * * *

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 3:922-923, 15 Sep 1842)

1 Oct 1842, ON MARRIAGE:
From the TIMES AND SEASONS.

Marriage (see under date 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 101, 1835
edition.)

	We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in
this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a
matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and
shew that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend, Origen Bachelor,
are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and
need but be known to be hated and despised. In support of this position,
we present the following certificates:

	"We the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families
do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of
marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,
and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife
system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in
this place nor never did.
	S. Bennett,			N. K. Whitney,
	George Miller,			Albert Petty,
	Alpheus Cutler,		Elias Higbee,
	Reynolds Cahoon,  		John Taylor,
	Wilson Law,			E. Robinson,
	W. Woodruff,			Aaron Johnson.

	We the undersigned members of the Ladies' Relief Society, and married
females do certify and declare that [69] we know of no system of marriage
being practised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints save
the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this
certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife
system" is a disclosure of his own make.

Emma Smith, President, *
Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor,
Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor,
Eliza R. Snow, Secretary, *
Mary C. Miller,		Catharine Pettey,
Lois Cutler,			Sarah Higbee,
Thirza Cahoon,			Phebe Woodruff,
Ann Hunter,			Leonora Taylor,
Jane Law,				Sarah Hillman,
Sophia R. Marks,		Rosanna Marks,
Polly Z. Johnson,		Angeline Robinson,
Abigail Works.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 3:939-940)

*Note: Emma Smith and Eliza R. Snow were both wives of Joseph Smith,
having been married to him on 18 Jan 1827 and 29 Jun 1842 respectively.

Winter 1842, John D. Lee:
	During the winter, Joseph, the Prophet, set a man by the name of
Sidney (sic) Hay Jacobs, to select from the Old Bible such scriptures as
pertained to polygamy, or celestial marriage, and to write it in pamphlet
form, and to advocate that doctrine. This he did as a feeler among the
people, to pave the way for celestial marriage. This, like all other
notions, met with opposition, while a few favored it. The excitement among
the people became so great that the subject was laid before the Prophet.
No one was more opposed to it than was his brother Hyrum, who denounced it
as from beneath. Joseph saw that it would break up the church, should he
sanction it, so he denounced the pamphlet through the WASP (sic), a
newspaper published at Nauvoo, by E. Robinson (sic) [70] as a bundle of
nonsense and trash. He said if he had known its contents he would never
have permitted it to be published, white at the same time other
confidential men were advocating it on their own responsibility. Joseph
himself said on the stand, that should he reveal the will of God
concerning them, that they, pointing to President W. Marks, P. P. Pratt,
and others, would shed his blood. He urged them to surrender themselves to
God instead of rebelling against the stepping stone of their exaltation. *
* * But he dared not proclaim it publicly, so it was taught confidentially
to such as were strong enough in the faith to take another step. About the
same time the doctrine of "seating" for an eternal state was introduced,
and the Saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with
each other were not valid. That those who solemnized the rites of
matrimony had no authority of God to do so. That the true priesthood was
taken from the earth with the death of the Apostles and inspired men of
God. That they were married to each other only by their own covenants, and
that if their marriage relations had not been productive of blessings and
peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at
liberty to make their own choice, as much as if they had not been married.
That it was sin for people to live together, and raise or beget children,
in alienation from each other. There should exist an affinity between each
other, not a lustful one, as that can never cement that love and affection
that should exist between a man and his wife. * * *

(Lee, LIFE AND CONFESSIONS OF JOHN C. LEE, p. 146-147)

1842, Udney Hay Jacob:

An extract from a manuscript entitled:

THE PEACE MAKER, or Doctrines of the Millennium

Being a treatise on religion and juresprudence, or a new system of
religion and politicks, for my God, my country, [71] and my rights, by
Udney Hay Jacob, an Israelite, and a shepherd of Israel; Nauvoo, Ill., J.
Smith, Printer.

PREFACE:

	In the following extract, which is two chapters only, taken from a
larger work, there are some allusions to matter contained in the larger
work; which will not appear with the same clearness and force, as if the
whole work was before the reader. This cannot be remedied in making an
extract. It is written Mal. 4:5-6. Behold I will send you Elijah the
Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and
he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of
the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a
curse. The author of this work professes to be the teacher here foretold.
Some may object that John the Baptist was the character there alluded to.
But if it was necessary that Christ should have a forerunner when he came
to this world as a servant only; not to be ministered unto; but to
minister, and to give his life for the ransom of the world; how much more
requisite is it, that he should be thus honored, when he comes in his
glory and majesty, to be king over all the nations of the earth. Moreover,
please to take notice of the character spoken of. He shall turn the heart
of the fathers to the children; and the heart of the children to their
fathers; (nothing is here said of the mothers.) lest I come and smite the
earth with a curse. This is matter of great importance in the eyes of God,
in its proper time. No teacher since this prophecy was given, has made the
least aproximation towards the accomplishment of this great work, which is
to save a world from a dreadful curse. But did not Christ do any thing to
effect this purpose? says an objector. Hear him; Suppose ye that I am come
to give peace to the earth? I tell you nay; but rather division; the
father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter, and daughter against the mother, etc and
a man's enemies shall be they of his own house. Math. 10:34-36. Luke,
12:51-56, ye hypocrites can discern the face of the sky, [72] and of the
earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time. However the public
can form a better judgment of the authors pretentions by reading this
extract, than by his mere professions. And when the whole work shall be
published, and its glorious object accomplished; then will the whole world
know assuredly that he is indeed the teacher foretold by the Prophet
Malachi, more than two thousand years ago. Then will the truth of the holy
prophets be established; and the judgments of God, and his wisdom will be
made manifest.
	The author of this work is not a Mormon, although it is printed by
their press. It was the most convenient. But the public will soon find out
what he is, by his work.

CHAPTER XVIII, on the LAW OF MARRIAGE

	"Yet once again I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this
word yet once again signifies the removing of those things that are
shaken, as of things that are made; that those things which cannot be
shaken may remain." Heb. 12:26, 27, Hag. 2:6, 7.
	I now enter upon an important matter which I would gladly have
omitted; did not the restitution of the law of God require that we should
clearly understand it. If we were doomed of necessity to continue involved
in sin, it could not be a reproach; whatever else the consequences might
be. But sin is a reproach to any people. A reproach to our understandings.
We all admit that sin is an unreasonable thing; and not to our interest.
Yet we practice it. This proves that an astonishing frailty exists in our
minds. But our sin is not the cause of this frailty, for it is manifest
that this frailty is the cause of our sin. Whence then arises this
frailty, or imbecility of mind? I answer, that I have applied myself to
seek and search out wisdom; and the reason of things: and to know the
cause of madness and foolishness. And I find that more bitter than death
is the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are bonds,
Solomon. And thus are we involved in Adam's chains, and all the penalties
and pains, of slaveries' growth. But what should we understand by Adam's
chains? Answer, Adam was enslaved [73] by the woman, not by the serpent in
the first instance, as we are taught by the word; Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. She gave unto the
man and he did eat. Therefore said Paul, I suffer not a woman to teach or
to usurp authority over the man, but to be in subjection. Her law and
government over a man we are thus taught by the Holy Spirit is an
usurpation of power. But Adam was enslaved by the woman, and so are we. It
is the nature of an unnatural and unlawful bondage to degrade the mind,
bred and born, and involved therein. Hence we have lost the original
dignity, nobleness, and excellency of the masculine mind; and have, as it
respects the sex of our minds become effeminate. That such is the
character of our mind, is evident from the fact; that we are constantly
deceived by the devil like Eve of old. It would have been impossible that
the christian nations with the Bible in their hands, could have remained
to this day servants of servants, and slaves to sin; continually deceiving
and being deceived, even by the devil, like Eve of old; had they not been
possessed of the effeminate mind like Eve. We are placed by our laws under
the law of the woman. The word of God saith, for the wife is bound by the
law, as long as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is at
liberty to be married to whom she will, (take notice not to marry) but to
be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7:39. This text
shows what is meant by her being under the law of her husband, that is,
she is not at liberty to be married to another, while she has a lawful
husband yet living. And if a man is bound to his wife in the same manner,
then is he under the law of his wife. Again: Ro. 7:2, For a woman that
hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband, as long as her husband
liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband. But in no place in the holy book do we read that a man is bound
by the law of his wife, as long as his wife liveth. Such an idea and law
would be and is subversive of all righteous government; and it
disorganizes the whole system of truth. A man cannot be lawfully placed
under the law of his wife, for he is the head. The seat of the mind by
which beings are governed [74] is in the head. The government of the wife
is therefore placed in the husband by the law of God; for he is the head.
I suffer not a woman saith the Lord to teach, or to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in subjection. How then can a man be righteously placed
under the law of a woman. The word of God here expressly declares that
such authority is an usurpation of power. Neither can the woman herself,
nor the human family prosper, when the woman takes a station for which she
was not created. For Adam was first formed, then Eve, the man is therefore
nearer the fountain than the woman; as Christ is before the man. Therefore
as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in all things. Eph. 5:24. And it is written, let the wife see
that she reverence her husband for God is not the author of confusion, but
of peace. A man ought not to be brought under the law of a woman in any
wise. But by our law he is in ten thousand instances completely enslaved
to an imperious woman whereby confusion and not peace rages in society at
its very root. And the principle that performs this wicked work, is
recognized, and admitted by all, and therefore operates upon all, and
disorganizes the universal mind of man throughout Christendom; it being
begotten and bred in this disorganizing ruin. The evil consequences
resulting from the imperfection of our laws upon this subject, are many
and destructive to this whole nation: and as Satan gained the ascendency
over man, by the submission of the man to the woman; so he must be
expelled by exhalting man, to his original authority and dignity, and by
forming our laws exactly according to the divine pattern; or reign
forever. This only can restore order, good family government, and peace.
Multitudes of families are now in confusion, and wretchedly governed. This
is a great evil.
	For the private families are nuneries of the mind: and the evils of a
bad government here cannot be calculated. Many sons in their teens are
roving about the land like the wild asses' colt, unbridled; these oft
times become associates and partners, with pick pockets, thieves and
robbers. Many husbands, are induced by the unnatural and intolerable
nature of female tyranny and usurpation, to [75] even abandon their
families to the mercy of a heartless world. Such unnatural crimes never
did exist under the ancient law of God. All law or government of a woman
over a man, except it be the law of kindness, is an usurpation of power
destructive of the order, peace, and well being of society. These evils
are indeed the most ruinous in their results, of any that exist among us,
and cannot be remedied by our laws. But it is obvious that some effectual
power should exist to annihilate the possibility of such a prolific ruin,
at the very fountain head of human life. A recognition and common consent,
to the existance of the cause of those untold evils operating on, and in
our minds from infancy; is such an unnatural shackle to the dignity and
original excellency of the mind of man; that although we may personally
some of us be happily married; yet the obnoxious principle bears upon the
whole body of manly intellect forever. This ruinous, disorganizing,
debasing principle cannot be eradicated but by the strong arm of the law.
Our ladies have long possessed a power, which the very nature of things,
the nature of women, and the law of God utterly forbid; it must and does
produce misery, vanity, confusion, and sorrow both to them and us. You
have placed the husband under the law of the wife as long as the wife
lives; and at the same time placed the wife under the law of the husband
as long as the husband lives! What an absurdity! What an attempt to an
impossibility! ! What a confusion! There is no head here, or there is a
double headed monster, with two different set of brains that pull
different ways! How many such glaring absurdities are found in the
prevailing principles of Religion and ethics! As it is written. They have
spoken frauds swearing falsely in making a covenant (that is the marriage
covenant). Thus judgment springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the
field, Hos. 10:4. Well did the scriptures say, that mystery Babylon was
the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth. These are the
sources of our ruin and misery, and the very root of the poison. From
hence springeth up the poison hemlock in society. This is the seed.
	There is a great evil that lies in our law of divorcement. This law
in our country is imperfect in principle. [76] That it is imperfect is
evident from the changes it is frequently undergoing and from the fact,
that it is now different in different States. How can it be that a divine
law should be imperfect and changeable? Does not this prove at once my
countrymen, and countrywomen, that you are not married, neither are you
divorced according to the law of God? We must return in this particular to
the standard, to the law of God which is a perfect law upon this important
subject. Who I ask has a right to make a law of marriage but God? much
less to alter or change it. The marriage law is admitted by all to be a
divine law. It is therefore spiritual in its nature, as indeed are all the
laws of God, who is himself a spirit, and therefore obligatory on the
spirit or mind, as well as on the body. Let us now examine the law of
Christ upon this matter. Math. 5:32. But I say unto you that whosoever
shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away committeth
adultery. Here we learn the only true and lawful cause of divorcement. It
is the fornication of the wife against her husband. But surely this is not
what is commonly called fornication literally, or of the body; for this
offence a married woman cannot commit. Fornication as it is generally
understood, is the lewdness of unmarried persons. But you will say that in
this case you have always understood it to mean the same thing as
adultery. But what propriety is there in thus understanding it? when
Christ here teaches that the body of a married woman must first be
prostituted, or joined to another, or again married, and the former
marriage bed defiled before adultery is committed. Fornication cannot
defile the marriage bed. The nature of marriage is such, that it cannot be
perfected until the bodies are actually joined, hence saith Christ, for
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife,
and they twain shall be one flesh. Paul perfectly illustrates this thing
when he saith, shall I take the members of Christ, and make them the
members of an harlot? God forbid. Hence it is clear that Christ teaches
that the body of a married woman must be first prostituted before adultery
is committed; and that a man has a right to put [77] away his wife for
fornication only, and she is then free. But if a man should put away his
wife for the crime of adultery; would the man who should afterwards marry
her, or the woman either be less guilty of adultery by that marriage, than
if the woman had not been before guilty of that crime? Can one crime clear
a person from the same crime afterwards? Observe, Christ does not call
fornication a crime in a married woman; but a justifiable cause for
putting her away. It does not read, if a man put away his wife except it
be for the crime of adultery. But it reads, if a man put away his wife,
except for the cause of fornication; he thereby causeth her to commit
adultery by a second marriage. Now it is evident that the cause why a man
might put away his wife, could not be the consequence of putting her away
without the existence of that cause. The one is fornication, the other
adultery. The truth is this; the spiritual law of marriage is binding upon
both the body and mind of the wife equally. The prostitution of the body
after marriage constitutes adultery; but the alienation of the mind or
affections from her husband constitutes fornication in a married woman.
The sexual cohabitation of unmarried persons is not adultery but
fornication. Because although their minds may be united in the closest
ties of affections and love; yet she is not given in marriage by the
marriage covenant. Therefore it is fornication. But after the body and
mind are both obligated by the marriage covenant; if the mind of the wife
which was equally bound with the body to obey, and to be in subjection in
all things, by the spiritual nature of that covenant, becomes alienated
from her husband, she commits fornication against her husband; because the
mind of the wife was bound to yield obedience and submission to her
husband in all things as well as the body, by the spiritual nature of that
covenant. In this latter case the mind of the married woman is
prostituted; in the former, that is of the unmarried woman the body was
prostituted: In either case it is fornication and in case of the married
woman the only proper and legal cause of divorce. And the wife can commit
fornication against her husband in no other possible way. For if she
prostitute her body after marriage, it is adultery. When [78] a woman
apostatizes in spirit from her husband, she then commits fornication
against the spiritual law of marriage, and in no other way can a married
woman commit fornication. If she prostitutes her body, it is adultery.
There is also a spiritual adultery as well as adultery of the body, which
may be committed by the man. If a man looks on another man's wife and
lusts after her; he has committed adultery already in his heart. If he
carries his unlawful desires into effect, it is adultery of the body.
Adultery signifies simply the act which adulterates, legally, that which
defiles the marriage bed. But fornication can be committed without
defiling the marriage bed; in fact, it cannot defile the marriage bed in
any case whatever. They are entirely two different things. It is
impossible to understand this word fornication to mean adultery in this
case, because Christ makes the most clear, and positive distinction; and
expressly declares that fornication is the only lawful cause for which a
man may put away his wife; and that adultery is the consequence of putting
her away without the existence of that cause. You might as well suppose
that he meant covetousness, by the word fornication, as to suppose that he
meant adultery. There is not so great a distinction between covetousness
and fornication as there is between adultery and fornication. But a
misunderstanding in this important point is the root of this great evil.
Again, adultery by the law of God, was punishable with death. This would
have been a divorce with a lasting witness. With our eyes upon the law of
God we can by no means admit the common and erronious understanding of
this matter. Some may have supposed no doubt that Christ, in the case of
the woman who was accused before him of adultery; softened or entirely
disannulled this law. If he entirely disannulled this law, then there is
no law against adultery; for he did not enact a substitute; and no gentile
legislature, has a right to meddle with the law of Jehovah. But the above
idea is no doubt,an incorrect understanding of the matter. We should
recollect the office in which Christ acted. The law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John, 1:17. Christ did not act
in the capacity of a legislator, but an illustrator of the law, a
teach-[79]er, a servant. It was incompatible with his mission to even act
as a judge in legal matters. Hence he would condemn no sinner. It was not
consistent that he, who came to redeem sinners from the condemning power
of the law with his own blood; should condemn them by the law. The Jews
knew this to be his profession; hence they brought the woman before him,
thinking to entrap him in this case. But with what wisdom he frustrated
their design, is manifest. Stone her said he, I do not teach the violation
of the law; but let him who has not violated it, cast the first stone.
None but the Son of God, situated as he was, could have escaped from this
trap. You recollect the young man who applied to him to settle the
division of inheritance between him and his brother. But Christ refused to
interfere in the matter at all. Said he, who made me ruler and judge over
you? Had he proceeded to pass sentence upon sinners, it would have forever
put out the candle of the Lord in our minds; and we could not have come to
the knowledge of the truth, the glorious redemption that is in Christ
Jesus by the means which God hath appointed. Therefore he condemned no man
neither did he condemn the woman, but told her to go in peace, and sin no
more. If he had repealed the law which stood against her; such an act of
which she was accused, would thenceforth have been no sin. But God has
ordained a proper power to execute wrath upon the transgressor; upon him
that doeth evil. And this power the true teacher never crippled in the
least. Did he make void the law in any particular? No verily He
established the sacred authority of the law, by submitting to it himself
in all things in his own name, and in the name of the everlasting God; the
unchangeable Jehovah, the author of that law. But you have made it void by
your ignorance and traditions. We should recollect that the marriage
relation is clearly illustrated to us by the relation that exists between
Christ and his Church. When the church ceases to obey Christ, and to love
him, they then commit fornication against him, and thus is the term used
when speaking of a bride, throughout the scriptures. When the church
rebels against her lawful husband and master Jesus Christ, and will not
submit to him in all things; she then commits [80] fornication against him
and this is the plain sense of the matter. So in the case of the wife,
when she refuses to submit cheerfully to her husband in all things; (a
broad commandment this, but limited by reason and love only) when she
ceases to reverence her husband, to be submissive to him; trusting in her
husband, and believing in him, then she commits fornication against the
law of marriage, and against him; even as the false church has against
Christ. And in no other possible way can she commit this act and it then
becomes the right of her husband to write her a bill of divorcement,
according to the strict letter of the law of God given by Moses: and to
put her away unless she repent. A right understanding of this matter, and
a correct law properly executed, would restore this nation to peace and
order; and man to his true dignity, authority and government of the
earthly creation. It would soon rectify the domestic circle, and establish
a proper head over the families of the earth, and be the means of driving
satan; together with the knowledge and restitution of the whole penal law
of God and the glorious and everlasting gospel; yea, of driving satan from
the human mind and, setting a seal upon him, that he should deceive the
nations no more until his time. And by no other means can the heart of the
fathers be turned to their children, and the heart of the children be
turned to their fathers. The spirit of God and Christ will then return to
deliver us from all evil, and to guide the mind of happy and exalted man
into all truth. Length of days, peace and blessings foretold shall be
ours. Man shall then cease committing fornication against his head and
husband Jesus Christ. For the head of the woman is the man, and the head
of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. It is the
disorganization and disobedience of these eternal laws of order, and of
God, that has ruined us. A schism in the body. Gentlemen, the ladies laugh
at the idea of your being the lords of the creation. Even in the public
prints they have styled you, the would be lords, etc. Nothing is further
from the minds of our wives in general, than the idea of submitting to
their husbands in all things, and of reverencing their husbands. They will
boldly ridicule the idea of calling them sincerely [81] in their hearts
lords and masters. But God has positively required this of them. See 1.
Pet. 3:6. Even as Sarah of old that excellent woman, having now no
parallel on Earth. And under existing circumstances our wives can never
become the daughters of Sarah in the spirit, or enjoy the inheritance with
her in a glorious immortality. Alas! the ruin is unbounded even to them.
But gentlemen legislators, it now devolves upon you to open the gates of
glory and blessedness; both for time and eternity, to a ruined world.
Alter your imperfect, and wicked law of divorcement; make it according to
the law of God, and the ladies will laugh at you no more. They will soon
reform, and nothing in all this world will they esteem higher than your
affections. They will respect your authority sincerely; and you will
command their kindest attention every where. Then will you love your wives
indeed, for they will be worthy. And then will the health of the daughters
of my people be recovered. Then shall come to pass what is spoken by Isa.
the Prophet, 4:2 -4. When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the
daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the
midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. It
might be under our circumstances requisite, to compel the husband who
thought of putting away his wife, to go before the magistrate, and there
affirm the fact, that he was about to divorce his wife; stating under oath
the true cause, or causes; such as wilful disobedience to his reasonable
commands, disrespectful language; a refusal to submit to him in all
reasonable things; and make it the duty of the magistrate to record the
oath, and testimony thus given. The magistrate exercising no other
judgment or supervision in the case, than that the evidence did prove that
the true cause, or causes did exist as described by the law, and that no
abuse or battery, had been offered by the husband against the wife; and
that persuasion had been used kindly, and gently, and space given her to
repent, and she repented not. This would be precisely the law of Christ on
the subject. And in essence the very way he hath proceeded with his own
rebellious bride. Then let the husband write her a bill of divorcement,
and put her away, and she may then go, [82] and be married to another man;
the bill which should also be a matter of record, signifying a freedom
from her former husband. Thus does the law of God declare, and the
explanation given by Christ clearly signifies the same thing. Because he
makes this exception, saying, if a man put away his wife save for the
cause of fornication, by an after marriage she commits adultery, and he
that marries her committeth adultery. If the word fornication here used by
Christ, means adultery; and a woman is put away for that crime; it would
follow that she is thereby free, and that by an after marriage she would
not commit adultery; neither would the man that married her commit
adultery. But if she is put away innocently, without committing adultery;
then an after marriage is adultery. Thus it is necessary according to such
a definition of the word fornication; that the woman should commit
adultery in the first place; in order to protect her from that crime by an
after marriage. This is absurd for any rational being to believe. That
Christ did not mean adultery by the word fornication is therefore
absolutely decided beyond the possibility of error; for the following
irrefutable reasons, if no other did exist, 1st. Because it is impossible
that the crime of adultery committed by the wife, should be the means of
exonerating her from the same offence afterwards. 2d. Because the crime of
adultery was by the law of God punished with death; and with no other
penalty; and Christ has declared that he in no case made void the law of
God, although the truth, which came by Christ is; that he has redeemed the
spirits of men from the condemning power of the law, with his own blood;
as we have before abundantly proven; glory and honor be to his name, yet
the natural earthly man is under the law and liable to its penalties in
the flesh; and by right ought so to be. These are great hail stones of
truth that cannot be resisted: beating with destructive violence upon the
foundation of mystery Babylon; and I am persuaded as we advance in the
investigation of these things, that the storm will thicken. But you may
enquire if the husband becomes alienated towards his wife, while she
remains sincerely attached to him; has he not a right to put her away? No,
by no means. He shall not drive his affectionate and [83] faithful wife
from him, while she remains pure in heart, and sincerely attached to him.
This is that putting away which the Lord hates, which he hath forbidden,
and in which he has not set the example. This was the principle reason why
the disciples being bred Jews, thought it was not good to marry. Moses for
the hardness of their hearts suffered them to do this, for some fancied
uncleanness, or personal dislike on the part of the husband, see Deu.
24:1. But from the beginning it was not so, and there is a legal reason,
which is that a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong. But more
especially the cruelty of the act, forbids it: but if a woman be alienated
in her heart the case is different. There is then a serious reason why she
must be put away. Children begotten and born of an alienated woman, are
born of fornication in the spirit or mind. This is a great injury to the
minds of such children. It injures their intellectual powers and
disposition of mind. Hence we have often observed that children born of
young women in an unmarried state, the production of an illicit love, are
often the most bright and active, and possessed of greater natural gifts
than many other children. God who knows the nature of his own work has
therefore forbidden the propagating our species from an alienated woman.
But in the case of the affectionate girl, saith Paul, there is no sin, let
them marry, and so saith the law of God expressly. But a bastard, that is
a child born of fornication, or of an alienated woman, shall not enter
into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. Here we are
taught that the injury is so great as to disqualify them from becoming
saints to the tenth generation! What do you think of this my countrymen?
How many bastards have we in these states completely disqualified from
entering into the congregation of the Lord, to the tenth generation? It is
evident that minds or souls are propagated by natural generation as well
as bodies. No marvel that wise man are so rare in Christendom. And that
they have read the scriptures for ages, without understanding the plainest
facts. And have consequently constituted so many jarring sects, from the
same authority, all in confusion like the builders of Babel. The woman is
the producer, and while [84] she remains pure, truly attached in spirit to
her husband, her children are pure, and born in honor, but not otherwise.
An idea from this root is alluded to by Paul, where he sayeth, The husband
is sanctified by the believing wife; and the wife is sanctified by the
believing husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.
But in all cases the natural affections of the wife must be towards her
husband, or it is fornication. She must be pleased to live with him as
saith the apostle, else he must put her away. But there is a sanctifying
power in the belief, and knowledge of Christ taught in this book; which is
indeed the balm of Gilead to the children of sufferIng humanity, and if it
be not received by this nation at this time, wo, wo be to them.--Cannot a
man put away his wife for the crime of adultery? answer, this crime was
punished by the law of God with death, it is therefore absurd to talk of
divorce in such a case. There is no act that can be named under heaven for
which a man can lawfully put away his wife, save for the cause of
fornication. But if the husband commit fornication, shall not the wife be
entitled to a bill against him? Impossible. Did Christ say a woman shall
not put away her husband saving for the cause of fornication? Here is a
wrong idea in your head; an idea of a woman divorcing her husband. How can
she do this for any offence? The man is not under the law of marriage to
his wife. But the wife is bound by the law of her husband as long as her
husband liveth. A divorced man is a creature no where recognized in the
scriptures, or in the law of God. Where did you ever read in the law of
God, or in the holy book, such a false idea? or the least allusion to the
righteousness of such a thing on any account whatever? How can property
put away its owner? The bible must become as absurd, and as foolish as the
gentiles themselves; and its whole phraseology entirely changed to make it
read according to our perverted ideas and laws upon this subject.
	The wife is given to her husband, and is bound by the law of her
husband, and the husband cannot legally be put under the law of his wife.
Unless you should thereby indeed fulfil literally; as in fact you have
done, the saying of the Prophet Isaiah. Children are the oppressors of my
[85] people, and women rule over them. But if you have understood the true
cause of divorcement to be adultery; yet you have not formed your laws
upon that principle altogether. You have been compelled by your experience
to deviate from it in several of the states. What, although a woman is not
known to be an adulteress; yet she may be a perfect devil to her husband,
train him in the most imperious manner, dispise him in her heart, abuse
him before his children, drive him like a menial slave where she pleases;
and he must tamely submit to the ungodly law of his wife, must hug the
serpent to his bosom, and love her as he does his own body! Impossible,
and degrading to the nature of man. It is altogether unlawful and ruinous
to the families of the nation. The means which your ungodly law, puts into
the hands of a proud termagant, and alienated woman of torturing her
husband, and ruining all his affairs as well as his soul, and his children
to the tenth generation, cannot be written on paper. The evils that this
nation now suffer by this erroneous law cannot be enumerated; neither
shall we comprehend them until the law of God is restored, and true order,
and righteous government is established in the land. Then will we discover
the contrast, and not till then. And then will the smoke of the torment of
those who now bow to the beast, or false government, ascend up forever and
ever. That is, it will be discovered by the contrast, and the remembrance
thereof remain forever. Order and government must, and should exist, and
God only knows where the power should be placed to effect it. And he has
placed it in the hands of the man. And how is it possible that it ever
should be effected, by placing two powers of equal force in direct
opposition to each other? This power of the man over the woman does not
consist in the right of abuse and corporal punishment, which does violence
to the nature of the marriage relation; but in the true law of divorcement
established by God himself for the purpose of righteous government and
peace. Neither has any legislature in Christendom a right to alter, amend,
or change it in the least; only to appoint the means, and order the
execution thereof. For what God has joined together, let not man put
asunder. Bills [86] of divorcement according to our laws of the Gentiles
are therefore unlawful. They cannot by their acts separate lawfully what
God has joined together; he hath forbidden it. And many are now living in
fornication and adultery in the sight of God. In which they, and all those
who thus cause the violation of the law of God must give an account to
him, who is ready to judge the quick and the dead at his appearing, and in
his kingdom. The ceremony or covenant of marriage should be according to
the law of God. The officiating officer should say to the man; you hereby
take this woman which you hold by the right hand to be your wedded wife
according to the law of God. He should answer I do. Then the officer
should say to the woman you do hereby agree to become the wedded wife of
this man which you hold by the right hand accordincy to the law of God.
She should answer I do. Then the Officer should say; according to the law
of God I pronounce you husband and wife.
	The idea of a woman taking a man to be her husband is not found in
the word of God. But the man marries the woman; and the woman is given in
marriage. She is therefore the property of the husband in marriage. But
the husband is not the property of the wife in any sense of the word. It
is not said even in the holy decalogue when Mount Sinai was all on fire;
and trembled at the presence of Jehovah, in that solemn exhibition of the
power and glory of God; in the holy decalogue, written with the finger of
God himself, it is not said; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's husband,
no verily, she has no such property. But thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing thy neighbor possesses. Here the wife is pronounced
the husband's property, as much so as his man servant, his maid servant,
his ox, or his horse. Although she is a different kind of property, very
precious, near and dear to him as his own body. For she is the glory of a
man, and if a virtuous woman, her price is above rubies. A different kind
of property, and held by a different tenure according to law being bound
to the husband, and cannot be sold. By the law a man had a right to sell
men servants and maid servants. Yet if he [87] took a maid servant to be a
concubine; she was under the same law to her master as was the wife; but
the master then could not sell her, after she had been thus taken: but he
could let her go out free, and she was then a free woman. But the man is
in no sense of the word the property of his wife. How can property possess
its owner? How can the owner be put under the law and government of his
property? When God made the woman he gave her to the man; but he never
gave the man to the woman. Therefore the woman has no power to divorce the
man. How can property divorce its owner? Think of these things my
countrymen seriously. For Zion shalt be redeemed with Judgement, and her
converts with righteousness; and the destruction of the transgressors and
the sinners shall be together; and they that forsake God shall be
consumed. Isa. 1:27. Thus you see my countrymen, how the old harlot Rome,
the old mother of harlots has committed fornication against Christ, and
then has taught our wives to commit fornication against us with impunity.
And has thus made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication. Rev. 13:3. This, was in the first place most infamously and
wickedly done by the Priesthood, by the aid of the old dragon; that is
Paganism. The converts to professed Christianity having been brought up in
Paganism, were by that means, that is by the power of their education, and
the fraud of the priests; deceived, as it is written. The dragon gave the
beast his power, and seat, and great authority. Rev. 13:2. And they
worshipped the dragon who gave power to the beast. The authors, the Roman
Priesthood knew better than this; hence they forbid their own class to
marry at all: and under the pretence of sanctity. O shame! And their
object was to degrade and enslave the world; while they preserved their
own dignity and power by not coming under the unnatural yoke of the woman.
For they well knew that putting the man under the woman, would degrade his
mind, and that of his posterity in many cases wretchedly: and produce
imbecility of mind, disorder and confusion therein, like intoxicating
wine; and render them finally their passive slaves. In the mean time to
justify their natural wants the nunery was invented; for they chose [88]
to degrade and prostitute their bodies rather than their minds. No doubt
the whole scheme of the Priests was never carried into full prosecution,
which part that failed, was the manner of bringing forward successors to
perpetuate their noble order. But poor souls they must now bear their
degradation forever. There is no help for them now, as they vainly
imagined by the means of purgatory. They turned the grace of God into
laciviousness, and their foolish minds became darkened. But heaven smiles
on us, a glorious day is now opening. The harvest has come, and in the
time of the harvest will the Lord send forth his angels and gather his
elect from the four winds; from under the whole heavens; and they shall
bear rule over those wicked Priests forever. In ancient times under the
law of God, the permission of a plurality of wives had a direct tendency,
to prevent the possibility of fornication in the wife. For the law of
divorcement, and all the law on the subject sustained the lawful and
independent power of the husband over the wife; and his dignity of
character was thereby supported. The interest, the hopes, the prospects of
the wife, were all turned in the opposite direction by the law; where
indeed her mind always should be. Her main object was to win, and retain
the affections of her husband. And there was no means more successful for
this purpose, than to bear him many children; for reasons which will
hereafter appear. Hence wives were so grieved at the idea of barrenness.
The ruinous evil of a woman's being jealous of her husband, could not then
exist under the law, and this evil is almost the only source of
fornication in a wife. This fruitful source of evil was not then in
existence. And the wife was perfectly passive, submissive and
non-resisting towards her husband. The existance of fornication in a
married woman, that destructive evil, even to her posterity; was then
hardly possible. It was not therefore defined or even mentioned in the
law. It was improper so to do: as it would have had a tendency to create
an unknown evil. As the woman was then perfectly governed in
righteousness: nothing as it respected law on this subject was further
necessary, but proper laws to govern the man. But when Christ came they
had [89] by being under the Babylonians, and afterwards the Romans, and
mingling with the Pagan nations; and from various other causes in many
respects corrupted the law. It now became necessary to define the proper
cause of divorce, to fit the law to the circumstances of the age and to
all future generations, not really to change the law at all; but to
illustrate its spirit and real nature. This is all the Saviour did at that
time. A knowledge of the proper cause of divorcement would in this new
case, be sufficient when duly appreciated, to maintain the proper dignity
and authority of the man, and submission of the woman, and consequently
the natural excellency of the children. The first law ever made upon this
subject of marriage is contained in these words, And unto the woman he
said, in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be
unto thy husband; and he shall rule over thee. Gen. 3:16. This shows that
the desire of wives cannot be maintained towards their husbands; unless
they do absolutely reign over them by the strong, and righteous arm of the
law. Because these propositions are both pronounced by God himself in
connection: and they must be connected, or neither will exist. And it is
so, in the nature of things. It is evident that the sovereignty of the
husband, over his wife, herein bestowed by God himself; cannot righteously
be supported by any other means, than by the law, neither can prosperity
attend the human family upon any other principles.
	But suppose a married man entice a maid; shall not the wife be
entitled to a bill of divorce against him? This is not an offence against
his wife; neither is it against the maid; but altogether in the maid's
favor. It is not against the wife, for the man is not under the law of
marriage to his wife in any sense whatever; neither can he be put under
the law of the woman, without disorganizing the whole system of the law of
God, and of righteousness. If he has addressed the maid without her
father's consent, it is against the father, for which the law of God
espressly provides. And the wife has no concern, or control in this
matter. The wife cannot put away the husband for any cause. As well might
a servant put away his master, or a child his father. A divorced man is a
creature, not [90] known in the whole canon of the scriptures. Here lies
your error: and the law of him who made man must rule, and you my
countrymen must and shall understand it; either in this life, to your
advantage or in that which is to come to your everlasting loss. But if a
man commits adultery with another man's wife; it has a direct tendency to
produce the great evil of alienation in the wife; which is murder to her
posterity in its nature: and he robs the husband of his most precious
rights, violates the interest of his life and family in the most sacred
points of man's existance. He therefore, and the adultress shall be put to
death. God now calls us to peace, and purity and order; for his house is a
house of order, and not of confusion. This is the object of the whole law.
But your laws upon this subject, lays the ax at the root of the tree of
peace and order, and good government in the earth. And the fruits of
disorder and cruelty and wickedness that have prevailed this thousand
years, even with the gospel in your hands, is a demonstration of this
fact. Now then make the reasonable law of God your guide; instead of your
own misguided vain imaginations of what is fitting and best for mankind;
and a glorious reward, both in time and eternity, will be the blessed
consequences. The families of the earth are the root of all righteous
government among men. And unless order, a perfect and independent head is
here established by law, wretchedness, and confusion in the very nature of
things will, and must be the certain consequences. The honor, the
affections, the prosperity of the father and the husband, are powerful
checks to his becoming a tyrant. The fatherly government has in all ages
where it has been supported, been found the most virtuous and just.
Besides the law can easily, and completely control any disposition of a
tyranical nature in the supreme head of a family; without bringing him
under the unlawful, and ruinous bondage of a woman. If he require any
thing of his wife which, love and reason would not dictate; or if he
inflict blows upon his wife; it is of the nature of assault and battery.
And if he is convicted of such an offence; it is the law of God that he be
publicly whipped, not to exceed forty stripes; according to the agravation
of the offence. [91] And where, I enquire, would such a man go to get a
wife, after he was known? Such men, if any there be among us, ought not to
be the fathers of the rising generation: for we now enter the Millennium.
For by the law of Christ; a man is bound to be kind to his wife, and he is
under the law to Christ who is his lawful head: but not under the law to
his wife. The wife has no right to teach, admonish, reprove, rebuke, or to
exercise any kind of dictation whatever. He is her head, and she should be
guided by the head. If the wife wants to know any thing, let her ask her
husband at home. She hath therefore the right of petition. And this is a
right that all who are governed should possess. If she will seek any other
guide, depending on something else besides her husband, (except it be the
Lord who is head of all,) she must be miserable; she is out of the order
which God has established in the creation, and wretchedness is the
inevitable fruit. Therefore the law should confine her completely under
her husband's power for good, but not for evil. Has the church a right to
admonish or dictate Christ? But the head of the woman is the man, and the
head of the man is Christ. I suffer not a woman to teach, or to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in subjection. Here we are informed that
an attempt, even to teach her husband is an usurpation of power forbidden
by the holy spirit. But the church have the free right of respectful
petition, and Christ encourages the use of that right in his bride. Some
men argue that it is in vain to petition the Lord in any case, for say
they the plans of the Lord are immutable, and cannot change to accomodate
our petitions, without imperfection in him. But such persons do not
consider, that it is one of the grand objects of the Creator in creating
rational beings, to bring them acquainted with himself: and there is in
the head of man a design of creating a communion between himself and them.
Therefore the thing petitioned for by us, might as well be foreknown by
him as any other thing; and to constitute the blessings of communion and
society with God, all those right petitions are included in the original
design, without supposing any change in our Lord and Master. While we may
enjoy the comfort and consolation of beholding our petitions [92] granted,
and our faith is thus strengthened, and we may enjoy society and communion
with God. But to return. Let it be remembered that the law of God cannot
be changed without bringing down ruin, misery and eternal degradation upon
the heads of those who change it. If a woman does commit fornication
against her husband and does not reform, it is his indispensible duty to
put her away. And how is it possible that a reasonable woman could desire
to live with a man, when in her heart she is alienated from him? Surely
she would much rather be free, that she might lawfully unite with some man
whom she could respect and love. It is therefore a privilege to a wife in
such a case, to be legally freed. If a wife desire a bill in any case, it
is a proof positive by her confession that she is alienated in heart from
her husband. And the law then, should compel the husband to give her a
bill, whatever the husband's feelings or affections towards her might be
notwithstanding. Thus it is the woman that can break this covenant, not
the man, because the woman is the subject of this law, and not the ruler
by the law. So neither can Christ Jesus himself break the covenant of
promise that binds the church to him. But the church can apostatize as she
has done, and whereby she has been put away. Yet the law however fixes a
check upon the light versatility of the mind of the woman by her not being
allowed any dowry in such case; and no control over her children if she
have any. The support and education of the children belong to the father,
and all his substance to perform those duties with. The law therefore in
all respects is calculated to turn the hearts of the fathers to the
children; and the hearts of the children to their fathers. Not only in
this instance, but by exalting their authority, influence and dignity of
character in the earth. Even so let it be saith the Lord; lest I come and
smite the earth with a curse. The father of a family is the image of God,
and it is not well pleasing to him that his particular image on earth,
should be degraded by law, unlawfully. The wife in the above case takes
nothing but her own property unless the husband is pleased to give, for
the law allows of no schism in the body, or ground of contention, and
there is none. And the divorced wife after being [93] married to another
cannot return to her former husband. The highest signification of the term
law, is governing power. And the perfect penal law of God should be the
governing power of all nations. All nations being thus brought under one
and the same system of perfect government, would soon beat their swords
into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and learn war no
more. So mote it be.
	We have been treating of the governing power of marriage, and we
clearly show that it is placed in the hands of the husband as chief
executive; and no where else under heaven. And that he is not a subject of
that power. To suppose that this governing power is placed in the husband
and wife equally, is an absurdity. In the name of common sense, who then
would be the subject? If the governing power of marriage was placed
equally in the hands of the husband and the wife, there would be no
subject, consequently no possibility of violating the power of the
government, for it is the subject only that can violate a law; and
therefore there could be no possibility of divorcement. For I cannot
possibly hold a governing power over one, that holds a governing power
over me in the same case. If I hold the power as a father, to govern my
son; he cannot at the same time hold the legal power of governing me. But
you may object, that you place the governing power of marriage in neither
of the parties, but in the court. But the law of God never placed this
power in the hands of the Pope, nor Court. Do you not perceive that this
opens a door of unlawful litigation between the husband and the wife; and
places the power we speak of equally in the hands of both; separating in
open hostility what God has joined together. And thus your absurd
unrighteous law, binds the husband by the law of the wife as long as the
wife lives; and at the same time binds the wife by the law of the husband
as long as the husband lives? What folly then to talk of divorce at all?
For a righteous power cannot be constituted to violate another righteous
power in any case. If thus they are wedded together, no power but death
can righteously part them. And in fact you have no settled principle of
divorcement: but Popes and Courts do as they please with the bodies [94]
and souls of mankind. Nothing but death, could possibly dissolve such a
covenant. Do you not ever blush, at your own absurdity? This is not the
nature of the true marriage covenant by any means, for that admits of
divorcement, executed by the husband; who holds the power of this law in
his hands, and to exercise it for the fornication of the wife, and for no
other cause whatever. So saith the Lord Jesus Christ amen. Hence it is
written of me. That kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which
has not been told them shall they see; and that which they have not heard
shall they consider. Isa. 52:15. Is Christ under the law to the Church in
any sense of the word? impossible. So neither is the husband under the law
of marriage to his wife in any sense of the word. But is he not bound to
love his wife and provide for her by the law of marriage? Truely he is
thus bound, but not by the law of marriage, but by the law of Christ,
which also binds him even to love his enemies; consequently to provide for
his own, and especially them of his own household. So also by the law of
his head and husband he is bound, to give his wife a bill of divorcement
when she becomes alienated from him. God anciently said unto his church, I
am married unto thee. Jer. 3:14. If the law of marriage places the husband
under any government whatever, or if he is thereby laid under any
obligation whatever; then was God under the law and government of his
church; and under the same obligations to her, by being married to her.
The fact is, the man is under the law to Christ, but not under the law of
marriage to his wife: or in any sense obligated by it. Moreover the
covenant of marriage is, or ought to be conditioned according to the law
of God, which admits of divorcement; but not according to the absurd law
of the gentiles, which consistent with itself admits of no divorcement.
According to this latter law the kingdom of marriage has but two subjects,
and both of them are equally sovereigns over each other and consequently
in reality there are no subjects at all: therefore no possibility of
violating the sovereign authority: hence there can be no divorcement, and
at the same time no possibility of exercising sovereignty, and finally no
kingdom or government; but a tyranical state of anar-[95]chy, whereby the
families of the earth are filled with confusion, and held together, only
by a principle similar to that by which the goats, and wild beasts herd
together. Hence it is termed in scripture the government of the beast. But
according to the law of Christ there is but one supreme governor only; who
is bound by Christ to govern according to law; and who has power thereby,
if his subjects rebel to banish them from his dominions, and at the same
time absolve them from their allegiance. And then to supply his government
with other subjects, that it may be a house of order and peace. The former
is a kind of mongrel imitation of the latter; that amounts to a solemn
absurdity and confusion. It establishes a positive ground of contention
unlawfully between the parties; (as among the beasts,) to determine which
shall be master. As two oxen will not work peaceably together in the yoke
until this point is settled: so in the marriage yoke, there is no peace,
until this matter is determined; which often remains a continual jar, and
confusion through life; begetting coldness and contempt for each other,
and sowing seeds of ruin in the family. Because the strong arm of the law
is the only thing that can peaceably settle this matter. The earth also is
defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the
laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Isa. 24:5.
That is the ordinance and covenant of marriage; spoken of in the singular
number and definite manner: because there is no other everlasting
ordinance that man ever had the power to change. The everlasting covenant
of the gospel found first in Gen. 3:15 is ordered in all things and sure.
It is the covenant of life beyond the grave. That found in the next verse
is the ordinance that regulates the introduction of man into this life,
and provides for his childhood. This we have changed, on which account
sorrow and affliction prevails on the earth.
	All the laws of our country, and decisions of courts upon this
subject, have a direct tendency to establish the weaker vessel as the
lead, and head of the family. Many men of the best talents that this
generation affords, remain bachelors, or are totally ruined; and in their
course are the ruin of many females; for the better the intellect, [96]
the less willing, is he to be a slave: and especially under the tyranny of
an unnatural yoke of bondage. But the law of God settles this matter at
once, and declares that the head of the woman is the man, and the head of
the man, is Christ. And fixes the governing power accordingly. In
ninety-nine instances out of an hundred no doubt, where the woman is
naturally of a mild and submissive make, families live in peace. And where
it is otherwise it is reason that the law should enforce peace; so that
this great and important object should be effected. If the law of God was
established, and faithfully executed in this important matter, it is
manifest that peace in all families of the nation would be the inevitable
result: and the marriage state would become a paradise. And this would be
the greatest blessing in its effects and consequences ever yet conferred
upon any people. And as we have already shown the law of Christ, who is
the proper head of man, has power effectually to correct any disposition
in the present wicked generation of men, to act the tyrant. The practice
of courts and legislative bodies in granting bills of divorcement, is an
assumption of power and tyranny in its nature; not authorized by the
scriptures, the only true authority upon this subject: and in imitation of
the Pope of Rome, who formally assumed all power, and from whom this
wicked and unlawful assumption of power has manifestly been derived. And
it was first effected, when the beast made war with the saints and
overcame them; and power was given him over all nations. Rev. 13:7. Then
did the dreadful divorcement take place, called the apostacy, in
consequence of which we have gone astray, and run into disorder and
confusion, wretchedness, ignorance, misery, bloodshed, wars, and
cruelties: which have prevailed even among Christians ever since. And we
have lived in continual fornication and adultery, in every sense of those
words. Hence the prophets and apostles, speaking by the spirit, and when
referring prophetically to these days, continually use such language. No
doubt many persons in reading the prophets have passed over this kind of
language lightly; considering it indelicate in them; and supposing the
reason why they used such language so much, was because of the
un-[97]polished age in which they lived: and in fact, have thought it
strange that they could not find better figures to express their ideas,
supposing it all to be figurative. But they spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost, and we now discover my beloved brethren and sisters, that
the eyes of those holy men of old were upon us, upon the Christian nations
since the apostacy; and upon the latter days: and they have foretold in
the only language that could fortell our real situation. Hence old Rome is
styled correctly Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, and the
abominations of the earth. And she has made all nations drink of the wine,
of the wrath of her fornication. And hence the confused state of our
minds, as if inebriated with wine. And this wine is the poison of the
dragon, and the cruel venom of the asp, see Deut. 32:33. Sin is the
transgression of the law. But we transgress the law of God, by law. This
is a national abomination, and from this great evil, by its very nature, a
nation must be recovered and born at once; (if recovered at all) as the
Prophet Isaiah more than two thousand years ago, hath foretold. Isa.
66:7-8. Before she travailed, (that is, before Zion travailed) she brought
forth: before her pain came she was delivered of a man child (even the
author of this book). Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such a
thing? shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a
nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth
her children. Rejoice ye with Jerusalem and be glad with her all ye that
love her: that ye may suck and be satisfied with the breasts of her
consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of
her glory. For behold, I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the
way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his
Temple; even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: Behold, he
shall come saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his
coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiners
fire, and like fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier
of silver. And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold
and silver; that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in
righteousness. Mal. [98] 3:1-3. Then shall the offering of Judah and
Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord as in the days of old, and as in
former years. And I will come near unto you in judgment, and I will be a
swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and
against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his
wages, the widow and the fatherless, and turn aside the stranger from his
right; and hear not me saith the Lord of Hosts.

CHAPTER XIX

SEVERAL IMPORTANT LAWS OF GOD

	Again, there is another law of God respecting sexual intercourse
worthy of our respectful attention, Lev. 10:20. If a man lie carnally with
a bond woman married or betrothed, which would be adultery and punishable
with death to both parties, if she was free. But yet, because she is not
free, but a bond woman; she only shall be scourged, and the man must make
a sin offering, and he is forgiven. Thus does God in his law not only
recognize the right of holding our fellow creatures as property; and in
bondage but frames his laws in all cases agreeably thereto. And what we
would particularly notice in this matter, lowering down the penalty from
death, to a trifling sin offering: while the woman, not the man suffers
corporeal punishment, but certainly not severe. For although the law does
command scourging in some cases as the only proper penalty or corrective,
yet in no case more than forty stripes. How, certain is it that God has
never made all men equal, neither has he intended to make them equal in
this world, nor in that which is to come. But he will reward every man
according to his works. O ye miserable fanatics of New England, who strain
at a gnat and swallow a camel. Teaching an endless torment of some of your
fellow men; while you strain at the idea of negro slaves not being made
equal with the chosen people of God. You must be rebuked into obedience to
the law of God, or you yourselves be made slaves everlastingly.
Abolitionists like other fanatics, pretend to quote scripture in support
of their unlawful [99] doctrine. In noticing the absurdities of this
generation, we have in no instance been struck with more profound
astonishment, than when we hear abolitionists quote the following in
support of their creed. Therefore whatsoever you would that men should do
unto you, do ye even the same to them also. Math. 7:2. Thus they reason.
If I was a slave, I should wish my master to set me free. Therefore it is
my duty to set my servant free: for whatsoever ye would that others should
do to you, do ye even so to them. But the whole text reads thus:
Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,
for this is the law and the prophets. Hence Christ teaches us that we are
to understand this saying agreeable to the law and the prophets, not in
direct opposition thereto. A few examples according to the manner in which
abolitionists inculcate this saying of our Lord, will shew their
absurdity. If a father desire in his heart, that his children should obey
him, and observe his instructions; then he must obey them and observe
their instructions, for whatsoever you would that others should do unto
you, do ye even the same to them also. Again, if a preceptor desire his
pupils to obey his rules and authority; the preceptor must obey the rules
and authority of his scholars: for whatsoever you would desire others to
do unto you, do ye the same to them also. Again, if a slave or servant,
would that his master should set him free, his price or value being five
hundred dollars: then the slave must pay his master five hundred dollars,
and remain his slave still, for whatsoever you would that others should do
unto you; do ye the same to them also. Again, if a man desire a woman to
commit lewdness with him; then he must commit lewdness with her; for
whatsoever ye would desire others to do unto you, do ye even so to them,
for this is the law and the prophets! But thou fool, dost thou not know
that Jesus Christ never gave any instructions, contrary to the law of God,
and the prophets, and that in this particular instance he hath referred
you to the law as an infallible guide to the understanding of his
precepts, and that no person has any right to desire any thing of another,
contrary to the law, and the order thereby established in society: for it
is written thou shalt not covet. [100] Again, there is another law
respecting the crime which we denominate a rape. Deut. 22:28. In which
case the man was compelled to marry the maid, and was forbidden to put her
away all his life. He must provide for her a dowry as a wife, and provide
for her forever: and moreover pay a heavy fine to her father. If a man
seduce a maid, and then refuse to marry her, it is the same offence as to
put away a wife without a lawful cause: he thereby causeth her to commit
adultery as our Lord declares: therefore he is adjudged guilty of adultery
being the cause of that crime. And therefore worthy of death, by the
perfect law of God; which searcheth the hearts, and tryeth the reins of
the children of men. This law would protect our young ladies from all harm
of this kind. If a man entice a maid without first obtaining the consent
of her father to address her; and if the father refuse to give her in
marriage, then the man is compelled to pay money according to the dowry of
virgins. Ex. 22:16-17 Thus does the law of God make the father the supreme
head of his family. Yet he has no right to compel his daughter to be
married without her consent. For it is unlawful for the woman to be held
even by marriage contrary to her free choice, for the woman must not be
enslaved by marriage. But suppose a man (that has already a wife) entice a
maid; how then could he marry her? If a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and he lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Ex. 22:16. There is no condition that can justify him in refusing to marry
her. The kind hearted and affectionate maid or wife, shall not be put away
or neglected, on pain of death. There is no positive law of God against a
man's marrying Leah, and Rachel both. So long as he is a good and faithful
husband, he is justified by the law of Christ his lawful head. But one
objects, that it is written, they twain, (not they three) shall be one
flesh. From this he infers that the law of God forbids him to marry more
than one wife. Yet you allow a man to marry another wife if his first wife
be dead; which would constitute three, one flesh, as much so, as if both
wives were alive at the same time. But the fact is, two females cannot
become one flesh. When Jacob married Leah, they twain became one flesh;
[101] of this compound Rachel formed no part. And when Jacob married
Rachel, they twain became one flesh; of this compound Leah constituted no
part, any more than if she had been dead, when Jacob married Rachel. It is
still no more than twain that became one flesh. And it is evident that
none other could be the result, had Jacob married as many wives as King
David; a man after God's own heart, or even as King Solomon. And whether
the former wives be dead or alive it alters not the result in this respect
in the least. Because this word is literally accomplished in the offspring
only. Thus this objection vanishes into smoke. The burthen of maintaining
the wife is a sufficient check. A man cannot be put lawfully under the law
of marriage to the woman; she is his property in marriage. The word
sayeth, That a woman is under the law to her husband as long as her
husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is no adulteress though
she be married to another man. Here we learn what is particularly meant,
by a woman's being under the law to her husband; that is, she has no right
to be married to another' man, while her husband liveth. And if a man has
no right to marry another woman while his first wife liveth, then is he
under the law of his wife, and the law of his wife is the governing power
of his wife. Thus do our laws as I have before abundantly shown, establish
this gross absurdity. The man is under the governing power of his wife,
and the wife is under the governing power of her husband; and both in
identicaly the same premises. Now, which shall be subservient? Certainly
neither where both have equal power. By taking away a man's lawful right
of giving divorcement, when his wife rebels; and by depriving him of the
right of marrying more than one wife, you totally annihilate his power of
peaceable government over a woman, and deprive the family of its lawful
and necessary head. But the husband is under the law to Christ, who is his
lawful head. And he forbids, his putting away his affectionate wife in any
case. When the law of God shall be restored, it will have a direct
tendency to turn the desire of the wife towards her husband, as God has
ordained. And fornication will finally cease to take place in a married
woman. Con-[102]sequently the husband will rarely have a lawful cause to
put away his wife. When the husband appears before the magistrate to put
away his wife; let him be cautioned; that if it should afterwards appear
by two witnesses, that he accused his wife falsely; that it is death by
the law. God himself has declared that he will be a swift witness against
false swearers. The expense and care of a numerous family, and support of
many wives, will be a sufficient check to men in ordinary circumstances,
not to go to excess in multiplying wives which they must support, and
cannot put away, or wilfully neglect on pain of death. And in fact vile
men will not be able to obtain wives so easily. It is said, 1 Tim. 3:2.
That a bishop must be a man of one wife. We must infer from this, that
other men might have more than one wife. This is not a law to govern men
in general, or in any case. It is merely a mark of character; with several
other marks of character therein specified. Such as to be vigilent, sober,
given to hospitality, apt to teach, etc. And it was proper that a bishop
or elder who should take the care of the church upon him, that he should
not be encumbered with a numerous family, or many wives. But a man
fortunate in the choice of one good wife whose character; such as she must
be is also specified. It was therefore a circumstantial and characteristic
mark. If it had been a law, it could not have been a mark of character;
because it must have been enforced by law upon all. Neither is it now any
mark of character being compulsory upon all. But when the law of God shall
be restored, it will then as formerly become a mark of character; and not
till then can this direction of Paul, become applicable to us. The law
must be restored in all things; for it is written, that the times of the
restitution of all things spoken by the mouth of all God's holy prophets
since the world began, shall come. That is, all the true principles both
of the law (or civil governing power), and of the gospel, for these are
the things which have been spoken by the mouth of all the prophets. And in
the times of the restitution of these things, shall Jesus again come. See
Acts, 3:21. A bishop or an elder in the church, must however have at least
one wife, which is in fact the principle meaning [103] of this passage; or
how could he have his children in subjection with all gravity? see the
whole specification as given by the apostle. But kings, and men in power
are forbidded to multiply wives, or greatly to multiply gold and silver,
Deut. 17:17. It would be as reasonable to make a law, and ten thousand
times less injurious to mankind; that a man should possess no more than
one dollar, one servant, or one cow at one time, as is our law upon this
subject. But we are commanded to be temperate in all things. To God only
are men accountable in this matter, and not to their wives. But if a man
entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely
endow her to be his wife. And if the man refuse to marry her, he shall
suffer death. Such is the perfect law of God. And David by the holy spirit
of truth declares, that the law of God is perfect. This penalty may appear
unreasonably severe to Gentiles, educated as they are. But when we
consider attentively the circumstances in which the man is placed by the
law of God, why should he desire to put away the kind hearted wife, or the
affectionate maid which he has thought proper to woo to his embrace?
Especially when the law not only permits him to retain them both, but
requires it, at the peril on his life; and a disobedient one he can
discharge. As soon would a king wish to drive from his realm his most
zealous and faithful subjects; or a man throw away his money because he
had too much. No doubt it was so ordained by infinite wisdom, thus to
prevent the possibility of such cruel and unnatural crimes, by
annihilating all temptation thereto. We might here remark, that the
abominable crimes of a maiden beguiled and deserted by the man: and a wife
and family abandoned to the mercy of a heartless world; never did occur in
the land of Israel. Neither can they occur where the perfect law of God
bears rule. A law therefore which would annihilate such unnatural and
cruel crimes, with the endless catalogue of ruinous evils, that follow in
their train; and which at the same time would harm no body; must be
acknowledged by reason, to be a holy and righteous and perfect law. While
the laws of the Gentiles to the contrary, do produce these outrageous
crimes; with the addition of many cruel mur-[104]ders: and are in their
very nature not only a complete disorganization of all righteous and
peaceable government, but are temptations in many cases to commit the most
unnatural, and outrageous cruelties; and they are the fruitful source of
an innumerable train of wicked and cruel evils. A tree is known by its
fruit. For their vine is worse than the vine of Sodom, and of the fields
of Gomorah; their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter.
Deut. 32:32. That is our law upon this subject is worse than Sodomy in its
effects. But consider and repent. What was the fate of Sodom? If the true
law of divorcement was restored, without any other improvement, and the
penalty of adultery; they would be great blessings to this nation. For
then a man would have power to maintain peace and order in his family; and
women would not be compelled to live with men, whom they did not love, and
all cruelty towards wives would cease. And the propogating our species
from an alienated woman would be prevented: which in its effects and
consequences, is the greatest evil that exists among us. But yet while a
man is bound by law to one wife only, the cause of jealousy in a married
woman still exists. The jealousy of a married woman is a thing not named
in the whole volume of the Bible; and because it did not exist. It could
not exist under the law of God. And it is the principle cause of the
alienation of wives. And our young ladies would still remain exposed to
the arts of seduction, as they now are. A thing which the law of God
wholly prevented; and such a circumstance is not recorded in the Bible.
These great evils with all their wretched consequences would remain in
their full force: and the filth of the daughters of Zion would not be
washed away, and annihilated. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts O Lord
concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. Psa.
119:128. The law of God does not forbid to marry, like the law of the
Gentiles. See 1 Tim. 4:3. As we have before said, the woman cannot marry.
But the man marries the woman, and she is given in marriage. The law which
forbids a man to marry any free woman whom he pleases; is a particular
mark of antichrist. Now the spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter
times some [105] shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry; (that is the
man, for the woman cannot marry) to abstain from meats which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know
the truth. But the law of God forbids the man to put away his wife without
a lawful cause or to abandon her on pain of death. The word sayeth of the
woman, if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she
will only in the Lord. But our law sayeth she is at liberty to be married
to whom she will, provided the man has not a wife already. It is evident
that the apostle knew of no such proviso. In fact he has declared by the
holy spirit, that there was no such proviso. He has expressly told us that
there was no such exception. But the only exception that can exist is,
that he should be a believer. The liberty of marriage to persons of every
description according to the law of God reads thus: 1st. A maid who has
not been given in marriage; and who hath a father, is not at liberty to be
married without the consent of her father: but with his consent she is at
liberty to be married to whom she will. 2d. The maid who has not been
given in marriage and has no father living is at liberty to be married to
whom she will. 3d. The woman who has been married, and is legally free
from her husband, or husbands, by death or otherwise; is free to be
married to whom she will. 4th. A man is at liberty at all times, to marry
any free woman or maid he pleases. Certain degrees of consanguinity in all
cases excepted. And a woman is not bound to live with any man, contrary to
her own free will and choice; but if she desire it, she must be freed. The
law of God protects completely the rights of women from all oppression; so
far as they have any rights that can be of use to them, or the world of
mankind. And it protects the rights of men in like manner. It also defines
the rights both of men and women, and grants full protection to all good
and virtuous men and women; while it rains down wrath, and destruction
upon all who do evil. Such as do well have nought to fear. In every thing
respecting the communion [106] of the sexes, the law of God lays down
principles, and annexes penalties where penalties are necessary absolutely
perfect; and meets vice in every possible shape wherein it can present
itself. And no other being but he who made man is capable of determining
the proper laws to regulate this intercourse. Thus saith the Lord, I have
written unto them the great things of my law, but they have counted it a
strange thing. Ho. 8:12. Shall this be said of us who profess to be a
christian people, and to hold to the inspiration of the Bible? Did not the
scriptures foresee, and foretell this strange fact, in the very words here
quoted? Is not this prophecy now literally fulfilled in our ears? What
shall we say to those who hold that the penal laws of God given by Moses,
were not given to the Gentiles to govern them? We will say then that the
Gentiles are doomed to perpetual damnation as long as the world stands.
For by no other means than the establishment of that law among us, can we
be saved from sin. For man shall not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God shall he live. If we have even
heard, or understood this perfect law; then it is given to us, by the
spirit of the Lord. For every good gift, and every perfect gift, cometh
down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness, or
shadow of turning. Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?
Did not the Lord when he divorced them? They would not walk in his way,
neither would they be obedient to his Law. Therefore has he poured upon us
the fury of his anger, and the strength of battle: and it hath set this
people on fire round about, yet they knew it not; and it burned them, yet
they have laid it not to heart. Isa. 42:24-25. Surely the Gentiles who
have the scriptures, have no other authority over the holy and divine law
of marriage, than to execute it precisely in the manner God has ordained,
and in no other way. Yet in the United States we have so changed this law,
that it is materially different in different States. For a people to make
a law to enforce the violation of the law of Almighty God, is the most
outrageous crime that a nation can be guilty of. Sodomy itself, is a
trifle to this. This you have done or the law on this subject could not be
different in different [107] States. That we have done this wicked deed in
this most important of all laws, which is the very foundation of human
society, and of all order and government, which is indeed the very root of
social order and righteousness in this life, is manifest, from our
various, imperfect, and different laws upon this subject. No nation can be
free and happy while governed by imperfect laws. This grievous charge I
now prefer against this whole nation. But brethren, I wot that it is
through ignorance ye have done it, as did also your fathers. You have
received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. You
have put forth your hands like Uzza of old to steady the ark of God's
covenant, and God smote him there and he died by the ark, 2 Sam. 6:6-7.
Again it is written, who is like unto the Lord our God who dwelleth on
high; he raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of
the dunghill; that he may set him with princes, even with the princes of
his people. He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful
mother of children. Praise ye the Lord. Psa. 113:5-9. If a man curse
father or mother let him be put to death. Realty it was the intention of
God to maintain the seeds of good government in the families of the earth.
But alas! we have wandered far from it: Of this identical evil the Jews
became guilty, respecting the reverence and obedience children should
always observe towards their parents; which is the first command with a
promise thereunto annexed. Of this fault Christ accused them and said that
they had made void the law through their tradition. And indeed so have we,
not only in this particular, but in many others. If a child curse father
or mother, let him be put to death. Because the Jews had made void this
law, Christ thought it of sufficient importance to rebuke their error in
this case in a special manner. Did Christ abrogate this law? no, but he
rebuked the Jews severely because they had made it void. Did Christ find
fault with the severity of this law? No, he expressly approbated it. Was
this a law of God and expressly confirmed by Jesus Christ? Yes verity.
Have we made this law void? Yes we have. Is there any such law now in
operation among us? No. Have we any just right to the name of a Christian
nation; [108] who do by law make void both the law of God and Christ? We
have not. But by reformation we live, without it we perish quickly; even
this whole nation. Blackstone says that all wise nations, especially in
high northern latitudes have forbidden polygamy by law. The idea here is I
suppose, that in cold countries, the constitutions of men are naturally
colder; and one wife is sufficient. If nature in such countries has
produced this effect, and has formed the constitution temperate;
temperance in this respect would be the natural result without a penal law
to command it, and to enslave the man, and to be the fountain of an
endless catalogue of crime as well as mental stupidity. Again says the
same noted author; The New Testament forbids polygamy. But Blackstone
should have known that it was not the business of the New Testament to
give law; but to establish the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ;
and that the law was given by Moses; and that it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass than that one jot or tittle of the law should in any wise
fail. It is evident that by the corruption of this holy law of marriage an
endless catalogue of crime has been created that otherwise could never
have existed: and that does exist at this moment in these States. Husbands
forsake their wives, and often brutally abuse them. Fathers forsake their
children; young maidens are seduced and abandoned by the deceiver; wives
are poisoned and put to death by their husbands; husbands are murdered by
their wives; new born babes are cruelly murdered to hide the false shame
created by the false, and wicked, and tyranical law against polygamy:
besides the innumerable host of evils created by the destruction of the
righteous government of the husband and head of the family. While on the
other hand polygamy regulated by the law of God as illustrated in this
book could not possibly produce one crime; neither could it injure any
human being. The stupidity of modern Christian nations upon this subject
is horribly astonishing. The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel
the Prophet, standing where it ought not; was the laws of the Gentiles,
superceeding the penal laws of God in the civil government of his people,
and which began to be effected about the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem; [109] and was ultimately consumated, confirmed, and
established, by placing the man under the law of the woman, by authority
in the church of Rome. This was indeed the abomination of desolation; a
power standing by law where it ought not. Do not appeal to the Turks, as
an example of this thing. The Turks have not the law of God, neither have
they the gospel. It is expected that the Congress of these United States
who have the power, will immediately deliver us from the ruin and bondage
we are now suffering by restoring the wise and holy law of God to this
nation; for which they will then receive a glorious reward both in this
world and that which is to come. But if you my countrymen refuse
voluntarily to restore the law of God, to your own glory and honor; the
Son of Man may compel you to do it; to your everlasting loss: for all
power in heaven and earth is committed into his hands. For when the
overflowing scourge shall pass through, then shall ye be trodden down by
it. From the time it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning
shall it pass over, by day, and by night: and it shall be a vexation only
to understand the report, or when he shall make you to understand
doctrine. For the marriage bed is shorter than that a man can stretch
himself on it; and the covering is narrower than that he can wrap himself
in it. Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong
even everlasting. For I have heard from the Lord God of hosts, a
consumption determined, even determined upon the whole earth. Isa.
28:18-22. And the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
Isa. 10:22. Watch, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man
cometh. And what I say unto you I say unto all; Watch.
	The truth on this important matter is now clearly set before you my
countrymen: and that by many strong arguments that cannot be gainsaid; and
by many incontestible evidences: and you can understand it. The question
is not now to be debated whether these things are so: neither is it a
question of much importance who wrote this book? But the question, the
momentous question is; will you now restore the law of God on this
important subject, and keep it? Remember that the law of God is [110]
given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Speak not a word against it at
your peril. O Americans are you the people who will not have this man
Christ Jesus to rule over you? I hope not. I should be grieved to see you
stain before him.

Copy Right Secured.

Note: Any printer is at liberty to re-publish this extract, by allowing
the author a reasonable benefit of copy right.

1 Dec 1842, Joseph Smith:
NOTICE.

	There was a book printed at my office a short time since, written by
Udney H. Jacobs, on marriage, without my knowledge; and had I been
apprised of it, I would not have printed it; not that I am opposed to any
man enjoying his privileges; but I do not wish to have my name associated
with the authors in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsense, folly, and
trash.
							JOSEPH SMITH

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 4:32, 1 Dec 1842)

1843:
(13) Maria Lawrence was married to Joseph Smith.
(14) Sarah Lawrence was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

(2) Sarah P. Noon was married to Heber C. Kimball at Nauvoo.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 13)

[111]
1843, Joseph Lee Robinson:
	Again we heard the Prophet say upon the stand in Nauvoo in a grove
near the Temple when he was speaking to a large assemblage of saints, with
many other things he said, "If I should reveal the things that God has
revealed to me there are some on this stand that would cut my throat or
take my heart's blood." We wondered if it was possible that that saying
could be true. And again while speaking to the people in that place he
supposed a case. He said, "Suppose we send one of our Elders to Turkey or
India or to a people where it was lawful to have several wives, where they
practiced polygamy and he should say to them, `Your laws are not good, you
should put away your plural wives.' What would they do to him? They would
kick them out of their realm," said he. "What right had he to speak
against their laws and usages?" "God does not care what laws they make if
they will live up to them. What shall they preach?" said he. "They shall
preach the Gospel and nothing but the pure Gospel and some will believe
and be baptized and he shall say nothing about the gathering but confirm
them members in the Church and give to them the Holy Ghost, and he shall
pass along preaching and baptizing, and a man shall receive the Holy
Ghost, and that shall teach him of a land of Zion and of the gathering,
and when the Elder shall come round again, this brother shall acost him
thus saying, `Elder, is there not a land of Zion, a place where the saints
should gather to?' The Elder should not lie to him. He shall say, `Yes,
brother, there is a land of Zion where Saints of God are required to
gather to.' Then said he to the Elder, `I have five wives and I love one
equally as well as I do the other, and now what are the laws in that land?
Can I bring my five wives there and enjoy them there as well as I can
here?' Said the prophet, "Yes, the laws in Zion are such that you can
bring your wives and enjoy them there as well as here,' the Elder shall
say to that brother."
	The Prophet went on preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom as if he had
not said anything strange or awful, but this to me was the first
intimation that I ever received [112] that polygamy would ever be
practiced or lawful with this people. The Prophet went to his dinner and
as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected
at the Prophet's house with his wife, said thus to the Prophet Joseph, "O
Mister Smith, you have done it now. It will never do, why it is all but
blasphemy. You must take back what you have said today. It is outrageous.
It would ruin us as a people." * * * Several of the brethren stopped into
my house and we talked about the preaching and I remarked to them that it
was not likely that we should have the privilege of taking more wives, but
that the law would be framed so that they that had several wives could
retain them and they did not know any better. We attended the meeting in
the afternoon. The Prophet arose to address the meeting. He said,
"Brethren and sisters, I take back what I said this morning and leave it
as though there had been nothing said." * * *

(Joseph Lee Robinson journal, pp.13-14. See also George A. Smith under
date 18 Mar 1855, Journal of Discourses, 2:217)

Early 1843:
(15) Hannah Ells was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:222-223)

Feb 1843, William Clayton:
	One day in the month of February, 1843, date not remembered, the
Prophet invited me to walk with him. During our walk, he said he had
learned that there was a sister back in England, to whom I was very much
attached. I replied there was, but nothing further than an attachment such
as a brother and sister in the Church might rightfully entertain for each
other. He then said, "Why don't you send for her?" I replied, "In the
first place, I have no authority to send for her, and if I had, I have not
the means to pay expenses." To this he answered, "I give you authority to
send for her, and I will [113] furnish you with means," which he did. This
was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the subject of
plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle was right
in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine which
pertained to celestial order and glory. After giving me lengthy
instructions and informations concerning the doctrine of celestial or
plural marriage, he concluded his remarks by the words, "It is your
privilege to have all the wives you want." After this introduction, our
conversations on the subject of plural marriage were very frequent, and he
appeared to take particular pains to inform and instruct me in respect to
the principle. He also informed me that he had other wives living besides
his first wife Emma, and in particular gave me to understand that Eliza R.
Snow, Louisa Beman, Desdemona W. Fullmer and others were his lawful wives
in the sight of heaven. From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and
celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed
to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man
can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:225-227)

21 Feb 1843, Joseph Smith:
	There is a great noise in the city, and many are saying there cannot
be so much smoke without some fire. Well, be it so. If the stories about
Joe Smith are true, then the stories of John C. Bennett are true about the
ladies of Nauvoo; and he says that the Ladies' Relief Society are all
organized of those who are to be the wives of Joe Smith. Ladies, you know
whether this is true or not. It is no use living among hogs without a
snout. This biting and devouring each other I cannot endure. Away with it.
For God's sake, stop it.

(D.H.C. 5:286)

[114]
Feb-Mar 1843:
(2) Martha R. Browitt was married to Orson Hyde by Joseph Smith, at
Nauvoo.

(Smith, BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, p. 74)

4 Mar 1843, Emily Dow Partridge:
	My sister Eliza and I, having now arrived at an age in which we might
earn our own living and perhaps contribute something to help our mother
and the smaller children, were considering what we had better do, when the
Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family, and
they treated us with great kindness. We had been there about a year when
the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married
to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March, 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball
performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few
days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith. Two months
afterwards she consented to give her husband two wives, provided he would
give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister
Eliza and myself, and to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it
best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May,
1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma's presence,
she giving her free and full consent thereto. From that hour, however,
Emma was our bitter enemy. We remained in the family several months after
this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obliged to leave the
house and find another home.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:240)

8 Mar 1843, Eliza M. Partridge.
	She was one of the first to receive the doctrine of celestial
marriage being taught that principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, to whom
she was married as a plural wife, [115] March 8, 1843, by Apostle Heber C.
Kimball. About two months later, on May 11, 1843, the marriage ceremony
was repeated in the presence of Emma Smith, the Prophet's first wife,
Elder James Adams officiating. In those days it required considerable
self-sacrifice as well as faith to enter into that order.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:237)

9 Mar 1843:
(16) Patty B. Sessions was married to Joseph Smith, Willard Richards,
officiating. (Private Journal of Patty Sessions.)

(Brodie, NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY, p. 445)

15 Mar 1843, Letter by H. R.:
To the BOSTON BEE.

	The Mormons do not want persons to believe all that they do, as is
falsely affirmed--they do not want to ram Joe Smith or revelation down
people's throats, without their knowing for themselves: all they want is
to obey the words of Christ for the remission of sin. They want to terrify
no man into belief. They do not say it is sinful to read Shakspeare or
Byron or any book that you can get an exalted idea from, as your judgment
(if you have any) will point out the good from the bad. Let those who
contend that the writings of these giants of genius have an immortal
tendency, remember there never yet was a general good without a partial
evil.
	We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives, and common
property. Now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which
are brought against us. No sect have a greater reverence for the laws of
matrimony, or the rights of private property, and we do what others do
not, practice what we preach.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 4:143)

[116]
Spring 1843:
(17) Flora Ann Woodworth was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:225)

Apr 1843, Erastus Snow:
	The Prophet Joseph Smith first taught me the doctrine of celestial
marriage, including a plurality of wives, in Nauvoo, Ill., in April, 1843.
He also told me of those women he had taken to wives. My wife's sister,
Louisa Beman, was his first plural wife, she being sealed to him by my
Brother-in-law, Joseph B. Noble, April 5, 1841 The Prophet Joseph also
gave me the privilege of taking another wife, which I did in March, 1844,
the Patriarch Hyrum Smith officiating under the Prophet's direction.
(sic, see under date 2 Apr 1844)

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:232)

(3) Mary Ann Price was married to Orson Hyde by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo.

(Smith, BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, p. 74

2 Apr 1843, Benjamin F. Johnson:
	On the first day of April, A. D. 1843, President Joseph Smith, Orson
Hyde, and William Clayton, and others, came from Nauvoo to my residence in
Macedonia or Ramus, in Hancock County, Ill., and were joyfully welcomed by
myself as our guests.
	On the following morning, Pres. Smith took me by the arm for a walk,
leading the way to a secluded spot within an adjacent grove, where, to my
great surprise, he commenced to open up to me the principle of plural or
celestial marriage; but I was more astonished by his asking me for my
sister Almera to be his wife. I sincerely believed him to be a Prophet of
God, and I loved him as [117] such and also for the many evidences of his
kindness to me, yet such was the force of my education, and the scorn that
I felt towards anything unvirtuous, that under the first impulse of my
feelings, I looked him calmly, but firmly in the face and told him that "I
had always believed him to be a good man and wished to believe it still
and would try to; and that I would take for him a message to my sister,
and if the doctrine was true, all would be well, but if I should
afterwards learn that it was offered to insult or prostitute my sister, I
would take his life." With a smile he replied, "Benjamin, you will never
see that day, but you shall live to know that it is true and rejoice in
it."
	He wished me to see my sister and talk to her. I told him I did not
know what I could say to convince her. He replied, "When you open your
mouth you shall be able to comprehend, and you shall not want for evidence
nor words." He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me
which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not
comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents, "Unto him that
hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath
not (or will not receive) shall be taken away that which he hath (or might
have had)." Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented
wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great
future to those who were heirs of salvation.
	I called my sister to private audience, and with fear and trembling
and feelings I cannot express, commenced to open the subject to her, when,
just as he had promised, the light of the Lord shone upon my understanding
and my tongue was loosed, and I, at least, was convinced of the truth of
what I was attempting to teach.
	My sister received my testimony, and in a short time afterwards
consented to become the wife of President Smith.
	Subsequent to this I took her to the city of Nauvoo, where she was
married, or sealed for time and eternity, to President Joseph Smith, by
his brother Hyrum Smith, in the presence of myself and Louisa Beaman, who
told me she had also been sealed or married to the Prophet [118] Joseph.
This was at the residence of my sister, the widow of Lyman R. Sherman, who
also was a witness. * * *

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:221-222)

3 or 4 Apr 1843:
(18) Almera W. Johnson was married to Joseph Smith, William Clayton,
officiating. (sic. , Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs.

12 Apr 1843:
(19) Olive Gray Frost was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:235)

Sunday 27 Apr 1843, William Clayton:
(1) On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me
Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C.
Kimball; * * * (HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:225-227)

Joseph Smith: Visited at Brother Heber C. Kimball's with William Clayton.
(D.H.C. 5:371)

May 1843:
(20) Helen Mar Kimball was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

1 May 1843:
(21) Lucy Walker was married to Joseph Smith, William Clayton,
officiating. (HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

11 May 1843:
(22) Eliza M. Partridge was married to Joseph Smith,
[119] James Adams, officiating. (HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)
(23) Emily D. Partridge was married to Joseph Smith, James Adams
officiating. (ibid 6:234)

Tuesday 16 May 1843, Joseph Smith:
	At eleven o'clock, with George Miller, William Clayton, Eliza and
Lydia Partridge and J. M. Smith, I started for Carthage, where we tarried
about half an hour conversing with different individuals, when we started
for Ramus; arrived about half-past three, p.m., and stayed at William G.
Perkins for the evening; then went to Benjamin F. Johnson's with William
Clayton to steep. Before retiring, I gave Brother and Sister Johnson some
instructions on the priesthood; and putting my hand on the knee of William
Clayton, I said:

	"Your life is hid with Christ in God, and so are many others. Nothing
but the unpardonable sin can prevent you from inheriting eternal life for
you are seated up by the power of the Priesthood unto eternal life, having
taken the step necessary for that purpose.
	"Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be
married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority
of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that
is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who
are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and
continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue
to increase and have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin
is to shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be
visited with judgment in the flesh, and the spirit being delivered to the
buffetings of Satan until the day of the Lord Jesus.
	"The way I know in whom to confide--God tells me in whom I may place
confidence.
	"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in
order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the
Priesthood, (meaning the new [120] and everlasting covenant of marriage;)
and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but
that is the end of his kingdom: he cannot have an increase."

	The Twelve met in the office to see Mr. Brown, but he did not appear;
and they voted that John E. Page be requested to repair immediately to
Cincinnati and preach till they arrive.

(D.H.C. 5:391-392)

16-17 May 1843, Benjamin F. Johnson:
	After a short period, President Smith and company, viz., George
Miller, Wm. Clayton, J. M. Smith, and Eliza and Emily Partridge (who were
the wives of the Prophet) came again to Macedonia (Ramus), where he
remained two days, lodging at my house with my sister as man and wife (and
to my certain knowledge he occupied the same bed with her). This visit was
on the 16th and 17th of May, 1843, returning to Nauvoo on the 18th.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:222)

11 Jun 1843, Joseph Smith:
	This subject was presented to me since I came to the stand. What was
the object of gathering the Jews, or the people of God in any age of the
world? I can never find much to say in expounding a text. A man never has
half so much fuss to unlock a door, if he has a key, as though he had not,
and had to cut it open with his jack-knife.
	The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could
reveal unto His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His
Kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain
ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must
be done in a place or house built for that purpose.
	It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was,
that the principles and laws of the Priesthood [121] should be predicated
upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did
everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered, and He
therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the
heavens before the foundation of the world, in the Priesthood, for the
salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on
the same principles. * * *
	If a man gets a fullness of the Priesthood of God he has to get it in
the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all
the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.
	Where there is no change of Priesthood, there is no change of
ordinances, says Paul, if God has not changed the ordinances and the
Priesthood. Howl, ye sectarians! If he has, when and where has He revealed
it? Have ye turned revelators? Then why deny revelation?
	Many men will say, "I will never forsake you, but will stand by you
at all times." But the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of the
kingdom of God that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealed to
the children of men when they are prepared for them they will be the first
to stone you and put you to death. It was this same principle that
crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and will cause the people to kill the
prophets in this generation. * * *
	There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are
too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in
the resurrection they will find their mistake. Many seal up the door of
heaven by saying, So far God may reveal and I will believe.
	All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ
will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of His kingdom; and
those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the
fulness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole. * * *

(D.H.C. 5:423-424)

[122]
12 Jun 1843:
(24) Rhoda Richards was married to Joseph Smith, Willard Richards,
officiating.

(Smith, BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, p. 75)

Wednesday, 12 Jul 1843, Joseph Smith:
	I received the following revelation in the presence of my brother
Hyrum and Elder William Clayton:

REVELATION ON THE ETERNITY OF THE MARRIAGE COVENANT, including the
plurality of wives, given through Joseph, the Seer, in Nauvoo, Hancock
County, Illinois, July 12th, 1843. * * * Hyrum took the revelation and
read it to Emma. * * * (see Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 132.)

(D.H.C. 5:500-508)

22 Jul 1843, Howard Coray:
	On the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the martyred
Patriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; he invited me and my
wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, as soon as we could make
ourselves ready, we got into the carriage and he set off in the direction
of Carthage. Having gone a short distance, he observed to us that his
brother, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had received a revelation on marriage,
that was not for the public yet, which he would rehearse to us, as he had
taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced rehearsing the
revelation on celestial marriage, not stopping till he had gone quite
through with the matter. After which he reviewed that part pertaining to
plurality of wives, dwelling at some length upon the same in order that we
might clearly understand the principle. And on the same day (July 22nd,
1843) he sealed my wife, formerly, Martha Jane Knowlton, to me; and when I
heard the [123] revelation on celestial marriage read on the stand in Salt
Lake City in 1852, I recognized it, as the same as that repeated to me by
Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after this I was present when Brother David
Fullmer and wife were sealed by Brother Hyrum Smith, the Martyred
Patriarch, according to the law of celestial marriage. And, besides the
foregoing, there was quite enough came within the compass of my
observation to have fully satisfied my mind that plural marriage was
practiced in the city of Nauvoo.

				(sig) HOWARD CORAY

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:228-229)

Saturday 22 Jul 1843, William Clayton:
(2) William Clayton's first wife, Ruth, was married to him by the Prophet
Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:225-227)

Sunday 23 Jul 1843, Joseph Smith:
	The burdens which roll upon me are very great. My persecutors allow
me no rest, and I find that in the midst of business and care the spirit
is willing, but the flesh is weak. Although I was called of my Heavenly
Father to lay the foundation of this great work and kingdom in this
dispensation, and testify of His revealed will to scattered Israel, I am
subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times.
	Notwithstanding my weaknesses, I am under the necessity of bearing
the infirmities of others, who, when they get into difficulty, hang on to
me tenaciously to get them out, and wish me to cover their faults. On the
other hand, the same characters, when they discover a weakness in Brother
Joseph, endeavor to blast his reputation, and publish it to all the world,
and thereby aid my enemies in destroying the Saints. Although the law is
given through me to the Church, I cannot be borne with a mo-[124]ment by
such men. They are ready to destroy me for the least foible, and publish
my imaginary failings from Dan to Beersheba, though they are too ignorant
of the things of God, which have been revealed to me, to judge of my
actions, motives or conduct, in any correct manner whatever.
	The only principle upon which they judge me is by comparing my acts
with the foolish traditions of their fathers and nonsensical teachings of
hireling priests, whose object and aim were to keep the people in
ignorance for the sake of filthy lucre; or as the prophet says, to feed
themselves, not the flock. Men often come to me with their troubles, and
seek my will, crying, "Oh Brother Joseph, help me! help me! But when I am
in trouble, few of them sympathize with me, or extend to me relief. I
believe in a principle of reciprocity, if we do live in a devilish and
wicked world where men busy themselves in watching for iniquity, and lay
snares for those who reprove in the gate.
	I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected
with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to
any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of
doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good
society. What do we care where we are, if the society be good? I don't
care what a man's character is; if he's my friend, a true friend, I will
be a friend to him, and preach the Gospel of salvation to him, and give
him good counsel, helping him out of his difficulties.
	Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism,"
(it is designed) to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars
and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers.

(D.H.C. 5:516-517)

Aug 1843:
(25) Almera Johnson was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

[125]
12 Aug 1843, David Fullmer:
* * * on or about the twelfth day of Aug., A.D. 1843, while in meeting
with the High Council, in Hyrum Smith's brick office, in the city of
Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made enquiry
in relation to the subject of a plurality of wives, as there were rumors
about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those
remarks, and he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith stepped
across the road to his residence, and soon returned bringing with him a
copy of the revelation on celestial marriage, given to Joseph Smith, July
12th, A. D. 1843, and read the same to the High Council, and bore
testimony to its truth. The said David Fullmer further saith that, to the
best of his memory and belief, the following named persons were present:

	William Marks,			Austin A. Cowles,
	Samuel Bent,			Geo. W. Harris,
	Dunbar Wilson,			Wm. Huntington,
	Levi Jackman,			Aaron Johnson,
	Thos. Grover,			David Fullmer,
	Phineas Richards,		James Allred,
	Leonard Soby.

	And the said David Fullmer further saith that Wm. Marks, Austin A.
Cowles and Leonard Soby were the only persons present who did not receive
the testimony of Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from
the teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:227)

7 Sep 1843, Great meeting of the Anti-Mormons:
From the WARSAW MESSAGE.

PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS.

	This meeting having convened for the purpose of taking [126] under
advisement a subject of vital importance, not only to this county, but to
all the surrounding counties, regret that we are necessarily and
irresistibly forced to the conclusion, that a certain class of people,
have obtruded themselves upon us, calling themselves Mormons, or Latter
Day Saints, and under the sacred garb of Christianity, assumed, as we
honestly believe, that they may the more easily, under such a cloak,
perpetrate the most lawless and diabolical deeds, that have ever, in any
age of the world, disgraced the human species.
	In evidence of the above charge, we find them yielding implicit
obedience to the ostensible head and founder of this sect, who is a
pretended Prophet of the Lord, and under this Heaven-daring assumption,
claiming to set aside, by his vile and blasphemous lies, all those moral
and religious institutions which have been established by the Bible, and
which have, in all ages been cherished by men, as the only means of
maintaining those social blessings, which are so indispensably necessary
for our happiness.
	We believe that such an individual, regardless as he must be, of his
obligations to God, and at the same time entertaining the most absolute
contempt for the laws of man, cannot fail to become a most dangerous
character, especially when he shall have been able to place himself at the
head of a numerous horde, either equally reckless and unprincipalled as
himself, or else made his pliant tools by the most absurd credulity that
has astonished the world since its foundation.
	In the opinion of this meeting, a crisis has arrived when many of the
evils to be expected from a state of things so threatening, have
transpired. We feel convinced that circumstances have even now occurred,
which prove to us most conclusively, that Joseph Smith, the false Prophet
before alluded to, has evinced, in many instances, a most shameless
disregard for all the forms and restraints of law: by boldly and
presumptuously calling in question the acts of certain officers, who had
fearlessly discharged the duties absolutely imposed upon them by the laws,
particularly when they have come in contact with his own sordid and
selfish interests. * * *
[127] And to crown it all, he claims to merge all relition, all law, and
both moral and political justice, in the knavish pretention that he
receives fresh from heaven, divine instructions, in all matters pertaining
to these things; thereby making his own depraved will, the rule by which
he would have all men governed.
	In view of the above grievances, this meeting feel, that it is their
bounden duty, to resist by every laudable means, all such unwarrantable
attacks upon their liberties, therefore,

RESOLVED, 1st. That inasmuch (as we earnestly) believe that the
combination of people, calling themselves Mormons, or Latter-day Saints,
have given strong indications, in their recent movements, that they are
unwilling to submit to the ordinary restraints of law; we are therefore
forced to the conclusion, that the time is not far distant, when the
citizens of this county will be compelled to assert this (sic) rights in
some way.

RESOLVED, 2nd. That while we would deprecate anything like lawless
violence, without justifiable cause; yet we pledge ourselves in the most
solemn manner, to resist all the wrongs, which may be hereafter, attempted
to be imposed on this community by the Mormons, to the utmost of our
ability; peaceably if we can, but forcibly if we must.

RESOLVED, 3rd. That in the event of our being forced into a collision with
that people, we pledge ourselves, that we will stand by and support each
other, in every emergency, up to the death. * * *

(THE WARSAW MESSAGE, 14 Sep 1843)

Wednesday 20 Sep 1843:
(26) Malissa Lott was married to Joseph Smith.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

[128]
Oct 1843, S. A. Wooley:
	One afternoon in the month of October, A. D. 1843, I think on a
Tuesday, about 2 o'clock (I cannot explain just how I knew it was 2
o'clock, but I knew it), I found myself in the sitting room down stairs,
and walking to the door leading into the store, I saw my brother Edwin D.
putting up the shutters of the store as though it was night. I turned
around, saw Mary, his wife, putting down the blinds of the windows in the
sitting room. I stood and looked and wondered what was to be done. I saw
two or three other persons there; and presently some others, including
Patriarch Hyrum Smith, came in. The fireplace was in the north end of the
room, and Hyrum sat down at the east end of the grate with his face turned
to the northwest. Presently I saw him take a paper out of his coat pocket,
and I walked up to his left hand side, looked over his shoulder, and, as
he opened the paper, I read "A Revelation on Eternal Marriage and
Plurality of Wives, " etc. He then commenced to read what is now known as
the revelation on plural marriage. I also read it myself as fast as he
did. He stopped and explained as he went along. There was a sister present
by the name of German, who, when he had read to a certain point, went to
the southwest window, raised the curtain, looked out, then turned around
and said, "Brother Hyrum, don't read any more, I am full up to here,"
drawing her hand across her throat. It was there told me by the same power
that informed me it was 2 o'clock, that that revelation was of God, and
that no man could or would receive a fulness of celestial glory and
eternal life, except he obeyed that law and had more than one living wife
at the same time. From this time I commenced to get well, and did so very
speedily.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:231-232)

Thursday 5 Oct 1843, Joseph Smith:
	This morning I rode out with Esquire Butterfield to the farm.
[129] In the afternoon, rode to the prairie to show some of the brethren
some land. Evening, at home, and walked up and down the streets with my
scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching,
teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according
to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is
never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are
conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a
time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

(D.H.C. 6:46)

Note: According to the records, at this date, Joseph Smith had at least 27
living wives, and Brigham Young, two.)

15 Oct 1843, Joseph Smith:
	I will now speak a little on the economy of this city. I think there
are too many merchants among you. I would like to see more wool and raw
materials instead of manufactured goods, and the money be brought here to
pay the poor for manufacturing goods. Set our women to work, and stop
their spinning street yarns and talking about spiritual wives.

(D.H.C. 6:58)

23 Oct 1843, Brigham Young
	With Elders H. C. Kimball and Geo. A. Smith I visited the Prophet
Joseph, who was glad to see us. We paid him every cent of the means we had
collected for the Temple and Nauvoo House. He taught us many principles
illustrating the doctrine of celestial marriage, concerning which God had
given him a revelation, July 12th.

(Mss History of Brigham Young)

[130]
2 Nov 1843:
(27) Fanny Young, a sister of Pres. Brigham Young, was married to Joseph
Smith, Brigham Young, officiating.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:234)

(3) Harriet E. C. Campbell was married to Brigham Young, Joseph Smith
officiating.
(4) Augusta Adams was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, pp. 18,19)

Saturday 25 Nov 1843, Joseph Smith:
	Colonel Frierson, United States Surveyor from Quincy, arrived in
Nauvoo. In the evening the High Council sat on the case of Harrison
Sagers, charged with seduction, and having stated that I had taught it was
right. Charge not sustained. I was present with several of the Twelve, and
gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to
practice virtue and holiness before the Lord; told them that the Church
had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery,
or any corrupt action; but my every word and action has been to the
contrary. If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial
kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the
celestial Kingdom. I did think that the many examples that have been made
manifest, such as John C. Bennett's and others, were sufficient to show
the fallacy of such a course of conduct.
	I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present
against committing such evils; for it will surely bring a curse upon any
person who commits such deeds.

(D.H.C. 6:81)

12 Dec 1840:
(2) Elizabeth Haigharn was married to John Taylor.
[131]
(Roberts, THE LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Appendix)

21 Jan 1844, Joseph Smith:
	The question is frequently asked, "Can we not be saved without going
through with all those ordinances, etc.?" I would answer, No, not the
fullness of salvation. Jesus said, "There are many mansions in my Father's
house, and I will go and prepare a place for you." House here named should
have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest
mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too. But there has
been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this
generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger
for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to
understand.
	I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints
prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them,
after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like
glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they
cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial
law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as
many are called, but few are chosen.

(D.H.C. 6:183-185)

26 Jan 1844, Udney Hay Jacob:
To Gen. Joseph Smith:

Dear Sir,
	I hope you will not consider this letter in intrusion. I have not, to
be sure, the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you, nor do I know
that I am worthy of that favor: yet I believe that I am worth saving. The
reason why I address this letter to you is because my enquiries relate to
the BOOK OF MORMON, and you who profess to be the translator, and author
of that book, must [132] be, I suppose on that account, the best able to
solve them of any living man. * * *
	Do not suppose that I make these enquiries from evil motives of
opposition. It is not so, I am a humble enquirer after truth. I am also a
member of your church by baptism, * * *
				(sig) UDNEY H. JACOB.

(See B.Y.U. Studies, vol. 9, #1, Autumn, 1968)

29 Jan 1844:
	Joseph Smith was nominated to be President of the United States.

1 Feb 1844, Joseph Smith:
	As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been
preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county
of Lapeer, State of Michigan.
	This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut
off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to
appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer
to these charges.
				JOSEPH SMITH
				HYRUM SMITH
				Presidents of the Church.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:423, 1 Feb 1844)

[133]
7 Feb 1844, From the WARSAW MESSAGE:

                 BUCKEYE'S LAMENT FOR WANT OF MORE WIVES

	I once thought I had knowledge great,
		But now I find 'tis small;
	I once thought I'd religion, too,
		But now I find I've none at all;
	For I have but one lone wife,
		And can obtain no more;
	And the doctrine is, I can't be saved,
	 	Unless I've half a score!

	The narrow gate that Peter kept,
		In ages long ago,
	Is locked and barred since he gave up
		The keys to beardless Joe.
	And Joe proclaims it is too small,
		And causes great delay,
	And that he has permission got
		To open the broad-way.

	The narrow gate did well enough
		When Peter, James and John,
	Did lead the Saints on Zion-ward,
		In Single File along:
	When bachelors, like good old Paul,
		Could win the glorious prize,
	And maids, without a marriage-rite,
		Reach it "mansions in the skies."

	But we have other teaching now,
		Of greater glories far;
	How a single glory's nothing more
		Than some lone twinkling star.
	A twofold glory's like the moon,
		That shines so bright at night,
	Reflecting from her gracious Lord,
		Whatever he thinks right.
[134]
	A tenfold glory, that's the prize!
		Without it you're undone!
	But with it you will shine as bright,
		As the bright shining sun.
	There you may shine like mighty Gods,
		Creating worlds so fair,
	At least a world for every wife
		That you take with you there.

	The man that has got ten fair wives,
		Ten worlds he may create;
	And he that has got less than this,
		Will find a bitter fate.
	The one or two that he might have,
		He'll be deprived of then;
	And they'll be given as talents were,
		To him who has got ten.

	And 'tis so here, in this sad life,
		Such ills you must endure,
	Some Priest or King, may claim your wife
		Because that you are poor.
	A revelation he may get,
		Refuse it if you dare!
	And you'll be damned perpetually,
		By our good Lord the Mayor.

	But if that you yield willingly,
		Your daughters and your wives,
	In Spiritual Marriage to our Pope,
		He'll bless you all your lives;
	He'll seat you up, be damned you can't,
	 	No matter what you do,
	If that you only stick to him,
		He swears he'll take you through.
[135]
	He'll lead you on through the broad gate,
		Which he has opened wide,
	In solid column you shall march,
		And enter side by side.
	And no delay you'll meet with there,
		But "Forward March" you shall:
	For he's not only our Lord Mayor,
		But Lord Lieutenant-Ral.

	This is the secret doctrine taught
		By Jo and the Red Rams, *
	Although in public they deny,
		But then 'tis all a sham.
	They fear the indignation just,
		Of those who have come here,
	With hands that's clean and honest hearts,
		To serve the Lord in fear.

	Thus, all the Twelve do slyly teach,
		And slyly practice too;
	And even the sage Patriarch,
		Won't have untied his shoe:
	For sure, 'twould be quite impolite,
		If not a great disgrace,
	To have a widow sister fair,
		Spit in a Prophet's face!

	But Jo at snaring beats them all,
		And at the rest does laugh:
	For widows poor, and orphan girls,
		He can ensnare with chaff,
	He sets his snares around for all,
		And very seldom fails,
	To catch some thoughtless Partridges,
		Snow-birds, or Knight-ingales!
[136]
	But there are a hundred other birds,
		He never can make sing:
	Who won't be dragged to hell,
		By Prophet, Priest nor King:
	Whose sires have bled in days gone by,
		For their dear country's cause;
	And who will still maintain its rights,
		Its Liberty and Laws!

* B.Y. & O.H.

(WARSAW MESSAGE, 7 Feb 1844.)

7 Feb 1844, Joseph Smith:
	A piece of doggerel appears in the WARSAW MESSAGE of this date,
intitled "Buckeye's Lamentations for the Want of More Wives, " evidently
the production of Wilson Law, and breathing a very foul and malicious
spirit.

(D.H.C. 6:20)

15 Feb 1844, Erastus Snow:
	On the 15th day of February, 1844, I, Erastus Snow, according to the
laws and provisions of the holy priesthood, was married and sealed for
time and eternity to Artimesia Beman by Hirum Smith, Patriarch of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(From the private journal of Erastus Snow)

25 Feb 1844:
(3) Jane Ballantyne was married to John Taylor.

(Roberts, THE LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Appendix)

[137]
Mar 1844, Joseph Smith:
	They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many
other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet; I am
no impostor; I have had no dark revelations; I have had no revelations
from the devil; I made no revelations; I have got nothing up of myself.
The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and
strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on
celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it.
He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced
it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time
henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me! Oh, what shall I
do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do
teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they way they will kill me, and I
know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle
and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.

(THE CONTRIBUTOR, 5:259, see also D.H.C. 6:280-281)

15 Mar 1844, Hyrum Smith:
Nauvoo, March 15, 1844.

	To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:--Whereas brother
Richard Hewitt has called on me today to know my views concerning some
doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of
your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many
wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that
that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught
here; neither is there any such thing practiced here. And any man that is
found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and
will stand a chance to be brought [138] before the High Council, and lose
his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is
about.
	And again I say unto you, an elder has no business to undertake to
preach mysteries in any part of the world, for God has commanded us all to
preach nothing but the first principles unto the world. Neither has any
elder any authority to preach any mysterious thing to any branch of the
church unless he has a direct commandment from God to do so. Let the
matter of the grand councils of heaven, and the making of gods, worlds,
and devils entirely alone: for you are not called to teach any such
doctrine--for neither you nor the people are capacitated to understand any
such principles--less so to teach them. For when God commands men to teach
such principles the saints will receive them. Therefore beware what you
teach! For the mysteries of God are not given to all men; and unto those
to whom they are given they are placed under restrictions to impart only
such as God will command them; and the residue is to be kept in a faithful
breast, otherwise he will be brought under condemnation. By this God will
prove his faithful servants, who will be called and numbered with the
chosen.
	And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that
kingdom that obey the gospel, and continue in faith in the Lord unto the
end of his days. Now, therefore, I say unto you, you must cease preaching
your miraculous things, and let the mysteries alone until bye and bye.
Preach faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; repentance and baptism for the
remission of sins; the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost:
teaching the necessity of strict obedience unto these principles;
reasoning out of the scriptures; proving them unto the people. Cease your
schisms and divisions, and your contentions. Humble yourselves as in the
dust and ashes, test God should make you an ensample of his wrath unto the
surrounding world. Amen.

	In the bonds of the everlasting covenant, I am
			Your obedient servant,
[139]
				HYRUM SMITH

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:474)

16 Mar 1844, Emma Smith:
	At four overflowing meetings of the Ladies' Relief Society, held at
Gen. Smith's large assembly room on Saturdays the 9th and 16th of March,
1844, the following preamble and resolutions were read and unanimously
adopted at each meeting:

	Female virtue is a pearl of great price, and should glitter in the
abodes of men, as in the mansions of bliss, for the glory and honor of
him, whose image she bears and whose help meet she is, and every attempt
of a man to seduce that virtue, is, next to murder, a robbery that cannot
be restored.
	If woman swerves from the rules of righteousness

	"Ruin ensues, reproach and shame;
	"And one false step bedims her fame.
	"In vain the loss she may deplore,
	"In vain review her life before,
	"With tears she must in anguish be,
	"'Till God says, 'set that captive free.'"

	Many of the distinguished females of Nauvoo, have waded to their
present habitations through persecution, sorrow, and death, robbed and
insulted and bereaved of husbands and children by the combined powers, of
priests and spiritual wickedness in high places, but none of these
piercing calamities of man touched the heart of woman with such severe
poignancy, as the envenomed slander of O. F. Bostwick, * * *

Wherefore, * * *

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, That while we render credence to the doctrines of
Paul, that neither the man is without the woman; neither is the woman
without the man [140] in the Lord, yet we raise our voices and hands
against John C. Bennett's "spiritual wife system," as a scheme of
profligates to seduce women; and they that harp upon it, wish to make it
popular for the convenience of their own cupidity; wherefore, while the
marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let polygamy, bigamy, fornication,
adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to
drop in the gulf of fallen nature, `where the worm dieth not and the fire
is not quenched!' and let all the saints say, Amen!

				EMMA SMITH, Prest.

(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 20 Mar 1844)

Sunday 24 Mar 1844, Joseph Smith:
	In relation to the power over the minds of mankind which I hold, I
would say, it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrines
which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto
them, and not because of any compulsion on my part. I wish to ask if ever
I got any of it unfairly? If I have not reproved you in the gate? I ask,
Did I ever exercise any compulsion over any man? Did I not give him the
liberty of disbelieving any doctrine I have preached, if he saw fit? Why
do not my enemies strike a blow at the doctrine? They cannot do it: it is
truth, and I defy all men to upset it. I am the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, "Repent ye of your sins and prepare the way for the coming of
the Son of Man; for the kingdom of God has come unto you, and henceforth
the ax is laid unto the root of the tree; and every tree that bringeth not
forth good fruit, God Almighty (and not Joe Smith) (sic) shall hew it down
and cast it into the fire."

(D.H.C. 6:273-274)

1 Apr 1844, To the Elders Abroad:
	We very frequently receive letters from elders and in-[141]dividuals
abroad, inquiring of us whether certain statements that they hear, and
have written to them, are true: some pertaining to John C. Bennett's
spiritual wife system, others in regard to immoral conduct, practiced by
individuals, and sanctioned by the church; and as it is impossible for us
to answer all of them, we take this opportunity of answering them all,
once for all.
	In the first place, we cannot but express our surprise that any elder
or priest who has been in Nauvoo, and has had an opportunity of hearing
the principles of truth advanced, should for one moment give credence to
the idea that any thing like iniquity is practised, much less taught or
sanctioned, by the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
	We are the more surprised, since every species of iniquity is spoken
against, and exposed publicly at the stand, and every means made use of
that possibly can be, to suppress vice, both religious and civil; not only
so, but every species of iniquity has frequently been exposed in the TIMES
AND SEASONS, and its practisers and advocates held up to the world as
corrupt men that ought to be avoided.
	There are other men who are corrupt and sensual, and who teach
corrupt principles for the sake of gratifying their sensual appetites, at
the expense and ruin of virtue and innocence. Such men ought to be avoided
as pests to society, and be frowned down upon with contempt by every
virtuous man and woman.
	If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to
the Bible, the BOOK OF MORMON, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set
him down as an imposter. You need not write to us to know what you are to
do with such men; you have the authority with you. Try them by the
principles contained in the acknowledged word of God: if they preach, or
teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from
among you as useless and dangerous branches, and if they are belonging to
any of the quorums in the church, report them to the president of the
quorum to which they belong, and if you cannot find that out, if they are
members of an official standing, belonging to Nauvoo, report them to us.
[142] Follow after purity, virtue, holiness, integrity, Godliness, and
every thing that has a tendency to exalt and ennoble the human mind; and
shun every man who teaches any other principles.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:490-491)

2 Apr 1844
(2) Minerva White was married to Erastus Snow.

(Utah Geneal. and Hist. Mag. 3:64)

19 Apr 1844:
(2) Abigail Shaffer Woolsey was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J.D. Lee, p. 597)

Wednesday 24 Apr 1844, An Exile:
From the WARSAW SIGNAL.

THE NAUVOO BLOCK AND TACKLE.

Mr. Editor:
	I have frequently noticed in the columns of your paper, articles
concerning the doctrine of Spiritual Wives, a part of the Mormon creed.
Nothing as yet has come to my view which gave entire satisfaction: and as
it is my turn now, just command silence for a few moments that I may have
a hearing.
	In the year 1834, at Kirtland Ohio, the aforementioned step in the
heavenly stairway was located. Much excitement grew out of this measure:
many of the Saints demurred, and the more knowing ones readily perceived
that it was entirely too liberal in its provisions, even to be
constitutional. In a word, the Saints rejected it; only a few of the more
licentious delighting in it. The doctrine was hushed up, as being sent
before its time, for be it known that Mormonism is a system of
progression. [143] The next glimpse I obtained of this hellish Spiritual
Wife doctrine, was in the year 1838, just on the eve of hostilities in
Missouri. The presence of the enemy furnished subjects for reflection, to
the exclusion of the old eyesore for the second time. But iniquity never
lies dormant. No sooner did prosperity smile upon the fraternity in
Nauvoo, than the secret workings of the same faction were set in motion.
Success attends perseverance; and success emboldens the culprit. Such
seems to be the results in the present instance. But, now is the winter of
their discontent made glorious summer by the sudden appearance of the
Spirit of Elijah, a kind of compromise ace, which serves two purposes,
viz: is a cloak to the Spiritual Wife system and cures the indolent saints
of the Spring Fever, a very prevalent and fatal malady in the latitude of
Nauvoo. * * *

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 24 Apr 1844)

Wednesday 1 May 1844, Jeremiah Smith, Sen:
For the NEIGHBOR.

Friends and Fellow Citizens:
	Those statements you have before you are facts; I say to you before
God and man, as to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his people, they are very
different characters from what they are represented to be, as to Smith he
has every appearance of a good hearted, honest man, and his people are
very industrious and mind their own business. As to the city of Nauvoo,
from the time it has been built, it has made more improvements than any
other city or town in the western country, which is proof of the industry
of this city. I spent several days in this place last summer to satisfy
myself, and to tell my friends after leaving the city that they have a
right to serve God as they think best. The constitution of the United
States guarantees to every man this privilege. Nauvoo is certainly one of
the most quiet cities that I have been through in all my travels. In
spending the few days last summer I found out one loafer in the city whose
name was Jackson. [144] As to the ladies of this place they have every
appearance of being as intelligent as in any other place that can be
found. As to the report of Gen. Smith's spiritual wives, if I understand
the name of spiritual wife, it is all false. I have been lodging at
Smith's house some time and if there was any thing of the kind I must have
seen something of it going on. I have seen a note in the WARSAW SIGNAL
stating difficulties between Joseph Smith and his wife, not long since. I
was at his house when this thing was said to have taken place. I saw Mrs.
Smith start to St. Louis, and when she returned home, and they had every
appearance of love and friendship. I will say to you the statement is all
false and without grounds. This I will certify on oath.

				JEREMIAH SMITH, Sen.

(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 1 May 1844)

3 May 1844, Parley P. Pratt:
Dear Brother Joseph and Brother Orson Spencer, or whom it may concern:
	This is to forewarn you that you have a snake in the grass, a base
traitor and hypocrite in your midst, of whom perhaps you may not be fully
aware. You may think these harsh terms, but I speak from good evidence and
speak the truth.
	Mr. Augustine Spencer, brother to Elder Orson Spencer, has written a
letter from Nauvoo, which is now going the rounds in this neighborhood,
and is fraught with the most infamous slander and lies concerning Joseph
Smith and others, and which is calculated to imbitter the minds of the
people who read or hear it. It affirms that Joseph Smith is in the habit
of drinking, swearing, carousing, dancing all night, &c. , and that he
keeps six or seven young females as wives, &c., and many other such like
insinuations.
	At the same time he cautions the people to whom he writes to keep the
letter in such a way that a knowledge of its contents may not reach
Nauvoo, as he says he is on [145] intimate terms and confidential
friendship with the "Prophet Joe" and the Mormons, and that he hopes to
get into office by their means. This is his own acknowledgement of his own
baseness, imposition and hypocrisy. I have not seen the letter myself, but
have carefully examined the testimony of those who have, and I have also
seen and witnessed its baneful effect upon the people here.
	Now, I say to the Saints, let such a man alone severely; shun him as
they would the pestilence; be not deceived by a smooth tongue nor
flattering words; neither accept of any excuse of apology until he boldly
contradicts and counteracts his lying words abroad; but rather expose and
unmask him in your midst, that he may be known and consequently become
powerless, if he is not already so. I am well and expect to be in Boston
tomorrow.
	I remain, as ever, your friend and brother, in the love of truth,

				P. P. PRATT

Richmond, Mass., May 3rd, 1844.

(D.H.C. 6:354-355)

Note: According to the records, Joseph Smith had at least 28 living wives
and Brigham Young, 4 at this date.

4 May 1844, William Law, Jane Law.
	I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did (in his office) read to me a
certain written document which he said was a revelation from God. He said
that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the
document to read and I took it to my house and read it and showed it to my
wife and returned it the next day. The revelation (so called) authorized
certain man to have more wives than one at a time in this world and in the
world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter
into the law. And also that he should administer to others. Several other
items were in the [146] revelation, supporting the above doctrines.

				(sig) Wm. LAW

	I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above
affidavit of my husband. It sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more
wives than one at a time in this world and in the next. It authorized some
to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not
allow their husbands to have more wives than one would be under
condemnation before God.

				(sig) JANE LAW

(THE EXPOSITOR, 7 Jun 1844)

4 May 1844, Austin Cowles:
To all whom it may concern:
	Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of
procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by a number
of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices therein
(among whom I am one) it is but meet that I should give my reasons at
least in part as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the latter
part of the summer of 1843, the Patriarch Hyrum Smith did in the High
Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation
given through the Prophet, that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the
said revelation in the said council; that according to his reading there
was contained the following doctrines:

1st: The sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins save that
of shedding innocent blood or of consenting thereto;

2nd: The doctrine of plurality of wives or marrying virgins; that David
and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not, save in the
matter of Uriah.

[147] This revelation with others, evidence that the aforesaid heresies
were taught and practiced in the Church, determined me to leave the office
of first counselor to the President of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I
dared not teach or administer such laws.

				(sig) AUSTIN COWLES

(THE NAUVOO EXPOSITOR, 7 Jun 1844)

8 May 1844:
(5) Clara Decker was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 19)

Sunday 12 May 1844, Joseph Smith:
	The Savior has the words of eternal life. Nothing else can profit us.
There is no salvation in believing an evil report against our neighbor. I
advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the
mysteries of Godliness. A man can do nothing for himself unless God direct
him in the right way; and the Priesthood is for that purpose.

(D.H.C. 6:63)

26 May 1844, Joseph Smith:
	Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy
prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me: the reason is, he
is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the
world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true,
the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass,
and can still.
	Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we
ought to be set down as orthodox. I never built upon any other man's
ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet.
God [148] knows, then, that the charges against me are false.
	I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one
proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.
I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
	This new holy prophet (William Law) has gone to Carthage and swore
that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism!
Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.

(D.H.C. 6:410-411)

Jun 1844, William Marks, Pres't., Nauvoo Stake:
	I met with Brother Joseph. He said that he wanted to converse with me
on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his
words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he
had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of
polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church,
and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could
be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and
that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he
would go before the congregation and proclaim against those in
transgression, and I must sever them from the church unless they made
ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance.
The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore
there was nothing done concerning it.

(Smith, WAS JOSEPH SMITH A POLYGAMIST? p. 15)

27 Jun 1844:
	Joseph Smith, jun., and Hyrum Smith were killed at Carthage, Ill.,
Apostle John Taylor was wounded at the same time.

[149]
Sep 1844:
(7) Emily C. Partridge, formerly the wife of Joseph Smith, was married to
Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 23)

Wednesday 4 Sep 1844, Brigham Young:
* * * Brigham Young preached in Nauvoo last Sunday, and in the course of
his sermon avowed his belief in the spiritual wife doctrine, and said that
he wished that he had one hundred spiritual wives. Thus it appears, that
what seceders said in relation to this matter, is now openly admitted.

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 4 Sep 1844)

6 Sep 1844, Official Notice:
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

	This is to certify that we, the undersigned, did not directly or
indirectly teach or profess belief in the plurality of wives to Elder
Benjamin Winchester, and further certify that Elder Winchester did speak
disrespectfully of the authorities of the Church (viz, the Twelve), and
also, that Elder Benjamin Winchester endeavored to sow discord among the
brethren by accusing them. We also certify that we never told said
Winchester that any of the Twelve had taught such doctrine to us.
	In testimony whereof, in truth, we set our hands and seals.

	A. E. Wright, 		Samuel Brannan,
	G. J. Adams,		Thos. Braidwood,
	William H. Miles.

N. B. It must be obvious to all, that B. Winchester's conduct and course
against the Twelve lies cloaked; the mystery, then, is not in the above
charges; but a desire [150] on his part to destroy the Twelve and the
Philadelphia Church, for various reasons which will be given at the proper
time.

(THE PROPHET, 14 Sep 1844)

10 Sep 1844:
(3) Ann Alice Gheen was married to Heber C. Kimball, Brigham Young
officiating.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 29)

(8) Clara Chase Ross was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 21)

14 Sep 1844, Official Notice:
From THE PROPHET.

To the Saints:
	"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they
are of God," and beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves: "wherefore, by their
fruits shall ye know them." It has become my painful duty, for the rolling
on of the cause of truth, to say, that notwithstanding our brethren have
been murdered by false brethren (apostates), by fault finding saints, that
there still remains some who are determined to continue the work of
destruction, deceiving the unwary, and leading off the hearts of the
simple, by charging the servants of God falsely. Among this number is our
once beloved brother Benjamin Winchester, whose course for some two or
three years, has been more or less censurable, (as all the heads of the
Church will bear me witness,) of which a full account will be published
hereafter, if necessary. The object of this brother is best known to
himself: he gives as a reason for his opposition to the constituted [151]
authorities of the Church, the (by him) supposed existence of certain
heresies in the Church, charged upon the heads of a few individuals; and
this I consider slanderous, and will repel. And I hereby notify Elder
Benjamin Winchester, that his services are no longer required in the
Church of Jesus Christ, unless he repents, and that he is forbidden to
preach any longer in the name of the Latter Day Saints. "All liars shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire." And that the Saints
in Philadelphia may know how much confidence they may put in this Lump of
Perfection, let them remember the charges he made in Conference, against
certain brethren in New York, from whom I have received the following
certificate, proving the falsity of said charges. (See under date 6 Sep
1844)

				WILLIAM SMITH

(THE PROPHET, 14 Sep 1844)

26 Sep 1844, Notice:
	Elder Benjamin Winchester and his wife are cut off from the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for unchristian like conduct, in
slandering the Church, and railing against, and speaking evil of the
Twelve and others. * * *

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:670)

1 Oct 1844, An Epistle of the Twelve:

To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Greeting, Dear Brethern,
	Having promised in our former epistles to address you from time to
time, we now proceed to give you further information relative to the
welfare of the church both temporally and spiritually; * * *
	In regard to principle and doctrine, we know that we are founded upon
the plain and manifest truth as revealed [152] from on high, and which is
sufficiently manifest and plain to convince all honest men who look into
it, and to confound all who oppose. The main object then which remains to
be carried out is to practice accordingly, and to live according to our
knowledge.
	In order to do this we must not only be industrious and honest, in
providing abundantly for our temporal wants and for those for whom duty
and charity bind us to act. But we must abstain from all intemperance,
immorality and vice of whatever name or nature; we must set an example of
virtue, modesty, temperance, continency, cleanliness, and charity. And be
careful not to mingle in the vain amusements and sins of the world. * * *
	Done in council at Nauvoo, this first day of October, A.D. 1844.
					BRIGHAM YOUNG, Pres't.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:668-670)

11 Oct 1844, Wilford Woodruff:
For the PROPHET:

To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

Greeting:--
	I deem it to be a duty which I owe to God and his Church to express
my feelings and bear my testimony unto you, concerning certain things that
are presented to you for your consideration; especially, the claims of
Elder Sidney Rigdon to the exclusive right to lead and govern the church
of Latter Day Saints. I have carefully examined the trial which Elder
Rigdon has had before the authorities of the church in Nauvoo, as given in
the TIMES AND SEASONS, Vol. v. No. 17, and I am satisfied that a righteous
decision has been given in his case. I do not make these remarks without
my reasons: and I will hereby give those reasons.
	Elder Rigdon and his friends would now claim, before the church and
the world, that he holds the keys of the kingdom of God of the last
dispensation, above the [153] Twelve, the Church, etc. I am ready to admit
before the whole church and the world, that he does hold one key beyond
the Twelve; one, that they do not hold, one that God never held, nor Jesus
Christ, not any true prophet, patriarch, or apostle: Joseph and Hyrum
Smith were utter strangers to it. And if we can judge from his own mouth,
according to the testimony given on his trial, we would suppose that
Lucifer, who made war in Heaven, was its author; and that it had been
handed down unto the present day, and with it Elder Rigdon has unlocked
his heart, and portrayed before our eyes what was in it. What is it? Hear
it, all ye Latter Day Saints! Listen, O Earth! and judge the fruits of
this Key. He threatens to turn traitor, publish against the church in
public journals, intimating that he would bring a mob upon the church,
stir up the world against the Saints, and bring distress upon them, etc.
This ought to be a sufficient reason for any true hearted Latter Day Saint
to turn away from him with disgust, and treat all such men and principles
according to their desert, which is, to let them entirely alone; for there
is not a more despicable principle ever existed in Heaven, Earth, or Hell,
than to prove a traitor to our God, our cause, and our friends, and bring
distress upon the innocent, and that too by turning against the very cause
that a man has spent a portion of his life to build up, and declared,
while in the faith, that it was true and righteous; for in all such cases
there is entirely a misrepresentation of truth and facts, in order to
accomplish the intended evil, while a true statement of facts would
advance the cause. This same principle was manifest in the case of
Lucifer, Judas, Arnold, and many apostates in this church, who, when they
could not get their own ends answered, would threaten to bring mobs upon
the church, and in some instances, have done so. I would ask, has Joseph
or Hyrum Smith ever held such a key as this, or manifested such a spirit
as this? No, never; but have despised it in their hearts. President Smith
seemed to be sensible that such fruit was growing in the breast of Elder
Rigdon; and if he had accomplished what duty appeared to present to his
mind upon that subject, that branch would have been severed from the tree
[154] before his death; but through mercy it was spared until it has
produced fruit which is evil in its tendency, and dangerous to the welfare
and prosperity of the Church and Kingdom of God. * * *
	And I wish to say to all the Elders of Israel, and Saints of God,
that the time has come, when we need a double portion of the spirit of
Joseph's God to rest upon us, we should gird up the loins of our minds.
Watch and be sober, maintain the priesthood with dignity, have the cause
of God fully at heart, labor faithfully for its promotion while the day
lasts, for night will soon come when no man can work. We should practice
virtue and holiness before the Lord, and shun the very appearance of evil.
We should enter into our closets, and call upon God for wisdom to direct
us in every duty in life. Our object should be to preach the Gospel of
Jesus Christ to this generation, and present those principles that will
save the souls of men.
	If there is any man in this church that does wrong, that breaks the
law of God, it mattereth not what his standing may be, whether among the
Twelve, the High Priests, Seventies, or Elders, or in any other standing,
there is a tribunal that will reach their case in process of time, there
is authority before whom they can be tried. Therefore let no one turn
against the cause of God, and stop in the road to destruction, on the plea
that somebody has done wrong: It is no excuse for you or I to do wrong
because another does; the soul that sins alone must bear it. Should I step
aside from the path of duty it would not destroy the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, or even one principle of truth, they would remain the same.
Neither would it be any excuse for you to commit sin; but I should have to
bear my own sins, and not the sins of others, so with all men.
	Therefore, let me exhort all ye Elders of Israel and Saints of God to
rise up in the majesty and dignity of your calling, make full proof of
your ministry and covenant. Sustain by your works the authorities, keys,
and priesthood of God in all its bearings and appendages, through this
last dispensation, for the eyes of God, angels and men, are over you, and
when the work is finished, you [155] will receive your just recompense of
reward. 					WILFORD WOODRUFF

(THE PROPHET, 19 Oct 1844)

12 Oct 1844, Richard Savery
Minutes of a Conference held in Pittsburgh, Oct. 12th, 1844.

	The conference was opened in the usual manner, and on motion, Elder
R. Savery was appointed President, and Elder J. Logan, Secretary.

	Elder B. Winchester then stated the object of the meeting which was,
to distinctly ascertain the minds of the members of the church in this
place, relative to the heretical doctrines taught and practiced in Nauvoo,
by the quorum of the Twelve and some of their associates, and also the
claims of Elder S. Rigdon. On these points Elders Winchester, Savery, and
several others, made some very appropriate and forcible remarks; after
which, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted without a
dissenting voice:

WHEREAS the quorum of the Twelve, and their adherents in Nauvoo, have
rejected Elder S. Rigdon as the presiding officer of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, and thus violating the law of the church, as
found in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which we esteem most sacred
and dear to all lovers of truth, for no other reasons, in our opinion,
than his having claimed his lawful standing in the church, and his decided
opposition to the nefarious doctrine of polygamy, and other things odious
in their nature and tendency; for the truth of which, it now becomes our
painful duty to say to all our friends and brethren in Christ, we have the
most positive and decisive evidence; Wherefore,--

[156]
1. RESOLVED, that we feel it our imperative duty, to receive and sustain
Elder S. Rigdon in the office of first president of the church, whereunto,
according to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord has called him;
and also that we uphold him in this office by our faith and prayers.

2. RESOLVED, that in consequence of the most flagrant violation of the
original, or true principles and order of the church, by the Twelve and
their abettors, by rejecting Elder Rigdon, and practising the doctrine of
polygamy, despoiling female virtue and chastity by seducing them, and
tyranizing over those who will not sanction their works of darkness, and
many other like things, for which we regard them as apostates, and men
fallen from the true order of the church, into a state of wickedness and
corruption; therefore, we hold no fellowship with them, and as a branch of
the true church, standing upon the original platform, and the acknowledged
and received doctrine of said church, we do not consider ourselves
identified with them. * * *

				RICHARD SAVERY, Prest.

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1:11-12)

14 Oct 1844, James M. Greig:
To the Saints of Beaver County the undersigned send,

Greeting:
	Having learned that certain persons (calling themselves saints,) do
teach the doctrine of the Necolaitans, or in other words, "Spiritual
Wives," professedly by divine authority, thus "turning the grace of our
Lord into laciviousness." This, therefore, is to say to such persons and
to all men, that we neither believe or receive a doctrine so repugnant to
the Word of God, and we hold no fellowship with those who would justify
such an abomination; and we earnestly exhort the saints in every place to
set their faces against so pernicious a doctrine. And [157] besides this
giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge.
	"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

	Signed: James M. Greig, Wm. Stanley, Solomon Pry, Samuel Bail, and
others.

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1:12)

15 Oct 1844, Sidney Rigdon:
Pittsburgh, Oct. 15, 1844.

Editorial:

	The TIMES AND SEASONS, and the NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, published at Nauvoo,
Illinois, are busying themselves about us exceedingly, though the editor
says he reluctantly obtrudes our name before the public. Now if he would
be as reluctant to publish falsehoods about us when he does obtrude our
name upon the public, it would be as creditable to him. * * *
	What is the matter of complaint? It is this: We said that the only
crime we committed was, that there were a number of gentlemen who wished
to return with us to Pittsburgh. * * *
	But there was another and greater cause for their opposition to us
than the crime of having those at Nauvoo whose personal friendship made
them desire to be where they could enjoy our society. Gentle reader, do
you desire to know what it was? Well, it is your right, as well as the
right of saint and sinner to know it. Know then, that the so called Twelve
apostles at Nauvoo, are now teaching the doctrine of, what is called
"Spiritual Wives:" that a man may have more wives than one, and they are
not only teaching it but practicing it, and this doctrine is spreading
alarmingly through that apostate branch of the church of Latter Day
Saints. Their greatest objection to us was our opposition to this
doctrine, knowing, as they did, that we had got the fact in possession, it
[158] created alarm, great alarm, every effort was used while we were
there to effect something that might screen them from the consequences of
exposure. This is what Mr. Hyde had an allusion to on the steam boat at
St. Louis, when he felt such an interest in our welfare, as he said, as to
request us, not for his sake or his fellow apostles' sake, but for our own
sake and salvation, not to make any disclosures, lest we should have to
retract and thereby be injured. Kind man! How fatherly and apostolical
this!
	I now call upon the Twelve, including Mr. J. E. Page, to deny the
existence of such a doctrine among them, believed, taught and practised by
them. This is the doctrine which has made what these men call the division
in the church. We deny it has made any division in the Church. The Church
is taking Paul's advice, "From such turn away;" the Church is doing so.
See the third chapter of Second Timothy, where this as well as other
crimes are declared an apostacy, and the saints admonished to turn away
from them. This the saints are doing, and that in great numbers too, and
the separation will continue until all the saints are again found united
in strict obedience to the Doctrines and Covenants of the Church.
	This doctrine of a man having more wives than one, is the cause which
has induced the twelve to put at defiance the ecclesiastical arrangements
of the Church, and what is equally criminal, to do despite unto the moral
excellence of the Doctrines and Covenants of the Church, setting up an
order of things of their own in violation of all the rules and regulations
known to the saints, and nowhere found in the Doctrines and Covenants of
the Church, but by the authority of pretended secret communications made
to themselves in the Secret Chambers, unknown to the Church only as they
and some of their followers declare them, and these pretended secret
communications, in direct contradiction to the written word contained in
the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church.
	The time has come when the Saints will have to come out and show
themselves: the alternative with the saints is that they must either deny
their faith or espouse the Spiritual Wife system and be taught by those
who prac-[159]tise it, or else boldly and manfully join with those who
have and are raising their voices against this most extraordinary of all
doctrines, which is destroying the peace and sapping the foundation of the
Church. * * *

(THE L.D.S.MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1:15-56)

15 Oct 1844, Sidney Rigdon:
Pittsburgh, Oct 15, 1844.

Br. J. Greig, Dear Sir:
	Yours of the 14th inst., was received per mail this morning. The
intelligence was cheering; these early evidences of the virtue and firm
integrity of the saints speaks volumes in favor of their future prospects.
What, dear brother, can withstand the truth when its advocates are
uncompromising in their attachment to virtue and holy principles. Since
the world began, all the dispensations delivered to men of the living God,
have been thrown into confusion by the introduction of doctrines and
practices which were at war with godliness, and subversive of all that was
good and noble. * * *
	It would seem almost impossible that there could be found a set of
men and women, in this age of the world, with the revelations of God in
their hands, who could invent and propagate doctrines so ruinous to
society, so debasing and demoralizing as the doctrine of a man having a
plurality of wives; for it is the existence of this strange doctrine,
worse than the strange fire offered on the altar, by corrupted Israel,
that was at the root of all the evils which have followed, and are
following in the church, the very mention of which could not fail to
redden the cheek of decency with a blush. * * *
	Those who read the New Testament with care, cannot avoid seeing that
the apostles have declared that a corruption like that we complain of, was
to make its appearance in the last days. See Second Timothy, 3rd chapter,
from the 1st to the 9th verses inclusive. These sayings which the
apostles, at Nauvoo, have applied to the professing world, are as
applicable to themselves as [160] to any others now living, or any others
who have lived since the days of Paul. In the 6th verse we are told that
"For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly
women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." Now of what sort are
those who creep into houses and lead astray silly women? The answer is
given in the preceeding verse. Persons that can do that are such as are
without natural affection, boasters, proud inventors of evil things,
heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. When we
see such men, as above described, they, according to Paul, would do other
things, that is, enter into houses and lead astray silly women. * * *
	From what is said in the 9th verse, the iniquity complained of was to
be a thing conducted in secret. "But they shall proceed no further, for
their folly shall be manifest unto all men;" Nothing can be plainer than
this abomination of leading silly women astray, was to be a secret thing,
carried on privately, and the exposure of it was to put a final stop to
their wickedness. * * *
	It is a fact so well known, that the Twelve and their adherents have
endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business in secret, that I
hardly need mention it here, and have gone to the most shameful and
desperate lengths to keep it from the public. First, insulting innocent
females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape
would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of
desperate men to help them to effect the ruin of those whom they had
insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from
the view of the world. I could bring facts which can be established in any
court of justice, in relation to these vile abominations practised under
the garb of religion that would make humanity blush. No falsehood too
great, and no perjury too daring, in order to conceal these heaven-daring
abuses of mankind; but I say in the language of Paul, they shall go no
further, for their folly is now being made manifest, and will not cease
until it is manifest unto all. * * *
	But as the scriptures abound with evidence on this subject, I will
invite your attention to some of the sayings [161] of the Prophet Isaiah,
which only confirms what we have before written. In the 3rd chapter of his
prophecy, commencing at the 16th verse we have a description of Zion:
	"Moreover, the Lord saith, because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
and walk with stretched-forth necks, and wanton eyes, walking and mincing
as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet, therefore, the Lord
will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and
the Lord will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take
away the bravery of their tinkling ornament about their feet, and their
cauls and their round tires like the moon. The chains, and the bracelets,
and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the
head-bands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings, the rings, and nose
jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples,
and the crisping-pins, the glasses, and the fine linet, and the hoods, and
the veils. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell, there
shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a rent; and instead of well set
hair, baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and
burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty
in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she, being desolate,
shall sit upon the ground. And in that day seven women shall take hold of
one man, saying, we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only
let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."
	A few remarks on the foregoing quotation, will place the subject, in
a point of light, so clear, that "he that runs may read." * * *
	Let all those who are acquainted with Nauvoo, for two years past,
just read and think. Let me ask, did not their eyes see the streets
paraded by females, haughty and insolent, riding, parading and gallanting,
not even to military trainings excepted, until one of the principal
officers of the military gave them an open rebuke. Has it not been, and is
it not now considered a reproach, by many, not to be united to some man as
a wife, though he [162] should have half a dozen at a time? If it is not
so, then they do not believe the doctrine they teach themselves.
	When these things are closely examined there is so near a resemblance
between the description given of the daughters of Zion by Isaiah, and what
has taken place in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that
the conclusion is forced on the mind, that he, the prophet, had his eye on
that church, and actually called that church Zion. But what gives this
still greater force, is, that if the things spoken by Isaiah do not
transpire in the church of Latter-day Saints, then it is not the Zion of
the Last days; and their preaching vain, and their faith vain; for these
things will take place in the Zion of God, in the last days. But now for
the other side of this picture, for Isaiah does not stop here.
	In the 4th chapter, 2nd verse to the close of the chapter, we have
the following:

	"In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious,
and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are
escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion;
and he that remaineth in Jerusalem shall be called holy, even every one
that is written among the living in Jerusalem: When the Lord shall have
washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the
blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and
the spirit of burning. And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place
of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the
shining of a flaming fire by night, for upon all the glory shall be a
defence. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the day time from
the heat and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from
rain."

	In the 2nd verse, the prophet says, "In that day shall the branch of
the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth excellent
and comely for them that are escaped of Israel."
	We ask, in what day? Not the day when the daughters of Zion were
rioting on the spoils of the poor, walking [163] with stretched-forth
necks, and wanton eyes, mincing as they went; when seven of them were
laying hold on one man to take away their reproach: that was a day of
transgression, when the women ruled over the people of Zion; when the poor
were spoiled, the people beaten and their faces ground. No beauty nor
comliness in that day; but there is a day, notwithstanding all this
corruption, when the whole Zion of the Lord, which had been rioting in
abominations, and the spoils of the poor, shall be beautiful and glorious?
No, gentle reader, no, but the Branch of the Lord, that which is escaped
of the Israel of God, those that fled from these corruptions, and left
them who were practising them, THIS BRANCH shall become beautiful and
glorious. When will it become beautiful and glorious? When the Lord shall
have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion? See verse 4th. What
filth will the Lord wash away? Their prudery, seven of them clinging to
one man, their pride, and their wantonness, their rioting on the spoils of
the poor. When the Lord is doing this with the spirit of judgment, and by
the spirit of burning, the branch of the Lord that has escaped, will be
becoming and beautiful and glorious. * * *
	Now, if the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Zion
of God, then fellow saint and sinner, the whole story of the spiritual
wife system is told; and that it is the true church of Christ, let the
corruptions of that body speak for themselves. He that hath eyes may see,
and he that hath ears may hear, and he that has a heart may understand,
for the very corruptions which Isaiah said should take place among the
daughters of Zion, have taken place in that church, not only the
corruption, out the separation also, and all the rest will doubtless
follow. * * *

				SIDNEY RIGDON

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1:12-14, 2:1-9)

[164]
1 Nov 1844, William Smith:
Bordentown, N. J., Nov. 1st, 1844.

Brother Brannan,
	I ask pardon for obtruding the name of B. Winchester once more before
the public, as I had considered him unworthy of further notice, and I
still consider him so; but his manner of proceeding is calculated to give
an air of importance and notoriety entirely unworthy of the man. (When we
speak of man, we have reference to man in principle, not is shape.) And I
should not have replied to his unholy attack and outrages upon the church,
if circumstances had not rendered it necessary. Being in the city of
Philadelphia last evening, I became more acquainted with his foul
aspersions and base calumny, mingled with sophistry and subterfuges, to
carry out his aspiring plans.
	I stated in my last, that there was no law in this church commanding
a plurality of wives; and I am bold to say, that B. Winchester is a wanton
falsifier, and base calumniator, when he says a doctrine of this kind is
tolerated or taught in the church!
	It is plain to be seen then, that Benny is fighting nothing but the
air; the belief and private opinion of men in or out of the church, is not
the standard for church government, unless that opinion or belief is
submitted to a law, and a church considered bound by it.
	The first causes that have led to the late infraction, are not
because (neither is it contended) there are deficiencies of immoralities
in the laws of the church. But the difficulties pretended are in the
Elders, or members of said church. What an argument is this? This would
disorganize and unchristianize the whole religious world, allowing them to
be christians as well as the old orthodox Mormon church. The only remedy
to be applied is for bad men and members to repent and do their first
works over again; if in error of doctrine--forsake it, and sin no more
(especially where this doctrine that is false becomes a leading or a
standard principle); otherwise the candlestick must be removed out of its
place. But I do contend [165] that all men have a right to their own
opinion and belief, uncontrolled by church or state, provided that opinion
does not interfere with church government, or the rights and privileges of
others.
	Who appointed Ben Winchester the Prophet, great dictator and
regulator of this church, to direct and dictate to the saints, their faith
and doctrine? Did Israel's God do it? If he did, I must confess that men
of veracity and truth are getting rather scarce, judging from personal
manifestations; but as he is ordained a King, when he is crowned, perhaps,
there may be a different manifestation. It is singular, indeed, to see the
raw subterfuge resorted to by these Rigdonites, garbling the scriptures,
Book of Doctrine and Covenants, revelations given to the saints concerning
Jackson County, Mo., are made to apply to Nauvoo. Sayings spoken thousands
of years ago, concerning Judea and Jerusalem are applied to the daughters
of Nauvoo with their head dress, round tires, "nose jewels, and tinkling
ornaments," when they have none--these few, if no more, are enough to show
the saints the rottenness of a cause that has to be sustained by
misapplying scriptures and revelations by false arguments. * * *
	As ever your brother in Christ.
				WILLIAM SMITH

(THE PROPHET, 23 Nov 1844)

2 Nov 1844:
(9) Susan Snively was married to Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt,
officiating.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 24)

Wednesday 7 Nov 1844:
From the NEW YORK HERALD.

MEETING OF THE MORMONS.
[166] Agreeable to an announcement in the papers, Elder Winchester, one of
Sidney Rigdon's men, addressed a meeting of the Mormons of this city, last
evening, * * *
	The Elder went on to argue that Joe's death was ordained of the Lord,
on account of Joe's transgressions, that he did not apostatize, but he
"wrought abominations," and was therefore deemed unfit to direct "The
Kingdom," and share in its triumphs. The transgression was in introducing
the "spiritual wife system." On this subject it was expected that the
Elder would have gone into the details and expose it fully. But he
contented himself with a general denunciation of it, said that it was
universally prevalent at Nauvoo, and that it was to free "the Church" from
that evil, that Sidney Rigdon had taken a separate stand. * * *

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 27 Nov 1844)

14 Nov 1844:
(2) Mary Ann Hate was married to Benjamin F. Johnson, Brigham Young
officiating.

(HISTORICAL RECORD, 6:222)

15 Nov 1844, An Old Man of Israel:
From THE TIMES AND SEASONS.

(Note: For the communication of an "Old Man of Israel," * * * we bespeak a
hearty welcome. They are genuine. Ed.)

To the Editor of the TIMES AND SEASONS:

Sir:
	Having lately arrived from the east, and having seen a new paper
purporting to be "THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE,
resuscitated, for the avowed object of opposing the course of the
constituted authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day [167]
Saints, as left in the blood-sealed state of revelation by Joseph Smith
and Hyrum his brother, who are a majority of the quorum of the first
presidency: and having also waited patiently for Elder Phelps or some of
the "Twelve" to give this "wandering star," of "cloud without water," a
just judgment, I take my pen in hand to apprise the church and public of
the fact, and offer a few remarks, and quote some revelations, which I
think will not be amiss. * * *
	The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and
incomings of so many apostates that nothing but truth has any effect upon
them. In the present instance, after the sham quotations if Sidney and his
clique, from the Bible, BOOK OF MORMON, and Doctrine and Covenants, to
skulk off, under the "dreadfuL splendor" of "spiritual wifery," which is
brought into the account as graciously as if the law of the land allowed a
man a pluraLity of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of Sidney's
revelation, just because he wanted "to go to Pittsburgh and live." Wo to
the man or men who will thus wilfully lie to injure an innocent people!
The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to
have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man's wife die, he has a
right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity: to the
living and the dead! There is no law of God or man against it! This is all
the spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they
know it. * * *
				AN OLD MAN OF ISRAEL

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 5:711-716)

20 Nov 1844:
(3) Alice Hardman was married to William Clayton.
(4) Jane Hardman was married to William Clayton.

(Genealogical Records Book #106)

[168]
2 Dec 1844, S. Bennett:
	How could we have certainly known, that Joseph Smith had
transgressed, so as to forfeit his standing before God, but by his being
cut off from the earth. There he was, the instrument whom God had chosen,
by whom he had revealed his will, through whom the everlasting gospel
saluted our ears and rejoiced our hearts, by whose instrumentality the
Book of Mormon was brought to light, and translated by the power of God;
administered to, and ordained under the hands of heavenly messengers;
declared by the voice of Jehovah to be in his hands, and that he should
continue to hold the presiding authority, until the coming of the Son of
Man, if he abided in him.
	We loved the man, and we have been willing to venture our life for
his, because we knew him to be an instrument in the hands of God, for the
accomplishment of his purposes. How then shall we describe the sorrow and
anguish of heart which we experienced when we found that he was teaching
the unholy spiritual wife doctrine secretly, and denying it openly; that
he was running against the bosses of Jehovah's buckler, by a direct
contravention of all those pure and virtuous principles, contained in that
book which had been brought to light by the manifestation of almighty
power, exhibited to him personally. * * *
	The great God has decreed that he would have a people of tried
integrity, that he would prove them in all things, to see whether they
would keep his covenant, if they could abide a celestial law, and were
meet for a celestial kingdom. One notable season of "trial as by fire" is
passing over our heads, and who shall be able to stand when we see how
many have already fallen, openly apostatized from the faith once delivered
to the saints, virtually denied the Bible, BOOK OF MORMON, and Book of
Covenants, and to all intents and purposes set at naught the counsels of
God; and are teaching as a celestial law that the highest degree of
celestial glory is only to be obtained by marrying three, five, seven,
ten, or more wives.

				S.BENNETT
[169]
(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 3:38-40)

15 Dec 1844, William Small:
St. Louis, Mo., Dec 15, 1844.

For the MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE:

	* * * It is not long since a difficulty existed between myself and
the church in this city, in consequence of the "spiritual wife" system, or
doctrine; it originated between Hyrum Smith and myself; I having become
acquainted with one of his "spiritual wives" in Lt. Louis: who informed me
of the fact herself, that she was married to Hyrum.
	I mentioned this at one time in Nauvoo, which soon reached Hyrum's
ears, and made him feel rather unpleasant towards me. * * *

(L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1 Jan 1845)

17 Dec 1844, Message of Gov. Ford:
To the honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives:
	As many versions of the disturbances during the last summer and fall,
in Hancock county, have gone abroad to the world, I have thought it proper
to state in a solemn and authentic form, everything connected with those
transactions which has come to my knowledge; and upon which I rely as the
truth.
	In addition to these causes of excitement, there were a great many
reports in circulation, and generally believed by the people; or at least,
they pretended to believe them. I mention these reports and rumors, not
because I had any evidence of their truth, but because they had a serious
influence in swelling public excitement.
	It was also believed that Joseph Smith had announced a revelation
from heaven, sanctioning polygamy, by some kind of spiritual wife system,
which I never could well understand; but at any rate, whereby a man was
allowed [170] one wife in pursuance of the laws of the country, and an
indefinite number of others, to be enjoyed in some mystical and spiritual
mode; and that he himself, and many of his followers had practiced upon
the precepts of this revelation, * * *
	I am very respectfully, Your ob't servant,
				THOMAS FORD
Springfield, Dec 17, 1844.

(Note: to relieve the Governor's mind, on this subject, we will just say
that the meaning of spiritual wife is, to be married for eternity, instead
of natural lifetime and should a man or woman die after they have been
married, they have a legal right to get married again; and would they do
it for eternity, especially a man, he must have spiritual wives.)

(see THE PROPHET, 8 Feb 1845, also the NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 1 Jan 1845, and
the WARSAW SIGNAL, 8 & 15 Mar 1845)

25 Dec 1844, William W. Phelps:
Nauvoo, Ill., Dec. 25, 1844.

Remembered Brother William Smith:
	You ask: "Why is it that the saints of the last times can have no
rest?" and I answer, because the world loves darkness rather than light,
and their deeds are evil. "Popularity now and ever," since the serpent was
cursed to crawl upon his belly through the loss of his feet, is, has been
and will be, the best kind of religion in use. Talk about holiness,
morality, temperance, humility, brotherly kindness and charity among the
refined polite nations of the world: why ever since Cain built a city for
the ungodly to revel in, for the polygamy of a Lamech; for the droving of
a Jabul; for the music saloon of a Jubal; and for the brass and iron
foundry, and bogus [171] machine of a Tubal Cain, the majority of mankind
have made money their faith; popularity their works, and persecution their
sincerest devotion of moral greatness.
	They that live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution, says
Paul; and so it is, and it always comes first from him that professes
godliness: Cain was a sectarian and could not admit revelation and hear
God say: "Well, Abel I have accepted thine offering;" and so he killed his
brother because the devil slily whispered in his ear: "It is blasphemy to
talk with God."
	Now the next generation could discover the wickedness of Cain, and
the holiness of Abel, but the same evil spirit whispered that was in a day
when revelation was necessary, but there is no need of it now, and it is
done away. We have followed the rules and regulations of those good men,
and O! if we had lived in their days, they should not have been killed:
but as for this fellow he is "unpopular," he blasphemes our God: he ought
to die, but we being compassionate and charitable, and feeling a warm
desire for the great cause of religion will advise him to quit his folly,
or delusion; and if he don't, we will punish him a little by stripes,
sword, dungeons, or banishment; and then if he does not stop, we will stop
him!
	O Lord God Almighty, when the prison doors of Tophet, Hell, and the
horrible pit are unlocked; and the entrance into outer darkness opened, to
bring the damned before the bar of the Judge of all the earth for the
final judgment, I think some few christians in company with their father
Cain and cousins of "popular" priesthood, from that day down to the
judgment trumpet, will I "grin horribly a ghastly smile"--Yes, we killed
the prophets and persecuted the saints, because they were not "popular."
Then your question will be answered. * * *
	Mormonism is the wonder of this world, and the great leveling machine
of creeds, constitutions, kingdoms, countries, divisions, notions,
notorieties and novelties; and praise it, talk about it, lie about it,
exalt it, hate it, persecute it, or laugh at it, still it is Mormonism,
true as heaven, powerful as Jesus, eternal as element, going on conquering
and to conquer.
	Have the mightiest men on earth reared monuments of [172] grandeur?
of glory? of duration? of splendor? of fame? of utility? or of admiration?
Joseph Smith has exceeded all their wisdom and greatness. He has brought
back the past and rolled up the future whereby the past, present, and
future exhibit their images like the skies over the ocean.
	Mormonism! O Mormonism! Nimrod, Homer, Pharoah, Cadmus, Alexander,
Nebuchadnezzar, Holofornes, Herod, Bonaparte, and an immense retinue of
other dignitaries, who have burst into being with pomp and glory, and made
a trembling world wonder at their cruelty and cunning. Where are the
pillars, the records, and the approvals of heaven, of all your greatness?

	"A heap of dust alone remains of thee,
	"`Tis all thou art and all the proud shall be,"

while Mormonism, from an Abel, though dead, yet speaketh; from an Elijah,
though translated in a fiery chariot to heaven, yet returns in glory with
Moses, and blesses Jesus at the transfiguration on the mount! O Mormonism!
Thy father is God, thy mother is the Queen of heaven, and so thy whole
history, from eternity to eternity, is the laws, ordinances and truth of
the "Gods"--embracing the simple plan of salvation, sanctification, death,
ressurrection, glorification and exaltation of man, from infancy to age,
from age to eternity, from simplicity to sublimity; from faith,
repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the
hands, to washing, anointing, holy conversation, baptism for the dead, to
the presence of angels, the general assembly and church of the first born;
to the unspeakable glory of seeing God and the Lamb, and to spirits of
just men made perfect, and to be ordained unto eternal life! * * *
	As Ever,
				W. W. PHELPS

(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 25 Dec 1844)

[173]
1845:
(4, 5) Clarissa and Emily Cutler were married to Heber C. Kimball in the
Nauvoo Temple.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 20)

(6) Lucy Walker, formerly a wife of Joseph Smith, was married to Heber C.
Kimball.

(ibid, p. 15)

(10) Margaret Pierce was married to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball
officiating.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 27)

1 Jan 1845, Sidney Rigdon:
	Among the churches we visited, there was a great deal of excitement;
many of the principle members had either withdrawn from the church or had
been cut off, and of this number were the presiding elders of the church
of Philadelphia, New York, Boston, New Egypt, N.J., and Woodstown, N.J. On
inquiring into the cause of the difficulties, in every instance, it was
the spiritual wife system which had caused the separation, and exclusion.
The course pursued by the advocates of this system, which were the
travelling elders, were, that as soon as a man became dissatisfied with
the teachings of these believers in polygamy, and was bold enough to
express his dissatisfaction, calling it incestrous, and adulterous, he or
she was immediately arraigned before the church, and charged with
disobedience to the authorities; and with slandering the heads of the
church; an awful appeal was made to the members of the church, at the time
of the trial, and every one who dare vote in favor of the person charged,
was threatened with immediate expulsion from the church by these tyrants,
and thus intimidated, and compelled to obey the mandate of their masters.
A not-[174]able instance of this was related to me while in Boston. Old
elder Nickerson, a man who was highly esteemed in Boston, and the father
of the church there; when this system, of a plurality of wives, first made
its appearance there, rose up against it, as every man of virtue would,
and was so deeply affected with it, that he wept over the corruption that
was creeping into the church, and declared his intention and
determination, to lift his voice against it; this was no sooner known,
than he was beseiged by two of the so called, authorities, and threatened
with exclusion, if he dare give testimony against those whom he had
declared he knew were guilty of great improprieties, such as called for
the interference of every virtuous man; and the old gentleman was so
intimidated by their threats, he shrunk from his duty, and instead of
discharging it, with a manly boldness, actually lifted his hand in favor
of those whose conduct he had previously deprecated in the strongest
terms. Every effort of this kind was made, that the most corrupt could
invent, to conceal this system from the public view. Others were cutoff in
private meetings, without their having any knowledge of it, till they were
informed by some runner sent for the purpose, that at such a meeting they
had been cut off from the church.
	Every person who was known to be opposed to this system, if he or she
could not be won over; or made to succomb by threats, were excluded, and
their characters assailed in a most outrageous manner in order to destroy
their influence, that their testimony might not be believed. By such
extraordinary means did the advocates of this system attempt to sustain
themselves; but it was all in vain, for concealment was no longer
possible, the truth has been made manifest, as Paul said it should, so
that the world now knows that every person, male or female, who adheres to
these leaders, do it because they are in favor of the system of a
plurality of wives, and for this cause they are found numbered with them.
Ignorance can no longer be plead. * * *

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 1 Jan 1845, see also THE WARSAW
SIGNAL, 18 Feb 1845)

[175]
9 Jan 1845:
(5) Diantha Farr was married to William Clayton.

(Genealogical Records Book #106)

Feb 1845:
(11) Olive Grey Frost, formerly the wife of Joseph Smith, was married to
Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 25)

20 Feb 1845, Sidney Rigdon:
For the MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE:

Mr. Editor, * * *
	On Thursday evening (20 Feb 1845) we gave the history of Nauvoo, and
the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we
traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all do know,
that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system
which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been
introduced, they might have been living men today. We had a fair
opportunity of setting before a large congregation the operations of that
system, and its effect on the people of Nauvoo; showing that it was the
inlet to all the corruptions which followed, such as bogus money making,
counterfeiting, stealing, lying, perjury, and a train of abominations. We
set before the people the plans used by the devotees of this system to
conceal their iniquity from public view, their lying and perjuries, to
ruin the characters of innocent persons, in order to hide their
corruptions from the public eye. The people there had heard of all these
abominations, but were not satisfied, and were very anxious for us to go
there, that they might know the truth of these reports. We think we can
say with confidence that the people were all satisfied, and expressed to
us great indignation at a people capable of such, enormities.
[176] An unexpected circumstance took place that evening, it was the
arrival of brethren William Law and William E. McLellan, from Hampton,
Rock Island County, Illinois. Brother Law addressed the congregation for
some time, setting forth what he knew about the people and the affairs at
Nauvoo; some of which were new to us. He settled the question forever on
the public mind, in relation to the spiritual wife system, and the
abominations concerning it. As Joseph Smith and others had attempted to
get him into it, and in order to do so had made him acquainted with many
things about it that we never knew before. The whole combined put the
matter at rest, and the public mind was quieted, and all doubts removed.

				SIDNEY RIGDON

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 15 Mar 1845)

22 Feb 1845, Parley P. Pratt:
For THE PROPHET:

THE APOSTATES AND MURDERERS.

	Why does THE PROPHET not reply to the slanders and abuses which are
heaped upon the saints by apostates, murderers, and their accomplices and
those who apologize for murder.
	Are the Saints so ignorant as not to know that, they are accused by
certain public journals of stealing, robbery, bogus making, polygamy,
adultery, and all other crimes?
	Why do they not reply to these gross charges? These questions
naturally arise in the minds of some of our brethren and friends.
Therefore we shall proceed to answer the inquiry once for all.
	In the first place, then, we neither have time nor means to reply to
such a constant flood of foul and malicious falsehoods as are continually
poured forth in torrents upon the heads of the Saints.
	In the second place, the people who publish them, and [177] those who
patronize such publications, do not want the truth, but would sooner have
a lie, as their express object is to procure the murder of all the men,
women and children of the Saints, which they verity believe they can do
effectually, by working upon the credulity of a prejudiced world.
	In the third place, those who love the truth and hate a lie, will
readily see the corrupt, unfeeling, cruel, partial, unjust, envious and
hateful spirit which is breathed forth and manifested in such
publications, and will know by their common sense, as well as by the
spirit manifested before their eyes that a large community of people
gathered into society from all classes, countries and ranks of life, would
have more conscience, more moral virtue than to be guilty of such crimes
as are charged to our entire people, at home and abroad.
	As a fourth and last reason for our silence on these subjects, we
would remind the public that all our actions, precepts, doctrines,
principles and publications are a direct reply to these slanderous abuses.
They all speak with a voice of thunder, that we, as a people, aim at
innocence, virtue and truth, white at the same time one has only to read
the publications of our enemies, to learn from themselves, that they aim
at murder and destruction. * * *

				P. P. PRATT

(THE PROPHET, 22 Feb 1845)

19 Mar 1845, William W. Phelps:
For the NEIGHBOR:

Mr Editor,
	I have viewed with a lively interest the progressive operations that
are making in the city of the Saints for the benefit of the poor, who may
feel disposed to adhere to the council of those, that God has appointed to
direct and guide the temporal and spiritual salvation of all those who may
enlist under their banner, to carry out the de-[178]signs that God had in
view, through our martyred Prophet.
	We have been persecuted at home and abroad, by evil and designing
men; they have heaped upon us all manner of complaints, and have used
their utmost exertions to sustain themselves in their practices of
wickedness and mob violence. We have avoided every principle of revenge,
nevertheless they have been made to feel that there is a God in Israel who
can shield us from all our foes; although we have been made to feet keen
sensations of sorrow, to hear the groans of the widows for their murdered
husbands, and the sighs of orphan children, in consequence of mob
violence, in murdering two of our best men; their equal cannot be produced
since the days of Christ and his Apostles; and alas their blood hangs upon
the escutcheon of this state which is stained, not only by shedding the
blood of innocence, but with murdering the anointed of the Lord; while we
have submitted to them with great forbearance, when we have had them in
our power, more than justice could claim or demand, hoping that they might
be made to feel and realise that we are human beings. But lo! they are not
satisfied with all this, but are sleeping in ambush to decoy and dream,
and lay plans and devise schemes to ensnare us; and thereby lead some more
of our best men down to destruction. * * *
	We once had a city charter granting to us the right of Habeus Corpus
to protect us from mob violence and injustice, giving us some pretext of
power, and because we had this as some shadow of protection, it must of
course be severed from us by the people of this philantropic state.
	We have waited for their deliberations by minding our own business;
but we have waited in vain, and consequently we have framed our own
Constitution, adopted our own laws, and have agreed to a habeas corpus for
ourselves, independent of Warsaw, or the great state of Carthage. And now,
we are a happy people. We have laws which no man can take from us; we have
rights which no lawyer can peck at, to prey upon our property; we have
keys and powers which are as deep as hell, high as heaven, broad as
eternity, which has a beginning but [179] no end, has beginning of days
but no end of years; for light cleaveth to light. Hence we have hope and
assurance, unshaken confidence, unlimited integrity, untarnished reliance
in those measures which have been adopted for our relief; which will hover
over our farmers, our stores, our factories, our rivers, our lakes, our
houses, our barns, our shops, our villages, our wives and our children;
and they can have no power to repeal them for it is a living Constitution
and not a dead one; it cannot be measured by gentile laws nor gentile
judgments, which cannot be bought by the price of gold, nor adulterated by
the allurements of wine nor facinated by flattering charms of vain
sophistry and vain ambition; nor erased from our memory, for it can speak,
it can communicate and deliberate upon things both new and old. And O ye
people of Illinois what plan can you devise to cheat us farmers and
mechanics out of an honest living, and you "can't come it."
	And as far as it concerns myself, ye people of Illinois, I say good
bye to your justice, good bye to all your legislative rights. As to
chartered tones and sounds of cymbals I want none of them. You have voted
down our city charter for no provocation received from us in violation of
the rights which you gave us; and we say go away with your old harrow
bush, for indeed we have paid too much for the whistle and we have
received not only four fold but fifteen fold, for as it had but one eye,
it has thirty; it has more legs, more arms, more bodies, more ears, more
mouths, and more life, which I consider far better for facilitating our
operations, for it can hear, it can see, it can talk, it can walk, it can
run, it can fight, and it can go and come at our bidding. It is a sum
ready set down, and ready paid; qualified to go and come at its pleasure.
And what more can I say in its approbation; it has been needy, and can
feel for the oppressed; it has been in bondage, and can realize the
glories of freedom; it has been whipped and abused, and can feel for all
that sympathetic philanthrophy that was in the bosom of our Savior, and
above all it is abrogated of God, then rejoice O ye farmers, and all ye
mechanics give heed to its councils, while hell muttereth one dismal groan
over the cin-[180]ders of her fallen greatness; in stretching forth her
self-made powers to take back our mouse made charter for the facilitating
the farmer and mechanic in their operations, and lo we have weighed it
(in) the balance of Mormon wisdom and found it wanting.

				R. A. MECHANIC

(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 19 Mar 1845)

Spring 1845:
(3) Rachel Andora Woolsey was married to John D. Lee.
(4) Louisa Free was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J.D. Lee, pp. 580, 514)

(4) Mary Ann Oakley was married to John Taylor.

(Roberts, LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Appendix)

6 Apr 1845, Brigham Young:
	The Lord has led this people all the while in this way, by giving
them here a little and there a little, thus he increases their wisdom, and
he that receives a little and is thankful for that shall receive more and
more, and more even to the fullness of the eternal Godhead: there is no
stopping place, but the weak capacity of man cannot understand it unless
the spirit of the eternal God is in their hearts, and then they can
comprehend but a little of it. In this is the glory, power, and excellency
of the gospel of the Son of God to poor weak finite man. Look, O ye
Latter-day Saints, at the nations of the earth, Christendom, look at them;
but look at ourselves (although we have received a great deal) yet who is
there here that has seen Jesus Christ, that have beheld angels, that have
conversed with the spirits of just men made perfect, and the assembly of
the church of Enock, and with God the judge of all? Who is there here that
has been caught up to the third heavens and gazed upon the order and glory
of [181] the celestial world? Don't you see brethren we have yet a great
deal to learn, but is it not our privilege to be filled with all the
fullness of Godliness? When you receive all that is for you, you will say,
"O the blindness of Christendom! O the ignorance of the world! !" Even the
Latter-day Saints that have assembled themselves together at the April
Conference in the year eighteen hundred and forty-five, will say, "What am
I?"
	Joseph in his life time did not receive every thing connected with
the doctrine of redemption, but he has left the key with those who
understand how to obtain and teach to this great people all that is
necessary for their salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom of
our God. We have got to learn how to be faithful with the few things, you
know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things we shall be made
rulers over many things. If we improve upon the small things, greater will
be given unto us. * * *
	I would now call your attention to some of the sayings of the apostle
Paul. I hope you will not stumble at them. Paul says, "Nevertheless,
neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man,
in the Lord, for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by
the woman, but all things of God." The same Apostle also says, "The woman
is the glory of the man." Now brethren, these are Paul's sayings, not
Joseph Smith's spiritual wife system sayings.
	And I would say, as no man can be perfect without the woman, so no
woman can be perfect without a man to lead her, I tell you the truth as it
is in the bosom of eternity; and I say so to every man upon the face of
the earth: if he wishes to be saved he cannot be saved without a woman by
his side. This is spiritual wifeism, that is, the doctrine of spiritual
wives.
	Lest these my sisters should think I give power into the hands of
their husbands to abuse them, I would say there is no man has a right to
govern his wife and family unless he does it after the order of the church
of Christ, unless he does it upon this principle he need not expect to
receive a celestial glory. He that does not govern as Jesus governs his
church, breaks his bonds and solemn obligations to his family. * * *
[182]
(TIMES AND SEASONS, 1 Jul 1845, 6:954-955)

15 Apr 1845, Sidney Rigdon:
A SERMON DEDICATED TO THE SAINTS OF THE LAST DAYS:

From the L.D.S. MESS. & ADV.

	"Let no man break the Laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws
of God, hath no need to break the laws of the land: wherefore be subject
to the powers that be, until He reigns whose right it is to reign, and
subdues all enemies under his feet." (Book of Covenants 18:5)

	The above text, which is taken from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants of the church demand the strictest attention of all who profess
to be members of the church of Christ. They were written particularly for
their use and benefit, and in every respect suited to their present and
future condition, be that as it may. It is said in the BOOK OF MORMON,
that the Lord had this government established for the purpose of building
his church under its protection, or words to this effect; clearly
intimating that the laws and institutions of the government were every way
suited to the end for which they were intended.
	If our text has any meaning at all, it established one fact beyond
controversy, that such are the laws of this land, that in order to obtain
salvation, it is not necessary to break them; that they are of a character
that every duty can be performed and requirement complied with, that is in
any way connected with our salvation, without violating in any degree or
trampling on the political institutions of the country.
	When the Lord said that he had given freedom to this nation, and
caused the government to be organized so as to make it a place suited for
building his church, he could have but one meaning, and that was, that in
this land he could build his church, without being brought into contact
with the municipal laws of the country; and [183] this view of the subject
is put for ever at rest by the words of our text. We are here told that
the commandments of the Lord do not come in contact with the laws of the
land, and no man who keeps them need break the laws. From the above view
of the subject, we learn firstly, that every commandment which renders it
necessary to break the laws of the land in order to keep it, is not of
God, or it was not given for salvation, And, secondly, that those who obey
such commandments, are not promoting the things of salvation. * * *
	The only object a God could have in establishing a government for the
benefit of any people, was that the people, for whose sake it was
organized, might be protected by its laws and institutions. In this case
it was said to be done for the purpose of establishing the laws of heaven
in it, and for the building up of the church of Christ in it. Now we ask
why establish a government for this purpose? No man can answer otherwise,
than that those who belonged to that church, when built, might be
protected by its laws and political institutions; for no other object but
this could be, that was worthy of God, yes, we might say of men; but
should it so happen, that in the course of events, the Lord should deliver
commandments which were in opposition to the laws of this land, and
thereby make the government punish those who obeyed them of what avail
would the government be? None, only to be an engine to inflict punishment
on those who obeyed the requirements of heaven; and pray what use was a
government of this description to those whom the Lord had separated to
himself? All must answer, none; but a great evil, a great curse. Are we,
then, to understand the Lord as saying, that he caused liberty to be
established on this land, that his church might be cursed in it, and the
blood of his saints shed? No man in his senses will or dare say it. * * *
	Hence we conclude, and we think justly too, that any commandment or
revelation that comes, in the last days, which is in opposition to the
laws of this land, is not of God, for God cannot contradict himself, or
else he ceases to be God, or else it is not given for salvation.
[184] In relation to the saints of the last days, we think there ought to
be but one opinion. The Lord, long before his church was established,
caused a government to be organized, which he said he did in order that
his church might be built up in it; and at an early day of its existence,
said that it was not necessary for his saints to break the laws of that
government in order to keep his commandments. From the view we have taken
of the way and manner of God's dealings with those who had gone before us;
we can see the limits which the Lord has set to his scheme of things
delivered to us; that he has bound himself within the limits of the laws
of this land in delivering his revelations to us. This he has done that
we, as the ancients, may also be able to guard ourselves against the
dissolute habits of prophets, and the corruptions of those who might seek
to oppress us. To this end he has placed the matter in a situation, that
the people may see and understand. He has set bounds to the field of
revelation, and told the saints that no revelation which is necessary for
their salvation, will be in violation of the laws of the land. * * *

(THE L.D.S. MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, 15 Mar 1845, pp. 161-167)

Wednesday 23 Apr 1845, Editorial:
From THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, John Taylor, Editor:

OUR RIGHTS:

	All men should be entitled to two kinds of rights:--natural and
artificial. Natural rights are embraced in life, liberty and the pursuits
of happiness. Artificial rights consist of powers granted by legislative
enactment; hence the machinery of government.
	Now for a case in point. The state of Illinois granted the City of
Nauvoo a charter of "perpetual succession," and that body had no more
right to repeal it than the United States would have to abrogate and make
void the Constitution of the state; or than Great Britain would have to
[185] abolish the Constitution of the United States, and the man that says
differently, is a coward, a traitor to his own rights and a tyrant; no
odds what Blackstone, Kent, or Story may have written to make themselves
and their names popular, to the contrary.
	If the Legislature granted a charter of "perpetual succession" and
they had no such power, they were a clan of knaves in high places: If they
had the power, then the Legislature that repealed the charter of
"perpetual succession" were a set of licensed robbers, plundering an
innocent people with impunity. Each body is welcome to the honor or
disgrace, hang upon which horn of the dilemma they please.
	The act repealing the Nauvoo charter, was an assumption of might not
a prerogative of right.
	Men do not enjoy all their rights in any government now existing.
They waive the right by appointing men to make laws for the safety and
convenience of the whole, allowing the majority to govern. But this is no
criterion, or standard to suit the wants and capacities of the people.
Every man is above the law, and can act as he pleases if he does not
interfere with his neighbor's right.
	This is clearly taught in the great foundation of all law, the ten
commandments. Human law, the artificial contrivance of the intellect, is
not binding upon any honest man; nor should it be any more than the creeds
and dogmas of bigots. Laws are for transgressors.
	The Legislature have repealed the Nauvoo charter; and what then? Why
in so doing, the people of Nauvoo are left to their own resourses. Instead
of being protected, they have been plundered with impunity. Who is to bear
the loss of the private rights which have been infringed upon by this
repeal? Can a private individual sue a Sovereign State? Where will the
Lieutenant General, the Major Generals, etc., take rank according to their
grade and date of commission? There is no discharge in this war: these
questions will have to be answered, and the foundation and stability of
the government tried.
	Men have a right to petition and protest, and if either is unheeded
by those entrusted with powers, they, the [186] people, (oppressed) have
what is denominated the reserved right of protecting themselves from
insult.
	Nor is it less legal for an insulted individual or community to
resist oppression. For this reason, until the blood of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith has been atoned for, by hanging, shooting, or staying in some
manner, every person engaged in that cowardly, mean assassination, no
Latter-day Saint should give himself up to the law: for the presumption
is, that they will murder him in the same manner. The government has not
redeemed the broken faith of the State; but upon the contrary, allowed an
indicted murderer to sit in the legislative halls, whereby the whole state
becomes accessory to the crime! The partaker is as bad as the thief.
	Neither should civil process come in to Nauvoo, till the United
States, by a rigorous effort, causes the state of Missouri and the state
of Illinois to redress every man that has suffered the loss of lands,
goods, or any thing else, by expulsion and the robbery from the one state
and martyrdom and state plunder in the other. Commissioners can be
appointed to regulate, where the clandestine forms of law might require
the strange work of God to rebut it.
	Let it be proclaimed to the ends of the earth that the lives of the
Saints are their own property, and that they are bound to protect them,
and that they will in the name of Israel's God.
	If any man is bound to maintain the law, it is for the benefit he may
derive from it. No man can be compelled in a free country, to support a
law that deprives him of his natural rights, when, enjoying them is no
disadvantage to his neighbor. "Thus," says Blackstone, "the statute of
King Edward IV, which forbade the fine gentlemen of those times (under the
degree of Lord) to wear pikes upon their boots and shoes of more than two
inches in length, was a law that savored of oppression."
	Well, our charter is repealed; the murderers of the Smiths are
running at large, and if the Mormons should wish to imitate their
fore-fathers, and fulfil the scriptures making it "hard to kick against
the pricks," by wearing cast steel pikes about four or five inches long
[187] on their boots and shoes, to kick with, that's the harm?

(THE NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, 23 Apr 1845)

Wednesday 30 Apr 1845, Editorial:
From THE WARSAW SIGNAL, Thomas Sharp, Editor:

THE CURTAIN LIFTED:

	Above, we publish from the last NAUVOO NEIGHBOR an article headed
"OUR RIGHTS," which discloses, in language not to be mistaken, the true
principles of Mormonism in relation to law. The avowals now made, by the
official organ of Mormonism, corresponds precisely with what we have ever
charged as the true tenets of that sect. We have always said that
Mormonism has for its object and aim the subversion of all law and the
establishment of a despotism founded on the will of the leaders of the
Church. This is now unblushingly avowed. "Human law," says the NEIGHBOR,
"the artificial contrivance of intellect is not binding upon any honest
man; nor should it be any more than the creeds and dogmas of bigots." If
human law is not binding what is? "The divine law," quoth the Mormon, "as
revealed through our prophets and high priests." This is Mormonism to the
life.
	The organ of the Mormons now tells the world that neither civil or
criminal process should be served in Nauvoo until all their monstrous
demands are complied with, demands that no rational man can think of
satisfying. Law of no law, they require certain things to be done in
justice to themselves, and will only submit to law on condition of a
strict compliance. * * *
	Here they require every man engaged in the killing of the Smiths to
be put to death, in some manner, either lawfully or unlawfully. Now we
ask, how is the fact of a man's being implicated to be ascertained? By a
jury or by the suspicions of Mormons? Can any thing be clearer than that
the intention of the Mormon leaders is to take the law into their own
hands and send out their assassins [188] to accomplish whatever they
desire if the law does not operate to the full extent of their wishes? "By
hanging, shooting or slaying in some manner," quote the NEIGHBOR. What
does this averment amount to? Why it is either a threat that the persons
engaged in the killing of the Smiths, shall be killed, legally or
illegally; or else a threat against the people to put all their laws at
defiance.
	But the NEIGHBOR does not stop here. It advises every Mormon to be
prepared to resist civil officers. Now we ask the People of the State, can
you endure that a band of outlawed villians, who follow the practice of
the most abominable crimes for a profession, shall dictate to you the
terms on which they will consent to obey your laws? Can you suffer a gang
of unprincipled cut throats to threaten the lives of citizens because the
law may fail to do all required of it by men who openly avow that the law
is not binding on them? Can you quietly stand by and suffer a pack of
fanatical scoundrels, who have been driven from every neighborhood where
they have before settled, to come amongst you and abuse and insult the
State and the United States by the application of every opprobrious
epithet, that can be found within their ample slang vocabulary, abuse and
insult your civil officers, and even threaten to arm themselves to visit
vengeance upon them for presuming to do their duty within the city.
	Fellow citizens, of the surrounding counties, have you one drop of
American blood in your veins, and can you endure these insults to your
State, this treason to your laws, the abuse of your officers and the
threats of illegal violence to peaceable citizens? We pause for a reply.

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 30 Apr 1845)

(12) Emmeline Free was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 26)

[189]
1 May 1845:
From the TIMES AND SEASONS.

Note:
	As to "Israel" we think the Prophet Isaiah told the truth, when he
said, "for Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect" I will make
thee the head and not the tail. And Ezekiel and John told the truth too,
for "Israel" as its true meaning is, will prevail.
	For once let us say, that Cain, who sent to Nod and taught the
doctrine of a "plurality of wives;" and the giants who practiced the same
iniquity; and Nimrod, who practiced the common stock system, and the Jews,
who commences crossing sea and land to make proselytes without revelation;
and the christian sects, who have went all lengths in building up churches
and multiplying systems, without authority from God, are all co-workers on
the same plan: when the reward for every man's work is given, this will be
the everlasting answer to all sects, sorts, and conditions, from Cain down
to Christian Israelites, I NEVER KNEW YOU! (Ed.)

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 6:887-888)

From the KALAMAZOO (Mich.) GAZETTE.

MORMONISM UNVEILED:

Dear Sir:
	To condemn unheard, any man or set of men or their principles, on the
strength of popular rumor, or the testimony of enemies, would be gross
injustice. An impartial investigation should always precede condemnation.
The Latter-day Saints are charged by their enemies, with the blackest
crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many
crimes laid to their charge. The press reiterates and gives publicity to
these charges. Under these circumstances, it is but right, that they
should be heard in their defence. I shall therefore, in this
communication, briefly examine and [190] refute a few of the charges, for
it would need a legion of writers to answer all the lies told about us. *
* *
	As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly
enforced. Article Marriage, Sed. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this
church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and
polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have but one
wife, and one woman but one husband except in case of death when either is
at liberty to marry again." Sec. 13, par. 7. "Thou shalt love thy wife
with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and none else." In ancient
days the church was troubled with traitors, and always will be till God
cleanses the earth, and restores the government of his Son. Paul says he
was in perils among false brethren; again he says, "know this that, in the
last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be traitors, false
accusers, incontinent, fierce despisers of those that are good." No wonder
then that apostates rage or that the fulness of truth revealed again
should bring a storm of persecution. * * *

	Yours, &c.,
				E. M. WEBB

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 6:893 -895)

Wednesday 7 May 1845:
From the WARSAW SIGNAL.

Further Resistance of Law Advocated:

	The NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, of April 23, (the official paper of the Mormons)
contains several articles advocating a violation of the laws of the United
States. We trust that no friend of order, law, and justice, whether he be
Mormon or anti-Mormon, will listen for a moment to such doctrines. The
editor of the NEIGHBOR, Mr. John Taylor, was with the Smiths, at Carthage
Jail, at the [191] time of their atrocious murder, but fortunately escaped
with his life. Since that time, his feelings have evidently got the better
of his judgment. He advises the people of Nauvoo to resist the ordinary
serving of a civil process for debt in the form of a summons conveyed by a
Marshal of the United States.
	The Mormons are advised, by their organ, to resist the serving of a
civil process from the United States, until that government causes the
States of Missouri and Illinois "to redress every man that has suffered
the loss of lands, goods, martyrdom," &c.
	This is all wrong. No man, or set of men, are justified in resisting
the serving of legal process, on any pretence whatever, except in due
course of law: and, if the people of Nauvoo follow such advice, it will
cause them more trouble than they are aware of. The law is supreme, and
must be obeyed. If the officer is resisted, it becomes his duty to report
the fact to his superior; and, ultimately, if process could not be served
otherwise, it would be done at the point of the bayonet of the U. S.
troops. No good citizen, whether he be Mormon or anti-Mormon, can desire
to push matters to such an extremity as this.
	But the editor of the NEIGHBOR wholly misunderstands the power and
duties of the U.S. Government, in regard to the States. That government
has no power, by a "rigorous effort," or any other description of effort,
to compel the States of Missouri and Illinois to redress the losses of
individuals or communities. The States are sovereign; they are not under
the control of the United States' Government. Neither the Constitution or
laws of the United States authorise that government to interfere. The
losses of the Mormons in Missouri, and the wrongs done to them by lawless
men in Illinois, can only be redressed in the courts of justice, in due
course of law.

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 7 May 1845)

[192]
Saturday 24 May 1845, Parley P. Pratt:
	This number closes the first volume of the PROPHET. It will now be
discontinued a few weeks, to wait for subscriptions sufficient to warrant
its further publication.
	Again, beware of seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, as first
introduced by John C. Bennett, under the name of the "Spiritual Wife"
doctrine; and still agitated by the Pittsburgh Seer, and his followers
under the same title.
	It is but another name for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection,
and every kind of confusion, corruption, and abomination.
	Should any elder or member, come unto you professing to hold to any
such doctrine or practice, either secretly or publicly, you may be sure he
is not of God; and it becomes your duty to reject him, and report him to
the church where he is responsible for his doctrine and conduct. If this
is done and testimony adduced he will be immediately disfellowshipped, and
expelled from the church.
	For know assuredly that no one has been authorized to teach,
practice, or introduce any such doctrine in any of the branches of the
church. Nor is there any such doctrine known, held, or practised, as a
principle of the Latter-day Saints.
	If a man has a wife according to the law of God and the regulations
of the church, she is his real wife, body, soul, spirit, heart, and hand,
and not his "Spiritual Wife," she is bound to love, honor, obey him as her
lord, head, and ruler, and to devote all her energies to the mutual
welfare of her husband, herself and family. In short, to use the language
of Paul, she should, if possible, "bear children; guide the house, and
give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." On the other
hand the husband of a woman is bound to be her real husband; to provide
for his wife and children, and to be their head and father, and bring them
up in the fear, and love, and truth of God, as did Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob of old.
[193] As to sealings, and covenants, to secure the union of parents,
children and companions in the world to come, of in the resurrection; it
is a true doctrine, and as holy and pure as the throne of God, having
eminated from his own bosom. Its laws are strict, and it admits of no
confusion, unlawful connection, or unvirtuous liberties. It is calculated
to exalt society to the highest degree of happiness, union, purity,
fidelity, virtue, confidence, and love, in this world and in that which is
to come. It is, in short, a principle so high, so holy, and so pure that
it can never be secured short of a compliance with the commandments of
God, not only by a virtuous course of life, but by a strict observance of
his commandments in regard to tithing, building the Temple, and the orders
of endowment.
	And there is not a more unlawful, and unjustifiable principle in
existance, and one more calculated to injure and destroy the church than
the principle of seeking to enjoy those blessings, in the wrong place and
time, that is to say, without complying with the requisitions of heaven;
to build the Temple, and gather together there for our endowment, and for
our preparation for the most holy things.
	In short, nothing pertaining to the fulness of the priesthood, and to
covenants and preparations for eternal union and exaltation, can be
secured short of a strict compliance with all the duties enjoined upon the
saints in regard to the Temple, etc.
	How frequently a man and his wife, or a young couple about to be
married, present themselves to me, with a request to be sealed to each
other; that is, married for eternity. Do I ever grant their request? No;
for the best of all reasons. I have no authority so to do under present
circumstances; and, were I to do it, it would only be deceiving them; as
such a sealing would not stand, or be recognized in the resurrection;
unless performed according to the strict law of God, and of the keys of
the sealing powers, and in connection with the ordinances of endowment
which belongs to God's Sanctuary, and no where else.
	Did I ever pretend to administer such a seal or cove-[194]nant,
independant of those conditions? No, never.
	The little that I do on the earth, as an agent for Jesus Christ,
shall be done according to his laws, and mind, and will; and shall stand,
though heaven and earth shall pass away.
	These holy and sacred ordinances have nothing to do with whoredoms,
unlawful connections, confusion or crime; but the very reverse. They have
laws, limits, bounds of the strictest kind, and none but the pure in
heart, the strictly virtuous, or those who repent and become such, are
worthy to partake of them. And an awful curse--a dreadful weight of
condemnation await those who pervert, or abuse them.
	The "Spiritual Wife Doctrine" of J. C. Bennett, and numerous other
apostates, is as foreign from the real principles of the church as the
devil is from God, or as sectarianism is from christianity.
	Beware then, all ye saints, and ye watchmen of Zion: follow no such
men; but follow the principles and examples set before you, by such men as
Elders Benson, Brown, and others of like spirit, which have been sent
among you. And I believe I can with propriety say, follow me, and my
precepts and example, for I have in all things taught you the true
principles of Godliness and salvation, wherever I have associated with
you.
	In so doing you will be blessed, gathered, anointed, sealed,
sanctified, and saved in the celestial kingdom of our God.
				P. P. PRATT

(THE PROPHET, 24 May 1845)

12 Nov 1845, William Smith:
St. Louis, Nov. 12, 1845.

To Mr. Orson Hyde, of Nauvoo: * * *
	I am now prepared openly and boldly, to expose every secret evil
which is practised by Brigham Young and his brother leaders at Nauvoo, and
elsewhere. * * *
[195] It is needless for me to enlighten you further upon the character of
B. Young, John Taylor, W. Richards, and many others who are continually
preaching the doctrine, and openly practising adultery; for this you know
too well. * * *
	And by the too frequent use of their names, the twelve are carrying
out the most wicked, base and unhallowed purposes that could be devised
under the cloak of Joseph and Hyrum's names. Brethren! be assured that
Joseph or Hyrum never would have sanctioned the present wicked plans of
the twelve; their corruption, their sink of iniquity, their removal to the
wilderness, their doctrine of polygamy, usurpation, &c. * * *
	I will conclude by earnestly hoping that you will come as a humble
penitent, seeking forgiveness, that you may find mercy while it is called
to-day. Flee, I say, flee the wrath to come, and wash your hands of all
iniquity, and give your aid to the rebuilding of the pure and original
principles of the religion and kingdom of Jesus Christ, as taught by my
brothers Joseph and Hyrum.
	Your well wisher and friend, in all good works.
				WM. SMITH

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 26 Nov 1845)

Dec 1845:
(7) Amanda Trimble Gheen was married to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo
Temple.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 31)

11 Dec 1845:
(5) Nancy Bean was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J.D. Lee, p. 495)

[196]
1845 -1846:
(6) Martha Elizabeth Berry was married to John D. Lee.
(7) Polly Ann Workman was married to John D. Lee.
(8) Delthea Morris was married to John D. Lee.

(ibid, pp. 620, 619, 623 resp.)

(8) Prescindia L. Huntington, formerly the wife of Joseph Smith, was
married to Heber C. Kimball.
(9) Ruth Reese was married to Heber C. Kimball.
(10) Theresa Morley was married to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo Temple.

(Carter, HEBER C, KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY pp. 16, 17, 26 resp.)

1846:
	Early this year the Saints commenced to leave Nauvoo, fleeing from
the mob.

Jan 1846:
(11) Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, wife of Dr. Winsor P. Lyon, was seated
for eternity to Joseph Smith and for time to Heber C. Kimball with the
full consent of Dr. Lyon in a special sealing that was performed for
spiritual reasons and did not constitute a husband and wife relationship
in this life.
(12) Sarah Lawrence was married to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo Temple,
Brigham Young officiating.

(ibid, pp. 39, 37 resp.)

(13) Maria Lawrence was married to Brigham Young.
(14) Ellen Rockwood was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 29)

(2) Sarah Longstroth was married to Willard Richards.
[197]
(Utah Geneal. and Hist. Mag. 1:58-60)

1 Jan 1846:
(13) Mary Houston Smith was married to Heber C. Kimball.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY p. 28)

7 Jan 1846:
(14, 15) Sarah and Harriet Sanders were married to Heber C. Kimball in the
Nauvoo Temple, Brigham Young officiating. (ibid, p. 22-23)

20 Jan 1846, Good Council:
From the NEW YORK MESSENGER.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

	The devices of Satan are on many occasions of the most ingenious
character, and come upon us with a delicacy and refinement that mark
emphatically "From what height the tempter felt." For instance, an
individual naturally gifted with more than usual abhorence of evil,
becomes convinced of the principles of eternal truth, and obeys the
gospel. Perhaps after revelling, as it were, for a season in the light of
the glorious principles of truth, he becomes exceedingly jealous of the
conduct and character of his brethren and sisters in the church, lest by
some false step or other a stigma may be brought upon the cause which he
has espoused; consequently he sets himself on the watch to detect the
failings of others, deeming that he is doing God service in being so
employed, and thus he is decoyed into the occupation of the great spirit
of evil, to be the accuser of the brethren. And during the time thus
occupied by him, he considers himself ac-[198]tuated by the purest of
motives, arising from a detestation of sin; and so undoubtedly would it
prove, were the ground of his actions good, were he appointed of the Lord
by the authority of the holy priesthood so to act, he would be in the path
of duty. But when any one presumes, (not having authority) to sit as a
censor and a judge of the people of God, he will find himself in the seat
of Satan, assuming authorities that are not legitimately his. Again,
persons are sometimes troubled, with the voice of slander; they have been
evil spoken of--it is too bad--it ought not to be--they think it their
duty to bring forward their case for the investigation of the council--the
cause of truth demands it--the welfare of the work of the Lord--all things
call upon them to have the matter settled satisfactorily by those who have
the power to do so. We would not say in every case such a proceeding is
not necessary, but we would that in very few cases it is so.
	How much more noble it would be for the person thus injured, knowing
the accusations to be false, to suffer the injury, being conscious that
all things, good or evil, will work to their own level, and ultimately
manifest themselves in their true colors, rather than introduce the
subject to a multitude whose various feelings or prejudices may excite
opposition and give to the adversary a manifold opportunity of working
mischief.

(TIMES AND SEASONS, 6:1103)

21 Jan 1846:
(15) Martha Bowker was married to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball
officiating.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 30)

(3) Nanny Longstroth was married to Willard Richards.

(Utah Geneal. and Hist. Mag., 1:58-60)

[199]
26 Jan 1846:
(16) Martha McBride Knight, formerly the wife of Joseph Smith, was married
to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo Temple.
(17) Sarah Stiles was married to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo Temple.

(Carter, HEBER C, KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY pp. 27, 37 resp.)

(16) Naamah K. J. Carter (Twiss) was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 28)

3 Feb 1846:
(18) Nancy Mariah Winchester was married to Heber C. Kimball.
(19) Sarah Scott was married to Heber C. Kimball.

(Carter, HEBER C. KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY pp. 17,34.)

7 Feb 1846:
(20) Rebecca Swain Williams was married to Heber C. Kimball in the Nauvoo
Temple.

(ibid, p. 36)

15 Apr 1846:
(2) Mary Ann Jackson was married to Wilford Woodruff.

(Cowley, LIFE OF WILFORD WOODRUFF, p. 689)

30 Apr 1846:
	The Nauvoo Temple was dedicated privately. Elder [200] Joseph Young
offered the dedicatory prayer.

(9) Sarah Caroline Williams was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J.D. Lee, p. 515)

14 Oct 1846:
(17) Margaret M. Alley was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 30)

Saturday 21 Nov 1846:
From the WARSAW SIGNAL:

OUR COUNTRY:

	Now that the Mormons are gone, our long harrassed citizens may turn
their attention, in peace, to the improvement of their farms and villages
and to the populating of our vacant lands. Such has been the state of
affairs in Hancock for the last six years, that our people scarcely knew
by what tenure they held their homes, and therefore, were discouraged from
making energetic efforts towards improvement, which are essential to the
prosperity of a new country.
	Now that peace is restored we hope to see with it a return to
prosperity. In order to (do) this, it becomes every citizen to use all his
endeavors to induce the proper kind of men to emigrate and settle amongst
us. Our county possesses advantages greater than any other in the State,
and holds out more inducements for the man of capital than any other spot
in the West. The superiority of our location, both for trade and
manufacturing are briefly but clearly set forth in the letter copied on
the first page of today's paper, to which we call the particular attention
of our readers. * * *

(THE WARSAW SIGNAL, 21 Nov 1846)

[201]
21 Dec 1846:
(10) Emoline Vaughn was married to John D. Lee.

(Henrie, Desc. of J.D. Lee, p. 623)

27 Feb 1847:
(11) Nancy (Gibbons) Armstrong was married to John D. Lee.
(12) Mary (Polly) Vance Young was married to John D. Lee.
(13) Lavina Young was married to John D. Lee.

(ibid, pp. 624, 625, 661 resp.)

Mar 1847:
(18) Lucy Bigelow was married to Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 31)

23 Apr 1847:
(5) Sophia Whitaker was married to John Taylor at winter quarters.

(Roberts, LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Appendix)

24 Jul 1847:
	The main body of the first company of pioneers entered the Salt Lake
Valley.

4 Dec 1847:
(6) Harriet Whitaker was married to John Taylor at Salt Lake City.

(ibid, Appendix)

[202]
19 Dec 1847:
(3) Elizabeth Rebecca Ashby was married to Erastus Snow.

(Utah Geneal. and Hist. Mag., 3:64)

27 Dec 1847:
	Brigham Young was unanimously sustained as President of the Church,
with Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards as his counsellors.

29 Jun 1849:
(21) Eliza R. Snow, formerly a wife of Joseph Smith, was married to
Brigham Young.

(Crockwell, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, p. 36)

15 Jan 1850:
From the MILLENNIAL STAR:

WHO IS THE LIAR?

	In order to prove my statements made at Northampton in December 1849,
and to clear myself, I have taken the following list of lies from Mr.
Bowes's Book * * *
10th LIE:
	That Elder Wheelock has three wives.
10th REFUTATION:
	Elder Wheelock and friends denounce this slanderous charge to be the
blackest of falsehoods, and its propagator, John Bowes, to be of the same
stamp. Elder Wheelock with his wife, is now in England. I can give the
address. * * *

12th LIE:
	Joseph Smith taught a system of polygamy.
[203]
12th REFUTATION:
	The Revelations given through Joseph Smith, state the following: "If
any commit adultery, they shall be dealt with according to the law of
God." Page 127. "He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her; or if any
commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit." Page
150. "Thou shalt love thy wife, and shalt cleave unto her, and none else."
Page 124. "We believe that one man should have one wife," Doctrine and
Covenants page 331.

13th LIE:
	That Joseph Smith tried to seduce Martha Brotherton.
13th REFUTATION:
	Mr Bowes knows that Martha Brotherton's sister sent a letter, stating
that Martha was a liar; William Clayton did the same. Both are published
in the MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 3, pages 73, 74. * * *

	The public are informed, that most of John Bowes's objections are
replied to in a book entitled, MORMONISM TRIUMPHANT, price 4d., which may
be had, with other publications on Mormonism, at our meeting-room, Castle
Street. The lovers of truth, after reading and hearing both sides of the
question, will treat John Bowes and his book with the contempt he so
justly deserves. "He that speaketh lies shall perish."
				THOMAS SMITH,

	Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Northampton.

(MILLENNIAL STAR, 12:29-31)

1850, John Taylor:
	From a pamphlet entitled THREE NIGHTS' PUBLIC DISCUSSION between the
Revds, C. W. Cleeve, James Robertson, and Philip Cater, and Elder John
Taylor, * * * at Boulogne-Surmer, France.
[204] We have had a terrible account about the murder of Governor Boggs, I
suppose given by the Rev. Mr. Caswell. Ex-Governor Boggs is now living in
California, at the gold mines. But I suppose he must be dead, because a
reverend gentleman said so. Mr. Robertson has told us of a certain editor,
who was afraid to pollute his paper with remarks made by some of the
gentlemen before referred to. It certainly would have been more to the
credit of the persons concerned, notwithstanding they had no regard for
the truth, if they had had a little more regard for delicacy; and with all
due deference, I must say, that men of the profession and calling of my
opponents, would have displayed a little more taste, if they had possessed
a little more of that delicacy of feeling which actuated the editor. We
are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene,
and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
contrived, these things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore
leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the
other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their
authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views
of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of
the articles of our Faith: (see article on "Marriage" under date 1835 as
taken from the Doctrine and Covenants)

15 Mar 1850, Eli B. Kelsey:
A BASE CALUMNY REFUTED:

Dear Brother Pratt,
	I spent a day or two in Manchester a few weeks since. Whilst there I
was shown a large bill purporting to have been issued by a Mr. Paul
Harrison, who styles himself "formerly an Elder of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter -day Saints," * * *
	Upon enquiry I ascertained that he was formerly a member of the
church, but was excommunicated some time since for adultery and other
transgressions; and now, like Satan after he fell from heaven, he is going
[205] about and bringing railing accusations against the Saints. He is
accompanied by two women, one of whom, I suppose, is his wife, while the
other holds the station of female friend. Whilst he is lecturing, one of
them stands at the door to receive the pennies, and the other is engaged
in hawking pamphlets, purporting to contain copious extracts from a work
entitled THE PEACE MAKER, which he says was written and published by
Joseph Smith, in Nauvoo, sometime in 1842, in proof of which he exhibits
an original copy, with Mr. Smith's name attached as printer.
	It is this last crowning falsehood that has led me to notice him. Was
it not that I am desirous that no honest-hearted man or woman should be
deceived with regard to the origin of this book, and thus be led to
associate the name of Joseph Smith with such a nonsensical medly of stuff
as it contains, I should consider it entirely unnecessary to pay the least
attention whatever to the low scurrilous mess of balderdash of which both
his lectures and pamphlets are made up.
	Sometime previous to the year 1842, Mr. Smith established a printing
office in the city of Nauvoo, for the purpose of printing the various
publications of the church, and executing fob work for the convenience of
the public. He placed a foreman over it to take charge of the printing
department, and although the business was done in his name, it was
frequently the case that he was not inside the office once a month. A Mr.
Udney H. Jacobs, not a member of the church, who lived a short distance
from Nauvoo, came to the office and wished the foreman to print several
hundred copies of a work entitled THE PEACE MAKER, written by himself. The
foreman did so, and of course attached Mr. Smith's name as printer, who
was entirely ignorant of the matter until he saw the work in print with
his name attached. Feeling indignant that his name should be associated,
even in the character of printer, with the author of such a work, he
immediately published an article in the TIMES AND SEASONS, vol. 4, page
32, dated Dec. 1st, expressive of his feelings, that there might be no
mis-understanding of the matter in the mind of any person whatever. * * *
[206] Taking it for granted that enough has been written upon this
subject, I close by subscribing myself,
	Your brother in the gospel of peace,
				ELI B. KELSEY

(MILLENNIAL STAR, 12:92)

3 Oct 1850:
(22) Eliza Burgess was married to Brigham Young.

11 Oct 1850:
(6) Augusta Brablock was married to William Clayton.

(Genealogical Record Book # 106)

5 Mar 1851, Udney Hay Jacob:
To the Hon. Brigham Young:

Dear Sir,
	I have been credibly informed that you entertained suspicions that I
wrote the papers posted on the bowry over the signature of Elijah. I am
grieved that you have had such thoughts of me. * * * I cannot imagine why
you suspected me unless it was that I wrote a pamphlet some years since
entitled THE PEACE MAKER. You have certainly a wrong idea of that matter.
I was not then a member of this church, and that pamphlet was not written
for this people but for the citizens of the United States who professed to
believe the Bible. At the same time it was an apology for this people who
were accused by them of polygamy. I have no higher ambition than to be a
peaceable citizen and an humble member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, and hope to lay my bones among you in peace.
	From your humble friend and brother,
[207]
				UDNEY H. JACOB.

(See B. Y. U. Studies, vol. 9, #1, Autumn, 1968)

11 Jul 1851, Thomas L. Kane:
From a letter to President Millard Fillmore:

The President, (Personal)
Philadelphia, July 11, 1851,
My dear Sir,
	I trust the accompanying letter meets your views, and that I have not
erred in supposing you to require of me, not an elaborate argument in
vindication of Governor Young, and disproof of Mormon libels in general,
but simply a repetition of my oral statement in responsible form and over
my own signature. At least, you will not accuse me of being non-commital.
* * *
	The remaining charge connects itself with that unmixed outrage, the
spiritual wife story, which was fastened on the Mormons by a poor ribald
scamp, whom, though the sole surviving brother and representative of their
Jo. Smith, they were literally forced to excommunicate for his
licentiousness, and who thereupon revenged himself by editing confessions
and disclosures of savor to please the public that peruses the works in
yellow paper covers.
	Young is a hard working, conscientious, well tried man, whose erotic
inclinations may fitly match those of the Utah Church Patriarch, a
venerable octogenarian, and long respected Presbyterian elder, who also
stands accused of the appetite for Eleusinian frolic. Young is fortunate
in his family, too. I remember him wrapped up in his youngest child, an
infant, whose health was suffering from the hardships of the march; and I
recollect also that he had a son of the finest promise. Withall, he is so
true a fellow, and has so much else to look after, being consulted by his
people, as it seemed to me, upon nearly every emergency, from an Indian
foray to a broken leg or a funeral, that I suspect he pays no manner of
heed to any sort of abuse. His wife, however, who comes of a very
respectable New England stock, chari-[208]table as St. Bridget, and proud
of her husband as Queen Victoria, frets I am told, as pious women will do
in such cases, over every fresh piece of nastiness, as if it were an awful
and dignified message of Providential chastisement. * * *
	I am, Sir, Very respectfully and truly,
	 	Your friend and servant.
				THOMAS L. KANE

(THE MILLENNIAL STAR, 13:343-344)

29 Aug 1852, Brigham Young:
	You heard brother Pratt state, this morning, that a revelation would
be read this afternoon, which was given previous to Joseph's death. It
contains a doctrine, a small portion of the world is opposed to; but I can
deliver a prophecy upon it. Though that doctrine has not been practised by
the Elders, this people have believed in it for years.
	The original copy of this revelation was burnt up; William Clayton
was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime,
it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it,
which Brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I
mention this, is, because that the people who did know of the revelation,
suppose it is not now in existence.
	The revelation will be read to you. The principle spoken upon by
brother Pratt, this morning, we believe in. And I tell you, for I know it,
it will sail over, and ride triumphantly above all the prejudice and
priestcraft of the day; it will be fostered and believed in by the more
intelligent portions of the world, as one of the best doctrines ever
proclaimed to any people. Your hearts need not beat; you need not think
that a mob is coming here to tread upon the sacred liberty which the
Constitution of our country guarantees unto us, for it will not be. The
world have known, long ago, even in Brother Joseph's [209] days, that he
had more wives than one. One of the Senators in Congress knew it very
well. Did he oppose it? No! but he has been our friend all the day long,
especially upon that subject. He said pointedly to his friends, "If the
United States do not adopt that very method, let them continue as they now
are, pursue the precise course they are now pursuing, and it will come to
this, that their generations will not live until they are 30 years old;
they are going to destruction; disease is spreading so fast among the
inhabitants of the United States, that they are born rotten with it, and
in a few years they are gone." Said he, "Joseph has introduced the best
plan for restoring and establishing strength and long life among men, of
any man on the earth; and the Mormons are a very good and virtuous
people."
	Many others are of the same mind; they are not ignorant of what we
are doing in our social capacity. They have cried out, "Proclaim it;" but
it would not do, a few years ago; everything must come in its time, as
there is a time to all things. I am now ready to proclaim it.
	The revelation, now D.&C. 132, was then read.

(THE MILLENNIAL STAR, 15:28-36)

18 Feb 1855, Brigham Young:
	All people are in the hands of the Almighty, and He governs and
controls them, though they cannot perceive, neither do they acknowledge,
His handy-work. He exalts the President to be the head of the nation, and
places kings upon their thrones. There is not a man that escapes His
cognizance, and He brings forth His purposes in the latter days. I can
tell you something more, brethren and sisters, and friends, and the United
States, and all the world; the Lord Almighty will not suffer His
Priesthood to be again driven from the earth, even should He permit the
wicked to kill and destroy this people. The government of the United
States and all the kings of the world may go to war with us, but God will
preserve a portion of the meek and humble of this people to bear off the
Kingdom to the inhabitants of the earth, and will de-[210]fend His
Priesthood; for it is the last time, the last gathering time; and He will
not suffer the Priesthood to be again driven from the earth. They may
massacre men, women, and children; but the Lord will not suffer them to
destroy the Priesthood; and I say to the Saints, that, if they will truly
practise their religion, they will live, and not be cut off.

(J. OF D., 2:183-184)

18 Oct 1884, John Taylor:
THE POLYGAMY TRIAL.
	* * * PRESIDENT JOHN TAYLOR was then called, and, being sworn, was
asked to take the stand. The court room was now crowded, many coming in
with and after the President, and the most intense interest was manifested
on all sides.
	Q. --Is your hearing good, Mr. Taylor?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --You are the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --How long have you occupied the office of President?
	A. --Well, I cannot say precisely. The records will show.
	Q. --Quite a number of years, is it not?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --You are familiar with the laws and revelations that have been
given to the church?
	A. --Not as familiar as I might be, perhaps; but I know a number of
them.
	Q. --Do you know of the sacraments that are observed by the church,
or the observance of which is taught by the church?
	A. --I do not know what you refer to.
	Q. --Is there a sacrament of marriage or a ceremony, as taught by the
church?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --The law of the church's opposed to and forbids intercourse
between the sexes--that is outside of mar-[211]riage relation?
	(Question objected to as immaterial: objection overruled as usual.)
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Do you know, Mr. Taylor, who the officiating priests or
ministers in the Endowment House in this city were during the year 1883?
	Mr. Bennett--We object to that, if your honor please. There is no
proof before the Court that there is any Endowment House.
	Mr. Dickson--Well, I may ask him--is there an Endowment House in this
city?
	Question objected to as immaterial.
	Mr. Dickson--Where are marriages in the Mormon Church--that is, by
members of the Mormon faith--celebrated, in the Endowment House or
elsewhere?
	A. --Sometimes they are, and sometimes elsewhere.
	Q. --Where else, if not in the Endowment House?
	A. --I do not know that I can say. There is no specific place
appointed in which marriages occur.
	Q. --There is a doctrine of the Church, is there not, Mr. Taylor, if
plural marriage?
	Mr. Bennett--We object to that, if your honor please.
	Mr. Dickson--We expect to follow this up, if the question is answered
in the affirmative, by showing that plural marriages are celebrated in the
Endowment House only. If I am correct about this, Mr. Taylor can state so;
if I am not, he can correct me. But I expect to follow up this and show
that plural marriages are required by the laws of the Church to be
celebrated in the Endowment House.
	Mr. Bennett (to President Taylor, who seemed about to answer)--Be
kind enough to answer slowly.
	Mr. Dickson--If I can succeed in showing that plural marriages are
required to be celebrated in the Endowment House, or some Endowment House,
this testimony will be made very material by subsequent proof which we
have.
	Judge Zane--Well, state your question.
	Mr. Bennett--Read the question, Mr. Reporter.
	The Reporter--The question is--There is a doctrine of [212] the
Church, is there not, Mr. Taylor, of plural marriage?
	Judge Zane (to witness)--You may answer that.
	A. --Certainly.
	(Exception taken.)
	Q. --What is your answer to that?
	A. --Why, certainly there is.
	Q. --Well, now, does not the Church require that when members of its
faith are about to enter into a plural marriage, that such marriages shall
be performed in some one of the Endowment Houses?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Are not the plural marriages entered into by the members of the
Church, so far as you know, performed in the Endowment House?
	(Question objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
	Mr. Dickson--It will show what the general custom is, if any.
	Judge Zane--You may answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Mr. Dickson (to the reporter)--Just read the question.
	The Reporter--Are not the plural marriages entered into by the
members of the Church, so far as you know, performed in the Endowment
House?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Where are they performed?
	Mr. Bennett--Same objection. I do not like to object to every
question, but this whole line is irrelevant. This man (the defendant) is
not indicted for being a member of the Mormon Church.
	Mr. Dickson--Where are they performed if not in the Endowment House?
	(Exception taken.)
	A. --I can not say.
	Q. --Do you know of any plural marriage ever having been entered into
by members of the Church outside of the Endowment House?
	A. --Yes.
	Q. --Who? When?
	A. --Could not say.
	Q. --Do you know of any plural marriages entered into [213] by any
members of the faith, residents of the Territory of Utah, ever having been
performed and entered into outside of any one of the Endowment Houses,
within the past three years?
	(Question objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
	Judge Zane--You may answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Question repeated.
	A. --I have recollection of many such.
	Q. --Have you any recollection of any such within the past three
years?
	A. --I could not answer at present.
	Q. --Well, it is your present recollection we have to take.
	A. --Very well, I have no recollection at present.
	Q. --Is there any place called an Endowment House, a temple, or known
by any other name, which is set apart as a place for the celebration of
plural marriages?
	Question objected to.
	Judge Zane--Well, he may answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Question repeated.
	A. --Not specifically.
	Q. --What do you mean by that answer?
	A. --I mean by that answer that there are a great many things
performed in those houses.
	Q. --I do not ask you if it is set apart exclusive of other things.
We understand that. I repeat the question: Is there any place which is set
apart as a place for the celebration of plural marriages?
	A. --There is no specific place set apart for the celebration of
marriages.
	Q. --You mean by that, do you not, that there is a place in which
other rites of the Church are performed?
	A. --Yes.
	Q. --Is there not a place set apart for the performance of the rite
of marriage in connection with other rites of the Church?
	A. --Yes.
	Q. --What is the place, or are the places?
	A. --Well, one place is the Endowment House, other [214] places are
our Temples.
	Q. --Now, then, I will ask you, to get at it, when the Temple at
Logan City was completed for the celebration of the rites of the Church?
	A. --I cannot say precisely.
	Q. --I do not ask you to say within a week, or two weeks, or a month.
	A. --I do not keep those things in my mind.
	Q. --Was it not in June last? You were there when the temple was
dedicated, and you took part in the dedication rites?
	A. --I took part in the ceremonies.
	Q. --As president of the Church?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Can you tell when that was?
	A. --The records will show. I do not carry them in my head.
	Q. --It was this year?
	A. --Yes
	Q. --Was it not in the summer season? Don't you remember whether the
trees were in foliage or not?
	A. --I can furnish you the time if you get the records.
	(Here President Taylor said that if Mr. Nuttall was in court perhaps
he could tell.)
	Mr. Nuttall by permission of the court, here spoke up and said: In
May last.
	Q. --Now, prior to that time, President Taylor, what Endowment Houses
were in the Territory?
	A. --Only one.
	Q. --Where was that?
	(Question objected to as immaterial.
	Mr. Dickson--I expect to show that this was the only place where this
marriage in question, if performed at all, that it must have been at the
Endowment House in this city or the temple in this city.
	Judge Zane--You must answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Q. --There was only one Endowment House. Where was that?
	A. --In this city.
	Q. --What temples were there prior to the time the [215] Logan Temple
was completed?
	A. --There is a temple down at St. George.
	Q. --Was there any other?
	A. --There were no others in this Territory.
	Q. --Then, prior to the time when the Logan Temple was dedicated in
May last, I understand you to say that there was no place set apart for
the celebration of the rites of matrimony except the Endowment House and
the Temple at St. George?
	A. --I think you misunderstand me, sir.
	Q. --Well, be kind enough to correct me if I do.
	A. --I do not wish it to be understood that any place was set apart
for the purpose of matrimony, not for that exclusively.
	Q. --But I understand you to say that there are places set apart for
the performance of matrimony and other rites, and that these places were
the temple and the Endowment House. In what county is St. George, where
this temple is?
	A. --Washington County, I think.
	Q. --Now, are there no other places than those that you have
mentioned where the church authorizes the rite of plural marriage to be
performed?
	A. --The rite of plural marriage can be performed in other places.
There is no place set apart specifically for it.
	Q. --Is there any other proper place for the performance of these
rites?
	A. --As I have said, there are places that are appointed for a great
many ceremonies, among which is the ceremony of marriage. The ceremony of
marriage can be performed outside of any of these places.
	Q. --I am speaking of plural marriages?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Does the Church allow members of its faith to enter into plural
marriage, according to circumstances?
	A. --Yes.
	Q. --Where? Any place, indoor or out of doors?
	(Question objected to.)
	Q. --Under what circumstances does the Church authorize the
performance of the ceremony of plural mar-[216]riage outside of the
Endowment House or temples of the Church?
	(Question objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
	Judge Zane--Answer the question.
	A. --I do not know anything special about the matter.
	Q. --Mr. Taylor, if members of the faith, a man and woman, members of
the Church, were living, for instance, in this city, within convenient
reach of the Endowment House, desired to enter into plural marriage, would
not the law of the Church require them to have the ceremony performed in
the Endowment House?
	(Question objected to.)
	A. --Not necessarily so.
	Q. --Would they not require a dispensation from the Church to
authorize its celebration elsewhere?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Under what circumstances would the dispensation be granted?
	(Question objected to.
	Judge Zane--For what purpose do you ask this question?
	Mr. Dickson--For the same purpose, all tending to show that this
marriage must have been performed in the Endowment House in this city.
	Mr. F. S. Richards --It has already been shown that marriages could
be performed elsewhere than the Endowment House.
	Judge Zane --Answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Mr. Dickson--What are the circumstances necessary to the obtaining of
a dispensation?
	A. --It would be very difficult to say. There might be twenty or
thirty different circumstances.
	Q. --Well, do you know of some circumstances that would authorize
such a dispensation?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --For the performance of the act, but not for a specific place?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --If parties are living here in Salt Lake City, members of the
Mormon faith, a man and a woman who are [217] desirous to enter into
plural marriage, would they not be required in the absence of a
dispensation, to have the ceremony performed in the Endowment House?
	President Taylor--In the absence of a dispensation?
	Q. --In the absence of a dispensation authorizing the marriage
elsewhere?
	A. --It would be the authority to get married that would pass, no
matter where it was.
	Q. --Who gives the authority?
	A. --I give that authority.
	Q. --In all cases?
	A. --Generally in all cases.
	Q. --Is there any other person authorized to grant the dispensation?
	A. --There are persons I might appoint.
	Q. --Have you conferred upon any person that authority within the
past three years?
	(Question objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
	A. --Yes, sir.
	(Exception taken.)
	Q. --Who?
	A. --Sometimes Joseph F. Smith, sometimes George Q. Cannon.
	Q. --Do you remember any others upon whom you conferred that
authority within that time?
	A. --I do not remember any at present.
	Q. --When this authority is conferred upon any one by you, is it an
authority limited to some particular case, or a general authority?
	A. --It would be a general authority until rescinded.
	Q. --Give me the names, if you can, of the priests or ministers, or
whatever name they are known by in the Church, in this city, who were
authorized to perform plural marriages within the past three years?
	(Question objected to as immaterial.)
	Mr. Dickson--It may be that he is one, and I may follow it up by
showing that he was present at that marriage.
	Mr. Bennett--Oh, anything may be. The question is whether it is
lawful.
	Judge Zane --I do not see that it is not material if [218] followed
up. He may answer the question.
	(Exception taken.)
	Question repeated.
	A. --I could not give you these names.
	Q. --Can you give me any of them?
	A. --No sir.
	Q. --Can you not give the name of any person in the Church who was
authorized to celebrate plural marriages within this period of time?
	A. --I will state in relation to these matters, that I have nothing
to do with the details.
	Q. --I understand it is you from whom the authority comes?
	A. --Yes, sir; but I have nothing to do with the details of the
matter.
	Q. --But you are the person who confers the authority.
	A. --Yes sir.
	Q. --Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority?
	A. --There are hundreds of people who have authority.
	Q. --In this city?
	A. --Well, there are a great many in this city.
	Q. --How many?
	A. --I could not say.
	Q. --Do you keep any record of the appointments?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --You do not know at any time who is authorized to celebrate
plural marriages?
	A. --No, sir; I do not know.
	Q. --Is there no means by which you can inform yourself?
	A. --There may be.
	Q. --Do you think you could find out?
	A. --I might by asking the parties.
	Q. --But if you don't know who to ask?
	A. --Then I would not know who to ask.
	Q. --Then I understand you to say you do not know who they all are?
	A. --I do most emphatically.
	Q. --There are persons; but with your unaided recollection you are
unable to say who is or who is not author-[219]ized to administer that
rite?
	A. --I do not understand you.
	Q. --If I understand you aright, by your unaided recollection to-day
you are unable to say who is or who is not authorized to celebrate the
rites of marriage in the Church?
	A. --My recollection would tell of hundreds if I could remember their
names that would be authorized, but my recollection would not tell me who
is or who is not.
	Q. --Your recollection would not give all who are? Is there any means
by which your recollection could be refreshed?
	A. --I do not know, I could investigate.
	Q. --There is no records kept?
	A. --Don't have any such records.
	Q. --Then if you don't know the names of the persons who celebrate
the rites, and there is no record of it known to you, how can you tell
whether a marriage is celebrated?
	A. --I have nothing to do with details.
	Q. --It is a matter of no concern to the Church whether these
marriages are celebrated by persons authorized or not?
	Question objected to and sustained.
	Q. --During the year 1883, give me the names of persons who were
authorized to celebrate plural marriage in the Endowment House of this
city?
	A. --I could not tell you, sir.
	Q. --Can you ascertain?
	A. --I presume I could ascertain.
	Q. --In what way?
	A. --By asking, as I said before. I answered that question before.
	Q. --Is there any record of marriages?
	A. --I am not acquainted with the records.
	Q. --Do you know whether a record of marriages is kept?
	A. --It is very probable there is.
	Q. --Can you say whether there is or not?
	A. --I think likely there is.
	Q. --Did you ever see it?
	A. --I do not know that I have.
[220] Q. --If you wanted to see it is there any means of ascertaining
where it is?
	A. --I could find out by inquiry.
	Q. --Will you be good enough to do so?
	A. --Well, I am not good enough to do so.
	Q. --I understand, then, that unless you are compelled to do so, you
would refuse?
	(Question objected to.)
	Mr. Dickson--I have the right, I presume, to ask the witness whether
or not he could ascertain where the records are, or whether he refuses to
do it.
	A. --I do not know anything about the records. They are not in my
custody.
	Q. --I understand you to say you could inquire as to their
whereabouts. Will you be good enough to do so and give us the information?
	A. --I do not think I am good enough.
	Q. --Who is the custodian of the records?
	A. --I cannot tell you.
	Q. --Did you ever know who the custodian of the records was?
	A. --I do not know that I ever did.
	Q. --Do you know you don't?
	A. --Yes, I know that I don't.
	Q. --You know that you have never known who the custodian was? Did I
understand you to say that you have never seen the record?
	A. --I do not think I ever have to the best of my knowledge.
	Q. --Have you ever given any directions as to the custody of the
record?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --At no time?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Have you ever inquired of any one where the record was?
	A. --I could not say positively whether I have or not.
	Q. --What is your best recollection?
	A. --I do not know.
	Q. --You do not know whether you have inquired as to the record? Have
you ever inquired as to the custodian [221] of the record?
	A. --I do not think I have.
	Q. --Have you ever been told who the custodian of the record was?
	A. --Not to my recollection.
	Q. --Do you know whether Elias Smith, sen., during the year 1883, was
authorized to celebrate plural marriages in the Endowment House of this
city?
	A. --I don't, sir.
	Q. --Do you know whether Angus Cannon, sen., was?
	A. --I do not.
	Q. --Do you know whether there is any person or number of persons,
body of persons, in the church, who are authorized to direct the custody
of the records?
	A. --I do not.
	Q. --Do you know whether there is any regulation in the Church, or
adopted by anyone in authority, with respect to the records?
	A. --I am not acquainted with anything pertaining to the records.
	Q. --Has anyone not authorized the right to celebrate the rites of
matrimony?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --It must be some one upon whom authority has been conferred by
you?
	A. --No, sir, not by me.
	Q. --Who confers the authority?
	A. --Sometimes others.
	Q. --Well, who else besides yourself?
	A. --Well there are others besides myself.
	Q. --Who in this city besides yourself?
	A. --Quite a number.
	Q. --Who in this city is authorized to celebrate plural marriages?
	A. --A great many have been appointed--hundreds.
	Q. --Can you give me the names of those in this city who are now
authorized to perform plural marriages?
	A. --I could not.
	Q. --Do you mean there are so many?
	A. --There are a great many that would be authorized under certain
circumstances.
[222] Q. --Is it not a fact, Mr. Taylor, that plural, marriage is a secret
rite, a secret ceremony?
	A. --It is a secret to some and not to others.
	Q. --I of course exclude those who were present?
	(Question objected to; overruled.)
	Q. --With the exception of those present--parties to the contract--is
not that a secret ceremony?
	(Question objected to.)
	A. --Necessarily so. (sic)
	Q. --What do you mean by that answer?
	A. --There might be a great many others, acquainted with the
circumstance and who could be present if they desired.
	Q. --Is that confined to members of the priesthood, or those in
authority in the church?
	A. --No, sir; those who were properly recommended could be there.
	Q. --Those in whom the church had confidence?
	A. --Yes.
	Q. --Are not the parties who enter into the contract of plural
marriage and those who are present in officiating sworn to secrecy?
	(Question objected to as immaterial.
	Mr. Dickson--I think we are entitled to know how these marriages are
celebrated, what ceremony has to be gone through and observed from the
time parties enter upon it until it is concluded.
	Judge Zane--You may answer the question.
	Question repeated.
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Is secrecy enjoined upon such?
	(The same objection made.)
	A. --Not that I am aware of.
	Q. --What is the ceremony of plural marriage?
	A. --I do not propose to state it.
	Q. --Do you decline to answer?
	A. --I do.
	Mr. Bennett--We object, your honor.
	Question withdrawn.
	Q. --Are you acquainted with the defendent?
	A. --Yes.
[223] Q. --How long have you known him?
	A. --A number of years.
	Q. --You have been on speaking terms with him?
	A. --O yes, all the time.
	Q. --Have you ever had any conversation with him about his marriage
relations?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Did you ever hear him say anything about it?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Do you know whether he has taken a plural wife or not?
	A. --I don't.
	Q. --He is a member of your church, in fellowship?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --You knew there was an indictment out against him?
	A. --I have heard of it.
	Q. --Did you ever ask him whether he had entered into plural marriage
or not after you had ascertained that he had been indicted?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --You have met him since his indictment was found?
	A. --I do not remember.
	Q. --Have you any means of knowing whether or not he has entered into
plural marriage?
	A. --I do not know that I have.
	Q. --Do you know that you have no such means?
	A. --Yes.
	Examined by Mr. F. S. Richards: President Taylor, in your direct
examination you spoke of having appointed or authorized persons to
celebrate plural marriages. State whether or not such authorization or
appointments extended only to plural marriages, or whether the appointees
had the authority to celebrate first marriages also. In other words, was
the authorization general as to marriage, or confined to plural marriage
only?
	A. --It was general in all these matters, and things performed in the
house.
	Q. --And as to all classes of marriage, Mr. Taylor?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Whether plural or first marriages?
[224] A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --You also made some reference to authorization or recommendation
of parties to the buildings at which these ceremonies are performed. State
also whether the regulations and recommend you refer to applies equally to
parties who go to celebrate marriages, first marriages, or plural
marriages, or whether there is any distinction?
	A. --There is no distinction.
	Q. --Mr. Taylor, I will also ask you whether such authorization or
recommendation that you might give to individuals would designate the
purpose for which they go to the house?
	A. --No, sir, it would not.
	Q. --Would it even show that they went there for the purpose of
marriage at all?
	A. --No, sir.
	Q. --Are there not various other rites and ordinances performed in
these houses aside from marriages?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Then in giving an authorization to go there, you would not
signify or indicate for what purpose?
	A. --I do not know for what purpose they go.
	Re-direct by Mr. Dickson--You stated in answer to Richards' question
as to the scope of the authority?
	A. --My answer was that it pertained to all matters performed in the
house. I refer to the Endowment House or to the Temple.
	President Taylor having exchanged a few words with Judge Zane, left
the room, and with him the interest for a large number went also, for they
passed out in swarms after him.

(DESERET EVENING NEWS, 18 Oct 1884. For President Taylor's comment on the
above proceedings, see under date 19 Oct 1884, THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE,
vol. 1, pp. 339-345, also JOURNALS OF DISCOURSES, 25:348-359)

[225]
Sunday 26 Sep 1886:
Sworn Statement of Lorin C. Woolley:

	On September 26, 1886, George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin
S. Richards, and others met with President John Taylor at my father's
residence at Centerville, Davis County, Utah, and presented a document for
President Taylor's consideration.
	I had just got back from a three days' trip, during most of which
time I had been in the saddle, and being greatly fatigued, I had retired
to rest. Between one and two o'clock P. M. Brother Bateman came and woke
me up and asked me to be at my father's home, where a manifesto was to be
discussed. I went there and found there were congregated Samuel Bateman,
Charles H. Wilkins, L. John Nuttall, Charles Birrell, George Q. Cannon,
Franklin S. Richards and Hyrum B. Clawson.
	We discussed the proposed Manifesto at length, but were unable to
become united in the discussion. Finally George Q. Cannon suggested that
President Taylor take the matter up with the Lord and decide the same the
next day.
	Brothers Clawson and Richards were taken back to Salt Lake. That
evening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night,
notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the
three days' trip I had just completed.
	The brethren retired to bed soon after 9 o'clock. The sleeping rooms
were inspected by the guards as was the custom. President Taylor's room
had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
	Some time after the brethren retired and while I was reading the
Doctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing
under the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at once
startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three
distinct voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people
out of that room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it.
I made a hasty examina-[226]tion and found the door leading to the room
bolted as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all
the window screens intact. While examining the last window, and feeling
greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me saying, "Can't you feel the Spirit?
Why should you worry?"
	At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in the
room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could
place their positions in the room from the sound of their voices. The
three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left, and
the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President John
Taylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell and we both sat up until eight
o'clock the next morning.

From the Journal of the First Presidency:

	All well this morning.
	Prest. Cannon being some better in his health.
	This morning Prests. Taylor and Cannon and Elders Clawson and Nuttall
met, and Bro. Clawson reported his trip to Eureka, Tintic.
	At 2:30 p.m. held our usual meeting. Bro. Jos. E. Taylor who came out
during the night. Bp. Clawson also was in meeting with us.
	Bp. Clawson was requested to take charge of the meeting. After
singing Bro. Jos E. Taylor prayed. Bp. Clawson made a few remarks and he
and Bro. J. E. Taylor administered the sacrament. Bros. J. E. Taylor, C.
H. Wilcken, S. Bateman, L. J. Nuttall, Prest. Cannon, John Woolley, H. C.
Barrell and Prest. Taylor each spoke. A very good meeting was enjoyed and
Prest. Cannon dismissed.

From the Journal of George Q. Cannon:

	I had greatly improved in health today. We had sent for Bro H. B.
Clawson to come out on important business that required immediate
attention. We spent the forenoon conversing with him upon it. Among other
things was the political condition of affairs of our people in Arizona.
[227] At half past two o'clock we held our meeting. Bro. Jos. E. Taylor
and wife joined us, she being on the underground and he having come out on
a visit to her to day. There were nine Elders present and three sisters:
President Taylor and myself, Elder Jos. E. Taylor, Bp. H. B. Clawson,
Elders Nuttall, Wilcken, Bateman, John Woolley, jun., and Barrell, Sisters
Woolley and daughter and Sister Taylor. Our meeting was a very interesting
one.

From the Journal of Samuel Bateman:

	At Do, all day reading. Had meeting, Bishop H. B. Clawson presiding,
12 present and 3 children. I spoke. All the rest of the Brethren spoke.
Had a good meeting. H. B. Clawson and J. E. Taylor went home at night.

Monday 27 Sep 1886:
Sworn Statement of Lorin C. Woolley:

	When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock of the
morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely look at him on account of
the brightness of his personage.
	He stated, "Brethren, I have had a very pleasant conversation with
Brother Joseph (Joseph Smith)." I said, "Boss, who is the man that was
there until midnight?" He asked, "What do you know about it, Lorin?" I
told him all about my experience. He said, "Brother Lorin, that was your
Lord."
	We had no breakfast, but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forget
who opened the meeting. I was called to offer the benediction. There were
present at the meeting, in addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon,
L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, Charles
Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, Bishop Samuel Sedden, George Earl, my mother,
Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held
from about 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 in the afternoon, without
intermission, being about [228] eight hours in all.
	President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the Manifesto,
that had been prepared under the direction of George Q. Cannon read over
again. He then put each person under covenant that he or she would defend
the principle of plural marriage, and that they would consecrate their
lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would
sustain and uphold that principle.
	By that time we were all filled with the Holy Ghost. President Taylor
and those present occupied about three hours up to this time. After
placing us under covenant, he placed his finger on the document, his
person rising from the floor about a foot or eighteen inches, and with
countenance animated by the Spirit of the Lord, and raised his right hand
to the square, he said, "Sign that document?--Never! I would suffer my
right hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it?--Never! I would
suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I would
sanction it!"
	After that he talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrote
the revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of Plural
Marriage (as given below). Then he talked to us for some time, and said,
"Some of you will be handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church
by your brethren because of your faithfulness to this principle, and some
of you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe,
unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you."
	After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall
write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel
Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and
myself.
	He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived
we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in
the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to ordain others
if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to
ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by
ordination), so that [229] there should be no cessation in the work. He
then gave each of us a copy of the revelation.
	During the eight hours we were together, and while President Taylor
was talking to us, he frequently arose and stood above the floor, and his
countenance and being were so enveloped by light and glory that it was
difficult for us to look upon him.
	He stated that the document (referring to the Manifesto) was from the
lower regions. He stated that many of the things he had told us we would
forget and they would be taken from us, but that they would return to us
in due time as needed, and from this fact we would know that the same was
from the Lord.
	President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the
Saints would apostatize because of this principle. He said "one-half of
this people would apostatize over the principle for which we are now in
hiding; yea, and possibly one-half of the other half." (rising off the
floor while making the statement). He also said the day would come when a
document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be
adopted by the Church, following which apostasy and whoredom would be
rampant in the Church."
	He said that in the time of the seventh President of this Church, the
Church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually and in that
day (the day of bondage) the one Mighty and Strong spoken of in the 85th
section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come,
	Among other things stated by President Taylor on this occasion was
this, I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the
Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the
Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that there
would be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, but
would not have it property conferred upon them."
	John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority to
perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same
thing as long as they remained upon the earth; and while doing so, the
Prophet Joseph Smith stood by directing the proceedings. [230] Two of us
had not met the Prophet Joseph Smith in his mortal lifetime and we,
Charles H. Wilkins and myself, were introduced to him and shook hands with
him.

REVELATION, given to John Taylor, 27 Sep 1886, as copied from a photo-copy
of the original, written in John Taylor's hand writing:

	My son John. You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting
covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.
	Thus saith the Lord. All commandments that I give must be obeyed by
those, calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by
my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord
am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done
away with; but they stand for ever. Have I not given my word in great
plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been
negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments
and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their
weakness and because of the perilous times and furthermore, it is more
pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these
matters. Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my
covenants and my law do not and as I have heretofore said by my servant
Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must and shalt obey my law
and have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would
enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked
this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my
glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen.

From the Journal of the First Presidency:

	Prest. Cannon still improving in his health, The rest of the party
all well.
	Prest. Taylor signed several recommends. A letter was received from
Elder F. S. Richards enclosing one [231] from Bro. E. W. Davis of the 17th
Ward, City, in regard to his call as a missionary and needing help, also
gave his views in regard to those of the brethren who are in jeopardy
being sought after and sent on missions &c. This letter was answered. * *
*
	A letter was written to Prest. W. Woodruff in reply to his letter
received Sept. 25th &c.
	Prest. Taylor pitched quoits a while this morning, also in the
afternoon.
	Prest. Cannon in the house most all day, he sat out of doors awhile
in the after part of the day.
	Bro. Bateman carried in our mail matter.

From the Journal of George Q. Cannon:

	Attended to our usual business. I am not well, but improving.

From the Journal of Samuel Bateman:

	All day at Do, reading, pitching quoits. Helped load two loads of
barley. At night went with the mail. Called at Sister B's, met A. Burt,
sheriff of Salt Lake County. Got back at two o'clock all right.

28 Sep 1886:
	Bro. George Gibbs arranged for a sheep waggon and brought those of
the Apostles who could come to Bro. John W. Woolley's home in Centerville,
where President Taylor and others were in hiding, where they met and
received the revelation. Bro. John W. Taylor stood guard. It was deemed
that to present the revelation in open conference would be fatal in times
like these.

(Journal of Douglas M. Todd, under date 1 Sep 1934)

Note: Douglas M, Todd was the father of Nellie Todd, one of the wives of
Apostle John W. Taylor.

From the Journal of Samuel Bateman:
[232]
	All day at Do, reading, pitching quoits. Helped tie up some barley
sacks. C. H. Wilkin went with the mail. H. C. Birrell went with him. I
wrote a letter to D.R. Bateman.

11 Aug 1889, Orson F. Whitney:
	Religious services were held in the Tabernacle Sunday, August 11,
1889, President Angus M. Cannon presiding. * * * Bishop O. F. Whitney
addressed the congregation. He read from Section 122, Doctrine and
Covenants, being, the word of the Lord delivered to Joseph the Prophet
while in Liberty Jail, Clay County, Missouri, in March, 1839. These words,
said the speaker, are just as applicable today to each Latter-day Saint,
at least in most respects, as they were at the time they were uttered to
the captive Prophet of God, who was confined in prison for the sake of the
testimony of Jesus Christ and the message of peace and salvation of which
he was made the bearer to mankind. The grand principle enunciated in the
words I have just read is this, that all the changes, trials,
vicissitudes, all the ups and downs, the tribulations and afflictions
through which we are called to pass as the children of God, are ordained
to give us experience that shall be for our best good.
	There is a spiritual way of looking at things and an earthly way. To
be spiritually minded is life and peace, but to be carnally minded is
death. We live in a land of mountains and valleys, in the very land where
the Lord, speaking through the Prophet Isaiah, in ancient times, said He
would establish His people in the last days: * * *
	Now, if we hug the earth, if we are always grovelling in the mire of
the things of this world, if we worship Mammon and are lovers of pleasure
more than lovers of God, if we make earth our throne instead of our
footstool, then we are down in the valley, and if we gaze upward at all,
it will be at the mists, clouds, and smoke that overhang us and which
intercept and obscure the vision which fain would penetrate to things
beyond. But if we are spiritually minded, if we take the higher view [233]
of things, keep our hearts pure and our spirits humble, if we seek first
the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, then we will stand upon the
mountain-top and not only see far away the things of this earth more
clearly than they who stand below, but we will gaze upward and behold the
great sun of heaven, because we shall be above the clouds and the storm;
and although the sunlight of hope, or peace and salvation may be hidden
from the view of those below, it will be plainly visible to those who have
in their hearts the love of God and His kingdom. * * *
	Some people seem to think that all which brings them pain, sorrow,
difficulty and trial is not from God, because, forsooth, God is not
delighted with the suffering of his children. Shallow philosophers! They
brand as false anything which calls upon man to humble himself, to crucify
the flesh, to conquer self and lust, to rise up out of himself, and to
allow his spiritual nature to assert itself. But anything that ministers
to a base and carnal appetite, that appeals to the earthly feelings, to
the mortal senses, and gives pleasure to the flesh, they claim is from
God, because He is delighted with the happiness of His children. Shallow
philosophers!
	When Christ came He came to deny self, not to assert it, to teach man
how to crucify the flesh, now to deny himself pleasure for principle's
sake, and bear pain, trials and sorrows patiently; descending Himself
below all things in order that He might comprehend all things and rise and
reign above all things. But man teaches to gratify self, to crucify and
put to death the spiritual nature. And how do we do this? By neglecting to
cultivate it. By transgressing God's laws. By breaking the Sabbath day and
staying away from our meetings, instead of coming here and partaking of
the Sacrament and refreshing the spiritual half of our natures.
	Many of this people are perhaps preparing themselves, by following
after the world in its mad race for wealth and pleasure, to go down with
Babylon when she crumbles and falls; but I know that there is a people, in
the heart's core of this people, that will arise in their majesty in a day
that is near at hand, and push spiritual things to the [234] front; a
people who will stand up for God, fearing not man nor what man can do, but
believing, as the Prophet Joseph says, that all things we suffer are for
our best good, and that God will stand by us for ever and ever.

(DESERET NEWS WEEKLY, 17 Aug 1889)

About Sep 1890, Frank J. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff:

	Some days later I was summoned to attend a meeting of the Church
authorities in the President's offices; * * *
	They met, something less than a score of them, with two or three of
their most trusted advisors, in one of the general offices of the
Presidency, * * * The portraits in oils of the dead presidents, martyrs,
and prophets of the Church, looked down on us from the facade of a little
gallery, and caught my eyes almost hypnotically with the imperturbability
of their gaze. * * * President Woodruff stood under them, so old and
other-worldly, that he seemed already of their circle rather than ours;
and he spoke in a voice of feeling for us, but with a simple and
courageous finality that sounded the very note of fate. He had called the
brethren together (he said) to submit a decision to their consideration,
and he desired from them an expression of their willingness to accept and
abide by it. He knew what a trial it would be to the "whole household of
Israel." "We have sought," he said, "to live our religion, to harm no one,
to perform our mission in this world for the salvation of the living and
the dead. We have obeyed the principle of celestial marriage because it
came to us from God. We have suffered under the rage of the wicked; we
were driven from our homes into the desert; our prophets have been slain,
our holy ones persecuted, and it did seem to me that we were entitled to
the constitutional protection of the courts in the practice of our
religion."
	But the courts had decided "against us." The great men of the nation
were determined to show us no mercy. Legislation was impending that would
put us "in the power of the wicked." Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother
John T. Caine, and the other brethren who had been in Wash-[235]ington,
had found that the situation of the Church was critical. Brother Franklin
S. Richards had advised him that our last legal defence had fallen. "In
broken and contrite spirit" he had sought the will of the Lord, and the
Holy Spirit had revealed to him that it was necessary for the Church to
relinquish the practice of that principle for which the brethren had been
willing to lay down their lives. * * *
	The silence was broken by President Woodruff asking one of the
brethren to read the manifesto. When it was concluded, he said: "The
matter is now before you. I want you to speak as the Spirit moves you." *
* *
	Several of the men, including my brother Abraham, and Joseph F.
Smith, asked whether the manifesto meant a cessation of plural marriages:
whether no more such marriages were to be allowed.
	President Woodruff answered that it did; that the Lord had taken back
the principle from the children of men and that we would have no power to
restore it.
	Then they asked whether it meant a cessation of plural marriage
living, whether they would be required to separate from the wives whom
they had taken in the holy covenant.
	He answered, firmly, that it did; that the brethren in Washington
found it imperative; that it was the will of the Lord; that we must
submit.
	I saw their faces flush and then slowly pale again, and the storm
broke. One after another they rose and protested, hoarsely, in the voice
of tears, that they were willing to suffer "persecution unto death" rather
than to violate the covenants which they had made "in holy places" with
the women who had trusted them. One after another they offered themselves
for any sacrifice but this betrayal of the women and children to whom they
owed an everlasting faith. And a manlier lot of men never spoke in a
manlier way. Not a petty word was uttered. Their thought was not for
themselves. Their grief was not selfish. Their protests had a dignity in
pathos that shook me in spite of myself.
	When they had done, my father rose again with a face that seemed to
bear the marks of their grief while it re-[236]pressed his own. He dwelt
anew on the long efforts of our attorney and our friends in Congress to
resist what we believed to be unconstitutional measures to repress our
practice of a religious faith. But we were citizens of a nation. We were
required to obey its laws. And when we found, by the highest judicial
interpretation of statute and constitution, that we were without grounds
for our plea of religious immunity, we had but the alternative either of
defying the power of the whole nation or of submitting ourselves to its
authority. For his part he was willing to do the will of the Lord. And
since the Prophet of God, after a long season of prayer, had submitted
this revelation as the will of the Lord, he was ready for the sacrifice.
The leaders of the Church had no right to think of themselves. They must
remember how loyally the people had sacrificed their substance and risked
their safety to guard their brethren who were living in plural marriage.
Those brethren must not be ungrateful now. They must not now refuse to
make their sacrifice, in answer to the sacrifices that had been made for
them so often. The people had long protected them. Now they must protect
the people. * * *
	Joseph F. Smith was one of the last to speak. With a face like wax,
his hands outstretched, in an intensity of passion that seemed as if it
must sweep the assembly, he declared that he had covenanted, at the altar
of God's house, in the presence of his Father, to cherish the wives and
children whom the Lord had given him. They were more to him than
happiness. He would rather choose to stand, with them, alone, persecuted,
proscribed, outlawed, to wait until God in His anger should break the
nation with His avenging stroke. But--
	He dropped his arms. He seemed to shrink in his commanding stature
like a man stricken with a paralysis of despair. The tears came to the
pained constriction of his eyelids.
	"I have never disobeyed a revelation from God," he said. "I cannot, I
dare not, now."
	He announced, with his head up, though his body swayed, that he would
accept and abide by the revelation. When he sank in his chair and covered
his face with his [237] hands, there was a gasp of sympathy and relief, as
if we had been hearing the pain of a man in agony. * * * I saw it, and I
looked at Smith and loved him for it. I knew then, as I know now, that he
and those others were sincere. I knew that they had relinquished what was
more dear to them than the breath of life. I knew the appalling
significance, to them, of the promise which they were making to the
nation. And in all the degraded after-years, when so many of them were
guilty of breach of covenant and base violation of trust, I tried never to
forget that in the hour of their greatest trial, they had sacrificed
themselves for their people; they had said, sincerely: "Not my will, O
Lord, but Thine, be done!"

(Cannon, UNDER THE PROPHET IN UTAH, pp. 102-111)

Mar 1892, The Temple Lot Case:
	The taking of depositions of "Mormons" regarding the ownership of the
Temple Lot at Independence, Mo., was commenced at the Temple on Hotel,
Salt Lake City, before John M. Orr, a special commissioner, appointed by
the U.S. Circut Court for the Western Division of the State of Missouri.
It was part of a suit "brought by the Reorganized Church, commonly called
Josephites, against the Church of Christ, commonly called the Hedrickites,
to obtain possession and title to a piece of land in Independence, Jackson
Co., Mo., known as the Temple Lot." From the testimonies given, the
following are taken:

	JAMES WHITEHEAD: of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined
on the part of the complainant, testified as follows, in chief:-- * * * I
was the private secretary of Joseph Smith from early in June, 1842,
until he was killed in 1844. * * *
	I know what the doctrine of the old church was from the time it was
established in 1830 down to 1844, with reference to marriage. The doctrine
of the church was, that one man could have one wife only. The doctrine of
polygamy was never taught by the elders, or high priests, [238] or by any
other person or persons of authority in that church, so far as I know or
ever heard between the years 1830 and 1844. The doctrine of polygamy has
never been, to my knowledge, taught or practiced by any person in the
Reorganized Church, the complainant herein, since its organization,
because we did not believe in it; and if anybody had taught or practiced
it, they would have been cut off mighty quick. None of the books of the
Reorganized Church teach or countenance the practice of polygamy, nor did
any of the books of the original church teach or indorse that practice. *
* *
	I took the position of private secretary to Joseph Smith on the
eleventh day of June, 1842. Was in the office before that, but not as his
secretary. My duties were to keep his correspondence, letter books, and
everything of that nature belonging to the office as his secretary. He had
a good deal of correspondence, I did not keep the historical records nor
the church records. There was a historian for that purpose; William
Richards, who lived at Nauvoo, was the historian. * * * I have heard the
doctrine of polygamy taught, and I hate and despise it. It is a doctrine
of the Devil; there is no question about that. I do not believe in it, or
countenance it in any way. I heard Brigham Young preach it at Nauvoo,
after Joseph Smith was killed; that was one reason why I left the church.
I saw enough to convince me that it was time for me to leave the church.
They were preaching the doctrine of polygamy when they left Nauvoo, in
1846. I do not know whether all that believed in the doctrine left or not;
I expect they all did. * * * I never heard anything about the doctrine of
polygamy until after the time Joseph Smith was killed. I do not think I
ever heard of such a thing before his death. (Temple Lot Case, p. 27-33)

	JOHN H. CARTER, SENIOR: being produced, sworn, and examined on the
part of the Plaintiff, testified as follows:-- * * * Polygamy was not
taught from 1830 to 1844. I mean polygamy was not taught from 1830 down to
1834, and then down to 1844. I never heard Joseph Smith teach it, either,
publicly or privately; but about [239] the time that Brigham Young took
the lead in the church it was taught privately. * * *
	Yes sir, I said in my direct examination that there were some
doctrines taught by Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith that
were not taught before that time, and I say it now. The doctrine of
polygamy was not taught by Joseph Smith, never in the world. I state that
as a fact. If he did, I never heard him, and I never heard of it; and I
don't believe he could have done so without my hearing of it. I was two
years in Kirtland in the same place where he was, then I went to Missouri,
and from Missouri back to Illinois, and was there up to the time of his
death; and I never heard him teach any such doctrine; but I heard him
denounce it, for I know a man went into Wisconsin and taught it; and he
wrote a letter to the president of that branch to cut that man off from
the church. That was just before they were killed, just a little time
before. That was in `43, I think.
	The revelation was presented to the High Council after Joseph Smith
was killed. I don't believe that he ever received it. I don't believe that
he ever did. * * * (Temple Lot Case, p. 179-188)

	LORENZO SNOW: of lawful age, being produced and sworn on the part of
the Defendents, testified as follows:
	* * * I was acquainted with the practice of plural marriage while I
lived there in Nauvoo, Illinois. It was the same then as it is out here in
Salt Lake Valley,--I don't know any difference.
	I am the President of the Twelve Apostles in the Utah Church at the
present time. I have been an officer of the church for several years,
about fifty-eight years. I think it was in September, 1849, here in Salt
Lake City, I was ordained an apostle.
	There was some talk in Nauvoo among the officers of the church about
the practice of plural marriage. There was considerable talk. It was not
public talk. I have no recollection of the practice being talked of
publicly.
	* * * There was no law with reference to marriage when I first went
out on that mission in 1839. No, sir, there was no law with reference to
marriage. I believe [240] there was some instruction given that was
embraced in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, that is all I recollect
of. Yes, sir, there was a creed of the church at that time. You will find
it in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, I guess. It was the creed
governing the church at that time.
	I did not teach when I went out that time that a man could have more
wives than one. No, sir, that doctrine was not taught. It would have been
considered that a person teaching such doctrine at that time would be
liable to experience church discipline.
	I did not marry anybody while I was on that mission. There was no
special marriage ceremony that I am aware of at that time; no, sir, there
was none provided.
	I returned from that European mission in the spring of 1843, about
the middle of April. I said in my direct examination that about ten days
after I returned from that mission, I had a private interview with Joseph
Smith. In that private interview was the time when he told me he had taken
my sister as a wife.
	He did not say she was taken as a wife and married to him, he said
she was sealed to him, sealed to him for eternity. I was not acquainted
with the practice of sealing at that time. I had never heard of it before.
	I never saw the ceremony of sealing performed in the days of Joseph
Smith. I never knew anything about the practice of sealing during the days
of Joseph Smith. He didn't tell me anything about it at the time I had
this conversation with him. He told me at that time that other parties had
been sealed to him for time and eternity, but he didn't name any of them
but my sister, Eliza R. Snow. That was the first time I ever heard of
sealing." * * *

	Q. --Does the revelation of 1843 that was accepted by the church to
which you now belong in 1852 contain the same teachings on the question of
marriage as are contained in these sections you have read, 1835 edition of
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?
	A. --Well, Sir, I will answer that question right directly by saying
that I think it does. Paragraph 3, section 65, in this connection, the
same edition of the [241] Book of Doctrine and Covenants, being the 1835
edition:--
	And again, I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry, is not
ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is
lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh,
and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that
it might be filled with the measure of man; according to his creation
before the world was made. And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats,
that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for behold the
beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of
the earth, is ordained for the use of man, for food, and for raiment, that
he might have in abundance, but it is not given that one man should
possess that which is above another; wherefore the world lieth in sin; and
wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh, and hath no need.
	Yes, sir, I recognize that as a teaching of the original church.
	Q. --Was that the same as the teaching of the purported revelation of
1843 adopted by the church to which you belong in 1852?
	A. --One is more extensive than the other, but they do not disagree.
The last one is the more extensive of the two,--the one that allows a man
to have a dozen wives if he sees fit. It is considerably enlarged, like it
was in the days of Jacob, when he had four or five wives.
	I lived in Nauvoo in 1843; was traveling a good deal of the time from
one place to another, but off and on I was there a part of the time. Was
there most of the time, I might say, from 1843 until we moved to the
Valley. I don't know when I did first see the purported revelation on
plural marriage. It was presented to the church here in Salt Lake City, in
1852.
	I could not say whether it was after it was presented here by Brigham
Young to the church that I saw it. I was not here when it was presented. I
was in Italy, I believe, in Italy or in France. I had not seen it up to
that time, of course. I do not remember where nor when I saw it; it [242]
was printed, however.
	I never saw the original, if that is what you want to know. I never
saw it in any other form except in printed form. I cannot say positively
that it was ever printed in any other form before it was printed here in
the Journal of Discourses; do not know whether it was or not. At any rate,
I never saw it until after it was printed.
	I do not think it was ever presented to the church at Nauvoo for
acceptance. It was not presented to my knowledge. It might have been
presented to the church and I not know anything about it; I was away so
much of the time that I hardly knew what was done, but I think I should
have heard of it; and I have no recollection of hearing of it at all. It
never was presented to the church at Nauvoo that I ever knew anything
about.
	Up to the time of the presentation of that revelation to the church
and its acceptance by the church, the law of the church on marriage was
the same as you have read, and which I referred to in the 1835 edition of
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Exhibit E. That was the law of the
church up to the time of the purported revelation and its acceptance by
the church; yes, sir, that is true.
	And a man that violated this law in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the
church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage.
Yes, sir, he would have been cut off from the church. I think I should
have been if I had.
	Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more
wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut
off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the
church and under the laws of the State, too.
	I am one of the apostles in the church at the present time. The book
you now hand me is the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. It is authority in
the church at the present time.
	Yes, sir, in section 132 here in Defendant's Exhibit A, is a
revelation on the eternity of the marriage covenant, including plurality
of wives, given through Joseph the Seer, in Nauvoo, Hancock county,
Illinois, July 12, [243] 1843. That is the title of the revelation. I
recognize that as one of the laws of the church at the present time.
	Q. --I will ask you now, Mr. Snow, why it was that in this edition of
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, this article on marriage, as you read
it in the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and in all
subsequent editions, up to the time of this edition of Defendant's Exhibit
A, was taken out and this revelation or purported revelation put in its
stead?
	A. --That is, I take it, you want to know why this principle of
plural marriage was inserted instead of the principle of single marriage?
	Q. --Yes, sir, why did you take out one and put the other in?
	A. --I cannot tell you, for I did not do it, nor I cannot tell why.
	Q. --Was it not because this taught or had changed the order of
marriage in the church?
	A. --Well, it is a fact that the order of marriage was changed, but
whether that was the purpose of the substitution or not, I do not know.
	Q. --The order of marriage was changed, and the old order eliminated;
is not that the fact?
	A. --Well it was changed or extended. It was changed from the one to
the other.
	Q. --It was changed from monogamy to polygamy, was it not?
	A. --Yes, sir, you might say it was if it suits you. It was extended
from monogamy to polygamy. Well, now, this matter of plural marriage is
not extended to everybody and was not. Everybody did not understand it at
all. It was limited in its scope, and it was not everybody who was
prepared to receive this doctrine.
	Everybody is not prepared to receive it, and the doctrine was made
known to certain parties under certain conditions so it was very limited
in its scope.
	Yes, sir, it was the introduction of another system besides the
original one, or it was the extension of the principle of one wife to more
than one wife.
	This polygamous revelation would not prevent any man [244] in the
church from having more than one wife if he wanted to.
	Q. --Then it was extended to everybody who chose to avail themselves
of its provisions, was it not?
	A. --I said plural marriage.
	Q. --Under the operation of this law of plural marriage or this
revelation, every man that wanted to do so, could have more than one wife?
	A. --No, sir, for I think there are lots of men who ought not to have
one wife.
	Q. --When you was a bachelor one wife did not extend or include you,
because you did not want one?
	A. --No, sir, and you would not want it, too, if you did not want
her. That is the way I understand this polygamous revelation,--something
that way.
	Q. --That is, you state that if a person had been married or sealed
by this revelation, according to your understanding, that is, if they had
been married according to the provisions of this polygamous revelation
prior to the year 1843, they would have violated the laws of the church
and been guilty of adultery?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --You state now that Joseph Smith was sealed or married to your
sister in April, 1843, and this so called revelation was given in July,
1843?
	A. --Well, the time I said it, it was all right. According to my
understanding of this new covenant, the woman is sealed to the man and not
the man to the woman, and I stated that Joseph Smith took my sister for a
wife when he had a wife living, and that was prior to the giving of this
revelation.
	Q. --Well, what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph
Smith in?
	A. --It put them in a first-rate, splendid condition for time and
eternity. * * *
	To my knowledge this purported revelation of 1843 was never brought
before the church for acceptance during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. It
was never brought before the public in any way before the death of Joseph
Smith; I do not think it was ever presented to the church for acceptance
until 1852 in Salt Lake. Now if a revelation [245] should be given and it
was not accepted by the church or presented to the church, it would not be
binding upon the church, because the church as a church would not know
anything about it if it was not presented formally to it.
	Q. --Well, suppose these half dozen men and women should receive a
revelation that should be contrary to the laws of the church as accepted
by the church, what would be the duty of these half dozen men and women in
that case?
	A. --Well, I should think it would be rather unpleasant for them, in
my opinion it would place them in rather an unpleasant position.
	I do not know that Moses went up on the mount in the wilderness to
receive the law and that he was commanded to present it to the people for
acceptance before it was binding upon the people, and I do not know that
the people were forced to answer whether they accepted it or not. I do not
know about that. Yes, sir, I am a member in this church here in Utah, and
I am an apostle; but I do not know whether it is a fact or not that the
people were commanded to accept the law that Moses got on the mount before
it was a law, to them.
	Q. --Well, is it not a fact that it was a rule in the church that if
anybody should undertake to follow a principle that was not accepted, and
was not accepted as a principle and true doctrine in the church, that they
would be violators of a law of the church?
	A. --Yes, sir, but there are exceptions to all law. * * *
	No, sir, the church never accepted the revelation on polygamy during
the lifetime of Joseph Smith, for it was not during his lifetime that it
was presented to the church for acceptance. It was presented to the church
here at Utah and accepted. But it was not presented to the church in the
time of Joseph Smith. I do not know that this revelation on polygamy was
published in July, 1843; it was given in July, 1844; Mr. Cannon, wasn't
that the time? I said that to Mr. Cannon because I thought his memory was
better than mine. I don't know when it was published.
	I think I left Nauvoo in the spring of 1847. I am ac-[246]quainted
with the facts with reference to the breaking up of the church there at
Nauvoo, and with reference to two of the First Presidency being killed;
but of course I was not there at the time.
	I was not present at the reorganization of the quorums afterwards at
Kanesville, or Council Bluffs, Iowa. I have been a member of this church
fifty-six years.
	I do not know that the church broke up in 1844; do not know anything
about that. I never heard of this church breaking up. I have read that the
claim was made that it broke up, but if it did I am not aware of the fact.
	I have heard that a portion of it went to Texas under Lyman Wight,
and another portion of it went to Pennsylvania under Sidney Rigdon, and I
understand that another portion of it went to Beaver Island under James J.
Strang; knew it from hearsay, and I understand there was a large portion
of the people that belonged to the church at the time of the death of
Joseph Smith who did not go with any of these factions. I know there is
the Josephites.
	By Mr. Cannon: "They had no existence at that time; that is, the
Josephites did not have any existence at that time."
	By Mr. Kelley; "Let Mr. Cannon prompt you, that is all right for him
to do so, but I want the record to show that he does prompt you."
	Yes, sir, it is my understanding that a large proportion of them did
not come to Utah at all.
	Brigham Young took the Presidency of the Church after the death of
Joseph Smith. He was appointed to the position and accepted by the people.
That was one way he was made President. He was not appointed by Joseph
Smith as the President.
	I do not understand that Joseph Smith designated him as his
successor, and Brigham Young never claimed that he did. At the time Joseph
Smith was killed, the church recognized that the authority devolved on the
Quorum of Twelve Apostles. That was the position of the church at that
time,--that the entire authority of the church rested upon the Twelve.
Brigham Young was made President of the church afterwards.
[247] Q. --Now I will read you the section given in the revelation of
February 1831:--
	Verity, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed
unto this gift, except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he
shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead: and this
shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that
shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto
you, that you may not be deceived; that you may know they are not of me.
For verily I say unto you. that he that is ordained of me shall come in at
the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those
revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I
have appointed.
	Now, was Brigham Young appointed through Joseph Smith to receive
revelations?
	A. --Well, it was, it has been understood that, it is pretty well
conceded, and the people of the church recognize it,--that the church
recognizes,--that when Joseph Smith was martyred there in Carthage, that
the entire authority devolved on the President of the Quorum of Twelve,
and upon the Twelve Apostles. After the death of Joseph Smith it was
understood that the authority to lead the church devolved on the Quorum of
Twelve. Brigham Young was never set apart by Joseph Smith as his successor
that I am aware of, and he does not claim that he was that I am aware of.
There are many things in the revelations of the Old and New Testaments
that seem to conflict unless they are reasoned out, and so it is with
that.
	You will find statements in both the Old and New Testaments, and
afterwards you will find changes are made.
	Now there is the instance of Moses where there was a law made or
given, and afterwards circumstances arose that rendered a change
necessary, but it was not in Joseph's time; the necessity for the change
arose after Joseph's time. There may have been a change in this, and I
think the Lord has a perfect right to make a change at any time he sees
fit or pleases to do it; and we find [248] always, from the days of Adam
down to the days of John the Revelator, that there were the most
extraordinary changes made, and it was so in this case, for the Lord made
them in this case.
	Q. --Has he contradicted his word flatly at any time in any of these
changes, Mr. Snow?
	A. --Well, it says in one passage in the Scriptures.--well, I do not
know that he has. He never contradicts himself. It may seem a
contradiction to men, but in reality there is no contradiction.
	Q. --And now, notwithstanding the fact that the church at the time
you joined it, permitted a man to have but one wife, and this church here
in the Valley permits a man to have as many as he wants, still you claim
that it is the same church?
	A. --Yes, sir, the same church that was in 1836. It has always been
the same church. It has the same doctrine in reference to marriage and
more. Well, it is changed, the law in reference to marriage,--it is
extended. The law has not been changed, it has only been extended.
	Q. --For the purpose of refreshing your memory upon a point you have
just referred to, to the effect that there was no law, rule, or usage of
the church with reference to the bringing of revelations before the church
for acceptance, I will ask, Mr. Snow, did you state that to be the fact?
	A. --Well, as a general thing that was not done. There are certainly
exceptions when they are brought before the body of the church.
	Q. --Don't you know that there was a usage of the church to that
effect,--now that you come to think of it, and that the revelations were
presented to the General Assembly at Kirtland and accepted?
	A. --Yes, sir, I know it was also done at other places, at least I
have heard that it was done now that you mention it. I remember hearing
it, but I was not present, and what I know about it is hearsay. That was
the rule, yes, sir.
	Q. --I will read to you from the Times and Seasons, volume 5, page
649, published September 8, 1844, as [249] follows:--
	There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God
through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us the plan, says he,
when all the quorums are assembled and organized in order, Let the
revelation be presented to the quorums, if it pass one, let it go to
another, and if it pass that, to another, and so on until it has passed
all the quorums; and if it pass the whole without running against a snag,
you may know it is of God. But if it runs against a snag, then you may
know it wants enquiring into: you must see to it. It is known to some who
are present that there is a quorum organized where revelations can be
tested. Brother Joseph said, let no revelation go to the people until it
has been tested here.
	I will ask you if you recognize that as a rule of the church?
	A. --Yes, sir, that was the doctrine as I told you before. That was
the rule. That was the rule at that time, always was the rule of the
church prior to the death of Joseph Smith.
	Q. --Now, is a revelation binding upon the church before it is made
known to the church?
	A. --No, sir.
	At the time of the reorganization at Kanesville or Council Bluffs,
Brigham Young was elected to the Presidency, and Heber C. Kimball and
Willard Richards were selected as his counselors. These three men formerly
were members of the Quorum of Twelve, and there were Three of the Quorum
of Twelve who apostatized; that left nine in all who went with Brigham
Young to Kanesville or Council Bluffs; then out of that nine, Brigham
Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards were taken, and of course
that left six of this Quorum of Twelve.
	The Quorum of Twelve of course was disorganized, as it existed in
Joseph's day, if you look at it in that way, but it is my understanding
that others were appointed at the same time.
	That did not disorganize the quorum so that it could [250] not
transact business, because there was a Presidency that acted with the
quorum for the transaction of business. That was done through a
revelation. The law is in the revelation.
	Q. --Where is it? I mean the revelation calling these individuals to
the Presidency.
	A. --Do you want to know where it is found,--in what book it is
found?
	Q. --Certainly.
	A. --Well, it is not found in any book, and I still say there was a
revelation.
	I know it, just as well as I know there was a Presidency formed. I
know that because where there is a position of that kind unless there is a
revelation calling them to it. A person never receives an appointment of
that kind unless his appointment is dictated by the Spirit of God.
	After taking the three out of the Quorum of Twelve, that left six
members of the quorum of Apostles. I think that would still form a quorum.
It would form a quorum in connection with the First Presidency, and
further I will say that if there was not one single one of these six
apostles left, the First Presidency could transact business without them.
	Of course six persons would not form a Quorum of Apostles
independently of the First Presidency. The six themselves could not do
business as a quorum for the church, but they could do business in
connection with the First Presidency of the church just as well as if it
was full. They could do that because the First Presidency has a right to
take part and preside over the affairs of the church, and the First
Presidency could act without them; but the remaining six could not act as
a quorum without the cooperation of the First Presidency. (Temple Lot
Case, p. 316-326)

	LYMAN O. LITTLEFIELD, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and
examined on the part of the Defendants, testified as follows:
	* * * I was acquainted with the fact that the doctrine of polygamy
was taught there at Nauvoo, was understood [251] by some people, but it
was not taught to the church; it was taught privately so that a great many
people understood it, and knew it was taught and practiced, too. It was
not taught publicly from the stand, but it was taught so that the people,
or a great many of them, understood that doctrine, and some of them
practiced it.
	I never heard it taught from the stand. I knew it was taught and
practiced secretly, and was not given to the church as a principle
according to the best of my knowledge in the days of Joseph Smith.
	I was taught that doctrine or principle myself, and conversed upon it
with different parties, but I never was taught that principle by Joseph
Smith personally, but the doctrine was talked of between myself and other
parties.
	I have conversed with both ladies and gentlemen on that matter. Some
of the gentlemen were elders in the church. The ladies, of course, did not
hold any offices. The doctrine of plural marriage as I heard it in Nauvoo
and as taught in the revelation published in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants by the Utah Church is the same, identically the same, I think. *
* *
	I was a President of the Seventy before 1844; yes, sir, before 1844 I
was, and had a copy of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and had read it.
I don't think there was a revelation on the question of marriage in the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants. There was a ceremony on marriage that
allowed one man to have one wife, but that was not a revelation. There was
no revelation outside of the ceremony on marriage that I think of now.
That is the only thing I can think of that you would call a revelation on
marriage. * * *
	Joseph Smith was the highest officer in the church at that time, and
the chief teacher in the church. When I heard this question of plural
marriage or polygamy advanced, I did not even go to see him about it to
see whether it was correct or not. I took no pains to find that out at
all. No, sir, I did not.
	I talked with a good many other people about it. I never heard it
preached to any congregation publicly or privately by any minister before
the death of Joseph Smith.
[252] Never heard it presented to the church, and never heard of its being
presented to the church in the lifetime of Joseph Smith.
	Never heard it presented to the church privately by anybody prior to
the death of Joseph Smith.
	I never heard it presented to the church either publicly or privately
prior to the death of Joseph Smith, by Joseph Smith or any of the
authorities of the church. I never heard it preached publicly or privately
in his day by any of the authorities of the church.
	Q. --Did you ever hear it presented to the church either in public or
in private by any officer in the church prior to the death of Joseph
Smith?
	A. --No further than I have stated. I cited Bro. John Taylor, but I
am positive about that or about what he said to me. I just heard the rumor
that there was that kind of a practice or revelation. I saw the revelation
on polygamy prior to the death of Joseph Smith. I cannot tell you in what
shape it was. I do not know whether it was in pamphlet form. I cannot say
what shape it was in, but I understood it perfectly well. I do not know
who presented it to me. I either read it myself or heard it read. * * *
	The practice of polygamy here in Utah has been abolished by a vote of
the church, but the church went into it without any vote.
	Q. --I will ask you if it was not a universal rule and law of the
church that all revelations in order to become law must first be presented
to the church and adopted by the church?
	A. --I think that has been the universal practice always of the
church. It has always been the law. I do not know any exception to that
rule. (Temple Lot Case, p. 326-333)

	JOSEPH C. KINGSBURY, having stated that he was of lawful age, refused
to take the ordinary oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth of his knowledge of and touching the matter in controversy,
but was sworn by affirmation, and testified as follows:
	* * * Joseph Smith taught me the principles of poly-[253]gamy. He
gave me to understand with his own mouth that he had married more wives
than one.
	I knew in regard to the revelation concerning the doctrine of plural
marriage, cannot tell you exactly when I first saw it; it was along in the
middle of July somewhere, in 1842. Yes, I guess it was in 1842.
	Bishop Whitney got the revelation, and presented it to me, and wanted
me to copy it, and so I went into a room by myself, and copied it; that
is, I copied the revelation on plural marriage that he handed me, and just
as I got through copying it, Hyrum Smith came in and wanted it,--the
original revelation was what he wanted.
	He came in to see how I got along with it; that is, Bishop Whitney
did, and then he went out and told Hyrum Smith that he would hand him the
revelation in a few minutes, for I was not quite through making the copy.
When I had got through making the copy, I took the one I had made myself
and read it, and he took the other and read it at the same time to see if
I had made any mistakes, and that it was correct, and when he found that
it was all correct, he took the one that I had made, and went out and
handed it to Hyrum Smith, who was outside the door ready to take it. I
copied it just a day or two after it was given. The revelation I copied is
just the same as the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants
by the Salt Lake Church in Defendant's Exhibit A. * * *
	When it was presented or embodied in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants and was presented to the church it became a law. I suppose it
did and not until then.
	Q. --Well, did it become a law of the church until it was presented
to the church and accepted by the church? Now answer that question, yes or
no.
	A. --Well, I do not know about that. I know it was a doctrine of the
church, when it was published and made public. I know it was not published
in the church until about 1852. * * * Joseph Smith kept a private office,
and kept a private secretary. I was not his private secretary. A man by
the name of Clayton was his private secretary.
	I cannot swear that Clayton was his private secretary, [254] but I
know he went with him and everybody supposed he was his private secretary,
and he did Joseph's private writing. I do not know it of my own knowledge.
	I knew a man by the name of Whitehead there in Nauvoo well. He was in
the tithing office under Clayton. Clayton was in the tithing office,--was
the chief clerk. Whitehead was there under him; that is, Whitehead was
there under Clayton, and Clayton was there under Bishop Whitney's
direction, so I came to know them very well. I mean goods that were
brought in under tithing. * * *
	I was in the General Conference of the church held in the Tabernacle
here in 1852, in Salt Lake. The revelation on polygamy was published to
the world I think in 1852. I do not remember whether it was presented here
at that conference or not.
	We consider it now one of the articles and laws of the church here in
Utah that a man should have but one wife but before this Manifesto, the
time the United States got after us, we considered we had the privilege of
having more wives than one if we wanted them.
	The revelation was not exactly changing the laws found in the 1835
edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but was adding to it, you
may say. The addition would make a change in the law. You can see yourself
that it did. This revelation gave the male members of the church the
privilege of having more wives than one. It did not give the female
members of the church the privilege of having more husbands than one. * *
*
	No one had the privilege under the laws of the church up to 1844, nor
under the laws of the United States or in any State up to 1844, to take
more wives than one. We did not consider that we had such a privilege at
all. I have been married three times since 1844. My wives were not all
living at the same time, but two of them were living at the same time.
	I do not remember hearing any minister in the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints, prior to 1844 in Nauvoo or any other place, preach
or teach the doctrine of polygamy, nor in any other place or time prior to
1844; never heard it preached from the pulpit before 1844.
	I heard it in private conversations as I stated; Bishop [255] Whitney
told me of it before. I did not hear it taught privately to any number of
persons prior to 1844. Bishop Whitney told me we had the privilege of
having more than one wife. That was the understanding. I cannot tell you
all that he said, but that is the substance. Do not remember anything else
he said. * * *
	I have told here substantially all that Joseph Smith ever said about
the practice of polygamy. He said that a man had the privilege if he was
considered worthy of having more wives than one. He said we could have
women sealed to us for time and eternity. I cannot exactly say that he
used the word wives but I presume it is likely he did. I am not willing to
swear or affirm that he did, but I say I presume he did. * * *
	My first wife died in October, and I think it was about a year or so
after that when I married the second wife, and I think it was perhaps six
months after that that I married the third one. The second one was then
living. Do not remember exactly the time, but I think it was about six
months. I had two wives living at the same time while I was in Nauvoo,
Illinois. Heber C. Kimball married them to me, in the Temple at Nauvoo. It
was just a short time before I came away, and I think it was in 1846, '45
or 46, somewhere along there. I was married to them for time and eternity.
The same ceremony was not used at the time I was married to these two
women in 1845 or '46 that was used by Joseph Smith at the time I was
married at Kirtland in 1846. There was a change in the marriage ceremony
in 1846,--we were married for eternity as well as time. The marriage
ceremony was changed, and we were married for eternity the last time; that
was added on to the ceremony, the ceremony was extended by the addition of
that,--broadened out,--spread out,--more added to it, and that is my
understanding of the doctrine of polygamy, that it is just an extension of
the original doctrine of the church, extending it and spreading it out,
making the additions that men can have two wives instead of one, that is,
the old law of the church before this was injected into it,--this
broadening process--allowed the men to have but one wife, and after this
came they were allowed to have from [256] one wife up to as many as
Solomon had. The ceremony that was repeated to me at the Temple at Nauvoo
at the time I married these two women in 1846 was not the ceremony which
you read to me out of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition. It
was a different ceremony altogether. * * * (Temple Lot Case, p. 333-343)

	BATHSHEBA SMITH, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined,
testified as follows:
	* * * I heard Joseph Smith once in speaking from the stand say or
assert that the ancient order would be restored the same as it was in
Abraham's day, but I never heard him preach in private or public the
principle of plural marriage, or what is sometimes called polygamy. He
said the ancient order would be restored as it was in the days of Abraham.
That was about 1840, I think. * * * Yes, sir, when Joseph Smith preached
from the stand in 1840, he preached that the ancient order would be
restored, the order of Abraham, and if polygamy is what Abraham practiced,
why then he preached polygamy. He did not say that the ancient order meant
polygamy; did not say anything at all about polygamy, and I never heard
Joseph Smith teach polygamy, nor did I ever hear him say anything about
it, either publicly or privately.
	I never saw him sealed to anybody, and I lived in Nauvoo from 1840 up
to the time the church left there. I knew Emma Smith; I believe she was
his wife, but I did not see them married. She was held out there as his
wife; lived in the same house with him. She was called Sister Emma, the
wife of the prophet, and I have no doubt but that she was his wife; and
although I did not see them married, there is not a particle of doubt in
my mind but that she was his wife.
	There was nobody else held out as his wife while I was living in
Nauvoo, nor down to the time of his death. I was in Nauvoo at the time of
his death; did not attend the funeral. I do not know of any member of the
church having more wives than one at Nauvoo, during the life time of
Joseph Smith. * * *
	It is a doctrine of the church taught here now in Utah Territory
under the administration of President [257] Woodruff, that a woman cannot
be exalted in the hereafter, or a man, unless they are sealed. That is we
believe they cannot be exalted to the Celestial Kingdom, that is they will
be alone, the man will be alone, and the woman will be alone, that is what
the church teaches, here. Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young,
and President John Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here
in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom
must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means
of exaltation. I never read the revelation on polygamy when I was in
Nauvoo, never saw it when I was there, never saw it in print or any other
form, never saw it at all until I came here. My husband was a counselor to
Brigham Young.
	This revelation on polygamy was publicly submitted to the church in
Utah Territory in 1852, at a conference held in the Tabernacle in this
city, and was submitted with a public declaration of Brigham Young
himself, that he kept it under lock and key, and nobody knew of its
existence except himself. That declaration is in the Journal of Discourses
preached by Brigham Young at that time, but I do not have any recollection
of it, that is of reading it.
	Yes, sir, I have been in the endowment house here at Salt Lake City
about fifteen years, during that time I have trained myself and other
ladies. I do not understand all about endowments, but I understand a good
deal. Yes, sir, I know how the ladies are dressed in taking endowments,
they are dressed differently from what they were when I took my endowments
in Nauvoo, but that does not make any difference in the ceremonies, for
the ceremonies are the same. (Temple Lot Case, p. 359-363)

	EMILY D.P. YOUNG, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined,
testified as follows:
	* * * Yes, sir, my father was one of the first officers of the
church, and the Presiding Bishop,--first Bishop of the Church. I heard my
father preach a great many times; I never heard my father either preach or
teach in public or private the practice of polygamy, it was not [258]
known in his day.
	My father's name was Edward Partridge. I was married to Brigham Young
in November I think, 1844. I was not married in the Temple because the
Temple was not built at that time; it was in process of erection, but it
was not finished, so that we could be married in it. At the time I married
Brigham Young, in November, 1844, I was at the same time sealed to Joseph
Smith, sealed to him for eternity; I was sealed to Brigham Young for time,
and to Joseph Smith for eternity. The manner that I was married to Brigham
Young is what is known as marriage by proxy; that is what I considered it
meant; that is, I was sealed to Brigham Young that day, during my natural
life, and in eternity I was to be the wife of Joseph Smith. I was not
married to Joseph Smith under the revelation on sealing, but I was married
to him under the revelation on plural marriage. I was married March, 1843;
on the 11th day of March, I think I was. I know I was married to him under
the revelation of plural marriage. I was married to him on the 11th day of
May, 1843.
	Q. --Now, I would like for you to explain how you were married to
Joseph Smith under the plural marriage revelation when the church you
belong to claims that revelation was not given until July, 1843; just tell
how you could be married under a revelation in March that was not given
until July.
	A. --Well, I do not know anything about that. (Temple Lot Case, p.
363-364)

	WILFORD WOODRUFF, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined
on the part of the Defendants, testified as follows:
	* * * The general rule of the church was that the revelations were
given the church through Joseph Smith while he lived, but the rule
required that they should be submitted to the quorums of the church before
being presented to the church. To what extent they were laid before the
quorums, I cannot say from memory. In those days I was absent from the
church a good deal of the time on my travels. It was not always that I was
at the con-[259]ferences. I will say, however, that the doctrines of the
church have been presented at the conferences at various times, but in
regard to those revelations being presented, they were always accepted as
the law whenever they were presented to the church, or to the people, I
should say.
	* * * Joseph Smith of course taught the principle of plural marriage
commonly called polygamy and he not only taught it but practiced it too. *
* *
	Exhibit E being the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, I recognize as a standard work of the church. Section 101
paragraph 2 of Exhibit E, reads as follows:
	Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at
the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man
on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person
officiating, as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit: "You both
mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing
the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves
wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives." And when
they have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them "husband and wife" in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the
country and authority vested in him: "may God add his blessings and keep
you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever." Amen. * * *
	In some things, it was the law of the church that all things should
be done by the common consent of the people; in the matter of presenting
temporal business and in the quorums, it was. But I have no recollection
of any revelation given to the effect that all church affairs pertaining
to what should or would be the law of the church that that course was to
be pursued, that the matter should be submitted to the body for its
sanction.
	All the revelations ever given to Joseph Smith before his death were
in some form or other presented to the church for its adoption. Yes, sir,
in book form or in some other form. Either in manuscript or book, one of
[260] the two forms.
	I cannot say that the church would be bound by anything until it had
been presented to and accepted by them. As I said before, whenever
revelations are given to the church and printed and delivered to the
people, they are accepted by the people. The people accept them before
they are printed.
	Q. --Well, you have not answered my question yet. The question is
this: Has it not been the practice of the church from the time of its
organization in 1829 or '30 up to 1844 June 27, and practiced by you since
you have been President of this Church, to present everything to the
church for its adoption, before the church would be bound by it?
	A. --Well, of course, as a principle of the church.
	Q. --Yes, sir, I thought so, and that is the principle you went on
when you presented the Manifesto here to the Church for adoption?
	A.--Yes, sir, of course.
	Q. --That is the principle upon or under which the church was
governed prior to 1844, that everything was presented in some form or
other for adoption?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --Presented to the church for adoption?
	A. --Yes, sir, presented to the church for adoption. These things
depend on circumstances as I before said. There was a Council held, and
business done and revelations that had been received and as a matter of
course all the works had to be presented to the church for approval.
	The church has a right to reject or approve of revelations and any
man independent of the action of the church has a right to accept it or
reject it as he sees fit and the church has a right to say whether they
will accept it or reject it as a revelation, and before a revelation can
be accepted by the Church, as a law, it must in some form or other be
presented to the Church and accepted by the Church and that has been true
since the time I first became connected with the church. * * *
	After a law had been received from God and communicated to the church
in that manner through the medium of [261] Joseph Smith as the prophet,
seer, and revelator, I do not know that the prophet was higher than that
law, but I do say that he was given the control of those things.
	After the law had been revealed from the Lord, I do not think that it
was possible for the Lord to change that law by revealing something that
was contrary to the law previously revealed through the prophet. I do not
think that he would do that. But as I say or have said before with regard
to all your questionings on these things, the prophet himself stood at the
head, and he received counsel from the Lord, and he dictated to the church
in regard to these things.
	I said in my direct examination that the patriarchal order of
marriage was taught by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. There was no rule or law of
the church at that time that referred to the patriarchal system of
marriage or plural marriage as it is now called.
	I undoubtedly knew of its being taught to certain individuals at
Nauvoo in 1841 and 1842, but I cannot say as to the time from memory. I
know that Joseph Smith taught it to certain individuals, but he did not
teach it openly to the church. I cannot say that that was 1841 or 1842. I
cannot at this time recollect the exact dates, but it was quite a while
before his death that he taught it.
	I heard of the John C. Bennett secret wife system. That was not the
system that was accepted by the church. The Bennett system was not
accepted by the church. At the time of the Bennett system, I cannot say
that Joseph Smith was teaching plural marriage.
	He was not teaching it publicly; he never did teach it publicly in
his life,--any system of plural marriage or patriarchal marriage. He
taught the principles to certain individuals, but as to dates, I haven't
it now in my mind.
	The Times and Seasons which you hand me we published there at Nauvoo,
for quite a while. I think we published it up to the time of Joseph
Smith's death and I suppose that is it. Yes, sir, that is the same book. I
think that is without doubt the original book.
	Q. --Now you have said that the doctrine of plural marriage was
taught in Nauvoo in 1841 and 1842, and I want to read this article or
letter found on page 939, [262] dated October 1, 1842:
	We the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families, do
hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of
marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,
and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J.C. Bennett's "secret wife
system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in
this place nor never did.
	That is signed by S. Bennett George Miller, Alpheas Cutler, Reynolds
Cahoon, Wilson Law, W. Woodruff, N. K. Whitney, Albert Pettey, Elias
Higbee, John Taylor, E. Robinson, and Aaron Johnson. Now what do you say
to that?
	A. --Well, sir, that is correct, for we never did acknowledge it up
to that time. No, sir, and at no other time, up to the death of the
prophet.
	I signed the letter you have just read. There was no other rule of
marriage acknowledged by the church except what is found in the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants, the 1835 edition. I did not know of any other rule
at the time and if I did, I do not now recollect it.
	Q. --Now here is another certificate that I want to call your
attention to, following the one I have just read you on the same page and
in the same column, it is as follows:
	We the undersigned members of the Ladies' Relief Society, and married
females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being
practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one
contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this
certificate to the public to show that J.C. Bennett's "secret wife system"
is a disclosure of his own make.
	That is signed by the following persons: Emma Smith, president,
Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counselor, Sarah M. Cleveland, counselor, Eliza R.
Snow, secretary, Mary [263] C. Miller, Lois Cutler, Thirza Cahoon, Ann
Hunter, Jane Law, Sophia R. Marks, Polly Z. Johnson, Abigail Works,
Catherine Pettey, Sarah Higbee, Phebe Woodruff, Lenora Taylor, Sarah
Hillman, Rosanna Marks, and Angeline Robinson.
	Now I observe amongst the names I have read to you, the name of Phebe
Woodruff,--she was your wife, was she not?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --And the name of Emma Smith, also.
	A. --Yes, sir, she was the wife of Joseph Smith, the President of the
Church, and she was also president of the Ladies' Relief Society.
Elizabeth Ann Whitney was the wife of Bishop N. K. Whitney. Sarah M.
Cleveland was a counselor to Emma Smith as president of the Ladies' Relief
Society, and Eliza R. Snow was the secretary of this society.
	I know all those ladies whose names appear to that certificate.
	There could not have been any rule of marriage or any order of
marriage in existence at that time except that prescribed by the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants to their knowledge, They would certainly have known
it and up to the 1st day of October, 1842, there was no such system taught
or practiced openly or secretly to my knowledge.
	Joseph Smith taught us privately, or taught some of the members of
the church privately the Abrahamic principle of marriage or the
patriarchal system of marriage.
	From the teachings of the Bible, I think that Abraham practiced the
plural system of marriage. I think he had more wives than one. I think
that it is represented that Hagar was his wife, and that Sarah was also
his wife. Sarah was his first wife, and then he took Hagar.
	Q. --Are you willing to swear that it is represented in the Bible
that Hagar was Abraham's wife?
	A. --I think that is the way it is represented.
	Q. --Are you willing to swear that in any place in the Bible it is
represented that Hagar is the wife of Abraham? Whether it is so stated in
the Bible in any place?
	A. --Well, my view of it is that she was his wife,--[264] that she
belonged to him as his wife and we know that he had posterity by her, and
you can call it what you please.
	Q. --My question is, what does the Bible call it, Mr. Woodruff?
	A. --I do not recollect.
	Q. --Don't the Bible call her a bondwoman?
	A. --It might be probable that it does call her that.
	Q. --Is that what you mean by a wife?
	A. --Well I consider that if a man has a woman married to him, that
she is his wife and you can call it a bondwoman or what you please, but I
consider that if she lives with him in the relation of a wife, and he has
posterity by her, that she is his wife, it matters not what her previous
condition of servitude or other condition may have been.
	It is not for me to say whether Abraham took her rightly or not, but
I will say that Abraham was a good man, and he would hardly take her
without he had a right to her or had liberty from the Lord to take her. As
I understand it, all the right he had was the right given by his wife
Sarah; that was the patriarchal order of marriage. I don't know what the
ceremony was, because there is not much published about it. After Sarah
had given Hagar to her husband, it seems that she had convictions about
it, and had some trouble apparently in regard to the matter, that is what
I gather from my readings in regard to that transaction. * * *
	Q. --I want to read to you now from an article in the Times and
Seasons of the 15th day of November, 1844, on page 715. I will read the
whole paragraph to you, Mr. Woodruff.
	A. --I have no doubt in the world that that book you are reading from
is the Times and Seasons.
	Q. --I will read it to you:
	The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and
incomings of so many apostates that nothing but truth has any effect upon
them. In the present instance, after the sham quotations of Sidney and his
clique, from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, to
skulk off, under the "dreadful splen-[265]dor" of "spiritual wifery" which
is brought into the account as graciously as if the law of the land
allowed a man a plurality of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of
Sidney's revelation, just because he wanted "to go to Pittsburg and live."
Wo to the man who will thus wilfully lie to injure an innocent people! The
law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have
more than one wife alive at once, but if any man's wife die, he has a
right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the
living and the dead! there is no law of God against it! This is all the
spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they know
it.
	Now that is dated November 15, 1844?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --That is signed, "An Old Man of Israel?"
	A. --I do not remember anything about it at all. There is nothing
strange about that though; there were a great many things published at the
time that I didn't know anything about, and I cannot, fifty years
afterwards, remember everything that was published.
	Q. --I will ask you if you recollect this editorial comment made by
John Taylor, under the head of Union and Peace at Nauvoo:
	For the communication of an "Old Man in Israel," and the letter of
Elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific Ocean, we bespeak a
hearty welcome. They are genuine.
	Q. --Now do you recall that?
	A. --No, sir, but I would like to look at that a moment. I read the
Times and Seasons at the time. I was a subscriber to the Times and Seasons
at that time.
	This was the church paper published at that time, 1844, and was
published by an apostle of the church. John Taylor was one of the
apostles.
	John Taylor held the editorship of the paper for a long time before
the death of Joseph Smith, up until the publication was discontinued.
	I was never taught in Nauvoo or anywhere else by [266] Joseph Smith
at any time that a woman could not be exalted in the hereafter unless she
was married.
	I do not know where the original of the revelation called the
polygamous revelation is. I do not know that I ever saw it. I do not
believe I ever did see it. * * *
	I have read the sermons Brigham Young published in the Journal of
Discourses,--some of them,--they are in my library, and I presume are
considered correct as published. They are published by the church of which
I am President. They are correct in so far as every man had a chance to
correct his own discourses, or should do so if he has a chance. Sermons
reported by G. D. Watts, one of the official reporters, were considered as
reported correctly, and when they are found in the Journal of Discourses,
they are considered correct. Some of my own sermons are published there,
and they are correct.
	Q. --Then on the 15th day of November, 1844, there was no marriage
ceremony that governed the church as a church, except the one published in
the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants ? Is not that a
fact, Mr. Woodruff?
	A. --None that I know of. That was all the law on the question of
marriage that was given to the body of the people.
	Q. --Now I will ask you, Mr. Woodruff, why the church of which you
are President in the publication of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants in
the edition of 1876, eliminated from that edition the section on marriage
found in the 1835 edition, and in all the editions of the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants published up to 1856, and in all the editions of the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants published up to 1876, and inserted in lieu of that
section on marriage the revelation on polygamy dated July 12, 1843.
	A. --I do not know why it was done. It was done by the authority of
whoever presided over the church, I suppose. Brigham Young was the
President then.
	Q. --Now, can you tell why the section on marriage that had always
been in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants up to that time was eliminated
from it and the other inserted in lieu of it?
[267] A. --I cannot tell. It was done I suppose under the direction of
Brigham Young or under his administration. I cannot state why it was done.
	Q. --Was it not done because one was in conflict with the other?
	A. --I do not know that I can state why it was done. * * *
	Q. --Now, is not this revelation on the question of marriage
introduced into the Book of Doctrine and Covenants in the place of the
original section on marriage, called a new covenant?
	A. --It may be called that. I think it is or was called a new
covenant.
	Q. --Is that the new covenant spoken of in section 47 of Exhibit E,
the edition of 1835 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?
	A. --Yes, sir.
	Q. --I will read to you from the 1876 edition of the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants, being the revelation on polygamy, paragraphs 3 and 4:
	Therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions
which I am about to give unto you, for all those who have this law
revealed unto them, must obey the same.
	For behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and
if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject
this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory.
	Now do you say that refers to the same covenant?
	A. --No, sir, I do not say so. I would like to hear the other one
read. You have them so mixed that I do not know which is which. I was
baptized by regular authority in 1833, and I do not say there was any
necessity of being rebaptized in 1849 or '50, I simply wanted to renew my
covenant. None of us had killed anybody nor committed any crime that I
know of, but we simply felt that we wanted to renew our covenants.
	This revelation given in 1830 was the one that revealed the
priesthood to the children of men. I understood that [268] it was a new
and everlasting covenant. A new covenant of the priesthood. I view it as
being a new and everlasting covenant in 1830 when it was known and there
is a reason for it of course.
	Q. --Well, if it was a new and everlasting covenant, how could it be
that it was not revealed until thirteen years after that time, and then
called a new and everlasting covenant.
	A. --Well, it is called a new and everlasting covenant in that case,
because of the law of marriage under which it was given. That is as I view
it, but of course I don't know, but that is my opinion. I do not know
whether it is the covenant spoken of in the other revelation or not, but I
should judge it was not.
	Q. --But the other had already been revealed in 1830?
	A. --Yes, sir, and there is a reason given for it, and why. There is
a covenant,--a revelation perhaps that is not considered in the other.
	Q. --And for that reason you were rebaptized when you came to Salt
Lake; is that not true?
	A. --No, sir, not with regard to that covenant. We were baptized
because we felt like doing it. Renewing covenants, before the Lord. It was
not done because we felt that we had to do it, but because we felt
disposed so to do.
	Q. --Have you any other new and everlasting covenant outside that
spoken of in section 65, which I read to you from Exhibit E?
	A. --I have nothing to say about it.
	Q. --Do you decline to answer the question?
	A. --Well, with regard to what he said in that covenant on the
patriarchal order of marriage, it is a covenant connected with the law on
the patriarchal order of marriage, and it is not connected with the order
of marriage as represented in the first covenant.
	Q. --Is it the same one referred to in the 1835 edition of the Book
of Doctrine and Covenants?
	A. --I have nothing to say about it. There is the word of the Lord
and I am not going to contradict it.
	Q. --You say you do not feel disposed to contradict the word of the
Lord?
[269] A. --I would not be presumptuous enough to do that. * * * (Temple
Lot Case, p. 291-313)

	LUCY W. KIMBALL, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined
on the part of the Defendants, testifies as follows:
* * * The doctrine of polygamy was taught to me personally in Nauvoo, and
I was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith. William Clayton performed the
ceremony, and I accepted it as a special commandment from God.
	The marriage was performed on the 1st day of May, 1843. The only
witness to the ceremony was Eliza Partridge. The first time I ever saw
Joseph Smith was in the spring of 1841. I do not remember the month when I
first came to Nauvoo and saw him for the first time.
	Q. --And you never at any time saw Joseph Smith until 1841?
	A. --I did not see him before that time.
	Q. --And yet you swear that he received a revelation on polygamy in
1831, and you swear that you did not see him until 1841, is that what you
swear to, Mrs. Kimball?
	A. --Yes, sir, that is what I say, and all I know is what he said. I
never saw any such a revelation during his lifetime. I will correct that.
I saw that revelation at our house in Nauvoo, in 1842; it was in writing;
I mean it was not written to present to the church. It was written later
than that. Of course it was written when I saw it in 1842; that is, it was
in manuscript. Of course I am sure it was the one on plural marriage, just
as positive of that as anything else I have sworn to; there is no doubt
about it at all. Well, now I would not be positive as to just the
time,--that is, as to the express time, but I know that it was not
written. It was not presented to the High Council for their acceptance
until, I think, 1843. * * *
	The Lawrence girls were married to the prophet, too. I was not at
their weddings.
	Weddings were not performed publicly in those days. I think I was
present when I was married to him. The Partridge girls were married to him
also. I cannot say [270] whether we were all married to him in 1842 or
not. I have no recollection about it.
	I was not there when they were married to him; I know that they were
married to him; I know that they were married simply from hearsay; I
cannot tell which one married him first. It was the 1st day of May, 1843,
when I married him; I do not know anything about their affairs. My sister
was there at the Mansion when I was married, but she was not present; she
knew nothing about it. Elder William Clayton performed the ceremony.
	Emma Smith was not present, and she did not consent to the marriage;
she did not know anything about it at all.
	No, sir, she did not know anything about my marriage to her husband.
I shall not answer your question as to what room I occupied on the 1st day
of May, 1843, after my marriage. I decline to answer whether I occupied
the same room with Joseph Smith on the night of the 1st day of May, 1843.
I decline to answer whether I ever occupied the same room with Joseph
Smith, either on the night of May 1, or any other night, and there is no
law that will compel me to do so, or upholds you in intruding into my
affairs. I decline to answer your questions because I consider them
insulting; yes, sir, I do.
	Q. --Your feelings have grown more delicate now than they were
forty-eight or forty-nine years ago; they grow more mellow and refined
with age.
	A. --I do not know about that.
	Q. --Your feelings were not so tender when in 1843, you married a man
who at that time to your knowledge had four or five other wives, and
imposed yourself upon his innocent wife, and deceived her, by joining in
that kind of an alliance with her husband,--that was not insulting,--but
now when I ask you a question, which under the law I have a right to ask
you, you say it is insulting.
	A. --Not in the light that we accepted it. He introduced me as his
wife to Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young; they are both dead. I cannot
name a single, solitary man, either an apostle in the church, or any other
man or woman now living to whom I was introduced by Joseph Smith as his
wife.
[271] There is not a single solitary individual living, whether in or out
of the church, or who was a member of the church at the time of Joseph
Smith's death, to whom he ever introduced me as his wife,--the marriage
was not made public.
	I did not attend church with him as his wife. I was at the funeral of
Joseph Smith; I cannot tell anything about who preached the sermon; I
cannot tell anything about whether there was any sermon preached or not. *
* *
	Q. --You attended the funeral as Joseph Smith's wife.
	A. --It was not known or acknowledged that I was his wife; I did not
attend the funeral as his wife, of course I did not; and if the records of
my testimony show that I stated that I attended the funeral as his wife,
it is a mistake, for I did not say any such a thing, nor I did not intend
to, for it is not true. I did not appear there as his wife, no, sir. * * *
	I was married to Heber C. Kimball in 1845, in Nauvoo; do not think I
can tell you the exact date. I was married in the Temple; Brigham Young
performed the marriage ceremony.
	I decline to answer the question who I married before I married Heber
C. Kimball, or how many times I married. I never asked Mr. Kimball how
many wives he had at the time I married him. I do not know how many he had
besides myself after I married him. I never asked him whether he had more
wives than me or not.
	There was not any love in the union between myseLf and Kimball, and
it is my business entirely whether there was any courtship or not. It was
the principle of plural marriage that we were trying to establish, a great
and glorious true principle, and if we had established it, it would have
been for the benefit of the whole human race, and the race will say so
yet.
	Yes, sir, and the day will come when you will doff your hat to the
plural wife system. Yes, sir, I know that. Well, you will need to
apologize to me for what you have been saying.
	I am proud of my associations in that regard and have nothing to fear
or be ashamed of either in this worLd or in the world to come.
[272] That principle is as sacred, as holy, and as divine as God himself,
and you will see the day when you will acknowledge it.
	Q. --Well, then, if that principle is as true and as holy as God
himself, how is it that the church went back on it and said that the Lord
did not command it at all?
	A. --Well, the church will see the day when it will apologize for
that. Yes, sir, I did consent to the Manifesto with the rest of the church
to President Woodruff, much to my regret, but I am not going to
acknowledge it again; the time will surely come for that principle to
rule.
	I have nine children by my marriage with Kimball. I am as proud to
know that I practiced polygamy as I am to know that I was the wife of
Heber C. Kimball, and he was as noble a man as ever stood on the earth.
	Sarah Lawrence also married Heber C. Kimball; I do not know whether
she married him before I did or not; I made no inquiries, for it had
nothing to do with me at all. Yes, sir, Joseph Smith taught me the
principles of polygamy in 1842, at the old house where we lived, before
the Mansion House was built or finished.
	Q. --Was there anybody present when he taught you that?
	A. --Well, here, sir, that is my business, and you have no right to
pry into it; no, sir, you have not; that is another question I decline to
answer. It is my business what he said, and none of yours.
	He said that the principle would be established, and the time was
near when it would be established.
	I shall not say a thing about what he taught me about polygamy, for
that is my business, and not yours. I decline to tell you anything about
that, because it is my business, and because you are asking these
questions simply for the purpose of worrying me.
	I do not think that is merely an assumption of mine but this is all
sacred to me, and for that reason I decline to tell you anything about it.
	President Woodruff asked me to come here, and I supposed all you
wanted to know was if Joseph Smith had more wives than one; what he taught
me is what I will not [273] tell you. I testified that I was his wife, and
that is the truth, and I know that I am to be eternally his wife.
	Well, it is none of your business if we had twenty children, and it
is none of your business if we did not have any. I do not consider young
Joseph Smith to be my son because of the fact that I married his father.
	He told me himself that his father had no more wives than his mother,
and he knew at the time he said that, that he was telling a falsehood. * *
*
	I was the wife of one of the counselors of Brigham Young. I was
present when the revelation on polygamy was presented to the church here
in Utah, in 1852, the time it was presented for adoption by Brigham Young,
as part of the law of the church.
	I voted on its adoption, and I have been sustaining the preaching and
practicing of polygamy ever since. It has been a part of my faith. We have
been talking it publicly and privately from that time up to the time of
the manifesto.
	You will not find out from me whether I have been sealed to anyone
either for time or eternity, either publicly or privately, since I was
sealed to Heber C. Kimball, that is nobody's business but my own, but I
would not be very apt to marry again with the large family of children I
have.
	The contract when I married Mr. Kimball was that I should be his wife
for time only, and the contract on the part of Mr. Kimball was that he
would take care of me during my lifetime, and in the resurrection would
surrender me, with my children, to Joseph Smith. That is what I call
marrying by proxy, and men have been crushed who have refused to do such
things. That was the kind of an agreement I had with Mr. Kimball.
	I decline to answer whether I had any children while I was sealed to
Joseph Smith. I have nine children since I was married to Heber C.
Kimball.
	Q. --These children of Heber C. Kimball's and yours,--these
nine,--you consider Joseph Smith's children?
	A. --I suppose that will be all right in the resurrection and in
eternity; I do not trouble myself about that. (Temple Lot Case, p.
371-379)

[274] JOSEPH B. NOBLE, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined,
testified as follows:
	* * * I suppose the reason I know and can recollect about polygamy is
because I have been connected with the commission of that crime myself.
And my conscience is having a terrible gnawing fit this morning. * * *
	I did not teach either publicly or privately there at Nauvoo, that a
man could have more wives than one; I did not teach it at all. No, sir, I
guess not; not much I did not teach it. My head hurts me when I try to
think of these things that I cannot remember.
	I guess it was not safe for a man to teach that kind of a doctrine,
that a man could have more wives than one; you had to be pretty careful
about what you taught. I never heard Joseph Smith teach the church the
doctrine of polygamy, or that a man could have more wives than one, either
publicly or privately.
	I said the other day in my cross-examination that Louisa Beeman was
seated to Joseph Smith in 1840, and that I performed the ceremony; to-day
I am inclined to think it was a little later than that. I said the other
day that it was when I lived in Iowa, and that I moved from Montrose to
Nauvoo in 1841. I lived in Iowa in 1840.
	Well, if I said the other day that Louisa Beeman was married at my
house across the river from Nauvoo in 1840, I must have been mistaken, and
did not understand the question. Well, I will settle down on the date that
Louisa Beeman was married in 1841 or 1842. We received the law through
Joseph Smith; he was the law, and he gave us the law. He gave the law to
the church. * * *
	When I was living in Nauvoo, during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, it
was not a law of the church that Joseph Smith could grant divorces. Joseph
Smith never did anything like that.
	You will have to took at the records to tell how many times I have
been married. My first wife's name was Adeline Beeman, and I do not think
it is any of your business who the next one was, I will have to search the
records to get them in rotation.
	I cannot tell you the name of my second wife because I am so
dizzy,--it would take angels to find them all.
[275] I did not say I could not tell the names of all my wives, I might
tell some of them. I do not think I could tell the names of any of them,
and I swear that I will not tell, just for your damned nonsense.
	Yes, sir, I am an elder in the church and I am swearing in court; I
do not know who would not swear, after such a tornado of nonsense poured
into him. I am swearing because I am indignant, and you have no rights
here anyway.
	I said it was none of your damned business because your question was
so nonsensical. No, sir, I will not tell the names of my wives, just
because I will not. Just because it is none of your damned business, I
will not tell you the time I married my second wife.
	I could not begin to count how many I have had, I have never been
divorced from any of them. It is none of your business whether I have had
more than two wives living at the same time, and I refuse to answer that
question, because it is none of your business.
	I cannot tell the date that I took my first plural wife; I cannot
tell whether it was in 1845 or not; cannot tell because the dates bother
me. I do not want to answer the question whether I was married in the
Temple at Nauvoo, or not; it might tend to criminate me if I answered that
question, and I will not answer whether I took any endowments in Nauvoo;
that is an improper question.
	Yes, sir, I have married women and agreed to take care of them for
time, and surrender them to somebody else in eternity. * * * (Temple Lot
Case, p. 364-371)

	SAMUEL W. RICHARDS, of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and
examined on the part of the Defendants, testified as follows:
	* * * As I understand it, John C. Bennett and others taught simply
the system of polygamy, and practiced it also to a pretty liberal extent,
while the principles taught by the Mormon Church did not embrace the
principle of polygamy, as it gives the wife the same right to several
husbands, as it gives the husband the right to several wives. Bennett's
system was entirely opposed to the practices of celestial marriage. The
principle of plural [276] marriage allows a man to have more wives than
one at the same time, and the old law of Moses did also. * * *
	Joseph Smith did not teach me polygamy, no, sir. I did not hear
anybody teach it or preach it during his lifetime, either from the pulpit
or stand. I never heard it preached or taught from the stand or from the
pulpit by anybody. I heard it talked about. * * *
	No, sir, I do not think the revelation on polygamy was in the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants published by me in England, in 1852. I cannot say
whether the first publication of that revelation was made in 1876. If I
could see the book I could tell. I do not have any recollection of seeing
it published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants until the 1876 edition.
* * *
	I was in Nauvoo in 1844. I have read in the Times and Seasons
published November 15, 1844, quite a number of times, the editorial of
John Taylor, as follows:
 	The Saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and
incomings of so many apostates that nothing but truth has any effect upon
them. In the present instance, after the sham quotations of Sidney and his
clique, from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, to
skulk off, under the "dreadful splendor" of "spiritual wifery," which is
brought into the account as graciously as if the law of the land allowed a
man a plurality of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of Sidney's
revelation, just because he wanted "to go to Pittsburg and live." Wo to
the man or men who will thus wilfully lie to injure an innocent people!
The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow a man to have
more than one wife alive at once, but if any man's wife die, he has a
right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the
living and the dead! there is no law of God or man against it! This is all
the spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they
know it.
	But whether I read it just at the time, I cannot say; it is very.
likely that I did, but I cannot recollect it now. I recognize the
editorial comment published in that same [277] number reading as follows:
	For the communication of an "Old man of Israel," and the letter of
Elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific Ocean, we bespeak a
hearty welcome. They are genuine.
	The editorial comment is by the editor, John Taylor. There was no
other system of marriage known to the church at that time to my knowledge,
except that stated in the article published in the Times and Seasons,
November 15, 1844.
	There was no other system of marriage known at that time,--no other
system was known or had become a rule. I mean that the practice of plural
marriage had not been communicated to the church at that time.
	Yes, sir, I knew all the time I was there in Nauvoo, from 1842 down
to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, that there was no other system of
marriage taught or practiced by the church than that of monogamy. The
system of plural marriage was not practiced by the church, and did not
become a law of the church until afterwards; the church as a church did
not know anything about it. There was no system of sealing known or
practiced by the church up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith. There
was no system of sealing practiced by the church before the death of
Joseph Smith.
	I heard Joseph Smith teach the Quorum of Twelve (perhaps not a full
quorum) the principles of sealing. I never heard him teach it publicly,
nor to any considerable number of people. He called it the order of
celestial marriage, sealing a man to his wife for eternity.
	I never heard the principle of sealing taught that a man could be
sealed to another man's wife for eternity; I never heard him teach that
another man's wife could be sealed to him for eternity. I never heard him
teach either publicly or privately that a man could live with two women in
this life as his wives at the same time; never heard him teach that.
	The Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants
contained the law of the church in 1844, at [278] the time of the death of
Joseph Smith. These were the only books that had been accepted by the
church as containing the doctrine and teachings of the church. There was
another publication, the Times and Seasons, that was accepted as the paper
of the church, but the doctrine, teachings, and tenets of the church were
to be found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants.
	I do not understand that revelations could be received and the church
bound by them before they were presented to the church; do not understand
that the church would be bound by them before it understood anything about
them, no, sir. I do not consider that they would be binding upon the
church, only so far as they were made known and adopted by the church;
they would have to be presented to the church and adopted by the church
before they would become a law to the church.
	The church had a right to reject any revelation it wanted to; not
only the church, but any member of the church, or the whole body of the
church, if they chose to do so. All men, yourself included, have a perfect
right to reject the truth; if they do so, however, they would be held
accountable for doing it, but they have a right to do it.
	The members of the church were taught in the revelations that
everything must be done by common consent of tile church, and in the
church everything that was done was by common consent. And the revelation
would not be binding as a law of the church before it had been accepted by
the church; of course members could accept it if they wished to, and could
act upon it; that would not bind the church, but simply the actions of
certain members, but it would not be binding upon the church, or be a law
or rule of action to the church until it was accepted by the church.
(Temple Lot Case, p. 390-393)

[279]
13 Jan 1896, Editorial:
From the DESERET EVENING NEWS:

BIERBOWER NOT A PROPHET.

	The Lamoni SAINT'S HERALD seeks to promote Vic Bierbower, formerly
assistant U. S. attorney here and now a prominent Idaho Official, to the
rank of a prophet. It says that on Jan. 16, 1886, when Mr. Bierbower had
asked a jury to convince Elder Lorenzo Snow of unlawful cohabitation upon
the ground that if this was done a new revelation would soon follow
"changing the divine taw of celestial marriage," Elder Snow remarked that
"whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a Lawyer he certainly
will fail as a prophet." The HERALD then indicates the alleged superiority
of Mr. Bierbower's inspiration. Since the conviction was had, however, and
the predicted change in the divine law of celestial marriage did not
follow it, and has not taken place, Mr. Bierbower's prognostication is yet
short of realization; hence his pretensions as a prophet have proven
baseless thus far. On the other hand, the prediction of his failure to
fortell events with even a reasonable degree of accuracy is so notable in
its fulfilment that there is no question as to whose was the superior
inspiration. It was emphatically not Mr. Bierbower's.

12 Sep 1897, Polygamy:
From the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

Methodist Ministers Declare That It Is Still Practiced.

* * *
	Dr. Wishard said that Mormon Church officials had become more
aggressive than ever before. He contended that the manifesto regarding
polygamy was not being lived up to, and he stated that the leading men of
the church are today living with more than one wife. He instanced the
Sheriff of Cache county as a man living [280] in polygamy. "Yet I read
only a few days ago that he brought a man to the penitentiary for living
unlawfully with a woman," added the speaker.
	Dr. Wishard also spoke of a man at Montpelier who was married to two
sisters. He said that polygamy is being taught in the Smithfield school,
and closed by expressing regret that "the strong, Christly hand of the
Methodist church has been quietly withdrawn."
	Rev. N. Bascom said that within one block of the Methodist and
Presbyterian churches in Logan a man is living in polygamy with three
women, two of whom are sisters. * * * Rev. Wildman Murphy of Spanish Fork
said there the public schools are being run in the interest of the church.
He stated that polygamy still was being practiced, "But there is no use
attacking it," said he, "for the legal machinery is in the hands of those
who believe in polygamy." * * *
	Dr. McNiece said that polygamy is being openly practiced still, and
he asserted that there is less actual independence now in Utah than for
years past. As indicating the power of the church, he referred to the
Thatcher incident, and said that none was so strong as to resist with
success. "I believe it would have been better if Statehood had been
postponed a few years," he concluded. "We have not had time yet to
appreciate its consequences fully. But we will see them after the November
election." * * *

13 Sep 1897, Angus M. Cannon:
From the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

Angus M. Cannon Says Polygamy Is Not Practiced.

	President Angus M. Cannon of the Salt Lake Stake was seen, however,
and he spoke with much freedom of the action of the ministers.
	"When they say that polygamy is practiced or tolerated, they utter a
falsehood," said he. "Since the anti-polygamy law was declared
constitutional and the President's [281] manifesto issued we have striven
to honor it, and I say emphatically that I have never aided, abetted nor
had knowledge of any person having entered the state of polygamy since the
declaration of that manifesto.
	"We still believe in the principle of plural marriages as we believe
in the practices of the Patriarchs--you can't change a people's
beliefs--but we submit to the law, and we do not encourage, nor do we
practice, polygamy. But if they think, that men are going to cast off the
mothers of their children and leave them in need, or fail to provide for
them when they contracted the obligations in good faith, they mistake the
community. Congress provided that when a man died intestate the children
of his plural wives should inherit with the others. I hold that it would
be grossly wicked to fail to provide for the children or to fail to
support their mothers when the obligation contracted is sacred in the eyes
of God and man. Had I the power, and a man should cast off his plural
wives, I would disfellowship him from the church.
	"They say that children are born to plural wives. I do not mean to
say that there are not such cases, but because a child is so born, is the
whole community to be blamed and accused of lack of faith, and the
hireling ministers to advocate the depriving us of our political and
religious liberties?
	"They say we should not have had Statehood. No doubt the pack of
hireling ministers would be pleased to see us continue in bondage because
they abhor our faith. They made representations that our doctrines are not
spiritual not possessed of the grace of the sectarian religions, and I am
not surprised that such men should advocate the supression of liberty.
They would not only deprive us of our political rights as indicated, but
would deprive us of our religious liberty as well.
	"For professed ministers of Jesus Christ to deal in falsehoods
provokes my greatest contempt. They are worse than the heathens.
	"Our doctrines are as scriptural as any. We teach loyalty and purity
of life and inculcate spirituality. No people on earth are living more
closely than the Latter-day Saints to the divine teachings of the Lord. I
defy [282] them to prove the contrary. * * *

May 1898, B. H. Roberts:
	Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the plural
marriage custom of the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and kings of Israel,
it is not at all to be wondered at that, in the dispensation of the
fullness of time, in which He has promised restitution of all things, that
God should again establish that system of marriage. And the fact of God's
approval of plural marriage in ancient times is a complete defence of the
righteousness of the marriage system introduced by revelation through the
Prophet Joseph Smith.
	Joseph Smith received a commandment from the Lord to introduce that
order of marriage into the church, and on the strength of that revelation,
and not by reason of anything that is written in the Jewish scriptures,
the Latter-day Saints practice plural marriage.
	Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered then Abraham,
Jacob, and the prophets who practiced it would not be allowed an
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, and if polygamy is not adultery then
it can not be classed as a sin at all. It appears to the writer that
modern Christians must either learn to tolerate polygamy or give up
forever the glorious hope of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which he
approves, and so strikingly approves, must be not only not bad, but
positively good, pure, and holy.

(IMPROVEMENT ERA, May, 1898, pp. 472, 475, 478, 482. See SMOOT HEARING,
vol. 1:9)

1899, James E. Talmage:
	Governments are essential to human existence; they are recognized,
given indeed, of the Lord; and His people are in duty bound to sustain
them.
	BOOK OF MORMON teachings concerning the duty of the people as
subjects of the law of the land are abundant throughout the volume.
However, as the civil and the ec-[283]clesiastical powers were usually
vested together, the king or chief judge being also the high priest, there
are comparatively few admonitions of allegiance to the civil authority as
distinct from that of the priesthood. From the time of Nephi, son of Lehi,
to that of the death of Mosiah, a period of nearly five hundred years, the
Nephites were ruled by a succession of kings; during the remaining time of
their recorded history, more than five hundred years, people were subject
to judges of their own choosing. Under each of these varieties of
government, the secular laws were rigidly enforced, the power of the state
being supplemented and strengthened by that of the Church. The sanctity
with which the laws were regarded is illustrated in the judgment
pronounced by Alma upon Nehor, a murderer, and an advocate of sedition and
priestcraft: "Thou art condemned to die," said the judge, "according to
the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and they have
been acknowledged by this people; therefore, this people must abide by the
law." (Alma 1:14)
	Modern revelation requires of the Saints in the present dispensation
a strict allegiance to the civil laws. In a communication dated August 1,
1831, the Lord said to the Church: "Let no man break the laws of the land,
for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the law's of the
land; Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be until He reigns whose
right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet." (D. & C.
58:19-22) At a later date, August 6, 1833, the voice of the Lord was heard
again on this matter, saying: "And now, verily I say unto you concerning
the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do
all things whatsoever I command them; and that law of the land which is
constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights
and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me;
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in
befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land." (D. &
C. 48:4-6)
	A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its
individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the
requirements made by the re-[284]vealed word of God, and those imposed by
the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the
Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied: it
is the duty of the people to render "Unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." At the present time,
the Kingdom of Heaven as an earthly power, with a reigning King exercising
direct and personal authority in temporal matters, has not been
established upon the earth; the branches of the Church as such, and the
members composing the same, are subjects of the several governments within
whose separate realms the Church organizations exist. In this day of
comparative enlightenment and freedom, there is small cause for expecting
any direct interference with the rights of private worship and individual
devotion; in all civilized nations the people are accorded the right to
pray, and this right is assured by what may be properly called a common
law of human-kind. No earnest soul is cut off from communion with his God;
and with such an open channel of communication, relief from burdensome
laws and redress for greivances may be sought from the power that holds
control of nations.
	Pending the over-ruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty,
it is the duty of the saints to submit themselves to the laws of their
country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or
subjects of their several governments, to secure the boon of freedom in
religious duties, for themselves and for all men. It is not required of
them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless persecutors, or
through the operation of unjust laws; but their protests should be offered
in peaceful and proper order. The Saints have practically demonstrated
their acceptance of the doctrine that it is better to suffer evil than to
do wrong by purely human opposition to unjust authority. And if by thus
submitting themselves to the laws of land, in the event of such laws being
unjust and subversive of human freedom, the Saints be prevented from doing
the work appointed them of God, they will not be held accountable for the
failure to act under the higher law. The word of the Lord has been given
explicitly defining the position and duty of the [285] people in such a
contingency: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a
commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and
those sons of men go with all their might, and with all they have, to
perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come
upon them, and hinder them from performing that work; behold, it behoveth
me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to
accept of their offerings; And the iniquity and transgression of my holy
laws and commandments, I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered
my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not
and hate me, saith the Lord God." (D. & C. 74:49-50)
	An illustration of such suspension of Divine Law is found in the
action of the Church regarding the matter of plural of polygamous
marriage. The practice referred to was established as a result of direct
revelation. (D. &C. sec. 132) and many of those who followed the same felt
that they were divinely commanded so to do. For ten years after polygamy
had been introduced into Utah as a Church observance, no law was enacted
in opposition to the practice. Beginning with 1862, however, federal
statutes were framed declaring the practice unlawful and providing
penalties therefor. The Church claimed that these enactments were
unconstitutional, and therefore void, inasmuch as they violated the
provision in the national constitution which denies the government power
to make laws respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. (Article 1, of the Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States.) Many appeals were taken to the national court of
final resort, and at last a decision was rendered sustaining the
anti-polygamy laws as constitutional and therefore binding. The Church,
through its chief officer, thereupon discontinued the practice of plural
marriage, and announced its action to the world; solemnly placing the
responsibility for the change upon the nation by whose laws the
renunciation had been forced. This action has been approved and confirmed
by the official vote of the Church in conference assembled.
	Perhaps no more proper summary could be presented [286] of the
teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding its
relation to the civil power, and respect due to the laws of the land, than
the official declaration of belief which was issued by the Prophet Joseph
Smith, and which has been incorporated in the Doctrine and Covenants, one
of the standard works of the Church, adopted by vote of the Church as one
of the accepted guides in faith, doctrine, and practice. (See D. & C. 134)

(ARTICLES OF FAITH, 1899 ed., pp. 432-437)

7 Jan 1899, Charles W. Penrose:
From the DESERET EVENING NEWS:

A PERSONAL MATTER:

	The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE recently contained a dispatch from New York
stating that the JOURNAL of that city had published, under scare-heads, a
letter from C.W. Penrose to a friend in the East, in which it was pointed
out "clearly and distinctly," that "the Constitution under which Utah was
admitted into the Union, does not interfere with the full enlargement of
the polygamists' rights." Also, that "polygamy is practiced, it is
encouraged, and the boast is openly made that there is no law to stop it."
* * *
	In order that there may be no misapprehension on the part of the
multitudes who do not read either the JOURNAL or the TRIBUNE, the private
letter thus given to the public is herewith appended:
	"I am sorry that the NEW YORK JOURNAL has gone wrong on the Roberts
question and has joined the senseless hue and cry raised by the
Presbyterians and Republicans jointly. Let me give you the facts:
	"After the manifesto of President Woodruff, there were no more plural
marriages permitted or solemnized by the Mormon Church. They ceased in
Utah. That you can rely upon. There is no intention of reviving polygamous
marriages in this State. When the Enabling Act [287] was passed by
Congress the only special provision in it, in addition to the ordinary
requirements, was that the State Constitution should provide that
polygamous or plural marriages should be forever prohibited.
	"The understanding was that men who had contracted such marriages
previous to Statehood would not be required to repudiate them, or cast
them off, the idea being that if such marriages ceased to be solemnized,
in a little while the system would become obsolete.
	"The Enabling Act, therefore, provided that all male citizens
twenty-one years of age, who had resided one year in the Territory, would
be qualified to vote for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and
should be eligible to take part in that convention. This rendered void the
old disfranchising provisions of the Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker laws.
	"Mr. Roberts and a number of others who are supposed to have married
plural wives previous to the issuing of the manifesto, were elected
delegates to the convention, and helped to frame the State Constitution.
Apostle John Henry Smith was the president of the convention. C. C.
Goodwin, editor of THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, was a member, and he with other
prominent Gentiles, understood the situation and helped to so frame the
instrument, that, while it provided against further polygamous marriages,
it did not interfere with the full enjoyment of any right or privileges by
persons who had already entered into such associations. Thus, it was
understood that the cessation of Mormon polygamous marriages was a
settlement of the question, politically.
	"B.H. Roberts was fully eligible under the Enabling Act and under the
State Constitution for election to any office in the gift of the people.
He was duty nominated at a regular convention, participated in by both
Mormon and Gentile delegates. He was considered so strong a candidate that
the Republicans were at a loss for an opponent likely to compete with him.
They put up a Mormon, Alma Eldredge, and there was a lively contest.
	"THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE was enraged at the prospects of defeat, and
started the story that Roberts had violated the anti-polygamy laws.
Roberts was elected [288] by a majority of nearly 6,000, the mining camps
and other places where Gentiles predominated, voting heavily in his favor.
	"The TRIBUNE has kept up the howl against Roberts, with a hope of
keeping him out of his seat. There is no legal means whereby this can be
accomplished. There is no law of Congress now against polygamy, and if
there were, he is not living in violation of an anti-polygamy law.
	"It is claimed that he has three living wives. Supposing that is
true, what is he to do with them? Cast them off? Turn them into the
streets? Repudiate his children, or take care of them like a man? The
women of the East who are raising such a rumpus about Roberts do not know
what they are raving over, nor what they want. He is simply doing his
duty, as every sensible person acquainted with the facts will admit. If he
were to do otherwise, he would be a scoundrel. His election to Congress
has no actual bearing on the Mormon question, nor does it effect the
Mormon question, nor does it effect polygamy in any way. If he were to be
expelled from Congress, no Mormon would put away his wives. If he takes
his seat and retains his place, no Mormon would, therefore, marry a plural
wife. The law of the State is against that, and the rule of the Church
will not permit it. If you can do anything toward correcting the errors on
this subject that are now being sown broadcast in the East, aided by the
NEW YORK JOURNAL, you will benefit the people for whom you entertain so
high a regard.
				C.W. PENROSE

(Editorial, DESERET EVENING NEWS, 7 Jan 1899)

9 Jan 1899, Dr. R.G. McNiece:
Prepared for the Salt Lake Ministers' Association, and published by their
request:

	That statement published by President Lorenzo Snow, in the NEW YORK
WORLD, of Dec. 30, 1898, concerning [289] polygamy in Utah, is one of the
most plausible documents that Mormon diplomacy has ever sent out. It
reminds us of the diplomatic statements published by the Spanish
government last summer to bolster up their case with the Spanish people.
This statement from President Snow is so very plausible that it will
undoubtedly mislead a great many people outside of Utah. But there is one
thing which ought to prevent it from deceiving anybody, either at home or
abroad, and that is, that it is the statement of an avowed polygamist, who
has been advocating and practicing polygamy for over fifty years, and who
is now trying to avert the terrible storm of righteous indignation which
is beginning to sweep over the country because the Mormon people, as the
direct result of the polygamous teaching and example of President Snow and
his associates, in past years, have recently capped the climax of
political defiance of the American people by electing a notorious
polygamist to Congress.
	Now, without calling in question the motives of President Snow, the
truth requires it to be frankly stated that this document which he
published on Dec. 30, so far as it affects the people outside of this
State, is thoroughly misleading from beginning to end. And while we are
utterly disgusted with this whole question of polygamy, and averse to its
further discussion, yet it is so connected with our country's welfare and
good name, and the welfare of the State, that it seems a public duty to
try to correct the false impression, made through this diplomatic document
by analyzing it, and pointing out wherein it is misleading and deceiving.
	In this document President Snow discusses three general subjects
which are of special interest to the whole American people just now:
First, the question of polygamous marriages in Utah at the present time;
second, the election of Elder Roberts to Congress; third, the obligation
to care for former plural wives.
	In reference to the first subject, three statements are made to which
we call attention. The first statement is contained in the first sentence
of the document, as follows:
	"In answer to your inquiries, I declare most solemnly [290] and
emphatically that the statements which are being published to the effect
that the Mormon Church is encouraging polygamy are utterly untrue."
	Now if that statement is not calculated to mislead and deceive the
people outside of Utah, by being at variance with the facts, then it is
impossible to frame a misleading statement. Those who live in Utah and are
well informed know that it is a misleading statement. For, in what other
way could the Mormon Church more effectively encourage polygamy than it is
doing now, when the Church officials are setting before young and old the
example of living in polygamy, in violation of law?
	It is difficult to find a Mormon community in Utah where the Church
officials are not setting that kind of an example. And even if there were
no direct teaching of polygamy, what more effective teaching is possible
than the teaching of such example?
	But we know equally well that there is direct teaching of polygamy by
Church officials in various parts of the State. We know the Bishops and
other officials in the smaller towns are constantly exhorting the people,
since statehood, to "live their religion." And we know what that means in
Utah. But, to be specific, only last May, Elder Roberts was setting before
the young people, in the magazine which he edits, which is the organ of
the "Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association," the rightfulness of
polygamy as a divine institution, in an elaborate article of nearly eleven
pages. And since the 1st of June, the papers have reported addresses by
two Apostles of the Church for two young people's conventions, in which
the rightfulness of polygamy was advocated and impressed upon the young
people. The simple fact is that there has not been, to our knowledge, so
much encouragement and teaching of polygamy by Church officials for the
past twelve years as there is now. And if President Snow doesn't know
these things, how useless is his sweeping denial. Or is he hiding behind
the technical meaning of the term polygamy as distinguished from plural
marriage for eternity?
	If so, his statement that polygamy is not being en-[291]couraged nor
taught in Utah is still misleading, for it has no such technical meaning
outside of Utah, nor does it have a technical meaning here, except when a
polygamist is driven into a tight place by facts or arguments.
	The second statement about polygamy is that there have been no
polygamous marriages in Utah since President Woodruff's manifesto in
September, 1890. And President Snow declares it to be his intention to
stand by that manifesto, and not permit any polygamous marriages to take
place under the sanction of the Church. He says:
	"Holding the keys of this authority in the Church over which I am
called to preside, no such ceremony can be performed and recognized
without my consent. * * * Polygamous marriages in the Mormon Church have
entirely ceased." Now, we are glad to hear that President Snow intends to
stand by the manifesto of 1890 and to permit no plural marriage with the
sanction of the Church. And we are not disposed to call in question this
statement that the Church is not giving its formal and official sanction
to plural marriages in the Church through the president. But here is a
serious difficulty which we should like to have cleared up. President Snow
conveys the impression that plural marriages can take place only in
Temples and places which are under his official control, and hence must
have his sanction.
	But President John Taylor, who is equally good authority, in his
sworn testimony before the Third district court, on Oct. 17, 1884, told us
just the contrary. Here are his reported statements:
	"There is no place set apart specifically for performing plural
marriages; * * * the Church recognizes other places where plural marriages
may be performed outside of endowment houses and Temples, under certain
circumstances. * * * I give the authority to marry in all cases; persons
that I might appoint might also confer that authority."
[292] And in testifying about the number of persons having the authority
to perform plural marriages, he says,
	"I could give you hundreds of names of parties in this territory who
have the authority; there are no records kept of these appointments. I
don't know who all these parties are."
	Now, taking these statements of President Taylor as authority, it is
evident that hundreds of plural marriages could be performed in different
parts of the state, or out of the state, without either the official
knowledge or the official sanction of President Woodruff or President
Snow. Is that the way by which Apostle Abram Cannon got his extra plural
wife some three years ago?
	Is that the way Apostle Teasdale of Nephi and others have been
getting plural wives during the past eight years, without the sanction of
the Church through the President?
	While the Church officials are settling this conflict of authority
between two of the Church presidents, we will take up the third statement
of the public document now under consideration, which is in these words,
	"The implied understanding with the nation when Utah entered the
Union as a State has been sacredly observed."
	What was this "implied understanding?" President Snow would have all
his readers believe that it was simply and only the pledge that further
polygamous or plural marriages would be forever prohibited by the new
State, in accordance with the Enabling Act of Congress, and he goes on to
argue that since this provision was put into the State Constitution and
laws were framed for its support, the pledge of the people to the nation,
or the "implied understanding" has been sacredly observed. Now, the simple
fact is, to put it in mild language, this is a most inaccurate and
misleading statement, for it simply leaves out the other important half of
the "understanding" with the nation; and the impression left is just as
erroneous and harmful as if the omission had been deliberate. What is the
other half of the pledge, or under-[293]standing with the nation? Why
this: That there should not only be no further polygamous or plural
marriages, but that all existing polygamous relations--all unlawful
cohabitation should cease. In President Harrison's proclamation of Jan. 4,
1893, granting amnesty to those who had been disfranchised for violating
the laws, he states explicitly that
	"the officials of said Church, pledging the membership thereof to the
faithful obeyance of the laws against plural marriages and unlawful
cohabitation, applied to me to grant amnesty," etc.
	Now what are we to think of the reliability of an official document
sent out by the President of the Mormon Church, which leaves the
impression that the members and officers of the Church are violating no
pledge to the nation if they continue in their former polygamous
relations?
	The second general subject discussed in this official document is the
election of the polygamist Elder Roberts to congress. It is stated that
his election was
	"an entirely secular affair. The Church and State are entirely
separate in Utah."
	Here are three statements in succession and not one of them seems to
be true. Take the first statement, that this election was an "entirely
secular affair."
	It may be true that the First Presidency and the older officials took
no active part in the nomination and election of Elder Roberts. But it is
certainty true that other prominent Church officials and not all belonging
to the same party did take a very active part in securing his nomination.
Did not the clear-headed editor of the Tribune put it safely within the
limits of the truth when he said in the issue of December 30:
	"B. H. Roberts went into obscurity three years ago, and no party call
drew him from that obscurity. His nomination was worked up by certain big
officials of the Church, who pleaded for it as individuals, but added
their [294] priestly authority to their pleadings."
	Now, look at the second sweeping assertion, that "the Church had
nothing to do" with the election of Mr. Roberts. According to the rule
laid down in the Church manifesto of April, 1896, it was necessary for Mr.
Roberts to go before the chief officials of the Church and get their
approval before he could accept the nomination. Now, how are we to get
around their approval, in behalf of the Church, of a well-known polygamist
as a suitable person to be nominated for election to Congress?
	The third statement is that "church and state in Utah are entirely
distinct and separate." Well, if they are, then it is not necessary to
keep reiterating the statement on all occasions. We used to hear the same
statement years ago, when the State was inside the Church. If church and
state are separate, then why did the Democratic state convention feel
obliged to assemble in the midst of a state campaign, three years ago last
fall, for the very purpose of discussing and of protesting against church
interference in the election? Why that Church committee of five to
manipulate legislation in the Legislature of 1896, although they were not
members of the Legislature? Why, in the non-partisan school election of a
year ago, was a prominent member of the Mormon Church put out of his
official position in the Church in the First precinct, for no other
offence than exercising his freedom as a citizen and voting the ticket of
his choice, which did not happen to be the Church ticket? And we have been
informed by those who ought to know that in the non-partisan school
election of a month ago, the "teachers" of the Church went from house to
house in the Second precinct the evening before the election, to notify
the Mormon people that they were "instructed" to vote for a particular
ticket. We shall certainly be glad when church and state are separate in
Utah.
	This brings us to the last subject discussed in this official
document, namely, the duty of providing for former plural wives. The
President of the Church is very anxious that the polygamists should be
allowed to exercise what he calls their "sacred covenants and obligations"
[295] towards their plural wives. Well if the polygamists have such great
loyalty to their covenants and obligations, why don't they show a little
of this loyalty in keeping the covenants and obligations they have entered
into with the American people, to stop their polygamous relations? Or are
we to suppose that no covenants and obligations are sacred except those
made with plural wives contrary to the righteous laws of this Christian
nation?
	The trouble with President Snow is that he has no clear idea of the
greatness of the wrong and crime of polygamy in itself and in the eyes of
the American people, because of its antagonism to the fundamental ideas or
which our nation is founded, and because of its evil fruits generally. And
so he tries to belittle the wrongfulness of it, and thinks the American
people are unreasonable in the right of their opposition to a little
matter like polygamy and the election of a polygamist to Congress. For he
says: "The excitement that has been caused during the last few weeks is
without reason, and, it appears to me, without excuse. " He calls it an
"eruption," and thinks it will soon subside.
	But let him state his own case in regard to the men who had plural
wives when Utah became a State. He says:
	"What were these men to do with their plural families? Cast them off?
Repudiate their wives? Bastardize their children? Make them a common
charge on the community? Or take care of them provide for them, maintain
the wives, and support and educate the children? Is it possible that the
Christian ladies of the United States who have been wrought upon by
fanatical or designing persons to raise their voices against the Mormon
people, desire those men to turn their backs upon the wives and children
who are as true and devoted as any in the land?"
	Now what unreasonable talk this is. For neither the laws of the land,
nor the American people, nor the Christian women of the country have ever
asked or expected that these plural wives should be left without care or
maintenance. But what they do ask and expect is this: That these former
violators of law shalt keep their solemn [296] pledge to the country, stop
living in polygamy, cease their unlawful cohabitation and quit increasing
the number of illegitimate children. Carefully and kindly providing for
plural wives and children is one thing, and living with former plural
wives in the marriage relation is another thing, which all decent people
want stopped. But it seems exceedingly hard for many of the Mormon
officials to see the difference. Now, if President Snow is really sincere
about providing for their plural wives, let him use his financial ability
and organize a special fund for their support, and we shall begin to have
some confidence in his sincerity.
	The concluding words of this official document are especially
misleading and deceiving, for a certain form of Christian phraseology is
used which is well calculated to deceive the outside world into the
conclusion that the Mormon Church is in sympathy with the fundamental
doctrines of Christianity, instead of being directly opposed to those
doctrines. In these concluding words, President Snow thus describes
Mormonism:
	"It is a system of religion which recognizes God as the creator, and
ruler of the universe, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth as His Son and the
Savior of mankind, and teaches that the Holy Spirit may be obtained and
enjoyed by all persons who will receive the Gospel and obey the divine
commands."
	Now, when we are taught explicitly and repeatedly, by the recognized
authorities in the Mormon Church, by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and
Parley P. Pratt, and Elder B. H. Roberts, and others, that the God above
mentioned is the exalted Adam, a polygamist now living with his plural
wives in heaven; that Jesus Christ is a polygamist, and not the spiritual,
but the natural son of a polygamist father; and that the Holy Spirit is a
refined fluid or substance resembling electricity, we are both astonished
and grieved that anyone in the name of religion should be willing to
engage in such inexcusable deception.
	And that we may not be chargeable with misrepresen-[297]tation, we
herewith make quotations from these Mormon authorities. Joseph Smith,
called the Prophet, thus taught:
	"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret." (Journal of
Discourses, vol. 6, page 3.)

The Prophet Brigham Young was still more explicit, as follows:
	"When our father, Adam, came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it
with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
helped to make and organize this world. He is our father and our God, and
the only God with whom we have to do."
He denies that Jesus Christ had a spiritual origin, and says:
	"And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. (Journal
of Discourses, vol. 1, page 50)

	The following is the Mormon teaching concerning Jesus Christ:
	"If none but Gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it
follows that each God must have one or more wives. One thing is certain,
that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus--such as Mary
and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene. * * * If all the acts of Jesus
were written, we, no doubt, should learn that these beloved women were his
wives. (THE SEER, vol. 1, pp. 158-159)

	And here is Apostle Parley P. Pratt's teaching about the Holy Spirit:
	"The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances (such as
electricity, galvanism, magnetism) and [298] the least understood, or even
recognized by the less informed among mankind, is that substance called
the Holy Spirit. (KEY TO THEOLOGY, chap. 5, p. 39)

	And yet President Snow, who holds and teaches such anti-Christian
doctrines as these, as he must do if he is a true and loyal Mormon, would
have the outside world believe that this system which he represents is
very similar to the Christian system, and, therefore, he appropriates
Christian phraseology as above in describing it! Is it any wonder that
such deception destroys confidence in the statements of Mormon officials
about the cessation of polygamy, and about other things?

Salt Lake City, Jan. 9, 1899.

(SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 12 Jan 1899)

Thursday 8 May 1899, Lorenzo Snow:
	Discourse delivered at St. George, Utah, on Thursday, May 8th, 1899,
by Lorenzo Snow.
	The Latter-day Saints have done wonders; but they cannot cease from
doing wonders in the future. There will be greater things demanded of the
Latter-day Saints than has ever been demanded since the organization of
the Church. The Lord has determined in His heart that He will try us until
He knows what He can do with us. He tried His Son Jesus. Thousands of
years before He came upon earth the Father had watched His course and knew
that He could depend upon Him when the salvation of worlds should be at
stake; and He was not disappointed. So in regard to ourselves. He will try
us, and continue to try us, in order that He may place us in the highest
positions in life and put upon us the most sacred responsibilities. When
we were placed in certain circumstances with our wives and children, and
the nation was pursuing us with the intention of destroying us, the Lord
opened our way in a manner that we never expected. Very few indeed thought
our deliverance would come in the way [299] which the Lord saw proper to
bring it. A sacrifice had to be made--a greater one than had ever been
made before. The Church itself depended upon the Saints acting in a wise
and prudent manner, and making the sacrifice that was required at that
time. The word of the Lord came to President Woodruff. When that manifesto
was issued, you knew what it meant. Some were alarmed. They thought the
Church would go to pieces; thought they were breaking their covenants;
thought the Lord had withdrawn from them. But that Manifesto was issued by
the command of the Lord; and the Saints humbled themselves before the Lord
and bowed to the requirement. The heavens rejoiced and God smiled upon us.
He blessed His people, and delivered us from our enemies, and they were
brought to shame and disgrace. They thought to destroy the Latter-day
Saints, but they failed in their attempt. Nevertheless, we had to make the
sacrifice, and it was right that we should. The Lord could have delivered
us in some other way, had He so wished; but He knew best, and that was the
course He required us to pursue and the sacrifice He desired us to make.
We made it, and He has blessed us wonderfully from that time to the
present. He has given us power among the nations, and in various ways the
people have been raised in the estimation of the world. Men of great
wisdom have looked upon us, though they may have been silent, and then
honored the course we have taken. * * *
	As to plural marriage, I want to say a few words; for I may not have
the opportunity of bearing my testimony to you again. There is no man that
lives that had a more perfect knowledge of the principle of plural
marriage, its holiness and divinity, than what I had. It was revealed to
me before the Prophet Joseph Smith explained it to me. I had been on a
mission to England between two and three years, and before I left England
I was perfectly satisfied in regard to something connected with plural
marriage. When I returned to Nauvoo with my company of about 250, it was
made manifest to me in reference to the truth of this principle. I was at
Joseph Smith's one afternoon on a visit, and after conversing upon
different subjects he asked me to walk out with him, as he wished to speak
to [300] me privately. We went down to the bank of the Mississippi river
and sat down on a log that lay there in the sand. Then and there he
explained to me the principle of plural marriage most perfectly and
clearly; he told me in regard to the angel coming to him and making this
principle known to him, and what would follow if he did not practice it.
He informed me that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him, and
also mentioned the names of others. In that conversation, which lasted
about half an hour, he told me all about it, and referred to his brother
Hyrum.
	I know this principle is true, pure and sacred, and I want everyone
to understand my testimony that it is true as the Lord is true. Yet the
Lord has seen proper that the principle of plural marriage should no
longer be practiced.
	Therefore, that Manifesto was issued. I will say now before this
people, that the principle of plural marriage is not practiced. I have
never, in one single instance, allowed any person to have that ceremony
performed, and there are no such marriages at the present time, nor has
there been during the time of my presidency over this church. There is no
man or woman that can ever say that any such thing as this has been done.
The Lord has commanded it, and I see that it is carried out. Such
marriages are not done. There has been an impression in the minds of some
that such marriages have been done in the Temple at Salt Lake City; but
not a single marriage of the kind has ever been performed in that temple
nor in any other temple. I want this to be distinctly understood. * * *

(DESERET EVENING NEWS, 3 Jun 1899)

Sep 1899, George Q. Cannon:
	At the Sanpete Stake Conference, September, 1899, George Q. Cannon,
first counsellor to President Snow, stated:
	"The people of the world do not believe in breeding, [301] but we do.
So the people of the world will die out and we will fill the whole earth.
I admit that those raising children by plural wives are not complying with
man-made laws, but in the sight of God they are not sinning, as there is
no sin in it."

(SMOOT HEARING, vol. 1:9)

6 Sep 1899, re: The Petition for Amnesty:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

TRUE HISTORY of the AMNESTY PETITION.

An Open Letter from The TRIBUNE to the Mormon People.

	It has been the desire of The TRIBUNE Publishing Company for some
time, in view of the scandalous charges made by the infamous DESERET NEWS,
to publish to the Mormon people the true history of the amnesty granted by
the President of the United States to all polygamists, and the causes that
led to the application for it, and to the issuing of the proclamation, but
the editor-in-chief of the paper refused permission. We now take advantage
of his temporary absence to give the facts, as we think the Mormon people
should know them.
	In 1891-2, as will be remembered by you all, there were over one
hundred people in the penitentiary, sent there for practicing polygamy. It
is true that in all those cases any of those men could have been liberated
at a moment is notice by merely promising to obey the laws; but it is also
true that the dread of the social and business ostracism that,they would
suffer was greater to them than their punishment of being incarcerated in
the penitentiary, and they consequently refused to do it. There were a
great many cases, however, that for reasons peculiar to the person or to
those dependent upon him, appealed to the hearts of people not Mormons,
and The TRIBUNE office was besieged nearly every day with petitioners
asking the editor-in-chief of The TRIBUNE to write to the President for
pardons, citing different rea-[302]sons. In nearly all these cases the
editor of The TRIBUNE did apply for and obtain those pardons. It took up a
great deal of his time, and one day, in 1892, Amos Howe and Frank
Armstrong came into The TRIBUNE office urging him to ask the pardon to two
men who were then under indictment and in hiding, and both of them
Apostles. The editor of The TRIBUNE said to them, "Why continue this thing
of asking by piecemeal? Why not, if you are honest in this matter, as I
believe you now to be, apply for general amnesty?" They thought it could
not be done, but the editor said, "I think it can, and if you people mean
it, it will be a great day for Utah. The bickerings and strife will cease,
and we will all go to work to build up our great State." He then sat down
and wrote out the following petition for general amnesty: (See under date
19 Dec 1891, THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE, vol. 2:547-550)
	This petition was taken by two of the Twelve to President Woodruff.
He read it and, as they afterward said, with tears streaming down his
cheeks, he signed it without dotting an "i" or crossing a "t"." It was
signed by the Twelve Apostles, with the exception of one, Brigham Young,
who was then absent in Europe, and the granting of the amnesty was
recommended by the then Governor, A. L. Thomas; the then Chief Justice,
Charles S. Zane, and by The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, and sent to Gen. Benjamin
Harrison, then President of the United States. This petition was forwarded
by Gov. Thomas to the President, with the warm indorsement of himself and
Judge Zane, as being signed by "men who would not lightly pledge their
faith and honor to the Government, or subscribe to such a document without
having fully resolved to make their words good in letter and spirit." A
strong letter from The TRIBUNE asking for the pardon was also sent to an
influential friend of the editor's in Washington, to be presented to the
President. That friend had gone to Europe, so the letter lay for some
weeks without response, when Judge Goodwin wrote to Senator Paddock and
asked him to go to his friend's office, get the letter and present it. Not
satisfied with that, the editor of The TRIBUNE asked the business manager
to go to Washington [303] and accompany Senator Paddock to the President,
which was done. * * *
	This is the way The TRIBUNE has been an enemy to it "our" people, or
this peculiar people. Whenever a great trial came upon them, it was to The
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE they appealed, and it never failed them. Have we a right
to talk to this people? We think so.
	It will be at least admitted by most people, considering the part The
TRIBUNE took in obtaining the pardon for polygamists, that it should know
something about the meaning that was given to the manifesto and the
declarations, testimony and documents that followed it, at that time. And
we say to the Mormons and Gentiles alike, that during all this time, in
talks that we have had with the leaders of the church, there was never but
one interpretation given to it, and that was that the practice of polygamy
should cease. George Q. Cannon has stated, time after time, and we believe
him, that that was his interpretation; that he intended to live within the
law, and has lived within it since. Wilford Woodruff swore to the
intention of the manifesto, that the practice of polygamy, including
unlawful cohabitation, should cease, as did President Lorenzo Snow and
Joseph F. Smith, and we now believe that the great majority of the people
for two or three years afterward faithfully observed that interpretation.
	The manifesto was received by the whole country as the surrender on
the part of the Mormon people of the controversy so long waged; the chief
of the church so interpreted it, and for three years the Mormon people so
observed it. Presidents Woodruff and Snow testified emphatically in the
escheat case that this was the true meaning of the manifesto. President
Woodruff, who promulgated the manifesto, replied under oath to Attorney
Dickson's question (Mr. Dickson being attorney for the church) that "There
should be no association with plural wives; in other words, that unlawful
cohabitation, as it is named and spoken of, should also stop, as well as
future polygamous marriages," saying (we quote verbatim), "Yes, sir, that
has been the intention." President Snow swore at the same time that the
scope of the [304] manifesto was that the law should be observed in all
matters concerning plural marriage, embracing the present condition of
those that had previously entered into marriage. Apostle Lund swore the
same. President Joseph F. Smith said in reply to Franklin S. Richards's
question whether the manifesto applied to the cohabitation of men and
women in plural marriage where it had already existed: "I think the effect
of it is so; I don't see how the effect of it can be otherwise."
	Upon this testimony followed the decree of the court, that the
practice of polygamy had been abandoned, all understanding this to mean
unlawful cohabitation as well as future polygamous marriages, that decree
favoring the restoration of the escheated property. Afterward, and on the
same lines, and on the same understanding, came the resolution of Congress
restoring the escheated property.
	Mr. Richards, counsel for the church in the hearing before the Senate
committee that had in charge the matter of restoring the escheated church
property, read this testimony of the heads of the church as proof that the
practice of polygamy had been abandoned; and he further read as added
proof to the same purport, the famous TIMES interview with Presidents
Woodruff and Cannon, reproduced in the church organ in its issue of July
4, 1891, with editorial indorsement. In that interview the reporter asked:
"Would you or any officer of the church authorize a polygamous marriage or
countenance the practice of unlawful cohabitation?" The reply was, "Again
we have to say we can only speak for ourselves, and say that we would not
authorize any such marriage or any practice violative of the law." The
reporter, persisting, again asked, "Is it your understanding that the
Mormon people are in good faith observing the laws of the United States
prohibiting polygamy and unlawful cohabitation?" And again Presidents
Woodruff and Cannon replied: "That is our understanding." Could anything
be more comprehensive than this?
	Then followed the petition for amnesty, quoted above: the central
point of which was that the people "have voluntarily put aside something
which all their lives they [305] have believed to be a sacred principle."
But if they have not put aside the living in polygamous relations, what
was it they "put aside?" Certainly it could not have been future
polygamous marriages; covenants not yet entered into; for on no
construction of language could that be said to be anything "put aside,"
for these had not been entered into, and it is impossible to put aside
that which is not present.
	Again, President Woodruff at Logan, on November 1, 1891, spoke to the
Saints concerning the manifesto; * * * (See THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE, vol.
2:543-547)
	Now, what was scattering the leaders of the people, so graphically
referred to by President Woodruff in this speech? Certainly not
prosecutions for polygamous marriages; but prosecutions for unlawful
cohabitation. This is a matter of common knowledge, upon which there is no
possible chance for quibbling or evasion. It is as certain as language can
make it, that President Woodruff in this speech referred to the practice
of unlawful cohabitation, and that this is what under the manifesto was to
be given up.
	Under this undoubted meaning, The TRIBUNE accepted the Mormon
protestations in good faith; it was so thoroughly earnest in this that at
times it was sneeringly referred to as the other organ of the church. This
state of confidence continued through the early days of Statehood, until
the time of the declarations of the Utah Presbytry at Manti in August,
1898. Those declarations were substantially that the old order of
polygamous living had been restored, and that illegitimate children were
being born by thousands all over the State. We put it to the church organ
to speak if the charges were true, reminding it of its aforetime pledge to
co-operate with us if it were found that good faith were not being
observed. What was the reply? The ministers who set forth the facts were
denounced as falsifiers slanderers and bearers of false witness against
their neighbors; it was said that they were spreading false reports
throughout the country with sinister purpose, and to bull the people into
contributing money for their missions. We mildly replied that these
ministers were men of good repute; that their char-[306]acters were good,
their words worthy of belief; but the church organ continued to assail
them, and exhausted its ample supply of billingsgate in denouncing them,
and in styling this paper "the anti-Mormon TRIBUNE."
	Meanwhile we began investigating on our own account. We found not
only that the old polygamous relations had been and were being resumed,
but that two apostles of the church--Abraham Cannon and George
Teasdale--had entered into new polygamous relations and had not been
called to account by the church. We found, as the Presbytry had charged,
that polygamous children by the thousands were being born, in spite of all
the pledges and revelations and the statute legitimatizing polygamous
children up to a date named, which statute was in itself a solemn pledge
that polygamous living had ceased.
	We found that there had grown up in the church in certain quarters a
determination not to observe the law and the pledges. The faction that
Apostle Heber J. Grant represents seemed to be at the head of this
determination, with the NEWS as its mouthpiece. These factionists and
faith-breakers were outspoken, first in denying the facts as related
above, and next in admitting them and expressing their determination to be
a law unto themselves, as in the old days. Thus, Heber J. Grant said: "I
am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B.H. Roberts. My wives have
brought me only daughters. I propose to marry till I get wives who will
bring me sons." And afterward he asked, "What do you propose to do about
it?" following this query up with a statement that he knew the peccadillos
and vices of various leading Gentiles (naming some, and falsely, too) and
would make it warm for them in their relations with their mistresses if he
were interfered with. Others, while not so outspoken, by their acts
signified the same defiance and determination to break faith. The dominant
tone of the church press all through Utah gradually took on the old
spirit, and the open law-breaking and repudiation of pledges became
notorious.
	The nomination and election of B.H. Roberts to Congress precipitated
the crisis. The TRIBUNE begged the Mormon people not to force that
nomination, yet it was [307] forced, Apostle Grant being one of the chief
factors in the infamy. We appealed to the Mormon voters not to crown that
infamy with the seal of their approval, warning them that Roberts's
election would and necessarily must be the tocsin for the signal fires of
animosity and active hostility to be lighted against Utah throughout the
whole land. Our warning was not only unheeded, it was scouted. We warned
them that it was their acts that would be the foundation for that
hostility, and we were met with the sneer that The TRIBUNE was a
"storm-starter," when God knows that we wanted no storm, but begged and
pleaded that those things be not done that would start the storm. All in
vain; the acts were done, the storm was started, and the church organ now
undertakes to lay the blame of the follies and crimes against which we
protested, at our doors. All The TRIBUNE has ever asked is that the laws
be observed and faith kept. During the few years that this advice was
followed, there was a blessed calm in Utah such as might follow the
benediction of heaven; but when the return to old conditions and defiance
set in, with the backing of the church organ, then the old trouble was
again at the front. It has always been so; whenever the Saints have
followed the NEWS's advice, turmoil, bitterness and the unsettlement of
affairs has ensued; never has there been aught but peace and prosperity
when The TRIBUNE's warnings have been heeded.

From the DESERET EVENING NEWS:

	The article in this morning's paper gives some particulars of the
writing of the petition for amnesty which was presented to President
Benjamin Harrison. It is claimed that it was written by the editor of that
paper. We have no disposition to dispute that claim. It would have been
interesting, however, if it had been supplemented with a statement as to
the amount of remuneration received by the writer, who is held up for the
admiration of the public as a wonderful friend to the "Mormon" people; but
perhaps during his "temporary absence" the figures were not attainable.
	We hope the public will read carefully the petition, [308] which is
published in full, and comparing it with the Manifesto of President
Wilford Woodruff in 1890 to which it refers, will perceive the entire
absence of allusion to the point which our contemporary attempts to
establish. It relates to nothing more than the advice given in the
Manifesto that the "Mormon" people should cease from contracting "any
marriages contrary to the law of the land."
	The subject of the testimony taken before the master in chancery
concerning the escheated Church property (See THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE,
vol. 2:525-543) is once more ventilated, and the attempt is renewed to
make the opinion elicited in that investigation, concerning the scope and
meaning of the Manifesto, appear in the light of a pledge of the people of
Utah with the U.S. government. That attempt has failed heretofore, and it
will utterly fail again.
	The accusations about new polygamous marriages are repeated without a
scintilla of proof, and the charges are renewed about "thousands of
polygamous children" being born in spite of all the alleged "pledges and
revelations" concerning that matter. It is stated further that there is a
faction in the Church determined not to observe the law and the pledges
made, that an Apostle is at the head of it and that the NEWS is backing
him up, all of which it is needless to state is utterly untrue. The
election of B.H. Roberts is recounted, with the same misrepresentations
that the readers of that paper are familiar with, only it is told in more
decent language.

8 Sep 1899, Heber J. Grant:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

	Yesterday morning we imputed these words to Apostle Heber J. Grant:
	"I am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B.H. Roberts. My
wives have brought me only daughters. I propose to marry until I get wives
who will bring me sons."

[309] Last night the NEWS had from Apostle Grant the following denial:

	"I have never made these remarks at any time, either in public or
private, in writing or by word of mouth."
	The proof of the fact that Apostle Grant said what we charge him with
saying is easy. The remark was made by him in the HERALD office in this
city, in the presence of E.A. McDaniel, Alfales Young, and J.H. Moyle, all
good Democrats, and two of whom at least will never deny it. The remark
was substantially as we gave it, and of so remarkable a character that it
was taken down in writing and signed by two of those who heard it. Apostle
Grant's denial is unquestionably through perversity or because of a
failing memory. The record will establish its complete falsity.

(SMOOT HEARING, vol. 1:14)

Saturday 9 Sep 1899, Heber J. Grant:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

CONFESSION BY GRANT:

Heber J. Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Cohabitation. His Punishment, $100 Fine

	He Came into Court Unexpectedly, Accompanied by His Attorney, F.S.
Richards--No Unnecessary Talk, the Entire Proceedings Occupying Only About
Three Minutes--Apostle's Practical Bump Guided Him to the Clerk's office,
where He Wrote a Check and Paid the Fine.

	Apostle Heber J. Grant yesterday admitted that he was a lawbreaker.
Accompanied by his attorney, F.S. Richards, the "business apostle" walked
into the criminal division of the Third District court a few minutes after
2 o'clock in the afternoon, pleaded guilty to the charge of [310] unlawful
cohabitation which has been pending against him since July 25th, and
waived time for sentence. He was fined $100 by Judge Norrell.
	It was pretty well understood that the apostle would plead guilty to
the charge, but his coming in at this particular time was unexpected,
County Attorney Putnam's intention being to let the case take its turn on
the calendar at the October term.

ANXIOUS TO PLEAD.
	About noon yesterday, however, Attorney F.S. Richards telephoned to
the County Attorney that Grant was desirous of coming in to plead guilty
and to take his sentence. County Attorney Putnam was willing, and at the
appointed hour Grant and his attorney appear. The court had just settled
down after luncheon to the trial of another criminal case, but when County
Attorney Putnam informed the court that Apostle Grant had come to plead
and that the matter would occupy only a very few minutes, Judge Norrell
consented to the interruption.

ADMITTED HIS GUILT.
	F.S. Richards, on behalf of his client, waived the reading of the
information and entered a plea of guilty.
	"Let the plea be so entered." said Judge Norrell, and the defendant
may be brought in for sentence on Monday."
	"We desire to waive time, and my client is ready for sentence now if
the court please." Mr. Richards suggested.
	"Very well," said Judge Norrell, and addressing the apostle the court
ordered him to stand up.
	The tall, gaunt form of the apostle went up with a jerk, and he cast
an uneasy, but defiant glance at the half-hundred spectators, as Judge
Norrell said: "The sentence of the court is that you pay a fine of $100,
and in default of payment that you be imprisoned in the county jail for
100 days, that is one day for each dollar of the fine."
	That ended the proceedings, which occupied about three minutes.

LIQUIDATED THE FINE.
[311] Grant quickly left the courtroom, walked to the clerk's office,
wrote his check on the State Bank of Utah for $100 and handed it over to
Deputy Clerk Little in liquidation of the fine.
	The charge to which the apostle pleaded guilty, as stated in the
information, was that he committed the crime of unlawful cohabitation on
January 1, 1898, and on divers others days, and continually between
January 1, 1898, and July 15, 1899, by unlawfully cohabiting with more
than one woman, to wit., Augusta W. Grant and Emily Wells Grant.

Monday Morning, 8 Jan 1900, Editorial:
From the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

THE CHURCH AND THE LAWS:

	For some unaccountable reason the NEWS on Saturday evening devoted
one of its column paragraphs to establishing that if there was one thing
more than another that the Mormon church is anxious to establish, it is
its unswerving obedience to the laws of the land. Why the NEWS at this
time should return to that subject is not clear, but it is a mysterious
organ at best. It begins by asserting that the history of Mormonism does
not furnish anything by way of proof that the charge (of lawlessness)
against it has any foundation." The record is a long one; it would be
profitless to follow it; it is enough at this time to quote the words of
the Mormon who is just now attracting more world-wide attention than any
other one. We mean B.H. Roberts. In the Tabernacle not many years ago he
declared that the earth was the Lord's, that he made it, that he has a
right to rule it, and does rule it through his priesthood. That was in
perfect accord with John Taylor's declaration that all other governments
except that of the Mormon priesthood were usurpations.
	But the NEWS notes one apparent exception to the rule; the deriding
of the laws relating to polygamy. It admits that polygamists disobeyed the
law but claims that it was [312] because of their interpretation of that
clause in the Constitution of the United States, which provides that
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
	It does not seem to consider that there was anything wrong in that.
	But it adds: "When the court of last resort finally decided against
them they bowed to the rulings of the judicial body, which the
Constitution clothes with power to define its meaning and settle as to its
application. Plural marriages were discontinued. The head of the church
issued its manifesto and the body endorsed his declaration."
	That is a marvelous showing. The first anti-polygamy law was passed
in 1862. It was not obeyed because the courts in Utah were helpless to
enforce the law here. The Judges were denounced by public meetings for
even expressing a desire to enforce the law. The Poland law was passed in
1874 and one conviction was obtained. That was appealed and in 1879 the
Supreme court rendered its decision upholding the validity of the law in
every respect. That was more than ten years prior to the issuing of that
manifesto, and it was during those ten years that the Mormons made their
chief fight against the law. More, when the news of the passage of the
Edmunds law came, instead of advising the people to obey it, John Taylor,
the then head of the Mormon church, ordered that all men holding offices
in the church who were not polygamists should either at once take plural
wives or resign their priestly offices. This is why Roberts says the order
was mandatory. This is history only eighteen years old. Again, the
manifesto was not issued because of the decision of the Supreme court, but
because a bill was then pending in Congress, to disfranchise those who
believed in polygamy. Neither has the manifesto been obeyed. As a rule it
has been broken by all men who have plural wives, and more, there are a
vast number of women in Utah who claim to be plural wives who were not
such when that manifesto was issued. That does it matter if the NEWS
copies some disjointed extracts from its religious books, every one of
which has a double meaning? [313] It is needless to deal with anything but
very recent history to prove the case against the contention of the NEWS,
and against the proposition that the Mormon church is a law-abiding
organization so far as the main question is concerned.

Monday Evening, 8 Jan 1900, Lorenzo Snow:
From the DESERET EVENING NEWS.

POLYGAMY AND UNLAWFUL COHABITATION:

	From the reading of the various editorials and articles of the public
press it is evident that there is much misconstruction and
mis-understanding as to the present attitude of our Church respecting the
subjects of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation; and, believing that many
good and conscientious people have been misled and much adverse criticism
occasioned thereby, I feel it but just to both "Mormons" and non-"Mormons"
to state that, in accordance with the manifesto of the late President
Wilford Woodruff, dated September 25th, 1890, which was presented to and
unanimously accepted by our General Conference on the 6th of October,
1890, the Church has positively abandoned the practice of polygamy, or the
solemnization of plural marriages, in this and every other State, and that
no member or officer thereof has any authority whatever to perform a
plural marriage or enter into such a relation. Nor does the Church advise
or encourage unlawful cohabitation on the part of any of its members. If,
therefore, any member disobeys the law, either as to polygamy or unlawful
cohabitation, he must bear his own burden; or in other words, be
answerable to the tribunals of the land for his own action pertaining
thereto.
	With a sincere desire that the position of our Church as to polygamy
and unlawful cohabitation may be better understood, and with best wishes
for the welfare and happiness of all, this statement is made, and is
respectfully commended to the careful consideration of the public
generally.
[314]
				LORENZO SNOW.
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Salt Lake City, Jan. 8, 1900.

PRESIDENT SNOW'S DECLARATION.
	The foregoing announcement from the President of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to respectful consideration. Not
only should it be heeded by members of the Church, but by all people,
everywhere. Its promulgation is necessary in view of the charges that are
being made that the "Mormon" Church seeks to become "a law unto itself"
and sets itself above the civil government. It is not expected that it
will have any particular effect on persons who desire, wilfully, to
misrepresent the Church and its authorities, its doctrines and its
purposes. But there are hosts of good people who have been deceived by
false reports, and it is for their information as well as to place the
Church in its true position before the world that this official
declaration is made.
	The President's statement is gratifying to us because it
authoritatively asserts what the DESERET NEWS has advanced editorially.
The Church preaches obedience to secular law. It does not advise nor
encourage any species of lawlessness. It supports the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of Utah and all laws passed in
pursuance thereof. It has its own sphere, which is ecclesiastical. While
it gives counsel and promulges rules for the guidance of its members as to
individual conduct in all the affairs of life, it does not interfere in
any way with the free agency of men and women, dictate to them how they
shall vote or to which political party they shall belong, or hinder them
in any lawful course as to business or other personal affairs.
	There are persons in all religious bodies who act contrary to the
faith they profess. The church or society with which they are connected is
not accused of such derelictions by just and sensible people; they are
charged [315] only to the erring individuals.
	The Latter-day Saints should ponder well this declaration from the
President. It is of great importance. If there is any deviation from the
path which he defines, it will be on the personal responsibility of the
individual that pursues that way, and he must take the consequences
whatever they may be. The Church must not be burdened by the weight of
anything that is contrary to its teachings.
	We believe the permanent, reasonable residents of this State,
"Mormon" and non-"Mormon," will be pleased with President Snow's
announcement, and will accept it in the spirit that prompted its
publication. And we hope that it will aid in the establishment of that
abiding peace that is necessary to the harmonious action of all classes,
creeds and parties, without which Utah cannot achieve the success as a
commonwealth that its best people desire to secure.

Wednesday 10 Jan 1900, Views on Snow Statement:
From the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.

	The so-called manifesto or declaration of President Snow of the
Mormon church as published in Monday evening's DESERET NEWS, has caused an
unusual amount of comment, especially in so far as the document deals with
unlawful cohabitation. The church has declared continuously since the
manifesto of President Woodruff in September, 1890, that plural marriages
were no longer permitted but aside from the testimony of President
Woodruff, President Snow and other high church officials in the escheat
cases, to the effect that President Woodruff's manifesto was also intended
to prohibit unlawful cohabitation, nothing has been said officially
concerning the practice until the appearance of President Snow's recent
declaration.
	The clause which deals with this practice reads as follows:
	"Nor does the church advise or encourage unlawful cohabitation on the
part of any of its members. If, there-[316]fore, any member disobeys the
law, either as to polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, he must bear his own
burden; or in other words, be answerable to the tribunals of the land for
his own action pertaining thereto.

	In view of the wording of this clause the question has naturally
arisen as to whether or not the church would be inclined to discipline
members who continued to disobey the law in this regard; or whether or not
the standing of a member would be effected by a conviction for the
offense.
	For the purpose of securing individual views upon the question, a
number of high church officials were seen yesterday and asked for an
expression of opinion. Many absolutely declined to discuss the question at
all, while others handled it gingerly.

	ANGUS M. CANNON, president of the Salt Lake stake, was one of the few
who discussed the matter unreservedly. President Cannon is of the opinion
that the law against unlawful cohabitation is unconstitutional, and was
incorporated in the code through inadvertence, and that the church
authorities would not have the right to discipline a member of the church
for its violation, even though they felt so inclined.
	President Cannon also expressed the fear that "some sneaking whelps
might use the declaration of President Snow as a pretext for deserting
some of their wives." "And if they do," he declared, "they are the fellows
that should be disciplined."
	Speaking further with regard to the matter President Cannon said: "I
consider it a reaffirmation of the manifesto of President Woodruff and it
means, to my mind, that President Snow will not be held responsible for
any violation of the law against unlawful cohabitation. I would not think,
however, that those in that condition would believe that President Snow
had the right to command them to give up their wives whom they took before
President Woodruff's manifesto was issued. If a man now claimed the right
to take another wife I would view him as an apostate, as such action is
not allowable by the [317] president of the church who has absolute power
in the premises."

	GEORGE Q. CANNON declined to pass upon the manifesto of President
Woodruff in so far as unlawful cohabitation was concerned, but with
respect to President Snow's declaration he said:
	"I think that President Snow meant to define the position of the
church clearly upon the question of unlawful cohabitation and to
discourage it. As to whether or not a member would or might be disciplined
for disobeying the law, I cannot say, as that is largely a congregational
matter. The main idea of President Snow as I view it was to assure the
people of the country that the church was not encouraging its members to
violate the law, and that such members as violated it of their own accord
would have to be individually amenable."

	PRESIDENT SNOW, when approached on the evening of the issuance of the
communication, said that he had no more to add to what he had printed in
the NEWS. Yesterday a further effort was made to reach him but it was
learned that he had gone to Brigham City. In a recent interview, and which
he has not denied, he said that polygamous marriages had not been
contracted in Utah at least since he has been president of the church. He
also said that "It was best for some people to at times omit the exercise
of their belief for the greater good in other ways, trusting in the Lord
to make all things right in the end." At the same time he stated that
there were about 1500 polygamists in Utah, adding: "I suppose they
generally support their wives and families. I should not think much of
them if they did not. They entered into a solemn contract to do so; to
become their husbands in this life and the next. I believe many have not
been living with their plural wives as husband and wife. Some, I doubt
not, have been doing so and some have probably had children by such wives
since then. Such matters, however, are left to the individual. The church
consented to those marriages. It does not see how it can restrict action
of individuals in regard to them now."

[318] BISHOP ORSON F. WHITNEY said: "I consider it a re-enactment of the
church's position, and being later than 1890, a further effort to
discourage the practice of unlawful cohabitation. The church authorities
might deem it necessary in some cases to discipline members for
disobedience of the law, but it seems to me that this matter has been left
open.

	CHARLES W. PENROSE, editor of the DESERET NEWS, and counselor to
President Angus M. Cannon of the Salt Lake stake, was of the opinion that
no church member would suffer so far as his standing in the church was
concerned because he had been convicted. It was the business of the courts
to prosecute all violations of law. If a member of the church desired to
reach another member who had been convicted of unlawful cohabitation, it
would be necessary that he should go at it in the regular way, provided
for one brother to bring charges against another. When a man possesses the
priesthood, the bishop's courts simply sit as a court of committal, but
has no further jurisdiction in the case. It sifted the testimony and
reported it to the high council. No one outside of the church, however,
could lodge a complaint against a member of the church that would be
entertained by the church officials, and a certain amount of evidence was
the all-important factor. Mr. Penrose was not ready to say what might be
done in case a man was complained against in church circles, after he had
been convicted of or had pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation. No one
had ever yet lost religious prestige because he had been convicted in a
criminal court, and so far as he knew no complaint looking to that end had
ever been lodged with the proper authorities. If church members take
exception to the acts of an official or a member there is always a way by
which the matter, when property presented can be reached.

	GEORGE M. CANNON: I could not say what President Snow's ideas in the
case may be. I read the letter as it came. I believe he means what he
says. He does not encourage any violation of the law; true, neither does
he [319] discourage it, leaving the question of punishment, if any follow,
to the man against whom the law is directed. I do not believe that any man
who entered into polygamous relations prior to the manifesto should be
disturbed in those relations by the church or any members of the same. I
do not believe that any man who continues such relations is guilty of
moral turpitude. I, speaking individually, can see no reason why a man
holding an office in the church should be disciplined by that body because
he had been convicted of living with his wives, which he had taken by and
with the consent of that church. It is a question for the courts. If a man
continues to live with more than one woman after the church has taken the
attitude it has, then he must take the consequences. President Snow, it
appears to me, is very plain on that point.

	AURELIUS MINER: I have not consulted with the officials of the
church; neither have they consulted me. Judging the future by the past,
and in view of President Snow's recent statement that the church does not
see how it can restrict the action of individuals in regard to living with
their wives taken before the passage of the manifesto. I hardly took for
the disciplining of any such members of the church who may be convicted of
unlawful cohabitation by the courts. The Saints have been warned that they
will find no encouragement or aid from the church in such cases. Whatever
they do now will be at their own peril. I regret that recent events have
brought about such a state of affairs that now exists.

	E. E. RICH: I see nothing in it to guarantee any change in the
practice of men who have more than one wife, if they are willing to take
chances, and it would appear that at least a few of them are. The
Constitution as I understand it, precludes "polygamous practices." It will
not do to beat the devil around the stump by attempting to define the
difference between polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, Unlawful
cohabitation certainly must be a result of having more wives than one.

	C. O. WHITTEMORE: I would have been more pleas-[320] and reading had
it been said that the church expressly forbade the continuance of unlawful
cohabitation. But I believe I see in the supplementary manifesto a
realization on the part of President Snow that such men as B.H. Roberts,
Heber J. Grant and others have put the church in a very unenviable
position, from which it is desirable that it be extrecated at the earliest
possible moment.

	ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHERRINGTON: I hope it means that such
men as Roberts and others of his kind must keep out of the public view in
at least a political sense. It would have been much more satisfactory,
however, had President Snow said that the church would punish as far as it
was able in a church capacity, violators of the law. It looks like a step
in advance, however.

	APOSTLES MERRILL, GRANT and WOODRUFF were seen, but declined to
discuss the matter.

Friday 19 Jan 1900, The Mormon Attitude:
From the SYRACUSE HERALD.

	Since the authentic declaration of President Woodruff of the Mormon
church in 1890, repudiating plural marriages and unlawful cohabitation,
there has been no declaration by the church authorities on these subjects,
until now. President Snow, for the church, makes an emphatic statement of
the church's attitude, which is even more positive and explicit than his
predecessor's announcement.
	President Snow makes a repudiation of polygamous practices the law of
the church as it is the law of the land. No sanction or excuse or apology
for plural marriages and unlawful cohabitation is extended, and those who
engage in these practices are plainly told that they will have no sympathy
or aid from the Mormon church, and that getting into trouble by violation
of the law they must take care of themselves. President Snow's
proclamation is so direct that it cannot be misinterpreted. It is on its
[321] face the fullest submission of the church to the abolition of
polygamy and conformance with the law prohibiting it and with the national
sentiment that approves that law. The issuance of the proclamation is
unquestionably a direct result of the popular agitation for the exclusion
from Congress of the polygamist Roberts. It is the complete yielding of
the Mormon church before the aroused feeling and intense sentiment of the
Nation. After silence for ten years the head of the Mormon church is
compelled to accept the judgment of the people of the country and to agree
that polygamy must go.
	It is believed by those who well understand the Mormons and their
tendencies that this declaration by President Snow is in a genuine spirit
and made to be lived up to. Never before have the violators of the
anti-polygamy laws been told by the head of the church that the illegal
practices would have no protection from it, and that they must for
themselves take the consequences of their acts. Its sincerity is, however,
yet to be tested, and a leading test will be in the refraining from
sending a representative station of polygamists like Roberts. Heretofore
the common heros of Mormondom have seen the example and practice of
leading Mormons in disregard of the anti-polygamous laws without rebuke
from the church authorities, and this, has been the excuse for their
following what the leaders practiced with impunity. Now this may be
changed. The withdrawal by the church of sanction and protection from
plural marriages and unlawful cohabitation will put a new phase upon these
things in Utah. It is in effect a public notice that Roberts's case is
dropped by the Mormon church, and that he must take the responsibility for
his own breaches of law without even the poor apology that he has been
acting out his religion. In this view Roberts's exclusion from Congress
should be accepted and acquiesced in by the Mormons themselves.

(SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 19 Jan 1900)

[322]
28 Jan 1900, George Q. Cannon:
	Then comes the doctrine of marriage. We have had revelations from God
concerning marriage. We have been taught by the Lord that marriage can be
solemnized on the earth for time and for all eternity, and that when man
and woman receive their highest glory they will be joined together as
husband and wives. I need not dwell on all the features connected with
this principle; you are familiar with them. I need not say to you how
extensive our belief is in relation to this matter, for it has been talked
about until it has become at least partially understood. I now only say
that the Latter-day Saints believe, because God has revealed it to them,
that there is an authority and a power that can unite them together for
time and for eternity. I mention this to bring to your minds, my brethren
and sisters, how much we have lived the truth and how desirous we have
been to obtain a knowledge of the truth. We have been willing to make
sacrifices for the truth; we have not only prayed and taught with our lips
concerning the truth, but we have actually obeyed the truth as far as we
have known it. For this reason we have been persecuted.
	All truth has not been revealed. Paul once said he knew a man who had
ascended into the third heaven and had heard things that were not lawful
for a man to utter. That has been a good deal the case with us. Many
things have been revealed to us that if we had taught men would have
sought to kill us, so entirely opposed would they have been to the
prevailing religious sentiments. This has been the case even with the
smaller amount of truth we have taught. We dare not tell all the truth we
know, because it would not be lawful to utter some things which God has
revealed. That which we teach and which has enabled us to progress to our
present position sometimes gets us into trouble when we attempt to deliver
it. It arouses hatred and prejudices, and the class that manifest this
hatred are, strange to say, those who profess to be the followers of Jesus
Christ and ministers of His word. They can not bear it. I do not know what
they would have done with Paul if they had lived in his day and [323] he
had told them some of the truth which was not lawful for him to utter." No
doubt they would have done with him as was done with the Prophet Joseph
Smith. It was the truth he told that caused them to slay him. * * * He
told the truth; and they killed Joseph Smith because of this truth they
would not receive.
	Our elders in going out to preach the Gospel have to be exceedingly
cautious lest they should give strong meat to people who are only prepared
to receive the milk of the word. If they give strong meat persecution is
raised immediately. For this reason they have to reserve eternal truth
with which they are familiar, or the people would do with them as they did
with Jesus and as they have done with all the prophets who have declared
truth which the people would not receive.
	The Saviour had to caution his disciples at this very point in the
following language: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither
cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet
and turn again and rend you."
	New truths are unwelcome and you have to lead men by degrees to
comprehend the truth.

(Quoted from his own report of the address as published in the DESERET
EVENING NEWS, see SMOOT HEARING, vol. 1:15)

30 Jan 1900, Editorial:
From the DESERET EVENING NEWS.

ETERNAL MARRIAGE:

	In the Tabernacle on Sunday last, President George Q. Cannon
delivered a brief discourse, in which he mentioned a number of doctrines
introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith that were opposed at the time by
the Christian world, and which occasioned much persecution. Among these
principles mentioned was the eternity of the marriage covenant, as
revealed to the Latter-day Saints. * * *
[324] The eternity of the marriage covenant, as taught by the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, does not necessarily include plural
marriage, commonly called polygamy. It is a sacred principle by which a
man and a woman may be united together through a divinely revealed
ceremony, the pair being joined for time and all eternity, that which is
thus "sealed on earth" being "sealed in heaven." Though death may part
them, the resurrection will reunite them, no more to be separated.
	This was the union divinely sealed between Adam and Eve, before death
entered into the world by sin. They were immortals and the twain were made
one. That which was lost in the fall is restored by the atonement. Adam
and Eve stand together at the head of their posterity forever.
	By the same ordinance in the Church today the same eternal union may
be formed. That is eternal marriage. That is celestial marriage. Plural
marriages are no longer consummated. Eternal marriages are solemnized in
the Temples. President Cannon alluded to the latter, but did not mention
the former. These are the facts in the case.
	The marriage covenant to which President Cannon referred, as one of
the doctrines that had been opposed by the Christian world, is a legal
marriage. There is no law against it. The parties to it are lawfully
entitled to enter into it. They not only obtain the sanction of the
Church, but the license required by statute. It is duly certified and
recorded when a couple are thus united, just as it would be if they
married until "death does them part," by a magistrate or sectarian
minister. The law regulates the secular part of the ceremony, and does not
interfere with the sacred part.
	Plural marriage is not now solemnized because it is forbidden by law.
The State Constitution prohibits it, so does the State statute. The head
of the Church, who alone holds the keys of authority on this matter, also
forbids it. It has ceased, but eternal or celestial marriage continues and
will abide. They who cannot perceive the difference between the two are
blind indeed. * * *

[325]
28 Jan 1901, Matthias F. Cowley
	None of the revelations of the prophets either past or present have
been repealed. The United Order (of Enoch), though suspended now, has
never been repealed. If you have a man in the priesthood who does not
acquaint himself with all the doctrines of the church nor teach the same
both by example and precept to the families of his district, if you have a
teacher in your Sunday schools who would encourage the young to disregard
or disrespect a single doctrine of the church--plural marriage and
all--turn them out; they have no right in the priesthood. Parents, you
must teach the whole doctrine to your children or they will apostatize and
be damned. * * * These revelations received by our prophets and seers are
all of God, and we can not repeal or disannul them without making God out
a liar, and God can not lie. *4 * *
	I wish to remind you of a certain revelation given you through
President Taylor. The command was given to set our quorums and houses in
order, and the promise was that if we should obey the command God would
fight our battles for us; but we did not obey the command, so God did not
fight our battles for us. If we had obeyed that command and revelation
given through President Taylor there would have been no manifesto.
	You may think me too enthusiastic and too zealous, but I wish I was
as zealous as in my younger days. I once held a political office in this
State, the only political office I ever had the honor to hold in my life.
I was not elected but appointed to the office, and the reason I was
appointed was because there was a better man than I in the office. He had
two wives and the law of the government said that all such must be turned
out. Well, I got the appointment, and when I received my papers I just put
them in my pocket and kept them there and never asked the brother to turn
over the books or relinquish the office at all, but allowed him to
continue as before until the end of his term. That was the way I did when
I was younger, and I believe in the same old Gospel still. (Reported by
one who was present at this meeting held January 28, 1901)
[326]
(SMOOT HEARING, vol. 1:8)

6 Mar 1901, Abel John Evans:
	Mr. Evans was granted unanimous consent to withdraw S.B. No. 49 and
to introduce S.B. No. 113, "An Act Amending Section 4611 of the Revised
Statutes of Utah, 1898, in Relation to the Making of Complaints and
Commencing of Prosecutions in Criminal Cases," as a substitute therefor.

	Section 1. That section 4611 of the Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898,
be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:

	4611. Every person who has reason to believe that a crime or public
offense has been committed may make complaint against such person before
some magistrate having authority to make inquiry of the same: Provided,
that no prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except on complaint of
the husband or wife, or relative of the accused within the first degree of
consanguinty, or of the person with whom the unlawful act is alleged to
have been committed, or of the father or mother of said person, and no
prosecution for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced except on
complaint of the wife or alleged plural wife of the accused; but this
proviso shall not apply to prosecutions under section 4208 defining and
punishing polygamous marriages. (Senate Journal, 1901, p. 254)

14 Mar 1901, Heber M. Wells, Governor of Utah:
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION.

State of Utah,
Executive Office,
Salt Lake City,
March 14, 1901.

	To the Senate:--I have the honor to return herewith, without
approval, Senate Bill No. 113, "An Act Amend-[327]ing Section 4611 of the
Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898, in relation to the Making of Complaints
and Commencing of Prosecutions in Criminal Cases."
	No official act of my life has been approached by me with a sense of
responsibility so profound as is involved in the consideration of this
bill. It is a measure of the supremest importance, and in its consequences
for good or ill, it easily surpasses any other proposition that ever came
before this commonwealth for legislative and executive determination. It
has been argued in both branches of the Assembly with splendid force and
ability, while its provisions have doubtless been eagerly discussed in the
remotest hamlet of our State. With due allowance for the exaggerations
that may be expected from those who warmly support, and from those who
with equal warmth antagonize the measure, I accord to all of them, without
any reservation whatever, full credit for absolute sincerity, breadth of
sympathy, and a desire for the public welfare, which of themselves render
it a noteworthy and unique piece of proposed legislation.
	But these conditions only serve to make the responsibility of the
Executive the more weighty, and I could have wished to be spared the test.
Nevertheless, the recollection of my oath of office, the requirements of
my duty, as I understand it, and the convictions of my own best judgment
and my conscience, unite in demanding of me that I withhold approval from
this bill. If I know myself, I can sincerely say that I am anxious that
the very best and wisest thing shall be done in respect to all matters
that have vexed us so much in times past. And knowing this whole people as
I do, it is my firm conviction that whatever the present feeling may be,
they will be sincerely grateful in the days to come if this measure is not
written upon the statute books.
	The patience, loyalty and conservatism of our citizens are so widely
recognized that only by the passage of such a bill as this can their
reputation be injured. The broadminded and intelligent everywhere accept
the situation here as it exists, and are content to let time complete the
solution of the problem. Even the bigoted and the meddlesome have to admit
that with rare exceptions the [328] conduct and integrity of the people
are above reproach.
	In my opinion nothing can be clearer than that this bill, if passed,
would be welcomed and employed as a most effective weapon against the very
classes whose condition it is intended to ameliorate. Furthermore, I have
every reason to believe its enactment would be the signal for a general
demand upon the National Congress for a Constitutional amendment, directed
solely against certain social conditions here, a demand which under the
circumstances would assuredly be complied with. While it may be urged that
in any event only the few could be made to suffer, is it not an odious
thought, repulsive to every good citizen, of whatsoever creed or party,
that the whole State should thus be put under a ban? Surely there is none
so selfish and unpatriotic as to argue that this is preferable to the
endurance of a few isolated instances of prosecution--unbacked, as they
are, by either respectable moral support or sympathy. All of us can
readily recall the conditions of the past as compared with those of today.
In the shortest memory still remain incidents of that distressing period
shortly before Statehood, during which so much sorrow and bitterness
stalked through our community. Of still more recent date--no longer than
two years ago--another outburst was threatened and to some extent was
manifested. But as a termination of the first, came concession, and
amnesty, and evidences of good faith, and at length Statehood, in which
everybody rejoiced; and while as a result of the second, the sun of our
prosperity was for a time obscured, the clouds at length have rolled away,
and Utah, united, hopeful and vigorous, is marching bravely forward to the
music of the Union.
	I yield to no one in affection for those of my people who from the
highest motives, and because they believed it a divine command, entered
into the relation of plural marriage. Born and reared in Utah, myself a
product of that marriage system, taught from infancy to regard my lineage
as approved of the Almighty, and proud today, as I have ever been, of my
heritage, it will be granted, I trust, that every instinct of my nature
reaches out to shield my friends from harm and to protect them from [329]
unjust attack. Their cause is my cause, and when they are hurt, I am hurt,
for I am part of them. But in that same heart, which is filled with
sympathy for them, I find also the solemn feeling that this bill holds out
only a false hope of protection, and that in offering a phantom of relief
to a few, it in reality invites a deluge of discord and disaster upon all.
	For these reasons, briefly and imperfectly stated, and for many
others which might be given at length, I am unable to approve the bill now
before me.
				Very respectfully,
				HEBER M. WELLS, Governor.

	The communication and H.B. No. 113 were allowed to lie upon the
table. (Senate Journal, 1901, p. 422-424)

14 Mar 1901:
Action on Governor's Veto:

	The Governor's veto of S.B. No. 113, "An Act Amending Section 4611 of
the Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898, in Relation of the Making of
Complaints and Commencing of Prosecutions in Criminal Cases, was called
up.
	Mr. Murdock moved that S.B. No. 113 pass, not, withstanding the
objections of the Governor.
	Roll call being ordered, the veto was sustained by the following
vote: Ayes, 9; nays, 9.
	Those voting in the affirmative were: Messrs. Alder, Barnes, Johnson,
Murdock, Smoot, Tanner, Thomas, Whitney, Mr. President.
	Those voting in the negative were: Messrs. Allison, Bennion, Howell,
Kiesel, Larsen, Lawrence, Love, Sherman, Whitmore. (Senate Journal, 1901,
p. 429-430)

12 Apr 1901:
	President George Q. Cannon died at 1:20 this morning at Monterey,
California. Death came peacefully. President Cannon was survived by four
wives and twenty-[330]eight children. He was a strong advocate of the
patriarchal family system, and was never happier than when surrounded by
the members of his own household. (See the Deseret Evening News, 12 Apr
1901 for his obituary)

About 1901-1918, Douglas M. Todd, Sr.
	I might tell you another experience that occurred. Father was a
member of the General Board of the Young Men's Mutual. And in those days
the President of the Church was the superintendent of the Young Men's
Mutual, and that continued down to Joseph F. Smith, and possibly into
President Grant's administration--I don't remember when it was changed.
But father used to attend board meetings, and of course President Smith
would have to be there. But some time would have to wait in the adjoining
room for him to come in. B.H. Roberts was one of President Smith's
counselors in the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association.
	One day this circumstance occurred: B.H. Roberts was there, and my
father, and most all the other members of the board. They got into a
discussion about plural marriage. This was a time when the agitation about
plural marriage was at its height, and it was a very common topic. So they
fell to discussing this subject. B.H. Roberts, as you know, was a very
powerful, and forceful speaker. He pounded the table and said, "There will
never be a year go by, but what in some way, somehow, children will be
born under that covenant." Now they hadn't noticed, but just before this
President Smith had stepped into the room and when he heard this
discussion, he just stood there; they didn't know of his presence. After
B.H. Roberts had made this declaration before all the people there, from
behind them came a resounding "Amen" from Joseph F. Smith. I got that from
my father who was present.

(From an interview with Douglas M. Todd, Jr., 28 Nov 1969)

[331]
Jan-Mar 1904, Smoot Hearing, Examination of Pres. Joseph F. Smith:
	Mr. TAYLER. This manifesto was intended to reach through all the
world wherever the Mormon Church operated, was it not?
	Mr. SMITH. It is so stated.
	Mr. TAYLER. It is so stated?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Mr. TAYLER. Well, where?
	Mr. SMITH. In the investigation that followed.
	Mr. TAYLER. Then the fact is--
	Mr. SMITH. Before the master of chancery, I suppose.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let him finish his answer, Mr. Tayler.
	Mr. TAYLER. It is not an answer to say that it is stated somewhere,
unless it is stated in some document.
	Mr. SMITH. It is stated in a document.
	Mr. TAYLER. Is that the fact?
	Mr. SMITH. Let me hear your question.
	Mr. TAYLER. That the suspension of the law commanding polygamy
operated everywhere upon the Mormon people, whether whithin (sic) the
United States or without?
	Mr. SMITH. That is our understanding, that it did.
	Mr. TAYLER. Did this manifesto and the plea for amnesty affect also
the continuance of cohabitation between those who had been previously
married?
	Mr. SMITH. It was so declared in the examination before the master in
chancery.
	Mr. TAYLER. I am asking you.
	Mr. SMITH. Well, sir; I will have to refresh my memory by the written
word. You have the written word there, and that states the fact as it
existed.
	Mr. TAYLER. I want to ask you for your answer to that question.
	Mr. SMITH. What is the question?
	Mr. TAYLER. The stenographer will read it.
	The stenographer read as follows:
[332] Did this manifesto and the plea for amnesty affect also the
continuance of cohabitation between those who had been previously married?
	Mr. SMITH. It was so understood.
	Mr. TAYLER. And did you so understand it?
	Mr. SMITH. I understood it so; yes, sir.
	Mr. TAYLER. The revelation which Wilford Woodruff received, in
consequence of which the command to take plural wives was suspended, did
not, as you understand it, change the divine view of plural marriages, did
it?
	Mr. SMITH. It did not change our belief at all.
	Mr. TAYLER. It did not change your belief at all?
	Mr. SMITH. Not at all, sir.
	Mr. TAYLER. You continued to believe that plural marriages were
right?
	Mr. SMITH. We do. I do, at least. I do not answer for anybody else. I
continue to believe as I did before. (Smoot Hearing, 1:106-107)
	Mr. TAYLER. Is the law of the church, as well as the law of the land,
against the taking of plural wives?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir: I will say--
	Mr. TAYLER. Is that the law?
	Mr. SMITH. I would substitute the word "rule" of the church.
	Mr. TAYLER. Rule?
	Mr. SMITH. Instead of law, as you put it.
	Mr. TAYLER. Very well. Then to take a plural wife would be a
violation of a rule of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. It would.
	Mr. TAYLER. Would it be such a violation of the rule of the church as
would induce the church authorities to take it up like the violation of
any other rule would do?
	Mr. SMITH. It would.
	Mr. TAYLER. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a
plural wife a violation of the law or rule of the church, as well as of
the law of the land?
	Mr. SMITH. If the committee will permit me, I could not answer the
question yes or no.
	Mr. TAYLER. You can not answer yes or no?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir. I should like to explain that [333] matter.
	Mr. TAYLER. I surely have no objection myself to your doing so.
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted?
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly; but be as brief as you can. You have a right
to make your own answer.
	Mr. SMITH. In regard to the status of polygamists at the time of the
manifesto, it was understood for some time, according to the investigation
before the master in chancery, that they would abstain from associations
with their families, and I think as a rule--of course I am not familiar
with it and could not say from my own knowledge--that was observed. But at
the time, at the passage of the enabling act for the admission of the
Territory as a State, the only provision that was made binding for the
admission of the State was that plural marriages should cease, and there
was nothing said in the enabling act prohibiting the cohabitation of a man
with his wives at that time.
	Senator HOAR. I do not want to interrupt you, but you mean, I
suppose, with wives previously married?
	Mr. SMITH. That is what I mean. It was understood that plural
marriages had ceased. It has been the continuous and conscientious
practice and rule of the church ever since the manifesto to observe that
manifesto with regard to plural marriages; and from that time till to-day
there has never been to my knowledge, a plural marriage performed in
accordance with the understanding, instruction, connivance, councel, or
permission of the presiding authorities of the church, or of the church,
in any shape or form; and I know whereof I speak, gentlemen, in relation
to that matter.
	Mr. TAYLER. That is all of your answer?
	Mr. SMITH. What was your question? The CHAIRMAN. Now let the reporter
repeat the question.
	Mr. SMITH. Excuse me; I think I have the thread: Was it contrary to
the rule of the church? It was.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was?
	Mr. SMITH. That is, the association of a man, having married more
than one wife previous to the manifesto, [334] abstaining from association
with them.
	The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you understand the question. Let the
reporter read it.
	The reporter read as follows:
	"Mr. TAYLER. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a
plural wife a violation of the law or rule of the church, as well as of
the law of the land?"
	Mr. SMITH. That was the case, and is the case, even to-day.
	Mr. TAYLER. What was the case; what you are about to say?
	Mr. SMITH. That it is contrary to the rule of the church and contrary
as well to the law of the land for a man to cohabit with his wives.
	But I was placed in this position. I had a plural family, if you
please; that is, my first wife was married to me over thirty-eight years
ago, my last wife was married to me over twenty years ago, and with these
wives I had children, and I simply took my chances, perferring to meet the
consequences of the law rather than to abandon my children and their
mothers; and I have cohabited with my wives--not openly, that is, not in a
manner that I thought would be offensive to my neighbors--but I have
acknowledged them; I have visited them. They have borne me children since
1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility and knowing that I
was amenable to the law.
	Since the admission of the State there has been a sentiment existing
and prevalent in Utah that these old marriages would be in a measure
condoned. They were not looked upon as offensive, as really violative of
law: they were, in other words, regarded as an existing fact, and if they
saw any wrong in it they simply winked at it. In other words, Mr.
Chairman, the people of Utah, as a rule, as well as the people of this
nation, are broadminded and liberal-minded people, and they have rather
condoned than otherwise, I presume, my offense against the law. I have
never been disturbed. Nobody has ever called me in question, that I know
of, and if I had, I was there to answer to the charges or any charge that
might have been made against me, and I would have been willing [335] to
submit to the penalty of the law, whatever it might have been.
	Mr. TAYLER. So that obedience to the law is perfectly satisfied,
according to your view of it, if one is ready to pay the penalty for its
violation?
	Mr. SMITH. Not at all. I should like to draw a distinction between
unlawful cohabitation and polygamy. There is a law prohibiting polygamy,
plural marriages.
	Senator HOAR. You mean now a law of the State of Utah?
	Mr. SMITH. I mean the law of the State, and I mean that this is in
the constitution of our State. It is required by the enabling act. That
law, gentlemen, has been complied with by the church; that law has been
kept by the church; and there never has been a plural marriage by consent
or sanction br knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto.
	The law of unlawful cohabitation is another law entirely, and relates
to the cohabitation of a man with more than one wife. That is the law
which I have presumed to face in preference to disgracing myself and
degrading my family by turning them off and ceasing to acknowledge them
and to administer to their wants--not the law in relation to plural
marriage. That I have not broken. Neither has any man broken it by the
sanction or approval of the church.
	Mr. TAYLER. You say that there is a State law forbiding unlawful
cohabitation?
	Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding.
	Mr. TAYLER. And ever since that law was passed you have been
violating it?
	Mr. SMITH. I think likely I have been practicing the same thing even
before the law was passed.
	Mr. TAYLER. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. Long years before it was passed.
	Mr. TAYLER. You have not in any respect changed your relations to
these wives since the manifesto or since the passage of this law of the
State of Utah. I am not meaning to be unfair in the question, but only to
understand you. What I mean is, you have been holding your several wives
out as wives, not offensively, as you say. [336] You have furnished them
homes. You have given them your society. You have taken care of the
children that they bore you, and you have caused them to bear you new
children--all of them.
	Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.
	Mr. TAYLER. That is correct?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Mr. TAYLER. Now, since that was a violation of the law, why have you
done it?
	Mr. SMITH. For the reason I have stated. I preferred to face the
penalties of the law to abandoning my family.
	Mr. TAYLER. Do you consider it an abandonment of your family to
maintain relations with your wives except that of occupying their beds?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not wish to be impertinent, but I should like the
gentleman to ask any woman, who is a wife that question.
	Mr. TAYLER. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is not the status of
this examination at this point.
	Mr. SMITH. All the same; it is my sentiment.
	Senator FORAKER. I do not see how investigation along that line is
going to give us any light. What we want are facts. The witness has
testified to the fact. This is all a matter of argument and
discussion--the effect of it, or what his opinion is about it. It is our
opinion we are concerned about.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, confine yourself to the question of fact.
	Mr. TAYLER. Will the Chair permit a word?
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
	Mr. TAYLER. I do not know whether the inference to be drawn from the
state of facts is sufficiently clear, or whether it would be proper to
pursue it further. But I take it that it is to the last degree important
to understand what lies at the foundation of the acknowledged and
professed and defiant violation of the written law of the land, coupled
with a mere expression of willingness to accept the consequences of that
violation. That is all. That was contended for by Joseph F. Smith prior to
1890, and by the long line of saints that preceded [337] him.
	Mr. SMITH. I beg your pardon.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just a moment, Mr. Smith.
	Mr. TAYLER. And therefore it strikes me that an explanation from this
man who is the spiritual head of the church, the immediate superior of
Senator Smoot, the man who receives divine revelations respecting the duty
and conduct of the whole body of the church, as to why he thus defiantly
violates that law, is pertinent and important.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. But he gave his explanation.
	Mr. TAYLER. If that is all of his explanation of course I can not
complain, but I do not think it is.
	Senator FORAKER. This is the only point of the objection. The witness
stated the fact that he is cohabiting still with plural wives
notwithstanding the law, and he told us why. Now, it seems to me, we
should not enter into a discussion as to whether or not that is good
morals, or whether or not that is faithful allegiance to the law. That is
something which the committee will determine.
	Senator DUBOIS. May I ask a question?
	Senator HOAR. May I make a motion, Mr. Chairman?
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
	Senator HOAR. It is that this inquiry be not allowed at present, and
that if it shall appear to the committee hereafter that there is doubt
about the truthfulness of Mr. Smith's statement, which he has already
made, as to the discontinuance of the actual practice of new plural
marriages, the counsel be permitted to renew his application to put the
question at a later time. I suggest, therefore, that the question be not
allowed now and that the committee will take it up under a changed
condition of things hereafter.
	Senator DUBOIS. I should like to be permitted to ask the witness one
question, which I think will not provoke any controversy. Was it not
understood and stated by the judges and those in authority, and was it not
understood by all living in that country--Utah and Idaho and Wyoming,
etc., where these practices existed--that it was the duty of polygamists
to continue to provide for and [338] support their polygamist wives and
children after the manifesto was issued?
	Mr. SMITH. That was generally understood.
	Senator DUBOIS. We all--I, for one, at least--understood that it was
their duty to provide for and take care of their wives and children in a
material way.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, proceed.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. What becomes of the motion of the Senator from
Massachusetts?
	Senator FORAKER. It was more in the nature of a suggestion in the
Senator's mind that counsel be not allowed to ask the question now,
because of the present state of evidence, and that if, because of a change
in the state of the evidence, the committee should deem the question
pertinent, the counsel could recall the witness.
	Senator HOAR. I suggested it in order to save time.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, suppose you withdraw the question.
	Mr. TAYLER. I withdraw the question for the time being.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say, in reference to
the question asked by counsel as to what the witness might do with his
wives without violating the law, that in the case of Cannon v. The United
States and in the case of Snow v. The United States, which came before the
Supreme Court, the Cannon case in 1885, that court decided--
	Senator HOAR. My suggestion was made with a view of stopping this
discussion.
	The CHAIRMAN. We will never get through if it is to continue. Mr.
Tayler, will you proceed with the examination of this witness?
	Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, how many children have been born to your
several wives since the manifesto of 1890?
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to that. He professes that he has been
living with them. What difference does it make whether it is one child or
three?
	Mr. TAYLER. Of course it will be important as showing how continuous,
how notorious. how offensive, has been his conduct in this respect.
[339] Senator FORAKER. The committee must necessarily infer from what the
witness stated that this cohabitation has been continuous and
uninterrupted.
	Senator. BEVERIDGE. He so stated.
	Mr. TAYLER. Precisely; but not how well advertised, how offensive,
how instructive it has been to his people; how compelling.
	Senator. BEVERIDGE. I understood the witness to say that he had
children born to him since that time.
	Mr. TAYLER. Precisely.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. That has already been stated.
	Mr. TAYLER. But it makes a great difference whether it is 2 or 22.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I wish to ask you a question preliminarily.
I understood you, in response to a question of counsel, to state that you
married your first wife at such a time, and the second wife at such a
time, both before 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. The last wife, I mean. Were there any intermediate
marriages?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. How many?
	Mr. SMITH. There were three besides the first and the last.
	The CHAIRMAN. Then you have five wives?
	Mr. SMITH. I have.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, what is your question?
	Mr. TAYLER. My question is, How many children have been born to him
by these wives since 1890?
	The CHAIRMAN. The chair thinks the question is competent.
	Mr. SMITH. I have had 11 children born since 1890.
	Mr. TAYLER. Those are all the children that have been born to you
since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; those are all.
	Mr. TAYLER. Were those children by all of your wives; that is, did
all of your wives bear children?
	Mr. SMITH. All of my wives bore children.
	Mr. TAYLER. Since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. That is correct
[340] The CHAIRMAN. I understand, since 1890.
	Mr. SMITH. Since 1890. I said that I have had born to me 11 children
since 1890, each of my wives being the mother of from 1 to 2 of those
children.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, proceed.
	Mr. TAYLER. None of them has borne more than two children to you?
	Mr. SMITH. None that I recollect now. I could not tell you without I
referred to the dates.
	The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that is material.
	Mr. TAYLER. That was not intended for information so much as it was
for my guidance with respect to another question which I do not care to
ask.
	Senator FORAKER. It is very evident that there must have been two
children by four of the wives, and three by one, which would make eleven.
	Mr. TAYLER. That is very true. You of course understand that I might
have difficulty in locating the mother of some of the children, as Mr.
Smith himself is not quite sure--
	Mr. SMITH. You will not have any difficulty so far as I am concerned.
	Mr. TAYLER. I have no doubt if you could recall the particular
situation, but you said you were not sure but that one might have borne
you three children.
	Mr. SMITH. I rather think she has.
	Mr. TAYLER. You rather think?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes. I could tell you a little later by referring. I can
not say that I remember the dates of births of my children--all of them.
(1:128-133)
	Mr. TAYLER. You were at the Weber Stake reunion last summer sometime?
	Mr. SMITH. The Weber Stake reunion? I can not recall it just at the
present time.
	Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember making a speech down there last summer at
Ogden?
	Mr. SMITH. I could not say it was last summer, but I recollect being
at Ogden at a reunion there and making some remarks at that reunion.
	Mr. TAYLER. I perhaps can identify the occasion; not that the
circumstance is important, but it interested [341] me, as you can imagine.
It was when Mrs. Bathsheba Smith made some remarks in a reminiscent way.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.
	Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smoot was there?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not remember that he was. He may have been there.
	Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember saying in your speech, made to your
people there, this--
	The CHAIRMAN. On what date?
	Mr. TAYLER. June 12, 1903.
	Senator HOAR. What paper is that?
	Mr. TAYLER. I was just going to state, so that the witness should
know. It seems to have been June 12 when this reunion occurred. The
communication is dated from Ogden, June 20, and I find what I am about to
call to his attention printed in the Deseret News of Thursday, June 23,
1903. So I ask you if you said this--or in substance this--in your
remarks:
	"Aunt Bathsheba, widow of George A. Smith, who is with us to-day, is
the last living witness, so far as I know, who received her endowments
while Joseph Smith was living. Here is Aunt Bathsheba, who received her
endowments in Nauvoo as they are now given in the temples. She is a living
witness, and, if necessary, she will tell us that she received her
endowments in Nauvoo as they are now given in the temples. She is a living
witness, and, if necessary, she will tell us that she received these
privileges under the direction of Joseph Smith. Opponents say that Brigham
Young established the endowments and also plural marriage, but here is a
witness who knows better. Brigham Young only sought to carry out the
instruction he received from Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith as he received
it from God. So far as the principle of plural marriage itself is
concerned, we are not teaching it nor practicing it; but we are taking
care of our wives, and I honor the men who take care of them and who are
true to them.
	"I would not like to sit in judgment on any of my brethren who are
not true to their families, and yet I do not think I would be more severe
upon them than the Great [342] Judge would be. I have made no covenants
that were not made in good faith, and I will keep them so far as I can.
When it comes to the principle itself, I can defend it as a principle of
purity, strictly in accordance with the Gospel. To be a Latter-Day Saint
one must be honest with himself, with his neighbors, and with his God. I
have received a testimony of the truth of the principles of the Gospel,
and I will try to keep them. Joseph Smith revealed plural marriage and the
endowments, and here is a living witness to those facts. So am I, for I
received it of those who received it from Joseph Smith. Now, am I telling
you that plural marriage is practiced or is to be practiced? No; I am only
telling you that it is a principle revealed by God to Joseph Smith the
prophet, and the Latter-Day Saint who denies and rejects that truth in his
heart might as well reject every other truth connected with his mission.
Every man and woman will get his or her reward, for God is just and deals
out justice with mercy."
	Now just read the question so that Mr. Smith can understand its form.
	The reporter read as follows:
 	"Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember saying in your speech, made to your
people there, this--"
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the words "your people" there are
misleading. This occurred in a select gathering of a few persons, a few
individuals, and there were only a few there of the leading authorities of
the Weber Stake of Zion, and it was not a public gathering at all, nor
were those remarks in the light of a public address. They were made, and I
acknowledge that I made them, and I think I am correctly reported by the
paper, as Mr. Tayler has read them.
	The CHAIRMAN. That answers the question.
	Mr. TAYLER. That answers it.
	I have no doubt your statement as to the character of this meeting is
correct. Let me read you the newspaper statement of its character, which,
perhaps, will disclose [343] it to all of us. It is this:
	"The presidency of the stake, the bishops of the 25 wards and their
counselors, the members, alternates, and clerk of the high council, the
patriarchs, the presidency of the high priest's quorum, the
superintendencies and presidents of the various auxiliary organizations
(the Sunday school, Y.M. and Y.L.M.I. associations, relief society,
religion classes, and primary), and the stake clerk, with a few other
leading brethren, all with their wives or husbands, composed the list of
invited guests from Weber Stake, and almost every one of those invited was
in attendance. Of the visiting brethren and sisters from Salt Lake City
there were present President Joseph F. Smith and members of his family;
President Anthon H. Lund, Patriarch John Smith and wife, Apostles Rudger
Clawson, wife, and mother, Abraham O. Woodruff and wife, accompanied by
Sister Asahel Woodruff, Reed Smoot and wife, and Hyrum M. Smith and wife;
Sister Bathsheba Smith, William Spence and wife, William Salmon and wife,
Joseph F. Smith, jr., and wife. President Charles Kelly and Counselor
Oleen N. Stohl of the presidency of the Boxelder Stake were also in
attendance."
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think that is correct.
	Mr. TAYLER. That correctly describes the character of the meeting and
who the people were who were there?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator FORAKER. I understood you to say there were not more than a
dozen people present?
	Mr. SMITH. There were more than that, Senator. There were probably
50.
	Senator FORAKER. I should say so, if all were present who are
described in that paper.
	Senator HOAR. I should like to know--if you will ask him, or I
will--if that purports to be a verbatim report, published in the paper, of
what he said.
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is not a verbatim report.
	Senator HOAR. I understood you to say you said it in [344] substance.
	Mr. SMITH. I said that in substance.
	Senator HOAR. I merely put this question with a view of shortening
the inquiry.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator HOAR. It was made to this audience, whoever they were, and
was published in the Deseret News. Was it published with your approval?
	Mr. SMITH. I did not know anything about its being published at all.
I was not consulted about its being published, and I knew nothing about it
until after it was published. That is simply a newspaper report of the
meeting.
	Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Chairman--
	Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Tayler, I beg your pardon for just a moment.
	Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.
	Senator DUBOIS. You had no objection to its being published?
	Mr. SMITH. If I had been consulted I would have advised the newspaper
reporter not to have published it.
	Senator DUBOIS. They would not have published it had you advised them
not to publish it?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not think they would--that is, I do not think the
Deseret News would.
	Senator DUBOIS. It would not have been published without the sanction
of the authorities of the church? They would not knowingly and willfully
publish anything without the sanction of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. Of course they would; publish everything that is news.
	The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mr. Smith has answered the question.
	Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that, for the more intellegent
guidance of the committee in gathering these facts together, as well as in
justice to the side, who are about to cross-examine Mr. Smith, we ought to
read those things which we especially rely upon in the publications of the
church to which reference has been made, and which have been identified.
	The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.
[345] Senator OVERMAN. One moment. Why would you have objected to
publishing that speech?
	Mr. SMITH. Because I have avoided studiously saying anything in
public that could be construed in the least as advocating even the
rightfulness or truthfulness of plural marriage. I have avoided it.
Therefore I would not have advised its publication if I had been
consulted.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. I desire to ask Mr. Smith a question or two.
	The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Indiana.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. Does the fact that this practice is against the
law of the land have anything to do with your refraining from teaching the
principle?
	Mr. SMITH. Most decidedly, Mr. Senator.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. Is the committee to understand that you and your
church regard the law of the land as more binding upon your actions than
your religious beliefs?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in that sense. I understand that we are under
injunction by the manifesto not to practice plural marriage. That is what
I mean by that--not to continue plural marriage. Under that injunction we
refrain from teaching it, inculcating it, and advocating it, and out of
respect both to the law and to the manifesto of President Woodruff.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. What I mean is this: Your belief may be one way,
which is nobody's business; you, notwithstanding your belief, obey the law
of the land?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that what I am to understand?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is exactly what I mean.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. Does that have anything to do with the reason why
you refrain from teaching the principle, the practice of which is
inhibited by the law of the land?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you say you obey the law of the land?
	Mr. SMITH. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand your
statement.
[346] The CHAIRMAN. I understood the Senator from Indiana to put a
question, which I will ask the reporter to read.
question.
	The reporter read as follows:
	"Senator BEVERIDGE. What I mean is this. Your belief may be one way,
which is nobody's business. You, notwithstanding your belief, obey the law
of the land?
	"Mr. SMITH. Yes."
	The CHAIRMAN. You obey the Law?
	Mr. SMITH. With respect--
	The CHAIRMAN. Do you obey the law in having five wives at this time,
and having them bear to you eleven children since the manifesto of 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have
obeyed the law of the land.
	The CHAIRMAN. That is all.
	Mr. SMITH. I do not claim so, and I have said before that I prefer to
stand my chances against the law.
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
	Mr. SMITH. Rather than to abandon my children and their mothers. That
is all there is to it.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. That leads necessarily to another question. I
understood you yesterday to say why it was you continued that, that you
were willing to take the chances as an individual. My question was
directed to this: That, as head of the church, whatever your beliefs may
be, it is your practice and the practice of the church to obey the law of
the land, in teaching, notwithstanding what your opinion may be. Is that
correct or not?
	Mr. SMITH. That is correct, and I wish to assert that the church has
obeyed the law of the land, and that it has kept its pledges with this
Government; but I have not, as an individual, and I have taken that chance
myself.
	Senator FORAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point?
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
[347] Senator FORAKER. I do not know whether it has been brought out or
not--perhaps it has been, but I have not observed it if it has been put
into the record--when and where and how this injunction to take plural
wives was given to the church as a doctrine of the Mormon Church.
	Mr. TAYLER. I was going to read the revelation in a moment.
	Senator FORAKER. I want it to go in here before we get away from it.
	The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the manifesto?
	Senator FORAKER. No; I do not mean the manifesto. I mean the original
revelation, if it was a revelation, authorizing plural wives.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is chapter 132.
	Senator FORAKER. I wish you would read that particular part of it.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have the book here.
	Senator FORAKER. What I want to know is whether that was a positive,
arbitrary injunction laid upon every member of the church to take a plural
wife, or whether it was in the nature of a priviledge which was granted to
the members and recommended.
	Senator DUBOIS. Wait a moment. I believe, Senator Foraker, you
directed your question to the president of the church?
	Senator FORAKER. To the president of the church.
	Senator DUBOIS. Not to the attorneys?
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. I merely handed him the book.
	Senator FORAKER. I asked the witness on the stand.
	Senator DUBOIS. I should like to have the witness answer it.
	Senator FORAKER. But I have no objection to counsel assisting him if
they want to. I did not observe to what you referred, Senator Dubois.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not think he needs any assistance from anybody
to find that.
	Mr. SMITH. I think I understand your question.
	Senator FORAKER. I wish you would give the exact language in which
that is clothed.
	Mr. SMITH. In which it is written?
	Senator FORAKER. For I have not heard it yet, al-[348]though it may
have gone into the record.
	Mr. TAYLER. That is what I was rising to read when I was interrupted
a moment ago. It is just as well to come in in this way.
	Senator HOAR. When are we to have those books?
	Mr. SMITH. I sent for them.
	Senator HOAR. You have sent home for them?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator HOAR. They will be here in a few days?
	Mr. SMITH. They will come by express as soon as possible.
	Mr. TAYLER. It is page 463.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes; 463.
	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you will now answer the question.
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, is it intended that I shall read a portion
of this chapter?
	Senator HOPKINS. Let the reporter read the question propounded by the
Senator for Ohio.
	The reporter read as follows:
	"Senator FORAKER. I do not know whether it has been brought out or
not. Perhaps it has been, but I have not observed it if it has been put
into the record. When and where and how this injunction to take plural
wives was given to the church as a doctrine of the Mormon Church."
	The CHAIRMAN. When and where and how?
	Mr. SMITH. In the first place, this revelation was written in 1843 by
Joseph Smith. It was taught by him to the members of the church during his
lifetime, to Brigham Young, to Heber C. Kimball, and to his associates,
but owing to the conditions that existed at that time, fierce opposition
and mobocracy--
	The CHAIRMAN. What opposition?
	Mr. SMITH. Fierce opposition and mobocracy, which ended finally in
the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, it was not published and proclaimed at that
time. But this doctrine was preserved by Brigham Young, carried with him
to Salt Lake Valley in 1847, and in 1851, I believe it [349] was, there
proclaimed at a public conference of the church as a revelation from God
through Joseph Smith, and at that public conference it was accepted as a
revelation.
	The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1851?
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1852.
	Mr. SMITH. Sir?
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1852.
	Mr. SMITH. It was in 1852.
	Senator HOPKINS. As I understand you, it was proclaimed at Nauvoo?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was not published and proclaimed at Nauvoo,
but it was taught by Joseph Smith to his confidential friends and
associates.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was received at Nauvoo.
	Senator HOAR. Where was this publication of it, if that is the proper
term, by Brigham Young?
	Mr. SMITH. It was in Salt Lake Valley in 1852. Mr. Senator, does that
answer your question?
	Senator FORAKER. Not yet. That answers as to when and how, but what
is it? Let us have the revelation itself in so far as it relates to plural
marriages.
	Mr. SMITH. It is very lengthy.
	Senator MCCOMAS. What section is it?
	Senator FORAKER. What I wish to ascertain is, and all I care to have
you read is enough to show, whether it is a positive command to take
plural wives, or a mere recommendation or mere authority or privilege?
	The CHAIRMAN. Can you not read the portion of it which relates to
plural marriages?
	Mr. SMITH. I can read it if you desire me to.
	Senator FORAKER. Cite the page and all, and then read.
	Mr. SMITH. Page 463. The beginning of the revelation is thus:
	"1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, that
inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand wherein
I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as also
Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle [350] and
if doctrine of their having many wives and concubines:
	"2. Behold! and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as
touching this matter:
	"3. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions
which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law
revealed unto them must obey the same;"
	Senator FORAKER. Mr. President, I observe, now that my attention has
been called to it, that it is, as the witness remarked, very long. I do
not wish to delay the examination by having it read.
	The CHAIRMAN. I tried to restrict the witness to that part which
relates particularly to your question.
	Senator FORAKER. I have never read it and--
	Mr. RICHARDS. If I may be permitted a suggestion, I think if the
witness were to commence with the sixty-first verse it would answer the
question of the Senator from Ohio.
	Senator FORAKER. We have asked the witness to exercise his judgment
in that respect, and perhaps your suggestion may aid him. All I want to
know is the character of the revelation.
	Mr. SMITH. Of its binding character?
	Senator FORAKER. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. It has been accepted by the church and admitted by all
that it is in its nature permissive and not absolutely mandatory.
	Senator FORAKER. Now, will you read the language which has been so
construed?
	Mr. RICHARDS. Commence with verse 61.
	Mr. TAYLER. That is right.
	Mr. SMITH. I will do so.
	"61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood: If any
man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
her consent: and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have
vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he can not commit adultery,
for they are given unto him; for he can not commit adultery with that that
belongeth unto him and to [351] no one else.
	Mr. RICHARDS. The word "justified" is the word used.
	The CHAIRMAN. There is something a little further on.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he can
not commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him,
therefore is he justified."
	Senator FORAKER. Now, that is the pith of that revelation, as I
understand it, according to your judgment, with respect to the taking of
plural wives?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	If I may be permitted, in replying to that question, I will say that
the fact that only about 3 per cent of the entire male population of the
church have entered into that principle at all is evidence that it is only
permissive and not mandatory.
	Senator FORAKER. I so understood you to state yesterday, and when you
had stated that only about 3 or 4 per cent of the membership of the church
had ever taken plural wives I was at a loss to know why questions were
being propounded which seemed to assume that this was an arbitrary command
that all should take, and that if all did not take and all did not teach
it they were violating the revelation of God.
	Senator PETTUS. I should like to ask the witness a question directly
on this point.
	The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Alabama.
	Senator PETTUS. Mr. Smith, will you please read further as to the
refusal of the first wife to consent and explain what is meant by the word
"destroyed" in the same connection?
	The CHAIRMAN. It is at the close of your last reading.
	Senator PETTUS. Yes, sir.
	Mr. RICHARDS. Page 472.
	Mr. SMITH. I have that; but what verse?
[352] Mr. RICHARDS. Verse 63. You read 62.
	Mr. SMITH. All right.
	"63. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
shall be with another man; she has committed adultery, and shall be
destroyed.
	Is that the question?
	Senator PETTUS. No, sir; just a verse or two further on.
	Mr. SMITH. I will read it.
	"For they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth,
according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by
my Father before the foundation of the world; and for their exaltation in
the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the
work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."
	Mr. TAYLER. The next verse.
	Mr. SMITH. All right.
	"64. And again, verily, verily I say unto you, if any man have a
wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of
my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe, and
administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God,
for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who
receive and abide in my law."
	Senator PETTUS. Now, what is the meaning of the word "destroyed."
there, as interpreted by the church?
	Mr. SMITH. I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the
language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands of
the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose that is
what it means.
	Senator FORAKER. Has the church ever construed that language to give
authority to it as a church to destroy [353] the woman?
	Mr. SMITH. Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that the
Lord--
	Senator FORAKER. The church construes it, as I understand, to mean
that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord. Mr.
SMITH. By the Lord, if there is any destruction at all.
	Senator PETTUS. Have there ever been in the past plural marriages
without the consent of the first wife?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith
himself.
	Senator PETTUS. Is the language that you have read construed to mean
that she is bound to consent?
	Mr. SMITH. The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord
will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
	Senator BAILEY. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not,
then he is exempt from the requirement?
	Mr. SMITH. Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent,
under the law.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?
	Mr. SMITH. It amounts to nothing.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. So that so far as there is anything in there
concerning her consent, it might as well not be there?
	Senator OVERMAN. Passing from this, I should like to ask Mr. Smith a
question.
	The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
	Senator OVERMAN. You frankly said that as to polygamous cohabitation
you did not obey and were not obeying the law. You stated on yesterday
that some seven of the apostles--
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; six is the out limit.
	Senator OVERMAN. Six?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator OVERMAN. You say six are polygamists. Now, are those or any
one of them disobeying the law of the land in regard to polygamous
cohabitation?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about their un-[354]lawful
cohabitation relations. I only referred in my answer to the question
yesterday to the fact that they were in the status of polygamists; that
is, they had more wives than one.
	Senator OVERMAN. You do not know whether they have had any children
born to them since the manifesto or not?
	Mr. SMITH. I am happy to say that I am not a paid spotter or
informer.
	Senator OVERMAN. You might know without being a spotter.
	Mr. SMITH. I do not know.
	Senator OVERMAN. I know people in my town who have children, and I am
not a spotter, either.
	Mr. SMITH. I had no reference at all to this honorable body.
	Senator OVERMAN. You have used that word two or three times. Could
you not know whether they had children without being a spotter?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not know, because I am not familiar--
	Senator OVERMAN. Do you know their general reputation?
	Mr. SMITH. Not whether they have children or not.
	Senator OVERMAN. You do not know whether they have children or not?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
	Senator OVERMAN. You might have answered without saying you were not
a spotter.
	Mr. SMITH. Excuse me; I beg your pardon.
	Senator FORAKER. If the Senator from North Carolina is through, I
should like to have the entire revelation come in at the place where a
part of it was quoted, if there is no objection.
	Senator HOPKINS. As I understand, counsel is about to read it.
(1:191-202, The revelation, D & C Sec. 132 was then read)
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, do I understand that the fact is that only the
president, the head of the church, is or ever has been authorized to
receive revelations for the church which constitute the law of the church?
[355]
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have they been printed and distributed at all?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes; they were printed in brochure form--that is, in
pamphlet form--and of course are kept in our book department of the Desert
News, for sale to anybody who wants them, just the same as the book of
Doctrine and Covenants, or any other book is held.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. The same as the manifesto?
	Mr. SMITH. The same as the manifesto; yes.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was the last revelation that came to the church
from the one authorized to give it as the law of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. Well, according to my best recollection, it must have been
about 1882. The purport of the revelation was calling to the apostolate or
apostleship two men, who are named in the revelation.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the president through whom that revelation
came?
	Mr. SMITH. President John Tayler.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say that was the last one?
	Mr. SMITH. I do not now recall any since then except the manifesto.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Except the manifesto?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, except the manifesto.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then do I understand you to say the only revelation
that has come to the church in the last twenty years is the one that says
polygamy shall stop?
	Mr. SMITH. Since 1882?
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, since 1882--twenty-one years.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think it is.
	Senator BAILEY. Mr. Worthington, if you would not object to an
interruption just there--
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly not, Senator.
	Mr. BAILEY. I would like to know why you call the others revelations
and you call this last one a manifesto?
	Mr. SMITH. It is merely a custom, I guess. It was so called in the
first place, and we have become habituated to it, just as we have become
habituated in calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the
[356] Mormon Church. We have accepted the term although it is not the name
of the church.
	Senator BAILEY. It indicates no difference, so far as the binding
authority upon the conscience of members is concerned?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir. (1:288-289)
	Senator BAILEY. * * * I noticed in response to Senator Hoar's
question, Mr. Smith, you said as between a conflicting law and a
conflicting revelation, the law would be binding on some and the
revelation on others?
	Mr. SMITH. It might be, I said.
	Senator BAILEY. Do you mean by that that it would be binding as as
(sic) a matter of conduct or as a matter of conscience?
	Mr. SMITH. As a matter of conscience.
	Senator BAILEY. I can not understand how a man who has any Christian
faith can yield his conscience to the law, though I do understand how he
can conform his conduct to it. I can not quite understand how, if the
revelation came from on high, you could, as a matter of conscience, yield
it to a law that is made by ordinary, every-day lawmakers, either in Utah
or at Washington, though I understand perfectly well that as a question of
good citizenship you would, in temporal affairs, yield to the law of the
land. I would like to know, for my own satisfaction--and it is not a
matter with which this committee has much concern, but just for my own
satisfaction--would your church people make any distinction between
conforming as a matter of law and nonconforming as a matter of conscience?
	Mr. SMITH. I tried to illustrate that some time ago, and I will
repeat my idea. To my conscience the revelation conflicting with the law
might appeal and be paramount, but to my brother and to my associate
member of the church it might not appeal to his conscience, and he would
not be affected by it at all.
	Senator BAILEY. I did not make myself entirely plain, evidently, from
your answer. I can conceive easily how a man's conscience might remain the
same, although his conduct would differ. I could conceive how you and your
associates in the first presidency might [357] have precisely the same
conscience in respect to a matter, and yet your conduct might differ. You
might feel that you could not yield your conscience to the law, and they
might feel that, reserving to themselves the same conscientious regard for
institutions, still they would yield it to the commands of the State; and
what I was trying to ascertain was whether your people as a church would
still adhere to their conscientious beliefs in a given institution,
although, as a matter of law, they might yield it.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think that is correct. I think they would do
that as a general thing.
	The CHAIRMAN. You think what, Mr. Smith?
	Mr. SMITH. I think that our people--the Mormon people--would as a
rule, while they might retain their convictions or their conscience,
conform to the law; that is, their acts.
	Senator HOAR. Could a man remain in good standing as an apostle, who,
if the divine command were in conflict with the command of the human
lawgiver, disobeyed God and obeyed man?
	Mr. SMITH. I did not catch the last, Senator.
	Senator HOAR. Could a man, in your judgment, remain in good standing
as an apostle, who, if the divine command by revelation enjoined one thing
and the human law the contrary, disobeyed God and obeyed man?
	Mr. SMITH. Would he remain in good standing?
	Senator HOAR. Yes. Would he remain in good standing?
	Mr. SMITH. I rather think he would be considered as a little out of
harmony with his associates if he did that.
	Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Smith, as a matter of conduct, where there is
a conflict between revelation--or by whatever term it is called--and the
law of the land, which, as a church matter, does your church direct the
members to obey?
	Mr. SMITH. To obey the law of the land. That is what we have done
absolutely.
	Senator DUBOIS. I would like to ask one question.
	Senator DILLINGHAM. It is half past 4. I move the committe adjourn.
[358] Senator DUBOIS. I will ask this question, and I will stop there for
the time being. I want to supplement the question made by Senator Hoar.
You said that if you received a revelation your people could obey it or
not, as they saw fit. Now, presume that revelation had been submitted to
your people and all of them in their conference had held up their hands.
Do you still think it would not be the duty of your people to obey that
revelation, and that they would not obey that revelation?
	Mr. SMITH. That they would not obey that revelation?
	Senator DUBOIS. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. I think that when the people hold up their hands to accept
a principle, and they do accept a principle, they are honest enough to
carry it out.
	Senator DUBOIS. They will all carry it out?
	Mr. SMITH. I think so.
	Senator DUBOIS. They would accept your revelation then?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator DUBOIS. Some of them would and some would not?
	Mr. SMITH. Some would and some would not, to be sure.
	Senator DUBOIS. Would it not be obligatory upon every member of your
organization to accept that revelation, if sustained by the holding up of
hands?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; only those who were disposed to it would do it.
Those who were not disposed to do it would not do it.
	Senator DUBOIS. Then, of course, any one is at liberty to refuse a
revelation?
	Mr. SMITH. That is right.
	Senator DUBOIS. It is not binding at all upon any of your people?
	Mr. SMITH. How is that?
	Senator DUBOIS. It is not binding at all upon any of Your people?
	Mr. SMITH. Not at all; only the binding of conscience. It never was.
	Senator DUBOIS. It has no effect or force or authority [359] which
must be obeyed according to your church organization and laws?
	Mr. SMITH. Not in the least. There is not a man in the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that is under any more obligation to
obey the doctrines of the church and the laws of the church than you are,
Senator--not one particle.
	Senator DUBOIS. When promulgated by the head of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator DUBOIS. You promulgate, then, a revelation to your apostles
to start with, and they do not have to accept it?
	Mr. SMITH. Not unless they choose.
	Senator DUBOIS. Then, if they impart that in turn to their people--
	Mr. SMITH. Excuse me. I say not unless they choose.
	Senator DUBOIS. They are not under any sort of obligation then to
obey?
	Mr. SMITH. Not unless they choose to. They have their volition, their
free agency, and the church does not interfere with the conscience or the
free agency of men at all.
	Senator BAILEY. Could you not make use of a better word and say
"unchurched" if they refuse to obey the ordinances of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes.
	Senator BAILEY. I think they do that with the Baptist Church and the
Methodist Church and all the rest of them.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes; we do that.
	Senator BAILEY. If they did not receive it, you would withdraw
membership, or fellowship, as you call it?
	Mr. SMITH. That would depend on whether they committed overt acts of
unchristian like conduct.
	Senator BAILEY. The rejection of the creed is, in the eyes of the
church, I suppose, unchristianlike, is it not? Of course, you understand
about the creeds of the other churches. Suppose a member of the Baptist
Church should reject, say, the doctrine of baptism. I suppose they would
unchurch him, would they not? Would not [360] your organization--your
church would be the better term--do the same?
	Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
	Mr. BAILEY. So would you not do an exact obedience to your doctrine
that far?
	Mr. SMITH. Permit me to put it this way, if you please, with exact
language: We preach our doctrine. We submit it to the judgment of men.
They either receive it or reject it on their own volition. If they receive
it and are initiated into the church as members of the church, then they
are amenable to the laws and rules of the church; and if they do not obey
the laws and observe the rules of the church after becoming members of it,
and commit overt acts or transgress the laws of the church, then they are
dealt with for their fellowship in the church, and the hand of fellowship
is withdrawn from them unless they repent. (1:316-319)
	Senator BAILEY. I will say to you very frankly that I do not have
much patience with a doctrine which does not receive a revelation until
there is a statute and where the revelation happens to conform to the
statute. What I have been trying to fix in my mind is whether you taught
that this was a revelation or merely a submission to the law. If it were a
submission to the law, then it would be a question whether the Christian
would submit to the laws of the land or to the laws of God. I do not
pretend to judge about that, but when a sect teaches that an inspiration
come just after a statute has been passed and a report made to Congress, I
do not quite understand that anybody is required to accept it as a
revelation.
	Senator FORAKER. All of that is a matter of opinion.
	Senator BAILEY. Hardly, if the Senator please.
	Senator FORAKER. I mean so far as the sence of duty is concerned.
	Senator BAILEY. Not precisely that. I have been compelled to submit
to many a law that I thought a vicious one, and which I would have voted
to repeal, but as a good citizen I submitted to it. But just how far I
would have submitted if I had been otherwise commanded by a revelation
from God is a question that I am not now deciding.
[361] Mr. SMITH. May I please try to explain this matter a little to the
Senator? I will try to be brief.
	Senator BAILEY. Very well.
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Senator, the facts are these: When the laws against
plural marriage were passed by the Congress of the United States we held
to the idea that they were unconstitutional laws. We are compelled by our
doctrines--the doctrines of our church--to obey and observe the
constitutional laws of our land.
	Senator BAILEY. I have heard such a statement read here.
	Mr. SMITH. We fought the validity of those laws in court all the way
from the first and lower court to the highest court of our land, and when
the subject finally came before the Supreme Court of the United States and
was settled and the law was sustained as a constitutional law, then we, to
be obedient to our own doctrines and faith, were naturally inclined to
obey the law.
	But we had a revelation on our statute books, commanding us to enter
into a certain covenant for eternity as well as for time, which is
mandatory, with reference to the blessings that are promised in the law;
they can not be received without it; and, with reference to the plural
part of it, permissive, and we had the alternative before us as to whether
we should observe even the constitutional law of the land that was so
pronounced by the Supreme Court of the United States or to continue to
practice the law of the church.
	President Woodruff, as president of the church, entitled, as we hold,
as you may not hold, and as everybody is free to have his own opinion
about it, to receive revelations and inspiration from Almighty God for the
guidance of the church and that he is the final arbitrator for the church
on matters of doctrine, sought to the Lord, and, as he says himself in the
language which has been read here, the Lord made manifest to him clearly
that it was his duty to stop plural marriages, and he received that
revelation and that commandment from the Lord to stop it. He published it;
announced it. It was submitted first to the officials of the church and
accepted by them and then it was submitted to the entire church in
con-[362]ference assembled and it was accepted by them, and thus it became
binding upon the church; and the church has from that day to this kept the
Law so far as plural marriages are concerned.
	I should like to draw a distinction in the Senator's mind that there
is a great difference in our judgment, in our feelings, between the law
prohibiting plural marriages and the law prohibiting what is termed in the
law unlawful cohabitation--a very great difference. Plural marriage has
stopped; but I choose, rather than to abandon my children and their
mothers, to run my risks before the law. I want to say, too, that it is
the law of my State--it is not the law of Congress--under which I am
living and by which I am punishable. It is the law of my State, and the
courts of my State have competent jurisdiction to deal with me in my
offenses against the law, and the Congress of the United States has no
business with my private conduct any more than it has with the private
conduct of any citizen of Utah or any other State. It is the law of my
State to which I am amenable, and if the officers of the law have not done
their duty toward me I can not blame them. I think they have some respect
for me.
	The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask you a question right here. You speak of
your unwillingness to abandon your children.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary, in order to support your children,
educate, and clothe them, that you should continue to have children by a
multiplicity of wives?
	Mr. SMITH. Because my wives are like everybody else's wife.
	The CHAIRMAN. I am not speaking of them.
	Mr. SMITH. I understand.
	The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of the children now in existence born to
you.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary to continue to have issue by five
wives in order to support and educate the children already in existence?
Why is it necessary?
[363] Mr. SMITH. It is only to the peace and harmony and good will of
myself and my wives; that is all.
	The CHAIRMAN. Then you could educate your children and clothe them
and feed them without having new issue?
	Mr. SMITH. Well, yes; I possibly could, but that is just exactly the
kernel in the nut.
	The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. I have chosen not to do that, Mr. Chairman.
	The CHAIRMAN. You have chosen not to do it?
	Mr. SMITH. That is it. I am responsible before the law for my action.
	The CHAIRMAN. And in not doing it, you are violating the law?
	Mr. SMITH. The law of my State?
	The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation published in the Book of
Covenants here that you shall abide by the law of the State?
	Mr. SMITH. It includes both unlawful cohabitation and polygamy.
	Senator OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation that you shall abide by
the laws of the State and of the land?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	Senator OVERMAN. If that is a revelation, are you not violating the
laws of God?
	Mr. SMITH. I have admitted that, Mr. Senator, a great many times
here.
	Senator OVERMAN. I did not know that you had.
	Mr. SMITH. And I am amenable to the law for it. But I see the point
of the Senator's question. Gentlemen, you have shown a great deal of
leniency in permitting me to express my views here, and I do not wish to
be offensive and I do not wish to take more time than I need to. But the
church itself--I understand your point, that the church forbids me to
violate the law, certainly it does--but the church gave me those wives,
and the church can not be consistent with itself and compel me to forsake
them and surrender them.
[364] Senator BAILEY. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away," and when
the Lord gave this second revelation forbidding it--
	Mr. SMITH. He did not forbid it.
	Senator BAILEY. Well, he did, if the manifesto is based upon a
revelation, because the manifesto declares against it.
	Mr. SMITH. The manifesto declares positively the prohibition of
plural marriages, and in the examination before the master in chancery the
president of the church and other leading members of the church agreed
before the master in chancery that the spirit and meaning of that
revelation applied to unlawful cohabitation as well as to plural
marriages.
	Senator BAILEY. That is what I was coming to now, Mr. SMITH. Then, as
I understand you, both plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation are
forbidden by the statutes of Utah and by the revelations of God. Is that
true?
	Mr. SMITH. That is the spirit of it, sir.
	Senator BAILEY. And yet you, as the head of the church, are defying
both---
	Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.
	Senator BAILEY. The statutes of Utah and the ordinance of the
church---
	Mr. SMITH. Not the ordinance at all.
	Senator BAILEY. Perhaps you have another and better expression to
describe them?
	Mr. SMITH. If you say the manifesto---
	Senator BAILEY. I should say that a revelation once communicated to
the church and sustained by the church would become an ordinance of the
church.
	Mr. SMITH. If the Senator please---
	Senator BAILEY. If you will provide me with a better expression than
that I shall be glad to adopt it. We will call it the law of the church.
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; call it the rule.
	Senator BAILEY. Does not a revelation become the law of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. Call it the rule of the church, and I will understand.
[365] Senator BAILEY. Law, after all, is but a rule of conduct prescribed
by the supreme power. What I am trying now to emphasize is that the
manifesto is a revelation, or that is based upon a revelation; that the
revelation---
	Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will permit me, it is inspired. It is the
same thing. I admit what you say.
	Senator BAILEY. I do not know quite so much about these nice
distinctions in the gospel as I hope I do in the law. I am amenable to
correction on those. But at any rate, it is a revelation forbidding alike
plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation; and that revelation from the
Lord is supplemented and reenforced by the statutes of the State of Utah.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator BAILEY. I agree with you entirely, that for your individual
conduct you are amenable to the State of Utah and not to the Federal
Government. I concur in that statement; but is it true that the head of
the church in Utah is living in open and proclaimed defiance of the
statutes of that State, and also in defiance of a revelation received by
your predecessor--not your immediate predecessor, I believe, but a
predecessor--and communicated to the church and sustained by it? Am I
correct in that?
	Mr. SMITH. You are correct so far--that I have confessed here openly,
and it has gone to the world--that I have not observed the law against
cohabitation with my wives. That is all there is to it.
	Senator BAILEY. What I am trying to make clear is that it is a law
not only of the State of Utah but also a law of the church.
	Mr. SMITH. It is a rule of the church.
	Senator BAILEY. That is what I want to make clear.
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator OVERMAN. There is one question I wish to ask. You may have
stated it before. This manifesto, which was published, I understand you to
say is sent broadcast?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes.
	Senator OVERMAN. What I want to know is this: The manifesto does not
tell about how the revelation came or [366] that it is a revelation. Is
this revelation published in any of your standard works?
	Mr. SMITH. I informed the committee yesterday that it has been an
oversight, that it had not been published in the latest edition of the
Doctrine and Covenants, and that I would see to it that it should be
incorporated in the next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to meet
this objection.
	The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the manifesto?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me a question right in the line of what Mr.
Smith has been testifying about--speaking about the care of his children.
Another statement you made is that you do not teach polygamy.
	Mr. SMITH. I do not understand the chairman.
	The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say you were not teaching the
doctrine of polygamy to your people.
	Mr. SMITH. That is right, and I should like to add in connection with
the Senator's remarks here that I am not openly and obnoxiously practicing
unlawful cohabitation.
	The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection---
	Mr. SMITH. I have avoided that.
	The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection, you say you are not teaching
polygamy?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. How more forcibly could you teach it than by practicing
it openly as the head of the church?
	Mr. SMITH. I am not practicing it openly.
	The CHAIRMAN. Are you practicing it secretly?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. Then, how are you practicing it?
	Mr. SMITH. I am not practicing polygamy at all.
	The CHAIRMAN. You are not?
	Mr. SMITH. I have prohibited polygamy.
	The CHAIRMAN. You are not living in polygamous cohabitation?
	Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; but not in polygamy. Polygamy means the marrying
of more wives than one, but I am not living in polygamy. I am not
practicing it or permitting it.
	The CHAIRMAN. Then your idea is, after the mar-[367]riage is
consummated, to live with a woman is not polygamy?
	Mr. SMITH. It is not polygamy inasmuch as the marriage occurred
before the manifesto.
	Mr. WORTHINGTON. The statute makes the same distinction.
	The CHAIRMAN. I think I understand.
	Mr. VAN COTT. The Congressional acts make that distinction.
	Senator FORAKER. What acts?
	Mr. VAN COTT. The Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Edmunds Act.
	Senator OVERMAN. I have not read the manifesto through to know
exactly what it is. Does the manifesto state in it anywhere that it is a
revelation from God? You say you intend to publish it hereafter. But does
the manifesto anywhere state that it was a revelation from God?
	Mr. SMITH. The attorney read before the committee this morning that
President Woodruff himself announced that it was a revelation.
	Senator OVERMAN. I mean the manifesto itself.
	Mr. SMITH. That comes in connection with the manifesto.
	Senator OVERMAN. But it is not published in the pamphlet?
	Mr. SMITH. It was presented before the conference.
	Senator OVERMAN. I understand.
	Senator HOPKINS. That matter has been presented here and it speaks
for itself.
	Senator OVERMAN. The manifesto speaks for itself. (1:333-337)
	Senator OVERMAN. Let me ask a question for my own satisfaction. I
have a little pamphlet which states that you teach that our Savior was a
polygamist. Is that so?
	Mr. SMITH. We do not teach any such doctrine. We simply teach the
historical fact that Jesus Christ descended through a line of polygamists
from David and Abraham.
	Senator OVERMAN. You do not teach that he had [368] polygamous
relations?
	Mr. SMITH. Oh, no, sir.
	The CHAIRMAN. Call your next witness, Mr. Tayler. (1:388)

6 Apr 1904, Joseph F. Smith:
	* * * Brethren and sisters. Of course you cannot help but have
noticed that some of our brethren have been absent from us. I regret very
much the absence of a number of the Apostles. We are all sorry that
circumstances have prevented them from meeting with us. Elder John Henry
Smith has been suffering for some time from inflammatory rheumatism and is
still confined to his room. Elder George Teasdale received permission to
retire from active duty over two months ago, and when he left us was in
feeble health. Elder Marriner W. Merrill has been prostrated for some time
in his home at Cache valley. These brethren have our sympathy and our
prayers for their recovery. I regret also the absence from this conference
of Elders John W. Tayler and Matthias F. Cowley.
	Now I am going to present a matter to you that is unusual and I do it
because of a conviction which I feel that it is a proper thing for me to
do. I have taken the liberty of having written down what I wish to
present, in order that I may say to you the exact words which I would like
to have conveyed to your ears, that I may not be misunderstood or
misquoted. I present this to the conference for your action:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
	"In as much as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural
marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of
President Woodruff, of September 26, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto,
which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the Church at its
general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative
of the law of the land; I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and [369] declare that no
such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or
knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and
	"I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any
officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into
any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church
and will be liable to be dealt with, according to the rules and
regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.
				"JOSEPH F. SMITH,
"President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

	They charge us with being dishonest and untrue to our word. They
charge the Church with having violated a it compact, and all this sort of
nonsense. I want to see today whether the Latter-day Saints representing
the Church in this solemn assembly will not seal these charges as false by
their vote.
	President Francis M. Lyman presented the following resolution and
moved its adoption:

RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT.
	"Resolved that we, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, hereby approve and
endorse the statement and declaration of President Joseph F. Smith, just
made to this Conference concerning plural marriages, and will support the
courts of the Church in the enforcement thereof."

	The resolution was seconded by a number of Presidents of Stakes and
prominent Elders. Elder B.H. Roberts, in seconding the resolution, spoke
as follows:
	"In seconding the resolution that has just been read--which I most
heartily do--I desire to state at least one reason for doing it. As
remarked by the president, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has been accused of being covenant-breakers with this nation. Of course,
there never was, and could not be, any compact [370] between the Church
and the general government of the United States. But there could be a
compact between the State of Utah and the United States, and there was
such a compact made in the Constitution of our state, by and through the
Constitutional Convention. And now I am pleased with the opportunity of
the Church saying in its official capacity that the Latter-day Saints not
only now are, but have been, true to the compact between the State of Utah
and the United States, and that they are true to the Constitution of the
state, which, by express provision, forever prohibited plural or
polygamous marriages, and made that irrevocable, without the consent of
the United States. The adoption by the Church of this resolution should
put to silence those who have accused us of being covenant-breakers."

	The resolution was then adopted, by unanimous vote of the Conference.

PRESIDENT ANTHON H. LUND.
	This statement which has just been read in your hearing was made for
the Church. Rumors have been afloat that plural marriages have taken
place, and some are said to have commenced to doubt the truth of the
declaration made by our President at Washington. Now it has been laid
before you, and the Church, by its vote in solemn assembly, has ratified
this resolution, and the Saints know just where the Church stands on this
question. If any come to you with such rumors, you know that the Church is
true to that which it accepted thirteen years and six months ago, and
which it has again ratified here in this Conference. It is not a new
manifesto. It simply shows where we stand as a Church. The Lord has
instituted in this Church the principle of free agency, Everything must be
done by common consent, and therefore we lay these things before the
conferences, that the people may have an opportunity to vote thereupon.
This is an important matter, and should be known by the world that the
Latter-day Saints have the right and privilege to vote upon everything
that shall be accepted as Church doctrine or in regard to church
government.
[371] I feel pleased with our conference, with the spirit thereof, and
with the instructions that have been given. Let us take what we have heard
home with us; let us take the spirit of the conference with us, and try to
carry out in our daily lives the good counsel which has been given us. May
the Lord bless you, brethren and sisters, and bless His Church upon the
earth, as well as all good people and all who love the truth, is my prayer
in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. (Conference Report, p. 75-76)

About 1904, Frank J. Cannon:
	The character and impulses of the President (Teddy Roosevelt) were of
a sort to make him peculiarly susceptible to an appeal for help on the
part of the Mormons. He had lived in the West. He knew something of the
hardships attendant upon conquering the waste places. He sympathized with
those who dared, for their own opinions, to oppose the opinions of the
rest of the world. He had received the most adulating assurances of
support for his candidacies and his policies. It would have required a man
of the calmest discrimination and coolest judgment to find the line
between any just claim for mercy presented by the Mormon advocates of
"religious liberty" and the wilful offences which they were committing
against the national integrity.
	I have received it personally, from the lips of more than one member
of the Senate committee, that never in all their experience with public
questions was such executive pressure brought to bear upon them as was
urged from the White House, at this time, for the protection of Apostle
Smoot's seat in the Senate. The President's most intimate friends on the
committee voted with the minority to seat Smoot. One of the President's
closest adherents, Senator Dolliver, after having signed a majority report
to exclude Smoot--and having been re-elected, in the meantime, by his own
State legislature, to another term in the Senate--afterwards spoke and
voted against the report which he had signed. Senator A. J. Hopkins of
Illinois, who had supported Smoot consis-[372]tently, found himself
bitterly attacked, in his campaign for re-election, because of his record
in the Smoot case, and he published in his defence a letter from President
Roosevelt that read:
	"Just a line to congratulate you upon the Smoot case. It is not my
business, but it is a pleasure to see a public servant show, under trying
circumstances, the courage, ability and sense of right that you have
shown."
	After the outrageous exposures of the violations of law, the treason
and the criminal indifference to human rights shown by the rulers of the
Church, if an early vote had been taken by the committee and by the Senate
itself, the antagonism of the nation would have forced the exclusion of
the Apostle from the upper House. Delay was his salvation. More to the
President's influence than to any other cause is the delay attributable
that prolonged the case through a term of three years. During that time
the unfortunate Gentiles of Utah learned that, instead of receiving help
from the President, they were to have only the most insuperable
opposition. They believed that the President was being grossly misled;
that it was, of course, impossible for him to read all the testimony given
before the Senate committee, and that the matters that reached him were
being tinged with other purpose than the vindication of truth and justice.
But it was impossible to obtain the opportunity of setting him right. Even
the women who were leading the national protest against the polygamous
teaching and practices of Smoot's fellow apostles were told that the
President had made up his mind and could not be re-convinced.
	The Mormon appeal to his generosity was not confined to Washington.
On his travels he met President Smith more than once--the Prophet being
accompanied by a different wife each time--and naturally Smith made every
effort to impress President Roosevelt with his earnestness, the purity of
his life, and the high motives that actuated the exercise of his
authority. And at this sort of pretence the Lord's anointed are expert.
They themselves may be crude in ideas and coarse in method, but [373]
their diplomacy is a growth of eighty years of applied devotion and
energy. * * *
	Among the emissaries of the Church who were deputed to "reach"
President Roosevelt, was our old friend, Ben Rich, the gay, the engaging,
the apparently irresponsible agent of hierarchical diplomacy. And I should
like to relate the story of his "approach," as it is still related in the
inner circle of Church confidences. Not that I expect it to be wholly
credited--not that I doubt but it will be denied on all sides--but because
it is so characteristic of the Church gossip and so typical (even if it
were untrue) of the humorous cynicism of Church diplomacy. When President
Roosevelt was making his "swing around the circle," Rich was appointed to
join him, found the opportunity to do so, and (so the story is told)
delighted the President by the spirit and candor of his good-fellowship.
When they were about to part, the President is reported to have said, "Why
don't you run for Congress from your state? You're just the kind of man
I'd like to have in the House to support my policies." And here (as the
Mormons are told) is the dialogue that ensued:

	RICH: I have no ambition that way, Mr. President. For many reasons
it's out of the question--although I'm grateful for the flattering
suggestion.
	THE PRESIDENT: Then let me appoint you to some good office. You're
the kind of man I'd like to have in my official family.
	RICH (impressively and in a low tone): Mr. President, I'd count it
the greatest honor of my life to have a commission from you to any office.
I'd hand that commission down to my children as the most precious
heritage. But--I love you too much, Mr. President, to put you in any such
hole. I'm a polygamist. It would injure you before the whole country.
	THE PRESIDENT (leaning forward eagerly): No! Are you a polygamist?
Tell me all about it.
	RICH: The Lord has bestowed that blessing on me. I wish you could go
into my home and see how my wives [374] are living together like
sisters--how tender they are to each other--how they bear each other's
burdens and share each other's sorrows--and how fond all my children are
of Mother and Auntie.
	THE PRESIDENT: Well--but how can women agree to share a husband?
	RICH: They do it in obedience to a revelation from the Lord--a
revelation that proclaimed the doctrine of the eternity and the plurality
of the marriage covenant. We believe that men and women, sealed in this
life under proper authority, are united in the conjugal relation
throughout eternity. We believe that the husband is tied to his wives, and
they to him; that their children will belong to him hereafter. We believe
in eternal progression; that as man is, God was; and as God is, man shall
be. We believe that by obedience to this revealed covenant, we will be
exalted in the celestial realm of our Father, with power in ourselves to
create and people worlds. It is a never ending and constantly increasing
intelligence and labor. If I keep my covenants to my wives and they to me,
in this world, all the powers and rights of our marriage relation will be
continued and amplified to us in the life to come; and we, in our turn,
will be rulers over worlds and universes of worlds.
	Then--according to the unctuous gossip of the devout--President
Roosevelt saw the true answer to his own desire to know what was to become
of his mighty personality after this world should have fallen away from
him! He saw, in this faith, a possible continuation throughout eternity of
the tremendous energies of his being! He was to continue to rule not
merely a nation but a world, a system of worlds, a universe of worlds! And
it is told--sometimes solemnly, sometimes with a grin--that, in the Temple
at Salt Lake, a proxy has stood for him and he has been baptized in the
Mormon Church; that proxies have stood for the members of his family and
that they have been sealed to him; and finally that proxies have stood for
some of the great queens of the past (who had not already been sealed to
Mormon leaders) and that they have been sealed to the President for [375]
eternity!
	This may sound blasphemous toward Theodore Roosevelt--if not toward
the Almighty--but it is told, and it is believed, by hundreds and
thousands of the faithful among the Mormon people. It is given to them as
the secret explanation of President Roosevelt's protection of the Mormon
tyranny--a protection of which Apostle Hyrum Smith boasted in a sermon in
the Salt Lake tabernacle (April 5, 1905) in these equivocal words: "We
believe--and I want to say this--that in President Roosevelt we have a
friend, and we believe that in the Latter-day Saints President Roosevelt
has the greatest friendship among them; and there are no people in the
world who are more friendly to him, and will remain friendly unto him just
so long as he remains true, as he has been, to the cause of humanity."
	The Smiths have their own idea of what "the cause of humanity" is.

(Cannon, UNDER THE PROPHET IN UTAH, pp. 295-300)

16 Jan 1906, Special to The TRIBUNE:
"MANIFESTO ONLY TRICK TO BEAT DEVIL AT OWN GAME"

	LOGAN. Jan. 15,--A very sensational rupture has occurred here within
a few days between Prof. W. M. Wolfe and the B.Y. college. The basis of
the rupture is apostasy, Mr. Wolfe having declined to pay tithes and
announced his disbelief in the Mormon God.

FACTS MADE PUBLIC.
	In an interview with Prof. Wolfe, The Tribune representative secured
the story, Mr. Wolfe expressing willingness that these facts should go to
the public. Prof. Wolfe said to The Tribune representative that he was
born in New York, his father being Dr. Wolfe, a Presbyterian clergyman.

[376]
CONVERTED TEN YEARS AGO.
	Leaving his home after attaining his majority, he went into newspaper
work, and about ten years ago came to Utah, and became a convert to
Mormonism and was engaged to teach in the B.Y. college at Provo, where, as
an instructor, he spent many years. While there he met and married his
wife who, with their child, died several years ago, when he came to Logan.

WITH CLUFF EXPEDITION.
	Prof. Wolfe, in the spring of 1900, went with the Cluff Exploration
Expedition to Central America, bent on investigating that country for
evidence tending to establish the claims of the Book of Mormon.

POLYGAMY REINSTATED.
	While on this expedition he met with conditions in Mexico which not
only surprised, but absolutely satisfied him that the Mormon church had
receded from the Woodruff manifesto, and reinstituted polygamous
marriages.

FOUND MANY PLURAL WIVES.
	He found many young women there who had recently entered the state of
plural marriage with leading elders of the Mormon church, among which
elders he named Prof. Benjamin Cluff Jr., who about that time had married
Miss Florence Reynolds, a plural wife. As to this Prof. Wolfe said:

POLYGAMY FREELY PRACTICED.
	"The Mormon settlements in Mexico are closely in touch with those of
Arizona and in each case polygamy is practiced as freely today as it ever
has been. All the high church officials, in fact all men of any standing
have embraced that principle and many a young girl has told me that if she
could not marry a polygamist she would not marry at all, and that ten
years after the issuance of the manifesto."

MANIFESTO ONLY A TRICK.
	This discovery so amazed Mr. Wolfe as to lead him to [377] seek an
explanation of what he saw at the hands of an apostle, he going to John
Henry Smith for light. The Apostle John Henry, replying to Prof. Wolfe's
inquiry as to how these polygamous marriages could be reconciled with the
Woodruff manifesto, said: "Why, brother Wolfe, do you not understand that
the manifesto was only a trick devised to beat the devil at his own game?"

HIS EYES OPENED.
	Prof. Wolfe's eyes were opened. He came back from his Mexican trip to
think. He has been thinking and investigating ever since, the result being
his apostasy from Mormonism. * * * (Salt Lake Tribune)

11 Jun 1906, Protestations:
ENCOURAGEMENT OF POLYGAMY AND POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION BY THE MORMON
AUTHORITIES.
	The first reason assigned by the protestants why Mr. Smoot is not
entitled to a seat in the Senate is in effect that he belongs to a self
perpetuating body of fifteen men who constitute the ruling authorities of
the Church of Latter-day Saints, or "Mormon Church," so called; that this
ruling body of the church both claims and exercises the right of shaping
the belief and controlling the conduct of the members of that church in
all matters whatsoever, civil and religious, temporal and spiritual. It is
then alleged that this self-perpetuating body of fifteen men of whom Mr.
Smoot is one, uniting in themselves authority in both church and state so
exercise this authority as to encourage a belief in polygamy as a divine
institution and by both precept and example encourage among their
followers the practice of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation.
	That the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church
are a self-perpetuating body of fifteen men, seems to be well established
by the testimony of the one most competent to speak upon that subject, the
president of the Church of Latter-day Saints, Mr. Joseph F. Smith, who
testifies, as will be seen on pages 91 and 92 of volume I of the printed
copy of the proceedings in [378] the investigation, that vacancies
occurring in the number of the twelve apostles are filled by the apostles
themselves with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
	The testimony of Mr. Smith is as follows:
	Senator McCOMAS. And the twelve apostles were then first named?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, Sir.
	Senator McCOMAS. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body
were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
	Mr. SMITH. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the
twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first
presidency.
	Senator HOAR. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the
beginning?
	Senator HOAR. I understand you to say that the originaL twelve
apostles were selected by revelation?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.
	Senator HOAR. Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent
ones?
	Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
	Senator McCOMAS. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by
their own act and the approval of the first presidency?
	Mr. SMITH. That is right.
	To the same effect is the testimony of Francis M. Lyman.
	It further appears that any one of the twelve apostles may be removed
by his fellow-apostles without consulting the members of the church in
general. It is also in proof that the first presidency and twelve apostles
govern the church by means of so-called revelations from God, which
revelations are given to the membership of the church as emanating from
divine authority. It is also shown that those members of the Mormon Church
who [379] refuse to obey the revelations so communicated by the priesthood
thereby become out of harmony with the church and are thus practically
excluded from the blessings, benefits, and privileges of membership in the
church.
	It is also well established by the testimony that the members of the
Mormon Church are governed in all things by the first presidency and
twelve apostles. That this authority is extended to the membership through
a series and succession of subordinate officials, consisting of presidents
of seventies, presiding bishops, elders, presidents of stakes, bishops,
and other officials. That one of the chief requirements by the leaders of
the church is that members shall take counsel of their religious superiors
in all things whatsoever, whether civil or religious, temporal or
spiritual. That the failure to receive and obey counsel in any of these
matters subjects the one who refuses to the discipline of the church. That
this discipline is administered in the first instance by the subordinate
officials, subject to the right to appeal to the higher officials of the
church, and ultimately to the first president and twelve apostles. These
rules, enforced, as they are, by the discipline of the Mormon Church
constitute the first president and twelve apostles a hierarchy, a body of
men at the head of a religious organization governing their followers with
absolute and unquestioned authority in all things relating to temporal and
political, as well as to spiritual affairs.
	The testimony taken before the committee also shows beyond a
reasonable doubt that this authority of the first presidency and twelve
apostles is so exercised over the members of the Mormon Church as to
inculcate a belief in the divine origin of polygamy and its rightfulness
as a practice, and also to encourage the membership of that church in the
practice of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. While this is denied on
the part of the officials of the church, the truthfulness of the claim of
the protestants in this regard is shown by a great number of facts and
circumstances, no one of which is perhaps conclusive in itself, but when
taken together form a volume of testimony so cogent and convincing as to
leave no [380] reasonable doubt in the mind that the truth is as stated by
the protestants. It is proved without denial that the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, one of the leading authorities of the Mormon Church, and still
circulated by that church as a book equal in authority to the Bible and
the Book of Mormon, contains the revelation regarding polygamy, of which
the following is a part:
	61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood: If any man
espouse a virgin and desires to espouse another and the first give her
consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins and have vowed
to no other man, then he is justified--he can not commit adultery, for
they are given unto him; for he can not commit adultery with that that
belongeth to him and to no one else.
	62. And if he have 10 virgins given unto him by this law he can not
commit adultery for they belong to him and they are given unto him;
therefore is he justified.
	63. But if one or either of the 10 virgins, after she is espoused,
shall be with another man she has committed adultery and shall be
destroyed, for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the
earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was
given by my Father before the foundation of the world; and for their
exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for
herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
	64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man hath a wife
who holds the keys of this power and he teaches unto her the law of my
priesthood, as pertaining these things, then shall she believe and
administer unto him or she shall be destroyed, said the Lord your God, for
I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive
and abide in my law.
	65. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receives not this law
for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give
unto him, because she did not minister unto him according to my word; and
she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah
who ministered unto Abraham according [381] to the law, when I commanded
Abraham to take Hager to wife.
	It is also shown that numerous other publications of the Mormon
Church are still circulated among the members of that church with the
knowledge and by the authority of the church officials, which contain
arguments in favor of polygamy. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants is not
only still put forth to the members of the church as authoritative in all
respects, but the first presidency and twelve apostles have never
incorporated therein the manifesto forbidding the practice of polygamy and
polygamous cohabitation, nor have they at any time or in anyway qualified
the reputed revelation to Joseph Smith regarding polygamy. And this Book
of Doctrine and Covenants, containing the polygamic revelation, is
regarded by Mormons as being of higher authority than the manifesto
suspending polygamy.
	Bearing in mind the authority of the first presidency and the twelve
apostles over the whole body of the Mormon Church, it is very evident that
if polygamy were discountenanced by the leaders of that church it would
very soon be a thing of the past among the members of that church. On the
contrary, it appears that since the admission of Utah into the Union as a
State the authorities of the Mormon Church have countenanced and
encouraged the commission of the crime of polygamy instead of preventing
it, as they could easily have done.
	A sufficient number of specific instances of the taking of plural
wives since the manifesto of 1890, so called, have been shown by the
testimony as having taken place among officials of the Mormon Church to
demonstrate the fact that the leaders in this church, the first presidency
and the twelve apostles, connive at the practice of taking plural wives,
and have done so ever since the manifesto was issued which purported to
put an end to the practice. It has been shown by the testimony, so clearly
as to leave no doubt of the fact, that as late as 1896 one Lillian Hamlin
became the plural wife of Abraham H. Cannon, who was then an apostle of
the Mormon Church. This is shown by the proof of these facts:
[382] Down to the year 1895 Lillian Hamlin was a single woman. In 1896 she
received attentions from Abraham H. Cannon, these attentions being of a
character to indicate that there was more than a friendly relation
existing between the two. In June, 1896, Abraham H. Cannon informed his
plural wife that he was going to California with Joseph F. Smith and
Lillian Hamlin to be married to Lillian Hamlin at some place outside the
United States. While in California Joseph F. Smith went with Abraham H.
Cannon and Lillian Hamlin from Los Angeles to Catalina Island. After the
return of the party to Los Angeles, Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin
lived together as husband and wife. Returning to Salt Lake City, Abraham
H. Cannon told his plural wife that he had been married to Lillian Hamlin.
From that time it was generally reputed in the community and understood by
the families of both Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin that a marriage
had taken place between them; that they had been married on the high seas
by Joseph F. Smith. Lillian Hamlin assumed the name of Cannon, and a child
to which she afterwards gave birth bears the name of Cannon and inherited
a share of the estate of Abraham H. Cannon. The prominence of Abraham H.
Cannon in the church, the publicity given to the fact of his taking
Lillian Hamlin as a plural wife, render it practically impossible that
this should have been done without the knowledge, the consent, and the
connivance of the headship of that church.
	George Teasdale, another apostle of the Mormon Church, contracted a
plural marriage with Marion Scholes since the manifesto of 1890. The
president of the Mormon Church endeavors to excuse this act upon the
pretext that the first marriage of George Teasdale was not a legal
marriage, but the testimony taken from the divorce proceedings which
separated George Teasdale from his lawful wife, wholly controverts this
assertion on the part of President Smith.
	It is also in evidence that Walter Steed, a prominent Mormon,
contracted a plural marriage after the manifesto of 1890. Charles E.
Merrill, a bishop of the Mormon Church, took a plural wife in 1891, more
than a year [383] after the issuing of the manifesto. The ceremony uniting
said Merrill to his plural wife was performed by his father, who was then
and until the time of his death an apostle in the Mormon Church. It is
also shown that John W. Taylor, another apostle of the Mormon Church, has
been married to two plural wives since the issuing of the so-called
manifesto.
	Matthias F. Cowley, another of the twelve apostles, has also taken
one or more plural wives since the manifesto. While the proof that
Apostles Taylor and Cowley have married plural wives since the manifesto
may not be so free from all possible doubt as is the proof in the case of
Abraham Cannon, the fact that the proofs presented to the committee
showing such marriages by Taylor and Cannon stand wholly uncontroverted,
and the further fact that Apostles Taylor and Cowley, instead of appearing
before the committee and denying the allegation, evade service of process
issued by the committee for their appearance, and refuse to appear after
being requested to do so, warrant the conclusion that the allegation is
true and that said Taylor and Cowley have taken plural wives since the
manifesto.
	While the fact does not appear from any sworn testimony in the case,
it is a matter of common report that Taylor and Cowley have recently been
dropped from the list of apostles. But this fact in no way counteracts the
influence of the Mormon leaders in their encouragement of polygamy. When
Taylor and Cowley took their more recent plural wives they were numbered
among the apostles in good standing. The fact that they had taken plural
wives since the manifesto was well known to their associates for months
and years. But they were continued as apostles, and no action was taken in
the case of either until the facts were revealed to the world by this
investigation. And it is worthy of note that these apostles have not been
complained of or brought to trial before the church courts for disobeying
the manifesto, nor have they been deprived of their offices or honors in
the church (as was done in the case of Moses Thatcher for political
offense), but they are still members of the church in good standing, each
still holds the office of an [384] elder in the church, and each is still
a member of the high priesthood of the church.
	The dropping of Taylor and Cowley from the quorum of the twelve
apostles was so evidently done for popular effect that the act merits no
consideration whatever, except as an admission by the first presidency and
twelve apostles that Apostles Taylor and Cowley have each taken one or
more plural wives since the manifesto.
	It is also proved that about the year 1896 James Francis Johnson was
married to a plural wife, Clara Mabel Barber, the ceremony in this
instance being performed by an apostle of the Mormon Church. To these
cases must be added that of Marriner W. Merrill, another apostle; J. M.
Tanner, superintendent of church schools; Benjamin Cluff, jr., president
of Brigham Young University; Thomas Chamberlain, counselor to the
president of a stake; Bishop Rathall, John Silver, Winslow Farr, Heber
Benion, Samuel S. Newton, a man named Okey, who contracted a plural
marriage with Ovena Jorgensen in the year 1897, and Morris Michelson about
the year 1902. In the case of Benjamin Cluff, jr., before referred to, the
polygamous marriage was tacitly sanctioned by President Joseph F. Smith
when he "referred to Sister Cluff and the work she had been doing among
the children in Colonia Diaz, Mexico."
	It is morally impossible that all these violations of the laws of the
State of Utah by the contracting of plural marriages could have been
committed without the knowledge of the first presidency and the twelve
apostles of the Mormon Church. In two of the above cases, that of George
Teasdale and that of Benjamin Cluff, jr., the fact of the plural marriages
was directly communicated to the president of the church, Joseph F. Smith,
and in the other cases, with the possible exception of James Francis
Johnson, the fact of a plural marriage having been celebrated was so well
known throughout the community that it is not conceivable that such
marriages would not have been called to the attention of the leaders of
the church. Indeed, there was no denial on the part of the first president
or any one of the twelve apostles that they learned of the fact that
plural marriages were [385] being contracted by officials of the Mormon
Church and that no attention was paid to the matter. The excuse given by
them was that it was not their duty to interefere in such matters; that
the law furnished a remedy. Furthermore, it was shown by the testimony of
one of the twelve apostles and of other witnesses that "under the
established law of the church no person could secure a plural wife except
by consent of the president of the church."

SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY BY MORMON LEADERS.
	It is a fact of no little significance in itself, bearing on the
question whether polygamous marriages have been recently contracted in
Utah by the connivance of the first presidency and twelve apostles of the
Mormon Church, that the authorities of said church have endeavored to
suppress, and have succeeded in suppressing, a great deal of testimony by
which the fact of plural marriages contracted by those who were high in
the councils of the church might have been established beyond the shadow
of a doubt. Before the investigation had begun it was well known in Salt
Lake City that it was expected to show on the part of the protestants that
Apostles George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, and M.F. Cowley, and also Prof.
J.M. Tanner, Samuel Newton and others who were all high officials of the
Mormon Church had recently taken plural wives and that in 1896 Lillian
Hamlin was sealed to Apostle Abraham H. Cannon as a plural wife by one of
the presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church. All, or nearly
all, of these persons except Abraham H. Cannon, who was deceased, were
then within reach of service of process from the committee. But shortly
before the investigation began all these witnesses went out of the
country.
	Subpoenas were issued for each one of the witnesses named, but in the
case of Samuel Newton only could the process of the committee be served.
Mr. Newton refused to obey the order of the committee, alleging no reason
or excuse for not appearing. It is shown that John W. Taylor was sent out
of the country by Joseph F. Smith on a real or pretended mission for the
church. [386] And it is undeniably true that not only the apostles, but
also all other officials of the Mormon Church, are at all times subject to
the orders of the governing authorities of the church.
	It would be nothing short of self-stultification for one to believe
that all these most important witnesses chanced to leave the United States
at about the same time and without reference to the investigation. All the
facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction point to the
conclusion that every one of the witnesses named left the country at the
instance of the rulers of the Mormon Church and to avoid testifying before
the committee. It is, furthermore, a fact which can not be questioned that
every one of these witnesses is under the direction and control of the
first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church. Had those
officials seen fit to direct the witnesses named to return to the United
States and give their testimony before the committee, they would have been
obliged to do so. The reason why the said witnesses left the country and
have refused to come before the committee is easy to understand, in view
of the testimony showing the contracting of plural marriages by prominent
officials of the Mormon Church within the past few years.
	It was claimed by the protestants that the records kept in the Mormon
temple at Salt Lake City and Logan would disclose the fact that plural
marriages have been contracted in Utah since the manifesto with the
sanction of the officials of the church. A witness who was required to
bring the records in the temple at Salt Lake City refused to do so after
consulting with President Smith. It is claimed by counsel for Mr. Smoot
that this witness was not mentally competent to testify; but his testimony
may be searched in vain for any internal evidence of such incompetency,
and there was nothing in the appearance of the witness when testifying to
suggest to the committee that he was not as competent to testify as any
witness who was examined during the course of the investigation.
	The witness who was required to bring the records kept in the temple
at Logan excused himself from at-[387]tending on the plea of ill health.
But the important part of the mandate of the committee--the production of
the records--was not obeyed by sending the records, which could easily
have been done.
	In any case of other witnesses who were believed to have contracted
plural marriages since the year 1890 all sorts of shifts, tricks, and
evasions were resorted to in order to avoid service of a subpoena to
appear before the committee and testify.
	These instances of the suppression of testimony by the direct order
or tacit consent of the ruling authorities of the Mormon Church warrant
the committee in believing that the suppressed testimony would, if
produced, strongly corroborate the testimony which was given, showing that
those who direct the affairs of the Mormon Church countenance and
encourage polygamous marriages, as well as polygamous cohabitation, and
that the allegations of the protestants in that regard are true.

MORMON OFFICIALS LIVING IN POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION.
	Aside from this it was shown by the testimony, and in such a way that
the fact would not possibly be controverted, that a majority of those who
give the law to the Mormon Church are now, and have been for years, living
in open, notorious, and shameless polygamous cohabitation. The list of
those who are thus guilty of violating the laws of the State and the rules
of public decency, is headed by Joseph F. Smith, the first president,
"prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Mormon Church, who testified in
regard to that subject as follows:

	Mr. TAYLOR. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a
plural wife a violation of the law of the church as well as of the law of
the land?
	Mr. SMITH. That was the case, and is the case even to-day.
	Mr. TAYLOR. What was the case; what you are about to say?
	Mr. SMITH. That it is contrary to the rule of the church, and
contrary as well to the law of the land, for a [388] man to cohabit with
his wives. I have cohabited with my wives; not openly--that is, not in a
manner that I thought would be offensive to my neighbors--but I
acknowledged them; I have visited them. They have borne me children since
1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility and knowing that I
was amenable to the law. * * *
	Mr. TAYLOR. In 1892, Mr. Smith, how many wives did you have?
	Mr. SMITH. In 1892?
	Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. I had five.
	Mr. TAYLOR. My question is, How many children have been born to him
by these wives since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. I had eleven children born since 1890.
	Mr. TAYLOR. Those are all the children that have been born to you
since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; those are all.
	Mr. TAYLOR. Were those children by all of your wives; that is, did
all of your wives bear children?
	Mr. SMITH. All of my wives bore children.
	Mr. TAYLOR. Since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
	The CHAIRMAN. I understand since 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Since 1890. I said that I have had born to me eleven
children since 1890, each of my wives being the mother of from one to two
of those children. * * *

	The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I will not press it, but I will ask you if
you have any objection to stating how many children you have in all.
	Mr. SMITH. Altogether?
	The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
	Mr. SMITH. I have had born to me, sir, forty-two children--twenty-one
boys and twenty-one girls--and I am proud of every one of them.
	The CHAIRMAN. Do you obey the law in having five wives at this time
and having them bear to you 11 children since the manifesto of 1890?
	Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have
obeyed the law of the land.
[389] The CHAIRMAN. That is all.
	Mr. SMITH. I do not claim so, and, as I said before, that I prefer to
stand my chances against the law. (Vol. 1, pp. 129, 133, 148, 197, 382.)
	The list also includes George Teasdale, an apostle; John W. Taylor,
an apostle; John Henry Smith, an apostle; Marriner W. Merrill, also an
apostle; Heber J. Grant, an apostle; M.F. Cowley, an apostle; Charles W.
Penrose, an apostle; and Francis M. Lyman, who is not only an apostle, but
the probable successor of Joseph F. Smith as president of the church. Thus
it appears that the first president and eight of the twelve apostles, a
considerable majority of the ruling authorities of the Mormon Church, are
noted polygamists.
	In addition to these, the list includes Brigham H. Roberts, who is
one of the presidents of seventies and a leading official of the church;
J.M. Tanner, superintendent of the church schools; Andrew Jenson,
assistant historian of the church; Thomas H. Merrill, a bishop of the
church; Alma Merrill, one of the presidency of a church stake; Angus M.
Cannon, patriarch of the Mormon Church; a man named Greenwald, who is at
the head of a church school; George Reynolds, one of the first seven
presidents of seventies and first assistent superintendent of Sunday
schools of the world; George H. Brimhall, president of Brigham Young
University; and Joseph Hickman, teacher in Brigham Young University. All
the officials named were appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the
first presidency and twelve apostles; and in the case of J.M. Tanner, his
appointment to his present office was made after he had been compelled to
resign his position as president of the agricultural college because of
the fact that he was a polygamist.
	These facts abundantly justify the assertion made in the protest
that--the supreme authorities in the church, of whom Senator-elect Reed
Smoot is one, to wit, the first presidency and twelve apostles, not only
connive at violation of, but protect and honor the violators of the laws
against polygamy and polygamous cohabitation."
[390] It will be seen by the foregoing that not only do the first
presidency and twelve apostles encourage polygamy by precept and teaching,
but that a majority of the members of that body of rulers of the Mormon
people give the practice of polygamy still further and greater
encouragement by living the lives of polygamists, and this openly and in
the sight of all their followers in the Mormon Church. It can not be
doubted that this method of encouraging polygamy is much more efficacious
than the teaching of that crime by means of the writings and publications
of the leaders of the church, and this upon the familiar principle that
"actions speak louder than words."
	And not only do the president and a majority of the twelve apostles
of the Mormon Church practice polygamy, but in the case of each and every
one guilty of this crime who testified before the committee, the
determination was expressed openly and defiantly to continue the
commission of this crime without regard to the mandates of the law or the
prohibition contained in the manifesto. And it is in evidence that the
said first president, addressing a large concourse of the members of the
Mormon Church at the tabernacle in Salt Lake City in the month of June,
1904, declared that if he were to discontinue the polygamous relation with
his plural wives he should be forever damned, and forever deprived of the
companionship of God and those most dear to him throughout eternity. Thus
it appears that the "prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Mormon Church
pronounces a decree of eternal condemnation throughout all eternity upon
all members of the Mormon Church who, having taken plural wives, fail to
continue the polygamous relation. So that the testimony upon that subject,
taken as a whole, can leave no doubt upon any reasonable mind that those
who are in authority in the Mormon Church, of whom Mr. Smoot is one, are
encouraging the practice of polygamy among the members of that church, and
that polygamy is being practiced to such an extent as to call for the
severest condemnation in all legitimate ways.

THE MANIFESTO A DECEPTION.
	Against these facts the authorities of the Mormon [391] Church urge
that in the year 1890 what is generally termed a manifesto was issued by
the first presidency of that church, suspending the practice of polygamy
among the members of that church. It may be said in the first place that
this manifesto misstates the facts in regard to the solemnization of
plural marriages within a short period proceding the issuing of the
manifesto. It now appears that in a number of instances plural marriages
had been solemnized in the Mormon Church, and, in the case of those high
in authority in that church, within a very few months preceding the
issuing of the manifesto.
	It is also observable that this manifesto in no way declares the
principle of polygamy to be wrong or abrogates it as a doctrine of the
Mormon Church, but simply suspends the practice of polygamy to be resumed
at some more convenient season, either with or without another revelation.
It is now claimed by the first president and other prominent officials of
the Mormon Church that the manifesto was not a revelation, but was, at the
most, an inspired document, designed "to meet the hard conditions then
confronting" those who were practicing polygamy and polygamous
cohabitation, leaving what the Mormon leaders are pleased to term "the
principle of plural marriage" as much a tenet of their faith and rule of
practice when possible, as it was before the manifesto was issued. Upon
that subject Joseph F. Smith testified as follows:
	Mr. TAYLOR. The revelation which Wilford Woodruff received in
consequence of which the command to take plural wives was suspended did
not, as you understand, change the divine view of plural marriage, did it?
	Mr. SMITH. It did not change our belief at all.
	Mr. TAYLOR. It did not change your belief at all?
	Mr. SMITH. Not at all, sir.
	Mr. TAYLOR. You continued to believe that plural marriages were
right?
	Mr. SMITH. We did. I did, at least. I do not answer for anybody else.
I continue to believe as I did before. (Vol. 1, p. 107.)
	Senator HOAR. The apostle says that a bishop must be sober and must
be the husband of one wife.
[392] Mr. SMITH. At least.
	And one of the twelve apostles has declared the fact to be that "the
manifesto is only a trick to beat the devil at his own game." Further than
this, it is conceded by all that this manifesto was intended to prohibit
polygamous cohabitation as strongly as it prohibited the solemnization of
plural marriages. In the case of polygamous cohabitation, the manifesto
has been wholly disregarded by the members of the Mormon Church. It is
hardly reasonable to expect that the members of that church would have any
greater reward for the prohibition of plural marriage.
	The contention that the practice of polygamy is rightful as a
religious ceremony and therefore protected by that provision of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," ought to be forever set at rest by the repeated
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of the
Mormon Church v. The United States, Justice Bradley, in delivering the
opinion of the court, said:
	One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the
practice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious
belief, and therefore under the protection of the constitutional guaranty
of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophistical plea. No doubt the
Thuge of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassination
was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. The
practice of suttee by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed
religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own
ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious
impulse. But no one on that account would hesitate to brand these
practices now as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation and
punishment by the civil authority.
	In the case of Davis v. Beason, Justice Field, in delivering the
opinion of the court, said:
[393] Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and
Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and
they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of
the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman,
and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interest of
society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend
exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral
judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is
to offend the common sense of mankind.

ONE LIVING IN POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION IS IN LAW A POLYGAMIST.
	The members of the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon
Church claim that there is a distinction between what they term
polygamy--that is, the contracting of plural marriages--and polygamous
cohabitation with plural wives. But under the circumstances this
distinction is little short of ridiculous. As is demonstrated by the
testimony, the so-called manifesto was aimed at polygamous cohabitation,
as well as against the taking of plural wives, and it is the veriest
sophistry to contend that open notorious cohabitation with plural wives is
less offensive to public morals than the taking of additional wives.
Indeed, it is the testimony of some of those who reside in communities
that are cursed by the evils of polygamy that polygamous cohabitation is
fully as offensive to the sense of decency of the inhabitants of those
communities as would be the taking of plural wives.
	And this excuse of the Mormon leaders is as baseless in law as it is
in morals. In the case of Murphy v. Ramsy, decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States and reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports,
volume 114, page 15, it was decided that any man is a polygamist who
maintains the relation of husband to a plurality of wives, even though in
fact he may cohabit with only one. The court further held in the same case
that a man occupying this relation to two or more [394] woman can only
cease to be a polygamist when he has finally and fully dissolved the
relation of husband to several wives. In other words, there is and can be
no practical difference in law or in morals between the offense of taking
plural wives and the offense of polygamous cohabitation. The same doctrine
is affirmed in the case of Cannon v. United States (116 U. S. Supreme
Court Reports, p. 55).

MR. SMOOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ORGANIZATION TO WHICH HE
BELONGS.
	It is urged in behalf of Mr. Smoot that, conceding it to be true that
the first president and some of the apostles are living in polygamy and
that some of the leaders of the Mormon Church encourage polygamous
practices, Mr. Smoot himself is not a polygamist, does not practice
polygamy, and that there is no evidence that he has personally and
individually encouraged the practice of polygamy by members of the Mormon
Church, and that he ought not to be condemned because of the acts of his
associates. This position is wholly untenable. Mr. Smoot is an inseparable
part of the governing body of the Mormon Church--the first presidency and
twelve apostles--and those who compose that organization form a unit, an
entirety, and whatever is done by that organization is the act of each and
every member thereof, and whatever policy is adopted and pursued by the
body which controlls the Mormon Church Mr. Smoot must be held to be
responsible for as a member of that body. That one may be legally, as well
as morally, responsible for unlawful acts which he does not himself commit
is a rule of law too elementary to require discussion. "What one does by
another he does by himself" is a maxim as old as the common law. And as
the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church have
authority over the spiritual affairs of the members of that church, it
follows that such governing body of said church has supreme authority over
the members of that church in respect to the practice of polygamy and
polygamous cohabitation.
	In England in former years, and under the canon law, matters of
marriage, divorce, and legitimacy were under [395] the jurisdiction of the
ecclesiastical courts of the Kingdom, in which the punishment was in the
nature of a spiritual penalty for the good of the soul of the offender,
this penalty in many cases being that of excommunication or expulsion from
the church. (1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 431; 3 Blackstone's
Commentaries, 92; 4 Blackstone's Commentaries, 153 and note; Reynolds v.
United States, 98 U. S., 145, 164-165.) And in later years, while the
civil law now prohibits and punishes bigamy, the authorities of every
Christian church in this country take cognizance of matrimonial affairs
and by the authority of the church in spiritual matters prevent and punish
by censure or expulsion any infraction of the rules of the church
regarding marriage.
	The testimony taken upon this investigation shows beyond controversy
that the authority of the first presidency and the twelve apostles of the
Mormon Church over the members of said church is such that were the said
first presidency and the twelve apostles to prohibit the practice of
polygamy and polygamous cohabitation by its members and abandon the
practice themselves and expel from the church all who should persist in
the practice, those offenses would instantly cease in that church. And the
fact that not a single member of the Mormon Church has ever fallen into
disfavor on account of polygamous practices is conclusive proof that the
ruling authorities of that church countenance and encourage polygamy.
	The conduct of Mr. Smoot in this regard can not be separated from
that of his associates in the government of the Mormon Church. Whatever
his private opinions or his private conduct may be, he stands before the
world as an integral part of the organization which encourages, counsels,
and approves polygamy, which not only fails to discipline those who break
the laws of the country, but, on the contrary, loads with honors and
favors those who are among the most noted polygamists within the pale of
that church.
	It is an elementary principle of law that where two or more persons
are associated together in an act, an organization, an enterprise, or a
course of conduct, which is in its character or purpose unlawful, the act
of any one [396] of those who are thus associated is the act of all, and
the act of any number of the associates is the act of each one of the
others.
	An eminent legal authority says:
	Every person entering into a conspiracy or common design already
formed is deemed in law a party to all acts done by any of the other
parties, before or afterwards, in furtherance of the common design. The
principle on which the acts and declarations of other conspirators, and
acts done at different times, are admitted in evidence against the persons
prosecuted is that by the act of conspiring together the conspirators have
jointly assumed to themselves, as a body, the attribute of individuality
so far as regards the prosecution of the common design, thus rendering
whatever is done or said by anyone in furtherance of that design a part of
the res gestae and therefore the act of all. (2 Greenleaf on Evidence,
secs. 93, 94. See also Commonwealth v. Warren, 6 Mass., 74; People v.
Mather, 4 Wend., 229, 260; People v. Peckens, 153 N.Y., 576, 586, 593;
United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheaton, 459, 469; American Fur Company v.
United States, 2 Peters, 358, 365; Nudd et at. v. Burrows, 91 U. S., 426,
438; United States v. Mitchell, I Hughes, 439 (Federal cases No. 15790);
Stewart v. Johnson, 3 Har. (N.J.), 87; Hinchman v. Ritchie, Brightley's N.
P. (Pa.), 143; Freeman v. Stine, 34 Leg. Int. (Pa.), 95; Spies et al. v.
People, 122 Illinois, 1.)
	The case last cited illustrates this principle more forcibly than any
of the others referred to. In that case, which is commonly known as "the
anarchists' case," there was, as to some of the defendants, very little
evidence, and as to others of the defendants no satisfactory evidence that
they were present at the commission of the murder with which they were
charged, or advised or intended the murder which was committed by an
unknown person. But it was proved that the defendants were members of an
organization known as the International Association of Chicago, having for
its object the destruction of the law and government and incidentally of
the police and militia as the representatives of law and [397] government,
and that some of the defendants had, by spoken and printed appeals to
workingmen and others, urged the use of force, deadly weapons and dynamite
in resistance to the law and its officers.
	In denying the motion for a new trial in the anarchists' case the
judge who presided at the trial used the following language:
	Now on the question of the instructions, whether these defendants, or
any of them, anticipated or expected the throwing of the bomb on the night
of the 4th of May is not a question which I need to consider, because the
conviction can not be sustained, if that is necessary to a conviction,
however much evidence of it there may be, because the instructions do not
go upon that ground. The jury were not instructed to find the defendants
guilty if they believed they participated in the throwing of that bomb, or
advised or encouraged the throwing of that bomb, or anything of that sort.
Conviction has not gone upon the ground that they did have any personal
participation in the particular act which caused the death of Degan, but
the conviction proceeds upon the ground, under the instructions, that they
had generally by speech and print, advised large classes of the people,
not particular individuals, but large classes, to commit murder, and have
left the commission, time, and place, to the individual will and whim, or
caprice, or whatever it may be, of each individual man who listened to
their advice and influenced by that advice somebody not known did throw
the bomb which caused Degan's death. (Century Magazine, April, 1893, p.
835.)
	It will be seen by the decision of the court upon the motion for a
new trial in the case of Spies et al v. People that the anarchists were
not convicted upon the ground that they had participated in the murder of
which they were convicted. Whether they were or were not participants in
the commission of this crime was not the main question at issue. They were
convicted because they belonged to an organization which, as an
organization, advised the commission of acts which would lead to [398]
murder.
	Of like import is the decision in the case of Davis v. Beason,
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1889, the decision
being reported in volume 133, United States Supreme Court Reports, page
333. At the time of this decision the Revised Statutes of the State of
Idaho provided that no person "who is a member of any order, organization,
or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages its
members, devotees, or any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy or
polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony
of such order, organization, or association or otherwise, is permitted to
vote at any election or to hold any position or office of honor, trust, or
profit within this Territory.
	This provision of law the Supreme Court of the United States held to
be constitutional and legal. It will be observed that this act
disfranchises certain persons and makes them ineligible to any position or
office of honor, trust, or profit, not for committing the crime of
polygamy, nor for teaching, advising, counseling, or encouraging others to
commit the crime, but because of their membership in an organization which
teaches, advises, counsels, and encourages others to commit the crime of
polygamy. In Wooley v. Watkins (2 Idaho Rep., 555, 566), the court say:
	Orders, organizations, and associations, by whatever name they may be
called, which teach, advise, counsel, or encourage the practice or
commission of acts forbidden by law, are criminal organizations. To become
and continue to be members of such organization or associations are such
overt acts of recognition and participation as make them particeps
criminis and as guilty, in contemplation of criminal law, as though they
actually engaged in furthering their unlawful objects and purposes. (See
also Innis v. Bolton, 2 Idaho Rep., 407, 414.)
	It being a fact that the first presidency and the twelve apostles of
the Mormon Church teach, advise, counsel, [399] and encourage the members
of that church to practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, which are
contrary to both law and morals, and Mr. Smoot, being a member of that
organization, he must fall under the same condemnation.
	And the rule in civil cases is the same as that which obtains in the
administration of criminal law. One who is a member of an association of
any nature is bound by the action of his associates, whether he favors or
disapproves of such action. He can at any time protect himself from the
consequences of any future action of his associates by withdrawing from
the association, but while he remains a member of the association he is
responsible for whatever his associates may do.

MR. SMOOT HAS COUNTENANCED AND ENCOURAGED POLYGAMY.
	But the complicity of Mr. Smoot in the conduct of the leaders of the
Mormon Church in encouraging polygamy and polygamous cohabitation does not
consist wholly in the fact that he is one of the governing body of that
church. By repeated acts, and in a number of instances, Mr. Smoot has, as
a member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, given active aid and
support to the members of the first presidency and twelve apostles in
their defiance of the laws of the State of Utah and of the laws of common
decency, and their encouragement of polygamous practices by both precept
and example.
	It is shown by the testimony of Mr. Smoot himself that he assisted in
the elevation of Joseph F. Smith to the presidency of the Mormon Church.
That he has since repeatedly voted to sustain said Joseph F. Smith, and
that he so voted after full knowledge that said Joseph F. Smith was living
in polygamous cohabitation and had asserted his intention to continue in
this course in defiance of the laws of God and man. He also assisted in
the selection of Heber J. Grant as president of a mission when it was a
matter of common notoriety that said Heber J. Grant was a polygamist. He
voted for the election of Charles W. Penrose as an apostle of the Mormon
Church after testimony had been given in this investigation show-[400]ing
him to be a polygamist. It is difficult to perceive how Mr. Smoot could
have given greater encouragement to polygamy and polygamous cohabitation
than by thus assisting in conferring one of the highest honors and offices
in the Mormon Church on one who had been and was then guilty of these
crimes. As trustee of an educational institution he made no protest
against the continuance in office of Benjamin Cluff, jr., a noted
polygamist, as president of that institution, nor made any effort to
discover the truth that said Cluff had taken another plural wife long
after the manifesto. Nor did he make any protest, as such trustee, against
the election of George H. Brimhall, another polygamist, in the place of
Benjamin Cluff, jr.
	Since his election as an apostle of the Mormon Church Mr. Smoot has
been intimately associated with the first president and with those
who--with himself--constitute the council of the twelve apostles. The fact
that many of these officials were living in polygamous relations with a
number of wives was a matter of such common knowledge in the community
that it is incredible that Mr. Smoot should not have had sufficient notice
of this condition of affairs to at least have put him on inquiry. If he
did not know of these facts, it was because he took pains not to be
informed of them. At no time has he uttered a syllable of protest against
the conduct of his associates in the leadership of the Mormon Church, but,
on the contrary, has sustained them in their encouragement of polygamy and
polygamous cohabitation, both by his acts (as hereinbefore set forth) and
by his silence. In the judgment of the committee Mr. Smoot is no more
entitled to a seat in the Senate than he would be if he were associating
in polygamous cohabitation with a plurality of wives. (Smoot Hearing
4:474-487)

Aug 1906, Joseph F. Smith:
	The Lord Almighty has revealed unto us truths, and principles. He has
given us commandments, shown and taught us the order of prayer, and how to
worship in spirit and in truth. He has given us signs which it is our
privi-[401]lege to use to indicate our determination before him, to
remember him, and to witness unto him that we are willing to keep the
commandments that he has given, that we may always have his spirit to be
with us, even unto the end.
	Not one of these commandments of God, these gifts that have been
bestowed, these keys of knowledge and of principle that have been restored
and revealed unto us, through the gospel of Jesus Christ and its
ordinances, should be violated in the least by the Latter-day Saints. They
should be held in sacred reverence. We should hold them as we hold dear to
the heart the most sacred thing to our souls, because they are God's
commandments, and keys, his requirements made of us, and they are the
pointing of the way, by the manifestations of the Spirit of the Lord unto
us, in which we should walk, in order that we may become entitled to the
greatest amount of happiness in this world, and in the world to come a
fulness of joy. And by neglecting, slighting, and putting them aside, by
turning away from the course which the Lord has marked out for us to
pursue, we weaken ourselves of the light needed to make us more efficient
in the discharge of our duties as the children of God.
	We entered into covenants with the Lord that we will keep ourselves
pure and unspotted from the world. We have agreed before God, angels and
witnesses, in sacred places, that we will not commit adultery, will not
lie, that we will not steal or bear false witness against our neighbor, or
take advantage of the weak, that we will help and sustain our fellow men
in the right, and take such a course as will prove most effectual in
helping the weak to overcome their weaknesses and bring themselves into
subjection to the requirements of heaven. We cannot neglect, slight, or
depart from the spirit, meaning, intent and purpose, of these covenants
and agreements, that we have entered into with our Father in heaven,
without shearing ourselves of our glory, strength, right and title to his
blessings, and to the gifts and manifestations of his Spirit.
	The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you
know what that means. And yet there [402] are those of us who mutilate
them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say)
indecent practices of the world. In order that such people may imitate the
fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by
them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue,
next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God
has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern
in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the
opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a
covenant and so commit a grievous sin. (Improvement Era, 9:812-813)

1907, James E. Talmage:
	When Brigham Young passed from the earth, he was mourned of the
people as deeply as was Moses of Israel. And had he not proved himself a
Moses, aye and a Joshua, too? He led the people unto the land of holy
promise, and had divided unto them inheritances. He was a man with a clear
claim to title as one of the small brotherhood we call great. As
carpenter, farmer, pioneer, capitalist, financier, preacher, apostle,
prophet--in everything, he was a leader among men. Even those who opposed
him in politics and in religion, respected him for his talents, his
magnanimity, his liberality, and his manliness, and to-day men who refused
him honor while alive, come to give their mites and their greater sums to
erect a monument of stone and bronze to the memory of this man who needs
it not. With his death closed another epoch in the history of this people,
and a successor was raised up capable of leading and judging under the
changed conditions.
	But perhaps you censure me for having forgotten or for having
intentionally omitted reference to what popular belief regards as the
chief feature of "Mormonism," the corner-stone of the structure, the
secret of its influence over its members, and of its attractiveness to its
proselytes, viz., the peculiarity of the "Mormon" institution of marriage.
The Latter-day Saints were long [403] regarded as a polygamous people.
That plural marriage has been practiced by a limited proportion of the
people, under sanction of Church ordinance, has never since the
introduction of the system been denied. But that plural marriage is a
vital tenet of The Church is not true. What the Latter-day Saints call
celestial marriage is characteristic of The Church, and is in very general
practice; but of celestial marriage, plurality of wives was an incident
never an essential. Yet the two have never been segregated in the popular
mind. We believe in a literal resurrection and an actual hereafter, in
which future state will be recognized every sanctified and authorized
relationship existing here on earth--of parent and child, brother and
sister, husband and wife. We believe, further, that contracts as of
marriage, to be valid beyond the vail of mortality must be sanctioned by a
power greater than that on earth. With the seal of the holy Priesthood
upon their wedded state, these people believe implicitly in the perpetuity
of that relationship on the far side of the grave. They marry not with the
saddening limitation "Until death do you part," but "For time and for all
eternity." This constitutes celestial marriage. The thought that polygamy
has ever been the head and front of "Mormon" offending, that to it is
traceable as the true cause the hatred of other sects and the unpopularity
of The Church, is not tenable to the earnest thinker. Sad as have been the
experiences of the people in consequence of this practice; deep and
anguish-laden as have been the sighs and groans, hot and bitter as have
been the tears so caused, the heaviest persecution, the cruelest treatment
of their history began before polygamy was known in The Church. There is
no sect or people that sets a higher value on virtue and chastity than do
the Latter-day Saints, nor a people that visits surer retribution upon the
heads of offenders against the laws of sexual purity. To them marriage is
not, can never be, a civil compact alone; its significance reaches farther
than the earth; its obligations are eternal; and the Latter-day Saints are
notable for the sanctity with which they invest the marital state. It has
been my privilege to tread the soil of many lands, to observe the customs
and study the habits of more [404] nations than one; and I have yet to
find the place and hear of the people, where and with whom the purity of
man and woman is held more precious than among the maligned "Mormons" in
the mountain valleys of the West. There I find this measure of just
equality of the sexes--that the sins of man shall not be visited upon the
head of woman.
	At the inception of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints, there was
no law, national or state, against its practice. This statement assumes,
as granted, a distinction between bigamy and the "Mormon" institution. In
1862, a law was enacted with the purpose of suppressing polygamy; and, as
had been predicted in the national Senate prior to its passage, it lay for
lovers of "Mormonism," and United States attorneys, refused to entertain
complaints or prosecute cases under the law, because of its manifest
injustice and inadequacy.
	But other laws followed, most of which, as the Latter-day Saints
believe, were aimed directly at their religious conception of the marriage
contract, and not at social impropriety or sexual offense.
	At last the Edmunds-Tucker law took effect, making not the marriage
alone but the subsequent acknowledging of the contract an offense,
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Under the spell of unrighteous
zeal, the federal judiciary of Utah announced and practiced that most
infamous doctrine of segregation of offenses, with accumulating penalties.
	I who speak to you have listened to judges instructing grand juries
in such terms as these: that although the law of Congress designated as an
offense the acknowledging of more living wives than one by any man, and
prescribed a penalty therefor, as Congress had not specified the length of
time during which this unlawful acknowledging must continue to constitute
the offense, the grand juries might indict separately for every day of the
period during which the forbidden relationship existed. This meant that
for an alleged misdemeanor--for which Congress prescribed a maximum
penalty of six months' imprisonment and a fine of three hundred dollars--a
man might be imprisoned for life, aye, for many terms of a man's natural
life did the court's power to enforce its sentences extend [405] so far,
and might be fined millions of dollars. Before this travesty on the
administration of the law could be brought before the court of last
resort, and there meet with the reversal and rebuke it deserved, men were
imprisoned under sentences of years duration.
	The people contested these measures one by one in the courts;
presenting in case after case every phase of the subject, urging the
unconstitutionality of the measure; then the Church was disincorporated,
the real estate and personal property confiscated and escheated to the
government of the United States, and although the property of the latter
type was first rstored, (sic) real estate of great value long lay in the
hands of the court's received, and the "Mormon" Church had to pay to the
government high rental on its own property. But the people have suspended
the practice of polygamy; the testimony of the governors, judges, and
district attorneys of the territory, and later that of the officers of the
state have declared the sincerity of the step.
	As The Church had adopted the practice under what was believed to be
divine approval, they suspended it when they were justified in so doing.
In whatever light this practice has been regarded in the past, it is
to-day a dead issue, forbidden by ecclesiastical rule as it is prohibited
by legal statute. And the world is learning, to its manifest surprise,
that polygamy and "Mormonism" are not synonymous terms.
	And so the story of "Mormonism" runs on; its finale has not yet been
written; the current press presents continuously new stages of its
progress, new developments of its plan. To-day the Church of Latter-day
Saints is stronger than ever before; and the people are confident that it
is at its weakest stage for all time to come. It lives and thrives because
within it are the elements of thrift and the forces of life. It embraces a
boundless liberality of belief and practice; true toleration is one of its
essential features; it makes love for mankind second only to love for
Deity. Its creed provides for the protection of all men in their rights of
worship according to the dictates of conscience. It contemplates a
millennium of peace, when every man shall [406] love and respect his
neighbor and his neighbor's opinion as he regards himself and his own--a
day when the voice of the people shall be in unison with the voice of God.

(THE STORY OF MORMONISM, pp. 85-92)

1907, B.H. Roberts:
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION.

	* * * For example, during the investigation referred to, (Smoot
Investigation) the question of our belief in revelation was brought up. It
is a matter of common knowledge among you, of course, that we believe in
revelation from God to man. We believe that the Lord has revealed himself
in the day in which we live; that a dispensation of the gospel has been
given unto prophets in this age of the world; that divine communication
between the earth and the heavens has been restored; that a channel of
communication has been permanently established by and through which the
mind and the will of God may be made known to men. This truth, so
commonplace with us, seems a matter of seven days' wonder to the senate
committee in question. In the course of investigating this subject of
revelation the idea was developed that a law revealed from God, before it
became binding upon the Church, was submitted to the people in conference
and they voted to accept or reject it. Then this question was asked:
	"Suppose a revelation is given to the Church, and the Church in
conference assembled rejects it by vote, what remains? Does it go for
nothing?"
	To which answere was made, in substance, that if the people rejected
it, it would go for nothing for them--that is, so far as the people were
concerned.
	Then the questioning continues:
	"Senator--Then according to your faith the Lord submits his decrees
to the judgment of the people, and does [407] not desire them to be obeyed
by anybody unless the people approve?
	"Elder--He desires them to be obeyed by everybody, but he lets
everybody do just as they please. * * * * *
	"Senator--You would, then, as I understand you, please to follow the
people, and not the Lord, under those circumstances. Is that true?
	"Elder--The Lord has so ordered that when he appoints men, as he did
do in the revelations here (the revelations that had been under
discussion), and named the Apostles and the other general authorities of
the Church, he commanded that they be presented to the Church and
sustained or rejected, and whenever the Church has rejected any man he has
stepped aside.
	"Senator--A sort of veto power over the Lord! (Laughter).
	This last remark is one of the catchy phrases which some of the youth
of Israel are permitting themselves to be pleased with. "A veto power on
God!" We want to investigate that presently, and I think we will be able
to discover that it is smart rather than profound.
	Again, when the subject of the Manifesto (meaning that instrument
through which plural marriages were discontinued in the Church) was under
discussion, one of the brethren chanced to remark that he assisted in
framing the document for publication; whereupon this colloquy took place:
	"Senator--I understand this Manifesto was inspired.
	"Elder--Yes.
	"Senator--That is your understanding of it?
	"Elder--My answer was that it was inspired.
	"Senator--And when it was handed to you it was an inspiration, as you
understand, from on high, was it not?
	"Elder--Yes.
	"Senator--What business had you to change it?
	"Elder--We did not change the meaning.
	"Senator--You have just stated you changed it.
	"Elder--Not the sense, sir. I did not say we changed the sense.
[408] "Senator--But you changed the phraseology?
	"Elder--We simply put it in shape for publication, corrected possibly
the grammar, and wrote it so that--
	"Senator--You mean to say that in an inspired communication from the
Almighty the grammar was bad, was it? You corrected the grammar of the
Almighty, did you?"
	Another "smart" saying which apparently appeals to the humor of some
of our youth; and here and there you may hear now and then something said,
in an irreverent manner, too, about the absurdity of correcting the
Almighty's grammar.
	One other item: One of the Elders, pursued in the investigation by
one of the most adroit of the senators, finds it necessary to make a
correction of one of his statements, whereupon this follows:
	"Senator--Have you had any revelation or commandment in regard to the
testimony you should give in this case?
	"Elder--No, sir.
	"Senator--There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?
	"Elder --As to the testimony I should give here?
	"Senator--As to the testimony you have given or are to give.
	"Elder--No; I do not know that I have, particularly. I came here to
answer the questions of the committee.
	"Senator--But I want to know whether you are answering them under the
direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in your human
and uninspired capacity?
	"Elder--I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me here
as the Spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.
	"Senator--Do you mean to say that the Spirit of the Lord directs you
in your answers here?
	"Elder--I believe so.
	"Senator--You believe so?
	"Elder--Yes, sir.
[409] "Senator--Then in your belief, did the Spirit of the Lord direct you
to make the answer which you just took back and said was a mistake?
	"(A pause and silence.) Well, if you cannot answer it I will not
press it."
	Previously this senator had said to the Elder: "Do you not think that
in this hearing it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers so
that in so important a matter you do not have to take back in two or three
minutes what you have said?"
	This is spoken of, according to reports that reach me, as a severe
reproof administered by a "worldling" to one who believed himself to be an
inspired man, and more or less of comment is made upon this circumstance,
as upon the others I have named.
	Now, this brings before you, not all that is said, but some few
things that are said with reference to the investigation before the senate
committee; and I think they touch questions of considerable interest on
the subject of revelation. It is this subject I propose to consider,
especially the effect these several incidents of the investigation have
upon the subject of revelation. Let us now return and consider these
questions one by one. * * *
	* * * Suddenly they are confronted with the fact that, so far from
being a tyrannical institution, not only the officers but the very
revelations of God are submitted to the people for their acceptance! They
then turn upon us and say: Then you presume to have a "Veto power on God!"
	Now, let us consider this matter for a few moments. But before doing
so I call your attention to an utterance made in our own midst, less
excusable than the "smart" utterances of these astute senators, because
they doubtless are prompted in their remarks by ignorance of the subject;
but what I am about to read to you is not the utterance of an ignorant
mind, but rather that of a perverted one, because the writer knows better.
Listen to this from a local daily paper:
	"According to the testimony given by high ecclesi-[410]astics at
Washington, a revelation from God is not binding upon humanity until after
it is voted upon and accepted by the Mormon people in conference. What an
astounding complexity, and what a narrow bigotry are here presented! As
taught by Mormon theology, there is but one man on the earth at a time who
is authorized to receive and pronounce the will of God. That man is the
president of the Mormon Church. He receives a revelation containing
commands to the children of men, obedience to which commands entitles the
individuals to celestial glory, and disobedience to which commands
consigns the individual to the loss of glory in the hereafter. That
revelation, however, is not in force until some ten or twelve thousand
people in the big Tabernacle at Salt Lake City have voted affirmatively
upon it, and then it becomes a law for the fifteen hundred millions of
human being upon the face of the earth. In other words, sacriligious as it
seems, this doctrine assumes that God don't know his own mind; in still
other words, his determinations are subject to revision by ten thousand
human creatures, who constitute a kind of supreme court, whose conclusions
are binding not only upon themselves, but upon hundreds of millions of
human beings who never heard of the man through whom the law was
promulgated, nor of the supreme court that sustained it, nor of the law
itself. If the Mormon conference approves God's word, the one billion five
hundred million other human creatures are saved by it or damned by it, as
the case may be; and if the Mormon conference rejects it, the one billion
five hundred millions of other human creatures are not subject to it in
any way, as it is not a valid command from God Almighty. It is not God
then who holds the power of condemnation or of salvation; but it is the
Mormon conference which saves or damns the world of humanity at the whim
of that conference. Could absurdit go farther?"
	I think not! Absurdity can scarcely go beyond that representation of
the matter. It is scarcely necessary for me to say to you that this
presentation of the subject is not true. And yet I have positive knowledge
that such [411] a vain utterance as this has its influence among some of
the youth of the Church! No; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints arrogates to herself no such powers as are here charged. * * *
While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for
the instruction of men; and is one of God's instrumentalities for making
known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such
purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets
here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and
nationality, not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in
the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure
of truth that the people are prepared to receive. "Mormonism holds then,
that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in
all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God's children
according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them. Hence it
is not obnoxious to Mormonism to regard Confucius, the great Chinese
philosopher and moralist, as a servant of God, inspired to a certain
degree by him to teach those great moral maxims which have governed those
millions of God's children for lo! these many centuries. It is willing to
regard Gautama, Buddha as an inspired servant of God, teaching a measure
of the truth, at least giving to these people that twilight of truth by
which they may somewhat see their way. * * *
	While it is held by the Church, nay, taught by the very revelations
of God themselves, that there is but one man at a time who is entitled to
receive revelations for the government and guidance of the Church--and
this in order to prevent confusion and conflict--still it is nowhere held
that this man is the only instrumentality through which God may
communicate his mind and will to the world. It is merely a law operative
within the Church itself and does not at all concern the world outside the
Church organization.
	When the Church votes upon the acceptance of any revelation, whether
it is one respecting doctrine or the appointment of officers, it acts for
itself alone. Its vote in no way concerns, either for their praise or
their [412] censure, the people outside of the Church. It is merely the
exercise of a right conferred upon the Church in the very inception of its
organization; for it is part of the law itself, that no rule or law shall
be binding on the Church, and no officer shall hold position in the
Church, but upon its own free consent. This is no new doctrine. It is in
strict harmony with God's moral government of the world. What moral law
may not men in their individual capacity reject? From the beginning God's
law stood. "Thou shalt not kill." Yet Cain killed Abel and from that day
to the present many men have violated this, God's law. And so with every
law, whether given directly of God, or through his servants the prophets.
Man is by the nature of him a free moral agent; and that agency of his
involves the liberty of violating the laws of God as well as the liberty
of respecting them. He is free to accept righteousness and attain heaven.
He is equally free to follow after wickedness and go to hell if he so
elects, though he must not complain if he finds not there the joys and
comforts of heaven. Agency or freedom that would mean less than this would
mean nothing. It would be neither freedom nor agency. What men may do in
their individual capacity the Church may do in its organized capacity
with, of course, similar results to the institution; for if the time
should come that the Church in the exercise of those rights and that
freedom which God in the beginning bestowed upon her should persistently
reject his word and his servants until she became corrupted, God would
repudiate and disown her as his Church, just as he would reject and
condemn a wicked man. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday
Saints, so far, has received those revelations and those doctrines
proposed to her as divine law by the Prophet of God; and also, in the
main, those men whom a divine inspiration has suggested as her officers.
	An incident in the history of ancient Israel illustrates this
doctrine of liberty enjoyed by the people of God in their corporate
capacity. From Moses to Samuel the children of Israel had been governed by
a succession of judges, inspired men, appointed of God to be rulers or
rather public servants in Israel, which government of [413] inspired men
appointed of God constituted a divine order of government, so that it may
be said that the people were governed of God. Finally, however, during the
administration of government by the judge, the prophet Samuel, the people
grew weary of this form of government and clamored for a king. They were
ambitious of being like other people by whom they were surrounded. They
longed for the worldly pomp and circumstance and glamor of a kingdom.
Samuel, the stern old prophet, zealous for his God, withstood their
demands, until at last the Lord spoke and said to him: "Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not
rejected thee but they have rejected me, that I should reign over them . .
. . . Now, therefore, hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest
solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king that shall reign
over them." (Samuel viii.) Samuel followed the directions of the Lord, and
pointed out to the people the disasters which would befall them if they
adhered to their insistence for a king. All to no purpose, however, a king
they would have. God respected their right to have the kind of government
they desired, though it involved a rejection of himself--"a veto upon
God!" Had not the grave and fair minded senator of Massachusetts--now
unhappily departed this life since coining the phrase here
criticised--momentarily forgotten this very celebrated incident in the
history of ancient Israel, or if he had taken time to think one moment
upon the great principles underlying God's moral government of the world,
I feel reasonably satisfied that he would never have fashioned that
irreverent phrase, "veto power on God," certainly not to win the laughter
and applause of those who were present at its birth, or of those who,
ape-like, repeat his unhappy phrase.
	But I must not overlook another point involved in that part of the
testimony here being considered. Suppose a law is promulgated before the
Latter-day Saints--a revealed principle of truth is submitted for their
acceptance--and then, in the exercise of that liberty, which God has
conferred upon his Church, they reject it. The question is then asked,
"What remains."
[414] Why, the truth remains! The action of the Church has not affected
that in the least. It is just as true as if the Church had accepted it.
Our acceptance or rejection does not make or mar the truth; it simply
determines our own relationship to that truth. If we reject the truth, the
truth still remains. And, moreover, it is my own faith that a people who
would reject the truth revealed of God to them would make no progress
until they repented and accepted the rejected truth. The truth
remains--that is the answer to the senator's question. Human conduct does
not affect the truth. As one of our own poets has said:
"Though the heavens depart, and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore!"
	In defining what I understand revelation to be, and the manner in
which it may be communicated, I have already stated that when we have a
communication made directly from the Lord himself there is no imperfection
whatever in that revelation. But when the Almighty uses a man as an
instrument through whom to communicate divine wisdom, the manner in which
that revelation is imparted to men may receive a certain human coloring
from the prophet through whom it comes. We know this to be true, because
we have the words of different prophets before us by which we may test the
matter. We know, for instance, that the message delivered to Israel
through the Prophet Isaiah possesses different characteristics from the
message delivered through Jeremiah, or through Ezekiel, or through Amos.
It seems that the inspiration of the Lord need not necessarily destroy the
personal characteristics of the man making the communication to his
fellowmen.

(Roberts, DEFENSE OF THE FAITH, pp. 503-518)

[415]
Thursday 6 Oct 1910:
FIRST PRESIDENCY SPEAK AT THE OPENING SESSION.
President Joseph F. Smith Alludes in Unmistakable Terms To the Policy of
the Church in Reference to the Matter of Recent Plural Marriages--Record
Attendance at The Opening Session of the Eighty-first Semi-Annual
Conference,

PREST. JOSEPH F. SMITH.
	* * * Following is a synopsis of the addresses delivered at this
morning's session. President Smith, as usual, made the opening address.
	He felt very grateful, he said, to be here at this opening session,
and that there were so many present. "My heart is full of blessings for
the Latter-day Saints," he said, "and indeed for all the honest throughout
the world. I earnestly desire that the Holy Spirit may be poured out on
all the speakers and all the Saints during the sessions of this conference
that our hearts may rejoice.
	"I have just arisen from my bed where I have lain for more than a
month. Nevertheless, I feel to say to the Saints this morning that I love
the gospel which has been revealed to us more, if possible, more than I
ever have in my life. And I believe it is possible, for the Saints are
growing in knowledge and goodness and grace. We cannot help but grow if we
serve the Lord as we should.

SOLEMN PLEDGES.
	"I feel happy to say to you that in my early days I made a pledge
with the Lord and my people that I would always be true to them. I cannot
remember a moment of my life when I felt like giving up this pledge. And
if there is a man or woman in the world who can point out to me where I
have been untrue to my pledge, I shall be glad for that information. As an
elder in Israel I tried to magnify my duty. When I became a seventy, I
tried to be true to this obligation. I do not recollect wherein I proved
untrue in this capacity. Later when I became an apostle, I strove to honor
that calling, to be true to it, and the calling which I received in this
office. And I [416] am not aware that I have been untrue in any of these
callings. I have endeavored to be true to my family. If there has been any
derliction (sic) in any of these things, I don't know it. If I have been
untrue to the people of God, I don't know it. And I don't believe that any
man or woman knows wherein I have.

TRUE TO THE PEOPLE.
	I have been true to my people and true to the world in many pledges
that I have made with either, notwithstanding there have been men who have
charged me with being one thing to my people and another to the world.
	"These charges are not true in any sense. I want it distinctly
understood that certain things which are charged against us as a people,
must stop. Whether I am maligned or not by my enemies I do not care, but I
do not want to be maligned by my friends.
	"May the Lord bless you, my brethren and sisters. Be true to your
covenants. Be Latter-day Saints. Men must be thinkers and workers, in
order to be good Latter-day Saints. When you see any Latter-day Saints
going off on tangents, one-horse ideas, you may know that they do not know
thoroughly the gospel of Christ. For the gospel is a gospel of reason.

BEARS TESTIMONY.
	"I want to bear my testimony to you. I know that my Redeemer lives.
We have all the testimony of this fact that the world has. But we have in
addition to this the testimony of the Nephites, the testimony of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, who saw Christ, and the testimony of Oliver Cowdery
and Sidney Rigdon. Besides this, I have the testimony of the Spirit within
me, which is the greatest of all testimonies. I believe also in the
divinity of the mission of Joseph Smith. I bear you my testimony that he
was raised up to do the work he accomplished, and I bear testimony, to the
calling of those who have succeeded the prophet in the succession of the
presidency. I knew these men intimately, and the spirit of them. I thank
God for these men and the spirit that impels me to these men. May it never
depart from me!" * * * (Des-[417]eret Evening News)

Monday 10 Oct 1910:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

	"President Joseph F. Smith alludes in unmistakable terms to the
policy of the church in reference to the matter of recent plural
marriages," declares the Deseret News conference heading. And now it only
remains for the News to point out what it was that Mr. Smith said on that
subject. Its report under the headlines had not a word on the matter.

THE OMITTED PART.
	On Thursday evening the Deseret News announced in its headlines over
the speech of President Joseph F. Smith, that in this speech he "Alludes
in unmistakable terms to the policy of the church in reference to the
matter of recent plural marriages." A diligent reading of that speech,
however, fails to disclose any allusion whatever, either in unmistakable
terms or otherwise, to the policy of the church in reference to matters of
recent plural marriages, to former plural marriages, or to any sort of
plural marriages. He said nothing whatever on that subject. In this case,
as in the "Rejected Addresses," the best part was left out.
	The conclusion is irresistible that somebody with a large, potent
blue pencil, got hold of that address of President Joseph F. Smith and
struck out everything relating to polygamy, leaving him simply as a craven
suppliant before his people on his dishonored pledge breaking, his
criminal attitude of "taking his chances against the law." He finds that
his own brethren are censuring him for his broken pledges and for his
attitude in repudiating his voluntary promises in behalf of the church and
in behalf of those who made them, that there would be no further
disobedience of the law.
	The Tribune has kept constantly before the public of Utah the fact of
Joseph F. Smith's perfidy in this matter, giving the exact words of the
official report of his testi-[418]mony in the Smoot case and contrasting
those with the pledges he made to the country; and to the people of Utah
at the time that Statehood was asked from the Congress and the people of
the United States.
	The result is that Smith is put on the defensive before his own
people. He is criticised, and justly criticised, among his followers for
his pledge breaking and his falsehoods. It is evident that a dishonored
pledge breaker, a man who defies both the laws of God and man, is not a
fit leader for a religious people.
	The burden of a religious leadership is not to be borne upon the
lawless, God-defying shoulders. President Smith finds this to be true. In
undertaking to bear this religious burden he dishonors himself and
discredits his church. It is a burden that cannot be borne in the way that
he undertakes to bear it. The best possible thing that he can do is to lay
it down, and let it be taken up on more worthy shoulders.

THE LIST AND THE MANIFESTO.
	We have again been requested to publish in full the list of new
polygamists, otherwise and familiarly known as "Sporadics." The Tribune
this morning complies with these numerous requests, and presents the list
in alphabetical order, so that if any reader should happen to have a
friend in the lot, he will be able to find his name without much
inconvenience. The list, as so far known, comprises the following two
hundred names:

Aldridge, Isaac		Bentley, Joseph C.
Allred, Calvard		Black, David
Anderson, Alfred		Black, Morley
Badger, Rodney C.		Bloomfield, John
Barlow, Israel, Jr.		Bowman, Henry C.
Brown, Ezariah			Brainholt, Chris.
Becraft, John			Brandley, Theodore
Beesley, Fred			Brown, Orson P.
Bench, Ephraim			Brown, Richard D.
Bennion, Heber			Buckholt, William
Bennion, Israel		Butter, Elder
Bennion, S. R.			Call, Anson B.
[419]
Call, Willard			Hardy, Abel
Cannon, A.H.			Harmer, Lorrin
Cannon, Angus J.		Hart, Arthur W.
Cannon, George M.		Haws, George M.
Cannon, Hugh J.		Haymore, F.D.
Cannon, John, M.		Hickman, Francis
Cannon, Lewis M.		Hickman, Josiah E.
Carroll, James			Higgs, Alpha J.
Carroll, Thomas		Hilton, Thomas
Carroll, Willard		Hyde, Ezra T.
Chamberlain, Thos.		Humphrey, John
Cheney, Frank			James, Joseph
Clark, Arthur			Jameson, Alex
Clayson, Nathan		Jarman, Charles
Cluff, Benjamin		Jarvis, Samuel
Cluff, Hyrum			Johansen, Jens
Cordon, Joseph			Johnson, Benjamin
Cordon, Louis P.		Johnson, David
Cowley, Mathias F.		Johnson, Heber
Cox, Amos				Johnson J. Francis
Dean, Joseph H.		Johnson, Obiah
Dennis, Israel F.		Johnson, William D.
Done, Abraham			Jolly, Haskell S.
Done, Elder			Jones, Daniel B.
Driggs, Apollos		Jorgensen, J. S.
Droubay, Peter			Ketsch, Louis B.
Durfey, M.			LeBaron, Don
Eager, John			Lemmon, Peter
Eager, Joseph			Lewis, Walter
Eccles, David			Lewis, Walter
Eccles, Elder			Lillywhite, Chas. W.
Ellison, E.P.			Longhurst, Warren
Emmett, James			Lyman, Watter C.
Eyring, Ed.			Miller, Reuben
Farr, Winslow			McCall, Robert
Fohlin, Peter			McClellan, Chas. E.
Grant, Joseph H.		McClellan, George
Grace, Isaac H.		McGregor, D.A.
Hague, Elder			Memmott, J.W.
Hurst, Walter			Merrill, Albert
Hardy, John			Merrill, Chas. C.
[420]
Morrell, Joseph		Smith, Jesse M.
Morris, Robert			Smith, Jesse N., Jr.
Michelson, Maurice		Snarr, Daniel
Muir, Daniel			Spencer, Elder
Musser, Joseph W.		Spilsbury, Alma P.
Nagle, Bishop			Spilsbury, David
Nagely, George			Steele, M.M.
Nagely, James			Stevens, Alma
Nagely, John			Stevens, John
Newton, Samuel			Stevens, Joshua
Nielsen, Carl			Stohl, John
Ockey, William			Stowell, Brigham
Payne, Edward			Stringham, Bryant
Peterson, Franz		Summerhays, J.W.
Pierce, Brigham		Tanner, Joseph M.
Pratt, Helaman			Tanner, Henry S.
Pratt, Rey L.			Taylor, Alonzo
Parkinson, Geo. C.		Taylor, E.L.
Raymer, W.H.			Taylor, Frank Y.
Rich, Ben E.			Taylor, Guy
Richardson, Edmund		Taylor, John W.
Richens, Parley		Teasdale, George
Robinson, John (1)		Tenny, Levi
Robinson, John (2)		Thurber, Albert
Robison, Joseph E.		Thomas, Elder (1)
Romney, George S.		Thomas, Elder (2)
Romney, Miles A.		Thurber, Allen D.
Romney, Miles P.		Todd, Donald M.
Romney, Thomas			Thurber, Joseph
Richins, Orson			Turley, Ed.
Sears, Wm. C.			Turley, Ernest
Smith, James			Turley, Joseph
Sessions, Byron		Wall, Frank W.
Silver, John			Wilson, David
Silver, Joseph			Walser, J.J.
Skousen, Daniel		Walser, J.J., Jr.
Skousen, James			Whetten, John T.
Steed, Walter			Whipple, Chas.
Skousen, Peter			Wilson, David
Smaley, John			Wilson, Guy C.
Smith, Isaac			Wilson, Lycurgus F.
[421]
Woods, Jonathan		Watson, Hugh
Woolfenden, Chas.		Young, Newell K.
Wood, Edward J.		Young, Brigham, Jr.
Wiley, D. O.			Young, Don Carlos
Woodruff, A. O.		Young, Royal B.
Wrathall, James		Young, William
Watson, Hugh			Zundell, Abraham

	Speaking particularly of one request received at this office, it was
specially asked that we publish the Woodruff manifesto of 1890, as it is
officially recorded at the Mormon church historian's office, and we
therefore present that document in full, together with the method of its
adoption by the church in conference: (See Doctrine and Covenants) The
above manifesto was read on October 6, 1890, to the Mormon conference then
in session, and Lorenzo Snow thereupon offered the following, which was
sustained unanimously:
	"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the president of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth
at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we
consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the
manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is dated September
24, 1890, and that as a church in general conference assembled we accept
his declaration concerning plural marriage as authoritative and binding."

A SHORT REPLY TO IMPUDENCE.
	Apostle Joseph F. Smith, Jr., in his address in the tabernacle
yesterday "challenged any one to show where and when the leading
authorities of the church have taught the people anything that would not
make them better men and women and better citizens" (We quote from the
church organ.) And he proceeded on the assumption that this could not be
shown. But to show it is easy.
	It was not calculated to make men and women better or better citizens
to teach the pestiferous doctrine of polygamy; nor to teach them that it
is their duty to pay [422] ten per cent of their earnings to the
priesthood without getting an accounting as to what is done with their
money; nor that it is their duty to obey their ecclesiastical leaders in
temporal as well as spiritual matters, thus making these leaders their
political and temporal overlords; nor that it is the people's duty to lie
in order to conceal the transgressions of their priests. All these things,
and many others, (as blood atonement,) have been taught by "the leading
authorities of the church," to the detriment of good citizenship, and to
the damage of the moral character of their people.

SMITH'S DISHONOR.
	It will be recalled that President Joseph F. Smith, in the tabernacle
at the opening of the Mormon conference on Thursday, most earnestly
declared that he has never broken any pledge which he had made with his
God, the Mormon people, or the world. We now present the following as
taken from the official record in the Smoot case, volume 1, page 197:
	"I wish to assert that the church has obeyed the law of the land, and
that it has kept its pledges with this Government; but I have not, as an
individual, and I have taken that chance myself."
	This was Joseph F. Smith's statement to the United States Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections, under affirmation, March 4, 1904.
Mr. Smith acknowledges therein that he is a pledge-breaker, and that he is
such by personal and deliberate choice. He was a party to the issuance of
the Woodruff manifesto in 1890, which declared against polygamy and
polygamous living, as he himself has officially interpreted it. The
manifesto was in the nature of a pledge to the Nation that forever after
its emission there would be submission to the laws of the land on the part
of all the Mormon people, including their leaders. In having assisted in
promulgating that document, Joseph F. distinctly pledged himself to
promote faithful observance of the promise therein made. At the same time
he pledged himself to his people to advocate, [423] by precept and
example, honorable discharge of the obligation imposed upon them in the
manifesto. He was bound by pledge to both the Government of the United
States and the Mormon people. But he confesses that he has dishonored
himself and disgraced his people through repudiating his pledges to them
and to the Nation. As affecting this matter of pledge-breaking there is
also the following, contained in the Smoot testimony, volume 1, page 197:
	The Chairman--Do you obey the law in having five wives at this time,
and having them bear to you eleven children since the manifesto of 1890?
	Joseph F. Smith--Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I
have obeyed the law of the land.
	The Chairman--That is all.3
	Joseph F. Smith--I do not claim so, and I have said before that I
prefer to stand my chances against the law.
	What is a lawbreaker--and especially one who will say "I prefer to
stand my chances against the law," as indicating his vicious
determination--but a pledge-breaker of the most knavish variety? As a
citizen of the United States Smith is pledged to uphold the law and to
live in conformity with it; but he declares that he "prefers" to take his
chances against it, in violation of his solemn pledge of citizenship.
	It is doubtful, if one should search the world over, if there could
be found a case of wanton depravity and utter disregard of the truth such
as is presented in this man, Joseph F. Smith. There is no obliquity of
which he has not been guilty; no debased improbity and malevolence that
has not characterized his life at one period or another; but this final
falsehood would seem to set the capstone of knavery upon a long career of
brutal profligacy that has seen few equals in the annals of the whole
world.

[424]
Monday 10 Oct 1910:
From The DESERET EVENING NEWS:

NOT ON THE MOVE

	The St. Louis Times of Oct. 3, takes editorial notice of a rumor
circulated in the press, to the effect that the Latter-day Saints are
contemplating a wholesale exodus to Mexico. We noticed the item some time
ago, and took occasion to point out that it is a report that has recurred
at intervals the last 25 years, or more, though without foundation in
fact. The Times, however, seems to regard the story as serious, and
comments as follows:
	"The Mormons are said to have become dissatisfied with the United
States because the law in this country has put an end to polygamy, and
they are said to be of the opinion that other laws tending in the
direction of persecution have made their lot unbearable here.
	"The public will stop to think a moment when this story is read. The
Mormons, it is true, have rendered valuable service in America. They
fostered the science of irrigation, and made the desert to blossom when
people of a less hardy nature were not to be tempted into the unknown
lands.
	"Nevertheless, it must be conceded that American laws have done a
great deal of good; and it may be predicted that when the Mormons surround
themselves with their lares and penates in Mexico, they will not be long
in discovering that if they left certain ills, they undoubtedly flew to
others which they knew not of, and which will prove a thousand times more
irksome."
	The Latter-day Saints are not dissatisfied with the United States
because the law prohibits plural marriages, or for any other reason. Every
one who knows anything of the Latter-day Saints knows that they are
thankful to the Giver of all good gifts for the United States government,
for the institutions of this Country, and for the advantages and
opportunities they here enjoy. Their [425] prayers are ever offered up for
the preservation of this government, and for the divine guidance of the
men who stand in responsible positions, whether in the legislative,
executive, or judicial department. The Church has loyalty accepted the
decision of the American people on the question of marriage. The Church
Authorities are incessantly, publicly and privately, counseling the Saints
to obey the law. They are dealing with infractions of the law, whenever
cases are called to their attention in the regular order, according to the
rules of the Church, and in this they are sustained by the people. Why,
then, should there be any dissatisfaction with the United States? There is
none. In loyalty and fidelity the Latter-day Saints yield the place of
honor to no organization, secular or ecclesiastical, in this broad land.
	Nor is it correct to insinuate that the Latter-day Saints are subject
to persecution by the government. Whatever persecution there is at the
present time, is the work of non-descripts who hope to climb, on the ruins
of the Church, to the crib that contains political honor and emoluments.
They are not the government, nor are they the American people. They are
not in a position to use the government machinery for the accomplishment
of their purposes, but they employ slander and vituperation, the weapon of
the class to which they belong. Around their banner they have gathered and
marshaled a congenial crowd, ready to cry, "Crucify" whenever the signal
is given. By means of this following they are keeping up the agitation at
home and abroad, in pulpits, newspapers, and magazines, but they have no
government support; nor have they the approval of any well-informed
American man or woman, capable of impartial, independent thinking. Their
sole followers are recruited from the ranks of men and women whose selfish
motives are apparent to all. Whenever they attempt a judicial
investigation of their extravagant claims, be it in this country or in
Norway, or anywhere else, they fail. And so they seek their strength in
the clamorous approval of the mob.
	The St. Louis Times admits that the Latter-day Saints have done good
service in America, by fostering the [426] science of irrigation, for
instance. This is true. They have done good service, furthermore, by
upholding and struggling for the religious freedom that is the possession
of every American citizen but which mobs have not always accorded to them.
They have preached freedom, they have suffered martyrdom for its
maintenance; they have lived that principle as well as died for it, and
their work in the valleys of the mountains is a monument to their love of
liberty under the law. They have performed invaluable services to the
country and the entire world by their truthful adherance to that
principle, just as did the martyrs in all ages, and that will yet be
recorded as the great achievement of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints in this age of the world.

Tuesday 11 Oct 1910:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

WAKING UP ON POLYGAMY.

	The priesthood of the Mormon church, from top to bottom, in official
conclave assembled, have explicitly affirmed their faith and belief in The
Tribune's presentation of new polygamy cases. They have acted also upon
this faith. They believe that the list of new polygamists as printed in
this paper is correct. They have heretofore indorsed this list,
specifically in three cases in which they have taken action, and now they
indorse it as a whole, and announce that they intend to stop this vile
practice. The Tribune would be glad to place more confidence in their
announced purpose than it is able to do. Priesthood pledges in this
respect are at a discount. The priesthood of the Mormon church have
dishonored their own pledge and broken faith so generally, so
scandalously, and so insolently that we find ourselves unable to give the
credence that we would like to do to their present announced purpose.
	Our incredulity on this point arises from two sources. First,
experience. Experience of the past has shown that there is no reliance to
be placed upon the professions, [427] pledges, promises, protestations,
word of honor or most solemn engagements of the Mormon priesthood. Every
pledge, promise, profession, protestation, engagement, or word of honor
which they have given out heretofore has been shamelessly disregarded and
defiantly violated. President Joseph F. Smith explicitly testified in the
Smoot case that he had not kept his pledges, and did not intend to keep
them, either as to the laws of God or man; that he takes his chances both
against the State prison and hell fire, or words to that effect. What he
did say, exactly, was that he was living and intended to live in defiance
of the laws of God and man; that he obeyed or disobeyed God at his own
pleasure, and that he preferred to take his chances against the law rather
than keep his plighted word of honor. That is one reason for our lack of
confidence in the promise made now by the priesthood with respect to
polygamy.
	Another reason is the inconsistency of the situation. For, Joseph F.
Smith himself is just as flagrant a transgressor, just as impudent,
lecherous and defiant a lawbreaker as any of the so-called new
polygamists. He expressly stated in his testimony before the master in
chancery in the escheat cases that the manifesto forbade unlawful
cohabitation as well as new polygamy, and yet he openly confessed, in fact
apparently boasted, of his continued living in unlawful cohabitation and
the birth to him of eleven illegitimate children. How, then, can a man
like this discipline others for the very offense of which he himself is
the most conspicuous in guilt? With what face will he arraign any new
polygamist when he himself openly acknowledges his guilt under the law,
and announces defiantly that he prefers to take his chances against the
law rather than obey it? Or, in case the punishment of the new polygamists
is turned over to the stake presidency and the high council of the
different stakes, how will it be possible for the stake presidency or that
council to proceed against any offender if he sets up the plea that Joseph
F. Smith, the president of the church, is an equal offender with himself?
Will not the stake presidency and the high council immediately see that if
they condemn any man for this offense they at the [428] same time condemn
the president of the church? We do not see how it is possible under any
sort of consistent action to discipline by the church any one guilty of
new polygamy as long as polygamists, open avowed polygamists, law-defying
polygamists who prefer to take their chances against the law rather than
obey it, are at the head of the church.
	President Joseph F. Smith said that he was the only one authorized to
permit the ceremony of plural marriages and that he is not making this
authorization. The Tribune has repeatedly called attention to the fact
that he is the only man authorized to permit these marriages and that
because this is so, his profession of ignorance of such marriages or of
irresponsibility for them on behalf of the church is a falsehood. Nothing
can be more certain than that under the Mormon doctrine and laws he is the
sole one responsible for the new polygamous marriages. He is responsible
because of his position in the church and because he is the one authorized
from, by and in behalf of the church to "hold the keys of this ordinance."
This being so, his denial of complicity in the new polygamous marriages is
futile. If he has quit authorizing these new polygamous marriages, how
long since is it that he quit? He himself performed the marriage ceremony
for Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin, one of the first of the
transgressions against the manifesto. He has been silent with regard to
this, sustaining polygamists, favoring them, rewarding them in every way,
giving the aid and comfort of his position to those who entered into new
polygamy, and thus defied the law of God and man as he himself clearly
confessed that he was doing. Nothing could be more natural than that he
should take up the cause of those who are in like case with himself in
this respect, just as he has done. And now, will he punish them? It is
incredible.
	For these two reasons, frankly and candidly given, we do not find
ourselves in the frame of mind to accept this declaration of the
priesthood at par. The only thing that appears to be genuine about it,
unmistakable and solid, is that The Tribune has printed the list of more
than two hundred new polygamists; that the priesthood of the Mor-[429]mon
church accepts this presentation of law-breaking among themselves as true;
and that they feel in duty bound, in order to calm the public mind as to
their transgressions in this particular, to make a showing of reform and
of disciplining offending members. As we have shown above, however, the
way to arraign offenders and enforce this discipline against them is so
utterly crooked, inconsistent, and ineffective that we have doubts as to
the sincerity of the move from the beginning, and even more doubts as to
the practicability of enforcing the discipline foreshadowed.

HIS PRESUMPTUOUS ARROGANCE.
	"The moment that men attempt to fight this church they fight God,"
asserted President Joseph F. Smith in closing the big conference on
Sunday.
	In the first place, Mr. Smith's assumption that citizens here are
fighting his church in its legitimate sphere is one of his own
manufacture. No one is doing anything of the kind. The warfare has been
against the God-scorning, law-defying, immoral practices that have been
encouraged by and protected within that organization, and against Smith's
own assumption of supreme power over his people in all things spiritual
and temporal. He knows that he has called men "liars in the presence of
God" who admitted his right to direct them spiritually but not temporally.
He knows that under the Constitution and laws of this country that
assumption is treasonable. This is one of the things that is criticized
and opposed by all good citizens; but this opposition can in no proper way
be construed as war upon the church, unless Mr. Smith has arrived at the
conclusion that he is in reality the church. Granting that he is such, and
that he is the sole representative of the Almighty on this earth, then it
might be admitted that to fight him personally is to fight the church and
God. No doubt he must have argued from these premises.
	But what right has he to condemn anybody as being a fighter against
God, since he has confessed that he chooses in his life to defy God, and
at the same time declares that he will obey or disobey God just as he
[430] chooses?
	There is nothing in the human character in all this world that can
equal the Smith impudence, and there is no other man on earth who
possesses that sort of cheek to the extent that Joseph F. does.

HOTBEDS OF POLYGAMY.
	It has often been said by The Tribune, upon information received from
within the Mormon church, that the vicinity of Forestdale, in the Granite
stake of Zion, is a hotbed of new polygamy. But there are other
localities, they say, that are somewhat warm in this respect.
	Sugar House ward appears to be a bit ambitious in this line, as we
are told by responsible residents there that its worthy bishop, Elder John
M. Whitaker, has become a celestializer of women since the manifesto. Even
in that event, however, Forestdale still claims distinction as of the
first place. Bishop James Jensen and Elder James Hendey, one of his
counselors, have taken new plural wives since 1890, if reports that reach
us be true--and we believe they are, otherwise this would not be
published. In the meantime we feel quite sure that this recognition of the
gentlemen named will be appreciated by them, and that it will bring us
such further details as will prove to make the recitals in their cases a
bit more explicit and decidedly, more interesting.
	Then there is Elder William C. Parkinson, president of the Hyrum
stake of Zion, and a brother to the notorious George C. Parkinson. He will
doubtless remember the time when a rather prepossessing female convert
came over from England and he "laid his cap" for the girl, and finally won
her for his polygamous own. No doubt he will recall, too, that it was long
subsequent to the issuance of the Woodruff manifesto.
	This makes the list of "sporadics" comprise two hundred and seven
names; but we can't help it--they will come in.

IT IS ALWAYS INSINCERE.
	Apostle Hyrum M. Smith, in the tabernacle on Sunday, "declared that
the Mormon church could not be accused of [431] insincerity."
	That is directly in line with the insincerity of the church, as
composed in its hierarchy of twenty-six members. Although the church,
through the twenty-six, has repeatedly issued authoritative public
pronouncements upon different subjects, the individual members of the
governing body have claimed the right of personal interpretation of these
outgivings. These interpretations have varied widely, but they have nearly
all and always been in favor of some sort of evasion of the uttered word.
In all of the important emissions of the church, through its leaders, and
as affecting the organization's attitude toward the world, there has never
been any honest effort among the chiefs to abide by contracts thus made.
With respect to these officially stated positions that have been adopted
by the conferences of the church, there have always been members of the
governing body who have so conducted themselves as to brand the church
body with insincerity.
	Perhaps the highest example of this insincerity is in the president
of the church, who is the father of Hyrum M. With respect to the doctrine
of polygamy and the manifesto which was supposed to inhibit the practice
of that doctrine, he has shown his insincerity in daily life and by public
utterance. The Deseret News reported an address delivered by Mr. Smith at
East Bountiful, March 20, 1909, in which he said: "We feel determined to
do the will of God and keep His commandment to the best of our ability.
The doctrine came from God. The matter of stopping it came from our
Government."
	As the chief of the Mormon church, and its highest exemplar, Joseph
F. is anything but sincere, and especially when it comes to practices that
minister to his lustfulness.
	Again, Joseph F.'s determined stand against criticism of the
authorities was well calculated to serve notice upon the conference that
if anybody there should dare to object to sustaining any of the brethren,
he would surely "get his." So they all kept quiet and held up their hands
like little men.

[432]
Thursday 6 Apr 1911:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

 	The present conference of the Mormon church can do very much to put
Utah in line with American desire and sentiment by a few straightforward,
unambiguous, and clearly expressed declarations. First, there should be,
and we hope will be, an emphatic disclaimer and throwing off of polygamy,
and a statement from the church authorities, indorsed by the conference,
that will put new polygamists at least under the ban of the church as all
polygamists are now under the ban of the law. This declaration should make
it plain that the church not only will discipline all offenders in this
transgression, but will turn them over to the civil authorities for
prosecution, with proof necessary to convict. There ought to be no
reluctance about this, since the church authorities have clearly and
emphatically expressed their minds in the precise direction indicated.
President Lyman's declaration that this deceiving of women must cease, and
the skullduggery involved in new polygamy must be absolutely extirpated,
is directly in line with this plea. If the conference will make a
declaration of this kind, and the church authorities will live up to it in
good faith, giving the public specific and ample illustrations in fact of
its good faith, the situation will be very much clarified in Utah, and
immigration will be invited and encouraged in a way otherwise quite
impossible.

6 Apr 1911, Joseph F. Smith:
	Another thing, we must obey the rules of the Church with reference to
marriage, at least we ought to do so. We do not all do it. You will see by
what I have stated that during the last year eleven hundred marriages of
our people have been contracted or solemnized in a manner not provided for
in the law of the Church, I refer to civil marriages, so that we do not
all do our duty yet with reference to that. And another thing, as we have
announced in previous conferences--as it was announced by Presi-[433]dent
Woodruff, as it was announced by President Snow, and as it was reannounced
by me and my brethren, and confirmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't
a man today in this Church, or anywhere else, outside of it who has
authority to solemnize a plural marriage--not one! There is no man or
woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is authorized
to contract a plural marriage. It is not permitted, and we have been
endeavoring to the utmost of our ability to prevent men from being led by
some designing person into an unfortunate condition that is forbidden by
the conferences, and by the voice of the Church, a condition that has to
some extent at least, brought reproach upon the people. I want to say that
we have been doing all in our power to prevent it, or to stop it; and in
order that we might do this, we have been seeking, to our utmost, to find
the men who have been the agents and the cause of leading people into it.
We find it very difficult to trace them up, but when we do find them, and
can prove it upon them, we will deal with them as we have dealt with
others that we have been able to find.
	Now with reference to the threat that is made about us, from time to
time, that in order to estop (sic) plural marriages among the Latter-day
Saints, it is recommended to amend the Constitution of the United States,
giving to the parental government the exclusive right to deal with
polygamy and prevent it. So far as I am concerned, I am just as ready,
this moment, as any other man in the world to consent to Congress taking
the measures necessary to bring about the amendment to the Constitution,
and pass laws to regulate plural marriage. We want them, while they are at
it, to regulate marriage and divorce as well. We will turn it all over to
them, and we are just as ready for it today as any people on God's earth,
no matter where you go. Now, in reference to this, I want to make this
distinction, for it is a distinction with a difference, and that is this;
I don't mean to interfere with men who had their wives before the
Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff, men who entered into this
covenant when it was the law of the Church, or [434] who took wives under
the authority of the presiding officers of the Church. We do not mean to
interfere with them. To them I would say; take care of your wives. If you
do not, you are not genuine men at all. Take care of your families; take
care of your children, educate them, feed them, clothe them, house them,
and do everything in your power to make of them men and women who will be
an honor to our nation, to our state and to our Church. I mean future
plural marriages must stop; that is what I have reference to, the marrying
of more than one wife in the future in plural marriage. That is what we
have undertaken to stop in conformity with the laws of the land; and we
are doing our best. Now let the United States authorize Congress to pass
an amendment to the Constitution regulating marriage and divorce,
throughout all the nation. I think it will be a great blessing to our
country. When we read of the vast number of divorces, and of the
heartaches, and the sorrows that are occasioned by them, and by vanity,
profligacy, lust, and corruption, throughout the world, we feel as if it
would be a Godsend to the people to have some strong hand take hold of the
matter and regulate it, so that there will not be so much of this evil as
exists today. (Conference Report, p. 8-9)

4 Oct 1918, Charles W. Penrose:
ETERNAL OR CELESTIAL MARRIAGE:

	One of the greatest manifestations of the mind and will of God to
this Church is in the doctrine revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith on
eternal or celestial marriage. This ought to be impressed on the minds of
our children, our boys and our girls. Not merely as a matter of duty
should they receive the ordinance of eternal matrimony, but as a great
delight, as a privilege. Thankful they should be in their hearts that they
can be worthy of receiving that great blessing--a man to have a wife
sealed to him by the holy order of God, by that which is without beginning
of days or end of years, and that this shall be recorded on earth and
recorded in heaven. It shall be [435] sealed on earth by the power of the
Most High in men appointed to perform it, and sealed in heaven to stand
forever, both beyond the veil and in and after the resurrection, saith the
Lord your God. What a privilege for men and women to be sealed together by
the holy order of God in holy matrimony, loving one another with all their
hearts, putting down every feeling of discord that may arise, subduing
every feeling of personality wherein they disagree, trying to harmonize in
the household and build upon a foundation that shall never be destroyed,
that the children after them shall come forth in purity to serve the Lord,
to spread his gospel in the world, and in the world to come shall be with
them in the holy patriarchal order of the family relation, and that they
shall increase, worlds without end, in their posterity, in knowledge, in
wisdom, in understanding, in dominion, in power, in glory, and in close
intercourse with the great Eternal Father and beings of his character.
That is what is involved in this splendid order of celestial marriage.
	When I speak of "celestial marriage" I mean just as we can read about
it in the 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is given as a
commandment; that is, this celestial marriage, which is eternal marriage,
marriage for time and all eternity. That is necessary for a man and a
woman to attain to the highest degree of celestial glory in the celestial
world. If they do not receive it in their hearts they are damned, or
condemned, because if they do not receive it then they cannot go further;
their relations will end at death. But if they are united by the holy
order of God, by that power which is from all eternity, ordained, as Jesus
said, by him and his Father before the world was, it shall abide in death
and it shall abide in and after the resurrection. The children, the
posterity of the persons thus joined, shall belong to them, to one
another, and with that order they will progress in all things and have an
endless posterity while eternal ages roll along. That is a privilege. We
need not class it as a duty, although it is, for it is a commandment of
God.

PLURAL MARRIAGES NO LONGER SOLEMNIZED
[436] There is another portion of that revelation which relates to further
orders in that holy order of marriage which is under special direction,
the power and keys of which are confined to one individual, who is the
President of the Church. Read it carefully. The keys of that power are
given only to one man at a time on the earth, and you will see sometime,
if you cannot now, the wisdom of that law. He holds the key of that power,
and when he turns it, as Brother Woodruff did, it closes the door. He
issued a manifesto which was adopted by the Church, that plural marriages
should no longer be solemnized, because the highest court, the court of
last resort in this land, passed upon the laws that had been enacted by
Congress, and pronounced them constitutional, then we submitted to the law
of the land, as we are told to do in the revelations of God, and to the
authority that belongs to the one man in the law of God. Now then, when
men go around and whisper in the ears of the people that this thing is all
right if you can keep it secret; keep it from him, don't say anything to
him about it; it is all right. Such deception has been exposed and
condemned several times, but it is cropping out again.
	President Lorenzo Snow, in the year 1900, the 8th day of January,
issued a statement through the Deseret News, announcing that plural
marriages were positively forbidden. They were stopped before then, of
course, and the congregation in conference assembled endorsed the decision
of President Wilford Woodruff, who held the keys, that this kind of
marriages should be permitted no longer. President Lorenzo Snow, on the
date named, published in the Deseret News a statement to the effect and
told the brethren everywhere that if they entered into that kind of
marriage it would be at their own risk under the law, for the law is
against it, the law of the land and the law of the Church; and when people
are inveigled into any relation of plural marriage by persons pretending
to have a right to do it, they are led astray, and I am afraid when they
are, they are very willing to be led astray, at least in some instances,
but there are only a few such cases to be heard of nowadays, and yet they
continue. There are persons who claim to hold the priesthood, [437] who go
around among the people and tell them it is all right and that it can be
done.
	President Joseph F. Smith, in 1904--he had spoken about this before,
but he then issued a public manifestation which also was published in the
Deseret News, proclaiming to all the Church that there was not one man in
the Church that had any right to administer that order of marriage, and
yet such things have been done since that time, and we hear now that it is
springing up again, and there are persons going around among the people
and trying to lead them astray in regard to this. * * *
	Now, perhaps it might be thought there was no particuLar need to
speak of this in this public conference, but I feel it a duty resting upon
me, because I have heard so many stories that are being told concerning
this that I thought it ought to be presented to this congregation, and I
hope I have not trodden on the feet of any of my brethren in doing it. I
know that this is their mind and will, and I know there are many members
of our Church who point to certain parties and say they know that those
parties have been married in plural marriage, that is, they have been
joined--for there is no marriage in it--in plural marriage, but they do
not tell that in a way that those parties can be properly handled. There
is order in this Church, as there is in all the works of God, and there
are proper tribunals to which these things should be presented. The
bishops, as common judges in Israel, can take up such cases, and when they
find the evidence, the proof is given them, can withdraw the hand of
fellowship from the offenders, and they can send up the cases of men
holding the priesthood, who have been shown to be transgressing in this
way, to the high council of the stake wherein they reside, and it is the
duty of the high councils in the respective stakes of Zion to act on these
cases when they are so presented.
	The Council of the Twelve, which is a traveling, presiding high
council, has had to take up some of these cases and has acted upon them,
but the Twelve are not in a position always to do this, and when the
people say: "Oh, the Church knows about it, the Church knows about it,"
they are mistaken; the Church does not know, and if [438] they know, it is
their duty to take the matter before the proper authorities and get the
matter handled, and stop this talk about the Church knowing it. Every case
of this kind, when people make such remarks, is a reflection upon the
President of the Church, who holds the keys, and it is intimated that he
has one thing for the public and another thing in private; that is a
wicked falsehood, and I denounce it as such. I know that President Smith
is the very soul of honor. I know that he stands in his right place and
holds the keys of this power, and if he thought it was proper to
countenance such things in any way, he would do it with the greatest
boldness in the world. I have not talked to him about this particular
point, this morning or at any time recently, but I know that this is his
mind, and I think that it is a good time to speak of it now.

STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO ENTER MARRIAGE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
	Brethren and sisters, when we enter into any order that God has
appointed, we have to do it properly, righteously, in the right spirit,
and the man who holds the keys only has the right to regulate the matter.
Do not believe these stories that men who are seeking to indulge their own
lust are circulating around among the people, but try to guard the purity
of our innocent girls, many of whom have never heard of such things, and
these things are whispered in their ears by some designing person who is a
rebel, a rebel against the Church of Christ and a rebel against the laws
of the land--the laws of Utah I refer to. The laws of Utah forbid these
things. The laws of Utah provide a very heavy penalty for any person who
solemnizes such a marriage, a very heavy penalty for the man who enters
into such a pretended marriage. It is not recognized as a marriage, but it
is called a marriage so that cases may be tried in court. So that a man
who goes around and does this, either by solemnizing such a thing or by
advocating it, is a rebel against the Church and a rebel against the
country, the state to which he belongs. That may sound rather harsh
language, but it does not fully express my feelings and the feelings of
others in re-[439]gard to such person. Now, I hope there are only a few
cases existing among the people that I have referred to, because it is a
serious thing to have people fancy that they are married, when there was
no real marriage, no marriage according to the Church, no marriage
according to the laws of the land; and yet they live together with all the
privileges of matrimony. It is wrong, displeasing to the Lord, displeasing
to those who are in authority in the Church, and offensive to a great many
people who are surrounded by such persons and have to meet them pretty
nearly every day. I would say to my brethren in the priesthood that while
we want to extend the hand of kindness to repentant souls, while we do not
want to throw a straw in the way of a repentant sinner, either in time or
eternity, it does not follow, when such persons really repent, that they
should be put up on high to be a mark for the people to respect in high
places. Just think that over in your minds. Repentance is right, and
encouragement of repentance is right, and forgiving of sinners is right.
God forgives sin when people properly repent, but that does not involve
the idea that they should be set up in high places to be a mark of respect
for people who feel that these persons have been in transgression. * * *

PRESIDENT JOSEPH F. SMITH.
	I feel it imperative upon myself to endorse and affirm without
reservation the statements that have been made by President Penrose in
relation to the subject upon which he last treated. I want to say to this
congregation, and to the world, that never at any time since my presidency
in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have I authorized any
man to perform plural marriage, and never since my presidency of the
Church has any plural marriage been performed with my sanction or
knowledge, or with the consent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints; and therefore such unions as have been formed unlawfully, contrary
to the order of the Church, are null and void in the sight of God, and are
not marriages. I hope you will put this down in your notebook of
remembrance, and bear it in mind henceforth.

[440]
PRESIDENT HEBER J. GRANT:
REGARDING FALSE TEACHING
	* * * I desire on behalf of the council that I have the honor to
preside over to say that we endorse the references, which were made here
this morning by President Penrose, and so forcibly reaffirmed by the
President of the Church, regarding this question of plural marriage and
the fact that some men are today teaching it in secret, pretending that
they are married or are entering into what they call plural marriage. Such
men are indeed rebels, and traitors to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, because they are branding it in the eyes of people who
are not of us as being a dishonest organization. Personally, and I also
speak for each member of the council of the Twelve Apostles, because I
know their sentiments and I know that they are behind me, I endorse with
all my heart these remarks. I want to say to the Latter-day Saints that in
my opinion when any rebel or traitor to the work of God comes into their
homes and tells them something false about the Church that there is a lack
of patriotism on the part of all such individuals for not giving the
traitor away. I would like you to get this into your minds. These people
go around and lie, to put it in good, plain English, and they tell people,
"Don't you say anything, don't you tell who told you that it was right."
You don't have to keep the confidence of those who are crooked, you don't
have to keep the confidence of somebody who is telling you that which is
false, and such people ought to be exposed, and exposed upon the house
tops; they go around posing as superior to honest, straight-forward,
upright people, branding the Church and the leaders of the Church with
infamy by pretending we preach one thing in public and do another thing in
private. I do not care to say any more on this subject. I seldom, if ever,
speak on it that it doesn't arouse almost every particle of anger in my
nature. Some of them say the Lord has directed them to take more wives.
Well, I think he directed them just like he directed the negro (not that I
am saying this to reflect upon negroes), but there was a negro who prayed:
"Oh Lawd, oh Lawd, oh Lawd; send this heah niggah a tur-[441]key." He
prayed for a whole week, and he didn't get any turkey, and at the end of a
week he said: "Dis heah niggah don' know how to pray." so that night the
negro prayed, "Oh Lawd, oh Lawd, oh Lawd, send dis heah niggah to a
turkey," and he said, "Dis heah niggah had turkey dinner the next night."
* * * (Conference report, pp. 16-24)

Apr 1921, Heber J. Grant:
	A revelation was given to the Church ninety years ago last February
from which I have read during this conference, and I will read from it
again. This revelation is to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, or the elders in it.

A VERY IMPORTANT REVELATION.
	"Oh, hearken, ye elders of my church, and give an ear to the words
which I shall speak unto you.
	"For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a
commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed
unto you, to receive commandments and revelations from my hands."
	I want to emphasize once more, "A law unto my church."
	"And this ye shall know assuredly that there is none other appointed
unto you," (Who? "my church,") "to receive commandments and revelations
until he be taken, if he abide in me.
	"But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be
appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from
him, he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead;
	"And this shall be a law unto you," (and who is this law unto? "Unto
my church,") "that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come
before you as revelations or commandments;
	"And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may
know they are not of me.
[442] "For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall
come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach
those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him
whom I have appointed."
	And I said that anybody who taught contrary to that was a plain
simple, every-day liar. That is what I said; that is what I mean. The idea
that any man claiming to believe the teachings of this revelation saying
that he has today the right to perform plural marriages, is utterly
absurd. We have cut such men off from the Church.

CONCERNING PLURAL MARRIAGES.
	Perhaps I owe an apology--in fact I will make one--for speaking with
anger in this building last Sunday night. As I came to the meeting Sunday
night, I was told that a person had said that neither Heber J. Grant nor
any other man had any right to say that an individual could not perform a
plural marriage; that God had revealed plural marriages, and therefore
that I had no right to say that they could not be performed, and that one
party had remarked that it would take an angel from heaven to convince
him, even if I did say it. In my remarks on Sunday evening I had no
thought of referring to anybody outside of this Church, or that I ever had
any right to undertake to say that I had anything to do with directing any
other people than the Latter-day Saints. But I branded as plain, simple
liars those who undertake to say that anybody, aside from the President of
the Church, had any right to give revelations to this people. I had just
heard that one more pretended plural marriage had been performed, and
after all the teachings from this stand, and all the declarations, and
after excommunicating, as we have done, within the last year, one man for
marrying--or pretending to marry--a plural wife, I confess I was angry and
"rebuked with sharpness."

NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM PLURAL MARRIAGES.
	But I want to say to the Latter-day Saints that no man [443] upon the
face of the earth has any right or any authority to perform a plural
marriage, and there are no plural marriages today in the Church of Christ,
because no human being has the right to perform them. Therefore, any
person pretending to have that right is attempting to exercise an
authority that he does not have, and therefore he does not perform a
marriage and there is no marriage covenant when such ceremonies are
performed.

SEVERAL PERSONS EXCOMMUNICATED FOR PERFORMING PRETENDED MARRIAGE
CEREMONIES.
	We have excommunicated several patriarchs because they arrogated unto
themselves, the right, or the pretended right, to perform these
ceremonies, and after our having excommunicated several patriarchs,
another one, so I am informed, has committed the same offense. I announce
to all Israel that no living man has the right to perform plural
marriages. I announce that no patriarch has the right to perform any
marriages at all in the Church. We have delegated, at the present time, to
the presidents of stakes and to the bishops of wards, the right to perform
lawful marriages, and there has been delegated to some elders who held
positions as county clerks, the right to exercise the authority of the
Priesthood to perform legal marriages for time. And it was in view of the
lie that was going out, and a desire to protect virtuous, noble, good
girls who were being deceived and entrapped into doing what, under the law
of God today, and under the law of the land, is adultery, that I was
branding the liar. * * *
	One of the fundamental articles of faith promulgated by the Prophet
Joseph Smith was:
	"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own conscience; and allow all men the same privilege--let
them worship how, where, or what they may."
	But we claim absolutely no right, no prerogative whatever, to
interfere with any other people. We desire the good will of all mankind,
and we desire the advance-[444]ment of all mankind, and we pray God to
bless every man that is striving for the betterment of humanity in any of
the walks of life; and we say of every man who believes that Jesus is the
Christ and who proclaims it: O God, bless that man. But we cannot pray for
those who pretend to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and deny
the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, and who proclaim that he was only a
man. Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, the Savior of mankind, who came
to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die for the redemption
of mankind. Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Only Begotten in
the flesh. He is our Redeemer, and we worship him, and we praise God for
every individual upon the face of the earth who worships our Lord and
Master as the Redeemer of the world.
	I rejoice in the blessings of the Lord that have come to us during
this conference. God bless the Latter-day Saints. God bless every
honest-hearted soul all over the world, all who are striving to do good,
striving to benefit.
	I rejoice in the blessings of the Lord that have come to us during
this conference. God bless the Latter-day Saints. God bless every
honest-hearted soul all over the world, all who are striving to do good,
striving to benefit mankind. I thank the Lord for the rich outpouring of
his holy Spirit during our conference. May we all go home and take the
Conference spirit of love and of fellowship and good will to all the
congregations of the Saints, and thus inspire them to serve God and to
keep his commandments is my prayer, and I ask it in the name of Jesus
Christ. Amen.
	I want to read one more thing:
	"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and
magistrates; in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."
	The law provides that any person performing a marriage shall record
the marriage, and I haven't heard of this last marriage I referred to
being recorded; and there should be a license issued also; I haven't heard
of any license. (April Conference Report, 1921)

[445]
Monday 4 Jun 1923:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

TEMPLE GARMENTS GREATLY MODIFIED * * * Church Presidency Gives Permission
Style Change Optional With Wearer.
	Coming not as an order, nor as a rule to be rigidly enforced, but
rather permissive in character, is a recent outgiving of the first
presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It concerns
the garments worn by members of the church who have been married in the
temple, or who have participated in other ceremonies performed or rites
observed therein.
	While minor modifications of the temple garment, it is said, have
been made at various times during past years, the latest order in
permission is regarded by younger members of the church as most liberal
and acceptable. Among the older membership the optional change is
variously received. Some of the pioneer stock look upon any deviation from
the old order as a departure from what they had always regarded as an
inviolable rule. Others of long standing in the church accept the change
as a progressive move intended to add to personal comfort.

OLD STYLE UNCOMFORTABLE.
	In the old days the temple garment was made of plain, unbleached
cotton cloth. Unbleached linen was as far afield in "finery" as the
devotee was permitted to go. No buttons were used on the garment. Tape
tie-strings took their place. The garment itself was uncomfortably large
and baggy. But despite these imperfections, the old style garment is
faithfully adhered to by many of the older and sincerely devout members of
the church. These regard the garment as a safeguard against disease and
bodily harm, and they believe that to alter either the texture of cloth or
style, or to abandon the garment altogether would bring evil upon them.
	One good woman of long membership in the church, hearing of the
change that has recently come about, went to the church offices and
uttered fervid objection. "I [446] shall not alter my garments, even if
President Grant has ordered me to do so. My garments now are made as they
were when I was married in the endowment house long before the temple was
built. The pattern was revealed to the Prophet Joseph and Brother Grant
has no right to change it," she said.
	Explanation was made that the first presidency had merely issued
permission to those who so desired to make the modifying change; that any
member of the church who preferred to adhere to the original style was at
perfect liberty to do so.
	President Charles W. Penrose says that modification of the garment is
elective with each individual member of the church who has gone through
the temple. The change in style is permitted for various good reasons,
chief among which are promotion of freedom of movement in the body and
cleanliness. Formerly the sleeves were long, reaching to the wrists. While
doing housework the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be
rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place for
convenience, it was argued. Permission to abbreviate is now given, but it
is not an order and is not compulsory, it is explained.

IS GENERALLY WELCOMED.
	Encasing the lower limbs the old style garment reaches to the ankles
and is looked upon by young members as baggy, uncomfortable and ungainly.
The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with
the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was
embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt.
Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the
lower garment. Also buttons are permitted to take the place of the
tie-strings.
	Young men of the church, especially those who take exercise or play
games at gymnasiums, favor the shorter garment. The permission granted is
hailed by them as a most acceptable and progressive one. Altogether, and
accept in a few instances, the permissive modification is welcomed as a
sanitary move and a change looking to [447] the comfort and health of
those who wear temple garments.
	Instead of the old style, coarse, unbleached, irritating material of
which temple garments were once made, the finer knitted goods, and even
silks, are now used. These materials and modified styles are officially
approved, but such alterations are optional with each individual, and by
no means compulsory, the church officials desire it understood.

4 Apr 1931, Heber J. Grant:
	I desire to bring to the attention of the members of the Church some
very regrettable and most annoying circumstances. I have taken occasion in
times past to denounce the conduct of persons both within and without the
Church who have palpably sought to bring disgrace upon the Church and
reproach to its leaders in the circulation of propaganda for and the
unlawful practice of pretended "plural marriage." Notwithstanding the
positive, unequivocal declarations which I have made from time to time on
this subject, and in spite of the vigorous and unvarying prosecution
within the courts of the Church, from the tribunals of the bishops to the
Council of the Twelve Apostles, of cases arising out of violations of the
law of the Church forbidding absolutely the practice of plural
marriage--notwithstanding all these efforts on the part of the authorities
of the Church to suppress the unlawful practices and propaganda of these
people, we find that there are still a number, relatively small we hope,
who persist in teaching the doctrine and maligning the leaders of the
Church.
	Wherever the Authorities of the Church have been able to locate such
persons and secure sufficient definite evidence to warrant their
conviction, they have, without fear or favor, been dealt with and
excommunicated from the Church. This procedure is the limit of Church
jurisdiction. We have been however, and we are entirely willing and
anxious too that such offenders against the law of the State should be
dealt with and punished as the law provides. We have been and we are
willing to give such [448] legal assistance as we legitimately can in the
criminal prosecution of such cases. We are willing to go to such limits
not only because we regard it as our duty as citizens of the country to
assist in the enforcement of the law and the suppression of pretended
"plural marriages," but also because we wish to do everything humanly
possible to make our attitude toward this matter so clear, definite, and
unequivocal as to leave no possible doubt of it in the mind of any person.
	There are always to be found in any large group of people some who
are uninformed, credulous, and easily susceptible to the persuasions of
more forceful personalities. Such persons are often well-meaning and at
heart very devoted to the Church. It is a matter of sorrow and deep regret
to us that some such members of the Church have been inveigled by
designing men and fanatics into the support and practice of unlawful
relations. It is largely for the protection of such class of people within
the Church and similarly minded converts to the Church that we feel the
necessity of stressing this unpleasant subject so much.
	The machinations of the proponents of unlawful marriages are, of
course, carried on largely in secret. The Church has no adequate way of
thwarting their endeavors before much harm is often done, although the
officers of the Church, from the highest to the least, are definitely
instructed to be constantly on the watch for such teaching and
propagandists. We have hesitated somewhat to make public statements or
denials to charges and false assertions published in literature sent out
by these enemies of the Church and its administration, because we have
felt that added publicity to their pernicious statements would be
gratifying to them and probably useless in stemming their activity. There
is scarcely a man among the leading authorities who has not been defamed
by them, both in print and speech.
	They have circulated their literature as widely as possible with
their available means, even sending defamatory pamphlets to the
missionaries of the Church in their fields of labor, extending to Europe.
We suppose that in some instances this material may fall into the [449]
hands of investigators, weak members of the Church, and others who
already, by reason of misrepresentation, are prejudiced against us. There
are some, undoubtedly, among these who give credence to that which they
read, although, of course, we should be able to expect and we do expect
that no missionary of the Church would credit such false assertions.
	These publications are not only slanderous of the leaders of the
Church but they are calculated to cast a blemish on the fair name of our
State. Their authors are apparently without conscience as to the truth of
their statements, seeking only to influence those who are uninformed and
gullible. They have charged me and many of my brethren here with the
commission of crime and have manufactured circumstances as fictitious as
the imagination may conceive. We have felt that it was beneath us to make
reply to such false and malignant accusations. We have believed that
neither the people of the Church nor those outside the Church with whom we
live as neighbors and fellow citizens would expect us to answer. If there
are any of our brothers or sisters or friends who feel that there are any
circumstances which warrant an answer or defense on our part, we assure
any such we shall be glad to satisfy them on their request. And when we
say our friends, we mean our friends, not those who write anonymous
letters, or individuals who make false statements about us.
	Perhaps we are presumptuous, but we feel that our standing in the
community as men of integrity and honor is a sufficient rebuttal to these
infamous charges made against us.
	In most instances the misrepresentations and false accusations have
been made by way of recital and innuendo, with an apparent effort to
shield the authors and publishers from legal responsibility. In one recent
instance, however, they have been bold enough to print a libelous attack
on President John A. Widtsoe, supposedly because they knew of his expected
presence here for conference. The circumstances recited are wholly
fictitious and false, and are presented, undoubtedly, with the purpose of
creating prejudice against him and injuring his [450] work in Europe. We
think that the high esteem in which Doctor Widtsoe is held, not only in
the Church but in his State and as a national figure, makes unnecessary
any reply to such calumny. However, if he desires he may have the
facilities we can afford to protect himself and to prosecute the defamers
of his good name.
	Now, in conclusion, let me state again, as I have done many times
before--and my statement is meant for every member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, for our neighbors and friends who dwell in
the communities where we live, and for the whole world--that the Church
does not countenance, aid, abet, tolerate or sanction in any way, shape or
form the contracting of so-called "plural marriages," but that on the
contrary it absolutely forbids the members of the Church from entering
into any such unlawful relations or teaching or encouraging such
practices, and that it will continue in the future as it has done in the
past to deal with and punish to the extent of its authority any persons
who violate these injunctions. I do not know how to make it plainer or
more forceful. If I did I would do so.
	As I read this I recall that the statement is made that the leaders
of the Church can practice these things. So when this is published I will
say that this applies to all the General Authorities of the Church and the
members, for fear these falsifiers will start another falsehood.
	I want the officers of our Church, our missionaries, all who in any
manner represent us, to know beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is the
straightforward, honest, unequivocal position of the Church, and I want
them all to know that any person or persons who question this assertion
cast reflection upon the honor and integrity of men who stand at the head
of the Church as its General Authorities, for this statement sets forth
not only my own views and purposes, but it is sustained in every detail,
in letter and in spirit, by each and every member of the First Presidency,
the Council of the Twelve Apostles, the Presiding Patriarch, the First
Council of Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric, to whom it has been
submitted and by whom it has been unanimously approved.
[451] And I wish to say that I want it understood that so far as God gives
me power to give His word to the people, it is the word of the Lord.
	Now, I cannot do more. Of course the circumstances to which I have
called attention are very provoking and annoying to us. It is easy to
become angry when we contemplate the harm and incalculable injury that
some of these perverted, vicious men have perpetrated on the Church, but I
do not speak in anger. I have in mind only the welfare and the progress of
the great cause which we represent and love, and the people who are within
the Church and those to whom we are carrying the Gospel. It hurts me to
see the advancement of the work retarded by such regrettable activities
within the Church itself. We may always expect to be assailed from
without, but it seems to me we can reasonably hope that within the Church
our solemn statements of fact and principle will be recieved at face
value.
	It may be that among those who so malign the Church and its leaders
are some who are conscientious in their endeavors. I am sorry that they
are so simple and misguided as to permit themselves to be allied with
those who, by reason of their propaganda and activity, are among the most
malicious enemies of the Church. I pray that their eyes may be opened and
their course set right. I pray also that all the people of the Church in
all parts of the world may unite in a determined effort to abolish from
the inside of the Church at least these insidious efforts and unlawful
practices which are calculated to bring so much reproach upon us. * * *
	It is against the law of the land to enter into polygamy. In section
58 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we find the following:
	"For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land.
	"Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth,
according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that
counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.
	"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that [452] keepeth the
laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
	"Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose
right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."
	I would like all those in this congregation who feel to sustain this
statement that I have read to you to manifest it as the Apostles and all
of the General Authorities have done, by raising their right hands.
	(The congregation responded by raising their hands).
	I have never seen such a lot of hands held so high in my life.
	All those who are opposed to this statement will please raise their
hands.
	(No hands were raised).
	Our enemies do not seem to be here.
	In my remarks today I desire to read from the holy scriptures some of
the words of the Savior, and also from the revelations that have come to
us in our day.
	"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
	"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
	"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.
	"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast
into the fire.
	"Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them."
	What kind of fruits do the people to whom I have referred bring
forth? I know of no more outragious falsifying in my life than has been
indulged in by these people. One man by the name of Lorin C. Woolley said
that Anthony W. Ivins and Heber J. Grant went to Los Angeles, that he
followed them, that they went into a hotel and that Anthony W. Ivins
married a plural wife to Heber J. Grant.
	Anthony W. Ivins and Heber J. Grant were never in a hotel together in
Los Angles. Heber J. Grant has never [453] suggested to any human being
during his entire administration as President of the Church that anybody
should ever enter into plural marriage. On the contrary, every man or
woman who has ever opened his or her mouth to him on this subject he has
taught to the contrary.
	"And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand;
	"And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it."
	Those who have heard my counsel for at least twelve years, to say
nothing of that of my predecessors and others, to obey the laws of the
land and do not do it, are building their houses upon sand, and they are
absolutely certain to fall.
	"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting
him and saying,
	"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
	"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
	"This is the first and great commandment.
	"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.
	"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
	I call to mind that we tried a man by the name of Barlow for entering
into pretended plural marriage years ago. This man brought to us a letter
purporting to come from Owen Woodruff, who was dead, telling him to send
the person to Mexico, stating that Owen Woodruff married this girl to him.
And there was not a word of truth in it. I went to his stenographer and
confronted her, and she acknowledged that she wrote the postscript on the
letter herself. After Owen Woodruff had been dead for years a man whose
name I will not mention because he [454] repented of his sins,
acknowledged that he performed that marriage.
	What do you think of such falsifiers talking about the leaders of the
Church apostatizing and that they are the reformers? (Conference Report, 4
April 1931, p. 5-14)

Apr 1932, Heber J. Grant:
	"In spite of all denials evidence shows that plural marriage is
taught by the Authorities." In spite of all falsehoods by liars--I thought
I wouldn't use that word, but really a liar is a liar, and perhaps once in
a while it is wise to say so--in spite of every document printed, in spite
of every statement to the contrary by any person on the face of the earth,
the Authorities of this Church under the administration of Heber J. Grant
as President, have never taught, have never encouraged, have never
sustained any human being in entering pretended plural marriage. All these
statements are pure and simple falsehoods. You all know that we have cut a
great many people off the Church for entering into pretended plural
marriage. I have had a letter from one who was excommunicated in which he
wanted to know when the time would come when we would stop treating the
best blood of the Church that way, namely, by cutting them off the Church.
I answered: When people quit going into adultery, so to speak, and calling
it celestial marriage, maybe it will stop, so far as they are concerned.
	I pledge myself here if any person will bring to us the evidence that
any man or any woman belonging to this Church has entered into pretended
plural marriage, that we will cut them off the Church. (Conference Report,
p. 120-121)

10 Apr 1932, Steven L. Richards:
	A plea for greater liberality and more tolerance in religion was the
keynote message at the second day's sessions of the 102nd annual
conference of the L.D.S. church Saturday in the tabernacle.
[455] The message was delivered by Steven L. Richards, member of the
council of twelve apostles, who was the first speaker at the afternoon
session. Mr. Richards described dogma and bigotry as "the deadliest
enemies of religion in the past," and appealed to members of the church to
inject more sympathy and tolerance into their religion. * * *
	Mr. Richards prefaced his address with the explanation that his
desire was to promote better understanding within the church.
	"In so doing," he said, "my fear is that I will be misunderstood
myself."
	"I hold it entirely compatible," he said, "with the genius of the
church to change its forms of procedure, customs and ordinances in
accordance with our own knowledge and experience. I would not discard an
old practice merely because it is old, but only after it has outworn its
usefulness."
	He then discussed certain religious teachings and such practices as
smoking, drinking tea and coffee, and card playing, defining in his
instance just what he believes should be the attitude of the church toward
those beliefs and practices.
	He declared that the gospel should be interpreted in terms of life,
and that election, not compulsion, should be its basis.
	Mr. Richards declared it as his belief that no man's standing in the
L.D.S. church should be affected by his belief in the beginning of man's
life or the beginning of the universe. He held that it is the privilege of
members to differ on this and other subjects and still be good Latter-day
Saints. He added, however, that no one with a real affection for the
church will urge views on these points which will tend to undermine the
faith of the young in their religion.
	He touched briefly on religious or antireligious teachings in the
public schools, taking the stand that taxpayers who support the schools
have just reason for complaint when their children are taught things which
destroy their faith.
	"It is not the function of the public schools," he added, [456] "to
teach religion, but neither is it their function to tear religion down."
	He pointed out that some changes in the ordinances, forms and methods
of the church had been made in recent years and that these changes had
disturbed some of the members. Personally, he said, I approve of those
changes and hope the general authorities will be led to make others as
changing conditions warrant. (Salt Lake Tribune, 10 Apr 1932, p. 1-12)

17 Jun 1933, Official Statement:
	The First Presidency have recently received letters making inquiry
concerning the position of the Church regarding the contracting of
polygamous or plural marriages. It is evident from these letters, as well
as from certain published material--some of it distributed during our last
General Conference--that a secret and, according to reputation, an
oath-bound organization of misguided individuals is seeking to lead the
people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and
false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.
	While the position of the Church since 1893 has been repeatedly set
forth, namely, that polygamous or plural marriages are not and cannot now
be performed, yet in order that there may be no excuse for any Church
member to be misled by the false representations or the corrupt,
adulterous practices of the members of this secret, and (by reputation)
oath-bound organization (of which the history of the Nephites and
Lamanites show so many counterparts), it is deemed wise again to set out
the position of the Church on this matter, at the same time tracing the
outlines of the historical facts lying behind the Church's position, of
which many young Church members may not be fully aware.

THE CHURCH AND MARRIAGE:
	Marriage may be defined as the act, ceremony, or process by which a
man and woman are legally recognized as husband and wife.
	While it constitutes a contract in which the consent of [457] the
parties involved is necessary, the law, both canonical, and civil,
provides that certain specific requirements be complied with before it can
be recognized as legal and binding upon the persons who enter into the
marriage relation.
	Marriage presupposes parenthood, and parenthood involves the
responsibility of husband to wife, wife to husband, parents to children,
and children to parents.
	Marriage is fraught with greater possibilities for good or evil,
happiness or despair, prosperity or penury, exaltation or condemnation,
than any other relationship upon which a man or woman may embark.
	When questioned by the Pharisees regarding the proper relationship of
husband and wife, Jesus answered: "From the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh.
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder."

DUTY OF PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN:
	The duty of parents to children who are born to them in wedlock is
definitely defined. Parents are under obligation most solemn to instruct,
train, and provide for their children. If they are indifferent or
negligent and the children become evil or wicked, the parents are held
responsible.
	Children are to honor their parents, obey them in righteousness, and
comply with their just demands.
	From the beginning civil laws have existed which have made it
obligatory upon those who enter into the bonds of matrimony, to observe
these sacred obligations of husband to wife, wife to husband, parents to
children, and children to parents. The violation of these sacred
obligations are made punishable offenses and compliance with them is
obligatory.
	At an early period in the history of the Church, nine months after
its organization, speaking upon the subject of marriage, the Lord said:
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her,
and none [458] else. And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her
shall deny the faith, and shall not have the spirit; and if he repents not
he shall be cast out."
	The following appears in a revelation which was given a month after
the one just quoted:
	"And again I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not
ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God, unto man. Wherefore it
is lawful that he should have one wife and they twain shall be one flesh,
and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that
it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation
before the world was made."
	The quotations cited above are from Sections 42 and 49, Doctrine and
Covenants, the former given February 9th, 1831, and the latter a month
later.
	Referring to the family relationship involved in matrimony, the Lord
says:
	"And again, verily I say unto you, that every man who is obliged to
provide for his own family, let him provide, and he shalt in no wise lose
his crown. (Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 75:28.)
	At this period in the history of the Church the doctrine of the
eternity of the marriage covenant and plural marriage had not been
revealed. It is obvious that the Church, at that time recognized the
monogamic system of marriage which prevailed among Christian people of the
world.
	Twelve years after the foregoing revelations--that is, on July 12th,
1843--the revelation of the eternity of the marriage covenant, including
plurality of wives, was announced, one year before the martyrdom of the
Prophet and of the Patriarch of the Church.
	It was a new and unthought of doctrine that the marriage relation
might be effective after death, and that to make it so, this relation must
be sealed upon the contracting parties for time and eternity, by one
having authority from God, to act and speak in his name.
[459] This authority was conferred upon Peter by our Lord when he said to
him: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." (Matt.
16:19.)
	The keys of this authority were sealed upon Joseph Smith: "I have
appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and
there is never but one on the earth at a time upon whom this power, and
the keys of this priesthood are conferred."
	Any ceremony pretending to bind man and woman together beyond the
period of mortal life, which is not solemnized by one who has been
commissioned and authorized by the man who holds the keys of authority to
bind upon earth with a covenant which will be binding in heaven, is of no
efficacy or force when people are out of the world.
	There is but one person on the earth at a time upon whom the keys of
this sealing ordinance are conferred. That man is the presiding High
Priest, the President of the Church. He is the bearer of this authority,
which he may exercise personally or he may commission others to exercise
it under his jurisdiction, for such time, long or short, up to the end of
his life, as he may desire.
	It was after the revelation of July, 1843, which provided that under
certain conditions, which are clearly defined, a man may receive more than
one woman to be his wife, that plural marriage became a recognized
doctrine of the Church. Under this system family ties were established and
relationships entered into which were held sacred and binding, not alone
by those who accepted and entered into the order of plural marriage, but
by all who had become members of the Church.
	While the practice of plural marriage was severely criticized by the
ministers of various religious denominations and others, it was not until
1874 that the Congress of the United States took definite steps looking to
the suppression of the practice. A member of the Church who had entered
into the order of plural marriage was arrested, tried before a jury, found
guilty, and sentenced [460] to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and be
incarcerated for two years at hard labor. An appeal was taken to the
Supreme court of the territory, which confirmed the decree of the lower
court. The case was then carried to the Supreme Court of the United
States, which ruled that the law prohibiting the practice of plural
marriage was constitutional and enforceable.
	From August, 1877, the date of the death of President Brigham Young,
until October, 1880, the Council of the Twelve, with John Taylor at their
head, directed the affairs of the Church.
	At the October Conference, 1880, the First Presidency was
reorganized, John Taylor was sustained as President, with George Q. Cannon
and Joseph F. Smith as his first and second counselors.
	During the entire period of the presidency of John Taylor, 1880 to
1887, relentless prosecution of men who had entered into the relationship
of plural marriage was intensified.
	Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints was disincorporated, the Perpetual Emigration
Fund company was dissolved, and all property belonging to the Church with
the exception of buildings used exclusively for religious worship, was
escheated to the government.
	Hundreds of men who had contracted plural marriages were heavily
fined, and imprisoned. All persons who could not subscribe to a test oath
which was provided especially for those who practiced or believed in the
practice of plural marriage, were disfranchised.
	It became obvious that no human power could prevent the
disintegration of the Church, except upon a pledge by its members to obey
the laws which had been enacted prohibiting the practice of polygamy.
	It was under these circumstances that Wilford Woodruff was sustained
as President of the Church, in April 1889.
	September 24th, 1890, President Woodruff promulgated his official
declaration to the Church and people of the United States, commonly
referred to as The Mani-[461]festo.
	On the day that The Manifesto was issued President Woodruff wrote in
his journal: "I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where I am
under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the Church,
and after praying to the Lord, and feeling inspired, I have issued the
following proclamation, which is sustained by my counselors and the Twelve
Apostles."
	After reviewing the enactment of the law prohibiting the practice of
plural marriage, and the effect of its enforcement, President Woodruff, in
his declaration, says:
	"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural
marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of
last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws and to
use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to
have them do likewise. . . And I now publicly declare that my advice to
the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage
forbidden by the law of the land."
	The Manifesto was signed by President Woodruff as President of the
Church.
	After the vote approving the Manifesto had been recorded (October 6,
1890) President Woodruff, addressing the Conference congregation, said:
	"I want to say to all Israel that the step which I have taken in
issuing this Manifesto has not been done without earnest prayer before the
Lord. I am not ignorant of the feelings that have been engendered through
the course I have pursued, but I have done my duty."
	The declaration by President Woodruff and its approval by the members
of the Church in General Conference assembled, was accepted by the
government as evidence that the practice of plural marriage would be [462]
discontinued. Prosecutions under the Edmunds-Tucker bill ceased and a
spirit of neighborly good will was established between members and
non-members of the Church.
	In December, 1891, one year after the announcement of the Official
Declaration of President Woodruff, a petition signed by the Presidency of
the Church and Council of the Twelve was prepared and forwarded to the
President of the United States, asking that amnesty be granted to all
violators of the Federal law which prohibited the practice of plural
marriage.
	This petition was also signed by Governor Arthur L. Thomas, Judge
Charles S. Zane, and many other nonmembers of the Church. The petition was
approved and the prayer of the signers granted by President Benjamin
Harrison, on January 4th, 1893. The prayer of the petitioners was granted
with the definite understanding that the practice of plural marriage was
to be discontinued.
	September 6th, 1893, the Enabling Act, granting to the people of Utah
permission to meet in convention and frame a constitution under which
Statehood might be granted, was presented by Joseph L. Rawlins,
Representative in Congress, was passed by the Congress, and approved by
the President.
	The Enabling Act provided (Section 3--First): "That perfect
toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant
of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of
his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, that polygamous or plural
marriages are forever prohibited."
	The convention met March 4th, 1895, an acceptable constitution was
framed, and by proclamation of President Grover Cleveland, Utah was
admitted to the Union as a sovereign State.
	Article III. of the State Constitution provides as follows:
	"The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of
the United States, and the people of this State.

[463]
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION--POLYGAMY FORBIDDEN:
	"FIRST: Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No
inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on
account of his or her mode of religious worship, but polygamous or plural
marriages are forever prohibited."
	March 28th, 1896, President Grover Cleveland, in response to a
memorial which had been presented to and approved by Congress, restored to
the Church the property which had been escheated to the Government in
1887. This petition was signed by Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon and
Joseph F. Smith, who then constituted the Presidency of the Church, and by
the Council of the Twelve. It was also endorsed by Arthur L. Thomas,
Governor, and Charles S. Zane, Chief Justice of the Territory.
	From the foregoing it will be seen by any person of normal
intelligence that it was the practice of polygamous or plural marriage
which led up to the enactment of the Edmunds-Tucker law and later the
enforcement of the law by representatives of the government.
	It is also obvious that every available means in defense of the
contention that polygamous or plural marriage was a religious rite, and
therefore could not be attacked under the Constitution of the United
States, had been exhausted; that thereafter the Church pledged itself, by
its Presidency, by its members in General Conference assembled, and by its
support of the State Constitution, to discontinue the practice of
polygamous or plural marriage. Thus our people sacredly covenanted with
the Government of the United States that they would obey the civil law.
That the Lord requires from his people no more than that they shall
exhaust all human means to obey the law is shown in the following
quotations, which are from revelations given to the Church, the first on
April 30th, 1832, and the latter June 9th, 1841, nine years later.

Revelation given April 30th, 1832 (sic)
[464] A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jr., and
six Elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.
Yea, the word of the Lord concerning His Church, established in the last
days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of
his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount
Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
	"Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is
appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the
State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jr., and
others with whom the Lord is well pleased.
	"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem
shall be built by the gathering of the Saints, beginning at this place,
even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this
generation.
	"For surely this generation shall not all pass away until an house
shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it which cloud
shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."
	In this revelation the Lord definitely declares that a city and
temple are to be built at Independence, Missouri, and that this was to be
accomplished during the existing generation. Because of wicked
persecutions the Church was obliged to leave the State of Missouri, which
had been designated as the gathering place of the saints. Under orders
signed by Lilburn W. Boggs, Governor of Missouri, twelve thousand members
of the Church were compelled to abandon their homes and flee to the State
of Illinois, where they established the city of Nauvoo.
	As stated above, January 9th, (sic) 1841, a revelation was given to
the Church at Nauvoo, from which the following is copied:
	"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to
any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and these sons of men go
with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and
[465] cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and
hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require
that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of
their offerings.
	"And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments
I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third
and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the
Lord God.
	"Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those
whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson
County, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your
God. * * *
	"And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning
all those who have been commanded to do a work, and have been hindered by
the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God."
(Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 124:49-53.)
	At the October Conference of the Church (1890) following the
publication of the Manifesto issued by President Woodruff, the document
was read before the assembled congregation, after which Lorenzo Snow, at
the time President of the Council of the Twelve, arose and made the
following motion:
	"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the president of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on earth at
the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider
him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to issue the Manifesto
which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th,
1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his
declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."
[466] This motion was unanimously sustained.
	Notwithstanding this covenant, a few misguided members of the Church,
some of whom had been signers of the petition praying for amnesty, and
beneficiaries of its provisions, secretly associated themselves together
for the avowed purpose of perpetuating the practices of polygamous or
plural marriage in defiance of the pledge made to the government, of the
terms of the Enabling Act, and of the provisions of the State Constitution
to which they had sworn allegiance.
	Sworn to secrecy, these people promulgated their lawless propaganda,
the result being that reports reached the Presidency indicating that
certain professed members of the Church were teaching and in some
instances entering into polygamous or plural marriage.
	At the General Conference of the Church, April, 1904, President
Joseph F. Smith, who had succeeded President Lorenzo Snow as President of
the Church, made the following statement to the assembled congregation:
	"Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural
marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of
President Wilford Woodruff of September 24th, 1890, commonly called the
Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the
Church at its General Conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any
marriage violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby affirm and
declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction,
consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;
	"And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if
any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter
into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the
Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and
regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom."
	The following resolution was presented to the congregation and
unanimously adopted:
[467] "Resolved, that we, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, hereby approve and
endorse the statement and declaration of President Joseph F. Smith, just
made to this conference, concerning plural marriages, and will support the
courts of the Church in the enforcement thereof."

	October 5th, 1910, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and John Henry
Smith, the First Presidency of the Church at the time, addressed a letter
to the President of each of the Stakes of the Church, which contained the
full text of the statement made by President Joseph F. Smith, at the
General Conference, April, 1904.
	In this letter the Presidents of Stakes were definitely instructed to
notify the members of the Church in the Stakes over which they presided,
to report any case in which a person had entered into a pretended marriage
violative of the civil law, or taught others to do so, and to take action
against such persons and excommunicate them from the Church.
	Notwithstanding all that had been said and done upon this question it
became necessary again to call attention of the Presidents of Stakes to it
in 1914, as follows:
	"January 31st, 1914, To Presidents of Stakes and Counselors,
Dear Brethren:
	Having reason to believe that some members of the Church are secretly
engaged advising and encouraging others to enter into unauthorized and
unlawful marriages, we have deemed it advisable to call your attention to
the communication we addressed to you on this subject on the 5th of
October, 1910, a copy of which is herewith appended.
	And believing, as we do, that these people are at the bottom of all
the violations referred to in our communication, we direct your special
attention to them, with a request that any information received by you
from time to time relating to cases of this character, be followed up and
investigated with a view to having this class of [468] offenders placed on
trial for their fellowship in the Church, as we regard them equally
culpable with actual offenders. Please make the same request of your
bishops.
	Your brethren,
			JOSEPH F. SMITH,
			ANTHON H. LUND,
			CHARLES W. PENROSE,
				First Presidency.

	From the attitude of the Church, the statements of its authorized
Priesthood, and the revealed will of the Lord, as shown in the revelations
quoted, it is made plain that the discontinuance of polygamous or plural
marriage was obligatory and justifiable.
	In the revelation given April 30th, 1832, Jackson County, Missouri,
was designated as the gathering place of the members of the Church, the
spot where a city was to be established, and a temple built. This work was
to accomplished by the people of the present generation.
	Because of an order issued by its Governor, in which the removal of
the people from the State or their extermination was ordered, the Church
was obliged to leave the State of Missouri.
	In the revelation given June 19th, 1841, eight years later, the Lord
absolved the Church from responsibility, and told them that he required
that work no more at their hands, and makes this an example in all things
where the people are commanded to do a work, and are prevented by their
enemies.
	This principle applies to plural marriage as it does to all other of
his commandments.
	The members of the Church are reminded that the practice of
polygamous or plural marriage is not the only law whose suspension has
been authorized by the Lord and adopted by the people. The law of animal
sacrifice, in force in ancient Israel, has been suspended, but the Prophet
Joseph asserted it would be again restored, and such is the effect of the
statement made by John the Baptist when restoring the Aaronic Priesthood.
The law of the United Order has likewise been suspended, to be
re-[469]established in the due time of the Lord. Other laws might be
mentioned.
	The members of the secret and (by reputation) oathbound organization
referred to in the first paragraph of this statement, make many false
allegations, two of which--as being those without which all the others
they make must necessarily fall--may be noted here by way of cautioning
the membership of the Church against the teachings and practices of this
organization.
	It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor
received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given
in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same
organization.
	As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives
of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record
of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such
revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from
the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the
Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever
justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified
in affirming that no such revelation exists.
	Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned
and insofar as the members of the Church are concerned, since this
pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by
the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an
inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended
revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in
its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation
given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could
have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and
action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.
	The second allegation made by the organization and its members (as
reported) is to the effect that President John Taylor ordained and set
apart several men to perform marriage ceremonies (inferentially polygamous
or [470] plural marriage ceremonies), and gave to those so allegedly
authorized the further power to set others apart to do the same.
	There is nothing in the records of the Church to show that any such
ordination or setting apart was ever performed. There is no recollection
or report among the officers of the Church to whom such an incident would
of necessity be known, that any such action was ever taken.
	Furthermore, any such action would have been illegal and void because
the Lord has laid down without qualification the principle that "there is
never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of
this priesthood are conferred." The Lord has never changed this rule.
	Moreover, four years after the date when it is alleged this pretended
revelation was given to President John Taylor, and four years after the
date of the alleged ordaining and setting apart of these men by President
Taylor to perform marriage ceremonies (presumably polygamous or plural,)
the Church in General Conference formally approved the solemn declaration
offered to the Conference by Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council
of the Twelve, that President Wilford Woodruff was it the only man on the
earth at the present time (1890) who holds the keys of the sealing
ordinances." This statement would have been an unmitigated falsehood if
the allegation of the organization were true, President Lorenzo Snow did
not falsify.
	Finally, without direct revelation from the Lord changing the
principle that there is never but one man on the earth at one time who
holds the keys of the sealing power--and we solemnly affirm that there is
not now and there has not been given any revelation making any change in
that principle--any such act of ordination by President Taylor as that
seemingly alleged by the members of this organization would be completely
null and void. No one better knew this principle regarding authority for
this sealing power, than President John Taylor and he would not have
attempted to violate it. It is a sacrilege to his memory--the memory of a
great and true Latter-day Saint, a prophet of the Lord--that these [471]
falsehoods should be broadcast by those who professed to be his friends
while he lived.
	The Master said that in the last days, many should come in his name
saying, "I am Christ," and that these would deceive many; that many false
prophets would come who would deceive many; that false Christs and false
prophets would arise, would show forth great signs and wonders, and would,
if possible, deceive the very elect. The Lord warned us that in these days
"if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it
not."
	We do not wish to pass judgment upon or evaluate the motives of our
fellow men--that is for the Lord to do--but we unqualifiedly say, as it is
our right and duty to say, that the doctrines these persons preach and the
practices they follow, are born of the Evil One and are contrary to the
revealed will and word of the Lord. We call upon them to repent and to
forsake their false doctrines and evil practices. Unless they do so the
Lord will not hold them guiltless.
	It is a significant fact that these claims are put forward in their
detail after all persons who were in presiding authority at the time of
these alleged occurrences and who might check the stories told, are dead.
	Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and
polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous
marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance
with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial
marriages.
	At President John Taylor's death, the keys of the sealing ordinances,
with their powers and limitations, passed by regular devolution, in the
way and manner prescribed by the Lord and in accordance with the custom of
the Church, to President Wilford Woodruff. At the latter's death they
similarly passed to President Lorenzo Snow; and upon his death, they
similarly passed to President Joseph F. Smith; and at his death the same
keys passed in the same way to President Heber J. Grant. There has been no
change in the law of succession of the priesthood and of the keys
appertaining thereto, nor in [472] the regular order of its descent.
	The keys of the sealing ordinances rest today solely in President
Heber J. Grant, having so passed to him by the ordination prescribed by
the Lord, at the hands of those having the authority to pass them, and
whose authority has never been taken away by the Lord, nor suspended, nor
interfered with by the Church. President Grant is the only man on the
earth at this time who possesses these keys. He has never authorized any
one to perform polygamous or plural marriages; he is not performing such
marriages himself; he has not on his part violated nor is he violating the
pledge he made to the Church, to the world, and to our government at the
time of the Manifesto.
	Any one making statements contrary to the foregoing is innocently or
maliciously telling that which is not true. Any one representing himself
as authorized to perform such marriages is making a false representation.
Any such ceremony performed by any person so making such representations
is a false and mock ceremony. Those living as husband and wife under and
pursuant to the ceremonies proscribed by President Smith or the ceremonies
performed by any person whatsoever since that proscription, are living in
adultery and are subject to the attaching penalties.
	We reaffirm as true today and as being true ever since it was made in
1904, the statement of President Smith which was endorsed by a General
Conference of the Church "that no such marriages have been solemnized with
the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints."
	Finally, we are in honor bound to the government and people of the
United States, upon a consideration we have fully received--Statehood--to
discontinue the practice of polygamous or plural marriage, and Latter-day
Saints will not violate their plighted faith.
	The Church reaffirms its adherence to the declarations of Wilford
Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith.
	It adheres to the pledges made to the government of the United
States, and to the Constitutional law of the [473] State of Utah.
	We confirm and renew the instructions given to Church officers by
President Joseph F. Smith in 1904, in 1910, and in 1914, and direct the
officers who administer the affairs of the Church diligently to
investigate reported violations of the adopted rule, and if persons are
found who have violated President Smith's ruling (adopted by the Church)
or who are entering into, or teaching, encouraging, or conspiring with
others to enter into so called polygamous or plural marriages, we instruct
such officers to take action against such persons, and, finding them
guilty, to excommunicate them from the Church in accord with the
directions given by President Smith. We shall hold Church officers
responsible for the proper performance of this duty.

			HEBER J. GRANT
			A.W. IVINS
			J. REUBIN CLARK Jr.
First Presidency. (17 June 1933, Deseret News, Church Section)

14 May 1935:
CHAPTER 112
H.B. No. 224
(Passed March 14, 1935. In effect May 14, 1935.

UNLAWFUL COHABITATION
An Act Amending Section 103-51-2, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, Making
Unlawful Cohabitation a Felony, and Providing That All Persons Except the
Defendant Must Testify in Proceedings Therefor.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah:

Section 1. Section Amended.
	Section 103-51-2, Revised Statutes of Utah, 1933, is hereby amended
to read as follows:

103-51-2. Unlawful Cohabitation--All Persons, Except [474] Defendant Must
Testify.
	If any person cohabits with more than one person of the opposite sex,
such person is guilty of a felony.
	Any person, except the defendant, may be compelled to testify in a
prosecution for unlawful cohabitation; provided, however, that the
evidence given in such prosecution shall not be used against him in any
proceeding, civil or criminal, except for perjury in giving such
testimony. A person so testifying shall not thereafter be liable to
indictment, prosecution or punishment for the offense concerning which
such testimony was given.

	Approved March 21, 1935. (See Laws of Utah, 1935 p. 220)

1 Apr 1936, Matthias F. Cowley:
RECONCILLIATION.

	The following letters have passed between Elder Matthias F. Cowley
and the First Presidency. They are self explanatory:
				Salt Lake City, Utah
					April 1st, 1936
To The Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Dear Brethren:
	This is to confess that I have been deceived, and to say that
wherever and whenever I have given counsel or taken action contrary to the
principles, rules, and regulations of the Church, as adopted by the Church
and in force, I have been wholly in error in counsel, and my actions have
been null and void. This I now plainly see and freely confess, and humbly
and with a contrite spirit of true repentance I ask forgiveness.
	I honestly and solemnly pledge myself hereafter to live, to act, and
to counsel in strict accordance with the principles, rules, and
regulations of the Church as adopted by the Church.
	My heart is in the work of the Lord and always has [475] been from my
childhood. If there is anything I prize more than another it is to have
the love and approval of God, and the fellowship, love, and confidence of
you, His servants, who represent Him here upon the earth. I have made
mistakes, I have suffered for them, I confess them, and trust that you
will pardon and forgive the same.
	I wish to assure you that I have no sympathy for the attitude taken
by mischief-makers who are trying to be-little and to be-lie the
Authorities of the Church, nor have I a fellowship with, them. I have
never been associated with them in any way. I have never failed to take
advantage of every opportunity which has presented itself to speak against
those who are opposing the Authorities of the Church.
	You are at liberty to publish this letter if you so desire.
	Trusting that you will consider me worthy of your forgiveness and
confidence, I am, as ever,
	Your friend and brother,
				MATTHIAS F. COWLEY

3 Apr 1836:
Elder Matthias F. Cowley,
123 North West Temple St. , City.

Dear Brother Cowley:
	We, your brethren, are indeed happy in the receipt of your letter
dated April 1st. We rejoice in the spirit of humble confession and
repentance which you express. We welcome you into full membership and
fellowship in the Church. We pray the Lord to give you joy, peace, and
consolation in your future labors among the people as an Elder in Zion.
	Again invoking upon you the blessings of the Lord, we are,
	Your brethren in the Gospel,
				HEBER J. GRANT,
				J. REUBEN CLARK Jr.,
				DAVID O. McKAY,
			THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.

[476] The members of the First Presidency expressed real joy that Elder
Cowley has now become fully reconciled to the Church, the people of the
Church, and to the Priesthood and the Presiding Authorities; and that he
is now able to resume his labors among the people as an Elder in Zion.

(DESERET NEWS, 13 Apr 1936)

2 Aug 1949, George Earl:
Centerville, Utah,
To Whom it may concern:
	I am making this statement of my own free will and choice, with no
duress nor pressure from any person. And it is truthful and I hope will
have a good effect.
	As a young English convert I came to Utah nearly sixty five years
ago, and in my middle teens I secured employment on the John W. Wooley
farm in Centerville. I was as one of the family, taken into their
confidence, and ate at the same table as they.
	In the late eighties I saw come to the Woolley home, and remain there
for perhaps eight months the following, although all of them did not
remain constantly there, the following: President John Taylor, George Q.
Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Angus Cannon and Joseph E. Taylor. I repeat, I
ate with them, helped guard them, and knew all the routine that went on
from day to day.
	I attended the meetings on Sundays, including Fast meetings.
President Taylor presented me with a five dollar gold piece, with which I
purchased a small trunk, and I still have it in my possession. I at times
carried their mail to the Church office in Salt Lake City on horseback. I
remember Charley Wilkins and Sam Bateman well.
	I heard President Taylor sing "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" at a
night party.
	Now for the crux of the letter. I have been approached during the
past many years by scores of men endeavoring to secure my signature to a
statement that I was at the meeting where President was purported to have
stood in [477] the air and delivered a powerful sermon upon a certain
doctrine, and that heavenly messengers visited him, etc. Never did I see
or hear any such things, and I doubt if anyone else did, but I hereby
solemnly affirm that I saw nothing supernatural like that, nor heard such
a sermon, and I firmly believe it could not have escaped my observation
had it occurred.
	I am absolutely now the sole survivor who was present during those
eight months, and I feel it my duty to present these facts before the
world, inasmuch as some aspersion has been cast upon my name by those
seeking to subvert the truth. I always have had the feelings of the high
regard for all the Woolley family, and still do.

				(sig) GEORGE EARL

(From a photo-copy of Bro. Earl's signed statement.)

1968:
	A few plural marriages were performed after 1890 in Mexico and in
Canada and on the high seas, and it was not until 1904, under the
administration of Joseph F. Smith that plural marriages were finally
banned completely by the Church everywhere in the world.

(SCRIPTURES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, p. 159)

Wednesday 6 May 1970:
From The DESERET NEWS:

CENSUS CITES POLYGAMY, STIRS FUROR.

	WASHINGTON--Wording of one of the instructions in the decennial
census implying the Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints) still practice polygamy stirred up a furor in
Washington.
	The error has already been corrected by the Department of Commerce.
[478] Under a section defining the wife of a head of a household, census
takers were advised that "among American Indians, Mormons, etc., there may
be more than one wife."
	Both Sen. Wallace F. Bennett, R-Utah, and Sen. Frank E. Moss, D-Utah,
raised objections to the wording and demanded an apology.
	The Department of Commerce said that "it was not appropriate to make
reference to Mormons, American Indians, or other groups in the
instructions for the 1970 decennial census and we regret it. Those
preparing census instructions have been instructed to omit reference to
any particular group."
	Bennett objected to the wording on April 3 and Moss, in a Senate
speech declared that the Mormon Church officially ended the practice of
polygamy more than 80 years ago.
	He said polygamy now draws automatic excommunication from the Mormon
Church itself.
	Moss said the reference was pointed out to him in a letter from the
Church's First Presidency. The letter, he said, asked on behalf of its
members that steps be taken to correct the error, that an appropriate
retraction be made and that an apology be made to the Church.

Thursday 7 May 1970:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

CENSUS CHIEF APOLOGIZES FOR SLUR AGAINST LDS.

	WASHINGTON--A federal official issued an apology Wednesday and
ordered a deletion in census instruction sheets which implied that the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still practice polygamy.
	George H. Brown, director of the Bureau of the Census, made the
apology which was demanded by members of the Utah congressional
delegation.
	What caused the furor was a reference in the bureau's instruction
sheet for census worker under "relationship to head of household." It says
"among Ameri-[479]can Indians, Mormons, etc., there may be more than one
wife of the head: If so, mark all of them as `wife . . .'"

NOT APPROPRIATE
	Mr. Brown told Sen. Wallace F. Bennett, R-Utah, who had complained to
Brown's boss, Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans: "It was not appropriate
for the instruction manual to make any reference to Mormons in this
context and we sincerely apologize to you and to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints for this having occurred. As you requested,
the staff has been alerted about the statement; and we have taken steps to
omit references to any particular group in all manuals that are prepared
in the future. My personal investigation indicates that this was not in
any way done in a deliberate attempt by anyone to embarrass the church.

DEMANDS APOLOGY
	Sen. Frank E. Moss, D-Utah, told the Senate he was demanding an
immediate apology from the Commerce Department and served notice he might
ask the commerce committee, of which he is a member, to investigate the
matter.
	Sen. Moss also made public a letter signed by all three members of
the church's first presidency which in part said "in behalf of the church
and its membership we express objection to this error and ask that steps
be taken to correct it, that an appropriate retraction be made and that an
apology be extended the church.

BURTON COMPLAINS
	Rep. Laurence J. Burton, R-Utah, released an exchange of
correspondence between himself and the Census Bureau on the polygamy
incident.
	It showed Mr. Burton had called attention to the mistake March 12 and
that on March 20 he received a letter signed by deputy director Robert F.
Drury which said, "Our staff has been alerted about the statement to which
[480] you refer and has been instructed to omit references to any
particular group in corresponding sections of all manuals they prepare in
the future." (See S.L. Tribune Forum, 20 May 1970.)

Wednesday 20 May 1970:
From The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, FORUM.

HISTORY PROBLEM.

	Editor, Tribune: The Department of Commerce has apologized for the
embarrassing position in which they placed the Mormon Church by suggesting
in census instructions that it still practices or tolerates polygamy. Of
course it does not, and this is a welcome change from that which was
taught by the fathers and grandfathers of many of those prominent in
church and civic affairs among the Mormons today.
	The American Indians excepted, one would find very few families in
this country acknowledging a plurality of wives except among those
descended from Mormon pioneer stock or those who have become converted to
Mormonism and studied its history and theology a little too thoroughly. If
the LDS Church requires an apology from the chairs of state because of an
historical allusion which is in the minds of many people outside the
church, then perhaps the church should apologize to those who have become
involved in its history and now find themselves in an embarrassing
position which they would likely never have been in had they never heard
of Mormonism.
	If they are not American Indians and claim no affiliation with any
"other group," but had their religious or other "birth" in Mormonism, what
better appellation can or ought to be given them? Besides, isn't there
more than one kind of Baptist, too? Are they embarrassed about each other?

				GILBERT A. FULTON, Jr.

[481]
Jun. 1970, William M. Rogers:
	"Today in Utah there are more polygamous families than in the days of
Brigham Young. At least 30,000 men, women and children in this state are
now living in plural households--and the number is rapidly increasing."
	Thousands more live in the adjoining states of Idaho, Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona--plus sizable populations in Oregon,
California, Canada and Mexico.
	The majority live in Utah. And, says Rogers, neither the state law,
which punishes polygamy with a one-to four-year prison term, nor the
Mormon church, which prohibits it on pain of excommunication, has been
able to stem the rising tide of plural marriage.

(Ladies' Home Journal, Jun 1970, pp. 78-111)

[482]
[483]
ADDENDA

1843:
	The doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and
important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and without
obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of
exaltation in celestial glory. * * * * *
Joseph Smith.			 									 
  1:13

1852:
	The principle spoken upon by brother Pratt, this morning, we believe
in. And I tell you, for I know it, it will sail over, and ride
triumphantly above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day; it will
be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portions of the world,
as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people. * * * * *
Brigham Young.			 									 
  1:34

1866:
	I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that
God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against
it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman, will be damned, and they, and
all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in
the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and
distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who
honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the
stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and
glory there shall be no end. This will equally apply to Jew, Gentile, and
Mormon, male and female, old and young. * * * * *
Heber C. Kimball.		 									 
 1:155

1878:
	Some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife,
sealed to him by the authority of the Priest-[484]hood for time and
eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is
faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my
solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. * * * this is
only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has
imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessings pertaining to
this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions,
has deceived himself. * * * * 
Joseph F. Smith.		 									 
 1:209

1879:
	There are, however, enough witnesses to these principles to establish
them upon the earth in such a manner that they never can be forgotten or
stamped out. For they will live; they are destined to live, and also to
grow and spread abroad upon the face of the earth, to be received and
accepted and adopted by all the virtuous, by all the pure in heart, by all
who love the truth, and seek to serve Him and keep His commandments; they
are bound to prevail, because they are true principles.
Joseph F. Smith.											 
 1:241

1882:
	The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without
the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation
just as Baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to
a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. * * * * *
Wilford Woodruff.											 
 1:311

1882:
	If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned
against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has
kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to
preside over those who keep a higher law. * * * * *
John Taylor.												 
 1:311

[485]
1883:
	By that principle, God has designed to accomplish His purposes on the
earth, and to redeem His people from the evils which afflict mankind at
the present day. * * * * *
George Q. Cannon.											 
 1:324

1885:
	What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts
of the opponents of "Mormonism," more property termed the Gospel of the
Son of God? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and
everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness. Were the Church to do
that as an entirety God would reject the Saints as a body. * * * The
heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up
another people of greater valor and stability, for his work must,
according to His unalterable decrees, go forward, for the time of the
second coming of the Savior is near, even at the doors.
The Deseret News.											 
 1:377

1886:
	Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer, he
certainly will fail as a prophet. The severest prosecutions have never
been followed by revelations changing a divine law, * * * God will not
change His law of celestial marriage. * * * * *
Lorenzo Snow.												 
 1:410

1886:
	I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and
those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; Even
so, Amen.
Revelation.												 
 1:443

1890:
	We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any
person to enter into its practice * * * And I now publicly declare that my
advice to the Latterday Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage
forbidden by the law of the land. * * * * *
[486]
Wilford Woodruff.										 
  2:443-444

1891:
	The manifesto was intended to apply to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints everywhere in every nation and country. We are giving no
liberty to enter polygamous relations anywhere. By the law of God to us we
are required to abandon that doctrine or tenet of our faith in our
practice.
Wilford Woodruff.										 
  2:529-530

1891:
	The object of President Woodruff in issuing that manifesto was that
the world should know that the practice of plural marriage had ceased and
also that the members of the church should know it was forbidden.
George Q. Cannon.											 
 2:532

1891:
	I understand the manifesto to be the result of divine inspiration. I
consider it to be a permanent stopping of the practice of polygamy.
Joseph F. Smith.											 
 2:537

1891:
	The manifesto repealed the law in the same way that God gave the law
of Moses to Israel in the place of the Gospel which he first revealed to
them.
Lorenzo Snow												 
 2:538

1892:
	"Before the giving of that revelation in 1843, if a man married more
wives than one who were living at the same time * * * it would have been
adultery under the laws of the church, and under the laws of the state
too." * * * If a person had been married or sealed * * * according to the
provisions of this polygamous revelation prior to the year 1843, they
would have violated the laws of the church and been guilty of adultery?
"Yes, sir. * * * I stated that Joseph Smith took my sister for a wife when
[487] he had a wife living, and that was prior to the giving of this
revelation. * * * It put them in a first-rate, splended condition for time
and eternity.
Lorenzo Snow.											 
  3:242-244

1892:
	Among my father's papers I found a revelation given him of the Lord,
* * * in which the Lord told him that the principle of plural marriage
would never be overcome.
John W. Taylor.											 
 2:558

1896:
	Since the conviction was had, however, and the predicted change in
the divine law of celestial marriage did not follow it, and has not taken
place, Mr. Bierbower's prognostication is yet short of realization; * * *
* *
Deseret Evening News.										 
 2:570

1899:
	My wives have brought me only daughters. I propose to marry until I
get wives who will bring me sons. * * * * *
Heber J. Grant.										   3:306,
308

1900:
	The Church has positively abandoned the practice of polygamy, or the
solemnization of plural marriages, in this and every other State, and no
member or officer thereof has any authority whatever to perform a plural
marriage or enter into such a relation. If, therefore, any member disobeys
the law, either as to polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, he must bear his
own burden; * * * * *
Lorenzo Snow.												 
 3:313

1901:
	If we had obeyed that command and revelation given through President
Taylor there would have been no manifesto. * * * * *
[488]
Matthias F. Cowley.											 
 3:325

Abt. 1901-1918:
	There will never be a year go by but what in some way, somehow,
children will be borne under that covenant. * * * * *
Brigham H. Roberts.											 
 3:330
	Amen. * * * * *
Joseph F. Smith.											 
 3:330

1904:
	It is contrary to the rule of the Church, and contrary as well to the
law of the land, for a man to cohabit with his wives. * * * I have
cohabited with my wives; * * * I have visited them. They have borne me
children since 1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility and
knowing that I was amenable to the law.
Joseph F. Smith.											 
 3:334

1904:
	I, * * * President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been
solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. * * *"
Joseph F. Smith.										 
  3:368-369

1904:
	Rumors have been afloat that plural marriages have taken place, * *
*. Now it has been laid before you, * * * and the Saints know just where
the Church stands on this question.
Anthon H. Lund.											 
 3:370

1968:
	A few plural marriages were performed after 1890 in Mexico and
Canada, and on the high seas until 1904.
Sunday School Manual.										 
 3:477

[489]
1834:
	The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, was exposed to more
powerful contradictions than any man can be. But, notwithstanding all
this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby
that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without
sin; * * *
Joseph Smith.										 
  1:Introduction

1970:
	Today in Utah there are more polygamous families than in the days of
Brigham Young. At least 30,000 men, women and children in this state are
now living in plural households--and the number is rapidly increasing.
William M. Rogers.											 
 3:481

[490]
[491]                            HYMN 326

	How have the nations grown corrupt!
		How from their natural use,
	Men their life-giving powers pervert
		By wanton, lewd abuse.

	The holy ties of wedded life,
		Are cloaks for the profane,
	While lust and mammon desecrate,
		Where faith and love should reign.

	Adult'rers gain the world's applause,
		As men of honored fame;
	Women, though weak, defenceless, pure,
		Are branded with the shame.

	Is there no hope? There is! While men
		Rush on from bad to worse,
	Jehovah speaks, Lest all the earth
		Be smitten with a curse;--

	"He, who one talent has abused,
		Hear it! ye sons of men,
	Shall lose it, and it shall be given
		To him who improves ten.

	"Through him who holds the sealing power,
		Ye faithful ones, who heed
	Celestial laws, take many wives,
		And rear a righteous seed.

	"Though fools revile, I'll honor you,
		As Abraham, my friend;
	You shall be Gods, and shall be blest
		With lives that never end."

(From Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs, 20th Ed., Liverpool, 1890, pp.
292-293)

[492]
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL WORKS:

ARTICLES OF FAITH, James E. Talmage, 1899.
BLOOD ATONEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF PLURAL MARRIAGE, Joseph Fielding Smith,
Jr.
BRIGHAM YOUNG AND HIS WIVES, Crockwell.
DEFENSE OF THE FAITH, Brigham H. Roberts.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day
Saints, 1835, 1854, 1968.
HEBER C, KIMBALL, HIS WIVES AND FAMILY, Kate B. Carter.
HISTORY OF THE SAINTS, John C. Bennett.
JOURNALS OF DISCOURSES, 26 vols., 1854-1866.
KEY TO THE SCIENCE OF THEOLOGY, Parley P. Pratt, 1855.
LIFE AND CONFESSIONS OF JOHN D. LEE, John D. Lee.
LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR, Brigham H. Roberts.
LIFE OF WILFORD WOODRUFF, Matthias F. Cowley.
MARTYRDOM OF JOSEPH STANDING.
MESSAGES OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.
NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY, Fawn M. Brodie.
THE STORY OF MORMONISM, James E. Talmage.
UNDER THE PROPHET IN UTAH, Frank J. Cannon.

PERIODICALS:

Conference reports of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The CONTRIBUTOR.
The DESERET EVENING NEWS.
The DESERET NEWS.
The DESERET NEWS WEEKLY.
HISTORICAL RECORD, Andrew Jensen.
The IMPROVEMENT ERA.
The JUVENILE INSTRUCTOR.
The LATTER DAY SAINTS MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, Kirtland, 1837.
The LATTER DAY SAINTS MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, [493] Pittsburgh, 1844-1845.
The LADIE'S HOME JOURNAL.
The MILLENNIAL STAR.
The NAUVOO EXPOSITOR, Nauvoo Illinois.
The NAUVOO NEIGHBOR, Nauvoo, Illinois.
The PROPHET, New York.
The SALT LAKE HERALD.
The SALT LAKE TRIBUNE.
The SANGAMO JOURNAL, Springfield, Illinois.
The SEER, Orson Pratt.
The TIMES AND SEASONS, Nauvoo, Illinois, 6 vols.
The UTAH GENEALOGICAL AND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE.
The WARSAW MESSAGE, Warsaw, Illinois.
The WARSAW SIGNAL, Warsaw, Illinois.
The WASP, Nauvoo, Illinois.

JOURNALS AND DIARIES:

BATEMAN, Samuel.
CANNON, Abraham H.
CANNON, George Q.
McALLISTER, John Daniel Thompson.
NUTTALL, Leonard John.
ROBINSON, Joseph Lee.
SMITH, Joseph, Jr., Documentary History of the Church, Joseph Fielding
Smith, Jr., 7 vols.
TODD, Douglas M.
WALKER, Charles.
WHITAKER, John M.
WOODRUFF, Wilford.
YOUNG, Brigham, Manuscript History of Brigham Young.

WORKS ON LAW:

ILLINOIS:
	Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833.
MISSOURI:
	Laws of the State of Missouri, Revised and Digested by Authority of
the General Assembly, 1925.
OHIO:
[494] Statutes of Ohio, 1924.
UTAH:
	Reports of the Utah Commission, 1882-1893.
	Laws of Utah, 1851.
	Laws of Utah, 1892.
	Laws of Utah, 1898.
	Laws of Utah, 1935.
	Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 2 vols., 1895.
	Utah State Constitution. Senate Journal, 1901.
VERMONT:
	Statutes of Vermont, R1797.
VIRGINIA:
	Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.
	Commonwealth Law of Virginia, 1788.
UNITED STATES:
	Constitution of the United States.
	U.S. Reports, Book 136.

PAMPHLETS:

A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, George
Q. Cannon.
The PEACEMAKER, Udney Hay Jacob.
POLYGAMY IN UTAH, A DEAD ISSUE, A Speech by John T. Caine, delivered in
the U.S. House of Representatives.
SACREDNESS OF PARENTHOOD.
Speech of V. Bierbower, Esq., Assistant U.S. District Attorney, in the
case of the United States vs. Lorenzo Snow.
Speech of John T. Caine in the U. S. House of Representatives.
Speeches on the Edmunds Bill.
Taylor, John-Schuyler Colfax Debate, Deseret News Pamphlet.
Was Joseph Smith a Polygamist?, Heman Smith.