By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

´╗┐Title: Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage - A Discussion
Author: Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage - A Discussion" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.


Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage


Correspondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR. of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


MR. RICHARD G. EVANS, Second Counselor in the Presidency of the
"Reorganized" Church

* * * * *

"To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation."

--John Taylor.

Correspondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, (JR.,) of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and MR. RICHARD C. EVANS, second
counselor (1905) in the Presidency of the "Reorganized" Church. A
conclusive refutation of the false charges persistently made by
ministers of the "Reorganized" Church against the Latter-day Saints and
their belief. Also a supplement containing a number of affidavits and
other matters bearing on the subjects.




The correspondence in this pamphlet was brought about through the
wilful misrepresentation of the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints and
the unwarranted abuse of the authorities of the Church by Mr. Richard
C. Evans, in an interview which appeared in the Toronto (Canada) _Daily
Star_ of January 28, 1905. A copy of the interview was placed in the
hands of the writer, who, on February 19th following, replied to Mr.
Evans in an open letter which was published in the Toronto Star on or
about the 25th of the month.[1] This open letter was answered by Mr.
Evans in a personal letter, and on the 23rd of May, a rejoinder to his
reply was sent to Mr. Evans at his home in London, Ontario, Canada.
In all, four communications--including the interview--have passed
between us, and all of these four communications are here reproduced
_in full_. A copy of the open letter which appeared in the _Star_,
was also sent to Mr. Evans who acknowledged its receipt. Nothing more
was done in regard to this correspondence until August 17th and 24th,
when an article containing a portion of it appeared in the _Zion's
Ensign_, published by the "Reorganized" church at Independence, Jackson
County, Missouri, under the title: "Statements Authenticated," in which
it was made to appear that the full and complete communications were
reproduced. But this, however, was not the case.

In a letter from Mr. Evans to the editor of the _Ensign_ which
accompanied the above mentioned article, he said:

Believing that good will be accomplished by the publication of the
entire matter, I herewith mail you the referred to matter.

From this it would naturally be supposed that the _complete_
correspondence would be given. However I was not surprised to see that
Mr. Evans' side of the controversy was _in full_, while a large portion
of my first communication had been purposely suppressed; and that
my second letter _did not appear at all_! And thus was the "_entire
matter_" given to the readers of the _Ensign_ that "good" might be
"accomplished." (?)

The parts that were purposely left out of my communication by Mr.
Evans, were most vital to the subject and have been indicated as they
appear in the body of this work by being placed in italics, excepting
a few minor matters which he omitted that I have not mentioned,
nevertheless matters that throw light upon the subject.

One of these quotations was in relation to two articles in the first
volume of the _Saints' Herald_ which were important, coming, as they
did from the "enemy's" camp. Here is the omitted part:

    If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain
    the following passage in the _Saints' Herald_, your official organ,
    volume I, page 9,--it would be well for you to read the entire
    chapter, which is entitled "Polygamy." The quotation is as follows:

    "The death of the Prophet is one fact that has been realized,
    although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning
    "polygamy") before his death. This branch of the subject we shall
    leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it

    In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following: "He,
    (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject (polygamy) to
    be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned
    himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to
    Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been
    for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine he would not have come to
    that." Kindly read the context.

    There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will
    explain this it may suffice.

The first half of the succeeding paragraph was quoted but the second
half was omitted. I quote in full with the part suppressed in italics:

    In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence
    at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such
    statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation
    burned. _There is, however, value in the above statements from your
    "Herald," for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of
    the principle of plural marriage and revelation concerning the

It is easy to perceive that Mr. Evans felt "that good will be
accomplished by the publication of the 'entire matter'"; and for
that reason he omitted this evidence which the leaders of the
"Reorganization" have been trying so successfully to destroy for lo
these many years. The two articles in the _Saints' Herald_ have caused
the leaders of that sect no end of trouble, and today they are in
the same fix in regard to plural marriage that the first editor of
that paper was when he wrote, for they cannot explain the Prophet's
connection with the principle "satisfactorily," and never will be able
to until they acknowledge the truth.

Another of Mr. Evans' ommissions that "good" might be "accomplished"
(?) is the following paragraph in reference to President Brigham Young:

    It is true that President Young was elected president at
    Kanesville; but on what grounds do you charge him with holding
    the office in trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not
    know that such a statement --contrary to the written word--was
    antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in
    the _Times and Seasons_, as well as since that time?

    Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young
    with being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?"
    Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham
    Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The
    Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the
    martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is
    the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but
    viciously false.

It appears from the actions of many of those who fight the Latter-day
Saints, that they fully realize their inability to successfully oppose
the doctrines of the Church with truth as a weapon of attack, and,
therefore, resort to falsehood, vilification and abuse, attempting to
blind those who are not acquainted with the facts. The doctrine of
the Church has survived all such onslaughts and continues to spread
throughout the earth, as a witness against those who have adopted such
base methods for its overthrow. It will continue to spread, bless
mankind and prepare all who accept it, and follow its teachings in
righteousness, for an inheritance in the kingdom of God.

The Reorganite ministers are generally in the front rank among those
who oppose the Church and resort to tactics of a doubtful character.
They travel from place to place, never losing an opportunity in
private, on the rostrum or through the press, to "explain the radical
difference" between their organization and that of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in denouncing "the Utah Mormon and his
iniquities." On such occasions they will quote garbled and isolated
extracts from sermons and from writings by Elders of the Church, taking
particular pains to cover up the context in order to prejudice the
uninformed mind. In this way many a harmless, inoffensive passage has
been made to do great execution in some quarters and among a certain
class. Nor is this all. Nearly every crime that was committed within a
thousand miles of Utah in early days and many that were invented out of
whole cloth, are brought to bear against the "dreadful Mormons," the
Church and the Gospel, that they may be stigmatized and made to appear
vile and hateful before the world. So much of their time is spent in
this way that they can surely have but little left in which to tell the
world what they themselves believe.

No reason except that of misrepresentation and jealousy can be assigned
for actions of this kind. These men oppose the truth in a spirit
of jealousy and to cover up their own false position, and by such
an attitude prove that they are ashamed of their own faith, being
conscious of its weakness.

The supplement following the correspondence is composed of a number
of affidavits and other testimony bearing on the subjects under
discussion, which, it is hoped, will be of interest and perhaps of
value to the reader.

                                              JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 5, 1905.


1. As I did not receive a copy of the _Toronto Star_ I cannot
positively say that my article appeared in full, but if it did not Mr.
Evans is still without excuse for not considering the _entire matter_
for he received personally a duplicate copy of the article sent the
_Star_ which contained those portions he has failed to include in his
"entire matter" in the _Zion's Ensign_.

JAN. 28, 1905


The name Mormon does not please Toronto's six hundred baptized
Latter-day Saints, not to mention the fifty thousand others scattered
over the globe.

This fact was emphasized today, when R. C. Evans, one of the three
members of the Presidency, explained the radical difference between the
two denominations. Mr. Evans, who reached Toronto a few days ago to
spend a month here, denounces the "Utah Mormon and his iniquities."

"We do not believe in polygamy, blood atonement, and kindred evils,"
he said to the _Star_ last night at 142 Peter street, where he is
visiting, "They are an abomination to the Lord. The term Mormon is
offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the
practices that I have specified. The other night, while I was holding a
service here, four Utah Elders came to me. I referred to polygamy, and
they defended it. 'We endorse it,' they told me, 'but we don't practice
it.' Three women were with them, and I said to one, 'Do you believe in
polygamy?' 'I do,' she replied, 'and I know that God will punish the
United States for prohibiting it.' I understand that there are five
Utah elders in Toronto at the present time, and in addresses here I
will expose polygamy and blood atonement."


Mr. Evans is forty-three years old, but doesn't look his age. He is
rather below medium height, strongly built, wears his black hair short,
and his round, slightly olive face is clean shaven. He is animated in
manner, and though his English is occasionally at fault, he speaks
fluently and well. He was born at St. Andrew's near Montreal, but his
ancestry is not confined to any one country, Irish, Welsh and German
blood flows in his veins and his somewhat nasal voice is typically

"I was baptized in 1876," he said, "ordained a priest in 1882, became
an elder in 1884, entered the quorum of seventy in 1886, was chosen
one of the twelve apostles in 1897; and in 1902, was selected one of
President Joseph Smith's two counselors, the other being his eldest
son, Frederick M. Smith. I was the pastor of the London, Ontario,
church from 1882 to 1886, and have given particular attention to
Canada. We occupy a rented church on the corner of Sumac and St. David
streets, a new church on Camden street, and another at Humber Bay,
practically three congregations in Toronto."

The Latter-day Saints and the Utah Mormons, according to Mr. Evans, are
frequently confused, greatly to his regret.


"My President Joseph Smith," he explained, "is the oldest son of Joseph
Smith, who, when a boy of fifteen, was directed to the mound wherein he
found the golden plates from which he compiled the Book of Mormon.

"He organized his church in 1830, when 25 years old, and between
1830 and 1844 his following numbered 200,000. In 1844 he was shot
and killed for his anti-slavery sympathies,[1] and with him died his
brother Hyrum. John Taylor, a Toronto convert of 1838, was wounded, but
recovered. Joseph Smith's city of Nauvoo, Illinois, was wrecked, and in
1847, at Kanesville, Iowa, Brigham Young was elected president, though
he still professed to hold the office in trust for the dead president's
eldest son, also, Joseph, whom the father had consecrated as his
successor.[2] Brigham Young reorganized[3] the church, rebaptized every
member, including himself, and in 1848 (1847) he reached Salt Lake
City. With him went the widow and children of Hyrum Smith, whose son
Joseph F., is now president of the Utah church. The widow of the first
president had refused to follow Young, and her boy Joseph was brought
up in his father's footsteps, hating polygamy and other impurities.
'Young Joseph,' as he was called, connected himself with the Saints,
who had rejected Brigham Young, and was elected their president. He
was then 28 years old. In 1872 he was called to Washington, a report
having reached the Government that Mormonism had again sprung up in
Illinois. He disproved the charge of polygamy and blood atonement,
and demonstrated that Latter-day Saintism was in keeping with the law
and supported by the Bible. Incorporation was granted, and we have


"Brigham Young, who had been under suspicion at Joseph Smith's death,
introduced polygamy and blood atonement at Salt Lake City. Blood
atonement meant death to anyone who left his church. Brigham Young's
argument was that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear,
the favorite way, saved his soul, but his object was to keep his people
under his iron heel. Young was a shrewd, bad man.

"I spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith at Salt Lake City three
years ago, and he gave me a group photo of himself, his surviving five
wives, and thirty-six children. His first wife was dead. She died
broken-hearted and insane. Personally, Joseph F. Smith is a genial,
kindly man, but he and I differed on Polygamy. I told him it was vile
and wicked, always had been, and always would be. In appearance he
resembles his cousin, my own president."

Mr. Evans is married, and has two children. The three faces look at
you from his watch case. He has recently returned from the northwest.
His faith has several thriving churches there, he says, while the Utah
Mormons are settled in one part of Alberta.


1. Mr. Evans' declaration that the Prophet was killed for his anti-
slavery sympathies is rather surprising, when we consider that he was
in one of the anti-slave states, and the mob at Carthage was largely
composed of men with very strong "anti-slavery sympathies." The fact
is he and his brother Hyrum were martyred for their religion of which
Celestial Marriage, (including Plural Marriage) formed a part. One of
the charges made against them was that of teaching "polygamy."

2. In proof that the Prophet did not ordain or consecrate his son as
his successor, the reader is referred to the affidavits of John W.
Rigdon and Bathsheba W. Smith.

3. As the Church was never disorganized, it could not be reorganized.
Mr. Evans has made a mistake. It was the Quorum of the First
Presidency that was disorganized at the Prophet's death and which was
_reorganized_ when Brigham Young was elected President, and not the


The following letter was published in the Toronto _Daily Star_ in
answer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. Evans' interview.

Salt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905.

_Mr. R. C. Evans_,

_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.

Sir:--I have before me a copy of the Toronto _Daily Star_, bearing date
of January 28, last, in which there is a column on the front page,
purporting to be an interview, by a representative of that paper with
you, in which I desire to call your attention.

In doing so I desire to be fair and dispassionate, and also candid, and
I would like it if you would receive and reply to this communication in
the same spirit and manner to me personally.

You are reported as not being "pleased," nor Toronto's six hundred
baptized members, with the name "Mormon." "This fact," says the _Star_,
"was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, one of the three members
of the Presidency explained the radical difference between the two
denominations. Mr. Evans * * * denounced the Utah Mormon and his
iniquities." Then you are made to say: "The term Mormon is offensive
to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices
that I have specified." That is, the alleged practices of the Utah
"Mormons," namely, "polygamy and blood atonement."

Did you know that "the term Mormon" has always been applied to the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached
to the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of
Mormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an
opprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr,
and ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of
popular custom, as an appellation?

If, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your fellows in
Canada and throughout the world, although it be on the grounds you
have named, why do you not discard the Book of Mormon, from whence
the name is derived, as well as the name. Is not the term _Book of
Mormon_ as closely associated in the public mind with "polygamy and
blood atonement," as is the _name_ of the Book? How are you going to
disassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied to
the Church, since this name has been attached to the Church from the
beginning, and before the alleged "practices" of the "Utah Mormon"
gained such publicity? _Really, I think it would be quite proper for
those holding the view which you are said to have expressed, not only
to renounce the name "Mormon" as applied to the Church but also the
Book itself_.[1]

You do not believe in blood atonement. Is not this the more reason why
you should discard the Book of Mormon? Are you not at issue with the
teachings not only of that book, but also with those of the Bible on
this matter? If so, why not discard the Bible, and while you are about
it, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants also? Both of these, as well as
the Book of Mormon, teach the doctrine of "blood atonement," and they
are all "associated in the public mind" with the alleged "practices" of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Let us consider this subject of "blood atonement."

Book of Mormon:

    Mosiah 3:11.--His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have
    fallen by the transgression of Adam. Verse 15.--And understood not
    that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the
    atonement of his blood. Verse 16.--Even so the blood of Christ
    atoneth for their sins.

    Alma 21:9.--Now Aaron began to open the Scriptures unto them
    concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the
    resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for
    mankind, save it was through the death and suffering of Christ, and
    the atonement of his blood.

    I Nephi 12:10.--Their garments are made white in his blood.

    II Nephi 9:7.--And if so, (not an infinite atonement) this flesh
    must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to
    rise no more.

From the Bible:

    Mark 14:22-25.--And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed
    and brake it, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat; this is my

    And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to
    them: and they all drank of it.

    And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which
    is shed for many.

    Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the
    vine, until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.

From the Doctrine and Covenants:

    Section 45:4.--(Utah edition) Saying, Father, behold the sufferings
    and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased;
    behold the blood of thy Son which was shed--the blood of him whom
    thou gavest that thyself might be glorified.

    Section 74:7.--But little children are holy, being sanctified
    through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what the
    scriptures mean.

    Section 76:39-41.--For all the rest shall be brought forth by the
    resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the
    Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the
    worlds were made. And this is the gospel, the glad tidings which
    the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us. That he came into
    the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear
    the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it
    from all unrighteousness.

    Section 29:1.--Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer,
    the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins. Verse
    17.--And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the
    world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will
    not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my
    blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.


But the report says: "This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young"
and that it meant "death to anyone who left the Church * * * that
the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear * * * saved his
soul." Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not
aware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the
Church, without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single
individual was ever "blood atoned," as you are pleased to call it, for
apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this
false charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church
before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you know of anyone
whose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members
thereof, to "save his soul?" Did you not know that you were embittering
the people against the "Mormon" Elders, and that just such malicious
charges and false insinuations have made martyrs for the Church, whose
blood does not "cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth?"

Never in the history of this people can the time be pointed to when
the Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate
as per your statement. There are men living in Utah today who left the
Church in the earliest history of our State who feel as secure, and are
just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates
as you or any other man could be.


The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ.
They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the
Gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ
had not died for _them_. If you did believe in blood atonement, I might
ask you why the blood of Christ was shed? and _in whose stead was it
shed_? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul: "Without shedding
of blood is no remission."


Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which
the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that
this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further
reason why you should discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not
safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of
this kind? Let me quote:

From the Book of Mormon:

    II Nephi 9:35.--Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for
    he shall die.

    Alma 1:13, 14.--And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man,
    yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to
    spare thee, his blood would come upon us for vengeance.

    Alma 42:19.--Now, if there were no law given--if a man murdered he
    should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

From the Bible:

    Genesis 9:12, 13.--And whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his
    blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.

    For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve
    the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man. (Inspired

    Luke 11:50.--That the blood of all the prophets, which was
    shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this

    Hebrews 9:22.--And almost all things are by the law purged with
    blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

    Hebrews 10:26-29.--For if we sin wilfully, after that we have
    received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
    sacrifice for sins.

    * * * *

    He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three

    Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought
    worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath
    counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an
    unholy thing.

    (I commend to you the careful reading of these two chapters:)

    I John 3:15.--No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

    I John 5:16.--If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not
    unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that
    sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he
    shall pray for it.

From the Doctrine and Covenants:

    Section 87:7.--That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of
    the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of
    Sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

    Section 101:80.--And for this purpose have I established the
    constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised
    up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of

    Section 42:18, 19.--And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou
    shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in
    this world, nor in the world to come.

    And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall

    Verse 79.--And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you
    shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to
    the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and
    it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.


In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which
has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present
time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory
provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the
blood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State,
granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for
himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have
his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far
as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost
without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This
is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church.
This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the "Mormon"
legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is
from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has
been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer
to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "blood
atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any
living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall
stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.


Since the action taken by the United States government, and also by the
Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues
nor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of
our faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that "Brigham
Young introduced" that doctrine "in Salt Lake City," I would be pleased
if you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before
"President Young introduced" the doctrine, declared that the principle
of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith
the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and
"warned Joseph Smith and his family" that it would bring ruin upon
them. You will find this in the _Messenger and Advocate_, published
in June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain
why this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently
condemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang,
Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love
for President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced
polygamy _before plural marriage was "introduced by President Young_."
If you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed,
you may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church


If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the
following paragraph in the _Saints Herald_, your official organ, volume
1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which
is entitled "polygamy." The quotation is:

"_The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although
he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before
his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our
brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily_."

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?

"_He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy')
to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned
himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to
Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for
that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that."
Kindly read the context_.

_There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain
this it may suffice_.

In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my
command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement
as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. _There
is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they
bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural
marriage, and the revelation concerning the same_.[2]


In connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to
Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President
Lorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you
heard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that
principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared
to Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You
met and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she
was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May,
1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You
met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August,
1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the
Prophet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first
wives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these
testimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am
personally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful
and honest--honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.

In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent
for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of
President Young the responsibility for the "introduction of plural
marriage" and the "authorship" of the above mentioned revelation?

My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item
or two.


In the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt
Lake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you
and he "differed on polygamy," and that you "told him it was vile and
wicked, always had been, and always would be." I took occasion to ask
my father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if
you had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He
replied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you
did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable
or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and
was not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have

_It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville,
but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in
trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a
statement--contrary to the written word--was antagonistic to the
teachings of President Young, as recorded in the "Times and Seasons,"
as well as since that Time_?


_Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as
being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to
infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was
in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never
had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham
Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you
wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false_.[3]

With reference to my father's first wife, you say she died "broken
hearted and insane." If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if
true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it
is also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died
neither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think
that you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time
to better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.

                                             Joseph F. Smith, Jr.


1. This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of
the _entire matter_ in the _Zion's Ensign_, August 17th, 1905.

2. The quotations from the _Saints' Herald_ which are in Italics were
purposely omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter,"
as it appeared in the _Zion's Ensign_ of August 7, 1905. The reason for
the suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of
the "Reorganization" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could
not be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies
of this particular _Herald_ can today be found.

3. These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans'
"publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the _Zion's
Ensign_ August 17, 1905.


_Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.:_

Sir:--Your open letter published in the Toronto _Star_ for February 25,
is before me. You say: "I desire to be fair, dispassionate and also
candid." Those who read your letter will see plainly that you have
mispresented the interview, my faith and the facts concerning my visit
to Salt Lake, and that you are guilty of a labored effort to cover up
the _true facts_ regarding "blood atonement," "polygamy," etc., and my
faith in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires.

My position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the name "Mormon,"
is too well known for you to blind the people concerning it. The
interview shows plainly in what sense "the term 'Mormon' is offensive
to us." Read it again, sir: "Because it is associated in the public
mind with the practices that I have specified." The abominations of
_Brighamism_; namely, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God,[1] and other
evils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization.

The true Church never has adopted the name "Mormon" as being the
proper name of the church. The Latter-day Saints were sometimes called
"Mormons" in derision, as you admit, because they believed in the
divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and some church members may
have been willing to be called "Mormon"; yet you "candidly (?) fairly,
dispassionately" ask me, "Why do you not discard the Book of Mormon
from whence the name is derived?" Now, sir, I profess to believe in the
divine authenticity of the Holy Bible; as well call me a Bible, because
I believe in the Bible,[2] as call me a Mormon because I believe in the
Book of Mormon.

The church that I have the honor to represent is incorporated under the
laws of the United States as "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints."


There is not an honest thinking person on earth who is acquainted with
the faith of the church regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ but
that will say your attempt to misrepresent my faith in this regard is
diametrically opposite to your stated desire to be "fair, dispassionate
and candid." You know that a prominent article in the Epitome of
the Faith and Doctrine of the _true church_ reads as follows: "We
believe that through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by
obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." You know that the
true church believes in the atoning blood of Christ as stated in the
scriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you try to make out that
because we do not believe in the doctrine of blood atonement as taught
by Brigham Young and his successors in "Utah Mormonism," that we do not
believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the doctrine of
blood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove this, I submit the
statements as made by Brigham Young and other leading members of the
Utah Church, as found in their sermons, printed by your church:

Brigham Young said, October 9, 1852: "What shall be done with the sheep
that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and
cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a
milder term, and say cut off their ears."--Journal of Discourses, vol.

Brigham said again, March 27, 1853: "I say, rather than that apostates
should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or
die. (Great commotion in the congregation and a simultaneous burst
of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates,
clear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to
the plummet. (Voices generally, 'Go it, go it.') If you say it is all
right, raise your hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to
assist us in this and every good work."--Journal of Discourses, vol.

Echoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 27, 1853, "My
feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. * *
* I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have
been faithfully warned. * * * It is too late in the day for _us_ to
stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."--Journal of
Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 84, 86.

Elder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: "Suppose the shepherd should
discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do?
Why, we would suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he
would kill him at once * * * kill him on the spot. * * * It would have
a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may
prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or
shot down before the public."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:72, 73.

President Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as follows "All
mankind love themselves; and let these principles be known by an
individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be
loving themselves even to an eternal exaltation. Will you love your
brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that
cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? That is what Jesus
Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in
their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been
righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores
and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the
last resurrection if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled
upon the ground, as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now
angels to the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them
up, conquers death, hell and the grave.[3] I have known a great many
men who have left this church, for whom there is no chance whatever for
exaltation; but if their blood had been spilt it would have been better
for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this
principle being in full force, but the time will come when the law of
God will be in full force.

"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help
him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood
upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it."--Journal of
Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 397.

President J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: "I say there are men
and women here that I would advise to go to the president immediately,
and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and
then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their
blood."--_Deseret News_, vol. 6, p. 235.

President Heber C. Kimball said; July 19, 1854: "It is believed in the
world that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they
are common--that is, they are like all other women, I suppose, but they
are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones out of our midst; we not
only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And
if the world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes
here, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will wipe the
evil out. We will not have them in this valley unless they repent, for
so help me God, while I live I will lend my hand to wipe such persons
out, and I know this people will."--_Deseret News_, August 16, 1854,
and _Millennial Star_, vol. 16, pages 738-9.

The above statements speak for themselves, and these were what I read
to the reporter. You ask, "Do you _know_ of anyone whose blood was
ever shed by the command of the church or members thereof to save his
soul?" To _know_ by hearing such a command given, or seeing a murder
committed, is one thing, to believe the evidence of many who have
testified is another. No sir, I was never present when such a command
was given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that which
leads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for years a land
of assassination and a field of blood. What of the Mountain Meadow
massacre--the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of
Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties? Alfred Henry
Lewis, writing in _Collier's Weekly_ for March 26, 1904, states:
"Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their
head, and when a man rebelled, _he had him murdered_, if one fled the
fold he was pursued and slain."

The world has recently read the testimony of persons under oath, in
Washington, who testified concerning the endowment oaths, so I will
forbear any further remarks on this subject.


Speaking of "plural marriage," you say, "I shall not discuss its
_virtues_." Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, Mr. Smith
calls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of every woman who is
enslaved by it, that doctrine which permits Brighamites to live in what
they call marriage with three sisters at one time, with mother and
daughter at the same time. Your father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is
now living with _two sisters as wives_. I refer to Julina Lambson and
Edna Lambson, both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a

I have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having practiced
polygamy _before Young was guilty, as stated by you_. But the following
evidence shows clearly that Brigham Young was under suspicion before
Joseph's death, and that he has since admitted that he had a revelation
on polygamy before the church knew anything of the doctrine:

In a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see _Deseret News_ of
July 1, 1874), we read the following statement relative to the origin
of this doctrine of polygamy:

    While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord
    manifested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not
    then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them,
    until I returned to Nauvoo; _Joseph had never mentioned this; there
    had never been a thought of it in the church_ that I ever knew
    anything about at that time;--but I had this for myself and kept it
    for myself.--The Messenger, volume 1, page 29.

Well, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the self-confessed
channel through which polygamy was given to his people.

I here submit the testimony of Brigham Young's legal wife, who left him
after he was untrue to her. Testimony of Major Thomas Wanless, given to
R. C. Evans, his nephew, in the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans
and her daughter, in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904:

    I met Brigham Young's first and legal wife and her daughter in the
    winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me
    that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not
    teach, practice, or in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy,
    that he had nothing to do with the so-called revelation on
    celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My husband, Brigham
    Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man whose name I
    have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage.

    Before they left Illinois some of them practiced polygamy. Brigham
    Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced
    polygamy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis.

    She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and
    was then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money
    according to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot
    Brigham Young in place of Joseph Smith.

This statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham's first wife is
a mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, October 8, 1824; she died
September 8, 1832. In February, 1834, he married May Ann Angel; she
was his _legal wife_, and perhaps is the one referred to by the Major.
It is quite pardonable in Major Wanless in getting Brigham's wives
mixed up. We opine poor Brigham was at his wit's end to keep the family
record correct himself.

Chambers' encyclopedia, volume 8, students' edition, confirms Mrs.
Young's statement, in part. It says, speaking of the practice of
polygamy: "Young, Pratt and Hyde are its true originators. Emma, wife
and widow of the prophet, stoutly denied that her husband had any wife
but herself. Young's revelation she declared to be a fraud."

From a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham Young was the
man that introduced polygamy in the Church, I submit the statement of
another broken-hearted woman from the ranks of Brigham's Church. Fanny
Stenhouse says: "Polygamy was unheard of among the (English) Saints in
1849." (pages 45, 47, 48) "Tell It All," by Fanny Stenhouse. "In June
1850, I heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first
saw the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the _Millennial
Star_," (page 132).

"Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 had been
excommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the president of the
conference was cut off," (page 160). When speaking regarding polygamy
she says: "They know that the only source of all their revelations is
the man BRIGHAM YOUNG," (page 190).

"Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most sacred ties,
by his shameless introduction of polygamy," (page 273).

"There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph Smith in
early days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is the chief," (page

It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that Joseph Smith
said, "If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham,
he would lead it to hell," (page 268).

Why did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death make the above
and similar statements regarding the man Brigham Young? The reason is
plain. He too had doubtless heard some rumors as to his conduct and
secret teachings, and the evidence would seem to indicate that just
before his death he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We
will let William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the
time of Joseph Smith's death testify:

"A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. 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 would
eventually 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 to put it down. He said that he would go before
the congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High
Council, and he would prefer charges 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." (_Saints' Herald_, vol. 1, pp.
22, 23.)

President Marks, after Joseph Smith's death, made mention of the above
conversation; it was soon rumored that he was about to apostatize, and
that his statement was a tissue of lies." (See _Saints' Herald_, vol.
1, pp. 22, 23.)

Speaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, "I never heard of
it during Joseph's life. It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young
and some of the Twelve, after Joseph's death." (Briggs' Autobiography;
_Herald_ 1901.)

Now I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph Smith and the
Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy in the strongest terms.
First, I submit the testimony of thirty-one witnesses as published by
the Church on October the 1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show
you where Joseph and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy.

"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
Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. John 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."

This is signed by a number of the leading men of the Church, some of
the Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presidency of the Utah Church,
and a number of the leading men of the Church. A similar document is
signed by Emma Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the
leading women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all.

Now I submit for your consideration a statement made by Joseph Smith
and his Brother Hyrum just a few months prior to their assassination.
They learned that a man up here in the state of Michigan was teaching
polygamy, and this is what they said about it: "As we have lately
been credibly informed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been teaching
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."
Signed, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church.

This was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four months after
that. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, and the man was
excommunicated from the Church for preaching it. Now I want to give
you the testimony of George Q. Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City,
as one of the presidency of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: "A prevalent
idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and
continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives. * * * Joseph and
Hyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds of persons
were persecuted to death previous to the Church having any knowledge of
this doctrine."--_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 14, pages 165, 166.[4]

This being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the practice of
polygamy; he was killed before the people knew anything about polygamy.
This is the statement of George Q. Cannon. Let me strengthen this now
by the son-in-law of Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson:

"Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph Smith's death)
was not known among those of the Mormon faith. * * * The doctrine of
polygamy was not promulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in
fact, until some little time after they had arrived there." Salt Lake
_Herald_, February 9, 1882.[5]

Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt Lake the 24th of
July, 1847, and he says not until some little time after that was it
introduced. The little time was the 29th of August, 1852, eight years
and two months after the assassination of Joseph Smith.

We have Brigham Young himself on this. He being interviewed by
Senator Trumbull in 1869, said: "It (polygamy) was adopted by us as a
_necessity_ after we came here." Ah, there never was a greater truth
told in all the world than that. Polygamy was not an original tenet
of the Church, and Brigham Young says it was adopted as a _necessity_
after "we came here." The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I will show
from their own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives
secretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, as he
truthfully says in this "as a necessity"; yea, as a necessity polygamy
was introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph Smith for their
introducing polygamy eight years after his death?

I have been careful to take these clippings right from their own
papers, so that they cannot say that we have changed the words or
anything of that kind. Here is another statement; this is found from
Elder Ephraim Jenson:

"Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to and at the time of
the execution of Joseph Smith, who was executed at Nauvoo, Illinois.
* * * Fourth, that only three per cent of the Mormon men practiced
polygamy, a proof itself that it was not essential to the creed."--_The
Yeoman's Shield._

Here is another one:

    "Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, there was no
    polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon literature until five years
    after that band of persecuted Saints reached Utah." _New York Herald_,
    January 8, 1900.[6]

This is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who _did_ introduce this polygamy.
Now I might introduce dozens and dozens of witnesses to prove that
Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. Well, who did it? Here is
what the Apostle's wife says of it: "How then, asked the reader, did
polygamy originate? It was born in the vile and lustful brain of
Brigham Young, and was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual
bestiality."[7] (Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.)

One of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to know whereof she

We have learned from the above statements that polygamy was not taught
or practiced by Joseph Smith, but was introduced into an apostate
branch of the church, after his death, as is admitted by Brigham Young
and others of his followers.

Having read the works of the church for over a quarter of a century. I
confidently affirm that there is not a single word, in a single sermon,
lecture, statement, newspaper or church publication printed during the
lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed
the doctrine of plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there
is no Salt Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and prove its

But suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and
practiced polygamy, that would not make it a Christian doctrine. If
Joseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or endorsed the doctrine of
polygamy, he did it contrary to all the revelations given for the
government of the church in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and
Covenants; contrary to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings;
and he was a criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite
before the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the
woman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and was untrue
to all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity which he evinced
in all his public utterances and conduct.

In the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph Smith,
together with thousands of people who knew him in life, refuse to
believe the contradictory statements of Brigham Young and others who
are wallowing in the mire of polygamy.


If your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy,
all I have to say about it is, that what he states is untrue. Here are
a few points that may help him to remember what was said and done:
When talking with Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago,
he brought up a number of witnesses and I examined them--that is, he
repeated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally said, "I
can produce a living woman who will testify that Joseph Smith was a
polygamist, and she knew it." I said, "Bring her along here and let
us examine her." Well, I met "Aunt Lucy" Walker Kimball, to whom you
refer, and we talked the matter over, and here is the one point to
which I want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of
Brigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of Emma Smith, I
said, "You were personally acquainted with Emma Smith?" "Yes." "What
have you to say as to her integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?" The
old woman looked me fair in the face and said, "Emma Smith was one of
God's noble women--she was truth personified; and anything that Emma
Smith may say you can bank on it until the day of your death." "Well,"
I said, "she testifies that her husband never had any wife but her; she
testifies that she never heard of that revelation on polygamy until you
folks had gone to Salt Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she
testifies that it is an unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham
Young; that he stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now
what have you to say to that?" I said. She looked me fair in the face
and said, "You can afford to build on anything that Emma Smith has to
say." "Thank you," said I.

It is true that she told me she was married to Joseph Smith May 1,
1843; but when I showed her that the so-called revelation permitting a
plurality of wives was dated July 12, 1843, and referred to her former
testimony as given in the _Historical Record_, and that given under
oath in the Temple Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the
old lady as she sat silent and confounded.

It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father's parlor, as
she came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, "This is Catherine
Phillips Smith. She was married to my father, Hyrum Smith, and she has
never married since. I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It
is certain that _she did not testify to me_, but it was your father who
made the statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me
from speaking to the old lady.

Lorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and there, in
the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed _his
testimony to be false, by his own evidence_, when given _under oath_,
and _by his sister's statement signed in 1842_. At this, Snow, Cannon
and Smith were all much annoyed. So much for your father's statement,
which says "you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy."


You seem to feel sore over the statement that your father's "first wife
died broken hearted and insane"; and you add, "If you mean to insinuate
that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on
the part of my father, it is also slanderously false." I insinuate
nothing; let the public judge the facts. Your father's first wife was
his cousin; she refused to consent to additional wives, and when he
persisted in marrying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in
California. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married to
Joseph F. Smith on the same day.[8]

Number of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 1865: 6

Number of children born to him in 38 years: 42

Number of children born since plural marriage was prohibited in 1890: 13

Children of Julina Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Sarah Richards Smith: 2

Children of Edna Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Alice Kimball Smith: 3

Children of Mary Schwartz Smith: 4

Estimated income available for supporting five establishments: $75,000

Corporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. Smith is a
director: 20

The only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of President
Smith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 156
grandchildren.--_Collier's_ for March 26, 1894 [1904].

* * * * *

While in Utah I was informed that your father's first wife died broken
hearted and insane. God and civilization know that a woman who loved
her husband from youth up has enough to break her heart and send her
insane when her husband will marry two other women, both sisters, in
one day.

Perhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, should you
read the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:6, 7. Here it is
stated, in consequence of polygamy, "ye have broken the hearts of
your tender wives." Does this make the prophet an asperser or a

I have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_ as
fully as space would permit.

                                                       R. C. Evans.

Toronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.[9]


1. The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine
of the Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts' valuable
work, "Mormon Doctrine of Deity." For the belief of the "Mormon" people
regarding Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called
especially to chapters one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine
and Covenants, sec. 78:15-18, sec. 107:53-57 and Daniel 7:9-14. In
relation to this matter I quote the following from the remarks of
President Anthon H. Lund delivered at the General Conference, October
6, 1902.

"Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the
principles of salvation, these men get up and charge that the Elders
do not believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God,
and they will bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this
or that man in the Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are
not ashamed of the glorious doctrine of eternal progression, that man
may attain the position of those to whom came the word of God, that
is gods. When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they
stoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works
He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, 'for the good work we stone thee
not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
thyself God.'"

He quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of
St. John, and said:

"We believe that there are gods as the Savior quoted. He repeated what
was written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used
it as an argument against them (The Jews.) While, however, we believe
as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but
one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth.
We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden
of Eden. In the revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, 'the
place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days
shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.' In the 107th section
the Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, the Prince, the Archangel, and
says that he shall be a prince over the nations forever. We may with
perfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, or even God in
the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. When our
missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts
from sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion
must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they
need not do battle for anything outside of the works, that have been
accepted by the Church as a body."

2. If popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as
"Bibles" as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no
reason why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation
but rather honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the
name "Christian," yet this term, like that of "Mormon" was first
applied to the followers of Christ in derision, "because it was
associated in the public mind with the practices" of the early Saints,
which practices in that day were looked on as "abominations."

3. This is a misquotation, it should be: "I could refer you to plenty
of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone
for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom
there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be)
if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as
a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil,
until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up--conquers death,
hell and the grave."

In that same discourse President Young declares that those who were
"righteously slain" were the wicked that the "Lord had to slay" in
ancient Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate
that those who were slain to "atone for their sins" were killed in
Utah; but to the contrary they were ancient inhabitants of the earth,
viz., the antediluvians who perished in the flood, the inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and the cities destroyed by the
Israelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew (I Kings 18:40) and
a host of others of that class and the class to whom the one belonged
of whom the Savior said: "It were better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of
the sea." President Young's remarks agree with those of Peter when he
declared that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion
of Christ could not be baptized nor have their "sins blotted out" until
the "times of refreshing shall come," which was at the time of the
"restitution of all things."--Acts 3:19-21.

4. In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the
middle of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the
expression he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said:
"A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its
origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives; but when
it is recollected that the mobbings, drivings, and expulsions from
cities, counties and states which we have endured, and our exodus to
these mountains all took place before the revelation of that doctrine
was PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief in it has
not been the cause of persecution." Now, I ask, is it not plain to
see why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints
all know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his
testimony that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph
Smith. Latter-day Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not
_publicly_ known in the days of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught
by him to his trusted friends. When this fact is known the alleged
quotations which follow, purported to be from H. B. Clawson, Ephraim
Jensen and "Elder Whitaker" lose their force.

5. This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1852.

6. The following is the Brooklyn _Citizen's_ report of that same
discourse from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given in the New
York _Herald_: Elder Whitaker said: "The people of the East have been
led to believe that polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles
of the Mormons, but the fact remains, that as the fight was waged
against Jesus Christ, against his followers, and against all great men
for declaring the truth, so the same spirit is manifest now; but the
Mormons will humbly seek those willing to accept the truths inspired
of God, leaving the justice of their cause to be vindicated by honest
investigation and time. The fight is directed against the doctrine of
the Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman service in
arousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of honest
men. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of
the attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when
the people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and
cruel mockings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made
a cause of their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed
in writing until 1843, never published to the world until 1852, and
was abandoned by the issuance of the 'Manifesto' of President Wilford
Woodruff, in 1890, since which time not one polygamous marriage has
been solemnized; but those having wives at that time were never asked,
and it was never expected they would abandon them, and when death
brings such relations to a close, there will be no polygamy among the
Mormons." The Brooklyn _Citizen_, Monday, January 8, 1900.

Why Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York _Herald_ in
preference to the full account in the Brooklyn _Citizen_ will require
no comment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker _did_ know
who introduced "polygamy."

As I do not have the Yeoman's _Shield_ and am not in communication
with Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel
safe in saying that if the whole report were published, his testimony
would agree with that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn

7. In quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's
Wife," Mr. Evans reveals the character of his "dozens and dozens of
witnesses." The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the
most bitter anti-"Mormons" and apostates for his "evidence," but in
quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," he
certainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was
published in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious
_Police Gazette_. The author of these "Mysteries," undoubtedly a
man, assumes the title of "An Apostle's Wife," in order to hide his
perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all
anti-"Mormon" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of
the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a "lusty toper," "the
worst of a bad breed," "an ignorant, brutal loafer," "immoral, false
and fraudulent," and the author says, "_this_ is the man who founded
what he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the
religion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism." An
apology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr.
Evans makes this work one of the chief of his "dozens and dozens of
witnesses," I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe
in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept
the wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares
"_ought to know whereof she affirms_." Shame upon the man who draws his
inspiration from such a source!

8. This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the
least shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife
did not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two
sisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry
Lewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his
position. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the
space occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans
quotes so faithfully.

9. This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until
sometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote:
"You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto
_Star_, as soon as I have time to reply thereto." This reply was
received May 5, 1905.


                                           Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.

_Mr. R. C. Evans_,

_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.

Sir:--Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May
5. Whether I was "fair, dispassionate and also candid" in my letter,
or, as you seem to think, "guilty of a labored effort to cover up the
true facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'" and "your
faith"--which was not discussed--I am perfectly willing to leave to the
judgment of "those who read" the same in the Toronto _Star_. So on this
point we may both rest satisfied.


I will now consider your "labored effort to cover up the _true facts_
regarding blood atonement."

In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the
Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact
appears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions
and accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct
position of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful
study of John Taylor's _Meditation and Atonement_ and Charles W.
Penrose's _Blood Atonement_, which was published in answer to such
wicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this
principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for
any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so.
I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which
we believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case,
especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.

If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine
is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which
church you are pleased to call "Utah Mormonism," then I say that you
_do not_ believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To this I will refer later.

You delight--as all anti-"Mormons" do--in referring to statements
made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during
the troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into
Utah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own _desired_
interpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a
garbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible
from which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great
pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such
extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some
respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39
when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums
of the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned
under the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]


Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry
Leon Wilson's plagarisms in his _Lions of the Lord_, declares the
position taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in
these words:

    "The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and
    without any wresting whatever it may be applied to "Mormon" leaders
    who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank
    injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to
    rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted."

Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in
his answer to _The American Baptist_, wherein he said:

    "Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are
    responsible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no
    more responsible for it than were the early Christians for Peter's
    attempt to kill the high priest's servant when he cut off his
    ear with his sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its
    authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings
    or doings of some or many of its members or ministers.

    It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the embryo
    authors and abettors of the "Border Ruffianism" that reigned in
    Missouri and Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own
    way, that some of the Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should
    have done many things unwisely and wrongfully, and contrary to the
    law of God."--_Saints' Herald_, 37:51.

With this I heartily agree.

Now, when the statements were made, which you in a garbled manner both
quote and misquote, there was in Utah a class of individuals who spent
the greater part of their time in circulating wicked and malicious
reports about the Saints, threatening their lives, committing crimes
and attempting to make the Saints their scape-goats. The officers of
the law were General Government officials appointed by the President
of the United States, and I am sorry to say, some of these were among
the chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable and bloodthirsty
falsehoods were concocted and served up to the people of the United
States to stir them up to anger against the "despised Mormons." Almost
every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Salt Lake
City was charged to the leaders of the "Mormon" people and became the
foundation of a multitude of anti-"Mormon" publications that still
flood the world. Because of these false and highly colored tales, in
1857--one year later than the time that most of the utterances were
given on which you so delight to dwell--the Government of the United
States sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never existed,
and forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the Government found
out how it had blundered it was humiliated.

Now, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it any
wonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? The wonder is
that the people bore it as patiently as they did. The officers were
non-"Mormons," the Territory was under Federal control and contained
many Gentiles, many of whom were most bitter in their feelings and
ever ready to accuse the Saints of crime. The government was strong
enough to enforce the law if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the
horrors, as they have been pictured, could have existed under such

Such a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a shame to the
American government. And no such state of affairs existed.

The conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent of Indian
affairs in Utah, to declare in 1869:

    I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here
    there is a greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other
    Church dignitaries with every criminal offense than dilgent
    endeavor to punish the actual perpetrators of crime.

    Bancroft's History of Utah, p. 561.

    Whitney's History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1.

Mr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this statement can
be relied upon.

This being the case, Brigham Young and the "Mormon" people could not
have engaged in the crimes charged against them.

In connection with this let me quote from Bancroft:

    It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding
    and patriotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered
    by the enemies to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this
    score they are naturally very sore. When deprived of those sacred
    rights given to them in common with all American citizens, when
    disfranchised, their homes broken up, their families scattered,
    their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, they have
    not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to
    God and their country.--History of Utah, pp. 390-392.

Again, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and
anti-"Mormons" from the beginning and "that there are men living in
Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State,
who feel as secure and are just as secure and free from molestation
from their former associates as you or any other man could be," proves
the falseness of the malicious accusation that "Utah was for years a
land of assassination and a field of blood."


    "What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will
    take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches
    behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut
    off their ears."

Your conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you continued the
quotation your attempt would have appeared even more ridiculous. The
next sentence is:

    "But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them; and will
    wash them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we
    will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and
    wash them again until we make them clean."

And you try to make this appear as threatening life! It is apparent
that your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. This whole passage
is humorous and you make yourself ridiculous by not having discovered

Again from Parley P. Pratt, you quote:

    "My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly

This from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add:

    "I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they
    have been faithfully warned."

Then three paragraphs off, the following:

    "It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such
    an outcast has the truth."

This method of proving things reminds me of the reason why you should
be hanged:

    And Judas "went out and hanged himself."

    "Go thou and do likewise."

Now let me quote some extracts from this discourse which you purposely
left out.

    "Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, _I
    for one_, would rather march out today and be shot down. These
    are my feelings, and have been for some time. Talk about liberty
    of conscience! Have not men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The
    Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, etc., have _here_ the liberty to
    worship God in their own way, and so has every man in the world.
    People have the privilege of apostatizing from this Church and
    worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and
    only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege
    to disturb the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is
    the idea. If they will take that privilege, _I need not repeat
    their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully


    "He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his
    professions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length
    refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of
    proof. Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer,
    standing at the head of this dispensation? Have we not proved the
    priesthood which he placed upon others by the command of God?

    "I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of
    an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people.
    _It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such
    an outcast has the truth_.

    "We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us--unacted upon.
    There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already
    than our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations
    to carry out. And yet we are called upon to prove--what? _Whether
    an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago, has really
    improved by reason of age_!

    "'_You are going to be destroyed_,' say they. '_Destruction awaits
    this city_.' Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed
    as any people living. What care we whether we are destroyed or not?
    These old tabernacles will die of themselves, if left alone.

    "We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared
    to die as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad
    to hear it. We shall not be destroyed in the old way--as we have
    been heretofore. We shall have a change in the manner, at least.
    We shall probably be destroyed _standing, this time_, and not in
    a _sitting_, or _lying position_. We can die as well as others
    who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we
    shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall
    not stand still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed,
    plundered, and driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor
    does God require it at our hands. That is the best news we have
    heard today. * * *

    "It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on
    the defensive while you still live. I have said enough on this
    subject."--pp. 86-87.

The vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so apparent in this
contrast between your garbled quotations and the whole truth, that it
scarcely deserves further comment.

I have quoted quite extensively in order to show the reason for these
remarks of which you quote such brief and disjointed extracts. You
should remember that the Saints had but a short time before being
driven from their homes at the cannon's mouth, and were forced to
traverse a desert under the most trying circumstances to find a new
abode where they could rest in peace and call their souls their own.
When followed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined
to again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their might
and righteous indignation they firmly took their stand for home and
liberty. I for one, say that they were justified in this course, the
protection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had the threats of
their enemies here in Utah been carried out as they boasted that they
would be, and as they were carried out in Missouri and Illinois, then
Brigham Young and his people would have been as thoroughly justified in
unsheathing the bowie knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at
Lexington and Bunker Hill!

Home and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, are just as
dear to a "Mormon" as to members of any other denomination or even an
apostate "Mormon," and when the "Mormons" are persecuted, driven and
slain and forced to seek a home in the savage wilds, would any honest
man blame them if they declined to move again?

Why is it worse for "Utah Mormons" to defend themselves than for
"Mormons" at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even the noble Prophet Joseph
Smith, when dragged from home and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly
demurred. Said he to the Saints at Nauvoo on the 30th day of June,
1843, after his escape from Missourian assassins:

    "Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial,
    _I will spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all
    my enemies in hell_! To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I
    will not bear it any longer. Shall we bear it any longer? (one
    universal, No! ran through all the vast assembly like a loud peal
    of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you any more here, dung your
    gardens with them. We don't want any excitement; but after we have
    done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break off the hellish
    yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed!"

I have copied this from the manuscript history of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, as it was recorded at the time. I have learned also that it is
corroborated by the journal of Wilford Woodruff of the same date--June
30th, 1843.


You say, "I have read that which leads me to believe that under
Brighamism"--as you slurringly remark--"Utah was for years a land of
assassination and a field of blood," and then you ask me, "what of
the Mountain Meadows massacre,--the destruction of the Aiken party;
the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the

Well, that which you have read counts for but little when the source is
considered. Your case is most certainly desperate when you are forced
to accept the statements of murderers.

It's a strange thing that you and many of your elders accept all the
blood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and other apostate sources
_when_ they happen to refer to Brigham Young and "Utah Mormons,"
and denounce the same sources when they refer to the Prophet Joseph
Smith. Yet, I repeat, the same class of charges--in many respects
identical--that you charge against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed,
adultery, and even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the
Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just such
falsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his death.

You resort to sources that even the editor of your official paper
denounces as "Idle and vicious stories gathered from the awful files
of terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at enmity with
them."--_Saints Herald_ 52:2.

If you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept the
statements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew with
blood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the anti-Christian?
Wherein then, is your consistency in asking me to accept the testimony
of those whose hands are imbrued in blood, apostates and bitter enemies
of my people?

Very well then, I return your question. What about them? Pray tell,
what about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the Aiken party? the
confessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that you call him a "Bishop"
proves the source of your information); what about Hickman and above
all, the Danties?

When Alfred Henry Lewis, in _Collier's Weekly_ of March 26, 1964,
stated, "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself
at their head, and when a man rebelled had him murdered, if one fled
the fold, he was pursued and slain," he repeated one of the most
colossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor is that the only falsehood in his
article you are pleased to quote.

Brigham Young was _not_ a man of blood. The "Mormon" people were _not_
guilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.[2] There was no destruction
of an Aiken party. Hickman and Lee are not worth the mention; and the
Danties! Had you not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there
never were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of
bitter anti-"Mormons" and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans knows
that fact.


In answer to your many charges about Utah and the "Mormons," I desire
to refer to credible references from witnesses who understood the truth
and were bold enough to express it.

    Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary
    and the Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following
    result:--In Salt Lake City there are about 75 Mormons to 25
    non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County there are about 80 Mormons to
    20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there were 29 convicts,
    all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 convicts all
    non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the
    five years past were all anti-Mormons except _three_! * * *

    Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table
    keepers not over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of
    the bagnios and other disreputable concerns in the territory
    are run and sustained by non-Mormons. Ninety-eight per cent of
    the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. * * * Of the 250
    towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no "gaudy sepulchre of
    departed virtue," and these two hundred and odd towns are almost
    exclusively Mormon in population. Of the suicides committed in Utah
    ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and
    infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of
    "outsiders."--Phil Robinson, in _Sinners and Saints_, p. 72.

    The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man.
    There is another to help him, but if they had not something
    else to do they would either have to keep arresting each other,
    in order to pass the time, or else combine to hunt gophers and
    chipmunks.--_Sinners and Saints_, p. 142.

    Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism?
    From _anti-Mormons_ only. I have ransacked the literature of the
    subject, and yet I really could not tell any one where to go for
    an impartial book about Mormonism, later in date than Burton's
    "City of the Saints," published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on
    one side and I think I can defy any one to name another book about
    the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly _awful_
    book, "The History of the Saints," published by one Bennet (even
    an anti-Mormon has styled him "the greatest rascal that ever came
    to the west") in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not,
    to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is
    not utterly unreliable from distortion of facts. Yet it is from
    these books--for there are no others--that the American public has
    acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah.--_Sinners
    and Saints_, p. 245.

    And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has
    been put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon,
    is full of calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass
    his predecessor in the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are
    written in a sensational style, and for the purpose of deriving
    profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and are wholly
    unreliable as to facts.--_Bancroft's History of Utah_, preface page

    It is only fair to state that no Gentile, even the unprejudiced,
    who are rare aves, however long he may live or intimately he may
    be connected with Mormons, can expect to see anything but the
    superficies. * * *

    The Mormons have been represented, and are generally believed to
    be, an intolerant race. I found the reverse far nearer the fact.
    The best proof of this is that there is hardly one anti-Mormon
    publication, however untruthful, violent, or scandalous, which
    I did not find in Great Salt Lake City.--Burton's _City of the
    Saints_, p. 203.

    I have not yet heard the single charge against them as a community,
    against their habitual purity of life, their integrity of dealing,
    their toleration of religious differences in opinion, their regard
    for the laws, or their devotion to the Constitutional government
    under which we live, that I do not from my own observation, or the
    testimony of others know to be unfounded.--General Thomas L. Kane,
    U. S. A., _The Mormons_, p. 83.

    The Mormons are sober, industrious and thrifty.--Bishop Spaulding,
    of the Episcopalian Church, in the _Forum_, March, 1887.

    Had the Mormons been a low, corrupt or shiftless people they never
    would or could have done what they did in Utah. * * * When they
    controlled their own city of Salt Lake it contained no saloons,
    gambling houses or places of ill repute, and when the town had
    grown to be a goodly city order was kept by two constables. If by
    their fruits we may know them, the Mormons deserve our confidence
    and praise.--_The Brooklyn Eagle_, editorial of Aug. 12, 1897.

    I shall not arraign the Mormon people as wanting in comparison with
    other people in religious devotion, virtue, honesty, sobriety,
    industry, and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify
    and bless life.--Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah (and a strong
    anti-Mormon) in report to Secretary of the Interior for 1888.

    I know the people of the east have judged the Mormons unjustly.
    They have many traits worthy of admiration. I know them to be
    honest, faithful, prayerful workers.--D. S. Tuttle, Bishop
    Episcopalian Church.

    I never met a people so free from sensualism and immorality of
    every kind as the Mormons are. Their habits of life are a thousand
    per cent superior to those who denounce them so bitterly.--Mrs.
    Olive N. Robinson. (I recommend this to you.)

I assure you there are many others of equal force but this should be
sufficient to prove the scandalous effusions false that you profess to
believe true.


I am glad you profess to believe the Bible. There is one other
thing which appears strange to me, that is, why you are continually
denouncing Brigham Young and "Utah Mormonism," and calling Utah a
"land of assassination and a field of blood," because vile men without
conscientious scruples have accused the people of many false and lurid
tales of blood, and at the same time with sanctimonious countenance and
upturned eyes you swallow the following without a gulp:

    "Thus saith the Lord of hosts. * * * Now go up and smite Amalek,
    and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but
    slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel
    and ass." I Samuel 15:3 (I. T.)

Haven't you swallowed the camel and gagged at his tail?


Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. _What
is that doctrine_? Unadulterated if you please, laying aside the
pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been
made. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind
may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
This salvation is two-fold; General,--that which comes to all men
irrespective of a belief in Christ--and Individual,--that which man
merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws
and ordinances of the Gospel. But man may commit certain grievous
sins--according to his light and knowledge--that will place him beyond
the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved
he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone--so far as in his
power lies--for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain
circumstances will not avail.

Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe
in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ! This is the doctrine
you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of _Brighamism_." This is
the doctrine of Christ our _Redeemer_, who died for us. This is the
doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.

In whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church members could be fair
enough to discuss this subject on _its merits_.

I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my
open letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon,--II Nephi
9:35. Alma 1:13, 14, and 42:19. Bible,--Genesis 9:12, 13, (I. T.) Luke
11:50. Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29. I John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and
Covenants,--87:7. 101:80. 42:18, 19, 79. (Utah edition.)

To these I will add:

    "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by
    the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against
    any person to cause him to die.

    Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,
    which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.

    So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood
    it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the
    blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed
    it."--Numbers 35:30, 31, 33. (I. T.)[3]

Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to
atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? (Alma 1:15)
Zemnariah and his followers (III Nephi 4:27-28). What about Er and
Onan, whom the Lord slew? (Gen. 38:7, 10), of Nadab and Abihu? (Lev.
10:2) and the death of Achan? (Joshua 7:25.)

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of
this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you
misquote (_Journal of Discourses_ 4:220). He tells us so, in the same
discourse in the portion which you _did not quote_. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay
every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and
Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and
by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would
save them."


In using the term "polygamy" in reference to the principle that was
taught and practiced by the Saints, I desire it distinctly understood
that I use it in the sense of a man having more than one wife.
Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was
practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or
elsewhere; but Celestial marriage--including a plurality of wives--was
introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and was practiced more generally
by the saints under the administration of President Brigham Young.

You say that you have no evidence that those men, _viz_. Lyman Wight,
James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith and others that I
mentioned to you "practiced _polygamy_" before plural marriage was
"introduced" (as claimed by you) by Brigham Young. You said polygamy
was "introduced" eight years after the Prophet's death by Brigham
Young. If so, then why did these men practice it before that time? I
was satisfied that you would not exert yourself in seeking for this
knowledge and tried to help you find the information.


In a letter written by the President of the Reorganized church by Mr.
Joseph Davis of Wales, dated Lamonia, Oct. 13, 1899, I read:

    "Nearly all the factions into which the church broke had plural
    marriage in some form. None in the form instituted by President
    Young. Sidney Rigdon had one form practiced by but a few, and that
    spasmodically, as an outburst of religious fervor rather than as a
    settled practice. William Smith had a sort of Priestess Lodge, in
    which it was alleged there was a manifestation of licentiousness.
    This he denied, and I never had actual proof of it. Gladden Bishop
    taught something like it, but I believe he was himself the only
    practioner. James J. Strang had a system something like Mohamet,
    four I think, being allowed the king. Lyman Wight had a system but
    it had no very extended range. President Young's system you may
    know of."

It is true that William Smith denied that he taught "polygamy" but that
he practiced plural marriage he cannot deny. Jason W. Briggs said he
(William) did, and that is why Mr. Briggs left his church. Plaintiff's
Abstract, Temple Lot suit, p. 395. Hist. of Reorg. Ch. vol. 3:200 and
_The Messenger_, vol. 2. William entered into plural marriage in the
Prophet's day and his wives lived here in Utah. They are Precilla M.
Smith, Sarah Libby and Hannah Libby. One of these is still living.

The third volume of your church history says of Lyman Wight:

    "Lyman Wight lived and died an honorable man, respected well by
    those who knew him best. The only thing that can be urged against
    his character is that about 1845 or 1846 he entered into the
    practice of polygamy, but we have seen no record of any teaching of
    his upon the subject."

The fact is that Lyman Wight entered into that relation before the time
here mentioned. Affidavits in this regard can be produced but it will
be unnecessary.

That John E. Page practiced "polygamy" I have the testimony of his
wife, Mrs. Mary Eaton of Independence, who told me and others, in
August 1904, that she _gave her husband_, John E. Page, other wives.

These men did not follow Brigham Young, but denounced him, yet they
practiced plural marriage and did not get that doctrine from him.


The "testimony" you submit from President Young's "legal wife" is
spurious. It matters not if you did receive the "information" from
your uncle. The poor man was tricked and deceived. Bogus "wives" and
"daughters" of President Young have "worked" the public before. Mary
Ann Angel Young, President Young's legal wife, was not in Colorado in
1860 and 1861. She never was divorced and died in this city true to
her husband, his family and the faith, on the 27th day of June, 1882.
(_News_, July 5, 1882.) So much for this "bogus" testimony.


The testimony of T. B. H. and Fanny Stenhouse is sufficiently impeached
in the _Saints' Herald_, vol. 52, p. 2; 20, p. 602, and _Sinners and
Saints_, p. 245. The woman's bitterness would condemn her writings.
However I will mention one statement--you make Mrs. Stenhouse say:
"It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse and many others, that Joseph
Smith said, 'If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro.
Brigham, he would lead it to hell.'" She gives this as a rumor that is
"reported," so do the "many others" who are mostly from your church.
Oh, yes, I have heard of this before. But do you know where the report
originated? It originated with the apostate and would-be assassin,
Robert D. Foster, who threatened the Prophet Joseph's life in 1844,
and who was one of the incorporators and advocates of the notorious
_Nauvoo Expositor_, and one of the chief actors in bringing about the
martyrdom, June 27, 1844. In a toadying letter to your president, dated
February 14, 1874, he said the prophet "remarked, in the presence of
Mr. Law, Bishop Knight, John P. Greene, Reynolds Cahoon, and some
others, that if ever Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he
would lead them down to hell."


I decline to accept the statements of such a character; besides,
President Young did not lead the Church to hell, but preserved
it, and under his direction it grew, expanded, and accomplished a
wonderful, even a miraculous work. In the reclamation of the arid
west, the permanent establishment of prosperous communities in the
desert wilds, and for their unity, strength, and industrial and
temporal independence, the "Mormon" people are today the marvel, if
not the admiration of the thinking world. They came here with nothing
but the good will of God. They began in poverty, and "having almost
nothing to invest," says Mr. William E. Symthe in _The Conquest of
Arid America_, "except the labor of their hands and brains, and that
all they have expended in a period of fifty years for all classes of
improvements--from the first shanty to the last turret of the last
temple--came primarily from the soil."

Again he says in the same work:


    Nowhere else has the common prosperity been reared upon firmer
    foundations. Nowhere else are institutions more firmly buttressed
    or better capable of resisting violent economic revolutions. The
    thunder cloud that passed over the land in 1893, leaving a path of
    commercial ruin from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was powerless to
    close the door of a single Mormon store, factory or bank. Strong
    in prosperity, the co-operative industrial and commercial system
    stood immovable in the hour of widespread disaster. The solvency
    of these industries is scarcely more striking than the solvency
    of the farmers from whom they draw their strength. No other
    governor, either in the West or in the East, is able to say what
    the Honorable Heber M. Wells said in assuming the chief magistracy
    of the new state in January, 1896, "We have in Utah," said the
    young governor. "19,816 farms, and 17,584 of them are absolutely
    free from incumbrance." A higher percentage in school attendance
    and lower percentage of illiterates than even in the State of
    Massachusetts, is another of Utah's proud records. P. 71.


Without the divine guidance and the constant watchcare of Jehovah
over the destinies of the "Mormon" pioneers, with Brigham Young at
their head, the West today would be but a barren wilderness. Under the
leadership of Brigham Young the "Mormon" people prospered, and he left
them in a better condition temporally and physically, and spiritually
more united and more firmly established in the faith than they ever
were before. Where among the so-called "factions" can you point to
one that has accomplished the hundredth part of what the followers of
Brigham Young have accomplished? They have all practically disappeared
but one--gone to their destruction. And the one that remains will
dissolve and disappear as surely as the sun shines. You cannot fight
the work of God and prosper.


The testimony of William Marks--a man who was out of harmony with the
Prophet before the latter's death! This testimony of William Marks
sounds too suspicious, given as it was, when it was, and describing an
alleged conversation which never could have taken place. "The reader
will please notice," said David Whitmer in his _Address_ (p. 41), "this
fact in regard to William Marks' statement; and that is, the time when
Brother Joseph told him that polygamy must be put down in the Church."
That time was a "few days" before the Prophet's death.

True, the Prophet was no "fool" (_Herald_ 51:74), and such a
"conversation" as this related by William Marks would have stamped him
"foolish, irrational and a moral suicide," _because_ he could not bring
a charge against others for that for which he was himself responsible.
The Prophet had plural wives, and had officiated in the ceremony of the
sealing of plural wives to others. I have conversed with the principals
in these cases, and know that they told the truth. Furthermore, Mr.
Marks' testimony condemns itself. He proves--if he proves anything at
all--that the Prophet was responsible for this doctrine. This thought
is in harmony with the early teachings of the original elders of the
Reorganization, for the time was when even your elders acknowledged
that the Prophet received the revelation on celestial (including
plural) marriage. On this point David Whitmer says:

    As time rolled on, many of the Reorganization saw that to
    _continue_ to acknowledge that Brother Joseph received the
    revelation would bring bitter persecution upon themselves, as the
    public feeling at that time was very bitter. * * * The leaders
    of the Reorganized church, after a time, began to suppress their
    opinions concerning this matter. They would answer the question
    when asked about it "_I do not know whether Joseph Smith received
    the revelation or not_."


Now, if it is true--and I claim it is--that the leaders of the
Reorganized church acknowledged that the Prophet received the
revelation and practiced that principle, there must be some proof. Turn
to the first volume of the _True L.D.S. Herald_ and read the editorial
on pages 6 to 11. It is on polygamy. After trying to explain the reason
why the Prophet taught and practiced this doctrine, the editor said:

    And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the
    Lord, have deceived the prophet, and I will stretch out my hand
    upon him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. *
    * * We have here the facts as they have transpired and as they will
    continue to transpire in relation to this subject. The death of the
    prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred
    and repented of this iniquity before his death. Page 9.

And on page 27:

    He (Joseph Smith) caused the Revelation to be burned, and when
    he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms
    of his enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At
    that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed
    spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that. By his
    conduct at that time he proved the sincerity of his repentance,
    and of his profession as a prophet. If Abraham[4] and Jacob, by
    repentance, can obtain salvation and exaltation, so can Joseph

Mark you, we have the evidence of the revelation from your own side and
you well remember that but _one_ could and did receive revelations. I
do not accept the apology of your editor; I do not believe that the
Prophet had the revelation burned, or called the doctrine accursed. My
faith in Joseph Smith is such that if he had the revelation--which your
witnesses declare he did--that it was from God as much as any other
revelation he received!


Jason W. Briggs, one of the founders of your church, in the Temple Lot
suit, said:

    I heard something about a revelation on polygamy, or plural
    marriage, when I was in Nauvoo, in 1842. I heard there was one:
    there was talk going on about it at that time, and continued to be;
    but it was not called plural marriage; it was called sealing.

    You ask me what I understood this sealing to be, at the time the
    talk was going on. What I understood it to be was sealing a woman
    to a man to be his wife, to be his wife hereafter, his wife in the
    spirit world.

    I was asked in my direct examination if I did not hear of the
    doctrine of polygamy, etc., and I answered that I talked with
    members with reference to sealing, and I understood that the
    doctrine of sealing, was for eternity; it was sealing a man's wife
    to him for eternity, or wives, either. Record pp. 349, 431, 505.


James Whitehead said:

    There was an ordinance in the Church for sealing, as early as 1842
    or 1843.

    They would be married according to the law of God, not only for
    time but for eternity as well.

These men were among the founders of your church.


Sidney Rigdon, in a lengthy letter to his official paper, _The
Messenger and Advocate_, in 1845 declared that the Prophet was
responsible for the plural marriage doctrine, and said:

    This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their
    death, and was the thing which put them in the power of their
    enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death. P. 475, vol. 2.

He says he "warned Joseph Smith and his family," and told them that
destruction would come upon them if they continued in their course.


You "confidently affirm that there is not a single word in a single
sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or Church publication _printed_
during the life of Joseph Smith, wherein he by word has endorsed the
doctrine of plurality of wives, not a single statement." Whether any
such statement was ever _printed_ in his lifetime or not I am not
prepared to say. But I do know of such evidence being recorded during
his lifetime, for I have seen it.

I have copied the following from the Prophet's manuscript record of
Oct. 5, 1843, and know it is genuine:

    "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 this
    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

There is also at the Historian's office in this city, a Bible, which
I have before me, containing the record of the marriage of Melissa
Lott to the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was recorded at the time,
September 20, 1843. This Bible also contains the record of the sealing
of Cornelius P. and Parmelia Lott, parents of Melissa, which was
done by Patriarch Hyrum Smith in the Prophet's presence and with his
"seal" or sanction. The president of your church has seen this record,
and it matters not what he may say _now_ he _then_ acknowledged the
genuineness of the record.

The following is also copied from the journal of William Clayton which
is in the Historian's office:

    May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy
    Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with Woodsworth.

This is the same William Clayton who wrote the revelation at the
direction and from the dictation of the Prophet July 12, 1843. However,
this principle was first revealed to the Prophet several years before
that time, as you learned in your conversation with President Lorenzo
Snow, when you were in his office.


Right here we will consider the "evidence" you produce to show that
"Joseph Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy
in the strongest terms." The testimony of the thirty-one witnesses
you "produce" was against the "secret wife system" of the vile John
C. Bennett who was excommunicated for betraying female virtue. This
Bennett system had nothing to do with the system of celestial marriage
introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was no more like the
Prophet's doctrine than darkness is like daylight. The certificate
of these parties that you mention was given in October 1842 (T. & S.
3:939), nearly one year before the revelation on celestial marriage
was recorded. At that time the law of marriage in the Church was
that adopted in 1835, and was binding on all who had accepted the
higher law, and they were few in number.[5] The best proof that these
"witnesses" did not condemn the celestial marriage doctrine of the
prophet in this communication, is that out of the thirty-one, at least
sixteen have testified that the Prophet introduced that system. One of
this number of witnesses became the Prophet's wife, one performed a
marriage ceremony in which the Prophet was married to a plural wife,
and one other was a witness to such a marriage ceremony. At least six
testify that the Prophet taught them the principle of plural marriage
and the others, so far as I know, are not on record. That these
witnesses were the dupes of Brigham Young cannot truthfully be said,
for three of them left the Church and never followed Brigham Young, yet
they testify of these things.

The action of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, as recorded in the _Times
and Seasons_ (5:3), wherein Hyrum Brown was cut off the Church for
preaching polygamy and other false doctrines, was just and timely. The
same action would have been taken at any other period of the existence
of the Church. Polygamy never was a doctrine of the Church, and the
system introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith was not called by that
name in his day. Nor was the system of the Prophet the same as that of
Hyrum Brown; and if it had been, the ruling of the Prophet of October
5, 1843, would have cost Brown his standing in the Church, the polygamy
of Brown and John C. Bennett was of their own make. In relation to this
subject, I will quote from the _Life of John Taylor_, pages 223-224:

    The polygamy and gross sensuality charged by Bennett and repeated
    by those ministers in France, had no resemblance to celestial or
    patriarchal marriage which Elder Taylor knew existed at Nauvoo, and
    which he had obeyed. Hence in denying the false charges of Bennett,
    he did not deny the existence of that system of marriage that God
    had revealed; no more than a man would be guilty of denying the
    legal, genuine currency of the country by denying the genuineness
    and denouncing what he knew to be a mere counterfeit of it.

    Another illustration: Jesus took Peter, James and John into the
    mountain, and there met with Moses and Elias, and the glory of God
    shone about them, and these two angels talked with Jesus, and the
    voice of God was heard proclaiming Him to be the Son of God. After
    the glorious vision, as Jesus and His companions were descending
    the mountain, the former said: "Tell the vision to no man, until
    the Son of Man be risen from the dead." Suppose one of these
    apostles had turned from the truth before the Son of Man was risen
    from the dead and under the influence of wicked, lying spirit,
    should charge that Jesus and some of his favorite apostles went up
    into a mountain, and there met Moses and Elias,--or some persons
    pretending to represent them--together with a group of voluptuos
    courtesans, with whom they spent the day in licentious pleasure.
    If the other apostles denounced that as an infamous falsehood,
    would they be untruthful? No; they would not. Or would they be
    under any obligations when denying the falsehoods of the apostate
    to break the commandments the Lord had given them by relating
    just what had happened in the mountain? No; it would have been a
    breach of the Master's strict commandment for them to do that. So
    with Elder Taylor. While he was perfectly right and truthful in
    denying the infamous charges repeated by his oponents, he was under
    no obligation and had no right to announce to the world, at that
    time the doctrine of celestial marriage. It was not the law of the
    Church, or even the law of the Priesthood of the Church; the body
    thereof at the time knew little or nothing of it, though it had
    been revealed to the Prophet and made known to some of his most
    trusted followers. But today, now that the revelation on celestial
    marriage is published to the world, if the slanderous charges
    contained in the writings of John C. Bennett should be repeated,
    every Elder in the Church could truthfully and consistently do just
    what Elder Taylor did in France--he could deny their existence."


After receiving your letter, I requested of my father that he give me
a written statement in answer to your charge that he "discussed" the
doctrine of "polygamy" with you, and received the following:

    _Joseph F. Smith, Jr_.

    Dear Son:--You have submitted to me some statements made by Mr.
    R. C. Evans of the Reorganized church, and desire to know what I
    have to say about them. He says: "If your father denies that he
    and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy, all I have to say about
    it is, that what he states is untrue." Perhaps I could dismiss
    this statement precisely in the same way he has. I could certainly
    do so far more truthfully. He and I did not discuss the doctrine
    of "polygamy" at all. It is true I did introduce him to President
    Lorenzo Snow, to Aunt Lucy W. Smith, to Aunt Catherine P. Smith, to
    Heber J. Grant and a few others. Whatever "discussion" he had on
    the "doctrine of polygamy" may have been with these parties, but
    not with me. While in my company he was my guest by introduction
    from my cousin Joseph Smith, president of the Reorganized church,
    and I carefully avoided any discussion with him upon any and all
    differences of opinion which existed between us, the discussion of
    which could only have resulted in ill feeling and perhaps extreme
    bitterness. I treated him as any gentleman should treat another,
    not as an antagonist but as a stranger within my gates, indeed,
    as my guest; and when we parted it was with mutual good feelings
    and interchange of kindly wishes, without the slightest breath
    or suspicion of unpleasantness, which must have existed had we
    indulged in a "discussion of the doctrine of polygamy," or any
    other points of difference.

    Aunt Catherine P. Smith was making us a short visit at the time,
    and I introduced her to Mr. Evans as the wife of my father, Hyrum
    Smith. They had some conversation, in which I took no part, and
    to the best of my recollection he drew out from her the fact that
    she was married to Hyrum Smith, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, in
    August 1843, in the brick office of Hyrum Smith, at Nauvoo, in the
    presence of her mother, Sarah Godshall Phillips, Mrs. Julia Stone
    and her daughter Hettie.

    Mr. Evans attempted to cross-question her on her statement, but she
    stoutly and unequivocally affirmed the truth of what she had said.
    Mrs. Lizzie Wilcox, your mother and two or three other members of
    the family were present and heard what was said.

    With reference to Mr. Evans' alleged interview with Aunt Lucy W.
    Smith at the Theatre, I need only say I occupied a seat adjoining
    them, and heard the conversation between them, and I have not the
    slightest recollection of the statement he has made about that
    interview. The strong point which he attempts to make is the fact
    that Lucy was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith, on May 1, 1843,
    while the revelation on plural marriage was dated "July 12, 1843,"
    and her consequent embarrassment, was far-fetched; for no one knew
    better than she did that the revelation was given as far back as
    1834, and was first reduced to writing in 1843. And on one could
    have been better prepared to state that fact than Aunt Lucy W.
    Smith. There could not be, therefore, any cause for embarrassment
    on her part on that score, and I apprehend she would have been one
    of the last persons to "sit silent and confused" under such an
    implied impeachment.

    That she bore testimony to the good character of Aunt Emma Smith
    with reference to other matters than plural marriage is true;
    but not to her conduct toward that principle. Aunt Lucy is still
    living, and sound mentally and physically. She can, and no doubt
    will, fully clear away any sophistry and falsehood of Mr. Evans'
    statement of the alleged interview.

    Referring to the interview with President Snow, Mr. Evans says:
    "Lorenzo Snow did testify to me as stated. But then and there, in
    the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed
    his testimony to be false by his own evidence when given under
    oath, and his sister's statement signed in 1842. At this, Snow,
    Cannon and Smith were much annoyed. So much for your father's
    statement, which says 'you did not say one word to him in relation
    to polygamy.'" The fact is, President Snow gave Mr. Evans, in my
    presence and hearing, a plain, simple narration of the instructions
    he received from Joseph Smith in regard to the doctrine of plural
    marriage, including almost word for word the statement he had
    previously made under oath, and testified that Joseph informed
    him that his sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his
    wife. This much and more in this line I distinctly heard and as
    distinctly remember, but I did not hear the alleged arraignment
    of President Snow's testimony by Mr. Evans, nor did I witness or
    experience any "annoyance" on the part of myself or anyone present
    because of the said arraignment. Indeed, I am prepared to affirm
    that Mr. Evans did not "then and there" in my presence and that of
    Geo. Q. Cannon, nor in the presence of any one there, "show his
    (Snow's) testimony to be false," either "by his own evidence when
    given under oath," or "by his sister's statement signed in 1842,"
    or at any other time.

    I am here constrained to say that Mr. Evans was treated by
    President Snow, as also by President George Q. Cannon and
    myself, in the most courteous and respectful manner, and so
    far as I observed his demeanor towards us was reciprocal and
    gentlemanly--and not one word was said to him by anyone nor by
    him to anyone in my presence that was in any degree discourteous,
    contentious or embarrassing.

    I conclude, therefore, that the foregoing statements made by
    Mr. Evans, were after thoughts uttered by him with a view to
    misrepresent the truth and the facts, on the lines of the bitter
    and relentless opposition of himself and associates to the Church
    of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in general, and the doctrine
    of plural marriage in particular, as revealed, taught and practiced
    by Joseph Smith himself, from whom Brigham Young and many others
    received it. On these matters they are so surcharged with animus
    that they will not receive, admit, or tell the truth.

    With reference to Mr. Evans' allusion to my first wife I will
    simply say: She was most intimately acquainted from her childhood
    with the young lady who became my second wife, and it was with
    their full knowledge and consent that I entered into plural
    marriage, my first wife being present as a witness when I took my
    second wife, and freely gave her consent thereto. Our associations
    as a family were pleasant and harmonious.

    It was not until long after the second marriage that my first wife
    was drawn away from us, not on account of domestic troubles, but
    for other causes which I do not care to mention. In eight years of
    wedded life we had no children. She constantly complained of ill
    health and was as constantly under a doctor's care. She concluded
    to go to California for her health and before going procured a
    separation. This all occurred previous to 1867. On March 1, 1868
    I married Sarah E. Richards, and January 1, 1870, I married Edna
    Lambson, from one to three years after my first wife separated
    from me, and had become a resident of California. She subsequently
    returned to Utah and later went to St. Louis where she died.

Your self-exaltation in classing yourself with Jacob is most
stupendous, to say the least. He was above accepting idle rumors, from
such sources as those given by the writer of the article of _Collier's_
which you quote, and which are false. Jacob was no aspersor.

Aunt Catherine Phillips Smith also declares that she did testify to you
in regard to her marriage and that you questioned her quite closely.
My mother declares the same for she was present at the conversation.
Presidents Snow and Cannon are not here to speak in their defense, but
I am satisfied that they would bear witness to the foregoing letter.
Aunt Lucy may testify for herself.


The day I received a copy of the _Ensign_ containing your discourse
from which you give extracts in your "reply," in relation to your
"conversation" with Aunt Lucy W. Smith, I sent her a copy of your
remarks with the request that she tell me if you had correctly reported
her testimony. In the course of a few days I received this:

    My Dear Boy: I very much regret not feeling able to answer your
    request at an earlier date. I am, however, much improved in health
    since coming to Logan, and take pleasure in declaring to you that
    the infamous discourse delivered 16th Feb. 1905 (the date of the
    _Ensign_) at St. Louis, Missouri, by Mr. Evans, is a fabrication of
    falsehoods and misrepresentations. I confess that I was not only
    surprised, but shocked beyond measure. Now one of the presidency
    of the Reorganized church, just think of it! And at the time he
    came to Salt Lake City three years ago, he claimed to be one of
    "young Joseph's apostles; came with a letter of introduction from
    cousin Joseph to his cousin Joseph F., saying that any courtesy
    shown him would be appreciated. Accordingly, Mr. Evans was shown
    every consideration. He accepted the generous hospitality of our
    President and his model family. Having expressed a desire to meet
    Mrs. Lucy W. Kimball, who was engaged that afternoon, arrangements
    were made to meet at the theatre, as he had to leave next day.
    He asked me many questions which I answered frankly--some very
    offensive hearsay questions that aroused my indignation, but I
    bore the ordeal as a martyr should. And from this opportunity
    sprang the wonderful discourse of wicked falsehood and malicious
    misrepresentation. O, shame! Where canst thou hide thy brazen face!
    How dare he resort to such infamy unless to satiate a morbid desire
    for notoriety among sensation-mongers, who seek not for light or
    truth! If so he only gratified the cravings of the basest and
    lowest caste.

    I cannot believe that the once highly and beloved Emma who was so
    loyal and true to her husband in all the early trials and hardships
    to which he was subject, when in chains and bondage, when he was
    dragged from his bed, tarred and feathered, imprisoned and mocked
    and scoffed at, ridiculed and abused, and his life threatened by
    infuriated mobs and she stood by him and comforted him in all of
    his afflictions--I cannot believe after enduring all this for
    his sake, that Emma Smith ever denied seeing the revelation on
    celestial marriage after receiving it in good faith and accepting
    it as a command from God, _knowing_ as I do, that she taught it
    to Eliza and Emily Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and urged
    them to accept it by being sealed to her husband. She treated them
    kindly and considerately and knew they were associated with him as
    his wives. She was then a happy woman, until the tempter came in
    human form, and she partook of the apostate spirit so rife in those
    days. She could not deny these facts without sinning against her
    husband, sinning against his wives, against the truth, and against
    her God!

    If her son insists that this denial was her last testimony he
    fastens a stigma on her once noble character in the estimation of
    her former friends and associates, who were familiar with the facts
    of the period referred to. This misguided son, young and without
    experience, was surrounded by his father's most wicked enemies who
    had betrayed his father, and had been instrumental in taking his
    life; and who, after they had accomplished this foul act, through
    sinister policies, determined to destroy the work his father was
    commanded to do, and had laid a permanent foundation on which to
    build up his church--the Church of Christ. They sought to influence
    his son against the teachings of his father, call him forth as a
    "leader" with promises of success, and good backing. Poor boy was
    flattered and led on and on, by crafty men, until he became an
    unbeliever of the principles his father had taught; and I cannot
    but believe that through such influences his mother has been
    misrepresented. I am unwilling to believe otherwise.

    I expressed regrets to Mr. Evans in relation to the course taken
    by "young Joseph" through the influence of the bitter opponents of
    his father. I said he had closed his eyes to anything that would
    cast a ray of light on the vexed question: "Did my father have
    more [other] wives than my mother?" I answered truthfully without
    hesitation. Afterwards he went to Lehi, called on Melissa Lott,
    with whom he had been associated from early childhood and asked:
    "Will you answer me one question, I come to you knowing you will
    tell me the truth, were you my father's wife?" "Yes, Joseph, I
    was." "Where is your proof?" She stepped to the stand and took the
    family Bible opened to the family record, placed it on his knee and
    asked: "Do you recognize the handwriting?" "Certainly that is your
    father's (Cornelius P. Lott's) handwriting, know it as well as my
    own." Then read the marriage certificate of the Prophet Joseph and
    Melissa Lott.

    Oliver Huntington who is still living testifies that they were very
    intimate as boys, and when together had often talked the matter

    Referring to Mr. Evans again. I said: "Does this prove him (Joseph)
    an honest man?" Now does this cover the ground of your inquiry? I
    have so often been interrupted by callers, that I may not have been
    explicit enough. My personal testimony you already have, if not you
    can get it by referring to "Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints,"
    by L. O. Littlefield, which you will find at the President's
    (Historian's) office.

Does this read much like she had been correctly represented?


In reference to the wicked charge you make in your discourse mentioned
in Aunt Lucy's letter, against President Young of practicing gross
immorality while on his mission in England in 1840 and winter of 1841,
a sufficient answer will be found in the revelation of January 19,
1841, wherein the Lord, by revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith

    I give to you _my servant_ Brigham Young, to be a President over
    the Twelve traveling Council,

    Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom
    upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word
    to every creature.

And the revelation of July 9, 1841, given after his return from England:

    * * * Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Brigham, it
    is no more required at your hand to leave your family as in times
    past, for your offering is acceptable to me.

In this abusive charge against President Young you are striking at
Jehovah, and accusing Him, either of condoning such a grievous sin, or
failing to discover it. Such a charge as that is ridiculously absurd,
I feel safe in accepting the word of the Lord in preference to the
ribald, indecent statements of those who speak forth the vulgar desires
of their own minds.

                                                Joseph F. Smith, Jr.


1. I am not so blind in my admiration of the "Mormon" people or so
bigoted in my devotion to the "Mormon" faith as to think there are
no individuals in the Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly,
intemperate speech, and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that
some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of
excitement, under stress of special provocation, even "Mormon" leaders
have given utterances to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to
learn that it is just in a writer of history, or of "purpose fiction,"
that "speak truly," to make a collection of these things and represent
them as the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an

"No one would measure the belief of 'Christians,'" says a truly great
writer, "by certain statements in the Fathers, nor judge the moral
principles of Roman Catholics by prurient quotations from the Casuist;
nor yet estimate Lutherans by the utterances and deeds of the early
successors of Luther, nor Calvinists by the burning of Servetus. In all
such cases the general standpoint of the times has to be first taken
into account."--Edeshiem's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, preface
p. 8.

A long time ago the great Edmund Burke in his defense of the rashness
expressed in both speech and action of some of our patriots of the
American revolution period said: "It is not fair to judge of the temper
of the disposition of any man or any set of men when they are composed
and at rest from their conduct or their expressions in a state of
disturbance and irritation."

2. Writing of the Mormon Meadows massacre Hubert H. Bancroft, in his
History of Utah, page 544 says: "Indeed it may well be understood at
the outset that this horrible crime, so often and so persistently
charged upon the Mormon church and its leaders, was the crime of an
individual, the crime of a fanatic of the worst stamp, one who was a
member of the Mormon church, but of whose intentions the church knew
nothing, and whose bloody acts the members of the church, high and
low, regard with as much abhorrence as any out of the church. Indeed,
the blow fell upon the brotherhood with threefold force and damage.
There was the cruelty of it, which wrung their hearts; there was the
odium attending its performance in their midst; and there was the
strength it lent their enemies further to malign and molest them. The
Mormons denounce the Mountain Meadows massacre, and every act connected
therewith, as earnestly and as honestly as any in the outside world.
This is abundantly proved, and may be accepted as a historical fact."

3. See also Doctrine and Covenants section 101:80, on this point.

4. A polygamist the friend of God, whose praise you sing, and the man
you are _glad_ to call the father of the faithful.--_Saints' Herald_

5. Those thirty-one witnesses were: S. Bennett, George Miller, Alpheus
Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, Wilson Law, Wilford Woodruff, Newel K.
Whitney, Albert Petty, Elias Higbee, John Taylor, Ebenezer Robinson,
Aaron Johnson, Emma Smith, Elizabeth A. Whitney, Sarah M. Cleveland,
Eliza R. Snow, Mary C. Miller, Lois Cutler, Thirza Cahoon, Ann Hunter,
Jane Law, Sophia Marks, Polly Z. Johnson, Abagail Works, Catharine
Petty, Sarah Higbee, Phebe Woodruff, Leonora Taylor, Sarah Hillman,
Rosanna Marks, and Angeline Robinson.


In both replies to Mr. Evans, mention is made of two articles in the
_Saints' Herald_, volume one, that were written by Isaac Sheen, the
first editor of that paper. These references were ignored by Mr. Evans
in his publication of a portion of the foregoing correspondence. It
would occupy too much space to copy these articles in full as they
are quite lengthy, but I feel that the gist of the matter should be
presented in more detail than it is given in the replies.

Mr. Sheen's argument is that the Saints at Nauvoo "set up their idols
in their heart," and went to the Prophet Joseph Smith and asked him to
inquire of the Lord and ascertain from Him if it would not be proper
for them to practice plural marriage. This the Prophet Joseph did and
in answer the Lord gave him the revelation on celestial marriage,
granting the practice of plural marriage, and then, after giving this
revelation the Lord smote the Prophet for his 'iniquity' in asking for
the revelation, and poured out wrath and indignation upon the Saints
for their participation in what he calls "abominations."

Reference is also made to the prophecies of Ezekiel, Balaam and Micaiah
to substantiate his theory which Mr. Sheen admits he is unable to
"satisfactorily explain." An extensive quotation from the first article
follows, which will give an idea of the position in which the members
of the Reorganized church regard the Prophet Joseph Smith and the
culmination of his most glorious mission.


    We might call your attention to many prophecies in the Bible which
    these backsliders[1] have fulfilled by their abominations. Ezekiel
    appears to have had a very clear manifestation of the wickedness of
    these men and the plan pursued by them, by which they embark into
    polygamy. In Ezekiel 14 c. 1, 5, v, the prophet says, "Then came
    certain elders of Israel unto me, saying, Son of man, these men
    have set up their idols in their heart and put the stumblingblock
    of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all
    by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith
    the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his
    idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity
    before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord, will
    answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;
    that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because
    they are all estranged from me through their idols." We have shown
    you that God gave a revelation unto us in which he commanded that
    every man should "cleave unto his wife and none else," and that
    he commanded us saying, "Repent and remember the Book of Mormon
    and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to
    say, but to do according to that which I have written," and that
    in that book there is much testimony against polygamy. All these
    instructions were sufficient for our guidance, but "men have set
    up their idols in their hearts, and put the stumblingblock of
    their iniquity before their faces." This adulterous spirit had
    captivated their hearts and they desired a license from God to
    lead away captive the fair daughters of His people, and in this
    state of mind they came to the Prophet Joseph. Could the Lord do
    anything more or less than what Ezekiel hath prophesied? The Lord
    hath declared by Ezekiel what kind of an answer he would give them,
    therefore he answered them according to the multitude of their
    idols. Paul had also prophesied that "for this cause God shall send
    them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they
    all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure
    in unrighteousness." Both these prophecies agree. In Ezekiel's
    prophecy the Lord also says, "I will set my face against that
    man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him
    off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the
    Lord. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I
    the Lord have deceived that prophet,[2] and I will stretch out my
    hand upon him and I will destroy him from the midst of my people
    Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity;
    the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of
    him that seeketh unto him; that the house of Israel may go no
    more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their
    transgression; but that they may be my people, and I may be their
    God, saith the Lord God," 8c., 11 v. We have here the facts as they
    have transpired and as they will continue to transpire in relation
    to this subject. The death of the prophet is one fact that has
    been realized although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity
    before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some
    of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily.
    Those who have practiced these abominations have become "a sign
    and a proverb" among men in accordance with this prophecy. These
    are the "false teachers" prophesied of by Peter, of whom he said
    "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
    now of a long time lingereth not, and their abomination slumbereth
    not." The reason why the Lord destroyed the prophet and made those
    who "set up their idols in their heart," a sign and a proverb,
    made them bear the punishment of their iniquity is worthy of our
    earnest attention. We are informed that the reason why the Lord
    would perform all these things was this, "that the house of Israel
    may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with
    all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I
    may be their God." Here is positive evidence that this prophecy
    was to be fulfilled in the last days, for there has only been a
    small part of the house of Israel (at any time since this prophecy
    was given) that were obedient to the Lord. The time is not fully
    come when Israel shall "go no more astray," and not "be polluted
    any more with all their transgressions," therefore the punishment
    of these men who have committed these sins must continue until
    that happy day shall come. But as the Lord says in this prophecy,
    "repent and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your
    faces from your abominations, so say we, and return unto the fold
    from whence you have strayed." As some may yet doubt whether God
    would act in this way toward men who set up their idols in their
    heart, we will see how God dealt with Balaam. In Numbers 22 c. we
    are informed that Balak, king of the Moabites, sent the elders of
    Moab and Midian unto Balaam with the rewards of divination in their
    hands to entreat him that he would curse Israel, but God said unto
    Balaam, "Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the
    people, for they are blessed." And Balaam rose up in the morning,
    and said unto the Princes of Balak, "Get you unto your land; for
    the Lord refuseth to give me leave to go with you." And Balak
    sent yet again princes, more, and more honorable than they. And
    they came to Balaam and said to him, "Thus sayeth Balak, the son
    of Zippor, let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto
    me: For I will promote thee unto very great honor, and I will do
    whatsoever thou sayest unto me; come, therefore, I pray thee, curse
    me this people." Now although the Lord had said unto Balaam, "Thou
    shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they
    are blessed," yet the great honor that was offered him, allured
    him, and he inquired of the Lord again, and said unto the princes,
    "Tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will
    say unto me more." And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto
    him, "If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them: but
    yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do." And
    Balaam rose up in the morning and saddled his ass, and went with
    the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went;
    and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against
    him. So we find that the Lord told him not to go, but afterwards,
    having "set up his idol in his heart" he inquired of the Lord
    again whether he might not go and curse Israel and God's anger was
    kindled against him because he did so, although God had commanded
    him to go. This is, therefore, a parallel case with Ezekiel's

    In I Kings, 22 c. we are informed that the King of Israel wanted
    Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead
    to battle, and there were four hundred prophets who said "Go up,
    for the Lord shall deliver it into the hands of the king." And
    Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides,
    that we might inquire of him?" And the king of Israel said unto
    Jehoshapat, "There is yet one, Micaiah, the son of Imlah, by
    whom we may inquire of the Lord; but I hate him, for he doth not
    prophesy good concerning me, but evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let
    not the king say so." So he was sent for. The messenger that was
    gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, "Behold now the words
    of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy
    word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that
    which is good." And Micaiah said, "As the Lord liveth, what the
    Lord saith unto me, that will I speak." We are then informed that
    Micaiah prophesied like the false prophets,[4] and then against
    them. And he said, "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all
    the hosts of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his
    left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab that he may go up
    and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this matter, and another
    said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before
    the Lord and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him
    wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
    spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, thou shalt
    persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do so. Now therefore
    behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these
    thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." This
    doctrine was extensively preached in the Church before iniquity
    overthrew the Church, and by this doctrine the Church might have
    been saved, if men had not "set up their idols in their heart."


1. The Prophet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Saints.

2. The inspired translation reads: "I the Lord have not deceived that

3. Mr. Sheen forgets that the Lord said, "Thou shalt not curse the
people, for they are blessed," which command Balaam hearkened to.

4. The prophecy was; "Go and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it
into the hands of the king," v. 15. This was uttered in mockery, if not
why did the king reply: "How many times shall I adjure thee that thou
tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord," v. 16.
_Then_ Micaiah told the king that he should fall at Ramoth-Gilead, so
the king acted with full knowledge of the word of the Lord concerning
his death when he went forth to battle. Therefore the Lord did not
deceive Ahab in this matter.


Additional testimony of a few out of the multitude[1] of witnesses who
were taught these principles by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and who knew
that he received the revelation known as section 132 in the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants.


In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A
few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith's
house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and
requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a
little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of
the river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality
of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded
him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble
that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that
an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword,
threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the

He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as
his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the
way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation
was prolonged, I think one hour or more, in which he told me many
important things.

I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come
forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is

Lorenzo Snow.

Territory of Utah, Box Elder County. ss.

Personally came before me J. C. Wright, Clerk of the County and Probate
Courts in and for the County and Territory aforesaid, Lorenzo Snow, and
who being duly sworn deposeth and says that the foregoing statement by
him subscribed is true of his own certain knowledge.

Witness my hand and seal of Court, at my office in Brigham City, Box
Elder County, Utah Territory, this 28th day of August, A.D. 1869.


J. C. Wright, Clerk.


United States of America,

State of Utah.

County of Salt Lake.

Lucy Walker Smith Kimball, being first duly sworn, says:

I was a plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was married for
time and eternity in Nauvoo, State of Illinois, on the first day of
May, 1843, by Elder William Clayton. The Prophet was then living with
his first wife, Emma Smith, and I know that she gave her consent to the
marriage of at least four women to her husband as plural wives, and she
was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives. The
names of these women are Eliza and Emily Partridge, and Maria and Sarah
Lawrence, all of whom knew that I too was his wife.

When the Prophet Joseph Smith mentioned the principle of plural
marriage to me I felt indignant, and so expressed myself to him,
because my feelings and education were averse to anything of that
nature. But he assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him
of the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its
divine origin for myself. He counseled me to pray to the Lord, which
I did, and thereupon received from Him a powerful and irresistible
testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which
testimony has abided with me ever since.

On the 8th day of February, 1845, I was married for _time_ to President
Heber C. Kimball, and bore to him nine children. And in this connection
allow me to say to his everlasting credit that during the whole of my
married life with him he never failed to regard me as the wife for
eternity of his devoted friend, the Prophet Joseph Smith.

                                       Lucy Walker Smith Kimball.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of December, 1902.


James Jack, Notary Public.


United States of America,

State of Utah.

County of Salt Lake.

Catherine Phillips Smith,[2] being first sworn, says:

I am the daughter of Thomas Denner and Sarah Godshall Phillips, and
was born in Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, on the first day of
August, 1819. My present residence is East Jordan, Salt Lake County,

I was married to Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
as his plural wife, and lived with him as his wife. The sealing was
performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, in Nauvoo, State of
Illinois, in August, 1843, in the brick office belonging to my husband,
and occupied at the time as a dwelling by Brother and Sister Robert
and Julia Stone, and was witnessed by my mother, Sister Stone and her
daughter Hettie.

In consequence of the strong feeling manifested at the time against
plural marriage and those suspected of having entered into it, I, with
my mother, moved to St. Louis near the close of the year, where I was
living when the Prophet Joseph and my husband were martyred.

The purpose of this affidavit is that my testimony to the truthfulness
and divinity of plural marriage may live after I shall have passed
away; and in this spirit I commend it to all to whom it may come.

                                         Catherine Phillips Smith.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of January, 1903.


                                      L. John Nuttall, Notary Public.


Territory of Utah, County of Iron. ss.

Be it remembered on this first day of August A.D. 1883, personally
appeared before me John W. Brown a notary public in and for said
county, Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton, who was by me sworn in due
form of law, and upon her oath says: I am a citizen in the Territory
of Utah, over the age of twenty-one years, and I am the daughter of
Ezekiel Johnson and Julia Hills Johnson his wife; that I was born at
Westford, in the State of Vermont on the 22nd day of October A.D. 1813;
that I had nine brothers who were named respectfully Joel H., Seth,
David, Benjamin F., Joseph E., Elmer, George W., William D., and Amos;
and six sisters named respectfully Nancy, Dulcena, Julia, Susan, Mary
and Esther, all of whom, with myself, were baptized into the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the exception of Elmer, who died
in infancy.

Deponent further says, that in the years 1842 and 1843, I resided most
of the time at Macedonia, in the County of Hancock, State of Illinois,
sometimes with my sister who was the wife of Almon W. Babbitt, and
sometimes with my brother Benjamin F. Johnson. During that time the
Prophet Joseph Smith taught me the principle of celestial marriage
including plurality of wives and asked me to become his wife. He first
spoke to me on this subject at the house of my brother Benjamin F. I
also lived a portion of the time at Brother Joseph Smith's in Nauvoo,
when many conversations passed between him and myself on this subject.
On a certain occasion in the spring of the year 1843, the exact date of
which I do not now recollect, I went from Macedonia to Nauvoo to visit
another of my sisters, the one who was the widow of Lyman R. Sherman,
deceased, at which time I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. At
the time this took place Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, came to me and
said I need not be afraid. I had been fearing and doubting about the
principle and so had he, but he now knew it was true. After this time
I lived with the Prophet Joseph as his wife, and he visited me at the
home of my brother Benjamin F. at Macedonia.

Deponent further says that I had many conversations with Eliza Beaman
who was also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who was present when I was
sealed to him, on the subject of plurality of wives, both before and
after the performance of that ceremony. And also that since the death
of the Prophet Joseph Smith I was married for time to Reuben Barton of
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Ill., by whom I have had five daughters, one only
of whom is now living.

                                        Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Almira W. Johnson Smith Barton the
day and year first above written.


                                          John W. Brown, Notary Public.


Territory of Utah, County of Millard. ss.

Be it remembered that on this eighth day of July, A.D. 1869, personally
appeared before me Edward Partridge, Probate Judge in and for said
county, Martha McBride Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law,
and upon her oath saith that sometime in the summer of the year 1842,
at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was
married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Heber C. Kimball, one of the Twelve
Apostles in said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating

                                                Martha McBride Kimball.

Subscribed and sworn to by said Martha McBride Kimball the day and year
first above written.


                                       Edward Partridge, Probate Judge.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on this twentieth day of May, A.D. 1869,
personally appeared before me, James Jack a notary public in and for
said county, Melissa Lott Willes, who was by me sworn in due form of
law, and upon her oath saith that on the twentieth day of September,
A.D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois,
she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Hyrum Smith, Presiding Patriarch
of said Church, according to laws of the same, regulating marriage, in
the presence of Cornelius P. Lott and Parmelia Lott.

                                                  Melissa Lott Willes.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Melissa Lott Willes, the day and
year first above written.


                                            James Jack, Notary Public.


I, Lovina Walker, hereby certify that while I was living with Aunt Emma
Smith, in Fulton City, Fulton Co., Illinois, in the year 1846, that she
told me that she, Emma Smith, was present and witnessed the marrying or
sealing of Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Maria Lawrence and Sarah
Lawrence to her husband, Joseph Smith, and that she gave her consent

                                                         Lovina Walker.

We hereby witness that Lovina Walker made and signed the above
statement on this 16th day of June, A.D. 1869, at Salt Lake City, S. L.
County, Utah Territory, of her own free will and record.

                                                       Hyrum S. Walker,
                                                       Sarah E. Smith,
                                                       Joseph F. Smith.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on this nineteenth day of June, A.D. 1869,
personally appeared before me Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said
county, Sarah Ann Kimball, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and
upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of July, A.D. 1842,
at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of Illinois, she was
married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Newell K. Whitney, Presiding Bishop of
said Church, according to the laws of the same regulating marriage, in
the presence of Elizabeth Ann Whitney her mother.

                                                      Sarah A. Kimball.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Sarah Ann (Whitney) Kimball, the
day and year first above written.

                                               E. Smith, Probate Judge.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on this thirtieth day of August, A.D. 1869,
personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for
said county, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was by me sworn in due form
of law, and upon her oath saith that on the twenty-seventh day of
July, A.D. 1842, at the city of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, state of
Illinois, she was present and witnessed the marrying or sealing of her
daughter Sarah Ann Whitney to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and
all eternity, by her husband Newel K. Whitney then Presiding Bishop of
the Church.

                                                        E. A. Whitney.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Elizabeth Ann Whitney the day and
year first above written.

                                            James Jack, Notary Public.


                                         Springtown, Sept. 15, 1869.

I, Orson Hyde, do hereby certify and declare according to my best
recollection that on the fourth day of September I was married to Miss
Marinda N. Johnson, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the year of our Lord 1834,
and in the month of February or March, 1843, I was married to Miss
Martha R. Browitt, by Joseph Smith, the martyred prophet, and by him
she was sealed to me for time and for all eternity in Nauvoo, Ill.,
and in the month of April of the same year, 1843, I was married by the
same person to Mrs. Mary Ann Price, and by him she was sealed to me for
time and for all eternity, in Nauvoo, Ill., while the woman to whom I
was first married was yet living, and gave her cordial consent to both
transactions, and was personally present to witness the ceremonies.

                                                         Orson Hyde.

Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of September,
1869, at Springtown, Sanpete County, UT.

                                George Brough, Justice of the Peace.

I hereby certify that the above named George Brough is a justice of the
peace for the precinct of Springtown in the county of Sanpete, UT., and
that he is duly qualified in accordance with law; in testimony whereof,
I hereunto set my hand and official seal of the County Court of Sanpete
County, at my office, Manti City, this Sept. 16, 1869.


                                         William T. Reed, County Clerk.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on the 26th 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 form of law, and upon
his oath saith, that on the fifth day of April, A.D. 1841, at the city
of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he married or sealed
Louisa Beaman to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, according to the order of celestial marriage
revealed to the said Joseph Smith.

                                                   Joseph B. Noble.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph Bates Noble, the day and
year first above written.


                                         James Jack, Notary Public.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally
appeared before me, Elias Smith, Probate Judge for said county, Rhoda
Richards, who was by me sworn in due form of law and upon her oath
saith that on the twelfth day of June A.D. 1843, at the city of Nauvoo,
County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to
Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, by Willard Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of said Church,
according to the laws of the same regulating marriage.

                                                     Rhoda Richards.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Rhoda Richards, the day and year
above written.


                                          Elias Smith, Probate Judge.


                                 Mesa City, Arizona, 9th March, 1904.

_President Joseph F. Smith_,

_Washington, D. C_.

My Dear Brother:--

In reading reports from the Senate Committee on the Reed Smoot case,
I see that witnesses are subpoenaed to prove that the Prophet Joseph
Smith did not authorize or practice polygamy; and I do know that he did
teach plural marriage, and that he did give to me a plural wife who is
still living with me, and that I saw one of my sisters married to him.
* * *

And I do know that at his Mansion House was living Mariah and Sarah
Lawrence and one of Cornelius P. Lott's daughters as his plural wives
with the full knowledge of his wife, Emma, of the married relations to

At that time I was his legal business agent at Macedonia or Ramtis,
and was familiar with his family or domestic affairs; and occupying,
as I did, the family mansion often in a business way with Emma, the
Prophet's first wife, who at no time did ever in my hearing deny the
plural character of her husband's family.

And now with this and much more knowledge relating to this subject,
could my evidence before the Senate Committee be of any real value to
the cause of truth? If so, although too infirm to travel alone I would
willingly try to be there, if according to your counsel and wish.

Loyal to the truth, I am,

                             Always brother,

                                                 B. F. Johnson.


The following letter was written by Elder William Clayton who wrote the
revelation known as section 132 in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants,
at the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, July 12, 1843.[3]

    Salt Lake City, Nov, 11, 1871.

    _Madison M. Scott, Esq_.

    Dear Sir:

    Your letter of 23rd of June last, was received by due course of
    mail, but owing to my being so very closely confined with public
    duties, which has almost destroyed my health, I have not answered
    your letter so promptly as is my practice. My health is yet very
    poor, but I have resigned the office which was bearing so heavy
    upon me, and am in hopes to regain my usual sound health.

    Now, in regard to the subject matter of your letter, it appears to
    me that the principal topic is what is commonly called polygamy,
    but which I prefer to call celestial marriage. As to young Joseph
    saying that the Church here have apostatized; that _we_ have
    introduced polygamy, denying bitterly that his father ever had a
    revelation on the subject, that is all mere bosh! I _believe_ he
    knows better, and I have often felt sorry to learn that the sons
    of the Prophet should spend their time in contending against a
    pure and holy principle which their father's blood was shed to
    establish. They will have a heavy atonement to make when they meet
    their father in the next world. They are in the hands of God, and
    my respect for their father will not permit me to say much about
    the wicked course of his sons.

    _Now, I say to you, as I am ready to testify to all the world, and
    on which testimony I am most willing to meet all the Latter-day
    Saints and all apostates, in time and through all eternity, I did
    write the revelations on celestial marriage given through the
    Prophet Joseph Smith, on the 12th of July, 1843_.

    When the revelation was written there was no one present except the
    Prophet Joseph, his brother Hyrum and myself. It was written in the
    small office upstairs in the rear of the brick store which stood
    on the banks of the Mississippi river. It took some three hours to
    write it. Joseph dictated sentence by sentence, and I wrote it as
    he dictated. After the whole was written Joseph requested me to
    read it slowly and carefully, which I did, and he then pronounced
    it correct. The same night a copy was taken by Bishop Whitney,
    which copy is now here (in the Historian's office) and which I know
    and testify is correct. The original was destroyed by Emma Smith.

    I again testify that the revelation on polygamy was given through
    the prophet Joseph on the 12th July, 1843; and that the Prophet
    Joseph both taught and practiced polygamy I do positively know,
    and bear testimony to the fact. In April, 1843, he sealed to me my
    second wife, my first wife being then living. By my said second
    wife I had two sons born in Nauvoo. The first died; the second is
    here now, and is married.

    I had the honor to seal one woman[4] to Joseph under his direction.
    I could name ten or a dozen of his wives who are now living in
    this territory, so that for any man to tell me that Joseph did not
    teach polygamy, he is losing his time, for I know better. It is
    not hearsay, nor opinion with me, for I positively know of what I
    speak, and I testify to the truth, and shall be willing to meet all
    opponents on the subject through all eternity.

    As to the Church here having apostatized that is all a mere
    matter of assertion, destitute of truth. President Young and his
    associates are, and have been doing everything they can to carry
    out the plans and instructions of the Prophet Joseph, and so
    eternity will prove to the condemnation and confusion of all their
    enemies. Any one who says to the contrary does not know Joseph nor
    the mission the Lord gave him to fulfill. * * *

                                            Truly yours,
                                                   William Clayton.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

As many false statements have been made in relation to the authorship
of the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem it but justice to all
lovers of truth for me to express what I know concerning this very
important matter.

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 his 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 22, 1843,) he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane
Knowlton, to me; and when I heard the 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.

                                                        Howard Coray.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of June, A.D. 1882.


                                          James Jack, Notary Public.


Territory of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Be it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June, A.D. 1869,
personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for
said county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn in due form of law,
and upon his oath saith, that on or about the 12th day of August,
A.D. 1843, while in meeting with the High Council [he being a member
thereof] in Hyrum Smith's brick office, in the City of Nauvoo, County
of Hancock, State of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation
to the subject of plurality of wives, as there were rumors about
respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those
rumors, 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 12, 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, George
W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, William Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron
Johnson, Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred
and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that William
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 teachings and testimony of the said
Hyrum Smith; and further, that the copy of said revelation on celestial
marriage published in the _Deseret News_ extra of September 14, A.D.,
1852, is a true copy of the same.

                                                        David Fullmer.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said David Fullmer the day and year
first above written.


                                            James Jack, Notary Public.


Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886,
before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly,
County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city,
county and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith:

That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of
Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the
High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was
present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated;
Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and
others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the
revelation on celestial marriage.

I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published
in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the
best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the
revelation then read by Hyrum Smith.

The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with
Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by
the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority
as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When read to this deponent and said High Council, I believed it was a
revelation from Jesus Christ, and I believe so now.

                                                          Leonard Soby.

Subscribed and sworn to by the said Leonard Soby the day and year first
above written.

                                      Joshua W. Roberts, Notary Public.

Witnessed by:

James H. Hart,

Samuel Harrison.


State of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

John W. Rigdon, being duly sworn, says: I am the son of Sidney Rigdon,
deceased. Was born at Mentor, in the State of Ohio, in the year 1830,
and am now over seventy-five years of age. My father, Sidney Rigdon,
joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that year,
and was in 1833 ordained to be Joseph Smith's first counselor which
position he held up to the time Joseph the Prophet was killed, at
Carthage jail, in 1844. That Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon moved from
Kirtland, with their families, to the State of Missouri, during the
winter of 1837, but Rigdon did not reach Far West, in the State of
Missouri, until the last of April, 1838. That during the troubles in
Missouri, in the year 1838, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, his brother,
Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others, whose names I do not now
remember were arrested and imprisoned in Liberty jail, about forty
miles from the village of Far West, in Caldwell County, Missouri, where
they all remained incarcerated for several months. That while said
Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Lyman Wight and others were
prisoners in said Liberty jail, as aforesaid I, with my mother, wife
of Sidney Rigdon, Emma Smith, wife of said Joseph Smith, and Joseph
Smith, son of Joseph and Emma Smith, went to see the said prisoners
during the latter part of the winter of 1838. We all went together in
the same carriage and came home together. We stayed at Liberty jail
with the prisoners three days and then left for home. The story that
is being told by some of the members of the Reorganized Church, at
Lamoni, that young Joseph Smith, now president of the said Reorganized
Church, was ordained by his father, Joseph Smith, to be the leader of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after his father's
death, is not true, for I know that no such ordination took place while
we were at Liberty jail; that if any such ordination had taken place I
most certainly should have known it and remembered it, as I was with
young Joseph, the Prophet's son, all the time we were there. If Joseph
Smith had ordained his son Joseph to be the leader of the Church at his
death, he would have done so in a manner that there could have been
no doubt about it. Both of his counselors were then in prison with
him, namely, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, and it would have been in
order for the prophet to have called upon them to assist him in such
an ordination had it taken place, and a record of the same made in the
Church books, so that all members of the Church might have known that
such an ordination had taken place. But nothing of the kind appears in
the Church books. My father and mother lived a good many years after
the incarceration at Liberty jail, and I, who lived near my father,
never heard my father or my mother mention that such an ordination
ever took place in Liberty jail; and as I know myself that no such
ordination took place in Liberty jail, and inasmuch as it is not
claimed that an ordination of this character was bestowed at any other
place, therefore I deny it as an untruth and a story gotten up by the
Reorganized Church for effect.

Besides all this, if Joseph Smith, the President of the Reorganized
Church was ordained while in Liberty jail, why did he, sixteen years
after his father's death, receive an ordination under the hands of
William Marks, William W. Blair, and Zenas H. Gurley? Would it not seem
that one ordination (and that too, said to have been by his own father,
the President of the Church) should have been sufficient? But further
Wm. Marks, Wm. W. Blair and Zenas H. Gurley had all been excommunicated
from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (excepting William
W. Blair, who never belonged to it) before they "ordained" young
Joseph to be President of the Reorganized Church, and therefore they
did not have the authority to ordain him. The whole story of his being
ordained by anyone having authority to do so is too preposterous to be
entertained for a single moment, and should be rejected by all who hear
such a story mentioned.

As to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being introduced by the
Prophet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: Joseph Smith was absolute
so far as spiritual figures were concerned, and no man would have dared
to introduce the doctrine of polygamy or any other new doctrine into
the "Mormon" Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and
1844, or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph
Smith's consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing he would
have been brought before the High Council and tried, and if proven
against him, he would have been excommunicated from the Church, and
that would have ended polygamy forever, and would also have ended the
man who had dared to introduce such a doctrine without the consent of
the Prophet Joseph.

And deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo,
Illinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the
first part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy
Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to
Church, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the
"Mormons" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived
alone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got
to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to
talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being
taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise
to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe
it to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came
into the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left
the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my
sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she
would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet
and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told
father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of
the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become
his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence
Joseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with
the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who
is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion
were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the
part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two
later Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were
satisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended. After
that Joseph Smith sent my father to Pittsburgh, Pa., to take charge of
a little church that was there, and Ebenezer Robinson, who was then the
Church printer, or at least had been such, as he was the printer of the
paper in Kirtland, Ohio, and a printer by trade, was to go with him
to print a paper there, and nine days before Joseph Smith was shot at
Carthage we started, reaching Pittsburgh the day before he was killed.

Deponent further says: I have in my possession a paper called the
_Nauvoo Expositor_, bearing date, Nauvoo, Illinois, Friday, June 7th,
1844, which said paper's printing plant was destroyed by the City
Council at Nauvoo a night or two after that issue. There never was but
one issue of this paper. Joseph Smith the Prophet was then Mayor of the
City of Nauvoo. In the afternoon of the day on which the printing plant
was destroyed, Henry Phelps, a son of W. W. Phelps, came down Main
Street selling this paper, the _Nauvoo Expositor_, and everyone who
could raise five cents bought a copy. In that paper the three following
affidavits appeared, which I reproduce herewith.


    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 men 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 revelation, supporting the above doctrines.

                                                              Wm. Law.

    State of Illinois,

    Hancock County.

    I, Robert D. Foster, certify that the above certificate was sworn
    to before me as true in substance, this fourth day of May, A.D.

                                               Robert D. Foster, J. P.

    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 should be under condemnation before God.

                                                             Jane Law.

    Sworn and subscribed before me this 4th day of May, A.D. 1844.

                                               Robert D. Foster, J. P.

    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. 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. And further deponent saith

                                                       Austin Cowles.

    State of Illinois,

    Hancock County.

    To all whom it may concern: I hereby certify that the above
    certificate was sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of
    May, 1844.

                                              Robert D. Foster, J. P.

                                                      John W. Rigdon.

    Sworn to before me this 28th day of July, 1905.


                                           James Jack, Notary Public.


The following confirmation of John W. Rigdon's affidavit is copied from
the _Deseret News_ of Saturday, August 12, 1905:

    Bunkerville, Lincoln County, Nev., August 4, 1905:--Seeing the
    testimony of J. W. Rigdon in the semi-weekly _News_ of July 31,
    and being much interested in the subject, and knowing that there
    lived in this place a man that was quite familiar with the early
    scenes of church history, especially those in and about Far West,
    Missouri, and having heard him say that he had many times visited
    his father and the Prophet Joseph, while they were incarcerated in
    Liberty jail, I went and interviewed Orange L. Wight (eldest son of
    former Apostle Lyman Wight), who is now 82 years old and resides
    with his daughter, Sister Harriet M. Earl. Brother Wight is quite
    feeble in body, but his mind seems to be as bright as ever.

    I found Brother Wight in his usual good humor, and seemed quite
    willing to talk, in fact, was pleased to do so. "Elder Wight,"
    said I, "are you willing to make a statement for publication in
    regard to what you know about Joseph Smith, son of the Prophet
    Joseph, being ordained while in Liberty jail to lead the Church?"
    "Certainly I am." "Then," said I, "just write me out a brief
    statement covering those points, and I will give it in your own
    words." Following is Brother Wight's statement:

    "In regard to the statement of John W. Rigdon, I endorse it in
    every point. Brother John W. Rigdon speaks of being in Liberty
    prison when the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith,
    Lyman Wight, and others were there (the others were Caleb Baldwin
    and Alexander McRae). I also visited the prisoners at or about the
    same time, and slept with them many times at different periods, and
    I cannot recollect of ever hearing the subject of an ordination

    "My father, Lyman Wight, nor my mother, never alluded to it during
    their lifetime in my presence; so I take it for granted that
    Joseph, the son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, was not ordained to
    fill the place of his father, in the Liberty jail. I was born in
    the State of New York, November 29, 1823, hence am about seven
    years older than Brother John W. Rigdon. And if an ordination of
    Young Joseph had occurred in the prison, I would likely have heard
    it, and would certainly recollect it.

    "Previous to this, while I was several years younger, the Twelve
    Apostles were organized and commissioned to assist in leading and
    governing the Church. I can recollect every detail distinctly.
    My acquaintance with the Prophet was from the year 1830 to his
    martyrdom, and I can truly say he was a Prophet of God, and was
    appointed to the divine mission to organize the Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints in this last dispensation.

    "As to the Prophet's believing and practicing polygamy, I have as
    near a certain knowledge of the fact, I may say, as any man living.
    I was well acquainted with most or all of his wives, and talked
    with them on the subject, at the same time my wife also talked with

    "If there is anything further that is necessary for me to
    communicate in regard to my recollection, I will willingly do so.

                                                "Orange L. Wight."

Further talk with Brother Wight brought out the following facts: He was
baptized into the Church in the spring of 1832; was with the Church
through all their troubles in the State of Missouri. Brother Wight
filled a thirteen months' mission in the State of Virginia in company
with Jedediah M. Grant and others; was in Nauvoo at the time the
Prophet was captured at Dixon, Ill., and was one of those who went up
the Illinois river on the steamer "Maid of Iowa," to assist in rescuing
the Prophet.

                                                      Joseph I. Earl.


State of Utah, County of Salt Lake. ss.

Bathsheba W. Smith, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

I was a resident of Nauvoo, State of Illinois, from 1840 to 1846. I
was married to George A. Smith July 25, 1841, Elder Don Carlos Smith
performing the ceremony. Near the close of the year 1843, or in the
beginning of the year 1844, I received the ordinance of anointing in
a room in Sister Emma Smith's house in Nauvoo, and the same day, in
company with my husband, I received my endowment in the upper room
over the Prophet Joseph Smith's store. The endowments were given under
the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who afterwards gave us
lectures or instructions in regard to the endowment ceremonies. There
has been no change, to my certain knowledge, in these ceremonies. They
are the same today as they were then. A short time after I received my
anointing, I was sealed to my husband, George A. Smith, for time and
eternity, by President Brigham Young, in the latter's house, according
to the plan taught, to my knowledge, by the Prophet Joseph Smith. When
I was married in 1841, I was married for time, and not for eternity.

At the time I was anointed in Sister Emma Smith's house, she (Emma
Smith) said in my presence, to me and to others who were present upon
that occasion, "Your husbands are going to take more wives, and unless
you consent to it, you must put your foot down and keep it there." Much
more was said in regard to plural marriage at that time by Sister Emma
Smith, who seemed opposed to the principle.

In the year 1840, at a meeting held in Nauvoo, at which I was present,
I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say that the ancient order would be
restored as it was in the days of Abraham. In the year 1844, a short
time before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it was my privilege
to attend a regular prayer circle in the upper room over the Prophet's
store. There were present at this meeting most of the Twelve Apostles,
their wives, and a number of other prominent brethren and their wives.
On that occasion the Prophet arose and spoke at great length, and
during his remarks I heard him say that he had conferred on the heads
of the Twelve Apostles all the keys and powers pertaining to the
Priesthood, and that upon the heads of the Twelve Apostles the burden
of the Kingdom rested, and that they would have to carry it.

It has been, and is, necessary for me to make this statement, as
contrary reports have been circulated as coming from me. Any statements
purporting to come from me that have been made, or that may be made
by any party or parties, in opposition or conflicting with this sworn
statement, are false, as I have never, to my knowledge, deviated one
iota from this statement.

                                                    Bathsheba W. Smith.

Signed in the presence of

Joseph F. Smith, Jr.,

B. Morris Young.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of November, 1903.


                                      Martin S. Lindsay, Notary Public.


1. One hundred or more affidavits in relation to the introduction of
celestial and plural marriage are on file in the historian's Office,
Salt Lake City, and are the expressions of eye and ear witnesses, who
know that the Prophet Joseph Smith introduced and taught celestial and
plural marriage. Most of these witnesses are members of the Church,
but some of them are not, and have not been connected with the Church
from before the martyrdom of the Prophet and Patriarch. It would
be impracticable and even unnecessary to produce all this evidence
here. A portion should suffice, in order that the truth regarding the
introduction of these principles should be established; for, in this
case as in all others, the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses
should establish the truth of these things. Celestial marriage, which
is marriage for eternity, should not be confused with plurality of
wives, as is often done by those not acquainted with these teachings.

2. Some time during the month of September four members of the
Reorganized Church called on Catherine Phillips Smith at her home in
East Jordan, with the object in view of having her deny her testimony
regarding her marriage to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, which she
resolutely refused to do.

In a statement given on September 24th, two days before her death, she
said: "They tried to get me to tell a lie and deny that I was married
to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith; but I would not do it. I never have lied
and will not now; my affidavit is true. They asked me if my mother knew
of my marriage, and I told them that the Patriarch asked my mother if
she was willing for him to marry her daughter, and she said he could
ask the daughter, and she could do as she pleased. I told them that
the Prophet Joseph sealed me to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith as his wife
for time and all eternity, and they tried to get me to deny it, and I
would not do it, for it is true. I told them the truth. They annoyed me
very much, and I finally told them to leave my house and never enter it

3. This, however, was not the time this principle was first made known
to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for as early as 1831 the Lord revealed the
principle of celestial and plural marriage to him and he taught it to

4. See affidavit of Lucy Walker Smith.

5. Similar affidavits by most of the members of this High Council at
Nauvoo are also on file.

6. Leonard Soby was at first opposed to this revelation, and shortly
after the martyrdom he left the Church. When this statement was given
he was not a member of the Church.


The ministers of the "Reorganized" Church, or the "New Organization,"
as it was first called,[1] declare that the Church at the death of
the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith, was badly divided, its
members scattered to the four winds, and that the Church was rejected
with its dead. They also claim that the "Reorganization" is composed of
the faithful who did "not bow the knee to Baal," but remained true to
the "original faith" as revealed and practiced by the Prophet Joseph
Smith. In the words of their president: "The individuals who kept this
covenant (the new and everlasting covenant) were accepted of Him and
were not rejected, nor their standing before God put in jeopardy by
the departure of others from the faith. Whatever the office in the
priesthood each held, under the ordinations ordered by the call of
God and vote of the Church, would remain valid. They could as elders,
priests, etc., pursue the duties of warning, expounding, and inviting
all to come to Christ, and by command of God could build up the Church
from any single branch, which, like themselves, had not bowed the knee
to Baal, or departed from the faith of the Church as found in the
standard works of the body at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith."[2]

It is strongly implied in this quotation from the writings of the
president of the "Reorganization" that all those who followed
President Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, lost their Priesthood
and standing before the Lord, and that the founders of the "New
Organization" and their followers were the only ones who remained true
and steadfast to the Truth. The evidence in this regard is against
them. The truth is that the founders of the "Reorganized" church were
the ones who followed every will-o-the-wisp, bowed the knee to Baal and
departed from the faith, while the Twelve and the Saints on the other
hand, pursued an even course and were steadfast under all trials and
difficulties even to the end.

It is not true that the Church was broken, scattered and rejected
following the martyrdom and that the "Reorganization" is a portion of
the original church. Their organization did not come into existence
until some sixteen years after the death of the Prophet and Patriarch
and was an outgrowth of the movement under James J. Strang.

There was a movement on foot to divide the Church, following the
assassination of the Prophet and Patriarch, but its range was not as
extensive as has generally been supposed. The chief actors in this
movement were Sidney Rigdon, James J. Strang and William Smith, each
of whom aspired to lead the Church. Mr. Rigdon based his claim to the
presidency on the fact that he had been the first counselor to the
Prophet Joseph Smith, and therefore by right should be the "guardian"
of the Church. His claim was in conflict with the position of the
Church and the teachings of the Prophet. He laid his case before the
conference of the Church August 8, 1844, and his claim was rejected
by the Saints almost unanimously. At the same conference the Twelve
Apostles were sustained as the presiding quorum of the Church. Mr.
Strang's claim to the presidency was based on his statement that the
Prophet had appointed him as his successor by letter, a few days before
the martyrdom. William Smith claimed the right of presidency by virtue
of being the brother of the Prophet.

Each of these men gathered around him a few followers, principally of
that class of restless, erratic individuals, who never remain contented
very long in any one place or under any circumstances; but none of them
gathered many followers. Their organizations barely existed for a few
years and then disappeared; the fragments becoming the nucleus of the

The movement which resulted in the bringing forth of the "Reorganized"
church, was of more recent date and was due principally to the efforts
of two men, viz., Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley. Mr. Briggs was
born June 25, 1821, at Pompey, Oneida County, New York. He joined the
Church June 6, 1841, and members of the "Reorganization" declare that
he was ordained an Elder in 1842. His home was in Beloit, Wisconsin,
from 1842 to 1854. After the death of the Prophet, Mr. Briggs sustained
the Twelve Apostles and the Church and was apparently true to them
until the exodus in 1846. At that time he lost heart, turned from the
Church in its darkest hour and sought the favor of the world. Some
time subsequent to this he joined the movement under James J. Strang.
In Strang's organization he did missionary work, received honors
and organized a branch. In 1850 he renounced Mr. Strang and joined
with William Smith, in the latter organization he was "ordained" an
"apostle." He soon tired of William Smith, and in 1851 joined with
Zenas H. Gurley who was at that time a follower of James J. Strang.
These two men then organized a church of their own which afterwards was
known as the "Reorganized" church. In 1886 Jason W. Briggs withdrew
from this organization of his own begetting, declaring that it was not
the Church of Christ.

Zenas H. Gurley was just as unstable as Mr. Briggs. He was born at
Bridgewater, New York, May 29, 1801, joined the Church in April, 1838,
and moved to Far West, from whence he was driven with the Saints in the
expulsion of 1838-39. After this expulsion he settled in Nauvoo, where,
in 1844, he was ordained a Seventy,[3] under the direction of President
Joseph Young, and on the 6th day of April, 1845, he was ordained senior
president of the twenty-first quorum of Seventy. He sustained the
Twelve and followed their teachings and remained with the Church until
February, 1846, (the month of the exodus) when he also left the Church
and shortly afterwards joined with James J. Strang. Mr. Gurley was
endowed in the Nauvoo Temple with his wife January 6, 1846, and of that
event the record of Seventies states under date of January 10, 1846:

    President Zenas H. Gurley arose and said that the Presidents of the
    quorum (21st) had received their endowment. He observed that it was
    remarkable for the unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit.--Page 29.

Again speaking of the authorities of the Church he said:

    He remembered forcibly the sayings of the First Presidents of
    Seventy, that we should so live that no charge can be brought
    against us. A few years ago the men in high standing in this Church
    were as little as we are. They obtained their exaltation by patient
    submission to right, and minding their own business.--Page 29.

On January 25th, 1846, he said:

    The Saints who have passed through the trials of the Church were
    generally rooted and grounded in love and have a witness in their
    own hearts or they would not have remained.--Page 33.

Within a very few days of this time Zenas H. Gurley deserted the Church
because he was unable to face the trials and hardships the Saints were
forced to undergo. The "Mormon" people were journeying in a strange
land, the prospects before them were dark and some of the members
became faint-hearted and were unable to endure to the end. Of this
number Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley were two who turned back and
sought refuge in the apostate organization of James J. Strang. Indeed
it required a strong heart and a firm-rooted faith for men and women
to give up all earthly comforts and undertake a journey of that kind.
Death stared the Saints in the face, they were poorly clothed, without
shelter, save their ragged tents that would not shed the rain, and
almost destitute of food; yet with the exception of the few who sought
the "flesh-pots of Egypt," they patiently and determinedly pursued
their way until crowned with the victory. The opinion of the world
at that time was that the exodus meant the end of "Mormonism," and
that the Latter-day Saints had gone to their destruction; for without
the necessary means to support life, and isolated as they were from
the rest of civilization, they must surely perish in the barren and
distant West. Such, too, would doubtless have been the case had not the
protecting hand of Jehovah guided them. Is it any wonder under such
trying conditions that the hearts of those weak in the faith should
fail them?

In 1849 Mr. Gurley filled a mission for Mr. Strang and made a number of
converts to that faith. In 1850 he organized the "Yellowstone branch,"
for the Strangite church. In 1852 he rejected the claim of Mr. Strang
and joined with Mr. Jason W. Briggs, and these two men united their
respective Strangite branches, those of Yellowstone and Beloit, and
organized themselves into a new religious movement known today as the
"Reorganized" church. In 1853, the leaders of this movement called a
number of men to the ministry, "ordained" seven "apostles" and began
a proselyting movement. For several years they tried to get "young
Joseph," the son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who had never affiliated
with the Saints since the exodus from Nauvoo, to join them and become
their president. In this they failed, but were diligent and finally,
through their continued efforts and the persuasion of his mother, he
accepted that position in 1860, was "ordained" president of their
church by William Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, and William W. Blair, and has
continued in that position ever since.

Mr. Gurley remained with this movement till his death, but his family,
together with Jason W. Briggs, voluntarily withdrew in 1886.

In 1852, when Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley combined their
Strangite forces the membership was about one hundred souls, most of
whom were converts made for Mr. Strang. In 1860, when "young Joseph"
assumed the leadership, the membership was three hundred souls, most
of whom were converts that had never belonged to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Of the members of the Church who were in fellowship in 1844-46, the
"Reorganization" has received no more, and likely less than one
thousand converts, which fact shows that the apostasy was not so
great in 1844-46, as has been pictured. These statements are based on
the testimony of original members of the "Reorganization," as they
testified before the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Western District of
Missouri, in 1894, in the Temple Lot suit, which was for the possession
of property in the hands of the "Church of Christ" or "Hedrickites."

Before that court Mr. William W. Blair, who for many years was a member
of the presidency of the "Reorganization" and who was one of its oldest
members, testified that "one thousand was probably too high an estimate
for the members of the original church, that had joined the Reorganized
church." He could "approximately say" that one thousand had joined the
"Reorganized church, and possibly that estimate was too large." Record
pp. 180, 181.

William Marks, whose testimony is referred to by Mr. Evans, was also
one of those who joined the "Reorganization" in an early day. At the
time of the martyrdom he was president of the Nauvoo Stake, but was
disfellowshipped for transgression at the October conference, 1844,
and finally excommunicated. Afterwards he joined the organization
under James J. Strang. In that organization he became a "bishop,"
was a member of the "high council," and later a member of the "first
presidency." After the death of James J. Strang, he joined the
organization of Charles B. Thompson, another apostate. This is the same
William Marks who "ordained" Joseph Smith, of Lamoni, president of
the "Reorganization." In that ordination he was assisted by Zenas H.
Gurley and William W. Blair. Mr. Blair never belonged to the Church. It
is almost needless to add that these men held no divine authority and
could not bestow the Priesthood and officiate in the ordinances of the
Gospel, and, therefore, the pretentions of the "Reorganized" church are
fraudulent. Judged by its history, doctrines and the unstable character
of its founders it is proved to be a counterfeit and nothing more.

Considering the conditions under which the "Reorganization" came
into existence, and the fact that in the beginning the original one
hundred members came from the Strangite church, and that during the
existence of that organization from its foundation to 1894, not more
than one thousand members of the "original church" (i.e. the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it stood in 1844) had joined
it, we are not to be blamed if we declare that that church is not the
successor, a faction or a portion of the "original church" founded by
Joseph Smith the Prophet through the command of God, April 6, 1830.
And after following the history of its founders and pointing out their
instability and the manner in which they followed after false leaders,
receiving "ordinations" and honors under their hands, we can most
emphatically declare that they were not the faithful who did "not bow
the knee to Baal," and who kept the "everlasting covenant."


1. _Saints' Herald_, Vol. one.

2. See article in _Era_, Vol. 7, No. 11, entitled, "The Church

3. The "Reorganized" Church History states that Z. H. Gurley was
ordained a Seventy in Far West in 1838. This is an error, they have
no original record of such an ordination. The original records of
the Seventies in the Historian's Office, Salt Lake City, give his
ordination as stated here.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage - A Discussion" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.