Probationary State

Ezra Taft Benson - Our Immediate Responsibility

2011-11-06T07:19:00.000-07:00

This is a talk given by Elder Ezra Taft Benson on October 25, 1966, at a Brigham Young University devotional. The interesting thing about this talk, in my mind at least, was how political it was in the sense of doing our national duty. He references talks by President David O. McKay as well talking about freedom. We do not hear these types of talks in LDS General Conference anymore. Obviously at this time Communism and Socialism were a very large worry, and the scare of McCarthyism wasn't yet over as the Vietnam war was going on along with the civil rights movement headed by Dr. Martin Luther King.

Introduction of Elder Benson by BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson:

I should like to say a great deal about our speaker today, but in the interest of not trespassing on his time, I'm going to try to be brief.

It was nearly 30 years ago a young man, who was a Stake President in Idaho, came to Washington at the request of the board of trustees of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; which organization represents all of the farmer cooperatives - nearly - in the United States. He was there to be interviewed by them. They wanted to look him over to see if he could become the top executive officer of that organization. 20 or 30 members of the board of trustees interrogated him.

And at the conclusion of the interrogation, they said, "Mr. Benson, we would like to offer you the top executive position of this Nation Council of Farmer Cooperatives." Whereupon Ezra Taft Benson said, "Gentlemen, I'm afraid I cannot accept. I have been here for several days. I know that this job entails a lot of lobbying before Congress, and I have learned that most of the lobbyists in Washington engage in that activity through cocktail parties and other things of that nature, which you might expect me to do; but that's foreign and alien to my religion, and I must respectfully decline."

Whereupon Judge Miller, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of this organization, looked at him and said, "Mr. Benson we know about your Mormon heritage, we know about your beliefs. And frankly it's because of those beliefs, at least that's one of the elements that we've taken into consideration in offering this position to you. You may come here on your own terms. You do not need to give any of these cocktail parties that are prevalent in the nation's capital. In fact, if you do, we might want to dispose of you as the top executive officer of this organization. We're committed ourselves to the same ideals of those of the Mormon Church. You can have the position on those terms.

It was then that Ezra Taft Benson began his work in Washington D.C.. Later, as you know, appointed Secretary of Agriculture going both terms of President Eisenhower. Great leader in the Church. I'm informed that he's just returned from Washington where he represented the Church in the annual celebration of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters. Also has visited the Walter Nobb reproduction of Independence Hall, California Forest Lawn Cemetery where much of our heritage is reproduced.

It's my particular honor to introduce him because as a young man I had the great privilege of being his counselor when he was president of the Washington D.C. Stake. Without further words I introduce to you Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Council of the Twelve, great American patriot.

===========

President Wilkenson, distinguished members of the faculty, members and friends of this great student body, my brethren and sisters: This is a single honor, a very great pleasure, and a challenging responsibility. Humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning.

Because of the nature of the message I bring to you, I have committed most of it to writing. I shall speak to you frankly and honestly. What I shall say are my personal convictions, born out of an active life which has taken me into 45 nations and brought me close to the insidious forces that would destroy our way of life in this choice land. I express these convictions and warnings today because of my love for you and our beloved country. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth, and time is on the side of truth.

I take as my theme, the words of President David O. McKay; God's mouthpiece on the earth today, a prophet of God:

"The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among man that exists on the face of the earth. No greater immediate responsibility rests upon the members of the Church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics, than to protect the freedom vouchsafe by the Constitution of the United States."

In the days of the prophet Noah, men had no greater immediate responsibility than to repent and board the ark. In our day, the day of the prophet David O. McKay, he has said that we have "no greater immediate responsibility … than to protect the freedom vouchsafe by the Constitution of the United States."

At the last general conference of the Church, President McKay in his opening address said:

"Efforts are being made to deprive man of his free agency. To steal from the individual his liberty. There has been an alarming increase in the abandoning of the ideals that constitute the foundation of the Constitution of the United States."

Toward the close of his talk, our prophet quoting Paul's letter to Timothy regarding the preaching of the word, said, "There should be no question in the mind of any true Latter-Day Saint as to what we shall preach: The gospel plan of salvation." Then President McKay lists the areas our preaching should cover and admonishes us to include in our preaching what government should or should not do in the interest of the preservation of our freedom. Do we preach what government should or should not do as a part of the gospel plan, as President McKay has urged? Or do we refuse to follow the prophet by preaching a limited gospel plan of salvation? The fight for freedom cannot be divorced from the gospel, the plan of salvation.

We sing that we are thankful to God for a prophet to guide us in these latter days. By commandment of the Lord, we assemble in General Conference twice a year to get that guidance from the Lord's representative. Do we realize that in the last five years, prior to October conference, the prophet has keynoted three of these conferences with an opening discourse on Freedom and given nine other addresses in the conferences that touched on freedom? Do we see any pattern here? Can we name any other gospel theme that has received as much emphasis from the man who holds the keys as has the theme of freedom? We do not need a prophet, we have one. What we need is a listening ear, a humble heart, and soul that is pure enough to follow his inspired guidance.

Now why this consistent voice of warning from the prophet?

Consider the following: Since WWII communists have brought under bondage -- enslaved -- on the average approximately 6,000 persons per hour, 144,000 per day, 52 million per year; every hour of every day of every year since 1945. Since 1945, the communists have murdered in one country alone enough people to wipe out the entire population of over 15 of our states. The communist threat from without may be serious, but it is the enemy within warns President McKay, that is most menacing.

President McKay has said that he would not deal with a nation that treats another as Russia has treated America. Yet the tragedy is that one of the major reasons for the rapid growth of communism is because of the help, yes the increasing help, which they are receiving from right within our own government. Today our boys are dying in a war with the communists. A war which our government has not declared. The largest undeclared war in the history of the world. And one which it would appear our government has no intention of winning. Yet our government encourages us to buy communist goods and our government continues to give aid to the enemy. This is treason as defined by the Constitution. It could easily be that one of the reasons this undeclared war in Vietnam is purposely being prolonged is to provide the excuse to further weaken our economy and to institute more Socialistic controls over our people. Of course within the next few days there may be some dramatic moves made in order to placate and deceive the electorate, as there was during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis. But do not be misled.

President McKay has said that the Supreme Court is leading this nation down the road to atheism. Not only is the court leading this nation down the road to atheism, but in one tragic decision after another, they are leading this nation down the road to communism. One such decision caused Dorothy Healy, communist spokesman for the west coast, to rejoice in these words, "This is the greatest victory the communist party has ever had." The communists have held victory rallies to honor the Supreme Court and its decisions. The Book of Mormon tells us what corrupt judges can do to freedom.

Communists dedicated to the destruction of our government are allowed to teach in our schools, to hold offices in labor unions, to run for public office. Recently an open and avowed leader of the communist party in one of our states ran for a county office and received 87,000 votes.

J. Edgar Hoover, the best informed man in government on the Socialist-Communist conspiracy, stated:

"We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not realize the means used to advance them. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst."

President McKay has said that "this nation has traveled far into the soul destroying road of socialism." Now if we understand what socialism embraces, then we will realize that this present Congress has passed more Socialistic legislation, recommended by a President than probably any other Congress in the history of our Republic.

At this particular moment in history the United Stated is definitely threatened and every citizen should know about it. The warning of this hour should resound through the corridors of every American institution: Schools, churches, the halls of Congress, press, radio, TV, and so far as I am concerned it will resound with God's help.

Our Republic and Constitution are being destroyed, while the enemies of freedom are being aided. How? In at least 10 ways:

First, by diplomatic recognition and aid, trade and negotiations with the communists.
Two, by disarmament of our military defenses.
Three, by destruction of our security laws and the promotion of atheism by decisions of the Supreme Court.
Four, by loss of sovereignty and solvency through international commitments and membership in world organizations.
Five, by undermining of local law enforcement agencies and congressional investigating committees.
Six, by usurpations by the executive and judicial branches of our Federal Government.
Seven, by lawlessness in the name of civil rights
And eight, by a staggering national debt with inflation and corruption of the currency.
Nine, by a multiplicity of executive orders and federal programs which greatly weaken local and state governments.
And ten, by the sacrifice of American manhood by engaging in wars we apparently have no intention of winning.

We should all be grateful for the patriots of both parties who are trying to withstand this tidal wave of collectivism led my masters of deceit.

One regrettable development is the increasing number of government programs embracing our youth. President Clark, former Undersecretary of State, former ambassador, and a great Constitutional statesman, and councilor to three Presidents of the Church put it well when he said:

"Our government with its liberty and free institutions will not long survive a government trained and supervised youth. Such youth can be a revolutionary machine."

And let me warn you, if these programs are fully introduced here in our midst, we will suffer the tragic consequences.

Some of these things strike pretty close to home. Communists or communist-fronters have appeared on our three major university campuses in this state. An identified communist performed in our Mormon tabernacle. Some of our newspapers have carried columnists with communist-front records or who parrot the communist line. And there are many other evidences both in this state and in our county that should alarm us.

One of the main thrusts of the communist drive in America today is through the so-called Civil Rights movement. Now there's nothing wrong with civil rights, it's what is being done in the name of civil rights that is shocking. The man who is generally recognized as the leader of the so-called civil rights movement today in America is a man who has lectured at a communist training school; who has solicited funds through communist sources; who hired a communist as a top level aid; who has affiliated with communist fronts; who is often praised in the communist press and who unquestionably parallels the communist line. This same man advocates the breaking of the law, and has been described by J. Edgar Hoover as the most notorious liar in the country.

I warn you unless we wake up soon and do something about the conspiracy, the communist inspired civil rights riots in the past will pale into insignificance compared to the bloodshed and destruction that lie ahead in the near future. Do not think the members of the Church will escape. The Lord has assured us that the Church will still be here when he comes. But has the Lord assured us that we can avoid fighting for freedom and still escape unscathed both temporally and spiritually? We cannot escape the eternal consequences of our pre-existent position on freedom. What makes us think we can escape it here? Listen to President Clark's grave warning:

"I say to you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties. And that once lost only blood will bring them back. And once lost, we of this Church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known; heavy as our sacrifices and grievous as our persecutions of the past have been."

Now that is the price we are going to have to pay unless we can help to reverse the course our country is taking. The Lord does not want us to have to pay that price; but we will pay it in full if we fail to fight to preserve our freedom. Often the Lord has to send persecutions in order to rebuke and try to purge the unfaithful. He has done it in the past, and He can do it again. If we deserve it, we will get it.

Next to being one and worshipping God, says President McKay, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. There are some who would have us believe that the final test of the rightness of the course is whether everyone is united on it. But the Church does seek unity simply for unities sake. The unity for which the Lord prayed and President McKay speaks is the only unity which God honors; that is unity in righteousness; unity in principle. We cannot compromise good and evil in an attempt to have peace and unity in the Church anymore than the Lord could have compromised with Satan in order to avoid the war in heaven. Think of the impact for good we could have if we all united behind the prophet in preserving our Constitution. Yet witness the sorry spectacle of those presently of our number who have repudiated the inspired counsel of our prophet when he has opposed federal aid to education and asked support for the right-to-work laws. Is it too much to suppose that all the priesthood at this juncture will unite behind the prophet in the fight for freedom? Yet we can pray for that day, and in the meantime the faithful should strive to be in harmony with the inspired counsel given by His mouthpiece, the prophet, and thus in unity with the Lord, and hence receive peace to their souls. The more who are united with the Lord and his prophets, the greater will be our chances to preserve our families and to live in freedom.

President Clark knew how righteous unity could stop the communists when he said:

"Now what has business and industry done about all this revolutionary activity? Business and industry neither planned nor did anything effective; there was no concerted effort. A common cause with a united front would have worked salvation for us. But business officials were afraid of their stockholders and their outcry against loss of dividends. The lawyers were afraid of getting whipped in the courts. Businessmen felt strong vigorous action might further disturb business. Bankers, I am a bank director, shivered at their own shadows.

"And so one constitutional right after another yielded without any real contest, our backs getting nearer to the wall with every retreat. It is now proposed we retreat still further.

"Is not this suicide? Is there any one so naive as to think that things will right themselves without a fight? There has been no more fight in us than there is in a bunch of sheep; and we have been much like sheep.

"Freedom was never brought to a people on a silver platter, nor maintained with whisk brooms and lavender sprays.

"And do not think that all these usurpations, intimidations and impositions are being done to us through inadvertence or mistake. The whole course is deliberately planned and carried out. Its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our Constitutional government; then to bring chaos, out of which a new State-ism with its slavery is to arise, with a cruel, relentless, selfish, ambitious crew in the saddle, riding hard with whip and spur, a red-shrouded band of night riders for despotism. If we do not vigorously fight for our liberties, we shall go clear through to the end of the road and become another Russia or worse."

According to Norman Vincent Peale, there was a time when the American people roared like lions for liberty, but now they bleat like sheep for security. But, some say, shouldn't we have confidence in our government officials? Don't we owe them allegiance? To which we respond in the words of President Clark: "God provided that in this land of liberty our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is to government officials. The only allegiance we owe as citizens of denizens of the United States runs to our inspired Constitution, which God Himself setup."

Jefferson warned that we should not talk about confidence in man, but that we should inhibit their power through the Constitution. In the meantime we pray for our leaders as we have always been counseled to do.

It is the devil's desire that the Lord's priesthood stay asleep while the strings of tyranny gradually, quietly entangle us until like Gulliver we awake too late and find that while we could have broken each string separately as it was put upon us, our sleepiness permitted enough strings to bind us to make the rope that enslaves us.

For years we have heard of the role the Elders could play in saving the Constitution from total destruction. But how can the Elders be expected to save it if they have not studied it and are not sure if it is being destroyed or what is destroying it?

An informed patriotic gentile was dumbfounded when he heard of Joseph Smith's reported prophecy regarding the mission our Elders could perform in saving the Constitution. He lived in a Mormon community, with nice people who were busily engaged in other activities but who had little concern in preserving their freedom. He wondered if maybe a letter should not to be sent to President McKay, urging him to release some of the Elders from their present Church activities, so there would be a few who could help step forward to save the Constitution.

Now it is not so much a case of a man giving up all his other duties to fight for freedom, as it is a case of a man getting his life in balance so he can discharge all of his God-given responsibilities. And of all these responsibilities, President McKay has said, "We have no greater immediate responsibility … than to protect the freedom vouchsafe by the Constitution of the United States." There is no excuse that can compensate for the loss of liberty.

Now Satan is anxious to neutralize the inspired counsel of the prophet and hence keep the priesthood off-balance, ineffective, and inert in the fight for freedom. He does this through diverse means including the use of perverse reasoning. For example, he will argue, "There is no need to get involved in the fight for freedom, all you need to do is live the gospel." Of course this is a contradiction because we cannot fully live the gospel and not be involved in the fight for freedom. We would not say to someone, "There is no need to be baptized, all you need to do is live the gospel." That would be ridiculous because baptism is a part of the gospel. How would you have reacted if during the war in heaven, someone had said to you, "Look, just do what's right, there is no need to get involved in the fight for free agency." Now it is obvious what the devil is trying to do, but it is sad to see many of us fall for his destructive line. The cause of freedom is the most basic part of our religion; our position on freedom helped get us to this earth and it can make the difference as to whether we get back home or not.

General Moroni, one of the great men of the Book of Mormon, raised the Title of Liberty and on it he inscribed these words: "In memory of our God, our religion and freedom, and our peace our wives and our children". Why didn't he write upon it, "Just live your religion. There is no need to concern yourselves about your freedom, your peace, your wives or your children"? The reason he didn't was because all these things were a part of his religion as they are of ours. Listen to what the Book of Mormon had to say of the man who raised the Title of Liberty: "And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood" (Alma 48:11,13). And then Moroni is paid this high tribute: "Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men" (Alma 48:17).

Now part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell, is I fear because unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights.

The Book of Mormon also tells us of some of the perverse reasoning the devil will use in our day to keep the saints ignorant from placing them asleep. "And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well -- and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell" (2 Nephi 28:21). Now this reasoning takes several forms, for instance don't worry, say some, the Lord will take care of us. This is the usual theme of those who believe in faith without works. Brigham Young said:

"Some may say, 'I have faith the Lord will turn them away.' What ground have we to hope this? Have I any good reason to say to my Father in Heaven, 'Fight my battles,' when He has given me the sword to wield, the arm and the brain that I can fight for myself? Can I ask Him to fight my battles and sit quietly down waiting for Him to do so? I cannot. I can pray the people to hearken to wisdom, to listen to counsel; but to ask God to do for me, that which I can do for myself is preposterous to my mind" (JD Vol 12 pp. 240-241 -- talking about the Saints wanting the Lord to turn the grasshoppers away).

Don't you have faith in America, say others. But America is made up of people. The only righteous patriotic people work to preserve their freedom. The American people's blessings are conditioned on righteousness and nothing else. We have faith in a faithful citizenry. There is no need to learn about communism in order to avoid it, some argue. But this counsel can help keep our people in ignorance and apparently flies in the face of the inspired counsel of President McKay who said: "I believe that only through a truly educated citizenry can the ideals that inspired the founding fathers of our nation be preserved and perpetuated." And then President McKay said that "one of the four fundamental elements in such an education was the open and forcible teaching of the facts regarding communism as an enemy of God and to individual freedom."

Do we teach people to avoid alcohol and tobacco by pointing out its evil effects? Of course we do. Should we then avoid telling people about the evil nature and devious designs of communism the greatest satanical threat to the spread of God's work? "Just preach the gospel, that will stop communism," is another neutralizing argument used by some. Did teaching the truth stop the war in heaven? Or convert Satan and his hosts? Satan himself through his earthly followers is directing the communist conspiracy and as President Clark said, "You cannot mollify an unconvertible."

As members of the Church we have some close quarters to pass through if we are to save our souls. As the Church gets larger some men have increasing responsibility and more and more duties must be delegated. We all have stewardships for which we must account to the Lord. Unfortunately some men who do not honor their stewardships may have an adverse affect on many people. Often the greater the man's responsibility, the more good or evil he can accomplish. The Lord usually gives a man a long enough rope and sufficient time to determine whether that man wants to pull himself into the presence of God or drop off somewhere below.

There are some regrettable things being said and done by some people in the Church today. As President Clark so well warned, "The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood. We should be careful of them."

Sometimes from behind the pulpit, in our classrooms, in our council meetings and in our Church publications we hear, read or witness things that do not square with the truth. This is especially true where freedom is involved. Now do not let this serve as an excuse for your own wrong doing. The Lord is letting the wheat and the tares mature before he fully purges the Church. He is also testing you to see if you will be misled. The devil is trying to deceive the very elect.

Let me give you a crucial key to help you avoid being deceived. It is this: Learn to keep your eye on the prophet. He is the Lord's mouthpiece and the only man who can speak for the Lord today. Let his inspired counsel take precedence. Let his inspired words be a basis for evaluating the counsel of all lesser authorities. Then live close to the spirit so you may know the truth of all things.

All men are entitled to inspiration, but only one man is the Lord's mouthpiece. Some lesser men have in the past, and will in the future, use their offices unrighteously. Some will, ignorantly or otherwise, use it to promote false counsel; some will use it to lead the unwary astray; and some will use it to persuade us that all is well in Zion; and some will use it to cover and excuse their ignorance. Keep your eye on the prophet, for the Lord will never permit his prophet to lead this Church astray.

This is the word of the Lord to us today regarding the President of the Church (reading in the 21st section of the Doctrine and Covenants):

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his words ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C 21:4-5).

Now at our last annual conference in April, President McKay issued a statement on communism. It was printed on the editorial page of the June Improvement Era and has recently been reprinted by the Deseret Book Company in an attractive folder entitled, "Communism: A Statement of the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Every student and every family in America should have a copy. The cost is five cents each in lots of 100, or three for 25 cents.

Let me quote a few excerpts from that inspired statement and you who have been misled into believing that you can somehow righteously avoid standing up for freedom, heed his counsel:

"In order that there may be no misunderstanding by bishops, stake presidents, and others regarding members of the Church participating in non-church meetings to study and become informed on the Constitution of the United States, Communism, and so forth, I wish, said President McKay, to make the following statements that I have been sending out of my office for some time and that have come under question by some stake authorities, bishoprics, and others.

"Church members are at perfect liberty to act according to their own conscience in matters of safeguarding our way of life. They are, of course, encouraged to honor the highest standards of the gospel and to work to preserve their own freedoms. They are free to participate in non-church meetings that are held to warn people of the threat of Communism or any other theory or principle that will deprive us of our free agency or individual liberties vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.

"The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among men that exists on the face of the earth.

"In this connection, President McKay continues, we are constantly being asked to give our opinion concerning various patriotic groups or individuals who are fighting Communism and speaking up for freedom. Our immediate concern, however, is not with parties, groups, or persons, but with principles. We therefore commend and encourage every person and every group who is sincerely seeking to study Constitutional principles and awaken a sleeping and apathetic people to the alarming conditions that are rapidly advancing about us. We wish all of our citizens throughout the land were participating in some type of organized self-education in order that they could better appreciate what is happening and know what they can do about it.

"Supporting the FBI, the police, the congressional committees investigating Communism, and various organizations that are attempting to awaken the people through educational means is a policy we warmly endorse for all of our people."

I bear witness that this Church position given by our inspired leader, our prophet-leader, is sound, timely and clear. The need for such counsel has never been greater.

Brethren and sisters, I have talked straight to you today. I know I will be abused by some for what I have said, but I want my skirts to be clean.

"Watchman, what of the night?" (Isaiah 21:11) is the cry of the faithful. I have tried to warn you of the darkness that is moving over us and what we can do about it if we will only follow the prophet.

Have you counted the cost if our countrymen and especially the body of the priesthood continue to remain complacent; misled through some of our news media, deceived by some of our officials, and perverted by some of our educators? Are you prepared to see some of your loved ones murdered, your remaining liberties abridged, the Church persecuted, and your eternal reward jeopardized?

I have personally witnessed the heart-rending results of the loss of freedom. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have been close to the godless evil of the socialist-communist conspiracy on both sides of the iron curtain; particularly during my years as European Mission President at the close of the war, and today and also during my eight years in the Cabinet.

It may shock you to learn that the first communist cell in government, so far as we know, was organized in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1930's; John Abt was there. It was John Abt whom Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy, requested for his attorney. Harry Dexter White was there. Lee Pressman was there. And communist Alger Hiss, who was the principle architect and the first secretary of the United Nations Organizing Committee, was there also.

I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half day when he visited the United States; not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But according to President Eisenhower, Khrushchev had expressed a desire to learn something of American agriculture, and after seeing Russian agriculture, I can understand why.

As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, would live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance:

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

And they're ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme.

I stood in Czechoslovakia in 1946 -- two citizens of that country came up to me before this meeting -- I stood in Czechoslovakia in 1946 and witnessed the ebbing away of freedom resulting in the total loss of liberty to a wonderful people. I visited among the liberty-loving Polish people and talked with their leaders as the insidious freedom-destroying conspiracy moved in, imposing the chains of bondage on a Christian nation.

In both of these freedom-loving nations were members of the Church, striving as we are, to live the gospel. but did they stop the Communists? Although their numbers were relatively few, the danger to freedom seemed to be far away. Now there are, no doubt, Mormons in Communist slave labor camps.

But here in America, the Lord's base of operations -- so designated by the Lord himself through his holy prophets -- we of the priesthood, members of his restored Church, might well provide the balance of power to save our freedom. Indeed we might, if we go forward as General Moroni of old, and raise the Standard of Liberty throughout the land.

My brethren we can do the job that must be done. We can, as a priesthood, provide the balance of power to preserve our freedom and save this nation from bondage. The Prophet Joseph Smith is reported to have prophesied the role the priesthood might play to save our inspired Constitution. Now is the time to move forward courageously; to become alerted, informed and active. We are not just ordinary men. We bear the priesthood and authority of God; we understand the world and God's divine purpose as no other men.

The gospel and its preaching can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. And now in this critical period, when many pulpits are being turned into pipelines of collectivist propaganda, preaching the social gospel and denying basic principles of salvation, is the time for action.

We know, as do no other people, that the Constitution of the United States is inspired, established by men whom the Lord raised up for that very purpose. We cannot, we must not, shrink [from] our sacred responsibility to rise up in defense of our God-given freedom.

In our day that Lord has declared to his Church:

"Verily I say unto you all: Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations; And that the gathering together upon the land of Zion, and upon her stakes, may be for a defense, and for a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth" (D&C 115:5-6).

Will we of the priesthood arise and shine? Will we provide the defense and refuge? Now is our time and season for corrective and courageous action.

We have been warned again and again and again. The Lord's spokesman has consistently raised his voice of warning about the loss of our freedom. Now he that has ears, let him hear, and you who praise the Lord, learn to also follow His spokesman.

I know not what course others may take, but as for me and my house, we will strive to walk with the prophet. and the prophet has said that:

"No greater immediate responsibility rests upon the members of the Church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics, than to protect the freedom vouchsafe by the Constitution of the United States."

In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Be on the right side. Stand up and be counted. If you get discouraged, remember the words of Edward Everett Hale when he said:

I am only one, but I am one.

I can't do everything, but I can do something.

What I can do, that I ought to do.

And what I ought to do,

By the grace of God, I shall do.

God bless us to heed the oft-repeated counsel of our prophet-leader, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Spencer W. Kimball - Tragedy or Destiny?

2011-10-09T14:13:00.004-06:00

This is a talk given by Elder Spencer W. Kimball on December 5, 1955, at Brigham Young University. This talk was later printed in the Improvement Era in 1966, and was the basis for Chapter 8 of the book Faith Precedes the Miracle (printed 1972). The reason I put the text to the talk here is because I couldn't find it online.

I grew up listening to President Kimball speak, and so when I heard his voice for this talk I was glad to hear it before his vocal cord operation, which happened in 1957. It was a pleasant surprise to hear his original voice. This is about a 33 minute talk.

=========================================

President Taylor, faculty, student body: I am much impressed with this delightful audience. And whenever I hear the hallelujah chorus sung, and it has been sung and played so beautifully here this morning, my heart wants to weep for joy for our knowledge of the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords; and especially at this time of the year when Christmas-time brings to our attention a little more forcibly the importance of His birth, His death, His resurrection, the atoning sacrifice.

There have been many tragedies of late and since there's so many people who seem to blame every so-called tragedy upon the Lord and are frustrated at what seems to be a calamity, may I present to you a few thoughts which I hope may ease tensions, stimulate sane thinking, and possibly answer at least partially some of the questions so often asked and so seldom answered.

The daily paper screamed the headlines: "Plane Crash Kills 43. No Survivors of Mountain Tragedy," and thousands of voices joined in a chorus: "Why did the Lord let this terrible thing happen?"

Two automobiles crashed when one went through a red light, and six people were killed. Why would God not prevent this?

A child was born with limited mental capacity. He was never to be able to live the normal life. Why? Why would the Lord permit him to be so deprived, his parents so burdened?

Why should the young mother die so young? Why should her eight children be left motherless? Why did not the Lord heal her of her malady?

A little child was drowned; another was run over. Why?

A man died one day fell at the top of a stairway, his body was found slumped on the floor; a coronary occlusion the doctor said. His wife cried out in agony, "Why? Why would the Lord do this to me? Could he not have considered my three little children who need a father so much?"

A young man died in the mission field and people critically questioned: "Why did the Lord not protect this young youth while doing His work?"

I wish I could answer these questions; sometime we'll understand and be reconciled.

The following conclusions are my own, and I take full responsibility for them.

May I ask some questions?

Was it the Lord who directed the plane into the mountain to snuff out the lives of its occupants, or were there mechanical faults or human errors?

Was our Father in heaven responsible for the collision of the cars which took six people into eternity, or was it the error of the driver who ignored safety rules?

Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child in the way of the oncoming car?

Did the Lord cause the man to die, or was the death of the missionary untimely?

Would it have been better to occurred earlier or later?

Answer, if you can.

Now a final question: Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies?

And the answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents. He could drive the planes and the cars. He could feed us, protect us, save us from labor, effort, sickness, even death. But is that what you want? Would you shield your children from effort, from disappointments, from temptations and sorrows and suffering?

The basic gospel law is free agency. To force us to be careful or righteous would be to nullify that fundamental law and growth would be impossible. Should we be protected always from hardship, pain, suffering, sacrifice or labor? Should the Lord protect the righteous? Should he immediately punish the wicked? If growth comes from fun and ease and aimless irresponsibility, then why should we ever exert ourselves to work, or learn or overcome.

If success is measured by the years we live, then early death is failure and tragedy. If life is the ultimate - mortal life - how can we justify death ever even in old age.

If we looked at mortality as a complete existence, then pain, sorrow, failure, and short life could be calamity. But if we look upon the whole life as an eternal thing stretching far into the pre-mortal past and into the eternal post-death future, then all the happenings may be in their proper perspective and may fall into proper place.

Is there not wisdom in his giving us trials that we might rise above them, responsibilities that we might achieve, work to harden our muscles, sorrows to try our souls? Were we not permitted temptations to test our strength, sickness that we might learn patience, death that we might have immortality and eternal life?

In the beginning the Creator explained to Moses, "... Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him." (Moses 4:3).

And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves" (Moses 6:55-56).

Apparently the Lord did not consider death always as a curse or a tragedy, for He said: "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord." (Rev. 14:13; D&C 63:49).

Life goes on and free agency continues, and death, which seems such a calamity, could be a blessing in disguise.

Melvin J. Ballard wrote:

I lost a son six years of age and I saw him a man in the spirit world after his death, and I saw how he had exercised his own freedom of choice and would obtain of his own will and volition a companionship, and in due time to him and all those who are worthy of it, shall come all of the blessings and sealing privileges of the house of the Lord…. (Three Degrees of Glory).

If we say that early death is a calamity, disaster, or a tragedy, would it not be saying that mortality is preferable to earlier entrance into the spirit world and to eventual salvation and exaltation? If mortality be the perfect state, then death would be a frustration, but the gospel teaches us there is no tragedy in death, but only in sin.

We know so little. Our judgment is so limited. We judge the Lord often with less wisdom than does our youngest child weigh our decisions.

I spoke at the funeral service of a young BYU student who died during the last World War. There had been hundreds of thousands of young men rushed prematurely into eternity through the ravages of war, and I made a statement that I believed this righteous youth had been called into the spirit world to preach the gospel to these deprived souls. In the vision of "The Redemption of the Dead" by President Joseph F. Smith, he saw this very thing. He sat studying the scriptures on October 3, 1918, particularly the statements in Peter’s epistle regarding the antediluvians, and he writes:

… As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead. While this vast multitude of the righteous waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance … the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful, and there He preached to them the … redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance. But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, His voice was not raised, neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face….

And as I wondered ... I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth ... but behold, from among the righteous He organized his forces ... and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel….

... our Redeemer spent His time ... in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits ... who had testified of Him in the flesh, that they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead unto whom He could not go personally because of their rebellion and transgression….

Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam ... "Mother" Eve, with many of her faithful daughters ... Abel, the first martyr ... Seth, ... Noah, ... Shem, the great High Priest; Abraham, ... Isaac, Jacob, and Moses ... Ezekiel, ... Daniel….

All these and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites…. The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, ... and other choice spirits ... in the spirit world. I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God….

I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption…. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 472-76[now found in D&C 138])

Death, then, may be the opening of the door to opportunity, and some questions are answered, at least, by this vision.

I would be happier to have my sons effective missionaries, than to have them honored in high secular places. To be bishops in God's kingdom than kings on earthly thrones. For there is no greater work in which to be engaged, and the proselyting work does not end with death, but carries over into the life beyond.

Now we find many people critical when a righteous person is killed. A young father, mother is taken from a family, or when violent deaths occur. Some become bitter when oft-repeated prayers seem unanswered. Some lose faith and turn sour when solemn administrations by holy men seem to be ignored and no restoration seems to come from repeated prayer-circles.

But if all the sick were healed, if all the righteous were protected and the wicked destroyed, the whole program of the Father would be annulled, and the basic principle of the gospel, free agency, would be ended.

If pain and sorrow and total punishment immediately followed the doing of evil, no soul would ever repeat a misdeed.

If joy and peace and rewards were instantaneously given the doer of good, there could be no evil. All would do go, and not because of the rightness of doing good.

There would be no test of strength, no development of character, no growth of powers, no free agency, only satanic controls.

Should all prayers be immediately answered according to our selfish desires and our limited understanding, then could there be little or no suffering, sorrows, disappointments, or even death, and if these were not, there would be an absence of joy, success, resurrection, eternal life and godhood.

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things … righteousness and wickedness holiness … misery … good and bad. (2 Nephi 2:11).

We are assured by the Lord that the sick will be healed if the ordinance is performed, if there is sufficient faith, and if the ill one is "not appointed unto death." Here are three factors: Many do not comply with the ordinances. Great numbers are unwilling or incapable of exercising sufficient faith. But there is the other factor which looms important: If they are not appointed unto death.

Every act of God is purposeful. He sees the end from the beginning. He knows what will build us or tear us down. What will thwart the program and what will give us eventual triumph. The Lord does not always heal the sick, nor save those in hazardous zones. He does not always relieve suffering or distress. For even these seemingly undesirable conditions may be a part of a purposeful plan.

Being human, we would expel from our lives sorrow, distress, physical pain, mental anguish and assure ourselves of continual ease and comfort, but if we close the doors upon such, we might be evicting our greatest friends and benefactors. Suffering can make saints of people as they learn patience, long-suffering, self-mastery. The sufferings of our Savior were part of his education, for "though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto to all them who obey Him." (Hebrews 5:8-9).

I love the verse of the song we frequently sing, How Firm a Foundation, the sixth verse, I believe:

When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not thee o’erflow
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
—Hymns No. 66 (Hymn #85 now, verse 4)

Elder James E. Talmage gave us this: "No pang that is suffered by man or woman upon the earth will be without its compensating effect ... if it be met with patience."

On the other hand, these things can crush us with their mighty impact if we yield to weakness, complaining, or to criticism. Elder Orson F. Whitney wrote this:

No pain that we suffer, no trial that we experience is wasted. It ministers to our education, to the development of such qualities as patience, faith, fortitude and humility. All that we suffer and all that we endure, especially when we endure it patiently, builds up our characters, purifies our hearts, expands our souls, and makes us more tender and charitable, more worthy to be called the children of God ... and it is through sorrow and suffering, toil and tribulation, that we gain the education that we come here to acquire and which will make us more like our Father and Mother in heaven.

The Lord stated: "He that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed." (D&C 42:48).

If not appointed unto death, and sufficient faith is developed, life can be spared. But if there is not enough faith, many die before their time. It is evident that even the righteous will not always be healed and even those of great faith will die when it is according to the purpose of God.

Joseph Smith died in his thirties, as did the Savior. Solemn prayers were answered, negatively. There are people who are bitter as they watch loved ones suffer; suffer agonies and interminable pain and physical torture. Some would charge the Lord with unkindness, disinterest, injustice. We are so incompetent to judge!

I like the words of some verses, the author of which I do not know:

Pain stayed so long I said to him today,
"I will not have you with me any more."
I stamped my foot and said, "Be on your way,"
And paused there, startled at the look he wore.
"I, who have been your friend," he said to me,
"I, who have been your teacher—all you know
Of understanding love, of sympathy,
And patience, I have taught you. Shall I go?"
He spoke the truth, this strange unwelcome guest;
I watched him leave, and knew that he was wise.
He left a heart grown tender in my breast,
He left a far, clear vision in my eyes.
I dried my tears, and lifted up a song --
Even for one who’d tortured me so long.

In his home town, Nazareth, the Lord said to the people: "Ye [shall] surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country" (Luke 4:23). "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, [save] in his own country, … and in his own house" (Mark 6:4). "And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief" (Matthew 13:57). Then he continued: "But I tell you of a truth, may widows were in Israel in the days of Elias … when the great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleaned, saving Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:25-27).

The power of the priesthood is limitless but God has wisely placed upon each of us certain limitations. I may develop priesthood power as I perfect my life; I am grateful that even through the priesthood I cannot heal all the sick. I might heal people who should die. I might relieve people of suffering who should suffer. I fear I would frustrate the purposes of God.

Had I the limitless power, and yet limited vision and understanding, I might have saved Abinadi from the flames of fire when he was burned at the stake, and in so doing I might have irreparably damaged Abinadi and limited him to a lower kingdom. He died a martyr and went to a martyr’s reward—exaltation. He would have lived on the earth, could have lost his faith, his courage, even his virtue, and his exaltation.

I would likely have protected Paul against the woes if my power were boundless. I would surely have healed his "thorn in the flesh." And in so doing I might have foiled the program and relegated him to lower glories. Thrice he offered prayers, asking the Lord to remove the "thorn" from him, but the Lord did not so answer his prayers. Paul many times could have lost himself if he had been eloquent, well, handsome, and free from all the things that made him humble. Paul speaks:

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong (2 Corinthians 12:7, 9-10).

Such a healing of Paul might have ruined him. I fear that had I been in Carthage Jail on June 27, 1844, I might have deflected the bullets which pierced the bodies of the Prophet and the Patriarch. I might have saved them from the sufferings and agony, but lost to them the martyr’s death and reward. I am glad I didn't have to make that decision.

With such uncontrolled power, I surely would have felt to protect Christ from the insults, the thorny [cross] crown, the indignities in the court, the physical injuries. Perhaps I would have struck down his persecutors with shafts of lightning. When he hung on the cross I would have rescued him; would have administered to his wounds and healed them, giving him cooling water instead of vinegar. I might have saved him from death, and lost to the world an atoning sacrifice and frustrated the whole program.

With unlimited power I might have healed my father and my mother. I might never have let them die. Would you dare to take the responsibility of bringing to life your own loved ones? I myself would hesitate to do so.

I am grateful that we may always pray, "Thy will be done in all things, for thou knowest what is best." I'm glad I do not have the decisions to make. We might consign loved one to loss of faculties, loss of powers; to a terrible doom.

Everyone must die. Death is an important part of life. Of course, we are never quite ready for the change. And not knowing when it should come, we properly fight to retain our lives. Why are we so afraid of death? We pray for the sick, we administer to the afflicted, we implore the Lord to heal and reduce pain and save life and postpone death, and properly so, but is eternity is so frightful, so awful?

The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the thought:

The Lord takes many away, even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on [this] earth; therefore, if rightly considered, instead of mourning we have reason to rejoice as they are delivered from evil and we shall soon have them again. … The only difference between the old and the young dying is, one lives longer in heaven and eternal light and glory than the other, and is freed a little sooner from this miserable wicked world (HC 4:553-554).

Yes, "blessed are the dead [that] die in the Lord … they shall rise from the dead and shall not die after. … And he that liveth when the Lord shall come, and hath kept the faith, blessed is he; nevertheless, it is appointed to him to die at the age of man" (D&C 63:49-50).

All are not healed or saved even though great faith is manifested.

Hear the Lord again:

And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.

Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection.

And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them;

And they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.

And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed. (D&C 42:44-48).

If he is not appointed unto death. That's a challenging statement.

I'm confident that there is a time to die. I am not a fatalist. I believe that many people die before their time because they are careless, abuse their bodies, take unnecessary chances or expose themselves to hazards, accidents and sickness.

In the modern revelations, we read this:

"Blessed is my servant … Lyman Wight, [he] should continue in preaching for Zion … [and] I will bear him up as on eagles wings … That when he shall finish his work I may receive him unto myself, even as I did my servant David Patten, who is with me at this time, and also my servant

Edward Partridge, and also my aged servant Joseph Smith, Sen., who sitteth with Abraham at his right hand, and blessed and holy is he, for he is mine" (D&C 124:15, 18-19).

Is it so revolutionary to say that David Patten was blessed with martyrdom? How glorious to die, for the cause. He was assured of the high glory of exaltation as witness this statement: "[I will] receive him unto myself, even as I did my servant David Patten, who is with me at this time."

Of the antediluvians, we read:

Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?

Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:

Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? (Job 22:15-17).

In Ecclesiastes we find this statement:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? (Eccles. 3:1-2; 7:17).

I believe we may die prematurely but seldom exceed our time very much; though there are exceptions. Hezekiah, 25-year-old king of Judah was far more godly than his successors or predecessors. The Judean king had an allotted time to die.

In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah . . . came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

[Hezekiah, loving life as do we] turned his face to the wall [and wept bitterly] …

. . . remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which [was] good in thy sight…. [he prayed to his Father] (II King 20:1-3).

It was wholly proper that Hezekiah, like ourselves, should cling to life and protect it. The Lord yielded unto his prayer.

. . . I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold I will heal thee….

And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria…. (II Kings 20:5-6).

The Lord slightly modified His plan and gave Hezekiah 15 years and freed Judah from Assyria.

Again, Abinadi could not be killed before his time to die. "Touch me not [he challenged] for God [will] smite you … for I have not delivered the message which the Lord sent me to deliver … therefore, God will not suffer that I shall be destroyed at this time … Ye see that ye have not power to slay me [he said]" (Mosiah 13:3, 7).

He was fully protected until his mission was fulfilled, then was permitted to be martyred.

"Oh God receive my soul" (Mosiah 17:19), he cried, "and his face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses' did while in the mount of Sinai while speaking [unto] the Lord" (Mosiah 13:5).

He undoubtedly received exaltation also as a martyr. The persecutors could not touch Enoch, his time had not come; he had a great mission to fulfill.

"And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God" (Moses 6:39).

Lehi and Nephi, the sons of Helaman, who converted many thousands, were put in prison without food. The persecutors tried to slay them, but they were encircled about as with fire. The missionaries spoke boldly: "Ye cannot lay your hands on us to slay us" (Helaman 5:26). The earth shook, the prison walls trembled, and a voice as if from above the cloud of darkness said, "seek no more to destroy my servants" (Helaman 5:29).

Frequently the Redeemer mentioned: "My hour is not yet come" and then as He approached Jerusalem for the last time, he announced to his disciples, "My hour is come."

Returning to the Apostle Paul, the devil seemingly was determined to destroy him; but until his time to die had come, all hell could not prevail against him. Paul says:

I am … in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; … in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, … in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren. … in hunger and thirst … in cold and nakedness (II Corithians 11:23-27).

Until his mission was fulfilled his life and labors could not be terminated by any powers of earth or hell. But when his mission was completed, he went to his death as a martyr.

To the saints at Philippi he said: "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:" (Philippians 1:23).

And Miletus when his people surrounded him, he confided to them his premonitions.

"And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me." And now he said I know that "… ye all … shall see my face no more" (Acts 20:22, 25).

"Then Paul answered [at Caesarea], What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." And they said, "The will of the Lord be done" (Acts 21:13-14).

He bore testimony in Jerusalem and in Rome and here in the capital of the world his work finished, he died a martyr according to tradition and prophecy. But not until his time to die had come, did he join the immortals.

Heber C. Kimball was given an unusual promise by the Lord, showing his control of our destinies. He was subjected to a test which, like the one given Abraham, was well-nigh unthinkable. Comfortless and in great perplexity he importuned the Prophet Joseph to inquire of the Lord, and the Prophet received this revelation: "Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself." (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Chapter 46)

God controls our lives, guides and blesses us, but gives us our agency. We may live our lives in accordance with his plan for us or we may foolishly shorten or terminate them.

I am positive in my mind that the Lord has planned our destiny. We can shorten our lives, but I think we cannot lengthen them very much. Sometime we’ll understand fully, and when we see from the vantage point of the future, we shall be satisfied with many of the happenings of this life which seem so difficult for us to comprehend.

We knew before we were born that we were coming to the earth for bodies and experience and that we would have joys and sorrows, pain and comforts, ease and hardships, health and sickness, successes and disappointments, and we knew also that we would die. We accepted all these eventualities with a glad heart, eager to accept both the favorable and the unfavorable. We were undoubtedly willing to have a mortal body, even if it were a deformed one. We eagerly accepted the chance to come earthward even though it might be for a day, a year, or a century. Perhaps we were not so much concerned whether we should die of disaster, of accident, or of senility. We were willing to come and take life as it came and as we might organize and control it, and this without murmur, complaint, or unreasonable demands.

We sometimes think we'd like to know what was ahead, but sober thought brings us back to accepting life a day at a time and magnifying and glorifying that day.

Sister Ida Allredge gave us a thought-provoking verse:

I cannot know the future, nor the path I shall have trod,
But by that inward vision, which points the way to God.
I would not glimpse the beauty or joy for me in store,
Lest patience ne’er restrain me from thrusting wide the door.
I would not part the curtains or cast aside the veil,
Else sorrows that await me might make my courage fail;
I’d rather live not knowing, just doing my small mite;
I’d rather walk by faith with God, than try alone the light.

My young brothers and sisters, God bless you. Life is good when we control it and master ourselves. It is one of great opportunity and tremendous privilege. May God bless us all to gain in knowledge, in wisdom, in faith, in works; bringing to us eternal glory. And this I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Ashes of a Rye Straw

2010-12-26T19:31:00.005-07:00

Rye

During early years of Church history, the phrase "ashes of a rye straw" was used in several talks. Doing a basic search in the Journal of Discourses shows me 15 references to it (9 of them from Brigham Young). I suppose because many members of the Church were farmers (or very familiar with it), this pronouncement made sense to them and was, more or less, common phraseology. There are some contemporary works that comment about rye ashes being used as an herbal treatment for healing. Perhaps that is the meaning also when used by the early Saints. Just for purposes of being complete, this phrase was last used in a General Conference talk in 1931 by Elder Sylvester Q. Cannon (son of George Q. Cannon); he quoted Brigham Young on the doctrine of tithing - different story than the one below.

Brigham Young; c. 1870

On October 7, 1864, George Darling Watt (G.D. Watt: First baptized convert in the British Isles - 1837 - and secretary to Brigham Young) took stenographic notes of the following talk given by Brigham Young in the bowery on Temple Square:

The brethren who have spoken have been disposed to speak concerning the testimony they have within themselves of the truth of this Work. It made me think of a circumstance in the history of Joseph Smith, in which I was an actor, relating to a few men in Nauvoo who sought to make it appear that the printed word was all in all, and immensely superior to the living testimony of the Holy Ghost in the believer, and to the power of the living Priesthood. I attended one of their meetings, which was held in Joseph's house, arose to speak, and took for my text, "ye Saints of Latter days, I would not give you the ashes of a rye straw for every word that is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, so far as their efficacy is concerned to save any man, independent of the living Priesthood of the Son of God, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the heart of the believer." [Journal of Discourses 10:339-340]

More information on this meeting is found in the book, Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Know the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Mark L. McConkie (published in 2003 by Deseret Book). I believe this piece of the text is found on the accompanying CDROM with the book (I pulled it off the LDS Collectors Library application):

I recollect one Sunday evening Joseph came to my house at dusk, and said, "I want you to go to my house and preach." I told him that I loved to go to meeting, but did not want to go to his house. I knew what was going on. I knew that Hyrum and William Marks, and William Law would be there to operate against the Prophet Joseph, and therefore I told Joseph I would rather not go to his house. Finally, he said to me, "Brother Brigham, if you do not go with me, I will not go home to my house tonight." I concluded I would go with him, so I did up my evening chores, and we started for the Prophet's house. By the time we got there, the meeting had commenced. Hyrum had opened the meeting, and was preaching, when we went in. We went into the old log house. Hyrum had the stand by the fire place without any fire in it. We came up and sat on a board close to the stand. Joseph sat with his hands over his face all the time Hyrum was talking, and he preached and preached and preached, like a person trying to pour water out of a dry well. I will refer to his character as a preacher, and you that knew him and heard him will understand it. When we had held a two hour meeting, then Hyrum would get up on the stand to speak on the Word of Wisdom. He was a positive man; and I have know him to talk an hour and a half and two hours on the Word of Wisdom, when I did not see any particular utility in it. At this meeting in Joseph's house Hyrum worked hard. He took the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and said he, "That is the law which God has given us by which to build up His Church and Kingdom in the last day and anything more than these is of man, and is not of God." When he sat down, Brother Joseph, with his hands still over his face, and nudging me with his elbow, said, "Brother Brigham, now come, get up." I got up, and previous to getting up I had become pretty well charged with plenty of powder and began. My lungs were not so weak as they are now. I could talk then so as to be heard a mile. I felt like a thousand lions. I took the books and laid them down one by one beginning with the Bible, and said, "there lies the Bible, there the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations God has given through Joseph for the salvation of the people in the 19th Century, yet I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man, that lives without the living oracles of God." That was my text, and I think that before we got through the congregation was perfectly satisfied. I showed them that if we did not have the living oracles we were no better than the sectarian churches of the world. After I got through, Hyrum arose and made a handsome apology, and confessed his wrong which he had committed in his excess of zeal, and asked pardon. ... Yes, and a good many others were there, and heard the lion roar.

The point of the discourse by Brigham was that the scriptures were fine; however, without a living oracle of God, they are incomplete. Reading this paragraph from Brigham reminds me of the talk by Hugh B. Brown called Profile of a Prophet; I'll quote a few relevant paragraphs:

“Well, then, if He could speak, and if He loves us, then the only other possible answer, as I see it, is that we don’t need Him. We have made such rapid strides in science and we are so well educated that we don’t need God anymore.”

And then he said—and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war—“Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why He doesn’t speak.”

My answer was: “He does speak, He has spoken; but men need faith to hear Him.” [Hugh B. Brown: Profile of a Prophet]

Combining Brigham's two references of this meeting together, he said that two things were necessary for the salvation of man (besides the scriptures):

Living oracles
Testimony of the Holy Ghost in the heart of the believer

Aaronic Priesthood Advancement Ages

2010-12-24T15:18:00.016-07:00

The demographics of the Aaronic Priesthood have significantly changed since the organization of the Church in 1830 (some 180 years ago). This post is an attempt to show one of those changes with respect to the age of quorum members. The table below summarizes the age recommendations for the Aaronic Priesthood.

	1830-1877	1877-1908	1908-1954	1954-Present
Deacon	none	11/12	12	12
Teacher	none	none	15	14
Priest	none	none	18	16

Table Summary:
For 47 years after the official organization of the Church, youth were not given the Aaronic Priesthood. It wasn't until Brigham Young's last year (he died August 1877) when the recommendation was given from Church authorities that the Aaronic Priesthood should be given to young men. In 1908, President Joseph F. Smith had a Priesthood Committee formed (Rudger Clawson and David O. McKay were members of it) and the first official ages were set for advancement through the priesthood offices. In 1951, David O. McKay became Church President, and three years later the priesthood advancement ages were changed to what they are currently.

None of the age demarcations listed above in the table are found in the scriptures.

Orson Pratt (c. 1870)

Here are a couple of quotes from Orson Pratt (last surviving member from the original Quorum of the Twelve) summing up the position of the Church and his understanding with respect to necessary organizational changes (I like his 'crazy hair' - it makes me laugh when I see his pictures; so, since I'm quoting him, I figured having his picture here was a good thing as well):

Quote 1: To say that there will be a stated time, in the history of this Church, during its imperfections and weaknesses, when the organization will be perfect, and that there will be no further extension or addition to the organization, would be a mistake. Organization is to go on, step after step, from one degree to another, just as the people increase and grow in the knowledge of the principles and laws of the Kingdom of God, and as their borders shall extend. [Deseret News Weekly, July 18, 1877]

Quote 2: The Lord is about to 'right up' the people; and he has inspired him who presides over us, to organize us more fully. [Journal of Discourses, Vol 19, pp. 12-13; May 20, 1877]

1830 - 1877:

When the Church was first organized, the priesthood had no age recommendations for its offices. Worthy men were simply chosen by the Prophet to fill necessary priesthood roles. There is no directive in the Doctrine and Covenants (essentially the Church's constitution or original law), and as such older (read: experienced) men filled the positions and offices in both priesthoods. As an example on the Aaronic Priesthood side, the first Deacons of the Church were Titus Billings, Serenes Burnett, and John Burk - ordained some time before October 15, 1831 - all considered to be men, not youth. Additionally, at the Church's first conference (June 9, 1830), three priests were present: Joseph Smith, Sr., 59; Hyrum Smith, 30; and Martin Harris, 47. Finally, the average age of those in the Nauvoo priests quorum ... 29. The point here is that it was commonplace for older men to fill Aaronic Priesthood roles in the Church.

By 1877, there were over 100,000 Saints; a dramatic rise from the nearly 12,000 in 1852 that inhabited the Territory of Utah. Put simply, the organizational structure of the Church had to be modified to address the growth. It reminds me a little of the story of Moses and Jethro [Exodus 18:13-26], where the organization of judges was established to lighten the load of Moses.

William G. Hartley states the following in his The Priesthood Reorganization of 1877 document:

"President Brigham Young labored restlessly in his last five months of life to reorganize the Church's government structures. His priesthood reorganization of 1877, thorough and massive, involved every stake, 241 wards, hundreds of quorums, and more than a thousand leadership positions. But this final achievement is underrated or ignored by historians, unknown to Church members, and so far is a missing entry on his leadership balance sheet."

Brigham knew the Prophet Joseph Smith very well, and with that knowledge, he took it upon himself to reorganize the priesthood and bring it back into line with what Joseph had originally intended. The reoganization took place in two large phases. Phase I was initiated and essentially completed by Brigham Young in 1877. This involved reoganization at the stake level (stake presidents, councilors, high councils, etc.). Phase II was reorganization at the ward and priesthood quorum levels (bishops, councilors, etc.).

1877 - 1908:

Near the end of the first phase of reorganization, the First Presidency of the Church released a "circular" outlining its goals for the priesthood reorganization. Here are a few pieces of that document:

"When priests and teachers visit the Saints, according to the instructions in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the experienced priest or teacher should have as a companion a young man, so that the latter may have the opportunity of learning the duties of his calling, and becoming thoroughly wise and efficient in the discharge thereof."

"... it has been a difficult thing to keep young men in the Elders quorum or in any of the quorums of the lesser priesthood; and when deacons, teachers and priests have been wanted it has generally been the case that seventies and high priests have had to be taken to act in those offices. It would be excellent training for the young men if they had the opportunity of acting in the offices of the lesser priesthood. They would thereby obtain very valuable experience, and when they obtain the Melchisedec priesthood they would be likely to place a higher value upon it."
[Messages of the First Presidency, James R. Clark, Volume II, Circular of the First Presidency: July 11, 1877]

Reactions to the directive of the First Presidency to allow young men to serve in the Aaronic Priesthood were very favorable:

"The 1877 changes revolutionized Aaronic Priesthood Work by stipulating that all youth receive some priesthood instead of just a few youth having that privilege. Youth were the solution to the long-standing dilemma of how to keep lesser priesthood quorums staffed when capable men were recruited away from them to the higher quorums. The new policy was for experienced teachers to take youth with them while ward teaching. The second phase created scores of new Aaronic Priesthood units, most filled with boys. Some boys became deacons at age eleven. Weber Stake ordained 'all the boys above fourteen years not already ordained.' Reactions to this new youth priesthood were strongly favorable. An October report from Ogden noted the 'great good that had already resulted from organizing the Lesser Priesthood, the young men responding to the call they received in such a manner as enkindled new life and spirit in the hearts of their parents and older members of the Church generally.' A Cache bishop said that 'a source of strength had been opened up through the organization of the Aaronic Priesthood, the young men acquitting themselves creditably.' The Salt Lake Stake presidency 'felt especially blessed in ordaining the young to positions in the Priesthood.'"

...

"The reorganization of 1877 was a final testament by Brigham Young, who sought all his life to follow accurately Joseph Smith's teachings as to how priesthood ought to function in the Church. 'The Church is more perfectly organized than ever before, perhaps with the exception of the general assembly at Kirtland, but in some things now we are more stable and complete than we were even then,' observed John Taylor that September. The semi-gothic Assembly Hall, built 1877-1880, still stands on Temple Square as an impressive granite-and-wood memorial of President Young's 1877 priesthood reorganization, his last major achievement as a prophet on earth." [Priesthood Reorganization of 1877, William G. Hartley, 1979]

1908 - 1954:

Brigham Young set the Church on its current path today with regards to priesthood organization; however, the job was far from over, and so President Joseph F. Smith organized the General Priesthood Committee on Outlines (working from 1908 to 1922) to systematize the quorums, lessons, meetings, etc., throughout the Church. Prior to the current practice of holding priesthood meetings every Sunday, priesthood quorum meetings were held on a Monday or Wednesday, and sometimes the lesson topics were chosen by individual quorum members.

"One lesser priesthood group, for example, divided its class time between religious lessons and such adventure books as Tom Sawyer, The Jungle Book, The Call of the Wild, Pigs is Pigs, and Frank Among the Rancheros. In another case a lesson was given on the life of United States President William McKinley--in a Canadian teachers' quorum. In December, 1908, a deacons' quorum in Ogden 'went downstairs and Brother [--] gave a lecture on Ben Hur.'" [Priesthood Reform Movement 1908-1922, by William G. Hartley]

Those types of lessons are a far cry from what are given today, to be sure. Timing of the meetings, lesson topics - all from a completely different era than I lived in. The above quote has even been used in a fairly recent General Conference of the Church (October 1998, Priesthood Session, Elder D. Todd Christofferson). The point is, the Priesthood Committee organized by President Smith had its work cut out for it.

Apparently the advancement of young men through the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood was not happening. Because not all wards had understood the intent of President Young's reorganization, the Committee decided to recommend outright how to advance young men through the priesthood offices.

"... unless there are special reasons to the contrary they should be advanced in the priesthood from deacon to teacher and from teacher to priest. There can be no set age when persons should be ordained to the various offices in the Aaronic Priesthood, but we suggest that as near as circumstances will permit boys be ordained as follows: Deacons at twelve, Teachers at fifteen and Priests at eighteen years of age." [Presiding Bishopric, Circular Letter File, 1 January 1909; Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]

1954 - Present Day:

From the Improvement Era, November 1954:

"IN A meeting of the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric, held August 31, 1954, it was approved that worthy young men be ordained teachers at the age of fourteen and priests at the age of sixteen.

"Worthy young men will continue to be ordained deacons at the age of twelve and recommended to be ordained elders at nineteen as in the past."

...

"Stake and ward leaders of Aaronic Priesthood under 21 are charged with full responsibility for effecting these changes, and completing their roll books accordingly, by January 1, 1955.

"These changes are of history-making calibre and we must not fail to comply with these recommendations immediately and without reservation."

With this announcement on the Presiding Bishopric's page, advancement ages were set - finally. I doubt they will ever change again.

I have left out a great deal of history and explanation. Rather than quoting the sources, in their entirety, I will list them here, so as to allow for easier future study of this topic. Here are two very good sources for further reading:

The Priesthood Reorganization of 1877: Brigham Young's Last Achievement (link to pdf: here)
Priesthood Reform Movement 1908-1922 (link to pdf: here)

Laws Against Polygamy - 1890 (The Manifesto) +

2010-10-30T23:03:00.006-06:00

While the manifesto from 1890 isn't a law enacted by the Congress of the United States or any other representative legislative body, it is a current law/rule of the Church, and as such I want to include it in this historical review of laws. I will take the same approach with this post as I did with the others: History first, and then the law/rule. This post will include more commentary from contemporary writers about specific events during this time period than in the other posts I have. The reasoning behind this is to attempt to paint a picture of the time period and trials experienced by the Mormons during this time as clearly as possible. The history of this post will cover from 1887 to 1893 (briefly into 1896). It took until 1893 when all previously seized personal property was finally returned (3 years after the manifesto was released). I will again break the content down by years.

I have decided not to cover (in any detail that would give proper light to the subject) the admission of the Territory of Utah as a State. The political battle that ensued because of this will be the subject of another post (if I post it at all), and would require much more depth than I'm willing to put into this post. As such, this significant event, and the events that led up to it, will only be touched upon lightly.

There is a great deal of history that I am leaving out, and yet, this post is still significantly large in my opinion. For each year I give a brief summary, as written in Church Chronology, a list of events I found important during the year, and then some description of the history of the year. I have tried to present the facts here without regard to bias. Both positive and negative events are listed so as to show different points of view.

As with all of my posts, I hope there are minimal to no errors. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that this is error-free. If I find problems, I'll correct them. I will say this: This post feels like I've just written a book on the subject. I've done a fair amount of research, and left out tons of material that could rightly be justified for inclusion (background, stories, explanation, quotation from laws or court cases, etc.); I just couldn't bring myself to put it all in.

Other posts in this series:

Bibliography of sources used in this post:

cc = Church Chronology, A Record of Important Events, Compiled by Andrew Jenson, 1914.
ch = Church History in the Fulness of Times - Student Manual, published by the LDS Church, 2nd Edition, 2003.
en = Ensign to the Nations, A History of the LDS Church from 1846 to 1972, by Russell R. Rich, 14th printing, 1989.
ph = Popular History of Utah, by Orson F. Whitney, 1916.
up = Under the Prophet in Utah, by Frank J. Cannon, 1911.
ww = Wilford Woodruff, by Matthias F. Cowley, 1909.

=== 1887 ===

During this year nearly 200 of the brethren were imprisoned in the Utah Penitentiary, besides a number in Idaho, for infractions of the provisions of the anti-polygamy laws. The settlements of the Saints in Mexico and Canada were greatly strengthened by "Mormon" exiles from the United States. Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the government, through its receiver took possession of the Church offices, and a wholesale confiscation of Church property was threatened. President John Taylor died in exile, and the Council of the Twelve Apostles was sustained as the Presidency of the Church. (cc, pg. 142)

327 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act this year. (en, pg. 383).

March 3, 1887 - Edmunds-Tucker Act becomes a law.
May 24, 1887 - Manti Temple "ransacked" by US Marshals looking for polygamists - no arrests were made.
July 25, 1887 - President John Taylor dies.
July 30, 1887 - Utah Supreme Court case against the Church and the PEFC according to provisions in the Edmunds-Tucker Law.
October 17, 1887 - Utah Supreme Court arguments begin in U.S. v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
November 7, 1887 - Marshal Frank H. Dyer is appointed the Receiver, and ordered to take charge of Church property.
November 8, 1887 - Receiver Dyer is given "extraordinary powers" in handling Church property. Asked to file a $250,000 bond.
November 11, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the Tithing Office in Salt Lake City, but does not interfere with the regular business.
November 15, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the Historian's Office and the Gardo House. The Tithing Office and the Historian's Office are leased back to the Church. The marshal demands the President's Office be delivered to him.
November 17, 1887 - Marshal Dyer files a $50,000 bond in the suit against the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company (PEFC).
November 18, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the PEFC property.
November 23, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes formal possession of the President's Office, leaving two deputies in charge.
December 12, 1887 - Rudger Clawson released from prison - pardoned by President Cleveland.
December 31, 1887 - Because of the persecution and legal proceedings against the Church, all the workmen on the Temple Block in Salt Lake City, are discharged, and work on the temple is suspended.

Judicial/Political effect:

"In Idaho the crusade had been carried on vindictively. Those who engineered the 'Anti-Mormon' movement in that Territory boasted that their juries would convict 'Mormons' whether innocent or guilty. The U.S. Marshal, who afterwards became Delegate in Congress and subsequently a United States Senator affirmed that he had 'a jury that would convict Jesus Christ;' and no one disputed, or had any reason to dispute, the profane declaration." (ph, pg. 454).

"By Act of Congress, all the church property in excess of $50,000 had been seized by the United States marshal, and the community faced the total loss of its common fund. Because of some evasions that had been attempted by the Church authorities - and the suspicion of more such - the marshal had taken everything that he could in any way assume to belong to the Church." (up, pg. 26).

"The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 included provisions aimed at destroying the Church as a political and economic entity. The law officially dissolved the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a legal corporation and required the Church to forfeit to the government all property in excess of fifty thousand dollars. Government officials set out immediately to confiscate Church holdings. For example, the buildings on Temple Square and other Church offices were placed in receivership and then rented back to the Church. In an attempt to stop the flow of European converts, the government dissolved the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, the chief agency for immigration." (ch, pg. 437).

"B.H. Roberts claims that the real cause of the anti-Mormon crusade was a fight for the political control of Utah on the part of the crusaders. They not only wanted control of the offices in Utah that federal officers could give them, but control of the legislature and the treasury of Utah as well. Even with the Utah Commission in political control and with the other aspects of the Edmunds Law as weapons, the Ring was not satisfied with the general progress made against the Saints, as they still could not wrest political control from the Mormons." (en, pp. 380-381).

Effect on the Mormons living polygamy:

"As the judicial crusade against polygamy continued, a new way of life was created for many Saints. Otherwise law-abiding men escaped to the underground and frequently moved from place to place to avoid the marshals who were hunting them. Fleeing 'cohabs' (as they were called) went into canyons, barns, fields, and cellars to avoid their pursuers. Federal officers countered by disguising themselves as peddlers or census takers in order to gain entry into homes. Some marshals raided houses, invading privacy and even mistreating wives and children to catch their prey. Ten and twenty-dollar bounties were offered for every Latter-day Saint captured, and much larger amounts were available if a General Authority was apprehended." (ch, pg. 432).

"A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile. Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends. Husbands and wives, separated by the necessities of flight, had died apart, miserably. Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health. A young plural wife whom I knew - a mere girl, of good breeding, of gentle life - seeking refuge in the mountains to save her husband from a charge of 'unlawful cohabitation,' had had her infant die in her arms on the road; and she had been compelled to bury the child, wrapped in her shawl, under a rock, in a grave that she scratched in the soil with a stick. In our day! In a civilized state!" (up, pp. 25-26).

=== 1888 ===

The year, generally speaking, was a prosperous one for the Saints in Utah and surrounding territories, although more arrests and imprisonments for conscience sake than during any previous season since the prosecutions under the Edmunds law commenced. A good harvest was gathered in nearly all the settlements of the Saints, although water was somewhat scarce in many places. The missionaries abroad were quite successful in their labors, especially on the "islands of the sea," including Samoa, where the fulness of the gospel was introduced in 1888. (cc, pg. 157).

334 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act for this year. (en, pg. 343).

January 18, 1888 - Utah Supreme Court denies an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of appointing a receiver for the Church property.
May 14, 1888 - Deputy marshals demand the tabernacle at Logan as Church property, but are refused.
July 6, 1888 - The Church farm in Salt Lake County is turned over to Receiver Dyer.
July 9, 1888 - Receiver Dyer petitions the Supreme Court of Utah to have $157,000+ worth of Church property delivered to him.
July 9, 1888 - President Cleveland nominates Elliot F. Sandford to replace Judge Zane.
July 10, 1888 - Considerable Church property is turned over to Dyer on compromise, pending appeal to the US Supreme Court.
August 28, 1888 - Judge Sandford arrives and relieves Judge Zane.
September 17, 1888 - George Q. Cannon surrenders to Marshal Dyer and is brought before Judge Sandford.
December 12, 1888 - Mormon legislators are expelled from the Idaho legislature.

Life on the Underground (Frank J. Cannon relating a story of meeting with his father, George Q. Cannon):

"About ten o'clock one night in the spring of 1888, I set out secretly, from Salt Lake City, on a nine-mile drive to Bountiful, to meet my father, who was concealed 'on the underground,' among friends; and that night drive, with its haste and its apprehension, was so of a piece with the times, that I can hardly separate it from them in my memory. We were all being carried along in an uncontrollable sweep of tragic events. In a sort of blindness, like the night, unable to see the nearest fork of the road ahead of us, we were being driven to a future that held we knew not what.

"... The whole district was picketed with deputy marshals; we did not know that we were not being followed; we had always the sense of evading patrols in an enemy's country. But this feeling was so old with us that it had become a thing of no regard.

"... With Wilcken holding the reins on a pair of fast horses at full speed, we whirled past an old adobe wall (which the Mormons had built to defend their city from the Indians) and came out into the purple night of Utah, with its frosty starlight and its black hills ... we drove, that night, up the Salt Lake valley, across a corner of the desert, to the little town of Bountiful; and as soon as we arrived among the houses of the settlement, a man stepped out into the road, from the shadows, and stopped us. Wilcken spoke to him. He recognized us, and let us pass. As we turned into the farm where my father was concealed, I saw men lurking here and there, on guard, about the grounds." (up, pp. 23-25, 27).

Mormon Community Definition:

"Their community was founded on the three principles of co-operation, contribution, and arbitration. By co-operation of effort they had realized that dream of the Socialists, 'equality of opportunity' - not equality of individual capacity, which the accidents of nature prevent, but an equal opportunity for each individual to develop himself to the last reach of his power. By contribution - by requiring each man to give one-tenth of his income to a common fund - they had attained the desired end of modern civilization, the abolition of poverty, and had adjusted the straps of the community burden to the strength of the individual to bear it. By arbitration, they had effected the settlement of every dispute of every kind without litigation; for their High Councils decided all sorts of personal or neighborhood disputes without expense of money to the disputants. The 'storehouse of the Lord' had been kept open to fill every need of the poor among 'God's people,' and opportunities for self-help had been created out of the common fund, so that neither unwilling idleness nor privation might mar the growth of the community or the progress of the individual.

"But Joseph Smith had gone further. ... [He assumed] that a woman's chief right was that of wifehood and maternity, [and so] instituted the practice of plural marriage, as a 'Prophet of God,' on the authority of a direct revelation from the Almighty. It was upon this rock that the whole enterprise, the whole experiment in religious communism, now threatened to split. Not that polygamy was so large an incident in the life of the community - for only a small proportion of the Mormons were living in plural marriage. And not that this practice was the cardinal sin of Mormonism - for among intelligent men, then as now, the great objection to the Church was its assumption of a divine authority to hold the 'temporal power,' to dictate in politics, to command action and to acquit of responsibility. But polygamy was the offense against civilization which the opponents of Mormonism could always cite in order to direct against the Church the concentrated antagonism of the governments of the Western world." (up, pp. 33-34).

How Chief Justice Charles S. Zane was replaced:

Frank J. Cannon was asked by his father (George Q.) to use his influence in Washington to seek relief for the Saints in Utah. George Q: "We feel that if relief does not soon appear, our community will be scattered and the great work crushed." Late one night, he secretly meets with Joseph F. Smith at the Lion House in Salt Lake City. This first quote is Frank Cannon's belief of what drives some of the animosity between Joseph F. Smith and the government of the United States.

"No Mormon in those years, I think, had more hate than [Joseph F.] Smith for the United States government; and surely none had better reasons to give himself for hate. He had the bitter recollection of the assassination of his father and his uncle in the jail of Carthage, Illinois; he could remember the journey that he had made with his widowed mother across the Mississippi, across Iowa, across the Missouri, and across the unknown and desert West, in ox teams, half starved, unarmed, persecuted by civilization and at the mercy of savages; he could remember all the toils and hardships of pioneer days 'in the valley;' he had seen the army of '58 arrive to complete, as he believed, the final destruction of our people; he had suffered from all the proscriptive legislation of 'the raid,' been out-lawed, been in exile, been in hiding, hunted like a thief." (up, pp. 38-39).

During the conversation with President Smith, he [Frank] is asked to do whatever he can to alleviate the suffering in Utah. Here is what Joseph F. Smith is reported to have said:

"These scoundrels here must be removed [political appointees in Utah, and those seeking to arrest men charged with polygamy] - if there's any way to do it. They're trying to repeat the persecutions of Missouri and Illinois. They want to despoil us of our heritage - of our families. I'm sick of being hunted like a wild beast. I've done no harm to them or theirs. Why can't they leave us alone to live our religion and obey the commandments of God and build up Zion? ... I thought Cleveland would stop this damnable raid and make them leave us in peace - but he's as bad as the rest. Can't they see that these carpet baggers are only trying to rob us? Make them see that. The hounds! Sometimes it seems to me that the Lord is letting these iniquities go on so that the nation may perish in its sins all the sooner!" (up, pp. 40-41).

Frank left and traveled east, not knowing exactly how to accomplish the task he had been given. In Washington he "intended to argue - as the first wise concession needed of the Federal authorities - that Chief Justice Zane should no longer be retained on the bench in Utah, but should be succeeded by a man more gentle. He was the great figure among our prosecutors; the others were District Attorney Dickson and the two assistants, Mr. Varian and Mr. Hiles." (up, pg. 50).

He traveled to New York City and met with the mayor there, Mr. Abraham S. Hewitt, a friend of his father's. After hearing of the troubles in Utah, the mayor recommended Judge Elliott F. Sanford as a replacement for Judge Charles S. Zane. Mr. Cannon met Mr. Sandford and his wife in New York and convinced him (them) to accept a Presidential nomination to the position of Chief Justice in Utah. He is given a letter to present to Mr. William C. Whitney (Secretary of the Navy), who subsequently helped him obtain an interview with President Grover Cleveland.

"I had to tell him [President Cleveland] that the situation had not improved, and his face flushed with an anger that he made no attempt to conceal. He declared that the fault must lie in our obstinate determination to hold ourselves superior to the law. He could not sympathize with our sufferings, he said, since they were self-inflicted. He admitted that he had once been opposed to the Edmunds-Tucker bill, but felt now that it was justified by the immovability of the Mormons. All palliatives had failed. The patience of Congress had been exhausted. There was no recourse, except to make statutes cutting enough to destroy the illegal practices and unlawful leadership in the Mormon community." (up, pg. 74).

Just as the President was dismissing him, he told him that 20 years of politicians doing the same thing over and over again has failed. He, Frank, has a solution that could possibly work.

"Mr. President," I replied, "if you were travelling in the West, and came to an unbridged stream with your wagon train, and saw tracks leading down into the water where you thought there was a ford, you would naturally expect to cross there, assuming that others had done so before you. But suppose that some man on the bank should say to you: 'I've watched wagon trains go in here for more than twenty years, and I've never yet seen one come out on the other side. Look over at that opposite bank. You see there are no wagon tracks there. Now, down the river a piece, is a place where I think there's a ford. I've never got anybody to try it yet, but certainly it's as good a chance as this one!' Mr. President, what would you do? Would you attempt a crossing where there had been twenty years of failure, or would you try the other place - on the chance that it might take you over?" (up, pp. 76-77).

In other words, all of the political efforts to solve the Mormon problem have been the same for the last 20 years, and they have all failed. Something new must be tried. When Mr. Cannon met the Presdient a few days later, "He was interested, receptive, almost genial. He gave me an oppotunity to cover the whole ground of my case, and I went over it step by step."

"He looked squarely at me, with a most determined front, when I told him that the Mormons would be ground to powder before they would yield. 'They can't yield,' I warned him. 'They're like the passengers on a train going with a mad speed down a dangerous grade. For any of them to attempt to jump is simple destruction. They can only pray to Providence to help them. But if that train were to be brought to a stop at some station where they could alight with anything like self-respect, there would be many of them glad to get off - even though the train had not arrived at it's 'revealed' destination." (up, pg. 79).

After many more meetings, the President decided that he wanted to help address the Mormon problem. He was going to appoint Mr. Elliott F. Sandford as Chief Justice in Utah, relieving Judge Charles Zane.

Reaction to Judge Sandford's installation:

"He was appointed Chief Justice on the 9th day of July, 1888, and - as the Mormon people expressed it - 'the backbone of the raid was broken.' On August 26, 1888, he arrived in Salt Lake City. On September 17, my father [George Q. Cannon] came before him in court and pleaded guilty to two indictments charging him with 'unlawful cohabitation.' He was fined $450 [~$10,500 today] and sentenced to the penitentiary for one hundred and seventy-five days. His example was followed by a number of prominent Mormons, including Francis Marion Lyman. ... It is true that not many cases, relatively speaking, came to Justice Sandford; but the leader whom the authorities were most eager to subjugate under Federal power was judged and sentenced; and the effect, both on the country and on the Mormon people, was all that we had expected." (up, pp. 80-81).

"While the crusade was by no means at an end, its extreme bitterness was gradually vanishing. During the year Judge Zane was succeeded by Judge Elliott Sandford of New York. Mr. Sanford was a man of refinement and of moral courage. He manifested no personal bias and no excessive zeal in the administration of the law." (ww, pg. 563).

=== 1889 ===

By the Saints in Utah 1889 will be remembered as the year when the question whether or not the Church to which they belonged could be robbed of its property by the government was laid before the supreme tribunal of their country; and also the question whether they could be robbed of civil and political rights as individual citizens, because of their religious belief. Abroad the missionaries met with considerable success, and a few were baptized in Asia Minor and Palestine. In New Zealand large numbers of natives embraced the gospel, and the progress in Europe is shown by the fact that, during the year, 321 were baptized in Great Britain, 572 in Scandinavia, 219 in Switzerland and Germany, and 77 in Holland. The Book of Mormon was translated into the modern Jewish and Maori languages. In Salt Lake City, Ogden, and other places in Utah the political developments toward the close of the year will always be remembered as being very significant and demonstrative. (cc, pg. 169).

346 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act during this year. (en, pg. 383).

January 14, 1889 - Francis M. Lyman sentenced to the Utah Penitentiary for 85 days and fined $200.
January 19, 1889 - U.S. Supreme Court arguments heard in U.S. v. Mormon Church.
February 18, 1889 - Receiver Dyer is examined in court, and nothing is found against him (his work).
March 9, 1889 - Marshal Dyer tendered his resignation to President Cleveland.
May 24, 1889 - Judge Charles S. Zane is reappointed Chief Judge of Utah by President Harrison.
June 3, 1889 - Judge Zane replaces Judge Sandford.
June 24, 1889 - Utah Supreme Court ordered that the Church farm be leased to John R. Winder for $401/month.
July 12, 1889 - President Harrison appoints Elias H. Parsons as marshal and Charles S. Varian district attorney for Utah.
August 21, 1889 - Receiver Dyer leased 29,756 Church sheep at an average of 43 cents/head.
September 27, 1889 - Utah Commission reports to Secretary John W. Noble - they say Utah needs harsher measures.
November, 1889 - The Endowment House is taken down (erected in 1855).
November 30, 1889 - Judge Anderson, in the Third District Court, renders a decision that "Mormon" aliens can not be admitted to citizenship (in the U.S.).

Replacement of Judge Sandford by Judge Zane:

President Benjamin Harrison was elected, and as a consequence many public government officials were replaced in Utah. "An official change that caused more comment than all the others combined was the removal of Chief Justice Sandford and the reappointment of his predecessor, Chief Justice Zane. ... Justice Sandford had written out his resignation soon after Harrison was inaugurated." Justice Sandford requested to know why he was being replaced, and the response was the following: "... the President has become satisfied that your administration of the office is not in harmony with the policy he deems proper to be pursued with reference to Utah affairs."

Judge Sandford made the following rejoinder: "My earnest purpose while on the Bench, as Chief Justice of this Territory, has been to administer justice and the laws honestly and impartially to all men, under the obligations of my oath of office. If the President of the United States has any policy which he desires a Judge of the Supreme Court to carry out in reference to Utah affairs other than the one I have pursued, you may say to him that he has done well to remove me." (ph, pg. 470).

Judge Anderson's decision regarding naturalization:

"Many bona fide residents had not been naturalized, and to pass upon applications for citizenship Associate Justice Anderson held special sessions of court at Salt Lake City. 'Mormon' applicants were questioned as to their belief in polygamy, and if they admitted such a belief they were objected to as 'men of immoral character.' Inquiries made of other applicants concerning sexual practices outside the marriage relation, were characterized by the objectors 'superfluous and absurd.'

"Allegations respecting a ceremony which was said to require from everyone passing through the Endowment House an oath of hostility to the United States Government, were made the basis of a contention that no member of the 'Mormon' Church should be admitted to citizenship.'
...
"Judge Anderson, in a decision rendered on the last day of November, 1889, denied the applications of John Moore and Walter J. Edgar for citizenship, on the ground that they had been through the Endowment House and had there taken an oath of hostility to the Government. Nine others were rejected because they were members of the 'Mormon' Church, though they had never been through the Endowment House, and were not even accused of taking any disloyal oath or obligation." (ph, pp. 478-479).

In concluding his journal for the year 1889, Wilford Woodruff wrote:

'This ends the year. The word of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, has been fulfilled wherein he declared that the whole nation would turn against Zion and make war upon the Saints. The nation has never been so full of lies against the Saints as it is today." (ww, pg. 566).

=== 1890 ===

Salt Lake City passed from the hands of the People's Party to those of the Liberals, or anti Mormon element. Nearly all the civil rights left to the Saints were threatened by proposed anti-Mormon legislation. President Woodruff issued his manifesto, suspending plural marriage. (cc, pg. 180).

February 3, 1890 - The Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Idaho test oath, in the case of Samuel D. Davis.
March 4, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court made an order terminating the lease of the Gardo House and hereafter renting it to the highest bidder.
March 5, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court made an order terminating the lease of the Tithing Office grounds and was rented to the highest bidder.
March 10, 1890 - John R. Winder is the highest bidder for the Gardo House $450/month.
March 12, 1890 - John R. Winder is the highest bidder for the Tithing Office grounds $500/month.
April 11, 1890 - Cullom-Struble Bill introduced in Congress.
May 14, 1890 - George F. Edmunds introduces a bill in the Senate providing for the entire disfranchisement of the Mormons.
May 19, 1890 - United States v. Mormon Church - Supreme Court says Edmunds-Tucker act is constitutional.
June 10, 1890 - George F. Edmunds introduces a bill in the Senate providing for the disposition of the escheated Church property.
July 7, 1890 - Receiver Dyer made a report on Church property for Examiner Rosburough.
July 14, 1890 - Receiver Dyer resignes his position as Receiver of confiscated Church property.
July 16, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court appoints Henry W. Lawrence as Receiver of confiscated Church property.
July 29, 1890 - Receiver Henry W. Lawrence is ordered by the Utah Supreme Court to sell the Church sheep in his possession.
September 24, 1890 - A manifesto was issued, signed by President Woodruff, in which the Saints are advised "to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the laws of the land."
September 26, 1890 - The Manifesto is released.
October 6, 1890 - The Manifesto is sustained by the Church in Conference assembled.
October 7, 1890 - In the Third District Court, Judge Zane rules that membership in the Mormon Church should no longer be a barrier to aliens being admitted to citizenship.
October 13, 1890 - James E. Clark is sentenced by Judge Zane to pay a $100 fine for unlawful cohabitation. In consideration of the manifesto just issued, no imprisonment is imposed.
November 5, 1890 - U.S. District Attorney Varian filed two suits for the forfeiture of the Temple Block under the escheat law, in the Third District court.

Background information:

"Although arrests and imprisonments caused families to suffer, the greatest problem for the Church was its inability to acquire and hold the funds necessary to build temples, do missionary work, publish material, and provide for the welfare of the Saints. Church leaders succeeded in getting their case before the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the confiscation of Church property under the Edmunds-Tucker Act was unconstitutional. But in May 1890, the court upheld, in a five to four decision, the constitutionality of all the government had done under the Edmunds-Tucker Law. Though disappointed by the decision, there was little the Saints could do to ward off the impending economic destruction of the Church." (ch, pg. 438).

"With nearly 1,300 men and women having been sentenced, with all Latter-day Saints in Idaho having been disfranchised; with the Church having been disincorporated and her real and personal property confiscated; with all polygynists and all women in Utah having been disfranchised; with all the rights of local self-government in Utah suspended (even to the privilege of operating their schools); with pressure arising for the government to disfranchise all Mormons in territories; with prospects for the future that the personal property of every Latter-day Saint might be confiscated; with the United States Supreme Court having declared the Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862, the Idaho Test Oath, and the main parts of the Edmunds-Tucker Law as constitutional, President Woodruff felt the time had come when it could be said that the members of the Church had gone forth with all diligence to perform the commands of the Lord, and the Lord would no longer require them to practice plural marriage." (en, pp. 385-386).

February 3, 1890 - Supreme Court case: Davis v. Beason: 133 U.S. 333

Short answer: The test oath used to qualify voters in Idaho is legal, and cannot be challenged. Samuel D. Davis' prison term is legal.

Here is a piece of the oath used in Idaho:

"... and I do further swear that I am not a bigamist or polygamist; that I am not a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees or any other person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, as a duty arising or resulting from membership in such order, organization or association, or which practices bigamy, polygamy or plural or celestial marriage as a doctrinal rite of such organization; that I do not and will not, publicly or privately or in any manner whatever teach, advise, counsel or encourage any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a religious duty or otherwise."

If you are a polygamist, or belong to an organization that encourages polygamy, whether or not you actually practice it, you are disqualified from voting. This effectively disfrachised all Mormons in Idaho.

The jurisdiction of the case was all that the Supreme Court decided on; did the Idaho court have jurisdiction in the case? Using Reynolds v. United States as it's first case reference, the court demonstrated that polygamy was a crime that could be legislated against, and it would not intefere with a citizen's first amendment rights of freedom of religion. With that case as the foundation, they further found that "the territorial legislature [of Idaho] was authorized to prescribe any qualifications for voters calculated to secure obedience to its laws." In other words, the Idaho court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence Mr. Samuel Davis in connection with this test oath.

"The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed."

This case had broad reaching effects for the Mormons in Utah. To over-simplify it a bit, it meant that a law could be passed disqualifying all Mormons from voting. The very real possibility of a new law aimed at Mormons in Utah, and not just Idaho, was shortly seen; two months later, bills to affect this outcome were introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States - the Cullom-Struble Bill.

Cullom-Struble Bill:

Members of the Church in both Utah and Idaho watched this case closely, and were very disappointed with the outcome. They had hoped the Supreme Court would strike down the test oath in Idaho, and allow all law abiding citizens to vote - independent of their religion. However, with the affirmation from the United States Supreme Court that the "Idaho Test Oath" was constitutional, and the continuing troubles of persuading the Mormons in Utah to give up the practice of polygamy, Washington felt that stricter legislation was necessary to force the Utah Church to become law abiding - even to the point of removing individual rights of citizens; the right to vote.

April 10, 1890: Illinois Senator Shelby Moore Cullom introduces a bill aimed at disfranchising all who practice polygamy in every Territory of the United States.
April 11, 1890: Iowa Representative Isaac S. Struble introduces a bill aimed at disfranchising all who practice polygamy in every Territory of the United States.

Both of these bill are combined, and called the Cullom-Struble bill.

"It provided that no person living in plural marriage, or who taught polygamy, or was a member or contributed to the support of any organization that advised or encouraged the practice, or who assisted in the solemnization of plural marriages, should vote, serve as a juror, or hold office in Utah." (ph, pg. 482).

"In a press interview, the Governor [Thomas] stated that the decision of the Court of Last Resort in the Idaho disfranchisement case had been accepted by leading members of Congress as the solution of the Utah problem, and he expressed the opinion that the Cullom-Struble bill would probably become a law." (ph, pg. 483).

The Deseret News ran an editorial by Charles W. Penrose giving their position (probably to be considered the Church's position as well, although it wasn't official as it was editorial) on April 12, 1890. A link to this editorial can be found here. From the start of the editorial, Mr. Penrose is decidedly against this new legislation, which he calls the "[R. N.] Baskin anti-'Mormon' bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Cullom."

"It includes the extremest features of the Idaho test oath, besides going still further than that oppressive and unjust measure.

"Among the alleged features of the organization, membership in and support of which produces political disfranchisement, is that it 'teaches or advises that any such law as aforesaid is not supreme, or that any alleged revelation on the subject of such marriage is paramount to any such law."

Mr. Penrose states that Latter-Day Saints are among the most loyal of citizens in the country and believe that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired document. He goes on to state that the Saints "will yet take part in the reorganization of this country upon the basic principles of the national organic law."

This bill "would not only apply the Idaho Test Oath to Utah but would also disfranchise all Latter-day Saints in all of the territories. This literally meant that no member of the Church in Utah or any other territory could be a citizen. Thus, even where the Saints were in the great majority, they would have absolutely nothing to say about their government." (en, pg. 384).

George Q. Cannon asks his son Frank to talk with his friend, Secretary of State James G. Blaine, to try and stop the passage of this bill. Frank arranged the meeting and recorded these notes about his conversation with Secretary Blaine:

"He rose to terminate the interview. He looked at me with a smile. 'The Lord giveth,' he said, 'and the Lord taketh away.' Wouldn't it be possible for your people to find some way - without disobedience to the commands of God - to bring yourselves into harmony with the law and institutions of this country? Believe me, it's not possible for any people as weak in numbers as yours, to set themselves up as superior to the majesty of a nation like this. We may succeed, this time, in preventing your disfranchisement; but nothing permanent can be done until you 'get into line.' ... He put his arm around my shoulders, at last, and said: 'You tell your father for me - as I tell you, young man - you shall not be harmed, this time.'" (up, pg. 90).

"The Cullom-Struble Bill was not rushed through Congress as the Edmunds Bill had been; a fact owing, it is said, to the silent though potent influence of Secretary Blaine. The great political leader was convinced of the impolicy of the proposed legislation ... His powerful hand was interposed, however, with the understanding that something would be done in Utah to meet the situation." (ph, pp. 485-486).

More information on the background of the bill, and Frank Cannon's involvement with stopping it can be found here. This is actually a very good read on background for the entire Manifesto, pressures on the Church to change, and what went on behind the scenes politically.

After returning from Washington, Frank J. Cannon met with President Woodruff to tell him what happened there and the expectations of certain politicians for a change in Church doctrine. The substance of the meeting is that he has learned from Washington that the Cullom-Struble bill will not pass; however, the Church must abandon polygamy entirely, or the next bill will pass.

WW: "Brother Frank, I have been making it a matter of prayer. I have wrestled mightily with the Lord. And I think I see some light."

FJC: "To be very plain with you, President Woodruff, our friends expect, and the country will insist, that the Church shall yield the practice of plural marriage."

WW: "I had hoped we wouldn't have to meet this trouble this way. You know what it means to our people. I had hoped that the Lord might open the minds of the people of this nation to the truth, so that they might be converted to the everlasting covenant. Our prophets have suffered like those of old, and I thought that the persecutions of Zion were enough - that they would bring some other reward that this."

"In polygamy, the men and women alike had been compelled to suffer on its account by the grim trials of the life itself and by the hatred of all civilization arrayed against it. They had grown to value their marriage system by what it had cost them. They had been driven by the contempt of the world to argue for its sanctity, to live up to their declarations, and to raise it in their esteem to what it professed to be, the celestial order that prevailed in the Heavens! I knew, as well as President Woodruff did, the wrench it would give their hearts to have to abandon, at last, what they had so long suffered for." (up, pp. 98-99).

May 19, 1890 - Supreme Court case: Mormon Church v. United States: 136 US 1

Short answer: Congress can dissolve the corporation of the Church, and seize specific personal and real property; therefore, the Edmunds-Tucker Act is constitutional.

The main questions of the hearing are answered here in the report on the case:

"(3) Congress had the power to repeal the act of incorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not only by virtue of its general power over the territories, but by virtue of an express reservation in the organic act of the Territory of Utah of the power to disapprove and annul the acts of its legislature."

"(4) The act of incorporation being repealed and the corporation dissolved, its property, in the absence of any other lawful owner, devolved to the United States, subject to be disposed of according to the principles applicable to property devoted to religious and charitable uses."

After the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church tried to transfer a great deal of property to individual trustees in an attempt to avoid being classified as "Church property" and thus seizable by the Receiver; this was struck down:

"The attempt made, after the passage of the act on February 19, 1887, and while it was in the president's hands for his approval or rejection, to transfer the property from the trustee then holding it to other persons, and for the benefit of different associations, was so evidently intended as an evasion of the law that the court below justly regarded it as void and without force or effect."

Ruling: "We have carefully examined the decree, and do not find anything in it that calls for a reversal. It may perhaps require modification in some matters of detail, and for that purpose only the case is reserved for further consideration."

To say the final decision was a disappointment to the Church, would be a large understatement. This ruling meant that the United States government could seize any property of the Mormon Church it deemed necessary in order to force the Church into obedience. It appeared the government was going to grind the Saints to powder, and there was nothing that could be done to stop it.
A listing of the main properties seized by the Receiver can be found on this post here (see item #11, part 5).

The Issuance of the Manifesto:

"But the courts had decided 'against us.' The great men of the nation were determined to show us no mercy. Legislation was impending that would put us 'in the power of the wicked.' Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother John T. Caine, and the other brethren who had been in Washington, had found that the situation of the Church was critical. Brother Franklin S. Richards had advised him that our last legal defense had fallen. 'In broken and contrite spirit' he had sought the will of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that it was necessary for the Church to relinquish the practice of that principle for which the brethren had been willing to lay down their lives." (up, pp. 104-105).

Frank Cannon was requested to meet with President Woodruff.

"I hastened to Salt Lake City, to the offices of the Presidency. President Woodruff took me into a private room and read his 'manifesto.'

"Here, shaking in the hand of age, was a sheet of paper by which the future of a half million people was to be directed; and that simple old man was to speak through it, to them, with the awful authority of the voice of God.

"He told me he had written it himself, and it certainly appeared to me to be in his hand-writing. ... I found it disappointingly mild. It denied that the Church had been solemnizing any plural marriages of late, and advised the faithful 'to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land.' In spite of this mildness, President Woodruff asked me whether I thought the Mormons would support the revelation - whether they would accept it.

"I replied that there could be no proper anxiety on that point. The majority of the Mormon people were ready for such a message." (up, pp. 99-100).

Frank is then invited to attend a meeing in the President's offices, where the rest of the available apostles from the quorum, learned of the manifesto of President Woodruff. There is far too much to quote to do justice to this piece of history. I suggest a reading of the 4th chapter of Frank's book (link: here) to better understand this. The first reactions and final acceptance by these men was good reading. Joseph F. Smith appeared to have a very hard time with this initially. I know of no other publicly available source (correct me if I'm wrong please) that conveys this story of when the Manifesto was first acknowledged. After the amount of time I've spent reading history, my opinion is that this story would appear to be a faithful account of the meeting.

The Manifesto is read in the October General Conference:

The Church had published the Manifesto to the world. It had been given to newspapers across the country and relayed to Washington D.C. so as to satisfy those in power that the Mormons had given up polygamy as a religious practice. The publishing of this document wasn't enough. Washington wanted the document read and voted on in Conference in a public manner.

"The Articles of Faith were sustained as the rule of conduct for the Church, a motion to that end having been made by Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the Council of the Twelve. The Manifesto was then read to the people in like manner, and another of the Apostles - Elder Lorenzo Snow - supplemented the reading with this motion: 'I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 25, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding .' The vote to sustain the motion was unanimous." (ph, pg. 487).

"In his private journal he made no particular mention of the circumstances leading up to the Manifesto, neither did he make any comment upon it further than to say: 'I have been called upon this day to act for the Church.'

"It was a solemn day to all Israel. The thought of suspending the practice of a principle for which they had already suffered so much, was indeed painful to thousands of the people. The responsibility, however, the Prophet of God placed upon the nation for rejecting a principle which had within it the power to redeem the world from the greatest of social evils and according to Isaiah, to take away the reproach of women who have been unjustly dealt with by ungodly men." (ww, pg. 570).

Affect of the Manifesto:

"The effect of the 'Mormon' President's official utterance upon those most favorable to the disfranchisement legislation was quite dispiriting. It came as a surprise - almost as a shock to them. They at once questioned the sincerity of the declaration, denouncing it as a sham, a trick to deceive the Nation and gain a temporary advantage. ... One of the first to recognize it as genuine, and allow it to influence his official course, was Chief Justice Zane. He had repeatedly expressed the wish that the President of the Church would issue such a statement, and now that it had come, he was glad, and received it in good faith. The day after its ratification by the Conference, Judge Zane, while examining in court certain applicants for citizenship, remarked: 'Hereafter I will not make the simple fact that an applicant is a member of the 'Mormon' Church a bar to his admission.'" (ph, pg. 489).

"In any discussion of the public affairs that make the subject matter of this narrative, a line of discrimination must be drawn at the year 1890. In that year the Church began a progressive course of submission to the civil law, and the nation received each act of surrender with forgiveness. The previous defiances of the Mormon people ceased to give grounds for a complaint against them. The old harshnesses of the Federal government were canceled by the new generosity of a placated nation. And neither party to the present strife in Utah should go back, beyond the period of this composition, to dig up, from the past, its buried wrongs." (up, pg. 112).

"Within the space of a few days a revolution was completed that had been sought by the power of our nation and of the civilized world, for a generation, with stripes and imprisonment, death, confiscation and the ostracism of the country's public contempt. It had been obtained, I knew, chiefly by the sagacity of the First Councilor using the pressure of circumstances to enforce the persuasions of diplomacy." (up, pg. 114).

=== 1891 ===

The People's Party in Utah was dissolved and most of its members united with the two great nation parties - Democrats and Republicans. Under the Liberal rule Salt Lake City became a regular rendezvous for foot pads, burglars, and thieves. Immorality, wickedness and lawlessness had full sway; taxation was made oppressive and unjust. (cc, pg. 190).

February 13, 1891 - The former residence of George Q. Cannon on South Temple Street, and other valuable property in Salt Lake City, were seized by the US Marshal, under the pretense that it was escheated Church property.
May 25, 1891 - US Supreme Court rendered a decision that the escheated Church property should still remain in the hands of the Receiver, and the Utah Supreme Court should take further action in the case.
June, 1891 - The People's Party (Church Party) dissolved.
July 1, 1891 - Utah Supreme Court appointed Judge Charles F. Loofbourow to take testimony in the Church suits as a Master of Chancery.
September 27, 1891 - Joseph F. Smith addresses a congregation in the tabernacle - his first public appearance in years.
October 19, 1891 - Judge Loofbourow began taking testimony in the escheated Church property cases, with a view to deciding what charitable uses the escheated Church property should be applied to. Presidents Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon testified.
October 27, 1891 - Judge Zane decided that the Whitney property of the Tithing Office block, the Cannon House on South Temple street, the Council House Corner, SLC, were exempt from confiscation, as well as the Tabernacle Square and other property at Ogden.
November 11, 1891 - After a lengthy investigation in the 3rd district court, Judge Zane rendered a decree escheating the Tithing Office, Gardo House, Historian's Office, and Church farm to the government.
December 1, 1891 - The Gardo House was vacated by the Church as escheated property.
December 19, 1891 - Petition for Amnesty signed by prominent men of the Church (leaders) and endorsed by Governor Thomas, Chief Justice Zane, and other 'gentiles.'

Background Information:

"A Sentiment for Tolerance: Cases of unlawful cohabitation continued to be prosecuted as fast as they came to the knowledge of the Government officers. But gradually a sentiment grew - and it was shared by all classes of the community - that men who had married polygamously before the date of the Manifesto, should not be interfered with for living with their plural families while caring for and supporting them. No more polygamous marriages were to be entered into, but time was to be given for plural relationships already existing to pass away by natural processes, and men involved in such relations were not to be compelled to desert their wives and children and cast them adrift. ... Consequently such prosecutions ceased." (ph, pg. 490).

"During 1891, President Woodruff's manifesto had been ratified in local Church conferences in every 'stake of Zion;' and a second General Conference had endorsed it in October of that year. President Woodruff, Councilor Joseph F. Smith and Apostle Lorenzo Snow went before the Federal Master in Chancery - in a proceeding to regain possession of escheated Church property - and swore that the manifesto had prohibited plural marriages, that it required a cessation of all plural marriage living, and that it was being obeyed by the Mormon people." (up, pp. 126-127).

Master in Chancery Hearings:

These hearings were to help decide where the escheated property would go. Many prominent church members testified here.

"About a year after the date of the Manifesto, the question of its scope, as affecting not only polygamous marriages, but also the continuance of polygamous living was made the subject of a searching inquiry before Judge C.F. Loofbourow, at Salt Lake City. In explanation of this action, it should be known that the United States Supreme Court had decided that all Church property in the hands of the Receiver should remain there pending further action by the Utah courts, and Judge Loofbourow had been appointed a Master in Chancery, to take testimony and determine the uses to which the escheated property might best be applied. ... The hearing before the Master in Chancery took place in October, 1891. Among the witnesses examined were Presidents Woodruff, Cannon, and Smith, and Elders Lorenzo Snow and Anthon H. Lund of the Council of the Twelve. According to their testimony, the Manifesto enjoined obedience to the laws of the land enacted against plural marriage, both as to the ceremony and the cohabitation thereunder." (ph, pp. 489-490).

"On the 19th of October, 1891, President Woodruff was cited before the Master and Chancery to testify to the scope of the Manifesto in the Escheat cases. The question there involved was the subject of unlawful cohabitation. He had issued the Manifesto and was therefore best qualified to interpret the meaning which it had to his mind, or which was conveyed by his language." (ww, pg. 577).

Petition for Amnesty:

"On December 18, 1891, the leaders of the Church petitioned the government for amnesty. President Benjamin Harrison, who was skeptical of the Saints' sincerity, gradually changed. By January 4, 1893, he issued a full pardon to those who had been guilty of unlawful cohabitation prior to November 1, 1890, and had obeyed the law since that time and pledged to do so in the future." (en, pg. 388).

=== 1892 ===

January 15, 1892 - Judge Loofbourow filed his report stating that escheated property from the Church be used by public schools.
February 13, 1892 - Plea for Amnesty presented to Congress from Church authorities.
July 8, 1892 - The Utah Supreme Court ordered the Receiver to turn over all confiscated property to the Secretary of the Interior (Tithing House, Church farm, coal lands, Historian's Office, and the Guardo House).
November 12, 1892 - Judge Zane opinion that personal confiscated property can be used to help repair houses of worship and support the poor.

=== 1893 ===

January 4, 1893 - President Harrison issued a proclamation for amnesty.
April 6, 1893 - SLC Temple dedicated.
May 23, 1893 - SLC Temple opened for ordinances.
October 5, 1893 - Return of Church property - passed House.
October 21, 1893 - Return of Church property - passed Senate.
October 23, 1893 - Return of Church property - House concurs with Senate amendments.
October 25, 1893 - President signs the resolution returning personal Church property.
August 31, 1893 - Utah Supreme Court appoints John R. Winder Receiver for confiscated Church properties.

"A movement to restore the personal property, which had been taken without warrant of law, was already on foot, Delegate Rawlins having presented to Congress, during September, a resolution to that end. This property was valued at about four hundred thousand dollars. ... By the resolution, the personal property and money of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not arising from the sale or rents of real estate since March 3, 1887, was 'restored to said Church, to be applied under the direction and control of the First Presidency of said Church to the charitable uses and purposes thereof.'" (ph, pg. 502).

"In October of that year, Congress passed a bill restoring the property of the Church. This act brought some financial relief and was a source of satisfaction to the Saints generally. Litigation, however, over Church property had been a source of great waste to it. Many who had urged the confiscation of Church property had realized some of their hopes in the dispossession of it as the litigation over the property had been a source of wealth to them, and although their hopes had been realized, their motives had been revealed." (ww, pg. 584).

=== 1896 ===

"Statehood year was made memorable to the Latter-day Saints by the return of the Church's real property, taken by the Federal Government under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The confiscated personal property was already restored, and now a joint resolution of the Senate and House, approved by President Cleveland March 28, 1896, returned in like manner the escheated real estate." (ph, pg. 509).

Official Declaration 1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Reference to the manifesto as contained in the current revision of the LDS Church's Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 1

LDS Church Supreme Court Cases (1880's and 1890's)

2010-10-28T20:00:00.021-06:00

While looking up history and documentation, I read about a number of court cases that had been appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Most of these cases involved polygamists and the interpretation of the law concerning them, and some concerned the constitutionality of the laws passed to legislate the "Mormon problem." As a way of making them easier to find (putting them all in one place), I put this post together.

This is NOT an exhaustive list, nor do the descriptions of the cases demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the case. This is just a short list, with short descriptions to give an overview of each case. The first trial is from 1878/1879, not exactly 1880, but it's close enough for me. I saved 136 US 1 (Mormon Church v. U.S.) to the very end. Although this was by far the longest read of any single case I went through, it was fascinating, I thought, to see how the Supreme Court handled this case.

Many, many interesting ideas were put forth in all of the cases that I did not quote. I leave further research for the interested reader, as each case has a web reference attached to it.

Other posts in this series:

[George] Reynolds v. United States

Reference: 98 US 145
Argued: November 14-15, 1878. Decided: May 5, 1879.
1874: Church leaders, confident in the unconstitutionality of the Morrill Law (signed July 8, 1862), were anxious to have a "test case" brought before the Supreme Court concerning their First Amendment rights to practice religion. They did not want to wait around for legislatures to get their polygamy bill right while many of their followers were being harassed. So, when U.S. attorney, William Carey, promised to stop his attempts to indict Church leaders during the test case trial, the First Presidency (Brigham Young, George A. Smith, Daniel H. Wells) chose 32 year old George Reynolds, a secretary in the office of the Church president, and recently married for a second time to a plural wife, as a defendant (he volunteered) to stand in for the Church. Reynolds cooperated completely with the prosecution's efforts against him. He provided witnesses and other evidence necessary to prosecute the case successfully. Reynolds was convicted in 1875, and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison and a fine of $500 dollars (later changed to 2 years imprisonment only). The resultant conviction wasn't completely unexpected, but it just meant that appeal would be made to a higher court in the Territory.
1876: Utah Territorial Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling. Appeal is made to the United States Supreme Court for a hearing on First Amendment rights.
1879: Key phrase from the Supreme Court ruling: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." In other words, polygamy was ruled an outward practice that can be legislated against, and it will not interfere with 1st Amendment rights.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "Upon careful consideration of the whole case, we are satisfied that no error was committed by the court below. Judgment affirmed." The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, is constitutional; i.e., George Reynolds is guilty.

[Rudger] Clawson v. United States

Reference: 113 US 143
Argued: January 5, 1885. Decided January 19, 1885.
1884, Oct: Rudger Clawson is the first unlawful cohabitation case to be prosecuted under the Edmunds Act (signed March 22, 1882) with a trial jury; he is also Judge Charles Zane's first polygamy case. Rudger Clawson was found guilty of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation by the jury. He was sentenced to 4 years in prison and an $800 fine.
First of two appeals: Mr. Clawson was not allowed out on bail when an appeal was pending in the court system (territorial supreme court, etc.). He sued for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "There is no error in the record, and the judgment is Affirmed."

Murphy v. Ramsey

Reference: 114 US 15
Argued: January 28, 1885. Decided: March 23, 1885.
Five plaintiffs argued that the Utah Commission illegally barred them from voting in the November 1882 election after they supplied proper credentials, and accepted the proper oath.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): The court ruled that 3 of the 5 were living in a polygamous relationship, and were therefore ineligible to vote - Judgment affirmed. For the other two, it was found that they should have been allowed to vote and their case was "remanded for further proceedings."
This ruling declared the Edmunds Act of 1882, constitutional and nullified the test oath formulated by the Utah Commission; they "have no power over the registration of voters or the conduct of elections."

[Rudger] Clawson v. United States

Reference: 114 US 477
Argued: April 8, 1885. Decided: April 20, 1885.
Second of two appeals: Mr. Clawson "moved to set aside the indictment on the ground that the grand jury was not legally constituted in that qualified grand jurors, drawn and summoned, were illegally excluded from the grand jury on the challenge of the prosecuting attorney that the grand jury selection was allowed improperly."
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "The record shows no error, and the judgment is Affirmed."

[Angus M.] Cannon v. United States

Reference: 116 US 55
Argued: November 20, 23, 1885. Decided: December 14, 1885.
1885, Jan: Angus M. Cannon, President of the Salt Lake Stake, was brought before a preliminary hearing on charges of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation. In May 1885, he was convicted of unlawful cohabitation; sentenced to 6 months in prison and a $300 fine.
In his appeal, he argued that he had not cohabited with his wives (intimately) since the passage of the Edmunds Law in March 1882; therefore, he could not be guilty of unlawful cohabitation.
The Supreme Court defines unlawful cohabitation: "Committed by a man who lives in the same house with two women, and eats at their respective tables one-third of his time, or thereabouts, and holds them out to the world, by his language or conduct, or both, as his wives, and it is not necessary to the commission of the offense that he and the two women, or either of them, should occupy the same bed or sleep in the same room or that he should have sexual intercourse with either of them."
Ruling was not unanimous (7-2): Judgment Affirmed.

Dissenting opinion: Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field. "I think that the act of Congress, when prohibiting cohabitation with more than one woman, meant unlawful habitual sexual intercourse. ... I know of no instance in which the word 'cohabitation' has been used to describe a criminal offense where it did not imply sexual intercourse."

[Lorenzo] Snow v. United States

Reference: 118 US 346
Argued: April 28-29, 1886. Decided: May 10, 1886.
1885, Nov: Lorenzo Snow was arrested in Brigham City, Utah by 7 Deputy U.S. Federal Marshals. He was indicted for unlawful cohabitation and stood trial for these offenses in December 1885. He was the defendant in 3 separate indictments and trials for cohabiting with 7 women in 1883, 1884, and 1885. He had, like Angus M. Cannon, lived with only one wife (Minnie) for a number of years. He was convicted in each trial, and sentenced to 6 months in prison (18 months total) and $300 fine ($900 total - $21,000 today). While his appeal was in process, he was released on $15,000 bail ($350,000 today).
He appealed to the Supreme Court on a writ of error in the judgment rendered - the same as Angus M. Cannon used with his case.
Ruling: "There is no provision of law under which this Court can review a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory, on a conviction on an indictment for cohabiting with more than one woman [under Section 3 of the Edmunds Act] ... The question of jurisdiction was not considered in fact in that case, nor alluded to in the decision, nor presented to the Court by the counsel for the United States, nor referred to by either party at the argument or in the briefs. Probably both parties desired a decision on the merits. The question was overlooked by all the members of the Court. But as the case was decided at the present term and the want of jurisdiction in it is clear, we have decided to vacate our judgment and recall the mandate and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction in order that the reported decision may not appear to be a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in a case of the kind. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
In order to remain consistent, the court also recalled its mandate from the Cannon case and dismissed it also upon the same grounds - dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

In Re [Lorenzo] Snow v. United States

Reference: 120 US 274
Argued: January 21, 1887. Decided: February 7, 1887.
Lorenzo Snow's attorney, Franklin S. Richards, filed a writ of habeas corpus after the first term of 6 months in prison had been served. The writ was denied by Judge Zane, and then appealed.
The court ruled that the three indictments were actually one continuous offense, and that the other two are combined into the first. This ruling stopped the practice of "segregation" of offenses against polygamists.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "The order and judgment of the District Court for the Third Judicial District of Utah Territory must be reversed and the case be remanded to that court with a direction to grant the writ of habeas corpus prayed for and to take such proceedings thereon as may be in conformity with law and not inconsistent with the opinion of this court."

Hans Nielson, Petitioner

Reference: 131 US 176
Argued: April 19, 22, 1889. Decided: May 13, 1889.
Hans Nielson was convicted of adultery and unlawful cohabitation with the same woman. These were two separate indictments for the same offense. He had been in prison for the full term of his unlawful cohabitation sentence when he sued for a writ of habeas corpus. Like Lorenzo Snow's case before him, it was decided that each of the offenses was actually the same.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "... the conviction of the petitioner of the crime of unlawful cohabitation was a bar to his subsequent prosecution for the crime of adultery; that the court was without authority to give judgment and sentence in the latter case, and should have vacated and set aside the same when the petitioner applied for a habeas corpus; and that the writ should have been granted, and the petitioner discharged. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to issue a habeas corpus as prayed for by the petitioner, and proceed thereon according to law."

[Nephi W.] Clayton v. Utah Territory

Reference: 132 US 632
Argued: December 5, 1889. Decided: January 6, 1890.
Mr. Clayton assumed the office of Territorial Auditor in 1879, and was then duly elected to this position in 1880. The Governor of the Territory of Utah (Eli H. Murray), appointed Arthur Pratt Territory Auditor in 1886; however, the legislature failed to approve of him or any other party brought before them for this position. Mr. Clayton would not give up his office, paperwork, or anything else having to do with the position.
"Under the organic act of that territory, the power to appoint an auditor of public accounts is vested exclusively in the governor and council." Mr. Clayton is to vacate the office and turn over all materials of the office to Mr. Pratt.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): The judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Utah is Affirmed.

[Samuel D.] Davis v. Beason

Reference: 133 US 333
Argued: December 9-10, 1889. Decided: February 3, 1890.
Samuel D. Davis registered to be a voter in Oneida County, Idaho, when he was a member of the Mormon Church, "which [he] knew taught, advised, counseled and encouraged its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy as duties arising and resulting from membership in said order." To do this he lied when taking a "test oath" that stated he was not a member of any organization (like the Mormon Church). He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, or in default of this payment, be remanded to the county jail for 250 days.
Samuel D. Davis sued for a writ of habeas corpus charging that he was illegally imprisoned.
"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of the United States, by the laws of Idaho, and by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries, and to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind." This opinion is not open to any constitutional or legal objection. Additionally, the admission of a test oath to every potential voter "is not open to any valid legal objection."
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed.

Mormon Church v. United States

Reference: 136 US 1
Argued: January 16-18, 1889. Decided: May 19, 1890.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act (took effect March 3, 1887) called for the dissolution of the Mormon Church (as a corporation), and forfeiture of all property owned by it (with exception of the Temple Block). Estimates on February 19, 1887, put Church personal property value at $2 million, and real property value at $1 million.
President John Taylor, as Trustee-in-Trust for the Church, transfered Church property to the Presiding Bishopric (William B. Preston, Robert T. Burton, and John R. Winder) for $1 and other ecclesiastical corporations after the passage of the Act. These land/property transfers were called "secret trusts" by the court. The defendant (the Church) avers that it owns no property at this time. All conveyances of property were annulled by the court - "evidently intended as an evasion of the law that the court below justly regarded it as void and without force or effect."
Receiver Frank Dyer holds the following properties:

Temple Block - worth $500,000. This was ordered to be given back.
Gardo House and grounds, worth $50,000.
Historians Office and grounds - worth $20,000.
Tithing Office - worth $50,000.
Tithing Office grounds - worth $25,000.
Church Farm - worth $110,000.
Coal lands in Summit County, Utah - worth $30,000.
800 shares of stock: Salt Lake Gas Company. 4,732 shares of stock State of Deseret Telegraph Company. 30,158 sheep, $237,666.15 in cash ($5.6 million in 2010).
Current aggregate property amount: $750,000 ($17.7 million in 2010)
No donations by way of 'tithing' or voluntary contributions are held by the receiver.

Court findings:

Edmunds-Tucker Law is constitutional.
Congress has power to dissolve the corporation of the Church.
Congress has power to dispose of the property of the Church.

Ruling was not unanimous (6-3): "We have carefully examined the decree, and do not find anything in it that calls for a reversal. It may perhaps require modification in some matters of detail, and for that purpose only the case is reserved for further consideration."

Dissenting opinion: Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Justice Field, and Mr. Justice Lamar. They felt that Congress had limitations and could not assume powers not specified by the constitution - this forced forfeiture of property/land with subsequent disposal of same being their example of overstepping constitutional powers.
"... no such power as that involved in the act of Congress under consideration is conferred by the Constitution. ... absolute power should never be conceded as belonging under our system of government to anyone of its departments."

Bassett v. United States

Reference: 137 US 496
Argued: December 10, 1890. Decided: December 22, 1890.
William E. Bassett was charged with polygamy and his wife was forced to testify against him, which led to his convition.
"A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage."
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "The wife was an incompetent witness as against her husband ... The judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Utah is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to order a new trial."

Cope v. Cope

Reference: 137 US 682
Argued: December 22, 1890. Decided: January 19, 1891.
George A. Cope, son of Thomas Cope by a plural wife, is considered an illegitimate child of Mr. Cope, and is therefore unable to inherit anything from his father's estate.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): "Our conclusion is that the appellant, George A. Cope, is entitled to a share in his father's estate, and the decree of the supreme court of the territory must therefore be Reversed."

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States

Reference: 150 US 145
Submitted: October 27, 1893. Decided: November 6, 1893.
A Joint Resolution of Congress, signed October 25, 1893, nullifies the position of the confiscation of the personal property of the Church as spelled out in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887. The Supreme Court case Mormon Church v. U.S. ruled on this decision, and now Congress has seen fit to stop the property confiscation and return it to the Church. This is a ruling on a decree to modify the language of the previous ruling (and law) to agree with the Congressional Joint Resolution.
Ruling was unanimous (9-0): Ordered accordingly.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - Edward E. Barthell

2010-10-14T10:52:00.000-06:00

April 20, 1904

Mr. Barthell is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, and is a lawyer by trade; practicing law for the last 15 years (Slemmons & Barthell).

He is a member of a group of men that meet regularly and sometimes discuss religion. In 1900, he was asked, by this group of men, to lead a discussion; he picked Mormonism as the subject. He wrote to the Mormon Mission President in Chattanooga, Tennessee (he believes the name of the respondent to his letter was Ben E. Rich), for literature concerning the Mormon faith. In consequence of his letter, a Mormon Elder came to him (George F. Fox) along with several tracts and two books: (1) Orson Pratt's Works and (2) "Tracts from the Southern States Mission." According to the missionary that visited with him, "Orson Pratt's works were accepted by the Mormons as absolutely authentic."

As an aside, Ben E. Rich served as Mission President for the Southern States Mission for ten years. He was there between 1899-1900 when Mr. Barthell sent him a letter, and when George F. Fox was asked to meet with Mr. Barthell.

The missionary next was invited to visit the group of men during a discussion on Mormonism.

The Chairman. Can you give the committee some idea what this missionary said about the church and its doctrines?
Mr. Barthell. Well, he said a great deal, Senator. Among other things, he said that there was no trouble at all in performing miracles; that if a person had only one arm there was no trouble to give him two.
Mr. Worthington. I would like to see him. [Laughter]
Mr. Barthell. We asked something about speaking in tongues. I called attention to some of the literature which said that it was perfectly useless to undertake to study different books; that all you had to do was to talk. He said that was absolutely true; that he had seen it himself even in Indian dialects, and a great many curious things of that general character.
...
The Chairman. Did he impart to your association his ideas on the question of polygamy?
Mr. Barthell. Yes.
The Chairman. And the teachings of the church in that regard?
Mr. Barthell. Yes.
The Chairman. What did he say?
Mr. Barthell. He said that polygamy was taught of God; that it was right, but that it had been abandoned; that it was not now followed by the good Mormons; that polygamous cohabitation still continued. In other words, he did not exactly say that. He said the cohabs still followed their customs. He referred to them as cohabs, which was an expression we did not at first understand ... when he appeared before the club, we did not think that he had sufficient breadth of information to treat, certainly from an intellectual standpoint, that question, and we did not press him. He was our guest.

Commentary: It would appear from this discussion that missionaries sometimes traveled alone - they never do that today. They also gave books away written by prominent Church members. They fearlessly declared their beliefs and did not back away from any of them. Nice little window into missionary work in the late 1800's (possibly early 1900's). I suppose this piece of testimony was given to show that missionaries of the Church continue to teach about the doctrine of polygamy, even when Church authorities say this isn't happening.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - B.H. Roberts

2010-10-11T14:40:00.003-06:00

April 20, 1904

Mr. Roberts is a resident of Centerville, Utah (north of Salt Lake about 10 miles). He was born in England, but came to the United States as a boy and has lived most of his life in Utah. He is currently one of the seven "first presidents of seventy" and has been such since 1888. He is also an assistant historian of the Church (there are 4 assistants total, with Anthon H. Lund being the Historian), and he assists President Joseph F. Smith in the organization of young men in the Church.

He was elected as a member of the constitutional convention for the State of Utah in 1894.

Mr. Roberts has authored several books, among which are the following: Biography of John Taylor; A New Witness for God; Outlines of Ecclesiastical History; The Gospel; The Missouri Persecutions; The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo; Documentary History of the Church (two volumes so far); Succession in the Presidency; and a pamphlet called 'Mormonism.'

Mr. Roberts has been married 3 times: first in 1877, next in 1886, and finally to his third wife in 1890. The last two marriages were to plural wives. The last marriage took place in a house of First Street in Salt Lake during April, 1890, and was performed by Daniel H. Wells - there were no witnesses.

Mr. Tayler. So far as the control of the membership of the church is concerned, as a church organization, where do the first presidents of the seventies rank as respects the apostles, for instance?
Mr. Roberts. They rank next to the apostles.
...
Mr. Tayler. What, if any, relation exists between the first presidents or the presidents of the seventies and the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts. No relation whatever, further than a common relation of brotherhood.
Mr. Tayler. The first presidents, therefore, have no authority over the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts. None at all.
Mr. Tayler. Nor the stake presidents over the presidents of the seventies, except as they would have over them in their individual capacity?
Mr. Roberts. As members.

Commentary: This section of testimony is actually straight-forward for any current member of the Church. It shows the position of authority of the presidents of Seventy within the Church hierarchy.

In 1895, Mr. Roberts ran for a Congressional seat in Utah and was defeated by a Mr. Allen. During this time, he admits to having differences with Church authorities over his involvement with politics. Here is his description of the events of that time:

     "Previous to my becoming a candidate for member of the constitutional convention, there had some unpleasantness arisen about men in high church standing having anything to do in politics, and the presidency of the church at that time decided that members of the quorum of apostles, members of my own council, the presidents of the seventy, and the presidents of the stakes, and the bishops of the wards, would better stay out of politics, and to that I consented or agreed. But during my brief absence from the State in the fall of 1894, I was nominated by our county convention to be a member of the constitutional convention, and on my return, being informed of the nomination, in conversation with some friends I stated that it was a nomination I could not accept owing to the previous arrangement that men of my standing in the church should not take part in politics.
     "But I was informed that during my absence that order had been somewhat changed, at least, and that it was thought there would be too many men of standing in the community eliminated from so important a gathering as a constitutional convention, and that it had been decided better that liberty be granted men of the character I have described to enter into politics, and at least to accept these nominations. I inquired of the authorities of the church if that was correct, and was informed that it was.
     "In 1894, in company with Mr. Rawlins, I stumped the State and was elected to the convention. ... In the midst of the campaign, at a meeting of the priesthood of the church in Salt Lake City, Mr. [Joseph F.] Smith made some reference to Moses Thatcher and myself ... as having accepted these nominations, which would take us away from our ecclesiastical duties, without consultation with any of the apostles or the first presidency; and his remarks were in the nature of a complaint of that conduct. Whereupon a number of men who had heard these remarks took it upon themselves to circulate the idea that Mr. Thatcher and myself were out of harmony with the church authorities, and that it would be agreeable to them to have us defeated. And very naturally we protested. I protested, and I think Mr. Thatcher also protested, against the action of these lesser authorities of the church making use of the casual remarks of Mr. Smith. The country was considerably agitated. Newspapers took it up; and that agitation resulted in the reconvening of the Democratic convention for the purpose of defining the attitude that the Democrats would take in that issue [the alleged exercise of religious influence in a political contest]."

The Chairman. Then you made this inquiry of the first presidency [to accept the nomination for the Constitutional Convention]?
Mr. Roberts. Yes; one of the presidents of the church. I asked him if the rule with which I was acquainted had been altered, and he informed me that it had been. This was in 1894.
The Chairman. Who constituted the first presidency at that time?
Mr. Roberts. Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith.
The Chairman. Of which one did you inquire?
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Smith.
...
The Chairman. You have stated that your defeat would be "agreeable to them." Whom do you mean by them?
Mr. Roberts. I mean that the parties who carried this report from the priesthood meeting represented that it would be agreeable to the first presidency and the apostles for us to be defeated. It was out of these circumstances that the friction counsel refers to arose between the authorities and myself.
...
Mr. Tayler. In that convention and through that campaign you, in very bitter terms, inveighed against this intrusion of the church into politics?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir. I should like to disclaim any bitterness in the matter.
Mr. Tayler. I do not want to characterize improperly the language that you used vigorously and most earnestly then?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Mr. Tayler. So vigorously and so earnestly that the higher authorities of the church assumed a similar attitude toward you - of vigorous and earnest opposition to your position?
Mr. Robert. I think that is right.

Commentary: Short summary - Mr. Roberts was upset that he was told one thing by Joseph F. Smith in private, and then heard of a completely different opinion from him concerning his political involvement. This upset him. The subsequent "vigorous and earnest" expressions, from both sides, I'm sure did little to diffuse this situation.

I'm putting this next section of testimony in because I find it interesting in light of the history of the times. I wonder if this was a normal reaction for the people of this time.

Senator Overman. Was it necessary to get the consent of any of the authorities of the church to marry a plural wife?
Mr. Roberts. It was necessary to get those who were understood to hold the authority to perform the ceremony.
Senator Overman. Did your first wife or your second wife consent to your marrying the third wife?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
Senator Overman. Did they protest against it?
Mr. Roberts. I did not hear the question.
Senator Overman. Was there any protest on their part?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did they know of it at the time?
Mr. Roberts. Not at the time.
Mr. Tayler. When did they learn of it?
Mr. Roberts. I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Tayler. I mean about when - how long afterwards?
Mr. Roberts. Two or three years afterwards, I think.
Mr. Tayler. Did anybody know about it, so far as you know, until several years had elapsed?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
Senator Beveridge. How is that? I understand you to say, sir, that your marriage to your third wife was not known to any of your wives for three years.
Mr. Roberts. No; I cannot say when they knew it.
Senator Beveridge. Well, for a considerable period?
Mr. Roberts. Hardly that. There were a number of our friends who knew it.
Senator Beveridge. But not your other two wives?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
...
The Chairman. Why did you conceal this third marriage from your other wives?
Mr. Roberts. Chiefly for the purpose of relieving them from any embarrassment should the discovery of the marriage by made. Of course we understood that the marriage was illegal.
Senator Beveridge. Then, how could they be embarrassed?
Mr. Roberts. If called upon to testify, they would not wish to testify against me.
Senator Beveridge. Oh!
...
Mr. Roberts. If was known to a number of our friends I think shortly afterwards - that is, a few months afterwards. But it was not generally known until some time in 1895 or 1896, perhaps.

Commentary: This section of testimony speaks to the necessary authority: Just someone who has been given the authority to marry. And, this section speaks to how Mr. Roberts informed his two other wives of a new marriage: he didn't. This marriage was kept a secret for some two or three years from these wives. There appears to be a time when friends of Mr. Roberts knew of the marriage even before his other wives (if I'm reading the testimony correctly). I find this humorous only because of a hypothetical Q&A between Mr. Roberts and the other wives. "And, when were you going to tell us you got married again?"

Senator Dubois. Could you, occupying the position which you did in the church, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts. I did do so, with the exception of Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois. Mr. Wells was one of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts. He was.
Senator Dubois. Did Mr. Wells represent the authorities?
Mr. Roberts. I think likely he did.
Senator Dubois. Then you took your plural wife with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, did you not?
Mr. Roberts. I did not know of any of them having any knowledge of it except Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois. Mr. Wells, as I said awhile ago, represented the authorities, did he not?
Mr. Roberts. He was one of the authorities.
Senator Dubois. What was his position at that time?
Mr. Roberts. He was councilor to the twelve apostles.
Senator Beveridge. To get to the point of Senator Dubois's question, do you know of anything that has come to your knowledge that leads you now to understand that Mr. Wells, when he learned of this contemplated marriage, told the other authorities, of whom he was one of the councilors?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.

Previously in the testimony of B.H. Roberts, this piece about Daniel H. Wells was given. I am inserting it here so as to give clarity to the ecclesiastical position of Mr. Wells in the Church hierarchy.

Mr. Tayler. Who was Daniel H. Wells? What was his position?
Mr. Roberts. Daniel H. Wells at that time was sustained as councilor to the apostles. He had been a councilor to President Brigham Young, and was continued in that capacity - that is, a councilor to the twelve apostles, who were during an interim the presiding authorities of the church.
Mr. Tayler. Now, your language is somewhat guarded in that respect, and no doubt it is in order to be accurate about it, and not for any other reason. Do you mean he was not what we now understand to be one of the councilors to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts. No; he was not, because there was no first presidency in existence at that time.
Mr. Tayler. Exactly. But his status was akin to that of a councilor to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler. Had he been a councilor to the first president immediately preceding?
Mr. Robers. Yes.
Mr. Tayler. Was he a councilor to the next first president?
Mr. Roberts. No.
Mr. Tayler. The first president himself selects the councilors, I believe?
Mr. Roberts. He does.
Mr. Tayler. Daniel H. Wells had been for many years a very prominent official in the Mormon Church?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.

Commentary: This discussion is focused on the authorities of the church and their knowledge, or lack thereof, concerning plural marriages. This goes directly to a point of complaint that the authorities of the church continue to encourage plural marriages either by not stopping them or by participating or officiating at them. Apparently no one outside of Daniel H. Wells knew that a first president of the seventy had taken a plural wife. This event did not come to the attention of any other Church authorities. I suppose that the men in authority do not speak to each other about these events??? If this is true, then there is a very real possibility for a great many plural marriages to take place without their knowledge. I cannot tell if this decision to keep the knowledge is calculated or situational.

Mr. Roberts is then asked about the plural marriage ceremony, and he talks about it, but only in a general way.

Mr. Tayler. Was the ceremony a simple ceremony, whereby -
Mr. Roberts. I understood it was the usual ceremony used by the Mormon Church in the temples.
Mr. Tayler. Was it the same ceremony, practically, as that by which you married Celia Dibble?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler. Was it the same as that by which you married your first wife?
Mr. Roberts. It was, as I understood it.

Commentary: OK, that's not much, but it is something. If correct, this means that the ceremony performed in the home, is the same ceremony performed in the temple and the same as the one performed in the Endowment House (before it was torn down). Nothing specific is mentioned, but it is interesting to know that he believed they were essentially the same in substance.

Mr. Tayler is curious as to why Mr. Roberts would violate a law of the land after knowing of the laws Congress passed, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Why did he feel himself "called upon to violate the law of the land":

"In explanation of that conduct I wish to say that from my boyhood I had been taught the rightfulness of plural marriage. I believed that doctrine and believed it to be a commandment of God. I knew that the law of God was in conflict with the statutes enacted by Congress. I regarded it as binding upon my conscience to obey God rather than man, and hence I accepted that doctrine and practiced it; that is all."

Of course, he cannot get away with this statement without a few questions from the committee members.

The Chairman. This revelation or this manifesto of 1890 you think was inspired by God?
Mr. Roberts. Yes; in a way.
...
Senator Overman. You say the manifesto was a revelation of God?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
Senator Overman. What do you mean by being inspired of God?
Mr. Roberts. I believe that a revelation from God, of course, is a direct, uncolored communication from the Divine to man. I believe that a man may be an inspired man, but yet more or less of the human characteristics of the man may enter into his actions. I believe, however, that this manifesto was an official act of the church, that the church was perfectly competent to pass it, and I believe it binding upon the members of the church.
Senator Overman. That it was a human institution, rather than from God?
Mr. Roberts. I would not like to say it was not inspired of God. I rather think that President Woodruff, to meet the hard conditions confronting him, was inspired of the spirit of the Lord to take that course.

Commentary: Not a revelation, but inspired (in a way) by circumstances surrounding the Church in 1890; and then implemented as a Church policy by President Woodruff. The Senators were trying to have him define the Manifesto as he had hinted - not a revelation, and not completely inspired. He didn't want any part of that; although, he answer was not as strong and confident as I would have supposed it should have been. I guess it stands to reason that if you break the laws of man and the Manifesto by living with polygamous wives, your opinion of the Manifesto may be a little different than others as to its inspiration/revelatory nature.

Recess for lunch is taken from 11:50 AM to 2:00 PM.

To start out, Mr. Robert is asked to define the basic duties of a Seventy.

Mr. Tayler. What are the seventies?
Mr. Roberts. The seventies constitute in the church with the twelve apostles what is recognized as the foreign ministry of the church. They are the propaganda of the church.
In further explanation I will say that the quorums consist of 70 persons, and over each quorum there is what we call a council of 7 presidents. Then the first quorum, organized in the same way, has a general jurisdiction over the entire body of seventies.
...
Senator Overman. How many seventies are there?
Mr. Roberts. There are about 145 quorums. All of the quorums, however, are not full. We estimate, perhaps, that there are between nine and ten thousand men in the body.

Commentary: The Seventies are no longer a position that lay members of the Church in a Stake are called to (this was discontinued in 1986 - check wikipedia for more information and history). I think the use of the word propaganda is old for today, but I assume it was perfect for that time.

Mr. Tayler then directs the questioning back to the subject of the Manifesto and its perceived authority within the Church. It makes sense that this would be revisited because there just wasn't enough time before lunch to fully get a sense of his understanding along these lines.

Mr. Tayler. Now, Mr. Roberts, you have characterized this manifesto of 1890 in such a way as to leave the impression upon my mind that you would not call it a specific and direct revelation, such as other revelations that the people of your church believe in. Was that inference of mine justified by your statement?
Mr. Roberts. I think it was.
Mr. Tayler. Then, will you define the character that you attribute to that manifesto as a revelation or inspiration, its origin and its force?
Mr. Roberts. I regard the manifesto as an administrative act of the president of the church, accepted by the church, and of binding force upon its members. But I regard it as an administrative act which President Woodruff, holding in his own hands the direct authority controlling that particular matter - that is, the matter of marriages - had a perfect right to make, and the acceptance of that action by the church makes that a positive binding law upon the church.
Mr. Tayler. And those who do not obey it are subject to the pains and penalties such as a church under its discipline may inflict upon its members who disobey it?
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.

Commentary: This appears to be the understanding - in more detail - of B.H. Roberts concerning the manifesto. Earlier he stated that he wouldn't call it revelation, but rather, inspiration. Here he confirms that previous statement and says the inspiration was in the form of an administrative act. I won't touch this set of the discussion anymore, but rather let the words stand for themselves.

He is asked once again to explain his viewpoint with keeping the manifesto and why he is breaking a law of the church. Like the previous witnesses that have testified before him, his response is extremely similar:

"... the part of it relating to plural marriages prohibits the bringing into existence of those relations. In the other case the relations exist and men in my status are confronted by a very awkward and trying situation. Of course, we know that our lives are in violation of the law of the land, and by this action of the church they are brought into violation of the rules and law of the church, and yet there are moral obligations and responsibilities that we feel, in our relations with our wives, we cannot easily - at least I cannot - set aside. Consequently, under those trying circumstances, I presume that others, with myself, are doing the best we can to meet what we regard as our moral obligations to those families. That is my status on the subject at least."

This ends the direct examination by Mr. Tayler. Mr. Van Cott then proceeds with the cross-examination.

Mr. Van Cott asks about the conflict between Church authorities and Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts is given a chance to explain everything he wants to, in detail, concerning this conflict.

     "The commencement of the difficulty arose out of the remarks of Mr. Joseph F. Smith at a priesthood meeting in which he made complaint that Mr. Thatcher and I had accepted nominations for political office, which would take us from our religious duties, without leave of absence or without obtaining the consent to be released from our religious duties by the first presidency or any of the twelve.
     "In explanation of their insistence that that is what we ought to have done, they made declarations in the press and out of that, as I say, grew the general excitement of the campaign. After the close of the campaign they proposed to reduce to writing, to a written rule, the idea or the doctrine that men upon whose whole time the church had a claim should obtain leave of absence or permission in that sense to engage either in business that would take them away from their religious duties or in receiving political nominations.
     "I was unwilling at first to subscribe to that rule, for the reason that it had been charged in the prologue or preface to the Democratic declaration of principles that through that means they might seek to control the political affairs of the State. It was charged, I think, in speeches and in the papers, that they might give their consent, for instance, to one man to participate in politics and withhold it from another, or the people might be led to interpret their willingness to excuse one man from religious duties to mean that they favored both his nomination and his election and in this way bring their influence to bear upon the politics of the State.
     "It was upon that point especially that I made my contest against them. In the course of several meetings with them for the purpose of discussing these matters, however, they satisfied me that it was not their intention to control the politics of the State, but they sought only the management of their own ecclesiastical affairs; and in consequence of being convinced that that was their purpose I joined with them in signing the rule that hereafter men should not accept positions of any kind that would take them from the performance of their ecclesiastical duties without the consent of their superiors."

Senator Bailey then dissects the political rule of the Church, trying to determine if any church or body of men, ought to hold sway over citizens of the country who want to run for political office or who are appointed to political office. Here's a sampling:

"I should regard any organization in this country - religious, industrial, or of any other character - as not to be tolerated if it teaches that those who profess to follow it cannot perform the duties of a good citizen. You are a man of great intelligence and you are thoroughly familiar with the subject, and I would like to hear what explanation - you can give as good a one as any man connected with the church - they have for declaring that a man cannot be a good Christian and a good citizen at the same time, in effect.
...
"I never like to see a man's religion and patriotism in conflict. That is the embarrassing thing to me."

Both Mr. Roberts and Senator Bailey go back and forth for a few minutes on this. My take on this is that Senator Bailey doesn't believe Mr. Roberts fully understands what this political rule of the Church actually requires of its leadership. Mr. Roberts cannot get Senator Bailey to comprehend that it is merely the Church trying to manage its leadership.

Mr. Tayler asks a few more questions, and the story he paints here with his questions is quite interesting with regards to possible Church interference in the politics of the State.

Mr. Tayler. Now, in the campaign of 1895, feelings ran very high on the subject of alleged church interference in politics, did it not?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Mr. Tayler. Very high. And doubtless there were a good many inflammatory and perhaps ill-considered statements made by those on either side of that question?
Mr. Roberts. I think that is true.
Mr. Tayler. You yourself talked rather heatedly on the subject, did you not?
Mr. Roberts. I think I did, sometimes.
Mr. Tayler. Do you remember the statement that was made during that campaign that Apostle [Francis M.] Lyman had attended a meeting of his people somewhere outside of Salt Lake City, elsewhere in Utah, in which he urged them to divide up - part of them to go on one side, part of them to the other side, and part of them to stay in between - so that they might switch at will from one side to the other?
Mr. Roberts. My recollection is that such a charge was made against Mr. Lyman, which, however, in justice to him, I ought to say he disclaimed.

Commentary: Wow, if the Church was engaged in that, I would consider it a very serious charge. Mr. Lyman disclaimed the statement, so apparently nothing came of this. I wonder if this was just a frivolous statement made by an anti-Mormon, or if there was actually some sliver of truth in the statement.

The cross has now completed, and so the Chairman decides it is time for him to take over. He then submits his usual "tell me about the Mormon temple ceremony" line of questions to Mr. Roberts for answers.

The Chairman. Do you know, Mr. Roberts, of any change in the ceremony performed in the endowment house, and as it is performed today in the temple?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
The Chairman. The ceremony is the same. Now, will you state to the committee what the ceremony was, or is, as nearly as you can?
Mr. Roberts. Well, the ceremonies consist of what would be considered a series of ceremonies, I take it, of which I only have a general impression.
The Chairman. You have something more than a general impression in your own case?
Mr. Roberts. No; I think not.
...
The Chairman. Can you tell the committee any portion of that ceremony?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
The Chairman. Why not?
Mr. Roberts. Well, for one reason, I do not feel at liberty to do so.
The Chairman. Why not?
Mr. Roberts. Because I consider myself in trust in relation to those matters, and I do not feel at liberty to make any disclosures in relation to them.
The Chairman. It was then a secret?
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
The Chairman. Does this religious denomination have, as one of its ceremonies, secret obligations or covenants?
Mr. Roberts. I think they could not be properly called secrets. Of course they are common to all worthy members of the church, and generally known by them.
The Chairman. Well, secret from the world?
Mr. Roberts. Secret from the world.
The Chairman. The obligations and covenants, whatever they are, then, you are not at liberty to disclose?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir. I would be led to regard those obligations as similar to those who perhaps have passed through Masonic fraternities, or are members of Masonic fraternities.
The Chairman. Then your church organization in that particular is a sort of Masonic fraternity?
Mr. Roberts. It is analogous, perhaps, in some of its features.
...
The Chairman. The reason you have assigned is accepted. The obligation, whatever it is, taken in the endowment house, is such that you do not feel at liberty to disclose it?
Mr. Roberts. That is right.
...
The Chairman. Do you recall whether any penalty was imposed upon a person who should disclose the covenants?
Mr. Roberts. No, sir.
The Chairman. You do not remember?
Mr. Roberts. Beyond the disfavor and distrust of his fellows.

Commentary: Questions asked and answered. I cringed only when the reference to the LDS ceremonies were "analogous" to the Masonic fraternity.

There is more questioning on the ceremony, but Mr. Roberts continues to state that he cannot reveal what the Chairman wants to know. In the end, it is finally dropped.

He is allowed to answer a general question on the content of the endowment ceremony, which I think is worthy to be included here.

Mr. Worthington. I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or ceremony to which you refer, in the endowment house, relates entirely to things spiritual, or whether it relates to things temporal also?
The Chairman. Would it not be better, Mr. Worthington, to let him state what the obligation is?
Mr. Worthington. Yes, so far as I am concerned, I would very much prefer it; but I understand the suggestion by Senator Pettus was that he was interpreting that which he would not state. Of course I do not know anything more about this than the members of the committee do, but I think it might very well be that a witness might be allowed to state, and might properly say, that he would answer here as to anything that related to any temporal affairs, but as to things which related to matters between him and his God, or which be conceived to be between him and his God, he would not answer here or anywhere else, and that would not be an interpretation, but would simply be taking the protection which I understand the law gives to every man - that as to things which do relate entirely to religious matters, they are matters which he has a right to keep within his own breast.
...
Mr. Roberts. I regard them as relating to things spiritual, absolutely.

Commentary: That was a good explanation - a bunch of interpretation or rights and what could/could not be said with limited information. In the end, Mr. Roberts was allowed to give his opinion and short interpretation of what the Senators were not allowed to see. I wonder if the committee dismissed it all because they could determine if his conclusion was valid or not due to a lack of source material to judge from.

Alvin R. Dyer - For What Purpose

2010-09-07T09:35:00.006-06:00

Alvin R. Dyer (1903-1977)

This blog post is about a talk given by Elder Dyer in 1961 to LDS Missionaries in Oslo, Norway. I read it while on my mission, and thought it good enough to hold on to. There has been some controversy about this talk, and I am not unaware of that. This issue of priesthood blessings for all worthy members of the Church was resolved with the administration of President Spencer W. Kimball (Official Declaration 2) in 1978.

If there are errors (punctuation, spelling, etc.) they are mine. I copied this straight from a copy of the text I had access to.

==================================================

For What Purpose
by
Alvin R. Dyer

Talk given: March 18, 1961
Oslo, Norway
Missionary Conference

The following is a talk given by President Alvin R. Dyer at the missionary conference in Oslo, Norway, March 18, 1961. It is recommended that each missionary should read this message several times in order to get a better understanding of the purpose of the restored Gospel.

--------------------

We have talked a lot about missionary work and heard the testimonies of those who have spoken. I want to talk to you a little bit now about something that is not missionary work and what I say is not to be given to your investigators by any matter or means.

In the Korean War there was a thing that took place that, I don't know as it brought disgrace upon our country, but it tends to prove the fact that so many of the young men of America didn't have the concept of liberty and freedom as sponsored by our own beloved country. This was such a shock to our leaders that a program was instituted throughout the country, which still carries on, to better prepare our young people to meet the future, both physically and mentally. I was disillusioned at what took place.

Always in my life I have thought that a “Yankee” or an American was just about the greatest of everything in the world. I have always been a kind of hero-worshipper anyway, and a great football player or a great baseball player or something like that has been more or less my ideal. Anything American was the best. I still feel that way when it comes to my personal inward feelings. I still have an affinity for that.

There was an episode that took place in the Korean War that was very hard for me to take, and hard for me to understand. I am sure that it was much harder for those who were in it, who were called upon to endure the privations of that war, or any war for that matter. After the war was over, the information concerning the behavior of our young men who had been captured by the Koreans (Communist Koreans) revealed the fact that they behaved most ashamedly and with almost cowardice. In the interrogations that were made of our young men, there was less than 5% of them that even knew why they were fighting and what was meant by liberty and freedom and the America way of life. Less than 5% of them were reactionary to the point that they wanted to fight to live, though they had been prisoners, and I know that they must not have had a very easy life. But the official records also reveal that 38% of the American soldiers that were taken prisoners by the Koreans, who died in prison camps, didn't die from starvation or from any punishment. They simply quit and laid down and died because they did not have the moral stability to fight. This was the disgraceful thing about it all. Nearly 4 out of 10 of the American prisoners died because they didn't have the will to live. They did not have any reason or rhyme for what they were there for.

When this became known to our leaders, they immediately called into conference a great body of men and established in America what they called a physical fitness program. Ezra Taft Benson and Marion D. Hanks and several others from the Church were called upon and they are still serving on it. I was glad to see that President Kennedy has reinstated this program among our young people.

You might say, “What has that to do with us?” It doesn't have a great deal to do with us except that I would feel rather embarrassed, as a leader of the Church, if any one of our missionaries did not know why he was in the mission field, and all you could say is, “I am here preaching the Gospel and I have been sent out here. I know the Gospel is true and I have a testimony of it.” If that is all you could say, you don't have the full meaning for the purpose of missionary work.

I have always felt that if you would place in the minds of anybody the reason for doing things and the purpose behind it, you wouldn't have to worry about what that person would do. If you young men and women know why you are here and why the Lord is so anxious for us to preach the Gospel today, and then would ask yourselves a number of questions connected with that, such as: Why is it that you are born today instead of 2,000 years ago? Why is it that you are sitting in this room today and were for some reason, not born in the day of Moses or in the day when Christ was upon the earth? Or do you think that is just something haphazard – that it just happened that way – that nobody had anything to do with it? You would ask another question maybe: Why is it that you are white and not colored? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Who had anything to do with your being born into the Church? Why not born a Chinese or a Hindu or a Negro? Is God such an unjust person that he would make you white and free and make a Negro cursed under the cursing of Cain, that he could not hold the Priesthood of God? Who do you think decided and what is the reason behind it? Then maybe you would ask yourselves another question: Why is it that you were kept in the Spirit World until the last dispensation to come forth among the children of men? Was there any reason for that, and who decided it?

When you begin to get the answers to these questions, then perhaps you will begin to understand why the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being preached in the world today, and why the plan of salvation is taking its affect upon people. I think that every missionary ought to know the answers to those questions. When he does know the answers, he stands before the Lord without excuse to go forth and labor with all his strength to serve the Lord.

There isn't anyone in this room that would have the fantastic notion that this life is of any great duration. This life is merely a pinpoint or speck on the eternity of man's existence. It is over so fast that it is merely a short period of time in the existence of eternal life of man here upon the earth – just a few short hours of the Lord's time. To us it is many thousands of years.

I want to talk with you just briefly about this, not with any information that you would convey to your investigators, but that you, yourselves, may have a better understanding of what we are doing in the mission field today, and why it is that we come to you with encouragement to work with all your strength to get the people into the Church and why we set goals. It isn't for the purpose of a goal. That is just a kind of game between us to become physically motivated to go out and to do our best and work as a team and as a mission. The real purpose behind this is more far reaching than that.

I will read to your from the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, “And the Lord said unto me,” speaking to Abraham, “These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they,” indicating that in the pre-existence there are three divisions of spirits. “These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.”

This statement of Abraham's is directly connected with the degrees of glory because we taught that when people die, all shall be resurrected who are born in this life – sons of perdition and all. They are then, after the Spirit World, assigned into one of these three degrees of glory – the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. Others who were spun off who can no longer repent, and because they can no longer repent, they can become Sons of Perdition and are not worthy to go into a degree of glory. The consequence of this is that they shall go with Lucifer and the disembodied spirits who never were permitted to take upon themselves a body of flesh and bones.

You recall the scripture that missionaries very often use in Corinthians when Paul is speaking of the three divisions of people. We often use that scripture as a resurrection scripture but we do not apply it properly. If you will read it carefully it says, “Such are they in the resurrection,” which means that Paul is calling to the attention of those who listen to him, that there are three degrees of glory of people who are in preparation on the earth while they live here. Now let's suppose, to make this more plain, that the earth would end at this instant; that there would be no one upon the earth; that life would cease and that judgment was immediate. Obviously the people who had been living on the earth would be assigned to one of these three places. Therefore, the people are the embryos of these three kingdoms.

The suggestion here by Abraham is that they were born into this life with the same degree of division. There were three divisions of mankind in the pre-existence, and when you are born into this life, you are born into one of three divisions of people. There is an imposed judgment placed upon everyone who leaves the Spirit World, just as there will be when they leave this life and go into one of the three places. When they left the Spirit World, they had already been judged by what they had done in the Spirit World and in their previous life. When you understand that, you know then that God is not unjust to cause a righteous spirit to be born as a cursed member of the black race, or to be cursed as one of the other people of the earth who has been cursed. Everything is in order. The procreation of man is orderly and is in accordance with the plan of life and salvation.

In keeping with this thought, when Noah went into the ark, here again he took with him his three sons – one representing the chosen lineage, the second representing the lineage of adoption, and the third representing the cursed lineage. Thereafter, when men began to be born again into this life, they were born through one of these three sons of Noah, either through the lineage of Shem, Japheth or Ham.

I suppose you often may have heard missionaries say it, or have asked the question: Why is a Negro a Negro? And you have heard the answer: “Well, they must have been neutral in the pre-existence or they must have straddled the fence.” That is the most common saying – they were neither hot nor cold, so the Lord made them Negros. This, of course, is not true. The reason that spirits are born into Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the pre-existence. This is the reason why you have Negros upon the earth.

You will observe that when Cain was influenced by the power of Lucifer to follow him to fall down and worship him in the beginning, it was then that the Lord came to him and said, “Cain, if you will abide the law – if you will keep the commandments, you too can be acceptable to me.” But Cain rejected the counsel of God. He rejected again the Priesthood as his forebearers had done in the preexistence. Therefore, the curse of the pre-existence was made institute through the loins of Cain. Consequently you have then, the beginning of the race of men and women into which would be born those in the pre-existence who had rejected the Priesthood of God.

There was another division in the pre-existence – those who were not valiant in the acceptance of the Gospel. You see, there is a great difference between one who accepts and one who accepts and does something about it. We had a division in the pre-existence who did not reject the Priesthood, neither did they fully accept the plan of salvation that was advanced by the Christ. They, therefore, in accordance to the plan of the Gospel, became those of the lineage of adoption.

I want to read to you a very important scripture in the Old Testament. We talk about studying books and reading manuscripts to prepare ourselves to teach the Gospel, but there are very few missionaries who ever study they Old Testament. The 10th chapter of Genesis, according to my information, has had at least 2,000 volumes written about it – just about this one chapter. It is so important because the whole plan and purpose of life was understood by the ancient people of Israel and they knew and understood what was meant by the teachings of the Old Testament here given to us by Moses. I want to read something to you and make an explanation. “And Ham, the father of Canaan,” this is in the 9th chapter of Genesis, “saw the nakedness of his father and told his two his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backward and they saw not their father's nakedness.” Now, that is a Jewish story – that is a Hebrew story, in legend form, that merely implicates the fact that Ham reinstated the curse of the pre-existence when he rejected the Priesthood of Noah, and in consequence of that, he preserves the curse of the earth. Therefore, the Negros to be born thereafter or those who were to become Negros were to be born through the loins of Ham.

All of this is according to a well worked out plan, that these millions and billions of spirits awaiting in the pre-existence would be born through a channel of race of people. Consequently the cursed were to be born through Ham. We cannot accept this story literally because, in order to understand that, you have to read the Pearl of Great Price very carefully. Because, in the early days when the Egyptian government was established under its first rulers, the Pharaohs, they set up a system that was exactly like the Priesthood of God. It was exactly like the Patriarchal Order, but they said, knowing that they could not have the birthright, they thought to capitalize on the form, or the order of administration. The Pearl of Great Price tells us specifically that they knew that they could not hold the Priesthood, yet they used the type of organization. Gradually the sons of Pharaoh began to denounce that concept and assumed unto themselves that they were the princes and not the descendants of Shem. There is a great deal more to it than that, but I wanted to point this out to you that all of this that we talk about with people is not just merely a little message that we proclaim to them; but all that we are doing is part of a great plan that was inaugurated under the same direction of the Christ in the pre-existence.

Listen to what Noah said to his other two brethren: “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And he said, “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” Who is Shem? Shem is who is known as the father of the Shemitics or the Semitics. He became the father of the children of Israel. Through the loins of Shem's descendants, were born Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then twelve sons of the twelve princes of Israel. Therefore, Shem became the father or the progenitor of those who were to be born into this life who were the noblest of the intelligences who Abraham speaks of here when he said, “Notwithstanding that these two spirits are intelligent and one is more intelligent than the other – there is still another spirit or another division that is more intelligent than both of them.” Then the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and the Lord saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them and said: These I will make my rulers, for he saw that they were good, and he said unto me; Abraham, thou art one of them: thou wast chosen before thou wast born.” This is true with everyone who fits into the category of Israel. This is a part of the plan the world does not know anything about. The Christian churches never mention it. They never teach it because they know nothing about it.

Noah made another promise at this point and he said, “God shall enlarge Japheth, who was the eldest son, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” (tent or house). In those days that is the only thing they lived in. “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the house of Shem.” What is the house of Shem? The House of Israel. Therefore, the descendants of Japheth shall be enlarged and they shall be permitted to dwell in the House of Israel. Therefore, we call the descendants of Japheth the children of the adoption. Now, who are the descendants of Japheth? The descendants of Japheth are in all of Europe. They are in America; they are in Japan and Korea. They are in India and all these people can be traced. For example, we have here the generations of Shem as the Lord gives it to us in the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis. Those ancient prophets were careful to preserve those generations, and those genealogies, knowing their full meaning which the world does not understand but which we know by revelation from the Lord.

“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer” they are the French; “and Magog,” they are the Slavs; “and Madai,” they are the Hindu, the Korean, the Indian, the Japanese and the Phillipenos. We know who the people are who migrated eastward through India in the area of the Tungus and then into Korea and Japan. This is the reason today why we are having such tremendous success among the Koreans and the Japanese, because it is the day the Gospel is to be preached to them. Then he goes on to say, “Javan” the people of Greece and Italy and of Turkey, “and Meschech”, the Meshechites, the Russians, “and Tiras,” the Siberians. These are the descendants of Japheth.

The day was to come, according to Noah, that these people and their descendants would come in and dwell in the tent, or the house, of Shem, or the House of Israel. You have to know what the Lord is doing today in preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles, because this is the day of the Gentile. They are the people of Europe. They are the people of America. This is the time of the Gentile. Only one portion of the House of Israel is being called, and they are the children of Ephraim.

Everyone of you here, I assume, has had a Patriarchal Blessing. Is there anyone here who is not of the lineage of Joseph? You know what I mean? They are the only ones of the House of Israel that are being called – the lineage of Joseph, through Ephraim, and there is a reason for that.

I want to mention again, the teaching of Christ unto the Nephites. You will find this in the 21st chapter of 3rd Nephi; the sign of the Father's work, the glorious destiny of the repentant Gentiles, the condemnation predicted for the impenitent and the coming of the New Jerusalem or the city of Zion. And the Lord himself, speaking unto the Nephites said this: “And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place – that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O House of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion.” Then he goes on to tell that the first of this day shall be the day of the Gentiles, and you read that entire chapter. I won't take the time to do it, but he says, “in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them.” (The Prophet Joseph Smith). “But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” The Prophet Joseph Smith suffered martyrdom but he was not harmed, and he said to his brother in Carthage prison, just before he was shot: “Fear not, brethren. They may take our lives and destroy the body, but they cannot kill us.” This is what the Lord was saying here. If you read the rest of the chapter, you will read how the Gospel is to be taken to the Gentiles. The Lord said in verse 22: “But behold if the Gentiles will repent,” meaning who”? The French, the German, the Norwegian, the Yiddish, the Finlander, the people of Denmark and the people all over the countries of Europe. “If they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance.” This was spoken of before by Nephi, and you will read it in the 13th and 14th chapters of the Book of Mormon, where the Lord makes plain that the day will come when the Gentiles will receive the gospel and will come in and be numbered among the Children of Israel.

I will just read one of these scriptures, although there are many found in 1st Nephi, the 14th chapter, starting with the first verse: “And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles;” let me explain now again who the Gentiles are. In the eyes of the Jew, anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile. But correctly speaking, the Gentiles are the descendants of the House of Japheth, the oldest son of Noah. The cursed people are the descendants of Ham. The chosen people are the descendants of Shem the second of the three sons of Noah. Through these lineages the spirits that compare with their station are born in this life. This is why you have colored people, why you have dark people and why you have white people. The Lord is speaking of the Gentiles. “And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles,” the descendants of Japheth, “shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks.”

In other words, where they have resisted the church, resisted conversion, the Lord will remove the stumbling blocks, “And if they harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be a blessed people.” You see, this is the promise that was made anciently by Noah when he blessed Japheth. Because why? Because he did not rebel against the Priesthood that Noah held, like Ham did, neither did Shem.

We have a fulfillment of this scripture. When the Kirtland Temple was finished, there were a number of ancient prophets that made their appearances in the temple. The Christ was the first to come and receive the temple, and gave instructions to Joseph Smith many of which we have never been privileged to know about. Following this, there appeared unto them, Moses, and then came Elias and then came Elijah, each of them committing the keys of their specific work. Let me call your attention to the key of Elias. In the first place, who is Elias? Elias is Noah. Here we have the same one who gave the covenant unto Japheth anciently, that he would be blessed and that he would come in and dwell in the house of Shem. He returned to the earth to give the key unto the prophet Joseph Smith, to fulfill the promise to Abraham, that through the loins of Abraham, or the chosen seed, all of the children of the earth would be blessed.

There is another thing that you must understand for yourselves, to understand this whole thing, and that is that this life, or the day of this life, so far as the Gospel is concerned, begins the day you were born and ends after the period of the Spirit World – not when you die in this life. So the day of this life, so far as the plan of life is concerned is from the day you were born until the end of your period in the Spirit World. For this reason then, we can function and carry on the program than the Lord has intended in the Spirit World, so that they can be preached to, and have work done for them here upon the earth and that work will be binding in the worlds that are to come.

Now I want to go back again to the statement of Abraham and to emphasize here the importance of what we are doing. “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers.” All right, what did the Lord mean by that? I call to your attention now, the washing and anointing that you received in the temple. All of you have been through the temple, I assume. When you went into the washing an anointing room where you were washed and anointed with water and oil, you were given a new name, and you were promised that some day you would be called up to be a King and a Priest or Queen and Priestess. Don't ever suppose that it is for this life. It is not. It is for the next life, and the Lord is preparing today, the rulers that will be the administrators of these degrees of glory after the Spirit World. The consequence of this is that the Celestial Kingdom must be peopled first because it becomes the kingdom of administration; so all of it becomes a part of the plan.

The Terrestrial Kingdom will receive its administration through the Christ and the Melchizedek Priesthood, and there will be a system of government established upon that kingdom. The Telestial Kingdom will receive its administration through the ministering angels of the Terrestrial Kingdom, and they will have their form of government, but they will exist and live under a government. They will be controlled by laws and regulations of advancement and development and growth all in accordance with the plan of the Lord – the same in the Terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms.

Now let us suppose that we were a board of directors here today and we were going to establish a vast corporation that would hire millions of men and women. Would we go out and hire all these men and women right at the outset, or would we first build an administrative building and hire our executives or administrators, and then place them over to control and govern? It is the same thing in the plan of life. The Celestial Kingdom must be founded first because it becomes the kingdom of administration. The Lord has revealed these things to us. They are very plain, and what we are striving for today is to find those whom the Lord wants to make His rulers.

You like to think, I know, and I do too, that the Gospel is going to be received by everyone, but it isn't. I call to your attention to the statements of Christ when He said, “Straight is the way and narrow the gate, and few there be that find it.” There won't be many but these the Lord has chosen in the preexistence. If they are worthy and prove their worthiness in this life and this probation, then they receive the endowment. When they get the endowment, they are promised that they will be leaders. We call them Kings and Priests, but the correct word in our terminology would be administrators, a leader, an executive who will have power to govern and control the millions and millions of people who will go into these other degrees of glory.

Now you see how the plan opens up, and there is purpose and meaning as to what we are doing. I have often said this, “It is a frightening thought but it is undoubtedly true, that only those who are worthy of leadership will enter the Celestial Kingdom because that is the Kingdom of administration. Others who are less valiant, who do not have the qualities of leadership and direction, will necessarily have to settle for the Terrestrial Kingdom.

I don't know whether the knowledge or the revelation of these things will have an effect upon you as a missionary, but I know that it has an effect upon me because, if I am to fulfill my destiny and my purpose here in this mission (life), as has been given to me, and proven to me by my pre-existent identity, then I would do everything in my power to measure up to what I was in the pre-existence because if we could this day, by some miraculous means be permitted to see who we were, I wouldn't be President Dyer up there, or you wouldn't be Elder Smith or Brown or President Gunderson. Oh, no. You would be someone else, and the day will come when you will know who you are, because you are a person of nobility. You may not fully know that now but you were a person of nobility in the preexistence. If you were not, you would have been born into one of these other channels, and you would not have been born in this day and age because the Lord has withheld the choice spirits of the preexistence to come forth in this, the last dispensation and the reason for this is obvious. Why? Because in the world will be just that many righteous spirits who supported and sustained Him, and who accepted Him in the pre-existence. That is why today I am telling you now to preach the Gospel to the people. They do not need to have long teaching. These people today who are accepting the Gospel know all about it because they have been selected to know. That is why they recognize it when they feel the charge and the impact of testimony and spirit. Then it all unfolds to them and many of them are even more brilliant than we are because of the place which they had.

This is not like any other day in the history of the world. The Lord now is preparing to establish His Kingdom – the kingdom that will govern the earth for 1000 years before we go into the judgment period that leads into the establishment of the degrees of glory. In consequence of that, He has wisely chosen the ones that are to come into the world in this day and age. It is a battle. He fought the power of Lucifer, in the pre-existence. He had to use His best spirits to defend Him, and here again He will have to do the same thing and He knows that. Now what does that mean in a probation?

In the wisdom of our Heavenly Father, He has made this life a probation which means that a person who is born in a lower division can accelerate through this life to a higher division. For example, if a colored person, being born into the Telestial division, will receive and accept the Gospel he can be elevated to the Celestial division or the Terrestrial division. That is the purpose of a probation. That is why the Lord set the plan of the Gospel, so that those who had not merited it in the pre-existence, may merit it here through this life of probation. Don't you see that? Don't you see the purpose of the probation, the planning of the Gospel, to provide even this last opportunity in this life while men are taking upon themselves the element of a body, to have another chance to improve their place over what they had done in the pre-existence?

Now I want to read to you from the Book of Mormon on that. This scripture will have new meaning to you, I am sure, as you understand the things that I have spoken. The prophet Alma understood this very plainly, and I want you to pay particular attention to what he says. This is found in the 24th chapter, beginning with the 31st verse. I am sure you have read it, but let's read it now for this concept. “Yea, I would that you would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer, for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation. And therefore if you will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.” Don't you see?

All a man has to do is repent and open his heart to the Lord and immediately the plan will be made known to him. That doesn't say the missionary will make it known to him. The power of the Holy Ghost will make it known unto him. He already knows it, because he stood in the councils of heaven and supported and sustained this plan. He recognizes Christ. He recognized the prophets, etc. “For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God.”

If life did not extend beyond the grave, then why did Christ go to the Spirit World, undoubtedly where Elder Wheat went. Isn't it something that he was driving on the highway doing missionary work, and in the twinkling of an eye he was doing missionary work in the Spirit World. He had changed from life to death still a missionary. It came upon him and he will never know what happened. I know as well as I know anything that he is preaching the Gospel there.

Many of the people in the world like the descendants of Meschech who are living in Russia, live and die without hearing the Gospel and go to the Spirit World, because their government won't let us do it here. Then the descendants hear of it and they themselves wield a great influence. In this way the Gospel is preached to all nations, kindreds and tongues.

“Now behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meed God; behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.” Now listen closely: “And now as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end.” What is the end? The end of the Spirit World in this life.

“For after this day of life,” or from birth until the end of the Spirit World, “which is given us to prepare for eternity,” meaning if we do not improve our time while in this life, “then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.” Do you see how plain this is? If we do not improve ourselves from one division to another, born into the world in a lower division, improving to one of the higher, then we can do nothing about it.

“If we do not improve our time and our place in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.” It is just as plain and simple as anything can be simple.

I wanted to talk to you about that today because I want you to know the reason why you are preaching the Gospel. There is a purpose behind it and, knowing of your nobility, what kind of a missionary are you going to be from this day to the end of your mission? I know what kind you want to be. There will be no more wasted time because it is imposed upon you – the necessity of continuing you nobility, that you may prove your place. That you may be a ruler and a king and a queen and a priestess, as you were promised in the temple of God, if you are faithful in the fulfilling of you obligations.

I have always thought and have proven the point many times, that if you will place into the mind of a boy or a girl, firmly that they are noble persons born of noble heritage in the pre-existence, they will never stoop to anything that is sordid. They just won't do it. You don't need the preaching and the harassments of young people. All you need to do is accept that as your ideology, and what you do from now on will be the important thing, that you may not have known before, but you know them now, because the Spirit bears record. I bear record of their truthfulness in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Laws Against Polygamy - 1887 (Edmunds-Tucker Act)

2010-06-21T20:42:00.023-06:00

On to the 3rd major law enacted by the Congress of the United States against the Mormon people, or probably a better way to say this, against the Mormon religious practice of polygamy.

As with the previous two major laws against polygamy that I've posted, I want to cover the history leading up to the passage of the bill itself. For this law, the period of history will cover from 1882-1887. For this post I decided to break it up into years, since that is an easy organizational method.

Other posts in this series:

=== 1882 ===

March 22, 1882 - Edmunds bill signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur.

April 7, 1882 - Conference talk by President John Taylor:
The morning of conference the weather was cold, stormy and windy; sleet was blowing and it was rather miserable outside. Using the storm as a metaphor for the Edmunds Law, he encourages the Saints to "put up our coat collars and wait till the storm subsides. ... While the storm lasts it is useless to reason with the world, when it subsides we can talk to them. ... God will take care of His people, if we will only do right" (B.H. Roberts, The Life of John Taylor, pp. 360-361).

April 19, 1882 - George Q. Cannon's seat declared vacant in the House of Representatives:
George Q. Cannon was elected as a representative of Utah Territory in November 1880; however, his seating was protested, and his seat was eventually declared vacant in April 1882. He was refused to sit because he was an admitted polygamist and the newly passed Edmunds Law made his election unlawful (Orson F. Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pp. 335-346).

September 16, 1882 - Hoar Amendment to Edmunds Law:
This allowed the Territorial Governor to appoint elected positions because the voter registration for the new law was not implemented yet (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pp. 348-349).

Utah Commission:
One of the provisions of the Edmunds law, was the creation of the Utah Commission. The five federally appointed men arrived in Utah in August 1882. One of the challenges this group of men took on was the framing of a test oath for potential voters, which read, in part:

"I [name of individual] ... do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a bigamist or a polygamist; that I am not a violator of the laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; that I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman in the marriage relation, nor does any relation exist between me and any woman which has been entered into or continued in violation of the said law of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; and (if a woman) that I am not the wife of a polygamist, nor have I entered into any relation with any man in violation of the laws of the United States concerning polygamy or bigamy" (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 359).

This oath was objected to by the Mormon people of the Territory. Here is B.H. Roberts' take on the oath, which I consider a prime example of the argument(s) against it:

"By this arrangement it will be seen that those who cohabited with more than one woman in adultery or prostitution, were not affected by its provisions. The roue, the libertine, the strumpet, the brothel-keeper, the adulterer and adulteress could vote. No matter how licentious a man or a woman might be, all but the Mormons were screened and protected in the exercise of the franchise by the ingenious insertion of the clause, 'in the marriage relation,' a clause which nowhere appears in the Edmunds law" (Roberts, Life of John Taylor, pp. 369-370).

The Commission seemed intent on disfranchising a great number of people, even those not in violation of the anti-bigamy act. "Once a polygamist, always a polygamist" became the reasoning behind their next act. Anyone who had lived plurally since the 1862 anti-bigamy law was passed, was disqualified from registering to vote; even if that person had left the Mormon Church, hadn't lived plurally in 20 years, first wife had died, etc. If they lived in a polygamous relationship at all since 1862, they could not vote (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pp. 360-361).

The Anti-Polygamy Prosecutions:

The United States Government was adamant in its determination to stamp out plural marriage, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remained firm in its adherence to that feature of its faith. What followed was inevitable. ... a rigorous system of prosecution was carried on in Utah, Idaho and Arizona. The Federal courts were kept busy trying cases under the Edmunds Law, and in Utah the Penitentiary was crowded with persons convicted under the operations of that stern statute.
It was a time of terror and gloom. Men and women were hunted like runaway slaves before the Civil War. Hundreds of people, including many prominent citizens, were arrested or driven into exile. Most of the men proceeded against were punished, not for marrying plural wives, but for living with those whom they had wedded prior to the enactment of the law under which they were prosecuted" (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 366).

Those who were at the center of the prosecutions:

Governor Eli H. Murray
Chief Justice Charles S. Zane
Associate Justice Orlando W. Powers
Associate Justice Jacob S. Boreman
District Attorney William H. Dickson
Assistant District Attorney Charles S. Varian
United States Marshal Edward A. Ireland

October 13, 1882 - Revelation given to President John Taylor
This revelation called George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant to the Quorum of the Twelve, among other assignments and instructions. A web reference to the revelation can be found here, or in print format here: James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. II, pp. 352-354.

In the Reed Smoot Hearings, when the topic of revelation was discussed, this specific revelation was mentioned by Joseph F. Smith as being one of the last authorized revelations received by the Church.

The key quote from the revelation is the following:

"... conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood."

The revelation was/is interpreted to mean that Church authorities (Stake Presidents, Bishops, and General Authorities) were required to obey God's laws in order to preside - this would include the law of plural marriage.

=== 1883 ===

=== 1884 ===

The great Crusade against the Mormon Church begins.

"The year 1884 was the beginning in the Church of a great crusade. It was a land-mark in history. What began that year is likely to be told from generation to generation. The hardships that it brought to the Church and the trials which the people underwent were themes for household conversation throughout the entire Church. The Edmunds law of 1882 had been put into effect so far as it related to the imprisonment of the Saints. The enemy were at first occupied in its political phases. As time went on it was seen that the disappointment of the enemy in the political advantages to be derived from the law became more apparent. The law was really a disappointment to them. The Utah commission which it established was filled by appointees from the East and those who were grasping for political power in the Territory found their hopes unrealized. This disappointment led to a spirit of intensified anger and the criminal part of the law began receive its enforcement in the most drastic, spiteful, and revengeful manner. Everything possible was done to prepare the people for dark days to come. The revelations of God were to the effect that men should set their families in order" (Matthias F. Cowley, Wilford Woodruff: History of His Life and Labors, pp. 548-549).

October 15, 1884 - Rudger Clawson appears before Judge Charles S. Zane:
Rudger Clawson was the first unlawful cohabitation case to be prosecuted under the Edmunds law with a trial jury; he was also Judge Zane's first polygamy case. B.H. Roberts remarked that this "case marks the inauguration of as cruel and unjustifiable a judicial crusade as was ever perpetrated against a free people in a professedly free government" (Roberts, Life of John Taylor, pg. 371).

As part of the proceedings, on Oct. 17, 1884, President John Taylor was put on the stand to answer questions about marriage records kept by the Church. The prosecuting attorney wanted to know about the plural marriage records kept in the Endowment House (on Temple Square) and specifically the record concerning the marriage of Rudger Clawson:

Mr. Dickson. [Does such a record exist, and if so would you] "be good enough to produce it, or make inquiry concerning it?
Mr. Taylor. I don't think I am good enough.
Mr. Dickson. What is the ceremony of plural marriage?
Mr. Taylor. I decline to state it.
Mr. Dickson. Do you know whether the defendant has taken a plural wife?
Mr. Taylor. I do not.

According to witnesses at the hearing, President Taylor smiled very big after declining to produce the marriage records.

Rudger Clawson was found guilty of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation by the jury.

On November 3, 1884, Rudger Clawson was allowed to address the court before sentencing was applied. His words, along with the response from Judge Zane were too good not to include in this history construct:

"Your Honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. If I did not so express myself, I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The Constitution of the United States expressly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It cannot be denied, I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned by religious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion. The law of 1862 and the Edmunds Law were expressly designed to operate against marriage as practiced and believed in by the Latter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional, and of course cannot command the respect that a constitutional law would. That is all I have to say, your Honor."

Judge Zane's response to Rudger Clawson's speech - after he meditated for several minutes:

"The Constitution of the United States, as construed by the Supreme Court, does not protect any person in the practice of polygamy. While all men have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and to entertain any religious belief that their conscience and judgment may reasonably dictate, they have not the right to engage in a practice which the American people, through the laws of their country, declare to be unlawful and injurious to society ... I should have been inclined to make the punishment lighter had you not openly declared that you believe it right to violate the law."

Penalty sentence for Rudger Clawson - Judge Zane gave him the maximum allowed under law:

Polygamy (felony): $500 fine and 3 yrs 6 months imprisonment.
Unlawful cohabitation (misdemeanor): $300 fine and 6 month imprisonment to start with the expiration of the first.

Rudger Clawson appealed the ruling, and it resulted in two Supreme Court cases which were heard and decided against him in 1885 (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 381-385).

The tenaciousness with which the prosecutions were being carried out left little hope to those wishing to avoid prison time. Many men and women exiled themselves to avoid being brought to justice. Among those who disappeared at this time were leading men of the Church, such as members of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Seventies. Elder Wilford Woodruff records this: "I am a wanderer from home because of my religion. It is not the first time I have been a wanderer in the wilderness for the gospel's sake." President Joseph F. Smith, 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, made himself scarce from October 1884 to September 1891 - not a single public appearance; he was in Hawaii on a Church mission for most of that time (Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, pg. 553; Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 412).

=== 1885 ===

January 1885 - Angus M. Cannon arrested:
The prosecutions weren't having the affect desired - the disintegration of polygamy in Utah. To help encourage the Mormon people not to break the law, Federal prosecutors decided to go after the leaders of the Church, or the so-called "pillars of the Church." Their first indictment was handed down to Angus M. Cannon, President of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion (the "central" stake of the Church). Although he wasn't at the top of their most-wanted list (the First Presidency and Apostles had the honor of that distinction), he was good enough to start with. In late January 1885, Mr. Cannon was brought before a preliminary hearing on charges of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.

January 1885 - Idaho Test Oath:
The Idaho legislature enacted a law providing that no polygamist, or any person who was a member of any order, organization, or association which taught, advised, counseled, or encouraged its members to practice polygamy, should be permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit within that Territory. The law incorporated a "test oath" on those points. This effectively meant that all Mormons, whether they were polygamists or not, were disfranchised solely because they were members of the church, not because they had broken any law.

James E. Hart proposed an amendment to the oath, before it was passed, that would only disfranchise Church members who actually were practicing polygamy:

You do solemnly swear that you are not a bigamist or a polygamist or that you do not cohabit with any other woman who is not your wife.

Upon hearing this motion, Judge Brierley of Alturas County jumped to the floor and shouted: "My G-- Gentlemen. We can't accept Hart's proposal. That would disfranchise all of us." I find it funny that legislators were out to get the big-bad Mormons; however, some of them led immoral lives and didn't want that legislated against. The oath passed as originally written, keeping LDS Church members in Idaho from voting for 10 years, and was ruled constitutional on Feb. 3, 1890, by the Supreme Court of the United States (Rich, Ensign to the Nations, pg. 381; Supreme Court hearing: 133 US 333).

January 19, 1885 - Supreme Court case: Clawson v. United States: 113 US 143
This is the first of two appeals to the Supreme Court for Rudger Clawson. The Court ruled that Rudger Clawson did not need to be released on bail while an appeal was pending if the court of jurisdiction decided so. Judgment affirmed.

Trial Judges Attempt to be Merciful:
During trials for unlawful cohabitation, prior to sentence being pronounced, the judge would give each convicted man the opportunity to promise to keep the law. If they would do so, invariably the judge would either (a) set them free, or (b) drastically reduce the sentence. However, very few men took advantage of this opportunity. According to Matthias Cowley, the men who did take the judge up on the offer were men who "were not in harmony with the requirements of the gospel and those times gave them an opportunity to demonstrate their unworthiness rather than a lack of courage." The courts were busy at this time, and E.B. Critchlow (a judge during this time) states that over one thousand men were convicted, and rarely did any accept the offer to stop breaking the law (Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, pg. 555; Reed Smoot Testimony, E.B. Critchlow).

Property Purchased in Mexico:
The Church could do relatively little about this law or the prosecutions going on. They felt as if they were being persecuted, instead of prosecuted, by an illegal law. One option they did have was to relocate "wanted" church members to a place where the US Government could not reach them - legally; one of these locations was Mexico. Accordingly, land was purchased in Mexico "upon which families that were hunted and driven might settle." This isn't the birth of the Mormon Colonies in Mexico; however, it does explain why there were a number of polygamist families that moved and lived there. Wikipedia has a decent history review on this (Mormon Colonies in Mexico) (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 395).

February 1, 1885 - President Taylor's last public sermon:

"What would you do? Would you resent these outrages and break the heads of the men engaged in them, and spill their blood? No; avoid them as much as you possibly can - just as you would wolves, or hyenas, or crocodiles, or snakes, or any of these beasts or reptiles. ... Get out of their way as much as you can. What! Won't you submit to the dignity of the law? Well I would if the law would only be a little more dignified. But when we see the dignity of the ermine bedragged in the mud and mire, and every principle of justice violated, it behooves men to take care of themselves as best they can. ... But no breaking of heads, no bloodshed, rendering evil for evil. Let us try to cultivate the spirit of the gospel, and adhere to the principles of truth. ... While other men are seeking to trample the Constitution under foot, we will try to maintain it. ... I will tell you what you will see by and by. You will see trouble! trouble! TROUBLE enough in these United States. And as I have said before, I say today - I tell you in the name of God, WOE! to them that fight against Zion, for God will fight against them!" (Roberts, Life of John Taylor, pp. 383-384).

March 23, 1885 - Supreme Court case: Murphy v. Ramsey: 114 US 15
Five plaintiffs argued that the Utah Commission of 5 men illegally barred them from voting in the November 1882 election after they supplied credentials, and accepted the proper oath. The court ruled that 3 of the 5 were living in a polygamous relationship, and were therefore ineligible to vote - Judgment affirmed. For the other two, it was found that they should have been allowed to vote and their case was "remanded for further proceedings." This ruling declared the Edmunds law constitutional and nullified the test oath formulated by the Utah Commission; they "have no power over the registration of voters or the conduct of elections."

April 20, 1885 - Supreme Court case: Clawson v. United States: 114 US 477
The is the second of two appeals to the Supreme Court by Rudger Clawson. The Court ruled that the grand jury selection was competent for his trial. Judgment affirmed.

May 9, 1885: Angus M. Cannon, A. Milton Musser, and James C. Watson brought before Judge Zane:
All three are sentenced for unlawful cohabitation: $300 fine and 6 months in prison.

May 13, 1885: Declaration of Grievances and Protest:
"To the President and People of the United States" - petition sent by the First Presidency and members of the Church to Washington, "we solemnly protest against the continuance of this merciless crusade." John T. Caine, John W. Taylor, and John Q. Cannon gave the protest to President Cleveland. The President promised to appoint fair and even-minded men to Utah positions to ensure that "the law is impartially administered" (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 414-415).

September 16, 1885 - "Segregation" doctrine introduced:
Judge Zane wanted stiffer penalties than the Edmunds Law would allow for conviction. The relatively light sentences were not having the desired effect. He subsequently ruled that "the time a man had cohabited with more women than one as wives, could be divided up into years, months or weeks, and separate bills of indictment be found for each fragment of time. ... Judge Orlando W. Powers of the First Judicial District, carried the infamous doctrine still further, and in charging a grand jury, on the 23rd of September, 1885, said: 'An indictment may be found against a man guilty of unlawful cohabitation, for every day, or other distinct interval of time, during which he offends. Each day that a man cohabits with more than one woman, as I have defined the word cohabit, is a distinct and separate violation of the law, and he is liable for punishment for each separate offense'" (Roberts, Life of John Taylor, pp. 388-390).

Deseret News Editorial on 'Segregation':

According to this proposition, the obnoxious 'Mormon' could be sentenced to an aggregated term of five hundred and forty-seven years and six months, and compelled to pay a fine of $328,400. If he happened to be impecunious, he could be made to remain in prison for ninety-one years and three months longer, in order to satisfy the poor convict act.

Why not extend its penalties to the other life?

--John Nicholson, editor of the Deseret News when Charles W. Penrose was away (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 409).

November 20, 1885:
Lorenzo Snow is arrested in Brigham City by 7 deputy marshals. He serves over 6 months in prison for unlawful cohabitation and is released. Reference for the trial of Lorenzo Snow: Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pp. 423-426.

December 14, 1885 - Supreme Court case: Cannon v. United States: 116 US 55
Angus M. Cannon appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. He argued that he had not cohabited with his wives (intimately) since the passage of the Edmunds Law; therefore, he could not be guilty of unlawful cohabitation. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with lower court rulings that Angus M. Cannon is guilty of unlawful cohabitation, even if there is not a sexual relationship with his wives. Judgment affirmed. They defined the term 'unlawful cohabitation' as follows:

"Committed by a man who lives in the same house with two women, and eats at their respective tables one-third of his time, or thereabouts, and holds them out to the world, by his language or conduct, or both, as his wives, and it is not necessary to the commission of the offense that he and the two women, or either of them, should occupy the same bed or sleep in the same room or that he should have sexual intercourse with either of them."

Edmunds Law Considered a Disappointment:
The attitude of most of the defendants impleaded thereunder convinced those who were working for the suppression of plural marriage that they had undertaken a much harder task than they anticipated. Neither the makers nor the ministers of the law had given the men and women who practiced this form of marriage sufficient credit for sincerity. Imputing to them unworthy motives, they supposed even light penalties would induce them to recede from their position and sever their peculiar relations. They found this to be an error. The Anti-Bigamy Law had always been a dead letter, inoperative, ineffectual; and now the Edmunds Act; its original severity enhanced by the extreme interpretations put upon it, had failed to accomplish its purpose. More legislation must be had, or existing laws must be made more effective, if success was to crown the efforts put forth for the extirpation of polygamy. So reasoned the prosecutors and the judges (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 407).

=== 1886 ===

The highest point of intensity in the crusade against the Latter-day Saints was reached during the year 1886 ... Hundreds were in prison and in exile and leading men were hunted down with a fury perhaps unsurpassed by the Roman persecutions in the days of the early Christians. ... [Wilford] felt that the Lord would fight the battles of the Saints and that those who were prominent in the persecution would be humiliated (Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, pg. 557).

February 12, 1886 - George Q. Cannon arrested:

"My father believed that if he left Utah, his recession might tend to placate the government and soften the severity of the prosecutions of the Mormons; and accordingly, on the night of February 12, 1886, he boarded a west-bound Central Pacific train at Willard. The Federal officers in some way learned of it; he was arrested, on the train, at Humboldt Wells, Nevada, and brought back to Utah. Near Promontory he fell from the steps of the moving car, at night, in the midst of an alkali desert, and hurt himself seriously. He was recaptured and brought to Salt Lake City on a stretcher, in a special car, guarded by a squad of soldiers from Fort Douglas, with loaded muskets, and a captain with a conspicuous sword. He was taken to Judge Zane's chambers and placed under bonds of $25,000. Immediately two bench warrants were issued by a United States Commissioner, and these were served upon him while he lay on a mattress on the floor of Zane's office. Two more bonds of $10,000 each were given. He was then taken to his home.

"Later - (President [John] Taylor still insisting that he must not stand trial) - he disappeared again, 'on the underground,' and his bonds were declared forfeited" (Frank J. Cannon, Under The Prophet In Utah, pg. 46-47).

May 10, 1886 - Supreme Court case: Snow v. United States: 118 US 346
Is there such a thing as "constructive cohabitation?" What are these people to do? The Court did not want to rule on the question. Instead they decided that they had no jurisdiction in the case; therefore, it was Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

September 27, 1886 - Revelation give to President John Taylor concerning Plural Marriage:
Below is a copy of this purported revelation given to John Taylor. I say "purported" simply because the LDS Church does not accept this document as authentic.

Here's a link to a copy of the handwritten revelation - here:

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

I put this in because it is a piece of history. If true, it helps to explain why John Taylor, and by extension, the Church and Church authorities, are so stubborn during this time in their resistance of the Federal Government and the laws enacted by Congress to do away with polygamy. It's another piece of the puzzle in this history.

Currently the LDS Church denies that this revelation is either (a) authentic, or (b) exists; despite evidence to the contrary that they do in fact know about it. I am uninterested in following this tangent to where it leads - Mormon fundamentalism. For me, the revelation is the history I'm interested in, not what others have done with it. I'll leave this as an exercise for the interested reader/researcher.

To follow this thread, here's a few good references to start with:

Masters Thesis of Dean C. Jessee (link - here). Page 95 is as good a place as any to begin reading.
Official Statement on Plural Marriage June 17 1933; James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. V, pp. 315-330.
Web URL to Four Hidden Revelations - referenced above for the 1886 revelation. The history behind this is very much in dispute as can be seen by following these links.

=== 1887 ===

February 7, 1887 - Supreme Court case: In Re Snow: 120 US 274
Lorenzo Snow's lawyer, Franklin S. Richards, changed the appeal to question the number of indictments. This time the Court ruled it had jurisdiction, and found that individual indictments for separate periods of cohabitation time is illegal. They stated that the offense was continuous, and therefore was answerable under a single indictment. For Lorenzo Snow this meant that 2 of the 3 indictments for unlawful cohabitation were wiped clean, and so an 18 month sentence (3 back-to-back terms) was reduced to one term of 6 months; he had already served more than 6 months at this time.

"This ruling shattered the doctrine of segregation, and put a stop to the practice. Lorenzo Snow, an order for whose release was telegraphed from Washington, left the penitentiary soon after the decision was rendered. Six others imprisoned under the segregating process likewise regained their liberty" (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 443).

The order and judgment of the District Court for the Third Judicial District of Utah Territory must be reversed and the case be remanded to that court with a direction to grant the writ of habeas corpus prayed for and to take such proceedings thereon that may be in conformity with law and not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.

March 3, 1887 - Edmunds-Tucker Act becomes law:
On February 19, 1887, the bill passed Congress and was shortly thereafter placed on the President's desk (Grover Cleveland). After waiting for, and not receiving the President's signature, the bill automatically became a law on March 3, 1887.

Reasoning ? for waiting years for a new anti-polygamy bill to pass:
"As early as December, 1882, Senator Edmunds had introduced into Congress a bill to amend the law bearing his name. This bill, which died almost at its birth, but experienced repeated resurrections, was finally enacted as the Edmunds-Tucker Law, so named for its principal promoters, Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, and Representative John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia. It took five years to produce this statute; not because those friendly to it were idle or indifferent the while, but owing to a desire on the part of many Congressmen, some of whom believed the Edmunds Law had strained the Constitution, to allow the medicine already administered to do its work, before foisting upon the over-dosed patient another prescription." (Whitney, Popular History of Utah, pg. 445).

July 25, 1887 - President John Taylor dies:
From February 1, 1885 until July 25, 1887, John Taylor remained hidden. He was never publicly seen again. He communicated with the Church via "general epistles" that were delivered in the dark of night by couriers (Church History in the Fulness of Times, pg. 443). From the 3rd Volume of Messages of the First Presidency, by James R. Clark, I count 11 official messages, 5 of which are labeled "epistles."

In summary, here are the main points of this law:

In a polygamy / unlawful cohabitation case, the lawful husband or wife is a competent witness.
Adultery, incest, and fornication are punishable crimes (prison time or fine).
All marriage ceremonies are to be recorded publicly.
All polygamous children born prior to 12 months after the passage of this act are legitimized.
The Attorney-General of the United States will institute proceedings on forfeited or escheated property as designated under the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (Section 3). For Utah, this primarily means property from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company.
The Church and Perpetual Emigration Fund Company were disincorporated.
Women could no longer vote in Utah.
Nauvoo Legion and local militia were abolished.
Anyone convicted of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation were disfranchised.
To vote, you had to promise to obey the law (polygamy laws) and not teach others to break it.

The law from 1887 is copied below in its entirety - hopefully the typos are minimal to non-existent.

The Statutes at Large of the United States of America
From December, 1885, to March, 1887
Volume XXIV [24] - reference pages 635-641

March 3, 1887
Chapter 397 - An act to amend an act entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Sec. 1. That in any proceeding or examination before a grand jury, a judge, justice, or a United States commissioner, or a court, in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of the United States, the lawful husband or wife of the person accused shall be a competent witness, and may be called, but shall not be compelled to testify in such proceeding, examination, or prosecution without the consent of the husband or wife, as the case may be; and such witness shall not be permitted to testify as to any statement or communication made by either husband or wife to each other, during the existence of the marriage relation, deemed confidential at common law.

     Sec. 2. That in an prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation under any statute of the United States, whether before a United States commissioner, justice, judge, a grand jury, or any court, an attachment for any witness may be issued by the court, judge, or commissioner, without a previous subpoena, compelling the immediate attendance of such witness, when it shall appear by oath or affirmation, to the commissioner, justice, judge, or court, as the case may be, that there is reasonable ground to believe that such witness will unlawfully fail to obey a subpoena issued and served in the usual course in such cases; and in such case the usual witness-fee shall be paid to such witness so attached:  Provided, That the person so attached may at any time secure his or her discharge from custody by executing a recognizance with sufficient surety, conditioned for the appearance of such person at the proper time, as a witness in the cause or proceeding where in the attachment may be issued.

     Sec. 3. That whoever commits adultery shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years; and when the act is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery; and when such act is committed between a married man and a woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery.

     Sec. 4. That if any person related to another person within and not including the fourth degree of consanguinity computed according to the rules of the civil law, shall marry or cohabit with, or have sexual intercourse with such other so related person, knowing her or him to be within said-degree of relationship, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of incest, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than three years and not more than fifteen years.

     Sec. 5. That if an unmarried man or woman commit fornication, each of them shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars.

     Sec. 6. That all laws of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah which provide that prosecutions for adultery can only be commenced on the complaint of the husband or wife are hereby disapproved and annulled; and all prosecutions for adultery may hereafter be instituted in the same way that prosecutions for other crimes are.

     Sec. 7. That commissioners appointed by the supreme court and district courts in the Territory of Utah shall possess and may exercise all the powers and jurisdiction that are or may be possessed or exercised by justices of the peace in said Territory under the laws thereof, and the same powers conferred by law on commissioners appointed by circuit courts of the United States.

     Sec. 8. That the marshal of said Territory of Utah, and his deputies, shall possess and may exercise all the powers in executing the laws of the United States or of said Territory, possessed and exercised by sheriffs, constables, and their deputies as peace officers; and each of them shall cause all offenders against the law, in his view, to enter into recognizant to keep the peace and to appear at the next term of the court having jurisdiction of the case, and to commit to jail in case of failure to give such recognizance. They shall quell and suppress assaults and batteries, riots, routs, affrays, and insurrections.

     Sec. 9. That every ceremony of marriage, or in the nature of a marriage ceremony, of any kind, in any of the Territories of the United States, whether either or both or more of the parties to such ceremony be lawfully competent to be the subjects of such marriage or ceremony or not, shall be certified by a certificate stating the fact and nature of such ceremony, the full names of each of the parties concerned, and the full name of every officer, priest, and person, by whatever style or designation called or known, in any way taking part in the performance of such ceremony, and shall be by the officer, priest, or other person solemnizing such marriage or ceremony filed in the office of the probate court, or, if there be none, in the office of court having probate powers in the county or district in which such ceremony shall take place, for record, and shall be immediately recorded, and be at all times subject to inspection as other public records. Such certificate, or the record thereof, or a duly certified copy of such record, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts required by this act to be stated therein, in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in which the matter shall be drawn in question. Any person who shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not longer than two years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

     Sec. 10. That nothing in this act shall be held to prevent the proof of marriages, whether lawful or unlawful, by any evidence now legally admissible for that purpose.

     Sec. 11. That the laws enacted by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah which provide for or recognize the capacity of illegitimate children to inherit or to be entitled to any distributive share in the estate of the father of any such illegitimate child are hereby disapproved and annulled; and no illegitimate child shall hereafter be entitled to inherit from his or her father or to receive and distributive share in the estate of his or her father: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any illegitimate child born within twelve months after the passage of this act, nor to any child made legitimate by the seventh section of the act entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to giamy, and for other purposes", approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two.

     Sec. 12. That the laws enacted by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah conferring jurisdiction upon probate courts, or the judges thereof, or any of them, in said Territory, other than in respect of the estates of deceased persons, and in respect of the guardianship of the persons and property of infants, and in respect of the persons and property of persons not of sound mind, are hereby disapproved and annulled; and no probate court or judge of probate shall exercise any jurisdiction other than in respect of the matters aforesaid, except as a member of a county court; and every such jurisdiction so by force of this act withdrawn from the said probate courts or judges shall be had and exercised by the district courts of said Territory respectively.

     Sec. 13. That it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to institute and prosecute proceedings to forfeit and escheat to the United States the property of corporations obtained or held in violation of section three of the act of Congress approved the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah", or in violation of section eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah", or in violation of section eighteen hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes of the United States; and all such property so forfeited and escheated to the United States shall be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior, and the proceeds thereof applied to the use and benefit of the common schools in the Territory in which such property may be: Provided, That no building, or the grounds appurtenant thereto, which is held and occupied exclusively for purposes of the worship of God, or parsonage connected therewith, or burial ground shall be forfeited.

     Sec. 14. That in any proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions of law against corporations or associations acquiring or holding property in any Territory of the United States in excess of the amount limited by law, the court before which such proceeding may be instituted shall have power in a summary way to compel the production of all books, records, papers, and documents of or belonging to any trustee or person holding or controlling or managing property in which such corporation may have any right, title, or interest whatever.

     Sec. 15. That all laws of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, or of the so-called government of the State of Deseret, creating, organizing, amending, or continuing the corporation or association called the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company are hereby disapproved and annulled; and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, any legal existence, is hereby dissolved; and it shall not be lawful for the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah to create, organize, or in any manner recognize any such corporation or association, or to pass any law for the purpose of or operating to accomplish the bringing of persons into the said Territory for any purpose whatsoever.

     Sec. 16. That it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to cause such proceedings to be taken in the supreme court of the Territory of Utah as shall be proper to carry into effect the provisions of the preceding section, and pay the debts and to dispose of the property and assets of said corporation according to law. Said property and assets, in excess of the debts and the amount of any lawful claims established by the court against the same, shall escheat to the United States, and shall be taken, invested, and disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior, under the direction of the President of the United States, for the benefit of common schools in said Territory.

     Sec. 17. That the acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-DayDeseret incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal force and validity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, and legal existence, is hereby dissolved. That it shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to cause such proceedings to be taken in the supreme court of the Territory of Utah as shall be proper to execute the foregoing provisions of this section and to wind up the affairs of said corporation conformably to law; and in such proceedings the court shall have power, and it shall be its duty, to make such decree or decrees as shall be proper to effectuate the transfer of the title to real property now held and used by said corporation for places of worship, and parsonages connected therewith, and burial grounds and of the description mentioned in the proviso to section thirteen of this act and in section twenty-six of this act, to the respective trustees mentioned in section twenty-six of this act; and for the purposes of this section said court shall have all the powers of a court of equity.

     Sec. 18. (a) A widow shall be endowed of third part of all the lands whereof her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance at any time during the marriage unless she shall have lawfully released her right thereto.

     (b) The widow of any alien who at the time of his death shall be entitled by law to hold any real estate, if she be an inhabitant of the Territory at the time of such death, shall be entitled to dower of such estate in the same manner as if such alien had been a native citizen.

     (c) If a husband seized of an estate of inheritance in lands exchanges them for other lands, his widow shall not have dower of both, but shall make her election to be endowed of the lands given or of those taken in exchange; and if such election be not evinced by the commencement of proceedings to recover her dower of the lands given in exchange within one year after the death of her husband, she shall be deemed to have elected to take her dower of the lands received in exchange.

     (d) When a person seized of an estate of inheritance in lands shall have executed a mortgage, or other conveyance in the nature of mortgage, of such estate, before marriage, his widow shall nevertheless be entitled to dower out of the lands mortgaged or so conveyed, as against every person except the mortgagee or grantee in such conveyance and those claiming under him.

     (e) Where a husband shall purchase lands during coverture, and shall at the same time execute a mortgage, or other conveyance in the nature of mortgage, of his estate in such lands to secure the payment of the purchase-money, his widow shall not be entitled to dower out of such lands, as against the mortgagee or grantee in such conveyance or those claiming under him, although she shall not have united in such mortgage; but she shall be entitled to her dower in such lands as against all other persons.

     (f) Where in such case the mortgagee, or such grantee or those claiming under him, shall, after the death of the husband of such widow, cause the land mortgaged or so conveyed to be sold, either under a power of sale contained in the mortgage or such conveyance or by virtue of the decree of a court if any surplus shall remain after payment of the moneys due on such mortgage or such conveyance, and the costs and charges of the sale, such widow shall nevertheless be entitled to the interest or income of the one-third part of such surplus for her life, as her dower.

     (g) A widow shall not be endowed of lands conveyed to her husband by way of mortgage unless he acquire an absolute estate therein during the marriage period.

     (L) In case of divorce dissolving the marriage contract for the misconduct of the wife, she shall not be endowed.

     Sec. 19. That hereafter the judge of probate in each county within the Territory of Utah provided for by the existing laws thereof shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and so much of the laws of said Territory as provide for the election of such judge by the legislative assembly are hereby disapproved and annulled.

     Sec. 20. That it shall not be lawful for any female to vote at any election hereafter held in the Territory of Utah for any public purpose whatever, and no such vote shall be received or counted or given effect in any manner whatever; and any and every act of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah providing for or allowing the registration or voting by females is hereby annulled.

     Sec. 21. That all laws of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah which provide for numbering or identifying the votes of the electors at any election in said Territory are hereby disapproved and annulled; but the foregoing provision shall not preclude the lawful registration of voters, or any other provisions for securing fair elections which do not involve the disclosure of the candidates for whom any particular elector shall have voted.

     Sec. 22. That the existing election districts and apportionments of representation concerning the members of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah are hereby abolished; and it shall be the duty of the governor, Territorial secretary, and Board of Commissioners mentioned in section nine of the act of Congress approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes", in said Territory, forthwith to redistrict said Territory, and apportion representation in the same in such manner as to provide, as nearly as may be, for an equal representation of the people (excepting Indians not taxed), being citizen of the United States, according to numbers, in said legislative assembly, and to the number of members of the council and house of representatives, respectively, as now established by law; and a record of the establishment of such new districts and the apportionment of representation thereto shall be made in the office of the secretary of said Territory, and such establishment and representation shall continue until Congress shall otherwise provide; and no persons other than citizens of the United States otherwise qualified shall be entitled to vote at any election in said Territory.

     Sec. 23. That the provisions of section nine of said act approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, in regard to registration and election officers, and the registration of voters, and the conduct of elections, and the powers and duties of the Board therein mentioned, shall continue and remain operative until the provisions and laws therein referred to to be made and enacted by the legislative assembly of said Territory of Utah shall have been made and enacted by said assembly and shall have been approved by Congress.

     Sec. 24. That every male person twenty-one years of age resident in the Territory of Utah shall, as a condition precedent to his right to register or vote at any election in said Territory, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation, before the registration officer of his voting precinct, that he is over twenty-one years of age, and has resided in the Territory of Utah for six months then last passed and in the precinct for one month immediately preceding the date thereof, and that he is a native-born (or naturalized, as the case may be) citizen of the United States, and further state in such oath or affirmation his full name, with his age, place of business, his status, whether single or married, and, if married, the name of his lawful wife, and that he will support the Constitution of the United States and will faithfully obey the laws thereof, and especially will obey the act of Congress approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," and will also obey this this act in respect of the crimes in said act defined and forbidden, and that he will not, directly or indirectly, aid, abet, counsel, or advise, any other person to commit any of said crimes. Such registration officer is authorized to administer said oath or affirmation; and all such oaths or affirmations shall be by him delivered to the clerk of the probate court of the proper county, and shall be deemed public records therein. But if any election shall occur in said Territory before the next revision of the registration lists as required by law, the said oath or affirmation shall be administered by the presiding judge of the election precinct on or before the day of election. As a condition precedent to the right to hold office in or under said Territory, the officer, before entering on the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation declaring his full name, with his age, place of business, his status, whether married or single, and, if married, the name of his lawful wife, and that he will support the Constitution of the United States and will faithfully obey the laws thereof, and especially will obey the act of Congress approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, entitled "An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes," and will also obey this act in respect of the crimes in said act defined and forbidden, and that he will not, directly or indirectly, aid or abet, counsel or advise, any other person to commit any of said crimes; which oath or affirmation shall be recorded in the proper office and indorsed on the commission or certificate of appointment. All grand and petit jurors in said Territory shall take the same oath or affirmation to be administered, in writing or orally, in the proper court. No person shall be entitled to vote in any election in said Territory who shall not have taken the oath or affirmation aforesaid. No person who shall have been convicted of any crime under this act, or under the act of Congress aforesaid approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, or who shall be a polygamist, or who shall associate or cohabit polygamously with persons of the other sex, shall be entitled to vote in any election in said Territory, or be capable of jury service, or to hold any office of trust or emolument in said Territory.

     Sec. 25. That the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools created by the laws of Utah is hereby abolished; and it shall be the duty of the supreme court of said Territory to appoint a commissioner of schools, who shall possess and exercise all the powers and duties heretofore imposed by the laws of said Territory upon the Territorial superintendent of district schools, and who shall receive the same salary and compensation, which shall be paid out of the treasury of said Territory; and the laws of the Territory of Utah providing for the method of election and appointment of such Territorial superintendent of district schools are hereby suspended until the further action of Congress shall be had in respect thereto. The said superintendent shall have power to prohibit the use in any district school of any book of a sectarian character or otherwise unsuitable. Said superintendent shall collect and classify statistics and other information respecting the district and other schools in said Territory, showing their progress, the whole number of children of school age, the number who attend school in each year in respective counties, the average length of time of their attendance, the number of teachers who are Mormons, the number who are so-called gentiles, the number of children of Mormon parents and the number of children of so-called gentile parents, and their respective average attendance at school; all of which statistics and information shall be annually reported to Congress, through the governor of said Territory and the Department of the Interior.

      Sec. 26. That all religious societies, sects, and congregations shall have the right to hold and hold, through trustees appointed by any court exercising probate powers in a Territory, only on the nomination of the authorities of such society, sect, or congregation, so much real property for the erection or use of houses of worship, and for such parsonages and burial grounds as shall be necessary for the convenience and use of the several congregations of such religious society, sect, or congregation.

     Sec. 27. That all laws passed by the so-called State of Deseret and by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah for the organization of the militia thereof or for the creation of the Nauvoo Legion are hereby annulled, and declared of no effect; and the militia of Utah shall be organized and subjected in all respects to the laws of the United States regulating the militia in the Territories: Provided, however, That all general officers of the militia shall be appointed by the governor of the Territory, by and with the advice and consent of the council thereof. The legislative assembly of Utah shall have power to pass laws for organizing the militia thereof, subject to the approval of Congress.

Received by the President, February 19, 1887.

[Note by the Department of State - The foregoing act having been presented to the President of the United States for his approval, and not having been returned by him to the house of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become a law without his approval.] The bill automatically became a law on March 3, 1887.

Reed Smoot House

2010-06-18T16:30:00.014-06:00

I have been wanting to get by and see this house for quite some time. Finally! The pictures in this post were all taken by me; so if there are any photographers out there looking at this and scratching their heads over the angle, view, lighting, etc. ... it's because I'm just a point-and-shoot kind of photographer.

From what I saw, the house was in absolutely amazing condition, inside and out. I learned that the owner was the great-great-grandson of Reed Smoot. Wow! After a few minutes of talking I was invited inside to the parlor. I did not take photographs of the inside of the house - perhaps that will come later (I felt as if I were already intruding enough and it would have been rude. So, because I didn't want to become too much of a tourist photographing everything I saw ... click, click, click, I didn't even ask; I just appreciated the invitation and talked with the owner a little). The house has been kept in the family since Reed Smoot lived there and it is therefore, essentially in the same condition as when he left. There is original wood, heating, a large painting of Reed (complete with a mustache) and another of his father (A.O. Smoot). One thing that floored me (pun intended), thinking about it now, is that the floors did not creak when I walked on them. I've been in older houses with wood floors and you can hear them as you walk. I heard nothing but silence as I walked into the house. Nicely done, Smoot family. I guess they just don't make things (houses) like they used to. I saw a photograph on the wall of the Smoot family outside the house with essentially the same view of the house as the photograph below. The family was all standing a few feet apart inside the front fence on the corner. This photo was in black and white, obviously, and the trees, bushes, etc., around the house were smaller, but the house looked the same as what I have shown below.

Something I was told, by the house owner, that I did not know: Reed Smoot was 6'-3''. Obviously there are many things I don't know, but I found that piece of information interesting. He was a rather large man for that day and age. Wikipedia doesn't have that little piece of information.

I was told that Reed Smoot lived in the house for only about 12 years. I'm not sure of the time frame that would cover yet; however, I do know that he moved to Washington D.C. (from this house) permanently - I believe it was around 1902 to 1904. Some quick math can get you a basic move-in date, and knowing the house was built in 1892 (there's a stone marker on the house itself that registers this date - and it was built for him; the plate below claims that), can also fill in some of that timeline. I'll get more definite information on this and fill it in later. With the above timeframe in the house that I believe is correct (1892-1902/4), he would have lived in this house when he was called to be an Apostle in 1900, when he was elected as Senator from Utah in 1902, and possibly when his seat was challenged, in 1904.

The house is located in pretty much downtown central Provo, Utah. Photos follow. All have been resized from the original 3000 pixels, down to 1024x768.

Lectures on Faith - A Brief History

2010-06-16T21:11:00.015-06:00

The Lectures on Faith have always captivated and intrigued me. The writings, the teachings, the ideas that were and are explained from them just fascinate me. Because of this, I decided that I wanted to learn a little bit more about the history behind them - that's what this post is about.

History of the Creation of the Lectures on Faith

In December 1832, a revelation was given to Joseph Smith that instructed him to establish a "School of the Prophets" to instruct the presidency, officers of the church, and all who are called to the ministry (high priests on down to deacons). The current LDS version of the D&C has this revelation (reference: D&C 88:117-127).

The School of the Prophets began meeting on January 23, 1833, in Kirtland, Ohio, and was intended primarily for leaders of the Church. Joseph typically led the instruction in this class as it ran from January through April of 1833, in an upper room of the Newel K. Whitney store. Some very amazing things happened during this time with the school.

To fulfill the rest of the revelation, the School of the Elders began the next winter and was held from November 1834 through March 1835, and November 1835 through March 1836. With this school, it is believed that some 200-300 people passed through. It is for the School of the Elders that the Lectures on Theology (to be called Lectures on Faith later) were written. Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, W.W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, and probably others participated in the creation of these lectures. However, the ultimate responsibility for the lecture content belongs to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Zebedee Coltrin stated in 1883, that the Lectures were not given in the original location of the School of the Prophets, "but in a larger school on the hill afterwards, where Sidney Rigdon presided" (Coltrin's Testimony, 11 October 1883; The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory, BYU Master Thesis, 1970). This "larger school" referred to the printing office built on a lot near the temple site, on land of much higher elevation than the valley where the store was located.

The content of the lessons with the Elders was both theological and secular in nature. English grammar, Greek, and Hebrew were topics in addition to the course in theology that were studied. English grammar was studied due to the fact that many adults of this time period could neither read nor write. It was quickly recognized by the prophet that all missionaries going forth needed to know how to read and be educated to communicate with other educated people. If the missionaries couldn't actually read the Book of Mormon, they would have a hard time convincing people to do the same. This was a class to teach people how to be missionaries so that, as Joseph said, "they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" and these students "gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ" (History of the Church 2:169-170, 176; hereafter HC).

Joseph records this of the Lectures given in the school: "Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures of theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature" (HC 2:175-176).

There are 7 lectures in total, and from a few studies conducted, it would appear that the authorship for them is as such:

Lecture 1 - Sidney Rigdon
Lecture 2 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
Lecture 3 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
Lecture 4 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
Lecture 5 - Joseph Smith (another study suggests W.W. Phelps)
Lecture 6 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
Lecture 7 - Sidney Rigdon

The authorship of the Lectures is reviewed by Alan J. Phipps in a Masters Thesis at BYU entitled, The Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study, April 1977. Phipps' conclusion of the matter is as follows:

The study showed that Sidney Rigdon's use of function words corresponded very closely with that in Lectures One and Seven, and fairly well with Two, Three, Four, and Six. Joseph Smith's use of function words matched closely those in Lecture Five, with some evidence of his having co-authored or edited Two, Three, Four, and Six ... The data and tests appear, therefore, to assign the authorship of the Lectures on Faith mainly to Sidney Rigdon, with Lecture Five and perhaps some parts of the other lectures, except One and Seven, to Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith's role may have been more than to author Lecture Five and to add a few explanatory paragraphs to the ending of Lectures Two, Three, and Four and several paragraphs to Lecture Six. It is possible the Lectures were produced by discussion, with Sidney Rigdon as scribe or as the reworker of the rough draft. After reading the rough draft, Joseph Smith could have suggested changes and decided to author his own lecture, the fifth, to round out the series ... If they had been entirely Joseph Smith's or Sidney Rigdon's or any other person's, it seem probable their authorship would have been divulged.

The study says many more things about the analysis, methods used, etc.; however, the main point and conclusion are all that matter to me at the moment (Phipps, pp. 66-67. Link: here).

Brief Doctrinal Overview of the Lectures:

Lecture 1 - Explains what faith is.
Lecture 2 - Shows the object on which faith rests.
Lecture 3 - Details the character, perfections, and attributes of God. What is necessary to exercise faith.
Lecture 4 - True faith in God depends upon correct ideas and knowledge.
Lecture 5 - Declaration of the nature of God.
Lecture 6 - Why the knowledge of one's course in life is acceptable to God is necessary.
Lecture 7 - Shows the effects or results that flow from true faith.

Inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants

Joseph Smith's journal records that: "During the month of January [in 1835], I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants" (HC 2:180). It seems that Joseph was taking the lectures delivered in the school, and was reworking them for publication in the Book of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church.

On September 24, 1834, the High Council at Kirtland met (HC 2:165). Among some of the things they talked about, one was specific to the creation of a book of revelations with a committee of four men comprised to choose what would be included in the book. Here is a section of the minutes from that meeting:

The council then proceeded to appoint a committe to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints, which Church was organized and commenced its rise on the 6th of April, 1830. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made.

Councilor Samuel H. Smith nominated President Joseph Smith, Jun., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams to compose said committee, which was seconded by Councilor Hyrum Smith. The councilors then gave their vote in the affirmative, which was also agreed to by the whole conference.

The council then decided that said committee, after arranging and publishing said Book of Covenants, have the avails of the same.

Approximately one year later this same committee of four recommended to the Church the publication of a book they had compiled. The book was to be known as The Doctrine and Covenants, and would consist of two parts:

THEOLOGY. LECTURE [number, like FIRST]. On the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Faith. ==> This is what we know today as the Lectures on Faith, and each Lecture had a title page for it individually (LECTURE SECOND, etc.).
PART SECOND. Covenants and Commandments of the Lord to his servants of this church of the Latter Day Saints. ==> This is what today we call the Doctrine and Covenants and currently contains some 138 sections of revelations from the Lord.

From the title pages of the 1835 edition, it is evident that the Lectures composed what the prophet considered the doctrine of the Church, and the modern day revelations composed the covenants and commandments to the Church; combined, this book was the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church.

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith was deeply involved in the creation and publication of the Lectures for the Church. Of the Lectures, John Taylor said that they were "published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

The preface to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants reads, in part, as follows:

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints -
DEAR BRETHREN:
     We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe.
     The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place [Kirtland, Ohio], and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we arranged them into the following work.
     The second part contains items of principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones.

The preface was signed by the First Presidency of the Church: Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams - the same who were appointed to the committee.

The recommendation of the committee was given in a Conference of the Church on August 17, 1835.

A general assembly of the Church of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland on the 17th of August, 1835, to take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church ... [the committee] having finished said book according to the instructions given them, deem it necessary to call a general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the Church; that it may , if approved, become a law and a rule of faith and practice to the Church.

The last sentence does not differentiate which part of the book becomes law and rule of faith and practice. This acceptance would be for the entire Church. President Joseph Smith, Jr., and Frederick G. Williams were away from Kirtland at this time in Michigan. Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were in Kirtland to preside at this meeting of the Saints. As an aside, this is the meeting where the section on marriage was read and included in the Doctrine and Covenants by vote of the membership.

After some priesthood organizations, the following is recorded:

President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints," in behalf of the committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book.
...
Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.

At this point many men stood and testified as to the truthfulness of the book and that it should be accepted and "acknowledged as the doctrine and covenants of their faith," including a written letter signed by the 12 apostles (included in the Introduction to current versions of the D&C). The testimony of John Smith is often cited as showing a difference between the revelations and the lectures that were included in the book. Notice: The revelations "were true," and the lectures "were profitable for doctrine." He didn't say they were true - I realize that is a very small gnat that I'm straining at there. After all of the testimonies were given, the following is recorded:

The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labor of the committee.

Unanimous by the authorities and general assembly of the Church in the affirmative to accept the committee recommendation for the book. I find no other explanation of that sentence other than to say that this is simply the canonization of the book which includes the Lectures on Faith as the doctrine and the revelations from God as the covenants and commandments (HC 2:243-251). The Saints finally have their doctrine, and their covenants, in a single book which has been accepted and canonized by all in attendance at conference assembled.

Decanonization of the Lectures on Faith

I say "decononization" because that is what I consider the removal of the Lectures from the D&C to be, a lowering of the standards at which the LDS Church considered the text of the Lectures. No longer were they considered on par with the revelations Joseph received; they were not quite scripture anymore.

It would stand to reason that if the Lectures were included by a unanimous vote of the Church assembled in conference in 1835, that they could and should be removed by a unanimous (or maybe a majority) vote of the Church assembled in conference. It didn't happen that way. In 1921, a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was printed with the Lectures removed, and a note attached explaining why; no conference vote was taken.

In the Introduction of the current edition of the D&C, the following paragraph is found:

Beginning with the 1835 edition a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the “Lectures on Faith.” These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834-1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church.

I don't mind the removal of the Lectures, that's fine. However, I do scratch my head about the method in which they were removed. It seemed ... rather ... sneaky; even with the attached note about the removal. Unless Joseph recorded the history wrong, I thought they were "given or presented" to the whole Church as doctrine, and they were voted upon, thus they were binding to the whole church. Right?

If the Lectures weren't a revelation, then was section 134 a revelation? Or section 135? How about the Articles of Faith - revelation? They are all canonized and hold the exact same position with other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants as being scripture for the Church. D&C 68:4 has the definition for scripture: "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture." If Joseph didn't have the spirit when he helped create the Lecture content, then something was definitely wrong. However, I don't think being classified as a revelation or scripture is the key to being canonized - it is acceptance by the Church in conference assembled.

As I understand it (can't find the reference now), the 1921 committee was interested in including possibly up to 20 other "new" revelations in the D&C that had not been included before. None were allowed or deemed advisable to include. These were revelations received by other prophets (John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff spring to mind immediately), and although they were doctrinally sound, already agreed as revelations by previous administrations of the Church, they were not put in. I'm okay with that as well; but, I would like to read them eventually. The point is, being classified as a "revelation" is not good enough. Being classified as "doctrine of the Church" is not good enough. The Church must ratify whatever doctrine or rule or revelation before it becomes binding.

Reed Smoot Testimony Helps Clarify the Church Rule on Doctrinal Canonization

I've put in a quote from the Reed Smoot hearings from President Joseph F. Smith. This comes from Day #4 of the hearings (March 5, 1904). Mr. Worthington is asking about how rules/revelations become binding upon the Church as a whole:

Mr. Worthington. Let me ask you whether anything which is intended for the government of the church and proceeds from the president and has first been approved by the apostles -
Mr. Smith. How is that?
Mr. Worthington. When it has been introduced by the president, submitted to the apostles and approved by them, and is then submitted to the body of the church and in general conference approved by the church, whether it is binding upon the members of the church - whether it is a revelation or a rule.
Mr. Smith. It is equally binding on the church, whether it is a revelation or a rule.
Mr. Worthington. And a man who disobeys it would be just as much out of harmony if it were a rule as if it were a revelation?
Mr. Smith. Just the same.

Submitted properly. Voted on properly. It doesn't matter if it is a revelation or a rule or a doctrinal point - it is binding (I added the last one, because that makes sense). It doesn't matter what is presented, if the conference votes and accepts - it's binding.

This next section of qutoes is from Day #1 of the testimony given by President Joseph F. Smith:

Mr. Smith. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.
Mr. Worthington. What do you mean by being presented to the church?
Mr. Smith. Presented in conference.
Mr. Tayler. Do you mean by that that the church in conference may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president of the church, "We deny that God has told you to tell us this?"
Mr. Smith. They can say that if they choose.
Mr. Tayler. They can say it?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; they can. And it is not binding upon them as members of the church until they accept it.
Mr. Tayler. Until they accept it?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.

Not much I can comment on here, it just reinforces what was quoted before. This is the rule/law of the Church. It was followed in Kirtland, and appears to have been, well ... not followed in Salt Lake. Again, I don't have a problem with the removal, it was the right move, I just scratch my head about the method.

I'll see if I can review the history of what happened here.

In 1879, Orson Pratt proposed to President John Taylor that perhaps the Lectures should be removed from the Doctrine and Covenants and published separately, outside of the binding of the Doctrine and Covenants. President Taylor responded to the question with the following reply: "The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate, not at present" (Woodford 1:86-87). President Taylor was staunchly opposed to anything that would go against what the Prophet Joseph had done. He would not remove the Lectures - they would stay where they were for now.

In 1917, a committee was appointed by the First Presidency consisting of George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, James E. Talmage, and Melvin J. Ballard to review and revise the entire Doctrine and Covenants. Later on Joseph Fielding Smith and John A. Widtsoe were added to the committee.

In July, 1940, John William Fitzgerald spoke with Joseph Fielding Smith and John A. Widtsoe about the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants. Elder Smith gave the following reasons for their removal:

They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the godhead. More complete instructions on this point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876, and all subsequent editions of The Doctrine and Covenants.
It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments of revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants.

The above 4 reasons were "verbal statements made to the writer by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles and present, 1940, Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This statement was given to the writer July 22, 1940. Elder Smith and Elder John A. Widtsoe were both members of the above mentioned committee" (A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, John William Fitzgerald, BYU Masters Thesis, 1940, pp. 345-346 [emphasis added by me]. Link: here).

I want to spend a little bit of time just documenting what Elder Talmage thought was problematic with the Lectures on Faith, doctrinally. The Lecture that is at the center of the controversy is Lecture 5. Earlier in this post I documented that Joseph Smith was most likely the author of this Lecture, so that makes the doctrine talked about here all the more interesting and relevant to the reasons it was removed. Quoted below is a piece of a verse from Lecture 5:

Verse 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme, power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son - the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man ... and is called the Son because of the flesh ... And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one ...

That is the verse, or section of text, that I believe there are the most problems with. First off this is not congruent with current LDS beliefs. The above statement is even in contradiction to other statements made by the Prophet Joseph Smith. This statement (above) was made in 1834-1835 time frame. By 1843, Joseph reframed the doctrine of the Father and the Son with this statement:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us (D&C 130:22).

Comparing the two statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith for doctrinal differences, it is obvious they are completely different in their understanding of God. The first speaks of the Father as a personage of spirit and the Son as having a body. The second records that both the Father and the Son have bodies. The first states that the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Father and the Son together. The second states the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, making three distinct beings that comprise the godhead.

It is also helpful to know that section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants was added in 1876, under the direction of Brigham Young. At that time twenty-six additional revelations were added to the canonization of the scriptures (sections: 2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108–111, 113–118, 120–123, 125, 126, 129–132, and 136). I mention this because the Lectures were still part of the D&C in 1876. So, with the Lectures in the front, and section 130:22 contradicting Lecture #5, something had to be done. I believe this is why Orson Pratt wrote to President John Taylor some 2 years after Brigham Young's death asking his opinion about removing the Lectures. He may have asked Brigham the same question ("Can we remove the Lectures?") and been told no then as well. Inconsistencies in the scriptures would lead to "confusion and contention" on this extremely vital point of doctrine; Elder Talmage was correct.

I also find it interesting that this verse in Lecture 5 starts out very much like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed. Perhaps this is the "Mormon Creed" of that era. Here's the original Nicene Creed from 325 A.D (thank you wikipedia).

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: "There was a time when he was not;" and "He was not before he was made;" and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable" - they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

I also find it odd that the Joseph Smith translation of John 4:24 disagrees with the above statement. That scripture says the following (KJV - link):

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.

The JST for that verse says the following (link):

For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

By July of 1833, Joseph had finished his translation pass-through of the Bible. Most of this time when he worked on it, Sidney Rigdon was by his side. It was at the end of this year [1833] that the revelation recorded at the beginning of this post was given. I point this out only because Joseph had gone through the scriptures and retranslated John 4:24 - he knew that the "God is a Spirit" phrase didn't fit; and yet, he still wrote out Lecture 5. I have no explanation for that. Some things, like a better explanation of this seeming contradiction, will just have to wait until later - perhaps much later.

However, it was a simple, relatively, matter taken up by the D&C committee appointed by the First Presidency. This had to be fixed, and it was. James E. Talmage made the correct decision by recommending that the Lectures be removed from the same binding as the revelations in the scriptures. In my opinion, all of the points made by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith make sense in light of a full review of the facts.

Yes, there was some things that probably could have been handled better; for instance the removal without Church approval (body of the Church approval). However, all in all, since the right move was made, I find no fault.

I close with a quote from Larry E. Dahl:

The Lectures on Faith were written and published in the Doctrine and Covenants by men called of God to lead the Church in 1834. The decision not to print them in the Doctrine and Covenants was made by men called of God to lead the Church in 1921. I submit both actions were appropriate (Larry E. Dahl and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective, p.19).

Conclusion for me:
I had a blast running through this history learning about the Lectures, the D&C history, and the evolving of LDS doctrine (specific to the Godhead) over the course of time. It's been absolutely a great time learning this history.

Laws Against Polygamy - 1882 (Edmunds Act)

2010-06-12T19:38:00.039-06:00

Laws Against Polygamy - 1862 (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)

2010-06-09T09:36:00.025-06:00

This is an off-shoot from the Reed Smoot hearing testimonies that I have been churning through. Some of the conversations in the hearing deal with the laws against polygamy enacted by the United States Congress. So, I wanted to have these readily available for review.

Other posts in this series:

Some History and Backgound to this Bill:

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew about the doctrine of plural marriage prior to its acknowledgment and being recorded in 1843. Joseph began the practice of polygamy around 1835 (when he married Fanny Alger plurally), which would be a little after the time when he was going through the Bible and retranslating it, and would put the Saints in both Kirtland, Ohio and Missouri - not Nauvoo, Illinois. This time frame also matches with the heading in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants which says that the prophet knew of this doctrine since 1831 (reference: LDS D&C Section 132). However, this section was not officially added to the D&C until 1876, by Brigham Young. Prior to this time, the section known to the Community of Christ Church today as Section 111 was included (reference: CofC D&C Section 111) as the scripture on marriage.

After the Mormons had made their way to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the practice of polygamy continued, but it was not broadcast. However, that all changed in Salt Lake on August 29, 1852, when Apostle Orson Pratt gave a talk entitled "Celestial Marriage," which announced officially to the country that the Mormons were practicing polygamy (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pg. 53 - here). This declaration was done with the approval of Brigham Young. At this time, there was no longer the hush and whisper method of containing this practice. It was now freely and openly admitted, logically backed up with scriptures to justify its practice as a religious institution, and practiced openly in the Territory.

In 1856, the Republican party selected as its national platform the abolishment of the "twin relics of barbarism - polygamy and slavery." This was the platform that Abraham Lincoln ran on, and it shows the concern of the politicians and the citizens of the country to this growing problem in Utah.

Mormons in the State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) were desperately trying to become a State in the Union so that they could officially legalize polygamy in the State. It was however, very clear, that one of the main reasons their petitions for statehood were rejected by Congress was due to the practice of polygamy - because it undermined the concept of marriage, an institution that is necessary for a free society.

Many in Washington considered the practice of polygamy and refusal of Brigham Young to deal with it as a rebellion against the Government of the United States. Because of this, the "Mormon Rebellion" had to be stopped, and military plans were drawn up. At the urging of many Washington politicians in Buchanan's administration, President James Buchanan sent out troops to replace Brigham Young as the Territorial governor. The Federal Government in Washingon, D.C., was going to force the hand of the Mormons to obey and honor the correct form of government. Here is the reaction of Brigham (New York Times article: November 19, 1857) when he was informed that an army was on its way to Utah.

On April 6, 1858, President Buchanan, issued a proclamation "Respecting the Rebellion and Mormon Troubles in the Territory of Utah." This was in response to Brigham Young's reaction to the troops headed to Utah, and the burning of supply wagons for the army by Mormon raiders. The Mormons were labeled as terrorists and subversive. They were told that they were given every opportunity to live within the government of a free nation, but refused and rebelled against it. Every appointed official in Utah could not accomplish their job for fear of retribution and possibly assassination by the commnity. (United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 11, pages 796-798).

"The great mass of those settlers [pioneers in Utah], acting under the influence of leaders to whom they seem to have surrendered their judgment, refuse to be controlled by any other authority ... the hatred of that misguided people for the just and legal authority of the government had become so intense that they resolved to measure their military strength with that of the Union ... While the troops of the United States were on their march, a train of baggage-wagons, which happened to be unprotected, was attacked and destroyed by a portion of the Mormon forces, and the provisions and stores with which the train was laden were wantonly burnt ... In short, their present attitude is one of decided and unreserved enmity to the United States and to all their loyal citizens.

"Fellow-citizens of Utah ! this is rebellion against the government to which you owe allegiance. It is levying war against the United States, and involves you in the guilt of treason ... it is mere madness to suppose that, with your limited resources, you can successfully resist the force of this great and powerful nation ... Do not decieve yourselves nor try to mislead others by propagating the idea that this is a crusade against your religion ... [I offer] to the inhabitants of Utah, who shall submit to the laws, a free pardon for the seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed."

From the "History of Salt Lake City" comes this quote:

"Burning the supplies of an army of the United States, sent by the Government to put down an incipient rebellion, was declared to be an extraordinary overt act of actual war, while the proclamation of Governor Young was considered as a veritable declaration of war as from an independent power. A terrible wrath was aroused against the Mormon Utah."

Brigham Young's words on to U.S. Captain Van Vliet on this occasion give pause:

"We are aware that such will be the case; but when those troops arive they will find Utah a desert. Every house will be burned to the ground, every tree cut down and every field left waste. We have three years' provisions on hand, which we will 'cache,' and then take to the mountains and bid defiance to all the powers of the government" (History of Salt Lake City, pg. 175 - both quotes).

The reconstituted Nauvoo Legion, led by Major Lot Smith, did delay the approach of the army until June 1858, by capturing and buring supply caravans destined for the main body of the army. The entire series of events with references can be found at wikipedia.org under Utah War. This military move was known later as "Buchanan's blunder." The Mormon leaders and people believed that the Federal Government was finally willing, and able, to carry out plans to completely destroy them, where they had failed before in Missouri and Illinois. The Salt Lake Temple foundations were buried to hide it from the army (a farmer's field was placed over the top of it for a disguise). In the end, the army moved in, Camp Floyd was created for the housing of the troops (on the western side of Utah Lake), and after approximately a year, the military left and returned back East.

This military intervention, and many discussions with Mormon leaders both in Utah and Washington D.C., did nothing to disuade them from the practice of polygamy.

That's the background, now the law.

First up is what is known as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - sponsored by Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont. It was introduced to the House of Representatives in the spring of 1860, where it passed. It was sent over to the Senate, but did not make it out before Congress adjourned. With the start of the 36th Congress in 1862, the Southern States were not represented, and this led to an easier passage of the bill; by a vote of 37 to 2, it passed the Senate.

This bill was signed into law on July 1, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. Because of the timing of the bill (rebellion of the South causing the Civil War), distance of the Mormons from everyone else (railroads didn't connect in Utah until 1869), and the general attitude of "let sleeping dogs lie," this law was not enforced at all. It was a bill created without teeth, and became a law that was ignored by the Mormons. However, Brigham Young was still concerned when he learned of its passage, so he wanted to know the intentions of President Lincoln in relation to this bill.

"When Brigham Young sent Deseret News assistant editor T.B.H. Stenhouse to Washington, D.C., to ascertain Lincoln's plans for the Mormons, the president told him:
'Stenhouse, when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois there was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away. Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That's what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.'" (Church History in the Fullness of Times, pg. 383).

That is exactly what happened. This law was not enforced. No officers were appointed to enforce the law and no funds for enforcement were allotted.

I find it interesting that they used the phrases "State of Deseret" and "spiritual marriage" in the text of the bill itself. That tells me that they did understand, at least a little, what was going on out in the desert. It is a little confusing why they would want to label and punish polygamy as the crime of bigamy because they are two different crimes. Mormons knew they weren't practicing bigamy (marrying another spouse without the first one knowing), they were practicing polygamy where everything was above board.

Here's my quick and dirty summary of the law (which has 3 sections):

Section 1: Defines the marriage of more than one living woman to a man (or living man to a woman) as bigamy and punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment of up to 5 years.

Section 2: Disincorporates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to the fact that this corporation helped establish and shield the polygamous practices occurring in the Territory. Also any other laws or acts passed by the legislature of the so-called State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) which supported polygamy are automatically annulled.

Section 3: No religious corporation may own more that $50,000 worth of real estate in a Territory of the United States. Any real estate owned by such corporations that come in conflict with this law are forfeited and escheat to the United States.

Below is quoted the law in its entirety - it's actually short compared to some laws I've read.

The Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations, of the United States of America
From December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863
Volume XII [12] - reference below, pages 501-502

July 1, 1862
Chapter CXXVI [126] - An Act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other Places, and disapproving and annulling certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of Territory of Utah.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years: Provided, nevertheless, That this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by the sentence or decree of a competent court on the ground of the nullity of the marriage contract.

     Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely: "An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," passed February eight, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-one, and adopted, reenacted, and made valid by the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah by an act passed January nineteen, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, entitled "An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication, and distribution," and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled: Provided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right or property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right "to worship God according to the dictates of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.

     Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That is shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire of hold real estate in any Territory of the United States during the existence of the territorial government of a greater value than fifty thousand dollars; and all real estate acquired or held by any such corporation or association contrary to the provisions of this act shall be forfeted and escheat to the United States: Provided, That existing vested rights in real estate shall not be impaired by the provisions of this section.

APPROVED, July 1, 1862

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - Ogden Hiles

2010-06-08T10:38:00.009-06:00

March 12, 1904

Ogden Hiles is a resident of Salt Lake and has been for the past 17 or 18 years (back to about 1886). He moved to Utah to accept an appointment as assistant United States attorney for the Territory of Utah. He continued in this position for about 3 and a half years. In 1895, he was elected as one of the judges of the third judicial district court and served 5 years there. Currently he practices law in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Tayler wants information on what Judge Hiles did during his time as an attorney for the Territory of Utah.

Mr. Hiles. From 1886 to 1889, I was in the United States attorney's office as assistant. And during what were called the polygamy prosecutions I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under the Edmunds law and the Edmunds-Tucker law than any other officer. My duties called me from Ogden to Salt Lake, to Provo and to Beaver, in all parts of the Territory; and, as I say, I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under those laws than any other officer. I examined hundreds and I may say thousands of witnesses during that time.
...
Mr. Hiles. At that time [1886], under orders from the Attorney-General's office here in Washington, we were directed to proceed and prosecute offenders against these laws with as much vigor as we could, and we did proceed, commencing in the forepart of 1886. There had been some prosecutions in 1885. We had not proceeded far before it was made very clear as a general fact - it was already pretty well known in the community - that the people of Utah were living under a theocracy, under a government of priests. This state or condition was disclosed by the examination of witnesses before the grand juries by the examination of jurors touching their qualification to sit as jurors in polygamy cases, as they were called.
Mr. Tayler. Now tell us definitely what you mean by that - what answers were given?
Mr. Hiles. Invariably, if we would ask a Mormon whether he would obey the laws of the United States, or the laws of the church, he would say that he would obey the law of the church. As stated by Mr. Critchlow yesterday, in every case - or in most every case - the judge would offer the defendant who was convicted the clemency of suspension of judgment if he would in future obey the law. He would say no. "Why not?" "Well," he would say, "I choose to obey the law of God rather than man-made laws." If we suggested that the laws of the Republic were mild and that any lady or gentleman of standing might live under them without coming in hostility to them, he would say it made no difference. If we asked him what the law of God was, he said it was that which was revealed to them in their Doctrine & Covenants and in the Bible, and was expounded to them by the authorities - that is to say, the authorities of the church ... It was regarded by the Mormons and by the priesthood as a badge of apostasy to agree to obey the law. I do not know that anyone was disfellowshipped for it, but it was considered an act of apostasy to agree to obey the law.

Commentary: This testimony is similar to that given by Mr. Critchlow with a few pieces of history that cast more light on this time in history. Apparently the church had instructed its members to live only the law of God because the laws of man were inferior. Additionally, if you agreed to live man's laws, you were immediately in a state of apostasy - possibly subject to disfellowship or excommunication. The only way so many people that were prosecuted would say things like this is if they really believed it - and that comes from their ecclesiastical leaders.

He goes on to say that after the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act that his court took advantage of the added offense of unlawful cohabitation or adultery. "We immediately took advantage of that in every case where we could bring a case of adultery." Because of this there was a lot of pressure upon the people of the Territory. These prosecutions were done against many poor people; people would could not pay fines. At this time "they commenced, and many of them would promise to obey the law, and did promise to obey the law, and judgment was suspended in every instance."

Mr. Hiles. After, in 1889, there was a more evident disposition on the part of the Mormon people to obey the law, and, as has been said, the people became restive under the continuous hammering of the Government to enforce the law ... Mormons and Gentiles at that time began to meet and discuss the situation. Before that they would not discuss the matter at all of the differences between Gentile and Mormon.
     In 1890 it was concluded that something would be done by the church toward an amelioration of these conditions, and upon that the Government seemed to relax its prosecution. There were prosecutions, however, all the way through 1890 up to the issuance of the manifesto in 1890, but there was some relaxation of the pressure of the law officers upon the people. There was a general disposition among all kinds of people to do something that would amerliorate these conditions, because it was a hardship upon the Mormon people.
...
     I believe for a time there was an observance of [the manifesto of 1890], I do not know for how long; but gradually since statehood, as it is called, there has been a recurrence of those old conditions. Polygamous cohabitation has become more flagrant. We see continually coming on a new crop of polygamous children, and it seems to a great many people ... with whom I talk that they are getting back to old polygamous conditions and that they are not obeying the law of the State of Utah in that respect.
     After the admission of Utah as a State, the polygamists took the position that there was no inhibition in the constitution of the State of Utah against polygamous cohabitation; that the inhibition was against polygamy merely, and that the framers of the constitution, having put in an interdiction a against polygamous marriages, new marriages, having omitted to say anything about polygamous cohabitation or unlawful cohabitation and those other offenses that were mentioned in the Edmunds law, that therefore there was no offense in Utah such as unlawful cohabitation and adultery. When I was judge a case come up before upon a habeas corpus in which counsel took that position, and I decided that the law was constitutional.

Commentary: That was a quick history review, and I think was fairly well done.

Senator Hopkins. Now, Judge, is it the practice of the church at each election, local and general, in the State to take part and select some for election and others for defeat?
Mr. Hiles. No; not as a rule. It is only occasionally. They do not take up each man on the ticket and say whether he shall be elected or shall not be elected, but if they do take up a man and say that he shall be elected, he will be elected.
Senator Hopkins. Is it any more than where a good Methodist is running, other good Methodist brothers think he is a little better by reason of that, and give him their vote? Or do they exert a wider and more potential influence in elections?
Mr. Hiles. Yes; their influence is more effectual because it is an organization which controls large masses of men and women. It is an organization which is distinct from the Government of the United States and the government of the State of Utah, and exercises political and secular control over the affairs of the people.

And that is the end of the direct-examination of Judge Hiles. Actually, that was a whole lot shorter than I expected.

Mr. Van Cott does the cross-examination of Judge Hiles and sarts out his questioning with with asking for a specific example of where the Mormon Church has interfered in politics in the State of Utah within the last 5 years.

Mr. Hiles. Well, the election of Senator Smoot is one. Smoot would not have been elected to the United States Senate if he had not been approved by the authorities of the Mormon Church.
Mr. Van Cott. Right there, Judge, before you go on, do you mean by that if Mr. Smoot had been a lay member in the church and had run for United States Senator he would not have been elected, or do you mean if he were an apostle and did not get a leave of absence or consent, that then he would have been defeated?
Mr. Hiles. I mean that Mr. Smoot would never have been elected United States Senator unless he had been an apostle and had received their consent and their indorsement. When Mr. Smoot's candidacy was announced and it was known that he had the consent of the church, it was then known that he would become Senator of the United States.
Mr. Van Cott. But Mr. Smoot was a candidate for Senator, was he not, before he became an apostle?
Mr. Hiles. Yes; a perfunctory candidate.
Mr. Van Cott. A perfunctory candidate?
Mr. Hiles. Yes. He was not seriously considered until he became an apostle and after his candidacy, subsequent to his apostolate.
Senator Hopkins. Do you mean that his standing in the Republican party of the State was such that he was not seriously considered until they learned that the church was for him?
Mr. Hiles. His standing in any party - the Republican party, the Mormon party, or any party. I mean he had no standing as a candidate for the United States Senate, and when it was known that he was a candidate, then everybody said, "Why, that is the end of it. That settles it."
Mr. Van Cott. And your opinion is, Judge, that he would not have been selected for United States Senator if he had not been an apostle?
Mr. Hiles. He would not.
Mr. Van Cott. And do you mean by that that no Mormon Republican would be selected for United States Senator unless he was an apostle, or do you not go to that extent?
Mr. Hiles. Oh, no; a Mormon may become a United States Senator without being an apostle, but I say that in Smoot's case he would not have been unless he was an apostle.
...
Mr. Van Cott. For instance, Judge, name one candidate for the United States Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Republican politics who you consider more prominent for the position than Mr. Smoot.
Mr. Hiles. Why, Governor Wells.
...
Senator Hopkins. The evidence, as I have undertsood it, is that Mr. Smoot has always acted with the Republican party out there and that his influence has been strong with that party and that he favored the election of men who belonged to that political faith.
Mr. Hiles. Yes; I think that is the history of it.
...
Senator Hopkins. Is it or is it not a fact that Mr. Smoot has been a consistent, straightforward Republican all his mature life, or ever since he took any part in politics?
Mr. Hiles. Well, I have heard so.
Mr. Van Cott. Do you know anything to the contrary?
Mr. Hiles. I know nothing to the contrary.

Commentary: His opinion was stated, and it was then called into question by Mr. Van Cott and Senator Hopkins. From this reading, it would appear that Mr. Hiles is rather negative toward Reed Smoot and that his testimony (opinion) cannot be trusted in this specific matter. The previous testimony seemed fair and knowledgeable when he talked about the prosecutions.

Mr. Van Cott. What are your means of knowledge that he would not have been elected if he had not been one of the twelve apostles?
Mr. Hiles. Because there are men in politics in Utah who have much more influence simply as politicians than he has and whom the people would prefer.
Senator Hopkins. Do you mean by that that his position in the party has been such that he had no reasonable claim to such a promotion?
Mr. Hiles. Yes; no reasonable claim to such a promotion, and if he had he could not obtain it, in my judgment. Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
Senator Hopkins. You are giving it as your opinion. Have you anything which you predicate that, which you can give this committee, which will enable us to judge from those facts?
Mr. Hiles. It is only from the general talk of men in the Republican party and in the Democratic party.

Commentary: He states this as opinion and not fact and is questioned on that by Senator Hopkins and cannot provide any facts that the committee can use. This again serves to qualify his testimony on this matter as opinion only.

At this point Judge Hiles makes a flat out mistake. He's already gone off on his opinion of Senator Smoot's election and standing in the Republican party of Utah. I kind of feel sorry for him because the hole he's digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and consequently his believability or relevancy to this committee, are greatly diminished. He's being asked by Mr. Van Cott about the Senators that have been from Utah.

Mr. Van Cott. Now, the next Senator was J.L. Rawlins?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott. He is not a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles. Yes; he is a Mormon.
Mr. Van Cott. Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir ... I have heard Mr. Rawlins say he was not a Mormon. He was baptized a Mormon. He was reared among them. His father was a bishop - his father was Bishop Rawlins.
Mr. Van Cott. Becaues he was born of Mormon parentage and because his father was a Mormon, do you understand that that makes him a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles. Pretty close.
Mr. Van Cott. Pretty close?
Mr. Hiles. Yes.
Mr. Van Cott. So that if persons leave the church and if they happen to be of Mormon parentage, in your opinion they are pretty close to being Mormons. Is that right?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott. That is right. Is all the testimony you have given along the line on which you have testified and do you speak with just as much knowledge on other matters as this, namely, that Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles. He is a Mormon under the qualifications I have named; yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott. Under the qualifications you have named?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott. That is, he is pretty close to being a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott. And all your other testimony is just along that same line; just as close?
Mr. Hiles. No; I do not qualify my other testimony as I qualify that. I know what I am talking about sir.
Mr. Van Cott. You do know that?
Mr. Hiles. Yes, sir; I know -

Commentary: I have a suggestion: Think before you open your mouth. On Sunday, March 13, 1904, a letter is received by the committee from Mr. Rawlins on this subject to be read stating that he is, in fact, not a Mormon (see New York Times article on this subject here). This is just one more piece of the puzzle here that throws doubt on all of the testimony of Judge Hiles - even though I thought his opening statements were very well done. To close off this section he says: "I know what I am talking about sir." Doh! That just sealed his testimony with a stamp of arrogancy. I must say I'm not sure the cross-examiner had anything to do with walking the Judge into these mistakes; rather, it was more of the Judge making "unforced errors."

Mr. Van Cott asks him how he knows that polygamy and/or unlawful cohabitation have increased after 1890, and he wants the Judge to state specific instances if he knows of them.

Mr. Hiles. I know one instance, but I do not want to mention his name, because he is a friend of mine, although he is a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott. We will excuse you from mentioning his name.
Mr. Hiles. That is to say, I have received acts of kindness from him, and I would not say anything that might be to his injury.

Commentary: Well ok now. He prosecuted case after case after case for law-breaking Mormon polygamists - with vigor. However, when it comes down to turning one in that is his friend and has been nice to him, he won't do it. He only wants to have prosecuted those people that he doesn't know. I find that very "human" of him and at the same time duplicitous and hypocritical.

One interesting side not here is that there was discussion before the end of the day where Mr. Tayler was anxious to have 8 men who have been subpoenaed appear - but they have not. Because of this there are no more witnesses currently for the protestants and thus there is about one month of time taken off from the committee meetings. I assume that two of the men he is speaking of are M. F. Cowley and John W. Taylor - these two never do show up in Washington, they avoid the committee completely by not allowing themselves to be subpoenaed. I also assume the others he mentions would be Marriner W. Merrill (cannot come for health reasons), George Teasdale (cannot come for health reasons), and John Henry Smith (cannot come for health reasons; he does however, make it out eventually).

The committee adjourned at 4:25 PM.