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

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:

• Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862
• Edmunds Act of 1882
• Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887
• Manifesto of 1890

1. [George] Reynolds v. United States
1. Reference:  98 US 145
2. Argued:  November 14-15, 1878.  Decided:  May 5, 1879.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
2. [Rudger] Clawson v. United States
1. Reference:  113 US 143
2. Argued:  January 5, 1885.  Decided January 19, 1885.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "There is no error in the record, and the judgment is Affirmed."
3. Murphy v. Ramsey
1. Reference:  114 US 15
2. Argued:  January 28, 1885.  Decided:  March 23, 1885.
3. 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. 
4. 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." 
5. 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."
4. [Rudger] Clawson v. United States
1. Reference:  114 US 477
2. Argued:  April 8, 1885.  Decided:  April 20, 1885.
3. 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."
4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "The record shows no error, and the judgment is Affirmed."
5. [Angus M.] Cannon v. United States
1. Reference:  116 US 55
2. Argued:  November 20, 23, 1885.  Decided:  December 14, 1885.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
6. Ruling was not unanimous (7-2):  Judgment Affirmed.
1. 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."
6. [Lorenzo] Snow v. United States
1. Reference:  118 US 346
2. Argued:  April 28-29, 1886.  Decided:  May 10, 1886.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. In Re [Lorenzo] Snow v. United States
1. Reference:  120 US 274
2. Argued:  January 21, 1887.  Decided:  February 7, 1887.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
8. Hans Nielson, Petitioner
1. Reference:  131 US 176
2. Argued:  April 19, 22, 1889.  Decided:  May 13, 1889.
3. 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.
4. 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."
9. [Nephi W.] Clayton v. Utah Territory
1. Reference:  132 US 632
2. Argued:  December 5, 1889.  Decided:  January 6, 1890.
3. 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.
4. "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.
5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  The judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Utah is Affirmed.
10. [Samuel D.] Davis v. Beason
1. Reference:  133 US 333
2. Argued:  December 9-10, 1889.  Decided:  February 3, 1890.
3. 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.
4. Samuel D. Davis sued for a writ of habeas corpus charging that he was illegally imprisoned.
5. "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."
6. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed.
11. Mormon Church v. United States
1. Reference:  136 US 1
2. Argued:  January 16-18, 1889.  Decided:  May 19, 1890.
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. Receiver Frank Dyer holds the following properties:
1. Temple Block - worth $500,000.  This was ordered to be given back.
2. Gardo House and grounds, worth $50,000.
3. Historians Office and grounds - worth $20,000.
4. Tithing Office - worth $50,000.
5. Tithing Office grounds - worth $25,000.
6. Church Farm - worth $110,000.
7. Coal lands in Summit County, Utah - worth $30,000.
8. 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).
9. Current aggregate property amount:  $750,000 ($17.7 million in 2010)
10. No donations by way of 'tithing' or voluntary contributions are held by the receiver.
6. Court findings:
1. Edmunds-Tucker Law is constitutional.
2. Congress has power to dissolve the corporation of the Church.
3. Congress has power to dispose of the property of the Church.
7. 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."
1. 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.
2. "... 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."
12. Bassett v. United States
1. Reference:  137 US 496
2. Argued:  December 10, 1890.  Decided:  December 22, 1890.
3. William E. Bassett was charged with polygamy and his wife was forced to testify against him, which led to his convition.
4. "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."
5. 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."
13. Cope v. Cope
1. Reference:  137 US 682
2. Argued:  December 22, 1890.  Decided:  January 19, 1891.
3. 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.
4. 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."
14. The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States
1. Reference:  150 US 145
2. Submitted:  October 27, 1893.  Decided:  November 6, 1893.
3. 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.
4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  Ordered accordingly.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - Edward E. Barthell

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

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

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.

Update:
Early in December 2013, the LDS Church released a document called "Race and the Priesthood".  This new document is an official statement of the Church that reviews the history, misunderstandings, and potential reasons for problems with the Church concerning this issue.  The document was well researched, includes all references used, and is recommended reading for the interested student.

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

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.  Those who have been cursed in the pre-existence were born through the lineage of 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.

Soon after 1836 the Lord gave the revelation to send missionaries and commence work among the Gentiles in England, and labor in 1850 in France, and then in northern Italy and then these other countries.  This was not done, however, until Noah returned the "key."

You see, as in Elias the Gospel of Jesus Christ would be preached unto the Gentiles.  Don't you see that what we are doing is a great deal more important than just filling a two and one-half year period as a missionary and then going home?  We are working out the plan which the Father laid in the beginning as to what would transpire.  What has actually happened?  The Lord is preparing men and women today to become heirs of the Celestial Kingdom.  This is the only work that is being done.  The work for the Terrestrial Kingdom has not even been started yet.  It will not start until the work for the Celestial Kingdom is finished.  Then all who are to go into the Telestial Kingdom, will continue until all have made covenant and have received the promise to go into that Kingdom.  All of these things will be done in their proper order.

Why is the work being done for the Celestial Kingdom first?  Why is that in your patriarchal blessing it says that you will come forth in the morning of the First Resurrection.  Because only those who come forth in the morning of the First Resurrection will go into the Celestial Kingdom.  Those who come forth in the evening of the First Resurrection will go into the Terrestrial Kingdom, and this will be the end of the First Resurrection.  The Second Resurrection will be for those who go into the Telestial Kingdom and those who eventually become Son of Perdition.

All of this is in accordance with a well-worked out plan of procreation and judgment until the final work that the Lord has intended for men is over.

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.