Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage
A DISCUSSION
Correspondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
AND
MR. RICHARD G. EVANS, Second Counselor in the Presidency of the "Reorganized" Church
"To correct misrepresentation, we adopt self representation."
—John Taylor.
Correspondence between ELDER JOSEPH F. SMITH, (JR.,) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and MR. RICHARD C. EVANS, second counselor (1905) in the Presidency of the "Reorganized" Church. A conclusive refutation of the false charges persistently made by ministers of the "Reorganized" Church against the Latter-day Saints and their belief. Also a supplement containing a number of affidavits and other matters bearing on the subjects.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
INTRODUCTION
The correspondence in this pamphlet was brought about through the wilful misrepresentation of the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints and the unwarranted abuse of the authorities of the Church by Mr. Richard C. Evans, in an interview which appeared in the Toronto (Canada) Daily Star of January 28, 1905. A copy of the interview was placed in the hands of the writer, who, on February 19th following, replied to Mr. Evans in an open letter which was published in the Toronto Star on or about the 25th of the month.[1] This open letter was answered by Mr. Evans in a personal letter, and on the 23rd of May, a rejoinder to his reply was sent to Mr. Evans at his home in London, Ontario, Canada. In all, four communications—including the interview—have passed between us, and all of these four communications are here reproduced in full. A copy of the open letter which appeared in the Star, was also sent to Mr. Evans who acknowledged its receipt. Nothing more was done in regard to this correspondence until August 17th and 24th, when an article containing a portion of it appeared in the Zion's Ensign, published by the "Reorganized" church at Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, under the title: "Statements Authenticated," in which it was made to appear that the full and complete communications were reproduced. But this, however, was not the case.
In a letter from Mr. Evans to the editor of the Ensign which accompanied the above mentioned article, he said:
Believing that good will be accomplished by the publication of the entire matter, I herewith mail you the referred to matter.
From this it would naturally be supposed that the complete correspondence would be given. However I was not surprised to see that Mr. Evans' side of the controversy was in full, while a large portion of my first communication had been purposely suppressed; and that my second letter did not appear at all! And thus was the "entire matter" given to the readers of the Ensign that "good" might be "accomplished." (?)
The parts that were purposely left out of my communication by Mr. Evans, were most vital to the subject and have been indicated as they appear in the body of this work by being placed in italics, excepting a few minor matters which he omitted that I have not mentioned, nevertheless matters that throw light upon the subject.
One of these quotations was in relation to two articles in the first volume of the Saints' Herald which were important, coming, as they did from the "enemy's" camp. Here is the omitted part:
If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the following passage in the Saints' Herald, your official organ, volume I, page 9,—it would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which is entitled "Polygamy." The quotation is as follows:
"The death of the Prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning "polygamy") before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily."
In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following: "He, (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject (polygamy) to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine he would not have come to that." Kindly read the context.
There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain this it may suffice.
The first half of the succeeding paragraph was quoted but the second half was omitted. I quote in full with the part suppressed in italics:
In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. There is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage and revelation concerning the same.
It is easy to perceive that Mr. Evans felt "that good will be accomplished by the publication of the 'entire matter'"; and for that reason he omitted this evidence which the leaders of the "Reorganization" have been trying so successfully to destroy for lo these many years. The two articles in the Saints' Herald have caused the leaders of that sect no end of trouble, and today they are in the same fix in regard to plural marriage that the first editor of that paper was when he wrote, for they cannot explain the Prophet's connection with the principle "satisfactorily," and never will be able to until they acknowledge the truth.
Another of Mr. Evans' ommissions that "good" might be "accomplished" (?) is the following paragraph in reference to President Brigham Young:
It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville; but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a statement —contrary to the written word—was antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in the Times and Seasons, as well as since that time?
Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young with being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false.
It appears from the actions of many of those who fight the Latter-day Saints, that they fully realize their inability to successfully oppose the doctrines of the Church with truth as a weapon of attack, and, therefore, resort to falsehood, vilification and abuse, attempting to blind those who are not acquainted with the facts. The doctrine of the Church has survived all such onslaughts and continues to spread throughout the earth, as a witness against those who have adopted such base methods for its overthrow. It will continue to spread, bless mankind and prepare all who accept it, and follow its teachings in righteousness, for an inheritance in the kingdom of God.
The Reorganite ministers are generally in the front rank among those who oppose the Church and resort to tactics of a doubtful character. They travel from place to place, never losing an opportunity in private, on the rostrum or through the press, to "explain the radical difference" between their organization and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in denouncing "the Utah Mormon and his iniquities." On such occasions they will quote garbled and isolated extracts from sermons and from writings by Elders of the Church, taking particular pains to cover up the context in order to prejudice the uninformed mind. In this way many a harmless, inoffensive passage has been made to do great execution in some quarters and among a certain class. Nor is this all. Nearly every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Utah in early days and many that were invented out of whole cloth, are brought to bear against the "dreadful Mormons," the Church and the Gospel, that they may be stigmatized and made to appear vile and hateful before the world. So much of their time is spent in this way that they can surely have but little left in which to tell the world what they themselves believe.
No reason except that of misrepresentation and jealousy can be assigned for actions of this kind. These men oppose the truth in a spirit of jealousy and to cover up their own false position, and by such an attitude prove that they are ashamed of their own faith, being conscious of its weakness.
The supplement following the correspondence is composed of a number of affidavits and other testimony bearing on the subjects under discussion, which, it is hoped, will be of interest and perhaps of value to the reader.
JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 5, 1905.
Footnotes
[1.] As I did not receive a copy of the Toronto Star I cannot positively say that my article appeared in full, but if it did not Mr. Evans is still without excuse for not considering the entire matter for he received personally a duplicate copy of the article sent the Star which contained those portions he has failed to include in his "entire matter" in the Zion's Ensign.
MR. R. C. EVANS' INTERVIEW IN THE TORONTO, CANADA, "DAILY STAR," JAN. 28, 1905
LATTER-DAY SAINT VISITING TORONTO—MR. R. C. EVANS, WHO IS PROMOTING THE GROWTH OF HIS CHURCH IN CANADA, NOT A BELIEVER IN POLYGAMY—DENOUNCES THE UTAH MORMONS.
The name Mormon does not please Toronto's six hundred baptized Latter-day Saints, not to mention the fifty thousand others scattered over the globe.
This fact was emphasized today, when R. C. Evans, one of the three members of the Presidency, explained the radical difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans, who reached Toronto a few days ago to spend a month here, denounces the "Utah Mormon and his iniquities."
"We do not believe in polygamy, blood atonement, and kindred evils," he said to the Star last night at 142 Peter street, where he is visiting, "They are an abomination to the Lord. The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified. The other night, while I was holding a service here, four Utah Elders came to me. I referred to polygamy, and they defended it. 'We endorse it,' they told me, 'but we don't practice it.' Three women were with them, and I said to one, 'Do you believe in polygamy?' 'I do,' she replied, 'and I know that God will punish the United States for prohibiting it.' I understand that there are five Utah elders in Toronto at the present time, and in addresses here I will expose polygamy and blood atonement."
BORN NEAR MONTREAL
Mr. Evans is forty-three years old, but doesn't look his age. He is rather below medium height, strongly built, wears his black hair short, and his round, slightly olive face is clean shaven. He is animated in manner, and though his English is occasionally at fault, he speaks fluently and well. He was born at St. Andrew's near Montreal, but his ancestry is not confined to any one country, Irish, Welsh and German blood flows in his veins and his somewhat nasal voice is typically American.
"I was baptized in 1876," he said, "ordained a priest in 1882, became an elder in 1884, entered the quorum of seventy in 1886, was chosen one of the twelve apostles in 1897; and in 1902, was selected one of President Joseph Smith's two counselors, the other being his eldest son, Frederick M. Smith. I was the pastor of the London, Ontario, church from 1882 to 1886, and have given particular attention to Canada. We occupy a rented church on the corner of Sumac and St. David streets, a new church on Camden street, and another at Humber Bay, practically three congregations in Toronto."
The Latter-day Saints and the Utah Mormons, according to Mr. Evans, are frequently confused, greatly to his regret.
TROUBLES OF THE SECT
"My President Joseph Smith," he explained, "is the oldest son of Joseph Smith, who, when a boy of fifteen, was directed to the mound wherein he found the golden plates from which he compiled the Book of Mormon.
"He organized his church in 1830, when 25 years old, and between 1830 and 1844 his following numbered 200,000. In 1844 he was shot and killed for his anti-slavery sympathies,[1] and with him died his brother Hyrum. John Taylor, a Toronto convert of 1838, was wounded, but recovered. Joseph Smith's city of Nauvoo, Illinois, was wrecked, and in 1847, at Kanesville, Iowa, Brigham Young was elected president, though he still professed to hold the office in trust for the dead president's eldest son, also, Joseph, whom the father had consecrated as his successor.[2] Brigham Young reorganized[3] the church, rebaptized every member, including himself, and in 1848 (1847) he reached Salt Lake City. With him went the widow and children of Hyrum Smith, whose son Joseph F., is now president of the Utah church. The widow of the first president had refused to follow Young, and her boy Joseph was brought up in his father's footsteps, hating polygamy and other impurities. 'Young Joseph,' as he was called, connected himself with the Saints, who had rejected Brigham Young, and was elected their president. He was then 28 years old. In 1872 he was called to Washington, a report having reached the Government that Mormonism had again sprung up in Illinois. He disproved the charge of polygamy and blood atonement, and demonstrated that Latter-day Saintism was in keeping with the law and supported by the Bible. Incorporation was granted, and we have prospered.
UPHELD DEATH
"Brigham Young, who had been under suspicion at Joseph Smith's death, introduced polygamy and blood atonement at Salt Lake City. Blood atonement meant death to anyone who left his church. Brigham Young's argument was that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear, the favorite way, saved his soul, but his object was to keep his people under his iron heel. Young was a shrewd, bad man.
"I spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith at Salt Lake City three years ago, and he gave me a group photo of himself, his surviving five wives, and thirty-six children. His first wife was dead. She died broken-hearted and insane. Personally, Joseph F. Smith is a genial, kindly man, but he and I differed on Polygamy. I told him it was vile and wicked, always had been, and always would be. In appearance he resembles his cousin, my own president."
Mr. Evans is married, and has two children. The three faces look at you from his watch case. He has recently returned from the northwest. His faith has several thriving churches there, he says, while the Utah Mormons are settled in one part of Alberta.
Footnotes
[1.] Mr. Evans' declaration that the Prophet was killed for his anti- slavery sympathies is rather surprising, when we consider that he was in one of the anti-slave states, and the mob at Carthage was largely composed of men with very strong "anti-slavery sympathies." The fact is he and his brother Hyrum were martyred for their religion of which Celestial Marriage, (including Plural Marriage) formed a part. One of the charges made against them was that of teaching "polygamy."
[2.] In proof that the Prophet did not ordain or consecrate his son as his successor, the reader is referred to the affidavits of John W. Rigdon and Bathsheba W. Smith.
[3.] As the Church was never disorganized, it could not be reorganized. Mr. Evans has made a mistake. It was the Quorum of the First Presidency that was disorganized at the Prophet's death and which was reorganized when Brigham Young was elected President, and not the Church.
REPLY TO R. C. EVANS
The following letter was published in the Toronto Daily Star in answer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. Evans' interview.
Salt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905.
Mr. R. C. Evans,
Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church.
Sir:—I have before me a copy of the Toronto Daily Star, bearing date of January 28, last, in which there is a column on the front page, purporting to be an interview, by a representative of that paper with you, in which I desire to call your attention.
In doing so I desire to be fair and dispassionate, and also candid, and I would like it if you would receive and reply to this communication in the same spirit and manner to me personally.
You are reported as not being "pleased," nor Toronto's six hundred baptized members, with the name "Mormon." "This fact," says the Star, "was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, one of the three members of the Presidency explained the radical difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans * * * denounced the Utah Mormon and his iniquities." Then you are made to say: "The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified." That is, the alleged practices of the Utah "Mormons," namely, "polygamy and blood atonement."
Did you know that "the term Mormon" has always been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached to the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of Mormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an opprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr, and ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of popular custom, as an appellation?
If, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your fellows in Canada and throughout the world, although it be on the grounds you have named, why do you not discard the Book of Mormon, from whence the name is derived, as well as the name. Is not the term Book of Mormon as closely associated in the public mind with "polygamy and blood atonement," as is the name of the Book? How are you going to disassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied to the Church, since this name has been attached to the Church from the beginning, and before the alleged "practices" of the "Utah Mormon" gained such publicity? Really, I think it would be quite proper for those holding the view which you are said to have expressed, not only to renounce the name "Mormon" as applied to the Church but also the Book itself.[1]
You do not believe in blood atonement. Is not this the more reason why you should discard the Book of Mormon? Are you not at issue with the teachings not only of that book, but also with those of the Bible on this matter? If so, why not discard the Bible, and while you are about it, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants also? Both of these, as well as the Book of Mormon, teach the doctrine of "blood atonement," and they are all "associated in the public mind" with the alleged "practices" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Let us consider this subject of "blood atonement."
Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 3:11.—His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. Verse 15.—And understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood. Verse 16.—Even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.
Alma 21:9.—Now Aaron began to open the Scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind, save it was through the death and suffering of Christ, and the atonement of his blood.
I Nephi 12:10.—Their garments are made white in his blood.
II Nephi 9:7.—And if so, (not an infinite atonement) this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
From the Bible:
Mark 14:22-25.—And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.
From the Doctrine and Covenants:
Section 45:4.—(Utah edition) Saying, Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed—the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified.
Section 74:7.—But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what the scriptures mean.
Section 76:39-41.—For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made. And this is the gospel, the glad tidings which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us. That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness.
Section 29:1.—Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins. Verse 17.—And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.
STATEMENT OF AN ENEMY
But the report says: "This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young" and that it meant "death to anyone who left the Church * * * that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear * * * saved his soul." Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not aware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the Church, without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single individual was ever "blood atoned," as you are pleased to call it, for apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this false charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you know of anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members thereof, to "save his soul?" Did you not know that you were embittering the people against the "Mormon" Elders, and that just such malicious charges and false insinuations have made martyrs for the Church, whose blood does not "cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth?"
Never in the history of this people can the time be pointed to when the Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate as per your statement. There are men living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State who feel as secure, and are just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates as you or any other man could be.
EFFICACY OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST
The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ had not died for them. If you did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood of Christ was shed? and in whose stead was it shed? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul: "Without shedding of blood is no remission."
UNPARDONABLE SINS
Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind? Let me quote:
From the Book of Mormon:
II Nephi 9:35.—Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.
Alma 1:13, 14.—And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee, his blood would come upon us for vengeance.
Alma 42:19.—Now, if there were no law given—if a man murdered he should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
From the Bible:
Genesis 9:12, 13.—And whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.
For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man. (Inspired translation.)
Luke 11:50.—That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.
Hebrews 9:22.—And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 10:26-29.—For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
* * * *
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses;
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.
(I commend to you the careful reading of these two chapters:)
I John 3:15.—No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
I John 5:16.—If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
From the Doctrine and Covenants:
Section 87:7.—That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
Section 101:80.—And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
Section 42:18, 19.—And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.
Verse 79.—And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.
THE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the "Mormon" legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "blood atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.
PLURAL MARRIAGE
Since the action taken by the United States government, and also by the Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues nor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of our faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that "Brigham Young introduced" that doctrine "in Salt Lake City," I would be pleased if you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before "President Young introduced" the doctrine, declared that the principle of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and "warned Joseph Smith and his family" that it would bring ruin upon them. You will find this in the Messenger and Advocate, published in June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain why this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently condemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love for President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced polygamy before plural marriage was "introduced by President Young." If you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed, you may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church history.
THE "SAINTS' HERALD" AS A WITNESS
If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the following paragraph in the Saints Herald, your official organ, volume 1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which is entitled "polygamy." The quotation is:
"The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily."
In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?
"He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy') to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that." Kindly read the context.
There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain this it may suffice.
In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. There is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage, and the revelation concerning the same.[2]
THE UTAH VISIT
In connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President Lorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you heard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared to Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You met and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May, 1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August, 1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the Prophet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first wives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these testimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am personally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful and honest—honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.
In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of President Young the responsibility for the "introduction of plural marriage" and the "authorship" of the above mentioned revelation?
My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item or two.
PRESIDENT SMITH'S DENIAL
In the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt Lake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you and he "differed on polygamy," and that you "told him it was vile and wicked, always had been, and always would be." I took occasion to ask my father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if you had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He replied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and was not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have existed.
It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville, but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a statement—contrary to the written word—was antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in the "Times and Seasons," as well as since that Time?
PRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET'S FRIEND
Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false.[3]
With reference to my father's first wife, you say she died "broken hearted and insane." If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died neither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think that you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time to better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.
Respectfully,
Joseph F. Smith, Jr.
Footnotes
[1.] This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of the entire matter in the Zion's Ensign, August 17th, 1905.
[2.] The quotations from the Saints' Herald which are in Italics were purposely omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the Zion's Ensign of August 7, 1905. The reason for the suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of the "Reorganization" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could not be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies of this particular Herald can today be found.
[3.] These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the Zion's Ensign August 17, 1905.
MR. EVANS' LETTER
Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.:
Sir:—Your open letter published in the Toronto Star for February 25, is before me. You say: "I desire to be fair, dispassionate and also candid." Those who read your letter will see plainly that you have mispresented the interview, my faith and the facts concerning my visit to Salt Lake, and that you are guilty of a labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding "blood atonement," "polygamy," etc., and my faith in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires.
My position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the name "Mormon," is too well known for you to blind the people concerning it. The interview shows plainly in what sense "the term 'Mormon' is offensive to us." Read it again, sir: "Because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified." The abominations of Brighamism; namely, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God,[1] and other evils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization.
The true Church never has adopted the name "Mormon" as being the proper name of the church. The Latter-day Saints were sometimes called "Mormons" in derision, as you admit, because they believed in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and some church members may have been willing to be called "Mormon"; yet you "candidly (?) fairly, dispassionately" ask me, "Why do you not discard the Book of Mormon from whence the name is derived?" Now, sir, I profess to believe in the divine authenticity of the Holy Bible; as well call me a Bible, because I believe in the Bible,[2] as call me a Mormon because I believe in the Book of Mormon.
The church that I have the honor to represent is incorporated under the laws of the United States as "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
BLOOD ATONEMENT
There is not an honest thinking person on earth who is acquainted with the faith of the church regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ but that will say your attempt to misrepresent my faith in this regard is diametrically opposite to your stated desire to be "fair, dispassionate and candid." You know that a prominent article in the Epitome of the Faith and Doctrine of the true church reads as follows: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." You know that the true church believes in the atoning blood of Christ as stated in the scriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you try to make out that because we do not believe in the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young and his successors in "Utah Mormonism," that we do not believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove this, I submit the statements as made by Brigham Young and other leading members of the Utah Church, as found in their sermons, printed by your church:
Brigham Young said, October 9, 1852: "What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut off their ears."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:213.
Brigham said again, March 27, 1853: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congregation and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices generally, 'Go it, go it.') If you say it is all right, raise your hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this and every good work."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:83.
Echoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 27, 1853, "My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. * * * I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned. * * * It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 84, 86.
Elder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: "Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do? Why, we would suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he would kill him at once * * * kill him on the spot. * * * It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:72, 73.
President Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as follows "All mankind love themselves; and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves even to an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.
"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the last resurrection if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground, as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them up, conquers death, hell and the grave.[3] I have known a great many men who have left this church, for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood had been spilt it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.
"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 397.
President J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: "I say there are men and women here that I would advise to go to the president immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood."—Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 235.
President Heber C. Kimball said; July 19, 1854: "It is believed in the world that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they are common—that is, they are like all other women, I suppose, but they are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones out of our midst; we not only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And if the world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes here, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will wipe the evil out. We will not have them in this valley unless they repent, for so help me God, while I live I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out, and I know this people will."—Deseret News, August 16, 1854, and Millennial Star, vol. 16, pages 738-9.
The above statements speak for themselves, and these were what I read to the reporter. You ask, "Do you know of anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the church or members thereof to save his soul?" To know by hearing such a command given, or seeing a murder committed, is one thing, to believe the evidence of many who have testified is another. No sir, I was never present when such a command was given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that which leads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood. What of the Mountain Meadow massacre—the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties? Alfred Henry Lewis, writing in Collier's Weekly for March 26, 1904, states: "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their head, and when a man rebelled, he had him murdered, if one fled the fold he was pursued and slain."
The world has recently read the testimony of persons under oath, in Washington, who testified concerning the endowment oaths, so I will forbear any further remarks on this subject.
POLYGAMY
Speaking of "plural marriage," you say, "I shall not discuss its virtues." Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, Mr. Smith calls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of every woman who is enslaved by it, that doctrine which permits Brighamites to live in what they call marriage with three sisters at one time, with mother and daughter at the same time. Your father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is now living with two sisters as wives. I refer to Julina Lambson and Edna Lambson, both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a virtue.
I have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having practiced polygamy before Young was guilty, as stated by you. But the following evidence shows clearly that Brigham Young was under suspicion before Joseph's death, and that he has since admitted that he had a revelation on polygamy before the church knew anything of the doctrine:
In a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see Deseret News of July 1, 1874), we read the following statement relative to the origin of this doctrine of polygamy:
While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord manifested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them, until I returned to Nauvoo; Joseph had never mentioned this; there had never been a thought of it in the church that I ever knew anything about at that time;—but I had this for myself and kept it for myself.—The Messenger, volume 1, page 29.
Well, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the self-confessed channel through which polygamy was given to his people.
I here submit the testimony of Brigham Young's legal wife, who left him after he was untrue to her. Testimony of Major Thomas Wanless, given to R. C. Evans, his nephew, in the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans and her daughter, in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904:
I met Brigham Young's first and legal wife and her daughter in the winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not teach, practice, or in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy, that he had nothing to do with the so-called revelation on celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My husband, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man whose name I have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage.
Before they left Illinois some of them practiced polygamy. Brigham Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced polygamy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis.
She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and was then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money according to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot Brigham Young in place of Joseph Smith.
This statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham's first wife is a mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, October 8, 1824; she died September 8, 1832. In February, 1834, he married May Ann Angel; she was his legal wife, and perhaps is the one referred to by the Major. It is quite pardonable in Major Wanless in getting Brigham's wives mixed up. We opine poor Brigham was at his wit's end to keep the family record correct himself.
Chambers' encyclopedia, volume 8, students' edition, confirms Mrs. Young's statement, in part. It says, speaking of the practice of polygamy: "Young, Pratt and Hyde are its true originators. Emma, wife and widow of the prophet, stoutly denied that her husband had any wife but herself. Young's revelation she declared to be a fraud."
From a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham Young was the man that introduced polygamy in the Church, I submit the statement of another broken-hearted woman from the ranks of Brigham's Church. Fanny Stenhouse says: "Polygamy was unheard of among the (English) Saints in 1849." (pages 45, 47, 48) "Tell It All," by Fanny Stenhouse. "In June 1850, I heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first saw the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the Millennial Star," (page 132).
"Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 had been excommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the president of the conference was cut off," (page 160). When speaking regarding polygamy she says: "They know that the only source of all their revelations is the man BRIGHAM YOUNG," (page 190).
"Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most sacred ties, by his shameless introduction of polygamy," (page 273).
"There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph Smith in early days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is the chief," (page 614).
It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that Joseph Smith said, "If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham, he would lead it to hell," (page 268).
Why did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death make the above and similar statements regarding the man Brigham Young? The reason is plain. He too had doubtless heard some rumors as to his conduct and secret teachings, and the evidence would seem to indicate that just before his death he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We will let William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the time of Joseph Smith's death testify:
"A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. Joseph, he said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the Church, and we retired by ourselves; I will give his words verbatim for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it would eventually prove the overthrow of the Church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion to put it down. He said that he would go before the congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the Church unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it." (Saints' Herald, vol. 1, pp. 22, 23.)
President Marks, after Joseph Smith's death, made mention of the above conversation; it was soon rumored that he was about to apostatize, and that his statement was a tissue of lies." (See Saints' Herald, vol. 1, pp. 22, 23.)
Speaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, "I never heard of it during Joseph's life. It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young and some of the Twelve, after Joseph's death." (Briggs' Autobiography; Herald 1901.)
Now I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy in the strongest terms. First, I submit the testimony of thirty-one witnesses as published by the Church on October the 1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show you where Joseph and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy.
"We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare, that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. John C. Bennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did."
This is signed by a number of the leading men of the Church, some of the Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presidency of the Utah Church, and a number of the leading men of the Church. A similar document is signed by Emma Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the leading women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all.
Now I submit for your consideration a statement made by Joseph Smith and his Brother Hyrum just a few months prior to their assassination. They learned that a man up here in the state of Michigan was teaching polygamy, and this is what they said about it: "As we have lately been credibly informed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been teaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church in general that he has been cut off from the Church for his iniquity." Signed, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church.
This was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four months after that. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, and the man was excommunicated from the Church for preaching it. Now I want to give you the testimony of George Q. Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City, as one of the presidency of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: "A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives. * * * Joseph and Hyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds of persons were persecuted to death previous to the Church having any knowledge of this doctrine."—Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, pages 165, 166.[4]
This being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the practice of polygamy; he was killed before the people knew anything about polygamy. This is the statement of George Q. Cannon. Let me strengthen this now by the son-in-law of Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson:
"Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph Smith's death) was not known among those of the Mormon faith. * * * The doctrine of polygamy was not promulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in fact, until some little time after they had arrived there." Salt Lake Herald, February 9, 1882.[5]
Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt Lake the 24th of July, 1847, and he says not until some little time after that was it introduced. The little time was the 29th of August, 1852, eight years and two months after the assassination of Joseph Smith.
We have Brigham Young himself on this. He being interviewed by Senator Trumbull in 1869, said: "It (polygamy) was adopted by us as a necessity after we came here." Ah, there never was a greater truth told in all the world than that. Polygamy was not an original tenet of the Church, and Brigham Young says it was adopted as a necessity after "we came here." The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I will show from their own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives secretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, as he truthfully says in this "as a necessity"; yea, as a necessity polygamy was introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph Smith for their introducing polygamy eight years after his death?
I have been careful to take these clippings right from their own papers, so that they cannot say that we have changed the words or anything of that kind. Here is another statement; this is found from Elder Ephraim Jenson:
"Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to and at the time of the execution of Joseph Smith, who was executed at Nauvoo, Illinois. * * * Fourth, that only three per cent of the Mormon men practiced polygamy, a proof itself that it was not essential to the creed."—The Yeoman's Shield.
Here is another one:
"Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, there was no polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon literature until five years after that band of persecuted Saints reached Utah." New York Herald, January 8, 1900.[6]
This is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who did introduce this polygamy. Now I might introduce dozens and dozens of witnesses to prove that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. Well, who did it? Here is what the Apostle's wife says of it: "How then, asked the reader, did polygamy originate? It was born in the vile and lustful brain of Brigham Young, and was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual bestiality."[7] (Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.)
One of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to know whereof she affirms.
We have learned from the above statements that polygamy was not taught or practiced by Joseph Smith, but was introduced into an apostate branch of the church, after his death, as is admitted by Brigham Young and others of his followers.
Having read the works of the church for over a quarter of a century. I confidently affirm that there is not a single word, in a single sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or church publication printed during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed the doctrine of plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there is no Salt Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and prove its authenticity.
But suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced polygamy, that would not make it a Christian doctrine. If Joseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or endorsed the doctrine of polygamy, he did it contrary to all the revelations given for the government of the church in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; contrary to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings; and he was a criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite before the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the woman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and was untrue to all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity which he evinced in all his public utterances and conduct.
In the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph Smith, together with thousands of people who knew him in life, refuse to believe the contradictory statements of Brigham Young and others who are wallowing in the mire of polygamy.
MY VISIT TO UTAH
If your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy, all I have to say about it is, that what he states is untrue. Here are a few points that may help him to remember what was said and done: When talking with Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago, he brought up a number of witnesses and I examined them—that is, he repeated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally said, "I can produce a living woman who will testify that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and she knew it." I said, "Bring her along here and let us examine her." Well, I met "Aunt Lucy" Walker Kimball, to whom you refer, and we talked the matter over, and here is the one point to which I want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of Brigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of Emma Smith, I said, "You were personally acquainted with Emma Smith?" "Yes." "What have you to say as to her integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?" The old woman looked me fair in the face and said, "Emma Smith was one of God's noble women—she was truth personified; and anything that Emma Smith may say you can bank on it until the day of your death." "Well," I said, "she testifies that her husband never had any wife but her; she testifies that she never heard of that revelation on polygamy until you folks had gone to Salt Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she testifies that it is an unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham Young; that he stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now what have you to say to that?" I said. She looked me fair in the face and said, "You can afford to build on anything that Emma Smith has to say." "Thank you," said I.
It is true that she told me she was married to Joseph Smith May 1, 1843; but when I showed her that the so-called revelation permitting a plurality of wives was dated July 12, 1843, and referred to her former testimony as given in the Historical Record, and that given under oath in the Temple Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the old lady as she sat silent and confounded.
It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father's parlor, as she came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, "This is Catherine Phillips Smith. She was married to my father, Hyrum Smith, and she has never married since. I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It is certain that she did not testify to me, but it was your father who made the statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me from speaking to the old lady.
Lorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and there, in the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed his testimony to be false, by his own evidence, when given under oath, and by his sister's statement signed in 1842. At this, Snow, Cannon and Smith were all much annoyed. So much for your father's statement, which says "you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy."
YOUR FATHER'S FIRST WIFE
You seem to feel sore over the statement that your father's "first wife died broken hearted and insane"; and you add, "If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also slanderously false." I insinuate nothing; let the public judge the facts. Your father's first wife was his cousin; she refused to consent to additional wives, and when he persisted in marrying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in California. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married to Joseph F. Smith on the same day.[8]
Number of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 1865: 6
Number of children born to him in 38 years: 42
Number of children born since plural marriage was prohibited in 1890: 13
Children of Julina Lambson Smith: 2
Children of Sarah Richards Smith: 2
Children of Edna Lambson Smith: 2
Children of Alice Kimball Smith: 3
Children of Mary Schwartz Smith: 4
Estimated income available for supporting five establishments: $75,000
Corporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. Smith is a director: 20
The only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of President Smith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 156 grandchildren.—Collier's for March 26, 1894 [1904].
* * * * *
While in Utah I was informed that your father's first wife died broken hearted and insane. God and civilization know that a woman who loved her husband from youth up has enough to break her heart and send her insane when her husband will marry two other women, both sisters, in one day.
Perhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, should you read the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:6, 7. Here it is stated, in consequence of polygamy, "ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives." Does this make the prophet an asperser or a scandalmonger?
I have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto Star as fully as space would permit.
Respectfully,
R. C. Evans.
Toronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.[9]
Footnotes
[1.] The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine of the Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts' valuable work, "Mormon Doctrine of Deity." For the belief of the "Mormon" people regarding Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called especially to chapters one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 78:15-18, sec. 107:53-57 and Daniel 7:9-14. In relation to this matter I quote the following from the remarks of President Anthon H. Lund delivered at the General Conference, October 6, 1902.
"Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the principles of salvation, these men get up and charge that the Elders do not believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God, and they will bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this or that man in the Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are not ashamed of the glorious doctrine of eternal progression, that man may attain the position of those to whom came the word of God, that is gods. When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they stoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, 'for the good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'"
He quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, and said:
"We believe that there are gods as the Savior quoted. He repeated what was written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used it as an argument against them (The Jews.) While, however, we believe as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. In the revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, 'the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.' In the 107th section the Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, the Prince, the Archangel, and says that he shall be a prince over the nations forever. We may with perfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, or even God in the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. When our missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts from sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they need not do battle for anything outside of the works, that have been accepted by the Church as a body."
[2.] If popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as "Bibles" as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no reason why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation but rather honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the name "Christian," yet this term, like that of "Mormon" was first applied to the followers of Christ in derision, "because it was associated in the public mind with the practices" of the early Saints, which practices in that day were looked on as "abominations."
[3.] This is a misquotation, it should be: "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell and the grave."
In that same discourse President Young declares that those who were "righteously slain" were the wicked that the "Lord had to slay" in ancient Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate that those who were slain to "atone for their sins" were killed in Utah; but to the contrary they were ancient inhabitants of the earth, viz., the antediluvians who perished in the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and the cities destroyed by the Israelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew (I Kings 18:40) and a host of others of that class and the class to whom the one belonged of whom the Savior said: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." President Young's remarks agree with those of Peter when he declared that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion of Christ could not be baptized nor have their "sins blotted out" until the "times of refreshing shall come," which was at the time of the "restitution of all things."—Acts 3:19-21.
[4.] In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the middle of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the expression he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said: "A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives; but when it is recollected that the mobbings, drivings, and expulsions from cities, counties and states which we have endured, and our exodus to these mountains all took place before the revelation of that doctrine was PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief in it has not been the cause of persecution." Now, I ask, is it not plain to see why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints all know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his testimony that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not publicly known in the days of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught by him to his trusted friends. When this fact is known the alleged quotations which follow, purported to be from H. B. Clawson, Ephraim Jensen and "Elder Whitaker" lose their force.
[5.] This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1852.
[6.] The following is the Brooklyn Citizen's report of that same discourse from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given in the New York Herald: Elder Whitaker said: "The people of the East have been led to believe that polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles of the Mormons, but the fact remains, that as the fight was waged against Jesus Christ, against his followers, and against all great men for declaring the truth, so the same spirit is manifest now; but the Mormons will humbly seek those willing to accept the truths inspired of God, leaving the justice of their cause to be vindicated by honest investigation and time. The fight is directed against the doctrine of the Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman service in arousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of honest men. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of the attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when the people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and cruel mockings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made a cause of their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed in writing until 1843, never published to the world until 1852, and was abandoned by the issuance of the 'Manifesto' of President Wilford Woodruff, in 1890, since which time not one polygamous marriage has been solemnized; but those having wives at that time were never asked, and it was never expected they would abandon them, and when death brings such relations to a close, there will be no polygamy among the Mormons." The Brooklyn Citizen, Monday, January 8, 1900.
Why Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York Herald in preference to the full account in the Brooklyn Citizen will require no comment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker did know who introduced "polygamy."
As I do not have the Yeoman's Shield and am not in communication with Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel safe in saying that if the whole report were published, his testimony would agree with that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn Citizen.
[7.] In quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," Mr. Evans reveals the character of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses." The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the most bitter anti-"Mormons" and apostates for his "evidence," but in quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," he certainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was published in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious Police Gazette. The author of these "Mysteries," undoubtedly a man, assumes the title of "An Apostle's Wife," in order to hide his perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all anti-"Mormon" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a "lusty toper," "the worst of a bad breed," "an ignorant, brutal loafer," "immoral, false and fraudulent," and the author says, "this is the man who founded what he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the religion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism." An apology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr. Evans makes this work one of the chief of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses," I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept the wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares "ought to know whereof she affirms." Shame upon the man who draws his inspiration from such a source!
[8.] This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the least shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife did not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two sisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry Lewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his position. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the space occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans quotes so faithfully.
[9.] This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until sometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote: "You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto Star, as soon as I have time to reply thereto." This reply was received May 5, 1905.
A REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS' LETTER
Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.
Mr. R. C. Evans,
Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church.
Sir:—Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May 5. Whether I was "fair, dispassionate and also candid" in my letter, or, as you seem to think, "guilty of a labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'" and "your faith"—which was not discussed—I am perfectly willing to leave to the judgment of "those who read" the same in the Toronto Star. So on this point we may both rest satisfied.
BLOOD ATONEMENT
I will now consider your "labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding blood atonement."
In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact appears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions and accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct position of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful study of John Taylor's Meditation and Atonement and Charles W. Penrose's Blood Atonement, which was published in answer to such wicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so. I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which we believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case, especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.
If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which church you are pleased to call "Utah Mormonism," then I say that you do not believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To this I will refer later.
You delight—as all anti-"Mormons" do—in referring to statements made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during the troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into Utah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own desired interpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a garbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible from which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39 when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums of the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned under the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]
THE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS
Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry Leon Wilson's plagarisms in his Lions of the Lord, declares the position taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in these words:
"The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and without any wresting whatever it may be applied to "Mormon" leaders who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted."
Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in his answer to The American Baptist, wherein he said:
"Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are responsible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no more responsible for it than were the early Christians for Peter's attempt to kill the high priest's servant when he cut off his ear with his sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings or doings of some or many of its members or ministers.
It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the embryo authors and abettors of the "Border Ruffianism" that reigned in Missouri and Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own way, that some of the Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should have done many things unwisely and wrongfully, and contrary to the law of God."—Saints' Herald, 37:51.
With this I heartily agree.
Now, when the statements were made, which you in a garbled manner both quote and misquote, there was in Utah a class of individuals who spent the greater part of their time in circulating wicked and malicious reports about the Saints, threatening their lives, committing crimes and attempting to make the Saints their scape-goats. The officers of the law were General Government officials appointed by the President of the United States, and I am sorry to say, some of these were among the chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable and bloodthirsty falsehoods were concocted and served up to the people of the United States to stir them up to anger against the "despised Mormons." Almost every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Salt Lake City was charged to the leaders of the "Mormon" people and became the foundation of a multitude of anti-"Mormon" publications that still flood the world. Because of these false and highly colored tales, in 1857—one year later than the time that most of the utterances were given on which you so delight to dwell—the Government of the United States sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never existed, and forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the Government found out how it had blundered it was humiliated.
Now, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it any wonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? The wonder is that the people bore it as patiently as they did. The officers were non-"Mormons," the Territory was under Federal control and contained many Gentiles, many of whom were most bitter in their feelings and ever ready to accuse the Saints of crime. The government was strong enough to enforce the law if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the horrors, as they have been pictured, could have existed under such conditions?
Such a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a shame to the American government. And no such state of affairs existed.
The conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent of Indian affairs in Utah, to declare in 1869:
I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here there is a greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other Church dignitaries with every criminal offense than dilgent endeavor to punish the actual perpetrators of crime.
Bancroft's History of Utah, p. 561.
Whitney's History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1.
Mr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this statement can be relied upon.
This being the case, Brigham Young and the "Mormon" people could not have engaged in the crimes charged against them.
In connection with this let me quote from Bancroft:
It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding and patriotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered by the enemies to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this score they are naturally very sore. When deprived of those sacred rights given to them in common with all American citizens, when disfranchised, their homes broken up, their families scattered, their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, they have not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to God and their country.—History of Utah, pp. 390-392.
Again, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and anti-"Mormons" from the beginning and "that there are men living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State, who feel as secure and are just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates as you or any other man could be," proves the falseness of the malicious accusation that "Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood."
MR. EVANS' FALSE QUOTATIONS
"What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut off their ears."
Your conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you continued the quotation your attempt would have appeared even more ridiculous. The next sentence is:
"But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them; and will wash them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and wash them again until we make them clean."
And you try to make this appear as threatening life! It is apparent that your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. This whole passage is humorous and you make yourself ridiculous by not having discovered it.
Again from Parley P. Pratt, you quote:
"My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so."
This from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add:
"I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned."
Then three paragraphs off, the following:
"It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."
This method of proving things reminds me of the reason why you should be hanged:
And Judas "went out and hanged himself."
"Go thou and do likewise."
Now let me quote some extracts from this discourse which you purposely left out.
"Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, I for one, would rather march out today and be shot down. These are my feelings, and have been for some time. Talk about liberty of conscience! Have not men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, etc., have here the liberty to worship God in their own way, and so has every man in the world. People have the privilege of apostatizing from this Church and worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege to disturb the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is the idea. If they will take that privilege, I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned."
Again:
"He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his professions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of proof. Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer, standing at the head of this dispensation? Have we not proved the priesthood which he placed upon others by the command of God?
"I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people. It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth.
"We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us—unacted upon. There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already than our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations to carry out. And yet we are called upon to prove—what? Whether an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago, has really improved by reason of age!
"'You are going to be destroyed,' say they. 'Destruction awaits this city.' Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed as any people living. What care we whether we are destroyed or not? These old tabernacles will die of themselves, if left alone.
"We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared to die as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad to hear it. We shall not be destroyed in the old way—as we have been heretofore. We shall have a change in the manner, at least. We shall probably be destroyed standing, this time, and not in a sitting, or lying position. We can die as well as others who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall not stand still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed, plundered, and driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor does God require it at our hands. That is the best news we have heard today. * * *
"It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on the defensive while you still live. I have said enough on this subject."—pp. 86-87.
The vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so apparent in this contrast between your garbled quotations and the whole truth, that it scarcely deserves further comment.
I have quoted quite extensively in order to show the reason for these remarks of which you quote such brief and disjointed extracts. You should remember that the Saints had but a short time before being driven from their homes at the cannon's mouth, and were forced to traverse a desert under the most trying circumstances to find a new abode where they could rest in peace and call their souls their own. When followed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined to again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their might and righteous indignation they firmly took their stand for home and liberty. I for one, say that they were justified in this course, the protection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had the threats of their enemies here in Utah been carried out as they boasted that they would be, and as they were carried out in Missouri and Illinois, then Brigham Young and his people would have been as thoroughly justified in unsheathing the bowie knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at Lexington and Bunker Hill!
Home and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, are just as dear to a "Mormon" as to members of any other denomination or even an apostate "Mormon," and when the "Mormons" are persecuted, driven and slain and forced to seek a home in the savage wilds, would any honest man blame them if they declined to move again?
Why is it worse for "Utah Mormons" to defend themselves than for "Mormons" at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even the noble Prophet Joseph Smith, when dragged from home and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly demurred. Said he to the Saints at Nauvoo on the 30th day of June, 1843, after his escape from Missourian assassins:
"Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial, I will spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all my enemies in hell! To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I will not bear it any longer. Shall we bear it any longer? (one universal, No! ran through all the vast assembly like a loud peal of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you any more here, dung your gardens with them. We don't want any excitement; but after we have done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break off the hellish yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed!"
I have copied this from the manuscript history of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as it was recorded at the time. I have learned also that it is corroborated by the journal of Wilford Woodruff of the same date—June 30th, 1843.
UTAH NOT A FIELD OF BLOOD
You say, "I have read that which leads me to believe that under Brighamism"—as you slurringly remark—"Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood," and then you ask me, "what of the Mountain Meadows massacre,—the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties?"
Well, that which you have read counts for but little when the source is considered. Your case is most certainly desperate when you are forced to accept the statements of murderers.
It's a strange thing that you and many of your elders accept all the blood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and other apostate sources when they happen to refer to Brigham Young and "Utah Mormons," and denounce the same sources when they refer to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Yet, I repeat, the same class of charges—in many respects identical—that you charge against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed, adultery, and even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just such falsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his death.
You resort to sources that even the editor of your official paper denounces as "Idle and vicious stories gathered from the awful files of terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at enmity with them."—Saints Herald 52:2.
If you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept the statements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew with blood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the anti-Christian? Wherein then, is your consistency in asking me to accept the testimony of those whose hands are imbrued in blood, apostates and bitter enemies of my people?
Very well then, I return your question. What about them? Pray tell, what about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the Aiken party? the confessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that you call him a "Bishop" proves the source of your information); what about Hickman and above all, the Danties?
When Alfred Henry Lewis, in Collier's Weekly of March 26, 1964, stated, "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their head, and when a man rebelled had him murdered, if one fled the fold, he was pursued and slain," he repeated one of the most colossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor is that the only falsehood in his article you are pleased to quote.
Brigham Young was not a man of blood. The "Mormon" people were not guilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.[2] There was no destruction of an Aiken party. Hickman and Lee are not worth the mention; and the Danties! Had you not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there never were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of bitter anti-"Mormons" and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans knows that fact.
CHARACTER OF THE "MORMONS"
In answer to your many charges about Utah and the "Mormons," I desire to refer to credible references from witnesses who understood the truth and were bold enough to express it.
Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary and the Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following result:—In Salt Lake City there are about 75 Mormons to 25 non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County there are about 80 Mormons to 20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there were 29 convicts, all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 convicts all non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the five years past were all anti-Mormons except three! * * *
Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table keepers not over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of the bagnios and other disreputable concerns in the territory are run and sustained by non-Mormons. Ninety-eight per cent of the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. * * * Of the 250 towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no "gaudy sepulchre of departed virtue," and these two hundred and odd towns are almost exclusively Mormon in population. Of the suicides committed in Utah ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of "outsiders."—Phil Robinson, in Sinners and Saints, p. 72.
The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man. There is another to help him, but if they had not something else to do they would either have to keep arresting each other, in order to pass the time, or else combine to hunt gophers and chipmunks.—Sinners and Saints, p. 142.
Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? From anti-Mormons only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject, and yet I really could not tell any one where to go for an impartial book about Mormonism, later in date than Burton's "City of the Saints," published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on one side and I think I can defy any one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly awful book, "The History of the Saints," published by one Bennet (even an anti-Mormon has styled him "the greatest rascal that ever came to the west") in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not, to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is not utterly unreliable from distortion of facts. Yet it is from these books—for there are no others—that the American public has acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah.—Sinners and Saints, p. 245.
And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has been put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon, is full of calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass his predecessor in the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are written in a sensational style, and for the purpose of deriving profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and are wholly unreliable as to facts.—Bancroft's History of Utah, preface page 7.
It is only fair to state that no Gentile, even the unprejudiced, who are rare aves, however long he may live or intimately he may be connected with Mormons, can expect to see anything but the superficies. * * *
The Mormons have been represented, and are generally believed to be, an intolerant race. I found the reverse far nearer the fact. The best proof of this is that there is hardly one anti-Mormon publication, however untruthful, violent, or scandalous, which I did not find in Great Salt Lake City.—Burton's City of the Saints, p. 203.
I have not yet heard the single charge against them as a community, against their habitual purity of life, their integrity of dealing, their toleration of religious differences in opinion, their regard for the laws, or their devotion to the Constitutional government under which we live, that I do not from my own observation, or the testimony of others know to be unfounded.—General Thomas L. Kane, U. S. A., The Mormons, p. 83.
The Mormons are sober, industrious and thrifty.—Bishop Spaulding, of the Episcopalian Church, in the Forum, March, 1887.
Had the Mormons been a low, corrupt or shiftless people they never would or could have done what they did in Utah. * * * When they controlled their own city of Salt Lake it contained no saloons, gambling houses or places of ill repute, and when the town had grown to be a goodly city order was kept by two constables. If by their fruits we may know them, the Mormons deserve our confidence and praise.—The Brooklyn Eagle, editorial of Aug. 12, 1897.
I shall not arraign the Mormon people as wanting in comparison with other people in religious devotion, virtue, honesty, sobriety, industry, and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify and bless life.—Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah (and a strong anti-Mormon) in report to Secretary of the Interior for 1888.
I know the people of the east have judged the Mormons unjustly. They have many traits worthy of admiration. I know them to be honest, faithful, prayerful workers.—D. S. Tuttle, Bishop Episcopalian Church.
I never met a people so free from sensualism and immorality of every kind as the Mormons are. Their habits of life are a thousand per cent superior to those who denounce them so bitterly.—Mrs. Olive N. Robinson. (I recommend this to you.)
I assure you there are many others of equal force but this should be sufficient to prove the scandalous effusions false that you profess to believe true.
GAGGING AT A KNAT
I am glad you profess to believe the Bible. There is one other thing which appears strange to me, that is, why you are continually denouncing Brigham Young and "Utah Mormonism," and calling Utah a "land of assassination and a field of blood," because vile men without conscientious scruples have accused the people of many false and lurid tales of blood, and at the same time with sanctimonious countenance and upturned eyes you swallow the following without a gulp:
"Thus saith the Lord of hosts. * * * Now go up and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3 (I. T.)
Haven't you swallowed the camel and gagged at his tail?
THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT
Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This salvation is two-fold; General,—that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief in Christ—and Individual,—that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. But man may commit certain grievous sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.
Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ! This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.
In whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church members could be fair enough to discuss this subject on its merits.
I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my open letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon,—II Nephi 9:35. Alma 1:13, 14, and 42:19. Bible,—Genesis 9:12, 13, (I. T.) Luke 11:50. Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29. I John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and Covenants,—87:7. 101:80. 42:18, 19, 79. (Utah edition.)
To these I will add:
"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it."—Numbers 35:30, 31, 33. (I. T.)[3]
Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? (Alma 1:15) Zemnariah and his followers (III Nephi 4:27-28). What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? (Gen. 38:7, 10), of Nadab and Abihu? (Lev. 10:2) and the death of Achan? (Joshua 7:25.)
Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote (Journal of Discourses 4:220). He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:
"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."
POLYGAMY
In using the term "polygamy" in reference to the principle that was taught and practiced by the Saints, I desire it distinctly understood that I use it in the sense of a man having more than one wife. Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere; but Celestial marriage—including a plurality of wives—was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and was practiced more generally by the saints under the administration of President Brigham Young.
You say that you have no evidence that those men, viz. Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith and others that I mentioned to you "practiced polygamy" before plural marriage was "introduced" (as claimed by you) by Brigham Young. You said polygamy was "introduced" eight years after the Prophet's death by Brigham Young. If so, then why did these men practice it before that time? I was satisfied that you would not exert yourself in seeking for this knowledge and tried to help you find the information.
POLYGAMY IN THE "FACTIONS"
In a letter written by the President of the Reorganized church by Mr. Joseph Davis of Wales, dated Lamonia, Oct. 13, 1899, I read:
"Nearly all the factions into which the church broke had plural marriage in some form. None in the form instituted by President Young. Sidney Rigdon had one form practiced by but a few, and that spasmodically, as an outburst of religious fervor rather than as a settled practice. William Smith had a sort of Priestess Lodge, in which it was alleged there was a manifestation of licentiousness. This he denied, and I never had actual proof of it. Gladden Bishop taught something like it, but I believe he was himself the only practioner. James J. Strang had a system something like Mohamet, four I think, being allowed the king. Lyman Wight had a system but it had no very extended range. President Young's system you may know of."
It is true that William Smith denied that he taught "polygamy" but that he practiced plural marriage he cannot deny. Jason W. Briggs said he (William) did, and that is why Mr. Briggs left his church. Plaintiff's Abstract, Temple Lot suit, p. 395. Hist. of Reorg. Ch. vol. 3:200 and The Messenger, vol. 2. William entered into plural marriage in the Prophet's day and his wives lived here in Utah. They are Precilla M. Smith, Sarah Libby and Hannah Libby. One of these is still living.
The third volume of your church history says of Lyman Wight:
"Lyman Wight lived and died an honorable man, respected well by those who knew him best. The only thing that can be urged against his character is that about 1845 or 1846 he entered into the practice of polygamy, but we have seen no record of any teaching of his upon the subject."
The fact is that Lyman Wight entered into that relation before the time here mentioned. Affidavits in this regard can be produced but it will be unnecessary.
That John E. Page practiced "polygamy" I have the testimony of his wife, Mrs. Mary Eaton of Independence, who told me and others, in August 1904, that she gave her husband, John E. Page, other wives.
These men did not follow Brigham Young, but denounced him, yet they practiced plural marriage and did not get that doctrine from him.
THE TESTIMONY OF A BOGUS WIFE
The "testimony" you submit from President Young's "legal wife" is spurious. It matters not if you did receive the "information" from your uncle. The poor man was tricked and deceived. Bogus "wives" and "daughters" of President Young have "worked" the public before. Mary Ann Angel Young, President Young's legal wife, was not in Colorado in 1860 and 1861. She never was divorced and died in this city true to her husband, his family and the faith, on the 27th day of June, 1882. (News, July 5, 1882.) So much for this "bogus" testimony.
TESTIMONY IMPEACHED
The testimony of T. B. H. and Fanny Stenhouse is sufficiently impeached in the Saints' Herald, vol. 52, p. 2; 20, p. 602, and Sinners and Saints, p. 245. The woman's bitterness would condemn her writings. However I will mention one statement—you make Mrs. Stenhouse say: "It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse and many others, that Joseph Smith said, 'If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham, he would lead it to hell.'" She gives this as a rumor that is "reported," so do the "many others" who are mostly from your church. Oh, yes, I have heard of this before. But do you know where the report originated? It originated with the apostate and would-be assassin, Robert D. Foster, who threatened the Prophet Joseph's life in 1844, and who was one of the incorporators and advocates of the notorious Nauvoo Expositor, and one of the chief actors in bringing about the martyrdom, June 27, 1844. In a toadying letter to your president, dated February 14, 1874, he said the prophet "remarked, in the presence of Mr. Law, Bishop Knight, John P. Greene, Reynolds Cahoon, and some others, that if ever Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he would lead them down to hell."
MARVELOUS GROWTH OF THE CHURCH
I decline to accept the statements of such a character; besides, President Young did not lead the Church to hell, but preserved it, and under his direction it grew, expanded, and accomplished a wonderful, even a miraculous work. In the reclamation of the arid west, the permanent establishment of prosperous communities in the desert wilds, and for their unity, strength, and industrial and temporal independence, the "Mormon" people are today the marvel, if not the admiration of the thinking world. They came here with nothing but the good will of God. They began in poverty, and "having almost nothing to invest," says Mr. William E. Symthe in The Conquest of Arid America, "except the labor of their hands and brains, and that all they have expended in a period of fifty years for all classes of improvements—from the first shanty to the last turret of the last temple—came primarily from the soil."
Again he says in the same work: