Part 5

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:

TESTIMONY OF MR. SMYTHE

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

THE GUIDANCE OF JEHOVAH

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

WILLIAM MARKS

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

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

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

THE "SAINTS' HERALD" A WITNESS OF "POLYGAMY"

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

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

And on page 27:

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

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

TESTIMONY OF JASON BRIGGS

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

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

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

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

TESTIMONY OF JAMES WHITEHEAD

James Whitehead said:

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

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

These men were among the founders of your church.

SIDNEY RIGDON'S TESTIMONY

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

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

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

ORIGINAL RECORDS OF PLURALITY OF WIVES

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

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

"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom this power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise."

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

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

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

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

MORE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED