Part 6

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

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

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

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

THAT UTAH VISIT

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

_Joseph F. Smith, Jr_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TESTIMONY OF LUCY W. SMITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this read much like she had been correctly represented?

BRIGHAM YOUNG UPHELD BY THE LORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

4. A polygamist the friend of God, whose praise you sing, and the man you are _glad_ to call the father of the faithful.--_Saints' Herald_ 52:437.